Talk:Central South Slavic diasystem

Please, don't make redirects when having articles with heated topics, discuss it. Kubura (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the theorists of this diasystem, all Croatian dialects, as well as standard Croatian language are part of this diasystem.
On the other hand, neither Croatian dialects neither Croatian standard language is not the same thing as "Serbocroatian".
Serbocroatian was official language in SR Serbia. In SR Croatia, it was not. In SR Croatia, the official language was "Croatian" and "Croatian or Serbian" (1971-1989). The latter was a kind of "light Croatian", for speakers of Serbian to understand. It contained more internationalisms, lot of unique Croatian words were kicked out of use as "too nationalistic"; if there was a word in Croatian that was unique Croatian and the one as same as in Serbian, the latter was in use, while the unique one was designed as "archaic" or even "nationalistic". In total, policy of violent making of Croatian and Serbian closer). Kubura (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about terms. Wikipedia generally doesn't have articles about terms, unless there are enough sources and enough to be said about the term itself (as opposed to the topic that the term denotes). In this case, there's really no need for that.

There is no doubt that both "Central South Slavic diasystem" and "Serbo-Croatian language" are two different names for the same thing. The usage of one or the other name by individual authors implies that they have different opinions about that thing, not that they're talking about two different things.

In wikipedia, the title of the article is whatever the most common English name for the topic is, which is frequently not the most correct name. You can argue at talk:Serbo-Croatian language that that article should be moved to this name, but we're not going to have two articles about it. Zocky | picture popups 13:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly the same thing. A redirect is in order, otherwise it's like a POV fork. - Francis Tyers · 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to the talk page of Serbo-Croatian language..

Zocky, the notion of 'Serbo-Croatian language' in a sense "Chakavian+Kajkavian+Štokavian+Torlakian dialects' is nowadays obsolete and politically incorrect, and carefully avoided in all recent English literature not writen by professors of Serbo-Croatian or Serb nationalists, usually in favour of some ad-hoc coined terms such as "BCS complex" and similar. The #Dialects section of SC article and content that is duplicated from/to Štokavian article should be moved either here, or elsewhere where community decides. I can see on the talk page of the SC article that somebody already raised that issue, but it was not resolved, and Mrcina dude was overrun by the clique that runs the dead "Serbo-Croatian" wikiprojects. ^_^

Dialects are regional designations, so you have "Croatian dialects", "Serbian dialects" and "Bosnian and Herzegovian dialects" (not "Bosnian dialects" since Bosnian/Bosniak language exist only as a standard language, not as a set of dialects). Communists enforced the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" on the basis of borders and "brotherhood and unity" spirit, both of which are todays very different.

Speaking of Kajkavian and Chakavian as "Serbo-Croatian dialects" is anachronistic and politically incorrect, and the current wording in the SC article is directly in contradiction what the articles on Čakavian and Kajkavian say in their lead section. Modern dialectology books are very careful not to include Croatian-only dialects (both on regional, and centuries-old literary grounds) in some "Serbo-Croatian" scheme that would leave e.g. Slovenian dialects, or Serbian dialect of Torlakian in the scheme would would cut it of Bulgaro-Macedonian dialects, as that would be absurd.

