User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 3

Proposed deletion of Alwin Kloekhorst‎


The article Alwin Kloekhorst‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Georg Holzer
Are yufamiliar with this Dutch linguists who proposes that Slavic only developed in the 5th or so century AD ? Hxseek (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I even wrote a small article on him: Georg Holzer. He's an Austrian linguist, not Dutch, and according to him there were no dialectal differences in Proto-Slavic until the late 7th century: in approx. 600 CE, there was uniform Proto-Slavic spoken from Novgorod to Thessaloniki. He's a regular visitor at the conferences such as IWoBA. Not many of his papers are available online (some like this encyclopedic article, in German unfortunately, are really great). Last year he wrote this awesome little book Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen. Einleitung und Lautgeschichte der Standardsprache which has extremely detailed chronological overview of Proto-Slavic sound changes in sync with the current scholarship, and that is currently being translated to Croatian and will be published this summer/fall, and I'm really looking forward to reading it.. :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So by 600 CE, does he mean common Slavic prope ? Ie before 600 CE, there were numerous Balto-Slavic dialects and languages throughout E.E. ? Can you read german ?

Also, how closely is Slavic related to Thracian ? I have been thinking that they must have been related more closely than we might think given that so many inhabitants in dacia and northern Thrace adopted it as a lngua franca during this time ? Hxseek (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was still Common Slavic in 600 CE, and phase of proto-Slavic at that period is usually called "Early Proto-Slavic". There were pan-Slavic sound changes for a few more centuries, some of them however missing some peripheral dialects. What happened before the slavic expansion in 6th century is a big mystery..there certainly must have been some Balto-Slavic dialects there were suppressed by newly emerging Slavic koine, but except for some toponymics evidence, we don't know anything about them as they were unattested. Holzer analyzed all the toponyms and glosses of Slavic words (usually in Greek and Roman sources) in that period and came to conclusion that there was no discernible dialectal differentiation in such Early Proto-Slavic of the 600 CE. Some Greek toponyms of today are living fossils of such Early Proto-Slavic (e.g. Early Proto-Slavic Γαρδίκι, i.e. gardiki > Late Proto-Slavic gordьcъ, whence gradec by liquid metathesis and the vocalization of stron jer to /e/). For some sound changes, such as the first palatalization, that occurred in prehistorical times during the expansion of Slavic speech, we know that they operated on some Balto-Slavic dialects that were subsequently erase, as the archaic form of toponyms have been preserved in Baltic languages. See here for some more information.
 * I don't know anything about Thracian unfortunatelly.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So in the article here on Wiki, it states that proto-Slavic might have suceeded from proto-Balto-Slavic by ~ 1000BC, but proto-Slavic proper can be reconstructed back to 600BC. What is the difference ? ie when was proto-Slavic different enough so that it was not mutually understandable with speakers of western Baltic ? Hxseek (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not BC, but CE! 600 CE is where Proto-Slavic "proper" (Early Proto-Slavic) fits in. That late 6th century Early Proto-Slavic was still very similar to Baltic languages (you can in fact say it was just one of Balto-Slavic dialects). We can only speculate on the stuff such as mutual intelligibility, since the expansion of that Proto-Slavic erased pretty much everything of what probably was a large dialect continuum of Balto-Slavic. The only reason why Baltic languages of today are "alive" is due to their isolation (just look at the dates when first Lithuanian and Latvian documents were attested, or when the first historical record appear...it's all very blurry and highly-speculative before that).
 * I've mentioned several times earlier (not sure if it was to you though): you can even apply sound changes on many modern-day Lithuanian words and basically obtain Common Slavic (Late Proto-Slavic) words. The standard doctrine tells that Proto-Slavic changed more in the period of expansion (6th-9th century) than it had in 2000 years before that. This type of change in a certain period as opposed to long stagnation is not unusual, and is usually related to certain large-scale changes in population, impact of one dominant culture onto another, or any other kind of radical cultural shift. I've read that the same thing happened in Irish (in the historical period, i.e. documented).
 * The essence is that up until 1500-1000 BC there was a period of exclusive common development in Balto-Slavic dialect continuum, then one dialect separated and became ancestral of what we today call "Proto-Slavic", and later that dialect (in the historical period) expanded on some large area (circumstances of which are not completely clear, but it was surely a sudden expansion as there are no discernible dialectal differences in such newly-arisen Proto-Slavic). What happened in between to languages/dialects that are lost and never attested - we can only speculate. According to Baltic nationalist there were "Balts occupying Belarussia and Ukraine", according to others these were early Slavs... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, so up to 600 AD, proto-Slavic would have been rather mutually intelligible with some Baltic languages, and therfore would have been a mere 'dialect'. So, we can only speak of a Slavic people, in terms of a sufficiently coherent group of people who have a common language which is not intelligible to their neighbours, from after c. 6th century AD ?

The book Language contacts in prehistory is interesting (Pg 45-66). It points to a very heterogeneous vocabulary in Common Slavic such as Germanisms, Celticisms (limited), Iranicisms and a dozen or so Alticisms (via Huns, Avars and Bulgars). It continues that, whatever the original relationship b/w Slavic and Baltic in the more distant past, they formed a linguistic continuum over a wide area of central and north eastern Europe (Baltic to northern Ukraine, from from Vistula to Don) into the Common Era, one which was eventually replaced by the expansion of Slavic. they highlight that Slavic was a relatively peripheral dialect within this continuum. In addition, they talk of 'discrepent dorsals' (irregular phonological borrowings) absent in other satem languages (ie Iranic) which could be ascribed to more earlier borrowings or intrusions from centum languages (such as Germanic, 'Venetho-Illyrian' or 'west -Indo-European -> does this last one imply as yet undifferentiated Celto-Germano-Italo-Illyrian? ). They suggests that these irregularities could also be the result of correspondences with pre-Satem substrata (does this mean before differentiation of IE into satem, ie earlier, less developed IE dialects) and ante-I-E substrata (does this mean pre- I- E ? )

As for toponymic evidence (esp hydronyms), do you think that this is an accurate way of searching for earliest 'homelands'? According to hydronyms, the oldest ones are found in Volhynia and Podolia, whilst botanical toponyms point to Polesie (the beech, yew, etc arguement). In linguistic reconstruction and typology (p 216), the author suggests that the apparent archaic hydronyms along the Dneiper area could be due to an expansion of proto-Slavs into the area from a more easterly (ie Galician homeland), where although river names are 'Old European',was the original homeland, whilst in the Dnieper region, the Slavs felt they had to rename the rivers which previously bore more foreign Iranic or Thraco-Cimmerian names. Hxseek (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you by "Baltic languages" mean "other Balto-Slavic dialects neigbouring the Slavic area", then there probably was a large degree of intelligibility. However, important thing to note is that Baltic languages (those that were historically attested) are quite divergent, so you get e.g. Old Prussian which seems to be an outliner against Lithuanian & Latvian to the same extent that it's an outliner to Proto-Slavic. There are some features OP shares only with Slavic but not with L&L, as well as some that are exclusive to Eastern Baltic and Proto-Slavic. When Proto-Slavic started to rapidly change in the centuries to come, stating with the first palatalization (5th century CE, according to some even a few centuries earlier), intelligibility certainly suddenly decreased. That was also probably the period when Slavic ethno-linguistic self-consciousness arose (the meaning of "Slav" (sloven-) is probably "the one that speaks our tongue" (slovo = "word")).
 * I'm not sure what exactly is the question in the second paragraph. Satem sound change was a very early innovation that happened across large territory in a period when one can only speak of "Late Proto-Indo-European dialect continuum", and not individual language groups as "Balto-Slavic", "Germanic" etc. Borrowings in Proto-Slavic are often a matter of great exaggeration and speculation with little underlying proof. Germanicisms in Proto-Slavic are well-known (mostly from Gothic, some from OHG, a few possibly Proto-Germanic, none is Proto-Balto-Slavic), Celticisms are but a few (4-5) and mostly disputed, Altaisms (10-15, usually confined to some regional area) are all from Bulgar and Avar and deal with social organization (stuff like ban) or some upper-cultural concepts or goods which were unknown to Slavs but were introduced by nomadic traders. Certain Iranianisms are surprisingly few, but the usual doctrine is that Iranian tribes exerted an influence in religious sphere (words for "heaven", "god" etc.) I'm not sure what "irregularities" does the author of that book have in mind, that should be supportive of some substratum theory.. The Ivanov-Toporov model you mention of Slavic being peripheral Balto-Slavic dialect is what's laid out here (you also helped there).
 * My opinion on hydronymy evidence is that it's quite conclusive, as hydronyms are very slowly changed, and the great concentration of Slavic hydronyms (in the middle Dnieper area as concluded by Trubačev) necessarily points to a longer period of habitation there. I've read that Croatian tribes kept the names of the rivers that were longer than approx. 50km, and to shorter ones regularly gave newer names. Dunno for the rest of Slavdom.. The names of Dnieper and Dniester are very non-Slavic (they're Iranian), but they were never changed, even though they were in the center of the Slavic expansion. So that argument sounds a bit shaky to me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way a new idea I;ve come accross is that, like with the Avar khaganate, proto-Slavic was also used by the Rus/Verangian traders/ warriors as koine, hence explaining its spread through the Baltic and western Russia. Although some scholars such as Sedov postulated a 6th century spread of Slavic to those areas, some more recent proposals push it back to the 8th or 9th century, fitting in with the rise of the Rus Hxseek (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One last thing: if Baltic, and to a lesser extent Slavic, are incompletely Satemized, does this mean that they were slightly peripheral to the origin point of Satem innovation ? When did proto-B-S differentiate from proto-IE ? Hxseek (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some exceptions to Satemization in Balto-Slavic, but these have various explanations (some like Kortlandt and Matasović even deduce rules for regular depalatalizations of PIE palatovelars which changed them into regular velars before Satemization occurred). Satemization was overwhelmingly regular, and the 10-20 disputed examples are IMHO hardly enough to speak of "partial Satemization". They might be regular exceptions, or prehistorical post-Satemization borrowings from Centum langauges, or some Balto-Slavic-specific PIE variants with velars instead of palatovelars (there were provably such variants, even with dual reflexes in a single branch). So it remains inconclusive at best..
 * Late PIE dialect continuum is usually dated sometimes at 4000 BCE. Between that period, and the 1500-1000 BCE common exclusive Balto-Slavic sound changes occurred (some appear to be "shared" with some other groups, but once you take relative chronology into account you realize that all of them are exclusive common isoglosses). This whole period in-between is Proto-Balto-Slavic in various stages, but linguist usually reconstruct the last phase only. After that, each Balto-Slavic group experienced its own innovations (minor sound changes, mostly in lexis), and then some centuries after CE Slavic group distinguished itself, consciousness of "those who speak like ourself" arose (slovo "word" + ethnicon-forming suffix -en-inъ = slov-en-inъ "Slav"), interactions with Germanic, Turkic, Iranian.. element occurred and the rest is history ^_^ (which you know much better then I).
 * From the linguistic perspective, by far the most important thing to notice is the dissolution of this slavic koine (Common Slavic, or Late Proto-Slavic): 1) all living Slavic languages/dialects, without any exceptions, are derivable from it 2) it appears to have disintegrated "in place", i.e. there are lots of what we today perceive as some kind of "dialect clusters" (in SC we say nar(j)ečje) - e.g. Kajkavian and Čakavian Croatian - which did not pass through some intermediate phase, i.e. if you apply comparative method on their individual speeches you get this Common Slavic and not some "Proto-Čakavian" or "Proto-Kajkavian", all of which brings us to one conclusion 3) the spread of Slavic koine happened very fast, before it could get any chance to seriously dissolve itself. Once it covered larger territory, it was easy for certain isoglosses to remain geographically confined. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. So Innovations which led to divergence of pr-BS from p-IE began c. 3000 BC, with the late common p-BS period falling c. 1500- 1000BC. After this proto-Slavic began to have its own peculiar changes, but was still rather conservative and might have been intelligible to other balto-Slavic dialects. From c. 5th century CE, it began a rapid expansion etc, coinciding with the first evidences of any significant dialectical divergence within proto-Slavic and increasing borrowings. ?

