Talk:Montenegrin language/Archive 2

We need a mapping table between South-Slavic language names and dialects
After the above discussion in Hmm I think a table that maps Language names to Shtokavian, kajkavijan and Cakavijan dialects would clarify terminology ambiguities once and for all.

Along the lines:

Dialect | Serbian | Croatian | Bosnian | Montenegrin |

Torlak. |  x     |          |         |             |

Zeta   |   x     |          |         |     x       |

E. Herz.|  x     |    x     |    x    |     x       |

etc. Momisan 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is hard to understand with all these different dialects in the Serbo-Croatian languages. I made an example of a table on top of this comment. Crna Gora 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Really a good table of the SerboCroatian dialects, showing all in details. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. Momisan 03:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Kajkavian row should be expanded. RockyMM 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, aren't there any Serbs in East Bosnia? And in Western Bosnia (Neo-Ikavian dialect)? And in Lastovo, perhaps? No...? --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The correct question to ask would be: Are there any people that speak East-Bosnia dialect and call it Serbian, Croatian ...Momisan 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly all Serbs and Croats of Cities of Sarajevo, Tuzla and Zenica, but they might be considered as a "foreign element" (as they probably gradually migrated into cities during the course of 1800s and 1900s) (see Image:Ethnic_Composition_of_BiH_in_1991.gif). As for Croats, there is plenty of them e.g. in Vareš, but I'm not sure about their dialect. Duja 13:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added bosnian for sandzak and kosovo (around 60 000 speakers in Prizren area)

As I have tried to correct some, by my opinion, incorrect dialect-ethnicity relationships (see []) and that produced revert, I'll present here ongoing debate. Please feel free to contribute. --Plantago 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) :

Source and explanation for revert? --Plantago 09:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As you were the first to edit information that was there for a long time, it would be nice if you at first place provided some references yourself to support your claims. However, you can refer to Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Simo Matavulj and other researchers as well as the former population censuses of these areas to make sure that there are - or at least, there were - speakers of these dialects who declared as Serbs. Cheers, --George D. Božović 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it would be nice that you provide some online available reference for your data and distinguish between place of living, being that city, region or country/state, and speaking certain dialect. Serbs in Bosnia and Slavonia definitely do not in general speak ikavian, do they? Regards, --Plantago 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, as you said on my talk page:"...it would be nice if you at first place provided some references yourself to support your claims. However, you can refer to Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Simo Matavulj and other researchers as well as the former population censuses of these areas to make sure that there are - or at least, there were - speakers of these dialects who declared as Serbs.", I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I HAVE cited reference for the mentioned change (please see my changes you have reverted and you can see that I had reference to Shtokavian dialect wiki page - see 7 and 8). If you disagree with that, than that page should be changed accordingly.


 * I am sorry, but Wikipedia articles are not reliable references to claim upon while supporting claims in other articles. I think it says somewhere, on some Wikipedia pages about citing sources (I can't look for it now). Many well-known Slavicists such as Safarik, Dobrovsky, and Vuk Karadzic have considered all Shtokavian dialects Serbian. Simo Matavulj was Serbian author who often wrote in his native Western Ikavian dialect. Slavonian dialect was used by Serbs of Slavonia (today mostly assimilated into Croats, yet some of them left in eastern Slavonia). --George D. Božović 15:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Đorđe, interesting remark, that WP is not good source for WP, why then we are writing at all!? I read mentioned citing rules, it applies to academic research, because WP is dynamic and unacceptable to many academic institutions. I don't want to discuss this issue in private anymore, I'm suggesting that we copy this issue to talk page and see what other other have to say. I hope you have nothing against that. Cheers, --Plantago 08:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bre
I was under strong impression that the Montenegrin language never possessed a word such as "bre" and that this is typical for Serbia. However, recently I have been hearing this accross the movies & media as well as in several coffee shops in Montenegro. Are those exceptions? --PaxEquilibrium 14:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well of course, originally this word is Torlakian only, but under the influence of mass-media, today it is used all over Serbia and Montenegro. Montenegrin and Western Serbia equivalent of bre would be more (More, Marko, ne ori drumova), but today it is much less used than bre. --Djordje D. Bozovic 11:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Montenegro and bre??? Heck, I got to tell a joke...
 * Turista spava na dušeku u moru na crnogorskom primorju, kad čovjek sa obale ugleda peraje morskog psa kako kruži oko njega. On poviče iz sveg glasa:
 * Čoče, čoče, probudi se, probudi se!
 * Šta je bilo BRE?!
 * Ništa, ništa, samo ti spavaj...
 * Duja 06:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll say just one thing: . Nikola 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Govt. website
Montenegrin govt. official website is www.vlada.cg.yu,and not www.montenegro.yu,as written in the article.Is it sufficient to say that the site has no Serbian language version,but Montenegrin? Sideshow Bob 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The language issue is (like many regarding Montenegrins/Serbs) fairly schizophrenic. The problem is that "Serbian Language" as official is still written in the Constitution, and a significant majority of citizens declared it as mother tongue in the 2002 census. However, as anyone with a non-skewed point of view could see, that situation is probably totally different now (also, AFAIK, there is a motion to change the Constitution)—the figures for Serbian and Montenegrin are probably pretty much reversed today, but we (AFAICT) don't have any polls or official data to support it.


 * http://www.montenegro.cg.yu acts as a portal for all state-related web sites. As a counterexample, the President's web site has "crnogorsko-srpska verzija". Probably the best solution for Wikipedia is to mention both languages where required, or avoid the reference altoghether if possible. Duja ► 09:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason is that the Montenegrin President is Serbian. ;) The Government is mostly ethnically Montenegrin. As regards to the official language - F. V. assured the Cetinje Metropolitan that the Serbian language will remain the official language of Montenegro in the future. --PaxEquilibrium 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This constitution ypur are talking about was adopted in 1992. According to Government Authorities, the new constitution is to be adopted next year, possibly during the springtime. So expect some changes, if any. --Crna Gora 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrin Wikipedia?
Is there a debate over whether or not to allow a Wikipedia in Montenegrin? Badagnani 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There was one, about a year ago, at Requests for new languages, but it was declined. Oh, I see there was a new one also, but rejected too. Duja ► 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gkmx 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)How about a Monte language wikipedia and another Negrin language wikipedia? Perhaps a Sumadinska wikipedia? Vojvodinska? What do you think?
 * There is no problem with Wikipedias in different dialects. --George D. Božović 11:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I know who would endorse a wikipedia in Užican speech >;). Đorđe, nice quote mining in that article btw. :-) Duja ► 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote mining? Point it out then. I do believe Wikipedias in different Serbo-Croatian dialects would be quite useful. --George D. Božović 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic considerations
Section Linguistic considerations purports to give some features of Montenegrin language. However, they appear not to actually exist, as I will demonstrate with a set of Google searches of cg.yu domain, which accurately represent how Montenegrins actually speak. The most that could be said is that "some proponents of Montenegrin language claim that it should have these features" or something to that effect. Nikola 19:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Using što for interrogative form of what (as in Croatian, and unlike Serbian šta): vs.
 * The group a + o gave a ("ka" instead of "kao", reka for rekao): vs
 * Several "hyper-ijekavisms" (words keeping a jat reflex from a non-existing or elsewhere differently evolved original) (nijesam, tijeh, ovijeh, ovijema, tijema and kisjelo (or kiśelo when the iotation occurs): vs.
 * Hyper-iotations (đe for gdje, đevojka for djevojka, đeca for djeca, lećeti for letjeti, ćerati for tjerati, ćeskoba for tjeskoba etc): vs  (in some words it's correct).


