Talk:Serbo-Croatian/Archive 5

Examples in the section "Division by jat reflex"
May I propose the addition of one more line, perhaps below the word "grějati". In the 1st person singular of the present it is "grějem" which is reflected as "grejem" and "grijem" where "ije" is not a reflex of yat, but only "i" is a reflex of yat. That is very interesting example, won't you say? 193.198.162.14 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatian Sign Language
We list Croatian Sign Language as a separate language. Does anyone here know anything about it? Serbian and Slovenian SL are considered dialects of a single language; it strikes me as odd that Croatian would be more divergent. (Ethnologue assigns it a separate iso code, but provides no information, presumably because none was available to them. Many previous such cases have turned out to be names in a book with no independent existence on the ground.) — kwami (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Language name obsolete
Term Serbo-Croatian is obsolete. What is show here as less commonly used name should be a primary name. Žarišče (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in English. --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially in English (and every non-BCSM language). English terminology has to adjust to use in native language. Žarišče (talk) 10:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't have to, and usually doesn't. English is a separate language, its terminology is also separate. Attempts to change english terminology have mixed success, such as East Timor's assertion that its proper name is Timor-Leste. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's even worse. It's a simple question of etiquette to use the correct names for persons, towns, states, languages etc..., that is the name native people themself are using. In my eyes failing to do that is bad manners and it ranges from at least ignorance and up to arrogance and rasism. Žarišče (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're basically arguing that English should use the same vocabulary as SC in this area. Are you going to argue next that it should also use the same vocabulary in other areas? How's that for arrogance? --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes I do, but just as far of the names go. Unless there is a very specific historical reason, one should use the name that the native people use. This is not arrogance, this is common good manners. So it is not Bombai, it is Mumbai; it is not Carigrad, it is Istanbul; language is not called Windish, but Slovene. Names of peoples are also sensitive; Americans changed Indians to Native Americans; the whole world changes Gypsies to Roma, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Žarišče (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 October 2010
 * But why then only proper nouns, why stop there?
 * Why do you think it arrogant/bad manners for speakers of different languages not to take over native names anyway? I can't see it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of cases where we don't do this: Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, Cambodian, Bengali, India, Persian, Turkish, Greek, Albanian, Hungarian, Austrian, German, French, Dutch, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, Swiss, Spanish, Irish, Welsh, Basque, etc etc etc. In this case, there is no native name for the language! — kwami (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case do you mean, kwami? --JorisvS (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serbo-Croatian. For those who reject that term, there really isn't anything other than "our language", is there? — kwami (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. Yeah, and they'll then probably reject the notion of Croatian and Serbian (etc.) being the same language entirely, thus eliminating the need to have a way to refer to the concept... --JorisvS (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ISO 639-3 is already on that bandwagon by giving Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian separate ISO codes. Language identity is always about 50% politics.  --Taivo (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually they're objectively distinct as well, even if still mutually intelligible and more political than linguistic. Other than SC and Hindustani, are you aware of any in which the standards are based on the same dialect? — kwami (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ISO-639-3 used to separate Moldovan and Romanian, but deprecated the distinction and retired Moldovan as a distinct form in 2008. The separation of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian predates the establishment of ISO 639-3, as did the separation of Moldovan and Romanian.  As with the separation of Hindi and Urdu, the continued separation of C/B/S is partially based on orthography differences, which was not the case with Moldovan.  There are other cases where different ISO 639-3 labels are applied to what appear to be the same language divided by a political border--Marwari (Pakistan) [mve] and Marwari (India) [rwr], for example.  --Taivo (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to "Serbo-Croatian" (without "language")
WP:Naming conventions (languages) says that the word "language" should only be part of the article title if it's necessary for diambiguation purposes. Since Serbo-Croatian redirects here, I'm assuming there's no need for disambiguation. Thus we should rename the article Serbo-Croatian. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Like "Arabic", there is no use for the term other than as a linguistic label.  --Taivo (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not saying I disagree, but why then is Arabic at Arabic language?
 * Also, during the Illyrian period one spoke of the Serbo-Croatian people, though perhaps that is too distant in time to be relevant. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Arabic alphabet. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even after the Illyrian period there was a movement (late 19th - early 20th century) to build a common identity for Croats and Serbs under the Štokavian umbrella called sh:Srbohrvati (on German wikipedia: de:Serbokroaten), which would literally be "Serbo-Croats" or "Serbo-Croatians". There is currently no article about it on English wikipedia but there could be. The term Serbo-Croatian would then be ambiguous meaning either "Serbo-Croatian language" or "a member of Serbo-Croatian people". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So "Arabic" was not the best example, but all the varieties of Arabic, such as Egyptian Arabic don't have "language" attached. --Taivo (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the generic WP construction for variety X of lang Y, but Latin and Esperanto and good examples. I can't think of any other uses for SC that couldn't be handled with a hat note to a dab page. — kwami (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Srbohrvati is really an intricate historical detail that could only get a standalone article on sh: wiki because it's a topic of specific local interest. On en:, it's doubtful such an article could ever exist standalone, without getting merged into the language article or into demographic history articles. IMO it's acceptable to move the language article to the shorter title. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, we don't seem to have any objections, so I'll move. — kwami (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences and similarities
If we take the some of the arguments aside, Serbo-Croatian is a macro language like Dano-Norwegian, which served it's purpose when Denmark and Norway were in a union. Serbo-Croatian had a political purpose during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Since the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, does not exist and SFRJ had been buried some time ago, each country that was part of Yugoslavia went it's own merry way, just the same as the Denmark, Sweden and Norway went on their own paths. But is there a push out there to resurrect Dano-Norwegian. Bokmål was adopted as the official language in 1929, and the orthography was officially adopted in 1907. The classification of South Slavnoic languages of the languages should be set in the similar fashion like the Scandinavian languages. SC or BSC are just constructs that are a leftover from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and favored by a small vocal group who are pushing their own political agenda. How many Norwegians, Danes or Swedes would like that their languages are mashed together and called Dano-Norwegian, or better Dano-Norwegian-Swedish. It is easy to derive that the linguistic differences are minor. In 50 years time, the differences between the languages like Serbian and Croatian will increase as each nation develops its own separate way. Vodomar (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some problems with your analysis. First, ISO 639-3 does not recognize "Dano-Norwegian" as a macrolanguage, but it does recognize "Serbo-Croatian".  Second, there is virtually no modern literature written in or about "Dano-Norwegian", but there are thousands of books in English that deal with "Serbo-Croatian" as a single language.  Third, Wikipedia isn't about the future, it is about the present, so while 200 years from now there may be relevant differences between Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, today they are virtually identical.  Fourth, English-speaking readers of Wikipedia are going to be looking for "Serbo-Croatian" because that is the term that they will virtually always encounter in their reading outside Wikipedia.  "Serbo-Croatian" is a fact.  It is a single language that is nearly universally labelled as such in the English-speaking world.  --Taivo (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Dano-Norwegian is a koine. SC is not. The Scandinavians could have chosen a single dialect as the standard for all three nations, but they did not. The Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks did. The more appropriate analogy is Hindi-Urdu / Hindustani, which is also commonly represented as a single language, including here on WP. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SC or BSC is a macro language, not in the sense of ISO 639-3, but in a linguistic sense. It is a artificial hybrid language that is being sold, because of a political agenda and promoted extensively here on en.wikipedia.org and the wiki dicitionary project. I am talking about the present, each country went their own way and they have distinctive languages, which merged at one stage during the Pan South Slavic movement, and it lived for some time during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but it was never an official language of Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia. The language in SR Croatia was known as Croatian or Serbian, in SR Serbia it was known as Serbian. There is no reference in law what the official language of SFRJ Yugoslavia was however where the ethnic mix was The promotion of Serbo-Croatian as a language and as a term in some English speaking countries, is something that is supported by a certain group of people. For instance. The premise that "It is a single language that is nearly universally labelled as such in the English-speaking world" is false: check any government website in Australia (example: http://www.fwa.gov.au/index.cfm?pagename=assistlanguage  (no Serbo-croatian there), there are other sites like that). The Yugoslav union ended, and so should have the Serbo-Croatian language issue. The Danes and the Norwegians went their own ways in 1815, however their language issue was only resolved in 1929. They also had their issues with Dano-Norwegian language http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00185.x/abstract and they have resolved it their way. Why are there many references, because the separation was so recent, and also anyone in the outside world was too scared to push anything then the Yugoslav agenda so not to upset the delicate balances during the Cold War. Why such a dedication to keep something that has fallen apart, let it go it's own course. Serbo-Croatian is a dead political, and macro linguistic construct that should be recognised that it existed, but not promoted as the official language of the region whatever your belief an however you were raised before. If we are living in the present, and looking into the distant future, please do not live in the distant past. Vodomar (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are all based on a single dialect of Serbo-Croatian. They're not even as different as Danish and Norwegian.  The common English name for that language is "Serbo-Croatian".  And you don't know what "macrolanguage" even means if you think it means "artificial hybrid".  The politics of the Balkans makes no difference on what English speakers call this single language.  Only WP:NCON matters and it is based on common English usage only.  Common English usage is to call this language "Serbo-Croatian".  --Taivo (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes under macrolanguage i mean artificial hybrid, that is combining the 3 languages together and giving it a root name. The other reason why i refer this as a macrolanguage, is because if the whole reason is to combine the three languages into one just so save space or for so called practical reasons. The thing is with Danish and Norwegian is that they also had a combined and then separated in 1929. If so like you say the term 'Serbo-Croatian is a common English usage for the three languages then this is what should be said in the definition of this article and name the English speaking countries where this term is used ie: USA, Great Britain, Canada, right at the beginning. BTW the exception is Australia. Instead what is now in place is some kind of a goulash. Vodomar (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you don't know what the word "macrolanguage" means. This is not a combination "to save space".  Before you go rewriting the lead, you need to get a consensus here on the Talk Page.  You have no consensus at this point.  There is overwhelming evidence that "Serbo-Croatian" is the common English name for this language.  You've presented no actual evidence otherwise.  Until you do, you will not get a consensus to change this article.  --Taivo (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You said the words: The common English name for that language is "Serbo-Croatian", therefore it is a term used in some English speaking countries and it is a space saving device. The thing is that in this forum, consensus will never be reached as this subject is made "controversial" for the sake of holding a certain point of view, which denies the existence of Serbian and Croatian languages prior to establishment of Serbo-Croatian. Serbo-Croatian is a depreciated standard language, which is being held up for clarity sake. Yes I know what a macrolanguage means, since in the article the 3 languages are described as borderline - close, and it being some sort of root the differences as described as minor - hence the grammar and words can be combined in a set of global rules - hence global = macro. Vodomar (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are not "borderline-close", they are a single language. Indeed, the standard forms of these three are even based on the same dialect of a single language.  The common English name for that language is "Serbo-Croatian".  There is a very clear linguistic entity here that predates Yugoslavia.  Since the days of Yugoslavia, that entity has been called Serbo-Croatian in English.  You need to actually read Wikipedia policy--WP:NCON--in order to understand that common English usage prevails in the English Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact the term far predates Yugoslavia. Thus, the concept of Serbo-Croatian is not the result of some Yugoslav despot's delusion trying to combine different languages into one. --JorisvS (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore in the title for this language it should be explicitly written : "common English name...." Otherwise this is article is then a missrepresentation. 03:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodomar (talk • contribs)
 * For instance Quebec English is the common term for the set of various linguistic and social phenomena affecting the use of English in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian Province of Quebec. Quebec English So Serbo-Croatian is a common term ..... The fact on the ground if you look at the Statistical Bureau's of each of the countries (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Montenegro) there are a very small number of Serbo-Croatian speakers. Check it out. Yes I have had a look at the policy, but to be honest in writing about this subject, then i think the example to write "common English term" would not hurt the article. Vodomar (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Every WP name is the common English name unless we say otherwise.
 * There are 15 million SC speakers, but only a few thousand call their language that. If Americans started calling their language "American", you wouldn't subtract 300M from the number of English speakers. — kwami (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out at Talk:Croatian language, language surveys that rely on speaker identifications are notoriously unreliable. If you've been paying attention to the news this week you will have seen a report on a new language discovered in India.  The speakers of that language, Koro, consistently said that they spoke "Aka", although the linguists clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that they spoke a language that wasn't even close to Aka.  Yet the speakers all said they spoke "Aka".  I worked on a language in California that linguists call "Timbisha" or "Panamint", but all the speakers say they speak "Shoshoni" (even though they don't).  Only linguists are really able to conduct accurate surveys of what languages are spoken in a particular region.  A speaker on the Croatian side of the border would say he spoke "Croatian", while a speaker a mile away on the other side of the border, who spoke exactly the same language, would say he spoke "Serbian".  Indeed, a Catholic speaker would say he spoke "Croatian" while the Orthodox speaker across the street would say he spoke "Serbian" and the Muslim next door would say he spoke "Bosnian".  Yet they'd all be down at the pub chattering away to each other with 100% mutual intelligibility on Saturday night.  --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst) recruited from Croatian Wikipedia repeatedly demonstrates exceptional ignorance and a propensity to fabricate history. Standard Serbo-Croatian dates to early 19th century, which is more than a century before any Yugoslavia. It was in fact supported by all the Croatian intelligentsia of the period, which culminated in Vienna Literary Agreement (count how many of the signers were Croats) and a number of dictionaries and grammar written by Croats which have had Serbo-Croatian in their titles, or explicitly equating Croatian with Serbian in a linguistic sense. Here are some examples:
 * 1901 Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika by Ivan Broz and Franjo Iveković, largely compiled on the strict Eastern Herzegovinian literary base of folktales and poems collected by Vuk Karadžić and his associates
 * 1899 Gramatika i stilistika hrvatskoga ili srpskog književnog jezika by Tomislav Maretić, the most influential Croatian grammarian of all times
 * These two pieces alone have influenced more what is today called "Croatian standard" than all the collective works of Croats in the history. It's pathetic to see the manner in which Croatian nationalists are trying to paint the picture of "independent Croatian language" being historically somehow "oppressed" by some "evil regimes", when in fact it were Croatian linguists in the first place that have opted for regional unifications with neighboring peoples through common literary standard, because that also meant linguistically unifying Croats as well. (At the period of early 19th century, Kajkavian and Čakakavian dialects were much more widespread than today, and those three are mutually unintelligible). What has been done cannot be undone, the coupling is total and permanent, cemented by country-level bodies of language institutionalization which don't have any desire to shift from Neoštokavian tradition into dialectal separatism.
 * As regards the comparisons with Scandinavian situation - these are utterly broken analogies, because none of these are comparable with the Serbo-Croatian situation where where have 3 (or 4 if you count the nascent "Montenegrin language") all based on the exactly the same subdialect. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that "Serbo-Croatian" means two things? It seems that usage here varies between "a standard language formerly used in Yugoslavia" and "the body of South Slavic varieties spoken in the former Yugoslavia." It is a much more understandable claim to say that the former phenomenon no longer exists (though I don't know the truth to it).  Saying the latter doesn't exist is a harder claim, as one not only must make the case that the varieties are separate languages, but that their relationship to each other is too far to even group them together.
