Talk:Šime Budinić

Copy edit
As I go through the copy edit, I will place any notes here.  Pax  Verbum  20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , will you please copy edit the proposed hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Šime Budinić?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do!  Pax  Verbum  21:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like I am done for now, but please let me know if you needs any further assistance or have questions. In general, I think some expansion can be used in the entire article, but particularly in the "Early life" and "Legacy" sections. Some of the references are also very long in the edit window; I would encourage you to see if they can be shortened, such as through the suggestions at WP:CITESHORT. This will make editing (and copy editing) much easier in the future!  Pax  Verbum  21:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You did a very good job, which was not easy taking in consideration complexity of the subject. Thank you very much . There are not many sources on his Early life afaik, but legacy could certainly be expanded. I will follow your advices regarding the format of references.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and happy to help out! - Pax  Verbum  22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "Shtokavian period and orthographic reform" section needs substantive rewriting. The translations into English are not correct and appear to sensationalise the subject. For example, the first sentence says "Budinić attempted daring orthographic reform" while the original quotation is "he was the first to commence orthographic reforms" - or using more idiomatic English - "he was the first to start reforms to the spelling [of the "Slav" language]. A second example is that "used a mixture of the Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian, Church Slavonic, Czech, and Polish languages". This again is an incorrect translation of the cited work which states that Budinić "tried to create a complex literary language based on the štokavski-ijekavski dialect, with archaising tendencies coming from the Church Slavonic language, and with a substantial admixture of Czech and Polish words". Another error is in the title of the 1583 work - it is not called "Summa nauk Kristjanski" but "Svmma navka christianskoga" (original spelling, "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" in modern spelling) - as can be seen in the Google Books copy at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Rk48AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Summa+nauka&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI4-zT4MeVxgIV6FCmCh2HPAyK#v=onepage&q&f=false. In that work, you can also see what Budinić called himself - Ssimvn Bvdineo (original spelling, "Šimun Budineo" in modern spelling). You can also see what he called his language - Slouignsky Iazik (original spelling, "Slovinjski jazik" in modern spelling, "Slav language" in English). As an aside, the "jazik" is a chakavian word, while "jezik" is shtokavian - so even in this work, Budinić, a native chakavian, used chakavisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, . Thoughts, ? As English, Spanish, and some Latin are my only languages, I am not much help here.- Pax  Verbum  01:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no incorrect translations nor sensationalism here.
 * The expression "daring reform" is cited with source - quote " Pop Šime Budinić pokušao je u izdanju „Su1ne nauka hri-stjanskogri“ veoma smjelu pravopisnu reformu. " - smjelu means daring.
 * I don't mind replacing "Summa nauk Kristjanski" with "Suma nauka kristijanskoga"
 * I don't mind addition of "Šimun Budineo" as another alternative name.
 * I don't mind addition of the name he used for language he spoke.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying the "daring reform" quote. However, you should not expect users of the English language Wikipedia to know Croatian or Serbian, and should provide translations of the citations along with the original-language citation. The article, as it is at present, is still misleading because the citation provided after the words "daring orthographic reform" is citation No 11, which states "he was the first to commence orthographic reforms". The citation that you are referring to is No 13, which, as given, states: "Father Šime Budinić attempted a very spirited orthographic reform in the work „Su1ne nauka hri-stjanskogri“. He wanted to perfect the Latin script in accordance with the glagolitic and the cyrillic, and to adapt it to the needs of the Croatian language. For that reason, he ... from the Czech Hussite spelling..." I use the word "spirited" to translate "smjelu" based on the Croatian-English online dictionary at this source: https://hr.glosbe.com/hr/en/smjeli. Words like "daring" or "spirited" do not belong to scientifc discourse, and the use of those words by the sources cited throws doubt upon their factual correctness and leads to suspicions of bias. Even so, if Budinić's reform was "daring", the article does not explain why was it regarded as daring - Was it opposed by the educational authorities at the time? Did Budinić suffer any adverse consequences as a result of using his orthography? The point is that usage of sensational adjectives like "daring" (without any context or explanation) does not add anything to our knowledge of the subject. Secondly, it is apparent from the citations that whatever "version of the Latin script" Budinić is said to have created (Note: the sources say "attempted" rather than "created"), that version is not "based on the Cyrillic and Glagolitic scripts". Rather, the cited sources state that the reform to the orthography was along the lines of the Cyrillic and Glagolitic scripts or inspired by Cyrillic and Glagolitic scripts. The article, unfortunately, does not clarify what that means. Does it mean that Budinić introduced a symbol for "jat"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yat) which was used in the Glagolitic script? Does it mean that he started differentiating U and V, both of which were used in writing the vowel sound U and the consonant sound V in the Latin script used at the time (but which were differentiated in the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets)? I doubt that Budinić did any of that, but will never know from reading the article. A lot more work is needed to make the article useful and informative. Finally, I note that the title of the work as given in the citation is „Su1ne nauka hri-stjanskogri“ - the typographical errors throw doubt on the veracity of this source, or at least, on the correctness of the citation itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is start class article. Addition of all necessary clarifications and contexes would make it featured article, which is not mandatry. Non-English quotes removed.--

Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article may be a start article, but that does not mean that it should contain factual errors and other misleading statements. I've inserted a clean up request.