IMHO the whole dialects section of #SC should be simply deleted because there is no more a state that this set of dialects would belong to, there is no genetic justification to bump Kajkavian/Čakavian/Štokavian/Torlakian on one pile and call it..something, and no need to just duplicate what can and has been said in much more details on the respective articles on dialects of Croatia, Serbia, B&H and Montenegro (and maybe Kosovo, soon to be extinct judging from the decline on the population of Serbs ^_^) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what I say?
According to the theorists of this diasystem, all Croatian dialects, belong here (that means, Čakavian and Kajkavian also).
Čakavian and Kajkavian are the dialects that Serbs don't have, nor Bosniacs nor Montenegrins, soleley Croats. So, simply, this cannot be "Serbocroatian".
You're giving wrong information.
Also, Bosnian and Montenegrin language belong to that diasystem.
So-called "Serbo-Croatian" is an insult for Bosniacs and Montenegrins. That way, you're imposing the name of Croats and Serbs to those two nations, and we are not allowed to do such things.
Further, "Serbocroatian" or "Serbian or Croatian" (I have to see the proper name), that was in official use in SR Bosnia and Herzegovina (during SFRY) isn't the same language as todays Bosnian language (as well as ICTY's so called "bcs" - it has nothing with Bosnian and Croatian language). It didn't had their specific forms.
However, Bosnian language is part of Central South Slavic diasystem, according to the theorists of this diasystem (including the Bosniak Dževad Jahić).
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice discussion, Zocky. I had to barf green to write something, while you simply redirect, "who gives a damn about others' contributions". Kubura (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk.
Central South Slavic diasystem encompasses all the dialects (no matter if they're standardized or not) of all nations involved here: Croats, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims and Montenegrins.
So-called "Serbocroatian language" encompasses only two nations: Serbs and Croats. It was a standardized language of SR Serbia, SR Montenegro and in SR Bosnia-Herzegovina. No dialect belong to this category. Kubura (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CSSD is in that sense synonymous to the term Serbo-Croatian in a sense "collection of dialects (as opposed to the sense "standardised neoštokavian in 2 minor variants). That has been abundantly explained to you above and elsewhere, but it somehow simply cannot penetrate your nationalist logic. SC has nothing to do with "nations" - when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), neither Croats or Serbs existed as nations. Later the term was used retroactively as a term of compromise because commies didn't feel like bestowing nationlity upon "Muslim Slavs", and many (most) Montenegrins in nationalist/ehtnic sense identified themselves with Serbs. Essentially the term CSSD is a lame attempt by Brozović to replace one meaning of the term Serb-Croatian, that has largely failed, being endorsed only by radical nationalist Croatian pseudo-linguists. It's not a valid genetic clade (see Matasović: 2008), and it introduces absolutely nothing new except more confusion into terminologically heavily contaminated field. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So Kubura, if u want to discuss the terminological distinction bitween SC and CSSD, please open up discussion on the talk page of [[Serbo-Croatian language]], as this issue pertains to this article more than everything else (if necessary, we can {{main}} it to the master article). What you are trying to do is to pretend that these 2 have nothing in common, your next step supposedly being rewikifying every instance of [[Serbo-Croatian language]] to [[Central South Slavic diasystem]]. C'mon, we're smarter than that. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, don't mess into things that you don't know.
"and many (most) Montenegrins in nationalist/ehtnic sense identified themselves with Serbs". Do you know the difference between "national sense" and "nationalist sense"? Second, "most Montenegrins". We cannot know that. That's your original work. Please, read WP:OR.
The term "Serbo-Croatian" was previously been used for "Central South Slavic diasystem". However, since the introduction of that term, we can still make difference between the official language and the diasystem.
" SC has nothing to do with "nations" - when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), neither Croats or Serbs existed as nations.".
Croats and Serbs did exist as nations in those centuries. But not so nationally formed and not so nationally awakened/nationally conscious as today.
"...but it somehow simply cannot penetrate your nationalist logic". Word "nationalist" is heavy accusing word in the West, Ivane. It has very negative conotations. Giving of such attributes to other user is etiquetting, WP:ETIQ, a forbidden way of behaviour on WP. Don't try to "win" a discussion by throwing the mud on the opponent.
"when Serbo-Croatian mostly developed (13th-16th century), " (??????).
Have you read any linguist book? Have you ever read Brozović's work from 1987 "Hrvatski jezik, njegovo mjesto unutar južnoslavenskih i drugih slavenskih jezika, njegove povijesne mijene kao jezika hrvatske književnosti" (in Zbornik "Hrvatska književnost u evropskom kontekstu"). Recently it was re-published as "Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika", Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. Then read some of constructive criticism/additions to that work by Croatian academist Stjepan Babić in "Hrvatski jučer i danas", Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X.
There you'll see how long and how has Croatian language been developing (with some comparison with other Slavic languages, including Serbian). You've skipped half a millenium just like that. There you'll see that Croatian and Serbian had separate lines of development. Kubura (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, don't mess into things that you don't know. - Err, dear Kubura, my knowledge of the historical phonology of Serbo-Croatian and its dialects is quite comprehensive, and prob. everyone who has interacted with me here knows that. As much as your "arguments" are amusing, they generally represent a minority PoV that has been discarded by modern science. Since I have absolutely no intention of wasting my time discussing with first-class nationalist troll such as yourself on some obscure talkpage no-one actually pays attention to, and you having ignored my requests to bring up this contentious issue on the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language, I'll do it myself and hereby invite you to continue discussing it there before indulging into further restorations of this page, lest I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"lest I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence".
No, child. They'll have to deal with you. I'm citing the academists, and you , "the guy that knows a lot about linguist topics", you've never read that Brozović's work (as you say)??? It's like speaking about economy without knowing the works of J.M.Keynes, Adam Smith or Ricardo.
As I see, now, when you've run out of arguments, now you're pulling the argument of threat and defamation:
- "I'll be forced to report your disruptive forking behaviour to the respective authorities with actual linguistic competence"
- "...discussing with first-class nationalist troll such as yourself on some obscure talkpage no-one actually pays attention to..."
You are not allowed to behave like this. Don't try to win the discussion by defamating your opponent.
About your accusation of "disruptive forking". Wikipedias in French, Hungarian and Romanian also have different articles for Serbocroatian and for CSSD. So, when you've accused and insulted me, you've accused and insulted also all the authors that've contributed on those articles on those Wikipedias.
According to your attitude, all those users that worked (lost their private time on writing and looking for references, digging in the literature, and the latter is a lot of work) on those articles about CSSD (including me) are stupid, and you're the only one who's smart. Not to mention the academists that wrote about that. Who cares about them, you're the only smart guy. Who cares for those sources, it's important what you think. International linguist community is asking you for the opinion, and doesn't care what those academists write.
Calling someone a "first-class nationalist troll" s heavy accusation. On the West, the adjective "nationalist" has almost similar negative conotation as "fascist". If your opponent doesn't retreat after your response/attack, and on the contrary, if he/she replies, that's not a reason to call him as "troll". Have you ever read WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL?
I'm not disrupting the article Serbocroatian language. That was a political project, and it deserves its own article.
So the CSSD. That's not a project, that's one of diasystems in the Slavic world. And it deserves the article that exclusively deals with it.
So, why are you making the problem on the matter where no problem should appear at all? Kubura (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