 * Am I correct in understanding that Vodomar means the former definition while the linguists in the room mean the latter? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 18:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably a fair assessment. Although the linguists are aware of the issue of the standard languages represented by "Serbo-Croatian" in the Yugoslav sense, we also use it to refer to the group of mutually intelligible dialects that are part of "West South Slavic" and are not Slovenian.  --Taivo (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a possibility but rather an important point in the dispute. The linguists here (or those who follow descriptive linguistics) use the term "Serbo-Croatian" in both senses while many of the Croats (with the exception of Ivan Štambuk, DIREKTOR and a few others) use only the first sense of the term. The problem is that many Croats (not just on Wikipedia) have a very difficult time with "Serbo-Croatian" referring to a living pluricentric language or to "the body of South Slavic varieties spoken in the former Yugoslavia" as you put it. These very Croats (and some Bosniaks and Serbs) have repeatedly insisted otherwise using reasoning or evidence that has in turn been repeatedly refuted or questioned on the talk pages by people grounded in descriptive linguistics. In other words, the second sense of Serbo-Croatian is inadmissible or effectively denied out of existence by many people from the former Yugoslavia and what's left is to follow their lead and slavishly follow ISO's naming conventions by classifying/viewing the varieties as separate languages within South Slavic as we do for Slovenian, Macedonian and Bulgarian. Vput (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with that of course is that Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, and Bosniak are virtually identical in every respect. What we would do is essentially say "Serbo-Croatian has two meanings: it means a standard language used in SFR Yugoslavia, and a body of South Slavic languages identical with the standard language." Its the same thing folks... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Being mutually intelligible isn't the same as being identical. There are differences, even if they're relatively minor.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They're not just mutually intelligible, and the differences are swamped by dialectical differences. The differences due to the standard languages do filter down and differentiate people based on ethnic identity, but the deciding factor is ethnicity, not dialect. The comparison to Hindi-Urdu is apt. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To illustrate: I as a native Croat can have an entire conversation with a person without there even being a reason for me to suspect that this person actually spoke "Bosnian" or "Serbian" throughout. This actually happens frequently, e.g. a person visiting our faculty was a Bosniak (thus supposedly speaking "Bosnian"), while I only learned that afterward - thinking throughout that we were speaking "Croatian". :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Ivan Štambuk, how can there be a debate when you write such words as: "Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst)" in your opening address. This surely sets the tone of your argument: stereotyping and labeling. Call it what you want, with such colorfull language it is really not possible to have a proper debate with such open prejudice. How can one's word be heard. It is very hard to argue the point that "Serbo-Croatian" is a living language, when when you look at the facts it was the official language in the Kingdom of Serbia and the SFR Yugoslavia. Yes Ivan Štambuk, it can not be deniced that the Croatian and Serbian language which were separate and mutually intelligible, converged as part of the Pan-Slavism movement that swept the region in the 19th century, they were merged some time, however most of the practices of the combined language were not followed except for official government business. Even with the agreement in Novi Sad in 1954., which ratified the use of Serbo-Croatian did not stop people using the language as they pleased. With the destruction of Yugoslavia, it can be sure to say that the "Serbo-Croatian" language as pluricentric language is dead and it's corpse has been buried some time ago. Why promote it as a living language, where it is not. In a linguistic sense, yes the languages are mutually intelligible and speakers from the countries of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia can understand each other, however there might be some missunderstandings on some of the grammatical constructs and how some words are used but with little training this can be overcome. However, if in each of the countries they do not identify the language they speak as being "Serbo-Croatian" and it does not feature in the different statistical reports. If Serbo-Croatian does not even make it in the Serbian Buerau of Statistics Report 2002, how can this be an error ?  Linguists can say that the languages can stick a language in language tree, and that is fine, however making statements that one speaks one language where they surely are not is denying a fact. Each country in the region pluricentric standard, and no one is maintaning the "Serbo-Croatian" pluricentric standard.  This fact needs to be in the definition of the article. Not stating this would be denying the truth. Also, what needs to be said is that in the defintion of this artile is that the "Serbo-Croatian" or Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian language is common English term, used by lingists to describe and by the diplomatic circles . Stating that "Serbo-Croatian" is the language that is predominently used in the region with so many variant languages with their own different rules and their unique collection of words in their vocabulary, is denial.  Vodomar (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Vodomar you display a typical knee-jerk reaction of a Croatian nationalist floating in his reality distortion field bubble that we've chewed over countless time already. Absolutely every single point you raise has been abundantly discussed on this talkpage and elsewhere, and every one of your Croatocentric myths of victimhood repeteadly debunked. Yes, "Serbo-Croatian is dead" if you say so. Right. Perhaps if you repeat it enough times it might be true one day. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say, gj hitting the nail on the head there Ivan. Its not just the language, its a bubble really. :) There's the imaginary "Triune Kingdom", the "victory" at the Battle of Pakozd, the fantasy kingdom of "Croatia-Hungary" with Tolkien's "pacta conventa". There's the "Yugoslavia formed without consent from the Croatian Sabor", whereas the Sabor officially delegated its authority and merged with the People's Assembly of the SHS State, there's the "Good Domobrans" myth, there's the "500,000" dead at Blieburg, there's Thompson - the most popular person in Croatia, Mesić and Josipović are hated universally (while being by far the most popular politicians :P), etc. etc. etc.... (Sry kwami et alli, local stuff, will not take this far. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Really ?? What knee jerk reaction. Come on you are just creating a diversion. The thing is that is your belief, that if you repeat something that is not true - then it becomes true. The facts on the ground is what you need to look at. Do I deny the existance of Serbo-Croatian, but you are extending the meaning of what it was and what it is. User DIREKTOR what kind of argument is this that you are putting in front of this forum. We are talking here about the topic of Serbo-Croatian, and were not here to read some fantasy talk, which most will not understand. I understand try an obscure an issue as much as you can, and when you run out of arguments then resort to personal attacks and taking gibberish. Please stick to the subject. So much for an honest debate. Vodomar (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, IS is right. Although I have many Croat friends, Croat diaspora tend to be the most arrogant and nationalistic of all - even by their own admission. It is worth pointing this out to highlight what background you are coming from, which contextualises your arguement Hxseek (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename to "Central South Slavic diasystem"(?)
Have a read: http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/languages/langmin/euromosaic/slov4_en.html#1 "Nowadays Bosnian [bosanski jezik] is considered to be one of the standard written versions of the Central South Slavic diasystem that was formerly known as Serbo-Croatian. From a linguistic point of view it can be considered as an Ausbau-variant of Serbo-Croatian that acquired its status as a national standard language after the collapse of Yugoslavia. It is one of the three official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other two being Croatian and Serbian). In the Republic of Serbia Bosnian has official status and is referred to as Bosniak [bošnjacki jezik]. " Another one: "ogether with Serbian, Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian, Croatian [Hrvatski] builds the South Slavic branch of the Slavic languages. Croatian is closely related to Serbian and is spoken by approximately 5.8 million people, most of whom live in Croatia (4.8 million). The Croatian used in Slovenia is strongly influence by the Slovenian language. Both the ethnic Croats and the ethnic Slovenes who live in the Bela Krajina speak some sort of Croatian-Slovenian mixture." and this one : "Serbian [Srpski] is a South Slavic language closely related to Croatian. It is spoken worldwide by about 12 million people most of whom (around 6.7 million) live in Serbia. Together with Croatian, Serbian has retained more common Slavic elements in its vocabulary than other Slavic languages." Vodomar (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The best way to describe all the languages is by using the diasystem method, and the best uniting name for this is Central South Slavic diasystem. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=geh261xgI8sC&pg=PA518&lpg=PA518&dq=weinrich+diasystem&source=bl&ots=DW062gZ5ip&sig=a-zsU_fwYW3iNvlLzGyiJPGrE3s&hl=en&ei=A8mxTPbAA5OuvgObvImwBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false gives the best reasoning. Serbo-Croatian can be as a separate article describing the history behind this standard, however the way the current languages Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegran can be best described through the diasystem method, if you read the pages in the book this makes perfect sense. Vodomar (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please choose a single location for this discussion. — kwami (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, to mirror the other posts, the term CSS is generally dismissed as being linguistically inaccurate (we've brought it up before); it's also unfamiliar (even among linguists, let alone the general public) and so fails WP:COMMONNAME. BCMS would be better on both counts. — kwami (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So, to clarify, you're proposing a rename to "Central South Slavic diasystem"? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think even if the term were found, it's so uncommon that it would only be tenable as a redirect. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  16:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem that it's not the same as "central South Slavic", which is Shtokavian. — kwami (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) There is no such node as "Central South Slavic". The most immediate node to Serbo-Croatian is West South Slavic, which includes Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian.  "Central South Slavic" is an unknown node in South Slavic.  2) "Diasystem" is a meaningless linguistic term.  3) This again sounds like a Croat confusing official literary languages (all four of which are based on only one dialect of non-Slovenian West South Slavic) and the actual language that comprises all the mutually intelligible dialects instead of just the literary dialect that bears four names.  This term is virtually unknown in English.  --Taivo (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Until earlier this year, our article diasystem had mistakenly presented the term as being synonymous with pluricentric language, which may be the meaning that is being proposed here. The understanding as I've seen it time and time again in reliable sources (including in the Google Books result) is that a diasystem is an abstraction useful for dialectology. This is another barrier to the proposal since (outside of historical linguistics) I've not seen sources use diasystem to mean body-of-related varieties. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am proposing that this is adopted as the best way to explain the current situation on the ground, and it has its merits both scientifically and as well historically in explaining the situation with the languages and explaining the languages: Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegran. The reason why a diasystem works better then a plurocentric language is that the main languages Croatian and Serbian had their own development path prior to the loosly agreed standard in the 19th Century, there was at some point a standard that was not much adhered. Even during this loose adherence, both Croatian and Serbian maintained their own standards. Although a diasystem is a term that is not commonly used in linguistics really explains all the language and the different dialects that have developed in that region as well as the new ones that are being developed as we speak. The use of the diasystem fully explains the language diversity that is experienced in that area: the different and explaining the languages: Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegran and the different dialects that exist in the Croatian language (Cakavian, Kajkavian or Torlak). The name is also a sticking point to many people, as it has various conotations, but it really does not address the essence what makes the languages unique and separate in the same time. If we look back in history and see what because the unifiying force for the combined standard it was really the štokavian dialect of East Hercegovina - this was selected as the golden standard but there were modifications to it. In all honesty when looking at this whole question, the real name should be Neoštokavian, Central South Slavic diasystem can stand but looking at the history of the whole language - Neoštokavian is really the basis of the each of the languages: Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian Vodomar (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources other than europa.eu that use diasystem as a synonym for pluricentric language as you're advocating we do here? Preferably books or articles. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I do: http://www.ihjj.hr/oHrJeziku-povijest-1.html, http://www.joensuu.fi/fld/methodsxi/bor_eff_sla_dia_cont.html, http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/969/1/yugoslav_myths96.pdf, http://www.studiacroatica.org/jcs/28/2802.htm Vodomar (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any credible sources, other than randomly googled web pages? Like, you know, books and peer-reviewed papers? :) BTW, have you actually read your links, because the third one is to Greenberg's paper where the whole notion of "Serbo-Croatian diasystem" is criticized as being completely arbitrary. The first and fourth are written by Brozović who coined the term, so it's natural that he uses it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) This is an interesting set of references. The third is most enlightening since it is an argument against the term "diasystem" (and uses the fourth as a reference). This quote is especially fun: "Here, the ranking of national identity over other considerations (truth, academic integrity) caused otherwise very intelligent and well-informed linguistic researchers to selective filter reality (to speak plainly: misuse facts) to make linguistic data conform to an idealized national conceptualization." That reference also uses "Serbo-Croatian" most commonly. He also never uses "Central South Slavic", but consistently refers to "western South Slavic". It also begs the question, "Is Kajkavian a Serbo-Croatian dialect or a Slovenian one?" The isoglosses certainly suggest that it should be grouped with Slovenian rather than with Serbo-Croatian. Are we simply including Kajkavian here for political reasons? --Taivo (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a quick search for "central south slavic" at JSTOR and found
 * "'The term 'Central South Slavic' has recently come into use as a politically and culturally neutral name for the dialect continuum of Croats, Bosnian Muslim Slavs, Serbs, and Montenegrins.'"
 * In a review of one of Alemko Gluhak's dictionaries, Greenburg rebuts Gluhak's claim that "central south slavic diasystem" is traditional.
 * Another quick search, this time at Google Books, finds many instances of the term, a few of them linguistic terms. Even fewer of them capitalize all three words.  If Ford is correct, we'll find this term's usage increasing, but it doesn't look like it's common enough to name the article "central south slavic" today.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another quick search, this time at Google Books, finds many instances of the term, a few of them linguistic terms. Even fewer of them capitalize all three words.  If Ford is correct, we'll find this term's usage increasing, but it doesn't look like it's common enough to name the article "central south slavic" today.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The term Central South Slavic diasystem was coined by Dalibor Brozović to replace the term Serbo-Croatian in the sense "collection of dialects" (Ča+Kaj+Što, +Torlakian optionally) but it never really took off, neither in Serbo-Croatian nor in English. It has been shown that it is not a valid genetic node and there are zero isoglosses that these dialects share. Besides, the term Serbo-Croatian primarily means "Neoštokavian idiom serving as the core of former Yugoslav standard and post-Yugoslav national varieties", and is not used in dialectological sense except in dialectology works/contexts. I'm afraid that Vodomar is cherry-picking sources to push his fringe cause. Perhaps the term itself requires mentioning in the article, but there is no reason to rename it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer Taivo's question, SC is Serbian + Croatian (and now Bosnian etc.). Since both Serbian and Croatian are defined ethnically rather than genetically, SC is also defined ethnically. Torlak speakers who identify as Serbs speak Serbian, those who identify as Bulgarians speak Bulgarian. Kajkavian speakers identify as Croats and thus speak Croatian, despite their dialect being closer to Slovene. The advantage of the term SC lies primarily in avoiding the problem of trying to find a nonexistent linguistic boundary within the E. Herz. dialect of Shtokavian, but it doesn't address the other two problems. However, Shtokavian has influenced modern Chakavian and Kajkavian in a way that it hasn't influenced Slovene, so there is an areal unity there, even if not a genetic one. I think this is a pretty common problem when trying to establish linguistic boundaries within dialect continua. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's what the ELL has to say:
 * the term 'Serbo-Croat' no longer has any official validity in sociopolitical terms. The language spoken in these countries is now officially known as Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian, respectively. In linguistic terms, the standard language remains essentially the same, but the sociopolitical reality is that it no longer has a single name. When native speakers wish to refer to the language in its broader sense, beyond the borders of their own homeland, they tend to say 'naš jezik' or naški' (our language). For the purposes of the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, it is known as BCS. University departments in Europe where it is taught refer to it variously as Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (Austria, Norway); Serbo-Croatian (Denmark); Serbo-Croat (France); South Slavic (Finland); Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian (Sweden); Serbian and Croatian (UK). In the absence of an entirely satisfactory solution, in this volume the term 'Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian linguistic complex' has been adopted as a clumsy but accurate description.