This article may contain factual errors and misleading statements
In the sidebar on the right hand side of this article, in the section "Known for" it states that Budinić is known for "being author of the version of Latin script based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic, using diacritics from Czech orthography of Jan Hus". This requires rewording to more idiomatic English, and it requires rewriting to correct the factual errors. Here are some of the apparent errors that I can highlight:

(A) Looking at the 1583 edition of "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Rk48AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Summa+nauka&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI4-zT4MeVxgIV6FCmCh2HPAyK#v=onepage&q&f=false) it is clear that Budinić used the Latin (latinica) ie. Roman alphabet that was traditionally used for Croatian at that time, with the addition of the letters č and ž, which can be ascribed to Czech influence. Even then, the form of the letters č and ž is not the same as the present day form. The hooks (diacritics) on top of the letters are more like commas rather than like chevrons - a clear sign of Czech usage at the time.

(B) It is not correct that Budinić's Latin script is based on either Cyrillic or Glagolitic. This assertion should be supported by some evidence. In looking at Budinić's works, it is clear that he used the traditional Croatian spelling of the time, with the exception of "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" where he used č and ž. The text of the "Ispravnik za erei ispovidnici i za pokornici" uses the traditional Dalmatian Croatian spellings ç for modern day č and x for modern day ž. In all other respects, his writing is consistent with the Croatian practices of the time, and there is no trace of Cyrillic/Bosančica uses such as ћн for modern day nj. There is also no trace of Glagolitic in his Latin-script writings.

(C) It is misleading to merely say that Budinić is the "author of the version of Latin script..." without mentioning the name of the language in which he wrote using this script. After all, there is no record of Budinić using č and ž in any of his Italian or Latin language writing. In fact he only used č and ž in one Croatian book - the "Suma nauka kristijanskoga". In "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" the name of the language is given as "slovinjski" - Slav or Slavonic in English. In "Ispravnik za erei ispovidnici i za pokornici" the name of the language is also given as slovinjski, or as Illyrian (Illirica) in the Italian text on the cover page of the book. Both terms "slovinjski/slovinski" and Illyrian were used by Croatian writers before the 19th century to describe their language.

(D) Another factual error may lie in the "nationality" section. Where is the evidence that Budinić's nationality was Venetian? He might have lived on the territory ruled by the Republic of Venice, but it is more likely that he was Croatian, or as he might have put it - a Slav or an Illyrian (two synonyms for Croatian, used in the 16th century). What is the point of having a "nationality" section when referring to a 16th century figure anyway - it seems anachronistic? In his books he referred to himself as "Zadranin" - a native of Zadar - a Croatian city, ruled by Venice at the time. (Note that the word he used is "Zadranin" which is a Croatian word. He did not use the Italian word "Zaratino" - also a Venetian word for an inhabitant of Zadar). But if the article has to refer to his nationality, my submission is that his nationality be recorded as Croatian simply because of the consequences of his work on the standardisation of the Croatian literary language.