 * The way Montenegrins speak is somehow different than how they write. They write in the standard Ijekavian Serbian language. However, some of them still speak one of the two non-standard traditional dialects used in Montenegro. This section describes those features of these dialects that differ from the standard language. The proponents of the separate Montenegrin language tend to standardize the language upon these dialectal forms. The Montenegrin language as such is not standardized yet, so Montenegrins have to write in the current standard language, and that language does not support these local features. And you can't use Google to find out how the native speakers of any of the Serbo-Croatian dialects (which are non-standard) speak (or were speaking, but the point is that you cannot write in a non-standardized dialect). --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It actually isn't because Serbian language has phonetic orthography and people write as they speak. Furthermore, if they would follow the standard, they would follow it completely, which is not the case (for example, nijesam is more common than nisam, but ovijeh is much less common than ovih). Fact, there are no linguistic features of Montenegrin language as it isn't codified, nor is there an agreement on how should it be codified, nor is there any prevailing pattern among people who claim to speak it. Nikola 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All I can say is: read again what Djordje just said. We are talking about the spoken language and you are talking about the standardised written language. Exactly because there are differences between the two, there is a movement to standardise the written language in Montenegro along the spoken-language characteristics. All native Montenegrin speakers and everyone who actually listened how they talk will agree with the statement. Also, there is aboundant literature describing Zeta dialect and its characteristics. Momisan 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no exact pattern because it is a dialect, which doesn't have a standard norm. Nikola, ja nikada ne potcenjujem ljude druge struke, ali ponekad mislim da je glupo to što se neki drugi stanu mešati u ono što im nije poziv. Ne kažem da ti nisi dovoljno obrazovan za svoju struku, ali ne verujem ni da bi se baš mogao uključiti u neku stručniju raspravu u vezi s dijalektologijom srpskohrvatskog jezika. Nemoj pogrešno da me razumeš - nije mi cilj da te vređam ili nešto slično, samo kažem da nisi u pravu i da možda ne možeš uvek da tvrdiš nešto što izilazi iz okvira tvoje struke. Nadam se da razumeš. ;) Sa ovim delom članka je sve u redu, i ja stojim iza toga. --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But that is actually exactly what I said. The features not only are not "universally spoken in the country" as the article already says, but even a single speaker who has one doesn't neccesarily have another. I'll remove the tag for now but will think about how to edit the article. Nikola 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you believe that wording is not perfect? What I was saying is that the features of the dialects and speeches traditionally used in Montenegro are accurately listed and described here, despite that not all Montenegrins use each and every one of them. :) It is how the dialects work - they have their own characteristics which differ from the standard language, but since they don't have a norm or something like that, it's perfectly normal that their features vary from one native speaker to another (like Momisan said, a dialect is a spoken language and it can't be written by various people using exactly the same pattern - if it had a pattern, a norm, it wouldn't be a dialect at all, but a standardized language). --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard Montenegrins call a wave val, but instead talas. Rock is not pećina because pećina means cave. I've never heard of Montenegrins use kapire for "to understand" To talk, Montenegrins use both as a matter of fact, villagers using mostly velit(i). Also, I've never heard a Montenegrin call sand pržina because nearly all Montenegrins call sand pijesak. Please provide sources for your information. --Crna Gora 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Val is as common as talas in everyday use. You even have a waterpolo club in Boka named "Val". Przina is probably an archaic term, since I haven't heard it but a few times.Kapirat and razumjet are synonims for verb to understand and are equally understood by an average Montenegrin. Sideshow Bob 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree to change the statement "instead of" to "along with". The "Croatian" words have been much longer in use, though. I intentionally chose words that are considered "true blue" Montenegrin, not neologisms like kapirat. My intention was to show that there are Montenegrin synonyms for quite a number of "standard blessed" words, in a daily use. The words that are rarely used in Serbian language or are systematically supressed trough the school system and officially considered "old" and "archaic". Surprisingly, the same words are used quite regularly in Croatian and/or Macedonian. Now, for the specific words: don't tell me noone ever asked you: što veliš? in the city? It is as common as good morning, at least in Podgorica and Cetinje :-) pržina is now an old word, but it is still alive, especially if you talk to older people. You have heard of the beach pržno? Pećina, if you ever went to swim in Morača river, you would have dived from a pećina, not stijena. Also, have you ever heard that the summit of Durmitor is sometimes called ćirova pećina along with Bobotov Kuk? Now, you know why. No friend ever gave you a pat on the back accompanied with pećino!!? Don't tell me you thought he said cave!? It is not used much, but it does exist, that is the point.I must say I am not sure if it exist in Croatian or not :-)Momisan 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for that. I actually do agree with you. I just didn't use common sense when I posted my post earlier. --Crna Gora 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, many of these words are not used all over Montenegro and are really rarely used in the literary language. They are actually a characteristics of some of the dialects and speeches of Montenegro, especially those of the littorial. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Djordje, these words are used in the Montenegro proper, where I grew up (Podgorica, katunska nahija, zeta, etc.).Momisan 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin words - Kromid, Bostan, Oris and Pipun These are words for fruits and vegetables that differ from Serbia's vocabulary while being used widely in Montenegro, Kromid being used along with luk mostly in the Plav/Berane area, Bostan, Watermelon, being used in Podgorica as well as plav/berane region and boka kotorska, Oris used in the littoral along with the Plav/Berane region, in Djenovici nobody understood what pirinac meant and everyone called rice oris, and Pipun is used interchangebly with Dinja for melon in Montenegro. - Critikal1

Literature
Almost all literary works, created in Montenegro until the begining of the 20th century were written in one of the Montenegrin vernaculars, mostly in the language spoken around Cetinje, then the capital city a.k.a the Zeta dialect.
 * If you don't provide some veriable sources for such claim, this should be removed. I am pretty sure that the medieval and even some later (17th and 18th century) works of Montenegrin authors were written in Old Church Slavonic, and certainly not in the local vernacular. Even the language used by Njegoš contains a lot of Russian and Old Slavonic words and grammatical forms. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I don't have access to the early works apart from online sources which are heavily editted to conform with "the standard". Propose to change to "Almost all literary works, created in Montenegro during the 19th century .."Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think of it as of weasel wording. Try making sentence like this: "Many written works of Montenegrin authors provide examples of the local Montenegrin vernacular..." or something like that. Also, note that the Zeta-Sanjak dialect is not the only dialect used in Montenegro. Its characteristics do not prevail in the Montenegrin literature, but also the characteristics of some speeches of the East Herzegovina dialect. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

They include some of the folk literature collected by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić and works of writers from Montenegro, such as Petar II Petrović Njegoš's Gorski vijenac (The Mountain Wreath) and other books.
 * Njegoš's language was not fully Montenegrin. It did contain many Russian and Old Slavonic words and forms, and moreover Njegoš even changed some local language characteristics found in the manuscript to those of Vuk Karadžić's proposed Serbian standard before he printed the "Gorski vijenac". For example, most of the accusatives of place characteristical for local Montenegrin dialects were changed by Njegoš to Serbian standard locatives (the stanzas "U dobro je dobro biti, na muku se poznaju junaci" from the manuscript became "U dobru je dobro biti, na muci se poznaju junaci" in the printed version). --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree that it was not 100% fully Montenegrin vernacular. However, it is, if we can put a number on it, at least 95% Montenegrin, or "gentrified" Montenegrin. It is also much more Montenegrin that any other known Serbo-Croatian standard or a dialect. I think you are little bit splitting hairs here, criticising without giving any constructive proposals. Are you suggesting that it is NOT Montenegrin at all? BTW the correct quote is: "U dobru je lako dobar biti, na muci se poznaju junaci" :-) How about this one: "Vidji vraga su sedam binjišah, su dva mača i su dvije krune"? Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my bad, I partly misquoted it. :) Perhaps a note on Njegoš's language can be introduced to this section. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Croatian author, Ivan Mažuranić, wrote Smrt Smail-age Čengića (Death of Smail-aga Čengić), a 19th century, true story based, epic about vendetta action that Montenegrins set against a prominent Piva-Drobnjak muslim Smail-aga Čengić.
 * The story about Smail-aga Čengić as Mažuranić described it was not fully "true". In Mažuranić's version it contains many characters and events invented by Mažuranić. Smail-aga was muselim (I didn't mean to say 'muslim' - with lower case m). Muselim was a position in Ottoman Turkish society. By the way, why is this mentioned here? This is not Montenegrin, but Croatian literature, isn't it? :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is based on a true story, not "the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth". I think my sentence is clear on that. As per Muselim, I could not find that word in the English dictionary. Would Sipahi(Spahija) be close enough? He was from Gacko and his subjects (and tîmâr???) were from Drobnjak. Does "Death of Smail-aga Čengić" belong to the Montenegrin Literature?... It is written in the Montenegrin vernacular, that is my claim. My opinion is that it also does belong to the Montenegrin literature, along with the Croatian, however that is another question and it doesn't belong in this article.Momisan 05:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant to say: true event, not the true story. Apologies. Momisan 12:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Smail-aga Čengić was a muselim indeed, not a spahija. The language of the epic does look somewhat like the local language of Montenegro, but it is certainly not the same thing, nor Mažuranić wrote in Montenegrin, but in Croatian (the East Herzegovina dialect, similar to that of Dubrovnik area). From any point of view (beside the fact that the Piva and Drobnjak regions in present-day Montenegro are where the story took place) this epic simply belongs to Croatian and not Montenegrin literature... Including the language. Look again: locatives denote place instead of accusatives characteristical for the Zeta-Sanjak dialect, "Gacko polje, l'jepo ti si/kad u tebi glada ne ima" --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have another look at the epic . The verse that you chose does sound more Bosnian (or Herzegovinian if you wish), however, that scene is happening in Gacko and there are others who sound more Montenegrin: "Podiže se četa mala, Na Cetinju Gore Crne.Malena je, ali hrabra, U njoj jedva sto junaka, Ne junaka biranijeh Po obličju ni ljepoti, Već po srcu junačkome;." C'mon, the whole epic talks about Montenegrins and their actions, the only non-Montenegrin elements are Smail-aga and the author. BTW, I have heard many times that it was almost impossible for a non-Montenegrin to get their language so much right and that the true author was Njegos himself. However, because he personally organised the asasination, it would have been totally politicaly incorrect, i.e. it would have caused a diplomatic row with Turkey, for him to publish the epic about it under his name. Ivan Mazuranic volunteered and secured his place in the literary history. I am little dismayed that you cannot recognise this fact. I am sure Mir will have something to add on this one as well :-) Regards, Momisan 06:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some philologists do believe that this epic was possibly written by Njegoš (once he said that he had another text to be published, but he gave it for reading to a guest who took it and never returned it back), but this belief did not have support in main stream Yugoslav philology, nor there are any proofs for this. Why do you think "junačkome" is an example of Montenegrin language? This form is present in so many dialects and in all literary languages that have developed from common Serbo-Croatian standard. "biranijeh" does look like Montenegrin, but it is also present in some other Ijekavian areas, including the (East Herzegovinian) Dubrovnik speech, which is actually the most similar to the language of this epic. Mažuranić wrote in the East Herzegovina dialect, most likely in its Dubrovnik speech. The fact that the epic simply talks about Montenegrins is not a criteria to include it into the Montenegrin literature, is it? Besides, Njegoš always wrote in deseterac, ten syllables long stanzas, and "The Death of Smail-aga Čengić" doesn't have a common metric through the whole epic, right? ;) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting topic. Mažuranić, let's assume it was him, struck a true chord in Montenegrins with this epic. It wasn't just someone telling a story about them, they felt it was one of them telling the story. Noone before or after him ever did anything similar in the history of South-Slav literature (in my humble knowledge :). It is a true art. Perhaps, the language was just close enough so the magic of the art did the rest, I don't know. I think Mazuranic tried to write in Montenegrin dialect and the result ended up somewhere in between Dubrovnik and Cetinje :)Momisan 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Language Dictionary
I have come accross people asking if there are any published dictionaries of the Montenegrin language. So far, I have found a reference to this book: Feel free to add more.Momisan 03:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * PRIŚET NA RJECNIK SV. PETRA CETINJSKOGA, Cetinje, 1996. Publisher : Crnogorski Kulturni Krug -- Cetinje, Elementa Montenegrina-- Cetinje; Author: Sreten Zeković;Editor: Borislav Cimeša; Press: Cicero-- Cetinje