The don't bother to mention Central SS. — kwami (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I've pointed out above that "central South Slavic" means Shtokavian, and I've found ref to the Shtokavian diasystem as well. I'm starting to wonder if CSS diasystem isn't a synonym for Shtokavian and standard BCS rather than for the language in the broader sense, in which case it's not a synonym for this article at all. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the impression I keep getting as well. The sources most often deal only with the standard languages derived form Shtokavian and generally ignore the issue of how Kajkavian and Chakavian fit.  --Taivo (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a google books search of CSS + Kajkavian/Čakavian and only got a couple hits, all of them snippet views which didn't allow me to tell anything. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I thought the "Croatian Language Academy" might have something intelligent to say, but they're only a mirror of WP! — kwami (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ivan, they were not random searches on google, now that I had some time to sift through google books: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wawGFWNuHiwC&pg=PA357&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=ZdSzTMPdAoWovQOmya37CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false Pluricentric languages: differing norms in different nations pp 351 'Central South Slavonic', language diasystems a list of references in google books: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=language+diasystem&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=  Language in the former Yugoslav lands From Serbian to Serbo-Croatian to Serbian http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GPVwAAAAIAAJ&q=language+diasystem&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=gNmzTOWzK4GcvgOdy43NCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBTgK   Zentrum und Peripherie in den slavischen und baltischen Sprachen und Literaturen http://books.google.com.au/books?id=GN9gKC2dCrIC&pg=PA224&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=2tmzTIOANoGivQOjtoCmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false Serbian vs Serbo-Croatian  http://books.google.com.au/books?id=z9pMGLRDO_wC&pg=PA166&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=2tmzTIOANoGivQOjtoCmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false

