Talk:Croatian language/Archive 1

Copyright

No need to panic. Freely write to the Herceg Bosna site, info@hercegbosna.org if Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net) is one of the owners of the site. The answer will be prompt. So much for copyright panic.

Mir Harven

Btw- you can e-mail Herceg Bosna on the Web: just write following the contact link at http://www.hercegbosna.org/eng_index.html

M H

Unfortumately, I must object to your removal of my page on Croatian language and re-instatemt of the one I wouldnt deign to comment on. But I would on your unprofessionalism: as I have said, you will have gotten the answer from Herceg Bosna Website (you set the deadline of 7 days) on copyright issues. So, if you want professional relationship-I expect you to abide by your words.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

Ahh: you fixed it. Thanks for clarifying the source of this text - I hope you understand our concern. Sorry that nobody responded to you earlier, but we're all unpaid, hence sometimes unprofessional... :) Martin 08:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, but, it's WEIRD. The site Herceg Bosna tried to e-mail you with regard that I may use the material on the site freely (in this case for wikipedia). Just- my buddy couldnt locate your address. How then is this biz re copyright cleared ? He sent mail stating he had got the linkhttp://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_FAQ#I_have,_or_can_get,_special_permission_to_copy_an_image_or_article_to_Wikipedia._Is_it_OK_to_do_that? but could not get around.

Mir Harven

Why don't you tell him or her to email wikipedia@myreddice.co.uk? I'll have a read and get back if there are any details that need to be cleared up. Martin 15:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Aha, thanx for info. He was lost in a maze of hyperlinx.

Mir Harven

Smolenski and Harven

I reverted "Nikola Smolenski" (paraphrased)

1. I'll write here the arguments. 2. I've never seen the arguments of "Nikola Smolenski" 3. If mr. Smolenski's behavior continues without intervention - then, maybe whole biz is not worth the effort.

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net )

If Smolenski won't explain hir reasons here, then it may be necessary to protect the page. But it's always best if the two people involved in a dispute (you and sie) can chat and resolve the differences that way. Martin 08:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

explanation of changes

Well-as for me, I am ready to explain a few things. Here we go (although I doubt that even an interested outsider can force themselves to stay tuned). Also-feel free to delete a portion from Franolic lecture in Cambridge if you're uneasy about copyright:

OK, let's see mr. Nikola Smolenski's alterations of the Croatian language wiki page:

deleting links

1. he persistently deletes following links:

http://eleaston.com/croatian.html Croatian language resources

and

http://www.hr/darko/etf/et04.html Croatian Cyrillic Script

Before saying anything about these linx, I must stress: it's a sign of obnoxious behavior to delete links on anyone's page. Not bad, not prankish, but purely and simply: disgusting. Now, back to the links:

first link

The first link is essentially a page containing Croatian language links galore.The page belongs to a respectable private company, frequently referenced by other languages pages. And it's not my fault that Croatian language is nicely presented, in the company of Albanian, English, Chinese, Latin, Russian, Franch, Polish,..and *not* Serbian. There are other Croatian language sources pages (at least two with much more links than eleaston), and pretty few Serbian language pages. Do I smell a sense of envy-huh ? Am I to blame for the fact that when I go to amazon, http://www.amazon.com/ and write Croatian language in the search window, I get more than 340 titles. When I type Serbian language, I get less than 40. This *is* childish- but, for an exclusivist nationalist, I'd say: IT HURTS.

second link

The second link, on Croatian Cyrillic Script belongs to the Zagreb University professor Darko Žubrinić who has made fine work in presenting Croatian cultural heritage on the Web. His pages are referenced in many academic and other respectable pages, like: OBSHTEZHITIE http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/ralph/obsht.htm

and Ohio university Slavic page. http://www.slavic.ohio-state.edu/people/yoo/links/slavic/medieval.htm

Now-let's drop unnecessary formalities and say a few frank words: it has been a favorite sport of Serbian scholars, mainly in the 20th century, to misattribute every Cyrillic book written in the areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and claim it as their cultural heritage. Here, we must pause a minute. Simple

This is completely untrue. Serbian scholars have always, not only in 20th century, attributed (almost) every book written in any script in Bosnia or Serbian parts of today Croatia (e.g. Dubrovnik) to their cultural heritage.

• Problems with perception ? I wrote "mainly". And your "answer" is a devastating testimony I'm thankful for: yes, Serbian scholars from Stojanović to Kolendić (a Serbianized Croat), Djordjić, Nedeljković, Mladenović and Grickat Radulović have clung to that opinion. Croatian scholars (Jagić, Truhelka, Vrana, Zelić-Bučan, Hamm, Mošin (by birth a Russian Jew), Šidak or Raukar) have made paleographic analyses of the texts and it is a common opinion that these texts belong to Croatian heritage. But- this is not some scholarly post festum opinion. It was a living reality for people who wrote these books. Here are examples: Jerolim Kaletić from Split, Croatia, transcribing a work by archbishop from Bar, Montenegro, says that this Cyrillic text is written in "-hrvacko pismo-Croatian letters"-in year 1546.; addendum to the Poljica principality statute in 1665. claims that this (Cyrillic) text was written in "Croatian script". The same with Bosnian city of Bihać where a 1582. Cyrillic document is said to be written in "Churulika oder Chrabatische Sprache". Or, even more important: all works written in Croatian or Bosnian Cyrillic are morphologically different from Serbian Cyrillic script (more than Serbian Cyrillic was different from Bulgarian, whence it came to Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia. Why not call Serbian cyrillic "Bulgarian" ? It came from Bulgaria and was even less modified than Croatian or Bosnian.) And- works written in this type of script were embedded into Croatian culture and had no contact with Serbian whatsoever. Examples ? Works of Bosnian Franciscan writer Divković (Besjede 1616.), written in Bosnian-Croatian Cyrillic, were freely distributed, transliterated into Latin and Glagolitic script and used in all parts of Croatia- from Istria (bordering with Italy) via central Croatia in Lika region to southern Dalmatia and Dubrovnik. They were read in three scripts by the same people-Croats. Needless to say- Divković's works didn't have any influence in shaping Serbian culture or identity, from 1600s on. Serbs barely knew about his existence. And- the entire Serbian literary corpus didn't have contact with works written in Bosnian/Croatian Cyrillic script- from Dubrovnik breviary and the Manuscripts of "krstjanin" (Bosnian Christian) Hval to later works in 16th and 17th century. These works are treated as a part of Croatian heritage- for instance,http://www.bl.uk/collections/easteuropean/croatia.html or http://www.bl.uk/collections/easteuropean/bosnia.html

question is- why ? Why would anyone bother to claim that a certain book, possibly a prayer book written before 400 or 500 years, and even without artistic or literary value, belongs to the corpus of Serbian written word-and not Croatian ? Well- the answer is also simple. Wars from 1991 to 1995 in Croatia and

Perhaps because it has been written by a Serb and in Serbian language?

• Nice. Prove that:

-it was written by a Serb

-it was written in Serbian language

Bosnia and Herzegovina have provided the answer. A provincial imperialism, like Serbian, needed some sort of "historical justification" for contemporary expansionist geopolitical plans. If Bosnian Franciscan writers, who are Croats, and as such belong to Croatian cultural heritage (Divković and

And how do you prove that they are Croats? Because they are catholics? Every catholic must be a Croat?

• How do you prove that members of Serbian Orthodox church in Bosnia (who were, notoriously, Vlachs, Greeks, Rumanians, Armenians, Bulgars- and Serbs, of course) are Serbs ? Well-here you have a few answers: Franciscans in Olovo, Eastern Bosnia 1586.("epistles and gospels...in Croatian language explained"); Bosnian Franciscan Toma Babić's foreword to his breviary 1712.("..Bosnian children of the glorious people and Croatian language .."); Bosnian Franciscan from Dubrovnik, Bernardin Pavlović, 1747. ("..according to the father Bernardin Pavlović from the city-state of Dubrovnik..in Croatian language...for the benefit of the Croatian people.."). It's kinda dull to continue. For those conversant with Croatian:http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/kriteriji.html http://www.hercegbosna.org/ostalo/jezik.html

Posilović in the 17th century, Margitić and others in the 18th etc.) had written from ca. 1600 to ca. 1700 mainly in Bosnian-Croat Cyrillic Script (better known as "bosanica" or "bosančica"), and

Hahah, and now the script suddenly changes from "Croatian cyrillic" to "Bosnian-Croat cyrillic" :)) Why not just call it for what it is, "Bosnian cyrillic" and remove its link from where it doesn't belong?

• Because the same people called it both Bosnian *and* Croatian Cyrillic, in different circumstances. "Litteris bosnensis" and "Chrabatische Sprache" were equivalent terms. With one exception: Bosnian Franciscan writer Matija Divković called, twice, these letters "sarpskie slova" (Serbian letters)-due to the fact that Serbs had been using similar sort of Cyrillic as their primary script (he could have called them "Bulgarian" as well-but Serbs were geographically closer). His predecessors (like friars in Olovo 1586.) and successors never used Serbian assignment to the script- only Bosnian and Croatian. And Divković, like his Franciscan colleagues in Bosnia, called his language Illyrian, Slovinian, Croatian or Bosnian- which are mutually interchangeble terms. They never called the language Serbian.

• this* kind of Script is virtually exclusively Croatian- then, there are no foundations

Proved by what?

• Sorry, fella. The burden of "proof" lies on you.

("cultural-historical") for Serbian expansionism. The same with Bosnian-Croat Cyrillic Script in Dalmatia in 14th century and later. On one hand, Serbian nationalists whine over the imagined "suppression" of Serbian Cyrillic Script in communist Yugoslavia. On the other- they are frightened when they see the affirmation of Croathood of some form of Cyrillic Script, which erodes their current geopolitical wishes.

I know it sounds silly. Why bother about such triflings ? The truth is that Serbian nationalism, based on such fabrications and lies, is not a trifling at all, and its expansionist drive after Croatian and Bosnian lands rests, partially, on distortion of linguistic and philological issues-however extravagant and silly it may seem.

text

Now to the text of mr. Smolenski. It is, I quote:

"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for 36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito, during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954) and Yugoslavian lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and operated by Croats. Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."

