Talk:Croatian linguistic purism

earlier talk -> Talk:Croat and Bosnian neologisms

Unprotected
If I understand the situation correctly, Mir Harven has departed. Therefore there is no reason for the page to remain protected. -- Cyan 02:36, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can someone archive some of the above - I'm copying in some of the contentious material to this page, and suggest that we could, one by one, look at each of these proposed examples, and try to reach agreement on where they came from.2toise 05:07, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Previously, this page listed alternative official Croatian translations of the words belt, telephone, pistol, television, gutter, helicopter. As a native Croatian speaker, I am unable to confirm the factual accuracy of any of the given translations; I've hence restored this page to known-good translations. The term 'samokres' (given previously as translation of pistol) is a special term describing particular old guns (i.e. 18th and 19th century pistols); see Ancient gun replicas. The terms given for belt and gutter were given as jokes and are simply untrue. The official Croatian term for telephone is 'telefon', not 'brzoglas'; source: Croatian Telecom. Television is 'televizija', not 'dalekovidnica'; source: Croatian Radiotelevision. The previously given terms for helicopter and aeroplane seem to have been jokes as well, as I can find no sources for them. Since this page seems to carry some type of political charge, please cite your sources if you're adding translations. Ike 22:43, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * As the first link on this page says, please see Talk:Croat and Bosnian neologisms for a previous discussion. We've already established that the table Igor added was flame bait, it's just that no one could be bothered to kill it off, up to now. It's good to see others reacting, though. --Shallot 22:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

English - Serbo-Croat - Bosnian- Litteral translation

 * The origin of translations for "belt" and "gutter" in Croatian and "obituary" in Bosnian are bad jokes. They are in no way official. Bosnian translation for "coffee" was present in the pre-90ies Serbo-Croatian. For the origin of other Croatian translations I'm not sure. --Vedran 17:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like the linguistic purism article, so I redirected this article there. The process of neologism is inherently tied to the purism, so discussing one but not the other seems strange. Martin 12:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I think I am probably disinclined to begin the process all over again on a page containing phrases like "Serbia-instigated Yugoslav Army aggression on Croatia". Thanks, 2toise 16:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I understand that, and the purism article certainly has neutrality problems. But I think it provides a better basis for going forwards, with more detail: I often find that it is easier to neutralise a biased article, than add information to a neutral one. Besides, if we don't merge, the biased article will still exist anyway... Martin 22:36, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I zapped the "aggression" silliness, anyway. See if that's better, and see what else needs fixing. Martin 22:54, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't see what talking passionately about the war is good for in a linguistics article (even though it's not untrue that it was an aggression, it makes the page sound biased). The problem with the whole deal is that things are misplaced. A bunch of silly joke words aren't encyclopedic material. They're also not a product of purism only, but of people from the street, and possibly not even streets of Croatia and Bosnia but of Serbia, as mockery. And some other stuff, as outlined above, is just erroneous and grossly misrepresented which just goes to prove the latter claim.


 * I would recommend removing the newspeak page completely, and adding those two bits of historic data (that purism was on a rise since Yugoslavia started to dissolve and that some took it to the extreme) to the Croatian language page. The purism subpage needs to be proofread (I haven't read it) but I guess there should be something useful in it, seems like a historic overview. If not, zap that too. --Shallot 09:30, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * The two bits of historic data are discussed in the purism article already, though with a different slant, hence my impulse to merge. Martin 12:08, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Constructs
I won't read these kind of articles until such constructs as Communist Yugoslavia still exist herein. What is Communist Yugoslavia in fact? Yugoslavia was never a communist state!. It was a socialist one. Just read its former official name: Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. I do not see any comms around. Why communism is always used for bad things? It is not the communism itself which is bad, but people. Always people. From Bad to Worst. Best regards. --XJamRastafire 06:16, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * It's funny that you should mention that, because I've actually come to the conclusion that in English usage, saying that such a state is a Communist state is much preferred to saying it's a socialist state. I guess it has to do with the fact there are two sorts of socialism so it's less ambiguous to say it's Communist, even though that's quite imprecise. --Shallot 17:02, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, socialism means different things on different sides of the atlantic, and to different people. Communism is still a bit wooly, but it's slightly more precise. "Socialism" can mean everything from Tony Blair through to Marx. --Martin (resident anarcho-communist)