Dialect change: convergence and divergence in European languages http://books.google.com.au/books?id=B__lYElP_14C&pg=PA30&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=2tmzTIOANoGivQOjtoCmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false, The Role of theory in language description , Languages as an institution   http://books.google.com.au/books?id=7hNGG745gs8C&pg=PA344&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=eNuzTJaNCY_cvQOl1KSXCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCTge#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false , Concise Encyclopedia of languages of the world, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=F2SRqDzB50wC&pg=PA936&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=G9yzTIMXguq9A8i58ZAK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q&f=false  , Balkan syntax and semantics, http://books.google.com.au/books?id=VYoWE_tNKNQC&pg=PA3&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=-dyzTJ22G5GwvgPQ8NHKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBTgy#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false , South Slavic Discourse Particles   http://books.google.com.au/books?id=G-IHKcaNJS0C&pg=PA14&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=ft2zTP3_BYHCvQOs4sSnCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBjha#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false  ,  The Slavic languages: unity in diversity By  http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DyuaAOMSR8wC&pg=PA49&dq=language+diasystem&hl=en&ei=492zTIGnBoGiuQPoqqCACg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAThu#v=onepage&q=language%20diasystem&f=false,   Search on slavic diasystems:  http://www.google.com.au/search?q=slavic+diasystem&hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks:1&ei=k96zTPzrJIq8vgOBmqydCg&start=20&sa=N Some interesting reading and some good arguments to continue with the diasystem approach. Vodomar (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Vodomar, the trouble with the above approach is that an all-inclusive search on Google books for the keywords "language" and "diasystem" means little unless we can get a full sense for how the term is being used in those articles. In other words, are the authors using the concept or term as a starting point for analyzing BCMS/SC further (as Dalibor Brozović has done, for example) or are they critiquing the concept when applied to BCMS/SC (as Marc Greenberg has done)? Moreover the term "diasystem" as it applies to Polish dialectology (as I saw in one of the previews) isn't necessarily helpful to the situation that we face with BCMS/SC. A shot-gun-like approach by trying to find as many instances of the term "diasystem" isn't necessarily evidence of its validity or applicability for BCMS/SC (and we all know that dialectology indeed has a place for diasystem. For example it has been used to explain certain phenomena observed in Yiddish). In any case, Marc Greenberg has highlighted the problem of describing BCMS/SC as a diasystem (or more accurately: he described Brozović's liberties in using the concept on BCMS/SC) so any usage of the term or concept for BCMS/SC should be treated with caution. This isn't a game where we're trying to find as many instances of the term "diasystem" regardless of whether those instances refer to BCMS/SC or not. Nor are we here to make the leap of logic that the seemingly high-frequency of the term in other monographs that may not even be relevant to the topic at hand justifies its use for BCMS/SC. Basically, if there were a source that uses the term "diasystem" for BCMS/SC but not in Brozović's questionable approach (as shown by Greenberg), then it could be something worth noticing and mentioning. Otherwise if we were to start using the term "diasystem" to start describing BCMS/SC, then to keep things encyclopedic, we'd have to cite Greenberg's findings given the flawed or nationally-motivated application of the term. Vput (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if Slavic languages in general are diasystems, as the one link of yours I picked at random said, why should we use the concept here specifically? The problem with SC is not that it's a series of interconnected dialects, as many languages are, but that it (1) has a pluricentric standard and (2) is spoken by people who frequently deny that they speak the same language. Slovene is a comparably complex diasystem, but we've had no problem just calling it the Slovene language.