Is there h heard in Montenegro?
"Sound /x/ (h) is lost in most speeches of Montenegro, unlike most other Štokavian dialects, where it is heard."

No, CrnaGora, it is other way around. No matter how you pronounce it yourself, I doubt you are acquainted with all the speeches of Montenegro and their linguistic characteristics. The phoneme h was lost during the Middle Ages in the most of Štokavian dialects, being simply removed from the language or being replaced with phonemes v, j, k, g, or s, depending on the etymology and phonetic environment in the respectable word. However, it was Montenegro where this sound was usually preserved. This disappearance of h was mostly influenced by the Turkish language, but the Turks had very poor power in mountainous Montenegro, and there were not very much of them in order to influence the language (note that loans from Italian are far more present in Montenegrin vernacular than loans from Turkish). Moreover, Vuk Karadžić did not use this sound until he visited Cetinje in 1836 and heard it there, so he introduced it to the alphabet and printed his Srpske narodne poslovice ("Serbian folk proverbs") that same year in Cetinje, which was the first of his books to contain h in the text. Also, h is never dropped in the text of Njegoš's Gorski vijenac: hajduče, zahuči, haljinah, gluho doba noći, zla nadživjeh tvoja svakolika, s Lovćena navrh Crkvine, devet putah jednako se čuje, strašnijeh gromovah, da li ne znaš Turke od Nikšićah, petnaest hiljadah Turakah, pohulio na vjeru Hristovu etc. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Đorđe, you might be right when you say this but today, Montenegrins barely pronounce the /x/ sound (h phoneme). Trust me on this. In other Štokavian dialects, it is heard, mostly by Serbs. Why do you think Montenegrins say "fala" instead of "hvala" or say "ajde" instead of "hajde". Why don't you go to Montenegro for a little while and see if I am right when saying that they barely pronounce the phoneme h. --CG 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to, partially, agree with CG on this although it is not so clear cut. The 'h' is very prominent in Gorski Vijenac, however, it is very rarely, or never used in Montenegrin dialects, just like in Serbia proper and chakavian Dalmatia. In fact, I have never heard "strašnijeh gromovah", but, it is very common to hear "strašnija gromova". In fact, when the 'h' is removed from archaisms like "strašnijeh" they suddenly become our familiar, daily used words. Noone says "crnijeh murava" but everyone says "crnija murava". For serbs: murva=dud=mulberry :) On the other hand, 'h' is now, although introduced by a decree, quite common. Noone says any more "aljina", "ajduk" etc. My view is that this one is a lost cause, CG, although there is a fair amount of factuality in your statements.Momisan 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

More and Vala
My parents are montenegrins who lived in Novi Sad for a very long time, and they know these words were never used there or Belgrad, only in Montenegro.
 * No, you're wrong. These interjections are quite common outside Montenegro as well. For example, I myself use and hear them a lot here in the west of Serbia. --Djordje D. Bozovic 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting you say that since I have been to Uzice and my uncle has many times, and neither I nor him have ever heard those words said by the serbs there, if its used there then they know you're from Montenegro. I dont think you were right in deleting my addition because I was right, since its not used in Belgrad, Novi Sad nor Zlatibor, while being used frequently in Podgorica and Niksic, it is clear to see that it should be associated with Montenegro and not Serbia, although you *may* now hear them in Uzice thanks to Montenegrins. - Critikal1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Actually, it is quite commonly used. I use it myself and actually I don't know anyone who doesn't use it (phrase vala baš is particulary common). Nikola 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most interesting. So on one side there are you, who have been to Užice a couple of times (and therefore you believe you perfectly know the way Užičans speak), and on the other side there's me, living there and being an Užičan myself, speaking so for the entire life, and being a linguist quite introduced with Serbo-Croatian dialectology; and your conclusion is that those must have been Montenegrins who spoke like that. (!?) --Djordje D. Bozovic 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes i'm not basing it of just MY knowledge but my uncles and some of my family's knowledge, my uncle has been to uzice many times, mostly Zlatibor since he considers uzice not a great place, and can say full-heartedly, "if you say more over there, they know you're a montenegrin", now you may be a "linguist", but you cannot deny the fact that those words are used mostly in Montenegro and not Serbia, maybe some seljaki in uzice use it, but if the majority in Belgrad, Novi Sad or Nis are not using it, while Podgoricanin and Niksicanin are, then your bound to come to the conclusion they're our words. - Critikal1
 * As Critikal1 used incorrect plural of "seljak", I submit that he is not from here, which makes his entire story false. Nikola 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no relevance if the speakers are peasants (seljaci) or academics. These words are used all over the Štokavian area, including many places outside Montenegro. The Serbian language is the Serbian language in Belgrade as well as in Užice, and it is the same language no matter of the speakers' education and place of living. Therefore, if some people who name their language Serbian use those words in every-day communication, and even if they are peasants, then those words do exist in the Serbian language. Moreover, I could say now that the Montenegrins are seljaci, as you claim those words being often used by Montenegrins. (Note that you have just called myself and Nikola seljaci.) --Djordje D. Bozovic 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of these words ('more' in particular) are turcisms and as such historically mostly used by various muslim populations of the Balkans. In Montenegro, 'more' would mostly be used around Rozaje and Sandzak in general in the North and Bar and Ulcinj in the south, where there is a significant muslim population. 'Vala' is more common in general use although again it is not considered a tru blue Montenegrin word. Momisan 13:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

H
That with the "H" was correct. --PaxEquilibrium 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Pax, you've got to be joking. Most Montenegrins nowadays somewhat pronounce the "h" phoneme, including me. Momisan even agrees with me. That was a historical thing, not based on real facts today. --CG 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we speaking here about the Montenegrin slang or the traditional Montenegrin vernacular? I believe most Montenegrins today say ajde, but that is nothing more than slang adopted from the mass media. The Zeta-Sandžak dialect does contain this phoneme. --Djordje D. Bozovic 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

About "ura"
Certainly "ura" (hour) and "urar" (watch-maker) are loans from German Uhr (which itself stems from Latin hora): Branislav Brborić mentions them as loans from German (Serb. германизми) several times on that page. --George D. Božović 18:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay well while this may be true, in present day german "hour" is "Stunde", while "uhr" means "clock", not the same meaning as the Montenegrin word. Nevertheless it should still be implemented into the Linguistic Considerations section somehow. --Critikal1

Oteti
Otu (ocu, i want) and Netu (Necu, I dont want), does anyone know anything about these words? I hear they are used by Montenegrins in Berane.