Let's see:

1

"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for 36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito,"

Rubbish. Tito was a Croat, but not a *Croatian* dictator. He was a bolshevik, communist authoritarian leader who deftly managed to hold the power with the combination of charismatic leadership (in a "soft" totalitarian state SFRJ), balancing inter-ethnic animosities and wielding Yugoslav People's Army- essentially his own, private weapon. His rule was that of a nationally indifferent despot- if we refer to his supposed Croatian national loyalty. He didn't display any during his rule. On the contrary- he brutally crushed "Croatian spring" in 1971. (more than 4.000 Croatian refugees) and tried to centralize his fiefdom of Yugoslavia- and this inevitably meant to Serbianize it, to a degree, because the capital was Belgrade and Serbs a relative majority in his Yugoslavia (some 40% of the populace).

Even if all of this would be true, then Croatian language was oppressed by a Croat, or a communist, and not by Serbs. Nor was Yugoslavia Serb-dominated.

• OK- I'll cut you some slack here. Croatian was oppressed by Yugoslav communist elite that tried to impose Serbian as the official language of Yugoslavia. Serbs, as people, did not have a decisive say in this matter.

2

"during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954)"

Rubbish. Serbian language was in fact *imposed* in vital areas of life: it was the official language of the Yugoslav Army, Yugoslav diplomacy, lingua franca in communication of Yugoslav republics that spoke

Idiocy. Serbo-Croatian language was the official language of Army and everything else. Are you saying that Serbo-Croatian language actually is Serbian language renamed?

• Exactly. During communist Yu, Croats used the term "Croatian literary language" (in the climate of liberalism), "Croatian or Serbian" (when they were forced to) and "Croato-Serbian" (in the stifling era of cold war and Soviet-type centralism). The term "Serbo-Croatian" was, in the content (grammar, morphology, dictionary,..) nothing other than Serbian language. It was forcibly imposed, for instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (media, press, educational system), which is documented in Bosniak linguist Isaković's "Glossary of characteristically Bosnian speech". For instance, Serbian word for municipality, "opština", was first recorded on Bosnian soil in 1930s. Croatian "općina" was recorded in 1500s. And yet- the Serbian word "prevailed", due to Serbianization of administration.

languages other than Croatian and Serbian (Slovenia, Macedonia). During 1971. virtually all copies of Croatian orthography manual, authored by academicians Babić, Finka and Moguš was *burnt*, and one remaining copy was smuggled into Britain, where it was printed and distributed among Croatian emigres. Humorously, it got the name "the Londoner", according to the name of the city where it was reprinted.

http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cro/crolang.htm

In September 1971, a manual of Croatian Orthography, designed for primary and secondary schools, was published in Zagreb. Compiled by three eminent linguists (S. Babic - B. Finka - M. Mogus), it codified the current norm of Croatian spelling and orthography: "In all ways, from a purely language point of view, The Croatian Orthography is probably the most authoritative guide to enlightened language practice in Croatia today". Forty thousand copies of this handbook awaiting distribution were seized and destroyed on the orders of the political authorities. This auto-da-fé threw a particular light on the "cultural" policy of the Belgrade government. But one copy of the Croatian Orthography survived, was smuggled abroad and reprinted in London in 1972.

Three men wrote a book called "Croatian ortography manual". But was it really a Croatian ortography manual? I guess not, more likely it was a nationalist pamphlet. And anyway, it was burned by communist regime with Croats on top, not by Serbs.

• Bwaahhha....and *this* is a "debate", I guess ? Hear, hear. Well- the 6th edition of the "Londoner" is official Croatian orthographic manual now, in 2003. Well- who the hell are you to denounce anyone's work as "nationalist pamphlet" ? What's wrong with you Serbian guys that you think you're entitled to flout insults at anyone's face without any argument or anything similar. I guess I was too polite with this chauvinist junk.

The same fate-censorship and suppression- befell Croatian grammars (Babić-Težak), Croatian grammar of the Institute for language in Zagreb and many Croatian language related books (history of language, language counsellors,..).

Also, many Croatian men and women lost their jobs or were, in extreme cases, incarcerated because they used typically Croatian words that had unmistakeably "nationalist" resonances in the ears of Yugoslav political watchdogs: (siječanj, protimba, promidžba-january, contradiction, propaganda). Needless

Contradiction and propaganda are purely Croatian words that do not exist in Serbian language :)))) Oh, those evil Serbs, not allowing Croats to use Croatian words :))) And as "januar" is understandable to both Croats and Serbs and "sijecanj" isn't, it is logical that it should be used in publications intended for whole yugoslavia. And of course that communist authorities were firing people which didn't want to follow their rules.

• Nonsense. "Protimba" is a Croatian word, and "protivurečnost" or "protivrečje" Serbian. Are you really so inferior that you think that Latin-roots words are the issue here. No- the Serbian and Croatian are. As for "understandable"-who the hell are you (or any Serbian chauvinist) to meddle in Croatian language issues ? We use Slavic word "tvornica" for factory, instead of Serbian "fabrika"-a German loan-word. Russian language has "konstanta pronicaemosti" for "dielectrical constant". Why don't you go to the Russians and berate them for using their own words instead of those with Graeco-Latin roots, eh ? Kick those nasty Russian linguistuc nationalists, yea.

to say- *no* Serbian grammar or orthograpy manual or whatever was prohibited. Nor any Serbian person went to jail for ostentatively using characteristically Serbian words.

No Serbian grammar existed. All grammars were of Serbo-Croatian language. Even officialy used ortography manual of today mentions Serbian language only in its title, in inside it talks about "Serbian language variant" and similar phrases.

• It did and it exists. Stevanović's grammar is Serbian grammar which differs from Croatian grammars (even in Yugoslav period) in the title and content. Wanna check ? http://www.fil.bg.ac.yu/katedre/srpski/05.html As for "Serbo-Croatian"- in title, content and structure (phonetics, phonology, morphology,syntax and semantics)- it was (and is, where it is still used) Serbian language. Weird- why these damm Croats persistently try to write some grammars and manuals that have "Croatian or Serbian" or "Croatian literary language" in the title, and differ in content from those "Serbo-Croatian" ones ? If this is just a technical issue-why the Serbs insisted on "Serbo-Croatian" title and content, and Croats opposed both title and content ? Maybe because "Serbo-Croatian" was de facto Serbian-eh ?

As for "Cyrillic alphabet oppression" myth- Yugoslavia was in the "golden age" of Tito's detente with the West, from 1960s to his death in 1980, more or less sucked into sphere of Western influence (tourism, workers from Yu in Germany or France,..) so that Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was gradually abandoned by pro-Western Serbian youth. Even now, in 2003. (23 years after Tito's death, 13 years after the collapse

It will be that that is the reason for all government institutions to be equipped with Latin typewriters only.

• B...b...bwaaahha...Yeah, that "typewriter conspiracy" theory I've heard of. Just one teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy problem: PROVE IT.

of Communism and 2 years after the demise of Slobodan Milošević)- the vast majority of books, press, signs, advertisments,.. etc. in Serbia proper are in Latin script. Well- if more than 70% of city signs in Belgrade are in Latin and not Cyrillic script now, and if Serbian parliament issued a special resolution (some 2 months ago) that tried to impose Cyrillic script as the primary script in Serbia- then, it's hardly the old dictator to be the scapegoat to blame. As for Novi Sad "agreement" in 1954.- Croatian participants were outnumbered by Serbian in 3/1 ratio, and the entire "agreement" was essentially a capitulation of Croatian linguists and writers in the atmosphere of threats and oppression created by Yugoslav Communist elite that tried, following centralizing tendencies of Communist dictatorship, to "create" the official language for Yugoslavia- in this case, Serbian. It isn't for nothing that Croatian cultural institutions withdrew their signatures in the climate of growing liberalism, 1967 (Decalaration on Croatian language)- while Serbian institutions didn't move for an inch. Why would they ? The "agreement" from 1954. perfectly fit their aims. So much about "oppression" of Serbian language during Tito's totalitarian rule.

3

"Yugoslavian lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and operated by Croats."

This time- only partially true. First- this was virtually the only Yugoslav institution located in Zagreb. All others were in Serbia, and the majority in Belgrade- from military history institute to

Isn't it logical that all institutions of a state are located in capital of the state?

• No. The USA are the best example. And Yugoslavia was a multinational (not multiethnic- this is classic American English misnomer. Yugoslavia was never a nation, but was composed of various nations: Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians,..) country. Centralization was in this case Serbianization.

history institutes and the rest. "Yugoslav" simply meant- located in the capital Belgrade. As for Lexicographical institute, it was a compromise that stemmed from two reasons: its director, famous Croatian writer Miroslav Krleža, was Tito's personal friend. Second- only Croatia, among all Yugoslav republics, had a vital lexicographical tradition. This is evident especially now, when Croatian

Well, there existed a small encyclopedia called "Sveznanje" and its publisher was working on a much larger encyclopedia, but some twelve tomes of manuscripts somehow got lost. Nikola

lexicographical institute, http://www.hlz.hr/eng/home.html , is teeming with impressive lexicographical activity. In Serbia and Montenegro- nothing, zero, zippo, zilch. Who prevents you now ? As for "publishing official...dictionaries"- rubbish. Dictionaries were published across Yugoslavia by various publishers. Serbia, in order to avoid unwanted possible Croatian influence in the field, translated, in 1970s, most of famous Larousse encyclopedias. And- some encyclopedias were edited in "mixed" Croatian ijekavian and Serbian ekavian languages (Encyclopedia of Fine Arts, Encyclopedia of Forestry), while general ones had Serbian issues. And the collaboartors were from all republics of former Yugoslavia- as anyone can check.

4

"Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."

Bwaaahh...what can I say ? Does the page on Croatian language "deserve" such a lucid insight ? Really-no comment.

Well- that's all, folx. Little language, much politics. If anyone considers Nikola Smolenski's "doings" on this page appropriate- then, I've wandered in the wasteland.

Hastalavista baby

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

Hm..nice. I would like, if possible, to add to the "disputed part" of the Croatian language page, a link pointing to this, discussion page, in order that someone who might stumble upon the page could hear pro et contra arguments. And see for themselves why the disputed part is debatable at all.

M H

A splendid idea. :) Martin 20:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"This nomenclature is used primarily by Croats around the world to designate the tongue formerly known as Serbo-Croatian." (referring to the "diasystem" notion).