 * Okay, in Jezični varijeteti i nacionalni identiteti (2009) I get a full sentence in snippet view, If it refers to the so-called Central South Slavic dia-system or to Standard New Štokavian (standardna novoštokavština), it must mean that this language dia-system or standard language has three different names. Out of context, but suggestive that this is not the wording we're looking for.


 * Then there's Oral Literature of the Štokavian Diasystem: an Ethno-Linguistic Criterium of the National Identification and Differentiation, which also associates term the term with Štokavian, but there's also The culture of lies: antipolitical essays (1998:22):


 * According to the encyclopaedia Croats speak the čakavian, kajkavian and štokavian dialects. All three dialects make up one linguistic diasystem, but since the štokavian dialect is also spoken by Serbs, Croats and those former Yugoslavs who are categorized by nationality as Muslims, this diasystem is known in scholarship as Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian, and belongs to the South Slavonic group of languages,
 * which uses "diasystem" for SC but still gives "SC" as the overall name.


 * In The Kajkavian dialect of Hidegség and Fertőhomok (1999:19), we have a similar account:
 * The dialects spoken by the majority of the inhabitants of the republics of Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Serbia and Montenegro form a single diasystem, for which "Serbo-Croatian" is the traditional term. This diasystem can be divided into four major groups: Štokavian, Čakavian, Kajkavian and Torlak. In this book I shall use the term "Serbo-Croatian" when designating the diasystem as a whole. For the varieties of Serbo-Croatian spoken in or around the Austrian-Hungarian border region and for the standard language of Croatia I shall use the term "Croatian", which is in accordance with the way the speakers refer to themselves and their language.
 * The most comprehensive discussion I've found is Nuorluoto (2004) "The Notion of Diasystem: Dialectological and Sociolinguistic Issues", in Zentrum und Peripherie in den slavischen und baltischen Sprachen und Literaturen. He says that the term is a remnant of the 1960s and 70s, and that it makes little sense to call SC a diasystem in the linguistic sense. However, he accepts it as a practicality. He says that the phrase "Central South Slavonic" is frequently encountered in Croatia, but that he's not going to go into it and gives a couple refs instead. Really something y'all should read rather than have me inadequately summarize:
 * — kwami (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

PRODUCER is wrong
PRODUCER added *here* this content:

PRODUCER misinterpreted what Greenberg wrote (he even misspelled his surname)

This is the direct quote from the work of Robert David Greenberg:

So, Communists had their victory in 1945, but the "policy" was reversed in 1950s.

The 1944 document was re-published in 1945 in the official gazette.

The 1944 document was published many times in the former "SFRY", and was listed as valid decision even in 1979-01-03. It was a valid source of law.

See: Bauer, Ivan; Gajinov, Miodrag. (1979) ''Registar važećih saveznih propisa : od 1945. do 31. decembra 1978.'', Beograd: Novinsko-izdavačka ustanova Službeni list SFRJ, p 7

Also, PRODUCER should stop using the terms every and major as in this case.

PRODUCER should have added (or noted) that in Novi Sad (1954) there were Croats, Montenegrins, & Serbs; but there were no real representatives of Sarajevo. No Bosnian Muslim author ever signed the "Novi Sad piece of paper".

Why would the "Novi Sad piece of paper" be any more important than Croatian–Hungarian Agreement?

