Talk:Languages of Slovenia

Prekmurian

I care to this, that add to the prekmurian in article. Disputed and unrecognized, but in the communistic Yugoslavia was treat to the prekmurian language. Doncsecz^znánje 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The anon 89.212.243.255 allege, that the article of the Prekmurian language is written poorly. This is untrue. I wonder, whether come by references. Doncsecz^talk 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your level of English is poor and insufficient for contributing to English Wikipedia. Section on Prekmurian as well as your comments on Discussion page are NOT proper English. 89.212.243.255^talk 18:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So, dear anon from Slovenia! You what for not correct to the section? This is not exception, that not english. The real censure as likely as not, that the prekmurian like "language." Doncsecz^talk 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Prekmurian language not merely dialect, american linguist Marc L. Greenberg from Los Angeles also was formulate to (this is english source!). Josip Tito, Misko Kranjec and Ferdo Godina, the "august" heroes of Prekmurje was befoul the prekmurian language and literature, that this is a dialect of pubs. Doncsecz^talk 08:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As the founding author of this article I am taking the liberty of commenting on this topic as well as making some changes. Firstly, Doncsecz, your writing on the talk-page is very difficult to understand because of your inadequate English skills. Your contributions to the article are not any better. If you are not competent to contribute in English, list your suggestions in the talk-page and someone with adequate knowledge of the language will incorporate them in the article. Secondly, I have to agree with the anonymous author above. By contemporary standards, Prekmurian as spoken by the local population today is not a language. (See the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekmurian_dialect). Old Prekmurian might have been a separate language (some scholar texts confirm that), but that particular language is not spoken any more. Since this is an article about languages presently spoken, I propose deleting it from the article. Mhus 09:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhus (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but there you are mistaken: between 1920 and 1945 was in the usega the new prekmurian standard language. The communistic regime in 1945 was ban to the prekmurian press and liturgy and later but talk about the old prekmurian standard the slovene lexicons, but the standard language from József Klekl sen. and József Szakovics also today clear. / Oprostite, ampak motiš: med 1920 in 1945 je bila v uporabi nova knjižna prekmurščina. Komunistični režim je zabranil prekmurski tisk in prekmursko liturgijo, ter kasneje so slovenski leksikoni samo o stari prekmurščini pisali, ampak novi knjižni jezik Jožefa Klekla st. in Jožefa Sakoviča še vedno razumljiv. 81.183.26.201 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorrowful, that Mhus not see through the situation, but today the slovene linguists and others otherwise adjudge the complexion of prekmurian. The Kajkavian and Chakavian also not dinkey dialects, the quality of prekmurian also alike, but this by 50 years distort the comunistic policy. Incidentally the old prekmurian today also spoken language, as the Goričko dialect, and the dialect of Raba March still arhaic speech. / Neljubno, da Mhus ne ugani situacije, ampak danes slovenski jezikoslovci in drugi drugače razsodijo prekmurščino. Kajkavščina in čakavščina tudi nista bistveni narečji, kakovost prekmurščine tudi podobna, ampak skozi 50 let komunistična politika jo je popačila. Pravzaprav danes še govorijo staro prekmurščino, ker goričko in porabsko narečje arhaični narečji. 81.183.26.201 (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed Prekmurian from the list of languages spoken in Slovenia even though it has written tradition. Per WP:WEIGHT, the criterion for inclusion is to demonstrate with reliable sources that at least a significant minority of linguists describe it as an autonomous or heteronomous language. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Venetian language

According to Venetian language, it is also spoken in Slovenian Istria. If this is true and a reference can be found, the information should be added to this article too. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Kakor sem napisal tukaj in tudi tebi. V uradih tudi govorijo v prekmurščini, predvsem vsakdanašnje besede prekmursko, druge (terminološke) besede slovensko. / As i wrote here and for you. In offices also speak prekmurian, above all everyday word, the terms in Slovene language. Doncsecz^talk 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Prekmurian dialect?