 * Apparently palatalization did not occur. Just like in mogu from moći. However, note that not all Montenegrins use these forms. Actually, most of them do not - palatalized forms (h)oću and neću prevail even in Berane. --George D. Božović 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Cesa
Cesa is used as 'what' in the interrogative form, many montenegrins use this word can any linguist shed some light on this.
 * Does ANYONE know about ćesa??Critikal1 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is česa or chesa. As anon pointed out, it is used, in Podgorica at least, very often among "old Podogričans" meaning 'what'. As an example: "Soke, česa si ono činjela jutros, na zoru?" Momisan 13:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Content
A lot of this article belongs to an article about the Zeta-South Sandžak dialect and an article about the dialects of Boka Kotorska. These dialects are called Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian etc by their various speakers. This article should confine itself to the political concept of a Montenegrin language.--Hadžija 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could not agree more. Let's just say sociolinguistic not political concept. --George D. Božović 14:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's just say it's not based purely on linguistic considerations. I've added the NPOV tag, as the article talks about the dialects of Montenegro and contrasts them with the Serbian and Croatian languages - despite the fact that a 3 to 1 majority of speakers of these dialects consider them dialects of the Serbian language. So, what the article is actually talking about are dialects which are mostly considered Serbian by the speakers, and comparing them to other Serbian dialects. And this in the article on the Montenegrin language!--Hadžija 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Montenegrin language is just as linguistically valid as Croatian or Bosnian, being just as different if not more than them, denying the validness is degrading on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.98.160 (talk • contribs)


 * You appear to have missed the point entirely, which is that we should separate linguistic factors from political/identity issues. Nothing to do with the validity of Montenegrin as a seprate language.--Hadžija 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am back from a well deserved vacation where I was actually talking some Montenegrin for a change, so re-energised let me share some of my thoughts on the matter :-) Why would you want to separate linguistical factors from political/identity issues? I think this question was discussed before at some length so I would suggest you to read previous posts before starting the whole debate again. What is exactly that you want to imply, that the Montenegrin language doesn't exist, that we need a separate page for linguisic consideration as it is getting pretty long, or something else? Personally, when I type Montenegrin Language in Wikipedia, I would expect to get some linguistic information of the language, i.e. some hard facts I can then use to assess political discussion about it. I was looking into improving article about Zeta-Zandzak dialect, however, the rest of the Shtokavian dialects were so poorly described that writing two pages just about Zeta dialect would look out of place. Furthermore, it is not entirely correct to box the dialects of Montenegro entirely into Shtokavian as it has some elements of Chakavian (ka instead of kao, the intonations etc. to name just a few)Momisan 13:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense
Personally, I am disgusted with not only this article, but also with the Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian ones. There is not 4 separate languages in the Balkans, but one common one and I personally believe its time this people in the Balkans grow up and realize that. They might not like each other, but they cannot change the fact they are all the same ethnicity. Its like the old cliche, "You can choose your friends, not your family". So grow up Yugoslav people and realize the fact. --Happyman22 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree with you, Happyman22. Cheers!24.86.110.10 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but it's hardly the article's fault. Wikipedia is not the place to be directing your disgust. --Ptcamn 03:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I wish more people (not talking about Happyman) would realise WP, as an encyclopaedia, merely reflects the crappy state of the world.--Hadžija 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what Wikipedia is, all I wanted to do is to express my disgust. It's definately not the fault of Wikipedia. --Happyman22 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Montenegrins have been proven through anthropology and blood by Carleton S. Coon to be ethnically different than the rest of the balkans, carrying old cro-magnon genes from ancient times, so no, we are not the same as the rest of the yugoslavs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Modern South Slavs are not purely Slavonic. All of them, not only Montenegrins, also have Illyrian and Celtic blood, and some of them Turkish blood, too. Slavs who settled the Balkans assimilated aboriginal Illyrians and Celts (so-called "Vlachs"). --George D. Božović 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of an obvious/meaningless statement, as is the one before it. Every nation is very intermixed genetically, and so to say it is different to other nations is a bit pointless. Even the "purest" families are intermixed if you go back. Nations cannot be differentiated by genetics or "race", but by a shared identity. Also, the comment by Critikal sounds like pseudoscience of the worst type. --Hadžija 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Happyman, child, dream your dreams somewhere else, Wikipedia is not a place for that. What would be your next idea? That all South Slavs you've mentioned, speak the language of Serbs. BTW, you were the one that created Portal:Serbs? Again one of Serbs that has that delusion about "same language"... Da je uzet nožice i istrići ove bedastoće, ali to se može učiniti sa komadom papira, nu u računalnim mjerilima... Ali tko će naći otapalo za ljepilo koje drži ove osobe u njihovom lažnom svijetu. Nikako od jedne krivulje napraviti dužinu. Niti tijekom prijašnjih stoljeća, niti za tisuću godina. Stop dreaming. Croats never spoke Serb language, neither called it with that name. Kubura 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The only dreamer and a fake one on wikipedia is YOU, Kubura. What all normal world sees,-you deny. What is a pure visible fact,-you refuse to see. What all the world recognizes, -you ignore. Can't you see that your powrless ideas of separation of Serbocroatian language are not interesting to anybody any more. Your false 'facts' are gone with NDH and they're dead forever. Why don't you stop your sick propaganda and finally face the truth? It's simple and very well known: Serbian and Croatian are ONE language with 2 standards-western(Croatian, latin) and eastern(Serbian, cyrillic), Stokavian is the basis dialect in both standards, and people in Dalmatia, Krajina and Slavonia (who are Stokavian speakers) are linguistically closer to the Serbs (also Stokavian speakers) than to the Croats from Zagorje(Kajkavian speakers). I won't go into analogy and make conclusions what that means, but everyone normal is aware of the fact that all South Slavs, who speak Stokavian are THE SAME people. That's the truth and I am sorry if it's killing you. And when you type on your artificial mixture of'cakavian-stokavian', which nobody in Croatia understands except you, please don't offend people for telling the truth on wikipedia. Every bad word you'll say from now on will return directly to you, reflecting your culture and civilization manners. Cheers.24.86.110.10 04:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Refer to Ivo Andrić. --PaxEquilibrium 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ? Generalization fallacy. --Plantago

"Linguistic considerations"
ZOMG, this section has become WP:POINTy — we have wiktionary for such things; the entry is supposed to provide an overview of characteristics, not to list every single word of Montenegrin dialects which might be different from the neighbors. Duja ► 08:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually most of the words are unique to montenegro, and unless we get a Montenegrin-English dictionary this is suitable for diplaying the distinctness of the Montenegrin language/dialect


 * Go to wiktionary then. And plese sign your comments. Duja ► 07:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, it might look like an overkill, however, at least we are not hearing any more such nonsenses like "Montenegrin and Serbian differ in only 2-3 words", do we? BTW, I wasn't the anon above. So, what is the suggestion? Momisan 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that not all, but many of the words listed there are actually used in many other Štokavian dialects as well, so they are not actually only Montenegrin words! The standard language used in Montenegro (the one which was referred to as "Serbian of the Ijekavian rendering" in the current Constitution of Montenegro) does differ from Serbian in precisely three words: sjutra, nijesam, and kisjelo - the latter of which is not always used. However, Nikčević's proposed Montenegrin idiom does tend to include many aspects of the grammar and vocabulary different than those of Serbian and of the current standard language used in Montenegro. But do not forget that it is still only proposed and that it's not been standardized yet! This article should deal with that proposed language of Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts (I think it shouldn't deal with the actual Montenegrin vernacular like it does at some points), but it treats it as an already accepted and standardized language, which is wrong. --George D. Božović 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to think about the term Montenegrin Language in its entirety, i.e the (still) current standard + the (non-existent) DANU standard + vernacular as a broader set. I believe that this article should cover all of them as a top-level item. Then, we can start specialising topics. Choosing to write only about some aspects and not the others would look to me like a, perhaps inadvertent, censorship.Momisan 08:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, don't you think such understanding of the topic would (still) be a little bit POV, at least until Montenegrin language becomes recognized in some way? ;) --George D. Božović 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag
I put a tag because there are several problems. First of all, yeah, the purer "Shto" version is more used in MNE, but it's completely unlike Croatian - because in Croatia it's practically exclusively used, which's far from the case in Montenegro.