Well-not quite true. In short, Croatian linguists are divided in two "camps": one avers that all dialects from Croatian/Slovenian border to Serbian/Macedonian border belong to a single system of dialects they call "Central South Slavic diasystem" and which includes kajkavian, chakavian, shtokavian and torlak dialects. The other group thinks that there is no need for any "diasystem" since standard languages are not defined in terms of genetic linguistics. Since there is no "diasystem" covering Urdu and Hindi dialects, or Bulgarian and Macedonian- no need for "Central South Slavic". Be as it may- both groups don't think that a unified "Serbo-Croatian language" ever existed (even in a bivariant form)-unlike some Serbian linguists (most notably Ranko Bugarski) who think that Serbo-Croatian existed, but has disintegrated in 2 or 3 "successor languages". Anyway- "diasystem" is still used by ca. a half of Croatian linguists, almost all Bosniak/Bosnian Muslim and almost negligible part of Serbian ones. As for situation in "other" countries (other than ex-Yu) situation is "mixed"- "diasystem" notion is used by some notable linguists in Germany, Ukraine and France. But, generally, the dominant mood is that of confusion: some work with old Serbo-Croatian paradigm, others have left it altogether, and the majority vacillate between all these positions.

M H

---

Greater Serbian crap about Croatian & Bosnian "newspeak" deleted. Heal your inferiority complexes elsewhere. If this crap persist-you'll get exposed in a way you truly deserve. Mind your own biz and keep out of Croatian lang page with your filthy hate.

Mir Harven

---

I'm a Central-European myself, so I understand the complexity of this problem. But is the discussion still alive and, above all, was any middle-ground version prepared?Halibutt 05:38, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Croatian and Slovene

Hi. It would also be very interesting that someone add perhaps pretty close connection between Croatian dialect from Zagorje and Slovene language. I shall add this obvious connection (but I am not a Slavist, neither Slovenist or Croatianist (is this the right term?)) to the article about Slovene language. As it is written in this article that Croatian is the Central-South Slavic diasystem. Interesting, because (at my opinion) we can't speak about any diasystem in Slovene language - so the language itself is somehow unique among the Slavic languages (just do not ask me to reveal my own theory about the language...!), and specially among the languages of the former Yugoslavia. (I also know too little about Macedonian-Bulgarian connections). I just see tiny outlines of this diasystem between Slovene and Zagorje dialect. And no other at all.

The dialects of Croatian from the north morph quite a lot. People from Burgenland use many words that resemble Slovenian words, but their accent is more like the Austrian German. People from Međimurje use so many umlauts in their accent, so to speak, that I can more easily distinguish words from standard Slovenian than from them. The accent of Zagorje is sort of like morphing of what they speak in Međimurje to what they speak in the south-central Croatia. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's all mucho simpler, as the text on the following link enunciates-http://www.i-depth.com/P/e/ez00831.frm.music.msg/2811.htmlMir Harven 20:08, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little bit different picture from your point of view than mine. But can you really distinguish words from sS...? We who have lived in former Yugoslavia are perhaps privileged against the youngster ones, because in fact we understood the foreign language. My daughter does not understand neither Croatian, neither Serbian or even Bosnian language. "Bolan, stvarno ne." For one foreigner the knowledge of Serbo-Croatian is just like the knowledge of English, German, Russian, French or other language. We were able to communicate with Serbs/Croats/Bosnians, because we were able to speak S-C. But in the future the young ones won't be able anymore. I know that nobody won't learn Slovene, but Slovene youngsters won't learn C-S-B either. We were somehow forced to learn, which is not bad. On the contrary. Because Slovenia market is so small, we can also absorb other medias (books, journals, films, TV programmes, ... and God help us - not idiocies of any kind) [XJam]

Well, I am a Croat who was never taught Slovene in school, was only minimaly exposed to it on TV, and never lived in Zagorje (that is, near Slovenian border), but I have little difficulties understanding it (of course, I can't speak it). For example, I once found myself on assignment for an UN agency in Vietnam, with a fellow expert from Slovenia. After he struggled for a day or two with something resembling Croatian that he learned in school, we agreed that each would speak his own language and we understood each other very well (granted, for finer technical points we did switch to English occasionally). --bonzi 08:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, where to draw the line, that's obviously a hard question which doesn't have a single answer. The most common distinction is that Slovenian and the Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian group are different but on the same horizontal line. Thus, the diasystem thing is used to explain the bipolar nature of the standard languages in the C-B-S group, not the link between the dialects in Slovenia and northern Croatia. --Shallot 17:3

0, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

They say that theoretically the closest language to Slovene is Bulgarian. I know to little to confirm this. In my opinion is the Russian language and not Croatian or Serbian, which might in fact be the closest ones. In a historical view of the last 20th century at least. Perhaps typical representative of this was here belittled Josip Broz Tito himself (- hey guys, he was the leader of anti-Nazism forces during WW2, so watch a bit for your words... - he wasn't just a communist authoritarian leader and dictator - you can speak now whatever you want, after his death yeah, but you can show some respect too ...), because his father was Croat, mother Slovene and he was born in Kumrovec, which is, as we all know in Zagorje. And some say that he spoke badly Croatian or Serbo-Croatian. (Ups, I didn't read the debate above first, so this might fall out of the context. And BTW in Slovene we say factory "tovarna" and also German "fabrika" in colloquial language, heh, he.) And also - Yugoslav Encyclopedia (general and of Yugoslavia) was printed in Slovene too. Slovenes never protested that the Lexicographical institute was stationed in Zagreb. But I can't agree with the sentence: Second- only Croatia, among all Yugoslav republics, had a vital lexicographical tradition. As I know Encyclopedia of Slovenia (Enciklopedija Slovenije) is already out with all of its volumes. So, from where this edition did come from? I guess from nothing. Zero, zippo, zilch, nicego.

I think that comment from Mir Harven was aimed at the southeast rather than the northwest :) He likely overgeneralized when talking about all of Yugoslavia. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yep. When you turn the Earth upside down, southeast becomes northwest, or am I wrong... [XJam]

Another indication that Slovene language was never diasystem or multisystem is that Croats or Serbs badly understood Slovene, while most Slovenes did understand Serbo-Croatian well.

Again, I don't think you should interpret the diasystem reference to include all south Slavic languages in Yugoslavia, just the controversial west-central group. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes Shallot I understand the meaning of a diasystem in this context. I am not pushing a term diasystem in this C-B-S group context. Think from my point of view as a Slovene. I was just asking which language (or even a dialect) is the closest one to Slovene. As I know and hear, the Craotian Zagorje dialect sounds so. I do not want to harness much of grammatical science inhere. I think the sentence "Kaj si rekel?" sound identically in both (in Slovene and in Zagorje dialect). These king of diasystems came widely after 1990s, specially C-B-S and C-S groups, latter meaning Czech-Slovak. At least for foreigners. And for us as former citizens of Yugoslavia C-B-S group, since we can't speak any of separate language, just Serbo-Croatian. Before 1990 I didn't know that Czech and Slovak are also so different and have different histories too. [XJam]

Not perfect of course, but better that them their language. So Slovenes always spoke with Serbs or Croats in bad Serbo-Croatian - which is in fact not fair. Even today this is so. Hate, hate all around. Poles do not want to speak Russian, Croats do not want to speak Serbian, Serbs do not want to hear about Croatian and on and on. And finally - you're blaming Tito in such an extent. While he was still alive there was at least PEACE in Yugoslavia. You should also consider the situation during the Cold War in Europe not just in former Yugoslavia itself. Only 10 years after his death this terrible inhumanity happened. Where did so praised "bratsvo i jedinstvo" ("brotherhood and unity") go?. Kak' si rekel, tak sem čul. Nikak nebu, a da nekak nebu. I nikad i ni bilo, da nekak ni bilo...

Note that the silly comments about Tito came from the Serbs -- I for one fail to see such a large extent of Tito's influence on the linguistic problem that has existed since half a century before he was even born. I left that statement there so that I couldn't be accused of censoring, but one of these days I'll have to do some cleanup. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I never knew that Tito was really speaking so bad (Serbo-Croatian). "Ako bude trebalo, ...", - sounds familiar? [XJam]

And on the end one fact from one Slovene internet forum when one Slovene said: I guess the only war I shall see in my whole life in the future will be the War between Slovenia and Croatia. I think these sad words say enough. All who have cooked the mess in former Yugoslavia will get their own appropriate judgement, I won't judge noone. They always got it. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 05:57, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't take everything you read on the Internet so seriously. Fact is, most people are idiots :) --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Perhaps I am big idiot enough to belive such idiots. But as we know they are also always dangerous.

On a more general note, I have been told that the Slovenian language was formed by taking different things from different dialects that the Slovenian people spoke, and standardizing on that compromise. On the other hand, the standardization of the dialects that the Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin and whatever other people spoke happened in a sort of a heavyhanded manner which set aside all dialects other than a handful of types of štokavian (ikavian &#353tokavian was left out, for example). Since the Croats generally seem to speak a more diverse group of dialects than the Serbs, it could be expected that they would eventually be the ones to find themselves unhappy with the result as they found many their local dialects fade away in favor of some largely imported standard. Mix in a large number of unfavourable circumstances, a lot of politics, and there's your neverending conflict. --Shallot 17:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Slovenist Jože Toporišič recently said that Slovene literary language was formed in the Central part of Slovenia and not perhaps in Transmuraland. But it also might come from Prekmurje - why not? Or from Carinthia, where Slovene originates. Perhaps is the same thing as in C-B-S gruop but not in such an extent and to harm any dialect, since there were never revolts from other parts of Slovenia. For instance the Primorje region which borders to Italy, was always tightly connected with the mainland - even during two WWs, when this region was sold to Italy by American president Wilson (sort of speaking) and was governed by Italian fascists. [XJam]

---

I tako...ode drug Tito. A nije uspio svladati ni "Srpski bukvar za početnike-az, buki, vedi.."Mir Harven 19:36, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I nikad se ne vratih... (Probably wrongly written in Serbian aorist) --XJamRastafire 00:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The language / dialect that is spoken in Zagorje and Medimurje is without a doubt a transition between Slovenian and Croatian - it has been this way for centuries, since it was rather multiethnic area. The standardisation of Slovenian and Croatian (to a much bigger extent - stokavian was based as the model), is helping destroy this rather interesting dialect. what a shame!

and for the person, that wrote that without the influence of "serbo-croatian" media and/or education of the language would not be able to understand it. complete bollocks! sure there are bigger differences with serbian (thanks to thousands of turkish words), but one can still understand it - even if not very well.