I don't think the Prekmurian dialect belongs to the article. It is not described as a distinct language in the article and the linguist Marko Jesenšek described it as a standardized superdialectal formation ("normirana naddialektalna tvorba") alongside the Central Slovene language, both of which merged into the unified Slovene language.[1] (in Slovene) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is like not true. I was talked with Jesenšek, but see the Augustich's Prijátel and Klekl's Novine. "United" with the Central Slovene language - no! Few idioms and words take from the new literary language from the Slovene (and the Croatian and Serbo-Croatian language), but still differing the Prekmurian language. And the spoken language distinct off the Augistich's and Klekl's Prekmurian literary standard. Besides József Klekl wrote in the Novine in 1934, that still significant the Prekmurian language. This is was fusion, but the Prekmurian Standard language was also differing. Doncsecz^talk 14:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a trilingual history in old and new prekmurian, and slovene. The new prekmurian is very favour to Slovene, but still differing. The Old prekmurian also is new language, as this is the spoken language also today. Doncsecz^talk 14:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What I have presented is a reliable article published in 1992 by a respected linguist in a respected journal on linguistics. The quote from the above-mentioned reference: "[prekmurski jezik] v sredini 19. stoletja združil z osrednjeslovenskim knjižnim jezikom v enoten slovenski knjižni jezik." Exactly what I have written. See also [2] The trilingual history is redundant as we're not here to find out the truth but report what has been published (see WP:OR). On the other side, I don't know how does "normirana naddialektalna tvorba" differ from a language, however we have to stick to terminology used by sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Franci Just, Vilko Novak, Jožef Smej also received persons. József Klekl was like autonomy to the Prekmurje (or political, or some language-autonomy). I was spoken with Jesenšek, she reckon, that united the prekmurian and Slovene, but whereby? The Slovene language was receive Prekmurisms? No. The prekmurian was fus to the Slovene language, but retain the prekmurian inflection and the notable proportion of the lexical. The citation was from the Novine. Doncsecz^talk 16:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, can you point exactly where the people you mention discuss the Prekmurian language as a distinct language from Slovenian so that me and others may verify this? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, read to the Med verzuško in pesmijo. You was excise this sentence: Prominent old writers in Prekmurian maintained that Prekmurian a language. But readable in the Novine:

tumb

tumb

. Besides Jesenšek not contest the speciality of the Prekmurian. Jožef Smej also wrote about the specific prekmurian dialect (Prevajanje Svetega pisma v stari slovenski jezik, Stopinje 2008.) Dulichenko grade the Prekmurian like (micro)language. Other linguists allow for the attitudes of the speakers. Doncsecz^talk 16:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Slovene language did receive influences of Prekmurian dialect (which you call 'Prekmurisms'), especially in the period of linguistic purism from the end of the 18th century till the middle of the 19th century. The linguist Martina Orožen says:"V 18. stoletju je izpričan pri slovenskih slovaropiscih (Ks. Vorenc 1703-10, P. Hipolit, O. Gutsman, M. Pohlin), ki upoštevajo celo hrvaške kajkavske slovarje ter »hrvaške in ilirske« vire, vse od konca 18. stoletja pa je značilen vpliv Š. Küzmiča na oblikovanje slovenske knjižne norme v 19. stoletju. Prav to vzhodnoslovensko, pa tudi kajkavsko knjižno besedišče je odigralo pomembno vlogo v purističnem obdobju slovenskega knjižnega jezika od konca 18. do srede 19. stoletja, saj so bile stare »popačenke« kranjskega knjižnega jezika večinoma nadomeščene prav s »starimi« vzhodnoslovenskimi ustreiniki. Proces te izmenjave je nakazan že v Dalmatinovem Registru, o »čistosti« jezika pa je govoril tudi Krelj, ki je bil mnenja, da se v »Kranji inu Korotani govori dopolu nemški«"[3] So the Prekmurian (part of the Eastern Slovene language) and the Central Slovene language did unite into a single standard Slovene language, as already stated in the article by Jesenšek. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As to Dulichenko and microlanguages, the English Wikipedia already has the article Slavic microlanguages that states: "Slavic microlanguages exist both as geographically and socially peripheral dialects [emphasis is mine] of more well-established Slavic languages". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist aggression

I lay down:

1. The Communistic Propaganda between 1945 and 1991 was abuse the remembrance of the prekmurian literature. Miško Kranjec, Ferdo Godina, Rudi Čačinovič the cardinal propagandists. Moreover Kranjec is a killer, war criminal.
2. The Slovene Civilians don't care the attidue of Prekmurje. Evald Flisar the writer was explain in 2008: for the Slovenes is impasives the Prekmurje and Prekmurian language
3. József Klekl, József Szakovics, József Csárics and other politicians was aspire obtain autonomy for the Prekmurje, where the official language the Prekmurian
4. Feri Lainšček, Branko Pintarič, Vlado Kreslin, Milan Vincetič, Milan Zrinski also declerative undertake the Prekmurian
5. Some nationalist and the politicians be opposed the Prekmurian language
6. The oppinion of the Slovene linguist is null, as the Scandinavian-Germanic language also hardly differents language.