The short infinitive is indeed used in Montenegro, to an extent. A very tiny extent, normally not excessed by the majority.

And practically the whole section. The only thing which is true for all the speakers of Montenegro is the hyper-ijekavism.

I also noticed that in the whole section, the language is actually compared as similar to Croatian. However, in Montenegro most people use the ovati domesticated verbal end, rather than -irati, just like in Serbia (and to an extent, Bulgaria - but it's a sort-of mix over there), unlike in Croatia or Bosnia. --PaxEquilibrium 11:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you do make a good point on the last part, however, Montenegrins also use a lot of the words listed on the article. --Prevalis 17:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"montenegrin language" in the new montenegro's constitution
Now in the article "Montenegrin language":

The new Constitution of Montenegro, ratified 19 October 2007, made Montenegrin the country's official language (as opposed to Serbian), but at the same time defined it as a dialect of the Serbian language.

Error: "but at the same time defined it as dialect of the Serbian language". Please, view the official text of the montenegrin new constitution:

"Jezik i pismo

Član 13 Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik. Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni. U službenoj upotrebi su i srpski, bosanski, albanski i hrvatski jezik."

Source: Official website of the Parliament of the Republic of Montenegro, Dokumenta: http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/index1.php?module=3&sub=2 23.10.2007 Ustav Crne Gore Download:

http://www.skupstina.cg.yu/files/downloads/Ustav%20CG.doc

Best wishes 85.55.7.20 08:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Rafael Company i Mateo


 * Yes, it does not define the Montenegrin language as any sort of dialect, obviously a standardization will be coming about soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.116.9 (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Duja?
...why did you remove he "official" from the first paragraph? --PaxEquilibrium 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Official language, not official language, or disputed?
This article contradicts itself several times, with claims that Serbian is the official language, that Montenegrin is the official language citing the constitution, that Montenegrin is the official language not citing the constitution, and that the issue is not settled. Someone with more knowledge of the issue really needs to go through the article and create some seblance of consistency, even if it is just to say that there is no clear answer. --24.1.245.85 (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just one of hilarious articles about Montenegro on Wikipedia. This behavior is fully supported by Foundation in many ways example. Tolerance toward POV pushers - People who enter this kind of rubbish here are true image of all consequences from actions of uneducated people which are sitting in Language Committee. Their constant wrong decisions like this and thisand their unmatchable devotion to their dutiesis really remarkable. This is Joke, and very bad one. --Ego and his own (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Romanisms
Coming from Montenegro, to me this article sounds a bit confusing and incoherent. I'm willing to contribute, not as an expert but as an interested individual. For the start, I think that the following two references should be included when talking about words of Italian (more specifically, Venetian) origin (it does not make sense that they are mentioned in the post on Serbian language, and not here): 1. Vesna Lipovac-Radulović, Romanizmi u Crnoj Gori — jugoistočni dio Boke Kotorske. Cetinje — Titograd, 1981. 2. Vesna Lipovac-Radulović, Romanizmi u Budvi i Paštrovićima. Novi Sad 1997. Since these two books are quite comprehensive (at least 5000 entries in each), it is better to refer to them than to list the (5000) examples.Vkotor (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. An article should not be a list, but has to have an actual content. --RockyMM (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

How different?
I have no knowledge of Serbian or Montenegrin and I am curious how different they really are and whether it is enough to consider them to be different languages. For instance, Spanish (or more precisely Castilian) spoken in Spain has lots of differences with the varieties spoken in South America and they all differ quite a bit amongst them: vocabulary, pronunciation and sometimes even grammar. Even so there aren't many people who would consider them separate languages: Argentinian, Mexican, etc. There is only one Spanish Wikipedia! The same goes of course for other languages which spread around the world: English, French, Portuguese, ... . Are Serbian and Montenegrin more different? Tsf (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not that they are so much more different, it is more because those scenarios you pointed out were products of colonies, while Montenegro was never a colony, in all respects Montenegro was around longer. Known —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.83.97 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What does it have to do with the languages being considered different or not? Using your argument German and Austrian would be different languages? Tsf (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * When thez make a standard, then we shall be able to compare them. Before? How? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.108 (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An absolute lie!!!!!!
"The number given - 900 students in Niksic turned out to be a media hoax. A few dozen joined the renegade teachers, but gave up the protest a week later. It IS a very small number indeed compared to the number of people emplyed in education in Montenegro - only 11 teachers + 2 deputy principles in NIksic decaded to persist and got sacked for not turning up on work and using children for political manipulation. That make it a borderline irrelevant info."

I was a student in that school (Niksic Gymnasium) when all this was happening and I saw everything with my own eyes!! There were 42 teachers, who were against this political decision, but the pressure was so strong that many of them couldn't stand it, so they came back to classrooms. And when it comes to students - it is true that 900 (from 1200) students supported their teachers! I was a participant in petition-signing against the Ministry's decision, and that petition was signed by 903 students of this school! I have the originals of the petition and I will scan those documents as soon as I find scanner and give you the reference so that everyone can see what the real truth is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mala sirena (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ISO 639-3 “srp”
I would like to say that SIL International is the registration authority of ISO 639-3 international standard, and in http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=srp it says that “Montenegrin is an alternative name of Serbian”. I don't want to say whether it is right or wrong, but since SIL International published ISO 639-3 and SIL International published Ethnologue, we should not change “srp” to any other thing. All in all, if you dislike “srp” please first go to SIL International and persuade them. -- &#9993; Hello World! 17:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ISO 639-2 “sla” means it is a Slavic language only. Isn't it? -- &#9993; Hello World! 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Montenegrin language
That section is everything but that which it claims. What is "Old Slavic language"?? And no, it was extinct by the 19th century for a long time. And it had a name since the 13th century for Montenegro in precise, the "SerboSlavic language". The term coined after 1850 in Vienna is "CroatoSerbian language, Croatian or Serbian language", and it is not related in any way to Montenegro, since the only Montenegrin there was Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, and only by parents.

Serbian Monarchy a bigger threat than the Ottoman Empire? Devastated as a nation and selfsufficient community, which it never was? Talk about wishful thinking. Serbia did not occupy Montenegro in 1918, nor did Montenegro have a thousand years of sovereignty (it was founded only some four and a half centuries before that, and had already lost its sovereignty once, to the Ottoman Empire, in 1499).

The Allied occupation of Montenegro had lasted only for several months, big deal, no schools were raised during wartime in short emergency state. How come is the Serbian government "unconstitutional"? Montenegro lost a lot, but not a third of its population, and its certanly to blame the Central Powers and not the Allies for that.

And what on earth does the rest have to do with the language? A great share of the population still up to today educated itself in Serbia. Are you saying that until the 1950 Novi Sad agreement, the language preserved was the nonexistant Montenegrin? No, this is incorrect. The language was Serbian, from the day the Partisans restored it in education in 1944 with the liberation of Montenegro from Axis occupation, and a decade later, it was in 1954 changed to SerboCroatian in accordance to the agreement. In 1992 this was changed, SerboCroat collapsed and Serbian was restored in Montenegro. Even if 3 invenented unapplied phonems? Why "even"? And a lots of others, yet to be invented, are applied in everyday conversation (at different places). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.138.108 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting facts. Montenegrin language is reality, and your hate toward Montenegro which you are showing here is nothing worth of commenting. --68.111.73.20 (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That section is complete nonsense, and I removed it. Nikola (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are references for each claim there. And the souces are very good known not like fabricated sourcesh which you and like you put here. So dont vandalize this article. What you said in that comment about widely recognized and respected writes and linguists is showing how much you know about this topic. --68.111.73.20 (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, there aren't. Newspaper articles with bombastic titles from 1920s are not actually references that their titles are correct. Nikola (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just read this section, and it's completely biased, also it's not properly cited per Wikipedia standards. My belief is that statements presented in this section are romanticized and referenced from third-party and unreliable and biased. This section is in for a total rewrite. Therefore I'm putting POV tag before it. --RockyMM (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont delete facts and references
Documents show that occupation took place, that government was formed against constitution and law of Montenegro. I find ok that on this article there is no information about massacre in Montenegro by Serbian military which is called white terror and it was bloodiest crime to Montenegrin people, but information about the occupation is important for readers to understand pressure on Montenegrin nation and means which are used to destroy history, independence and culture of that small but respected nation. It seems that here on Wikipedia there is a one group of people which constantly spreading false information about Montenegro, and they are doing that systematically. It seems they have full support from some key people from Wikimedia Foundation. I cant understand why Foundation denied twice right to Montenegrin people to open chapter of Wikipedia on Montenegrin language. Really weird behavior of WMF... Why is dispute on the "history of montenegrin language"? There are all facts there and references. Please remove that if no one can provide information here why this part of article is not trust worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.72.2 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Among other things, because 1909 census of Montenegro recorded that 95% of the population speaks Serbian language. Nikola (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dont vandalize this article. It is quite obvious that you vandalize this article. I called you to provide proof before you do edits. That part is most referenced peace of article, and it prove rest of article as forgery. Britannica from 1912 prove that Montenegrin language existed at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.216.132 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And 30 years ago 100% of Bosniaks claimed to be speaking "Serbo-Croatian" or Serbian/Croatian, and nowadays there is codified Bosnian language that is proudly claimed to be spoken by 2M people ^_^ So what happened a century ago hardly matters today..


