Talk:Montenegrin language/Archive 3

Language Self-Identification
Self-identification of what language one speaks is not truly reliable linguistic information. I can give you examples around the world where you ask, "What language do you speak?" and the speaker gives you the linguistically incorrect answer either knowingly or unknowlingly for a wide variety of reasons. Especially in this case, where the question "What language do you speak" carries a multitude of political and ethnic pressures that are unrelated to the language being spoken. In reality, nearly all Montenegrins speak a variety of the Serbo-Croatian language. "Montenegrin" is not a language. "Serbian" is not a language. They are mutually intelligible so they are varieties of a single language, not separate languages. Speaker self-identification in these cases is totally unreliable. If you asked me whether I spoke "French" or "English", my answer would be more reliable because these are different languages. But asking a Montenegrin whether they speak "Montenegrin" or "Serbian" is more akin to asking a New Yorker whether they speak with a Brooklyn accent or a Queens accent. The answer may vary on any given day depending on whether the Brooklyn or Queens accents are considered "good", "bad", "economically advantaged", "political correct", etc. It is a meaningless question in the end. Such assessments of dialect usage can only be conducted by qualified linguists and not by asking the uneducated speakers themselves. In this case you can say, "The majority of Montengrins claim they speak Serbian", but you cannot categorically state that the majority of Montenegrins speak the Serbian dialect of Serbo-Croatian, because there are too many non-linguistic factors involved in the question. --Taivo (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree to a great extent, but note that qualified linguists have said, among other things, that "the distinction between languages and dialects is usually made more on social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones", meaning that it is the uneducated speakers who decide what's what (in general). By the same argument as you have given, "Czech" and "Slovak" are not languages, yet their articles state that they are. Linguists study language, they don't decide how we (the people) speak and what we mean by what we speak. Since this is "an encyclopedia for the public" and not "a linguistic encyclopedia", the articles should be written in "the language of the uneducated speakers" not in the language of linguists. Everything stated here should be stated with understanding of all the implications, linguistic or otherwise.幾何學家 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And those implications would be...? --biblbroks (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For example, am I right if I conclude that 43% of Montenegro considers SANU and Matica Srpska the ultimate authorities on their language? Or that their language is closer to Serbo-Croatian as spoken in Serbia (Serbian) than to Serbo-Croatian as spoken in Montenegro (Montenegrin)? If articles such as "The Mountain Wreath" state that it was written in Serbian and that it is a masterpiece of Serbian literature, am I right if I conclude that the mentioned authorities show respect and admiration for the minority that speaks the same language today and concern over the status of the language? 幾何學家 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaks which language? --biblbroks (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This language http://www.guskova.ru/~mladich/Njegosh/facsimile/img/gv-102.jpg 幾何學家 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one is that? --biblbroks (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems
A new map was loaded into this page, but there appear to be copyright issues. Read the WikiCommons page very, very carefully. The image is not unlimited use, but certain rights were reserved. If you want to use the image on this page, then you must adhere to the copyright issues on that WikiCommons page. You cannot simply insert that image into this article without comment or attribution. Read the reserved rights carefully and adhere to them. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But the attribution is given on the image itself: Author: Ivan Vukicevic and Аутор: Иван Вукићевић. --biblbroks (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter at all that the author and poster are the same. Read the rights box and you will that he posted it with restrictions.  Until you meet those restrictions, this map is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT.  --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What I found is this:
 * Permission (Reusing this file) 	CC-BY-SA-3.0-RS; GFDL-NO-DISCLAIMERS.