I think we need to add a little overview like this in the proto-Slavic (& proto-BS) article. What I was getting at earlier with partial satemization, etc, is that rather than a single dispersal of proto-IEs and then a dialectical divergence, Andersen proposes that (as far as Slavic and Baltic go) there were successive, small scale waves of migration of IEs from the steppe to the forests, each one more linguistically advanced than the next. So they imposed their newer, more advanced language on earlier groups (these being pre-IEs, then early proto-IndoEuropeans, western (centum) IEs, and those with partial satemized IE dialects - satemization was an innovation which obviously did not reach the, by then, more peripheral Celtic, Germanic, Greek langauges). This would account for some of the differences in Baltic and Slavic, ie the pre-existing differences in earlier populations, as some terms were kept which were 'kindred and adapted to local conditions'. Hxseek (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All correct.
 * Anderson's thesis o small-step migrations each introducing some kind of innovations is interesting, and it would be great if it could be complemented by some archaeological evidence, or supported by more researchers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the postulated Venetic language, 'Old European' hydonymy and their possible role in shedding light on the Venethi Hxseek (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't have a clue. I've read on the other hand on the ethnonym/toponym Venet(hi) itself a lot, with the conclusion that it designated various peoples in various periods by various speakers. According to Matasović, Venetic theory of Slavs is pure BS, based on dubious archeological evidence and even more dubious linguistic evidence. I can translate to you what he says on that if you're interested. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, whenever you get a chance. So "Veneti" itself is not a Slavic ethonym ?Hxseek (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not native Slavic, but probably is of PIE origin. There are about 2 pages of discussion to translate, I'll drop it to your talkpage when I finish it.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ivan. I was thinking whether we could add some of this info to the proto-Slavic (and Balto-Slavic articles). Just a bit more info as to the development process:

According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the currently favoured model accounting the spread of IE languages, the Urhiemat of the proto-Indo-European people is to be found in the Pontic steppe, represented archaeologically by the 5th century BC Sredny Stog culture (Kortlandt). From here, the various daughter dialects dispersed radially in several waves between 4400 BC and 3000 BC. The first wave yielded the ‘peripheral’ IE languages – Anatolian, Tocharian and Italo-Celtic, whilst Germanic, Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic remained more central. Some developments such as the assibilation of the palatovelars (the satem innovation) only reached the central-most IE languages (Balto-Slavic, Thracian and Indo-Aryan). According to Kortlandt, the IEs who remained after the migrations became speakers of Balto-Slavic. Innovations exclusive to Balto-Slavic commenced by 3000 BC and continued to ~ 1000 BC. During this time, Balto-Slavic evolved from a late-proto –IE dialect to a distinct linguistic branch. Balto-Slavic dialects retained many archaic IE features, confirming a development central to the original proto-IE homeland.(Mallory, pg 292-3)

Specifically, Kortlandt links the earliest stages of Balto-Slavic development with the Middle Dnieper Culture. The MDC is located between the Corded Ware Culture and the Yammna culture. This geographic location would be one where the satem Balto-Slavic language was exposed to centum influences (Kortlandt). It then expanded along the forest zone, replacing earlier centum dialects, such as pre-proto-Germanic, evidenced by the presence of a few prehistoric centum borrowings. {Nichols p 245}}. BS and Germanic have similarities which have been attributed to both a genetic relationship (eg Bojtar) and continuous adjacency (Nichols 249).

From c. 1500- 1000 BC, a series of increasingly unique innovations began a process of crystallization of proto-Slavic as a distinct dialect of Balto-Slavic This occurred along the southern periphery of the proto-Balto-Slavic continuum. The most archaic Slavic hydronyms are found between the middle Dnieper, Pripet and upper Dniester rivers. Indeed, Trubachev argues that this location fostered contacts between speakers of proto-Slavic with the cultural innovations which emanated from central Europe and the steppe (Language contacts, pg 49, 50). Although language groups cannot be straightforwardly equated with archaeological cultures, the proto-Slavic linguistic development corresponds temporally and geographically with the Kamarov-Chernoles continuum of cultures (Novotna, Blazek) in the forest steppe. During the first few centuries AD, loan words entering proto-Slavic evidence an increasing of cultural contacts with surrounding peoples. Most appear to be of Germanic origin- connected to the movement of east Germanic groups into the Vistula basin, and subsequnelty to the middle Dnieper basin (associated with the appearance of the Przeworsk and Chernyakov cultures, respectively). A fewer Iranian loan words appear to relate to terms of cultural provenance- which could have stemmed from the late Iranic period (Gimbutas).

Yet Slavic remained conservative, and by the turn of the Common Era, the various Balto-Slavic dialects formed a dialectical continuum stretching from the Vistula to the Don and Oka basins, and from the Baltic and upper Volga to southern Russia and northern Ukraine (L.C. pg 49). Exactly when Slavs emerged as a culturally coherent group remains a subject of debate (eg Curta – 6th century in the Danube, Baran – fifth century in the Chernyakov era, or during the Zarubinetshorizon 200 BC – 200 AD Migration in the Eurasian steppe), but it is likely that linguistic affinity played an important role in defining group identity for the Slavs. In fact, the ethonym “Slav” came to be used by Slavs to identify themselves as those who ‘speak who speak (the same language)’.

The earliest evidence of dialectical divergence within Slavic is dated to c. 400 AD. This corresponds with the beginning of Slavic historical expansion (Kortlandt) and perhaps the first separation of Slavic groups, by the arrival of Goths to the area of the probable Slavic homeland (Novotna, Blazek). The last shared innovations common to all modern Slavic languages are dated to the ninth century. The expansion of Slavic was very rapid, and it replaced and erased many other dialects and languages which existed in eastern and SE Europe in proto-historic times. What caused this rapid spread remains a topic of discussion. Traditional explanations focus on demographic expansions and migrations, whilst more processual theories attempt to modify the picture by introducing concepts such as ‘elite dominance’(Renfrew) and ‘language shifts’ (e.g. Nichols). Even before this, it was used a lingua franca amongst various barbarian ethnies which emerged in the Danubian and steppe regions of Europe after the fall of the Hun Empire (see B, B and E. Teodor). Cultural contacts between societal elites of politically independent communities might have led “language of one agricultural community spread(ing) to other agricultural societies” (Nichols p 240). This has been substantiated archaeologically, seen for example by the development of networks which spread of ‘Slavic fibulae’, artefacts representing social status and group identity (Curta). Dolukhanov suggests that military and political experience gained from their contact with the steppe nomads (History of Eurasian Steppe), as well as their advanced agricultural techniques enabled the Slavs to emerge as the dominant force in post-Hun era eastern Europe. That Slavic might have served as a Koine language within the Avar khanate .. ..

Whatever the case, the expansion of Slavic was not just a linguistic phenomenon, but the expansion of an ethnic identity (Nichols Pg 240).

Just a rough edit now, but I think it attempts to chronologically outline process of development without going into unneccesarily deep analysis. Hxseek (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks very good. Most relevant perspectives are mentioned, but none is given overdue emphasis. PS: I'm still working on the translation of that Venethi article.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll try to add it into the articles soon. I'm still just a little confused about terminology. If (as Kortlandt says) proto-Slavic (ie the reconstructed parent language which gave rise to modern Slavic languages) is dated to 600 AD - becuase he dates proto-Languages to the time of their dispersal, then what is it called during the period c. 1000 BC to 600 AD ? pre-proto-Slavic ? Hxseek (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, pre-Proto-Slavic (or shorter simply pre-Slavic) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Please take a look at proto-Slavic at your leisure. I still need to expand the references fully. Hxseek (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that article Hxseek (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Meier-Brügger
This article you created has been tagged for speedy deletion by Andrewrp, apparently without notifying you. I'm sorry I cannot be of much help since I don't know anything about Meier-Brügger (except that he wrote the Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft...). Just wanted to tell you in case you don't know already. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed and asked for the clarification on the talpage, but someone removed the quick-deletion request at the meantime. Meier-Brügger wrote 2 major works so I think he should his article should be pretty safe now.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation
In request to a request for informal mediation, I'm going to give you guys a hand-can you see the Hey Slavs talk page please-Talk:Hey,_Slavs. You were mentioned as a minor party in the dispute. Thanks! Dotty•• |TALK 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No one has attacked you nor your personal integrity by quoting your professional aspirations (in computer technology). But your claims that in Hey, Slavs (the article) we should for the first time (in this Wikipedia) list Croatian, Bosnian, and also, Serbian language as variants of the Serbo-Croatian "language" is outrageous. It seems to me that Dotty was under the wrong impression that you are professionaly connected with general linguistics/dialectology led Dotty to the conclusion that it is best to leave your POV in the article.
 * Your position is by far controversial and harmful to the reader, SC-CS was a pollitical name, and not a language.
 * Imbris (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problems of anyone getting the "wrong impression" of me being professionally connected with linguistics. It is flatters me, as it implies a degree of professionality I aspire to promote, despite the lack of formal training in that particular field (as if it matters something, the concept of university is utterly broken in the 21st century). It's much more amusing to write linguistics-related articles on en.wiki, that CS-related article on hr.wiki. I am now deeply convinced that contributing articles no hr.wiki on stuff such as lambda calculus, combinatory logic or NT kernel architecture was complete waste of time :p
 * That "outrageous" claim is still supported in shitload of modern and highly-authoritive English literature (and moreover I can dig you a plenty of pre-1990s quotes of newly-enlightened national-linguists like Brozović who speak of "varieties" of "common language", or imply it). I advise reading Wayles Browne's chapter on Serbo-Croatian in Comrie et al.'s big compilation The Slavonic languages (if you're in Zagreb, you can read it in NSK, there's a copy on the 3rd floor :p) to get a sober picture of a Western NPOV perspective on Balkan language business. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs
I know its a pain, and an annoying waste of everyone's time, but I really hope you'll help me conclude this matter. He's now insisting that Serbo-Croatian is not a language, and that its should not be listed "alongside" Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian as that is "POV". He wants it listed in the back, if even there, because you know, it was wiped from existence in 1991... x| -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well lets just see how an independent observer will comment on all these "different languages".. ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this canvassing, ha, Mr. DIREKTOR?
 * Mr. DIREKTOR is deliberately misleading you dear Mr. Štambuk. Namely I have commented that SC cannot be placed between bos and hrv. That is should not be listed as the language of only Hej Slaveni, that it should be listed as a Slavic language but not behind Serbian language, listed as the last among the "living" Slavic group. DIREKTOR combines the Hey, Slavs issue with the Serbo-Croatian article issue (where that macrolanguage should appear).