Thanks for removing PRODUCER's phrasing. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reads like an accurate depiction of the source to me, I fail to see any misinterpretation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Chipmunkdavis, it is not "an accurate depiction", because the 1944 document was re-published in the official gazette. It was not reversed in 1945. We can speak about "the revetment", but not before 1954. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Producers source says "after their victory in 1945, reversed the 1944 decision of the Anti-fascist Committee for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia", which explicitly uses the exact word reversed. He copied the source, complain about usage of the source if you want, but not about PRODUCER's wording. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about misspelling his last name once. I try to not stray away too far from the same wording that the source used in order to be as accurate as possible. The words "every major" is used in the Wachtel reference and the word "reversed" is used in the Greenberg reference . --  ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not about a single word, PRODUCER. There is nothing wrong with the "word" ("reversed") - but with false quoting. The source did not say that the Communists "reversed" in 1945. It said that "it" happended after their "victory" in 1945. The 1944 decision was re-published in 1945, not "reversed". The "revertment" happened by the so called "conclusions" of 1954. The source, that PRODUCER quoted did not say it happened in the year 1945, but after that year, and during 1950s and 1960s. This should be corrected. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It was reversed after their "victory" occurred which was in 1945. A singular language policy followed in the 1950s and early 1960s. On page 16 he says "restoring the unified language in 1945". On page 55 a timeline is shown and on 1945 it says "Tito's victorious partisans restored language unity". --  ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 15:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This matter should be sourced with more reliable sources than only one. If Greenberg contradict himself, by writing differently on p 115, and on p 16 (p 55), then he is not reliable. The 1944 decision (and it was named that way - decision) was published in the official gazette in 1945. So it is up to you PRODUCER to show where is a document that says (explicitly) that the decision of 1944 (which was re-published in 1945) is not valid.
 * Furthermore, you PRODUCER should not insist on "every" and "major" because that is not encyclopaedical, nor portrays the facts accurately.
 * Matica srpska and Matica hrvatska were at that time (even are today) only non-governmental organizations, they were not official institutions of the state. Miroslav Krleža did not sign the Novi Sad "piece of paper".
 * From the quote on p 55 it is obvious that Greenberg used poetica licentia.
 * PRODUCER, after your misinterpretation of Greenberg's sentences on p 115, I would expect that you should start quoting properly, that is - quoting entire sentences. This kind of quoting is the only kind permissable. Your quotes of p 16 and p 55 are not ok, so use full sentences, please. Thanks. -- Ali Pasha (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only user seeing any misinterpretation. --JorisvS (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is a catch. According to Ali Pasha, Greenberg apparently meant to say that the reversal happened in an unspecified time after the communist victory in 1945. However, the sentence could also be read otherwise, as Producer did, that the reversal happened exactly in 1945. Not that I think that it matters so much... No such user (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're right. It still is quite different from saying it happened in 1954, though, as Ali Pasha has claimed above. And frankly, it sounds like something they would've reversed rather quickly, something which is supported by one of PRODUCER's other Greenberg quotes above (saying specifically in 1945). This then makes PRODUCER's statement quite fine as it is. --JorisvS (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Map
"Bosnian" and "Bosniak" were tallied separately in Serbia and Montenegro for the map, so there are likely municipalities were they are a plurality but which are assigned to Serbian. Similarly, Bunjevac was tallied separately from Croatian in Vojvodina, and neither achieved plurality in any municipality. I don't know whether they would had they been counted together, though the numbers are pretty small. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm positive that Croats+Bunjevci do not form a plurality in any municipality of Vojvodina. Also, I'm fairly sure that Bosniaks+Muslims are plurality only in 3-4 municipalities of southern Sandžak (Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Tutin), as in the map, so I can vouch for its accuracy in that regard. Are you sure that "Bosnian" and "Bosniak" were tallied separately? Where did you get that piece of information? No such user (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From a discussion I had with the author of the map at Commons. They were originally listed separately. I combined them because we are not presenting Bosnian and Bosniak as separate languages. He replied, in part,
 * ''As for Bosnian and Bosniak, this map is a reflection of official census results (wherever such results were available) and therefore results of Montenegrin census are more valuable than your personal opinion.
 * ''And just one more thing related to Bosniak/Bosnian question: perhaps you did not researched very well linguistic situation in former Yugoslavia, but there are 6 (not 4) ethno-political ways in which speakers of Serbo-Croatian declare their language in census: Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Bosnian, Bosniak and Bunjevac. Of those, only Bunjevac is not spoken by the majority of people in some of municipalities, but Bosniak (bošnjački) is a legitimate term of linguistic expression recognized by at least two states - Serbia and Montenegro (not sure for Croatia and Bosnia). Therefore if majority of people in one Montenegrin municipality declared that their language is Bosniak and if Montenegrin state recognized that, who gave you right to deny their right to linguistic self-determination? Perhaps in the next census they will declare another language (Bosnian or Montenegrin), but in the last census they declared Bosniak and every other way of presentation of current linguistic situation in that municipality would be a forgery.
 * ''And I just checked Montenegrin 2003 census results again, according to which, there are more speakers of Bosniak (19.906) than Bosnian (14.172) in Montenegro. In similar way, in 2002 census in Vojvodina there was more Muslims by nationality (3.634) than Bosniaks (417).
 * I worked for Serbian statistical agency during 2002 census and I can tell you how census results are presented: if census results listed some language or ethnicity then it is official recognition from a Statistical agency that such language or ethnicity are existing. [with the exception of the Roma] ''If statistical agency listed something as separate language then it is officially considered to be an separate language by that agency and "Bosniak" is clearly listed as such.
 * However, he did then say (posted since I left my warning) that,
 * ''Bosnian and Bosniak or Croatian and Bunjevac counted together would not change demographic presentation in any municipality as far as I know - there are simply too many speakers of Serbian in such municipalities. The only questionable municipality here is a single Montenegrin municipality where majority of speakers declared "Bosniak" and we cannot represent this in another way simply because we have to respect those people and the way in which they described their language.
 * — kwami (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The term Serbo-Croatian as a generic language is wrong
The article Serbo-Croatian in the en.wikipedia.org is of a political nature, considering the way some of the contributors are staunchly defending this space and are engaged in constant reverting, and calling anyone who has a different opinion a nationalist. Linguistics are not there to describe a name for a group of langages and giving them one name an proclaiming them just a dialect, especially when some languages in question had initial divergent paths, converged, had a sort of a semi-indepenent existance, and diverged again. By grouping them togeather and giving them one name is nothing but playing politics, but also living in a world of denial. What if someone in the wikipedia would ressurect Dano-Norwegian, and hey many of you have said that the differences are more then between Croatian and Serbian, but Norwegians can understand Danes can't they, and for a Norwegian to become fluent in Danish take s abit of traning. Why isn't there the same treatment for Czech and Slovak, and there was a Czechoslovak language that existed from 1920, and surprise surprise they this language had two forms: Czech and Slovak, two dialects of the language. This does ring a bell. There lot of western literature which combine these two languages as Czechoslovak languages, but how many of them are pushing this bandwagon. No one ! No one is sane to write write that Slovak is dialect of Czechoslovakian, because wasn't it a fact that it was a language with a weaker dicitionary, and it was not until after the WWII that a scientific dicitary was developed,.....Differences between the Slovak and Czech_languages This Serbo-Croatian artile is nothing but pushing the long dead unitiaristic political agenda. There is no denial that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin belong to the same Central South Slavic language continuum or diasystem, the same as Czech and Slovak. Linguists is not there to describe tell a group of nationalities because their languages are mutually intelligible that they are basically the same language and designate the language they speak as a dialect, and then assign a term that is really not used. Who really speaks Serbo-Croatian the unofficial West and East version, or yes the Czechoslovak (Czech (West) and Slovak (East)) variants.... It is very hard for some departments out there to change as some of the academic staff have spent their entire careers in promoting Serbo-Croatian. The language Serbo-Croatian was a term that was promoted by the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and after WWI by the SFR Yugoslavia, and how many countires would go against the official stance which could upset the delicate applecart of foreign politics. Serbo-Croatian can stand as an article on the "official-language" in the 2 reincarnations of Yugoslavia that lasted from 1918 to 1991, which should involve all the history behind it. Otherwise this article is just pushing a political agenda. If a term has been used for many years and it does not mean it is always valid to be used in the future. Who speaks Serbo-Croatian ? No one. where is it promoted by certain group of linguists and by en.wikipedia.org. Vodomar (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources? Without presenting evidence, no-one is going to pay attention to you. And you still don't seem to understand what "Serbo-Croatian" means. You might want to try reading one of the numerous references that have been provided. Or even the quotes for you in the previous section, which you have evidently not bothered to read.
 * As for why Czech and Slovak are treated differently, the answer is the same as for Danish and Norwegian: they're based on different dialects. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodamar is not interested in linguistic facts based on reliable sources, only in political rhetoric based on personal assertion without sources. Based on the linguistic facts, sourced multiple times on this page, the languages spoken in Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia are a single language, mutually intelligible across its range.  The national standards of all four countries are based on a single dialect of that language called Shtokavian.  So the question that Vodomar has been unable to answer with any reliable sources is, "What is the most common English name for that language?"  He continually retreats into 20th century politics, which are irrelevant to the issue of what that language should be called.  Indeed, he continually ignores the fundamental issue of whether we're talking about the four national standards, in which case the literary language could be most accurately called "Shtokavian", if that were a name found at all in English, since that's the dialect that all four national standards are based on, or talking about the range of mutually intelligible dialects that constitute the non-Slovenian West South Slavic speech community, in which case he offers terms that are not found in English.  Unfortunately for Vodomar, the sources all dictate the use of "Serbo-Croatian" for both senses as the most common English name for both 1) the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects and 2) the cover term for the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian national standards based on the Shtokavian dialect.  --Taivo (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami, do you know Czech or Slovak ? By the sound of it you don't. Ever studied Slovak, or have you ever studied Norwegian, watched any movies tried to read a book in the two languages. Yes Tavio, the common name is outdated and it is not used in any of the countries for some time. This is leftover from the Cold War. Shouldn't linguists look into the social-political context of a language, they should - this would be the same as still continuing to call Bombay instead of Mummbai. Bombay was the common English name for Mumbai before, but still it has been changed. Serbo-Croatian can be used as a historical term, a language that was not used by the two major groups. Yes the current official languages have a root in the Shtokavian diasystem, however Serbo-Croatian they are not. Czech and Slovak are mutually intelligible, and there was a Czechoslovakian language. Linguistics is also a social study, denying the existance of Croatian and Serbian as a separate language with a separate path of development prior to the development of the 19 century standard is nothing but cultural genocide. Vodomar (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Spare us the drama. If reality were cultural genocide, there would be no Croats. The Croat culture does not depend on them denying their own language, which frankly is rather pathetic. Croatian literature is not less great because Serbs speak the same language. Croatian achievements in science and the arts are not diminished by Serbs speaking the same language. And we are not here to pander to your insecurities.
 * I know enough Czech to know that I can communicate just as easily in Slovakia with it as in Czechia. I would call them a single language. For that matter, I'd say that Polish is the same language too. But there's a difference between calling minor dialectical differences "languages" just because they're spoken in different countries, and calling a single dialect different languages depending on the ethnicity of the speaker. A Czech knows when someone is speaking Slovak. A Croat half the time can't tell when someone is speaking Serbian: if he doesn't know the person is Serbian, he's likely to think he's speaking Croatian. That isn't a different language, it's a different ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The example you used is actually incorrect, but I see how you might be led to believe that such a thing is true. Both linguists and common people will agree that both Croats and Serbs in Croatia speak the western variant, whichever way you want to call it - hrvatski or hrvatskosrpski or štokavski ijekavski or whatever. The inverse holds true in Serbia - that's srpski or srpskohrvatski or štokavski ekavski or whatever. The distinction between these two is and has been fairly apparent and well defined, in Yugoslav times as well as today. The problem you're talking about is the situation in the regions in between, mainly Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, which got left out in the cold between all the conflicting national agendas. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that ijekavian and ekavian correlated with Serbian and Croatian. Are you telling me that Serbs who speak with an ijekavian accent call their language "Croatian" rather than "Serbian"? If that's true, then I would have no objection to presenting a more robust distinction between those languages. However, given that Serbian is an official language of Bosnia, which AFAIK is entirely ijekavian, I'd like to see some evidence that Bosnian Serbs say that it doesn't actually exist there and that they all speak Croatian. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, nonono, it can't be generalized like that, I never said that.
 * The Serbs in Croatia mostly speak ijekavian, not unlike the Croats who also live there. There is a sizeable minority that lives in the far east and does indeed speak ekavian, also not unlike some Croats who also live there. Those registered by census haven't seemed to have been hell-bent on national identification. Have a look: population by mother tongue, population by ethnicity. The discrepancies are apparent. Now, obviously, there's going to be people throwing various inane reasons to disqualify those census responders, but at least it's clear that the State Statistics Bureau did not ban the old nomenclature, they included all four names people reported, as well as the most recent names.
 * But, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no such thing as a recent census, let alone anything more. You can't really blame them, because the lack of a moniker that is not nationally/politically charged effectively pulled the rug from underneath any effort to describe their otherwise mixed language in a neutral fashion. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Linguists can look at sociolinguistic issues, but they should be clear about it when they do so, and avoid mixing in politics when studying languages' structure, lest their results become unreliable. This doesn't deny differences between standard forms or dialects (take a look at Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian), but it does put them into perspective. --JorisvS (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And we keep telling you, Vodomar, that being a speaker of a language is irrelevant to Wikipedia's language articles. Wikipedia is driven by reliable sources, not personal anecdote or political assertion.  Reliable sources are clear when it comes to the relationship between the so-called Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian "languages"--that they constitute a single language which is called "Serbo-Croatian" in English and represents a single dialect of a larger non-Slovenian West South Slavic language that is also called "Serbo-Croatian" in English.  --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kwami, it is not true that you can not tell the difference between Serbian and Croatian, you can hear it in the first sentence. Tavio the so called "Serbo-Croatian" in reality does not exist, and as a term it is not used by the successor countries. There is a better term for this term and that is Central South Slavic diasystem, or it should be Shtokavian or Neoshtokavian see: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wawGFWNuHiwC&pg=PA357&dq=croatian+diasystem&hl=en&ei=-bW5TMOPDImmvgPbsITLDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=croatian%20diasystem&f=false pp 355-359. This would be the same way as perpetuating to call Mumbai as Bombay. Cutural sensitivites should be taken into account as well. Cultural genocide is being carried out on en.wikipedia.org.. Vodomar (talk) 20:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you actually read what you randomly google for keywords and post as "proofs"? That link above is an article from Dalibor Brozović where he argues (with much nationalist fluff) that Serbo-Croatian is a single pluricentric standard language. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodomar, as we've reminded you a million times already, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Croatian one. The most common term in English for this language is "Serbo-Croatian".  "Central South Slavic diasystem" is a non-existent term in English.  And "Shtokavian" would be good, but no one uses that in English.  If you don't like the rules we follow on the English Wikipedia, then don't edit here.  --Taivo (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Vodomar, it seems that you continually choose to miss the point and resort to throwing in points or angles that while arguably true in isolation are irrelevant to the discussion at hand (apart from showing the nationalist insistence of trying to amplify the difference between Croats from Serbs). Your shot-gun-like approach of digging up terms (but not necessarily concepts) in Google Books has actually weakened your credibility since the articles mentioned are often either irrelevant or in some instances even contradict what you're trying to express. You also insist that linguistics is a social study (and thus should sanctify the feelings of a language's users) but there definitely is a devoted sub-discipline for this. It's called SOCIOLINGUISTICS. However it is only one part of the discipline that is linguistics. On the topic of Czech and Slovak, if you had ever bothered to learn either of them, I highly doubt that you would have dared to compare the situation there with BCMS/SC.


