Talk:Croatian language/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

the insistence that "Croatian" may only apply to the modern-day Croatian standard

The same issue came up at all three variant articles.

Why would it be "inaccurate" to say that the topic of this article, which is "Croatian language", has a history from pre-standard times, using the same immediately recognizable term, as opposed to the different term Serbo-Croatian? Is anyone honestly going to claim that it's wrong to say that the Croatians had a language that could be referred to as Croatian prior to the 19th century? Such a claim is blatantly tendentious as it is fairly orthogonal to the "regular" nomenclature issue - it implies that it was all made up at the time, which we know it wasn't.

Generally, it seems to me that this... variant bashing has gone too far. In all the actual reliable, scholarly sources that I've read, I've never found anything approaching the level of animosity towards the modern-day terms "Croatian" etc, as the level that seems to exist among some of the editors here. It looks like an irrational, knee-jerk reaction to nationalists, and, frankly, WP:NOTHERE. Two wrongs don't make a right. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the modern Croatian standard of Serbo-Croatian. Any kind of history must therefore discuss the history the Croatian standard, and of the Serbo-Croatian varieties before that. The name "history of pre-standard Croatian" implies that there was such a thing, but there wasn't; Croatian as a distinct entity didn't come into existence until the standard was created. Before that there was only Serbo-Croatian, which was referred to by various names including "Croatian", without distinction. Also, just to note, History of pre-standard Croatian is a redirect to Serbo-Croatian#Early development. CodeCat (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The subject of the article is the modern Croatian standard of Serbo-Croatian.
But why should that be the subject of the article? Do you have any arguments for why it ought to refer to a specific codification of the language spoken in Croatia rather than what it generally refers to - the Slavic languages/dialects spoken in Croatia? The article "Norwegian language" speaks of Norwegian prior to it being standardized as separate from Danish. No one seems to have any problems with that.
The name "history of pre-standard Croatian" implies that there was such a thing, but there wasn't
Of course there was such a thing. Even Wikipedia articles on the Agreement for the creation of Serbo-Croatian states clearly that the goal was to merge Croatian and Serbian. If there hadn't been conscious awareness and separate evolutions of speeches, there wouldn't have been a need to make a decision to begin the process of bringing them together to form two standard varieties that are close enough to be mutually intelligible. Nor would they have been referred to under different names.
Croatian as a distinct entity didn't come into existence until the standard was created
By that logic, Serbo-Croatian did not exist until 19th century and therefore there should be no mention of it anywhere until that moment. You seem somewhat confused as to what the name "Croatian" implies, though. It doesn't imply that there need to be separate standardizations of languages on each side, just like the dichotomy between Slovene and Croatian doesn't imply that there ought to be separate standards on each side of the border for us to use those terms when referring to speeches located there.
Before that there was only Serbo-Croatian
Was there? I mean, the term only came about during specific standardization attempts in 19th century. It never existed prior to that. And even in its usage in 19th century, it never referred to all Croatian speeches - only to the ones that were to be used for standard Serbo-Croatian. Does that mean that speeches that aren't used for Serbo-Croatian standard don't deserve any mention? 78.0.237.161 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try not to rehash what the anonymous user said (thanks for saving me the time). I should mention that I created that redirect, and the two others, because all three strands of pre-standardization history were moved to the Serbo-Croatian article without even leaving a reasonable link in the three articles. It was just bad form, much like this kind of insistence on how nothing of any relevance to the concept of Croatian existed before the 19th century. It's incoherent on the face of it, and really comes off as petty. It's also a trivial violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It is these discussions that make linguists pull out their hair over Wikipedia. There is one language here that we are talking about--completely intelligible between all varieties. The problem is that until the invention of the name "Serbo-Croatian", there wasn't a standardized name for that language, which could be called "non-Slovenian West South Slavic". Sadly, that name is incredibly awkward and not attested in any literature. Instead, users called this single language by whatever local ethnic label they happened to be using--entirely based on religion. Religion is hardly a means to delineate "languages" in the absence of any other actual linguistic differences of any consequence. Here in Wikipedia, after the expenditure of megabytes of bandwidth, the general consensus was reached to call this single language "Serbo-Croatian". It's a linguistic reality that didn't have a name, but needed one. But we have these occasional eruptions of nationalism and ethnic pride where individual users, invariably anonymous IPs, want to assert some kind of individual history to their local variety of Serbo-Croatian. It's like writing a history of English divided into three chapters--one on the variety of Essex, one on the variety of Suffolk, and one on the variety of Norfolk--with the restriction that none of the chapters can reference the others or any other variety of English, including that of London. It's linguistically empty and uninformative. --Taivo (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a linguistic reality that didn't have a name, but needed one.
Your side of the argument keeps using terms like "linguistic reality", or "linguistic fact", "scientific", etc. but you'll be hard-pressed to convince any linguist that there's a linguistic reality in putting Kajkavian with Serbian while putting Slovene as separate. If that's a linguistic reality, then you have no clue what you're talking about. It's a "reality" only in the sense that the sources referenced in this article use them. But that's where this reality ends. There is no scientific backing for Serbo-Croatian as being objective, or as being more descriptive of reality than Croatian and Serbian as separate.
It's fine to just say "hey, that's concensus" or "that's what the sources we use claim". But trying to disguise that as some sort of truth is what looks petty to any actual linguist.
Serbo-Croatian is as much of an ethnically and nationa(listica)lly defined term as any other. Trying to make it seem like it's the one and only possible true way of defining those speeches is utterly wrong and borderline offensive as you should know if you know anything about sociolinguistics.