 * Imbris (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No not really, Imbris. He was already fully involved in the matter when I made this post. I'm obviously just discussing the issues with User:Ivan Štambuk. Feel free to report me if you feel any policy has been violated. Regards, -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 01:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Imbris I already commented somewhere that it's completely silly to have both "Croatian language" column and the "Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian" column with identical texts.. bs/hr/sr columns should be next to each other, since they're very closely related, grouped under the "Serbo-Croatian" or "Central South Slavic". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The DIREKTOR is the one who demands the Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian to have its own text in both Yugoslav anthem section and the South Slavic languages section. There is no way that bos, hrv, and also, srp will be grouped under the fabrication and serbo-unitarist name of Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage. nor the Central South Slavic abbomination which (because of your intervention) leads to SC article. I agree that we do not need identical texts, and in Bosnian language they write živjeće, while in Croatian they write živjet će. So those two are not identical. -- Imbris (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why "there is no way" when they're essentially identical? Wikipedia is about consensus-building, and I suggest refraining from making that kind of absolute statements which obstruct reasonable argumentative discussion. I'll just ignore your seductive trolling and answer on the actual point of yours: the difference between živjet će and živjeće is merely orthographical, they're pronounced exactly the same (i.e. word-final '-t' is silent) by orthoephical norm. So it's kind of a virtual difference. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you don't get it, I don't know if you read this: "The historical failure of the Serbo-Croatian language warrants us to list it last,..." -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic vowel system
Dear Ivan, Even before I visited pages such as /Slavic_liquid_metathesis_and_pleophony, /Proto-Slavic_borrowings , /Illič-Svityč%27s_law, I was convinced that one should write Proto-Slavic as e. g. *rankā, *suta, *būtī, *warnā and not with the anachronical transcription *rǫka, *sъto, *byti, *vorna as is still commonly done (or was commonly done until very recently ?). Do you have paper sources for this (new) usage or are you pioneering it ? I would be glad to know these sources if any. I hardly know of manuals or papers that use the "right" phonological spelling for reconstructed Common Slavic, but I am not a Slavist and I do not know enough of the literature. --Zxly (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this are not some kind of "alternative notation" - they refer to different layers of Proto-Slavic. Comparative method can only give you the last phase of proto-language (and that's where you get the "usual" notation for Late Proto-Slavic aka Common Slavic). Early Proto-Slavic had quantitative oppositions (vowel lengths), closed-syllable clusters, diphtongs and other shit that disappeared in CS and yielded nasal sounds, jers, palatals etc. Most "standard" Slavic etymology handbooks are obsolete and just deal with Late Proto-Slavic as a starting point (as if it is something fallen out of the sky), which is trivially reconstructable from OCS and by comparative method. If you want to describe pre-Late-Proto-Slavic sound and accentual changes (which is much more fun, especially if you take Proto-Balto-Slavic as a stating point), you must start with Early Proto-Slavic phonemic inventory, and hence the reconstructions such as *rankā, *suta, *būtī, *warnā and others. This particular notation I used can be found in the Historical grammar of Croatian (standard language, i.e. Neoštokavian) written by Ranko Matasović . Schenker's standard introductory book from 1996 The Dawn of Slavic (and also his chapter on Proto-Slavic in Comrie's monography The Slavonic languages, which is more-ore-less the same as an overview of Proto-Slavic in the textbook) uses something similar (with a bit more diacritics). The changes from Early to Late Proto-Slavic are already described in the article Proto-slavic, tho there are more stuff that's been missing. Transition between them is a matter of a trivial formula.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So basically mapping of EPSl. To LPSl. is:
 * change of quantitative oppositions to qualitative ones: *a > *o, *ā> *a; *e > *e, *ē> *ě; *i > *ь, *ī > *i; *u > *ъ, *ū> *y. So e.g. the old quantiative opposition *a : *ā became new qualitative one: *o : *a.
 * monophthongizations of the diphtongs: *ej > *i, *aj > *ě, *aw > *ō > *u (note that the symbol  is used for [j] and not  in order not to confuse it with the jery sound of Late Proto-Slavic)
 * rise of nasal vowels from a sequence of a vowel followed by a nasal (*em/en/im/in > *ę, *am/an/um/un > *ǫ)
 * The usual palatalizations (3 of them), and various simplifications in accordance with the principles of syllabic synharmony and the law of open syllables.. Also, the sound changes at the end of a word (the last syllable usually, known more commonly as Auslautgesetze) are extremely complex, and there is no consensus with regard to them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ivan for the references! I partly agree with the notion of Late Proto-Slavic vs. Early Proto-Slavic. However, Late PSl (*sъto, etc.) is very "late" - in fact it coincides with the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet (at least for the vowels, though not for *tj). And we cannot write *gordъ etc. as has commonly been done, but only either EPSl *gardu (before the dialectal differences) or LPSl *gorodъ/*gradъ etc. (as dialectal differences).But after all I must agree that the name "Late Proto Slavic" for the stage *sъto, *byti, *gorodъ/*gradъ etc. is no more objectionable than "Late PIE" for the stage following the loss of laryngeals (which involves even greater dialectal differences within that "Late PIE"). --Zxly (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason not to write *gordъ..that is the form that precedes both gorod and grad, and it has been attested in toponyms. Late PSl. had very minimal dialectal differences, for all we know (unlike Late PIE). Mostly in lexis in different regions, in the phonetic value of jat or the date of some isoglosses occuring. We are luck that the earliest OCS writings were in a very conservative dialect (lots of attestations being identical to Common Slavic proto-forms). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your logic?

 * Imbris (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you implying, that speaking "Croatian" and "Serbian" (and "Bosnian" and "Montenegrin") is a mutually exclusive operation? ^_^ You don't need to draw truth tables for primitive Boolean operators for me, I've passed 8 uni-math courses you know (including discrete math) ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow... cool tables and math words I know nothing about. :o I'm so stupid for mathematics, its sad really. :P -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Imbris, if you're referring to this - the translation of the phrase hrvatski ili srpski into English, it translates only as Serbo-Croatian, because it's a set phrase (or idiom, if you will) with strictly defined meaning (Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian), not decomposable into "sum of parts" sense. In English, OTOH, Croatian or Serbian is not a set phrase (tho it has some marginal usage; the term Serbo-Croatian is used several orders of magnitude more), and the only corresponding translations would be Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.  --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase hrvatski ili srpski can also be translated directly, that being the Croatian or Serbian. With the table I meant to clarify the duality of the term, which appears in the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia (1974) as a term of the tertiary order.
 * The Constitutional Parliament decided on the name of the language in the Article 138, § 1 and in the Article 293 of the said Constitution (not to mention that the provisions were exactly the same as in the Amendments to the previous Constitution, which had been passed in 1972).
 * Miro Kačić was the first (to my knowledge) to publicly speak about this issue. The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, from the year 1972 did not acknowledge Serbo-Croatian, nor Croato-Serbian but the Croatian literary language which might be called Croatian or Serbian. The legislatures did not precise on whether this was inclusive or or exclusive or.
 * Nice to hear that you allow that the "language" can be called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.
 * As for the logic I thing A$$ \cdot$$B is the most realist and prudent way of looking at the matter.
 * I presume you are in favour of A+B, while Mr. DIREKTOR, given the options A=Croatian, B=Serbian is only for A pierce B, as he declares only Slavic heritage.
 * What is the name the Italians use for Slavs? He would know!? This is why I believe that given the parameters A=Croatian, B=Serbian that there is no other logical operation to satisfy his POV (other than A pierce B, also transcribed A NOR B).
 * If Wayles Browne is a sincere admirer of Pavle Ivić then I get the picture.
 * Imbris (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But the point is that you cannot translate idiomatic phrases literally...The phrases hrvatski ili srpski and srpski ili hrvatski have specific meanings and usage, and unless those are matched by a literal translation into the foreign language, the most approximate term should be used, in this case Serbo-Croatian.
 * It's pointless what some constitutional clauses, AVNOJ meetings blah blah concluded, in what specific verbiage. Modern standard Serbian, Bosnian, Croatia and soon-to-be-codified Montenegrin are 100% mutually intelligible, have 99% identical grammar, and unless that starts to change, you're all barking up the wrong tree with this legislative irrelevanties..
 * Mr. Browne is certainly not an "admirer" of Ivić - he's a topmost scholar schooled at the bestest universities (MIT, Harvard..), and accusing him of political or ideological bias is silly. His association with Ivić is of different matter - Ivić was the person that welcomed USA Slavists that were sent to fieldwork by Stankiewicz, Golab et al. to Yugoslavia. Quoting from :
 * Just as Europeans of earlier generations had been fascinated by  the  diversity  of  accentual  problems  (from  both  the  descriptive  and  historical points  of  view),  so  now were many  of  their American  colleagues  drawn  by  the  same magnet, and the rich variation of accentual systems among South Slavic dialects provided an irresistible gold mine of field data. Perhaps the most significant impetus to work with South Slavic dialects  (and  their accentual  systems), however, was  the charismatic presence of a single gifted, energetic and affable scholar, Pavle  Ivić –  the  third of  the  three Slavist  scholars  responsible  for  the  introduction of  dialectology  into  the mainstream  of U.S. Slavic  linguistics. Although Ivić  lived all his  life  in his native Yugoslavia [Serbia], he was fortunate enough  to be able  to make many visits  to  the West. He kept up a  large network  of  scholarly  contacts  throughout  the world,  and made  himself  available  to  the many students who came from other countries  to work with him. Three American Slavists  (and one general  linguist) went  to Novi Sad  to work with  Ivić  (Ronelle Alexander, Wayles  Browne,  Kenneth  Naylor,  and  Sarah  Grey  Thomason),  and  three  of  the  four wrote dissertations based on field work in Yugoslavia.