A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

croatian / serbo-croatian

As a kid I spoke Serbo-Croation. Now I speak Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, soon I'll speak Montenegrin. Get over it people it is the same language written in two different scripts. Saying Serbian and Croation are two different languages is like telling someone from New York City someone in London speaks a different language. A couple of words here and there and a different accent do not make a seperate language.

hmm do both croatian and servo-croatian really need a seperate place? it seems to me that both are actually the same language with the same history and stuff and only now for political reasons not being considered the same. also now the info that should be the same in both articles (history or the facts sheet for example) that should be excactly the same will not be.

Can't Croatian language be put under "the name controversy" and/or "dialects" at Serbo-Croatian language or could we make a shared 'history' section? --62.251.90.73 21:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No. Try reading the history -- you'll notice that it's rather apparently different. It'll also help you to see why the "they're the same language" argument is rather pointless.

Also, it's spelled "Croatian", "Serbo-Croatian", "separate", "exactly". I've seen the term "Serv" used as an ethnic slur for the Serbs so I'd particularly advise against making such mistakes. --Shallot 22:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shut up, Chetnik. They're the same language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.189.255.6 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

It is one of the standard versions of the Central-South Slavic diasystem, formerly (and still frequently) called Serbo-Croatian. well i guess then the article has quite a bad and confusing start.

Why is it confusing? It is not untrue that it belongs to the said group, and the linked page explains things like grammar, things that are common to all the standard variants such as this one. We keep the common content on that page, and the variant-specific content on variant-specific pages. This has fairly obvious historical and practical reasons. --Shallot

also the numbers on the facts page are the same and i hardly think that's a coincidence

I assume the numbers you are referring to are those for the number of speakers. Yes, the number in parenthesis refers to all the other intelligible variants as well as this one so it is the same, it has to be. The number outside the parenthesis refers to this variant only, and that one is smaller. --Shallot

and don't whine about my spelling, especially correcting me not using a capital on 'croatian' is so lame... if i would care about my spelling on this talk page i would get a dic. Also i spelled both Croatian and Serbo-Croatian the good way somewhere in my comment as well so correcting me like i don't know any better is just stupid, now stfu lamer. --62.251.90.73 22:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's rather amusing to see someone post pretty silly comments without having done any research, make glaring spelling errors that also happen to be offensive, and expect not to get corrected for doing that. Do us all a favor and spend more time reading the fine articles, and less insulting people. --Shallot

Not capitalising words for one, is not a spelling error. And that i make spellings errors, as a not native English speaker, has i no way anything to do with the speakers intelligence or the validness of his message. Maybe Einstein made a lot of 'glaring spelling errors' as well when he started to speak English, did that made him less intelligent? When you're trying to speak French or Russian, you won't do so well, would you? would that make you a stupid person? Further more this is just a discussion page, in which all is well as long as people understand what I'm saying, and they obviously do. Which makes my spelling totally irrelevant. I saw discussion pages with comments in a mix of russian and english and still those people were not flamed for their spelling.

Commenting on my question, which is not a flame, it's just a question, a question rose to me by reading the article. So a question that can also arrise to other people, wether it is valid or not. And I don't think the question is that strange, since this norish linguist also answered and researched this, and he wouldn't have done that, if it wasn't a question in this first place.

And thanks to Mir Harven i know better now. While you only wasted everyone's time with your lame flame.

Also if you as a serb feel offended because some guy on some internet discussion misspelles serb as 'serv' because in his native language serbian would be written servisch, you deserve to feel offended. Because apparantly, you are unable to relevate an internet discussion or read things in context.--62.251.90.73 11:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You got offended at a rather straightforward correction, insulted me, imagined my nationality (wrongly), all in a nice little rant. Thanks for your valuable contribution, I'm not sure what we'd do with out it :P What the other user pasted below is just another merely subtly different reiteration of the same things that were already written in the articles and in the talk pages. --Shallot 15:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For those conversant with Croatian-http://main.amu.edu.pl/~sipkadan/PRIK10B1.HTM "Na prvom mjestu (odmah iza Predgovora i Pozdravnih riječi) nalazi se rad norveškog jugoslaviste i jednog od organizatora skupa Sveina Mönneslanda, pod naslovom Sociolingvistička situacija deset godina poslije raspada Jugoslavije.

“Deset godina nakon raspada Jugoslavije i šest godina nakon Daytona” - kaže Mönnesland - “vrijeme je da se trezveno razmotri sociolingvistička situacija na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. Polazne tačke tog razmatranja bi mogle biti u dvije naoko oprečne konstatacije: 1) Bošnjake, Crnogorce, Hrvate i Srbe spaja zajednički jezik (a jezik je i ono najvažnije što ih spaja), i 2) Unutar zajedničkog jezika postoje različiti standardni jezici pojedinih nacija (17).”

Prihvatajući Brozovićev termin, Mönnesland dalje poredi “skandinavsko i srednjojužnoslavensko jezično područje”, nalazeći neke sličnosti u tome što je “i unutar skandinavskog kao i srednjojužnoslavenskog jezičnog područja broj standardnih jezika... varirao tijekom vremena” (ib.), a glavna pokretačka snaga koja je dovela do pojave novih standardnih jezika “bio je nacilonalizam, ne u negativnom smislu, već kao snaga koja je težila afirmaciji nacionalne kulture u procesu izgradnje nacije” (18). To je u skladu s idejom: jedna nacija - jedan jezik, “koja potječe iz vremena romantizma, onako kako se to odvijalo u srednjoj i istočnoj Evropi” (ib.). Po tome bi “svi Hrvati i svi Srbi van Hrvatske odnosno Srbije... trebali imati... potpuno isti standard kao u matičnim zemljama”, uz insistiranje na nacionalnom imenu jezika, što postaje značajnije od sličnosti supstancije, pa tako u Bosni i Hercegovini funkcioniraju tri standarda s tri različita naziva: srpski (u Republici Srpskoj), hrvatski (na područjima pod hrvatskom upravom) i bosanski ili bošnjački, što je još sporno (na ostalim područjima BiH)." In short: Norwegian linguist Monnesland speaks that Croatian,Serbian and Bosniak are ONE, CENTRAL SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUGE in the same vein Norwegian, Danish and Swedish are ONE, SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGE. Since no one uses the term SCANDINAVIAN, it is evident that SERBO-CROATIAN, and its less offensive successor term, CENTRAL SOUTH SLAVIC LANGUGE, are just remnants of political linguistics. Serbo-Croatian will have disappeared from history, completely. Just, old habits, geopolitical plans and other mundane motives keep the fossil name still in the game. Until it's history, the less offensive and less politically prostituted term, Central South Slavic diasystem, should be used. Temporarily. Mir Harven 10:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mir, i guess that explains it, thank you. --62.251.90.73 11:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Finally, I find the reasoning and sources for this diasystem thing. But I hope we all agree that "a scandinavian linguist says" isn't enough. Plus, if it's true for scandinavian languages that have been separate standards for hundreds of years, it isn't neceserally true for BCMSxyz which had a common media space just 15 years ago (and to an extent still has). Zocky 16:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I read the above once more. MH, are you sure you're reading it right? "skandinavsko jezično područje" doesn't necessarily mean there's a single scandinavian language. It means the area covered by the Skandinavian language or languages. Plus, what Brozović says means that Serbs and Croats speak the same language with differet standard languages within it. And Mönnesland continues to say that "the number of standard languages has changed over time both within the Skandinavian and within Central-South Slavic language area." He then goes on to describe how appearance of these new standards is driven by the forces of positive nationalism.

But the processes that he's talking about took place in the formerly common Skandinavian tongue (probably no more varied than the whole Kajkavian/Štokavian/Čakavian/Torlak spectre) centuries or at least decades ago. I appreciate that the same process of divergence could happen with Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, but I can think of at least three reasons why it's not likely: (1) all standards are based on the same dialect, (2) there is an available large body of literature in all of the standards, which tends to stabilize the language standards (3) there is no isolation of speakers, especially not from media in other standard languages.

All I'm saying is, the Skandinavian languages example may not apply very well. Zocky 16:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• technically, yes, serbian and croatian are the same language. they are mutually intelligible, but that doesn't mean it's the same. ::these two languages are separated by some really minor grammatical rules and about 17 000 words. but what's most important, these languages have a different and vast literature and culture to it. it's the same problem with swedish, norwegian and danish, but i've never seen people fighting about those three.

THAT's nonsense! You cannot compare 'serbian' and 'croatian' with swedish, norvegian and danish, because those 3 languages are different enough to be considered as separate languaguages. That is not case with the serbian, croatian, bosnian, montenegrin and bunjevac dialects of SERBOCROATIAN LANGUAGE, because they are just dialects of ONE LANGUAGE, called SERBOCROATIAN or today: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbaian. Please respect the facts that are respected by all normal scientific factors in the world and most importantly- The European Union and all its bodies. 62.162.62.189 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatian is just a dialect of Serbian and vice versa. The "Croatian language" is not different enough to be considered separate. Both Serbian and Croatian come from Slavonic and both used Cyrillic for the majority of their existence. Now either language can be written in Cyrillic or Latinic although for nationalistic or educational reasons Croats refuse to write in Cyrillic. People are now even talking about a Bosnian language, which is basically Serbian dialect written in Latinics, and a Montenegrin language, which is Croatian dialect with some extra accents. This is retarded at best, the language is the same, it is simply called differently in different Yugoslav states because of ethnic tensions. Go look at Demographics of SFR Yugoslavia to get an idea of where different dialects are used, but as far as I'm concerned the language we are all talking about is Yugoslav. Screw all you racists trying to rewrite history. Zalgo (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.221.124 (talk)

I see some Serbs failed history class... First, the Cyrillic script was used in Croatia only during Yugoslavia. Second, Ukrainian and Russian are also very similar, but they are not the same language. Third, according to the comments, it seems that Serbs still dream about Greater Serbia, and believe in fictional truth that all people from Southeastern Europe are actually Serbs. Talking about racism and fascism...(rolleyes). Wikipedia will not accept fictional truths from Serbian radicals, it will only accept the facts. Thank you. Again, (now for real), screw all you fascist trying to rewrite history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrite 99.236.221.124 (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright

Suspicion of copyright infringement to http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/croatian_language.html .