 * Since I speak Slovak and some Czech as foreign languages, I have no emotional/national insecurities which would distort my perception of these languages as communicative codes. As a user of these languages I can assert that they are different languages in a non-sociolinguistic sense (unlike Croatian and Serbian). The mutual intelligibility is high (say 85%) and using Slovak I can easily get by in Czech Republic (just like kwami could get by on Czech in Slovakia). Nevertheless not even the most ardent "Czechoslovak-nostalgic" today (on the analogy of that peculiarly Balkan epithet of "Yugo-nostalgic") could say that Czech and Slovak are equally or more mutually intelligible compared to what is known and observed with BCMS where the variants' mutual intelligibility there varies being between 95% and 100%.


 * Like standard Croatian and standard Serbian, standard Czech and standard Slovak had differing paths to standardization. The difference between the pairs is that standard Czech and standard Slovak were each codified on DIFFERENT dialects of only partial mutual intelligibility (as kwami notes). Needless to say Standard BCMS did not go through this by all deriving from Eastern Herzegovinian Neoshtokavian) Standard Czech is based on how Slavs around Prague spoke in the 17th and 18th century while Standard Slovak is based on how Slavs spoke in central Slovakia (then the northern part of the Hungarian Kingdom) in the 19th century. Not only are the dialects used geographically distinct, but temporally distinct as well! Nationalists from the former Yugoslavia who insist on linguistic separation of BCMS can only dream at an analogous but imaginary situation where modern standard Serbian would have been codified on Belgrade's dialect from the 18th century while standard Croatian would have been codified on the mixed Shtokavian-Chakavian dialect spoken around Ogulin in the 19th century). This fact for Czech and Slovak leads to all sorts of the differences without the help of language planners and nationalistic intellectuals telling the illiterate masses what is "proper" and what is "improper" language.


 * Vodomar, to illustrate in detail how faulty the comparison of BCMS to Czech and Slovak is here are some structural differences between Czech and Slovak (notwithstanding all of the lexical differences which as you know are much easier to manipulate than mucking around with phonological, morphological and syntactical features):


 * - Czech uses vocative regularly/systematically while Slovak does not outside a few fossilized expressions. Their rarity in Slovak leads to them being treated as "exceptions" rather than expressions of a separate vocative.
 * - Conjugational endings differ between Czech and Slovak in the present tense and the conditional in Czech uses "bych" and "bychom" rather than "by som" and "by sme" as in Slovak.
 * - Long syllables may be adjacent to each other within the same word in Czech. Such arrangements as a rule are not used in Slovak unless in certain morphologically-defined instances (this rule is called the "Slovak rhythmic law" and is typical in the central Slovak dialects used to standardize the language)
 * - Old and Middle Czech went through a sound change where old vowels regularly narrowed. This sound change got codified into Czech and this narrowing affected the grammatical endings to the point where many endings appear in several grammatical cases (especially the Czech ending of -é). Slovak never went through these changes. Here are examples showing how different the declension some of which is caused by this sound change (called "česká přehláska" or "Czech umlaut" if you're interested). You should probably understand the meaning of the examples seeing that the Slovak is closer to BCMS than Czech is.


 * - má/moje malá žena (Czech); moja malá žena (Slovak) (NOMINATIVE SINGULAR)
 * - mé/moje malé ženy (Czech); moje malé ženy (Slovak) (NOMINATIVE PLURAL)


 * - pro mou/moji malou ženu (Czech); pre moju malú ženu (Slovak) (ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR)
 * - pro mé/moje malé ženy (Czech); pre moje malé ženy (Slovak) (ACCUSATIVE PLURAL)


 * - od mé/mojí malé ženy (Czech); od mojej malej ženy (Slovak) (GENITIVE SINGULAR)
 * - od mých malých žen (Czech); od mojich malých žien (Slovak) (GENITIVE PLURAL)


 * - k mé/mojí malé ženě (Czech); k mojej malej žene (Slovak) (DATIVE SINGULAR)
 * - k mým malým ženám (Czech); k mojim malým ženám (Slovak) (DATIVE PLURAL)


 * - o mé/mojí malé ženě (Czech); o mojej malej žene (Slovak) (LOCATIVE SINGULAR)
 * - o mých malých ženách (Czech); o mojich malých ženách (Slovak) (LOCATIVE PLURAL)


 * - s mou/mojí malou ženou (Czech); s mojou malou ženou (Slovak) (INSTRUMENTAL SINGULAR)
 * - s mými malými ženami (Czech); s mojimi malými ženami (Slovak) (INSTRUMENTAL PLURAL)


 * What I've said above should be enough to shatter the claims that BCMS differ from each other as much as Czech and Slovak or that Serbo-Croatian is as spurious as the idea of a Czechoslovak language (the latter could never took off since the politicians and language planners quickly realized that they could not overcome substantial differences all stemming from the independent choices to standardize Czech and Slovak on different dialects)