 * Ivić also functioned as an unofficial conduit for contacts between  scholars  from many different  lands with  interests  in South Slavic dialectology, making sure  that young Dutch, French, German, Russian and American  South  Slavists  with  common  interests  knew  of  each  other’s  work.  Finally, Ivić’s  long-term collaborative work with  the American phonetician  Ilse Lehiste  resulted in many co-authored works. Although most of this work deals with prosodic phenomena in the standard language, the two also included dialectal material in their broad scope of investigation. All in all, the presence of Pavle Ivić has made an enormous contribution to Slavic linguistics in the U.S. 
 * Late Ivić's Greater-Serbian apologetics (Slovo o srpskom jeziku, his alleged engagement in Bosnian war etc.) has abs. nothing do with his scholarly work, which is outstanding. It's ridiculous to even insinuate that Browne's work has something to do with some pro-Serbian stances. I mean, after all, look at DIREKTOR and me - we're Croats and hardly "pro-Serbian" - both are casually moreover harassed by GS nationalist, and deal with them in disputes regularly (being called OTOH "Croatian nationalists" ^_^). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indo-European Etymological Dictionary
Good work :-) I was going to rephrase the text myself, but couldn't produce anything useful yesterday evening. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ustaškim teorijama?daj saberi se. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.128 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA-sh
Hi,

I haven't yet linked all the articles with SC transcriptions to this template, but once I do (in a couple days?), maybe you could review them? A lot have simple stress marks, and some don't mark accent at all. (Though I don't know how much you'd be able to do with personal names.) Also, I've been going through them pretty quickly, and may not have always made the best choice for the name of the language.
 * Sure, I was just starting to look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:IPA-sh and correcting some. Unlike some 90% of Croats, I'm a native speaker of Neoštokavian Ijekavian and can probably guess >95% of accents properly. Plus, there's this comprehensive online Croatian dictionary with tens of thousands antroponyms and toponyms accented to verify against. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulcsú László
Svatko tko je studirao i poznaje lingvistiku u Hrvatskoj znade tko je Bulcsú László. On je jedan od najboljih hrvatskih lingvista koji govori 40-ak jezika. Reći ću ti samo jedno. Znaš li kakvo je njegovo znanje kada je ispravlja kineskoga lektora, koji je izorni govorinik, dakako. A tvoja je tvrdnja o tomu kako ne zna ni hrvatski glupa, jer taj čovjek i predobro znade hrvatski, samo što ima svoje zamisli o korijenskomu (pravo)pisanju.

P.S. Prvo nauči suvremeni standardni hrvatski, a onda kreni s korijenskim, jer ti, čini se, nijedan dobro ne ide. A bolje nemoj ni kretati s njim, zato što sigurno nemaš argumente za nepisanje po standardu. Kad ti lingvistika ili kroatistika budu bile struka, onda mi se javi. ;) --78.1.180.14 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ma on je moj q. Ako nemaš referencu za tu bizarnu tvrdnju, ne směš je postavljat. I poštedi me slaboumnih floskula tipa "nauči standardni hrvatski" - ja sam nativni govornik čiste ijekavske novoštokavštine i věrovatno je ispravnije pričam nego cěli zavod za serbokroatistiku na ffzg skupa (ne postoji "hrvatski jezik" - to je neoustaški fabrikat iz 90ih). "Standardni jezik", lol, pa oni maloumnici iz IHJJ još uvěk nisu uspěli napisati rěčnik "standardnog hrvatskog" (!) a gomiletina što propisanih što nepropisanih pravopisâ je uzajamno toliko konfliktna da je to za plakat. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ja stvarno ne mogu vjerovati o čemu ti govoriš. I stvarno ne vidim kakve veza ima srpskohrvatski (koji nikad nije ni postojao) s lingvistom. Hrvatski jezik imade pravopis, i to Hrvatski školski pravopis. Hrvatski se jezik može podičiti najuglednijim znansvenicima, tj. jezikoslovcima. Prisjeti se samo Babića, Brozovića, Katičića, Moguša, Težaka, Silića, Samardžije... A tvoje je neznanje o Laszlu hmmm....glupo, kada već toliko dobro poznaješ jezik.
 * Drži se ti filozofiranja i naklapanja, a jezik prepusti stručnjacima. ;)