Btw, why aren't you fighting for the scientifically objective classification of Scandinavian languages? There's even less objectivity in separating conservative Bokmal from Danish than there is in separating Montenegrin from Ijekavian Serbian. Yet for some reason the faces that appear on these talk pages fighting for scientific truth, never seem to fight for that same scientific truth in that case. Or is it that then you'd have to relativize the scientific truths or objectivity you espouse here? 78.0.237.161 (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The actual position of Kajkavian and Chakavian does not matter, because all the standard languages of Serbo-Croatian are based on a specific subdialect, Eastern Herzegovinian of Shtokavian. The linguistic reality is that there are only superficial differences between the three/four standards and that the dialectical differences between the speakers in the various ethnic groups are much larger. So because the differences within the ethnic communities are far larger than between them, there were no discernible coherent entities that could be called 'Croatian, 'Serbian' etc. before they were standardized. Serbo-Croatian is also used to refer to the language neutrally, without reference to history, politics, or ethnicity. --JorisvS (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it can apply only to the modern standard language. Before Vukovians standardize Serbo-Croatian on Neoštokavian the term Croatian was occasionally used a cover term (amongst many others, such as "Illyrian" and "Slavic", which were attested in contemporary writings much more frequently than Croatian) for various local speeches. Čakavian and Kajkavian literatures as well as pre-standardized Štokavian are only conditionally "Croatian", on the basis of retroactive history projection from an ethnocentric POV. Pre-1990s "Croatian" and "Serbian" (not to mention Bosnian/Montenegrin) are a result of historical fabrication by people who are paid by the government to write that kind of BS. Nationalist indoctrination is like a religion - cultic brainwashing that must be fought against. If we heeded your advice Joy this article would like like its equivalent on Croatian Wikipedia - 98% dealing with history (largely fabricated) and 2% with actual language. There wouldn't even be a footnote stating "for practical purposes, modern B/C/S/M are pretty much he same language", only "evidence" that since the time immemorial, Croat(ian)s have been uttering their own speech, distinct from Serb(ian)s. It's Wikipedia's goal to promote scientific truth and harsh reality, regardless of how it could hurt reader's feelings. For some the time has not come yet (e.g. various PC-related topics after a century of propaganda needed to maintain social cohesion), but fortunately the ego issues of Balkanites don't stir much emotions globally. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Čakavian and Kajkavian literatures as well as pre-standardized Štokavian are only conditionally "Croatian", on the basis of retroactive history projection from an ethnocentric POV.
As is the case with Norwegian. As is the case with Slovak. As is the case with Slovene. None of those had any ethnic elements in the parts of histories that are described as "theirs" in dedicafted articles. Freising Manuscript is described as Slovene. Everyone knows there was no such thing as Slovene and that it appeared even later than the ethnonym Croatian. The name "Slovak language" wasn't even mentioned until 19th century. Nor was there any identity prior to that. Yet the article on its history remains with anachronistic mentions of Slovak. Conservative Norwegian Bokmal cannot be distinguished from Danish by translation tools, yet it's somehow the scientific truth that it's a separate language from Danish. It must be tough to live with that kind of cognitive dissonance. 78.0.237.161 (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is still a difference for Slovak, for instance: These are based on rather distinct dialects, rather than on the same subdialect (as is the case with the Serbo-Croatian standards). Bokmål, however, is basically an adaptation of written Danish used by Norwegians. Moreover, whether a name existed or not is irrelevant, we could, in principle, call it whatever we like, but it would change the situation. --JorisvS (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of Slovak and Czech differences (they're somewhat smaller than Kajkavian and Štokavian). However, the different dialects aren't that "distinct" as you would have them be. To this day, Slovak TV still airs foreign international TV shows dubbed into Czech with no Slovak translation. But that was not my point. The point of me mentioning Slovak was the fact that Slovak had neither a separate identity nor was there consistent treatment of speeches that would encompass what is now deemed Slovak language (nor any single one of those speeches). It was a reply to Ivan implying that it's anachronistic to use the name Croatian for Kajkavian, Čakavian or Croatian Štokavian just because there was no consistent usage of the term "Croatian" for each of those or for all of them together. Neither was there such usage for Slovak, Slovene or a whole bunch of other speeches.
As for Bokmaal - given the way Serbo-Croatian is vehemently defended by some users here, I would expect that the infobox for Norwegian would have a much more precise taxonomy of the language/speech, one that includes Dano-Norwegian as a clade just above Norwegian. I also can't imagine all of you guys jumping at every edit where an IP removes "Dano-" being met with the same type of petty quasi-elitist behavior that's being thrown around here when people edit these pages. Instead, the accepted classification would apparently have Norwegian be a West North Germanic language. Of course, this is linguistically unsound but it gets to stay. Even though it's akin to having the Croatian language toolbox have it split from Serbian at the same time as Slovene (similarly linguistically unsound). These little things really cast bad light at the supposed "scientific" approach espoused by editors dealing with linguistics articles on WP. 78.0.237.161 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Norwegian is actually somewhat closer to Swedish, at least in its spoken form, than to Danish, which is reflected in the high mutual intelligibility between Norwegian and Swedish, but lower with Danish[1]. It does not matter whether at some point some people did or did not make some distinction, because insight into concepts can improve. Languages exist separately from ethnic identity, nor usage of terms. Czechs and Slovaks can often understand each other, not because of inherent intelligibility (even though that does exist to some degree), but because of passive bilingualism. However, in case of "Croatian" there is no 'improved insight', but simply motivated cognition. --JorisvS (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Norwegian is actually somewhat closer to Swedish
Yes, and even standard Croatian spoken by someone closer to Slovenia will also be phonologically closer to Slovene than to Serbian. That's irrelevant. The closeness of spoken variants doesn't determine the language's genetics. Norwegian is consistently considered as a part of what was once called Dano-Norwegian and is nowadays subsumed under Danish-Norwegian, Danish-Bokmal, or various other names. Look at a source that's consistently used for various other claims on the article on Norwegian language (Ethnologue) -- it states that Norwegian belongs to North Germanic > East Germanic > Danish-Swedish > Danish-Bokmal > Norwegian. Yet the nationalist gibberish over at the article calls it a West Scandinavian language with no established genetic relation to Danish other than the one before the split of North Germanic into East and West Norse. That's literally equivalent to Croatian having a toolbox that says that Croatian sprung up around 11th or 12th century when speeches split into Kaj/Cha/Shto/Slovene. I doubt that would be tolerated. It would be dealt swiftly by all these hammers of linguistic justice roaming BCS articles. But Norwegian, for some awkward reason, is given the benefit of the doubt.
Czechs and Slovaks can often understand each other, not because of inherent intelligibility (even though that does exist to some degree)
That is the understatement of the century. "Often", "exist to some degree". You're literally downplaying everything about their relation. Slovaks appear in Czech media untranslated, Czechs appear in Slovak media untranslated. Various online media sources exist that cater simultaneously to both communities, without offering parallel content in both varieties/languages/speeches. It is heavily implied that there's no need for adapting one's speech to the other to remain intelligible to the speaker of the other langugae/speech/variety.
It does not matter whether at some point some people did or did not make some distinction, because insight into concepts can improve.
Tell that to Ivan and others on here. I see you only replying to me.