 * It does matter however if you are writing about what happened a century ago. You know, history of the language. Nikola (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How about, instead of just plainly deleting 5K of content, discuss first what is exactly "nonsensical" in it? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, on User talk:68.111.73.20, to which he didn't respond. Here it is again:


 * I see that you are repeatedly adding a section "History of Montenegrin language" to the article on Montenegrin language. I urge you to stop doing it, as information presented in it is completely false.


 * It is silly to write that Montenegrins were annihilated by Serbia, as consecutive Montenegrin rulers Petar II, Danilo, Nikola I devoted their entire energy to creation of a union of Montenegro and Serbia. A host of documents from this period record that Montenegrin population is Serbian and their language as Serbian. If you want to go even further in history, you may note that Serbian medieval ruling house, Nemanjic, originates from Montenegro.


 * While joining of Montenegro with Serbia after WWI was unconstitutional, it was not illegitimate, and certainly not an occupation, as elections were held for the Montenegrin parliament that voted for the joining. The Christmas rebellion had Montenegrins on both sides, and you may also note that its leader, Krsto Zrnov Popovic self-declared as Serb.


 * Montenegrin nation was invented by Yugoslav Communist authorities in 1945, and Montenegrin language was invented by Montenegrin separatists in 1990s. Please don't spread falsehoods. Nikola (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nikola (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you don't know anything about Montenegro history. You are Bulgarian or Macedonian? If you ignore facts from references, where is clear that government of Montenegro was forcefully overthrown by Serbian and France military, and that was forbidden to king of Montenegro to come to his country not by his people but by foreign political forces. Thats ocupation same as Hitler ocupation and his creation of puppet countries. They also formed "elections"... It is quite real as it is world wide know of this, to say that occupation took place. They killed Montenegrin people just because they didn't want to give up they freedom and country. You with Bulgarian roots don't know anything about Montenegro, it is clear. Montenegro is oldest country in region which preserved culture and freedom on their territory. Go and edit Bulgarian history as you should have a more clue about your history.--64.50.72.2 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's suppose that everything you say is true. What does any of it have to do with Montenegrin language? Nikola (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Montenegrin nation was invented by Yugoslav Communist authorities in 1945, and Montenegrin language was invented by Montenegrin separatists in 1990s. Please don't spread falsehoods. - comments like this are not really helpful. Every nation in the world has a right to self-determination, even more so even they live in separate, democractic state, whose creation was prevented by various centralized and autocratic regimes in the past. I sincerely doubt that Yugoslav authorities "invented" > half a million self-declared ethnical Montenegrins in the censi of 1981, 1961 etc., or that people experienced collective hallucination. I agree that lots of stuff that IP keeps adding is POV garbage, however this article is still missing lots of historical perspective on the history of Montenegrin cultural self-identity and language politics, and especially numerous arguments Nikčević mades about Serbs misappropriating what should be Montenegrin cultural heritage (Zetsko-humska recension of CS anyone?) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is helpful, but it is correct. In the censuses conducted during the Communist rule people were not permitted to self-declare their nationality, so their results don't tell us much. I agree that a lot could be said about the topic, but that doesn't mean we should tell fairy tales.
 * And, Nikcevic really isn't the most respectable of linguists... Nikola (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * POV garbage? Add some facts on claims like this, but i see it is not nessesary if you are from balkan. If you are from there you can say what ever you want. You dont even need to be human. It seems you as one which are not from Montenegro are really full of knowledge about Montenegro. Wiki community rejected Montenegrins to participate here in right way, and that's only reason why so much lies are spread by people who are driven with hate toward Montenegro. But that will not last forever. Regarding Point of View. Bloody remark of occupation of Montenegro where our ancestors are killed and tortured by occupational forces after WWI, are not something unknown. There is lot of records domectic and foreign. So is it your ignorance toward history of Montenegro or you are pretending to not know that. Thats wasn't ease on heavy burden for Montenegro nation, As one of Montenegrins sad on mountain Vojnik(1919) runing from ocupational prosecutors: "It dose not hurt us that when outside enemy is against us, but hurt us that they send on us our brother croats, serbs and slovenians to kill us."

This was printed and droped from plane in 1919 in Belgrade, Zagreb and Sarajevo. But in vain. They killed many, many where tortured and their families.But who reacted? Only truly noble Belgium people on international conference in Genoa. For me those fact's tell me that international politic didnt change to today. But as I sad, it will come time when lies about Montenegro will perish and be replaced by real informations from people who actualy know something about Montenegro. --68.106.216.132 (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Montenegro was not occupied after WWI because France and Serbia were its allies. You can not occupy an allied country. Nikola (talk) 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ovo je jadno i zalosno sto ti Nikola radis.--67.95.243.114 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In a letter sent by Nikola Pašić to Serbian king Petar Karađorđević in 1915 he wrote: "Gubimo rat protiv Austrije, ali dobivamo protiv Crnogoraca." (We are losing war with Austria, but we are winning against the Montenigrins) !!! Zenanarh (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent reverts concerning the term "recognized" and recognition of the language
As in International recognition of Kosovo (and everywhere else I hope) I understand and advocate the ambiguity in the term recognition. Therefore "recognized" could be considered ambiguous also, and I do considered it as such. Although this is another, probably more profound, "dimension" of the subject than the current case of potential edit war, it should be dealt with - and it should be dealt with carefully, I reckon. Here in this article (and in any matter of linguistics) it would be more helpful if such expressions would be replaced by some less glamorous than the term "recognized". Perhaps the term "considered" instead. All the best, Biblbroks 's talk 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regional variations
Whilst not a native of Montenegro nor a srbski speaker (but a regular visitor), I note that there are significant variations in vocabulary, with variants of Italian words used by those brought up near the Adriatic coast. No doubt a native speaker can expand on this and other variations. For a novice, the principle difference appears for standard srbski appears to be the use of "lj" in place of "l" in words like ljep/lep.

United Statesian language?

 * I think the people of the United States need to press Wikipedia for a separate article on the United Statesian language. After all, why should we have to call our language after the name of the country of our former colonial oppressors, even if it is the same language? If Moldova and Montenegro can pretend they speak a different language from Romania and Serbia, respectively, why can't we? And it shouldn't stop there. Why do the good people of Austria have to use the name of that big country that bullied them around in the 1930s to describe their language? Or the people of Algeria have to use the name of a country 1,000 miles away to name theirs?
 * It's called 'American English.'

Please, be serious!!!
According to the latest poll conducted by Matica crnogorska in mid 2010 Remove those not free, state controlled and fake institutions polls. Respect just the official gallop which says, 63% speak Serbian language! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.184.39 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Census was organized by a state, not this :D. 109.228.70.13 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"History of Montenegrin language"
First, I wish to offer congratulations for the first written Standard. Not that I consider it particularly necessary, but after all, that's what most Montenegrins were after.

I'm not here for quarrel, but the section called "History of Montenegrin language" was unsalvageable, ignorant POV-pushing written in appalling English. The only solution is to remove it and start from clean slate. If you want to describe the language and history seriously, even with a Montenegrin bias, be my guest, but that section only makes you a disservice. Where should I start?
 * "Up to the 19th century the only language in use was the old Slavic language". That language was used around 9th century. 1000 years made some difference.
 * "The list of rules and differences from the old Slavic Language was called Language of People". What the heck?
 * "Montenegrin people did same as Britannica from 1911". What???
 * "The biggest ... threat on Montenegro was the Serbian Monarchy, which they finally succeeded in carrying out on 1918 by forceful occupation". Jeez. The Podgorica assembly maybe was a circus, but they were invited.
 * "Under occupation of the unconstitutional Government in Belgrade". How can a Government can be unconstitutional?
 * "Until the Communistic party of Yugoslavia didn't made agreement to make unified Serbo-Croat Language, Montenegrin Language was preserved". This is nonsense.