 * AHM, The name of the Soviet Union was called The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. And let me remind you; which was the name of Tito's party governing Yugoslavia; THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF YUGOSLAVIA (KPJ)

Sargeras 16:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute?
Nobody has made a single fact-related or bias-related accusation, let alone a correction, to the text of the article since 22 October 2003. Not particularly surprising given that the same dispute notice was added by someone who has previously replaced the article with a redirect to another with a different title and without 99% of the content (de facto censoring). I'm therefore removing the dispute notice. Should someone raise an actual concern with the text, we can restore it, of course. --Shallot 16:42, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The whole Yugoslav period was yet another one of Mir Harven's nonsensical rantings about a Greater-Serbian expansion. REmoved it, will write something that makes sense instead. I don't agree with much of the stuff written in the article anyways so putting back the dispute header. -- Igor


 * Replace, don't remove. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   16:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

comments by 68.4.50.15
English - Croatian - Serbian

Pistol - Samokres - Pistolj Army - Vojska - Armija Secretary - Tajnica - Sekretarica Telephone - Brzoglas - Telefon Fax - Brzovid - Faks Airplane - Zrakoplov - Avion Airport - Zra&#269;na luka - Aerodrom Helecopter - Zrakomlat - Helikopter Radio - Krugoval - Radio

In contrast to what some people have mentioned on this page, this IS pure Croatian. In the last 100 years, the Croatian language has been attacked and artificialy corrupted by serbs with the intention of destroying the Croatian language and creating a so-called "Greater Serbia." Since Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia in 1991 and won the Homeland War in 1995, true Croats have been trying to reverse the influnence of serbian words on the Croatian language.

27 March 2005 (J.B.)


 * This entry is a complete piece of rubbish. You can't put synonyms from one langugage and pretend they are different words from different languages. Serbian and Croatian language are by all standards one dialect of the same language, and the only micro-differences come from Belgrade and Zagreb standards, and Zagreb's purism and practice to introduce new word coinages or archaisms instead of widely popular forms that are identical. In the example of the word 'telephone' above, where 'telefon' is introduced as 'Serbian', while 'brzoglas' is supposed to be Croatian, 'brzoglas' is a new word literally translated as 'fastvoice', and isn't even used among Croatian people. As if someone in English tried to push 'fastcall' for 'telephone', 'kicksport' for 'football', 'airpusher' for 'helicopter' or 'circlewave' for 'radio' as words from a fictional non-English language. 77.46.198.72 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

some later discussion
No question that Serbs and Croats were and are the most powerful and influential names for South Slavic communities; one as ruthless as the other when it comes to expanding influence. Be that as it may, the suggestion that Belgrade, or any true Serb would wish to "force" his variant of the language accross the entire region thus dissimmilating the whole of Croatia is unfounded. There may have been a popular view that a form of standardization exist between Serbia and Croatia; this may also have been biased towards the dialects of the east of the region (where most people declare themselves Serbs and compose the region known as Serbia), but none of this interferes with the true nature of how Serbs and Croats use their language. Geography is said to be 'zemljopis' in Croatia and 'geografija' in Serbia, to take one example: whilst most reputable Serbian language dictionaries aknowledge 'Zemljopis' as meaning 'Geography',  it is the norm for people in Croatia to prefer the westernized/Anglicized variants of words, regardless of how it may be in the standard language: most neologisms have failed to make any headway.


 * Well, I'm not exactly sure how your comment is pertinent to anything regarding this article, which clearly states that both words are used in Croatian, and indeed they are (speaking from first-hand experience here). It further states "The policy was to try to establish "geografija" as the norm and to eliminate "zemljopis"." - do you disagree with this, perhaps? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   18:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Rarely does a man from Zagreb use his 'brzoglas' to contact his friend in Dubrovnik, who knows only of a 'telefon'.