CSSD

A message of Ivan Štambuk on my talkpage.
"Hi, please discuss it [[1]]. And do watch for your tone, as it's very disdainful at first sight, emanating negative energy. Also, try citing from those books relevant parts, and not your amateurish conclusions. For example, you saying There you'll see that Croatian and Serbian had separate lines of development - I'd really like to know in what scenario have Serbian and Croatian managed to have "separate lines of development", but managed to share 99% of grammar (phonology exactly the same, trivial differences in morphology & syntax). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"

Dalibor Brozović, Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. For this topic, read pages 75-80 (better read whole book, I cannot translate whole book here).
p. 78: "...a hrvatska razvojna vertikala toliko je različita od svih ostalih da čak i ne pristaje nijednoj od dviju slavenskih razvojnih skupina - u Hrvata je crkvenoslavenski kompleks... prestao biti općehrvatskim problemom pri koncu 15. st., dakle gotovo isto toliko ranije nego u istočnoj slavenskoj skupini koliko kasnije negoli u zapadnoj ..."
p. 79-80: "Tako se npr. često doživljava kao sama po sebi razumljiva činjenica da je standardna novoštokavština standardnim jezikom i Srba i Crnogoraca i BiH Muslimana i Hrvata zato što ti narodi govore dijalektima istoga dijasistema. No to uopće nije istina - uzrok je u tom što su ti narodi uzeli za dijalekatsku osnovicu standarda više-manje isti, tj. novoštokavski dijalekatski tip u okviru toga dijasistema, ali sam je taj izbor bio vršen u razna doba, pod različitim okolnostima i s različitim motivacijama. Jer izbor je mogao proći i drugačije, da koji od tih naroda uzme za dijalekatsku osnovicu jezičnoga standarda koji nenovoštokavski štokavski dijalekt, ili uopće neštokavski (u podnošku: i u Hrvata i u Srba i u Crnogoraca sredine na nenovoštokavskom području bile su u prosjeku urbanije ili bar razvijenije. Što se tiče Hrvata... mogli su u 18. st. prihvatiti u cjelini kajkavski pismeni jezik...), ili čak da materijalnom osnovicom i ne postane kakav hrvatskosrpski dijalekt, nego koji neorganski dijalekatsko-crkvenoslavenski amalgam. Samo za BiH Muslimane nije ni hipotetski bilo dr. mogućnosti."
So, there's separate line of development. Brozović was very profound in the analysis, so if you want more, read the book (and the article from Stjepan Babić's Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X, p. 246-252). I hope I've helped you. Kubura (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kubura you're simply trolling and the paragraph of Brozović's book you're citing has absolutely nothing to do with this article. As I told you, if you want to comment, do it on the appropriate page in the section I opened for this matter, and not here. If you continue to keep restoring the article content, I will ask for administrative intervention, by someone who actually is familiar with basic linguistics. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you've explicitly asked me [2] for an answer on my talkpage.
Therefore, I gave you the answer. Please, don't attack me for the things I've done on your explicit request. Respect the efforts of others. I was writing that answer in 3 hours in the night, carefully picking the text that'd be the shortest and best answer to your question, to make it easier for you.
I could have put this message on my talkpage, where the original question was posed (by you), or on your talkpage, or here - because it deals with Central South Slavic diasystem. If you find that as problem, I'll transfer this section onto my talkpage, so the interested readers 'll be able to see the whole discussion.
Your question was:
"I'd really like to know in what scenario have Serbian and Croatian managed to have "separate lines of development..."
Now, when you've got the answer (that proved what I've written), now you're saying that I'm trolling. Instead of "Oh, I see" or "OK, thanks", you say that I'm troll and you threat me with administrators.
Please, remain WP:CIVIL and remember the rule WP:ETIQ.
"do it on the appropriate "[[Talk:Serbo-Croatian language|page]]". Ivan, I'm staying with this topic. I have some scientific sources that are behind my attitudes. You are not the user that can choose what 'll be or not. Please, don't disrupt the works of others.
Why are you so destructively oriented towards this article? Why are you foaming? Language is a language, diasystem is a diasystem.
CSSD is a diasystem, that encompasses several South Slavic languages, including Croatian. Serbo-Croatian language was a part of linguistic project of unification of two languages: Croatian and Serbian. Still, in Croatia, "Serbo-Croatian" has never been official language (SC was official in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina). For a period of time (1974-1990), the official language wore "double" name, but it was under the name "Croatian or Serbian language". And it was not the same language as "Serbo-Croatian". E.g., Yugoslav military (JNA), never used "Croatian or Serbian", only "Serbocroatian". So, "Serbo-Croatian language" wasn't encompassing Croatian language.
Ivan, why are you making problems here at all? Noone objected anything to this article (precisely: no objections towards the content of the article).
It's you who came to this article to "rise the temperature", and it's not me who came to the article "Serbocroatian" to argue and to delete the otherusers' contributions (by deleting the content and replacing it with "redirect"). Please, be constructive. Kubura (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you've explicitly asked me [2] for an answer on my talkpage. - No I've asked to to answer on the Serbo-Croatian article respective talkpage section I opened that deals with this matter. I have no interest in wasting my time "discussing" with nationalist trolls on some godforsaken talkpages. Please keep the discussion there, answer the points I've outlined, and don't keep erasing the redirect, as next time you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex13

