Template:Did you know nominations/Šime Budinić


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Šime Budinić

 * ... that, based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic, in his 1582 work Šime Budinić added Czech diacritics to Latin script with intention to use literary language understandible for most South Slavs?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ponmudi Dam

Created by Antidiskriminator (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Struck ALT0 as somewhat unintelligible. I can kind of understand what it's trying to say but not really, so I can't fix it. EEng (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

, What do you think about ALT1?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1:... that Šime Budinić created complex literary language based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic by addition of the Czech diacritics to Latin script in order to penetrate as much South Slavs as possible?
 * Well, "penetrate as much South Slavs as possible" makes no sense, and the article says the same thing so I just don't know what to tell you to do. I think you need to find a native English speaker to copyedit the article for you, and then reconsider the hook. The nomination can go on hold while you get this done. EEng (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2:
 * , thanks for advice which I followed (diff) and requested copy editing at GOCE. What do you think about ALT2?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you ping me when the copyedit is done and we'll think about hooks then. EEng (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I came over at the request of. How about this:


 * ALT3: ... that Šime Budinić created scripts based on Cyrillic and Glagolitic derived from Czech diacritics and Latin script to make Church writings accessible to as many 16th century Southern Slavs as possible?

Still a bit clunky, but I think it is definitely an improvement over the original. If you think it still needs further tweaking, let me know. - Pax  Verbum  21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your effort. It is necessary to correct one thing. Cyrillic and Glagolitic which were not derived from Czech diacritics. Based on the Cyrillic and Glagolitic, Budinic created a version of Latin script which included a few Czech diacritics. To simplify things it might be a good idea to drop Czech diacritics and tweak ALT3 to be something like:


 * ALT4:... that Šime Budinić created a version of the Latin script derived from Cyrillic and Glagolitic to make Church writings accessible to as many 16th century Southern Slavs as possible?
 * What do you think?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that makes more sense now, and I think your new version looks good. It is more concise... - Pax  Verbum  22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If I can comment on the proposed alternatives: (A) ALT 1 does not make sense because a literary language cannot be based on an alphabet such as the Cyrillic or Glagolitic. It's a bit like saying "the English literary language is based on the Roman alphabet" - well no - the English literary language is written in the Roman alphabet, but it is based on a specific dialect or a set or dialects. Maybe what was intended is something along the lines of "the literary language was based on the štokavski-ijekavski dialect which was (or still may be) the most widely understood dialect among the South Slavs". To avoid any controversies I've deliberately used a formulation that does not delimit the dialect by reference to the Croatia, Bosnian or the Serbian languages. However it should be noted that Budinić himself called the language "slovinjski" or Slav - while in Latin and Italian publications he used the name Illyrian for the language - this was common practice among Croatian writers until the 19th century. (B) ALT 3 is not correct, because looking at the 1583 edition of Suma nauka kristijanskoga (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Rk48AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Summa+nauka&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAGoVChMI4-zT4MeVxgIV6FCmCh2HPAyK#v=onepage&q&f=false) it is clear that Budinić used the Latin (latinica) ie. Roman alphabet that was traditionally used for Croatian at that time, with the addition of the letters č and ž, which can be ascribed to Czech Hussite influence. Even then, the form of the letters č and ž is not the same as the present day form. The hooks (diacritics) on top of the letters are more like commas rather than like chevrons - a clear sign of Czech usage at the time. (C) ALT 4 is not correct either, for the same reasons as ALT 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The ALT4 refers to his 1582 work, not 1583. Thank you .--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about ALT 4. However, using ALT 4 would cause confusion because it is not apparent from the article that "Budinić created a version of the Latin script derived from Cyrillic and Glagolitic" in a 1582 work. There are only two references in the article to a 1582 work (confusingly, the article does not say what that work is, which is what you would expect if the 1582 work was so important to warrant a "Did you know"; you would also expect the article to say something about the version of the Latin script that Budinić is said to have created - with examples of that script, the changes introduced by Budinić, and whether those changes were accepted or used by anyone else). The first reference is in the sentence "Under the influence of Jesuit priest Peter Canisius, Budinić abandoned the language he had been using in his 1582 work..." - This sentence suggests that his 1582 work was his last work before he "created a version of the Latin script". So if Budinić did indeed create a new version of the Latin script, he did not do it in a 1582 work. The second reference in the article to a 1582 work is in note 18, which states "In his work printed in 1582 (Rome), Sime Budinic of Zadar referred to the language in his work as Slavonic" - This reference says nothing about the version of the Latin script that Budinić used in 1582. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171‬ (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 June 2015‎ ‪(UTC)
 * No, ALT4 will not create any confusion because it does not mention 1582 year. Additional citation for 1582 work added.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify your comments:
 * - on 17 June 2015 you said that "The ALT4 refers to his 1582 work"
 * - on 18 June 2015 you said that "ALT4 will not create any confusion because it does not mention 1582 year."
 * Which is it? Does ALT4 refer to a 1582 work or not?
 * ALT4 still has the potential to mislead or confuse because the article does not say what that is the title of the 1582 work, which is the least that would be expected if that work was so important to warrant a "Did you know". Again, I repeat it would also be expected that the article says something about the version of the Latin script that Budinić is said to have created (especially if that is so important to warrant a "Did you know") - how was Budinić's script "based on the Cyrillic and Glagolitic scripts", with examples of the Latin script, examples of the changes introduced by Budinić, and whether those changes were accepted or used by anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171‬ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 19 June 2015‎ ‪(UTC)
 * ALT4 referst to work written in 1582 but it does not specify year 1582. That is why ATL4 itself can not create any confusion. The clarification about work written in 1582 and additional citation are added to the article (diff). The article is start class article. Additional details and examples would be necessary if this was GA or FA nomination, not for DYK.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on suggestion for more precise translation: The article is now copy edited and correctness of the translation has been confirmed. This nomination is ready for review.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alt5: ... that Šime Budinić created a version of the Latin script, based on comparison with Cyrillic and Glagolitic, to make Church writings accessible to as many 16th century Southern Slavs as possible?


 * Symbol question.svg Interesting facts, have to accept the sources AGF. The article doesn't say "as many as possible", how about simply "to 16th century Southern Slavs" ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Before copy editing was done (link to pre-ce version) the article did say that, based on the sources. I corrected the text (diff) to match the sources (I hope I did it without making some gramatic mistake).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg the more cautious
 * ALT6: ... that Šime Budinić created a version of Latin script, based on comparison with Cyrillic and Glagolitic, to make Church writings accessible to 16th century Southern Slavs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)