(E) Another suggested correction is to include Ssimvn Bvdineo/Ssimun Budineo (original spelling, "Šimun Budineo" in modern spelling) in the "Other names" section. After all, that is the name that he uses for himself in the "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Rk48AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Summa+nauka&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI4-zT4MeVxgIV6FCmCh2HPAyK#v=onepage&q&f=false) as well as Scymun Budineo (original spelling, "Šimun Budineo" in modern spelling), which is the name used in the 1636 edition of "Ispravnik za erei ispovidnici i za pokornici" (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZdUFrjSLzp4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Budineo%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwA2oVChMIgq-gtIWWxgIVTTuICh3U4QDv#v=onepage&q&f=false). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (A) Yes, Latin script already existed. The version of Latin script he used did not exist. He created it. There is an ocean of sources that says that.
 * (B) Multiple cited sources say that Budinić's Latin script was based on Cyrillic or Glagolitic.
 * (C) The name of the language in which he wrote using this script is mentioned.
 * (D) You misindentified ethnicity with nationality. The Template:Infobox person has separate fields for ethnicity and for nationality. Venetian refers to his nationality, not ethnicity.
 * (E) I already stated that I don't mind addition of another alternative name. I did it here diff.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation check
, I went through the article, checking and tweaking quotes and translations. As far as these translations go, I could not find any significant deviations from the original. I'd be glad to provide more input, but I'm afraid the above discussion is a bit on the TLDR side for me - are there any open issues with the sourcing? GregorB (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW I'd use Hrvatski biografski leksikon instead of (multiple and sometimes redundant) fragmentary sources. GregorB (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think I adressed all IP valid concerns.
 * Thanks for the HBL link. I will add it to the external links section. I will be very busy in real life for the next week or so. What do you think about working together to improve the quality of this article (hopefully to GA level) after it pass DYK nomination? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't promise, but I might give it a push. The article needs to be fleshed out, and the sourcing needs to be rationalized somewhat. I'm keeping it on my watchlist. I'll refrain from major changes for the time being. GregorB (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I of course agree with you. Only after I began writing this article I realized that its subject deserves much better than start class article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the sources will permit that... Also, I'm going to take a closer look at the above discussion, to get some ideas for improvement. GregorB (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Was Budinić's version of Latin script based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic?
According to the Croatian Biographical Lexicon (Hrvatski biografski leksikon), Budinić was the first Croatian who attempted to simplify the orthography used at the time by introducing diacritics č and ž ("B. je prvi među Hrvatima nastojao pojednostavniti tadašnji pravopis uvođenjem dijakritičkih znakova za č i ž."). In other words, he introduced some (but not all - he did not use š, ľ, ň, ť, ř...) of the signs used in the Czech Latin orthography. It appears that this reform was not successful. He only used č and ž in one book he wrote in Croatian - the "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" of 1583. His other works use traditional Croatian orthography used at the time, eg. ç for modern day č and x for modern day ž, and no apparently other contemporary Croatian authors followed his usage of č and ž. Budinić did not use this modified script when he wrote in languages other than Croatian - his Latin works use the standard Latin alphabet, even though Latin pronunciation used in Italy and Dalmatia at the time might have necessitated the use of č for example.

There is no trace of cyrillic or glagolitic usages in Budinić's version of Latin script used in his Croatian works. For example, there is no differentiation between U and V, both of which were used in writing both the vowel sound U as well as the consonant sound V in the Croatian Latin script used at the time, but which were clearly and consistently differentiated in the cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets. There is also no trace of usages such as those found in contemporary Croatian Cyrillic eg. using the same sign (djerv) for the modern-day ć and đ, or using that sign in combination for modern day lj and nj - ћл and ћн respectively in bosančica. Budinić's use of ss for the modern-day š is foreign to both the cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets.

The Croatian Biographical Lexicon (Hrvatski biografski leksikon) explains what was the influence of glagolitic and cyrillic texts on Budinić's works:


 * (a) Budinić was recommended to adapt Croatian liturgical works (church books) to the principles of the Tridentine Council, because of his thorough knowledge of glagolitic and cyrillic scripts. - "Kao dobrog poznavaoca glagoljice i ćirilice, zadarski ga glavari preporučuju – na upit iz Rima – za rad na prilagođavanju hrvatskih crkvenih knjiga zaključcima Tridentskog koncila." This suggests that the Catholic Church decided at the Tridentine Council to update the existing liturgical works (not just in Croatia but everywhere in Europe). Pre-Tridentine Croatian liturgical works were largely written in the glagolitic and cyrillic scripts. Budinić had to review them and adapt them to the usages of the Church as part of the post-Tridentine reforms. Post-Tridentine Croatian liturgical works continued to be written in all three scripts - Latin, glagolitic and cyrillic.


 * (b) "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" was issued in the Latin and the Cyrillic scripts. However, as previously explained, the Latin-script version of this work does not have any traces of cyrillic and glagolitic usages, whether in the spelling, the letterforms or in any other way.

