Talk:Croatian language

1RR
This article has become another battleground. Enough is, quite frankly, enough of the edit warring, as the article is now protected for the fourth time since July due to it. We're going to try something new. Starting now, this article; under the discretionary sanctions authorised in Requests for arbitration/Macedonia; is hereby placed on a 1RR restriction. This means one revert, per user, per day. This restriction is per person, not per account. The most obvious vandalism is excepted from this restriction, and I do mean obvious. This restriction applies to all users, and I will place an edit notice of this for the article. Any appeals should be directed towards my talk page in the first instance, or Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in the second. Courcelles 11:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
 * The above timestamp has intentionally been moved forward 15 years, to stop automatic archival. True timestamp: Courcelles 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The name of the language
Ponor deletes the references and asks me to quote what is written there. That is why I quote here what is written in reference 21 because it also contains quotes from other mentioned references. They all discuss the language naming in the 21st century in Slavic studies (which of course includes English). As can be seen from those quotes, WP:SYNTH cannot apply to these references.

"Mørk (2002) podsjeća u predgovoru Serbokroatisk grammatik da se radi o »južnoslavenskom jeziku kojim govori većina stanovništva u bivšim jugoslavenskim republikama Bosni, Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori i Srbiji, a koji je uvijek bio poznat kao ’srpskohrvatski jezik’«. Oznaci s crticama zamjera: »Novi naziv ’bosanski/hrvatski/srpski’ je po mom mišljenju sasvim neprikladan da zamijeni tradicionalni naziv ’srpskohrvatski jezik’. Što označava kosa crtica? I? Ili? I/ili?«. Zaključuje da za imenovanje studija nije prikladna oznaka ’bosanski/hrvatski/srpski’ kao što nije prikladna ni oznaka ’srednjojužnoslavenski’. Ističe da su nazivom srpskohrvatski obuhvaćene sve »varijante tog jezika: ’srpska’, ’hrvatska’, ’crnogorska’, ’bosanska’. Tako je uostalom uvijek i bilo. Ništa se to nije promijenilo s raspadom Jugoslavije - bez obzira što nacionalistički bosanski Muslimani ili Hrvati smatrali i tvrdili«. Zato autor sumira da je naziv srpskohrvatski i dalje najprikladnija oznaka kako za jezik tako i za imenovanje studija (isto v. i u Mørk 2008: 296).

Jacobsen (2006: 319) također kritizira imenovanje jezika ili studija »bosanski-hrvatski-srpski jezik«, kao i zahtjeve da se podijele »srpskohrvatske studije u hrvatske, odnosno srpske studije«. Nedostaje objašnjenje za mijenjanje, a oni koji bi se odlučili za promjenu dužni su dati objašnjenje »zašto to nisu mnogo ranije učinili«. Jer npr. 70-ih ili 80-ih godina nitko strane slaviste nije tjerao »da zadrže naziv srpskohrvatski« (ibid.: 320). I Obst (2004: 212) smatra opravdanim da se i dalje »koristi naziv ’srpskohrvatski’ u tradicionalnom smislu, na kraju krajeva i zato da se izbjegnu nezgrapne formulacije poput ’srpski i/ili hrvatski’, ’hrvatski i/ili srpski’, ’hrvatski-srpski-bosanski’ ili čak ’hrvatski-srpski-bosanski-crnogorski’«. Dosjetki da se jezik naziva BHS Šipka (2003: 272) zamjera »onda bismo zaista imali kuriozum - skraćenicu kao ime jezika«.

/.../

Nitko nije zahtijevao niti danas zahtijeva da laici koriste dvodijelnu oznaku. Kao što je već rečeno, riječ je o znanstvenom nazivlju, a ono se ne zasniva na narodskome jer »doduše, može svaki narod svoj idiom nazivati kako mu drago, ali lingvistika ne smije bez preispitivanja preuzeti svako imenovanje koje je među laicima omiljeno« (Gröschel 2003: 169). Jacobsen (2006: 320) navodi da »konfuziju oko naziva jezika su stvorile političke elite pojedinih zemalja« s južnoslavenskih prostora koje vrše ’odozgo’ pritisak i na inozemna sveučilišta da mijenjaju nazive studija. Vlastitim iskustvom iz proteklih petnaest godina ilustrira »kako je jedan politički režim nastojao da nametne svoje poglede stranim« sveučilištima. Vlade pojedinih novonastalih država i dotične nacionalne filologije ciljano zamagljuju granicu između znanstvenog i narodskog nazivlja. Jacobsen zato podsjeća kako laički »i ranije je bilo uobičajeno da se kaže za nekog da govori ’srpski’ / ’hrvatski’ / ’bosanski’ / ’crnogorski’«, što nije isključivalo ni onda ni danas da to znanstveno znači »da ta osoba govori srpskohrvatskim (standardnim) jezikom. Radi se dakle o dva nivoa«, što nacionalno angažirani jezikoslovci namjerno prešućuju. Stoga Jacobsen kritizira južnoslavenske filologe koji poistovjećuju znanstveni i narodski nivo (ovaj posljednji je postao i službeno-politički), i koji naziv srpskohrvatski danas tabuiziraju.