Since I'm one of the owners of the site http://www.hercegbosna.org , I'm free to use the material from this site. If someone has dubieties- email info@hercegbosna.org. Anyway-I'm a bit puzzled, since this issue had been discussed ca. 5-7 months ago and I thought it was a resolved "problem". I guess it's somewhere on this page, or on my Talk page. In any other case- email info@hercegbosna.org . Mir Harven 17:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the issued resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_language/Archive#Copyright Mir Harven 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please tell the likes of Shallot to not talk about things they dont know about. And to watch making spelling mistakes which could be mistaken as slurs.~~

categorization in the taxobox

This article argues that Croatian doesn't come below Serbo-Croatian in the categorization. The article Serbo-Croatian language does. Please let's just keep things separated as they are and avoid casting judgement from one article into the other. --Joy [shallot] 11:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea how to handle this thing, but I would just like to mention that having contradicting articles at Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Croatian is probably not a good thing. Zocky 13:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are not contradicting, at least not any more contradicting than e.g. articles on different religions :) Some interpret things one way, some another. All articles make note of both interpretations and link to the other articles, but we have them all to avoid being partial to one interpretation only. It's pretty tidy compared to how it could look AFAIACS... --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every foreign linguist agree that Croatian, Bosnian and Serbian r standard forms of one unic Serbo-Croatian language.

That is not actually true, because there are various theories in dialectology that differ in explanations. --Joy [shallot] 14:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that theur opinion counts more because we cannot say that they are partial.That we cannot say for experts from mentioned countries. U say that u have a lot of agruments that contradict my stands.Belive me for every agrument of your I have at least 3 anti-arguments.And another prove that it is one language:in areas where Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks live they all speak same dialect of Serbo-Croatian. My final:SERBIAN,CROATIAN and BOSNIAN R STANDARD FORMS OF SERBO-CROATIAN LANGUAGE. User:Jugoslaven

The taxobox row we're arguing about says "genetic classification", and links to language families and languages, which in turn explains how language families are based on its members deriving from a common ancestor. "Serbo-Croatian" is not a current name for this language I'm speaking, and the same language is not merely a phylogenetic child of Serbo-Croatian, it's also much more a child of older forms of dialects that predate S-C. This is a valid argument even if one ignores the plea against use of the term "Serbo-Croatian" because it's inherently biased towards the first listed origin and the two origins listed at all. --Joy [shallot] 18:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article South Slavic languages cites Croatian as subcategory of Serbo-Croatian:

Serbo-Croatian (ca. 17 million)

Bosnian (ca. 2 million) 
Croatian (ca. 5 million) 
Serbian (ca. 10 million) 

So we can categorize Croatian in taxbox as Subcategory of Serbo-Croatian or bold Croatian in word Serbo-Croatian so that others know that it is about Croatian standard of Serbo-Croatian. User:Jugoslaven

Um, I don't see how that overrides what I said. That article is accommodating both interpretations -- that it's all together, and that it's separate. That doesn't imply that this article has to do the same in its taxobox. --Joy [shallot]

---

I don't really mind the low-key revert war over this, although it would be much more sensible to discuss it here first before changing it in the article again. What I do mind is people calling those with a different opinion vandals. That's just counterproductive, plus see wikipedia:No personal attacks. Zocky 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, you'd really have to talk to Jugoslaven, because he incited the latest round of controversy and continues to inflict it upon us all. --Joy [shallot] 23:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will remind that Jugoslaven is still persistently adding "Serbo-" in this article's taxobox with little apparent rationale. I suppose it's a good way as any to pump up one's edit count... --Joy [shallot] 23:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Related discussion at another Talk page

Interesting discussion about the history of the Croatian language appeared at Image_talk:Cpw10ct.gif. Feel free to check it out.

Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia

"A good example is the wikipedia project, with non-existent «Serbo-Croatian» wikipedia (on a more formal level, such an enterprise is not linguistically possible since any text would be easily recognized as either Croatian or Serbian, with Bosnian somewhere in the middle)."

I don't think this is a good example at all. It is also possible to recognise English as American, Australian, British or variants somewhere in the middle, but an English Wikipedia is possible (it exists, in fact). Shouldn't we remove this passage?

I just found out that Serbo-Croatian wikipedia does exist: http://sh.wikipedia.org so I'm removing the above passage as POV

Serbo-Croatian..

There is no language called Serbo-Croatian. They are not completely different, but they are not the same either. Also, its not only the fact that they are different languages, the cultures are different as well. Therefor one can not combine the two.

What nonsence! :))) HolyRomanEmperor 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

SERBOCROATIAN LANGUAGE ALWAYS EXISTED AND WILL EXIST, AND ALL THE MORONS WHO IGNORE THAT FACT AND WRITE NONSENCE (LIKE THE ONE ABOVE) SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SPREAD THEIR TRASH! TRULY!:)) Look there is no practical difirence betveen serbian and croatian language.What you are claim you claim from nationalistic reasons.Lord feanor 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, Lord Serb, you really need to calm down and accept the facts =) Talking about nationalism, why do you spread fictional truth about Croats on entire Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting on closing down the croatian Wikipedia

See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije Hope, many of you will contribute! :) --Neoneo13 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) HA, HA, YOU ASKED FOR CLOSING THE CROATIAN WIKIPEDIA, LET'S ALL OF US DO IT:))

POV-section

Need I elaborate why I added {{tl:POV-section}}? Entire "Unification and separation with Serbian" section is full of assertions about alleged attempts on supremacy of Serbian language, lacking sources and repeating the same thesis over and over. I'm not saying that the tendency and attempts did not exist, but the section exaggerates it beyond reasonable limits. Should I go point by point?

• In the 1920s and 1930s, the lexical, syntactical, orthographical and morphological characteristics of Serbian were officially prescribed for Croatian textbooks and general communication.

Sources? Having read few Croatian texts from the time, I can say they the Croatian idiom in them is pretty distinguishable.

• Under monarchist Yugoslavia, "Serbo-Croatian" unification was motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy.

Uh-oh.

• In Communist Yugoslavia, Serbian language and terminology were "official" in a few areas: the military, diplomacy, Federal Yugoslav institutions (various institutes and research centres), state media, and jurisprudence at the federal level.

Uh-oh.

• — everything had, in practice, been geared towards the supremacy of the Serbian language

No comment.

• The single most important effort by ruling Yugoslav Communist elites to erase the "differences" between Croatian and Serbian — and in practice impose Serbian Ekavian language, written in Latin script, as the "official" language of Yugoslavia — was the so-called "Novi Sad Agreement".

I've never heard a rumor, and hardly an evidence, that those pretty renowned people had their arms twisted to sign it.

• The "Agreement" was seen by the Croats as a defeat for the Croatian cultural heritage. According to the eminent Croatian linguist Ljudevit Jonke, it was imposed on the Croats.

All Croats? At least it has a source, i.e. mentions one.

• These works, based on modern fields and theories (structuralist linguistics and phonology, comparative-historical linguistics and lexicology, transformational grammar and areal linguistics) revised or discarded older "language histories", and restored the continuity of the Croatian language by definitely reintegrating and asserting specific Croatian characteristics (phonetic, morphological, syntactic, lexical, etc.) that had been constantly suppressed in both Yugoslavian states and finally gave modern linguistic description and prescription to the Croatian language.

This is an un-encyclopedical praising, suggesting that everything that existed before was rubbish.

• Political ambitions played a key role in the creation of the Serbo-Croatian language.

One can say so, because Illyrian Movement certainly did have political ambitions. I say this because the "Serbo-Croatian language" was basically their idea. Duja 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I throughfuly read the article and I do not see what in it exactly violates the NPOV policy. All the quotations you listed here are basicly correct and I do not see what is the problem here; you have not made much point in counter-argumenting them ("uh-oh" is hardly a valid argument). I therefore suggest the POV tag be removed. -Hierophant 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And you saw only my "Uh-oh" as the problem? It is maybe not a valid argument, but "motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy", "been geared towards the supremacy of Serbian language", "was seen by the Croats a defeat" "that had been constantly suppressed" are so apparent POVs that I didn't even feel that it deserves a comment. And the entire section barely mentions the opposite views, presenting the perceived oppression as universally accepted truth. I'm returning the tag. Duja 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV, but simple facts. In both Yugoslavias, most Croats felt a considerable pro-Serbian influence being pre-dominant over them, particulary in language issues. The article quite clearly states there were also those schools of opinion who were for unification of two languages, but amongst Croats, these schools of opinion were present mostly in latter half of 19th century, but practicly extinct by 1930s, when it became plainly obvious that the first Yugoslavia was no unification of South Slavic peoples but an imperialistic Serbian monarchy. Ever after and during second Yugoslavia, as the article states, Croats and Croatian language experts indded felt that their language has "been constantly suppressed", that language reforms imposed upon them were "motivated mainly by the Greater Serbia policy", "been geared towards the supremacy of Serbian language", and "was seen by the Croats a defeat" following the Novi Sad argument of 1954; tha fact that in 1967 a collective declaration of Croatian language experts refuted the argument shows clearly that they were quite unhappy with the idea, and that in 1971 a Croatian grammar published by Croatian language experts was burned by communist autorithies and prohibited to be reprinted shows quite clearly that the Yugoslavian goverment had a very negative issue towards Croatian language. - Hierophant 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that suppression and unification did not exist. I am questioning its perceived amount, motives, and feelings about it as presented in the article. Certainly not all Croats and Croatian linguists felt uneasy with that, and the process was certainly not as strong in all periods of the time (it might have been stronger in 1970s indeed). I own several university textbooxs from Zagreb university from 1980s and I can certainly tell that the language vocabulary is unmistakenly Croatian. I do assert that certain Croatian expressions and terms were suppressed during Communist regime, but I do question the alleged links with Greater Serbian policy during Communist regime. Also, I assert that the process was unforcibly endorsed by at least some Croatian linguists and intellectuals, to start from Ljudevit Gaj, through Milan Rešetar, especially ones from the left wing of political scene. AFAIK Krleža shifted his opinion about the issue in his later age. The strength, popularity and influence of "left-wing/unitarian" and "right-wing/independence" (terms mine, ad hoc) schools certainly varied through the time and political climate. I object to presenting only the views of the latter as the universal truth.Duja 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What you just said is more-less the same thing as stated in the article. Gaj lived at the begining of 19th century and Resetar neard the end (Resetar up to mid-20th century) and the article observes there were important Croatian language schools from that time which were for unification with Serbian; but, as stated, they were almost gone by 1930s. The motivation for language supremacy in Kingdom of Yugoslavia was certainly motivated by imperialistic Serbian policy! The article does not state that communist Yugoslavia supression of Croatian was motivated by Greater Serbain policiy also, but rather by its "bratstvo & jedinstvo" program of unification and creation of single, supra-South-Slavic nation, which is also quite true. The article also states that the greatest pressure on Croatian was exerted in 1960s and 1970s, and notes that by 1980s, the pressure was considerably weakened and new texts in Croatian and about Croatian were on their way by that time. So I aks you again, what is the POV problem here?