As a consequence, I have removed the claim that Budinić's version of Latin script was "based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic". But I've left the statement that his version of Latin script used some "diacritics from Czech orthography of Jan Hus", clarifying in the body of the article that Budinić only used č and ž. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good catch. The problematic sentence from the source is "da bi usavršio latinicu prema glagoljici i ćirilici", translated as "he wanted to improve the Latin script, on the basis of Cyrilic and Glagolitic", but here prema is a little vague and misleading, as it apparently does not mean "on the basis of", but rather "in comparison with" (or something of the sort): so, it turns out he didn't want to use these two scripts, he wanted to improve the Latin script by adding the features that were missing in comparison. I've missed this when checking the translations. Fixing the translation is on my todo list now.
 * As I already noted, HBL is a good source and should be used more, particularly for context. GregorB (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . You are probably right that literary translation of the quote might mislead some readers that Budinic wanted to use Glagolitic and Cyrillic scripts. Still, the text of the article clearly say that Budinić authored "a version of the Latin script" not Cyrilic or Glagolitic script. Maybe there is some better expression than "on the basis of" but I am not sure that "in comparison with" is better. Would "according to" or "based on comparison with" would be better translation of "prema" than "on the basis of"? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm uncertain myself about the best wording, and that's why I decided against changing the text just yet. "Based on comparison with" seems OK to me. At any rate, even if the original wording is a bit vague, the article should explain it clearly now (i.e. Budinić felt that Latin script was not as complete as Cyrilic or Glagolitic scripts were, and wanted to improve it without actually importing anything from these two - or something to that effect). GregorB (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'd say that the left hand side of this diff is closer to being correct. Also, I'd like to invite our fellow IP editor to open an account - his contributions are definitely appreciated. GregorB (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I will change to "Based on comparison with" as better translation of "prema". I am sure that you agree that contributions of IP editor are welcome even if they don't open an account. Some of their proposals are already included in the article. Additional explanations can be added without removing the referenced text. I restored IP's addition about what diacritics Budinic added to his version of Latin script. As you know, I planned to improve the quality of this article after its dyk nomination was reviewed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, and I plan to chip in too, although of course I can't say to which extent... GregorB (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation to open an account, I intend to do so. However, my internet connection is not the best, so I make a contributon when I get a chance to use a good computer.
 * In terms of the question I posed - Was Budinić's version of Latin script based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic? - the answer is No. For that reason, it would be useful to remove the reference to cyrillic and glagolitic scripts when referring to Budinić's version of Latin script (I have earlier tried doing this, by removing those references from the "Known for" section and the "Shtokavian period and orthographic reform" section). To retain those references would only perpetuate the confusion (already present in some of the cited sources) that Budinić's "latinica" used in the 1583 "Svmma navka christianskoga" owes something to cyrillic and glagolitic. As I have pointed out previously, Budinić's "latinica" in that work contains some of the solutions from the Czech Latin orthography, notably the use of č and ž, and possibly even the double S (ss = š), while Budinić's other works follow the traditional Croatian orthographical usages of the time. That is not to say that Budinić did not make any use of cyrillic and glagolitic scripts. The use he made of those scripts is that he could read pre-Tridentine church books for the purpose of revising them according to the directions of the Tridentine Council, and further, he issued the "Suma nauka kristijanskoga" in cyrillic as well as Latin - all this is apparent from the Croatian Biographical Lexicon.
 * Multiple referenced sources say that Budinić's version of Latin script was based on comparison (prema) with Cyrillic and Glagolitic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I said before, my understanding of the issue is that Budinić wanted to emulate features of these two scripts, rather than to borrow actual characters from them. The wording in the article can be debated, but it must be clear what Budinić actually did. GregorB (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is why you proposed term "based on comparison with" and that is why I added it to the article. Did you change your mind about it? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe there was a misunderstanding: in my remark I referred to the translation of the original quote, but since the quote is vague to begin with, and since the sources, including the aforementioned HBL, make the context fairly clear, I'm arguing that the article text (which we can substantially change, unlike the translation) should be clearer about the objective of Budinić's work. GregorB (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Regarding the objective of Budinić's work, I think that the text of the article is quite explicit about it. "His intention was to employ language and orthography that could penetrate and be understood in what was then the southern reaches of the Slavic people." Isn't it clear enough?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I now realized you probably refer to his objective regarding Glagolitic and Cyrillic. To be honest, I don't think there is anything unclear about it. For almost 100 years after printing press was discovered all (or almost all) South Slavic languages books were printed on Glagolitic and Cyrillic. When Rome decided to print liturgical books which would be understandable to as many South Slavs as possible, they engaged Budinic precisely because he knew both Glagolitic and Cyrillic (says HBL). When Budinic tried to reform orthography and use Latin script instead of Glagolitic and Cyrillic, he noticed that Latin script do not have correspondin letters to many Glagolitic and Cyrillic letters. That is why he created his version of Latin script with couple of diacritics borrowed from Czech orthography.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly right! If only the article text itself were so clear! GregorB (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am sure it will be after two of us and all other interested editors expand it and improve it to hopefully GA level. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly... :-) GregorB (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing
It seems that many references are not complete. E.g. Forum is a journal, not a book, and the author of the article in question is certainly not Vjekoslav Štefanić, his views are just being paraphrased therein. Unfortunately, short of getting a physical copy, it is next to impossible to extract the actual author and the title of the article. The same applies to some other refs, and this might be a problem. GregorB (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some sources added with cite book template are originally journals. I found them at GoogleBooks search where such journals are often compiled and presented as books. In order to raise the quality of the article to GA level, it would be necessary to clarify this and author issue you brought. I will try to correct this as much as my limited time schedule will allow me. Any felp is welcome.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll try to clean it up a bit and add as much metadata as possible. One can't use Cite journal without supplying title (I suppose?), so this might prove tricky. GregorB (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)