Why are you restoring this crappy article? It's PoVish piece of garbage, ("The Serbo-Croatian language, by itself, was an artificially created language. The name was politically created and originally had no native speakers that called it that." - I mean, LoL), and it moreover lacks the mention of its most important critic: Ranko Matasović. This should be mentioned in the article Serbo-Croatian language, as I mentioned above. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read better the title [3] what Matasović said. Also, please read better what Mate Kapović wrote: "Od tvrdoglava inzistiranja na starom nazivu srpskohrvatski nema nikakve koristi. To nas sve dovodi do zaključka kako je za zajednički naziv za hrvatski, srpski, bošnjački i crnogorski potrebno smisliti neko drugo ime, za one slučajeve kada nam treba jedno zajedničko ime. Dalibor Brozović je predložio naziv srednjojužnoslavenski, a taj je naziv dobar, ako ništa drugo, a ono po svojoj neutralnosti. " --Ex13 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing in Matasović's interview pertinent to this shitty article is:

Interes javnosti možda će pobuditi teza da nešto što bi bio prasrpskohrvatski ili prasrednjojužnoslavenski nikada nije postojalo kao valjana jedinica genetske klasifikacije. U gramatici se iznose argumenti kojima se nastoji pokazati da je posljednji prajezik između praslavenskoga i suvremenoga hrvatskog bio zapadnojužnoslavenski prajezik iz kojeg su se razvili ne samo svi hrvatski dijalekti i srpski i bosanski i crnogorski nego i slovenski. To znači da ne postoji zajednički prajezik iz kojega su potekli svi hrvatski dijalekti, kajkavski, čakavski i štokavski, koji bi bio različit od praslavenskoga. Kad su Slaveni došli u 7. stoljeću na obale Jadrana, oni su govorili praslavenski, ne prahrvatski, ne neki izdvojen, različit idiom od ostalih slavenskih dijalekata. Sve razlike među slavenskim jezicima mlađe su od toga razdoblja. Postojalo je neko jedinstvo, komunikacijska zajednica koja je obuhvaćala one govore iz kojih su potekli slovenski i hrvatski jezici, ali ne prahrvatski, koji bi obuhvaćao sva tri naša dijalekta. Tu su tezu u nekim oblicima zastupali i drugi lingvisti, ali ovdje je i jasno argumentirana.

and as I said, that criticism (heavily argumented in the grammar itself) has not been mentioned at all, which makes the article biased pro-Brozović PoV. The term CSSD is not only completely obscure and irrelevant, to the point that it does not even merit a Wikipedia article (no reliable sources other than the person who invented the term, and a few of his supporters - no English sources at all!), beside being completely wrong. Wikipedia does not have articles on the terms themselves, but on what they pertain to - and in this case this is a malicious content fork of the article Serbo-Croatian language, ridden with unreferenced nationalist PoV claims and a complete lack of reliable sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rude language

Ivan, you're not allowed to use this kind of expressions [4]. " extreme nationalist PoV".
Do you know the meaning of the words you're using?
Don't try to win the discussion by throwing heavy accusations against your opponents.
This way you've also broken the rule "no peacock terms" (WP:AVOID).
These authors are members of National Academy of Sciences. The diasystem they're writing about is their mother tongue (English authors cannot say that). They've proven their eminency through the decades and bunch of their scientific articles and books.
You have no scientific article published in any scientific magazine. You're just an linguist enthusiast. With no basic scientific attitude. Kubura (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am irrelevant. You're doing ad-hominems against me which do not invalidate the truthfulness of my comments against nationalistic, non-scientific motivations of your sources. HAZU hosts a score of academicians who haven't published a single paper in decades, and whose entire "scientific" productions amounts to emitting steaming piles of obsolete BS. The very fact that someone is member of that institution does not mean that their own theory has gained widespread recognition - at least enough to be published in a Wikipedia article, or that themselves even merit mentioning on Wikipedia. We are strictly forbidden to publish articles on theories that are confined to coteries, especially if they push a specific agenda with far-reaching consequences. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparative table

Croatian Scientific Bibliography.
Search page in English [5] (for letters "č" and "ć" use "c".
Dalibor Brozović [6].
Radoslav Katičić [7].
Ivan Štambuk - no results.
Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Dalibor Brozović [8].
Radoslav Katičić [9].
Ivan Štambuk - no entry.
Therefore, Ivan Štambuk finds himself as top authority in the matter of linguistics, so the Wikipedian users have to obey to Štambuk's attitudes and personal views. Kubura (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kubura, if you are incapable of understanding my prosaic writings, please say so and I will strive to simplify them for you alone.