The strength, popularity and influence of "left-wing/unitarian" and "right-wing/independence" Croatian schools of thought certainly did vary through time and political climate. However, generaly speaking, "unitarian wing" was dominant one during 19th century, when Croatia was under goverment of Austrian-Hungary monarchy, and somewhat romantic and naive idea of unification with other south Slavic nations and languages, notably Serbs, seemed far better than domination of German/Hungarian. However, by the end of first quarter of 20th century and subsequently, when the dream of south-Slavic unification turned into quite frigthening reality, "right wing" with its independece crise became a predominant one by a long-shot; like you say, even Krleza shifted his opinion to a stronger side (something he was, BTW, very good at). Since the article you tagged POV speaks mostly about 20th century (19th century with Gaj and Serbain connection are explained fairly well in previous two sections), it seems quite reasnoble that it should speak mostly about the wing which was predominant at that time, and, furhtermore, explaining why did it became predominant one.--Hierophant 09:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither this article or the discussion about it are by far scientific and neutral. Instead of explaining the linguistic differences and similarities the authors repeat very common political "arguments", actually - opinions, over and over again. A proper comment from a neutral, expert dialectologist would be necessary if this debate (or article) is to become anything but another sad piece of building sand of arising new national identities. --81.96.69.232 20:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you don't quite understand the issue of standard language. A standard language is a political creation par excellence & has not much to do with dialectology/areal linguistics as a linguistic discipline. Standardology, a not very well developed discipline of sociolinguistics (as far as I know), deals with the processes of language standardization & stylization. As with the majority of Central-European & Eastern-European languages (and, I suppose, a significant part of South-Asian ones), Croatian was shaped by philologists & writers's interventions galore, irrespectively of the dialectological "raw matter" state- from accentuation to semantics. It's almost impossible to illustrate the matter to a non-speraker, but, I'll try: Croatian morphology and word-formation prefer common Slavic suffix -telj instead of more ordinary South Slavic suffix -lac in numerous words denoting a doer of an action (gledatelj as compared to gledalac- both words meaning a "viewer". The -telj forms predominate in, say, 70-80% cases. This is a result of literary and philological interventions because "-telj words" invariably possess feminine forms (gledateljica- a "vieweress", so to speak, while there is no feminine form in the "gledalac" case). Other "conscious" linguistic interventions have covered the fields of phonetics, phonology, syntax, semantics, lexicology,....It would be equivalent to prescibing the- ess ending to get female forms of *all* English "male" or neutral words: "doeress", "speakeress", "driveress", "thinkeress", etc. (so-no "spokesperson" or "chairwoman"/"chairperson" whatever). I'd say this would give a better picture about writers's/linguists's interventions & how they shaped the Croatian language. The wiki text itself is based on notable Croatian linguist Dalibor Brozović's book "Standardni jezik", 1970, his later works and other linguists's (for instance, Radoslav Katičić's) studies. One can get a glimpse at situation by reading Brozović's (unfinished) text at [1] Mir Harven 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite our attempts to the contrary, language is far from scientific and neutral; the political arguments you refer to and their historical context are not only relevant, but crucial to understanding the topic. As for "new" national identities, perhaps you would do well to read the very material you so carelessly dismiss. --AHrvojic 03:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ustasha did attack serbo-croatian language already in 1971 from london exile.

If any two (one serbian and one croatian) person can fully understand each other while each one is talking in the language he/she learned from his/her mother, then separate serbian and croatian languages do not exist, those are only dialects of the common serbo-croatian language then.

Just like biological races are defined as such that multiplication and production of fertile offsprings must be impossible between any two different races of animals, languages must be fully unintelligible to each other in order to qualify as true autonomic languages. Otherwise they are just dialects and chauvinists and fascists are using them to artifically incite racial hatred in people. It is a matter of fact that the serbian nation liberated the balkan with arms from the nazi rule and therefore serb race has superiorty over the other, seni-slavic nations that supported fascism in WWII, like the ustasha. They were responsible for the 1971 school textbook counter-revolution which Marsall Tito crushed so majestically. 195.70.32.136 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• This kind of talk is a fascist bullshit which should be deleted from wikipedia as soon as it appears. --Hierophant 18:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, wiki policy is that idiocies remain on talk pages. Mir Harven 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ije je je or ije je ie?

Mir (or anyone else), I'd appreciate if you could expand more on the ije/ie/je debate (and possibly fix my addition on about exactly what is the disagreement). I wanted to move your addition from Montenegrin language:

like Dalibor Brozović, while others like Ivo Škarić dismiss Brozović's arguments

but I don't quite follow who argues what (not that I delved too deeply into the matter), so I expanded somewhat on the debate, but it certainly needs some improvement. Duja 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may offer my two cents. It seems a bit of time has passed and perhaps this is a dead issue, however.. The comments regarding "standardology" are quite valid and significant. With my modest education and experience in Linguistics, I can merely offer "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." Don't remember whose quote it is but it seems to apply here. Also, from what I remember of my college days, the linguistic area roughly corresponding to the Former Yugo can best be described as a continuum. Neighboring villages will understand each other with slight differences but villages further apart will begin to see more differences and so continuing with distance covered. Therefore it is not surprising that villages in Zagorje (near the Slovene border) would display identical or near-identical features with villages accross the political border. Last but not least: Most linguistic study abandoned "prescriptive grammer" fifty years ago opting for "descriptive." It seems to be the decision of the speaker to decide the name of the "language" spoken. The rest seems to be linguists' attempts to attach meaningful labels. Thanks for your attention. Perun1962 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

2006:A famous croatian linguist confirmed the unity of serbian and croatian language!

RAZGOVOR Prof. dr. IVO PRANJKOVIĆ, UGLEDNI JEZIKOSLOVAC, SUAUTOR NEDAVNO OBJAVLJENE GRAMATIKE HRVATSKOGA JEZIKA Hrvatski i srpski su jedan jezik VARIJETETI ISTOGA Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku i to treba jasno reći

Here’s the translation of the main title and the introduction article of this interview:

INTERVIEW: PROF.DR. IVO PRANJKOVIC, THE FAMOUS LINGUIST AND CO-AUTHOR OF THE RECENT PUBLISHED, GRAMMAR OF CROATIAN LANGUAGE’.

CROATIAN AND SERBIAN ARE ONE LANGUAGE! VARIETIES OF IT: On a standard level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and now Montenegrin language are just varieties, but from a same language. Therefore, pure linguistically and typologically they are all ONE LANGUAGE and it should be said very clearly!

The rest of the text just confirms what’s in the title and the main article. In spite of all sick nationalists and evil propagators:-SERBOCROATIAN IS ONE LANGUAGE AND WILL STAY ONE FOREVER!CHEERS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Cyrillization

Can the Croatian language can be sometimes Cyrillized? --Blake3522 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• never, croatian uses latin and latin only. sometimes, for historical reasons the glagolitic may be used, but never in document and :the likes. however, a lot of croats can read cyrillic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.88.249 (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Never. An average Croat is irritated by Cyrillics. 99.229.96.231 05:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Few years ago last person who understand Croatian in Molise died. Today in Molise nobody speaks Croatian --Billy the lid (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

unclear phrase - " If the subject is narrowed out"

What does this phrase mean? It appears high in the article. Can someone who knows the author's intent please rephrase. Coughinink (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Tense

From the article:

There are seven tenses, four of which (present, perfect, future I and II) are used in contemporary standard Croatian, with the other three (aorist, imperfect and plusquamperfect) considered stylistically marked and archaic.

This sentence should probably be considered misleading and/or incorrect. The overwhelming majority of modern linguists agree that most languages have two tenses, and that no language (at least, no language with a vectorial tense system, such as all Indo-European languages) has more than three. Theoretically speaking, and based upon the linguist's definition of "vectorial tense", there can only be three tenses. Please see Tense by Bernard Comrie (ISBN 0521281385) and the chapter on tense in Linguistic Semantics by William Frawley (ISBN 0805810757), among many others.

The author(s) must forgive my guesswork, for I know nothing of Croatian; but perhaps the author meant to say that the language has seven distinct classes of verb affixes that indicate various combinations of tense, aspect, and/or modality. Phrasing the sentence along this general arc would give a more syntactic (as opposed to semantic) flavor to the assertion, which in turn would improve its correctness. Or, perhaps it is commonplace in the prescriptive teaching of Croatian to assert that the language has seven tenses (similar tricks are common in the teaching of many languages). Such pedagogical shortcuts should not necessarily be considered valid descriptive frameworks.

Ericbg05 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Plusquamperfect is not stylisticall marked, nor considered archaic.
Aorist has recent years passed through a small revival, thanks to SMS - aorist is shorter than perfect tense, so more text can be made within a single message (there're some works that speak about this). Kubura (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

It's not just a "version" of Central South Slavic dyasystem.. It's an independent language, with its own development.
Further, some Croatian communities outside Croatia and B&H aren't considered as Croat diaspora, but as autochtonous one.
Croatian: inhabitant of Croatia, or Croatian citizen, not necessarily a Croat
Croat: nationality, not necessarily a Croatian citizen nor inhabitant of Croatia.
Y That's the explanation of my edits. Kubura (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone go to the Vuk Karadžić site, some moron wrote that today Croatian is modern Serbian with few changes. Carib canibal (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That, which is written on Vuk Karadzic's page is more or less-the TRUTH. Morons are those who hide and reject it, nobody else. Ante.62.162.62.189 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not 'sometimes', but 'always', as a fact.