Etc. etc. etc. Please don't restore that crap. No such user (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be very far-fetched to claim that it "got new standard" - all that it got was a proposed orthography book absolutely nobody still abides by AFAIK, and no grammars, dictionaries etc. that conform to it (let alone educational and legislative system, and a body of written literature). Media and schools still use Ijekavian Serbian/Serbo-Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a standard, and we don't use Serbian standard. It's very similar to SH, like other 3. Rave92 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh really? The only places where I've seen this orthography in use was in papers by V. Nikčević :D Are there books, or Internet magazines that utilize this new standard and not the usual Ijekavian SC? I'd really like to take a look :D --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hah, why are you trying to be naive like you don't live on the Balkans. You can write sj and new letter, so your argument isn't really good and trying to be naive to the English readers and you know till yesterday it wasn't legal to write those letters. You can choose to write with those letters or not, so it's still a Montenegrin language ;). Rave92 (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Montenegrin diaspora in Canada uses it on their web site for e.g. : www.montenegro-canada.com Rave92 (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. I guess we'll just have to wait for a few years to see whether this will caught on. Unless they start publishing schoolbooks that abide by it and use it in everyday media, its inception is IMHO likely to turn out to be its funeral, and the status of Montengerin will be similar to that of "Moldovan" (which is considered Romanian by a bulk of its native speakers, but officially it's "Moldovan") --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It won't since you can use both. There will be in books, and people (and so would media) use if they want, if they won't, that doesn't mean it will fail. A lot of people are glad they can officially write like they talk. Rave92 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose so, but people ("the mob") are stupid and lazy and 99% is probably just going to write the same way they did before out of pure inertia. Like in Croatia where no one writes ne ću (even the prime minister mocked this one :P), prijegled or pogrješan except for extreme right-wing magazines like Fokus or Hrvatsko slovo (which nobody reads anyway). History has shown us that whenever there are equally-valid doublets proscribed, people usually stick with what they learned before (which is both good and bad thing). At any case, we'll see :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I think a lot of people will actually use new letter ś (not letters, as ź to me wasn't necessary), especially those who supported Montenegrin language since the nationalization of Yugoslavian (SH). This letter ś was always used in Montenegro in speaking, it's just stupid to see like Montenegrins try to be different from Serbians or Croatians, it's not that, it's just what we should done 100 years ago but didn't. Hopefully you understand that we don't try to be different, just to finally write how we speak, like Vuk said ;). Rave92 (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

--Minikola (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)So, As I see, Montenegrian language is entirely made-up from Serbian somewhere in 2008, to suit political needs? Maybe 100 years ago everybody was speaking Serbian, just until 2 years ago, suddenly, you decided Serbian is not good enough for you.I see that political made-up language and nothing else.

As I see, you have no idea of any Balkan related topics, and it's better for you not to involve into discussions about it as you look stupid with this comment. 92.36.134.93 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This section has numerous citations that support facts mentioned in this section. None of them you can deny, what you do is talk without any valid argumentation. You have been called here to provide your arguments not your political views. --76.114.213.50 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And that what you keep inserting are not political views? Your contributions are reasonably disputed above, so your efforts to insert disputed text by force are in vain. --  Bojan   Talk   05:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What I see is that you are trying to remove text by force without any logical argumentation you just simply don't like it. And that is not good enough for dismissing this very documented peace of article. And you are admitting here that you are lead by your political views. Please be nice and stop vandalizing this section. Thank you. --76.114.213.50 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What documented piece of article? It is full of nonsenses (read the beginning of this section) and it is biased 'cause it evades to mention many facts. --  Bojan   Talk   04:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you refering to this: ""Up to the 19th century the only language in use was the old Slavic language". That language was used around 9th century. 1000 years made some difference." Even kids know that Vuk Stefanovic karadzic who was "founder" of Serbian Language lived not in 9th century but in 19 century. This is not a argumentation this is ignorance. --76.114.213.50 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I miss your point. And Vuk Karadžić was not founder of Serbian language, it existed for centuries before him. He and his disciples just standardized language. Anyway, you deliberately forgot to mention that only Serbian textbook were printed in Montenegro, that pupils learnt Serbian in schools... --  Bojan   Talk   19:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The text you are trying to insert is not neutral, but a political pamphlet, written in broken English, full of logical and factual errors, and has been thoroughly debunked by myself and others at the top of this section. If you repeat the same action X times, do not expect a different answer: and the one shared by most people who care about this article is that it is crap. No such user (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Who ever added this section has provided a lot of citations to support what is claimed in article. To me rest of the article looks bloated with political views and POV pushing. If you have any actual argument please use this page to discuss, otherwise stop vandalizing this article! --76.114.213.50 (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your citations are: Britannica from 1911, NY Times from 1922, a pro-Montenegrin website, a source describing Language Evolution in Bosnia, and apparently an official proclamation of the Montenegrin Government, mostly translated verbatim.
 * The English is terrible and barely comprehensible, particularly in the first part.
 * Why are the 1918-1922 events, where Serbia's behavior was indeed poor, relevant for Montenegrin language?
 * Even the, which is, again, not a neutral source, does not state that " The biggest territorial and assimilative threat on Montenegro was the Serbian Monarchy, which they finally succeeded in carrying out on 1918 by forceful occupation". The sentence is false on several accounts, which I won't even start enumerating, because it's irrelevant for Montenegrin language.
 * Do you seriously consider the pompous sentence "Today Montenegro is finally after two centuries in a position to be a self-sufficient and sovereign state with the means and will to restore and preserve its language uniqueness as it is in reality. In Montenegro today the official language is, by constitution, the Montenegrin Language, and efforts to provide international standardization are in progress", sounding like taken from a political speech, appropriate for an encyclopedia?
 * What you're trying to add is already explained much better elsewhere.
 * The material does not satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CITE, and WP:COMPETENCE. It is bad on all accounts: accuracy, neutrality, and literacy. Being "cited" does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion. No such user (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This citations are not mine but their respective owner. But that wouldn't make any different from the rest of your claims. Britannica and NYTimes seems to me and rest of the world as very good sources specially from that time. This section talks about history of Montenegrin language and is natural that referrer to the period of time from the past. From other hand we had claims in this article that Montenegrin language is thing of later years but when we see Britannica Encyclopedia from 1911 we see that people of Montenegro indeed called their language with their name. Why that period is important? Its very simple to me, its important because it shows that Serbian hegemony had as goal to stop development of Montenegrin culture and specially language.
 * Except for last sentence you are mentioning that indeed sounds very sad, when I realize that because of Serbian occupation they didn't have University until 1974, nation who had printing press just few years after Gutenberg invention, that makes even that sentence acceptable to me but I would understand that is POV and could be writen better. --76.114.213.50 (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeez. Just now I noticed that you have been trying to push that material through since 2008. Now that's what I call persistence! Svaka čast! No such user (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems clear to me from the rantings I deleted below, and similar rantings on my talk page, that this IP is not interested in working with anyone else to incorporate this material into the article. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you know him as well. I am ranting but they called me a liar. Nice try. You block me, they call me a liar, i cant reply and everyone is happy. What a game. --166.203.253.101 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I addressed the editors on this talk page, therefore we know each other well. By that standard, you and I are conjoined twins.
 * The block does not stop you from working out what you want on this talk page. And you're welcome to do so. It appears that you're not interested in that, that all you want is to tell us the WP:Truth, and we are to accept it on blind faith. If you wish to work together to make this a better article, wonderful. Otherwise you're merely being a nuisance. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not truth as well the rest what you said. Here is Proof: http://i45.tinypic.com/2yobwcy.png You never assumed my good intention you started threatening me immediately without any reason and put me into unfavorable position to the rest of discussants. My Article was called "shit" here, no arguments where given in any way just plain claims without any base, no one from this few people here even tried to help to make article better written they just delete it as they do with all other articles about Montenegro. They are just pushing their Serbian hegemonic ideology by blocking any truthful information about Montenegro. You took their side, claiming that you know what you talk about Old Slavic Language and then block me claiming that I was warring on Macedonian language, which is proof that you don't even know what was said on this page - didnt even read title! You are abusing your position as Administrator. Now you want to appear that I am the one who don't want to discuss, when you have block me and tried to disable me to do so. You cant delete history which is proof of all this. You are friend with this people who are from Serbian Chapter and you are abusing your Administrator rights. You are very bad person! --166.203.253.101 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

CN in the lead sentence
Biblbrox, I do assume good faith, but cn on the first sentence of article "Foo language", requesting citation for statement "Foo language" is a language sends a red flag to the reader "OMG, there's an edit war here". (The same thing happens when a statement in the lead needs a dozen citations ;it indicates someone is trying to prove a point.)

Generally, we don't even need citations in the lead section, if it summarizes the contents appropriately; they aren't forbidden though. See WP:LEADCITE.

