Talk:Serbo-Croatian/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

There is no such language as Serbo-Croatian, there is Serbian and Croatian. As a Croatiab, who speaks reads abd writes her native tongue, I can also read and write Czech and Slovak, yet there is neither a Czechoslovakian language nor a hybrid Slovak-Croat. It is not only offensive but is incorrect as well as being a "left over' of the former Yugoslav regime that attempted cultural and linguistic genocide on Croats & is also a term used ONLY by those who committed War Crimes, or those who continue to support the regime that committed War Crimes, against Native Croats. A person can be of Croat and Serb heritage just as they can be of French and Spanish heritage But if the person of French-Spanish heritage is not described as being, or speaking Franko-Spanish, so neither can a Serbian, or Croatian, or part there of, speak a non existent language. Please repect the individual cultures as well as those who fought and died for the right to speak Croatian in Croatia, and stop using this term. If se does not wish to be either Serb or Croat, they can call themselves Yugoslav, but they cannot speak Serbo-Croat. VisnjaCreates (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Cannolis (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

?? There's no 'consensus' to be reached, Cannolis. This is a matter of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of this Talk Page so that further nonsense can be avoided. Thank you. 50.111.60.40 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste much time on wiki "linguists". My recommendation- educate yourself better on the issues of serbocroatist ideology (which is the basis of this wiki article & which is presented in this review in Croatian: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/99198). Two videos in English & one in Croatian would suffice: Croatian - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDb0YPidPU; English- pt.1.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-2eM9S6i8, English - pt. 2 (especially after 1:05:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rhPZryNp-M Mir Harven (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to understand that this article isn't about politics, but about the actual scientific existence of a pluricentric language (which you don't seem to know anything about other than politics), then reading political or nationalistic statements is pointless. Linguists know the facts about this issue from a purely linguistic point-of-view (which is the only one that matters in this article). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said earlier- you're clueless. This "science" you are addressing simply doesn't exist. To put it shortly- these are theoretical models, not verifiable, and the question whether two or more forms of languages are varieties of a poly- or pluricentric language, or different languages is not a linguistic question at all. This is evident from how the sociolinguistic models evolved in the past 70 or more years. In sum, modern opinion is that English, French, German...are pluricentric languages, while Hindi and Urdu are different languages & not varieties of a pluricentric language due to different cultures & historical-cultural-identity communities they're communication tool of. This article on "Serbo-Croatian" is a completely unscientific garbage, pure serbocroatist political pamphlet & nothing more, containing lies & silly claims (that Bartol Kašić was writing in "S-C", that some "language" had appeared in 1850; that some phantom "S-C" contains-we are supposed to believe, works of Marin Držić, Ivan Gundulić, Dositej Obradović, Miloš Crnjanski or Miroslav Krleža). It will go down in history when serbocroatist pro-Yugoslav retrograde forces finally are kicked to the curb. Mir Harven (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no point to talking to someone like you who doesn't know what they're talking about or anything about linguistics as a science. You are the equivalent of a "flat earther" when it comes to linguistics, so there's no point to replying to you further. I'm sure you are knowledgeable about some fields, but linguistics isn't one of them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Did the arbitration committee rule on Harven yet? If so, a mention of it should be made here on the TP to avoid further trolling. He was added to Problem Users as early as 2003, and has been blocked several times for edit-warring. -HammerFilmFan 50.111.60.40 (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Croatian dialects missing in the infobox

Croatian dialects of kajkavian and ćakavian are missing in the infobox. Since the page is semiprotected, I can't edit it (despite my account having more than 10 edits), so please, someone who can, add these two dialects. --User:Bulbasaur777Eevee — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I think Kajkavian and Chakavian are generally regarded as separate regiolects or micro-languages due to their (somewhat) low mutual intelligibility with Shtokavian, as their Wikipedia articles suggest. -Vipz (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The Economist

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/04/10/is-serbo-croatian-a-language