The sentence in the article starting:, It is sometimes classified as belonging to the Central South Slavic diasystem (also referred to as "Serbo-Croatian"). is not totally correct, because the Croatian standard of SerboCroatian Language (or Central South Slavic Diasystem) is NOT belonging SOMETIMES to the Central South Slavic Diasystem, but ALWAYS. It's an equal part of this diasystem, as well as Serbian, Bosnian, Bunjevac or Montenegrin part. Please respect the facts and don't lose the connection with the reality. Thanks;24.86.116.250 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern research indicates that the classification of all Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian (or worse, some add even Torlakian) speeches in some "greater scheme" is completely arbitrary and is not supported by historical linguistics arguments. There was never a period in which all dialects spoken by the ancestors of present-day self-styled Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins exhibited a period of common development, i.e. their common ancestor goes all the way to Proto-Slavic (which makes sense if you look more closely how divergent these dialectal groupings really are). The notion of SC or CSSD as some "collection of dialects" is furthermore nowadays considered as generally politically incorrect, and most books that care enough about it tend to evade anachronistic terms like Serbo-Croatian, Old Russian or Old Bulgarian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not supported either by archeology. According to the archeological evidences from the Slavic graves, there were 2 main groups of the Slavic settlers in the western Balkans. First older group was matterially assimilated with the native Illyrians (the same agriculture tools and other traditions mixed with the native ones etc) - they continued the old local (Illyrian, Celtic,...) traditions without break, while the second group brought some new traditions (new non-native agriculture tools brought from the north east etc...). It seems that first group occupied all Western Balkans in the beginning. The 2nd group came later and penetrated into the central part of the area settled by the first group, completely assimilating their members and influenced them in the same place, so it resulted (archeologically - materially) with the first older group surrounding younger 2nd group in the shape of "U" letter. Archeologically there was some mix zone between 2 groups. Territorry settled by the 2nd group completely corresponds to the Stokavian speakers who brought "vatra" (fire), while the Slavs of the 1st group used "oganj" (fire) - Bulgarians, Croats and Slovenes (Kaikavians, Chakavians),... Traces of this 1st group can still be found in Macedonia and northern Greece, but they were undoubtly influenced later by Stokavians. Croatian Ikavian Scakavians were nothing but the settlers of the mixed zone Chakavian - Stokavian.

Allegged South Slavic language continuum was never proved, the material evidences also give completely another picture. It rose as an idea in the 19th century Pan-Slavism, supported by the communists in the 20th century, at the moment, finally, claimed only by the Yugo-nostalgists. Scientifically it's archaic and out of time. Language continuum among the South Slavs can be traced only within the Proto-Slavic, never South Slavic! Zenanarh (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Samples of Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian - differences between them

We need a section that demonstrates differences between the three "dialects" of Croatian. We could have lets say 10 samples of text in English, Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian to get an understanding of how like/unlike they are. Thanks. I am unfamiliar with the 2 minor dialects but would greatly appreciate seeing their differences. 70.171.46.92 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They are not real dialects but sort of "collections of dialects" (narječje), and the differences among individual Kajkavian and Čakavian speeches can sometimes be very large (differences among Štokavian speeches were much bigger in pre-Ottoman times 600 years ago than they're today, so modern-day similarities tend to confuse the big picture). Also dialectologists use special signs suited to the phonological system of a particular dialect which laymen reading this article probably doesn't have any knowledge of, so there'll be little value of adding some comparative e.g. Schleicher's fable that can be "deciphered" only be specialists.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Schleicher's fable, here's how it was given in IWoBA in Zagreb 2005:

• Neo-Štokavian (Standard Croatian):

Óvca i kònji

Óvca koja níje ìmala vȕnē vı̏djela je kònje na brijégu. Jèdan je òd njīh vȗkao téška kȍla, drȕgī je nòsio vèliku vrȅću, a trȅćī je nòsio čòvjeka.

Óvca rȅče kònjima: «Sȑce me bòlī glȅdajūći čòvjeka kako jȁšē na kònju».

A kònji rȅkoše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nȃs sȑca bòlē kada vı̏dīmo da čòvjek, gospòdār, rȃdī vȕnu od ovácā i prȁvī òdjeću zá se. I ȍndā óvca nȇmā vı̏še vȕnē.

Čȗvši tō, óvca pȍbježe ȕ polje.

• Old Štokavian (Orubica, Posavina):

Óvca i kònji

Óvca kòjā nî ìmala vȕnē vı̏dla kònje na brîgu. Jèdān od njı̏jū vũkō tȇška kȍla, drȕgī nosı̏jo vȅlikū vrȅću, a trȅćī nosı̏jo čovı̏ka. Óvca kȃza kȍnjima: «Svȅ me bolĩ kad glȅdām kako čòvik na kònju jȁšī».

A kònji kāzȁše: «Slȕšāj, ȏvco, nãs sȑca bolũ kad vı̏dīmo da čòvik, gȁzda, prȁvī vȕnu od ovãc i prȁvī rȍbu zá se od njẽ. I ȍndā ōvcȁ néma vı̏šē vȕnē.

Kad tȏ čȕ ōvcȁ, ȕteče ȕ polje.

• Čakavian (Matulji near Rijeka):

Ovcȁ i konjı̏

Ovcȁ kȃ ni imȅla vȕni vı̏dela je konjı̏ na brȇge. Jedȃn je vȗkal tȇški vȏz, drȕgi je nosîl vȅlu vrȅt'u, a trȅt'i je nosîl čovȅka.

Ovcȁ je reklȁ konjȇn: «Sȑce me bolĩ dok glȅdan čovȅka kako jȁše na konjȅ».

A konjı̏ su reklı̏: «Poslȕšaj, ovcȁ, nȃs sȑca bolẽ kad vı̏dimo da čovȅk, gospodãr dȅla vȕnu od ovãc i dȅla rȍbu zȃ se. I ȍnda ovcȁ nĩma vı̏še vȕni.

Kad je tȏ čȕla, ovcȁ je pobȅgla va pȍje.

• Kajkavian (Marija Bistrica):

õfca i kȍjni

õfca tera nı̃je imȅ̩̏la vȕne vı̏dla je kȍjne na briẽgu. Jȇn od nîh je vlẽ̩ke̩l tẽška kȍla, drȕgi je nȍsil vȅliku vrȅ̩ču, a trẽjti je nȍsil čovȅ̩ka.

õfca je rȇkla kȍjnem: «Sȑce me bolĩ kad vîdim čovȅka kak jȃše na kȍjnu».

A kȍjni su rȇkli: «Poslȕhni, õfca, nȃs sȑca bolĩju kad vîdime da čȍve̩k, gospodãr, dȇ̩la vȕnu ot õfci i dȇ̩la oblȅ̩ku zȃ se. I ȏnda õfca nȇma vı̏še vȕne.

Kad je to čȗla, õfca je pobȇ̩gla f pȍlje.

--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagraph

Aradic-es, would you kindly explain why you keep on returning the section called "Diagraph". Does it look salvageable to you? The author apparently doesn't know how to spell the word, let alone anything about linguistics. So, what does a section explaining how digraphs from English and German are NOT pronounced in Croatian is doing in a remotely serious article. I could certainly "improve" it by adding how e.g. Dutch or Spanish digraphs are NOT pronounced in Croatian, and so ad infinitum. The articles are sometimes best improved by removing the cr... bad stuff. No such user (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that all your work is at talk pages and doing nothing uselfull at the article itself. That paragraph is made as an instruction for the English speakers about the difference that exist and it is matter of this article. if you have nothing better to do here... then stay away from the article! --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you resort to personal attacks when you don't have anything constructive to say. Well, that's your language, so please continue to be proud for the high professional level and literacy of the article, and defend every letter of it: "In Croatian do exist[sic] diagraphs[sic] but they are pronounced differently than in English"... LOL. Ah, that does resemble the grammar of "difference that exist and it is matter of this article", so I can guess who is the proud author of said section.

Last time I checked, Croatian digraphs are lj, nj and dž. But I'll follow your advice and go away; I have better things to do indeed. No such user (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

I am tyred of conflicts with editors who believe that being native English speaker makes them top-gun encyclopedians.

P.S. you are obviously one of those who "know " perfectly which articles should be deleted, but no idea which articles should be written. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I find it incredibly amusing that the person who is lecturing about english grammar is so dire himself. To the author of this section, I have made a few minor changes. I honestly have no idea about linguistics as I'm sure you do, I just changed a bit of word order to make it easier to read for someone who does. 77.100.4.112 (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Consonants

Could someone please revise the two consonant sections into one, it's a little confusing (and I am not qualified to do it myself!). Thanks! 77.100.4.112 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the h is like h in English is an error. If it's velar as stated in the table, then it is not like in English, where /h/ is glottal [h], not [x]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.167.44 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Skaric has said Croatian /h/ is realized as [h], only before r's it's [x]: hodati (with [h]), bih (with [h)), hrast [with [x]), hrt [with [x])]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.110.123 (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage

Ex13 (sockpuppet of former Suradnik13), as I see you're playing dumb in the comments you keep reverting me, let me inform you of some undisputed inconvenient facts, namely that the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage being recognized by SIL/ISO and assigned ISO 639-3 code hbs.

Since it encompasses Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian individual languages, it must go above them in the hierarchy, underneath the "South Slavic languages" clade.

Also, before you enter berserk mode upon seeing anything that contains the phrase Serbo-Croatian, "embarrassing" for Croatian nationalist bigots, please take time to actually read what you are reverting, as you've also removed the Balto-Slavic node. Perhaps you didn't know, but Balto-Slavic languages constitute genetic node, please study the [[Balto-Slavic languages]] article.