The term Central South Slavic diasystem is an obscure coinage coined by Croatian nationalist linguists, used by them and them alone. Searching it on Google Books or Google Scholar yields no relevant results, other than abstracts of their own works, which would make this article fail AfD in a blink of an eye. It is not recognized in general Slavic dialectology. Furthermore, it has not only been disputed by other Croatian Slavists in the 1990s, but completely invalidated in Matasović's comparative grammar of Croatian from 2008 - the most important work in Croatian Studies in this decade, to which I directed you several times and which you deliberately ignore (also rather pathetically trying to diminish the importance of greatest living Croatian comparativist). Furthermore, this article cannot stay, at least not in this form, because it contains ridiculous nonsense such as: "The Serbo-Croatian language, by itself, was an artificially created language. The name was politically created and originally had no native speakers that called it that.", which is a result of your imagination (confer the results on mother-tongue of 2001 Croatian census - there are several thousand people still calling their mother tongue Serbo-Croatian, you know).

Once again, if you want to discuss the meaning and relevance of the term Serbo-Croatian in dialectological sense, how purposeful or useful it is, please do so at the Talk:Serbo-Croatian_language, as you've been told many times now. I can help you with that (I have the relevant literature to cite, both in Serbo-Croatian and in English). But at its current form, this is extremely PoV content fork that cannot stay. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also please read this - [10]. It's on Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics' website.--Ex13 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the obsolete Brozović theory. How exactly does that invalidate everything I wrote above? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why is obsolete. Is that beacause you said so? On hr:wikipedia you mentioned Mate Kapović, young linguist (you used the word's like "perspective", etc.). But what Mate Kapović said this year i cited above [11]:

"Od tvrdoglava inzistiranja na starom nazivu srpskohrvatski nema nikakve koristi. To nas sve dovodi do zaključka kako je za zajednički naziv za hrvatski, srpski, bošnjački i crnogorski potrebno smisliti neko drugo ime, za one slučajeve kada nam treba jedno zajedničko ime. Dalibor Brozović je predložio naziv srednjojužnoslavenski, a taj je naziv dobar, ako ništa drugo, a ono po svojoj neutralnosti. "--Ex13 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's obsolete because 1) no one accepted it after several decades of its introduction, other than some Croatian nationalist linguists, 2) It's completely refuted with the newest research of Matasović. Yeah, there is a need for an alternative term, due to political corruption of the term Serbo-Croatian, but we are not allowed to write an article on wishful-thinking terms that are not accepted in general linguistics, especially not POV content-fork type of articles such as this one. Don't play dumb, you know very well what I'm talking about. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, i dont know what you'r talking about. I know that you are not expert to tell what is obsolete. You are playing dumb, and you know that. On forum.hr you said that you trolling little bit. Am I right?--Ex13 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And please dont call me extreme nationalist - thats ad hominem--Ex13 (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't call you, I called them (the linguistics). Folks like Babić and Katičić are indoctrinated beyond hope. Katičić even tries to dispute that the modern Croatian literary language is based on Neoštokavian. According to him, it's a continuation of "medieval Croatian literary language" that only got "stylized" in Neoštokavian framework by the Vukovians, which is ROTFL.

No I'm not an "expert", my interest in this is purely amateurish (and so is yours, Kubura's and everyone else's). But to edit Wikipedia I am not required to a have Ph.D. in the subject I'm interested in - the only thing that is necessary is the basic familiarity with the subject, and reliable references. Both of which I have.

I was trolling a bit on that vote page (there is no simply no other way when you see folks going that far lying that B/C/S are as different as Romance or Scandinavian languages), but whenever the course of discussion was relatively productive I always provided decent argumentation, and apologized if I went to far. It all depends with whom you talk and what are their motivations (good or bad faith).