Languages exist separately from ethnic identity, nor usage of terms.
Do they? Then you're at odds with much of what some of pro-SC people are saying in here. It is certainly not clear to me that languages exist separately from ethnic identity. Because people here keep telling me that the speech of a Kajkavian or Čakavian person is directly tied to their ethnic identity -- as Croats, they must indeed be speaking the perfectly scientifically defined Serbo-Croatian -- while a person two miles away from them, of Slovene ethnicity, must evidently be a speaker of Slovene. Even if the speeches of the latter two have evolved in viccinity and with shared features and innovations. Meanwhile historical linguists tells me that what was to become Slovene, Kajkavian, Western Štokavian, etc. separated about 800 years ago. How does all that go together? How does one apply the term Serbo-Croatian to the above without basing it purely on ethnicity? One doesn't.
You can go on and on and try to make sense of it all, but in the end it's quite clear that the standards applied to some languages are evidently not the same as the ones applied to other ones. If the same standards were applied to, say, Scandavian languages, all their articles would be wildly different. I know you probably even have a perfect answer to why BCS editors should be treated differently than Scandinavian editors.
With the time you consume roaming and watching over BCS, you could have improved the article on Norwegian into something that might be tolerable to a historical linguist. Instead, it's left to nationalists to decide the history or the taxonomy of said language. 78.0.237.161 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference with Norwegian, Slovenian etc. is that nobody disputes it. (Again, it's also lies because nations were invented in the 19th century, and pre-19th century Norwegian and Slovene are figments of someone's imagination. But this will be solved eventually in the timeline of decades once the notion of nation-states becomes obsolete). We cannot have imaginary "History of Croatian" that takes only Croatian POV into account, "History of Serbian" that takes only Serbian POV into account, and ditto for Bosniak/Bosnian and Montenegrin. All of these mutually conflicting with one another. It's OK for nationalist ethnopedias (Croatian/Serbian/Bosnian) which fabricate history anyhow, but this is English Wikipedia and all articles must have a single integrated non-conflicting POV. Which means if some Croatian linguists imagine history of Croatian to being with Baška Tablet we quote them as such, with the opinion of others balancing them out, an not present is as some kind of actual "truth". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Anon IP, WP:OTHERSTUFF. You seem to be ignorant of linguistic literature. Here are linguistic sources (not political ones) that separate Slovenian from the other West South Slavic language, which we call Serbo-Croatian:
  • David Dalby. The Linguasphere Register of the world's languages and speech communities (1999/2000, Observatoire Linguistique)
  • C.F. and F.M. Voegelin. Classification and Index of the World's Languages (1977, Elsevier)
  • Merritt Ruhlen. A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume 1: Classification (1991, Stanford)
  • Albrecht Klose. Sprachen der Welt (2nd edition, 2001, K.G. Saur)
  • Bernard Comrie. "Slavonic Languages," The World's Major Languages (1987, Oxford), pp. 322-328
  • Anatole V. Lyovin. An Introduction to the Languages of the World (1997, Oxford)
  • R.E. Asher and Christopher Moseley, ed. Atlas of the World's Languages (2nd edition, 2007, Routledge)
  • Bernard Comrie and Greville G. Corbett, ed. The Slavonic Languages (1993, Routledge)
  • Glottolog 2.3
I could keep going, but that should be sufficient to demonstrate that linguists treat Slovenian as separate from Serbo-Croatian, even after the purely political split between so-called "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian". --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be ignorant of linguistic literature. Here are linguistic sources (not political ones) that separate Slovenian from the other West South Slavic language, which we call Serbo-Croatian:
Taivo, the sources you provided talk about classification of modern standards. We are talking about presenting the history. It is very much established among historical linguists that there is no such thing as separate branch in Westh South Slavic -- one that's not Slovene and one that can be called Serbo-Croatian. There is no such thing as a shared innovation between Serbo-Croatian speeches that wouldn't be found in Slovene, or vice-versa. Given such an early split into roughly 4 (or maybe 5, depending on treatment of Štokavian as Western and Eastern Štokavian) communities, it is highly unlikely that treating "everything other than Slovene" as merely "Serbo-Croatian" can be deemed as historically correct or as scientific and as independent form ethnicity. Treatment of Serbo-Croatian as a compact, coherent and consistent group is almost identical to treating Norwegian as, well, Dano-Norwegian. But we don't do that. Even if sources tell us that we should. 78.0.237.161 (talk) 12:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You are quite wrong, Anon IP. And if you are so concerned about the historical information presented at the Scandinavian articles, then go there and build a consensus for your edits. It's not relevant here. If you had spent five minutes editing at Wikipedia, you'd know that each article or closely-related set of articles, has its own consensus. You're not convincing anyone with your politically/ethnically-based pseudo-linguistic arguments. Linguists recognize that there's always some influence between speech varieties at the boundaries. But linguistic divisions aren't based on being able to draw clear lines at the boundaries of a speech area, but at the core of speech areas. When comparing the core of the Slovenian speech area with the core of the Serbo-Croatian speech area, it's crystal clear that there is a language division going on. The question is whether the differences between Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian are greater than the differences between the varieties of Serbo-Croatian. The answer is, "Absolutely". There is a crystal clear difference between core Slovenian and core Serbo-Croatian and that difference is greater than the virtually non-existent differences between core Bosnian, core Serbian, and core Croatian. It is also greater than the differences between the true dialects of Serbo-Croatian--Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. Your argument is also fallacious in another respect. The dialects of Serbo-Croatian are not "Bosnian", "Serbian", and "Croatian", but Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. Kajkavian and Chakavian are no more "Croatian" than they are "Bosnian" or "Serbian". Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian varieties are subsumed under Shtokavian. Your nationalist agenda is crystal clear and it has nothing to do with honest linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
it's crystal clear that there is a language division going on.
Please do tell me where that line goes. I am to this day confused about how Gorski kotar Kajkavian is deemed a Serbo-Croatian speech even though it is genetically more closely related to Carniolian Slovene than Carniolian Slovene and Styrian Slovene are to each other.
Your argument is also fallacious in another respect.
Your reading skills are atrocious and you keep committing the straw man fallacy. You don't impress me with your big words nor accusations.
Kajkavian and Chakavian are no more "Croatian" than they are "Bosnian" or "Serbian".
Based on what? Please do tell how you've reached the conclusion that Kajkavian is equally Serbian as it is Croatian. Does that mean that Resian Slovene is no more Slovene than it is Bulgarian?