 * P.S. Kada netko želi pisati nekim jezikom, podrazumijeva se da ga znade. ;)
 * Trebao si bolje proučiti gramatiku jer ti Google prevoditelj neće pomoći. --78.1.180.14 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Postoji taj "kultivirani novoštokavski" koji je poznat pod raznim nazivima kao što su tzv. "hrvatski jezik" ili "srpski jezik", koji, ako se uopće i mogu smatrati jezicima, predstavljaju ništa doli književne varijetete srpskohrvatskog. Izvuci svoju glavu iz dupeta tih nacionalističkih mediokrisâ i pročitaj što najbolji světski slavisti (npr. ruski ili američki) vele o tome. Što se njih tiče, tzv. "hrvatski jezik" nikad nije ni postojao, a ne obrnuto.
 * Kao što sam ti već rekao, ja sam nativni govornik čiste ijekavske novoštokavštine i kao takav sam ipso facto pismeniji od 95% Hrvata. Mislim, o čemu mi pričamo - na kroatistici ffzg 95% studenata ne zna pravilno naglasiti ni rěč kroatist. Ovo ti naime govorim, kad već ni sam nisi u stanju povezati očito, jerbo mi tobože impliciraš nekakovu "nepismenost", a kad svi mi dobro znamo ko je ustvari najviše nepismen ovdě, sakrivajući se iza nekih tupavih ortografijskih rěšenja (ustvari trivijalno prilagođenih ex-sh pravopisâ) kao nekakvih "odraza pismenosti". O pameti, gdě nestade. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Veze nema neznanje kroatistâ s raspravom o srpskomu i hrvatskomu jeziku, a još manje s lingvistom o kojemu smo govorili. Kroatisti jesu nepismeni, barem većina, ali to nije samo problem hrvatskoga jezika, jer je neznanje materinskoga jezika rašireno u mnogim državama. Lingvist sam i kroatist pa znadem situaciju.
 * Svjetski slavisti to govore zato što je njima uvijek bio predočen srpskohrvatski. Nitko se od njih ne bavi dovoljno hrvatskim i srpskim da bi znao stanje pod kojim je srpskohrvatski nastao, a ono nije bilo podobno za hrvatski jezik.
 * Btw. Sumnjam da ti je kroatistika struka jer govoriš iz gledištâ laikâ, a to ne volim, tj. uplitanje ljudi koji ne poznaju dovoljno jezik u samu bît jezika. Pozdrav! --93.138.110.56 (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nema direktno veze sa spomenutim, ali ima veze sa tvojim dozlaboga tupavim dobacivanjima o "standardnom hrvatskom jeziku" (kakav je to "standardni jezik" koji dandanas nema svoj fakin standardni rěčnik, a "standardna gramatika" propisuje imaginarne foneme poput tobožnjeg diftonga /ie/ - banana jezik, eto kakav, baš kao i cěla država), kao i onima naměnjenih meni o mojoj navodnoj "nepismenosti". Mislim směšno, i sam moraš priznat, jer 95% Hrvata (a prije svega purgeri - poštokavljeni kajkavci) pojma nema kako pravilno naglašivati rěči; ovdě u zagrebačkom idiomu niko ni ne razlikuje /č/ i /ć/ već uče napamet kako se rěči "pravilno" pišu. I kao šlag na tortu dođe imbecil poput Lászlóa izmišljat nekakove neologizme zombije, žive mrtvace, rěči koje niko nikad neće ni koristiti, i ja bih mu se kao trěbao "divit" (pored svog mogućeg višestolětnog leksičkog blaga umrtvljenog ignoratskim nedostatkom naporâ kroatistâ, književnikâ i sl. parazitskog šljama - čast iznimkama). Mda. Tako da - ako ti se ne želi slušat moja (věrujem krajnje bolna) blagoglagoljanja o stvarnosti tzv. "hrvatskog jezika", lěpo prekini sa trolanjem i vrati se nazad na ffzg pretakat iz šupljeg u prazno svojoj publici koja te sluša samo zato jer mora, jer to je jedino što tamo i znate raditi :p
 * neznanje materinskoga jezika rašireno u mnogim državama - imam jedan fajl u koji upisujem raznorazne bisere koje načujem (tradicija još od IRCanja u srednjoj), i čestitam ti - ovom izjavom si upravo ušao u nj. "Neznanje materinskog jezika" - jesi ti svěstan kakva je ovo nebulozna tvrdnja? Ustvari nije nebulozna utoliko što naglašuje jednu nažalost jako raširenu predrasudu - da je nekakav nestandardni idiom imanentno "lošiji" ili "nepravilniji". Niko ti na světu nema pravo reći da je tvoj materinji jezik "loš" ili "nepravilan". Svako ko to kaže je obična imbecilčina! Književna prestižnost, standarditet ili pověst nekog partikularnog idioma su puki sociološki konstrukti pomoću kojih im pridajemo neke imaginarne kategorije koje su ustvari posve nebitne. Ja volim raditi raznorazne ortografijske devijacije svog osobnog idiolekta iz čiste sprdnje na sve to (pored očitih anulirajućih težnji spram varijeteta sh-og, kao što se očituje u porabi grafema <ě>).
 * Svjetski slavisti to govore zato što je njima uvijek bio predočen srpskohrvatski. Nitko se od njih ne bavi dovoljno hrvatskim i srpskim da bi znao stanje pod kojim je srpskohrvatski nastao, a ono nije bilo podobno za hrvatski jezik. - LOL, teško da bi to mogao reći za ljude kao što su Wayles Browne, Kenneth Naylor, Alexander Schenker ili Ronelle Alexander, a o čistim komparativistima kao što su Vasmer, Trubačev, Kortlandt, Skok, Derksen, Greenberg, Jasanoff.. da i ne govorimo - sve od reda eksperti najviše razine koji mogu obrisat dupe s onim praznoglavim nacionalističkim steklišima koje navodiš :p
 * Kroatistika mi "nije struka", moje je zanimanje za poredbenu lingvistiku (kako srpskohrvatskog tako i ostalih jezikâ) čisto amaterski. Nemam ni najmanje želje gubiti 5 god života studirajući po opsoletnim programima metodom srednje škole da bih se profesionalno bavio takvim nečim. Što me zanima kupim knjigu, naučim, pročitam papire i etimologijske rěčnike...nije to nikakav "rocket science" FFS. Žalosno je recimo to da ja kao amater uzmem Matasovićevu poredbenopověsnu slovnicu sh-og i nađem desetine směšnih grěšaka u njoj, a koja je tobože trěbala biti recenzirana od dva vrla akademika.. Mene boli kurac što ti "voliš" ili ne, ja iskreno već sad osěćam blagi prězir prema umu koji kvalificira argumente sugovornika prema tome ko ih kaže a ne koliko vrěde sami po sebi. Jadna naša akademija s takvim "lingvistima" poput tebe. Nije ni čudo što je zagrebačko sveučilište dno dna u světskim razměrima. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Obećao sam si da neću odgovarati, ali, eto, moram. Onu si moju tvrdnju o materinskomu jeziku krivo protumačio. Naravno da mi svi znamo materinski jezik (neki više, neki manje), ali nitko u potpunosti ne zna standardni materinski jezik (u ovom slučaju hrvatski). Za mene je nepoznavanje č i ć, refleksa jata, velikog i malog početnog slova nepoznavanje materinskoga jezika, i to onoga standardnoga. Nadam se da je sad jasnije.
 * Laszla ne možeš prozvati imbecilom. On je jedan od najvećih hrvatskih jezikoslovaca, a i ima svoje razloge za pisanje prema korijenskomu pravopisu. Pročitaj njegove članka, pa ćeš vidjeti. Njemu se dive i Babić i Katičić. Katičić i pokojni Brozović jedni su od najcjenjenijih slavista i mogu se uspoređivati sa svjetskim stručnjacima slavistike. On je dosljedan u tomu i ne treba ga zbog toga prozivati imbecilom. On uvijek tako piše. I na ispitima daje zadatke prema korijenskomu pravopisu.
 * Ti očito ne znaš pod kojim je okolnostima srpskohrvatski nastao. Nastao je na veliku štetu hrvatskoga, tj. na štetu hrvatske jezične baštine i posebnosti. A ljudi jednostavno ne mijenjaju stare navike, pa tako ni srpsohrvatski.
 * Za me su hrvatski i srpski jezik različiti jezici. I još jedno pitanje. U slučaju da si Hrvat, bi li ti prihvatio srpski jezik kao materinski, a i obratno vrijedi, dašto. Ja ne bih nikad. Postoje riječi koje nikada ne bih mogao prihvatiti kao "svoje".
 * Ne znam zašto vrijeđaš toliko zagrebačko sveučilište i profesore. Ako ti se ne sviđaju, otiđi na beogradsko sveučilište, pa tamo drži hvalospjeve, a vjerojatno bi i SANU-ovcima bilo drago. Pozdrav! --93.138.110.56 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Opetujem: ne postoji "standardni hrvatski jezik" - taj imaginarni jezik i dandanas nema svoj rěčnik, a slovnica propisana od strane formalno normirajućeg těla je prepuna nebuloza. Ogroman dio Hrvata nisu nativni štokavci i u govoru uopće ne razlikuju /č/ i /ć/, /dž/ i /đ/, ne znaju pravilno naglašavati rěči i oduljivati zanaglasne duljine, ne znaju pravilno izgovarati reflekse jata. Nečiji materinski idiom niko na světu nema pravo nazivati "nepravilnim" ili "lošim". Eventualno tek nepoznavanje tog nekog prestižnog literarnog idioma, koji je to postao iz arbitrarnih historijsko-kulturnih kriterijâ, ali to je u slučaju hrvatske varijante srpskohrvatskog (tzv. "hrvatskog jezika") bespredmetno i raspravljati, jer taj oblik jezika niko u hrvatskoj ne priča. Čak ni sveučilišni profesori ili spikeri na radiu ili TV-u. Sěćam se ima oko godinu dana bila neka emisija baš u vezi toga, i neki ugledni akademski gost je mudroslovio kako svako treba na TV-u pričati "standardnim jezikom a ne dijalektom", pri čemu je rěč dijalekt naglasio na /e/ (kao što purgeri jelte rade), město pravilno na /a/. To što ljudi nauče napamet kako "pravilno" pisati rěči nimalo ne otklanja činjenicu da ti ljudi i dalje ostaju nepismeni, samo ne na papiru. Jezik bi se trebao zapisivati onako kako se govori, a ne govoriti onako kako se naučeno piše. Samo, učenje ortoepije nije toliko lukrativan biznis kao što je tiskanje ortografijâ, jel.
 * Oprosti ali koji su to točno doprinosi Lászlóa u komparativnoj slavistici? Ne zanima me što je objavio x radova u nekom domaćem trećerazrednom časopisu: što je to točno otkrio ili unaprědio a da je važno?
 * Uspoređivati Katičića i Brozovića sa onima koje sam gore nabrojao može samo kroatist. Věrovatno nisi ni čuo za pola njih, ali što ću ti ja. Samo ti živi u svom světu "světskih eksperatâ".
 * sh (novoštokavski) je nastajao ima 4-5 stolěćâ, a formalno se ozakonjivao i normirao ima već 150 godinâ, od strane panslavističkih velikanâ koji su željeli pomiriti sitne razlike među našim bratskim narodima i narodnostima. Hrvatski jezik ama baš nikad nije ni postojao dok nije izmišljen 1990-ih. Ne postoje "posebnosti hrvatskog jezika" - to su sve naknadno nametnute razlike. 99.9% rěči koje govore Hrvati govore i Srbi, Bošnjaci i Crnogorci. Inzistiranje na onom minornom razlikovnom dělu kao nečemu od krucijalne važnosti za legitimizaciju "zasebnosti jezika" može samo zaslěpljeni nacionalist.
 * Da, na papiru je pravno osoba s mojim tělom "Hrvat". Naravno, ja sam kao i svako normalan svěstan da su nacije imaginarni konstrukti izmišljeni većma početkom 19og stolěća, a kao i svako malo više prosvětljen znam da um nije tělo koje ga nosi (to je isto kao da kažeš da je softver jednak hardveru), i da je posve nebitno jesi crnac, bijelac, žuti, jesi star ili mlad (vrěme uopće ne postoji), jesi "Hrvat", "Srbin", "Jugoslaven" (glavno da nisi peder) ili neka četvrta imaginarna kategorija "naših". Stoga, ja ne mogu "prihvatiti srpski jezik" jerbo što se mene tiče tzv. "srpski jezik" ne postoji. Osim toga, ako je prihvaćanje ili neprihvaćanje "postojanja jezika" odraz nečije nacionalnosti ili državljanstva, rekao bih da je ta osoba zrela za kakovu mentalnu ustanovu. Elem, čitaš li hrvatske književne velikane poput Krleže ili Matoša - paraju li ti uši rěči kao historija, uslov, januar, srećan, ćutanje ? Ako njih dvoje smatraš hrvatskim piscima (ne u etničkom-nacionalnom, već u jezičnom smislu), ali ti svejedno te rěči zvuče "nehrvatski", onda si i ti zreo za ludnicu.
 * Opet zastranjuješ u plitki nacional-rasizam. Moje seruckanje po zagrebačkom sveučilištu nije inducirano nikakvim željama za poredbom sa beogradskim, koje je jednako govno. Evropska sveučlišta su sva otišla u 3pm ima već oko pola věka. Kao i svako balkansko sveučilište, po pitanjima od strateške važnosti za nacionalnu kolektivnu psihu, ne mogu se smatrati objektivnima i měrodavnima kao nekakvi apsolutni arbitri Istine, a po pitanju stručnosti to ionako poodavno nisu, pa stoga i spominjem američke, ruske i nizozemske slaviste koje ove domaće parazite (čast onim nekoliko iznimakâ) šišaju za nekoliko kopaljâ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Postoji mnogo kriterija prema kojim se razlikuju pojedini idiomi i određuje je li štogod jezik ili narječje.


 * Jedan od kriterija jest međusobna razumljivost. To je ono što većina sudionika tvrdi - ako se razumijemo, isti je jezik. Prema tomu bi se svi skandinavski jezici (švedski, islandski, norveški, danski i sl.) trebali zvati istim jezicima, zatim barem pedesetak afričkih jezika, posebice bantuskih, a o slavenskim da ne govorim. Zašto se nitko ne zalaže da su bugarski i makedonski isti jezik? Ili ruski, ukrajinski i bjeloruski? Ruski i ukrajinski imaju gotovo identične gramatike, razlike su uglavnom izgovorne i leksičke. A nitko ne govori o različitim jezicima. Ili norveški i danski? Češki i slovački?


 * Drugi kriterij često je strukturalni - razlike u fonologiji (posebice prozodija)/morfologiji/sintaksi/semantici, odnosno općenito u gramatičkom ustrojstvu. Samo kreten ne vidi da su razlike između hrvatskog i srpskog na ovoj razini goleme.


 * Treći kriterij, i onaj najbitniji, jest svijest i identifikacija govornika. Zašto se hindski i urdski smatraju dvama jezicima, a razlikuje ih samo poneka posuđenica i funkcija? Fonološki, morfološki, sintaktički, semantički - leksički: oni su isti jezici. Ali govornici točno znaju koji oni jezik govore. Da hrvatski i srpski jesu identični strukturalno (a nisu), opet bi ovaj kriterij najviše prevagnuo. Možda bi se nekom stranom istraživaču neki jezik učinio jednakim kao jezik drugog plemena u Australiji, ali identifikacija je bitna. Svaki narod ima pravo zvati svoj standardni jezik imenom koji želi i razlikovati ga od drugih idioma.


 * Uostalom, zašto se to uzima samo za hrvatski i srpski? Da se razumijemo, svi su slavenski jezici proizašli iz praslavenske matice koja je pak proizašla iz praindoeuropske matice (koja je pak proizašla iz nostratičke matice ). Postojale su pritom dvije genetske grane, zapadni i istočno-južnoslavenski jezici. Genetski je kontinuitet prekinut u potonjoj grani te se ona rascjepkala dolaskom vrlih nam susjeda Mađara. No, pritom se nije dogodilo ono što se dogodilo Rumunjima (romanski jezik, doseljavanjem Slavena i Mađara postaju izolirani od romanskih jezika, ali zadržavaju arhaičnost; premda slavenski jezici utječu na rumunjski - primjerice, uzeli su identičan nastavak za vokativ a-sklonidbe na -o). Južnoslavenski su se jezici nastavili dalje mijenjati (ne razvijati, razvoj bi značio da štogod kulminira pa deteriorira, a u jezicima samo mijena stalna jest ). Prema tomu, s poredbenog stajališta, diskutabilno je uopće postojanje južnoslavenske grane (dijalekta istočnoslavenske ), a ne kojekakvih jezičnih razlika unutar nje same.