"SOME 17m people in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro speak variations of what used to be called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian. Officially though, the language that once united Yugoslavia has, like the country, ceased to exist. Instead, it now has four names: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian and Montenegrin." Croatian23 (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We're not suggesting that WP uses The Economist as an authority on languages, are we? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We are not, we are only acknowledging different sources. We are allowed to to that, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croatian23 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Economist article linked quite clearly notes that Serbo-croatian is a single language. CMD (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. It says that "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Montenegrin" are different names for the same language. It's shocking to me how the OP could've interpreted it differently. Sol505000 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it clearly states it is not a single language, yet the governments were forced to sign a "declaration on the common language" which was treacherous for Croatia and doesn't prove anything. It is shocking to me how you can be so close-minded and not even consider any of the arguments of the other side. You should be guided by the truth and facts, right? Would you mind researching the history of Croatian language then and see what really happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croatian23 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

What? It wasn't signed by any of the governments. It's completely non-binding in legal terms. See Declaration on the Common Language.

I have no problem with discussing these issues. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and silencing them. Sol505000 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how many sentences of this article Croatian23 actually read. I wasn't even finished with the first paragraph before I hit: "But are these all the same language? The answer, according to a group of linguists and NGOs from the four countries, is a resounding “yes”." Linguists say "yes". Politics don't matter. And "The Economist" article is not among the most important sources for this topic since it's a magazine and not a peer-reviewed scholarly work in linguistics. See Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources. Linguists nearly universally list one language that includes Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian (see Glottolog, for example). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeeesh! The annual "there's no such thing as Serbo-Croatian" nationalist crazy thread. The tower of Babel should have been blown with plastic explosives before it was ever built . . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The talkpage of this article is a constant reminder of why .sh should've been the only wiki in this language. Allowing .hr, .sr and .bs was such a mistake... 78.0.195.64 (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a mistake because it allows three different, heavily biased versions of history to exist on Wikipedia in one language. Fat chance achieving any semblance of a NPOV in any of the three; ethnic nationalism is their raison d'être. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I know these debates can be triggering, but let's not overdo it. Having separate encyclopedias allows for real-life differences in orthographies and manuals of style to be applied, regardless of any content disputes. If you want to argue for an encyclopedia without a writing style guide, I'm not sure you're in the right forum, because here we are already governed by a very intricate WP:MOS :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Joy, the English Wikipedia is written in 24 varieties of English, which come with their own orthographies and style guides. WP:MOS does not favor any of these. I do not see why a Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia could not function, orthography and style-wise, the same as the English Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Political Context is Unclear

I came to this article with the hope that it would explain why there are political ideologies related to linguistic variations within the geographic territory of the former Yugoslavia. In this Talk Page, I see these political differences in action, but no explanation of how they developed or why they are so intense. The article itself contains no information about the relevant history of ethnic and political conflict. Obviously these political agendas are connected to divisions exacerbated by WWII, but I presume that such divisions were present before WWII. I would like to understand this, so I am requesting the addition of such an explanation to the main article. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Well - you went to the wrong place (even linguistically speaking, which is not much, because linguistics is not much of a science, similar to art history or philosophy). You got a brief overview here:https://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/croatian_language.html. There are numerous articles in Croatian & Serbian, but I guess, you wouldn't understand. As for wiki reliability ... please, don't make me laugh:https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-wikipedia-warriors-made-polish-writer-isaac-bashevis-singer-jewish-again/ - How Wikipedia warriors made ‘Polish writer’ Isaac Bashevis Singer Jewish again. Mir Harven (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That was one very foolish statement. Sigh. 50.111.58.135 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that User:Mir Harven is fairly ignorant of the science of linguistics and is just pushing a personal Croatian POV. If he doesn't think that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information than why is he trolling here? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Linguistics belongs to humanities, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities. Most of humanities, including linguistics, are not even close in exactitude compared to exact sciences ; these are corpora of knowledge that are highly unstable and vulnerable to critique. Language, as a human phenomenon, is a complex subject, linguistics being just a part of exploration of that phenomenon, and nothing even remotely qualified to be treated as a single most important discipline dealing with language(s). Just as religion can be described by numerous disciplines like psychology, history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, psychiatry, economy, ecology, ....so the language phenomenon simply cannot be described by linguistics, because of weaknesses of linguistics as a soft science. Linguistics is like a joke on reductionism, when a Greek sage made fun of Plato's definition of "man" as a "two legged featherless creature". He then plucked a cock's feathers and solemnly presented a poor animal to a wider audience: This is Plato's "man"! And I could add- this is a "Serbo-Croatian" "language", a "language" according to ideological Serbo-Croatian "linguists". As for my posting now & then on a few wiki pages, I enjoy making fun in exposing lies and contradictions. Wikipedia is a valuable source for most non-controversial topics; with regard to controversial ones, it is not more than a joke. Mir Harven (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