Now, there certainly is a controversy about the scope and existence of the language, and it is outlined right there in the next paragraph. However, it is a language because its speakers refer to it as a language; it obviously is not a dialect (it has at least two dialects), not a battleship and not a cultivar of oranges. Na'vi language is 'obviously also a language, although it has no speakers in existence. Requesting citation for a tautological statement is not exactly nice. I certainly could provide one, but I really don't see the point.

If the article is bad (I agree it is), or if it is self-contradictory, apply contradictory, cleanup, or, better still, sofixit. Placing a cn in the very definition is decisively not helpful. No such user (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My mistake: red flag lowered (if it was raised). Will tag it as contradictory - because of this: Declaration of Montenegrin PEN Center[8] states that "Montenegrinlanguage does not mean a systemically separate language, but just oneof four names (Montenegrin, Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian) by whichMontenegrins name their part of Shtokavian system, commonly inheritedwith Muslims, Serbs and Croats. All the best, --Biblbroks 's talk 12:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard language vs. "language"
English speakers think of different "languages" as largely mutually unintelligible forms of speech. Thus American and British are not different languages. In the former Yugoslavia, there as separate standards for what are completely intelligible forms of speech. These are certainly different languages in the sense of being different standards, but are hardly different languages in the common use of the term in English. By the criteria of the Balkans, American, British, Canadian, and Australian are all different "languages". Thus I'd like to avoid saying simply that Montenegrin, Serbian, Croatian, & Bosnian are South Slavic "languages", and give a more nuanced description. What I proposed was,


 * Montenegrin (Црногорски језик, Crnogorski jezik) is a standardized form of the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian used as the official language of Montenegro.

That pretty much covers it: it's the same dialect as Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, but treated as a separate standard, and so is a separate language by that criterion. The "language", in the normal English sense of the term, is Serbo-Croatian, which is closer to an entity defined by mutual intelligibility. On the other hand, if we just say,


 * Montenegrin (Црногорски језик, Crnogorski jezik) is a South Slavic language spoken in Montenegro and by the Montenegrin diaspora. It is based on the Shtokavian dialect.

which this was reverted to, we are being duplicitous at best: It is not "a South Slavic language" the way say Dutch is a South Germanic language or Portuguese is a West Romance language, or the way Bulgarian and Slovenian are South Slavic languages. kwami (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Try doing that to other 3 languages or how you call it, "dialects". It's a language, and there is no British or American, but English. Rave92 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Where did I call them dialects? They are not dialects, but are all a single East Herzegovinian dialect. They are different standards, just as Standard Hindi and Urdu are different standards of a single (Khariboli) dialect. Perhaps in Montenegrin, the word jezik is understood to have this meaning, but in English, the word "language" does not, at least not by default. Since this is English WP, we need to follow the English meaning of words. kwami (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hah, so language means something different in UK and rest of the world? Montenegrin is a LANGUAGE. Rave92 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, "language" may perhaps not mean the same thing as jezik. If you speak Montenegrin, Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian, does that make you quadrilingual? Of course not, because when you say you "speak four languages", you don't mean you speak four national forms of the same language. Montenegrin is a standard language, which isn't the same thing as what English speakers normally mean by "language". kwami (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's nations and state decision to not call it Serbo-Croatian (which wasn't agreed by other nations in the first place, but not like you could oppose it in Yugoslavia). Those are all separate languages with their own standards and exceptions. I understand your point, but that doesn't change the fact that anyone recognize it as language, not just standard of SH, as SH doesn't formally exists anymore. I agree that if you change that to other 3 pages, it won't be a problem to have that here. But only Montenegrin to be called standard, while other 3 "language"? Believe me, your edit will be reverted on other pages, but you can try. Rave92 (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried to formulate a compromise solution. All four languages are slightly differently standardized forms of one single genetic language (diasystem), usually called Serbo-Croatian, and that should be mentioned in the lead. Similar formulation should exist in leads of all other articles, and I'll insist on putting it there if it isn't. No such user (talk)

Sure, that's fine with me. Rave92 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's what we have now, and my specific objections:


 * Montenegrin (Црногорски језик, Crnogorski jezik) is a South Slavic language spoken in Montenegro and by the Montenegrin diaspora. Along with Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, it is one of four standardized versions of the Serbo-Croatian diasystem. It is based on the Shtokavian dialect.


 * "a South Slavic language". It is not a South Slavic language in the normal English sense of the word "language". If we list what we call South Slavic languages (Bulgarian, Slovenian, Serbian, Montenegrin, etc.), we give the false impression that Montenegrin and Serbian are distinct the way Bulgarian and Slovenian are distinct. It is rather only distinct as a language standard / standardized language, so IMO we should use wording to that effect. After all, if you speak Montenegrin and Bulgarian, you're bilingual, but if you speak Montenegrin and Serbian, you're not.
 * "spoken in Montenegro and by the Montenegrin diaspora". How do we determine which language s.o. speaks? Not by the language itself, but according to the ethnicity of the speaker. So if I played you a recording of s.o. speaking, you would be unable to tell me which language it was unless I told you the ethnicity of the speaker. Also, these people may not speak the standard language, while Montenegrin is only defined as a standard language. (Either that or it's defined as SC whenever spoken by an ethnic Montenegrin, which is not a coherent concept in terms of the language itself, and this article is about the language, not about ethnic Montenegrins.) So this statement is misleading at best. What we have is the range of ethnic Montenegrins mapped against the distribution of SC.
 * "the Serbo-Croatian diasystem". I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, though perhaps it's the best solution. I read it as meaning that the four standards are based on separate dialects, the way Bulgarian and Macedonian are, whereas in this case they're all based on the same dialect. Of course, this is true for other cases as well, such as Hindustani, but I think we should be clear that all are the same dialect. Maybe "it is one of four standardized versions of the Serbo-Croatian diasystem based on the Shtokavian dialect."
 * I also think that "East Hercegovinian" may be a better term, as English speakers have heard of Herzegovina, whereas practically none have ever heard of Shtokavian, and if they have, they don't need this lede anyway. kwami (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin keyboard
Does the language use the same keyboard as other Balkan countries? There does not seem to be an article covering Eastern European latin keyboards. Your mission, should you choose to accept it... Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean? You can buy keyboard with Montenegrin 2 letters. Rave92 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

protected
I've protected the article for a day. Come on folks, we need to share the sandbox. If you have something to contribute that proves controversial, iron it out here first. Or post it here, and people can work on it till they're satisfied. If that doesn't work, take it to WP:dispute resolution. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You first tried to intimidate me and took side in this dispute, then when I objected to this on your page you continued to threaten me staying openly on one side here, claiming something you know about Slavic language and how that sound reasonable to you as argument, then when you blocked me you blocked me for warring on Macedonian language?? Can you have at least little respect to your duty and read title of this page? You blocked me and deleted all trace of my defense trying to shut me up.
 * I am calling and calling and calling for years (read this  page at least and see dates for 3 fucking years!) to anyone to show any proof that article has any wrong citations or untrusted sources. They said that NY Times and Britannica is untrusted source? What kind of joke is this? You are openly supporting and doing favors for your friends from Serbian Chapter. That is not how you should use your privilege to be administrator on Wikipedia but I will use this as evidence how job is done here in Foundation --166.203.253.101 (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete webpages
All the URL's given in the last section Examples of terminology are OBSOLETE (as of 07.09.2010). noychoH (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pushing POV history section
There is no place in a language article for the extensive POV history section that is being pushed by an anonymous IP. A few well-sourced facts directly related to the language are relevant, but three paragraphs on the history of Montenegro's relations with Serbia are not linguistically relevant. --Taivo (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * He's been trying to add it since 2008, I think. This talk page is littered with useless dismissal of that crap, he just inserts it again. Just revert, block, ignore. No such user (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Opression
"Some people may compare the situation with Montenegrin to the positions of Croatian and Bosnian, becouse all of these languages were being oppressed by the pro-serb regime in former Yugoslavia" I think this sentence is POV. As I recall, in communist Yugoslavia, 20-30 years ago, Serbian cyrillic was deliberately supressed, Serbian language was called "Serbo-Croatian", and latin script was used in Serbia as well as in Croatia and other parts of former Yugoslavia (except FYROM, then called "Makedonia"). That regime was everything but "pro-serb". I'm Serbian, and I was a child in that time, but I remember well. So, I removed this sentence from the article, because it does not reflect the true conditions in that time.178.223.40.83 (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do note that it says "former Yugoslavia". Yugoslavia existed in various forms for almost a century. It is not limited to the period of "communist Yugoslavia, 20-30 years ago". Also, even if Serbian language was suppressed in some form, that does not necessarily mean that the other languages were not, nor that the regime was not pro-serb. 幾何學家 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)