The question is whether the differences between Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian are greater than the differences between the varieties of Serbo-Croatian.
But they're not. There is no border between Slovene and Serbo-Croatian. The border is fictional and purely ethnic. There is no common isogloss of Slovene speeches separating it from Serbo-Croatian.
You have yet to explain why your imagined "core" of Serbo-Croatian ought to be the determinant factor as to what this article should be about.
It is still no clearer to me with everything that people have written here that this article should focus specifically on a standardized form of a very closely selected dialect even when the comparative linguistic articles coming out, from foreign linguists, use the term "Croatian" when referring to dialects in Croatia. 78.0.237.161 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is, nobody gives a shit about Gorski kotar Kajkavian. It's spoken by what - few thousand elderly and barely literate people. On border areas isoglosses partially overlap and create anomalies which invalidate every Stammbaum creation. For all practical purposes those can be ignored. This "core" Serbo-Croatian is a reality that covers 99.99% of practical usages. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think your opinion about whether someone gives shit about something or not, is in any way relevant to whether history of speeches spoken in that area ought to be included in an article about Croatian language. And that was merely a borderline example to Taivo's ridiculous assertion of clear borders between Slovene and Croatian. They're not clear.
For all practical purposes those can be ignored.
You don't get to decide whether something can be included or not.93.141.6.93 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's not my opinion it's fact. Gorski kotar Kajkavian is an obscure topic barely existent on the Internet and shouldn't be dealt with in this article in any form. Fringe opinions and arguments are irrelevant. Perhaps a separate article on e.g. linguistic legitimacy of Serbo-Croatian, but that would anyhow turn more into bashing of ludicrous interpretations by Croatian linguists who turn to imagined history to uphold their "arguments", rather than what you'd like it to be. Differences between standard Croatian and standard Slovenian are clear cut and you can find them in the books. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@IP There is no such thing as a shared innovation between Serbo-Croatian speeches that wouldn't be found in Slovene, or vice-versa. - There is no such thing as "Serbo-Croatian speeches". Serbo-Croatian = Neoštokavian, the basis for modern standard B/C/S/M, and it has plenty of shared innovation not found in Slovenian. Those non-standard dialects are on the brink of extinction today, they have zero native literature, and are used only by peasants on the outskirts. They survive in terms of folk songs sang at local festivals and are largely unintelligible to the majority of speakers. They'll die out within 1-2 generations which will render your whole point moot. You want to integrate the pre-19th century history of Čakavian, Štokavian and Kajkavian literatures as some kind of unique "History of Croatian" but the problem is that Štokavian developments cannot be separated from Štokavian literatures of other Štokavian-speaking nations. It's fabricated history that never existed as such. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This has officially turned into a gold mine. Taivo says Kajkavian can be Serbian or Bosnian. You say Kajkavian and Chakavian are not even Serbo-Croatian.
You want to integrate the pre-19th century history of Čakavian, Štokavian and Kajkavian literatures as some kind of unique "History of Croatian"
I would like you to quote where I said that. I've been continuously criticizing the idea that this article must be dedicated exclusively to standardized Croatian, which I believe, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is far from how the term "Croatian language" is used both in the general public as well as in linguistic literature. Standard Croatian is one thing. Croatian language is another thing. I don't care if there's an overlap with Serbian, that doesn't warrant the denigrating attitude you're displaying here towards speeches you have historically shown to have a distaste for, nor does it warrant the type of behavior among other editors here.
Those non-standard dialects are on the brink of extinction today
Not an argument for exclusion.
they have zero native literature
Demonstrably false. They're not dominant, but they certainly have literature.
and are used only by peasants on the outskirts
Diglossia is prevalent. If you feel like you can base the notability of speeches on your own exposure to them, then that says more about you than about the speeches themselves.
It's fabricated history that never existed as such.
You speak of "it", but it is not clear to me that I've ever mention the "it" that you're speaking of. Clarify. 93.141.6.93 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem with trying to let this article be about something else than Standard Croatian is that there is nothing to tell about non-Standard Croatian, i.e. all Serbo-Croatian varieties as spoken by ethnic Croats, that should not already have been covered in the dedicated articles on the relevant topic, such as Chakavian dialect. This is because there is really no such thing as a "Croatian language" aside from Standard Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
The reading skills of the anon IPs here are nearly zero obviously. I never said that there was a clear border between Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian. I clearly said that there are border regions with influence from both sides. You simply failed to actually read my comment. You also are clearly ignorant of the relationship between Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. Since "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" are all simply Shtokavian varieties, then the other two dialects are equally related to all three of these Shtokavian varieties. The nationalistic, non-linguistic usage of "Croatian" to include all the dialects spoken in the country of Croatia is utterly ridiculous. It makes "Croatian" synonymous with "Serbo-Croatian", thus including both "Bosnian" and "Serbian" in its extent. But since our anon IPs here don't care about linguistic facts and only about their political agenda, their arguments are entirely specious. --Taivo (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
You also are clearly ignorant of the relationship between Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian.
Taivo, you're free to list all the common innovations of Kajkavian, Chakavian and Štokavian that didn't happen in Slovene. But your claim about Kajkavian being "equally Serbian" says enough about what you know. You have interest in politics, but have no knowledge of comparative linguists of Western South Slavic. I also expect you to reply to Ivan. After all, he was clearly going against your opinion when he said that Kajkavian and Chakavian are not even Serbo-Croatian.
non-linguistic usage of "Croatian" to include all the dialects spoken in the country of Croatia is utterly ridiculous.
As I've said before, you're free to tell me all those clear differences between Kajkavian and Chakavian on the one hand and Slovene on the other. I will be thoroughly impressed if you come up with anything except "they're located in Croatia and spoken only by Croats". And I'm not the only one, so will a whole array of linguists who have come to the conclusion that there is no border between them.