That post shows that you are rather ignorant of linguistics after all. You have confused "learning languages and semantics" with the science of historical linguistics. Your ignorance of the linguistic science about the dialectology of the single language that comprises Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian is laughable and riddled with political vitriol, which is irrelevant to linguistic science. Your comments are immaterial and I'm going to ignore your feigned "knowledge" of how linguistics works. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You again showed that you don't understand anything. Language acquisition & semantics are separate issues; historical linguistics another, and philology something else. Actually, you brilliantly exposed your ignorance with confusing dialectology (which is a part of linguistic typology or typo-linguistics)with theories of standard languages that are partially a segment of socio-linguistics, but go mostly to the area of language philosophy. To mentally confuse linguistic typology with modern polyfunctional standard languages is a sure sign of obscurantism and lack of knowledge. And, to show how misinformed you are- or deliberately twisting facts - is to address the issue of Croatian and Serbian, which are not typologically same neither as systems of dialects, nor as standard languages. The influence of politics is decisive in all these matters: linguistic atlases, many of them, still lump together Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak as some kind of "language" (although this has been disappearing, as Wayles Browne had written in Britannica that BCS is just a term of convenience, and not a language); on the other hand, according to atlases of linguistic typology, Hindi and Urdu are, now, not only considered different languages, but are also classified as different languages with regard to linguistic typology (forget about Hindustani and Khariboli), making it clear that linguistics, at the typological and structural levels, is a political tool, and not much more. To cite Margaret Thatcher- I am enjoying this. Exposing pseudo-scientific obscurantism is fun.

Just to expose double standards & political hypocrisy of linguistics, let's go the linguistic typology page. Although the situation with Croatian and Serbian is almost identical to that of Hindi and Urdu, Indian-Pakistani languages are classified separately, but Croatian, Serbian and Bosniak (not Bosnian, such a language does not exist except for PC political linguists) are- according to which criteria?- lumped together: Hindi, https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_hin; Urdu, https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_urd, while for Serbian and Croatian...wait...it is a "language", not just a term of convenience, https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_scr, according to the same man, Wayles Browne. Maybe they should make the old prof offer he couldn't refuse? And a bunch of alternative names. Pure gold comedy.Mir Harven (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for improving articles, not places to vent one's frustration at how a topic is treated in international academia. For that, please join an Internet forum.Surtsicna (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As I've said- this article, and most articles dealing with the so called Serbo-Croatian (which is a historical term for something non-existent, like phlogistone), should be completely deleted, and not improved. These texts are not improvable. Mir Harven (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Fat chance. Your opinion is duly noted, however. Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

If you think the article should be deleted, why don't you follow proper procedure and submit it to WP:AFD? All this talk here is not productive and doesn't help to improve Wikipedia. Rua (mew) 14:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

First- I have more interesting things in life to do than to go to edit wars in Wikipedia. Second- I've seen years ago that some controversial questions (and this is just one among them) are "decided" by cliques who ignore arguments, or are simply too uninformed, basically stupid (I won't go into whether they are manipulative or simply cognitively impaired). Summarily- Wikipedia remains a great first info source for most non-controversial topics; with regard to most things pertaining to history, politics,culture etc. - Wikipedia is almost useless & other, serious encyclopedic sources are the ones that should be consulted, not Wikipedia (in any language). Mir Harven (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Putting out c. 13.500 (!) characters of nationalist butthurtness does not indicate that you have interesting things in life. But okay, whatever. Taivo's approach to this has proven itself the wisest. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