 * Someone has even been generous enough to make an article on this very topic at Differences_between_Slovak_and_Czech_languages which also lists other differences. Vput (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I totaly understand the differences between Slovak and Czech (I have studied Slovak myself), and I know the politics behind the Czechoslovak language and the dominance of the Czech in the political, economic and cultural space between the two wars. The reason for the shot-gun approach is that it is neccssary to explore all avenues. Google books are not the best reference point, but in the lack of access to specialist journals and the analysis time this is what can put up. The approach not because of some so called "insecurities" but to stress a point on how a political name for a language should not perpetuate even if it is a commonly used term in some countries and in some linguistic circles, however it is not recognised in the countries in where supposedly this is spoken. I recognise some of the common terms and standards that are used in Wikipedia, however a small change in the description of this "so called language:" can spare you the endless hassle. As you have mentioned before and it was spoken many times, it is a common name term name and this is what it should be rephrased, that is is used by linguists and by some countries to group the languages, the same goes for the definitions of Croatian, Serbian et al. This can go ad infinum, how can this weaken the article ? It perfectly explains the situation on ground, and it does justice to roughly 15 million people. Vodomar (talk) 04:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Recognition" is irrelevant, as I've explained to your friend Flopy: there are thousands of languages worldwide, and only so much sovereign countries, meaning that 99% of them are not official anywhere. Lots of big and important countries (US, UK, Germany..) don't even have constitutionally official language, which is in accordance to UN charter according to which language is a form of personal right, and not something that should be imposed/controlled through statist regulation. Furthermore, only a tiny fraction of world's languages have some kind of body "governing" the language - and these governmental bodies aiming to preserve the "purity" of language are largely broken in the 21st century, with most of the written communication nowadays being decentralized through Internet (and most of the new Web content today are "2.0", i.e. user-generated content through blogs, forums, social networking etc.). Outside the scope of control by statist censorship. The day that printed books become technologically obsolete will be the day when another victory will be won against the government suppression of freedom of writing! Also, as has been illustrated to you, your comparison of Serbo-Croatian situation to that of Chech-Slovak is completely out of place - literary Slovak was deliberately codified on the central Slovakian dialects in the 19th century to be as distant as possible from literary Czech and Ukrainian which dominated amongst Slovakian writers. If Beronlák "won" and not Štúr, Czecho-Slovak situation today would've been the same as with Serbo-Croatian, Hindustani, German etc. - a single pluricantric language in multiple national variants under same or different names. If Croatian were standardized on the Illyrian pan-South-Slavic mixutre of Gaj and his associates, it would've been a different language from Karadžić's Serbian. But Gaj and later Croatian Vukovians found a common ground, and the rest is history. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Vodomar, somehow I'm very skeptical that you "totally understand the differences between Slovak and Czech" as you put it. If you did, you wouldn't have even dared to have brought up Czech and Slovak as a way to justify seeing BCMS/SC as different languages by way of analogy. The results of and facts about the standardization processes in each of Czech and Slovak effectively negate the validity of any comparison to BCMS/SC. Vput (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Justice to 15 million people" has nothing to do with what a language is named in English and, therefore, Wikipedia. Your continuing assertion that Serbian and Croatian (and Bosnian) are not mutually intelligible or are not simply minor national variants of a single dialect of a single language is totally unreferenced and totally wrong. Verifiable linguistic facts found in reliable sources are all that matter here. --Taivo (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes justice, see http://www.ethnologue.com/show_lang_family.asp?code=hrv is this a credible source - look at the classification !!!! Vodomar (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See also : a former member of Serbo-Croatian. The references from Ethologue is fine to be followed for some languages but not others ie the box on the right. The definition should also follow http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=hrv not what is written. Therefore the macrolanguage argument is back. Vodomar (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are still wrong, Vodomar. Ethnologue is not the only source used for classifications in Wikipedia.  See below.  Ethnologue is only one reliable source and when it is in the minority, or has been superseded by more recent sources, then Wikipedia deviates from Ethnologue with ease and follows the majority of sources or the more recent sources with ease.  And just because one single source makes up a linguistic term--"macrolanguage"--doesn't mean that is a term that is widely used or even accepted by linguists.  --Taivo (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Divergence from the www.ethnologue.com tree
It is disturbing to see a divergence from the www.ethnologue.com language tree and inserting the Serbo-Croatian language into the tree, where it is not in www.ethnologue.com. The language tree from www.ethnologue.com is used as the reference for all languages. In Ethnologue, Serbo-Croatian is listed as a macrolanguage and this is how it should be descirbed in this article. This argument can not be refuted, then whoever is defending this position are creating their own tree which does not have a reference in Ethnologue. Vodomar (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Ethnologue tree is not used for all languages. It is used selectively based on an evaluation of all the classification sources in English for any given language.  For example, the entire Turkic language family is based on much more accurate sources than the Ethnologue trees.  Look at Turkish language as an example.  The Mongolic language family is another example where the Wikipedia classification deviates from Ethnologue.  The Ethnologue tree is only one of the reliable sources used for family trees.  You choose Ethnologue here only because it fits your POV.  If it didn't fit your POV, then you'd be crying that Ethnologue was inaccurate and would be using whatever classification fit your POV.  The classification used here fits a larger number of classifications--Schenker, Ruhlen, Comrie, Dalby, Lyovin, Fortson, etc.  --Taivo (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Ethnologue is our default classification, but we diverge from it whenever we have better sources—not just in the couple cases Taivo mentioned. Ethnologue is convenient because it is the best source for all of the world's languages. However, it will of course often be less accurate for any particular family than specialized treatments. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yesm, you change it because it fits your POV. Vodomar (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The think is it makes me laugh when I see you working in concert as a tag team, in Ethologue it is classified as a macrolanguage which Serbo-Croatian really is. Ok Turkish language, how many more do make this exception. There is no reference for the Serbo-Croatian branch, just another thing that is being done in Wikipedia, it is extending something and making more out of it then it should be. If someone is pushing a POV, and hammering it hard it is you Tavio. Vodomar (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Linguistically speaking, what is the definition of macrolanguage, how does it differ from a "normal" language, and what are the constituent of that macrolanguage called? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an ISO coding term rather than a linguistic term. See ISO 639 macrolanguage. I know that doesn't explain much, but AFAIK it was a term invented for ISO classifications, and not used outside that context. — kwami (talk) 10:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

PS. If we need another ref for any reason, Blažek might be good. He gives several post-Yugoslav Slavic classifications, all of which distinguish Ukrainian-Belorussian, Czech-Slovak, Upper & Lower Lusatian, Macedonian-Bulgarian, but none Serbian-Croatian. — kwami (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Vodomar, here is the scientific evidence. It's verifiable.
 * Ethnologue is not the final, perfect classification of the world's languages. It relies on other scholars' work for its own classification and doesn't edit or update its overall classification on any regular basis or in a consistent manner.  Ethnologue is maintained by the hired scholars at Summer Institute of Linguistics on a part-time basis.  SIL's primary mission is not maintaining Ethnologue.  The scholars there are not specialists in the classification of all the world's languages, but are responsible for taking comments from scholars who have submitted changes.  The primary mission of the scholars at SIL are to translate the Bible into as many languages as they can.  So the full-time scholars support that mission and work on Ethnologue on a part-time basis.  Since the Bible has been translated into all the Slavic languages already, no one at Ethnologue is a Slavic specialist--they are Uto-Aztecan, Mayan, South American, African, New Guinea, etc. specialists.  Ethnologue is changed only when a specialist from elsewhere submits a change request.  So if a change request hasn't been submitted, Ethnologue isn't changed.  For example, it still lists Altaic as a valid genetic grouping and divides the Turkic languages geographically.  Modern Turkic scholarship divides them differently as seen at Turkic languages, where Wikipedia follows the classification of Turkic specialists rather than the non-Turkic specialists at Ethnologue.  The same is true of Ethnologue's Mongolic languages section and many, many other sections.  Ethnologue is a good reference, but it must be used understanding its inherent limitations.  It is not the bible of classification, but only a guide that must be used in conjunction with specialist literature.  Wikipedia does not slavishly (no pun intended) adhere to the Ethnologue classification.
 * The vast majority of Slavic language classifications break Western South Slavic into two groups--Slovenian and the language that comprises the Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian dialects. That latter language is most commonly called "Serbo-Croatian" in English.  "Serbian", "Croatian", and "Bosnian" are components of the Shtokavian dialect.  Only Ethnologue doesn't divide Western South Slavic this way.
 * "Macrolanguage" is a term invented specifically for the computerization purposes of ISO 639-3 and is not used in a linguistic sense outside that coding standard. ISO 639-3 is not designed to be the final word on classification or on whether two speech varieties are mutually intelligible or not, but is a computer coding scheme so that data bases can efficient classify their holdings into something that is usable.  It is constantly being adapted based on scholarly input (for example, the Mayan languages underwent a major overhaul in the last year), but since it is managed by SIL, it runs on scholarly input, not on a full-time staff combing the world's linguistic literature.  No linguists outside ISO 639-3 use the term "macrolanguage" as a technical term in linguistics.
 * This is the science, Vodomar. It's not based on any POV other than scientific accuracy.  --Taivo (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. If macrolanguage isn't used outside of ethnologue, why do we use it so readily at Wikipedia? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  12:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's just because we so readily refer to Ethnologue. IMO we shouldn't use it except under special circumstances such as discussing ISO codes. — kwami (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Aeusoes1. If you look at the definition of macrolanguage: 1. (linguistics) A language consisting of widely varying dialects, or a group of very closely related languages

. According to the definition of Serbo-Croatian it is made of closely related languages (micro language) then this fits the description. A great reference is http://www.jrank.org/history/pages/6527/Speech-Language.html Vodomar (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A great ref for what? It mentions neither Croatian nor macrolanguages.
 * Regardless of what cladistic level you consider Croatian to be at, (1) it is Serbo-Croatian, as you just admitted, and (2) it is defined by the ethnicity of its speakers. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the reference explains how a macro and micro language level works and there are several others out there. Why does it have to be completely descripitve. This shows that Serbo-Croatian can be considered as a macro language. If you search the journals you will see how in some language groups the macro/micro language division works. I do not deny that there is no Serbo-Croatian as a common english term that is used in the literature, to do this it is foolish. On the other hand ona a socilinguistic level, there must be a recognition that Croatian is a separate language. Wikipedia is inclusive and not exclusive and all opinons should be considered and they should be presented to the reader - and not the narrow shoving in your face style. If this is done, this will reduce the level of conflict about this article. No one is denying the fact that Serbo-Croatian had and has an influence on modern day Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrian (as per the reference) - but should not be done is that a single POV is pushed and anyone who raises questions is bashed around. Resognition must be given that the languages Croatian and Serbian had their own development path, they converged and then diverged, and in the macro - micro sociolinguistic view the other languages that have sprung out of them are developing in their own paths. This is like joining a broken pot, it can never be unbroken. Look at the Scandinavian languages: Danish, Norwegian, and Sweedish all mutually intelligibe with the minimum traning this fits the macro/micro view and in the past there was a Dano-Norwegian language and Norwegian was only stadardised in 1926, after becoming independet in 1905 !!! The behaviour of WP:OWN of this article should stop, and an administrator who is deeply invovlved and deeply partisan can not a and should not become the gatekeeper. What is the matter of saying common English term (BTW in Canada and Australia Croatian is a separate language in the majority of faculties that offer Slavonic studies) and stating that in socilinguistic terms that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrian are separate. Pushing aside any non-English reference as not valid is just plain rasism.  Wikipedia is here to promote the different opinions and views, using consensus and not here to shove rhetoric and saying that 15 million people are something else to what they consider to be themselves something else.  21:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vodomar (talk • contribs)