Or you can just continue doing what you always do, commit straw man fallacies and claim that the other person is a nationalist for disagreeing with you. After all, politics is what you're most interested in.93.138.183.13 (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@IP "I don't care if there's an overlap with Serbian" - This is a common argument by Croatian nationalists which has been debunked on numerous occasions in the literature (I recommend Snježana Kordić's latest book for a thorough analysis). In other words, it's sticking fingers into your ears, shouting "We don't care what language Serbians and Bosnians and Montenegrins use, we're Croatians we use Croatian, la-la-la." Well, the rest of the world does care :-P You are observable entities in the universe for others to study, and others are not bound by laws of nature to conform to your ingrained POVs, whether you're aware of them or not. I'm telling you again - it's impossible to separate Štokavian literatures by ethnicity or religion of their speakers, since it's fundamentally the same language on a continuous geographical area. It's also impossible to construct a singular history of some Croatian language encompassing exclusively dialects of Ča, Kaj and Što spoken by Croatians. What is possible is however to present a POV of the latter point as held by Croatian literature historians and linguists, but in a neutral fashion. Which you are of course welcome to do. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate why the article under the name Croatian language can only refer to the modern standard Croatian language. So far, all you've done is doing straw man fallacies and have been attributing views to me that I haven't expressed in here.93.141.6.93 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, we have: There is no other possible coherent grouping of speech varieties than can rightly be called "Croatian", except for Standard Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Then you're in disagreement with a whole bunch of international linguists (I'm discarding all linguists with a Slavic surname) who call Kajkavian and Čakavian Croatian dialects, rather than Serbo-Croatian dialects.
than can rightly be called "Croatian"
What properties of a speech would make it so that it can be referred to (rightly!) as Croatian? 93.138.183.13 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, sociolinguistically, they are Croatian in that they are spoken by ethnic Croats. However, linguistically there is nothing "Croatian" about them, because no coherent grouping with Standard Croatian can be made. Articles about speech varieties deal with linguistics and so cannot properly refer to these as "Croatian", except that these dialects are often imprecisely called Croatian because they're spoken by ethnic Croats. The sociolinguistic situation can be described in the relevant articles (it is to a reasonable extent), but sociolinguistics cannot overrule a very clear linguistic situation. --JorisvS (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I initially posted this above, but then noticed that there's walls of unrelated text inbetween. Let's put it here now. In response to Taivo - none of what you've written explains why you may think that using the phrase history of pre-standard Croatian would be "linguistically empty" or "uninformative". It unambiguously refers to the article where the redirect is pointing to, and it clearly correlates this title with that title. What reader reading this phrase would click on that and then end up saying - "wait, I went to history of pre-standard Croatian but I ended up at the early development of Serbo-Croatian, how can this be?" --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Because "history of pre-standard Croatian" is exactly that: the early development of Serbo-Croatian. That there are readers who will be confused is because there are readers who misguidedly believe there is such a thing as a "Croatian language" separate from the rest of Serbo-Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
That's funny. You're trying to cater to readers who believe in the every-variant-is-a-wholly-separate-language theory? They must not be confused by being presented more information, yet you assume that they're already confused (misguided)? How do we unconfuse them other than presenting them information? Do you realize how incoherent this sounds? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Joy, I'll try to clarify where I'm coming from. In a discussion of this length, simplicity is always the first casualty.
  • West South Slavic consists of two languages--Slovenian and the "other one" (which has been described with a variety of names over the last few centuries)
  • For simplicity's sake, Wikipedia editors (following the majority of linguists) have settled on using "Serbo-Croatian" as the name for that non-Slovenian West South Slavic language--regardless of which time period is under discussion
  • Since the breakup of Yugoslavia, each of the newly-independent republics has wanted to call that "other language" by its own ethnic/national name--Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian
  • Prior to the coining of the linguistic term "Serbo-Croatian" for the "other language", linguistic descriptions of that language were labelled by the ethnic label of the author--Bosnian, Croatian, or Serbian--but they all describe the very same language. Documentary evidence was also labelled according to the provenance of the document, not according to the linguistic reality of a single language spoken by three different religious groups.
  • Serbo-Croatian has three consituent dialects--Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Shtokavian. Chakavian and Kajkavian are spoken within the borders of modern Croatia. Shtokavian is spoken in Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia, and is the basis of the three standard varieties of Serbo-Croatian--Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian.
  • Because Chakavian and Kajkavian are spoken within the borders of Croatia, Croatian nationalists often (as here) want to include these separate dialects within the label "Croatian", although there is no linguistic basis for that.
So because of the confusion wrought by Croatian nationalists--"Croatian" as the Shtokavian national standard language or "Croatian" as all three dialects of Serbo-Croatian spoken within the country of Croatia--it is best that Wikipedia separate the two meanings of "Croatian" to avoid the confusion. That means that pre-standardization history must be "Serbo-Croatian" to include all dialects in the proper linguistic umbrella term. --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
But you're still essentially arguing a straw man - I have not raised this point of objection to the fact that the pre-standardization history is collected at Serbo-Croatian. We're well past that point, that change has been done months ago. (It's been done as part of a somewhat larger set of changes that were done very sloppily and I have previously complained about that, but that was that, I fixed it up and moved on.) I'm instead objecting to the reverts that prevent references to the pre-standardization history from Croatian to be labeled Croatian. That history is not any less Croatian simply because it's grouped with more than Croatian. Likewise for the others. Forcing all three link titles to use a new label as opposed to the label eponymous to this article doesn't seem to have an apparent benefit to the readers, and it gives a clear impression that you're using the encyclopedia to prescribe rather than to describe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
So what's Croatian about it? --JorisvS (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The point, Joy, is that before standard Croatian in the last decade of the 20th century, there was no language that could be identified as "Croatian" that wasn't also "Serbo-Croatian" (in the sense of non-Slovenian West South Slavic). We could have articles on the history of Kajkavian, on the history of Chakavian, and on the history of Shtokavian, but none of these are "Croatian". Only "Serbo-Croatian" subsumes all the elements into one language article. If what you're actually asking is that we have a link here to "History of Croatian" that redirects to "History of Serbo-Croatian" then that seems to be a violation of Wikipedia's preference for links to actual article titles and not to redirects. In any event, this article--Croatian language--must, logically, be about the standard language, not about what nationalists insist on calling "Croatian", which includes all the Serbo-Croatian dialects found within the borders of modern Croatia. Otherwise, we end up with two identical articles on the same cluster of dialects that comprise non-Slovenian West South Slavic--"Serbo-Croatian" and "Croatian". In order to prevent that patently ridiculous situation, we have standard Croatian only here and the language as a whole at Serbo-Croatian. As such, the "History of Croatian" in this sense consists solely of the standardization of the language after the collapse of Yugoslavia. --Taivo (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