Anyway, I'll to incorporate the discussion on CSSD (the "Serbo-Croatian" in genetic-dialectological sense) in the Serbo-Croatian article over the weekend, as I see no point fruitlessly discussing with you two here. Kad neće brdo Muhamedu.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Katičić even tries to dispute that the modern Croatian literary language is based on Neoštokavian.". Not just Katičić. Have you ever read the books of Brozović and Babić I mentioned above (my message from 01:03, 4 May 2009)? They say the same thing. Kubura (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk, do you recognize yourself here:
WP:DISRUPT, Signs of disruptive editing:
A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: ...some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions
- Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles...
Ignoring of sources is even worse. Kubura (talk)

"Obsolete theory"

User Ivan Štambuk wrote on 20:25, 13 August 2009 [12] and on 02:53, 14 August 2009 [13] that CSSD is an "obsolete theory".
As we see above, bunch of his scientific works (0), shown on Croatian Scientific Bibliography, proves that our Ivan Štambuk is the top linguist authority, and other users should listen to him, and neglect the persons (whose mother tongue is Croatian) that reached their status of Academists after decades of their scientific work and scientific debates and hundreds of works.
Therefore, "The term Central South Slavic diasystem is an obscure coinage coined by Croatian nationalist linguists, used by them and them alone".
Do you want to say that Bosniak author Dževad Jahić (he also uses that term [14]) is also "Croatian nationalist"?
You named an living person as "nationalist". Have you ever read WP:BOLP (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)?
Second, if certain theory or term is not accepted (or even completely obsolete, if you like it that way) in all scientific circles, that doesn't mean that it cannot have encyclopedian entry. You're supposed to know that. Otherwise we'd have to delete all articles related to geocentric view of the Universe (like Geocentric model), theories about origin of Croats, Gypsies, cause of WWI... Kubura (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Kubura, I'll look to provide a NPOV rewrite of this article within 24 hours. In the meantime, try actually reading my objections above, and look for some English-language sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

English sources are "NPOV"?? What, sources in Croatian are leppards?
Sorry, English sources don't cover the matter properly. Many of them still driven by obliquities from 19th century and yugounitarist political propaganda from 20th century. Sad but truth. Some of those do not belong to these groups, but it must be clear to you that Croats know their mother tongue better than the persons who deal with Croat language solely as their job. Non-Croat authors do not speak Croatian after they end the job, nor they use it in any opportunity of theirs everyday life. Person whose mother tongue is Croatian do, and Croatian runs through their souls; they're born with it.
Nami što govorimo hrvatski kao materinji jezik, hrvatski prožimlje dušu, a onima kojima je jedina veza sa hrvatskim ta što pišedu o hrvatskom - ne. Oni nikad nećedu razumit i shvaćat hrvatski kao mi. Kubura (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Croatian runs through their souls" - this is the exact reason why we need external, non-Serbo-Croatian sources. Unprejudiced, unbiased, scientifically objective ones, written by authors unburdened by national(istic) affiliations. Languages are not "owned" by people who speak them - they're scientifically scrutinizable communication devices, a type of natural phenomena no different than e.g. gravitation or biological species. It's silly to claim that the rest of the world lives, as you claim "in the 19th century" - Slavic studies have come a long path since. What happened is that until 1990s, due to heavy nationalist propaganda, some folks started imagining that e.g. people in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Podgorica speak "different language", notwithstanding the fact that there is 100% mutual intelligibility among those speeches, whilst people in Baška, Bednja and Osijek speak "the same language", despite the fact that they'd barely understand each other - which is preposterous. Wikipedia must follow objective, scientific standards in describing linguistic reality, not some selected group of Croatian linguists (and bear in mind that not all Croatian linguists support the notion "independent Croatian language").

I started writing an updated version of this article more than a month ago, but I got really busy in the meantime, and my attention turned to some other business. I sincerely hope to have it finished this weekend. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk wrote: (ne postoji "hrvatski jezik" - to je neoustaški fabrikat iz 90ih). Translation: (Croatian language doesn't exist - it is a neo-Ustashian fabrication from 1990s). And that user considers himself a knowledgeable user who edits with sources. If he respected the policies of Wikipedia he would allow WP:UNDUE respect to the sources. -- Imbris (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern standard "Craotian language" is for the most part a historical fabrication. I'm convinced to that every single day, as I speak to more students of kroatistika, and more common folks brainwashed by nationalist curricula at educational institutions. But anyhow, what I correspond to some nationalist IPs on my talkpage is irrelevant here, and there's no point in bringing it up. Can your mind emit anything of value to this discussion Imbris? :) WP:UNDUE is perfectly applicable here when it comes to the "opinions" of these Croatian academicians.. Why should we care what they think, if the rest of the world doesn't really care of the notion of the existence of the so-called CSSD? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Historical fabrication".
Therefore, for so many Croatian books from 16th, 17th century explicitly have written on theirs first or titlepages that they're written in Croatian. Therefore, they are Ustashi 3-4 centuries before Ustashi movement appeared.
Also Marko Marulić. He explicitly wrote for his book that it's written in Croatian, so he was Ustashi 500 years (half a millenium) before that movement appeared at all.
Croatian linguist Ranko Matasović said in Vijenac that Serbo-Croatian was never realized, because it never existed Vijenac nr. 383/2008 Ranko Matasović: Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao:
"Taj je jezik bio projekt u glavama skupine lingvista i mnogih političara."
(Translation:"That language was the project in the heads of the groups of linguists and many politicians").
Ranko Matasović also said:
"Za hrvatski je jezik važno ...treba stalno isticati da je različit od srpskoga standardnog jezika i bošnjačkog i crnogorskog bez obzira na međusobnu razumljivost....Razlika između hrvatskog i srpskog... to nije razlika kakva postoji između američkog i britanskog engleskog."
Translation: "For Croatian language it's important... to persistently accentuate that it's different from Standard Serbian and Bosniak and Montenegrin language, no matter how interintelligible they are... Difference between Croatian and Serbian... is not the difference as the one between American and British English..."
Štambuk cited Matasović, but since Matasović denies so-called Serbo-Croatian and accentuates the independence of Croatian, will Štambuk also etiquette Matasović as Ustashi and "radical nationalist Croatian pseudo-linguist", "nationalist troll" and his work as "nationalist logic"?01:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Kubura (talk)

