User talk:Čitateljwikipedije

Kajkavian
- You can't just remove statements backed up by multiple reliable sources. Overall the transitional Ča-Kaj speeches constitute a minority of Kajkavian, and Kajkavian as a whole is much more related to Slovene than to Čakavian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two sources in the diff above. Kajkavian has been classified as a Slovene dialect in the history due to extensive similarities of the two. On general relationship among Ča-Kaj-Slo, from Lončarić's book on Kajkavian (p. 18):
 * "S obzirom na kajkavštinu utvrđena su poklapanja, koja su se mogla i unaprijed očekivati, između jugozapadnih kajkavskih, sjeverozapadnih čakavskih i jugoistočnih slovenskih govora, ali bez izra­zitijih izoglosa, razlika koje bi ukazivale na veću srodnost između nekih od njih (NewekIowsky 1987). Međutim, utvrđeno je također ranije (R. Kolarič 1958) da se s obzirom na te tri jedinice mogu povući i izoglose, tj. slovenski susjedi na čakavskoj strani imaju više zajedničkog sa slovenskim jezikom nego slovenski susjedi kajkavci"


 * In other words, there is really no special kinship among Kajkavian and Čakavian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk)


 * Let me explain this in simple terms for you: find source that back up your statements, or that refine existing sourced statements in the article, otherwise don't touch them. That is how Wikipedia works. We can all make subjective assessments of what is closer to which, but such personal assessments don't matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually it dates back originally to the Czech Josef Dobrovský. We don't exclude linguists according to nationality - opinions of Belić, Ivić, Kopitar, Kolarič etc. matter just as much as that of Jagić and Ivšić. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You need secondary sources. Primary sources + your personal interpretation don't cut it. Greenberg explicitly says Slovene and the Croatian Kajkavian dialect stand in a close genetic relationship and goes on to elaborate it. Another source that I quoted above says that in the transitional areas Čakavian is more closer to Slovene than to Kajkavian. These two combined give the sentence Kajkavian is closer to neighboring Slovene than it is to Chakavian or Shtokavian which is currently in the article. That Kajkavian is more closer to Čakavian than Slovene smacks of one of nationalist myths created to strengthen Croatian national unity - the type of that Greenberg dispels in his paper:
 * "The diasystem as applied to Croatian (or Serbo-Croatian) seems to be a way of artificially asserting linguistic unity in the face of underlying structural heterogeneity. There is nothing inherently illusory in the synchronic application of this notion, particularly in Weinreich’s original sense of the word. It captures the fact that heterogeneous, though similar, systems can be perceived by speakers as belonging to the same language. This is a linguists’ reflection of what Kajkavian speakers believe about their language: that they are speaking a variety of Croatian. At the same time, it is revealing that the diasystem surfaces as the model of choice among some Croatian linguists."