So why are you here? Since you're not actually providing anything constructive to improve Wikipedia, you seem WP:NOTHERE. Rua (mew) 15:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If you mean the political ideologies that underlie not just linguistic attitudes, but cultural and other attitudes, then this article isn't the place for such a broad topic that isn't specifically linguistic. I suggest that you look for articles on the history of Yugoslavia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling out someone for being a nationalist while protecting the serbian nationalist invention that exists only to push serb claws deeper into stuff that isn't theirs. Just like Yugoslavia (or should I say Serboslavia, because that made up country pandered only to the serbs). This whole article is a nationalist butthurt from serbs, because their centuries old plan for greater serbia, through passive(yugoslavia) or active (serbian aggression, countless genocides and ethnocides) means eventually crumbled and is basically completely dead in the 21st century. Only articles like this one keep it alive. This is all lost to the international community. That's why it exists in some international sources, out of convenience, for quick reference of the general area on the map, not because it is legitimate historical truth that those same international authors agree with. With time, they too will realize that this isn't the right way to go about things that pertain to this region of the world, and all you nationalist serb wikipedia bullies won't have nothing going on in your life anymore when articles like this one get deleted or drastically overhauled. Read this(http://www.hkv.hr/izdvojeno/vai-prilozi/a-b/bagdasarov-artur/26440-a-bagdasarov-kolektivna-utopija-zajednickoga-jezika.html): "Artur Bagdasarov komentira: Hrvati imaju hrvatski jezik od pamtivijeka i u mnogim pisanim baštinama pa i u većini suvremenih tekstova ne možemo "hrvatski" zamijeniti postupno "srpskim", "srpskohrvatskim", "bosansko-crnogorsko-hrvatsko-srpskim" ili "štokavskim". Ne možemo sve svesti pod jedno i tvrditi jednu te istu tezu o zajedničkom policentričnom jeziku jer npr. mnogi slični jezici iz jedne podskupine jezikâ također su bili nekoć policentrični. Hrvatski je jezik jedna od bitnih sastavnica hrvatskoga istobita (identiteta) i ustavom zaštićena vrijednost. U svjetskom jezikoslovlju, uzgred budi rečeno, nema još jedinstvenoga i općeprihvaćenoga stava o tom što znači jedan, a što dva ili tri jezika. Jezičnopolitička dogovorna lingvistika iz razdoblja tzv. Novosadskoga sporazuma 1954. god. poništena je Deklaracijom o nazivu i položaju hrvatskoga književnoga jezika iz 1967. god. Hrvati imaju jedan jezik i to hrvatski, drugoga ili drukčijega nemaju - sviđalo se to nekomu ili ne sviđalo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.174 (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, read this stuff on real histories of these languages. Texts are in Croatian and English. Croatian: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/7139 (on the delusions of Serbocroatism); https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/116823 (Croatian language periodization history); https://www.matica.hr/vijenac/516%20-%20517/dubrovacka-knjizevnost-ni-u-kojem-smislu-nije-sastavni-dio-srpske-knjizevnosti-22634/ (on Serbian cultural appropriation of Croatian language heritage). In English: https://archive.org/details/identities-of-mutually-intelligible-languages-croatian-serbian-bosnian-and-montenegrin-11-2021 (DENTITIES Of Mutually Intelligible Languages: Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin, Hindi and Urdu, American English and British English); https://archive.org/details/identities-of-mutually-intelligible-languages-croatian-serbian-bs-me-part-2-historical-survey-1 (IDENTITIES Of Mutually Intelligible Languages Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, PART 2: Historical Survey); https://www.hercegbosna.org/STARO/engleski/croatian_language.html (Croatian language chronology). Mir Harven (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)