Explanation

Why have I restored original article, removing the redirect to "Serbo-Croatian"?
Colleague Ivan Štambuk nicely explained that here [15]
"Dear Serbo-Croatian comrades,... you...having been indoctrinated by books written by ex-professors of "Serbo-Croatian languages" who graduated "Yugoslavistics", which for pure political reasons pushed the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" as an alleged "genetic node" in the South Slavic branch. This notion of abundantly exploited for misappropriation of Croat-only cultural heritage, of which there are plenty of remnants in modern Serbian books (...bugaršćice by Molise Croats and medieval Čakavian writers like Hektorović as a part of "Serbian epic poetry"...)...". Kubura (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, reverted your nationalist nonsenses. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan. I wrote this also on your talkpage [16].

It wasn't me, it was you who wrote this [17]. It was your message.

So, please, don't say that I'm the one that writes "nacionalist nonsenses" (as you did here [18]).

Please, don't attack me for the things you wrote [19]. Kubura (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've written this on Ivan Štambuk's talkpage also (section "Please, don't revert, talk").
Ivan, why have you done this [20]?
Article was sourced.
Article about Central South Slavic diasystem is an article about the Brozović's theory about a diasystem.
Some scientists agree with him, some scientists disagree. All that is mentioned in the article, with short description.
Article has scientific references. Redirecting that article is equal to deletion.
Please, don't mix that with "Serbo-Croatian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the political project in the language area. It had long history.
Both articles can coexist.
Why do you make problem about that?
Brozović's theory can be wrong, but there're bunch of articles about theories (from various sciences) that proved wrong (or the ones that later proved to be right).
E.g., economics has a lot of theories, that were later abandoned (because they proved to be partially/conditionally/completely wrong). But students do learn those theories in the Universities all over the world.
Personally, I agree with Babić. So, I'm not pushing "my favourite version". But, according to the logic from above (example of economics), I wrote this article. We're not here to judge the theories: we give what's written in scientific works.
In any case, Brozović argumented why's the term CSSD better than the term "Serbo-Croatian". Therefore I've made replacements.
It was nice when you here wrote [21] "...there was possibly ancestor language for all Slovenian and Croatian dialects, and also similarly possibly Proto-East-South-Slavic (Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects) - but certianly no "Proto-South-Slavic" and within it some "Serbo-Croatian" node, who would be more unhomogeneous than any other real European language diasystem! The ancestral language of all idioms spoken nowadays by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins never existed.".
OK, excellent. I'd like your help. From your message from above, I see that you're informed a lot about that. Please, help me explain that to user Kwamikagami.
Sincere greetings, Kubura (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So-called Serbo-Croatian is a project, not the true language

So-called Serbo-Croatian is not the true language, it's a project.
Here's the reference. Author Ranko Matasović.
Vijenac nr. 383/2008 Ranko Matasović: Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao (Serbo-Croatian was never realized, because it never existed):
"Taj je jezik bio projekt u glavama skupine lingvista i mnogih političara."
(Translation:"That language was the project in the heads of the groups of linguists and many politicians") Kubura (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Štambuk cites Matasović, skipping the parts that are against his POV