 * Chakavian is as close to Slovene as Kajkavian, and as far from Shtokavian as Kajkavian. - This is your assertion, that you need to back up with sources. It contradicts with the quotation from Lončarić above.
 *  I do not see how these two combined can mean that Kajkavian is closer to Slovenian than to Chakavian. It goes like this:
 * Kajkavian is genetically related to Slovene.
 * Chakavian is not genetically related to Slovene.
 * Shtokavian is not genetically related to Slovene.
 * In the borderline area Chakavian is more closer to Slovene than to Kajkavian.
 * Ergo, in non-borderline area (where there are less shared isoglosses) Chakavian is at least as distinct from Kajkavian as it is from Slovene. If this inference is too complicated for you we can simply put the base premises in the article.
 * It refers to the similarity of Neo-Štokavian dialects - no, the notion of "Central South Slavic Diasystem" refer to Ča+Kaj+Što dialects together. That there is some kind of "special" connection holding them together since ancient times. It's a political construct with little real-world justification.
 * It suggests that they believe that they are speaking a dialect that belongs to the same language as the Neo-Štokavian dialect does, although they differ significantly. - Exactly - it suggests that they believe that Kajkavian is closer to Shtokavian than Slovene, when those bundles of isoglosses on the map prove otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How did you get the idea that Chakavian is genetically not related to Slovene? - it is, but only on a deeper timeframe (Common Slavic). Chakavian speeches are very heterogeneous and separated by some very old isoglosses (e.g. /*tj/, /*dj/). Slovene and Kajkavian form a genetic clade - see Map 3 in Greenberg's paper and his comment: In Map 3 it can be seen that a major bundle of isoglosses separates Slovene and Kajkavian from the rest of the Western-South Slavic speech territory, which has a pattern of gradual, largely parallel isoglosses.
 * Bosniaks also speak Ikavian Štokavian.
 * Sure they form a bridge, but Čakavian is not closer to Kajakvian than either is to Slovene, which was your original assertion ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you not agree, regardless which is more similar to which of those three (Ča-Kaj-Slo), that Čakavian and Kajkavian in general share more isoglosses than Štokavian shares with booth of them? Northern Čakavian and Southern Čakavian are very different, and it's absurd to claim that Southern Čakavian is more closer to Kajkavian in the north than neighboring Štokavian, especially in the light of Č and K each being closer to S than to each other (why shouldn't they as well each be closer to Š than to each other? Both are heavily Štokavianized now.) Find secondary sources for your inferences, original research and creative synthesis is forbidden on Wikipedia. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The source you cited, Greenbergs map, shows that the majority of the Chakavian speaking area (Istria, Kvarner, and some norhtern islands of Dalmatia) - Uhm that would be half of all Chakavian speeches. There is also Middle Chakavian, Southern Chakavian, and Southeastern Chakavian. None of these are closer to Kajkavian than to Štokavian.
 * according to this map https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Croatian_dialects.PNG - that map is wrong. It was created by a Croatian user out of his head to artificially inflate the number of speakers and the geographical distribution of those two extincting dialects. There is no alternative map so it's being kept in the article.
 * Once again: find reliable secondary sources that state that Č and K are more close to each other than to Š otherwise this is a waste of time. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vrlo mnogo zajedničkog, naročito u leksiku, gdje nalazimo mnogo podudaranja s kajkavskim narječjem What is "vrlo mnogo" ? Are those shared retentions or common innovations? If it's not explicitly stated it doesn't matter, we can't just guess.
 * Therefore, South Chakavian and Southeastern Chakavian are transitional Ča-Što subdialects. - That's your imaginative conclusion. Sources classify them as legitimate Č subgroups.
 * Why are you saying this? Who is this user? User:Ceha
 *  Does it mean that there is no other map which shows the distribution of croatian dialects? - most of them are obsolete (30-40 years old) and don't reflect reality anymore. So that's kind of a big problem.
 * And most important of all, why should someone have the desire to artificially inflate the number of speakers of the those two dialects? - To make it seem that Croatians speak their "exclusive" dialects to a much greater degree, hence erecting artificial cultural barriers with Serbians. It's a psychological issue. Personally I can't even fathom the cognitive dissonance in the mids of those who simultaneously believe that standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian(/Montenegrin) are three (four) legitimately "different" languages, and that someone from Vukovar, Bednja and Korčula speak the "same" language. Not that it matters much though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Burenland is as a geographically isolated emigre community unrepresentative of all Č and K, with many mixed traits of all three dialects. What applies to them does not necessarily apply to others. It is relevant for the article [[Burgenland Croatian]], not elsewhere.
 *  What I said relies on what the Croatian Wikipedija says, and this is furthermore based on what reliable sources say. You can look at the articles. Other wikipedias are not reliable sources. Particularly Balkans wikipedias which are fabricating history is rampant. Those three dialects of Čakavian that I mentioned are listed as legitimate groupings in countless sources, they are not like the transitional Ča-Kaj speeches (which are neither Č nor K), or e.g. Buzet dialect (which is a legitimate transitional Č-Slovenian dialect, and is an outlier in many ways with respect to other NW Č speeches). It's one of the traditional classification schemes used for a long time. We are forbidden from interpreting primary sources and making our own conclusions. (Except when discussing secondary sources themselves).
 * Re Galović: these "influences" such as /ě/ > /i/ are not a result of "contact" but shared developments. By his logic you can dismiss any shared isoglosses in transitional areas as "result of direct contact". That qualification explains nothing and proves nothing. All sound changes are a result of contact. The issue is whether they can be demarcated with respect to time and geography or not. If they cannot than they represent aberrant developments and are not "genetic". In case of shared isoglosses between neighboring S Č and Š, this is not the case.
 * Your whole argument for stating that Č and K are more closer than Č and Š or K and Š, as far as I can see, rests on the consideration of Northern Č being the only form of "Č proper". This is not how these dialects are classified. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you don't have any sources. Let me remind you what was your original statement: that Č and K are more related to each other than either to Š. Find a source to back it up, preferably not an "opinion" by some obscure researcher, but something with a bit more substance. Or perhaps you'd like to work on the article on Kajkavian dialect instead - it's in very poor quality. About two thirds of it is junk that needs to be pruned, but I don't want it reduce to stub status. I don't "own" the article, but the problem is that you removed valid sources that back up the low intelligibility claim without proving otherwise (such as better or contradicting sources). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Somebody mentioned my work, this map
 * Map was basicly made from this two maps;
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Croatia_Dialects_Cakavian.svg
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Kajkavstina.png/665px-Kajkavstina.png
 * Sources claiming that kajkavian dialects are more closer to Slovenian (in which dialectal diferences are much biger than in Croatian) are more or less obsolete or non scientific.
 * The same goes for the statement that Chakavian is closer to Slovenian than to shtokavian, or that old shtokavian slavonian and eastern bosnian dialects and neoshtokavian herzegovian dialects (which forms the basis for Croatian) are closer to serbian neoshtokavian vojvodina-shumadija or torlakian dialects... --Čeha (razgovor) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)