 * Yes. Except that brzoglas is far from a good example of a Croatian neologism: that word has been used very rarely, unlike zemljopis, promidžba, ... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

Sad though it may be, it is largely popular in all Slavic countries (and many non-Slavic states) to not only take English words for new concepts, but to replace existing homegrown words with an English-inspired phonetical equivalent. user:Mario55 0640 07-08-05

Croathood is an entity based entirely on a Slavic identity. Any cultural similarities between Croats and non-Slavs which specifically disclude non-Croatian Slavs may only have occured because the Croatian people did themselves assimilate these patterns in behavoiur (therefore it remains foreign to Croats). As it happens, ALL neologisms in Modern Croatian are based on purely Slavonic paraphernalia. It is quite right that 'university' should be 'Sveučilište' and not 'univerzitet' as they might say in Belgrade. However, the suggestion that 'sveučilište' is purely Croatian is simply inviting ridicule. Should the Serbian language academy ever decide to replace the word 'univerzitet' with the Croatian counterpart then it can never be classed as a foreign word deriving from an outside sourse since a morphological analysis of this particular word fits the bill for Serbian speech, and Bosnian, and Montenegrin too. This may also be said of many of the other words which Croatian employs: 'brzoglas', 'zemljopis' etc. It is unfounded to state that these words may be specific for Croatian speech dating back to a time of a flawless and unblemished Croatian language. The farther one goes back in time, the closer all Slavic languages are to each other to the point that all South Slavic languages were one and the same, after Slavic was one single language and so forth. Croatian did not evolve by a different sourse and the base for its historical reference can only be a vocabulary which was shared by the millions of other Slavs who did not declare themselves Croatian. Ragusan 8 August 2005 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.194.9 (talk &bull; contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2005.

Strange view from this Ragusan. I have to say in all honesty, it is complete nonsense that Croathood be based on anything Slavonic. Forget 'Slavonic', it dont even exist. it never existed. Croat identity is based on being a cross-over being the prestige cultures of Italy and Germany. Our people are more Italian minded and German cultured than anything Slavonic, probably all means just Serbian, Greater Serbia or something. We developed our culture under such wonderful races as the Venetians (Italians), Istria looks more like Italy than Belgrade. So these words which we have chosen to represent our language are purely Croatian and not Slavic. Serbo-Croat was forced on Croatians who were otherwise happy to live as a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and never wanted to create a Slavonic state. Up comes Serbo-Croat and picks these internationalisms: They told Croats to call 'airport' /aerodrom/, they told Croats that an airplane was /avion/, which is a French word. We already had such words as zračna luka/zrakoplov which date back centuries, and thanfully since our 1991 independence, we have been able to officially restore our lovely beautiful purely Croatian words. Vladislav aug 11th 2005 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.171.194.38 (talk &bull; contribs) 16:32, 11 August 2005.

I read what Vladislav has said and he (I suppose) has really lost the plot of the discussion, we are only discussing the origins of the words and I hate to tell him this but Croatian IS based on Slavic, however you look at it; either that or Italian/German as he has claimed, one way or another, nobody in their right minds can claim that 'Zrakoplov' has been in existence for centuries when its very concept was created at some time in the late 19th century after Serbo-Croatian was effective. user:Mario55 12-08-05

This article is highly NPOV, I must incline. It talks about a forceful union with the Serbian language? HolyRomanEmperor 18:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Serbian language official in military, diplomacy...! I find this ridiculous, because most of the highest officials of Yugoslavia were Croats :)) HolyRomanEmperor 18:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To me, most of the article is fairly OK, with the exception of points on "forced" unification (Mir's heritage?). I can accept that POV, but there must be something in the fact that people gradually accepted certain "Serbisms" and that no one has beaten prominent Croatian linguists to sign the Novi Sad agreement (or, according to Mir, they're all "communists"? :-) ).
 * That POV should be noted in the page, but it should be put in a more NPOV terms. I'll try to do it and I'll remove the tag in a few days if no one objects.Duja 09:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To me, most of the article is complete fiction. But, it would be closer to reality with your suggestions. Nikola 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, but the article has to be moved a little more to NPOV: ...subject to "unification"... should be changed to unified. OK? HolyRomanEmperor 16:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK AFAIC.

Mir Harven actually acused them of being Communists??? My God, what is he, an Ustaša??? HolyRomanEmperor 16:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Da ne griješim dušu, I have read such a comment somewhere on wikipedia, but I don't recall where and can't attribute it to Mir with certainty.