So if we have an article about Kajkavian dialect, why on earth would it be wrong to create a redirect History of Kajkavian and use it from that article, just because e.g. there's someone somewhere who could misread this according to your personal criteria? Don't you see how ridiculously rigid this sounds? It's a trivially valid descriptive title that is appropriate in this context and also a decent search term. All this would be a fun academic discussion if JorisvS wasn't also making these borderline insulting statements - what could possibly be "Croatian" about a language "Croats" have spoken? Are you just trolling me? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
They absolutely troll you -- this article has been hijacked long ago by linguist extremists that have turned it into a highly biased and thus worthless text. I cannot help but notice the irony that a native speaker of a German dialect-turned-proper-language goes out of his way to negate Croat being "Croat" ... would be funny if it wasn't so sad. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Your comparison with Kajkavian is flawed, because a distinct, coherent entity that can rightly be called "Kajkavian" can be traced back for many, many centuries. This is not the case with "Croatian": The only coherent entity that can be called "Croatian" is Standard Croatian, and so any "History of Croatian" can reach only back to the first actions that led to the modern standard language. Going back any further and using "Croatian" would actually not be neutrally descriptive. I do not deny that "Croatian language" is also used in another sense (all Serbo-Croatian as spoken by Croats), but that sense is not a coherent entity. Where do you see anything 'borderline insulting' in what I've said? --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
And, Joy, you are borderline not assuming good faith when you start to talk about my comments as trolling. JorisvS is quite right. There was no such thing as "Croatian" prior to the collapse of Yugoslavia and the artificial division of Serbo-Croatian into three "languages". So calling something "Croatian" that was never Croatian is not encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This is, well, preposterous. You two are apparently unable to discern a trivial, typical use of the phrase "Croatian language" from whatever nationalist talking point you want to be battling today. Yes, there was a Croatian language prior to 19th century, because had there not been one, there wouldn't have been anything to standardize as such. Taivo, sorry for the accidental conflation of comments, I only meant to refer to JorisvS' off-the-cuff remark as apparent trolling. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If you'd actually read what I write, Joy, then you'd see that I discern that use quite well from the linguistically proper one. I, however, disagree quite strongly with considering that second use "trivial". In fact, it is what confuses people. --JorisvS (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Joy what could possibly be "Croatian" about a language "Croats" have spoken? Are you just trolling me - the problem is that the same language is spoken by other peoples as well, plus at the time it was spoken the "Croats" as such didn't exist yet. Your view is myopic and ethnocentric. As I said, you can't just stick fingers into your ears and shout "la la la I don't care about others". All POVs need to be present and balanced. We need to separate 1) linguistic history which is shared and identical 2) cultural history which is both shared and convergent/divergent, or separate depending on the POV and the regime (according to which POV changes). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I'm flabbergasted. Merrily saying that the Croats as such didn't exist in the 19th century, and using that as an excuse to deny a trivial historical categorization in the present day, is a fringe talking point employed by nationalists and anti-nationalists alike, to the utter confusion of the overwhelming majority of our readers in addition to mainstream science. Yes, nations are are a fuzzy concept that arose during the time, but making these kinds of junk claims today is really just a faux pas. I don't suppose you would ever try to go and say these kinds of things with regard to e.g. pre-unification Germans or Italians, so it is rather insulting that you would do so here. If you care to know what modern mainstream science has to say about the topic, have a look at the conclusions of John V. A. Fine, Jr.'s When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans (2006), or Alex Bellamy's The Formation of Croatian National Identity (2003), where you can read how authors who are anything but fervent Croatian nationalists make sober conclusions that preclude your kind of hyperbole. With regard to early history, of particular note are numerous references to earlier conclusions - meaning this is not novel ground. We're not supposed to be rehashing this in 2014. It's a waste of volunteer time and effort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Nobody here has ever said Croats didn't exist in the 19th century. What has been said is that no Croatian language existed. CodeCat (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
CodeCat is exactly right, Joy. No one is saying that there was no Croatian ethnicity prior to the 20th century. We are pointing out that there was no separate linguistic entity that can be called "Croatian" prior to the trivial differences in national standards between Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian that exist today. There was (and still is) one, and only one, linguistic entity that comprises the linguistic forms today known as "Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian" as varieties of the Shtokavian dialect of non-Slovenian West South Slavic. Together with the Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects (which are not "Croatian"), Shtokavian is part of a single language that in Wikipedia is known as "Serbo-Croatian", since there is no common name for this single language prior to the middle of the 19th century. You continue to confuse your ethnic POV pushing with linguistic realities. Ethnic labels and linguistic labels, which are often coterminous, are not the same in the case of the non-Slovenian West South Slavic language. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry for the late reply, didn't notice it before.) If any of you actually went and reviewed the literature I've pointed to above, you'd see that there actually exists a legitimate scientific discussion regarding the scope and extent of people being "Croatian" prior to the romantic nationalism of the 19th century, and it's intricately linked to the idea of what kind of a language those people spoke, how they called it, and how others called it. And yet regardless of that, none of it precludes these modern-day reliable sources from discussing it as "Croatian" - the common, simple relevant adjective. I've never seen in other reliable sources, linguistic or historic, that anyone would be claiming it was explicitly impossible to refer to these linguistic entities using the same adjective. Your claim that I am engaging in "ethnic POV pushing" is baseless and frankly rather insulting. It just continues to contribute to my original impression that the whole nationalist kerfuffle has produced an excess of 'variant-bashing', and neither of those is appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm arriving a little bit late to this discussion and while the above is a severe case of TLDR, but I feel the initial CodeCat's argument seems easy to contest (even rebut) on several points:

  1. It has been asserted that a language does not exist before it's standardized. This seems very peculiar to me, and I'd like to see sources which support this claim as a mainstream view in linguistics.
  2. If the said claim is true, then Serbo-Croatian did not exist either before it was standardized. (And some would argue that it was never fully standardized.)
  3. Moreover, if the said claim is true, then, before the first language was standardized, no languages existed at all.

The above discussion seems wrongheaded almost in its entirety - we should discuss sources and their relevance to the article, and not rehash our personal views. GregorB (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Claim 1 is quite wrong. Languages exist independent of whether they are standardized. There are thousands of unstandardized languages spoken by only small speech communities and new ones are still being discovered. In the case of "Croatian", saying "Croatian language" is rather confusing, because what ethnic Croats speak is the same language as what ethnic Serbs, ethnic Bosniaks, and ethnic Montenegrins speak. This language is called Serbo-Croatian. Croatia's standardized form of Serbo-Croatian can be more accurately referred to as Standard Croatian. Because Croats have no language separate from that of those other ethnic groups, there is only Croatia's standardized form of Serbo-Croatian. This is why, in turn, it can be asserted that there was no "Croatian language" before standardization, which becomes a tautology if you replace "Croatian language" with the more accurate term "Standard Croatian". --JorisvS (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm now actually doing what I've criticized moments ago, but here it is anyway: are modern-day standard Croatian and, say, Serbian, different simply by chance or by deliberate design, or are they different because this reflects the fact that Croats and Serbs did not speak exactly the same language before the standardization?