 * Shodno tomu, usporedi bugarski i makedonski. Usporedi hrvatske dijalekte sa srpskim dijalektima. Idemo usporediti bednjanski s torlačkim. Mora da je to isto jezik, toliko su slični da bi nestručnom oku izgledali kao dva jezika različitih matica, a ne kao dva jednaka jezika.


 * Dalje, argument tobožnje jednakosti jest standardizacija. A, ruku na srce, tu su bili politički razlozi. I samo da se zna - Vuk Karadžić, postavljajući osnove srpskom standardu, rabio je hrvatsku osnovu. Ako gledamo prema dijalekatskom kriteriju, na prostoru su postojali kajkavski, čakavski, štokavski i torlački. Genetski se ta štokavština gleda kao zapadna i istočna, a hrvatski se standard uvijek gradio na osnovi zapadne, dok se srpski gradio na osnovi istočne.


 * Današnji je srpski standard ništa drugo nego štokavština koju nisu dotad rabili. Srbi su do prije dva stoljeća rabili poseban oblik starocrkvenoslavenskog jezika. I to je bio srpski standard, nikakva štokavština čiji bi dijalekti bili hrvatski i srpski. Srpska književnost, u punom smislu te sintagme, ne postoji prije kraja 18. stoljeća.


 * Kako bi Srbi sami rekli:


 * У првој половини 19. века, уз помоћ тадашњих врхунских филолога, као што су браћа Грим и аустријских власти које је представљао Јернеј Копитар, Вук Стефановић Караџић је реформисао српску отографију и правопис, правећи велики рез између дотадашње славеносрпске културе и новог стандарда.
 * Основна начела Караџићеве реформе се могу сажети у три тачке:
 * 1. изједначавање народног и књижевног језика, тј. инсистирање на фолклорним језичким облицима, за које се сматрало да су поуздан водич забележен у народним песмама и пословицама;
 * 2. прекид са свим старијим облицима српске књижевности и писмености и ново утемељење стандардног језика без ослона на традицију;
 * 3. и, новоштокавски фолклорни пуризам, што се очитовало у чишћењу језика од црквенославизама који су идентификовани као рускоцрквена наплавина која не одговара гласовној и граматичкој структури српског језика


 * Као одраз на збивања у сакралној језичкој норми настао је световни књижевни језик који је био мешавина војвођанских дијалеката, рускословенског и руског језика: славеносрпски језик. На том је језику током 18. и 19. века створена основа за савремену српску културу.


 * Evo još nekih očitih razlika kojih se sjetih na brzinu:


 * Fonologija:
 * - srpski jezik, za razliku od hrvatskog, nema pravogovornu normu, a prozodija im je POTPUNO drukčija
 * - naglasne razlike: primjerice kratkouzlazni je potpuno drukčiji, a i razmještaj naglaska, usp. složenice na -nik; hrv. činòvnīk - srp. čìnovnīk, isto kao i dioba ili pak tipovi poput vésti - vêsti


 * - drukčiji odrazi praslavenskih glasova, primjerice ono što je kod nas ć, kod njih je št: opći - opšti, svećenik - sveštenik kao ostaci staroslavenštine
 * - o jatovima neću ni govoriti
 * - velik utjecaj ruske/staroslavenske fonologije te grčke (primanje ev umjesto eu: evnuh, evropski, Zevs)
 * - drukčija prilagodba posuđenica: usp. hrv. - srp. direktorij - direktorijum, podij - podijum, scenarij - scenaro, Heraklo - Herakle, kemija - hemija, Kron - Hron, heretik - jeretik, historija - istorija,, Baltazar - Valtazar, kirurg - hirurg, subjekt - subjekat, Hebrej - Jevrej
 * - zamjena velara h sonantima v ili j: duvan, gluv, suv
 * - vokalizacija u jednosložnicama nakon o: vo, so
 * - ispadanje glasa t: neko, nitko, svako


 * Morfologija:
 * - drukčiji rodovi imenica (hrv. - srp.): arhiv - arhiva, osnova - osnov, kroatist - kroatista, specijalist - specijalista, ispravak - ispravka, jezgra - jezgro, minuta - minut, sekunda - sekund, planet - planeta, posjet - posjeta, sudac - sudija, svezak - sveska, teritorij - teritorija...
 * - nema sklonidbe brojeva dva, tri i četiri, ostaju okamenjeni
 * - drukčija tvorba riječi (prefiksi, sufiksi, usp. -ioni), karakterističan sufiks sa-, a kod hrv. su-: suborac - saborac, usuglasiti - usaglasiti, suučenik - saučenik; češći sufiks -če kao ekv. hrv. -(č)ić (prozorčić - prozorče)
 * - razlika u određenim posvojnim, srpski sufiks -ski naspram hrv. -ni: autobusni - autobuski, subjektni - subjekatski
 * - karakteristična tvorba glagola sufiksima -isati (prezent -išem) te -ovati (prezent -ujem): definisati - definišem, reagovati - reagujem naspram hrvatskog definirati - definiram, reagirati - reagiram (grč. - njem.)


 * Sintaksa:
 * - velik utjecaj balkanskog jezičnog saveza, posebice u da + prezent, poznatom primjeru
 * - dalikanje, opet grčki utjecaj, to nije organski dio hrv. sustava
 * - analitička tvorba futura, posebice u torlačkim govorima (će da radim)
 * - drukčije rekcije pojedinih glagola (lagati s akuzativom)
 * - uporaba prijedloga i veznika (hrv. Idem u Zagreb. - srp. Idem za Zagreb.)
 * - pošto je kod njih uzročni, a kod nas vremenski veznik, isključivo
 * - kod slaganja, drukčije je značenje mjesnih priloga gdje, kamo i kuda: hrv. Kamo ideš? - srp. Gdje ideš?, u srpskom standardu nema kamo


 * Semantika:
 * - česta gramatička pogreška: kognitivno impotentni metilji misle da su hrvatski i srpski isti jezik.


 * O pravopisu da ne govorim jer se u razlikama može ispisati pošteni magisterij.