User Ex13 also warned Štambuk about this. See section Talk:Central_South_Slavic_diasystem#Ex13
Here's Matasović's article in Vijenac:
Vijenac nr. 383/2008 Ranko Matasović: Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao
Za hrvatski je jezik važno ...treba stalno isticati da je različit od srpskoga standardnog jezika i bošnjačkog i crnogorskog bez obzira na međusobnu razumljivost. Laicima je teško shvatiti da postoje ljudi koji se međusobno vrlo dobro razumiju kada govore o svakodnevnim stvarima, ali kad je riječ o standardnom jeziku, u prvi plan dolaze suptilne stvari kao što su znanstvena i pravna terminologija, koja se posebno u hrvatskom dosta razlikuje od one u srpskom i bošnjačkom jeziku. Tu treba biti odlučan i dosljedan da se poštuje taj identitet hrvatskog kao posebnoga standardnog jezika.
Kako biste objasnili razliku između hrvatskog i srpskog?
– Treba objasniti ljudima da to nije razlika kakva postoji između američkog i britanskog engleskog. To su bliskosrodni idiomi među kojima postoje razlike na izgovornoj, pravopisnoj razini, ponekoj sintaktičkoj konstrukciji, ali su znanstvene i pravne terminologije na britanskom i američkom engleskom gotovo identične zbog toga što je postojala velika suradnja i protok ljudi i ideja između Velike Britanije i Sjedinjenih Država, kada su provođene standardizacije. Zbog različitih kulturnih i povijesnih uvjeta u kojima su provođene standardizacije hrvatskog i srpskog jezika nazivlja su u velikoj mjeri različita. Pogledajte popis kemijskih elemenata. To je često akademik Brozović isticao kao primjer. Ja ne bih znao napisati osnovnoškolski ili srednjoškolski sastavak o kemiji na srpskom jeziku. Moja djeca to ne bi ni razumjela. Na svakodnevnoj komunikacijskoj razini razlike su doista minimalne, a kad dođemo do tehničkih stvari, pravnih formulacija i deklaracija na proizvodima, razlike su znatne i treba ih poštivati.
Je li srpsko-hrvatski koji se godinama učio u školama bivše Jugoslavije mrtav jezik? Mnogi ljudi koji su tijekom rata otišli živjeti u inozemstvo još govore tu neku inačicu jezika koji su naučili!
– Taj je jezik bio projekt u glavama skupine lingvista i mnogih političara. Usprkos pritiscima kojima je hrvatski bio izložen, nikada nije bilo provedeno ujednačavanje standardnih oblika u hrvatskom i srpskom. Ideološki pritisak nije bio podjednako jak u svim razdobljima komunističke vlasti, bilo je popuštanja i pojačavanja pritiska, ali nikada potpuno ujednačavanje standardnih jezika nije provedeno. Kao standardni jezik srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije postojao. Bio je projekt koji nikada nije ostvaren. Kao jezik promatran iz kuta genetske lingvistike on nikad nije postojao zbog razloga o kojima govorim u knjizi.
User Ivan Štambuk shows signs of disruptive editing. WP:DISRUPT Signs of disruptive editing: A disruptive editor is an editor who:
- Is tendentious: ...some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions
- Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles...
Interesting is that Štambuk filters the parts he dislikes. He said for Matasović that [22] " Matasović's comparative grammar of Croatian from 2008 - the most important work in Croatian Studies in this decade, to which I directed you several times and which you deliberately ignore (also rather pathetically trying to diminish the importance of greatest living Croatian comparativist)".
But he doesn't say that Matasović explicitly denies the existence of Serbo-Croatian as language [23]. Štambuk pushes his original work and promotes his personal attitudes at the expense of scientific referenced texts. Kubura (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Kubura, you're the worst troll in the history of the universe. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please, be civil WP:CIVIL. Please, don't disrupt the project WP:DISRUPT. Please, stay away from personal attacks WP:PERSONAL.
I'm trying to communicate with you, to explain you something. On the contrary, you're citeing the sources that you've filtered. Štambuk, that what you've done, is disruptive behaviour.
Please, don't filter and don't channelize scientific works. You're creating your own original work. You're violating WP:OR.
Please, don't make problems on places where no problems should occur at all. Kubura (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I cited reliable sources (his book), and you're citing your imagination. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You're disrupting Wikipedia. Read again Vijenac
razgovor, naslovnica (interview, frontpage)
Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije ostvaren, jer nije postojao(Serbo-Croatian never came into reality, because it never existed)
Frontpage of that number of Vijenac (nr. 383/2008) with text "Srpsko-hrvatski nikada nije postojao".
_That author explicitly said that in the authorized interview for the one of most important Croatian cultural magazines.
It's not my imagination. You're showing repeated trolling and disrupting behaviour. I gave you online proof, but you play dumb and say that I'm imagining things. Kubura (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As it was explained to you, this article is PoV rubbish, a particularly despicable content fork, and as such cannot be. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not. This is the article about a theory. One of theories. If you dislike that theory or you disagree - that's your own personal point of view.
You have a right to your opinion.
So do I.
But - this is the encyclopedia. Encyclopedia encompasses every serious theory. If these theories were written by academists, it's not up to your will if this article is going to exist or not.
I don't understand why are you persistently redirecting this article. Redirecting is a refined way of deleting.
Article contains both "pro" and "contra" arguments given by academists, specialists for those areas. Professionals. So there's no bias here. Therefore, article can exist.
Ivan Štambuk, you're behaving as if you're owning this article.
I don't want to engage in redirect war with you. Please, read once again. Show some cooperation. There's no need to make problem in the places where no problems should occur at all.
"this article is PoV rubbish". Ivan, this way, you've insulted all users that've worked on this article and all scientists that made that theory, including the opposing scientists that gave attention to this theory. Ivan, read again. Please, be WP:CIVIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubura (talk • contribs) 06:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)