... and the facts Serbian, Croatian, or even more ridiculously Bosnian linguistic purisms are just some imaginary delusions from lost misguided and pathetic (for whome I feel very sorry) souls... HolyRomanEmperor 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't get this part; the purism certainly is a part of Croatian language tradition (though I'm not sure if it deserves this big article). Of course, provided that we avoid b*s about zrakomlats and similar.Duja 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You didn't change the united part...? HolyRomanEmperor 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Where? I only rephrased the sentences in the sense that "forced unification" was an opinion (even if rather widespread) rather than a fact of life. I think we'll agree that unification did take place? Duja 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Although, it is much longer than 1918-1990. I mean, Vuk Karadžić and Ljudevit Gaj were among the most important members of the signing conference which officialized the Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian language; accepted by Vienna. Do you know when they lived? :) HolyRomanEmperor 16:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Errr... Geografija, my friends is a science, while zemljopis is a school subject. It can be confusing, because there are no other such dichotomies, but this happens to be the case. So, children in primary schools have zemljopis, and in secondary schools and universities you learn geografija. I'm a 4th year student of Croatian (and English for that matter), and I should know this. So, this it is not the case of zemljopis being the Croatian word, and geografija the alternative internationalism, or an evil Serbian word, or whatever. Btw, I've noticed some good old nineties propaganda, with some real pearls like this: "words as zračna luka/zrakoplov which date back centuries". Absolutely cracking! People from outside of Croatia cannot even imagine how many times we've heard stuff like: "thanfully since our 1991 independence, we have been able to officially restore our lovely beautiful purely Croatian words". Poor old us! What really fascinates me about these spreaders of cheap nationalist propaganda on the English wikipedia is how bad their English ALWAYS is, and how they generally tend to be either stupid, or at least uninformed. I have to cite Vladimir once more (for the third time): "I have to say in all honesty, it is complete nonsense that Croathood be based on anything Slavonic. Forget 'Slavonic', it dont even exist. it never existed. Croat identity is based on being a cross-over being the prestige cultures of Italy and Germany."(sic) Someone who is this dumb shouldn't be allowed to vote. Zhelja 4:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
It's been a long time since this article was significantly edited or discussed, and the {POV} is still there, added by some IP address without edit summary about a year ago. IMHO, the current state of affairs is that the article is pretty much POV-free. Is there anyone that disagrees (and on which particular points)? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is something which is not necessarily POV, but it caught my attention:
 * One of the features of standard Croatian language [...] is word coinage using roots or elements perceived as being characteristic or unique to the speech of the community.
 * and
 * Serbian language is "unfriendly" toward neologisms.
 * Now: is word coinage a feature of the language, or the people who use it? Is Serbian language unfriendly, or the people are actually the ones who are unfriendly? These are misrepresentations that attempt to describe linguistic purism as an inherent feature of the language (i.e. something that is essentially immutable), rather than a conscious human activity. GregorB (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

comments by Težava
This Yugoslav part is by me really suspicious for example Geography. I am sure that word zemljepis was used at least until end of 1960s in SR Serbia. It was also thing that if Turkish word was used in Serbian and Slavic in Croatian we would put in Slavic(Croatian). Examples komšija/sus(j)ed for neighbor and avlija/dvorište for backyard. I don't have any proof for this since I am not in Serbia nor will I'll be until summer this year but I think this should be removed. Look for Тежава on Serbian wikipedia I am not logged in. --188.196.86.45 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article says that the policy of elimination of zemljopis ceased in the 1930s. So seeing it in the 1960s in Serbia does not seem inconsistent with what is written.
 * You should also avoid using inflammatory section titles such as "Hate and Ustaša propaganda" if not even your own writing has no references to such things.
 * --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pure language
Croatian true Croatian, thanks to great variety of dialects and linguistic purism is one of rear pure languages in the world. It may sound a little bit funny to Serbs or to Englishmen, but just try to imagine how it sounds to Romans and Greeks ther words; Television (tele- (“far off”) + vision (“seeing”)) in Croatian dalekovidnica (daleko (“far off”) + vidjeti (“seeing”)). Slavić (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever uses the word dalekovidnica in spoken language. Today it's exclusively used as a derisive term in phrases such as nacionalna dalekovidnica - but only in the written language. Failed neologism just like thousands of others. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

POV
Half of this article is fairy tales, and the other half is POV. Parts such as During the Yugoslav period, from 1918 to 1990, Croatian and Serbian were largely subject to unification as the Serbo-Croatian language. need to be rewritten. It's a longish article so it would be a lot of work, so I'm just tagging it for now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Church Slavonic origin?
"because they opposed these "language purges" that wanted to purge numerous words of Church Slavonic origin"

I'm not really aware of "numerous words of Church Slavonic origin" at all. There are some words, but which words were to be purged? I can't recall any. It would be rather "common Slavonic words", which is in no way Church Slavonic! dnik ► 12:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)