Let me also inform you that macrolanguages are treated within the infobox genetic tree on every Wikipedia article. Hence we have e.g.:

• articles on Bokmål and Nynorsk listing the Norwegian macrolanguage in the infobox tree
• articles on Tosk Albanian and Gheg Albanian listing the Albanian macrolanguage in the infobox tree
• article on Egyptian Arabic and Iraqi Arabic listing the Arabic macrolanguage in the infobox tree

Thus, there is absolutely no reason that Serbo-Croatian varieties (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and in-process-fabricating Montenegrin) shouldn't mention the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage as an upper node. B/C/S varieties are furthermore 100 times more similar (e.g. identical phonology, 99% identical grammar, 100% mutual intelligibility) than the abovementioned Arabic and Albanian varieties, which are BTW barely mutually intelligible (often not at all), having vastly differing phonology and inflection.

I can imagine that some Croats such as yourself might feel "offended" by the mention of SC macrolanguage, but it's an ISO standard and we must mention it. Linguistically B/C/S varieties are one language (the Neoštokavian dialect) and it's pointless to diminish the relevance of that fact, or simply ignore it (it's not going away you know). On Croatian wikipadia you do your Balkanic interpretation of the world, this is English Wikipedia and we actually care for NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is article about Croatian language not about so called serbo-croatian. If you go on [2] (source that you provided), you will be able to see:

Denotation: See corresponding entry in Ethnologue.

Then, if you go on that page, you will see the following:

Classification Indo-European, Slavic, South, Western

A member of macrolanguage Serbo-Croatian [hbs] (Serbia).

After that, please press that link, and see the following:

Indo-European (439)

Slavic (18)

South (7)

Western (4)

Croatian [hrv] (Croatia)

If somebody is playing dumb, that's you. Thnx --Ex13 (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please see [3] for Egyptian Arabic and [4] for Iraqi Arabic. --Ex13 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see on the abovementioned link [5] This language is a member of a macrolanguage; see Serbo-Croatian. So what should we pretend, that the SC macrolanguage with its own ISO code does not exist?

Ethnologue is just a particular publication published by a Christian organization SIL International, and is in no way some kind of "ultimate reference". At best, they can be said inconsistent for not including all the macrolangauges into cladistics tree. By looking at their tree for e.g. East Scandinavian languages, I don't see them separating Bokmål/Nynorsk, with some dubious "Danish-Swedish" node. Also, I'd like to know what exactly is "Czech-Slovak ^_^

So basically what I'm trying to say is that Ethnologue is not some kind of ultimate arbiter on the cladistics of world's languages. Wikipedia should not strive to blindly follow one particular PoV interpretation, but in a logically coherent manner provide the most NPOV treatment. I might as well argue add that Ethnologue's classification is BS, and that e.g. the tree by world-renown Slavist Alexander M. Schenker in the chapter on Proto-Slavic in a famous "Slavonic languages" monography edited by Comrie & Corbett, which lists only one node for SC, is unimaginably more credible reference, and dismiss Ethnologue altogether ^_^

The point is, that we doubtless have:

• Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage with registered ISO code, containing Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian
• All the other macrolanguages on Wikipedia, to my knowledge, are treated as nodes in the language infoboxes, in language/dialectal classifications
• Serbo-Croatian national varieties somehow "deserve" the common treatment in the clade, because they're essentially the same language/dialect (Neoštokavian).

So generally, methinks that it would surely be beneficial to the reader if we include it to the tree, not only for the abovelisted linguistic reasons, but as it would enable the user to browse to the SC language article more easily, as well to the article on the other individual standard languages grouped within the SC macrolanguage. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• [6] - Uhm, what is this, the clique from Croatian wikipedia operating in hive-mind mode? :) Ts ts ts. Rest assured that if this becomes edit-warred I'll make a notice on the appropriate noticeboards, so that the admins can get involved, as I have no desire to be blocked for violating 3RR. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• [7] - After this not particularly good-faith (and somewhat ad-hominem) edit, I decided to notify the administrators: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Croatian_language --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• [8] Ex13 is playing dumb again. Let me repeat what I wrote: the fact that Ethnologue, a printed publication published by a particular Christian organization, does not mention the Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage, does not mean that the Serbo-Croatian macrolangauge does not exist, or that it does not deserve mentioning. Every other Wikipedia language article mentions macrolanguages in their infobox trees!. You guys are really hopeless. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk wrote: You guys are really hopeless. I dislike your tone, and if I see it right, you succeed to omit part of the same source you use. That's not ok for me, as that looks to me as hiding the truth to gain something? Not fair by any account. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly am I suppose to react after I see my edit reverted 4 times without an explanation?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "omit part of the same source you use" ? I used SIL's website for ISO codes listings, and Schenker's chapter on Proto-Slavic. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It would also be very appreciated if you would argument first, and only then remove my sources. As I said, Ethnologue is not an absolute arbiter on genetic classification of languages, as their cladistics has lots of dubious nodes (see above). It's just a printed publication published by certain Christian organization seeking to translate the Bible in as much languages as possible. All the language articles on Wikipedia in their infoboxen make a mention of their respective macrolanguages, if they belong to one! There is no reason to omit it here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular opinion whether Serbo-Croatian should be in the list. However, I'd like to add a couple of notes:

• I agree with Ivan that Ethnologue is not particularly good source when it comes to details. It's an overview publication by a Christian missionary organization. It's probably good enough to get a rough idea of number of speakers or like, if you don't have a better source, but should not be used as an arbiter for anything controversial. For example, I recall that [9] their entry for Bosnian used to list "4 million native speakers in Bosnia" (meaning, all Bosnian citizens) for quite a while; that is fixed now, but it just illustrates that they failed to investigate into nuances of Balkan quarelling.
• The problem is that the family list in the infobox is supposedly genetic; however, notions of Serbo-Croatian and Croatian and Serbian are socio-politic and socio-linguistic constructs. From a purely genetic linguistic standpoint "Western South Slavic" should be divided into Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Slovenian, rather than into "Serbo-Croatian" etc. Thus, the answer to the question "is Croatian language a genetic part of Serbo-Croatian or Western South Slavic" is Mu.

Happy edit-warring everyone. No such user (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Purely genetic division is not possible, if we include Torlakian which is transitional between Štokavian and Bulgaro-Maconian area. The terms "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" in 99.99% cases of English usage today mean "standard language", and this is by far the primary meaning of those terms everywhere (e.g. the [[Croatian grammar]] is of standard idiom, not of any dialect). All those subliterary dialets will grow extinct within 1-2 generations (definitely by the end of this century), and there is little point in bothering with them. Most of their speeches are thoroughly Štokavianized now. Now, as far as the standard languages are concerned, from purely genetic viewpoint, they definitely represent a node becase they are all based on the same dialect (the Neoštokavian). Ethnologue does have occiasional blunders (you mentioned the figure of "4 million speakers of Bosnian", which was corrected only in the latest issue), but they got this right. Anyhow, I have no intention of edit-warring with Croatian nationalists. I see that Ex13 again reverted my change without any explanation [10]. His edit summary was "see talkpage", but he didn't write anything.. Another user expressed interest in the mediation if this issue, so when he gets back we'll continue with this scary bit of reality ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurately

• (hrvatski, Croatian pronunciation: [xř̩ʋaːtski]) = inaccurately, croatian language has no Cyrillic!
• Croatian language is a separate and independent of other language based on the three dialects western shtokavian, kajkaviyan and chakavian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.101.186 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That was not Cyrillic script but IPA transcription: /x/ = voiceless velar fricative --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to put a stop to this confusion. I have skimmed through the article and I can confirm that there are no Cyrillic characters in it anywhere. International Phonetic Alphabet is not the same thing as Cyrillic and somebody is getting incredibly upset about an entirely imagined problem. They need to calm down, stop insulting people, and understand what is really going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This language

thsi language is spoken in croatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.85.79 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The image official languages in Vojvodina

Vojvodina according to the 2002 census

The image of Vojvodina in this article is really bad. I didn't do the edit myself (it should be at least just removed for start).

The truth is that there are 6 official languages in entire Vojvodina (it's not divided by municipalities). These are: Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian, Rusyn and Croatian.

It would be the best to just use the census data as in this image... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.120.74 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your analysis is entirely correct (as far as I know there is such thing as "official language on municipal level", because you cannot expect all local administrations to handle documents in all 6 languages). However, I agree that the map is largely useless and not really important for the article, so I removed it. No such user (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Literary language

I'd like to comment the fragment of the article:

"Književni jezik (literraly:language of books) is a common phrase for any standard language.'

Although my knowledge of Croatian is very rudimentary, I believe that the literal English translation should be "literary language", as "književnost" is a Croatian word for "literature". Wie man wird, was man ist 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameal (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing it out. I removed the whole paragraph, because it's pretty meaningless. Every major language has a "literary language" and there's no point in defining the term. No such user (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That književni is not related to književnost (novels , poetry) that is hardly written in standard language. That is croatian equivalent of Norwegian bokmal or riksmal: the language used for official purposes (laws, verdicts etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.156.130 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Croat versus Croatian

In my opinion term Croatian language is inappropriate. Croatian pertains to the country, and Croat to the nation. Croatians can be Croats but also Serbs, Italians, Hungarians etc. Croat is spoken by Croats regardless of where they live, similarly German by Germans, English by the English and French by the French. Just like in England, France and Germany - the people gave the name to the country, not the other way round (as is the case with Italy or Hungary). Using Croatian language instead of Croat language to my mind smacks of cultural snobism. No one would ever say that they speak Englandian or Frenchian. All of the above goes for Serb - Serbian and Serbo-Croat. Vladbohm (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In English, it's Croatian and Serbian. The ambiguity exists for many languages: English, French, German, Russian, Japanese, etc. (The French can also be Serbs, Italians, Hungarians, etc.; in fact, their president is.) I notice you didn't change Bosnian - the same argument could be made there. kwami (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What would I change it to? Bosnian is the case in point as here the country gave name to the people. Ditto Macedonia - Macedonian, Hungary - Hungarian (but Magyars - Magyar). Would you say Slovakian or Slovak, Slovenian or Slovene? The Danish gave name to the country and the language, so did Finns, but Iceland gave the name to the people and the language - so we have Icelandic and Finnish :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladbohm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Slovakian and Slovenian, of course. Without the word "language",Slovak and Slovene can also be used, but the people aren't "Slovenes", they're "Slovenians". Thanks for pointing out the bad English at Slovak language; that needs to be moved. kwami (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)