and this I really don't understand what restrictions should be met. Would you care to clarify, since the inclusion of this map can add to the article's content. --biblbroks (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
 * Please actually read what you wrote. It's right there in front of you:  "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)".  In other words, if you post this, you must include in the caption the author of the work and that fact that they do not necessarily endorse its use in this article.  --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for explanation and sorry for the trouble. --biblbroks (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Cyrillic letter "Ć"
Is there a reference that the proper unicode character for soft С is U+106 instead of U+421,U+301 i.e. "С́". --Pepsi Lite (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely this letter, whatever one would call it, is definitely not (note the word LATIN).  and  is a better choice, though I'm not particularly convinced that this is acute. FWIW I just can't imagine the rationale behind using something that isn't used in Cyrillic script, specifically when corresponding letter  was available. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories
Regarding recent back and forward categorization of this article under Category:Serbo-Croatian language: I initially added it as Montenegrin language is a subset of Serbo-Croatian, but this article is already categorized under Category:Serbian language, which is subcategory of Category:Serbo-Croatian language. Thus this article shouldn't be categorized under Category:Serbo-Croatian language per WP:SUBCAT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just plain wrong. Upon examining the content of the Category:Serbo-Croatian language, one may easily spot that the only language article there is this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just plain wrong. Upon examining the content of the Category:Serbo-Croatian language, one may easily spot that the only language article there is this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this debate is over now? Montenegrin is listed right on the page you pointed out. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not over, actually (though it failed to proceed). The problem is one of the categories Serbo-Croatian language and Serbian language should be removed, as Serbian language is a subset of Serbo-Croatian language, and thus Montenegrin language is either subset of Serbian or of Serbo-Croatian. That said, from the pure categorization point of view the article should not be included both in parent and child categories. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Naški
It isn't disputed that people across Serbo-Croatian area have often called the language "naš" or "naški" 'ours'. The question is one of relevance to the statement, because it is encountered in pretty much every language. In Serbo-Croatian, it might be exacerbated slightly more, since the language naming has always been in flux.

The source used to back up the statement about naški is "LINGUA MONTENEGRINA. the magazine of linguistic, literature and cultural issues", issued by the Institute for Montenegrin Language and Philology "dr Vojislav Nikčević" (printed: 500), p.80. Abstract of the "article" reads Sreten ZEKOVIĆ SAINT PETER OF MONTENEGRO ABOUT “NAŠKI” LANGUAGE

Saint Peter I points out his permanent referring to ethnic-national difference between Montenegrins and Serbs in the very naming of his people’s language, which he never and nowhere called by the name of the other (foreign) people. The subject here is about non-naming of the Serbian language as the proof of ethnic and lingual individuality of the Montenegrins in the works of Saint Peter I. and the author goes on to cherry-pick the quotes where Peter I of Montenegro used terms "naš" or "naški" in reference to the Language. Since the source obviously has an agenda in reference to the topic, we would prefer having a neutral, peer-reviewed source discussing the historical naming issues in a neutral manner. No such user (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Montenegrin language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130811180646/http://www.predsjednik.me/ to http://www.predsjednik.me/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215000303/http://www.gov.me:80/eng/ to http://www.gov.me/eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Montenegrin language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022053115/http://www.pobjeda.me/2014/07/03/matica-crnogorska-crnogorskim-jezikom-govori-411-odsto-gradana-srpskim-391/ to http://www.pobjeda.me/2014/07/03/matica-crnogorska-crnogorskim-jezikom-govori-411-odsto-gradana-srpskim-391/#.VEJZhvmUca4
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.snjezana-kordic.de/Glusica_Rijec.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suc.org/culture/history/Hist_Serb_Culture/chc/Standard_Language.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/589513.Intervju_Vijesti_Politicari_prodaju_maglu.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016071444/http://www.pcgn.org.uk/Montenegro2.pdf to http://www.pcgn.org.uk/Montenegro2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montenegrin language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060430102218/http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/jezik/jezik_main.htm to http://montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/jezik/jezik_main.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

“Ad hoc”
The passage about the two extra letters added to the Montenegrin alphabet says that in Cyrillic, they “must be created ad hoc using combining characters.” Combining characters are full members of Unicode and are not an ad-hoc mechanism. The fact that not all existing fonts can render all combinations of base character plus combining mark perfectly does not change this. I propose changing this passage to say simply that the Cyrillic sequences require combining characters, without judging the solution. Doug Ewell (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)