 * Nadam se da si nakon moga iscrpnog posta shvatio bit, a i nepostojanje razlogâ za naziv srpskohrvatski. ;)
 * Toliko. Više ne želim objašnjavati. --93.141.1.129 (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trinče, sunce mu kalajsano, jesi to ti? ^_^ Zar je ovo način korespondencije sa starim drugarom, zaodjenut livrejom lažnog anonimiteta, na opskurnim libertarijanskim kikirikiwikijima!?
 * Ako nisi, već samo besramno prepisuješ njene postove (moje fraze kao kognitivno impotentan svijetle kao luč u mraku mediokrisno kopirantskog stupiditeta, donoseći reminiscencije na vremena kad sam i sam upražnjavao niske nagone intelektualnog submisivanja interlokutora) - reći ću ti samo jedno 1) svi navedeni slučajevi uzajamne razumljivosti (skandinavski, afrički, aboridžinski etc. jezici) su irelevantni jer su dotični zasnovani na različitijem dijalektima, dočijem su hr/sr/bs/cg zasnovani na istijem - novoštokavštini. Srpskohrvatski varijeteti imaju 99% identičnu gramatiku, za razliku od bugarskog i makedonskog, češkog i slovačkog, skandinavskih jezika (pa čak i 2 varijante norveškog) - i to je jedini mjerodavni kriterij!
 * Govoriš da je samoidentifikacija govornika najvažniji kriterij - jest moj kurac. Što se tiče zapadnih lingvista, daleko od toga - u ama baš svim kursevima sh-og na stranim sveučilištima se njegovi suvremeni varijeteti uče u "paketu". Pogle samo ruske, njemačke i engleske učevnike sh-og! Imaš ih tu i tamo koji su samo za "srpski jezik" ili "hrvatski jezik" - no većina takvijeh se otvoreno ograđuje u uvodniku kako su to samo konvencionalni nazivi za jedan te isti kurac (isto sranje drugo pakovanje, rekla bi današnja urbana omladina).
 * Pričaš mnogo pametnijeh stvari koje i sam dobro znam (pročitao sam dobar dio sve dostupne literature o pitanju srpskohrvatskog od Brozovićevog "povijesnog kriterija" pa do sprdnji svih nacionalistički-induciranijeh razlika), no pričaš i mnogo gluposti. Istinabog, nikad nije postao prajužnoslavenski - no zato je postojao prazapadnojužnoslavenski i praistočnojužnoslavenski ("postojao" u smislu "rekonstruirljiv poredbenopovijesnom metodom"). Nije bitno što standardnosrpština nema pravogovornu normu - hrvatski eto ima, no 95% Hrvata u Hrvatskoj nema blagog kurca kako naglašavati pravilno riječi, prije svega purgeri i mlađi zagrebački naraštaji koji pričaju nekim stress-based idiomom bez razlikovnih duljina, razlikovnih uzlaznih/silaznih naglasaka, /č/ i /ć/, /dž/ i /đ/ da ne pričamo.. Vuk Karadžić nije rabio "hrvatsku osnovu" već svoju rodnu crnogorsku seosku novoštokavštinu. Novoštokavština teško da je "etnički hrvatska" jer je govore još najmanje barem 3 naroda. Slavenosrpski je bio književni ne govorni jezik. Refleksi praslavenskog *t' kao /št/ u srpskom su sve odreda posuđenice iz crkvenoslavenskog - u štokavskom je to bezuvjetno nasljeđeno kao /ć/. Imaš zato opšti : opći < psl. *obьt'ь ali kuća : kuća < psl. *kǫt'a. Sve ostale trivijalne razlike poput refleksa jata, ne-etimološki predmećenog /x/ etc. su neleksičke - tu su različiti oblici jedne te iste riječi, ne različite riječi (sl. kao razlike između britanskog ili američkog engleskog - koje su čak i veće, ali apstahirane etimološkom ortografijom, za razliku od sh). Svi subliterarni dijalekti na sh području će do kraja stoljeća izumrijeti (osim možda čakavštine na Kvarneru i uokolo jer je njima zaista stalo do njenog očuvanja), i taj trend je duboko uznapredovao - prije 150g potpuno kajkavski Zagreb je danas u potpunosti poštokavljen, a isto vrijedi i za ex čakavska središta poput Splita i Rijeke. Ljudi se doslovno sramote svog seljačkog idioma i prihvaćaju neku bastardiziranu varijantu standardnog narječja najbližeg urbanog centra. I tako dalje, i tako bliže... :p
 * Ne da mi se više pisat.. :D Ako želiš, javi se na mail pa ako si u zg-u mogu ti uz pivce objasnit patologiju hrv. etnojezične samosvijesti nadebelo i naširoko.. (osim ako se ne bojiš oslobođenja koje IstinaTM donosi, no onda ti nema pomoći ^_^) --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha, Bravo Ivane, objasnio si tom ignorantskom glupanu sve fakte o Srpsko-hrvatskom jeziku i zacepio mu usta zauvjek! Pozdrav tebi i Direktoru i sve najbolje u vasem daljnjem radu na wikipediji. 173.183.96.125 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ivan Meštrović
Ako dobro pročitaš, Meštrović je bio u Jugoslovenskom Komitetu, i stalno je bio za jednu Jugoslaviju za sve. Što se on nije slagao sa Komunizmom je druga stvar. Ima veliki broj poznati Jugoslovena koji nikada nisu bili Komunisti. Možeš biti Komunista a ne Jugosloven, kao što možeš biti Jugosloven a da ne budeš Komunista. Paperoverman (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Baš? Znači bilo ko ko nije živeo ili se rodio u SFRJ nije mogao biti Jugosloven? E ta logika je dijecija logika. Dobar ti je vic. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperoverman (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Croats
Slavic ethnic group... What's wrong with you? Croats are South Slavic but also Central European/Western Balkan ethnic group, and etc ethnic group. It's not only language what defines an etnic group. Language can define only a linguistic group! If you define Croats as South Slavic ethnic group it means they are ethnic sub-group of an ethnic group called South Slavs. But South Slavs are not an ethnic group! They are linguistic group! Is it really problem to understand something so simple? What the hell are you so obsessed with South Slavism? Is it because you examine languages, from what I can see in your page? So you can't think clearly? Croatian ethnical identity was always related to the territory where they were settled, in the 1st place. How Croatian ethnic body was becoming self-identified under Croatian ethnic name in the past, also their therritory was identified and known by Croatian name. But when it comes to language ID it was Croatian and not South Slavic. South Slavic is used after Illyrian Movement in 19th century. Croatian ethnicity is much older. Who's an American Croat, a member of Croatian community in USA who has Croatian papers but is not speaker of Croatian language? He is not South Slav because he doesn't speak South Slavic language. So he is not a Croat either? Or there's some special South Slavic genetic code? Are South Slavs something special in this world? Why do you write Wikipedia if you're not able to have a mind of an encyclopedist? How long it needs for all people from the Western Balkan to start living in the present time and not in the past or in virtual political/cultural struggles/ghosts of the past? Wake up. It's 21st century, not 19th!!! Communism has died, you don't have to be afraid of communist activists and special agents who will knock at your door just because you missed to mention yugo-, south slavic-, or some other pan-something to feed their KPJ pan-hunger and insanity! 83.131.92.14 (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Croatian "ethnicity" is some 200 years old, like all the other "ethnicities" (when the concept of language-nations was fabricated in early C19). Croats were proud Slavs for centuries until the 1943-45 and 1990+ when suddenly the official state doctrine switched to "Croats hither, Balkans thither". Various crackpot theories of Iranian or Gothic origin emerged, none of which is generally accepted by the academia. Language is the most important part of national/ethnic identity, and the geographic location means exactly nothing. It is hardly merely used for "linguistic grouping" - if you look at the writings of the Medieval, or the Renaissance and Baroque Croatian writers, there was always some kind of pan-Slavic overtone within it (from Juraj Križanić along Bartol Kašić to the Illyrian movement, Vukovians and SFRJ). American "Croats" can self-declare as Klingon as far as I'm concerned - if they don't pay taxes to fill's Croatia state budget, have no knowledge of the language or the culture, but only have some distant "Croatian ancestors", they're as much Croat as I am a Bantu. I'm sorry that the truth hurts your mind, and makes you see "Communist agitators" everywhere. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 09:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Croatian ethnonym exists for much longer than just last 200 years. Don't make jokes about it. If modern Croats are not the same group as people who were Croats 1000 years ago, it means nothing - modern Croatian culture traces its origin in Old Croatian. That's also something an ethnic group is all about. Is it hard to understand? Croats were proud to be Croats and Slavs, yes. And still are. But then why don't you write that Croats are Slavic ethnic group. Now for this discussion you misuse term Slovinski which was in the past used to determine language of those people, you relate it to Pan-Slavism and South Slavic!?! You're complete amateur! Various crackpots... academia... I'm a member of academic society in Croatia. What you say goes for 45-91 when nothing claimed opposite to pro-Yu program was able to survive. Are you a supporter of those dark ages for Croatian science? I can see in your discussion with another person that you have real problem of being completely non-critically aligned to literacy from that period, literacy never faced with counter-claims, since counter-claims were "forbidden" and the authors were persecuted as political enemies. It's not true that "evil theories" (obviously evil in your head for only God knows what reason) are not accepted by "academia". What is academia for you? Some land court? Accepting something or not? Academia are people, scientists. Some theory given by one scientist can be accepted or not by another. Do you think that "academia" in Croatia is still controlled and led by the official politics? That's exactly what I can understand from your reply. Those particular theories you've mentioned are not only accepted but also encouraged by "academia" at present, science needs these theories developed as much as it's possible, these theories were blocked for a half of a century, by politics. I don't think that you're a "communist agitator". I think your mind is polluted by general state of mind produced by them. Your mind is not free, that's what I think. I came here to see what my colleagues were making jokes about, yesterday evening. You must hear what "academia" thinks about presentation of Croatia in English Wikipedia and how it accepts it. Take care of yourself and heal yourself of being too much identified with "academia"! 83.131.92.14 (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed the "Croatian" ethnicon exists for longer than 200 years - having written an article on it, I should know it very well. However, people who identified themselves as "Croats" some 1000 or 1500 years ago have absolutely no connection with modern-day nation of Croats which is primarily a result of the nation-forging process in the last 200 years. 99% of self-ethnonyms used by what are today taught as "Croatian writers" of Old Dubrovnik, Dalmatia, Bosnia etc. are in fact general ones like Slavic or Illyrian! Try reading some of their works instead of blindly believing the histories of "Croatian literature".
 * I mean, dude, for fuck's sake - look at the map of modern-day Croatia, and ask yourself a simple question: Do you honestly believe that people from Dubrovnik, Pula, Zagreb and Osijek have something "more in common" (in the framework of these imaginary concepts called "nations" or "ethnicities") than the people of those respective cities have in common with their Slavic neighbors living few kilometers away, but which declare themselves as "Serbs", "Bosniaks", "Montenegrins" etc. ? If the answer to this question is "yes", then I must disappoint you - you are but a mindless nationalist who cannot think clearly.
 * Croatian Academia, esp. in the field of Humanities and esp. in the field of Croatian Studies is living in some sort of balloon, thinking very high of itself, of its "conclusions" and the interpretations of history which basically all Western scholars find quite amusing manifestations of the most degenerate form of Balkanic nationalism. If you think that the advancement in Croatian Academia has abs. nothing to do with how big "Croat" the future wannabe-academician is, you are grossly mistaken. Just look at the disgraceful rejection of the most prominent Croatian scientist and intellectual Miroslav Radman, whose entrance into HAZU was openly barred by a bunch of brain-damaged nationalists, on the grounds that "he was not big enough Croat". One day when he gets the Nobel prize in biology he should come and take a shit in front of that building.
 * Croatdom during the course of history simply cannot be observed independently from contemporary notions of Slavdom, and the phrase "Slavic ethnic group" simply must stay. --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 11:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, you must learn how to read someone else's message with understanding before you reply. This way you leave me out of possibility to reply to you, you didn't understand what I wrote. You seem to be caught by isolated words and terms instead of meaning of the whole sentences. I'm not some Croathood special agent. You have no idea what I believe, blindly or not. Where did you get impression about my beliefs? You're fighting the ghost, not me. You're leaning on "academia" then in other moment you're spitting on it. You must have fought a lot of cheap battles on these pages, concerning what a cheap politician you've become. Don't try to teach me about Slavs, I wrote my Ph.D. in that area. Things are very simple: Croats are South Slavic ethnic group, it's true, but "South Slavic ethnic group" is not encyclopedically correct definition. Get it? Or not? "must stay" ha, how many of you agenda apparatchiks are writing here? You don't have to reply, I won't come back, ever. 83.131.92.14 (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Goodbye, no one's gonna miss you! --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha, ha, good work Ivan! One less cro-nationalist. Please keep cleaning wikipedia from the nationalistic trash. Very soon they'll be all gone together with their nationalistic garbage nonsenses. Please make sure the map of Shtokavian dialect stays in the article (Shtokavian dialect). Another cro-nationalistic trash tried to remove it, but I just put it back. All the best to you, cheers for the 'new' Ivan Stambuk and best regards; 24.86.103.88 (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dobar dan
Hi Ivan, would you happen to know where I can download a font to be able to view your new signature? :)  Balkan Fever  12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any Unicode Glagolitic font would suffice. I suggest Dilyana  ^_^ --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ
 * Hvala. The Ⱎ I recognise, but everything else is weird.. in a Slavic way. :)  Balkan Fever  12:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LoL ^_^ Glagolitic is definitely one of the most "alien" scripts in the world!. It's sad that it's not taught thoroughly in Slavic schools anymore.. Anyhow, if you're interested, you can read more on written Croatian Glagolitic here, and here read some of the actual vernacular (non-CS) writings (all in SC unfortunately..) Very kewl stuff :p --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks :) By the way, what do you think is the best way to transliterate the OCS names of the letters at Glagolitic_alphabet? Currently an apostrophe is being used for both yers, with one letter called "yerj'" (??) and there is no distinction between e and ě. I have in my hands a copy of Schenker's The dawn of Slavic (recommended to me by a friend) and want to go for some consistency with the letter names. Any thoughts?  Balkan <font color="#008">Fever  07:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, jers in Shenker's book are "transliterated" as jers, and that is the common Slavist practice (sometimes the signs <ĭ> and <ŭ> are used instead, to emphasize the fact that the Late Proto-Slavic jers reflect Early Proto-Slavic (and Proto-Balto-Slavic, and Proto-Indo-European) */i/ and */u/, and are likely to have been pronounced as ultrashort [i] and [u], but lots of Slavists rather thinks that by the time of OCS writings they were pronounced as some kind of "front schwa" and "back schwa" instead). These transliterations should all be fixed (esp. of jat and apostrophes for jers a la Russian). Feel free to add them properly :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:EDG161
Hi Ivan! I always enjoy editing with you (which admittedly I haven't done for some time) and value your opinions. But please could you be a bit less harsh with new users like EDG161? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, Sorry.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick and considerate response! That is as Jimbo would like us Wikipedians to be ;-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you check a translation?
Since I have nearly no Serbo-Croatian at all, I'd be grateful if you could check these book titles: Bogdan Bogdanović. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity: "Mrtvouzice" seems to be a word creation by Bogdan Bogdanović. In his book "Der verdammte Architekt" he (or rather Milo Dor who translated the book) explains it as "totgeborene Wörter [words born dead]". Would you care to explain the pun (or whatever it is) to me? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I never heard that word before, so I kind of improvised with the translation. It's a compound of mrtav "dead" (in compound formations taking the form mrtv-o-) and uzica "string, leash". Now, next he mentions the "mental traps of Stalinisms" so it seemed to me that it was a pun on the phrase "dead end". I googled the term and it indeed has attestations in several unrelated authors, and the metaphorical translation of "dead end" or "very difficult situation unable to be resolved" always seemed to fit. I don't comprehend what would "words born dead" exactly mean.. Anyhow, I finally looked it up in the dictionary and it defines the term as
 * a knot that is difficult to untangle
 * (metaphorically) an unsolvable difficulty, problem without a solution.
 * So the term seems to predate Bogdanović (adictionary from 1991 has it, and I doubt that it would enter such a dictionary in mere 3 years after the alleged coining in 1988), and "dead end" seems to be a proper English translation. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not doubting your translation (you being a native speaker), I just found the explanation in the book somewhat strange; but we won't solve that riddle. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Daily Kos article
Hello