If the latter is true - and I'd say that it is - then why these little differences matter now so that we call these languages separate, while more or less the same magnitude of differences did not matter 200 or so years ago, and we had Serbo-Croatian exclusively back then? GregorB (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
All standardized forms of Serbo-Croatian are based on the same subdialect: Eastern Herzegovinian of Neo-Shtokavian. The differences are unsubstantial—comparable to those between British and American English. These standard forms have been called separate languages in an attempt to create some kind of perceived legitimacy for the existence of separate nation states. Moreover, it is rather easy to pick up on a one-nation–one language correspondence, especially for the layman. The differences that do exist do not amount to anything that comes close to separate languages, which is why the language was called Serbo-Croatian then and up to the present by those who understand the situation, which includes Wikipedia. --JorisvS (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The differences are not really comparable to BE/AE - they are significantly larger, but that they are fairly small is not disputed. (I suppose they are smaller than differences between Czech and Slovakian - I don't know enough about the two.) Also, the mere existence of political motives to create separate languages does not really prove anything.
Anyway, recently I found about the Britannica article on Serbo-Croatian, and here are some interesting quotes:[2]
  • "Serbo-Croatian language, term of convenience used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups (such as Montenegrins and Bosniaks, as Muslim Bosnians are known)." [emphasis mine]
  • "These forms of speech have often been termed “a language,” but they are also seen as separate languages: Serbian, Croatian, and in recent years also Bosnian and Montenegrin. Neither view is completely right or wrong; the concept “language” has multiple definitions, and the status of Serbo-Croatian will depend on the definition one adopts."
  • "Accordingly, some argue, they are speaking one Serbo-Croatian language. But when writing, one cannot follow Serbian and Croatian, or Montenegrin and Bosnian, language standards simultaneously, so in practice no joint Serbo-Croatian standard exists."
All reasonably valid points, I'd say. GregorB (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The differences are far small than those between Czech and Slovak or Macedonian and Bulgarian. "Term of convenience": sure, there is no other term for the language than "Serbo-Croatian", except for very clumsy paraphrases. It says nothing about the validity of the unity of the language, though. "Languages" in English: mutually (partially) unintelligible speech varieties. "No joint standard exists": Certainly. --JorisvS (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
But when writing, one cannot follow Serbian and Croatian, or Montenegrin and Bosnian, language standards simultaneously, so in practice no joint Serbo-Croatian standard exists - In writing, there is no single standard for English, German, Spanish etc., basically for any other pluricentric language which actualizes in a concrete regional variant when a person uses it. In fact, Serbian itself has two official and equally valid variants, Ijekavian and Ekavian, and you can only write in on of the two in a single text, and nobody claims that these two are different languages (and they deserve to be called so much more than bs/hr/sr because jat reflex is an actual phonological difference, whereas differences among Ijekavian bs/hr/sr standards are pretty much entirely lexical which is irrelevant from language equivalence point of view). Anyway you turn it around GregorB, the formula "Croatia=Ča+Kaj+Što since 10 century" just doesn't compute. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Gregor see Comparison with other pluricentric languages--Darigon Jr. (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
But it is possible to create a meaningful Serbo-Croatian dictionary? I don't think so. Same with Croatian (for the secondary meaning of this word): one cannot create a dictionary that would encompass shtokavian, chakavian and kajkavian - this would indeed be a centaur-like dictionary. Not true for English, though. GregorB (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Wiktionary proves you quite wrong on that. CodeCat (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Here you go: [3]. It has both Ijekavian and Ekavian forms, both typically Serbian and typically Croatian words :) Akademijin rječnik was being published for 110 years (in 97 volumes, ~400k words, all Ijekavian(ized)), and it's based on the pre-1900 SC corpus alone (no Ča or Kaj words though). Your q could be rephrased as "Is it possible to create a meaningful English dictionary" ? Yes, like typical international editions, where you have e.g. typical regional (e.g. British, American, Australian..) words and spellings marked as such, to give equal treatment to all varieties and to ease the learning since students are usually not focused on one specific variant of English (though it is usually the case with American as the most prestigious one). But this is all getting too off-topic... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose it is possible to create a Serbo-Croatian dictionary after all, one only needs to assume that e.g. mrkva and šargarepa are interchangeable synonyms. GregorB (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said - lexical differences are irrelevant. The thesis that there should be a single word for a single concept in one language is purely a result of imagination by the misinformed. Every pluricentric language dictionary marks regional varieties with appropriate labels. BTW, mrkva is used in Serbia as well (shared Slavic vocabulary). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: When a Croatian linguist can't tell whether another person is speaking "Croatian" or "Serbian", it's hard to argue that they're different languages. It's like arguing Urdu and "Hindi" are different languages beyond the ethnic standardizations. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Urdu and Hindi are much more different between themselves than the 2 standards of Serbo-Croatian, referred as "Serbian" and "Croatian". "Serbian" and "Croatian" are only 2 names for ONE language. Thanks Ivan Stambuk for your noble, brave and rewarding work to present the truth. Please keep up with your GOOD deed. May all your enemies, who consist of brainless nationalistic scum get totally liquidated and may the truth that comes from sane and normal people like you rule these pages of Wikipedia forever. Greetings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.125.34 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that people writing comments here have very little understanding of linguistics, let alone any knowledge whatsoever. For example, a few had said that chakavian and kajkavian are "spoken within Croatian borders", suggesting these two dialects (my comments in the distant past, saying that these two are DIALECTS of Serbo-Croatian, used to be deleted asap. Funny how times change.) are exclusive to Croatia. That is actually not only not truth, it is a blatant lie. Slovenian is kajkavian as well, and very much just about identical to kajkavian spoken in Croatia. Chakavian is also spoken in parts of Montenegro along the coast, as is ikavian (funny how you "linguists" never speak of that "dialect"), which is spoken in Montenegrin inland, as well as in Istria and Dalmatia, in Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.188.178 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Slovenian depends on your definition of "Kajkavian". If you define it as any Slavic speech variety that uses "kaj" for "what", then yes, it does. But that is a rather simplistic definition, especially given the large dialectal diversity in the northwestern part of South Slavic. Chakavian indeed seems to be spoken in small enclaves in Montenegro, but how is that relevant? --JorisvS (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I also remember receiving a lot of insults from Stambuk, some years ago, for saying a lot more moderate things about this subject than the things s/he is saying today. Back in the day Stambuk was a pro/croatian proselytizer, and was readily attacking as "Serbian", "Srboslav", "Yugochetnik" etc. anyone who dared to question "authenticity" of "croatian language". Funny indeed how things have changed around here.