/.../

O daljnjem nazivanju jezika srpskohrvatskim Gröschel kaže (2009: 350): »U dogledno vrijeme ne može se računati s time da će službeno fiksirani nazivi srpski, hrvatski, bosanski i crnogorski jezik nestati iz jezičnih paragrafa u postjugoslavenskim ustavima. To ne treba iritirati slavistiku, posebno ne stranu slavistiku, među ostalima ni njemačku, kojoj se još uvijek pripisuje neka vrsta vodeće funkcije. Zamijeniti ime srpskohrvatski jezik značilo bi kapitulaciju pred političkim pritiscima iz zemalja nasljednica Jugoslavije«. Uzimajući za primjer situaciju s njemačkim jezikom u Austriji i Švicarskoj, nastavlja: »Kad bi - iz bilo kakvih razloga - političke vođe tih zemalja [Austrije i Švicarske] odlučile svoj službeni jezik ubuduće nazivati austrijski i švicarski [...], to bi lingvistička germanistika primila do znanja samo slegnuvši ramenima, a ne bi zbog toga odbacila svoju koncepciju varijanata standardnog njemačkog jezika«.

/.../

Budući da naziv srpskohrvatski ima »dugu tradiciju u slavistici - kreirao ga je Jakob Grimm, proširio Slovenac Jernej Kopitar u prvoj polovini 19. stoljeća, davno prije nastanka Jugoslavije - on dakle nije dužan nužno nestati činom raspada te države« (Thomas 2003: 319)."

--Darigon Jr. (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, I don't think this article is the place to fight the S-C / BCMS naming battle, that's so WP:UNDUE. The term "S-C language" is already in the first sentence, and again in the last sentence of the lead, where we say something along the lines
 * "...called -THIS-, but in modern times some people, for some reason, prefer to call it -THAT-".
 * Your edit adds 3000 bytes to say
 * "...called -THIS-, but in modern times some people, for some reason, prefer to call it -THAT-. But in modern times some people also call it -THIS-".
 * Do you think repeating -THIS- so many times will persuade people that -THIS- is the right name? And what's the thing with adding so many cherry-picked, non-English sources with some opinions? Does the mere number of sources give the repeated statement more weight, in your opinion?
 * Your added sentence paraphrases the previous sentence, which by itself is weird because nothing like that is actually said in the sources, so you're doing WP:SYNTH. We don't do WP:SYNTH here.
 * I, honestly, don't see how your addition improves the article. As a reader, I'd think "oh, what a WP:POVPUSH". Ponor (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ponor. This article is NOT the place to fight the naming war and until the international community of linguists (not just former Yugoslavian ones) settles on a standard order for the three components of this one language (Montenegrin is probably not going to be included), we are better off using the form that is still the most common--SC.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both that this article is not the place to fight the naming war. Since Ponor made a comment, I just want to clarify something. First, there is no WP:SYNTH because the sentence (with references) Ponor deleted reads:


 * "On the other hand, some linguists explain why the name "Serbo-Croatian" is still more appropriate in linguistics in the 21st century."


 * And that's exactly what the above quotes from the references do (can be checked using Google translate).


 * Second, the deleted sentence is not a repetition, but adds new information. Its context is: the term SC "is controversial for native speakers", "and names such as Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS) are used by linguists and philologists in the 21st century". That edit by Ponor suggests that the name SC belongs to the 20th century, i.e. the past. That's why I added the above sentence with references where some linguists explain why the name SC is still more appropriate in linguistics in the 21st century. --Darigon Jr. (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A trio of points. First, this still isn't the place for commenting on or describing the options for "Serbo-Croatian".  If readers are curious about it, that's why we provide that term with a blue link that they can follow to the other article.  The most that this article should contain is a footnote following the first use of S-C that says, basically, "The controversy concerning the name "Serbo-Croatian" is described at Serbo-Croatian."  Second, the amount of non-English in your references is simply excessive, especially when it isn't directed at this article and its content, but at the S-C issue.  Third, text that isn't in English must ALWAYS be translated with the English text following the non-English text.  Sending the reader to Google Translate is not acceptable in the English Wikipedia.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. Thank you. --Darigon Jr. (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like potential content that could be elaborated on . –Vipz (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Croatian Cyrillic script
Croatian language is written in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts, as in this case it would be written as hrvatski / хрватски. 2603:8001:B202:3294:1E9:2C20:D1BF:CD23 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Modern Croatian is not written in Cyrillic, unlike older variants. — Hijérovīt&thinsp;|&thinsp;þⰁč 17:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Bosnian is not written in Cyrillic either, unlike Serbian and Montenegrin. 2603:8001:B202:3294:D8DC:C9B5:1510:A987 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cyrillic is recognized as one of two official scripts of the Bosnian standard language. Same is not the case for Croatian. –Vipz (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Bosnian Wikipedia is written only in the Latin script, and has no option to convert to the Cyrillic script, unlike the Serbian Wikipedia which has the option to convert from Cyrillic to Latin. 2603:8001:B202:3294:E4EE:7D48:DFC0:A1B1 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That has no bearing on the fact that Bosnian legally uses two scripts. — Hijérovīt&thinsp;|&thinsp;þⰁč 13:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2024
Croatian is Recognised minority language in Romania (Caraș-Severin) Balkanshepard (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)