Are you aware of this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/8/751262/-linguistic-genocide:-suppression-of-Croatian-and-Bosnian

Phildav76 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time in replying Ivan. You have confirmed exactly what I suspected. Phildav76 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Slavs #2
Without influencing your views on the matter in even the slightest way, I'd like to CANVASS you once again into the "discussion" on Hey, Slavs. Here we go again... that's what happens when an issue remains half-closed. (Please note: You have free will to act of your own accord, if you feel your mind is being controlled in any way by this post, please notify an Administrator immediately. Have a really nice day. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 23:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Cy diacritics
We have a Cyrlx template, but it doesn't handle diacritics. So Unicode looks like the way to go for now. You might want to modify Cyrlx, or join me on the discussion page. kwami (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic
Thanks for that article. Archaeologia Polonia has several good articles. I came accross one which presented an interesting idea, maybe you already have heard of it. But it questions the assumtion that languages are direived by simple fission from a parent language giving off daughter languages. It suggests, that if proto-Slavic formed by an amalgamation of groups of similar languages into a new, self-contained language, then such a process would naturally occur over a wide geographic area, diminishing the need to explain how and why Slavic spread so rapidly.

Secondly, as for the precise time of formation of proto-Slavic 'proper' do you, support the later date (ie c. 600 AD)

Hxseek (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that theory is possible (everything is!), but I don't think it's much likely because the research on the internal dialectal divergence of Proto-Slavic (primarily by Georg Holzer) showed that there was basically no divergence at all (from the scarce data of Slavic glosses, names, toponyms etc.). The language was unusually uniform, given the amount of vast space it occupied. Only the innovations that happened in Common Slavic period (after 600 AD) show different reflexes in different dialectal areas. Furthermore, all of these Common Slavic sound changes operated on Pre-Slavic toponyms (Greek, Latin, Germanic..) where Slavs only subsequently have spread to, so that theory (coupled with the complete absence of evidence of Slavs in historical sources) of in situ development of already-spread Slavic seems to me quite silly.
 * Yes 600 AD would be a good date for "proto Slavic proper" (Early Proto-Slavic, with the opposition of quantitative lengths in vowels, closed syllables, diphthongs..), and that year is exactly the one Holzer and Matasović use when dealing with Proto-Slavic spread (see §24 in User:Ivan Štambuk/Matasović 2008). That language was in phonology very close to Baltic languages, and can be treated as simply one Balto-Slavic dialect that became prominent and suddenly expanded and developed. We don't know how much the Balto-Slavic dialects were mutually intelligible back then, but we do now that all of them very archaic, and exhibited common development for at least some 2000 years after the disintegration of Late PIE dialect continuum. Of what was probably one big branch only 3 dialects survived to the historical period - West Baltic, East Baltic, and Common Slavic. I was thinking that that paper of a culture shared across wide territory that are usually treated as several unrelated cultures was a proof of Balto-Slavic speakers interacting. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That paper postulates that, in the Bronze Age, there was an archaeological continuum corresponding to the Balto-Slavic linguistic continuum Hxseek (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Zennarnah was earlier telling me the theory that Stokavian speakers came into the Balkans later, effectively forming a wedge through the central-north Balkans, displacing earlier Kaikavians and Bulgaro-Macedonians north and south-east, respectively, Apparently based on an analysis of ploughshare nomenclatures. Have you heard of this ? Hxseek (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I haven't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I am sorry to see that there are 3 editors versus one (you), mentioned in ANI. I cannot help because I know nothing about Croatian. I have heard that Croatians insists that they speak Croatian and not Serbo-Croatian. I have also heard that Spanish people insists that Mexicans speak Mexican, not Spanish. Even if I knew something and decided that your logic is correct, that is still 3:2.

I am willing to educate myself and act as a mediator. However, right now I am trying to educate myself about the Ireland/Republic of Ireland matter. User F203 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

collation
This is just a link to a comment/query I posted regarding an edit you made. Please see: Talk:Serbo-Croatian_language. Thanks and regards, &mdash; Alan✉ 20:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi Ivan, sorry I couldn't help you out on Hey, Slavs, I was immensely busy with socks/trolls on the Chetniks article. Here's the thing: I'm fairly certain that User:Imbris has no foundation to constantly revert when he is constantly contradicted by sources. In other words, a user consensus has been established that his edits are not unsourced and improper. In light of this, he should probably be reported and evidence for him being virtually alone on the talkpage contradicted by about four or five established users should be clearly presented. I do not want to start a MEDCOM about this because its kind of embarrassing to bother those guys with such meaningless edits pushed by one User. I feel that may not be necessary to enforce the consensus and stabilize the article with the help of Admins. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Kad je bal nek je maskenbal!"? LoL, what's going on, could you fill me in? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added Montenegrin version of the anthem to the article :) I'm thinking of also adding Ijekavian Serbian version (in both Cyrillic and Latin)... ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're not giving up are you?! Looks like its time for MEDCOM. I'll recommend the version from the informal mediation. Its important we agree on a version. Imbris is the kind of guy that simply wares you down. Well no dice... time to end this crappy dispute. I'm feeling kind of peppy, I just essentially blew the whole "Chetnik non-collaboration" myth right out of Wikipedia, along with like ten POV-pushing socks (with the help of the good people at Checkuser of course). :D -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LoL :D Feel free to suggest MEDCOM or anything (I have no idea how that shit works). I'll be happy to join in and provide my 2 cents, as usual ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Stupid question, but what exaclt is an "isogloss" Hxseek (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See isogloss.. :D --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Miroslav Krleza.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Miroslav Krleza.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Sherool (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Dubrovnik
I could use your help making sense of how exactly to call the South Slavic language in the Republic of Dubrovnik. Early Croatian? Early Serbo-Croatian? I'm also trying to see exactly what is Italian doing as an "official language". -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 22:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian studies in North America
I must say that I am still amazed at the turnaround that I've seen in your posts about Serbo-Croatian. In the winter, you were arguing about the benefits of Croatian purism and the intention of established linguists such as Brozovic, Babic and Kacic, among others. I, on the other hand was being written off at that time as some kind of "Yugonostalgic". Now I see you getting exasperated by the same nationalist crap that's bugged me for as long as I've been studying Croatian (more accurately Stokavsko-ijekavski). Anyway I'm glad that you're seeing that the language narratives by Mogus or Brozovic have made things worse (e.g. the validity of CSSD, the 1000-year history of "Croatian" - even though it's anachronistic to call 12th century Chakavian "Croatian" when those Chakavian speakers didn't have the 19th century concept of "Croathood" or 20th century one of speaking "Croatian"). I hope that the profiles of scholars such as Matasovic, Anic or Pranjkovic for example will continue to grow so that their work can put in perspective the contributions (valid and invalid alike) by people such as Babic, Brozovic, Kacic, Mogus and Basic.

Anyway I've seen you sometimes posting that Western universities do not have separate departments or faculties for Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. That's not entirely true in North America at least. The University of Illinois in Chicago offers only a program in Serbian Studies with no mentioning of Bosnian, Croatian or Serbo-Croatian while the University of Waterloo in Canada offers a program in Croatian Studies with no acknowledgment of Bosnian, Serbian or Serbo-Croatian (The case of the University of Waterloo isn't surprising when we find out that Waterloo's Croatian Studies program came into being because of support from Tudjman's "pizza man", Gojko Susjak while Susjak was still living in Canada raising money for the HDZ and other causes dear to Croatian nationalists). The University of Toronto however offers separate language courses for Croatian and Serbian. I called a friend who taught at U of T and asked her about this apparent oddity. She explained to me that financial support for these academic programs in "ethnic studies" (for lack of a better word) in Canada depends heavily on donations from emigrés just like at the University of Waterloo. In the case of Toronto, the Croats in Toronto feel strongly enough that the Serbian and Croatian language courses ought to be separated even though it creates duplication and arguably gives Croats a skewed picture of "their" language by ignoring the links to standard Bosnian and Serbian seeing that all of the standard languages are all based on Neostokavian. She also hinted to me that the local Croats would have withheld their donations if the Croatian and Serbian language classes at the University of Toronto had been merged into common ones. Unfortunately I couldn't tell from her if the local Serbs had felt the same way as the Croats by also insisting on splitting the language courses.

A scanning of the North American universities which offer courses in BCS/Serbo-Croatian shows that the vast majority of them teaches and administers matters as one language by calling the courses "Serbo-Croatian", "Croatian/Serbian", "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian" or even "Bosnian-Serbo-Croatian").

I thought that you'd find this information interesting even though it doesn't take away from the point that it's seen in North America as normal (and linguistically valid) to treat BCS as one language. Vput (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Croatian independent language
1.Western Štokavian 2.Čakavian 3.Kaykavian Oficial script: croatian latin Gaic script (reformer Croat Ljudevit Gaj 1830. Kratka osnova Horvatsko-slovinskoga kratkopisanja.
 * Croatian language is system thre dialects:

1.East Štokavian 2.Torlakian Oficial script: serbian chirilic script (Vukovica). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.111.109 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Serbian language is system two dialects:
 * The division Western/Eastern Štokavian is invalid for centuries now. Moderns standard B/C/S/M are all not only one dialect, but one subdialect - Neoštokavian. Čakavian/Kajkavian/Torlakian are all sub-literary, and en route to extinction! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stepinac
A linguistic issue came up here, I'm sure both sides of the dispute would appreciate your input. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian language
Just a heads up. PRODUCER (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Mallerd (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)