However, little has changed in terms of professionalism and objectivity. A lot of people are still pushing their nationalist themes about "standardised" "croatian", "croatian" being a "different" language, and all that nonsense. The debate still rages, shoving only that croatian nationalists although getting older are still trying to convince the world that they speak "their own unique language". The problem here is the people who do oppose them and resist these nationalistic spills. Their response is, and quite often, just as naive and ignorant. Just different in the value of their prefix. wikipedia is a failed, and a disastrous one at that, experiment that has no future for as long as it continues to delude itself that it is an "open encyclopedia", when Yugoslav "languages" prove the need to have it well locked and protected from "vandalism" (otherwise the "freedom" wikipedia claims to offer to people "redacting" it). it shows patently that amateurs have no business in writing scientific texts. For the only thing such a "free encyclopedia" creates is more ignorance. And it promotes nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.188.178 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this debate has seen a lot of ad hominem attacks instead of keeping to the content. If you have something substantive to offer to this debate, that would be good. --JorisvS (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Croatian and Serbian are two different languages. Also Croatian is one of the offical languages of EU, not Serbo-Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelen-oko (talk • contribs) 00:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Languages are not defined by their official status, but by their structure. Croatian and Serbian are structurally nearly identical and therefore part of the same language (which is called "Serbo-Croatian"). --JorisvS (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a note - as Jorvis, Taivo, myself, and many others understand this - someone without professional linguistic or historical training may not - when we say "nearly identical" - that means 99.6% or more. You can drop a Serb into "homeland Croatia" and the Serb will be able to ask and get directions to the nearest train home without raising a Croat eyebrow, as far as his language goes. There are always some topical words that exist in one dialect that don't exist in another - for example, Californians and other hipsters like to say "Word" after hearing something for that (they feel) is the "truth." That's how languages mutate over time - a noun has taken on other properties via slang usage. But Serbo-Croatian is virtually identical from Zagreb to Belgrade - much closer than some hick from the hills of Arkansas speaking English to a New Yorker in America. 104.169.26.177 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid

Serbo-Croatian is a hybrid language and Croatian is not a variety of a hybrid language. Croatian is an official language in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegowina and indenpendent language (ISO 639-3: hrv). Serbo-Croatian never was a standard language, whereas Croaian is. Sorces:

Sorry, but non-scientific, non-linguist nationalist websites are not Reliable Sources. The linguistic science stands. Please re-read the note at the top of this Talk Page - that won't be changed. 74.37.202.6 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
You're talking about wrong Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian that was an attempt at creating a hybrid language is something else and AFAIK is not within the scope of this article. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not true! It's not something else. It's the same quasi liguistic political junk started in former Yugoslavia by the Serbian radicals hidden within Yugo-communist party in their attempt to erase Croatian identity and culture. At the moment it's propagated by bunch of the Yugo-centric zombies who still dream about "Yugoslav nation". Croatian language was always Croatian language and nothing else. Serbian language has changed by time, developing from something unoffical closer to Bulgarian to something offical closer to Croatian. If Serbs want to call their language Serbo-Croatian, no problem. It has nothing to do with Croatian. Otherwise, English spoken and written in England should be named Aboriginal English since the Australian Aborigins use English too. 85.114.52.106 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, like the turning of the seasons, ill-trained and unscientific Croatian nationalists come to declare in all their zeal that God spoke Croatian from the moment of Creation and that it is a language like no other, unlike the barbaric (but virtually identical) tongue that the Serbian objects of their hatred speak. --Taivo (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is something else. You need to actually read the article Serbo-Croatian.
It's quite bold of you to call us 'zombies' when you don't even realize (or consciously deny) that Standard Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are based on exactly the same Eastern Herzegovinian dialect and the mutual intelligibility among them is extremely high. Projecting much? The last sentence of your post is very strange - English spoken and written in England is just as valid a variety of English as Australian Aboriginal English. They're the same language, just as Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are. How you call them is irrelevant to the fact that they are the same thing. When you call Mars jiosdau92309823 it's still Mars, not Jupiter or Saturn. Mr KEBAB (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Official status

I have explained my edit. Does TaivoLinguist care to explain why he disagrees it? Surtsicna (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

On Balkan pages, when changing a long-standing consensus wording, you must do more than post an edit summary. I see no evidence for your apparently fundamental change. But even with references (which I'm sure you have), equating a single region of Serbia to the list of nations and national groups seems awkward without further clarification. Is Croatian not a recognized minority language of Serbia as a whole? --Taivo (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think I need anyone's prior blessing unless there is a note saying that the wording was agreed upon on the talk page. Where is this agreement? The single region of Serbia can be equated to the nations on the basis that Croatian is official in that region as well as in those nations, which is what the sentence is about. Croatian is not an official language in all of Serbia but only in Vojvodina. Besides, we currently name Croatian as "one of the official languages of the European Union" in one sentence and as "one of the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina" in the following sentence. It sounds odd and redundant. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Being an official language of Bosnia and Hercegovina is a different thing than being one of the European Union's official languages. They are different lists. One is not automatically the other. Is Croatian an official minority language of Serbia or not? And per WP:BRD, you do "need permission" to add something if another editor objects for whatever reason. The articles on topics in the Balkans are highly contentious on many levels and many things have been discussed over and over again. It is always best to be cautious when editing in one of these articles and when your edit is objected to, then it's always best to not take offense, but to go straight the Talk Page and make your case before trying to force your edit through. Status quo on Balkans articles should always be treated with respect unless you have a good case to make and the Talk Page is the place to make your case if your edit is initially reverted. --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Croatian_language/Archive_12&oldid=880071279"