This affair is congrous with the Talk:Croatian language, where the Torlakian is an "Croatian variant"(????) what an great philological absurdity! The Prekmurian and Carinthian dialect have also few Germanism and Hungarism, but not German and Hungarian variants! Doncsecz^talk 20:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is very absurdity, after few dozen article, book and disquisition from the Museum of Murska Sobota, Vilko Novak, Mária Kozár, Ágoston Pável etc. accent the autonomity of the Prekmurje and Prekmurian, the Prekmurian not the special variant of the Slovene. Doncsecz^talk 20:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Keyboard

Has anyone noticed that the keyboard image is not accurate? It should be corrected. --Tone 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the image. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should 'Prekmurian' be treated in the article under its own section as one of the languages of Slovenia

Should the Prekmurian dialect (or language, which I dispute it is) be treated in the article under its own section as one of the languages of Slovenia? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The language altogether is traditional designation, not any allusion, that the Prekmurian is entirely separate language, only separate dialect. Doncsecz^talk 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

In turn is simple: the slovene questings more often care for the Prekmurian. The Prekmurian the most interested, notorious dialect. Feri Lainšček is notoriety in Slovenia, in his works also popularize the Prekmurje country, what is more: independently produce works in Prekmurian. Other Slovene writers also apply his dialects, but only localisms build in the romans and verses, whichs is mostly in Slovene Standard Language. Namely the style of the Prekmurian is fare-gone through the secular traditions. Doncsecz^talk 09:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't even start arguing about this Balkan-stuff — if you list Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, then yeah, list Prekmurian as well, and probably every other village that claims to be "different". Needs to be shortened, though, per WP:UNDUE. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dialects should be somehow mentioned, but certainly not in the same level as languages spoken in neighbouring countries. I know that there are notoriously many and diverse Slovenian dialects for such a small country, and I think a short summary-style section (==Slovene dialects==) is justified. What I don't know, though, is how much Prekmurian stands out of these dialects. According to Doncsecz, it is the one with strongest literary tradition (and perhaps the greatest distance?), but I really don't know much. Even if it's true, it should get a couple of sentences in a separate paragraph, with a link to the main article Prekmurian dialect would suffice. No such user (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ca. 5 speech constitute the Prekmurian (Porábsko, Goričko, Ravensko, Soboško, Dolinsko), but here the differences check in the intonation, for ex. the spirit in the Porabje döj in the Goričko and Ravensko düj. The soup in the Goričko župa, but in the Ravensko speech žüpa, or tivariš-tüvariš-collegue; sluga-slüga-servent. The difference is low in the vocubulary: in my village the shawl is vacalejk, in the neighbour village šörc, or the cementery in the North-Goričko cíntor, but in West britof. Doncsecz^talk 12:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At long last an meaningful edition: 1. Only require a measure of makeup 2, as it happens is absurdity simplify the theme. Doncsecz^talk 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The current version seems much better, I welcome the discussion about the dialects of Slovene in the article, although it should be more comprehensive (not dealing just with Prekmurje dialect). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article of the Prekmurian and this text also clear the situation of the Prekmurian. Doremo's term the Prekmurje dialect is deadly dull, as gramatically is correct (the name Prekmurje not contain adjective-build). Doncsecz^talk 15:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand why we are fighting here over a paragraph that is a. written in very, very poor English and b. contains not a single reference to a reliable source. Why not start with that? I would suggest cutting out that entire paragraph on those grounds, grammar and lack of sourcing. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is at it again: insecure the source. At present also in the article of Croatian language scores cock, and few dunce person try tell off! Doncsecz^talk 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Drmies above; cut the paragraph for the reasons he/she cites plus the fact that it's off-topic for the article. Doremo (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Far from it, that here is objectivity: every item support the status of the Prekmurian. This is bias. I was ask Lainšček, Branko Pintarič and others, and identify oneself with the Prekmurian. Doncsecz^talk 16:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I not any more put in a word for the Prekmurian, as the users demonstrate the scorn of the Eastern Europeans. Ornate example: Talk:Croatian language. In Western Europa also resuscitate suppressed languages, accordingly in the EU is unaffected this processions. I accent the propagandas of Miško Kranjec and Rudi Čačinovič (this men attend the communistic dictatorship and theirs accolade was great jobs) give rise the bias of the Prekmurian and the foreign peoples still take into this propagandas. Linguists for ex. Jesenšek not cast doubt on the marked status of the Prekmurian inside the Slovene. Doncsecz^talk 17:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening factoid (meeting of languages)

I suggest deleting the opening factoid ("European countries where all major language groups of the continent meet"). It's not unique for Slovenia because Austria (Germanic) also borders Italy (Romance), Slovenia (Slavic), and Hungary (Finno-Ugric). It was also true in the past for Germany and Romania (in the 1940s). Furthermore, there is no direct contact in Slovenia between the Hungarian and Italian speakers anyhow, so it has little or no significance. Doremo (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the factoid could refer to language speakers inside the country (rather than bordering the county). However, this doesn't solve the problem because the number of Italian-speakers in Austria (10,000-15,000) is roughly equivalent to all the Italian-, German-, and Hungarian-speakers in Slovenia added together, and Austria also has officially recognized Hungarian and Slovenian minorities (among others). I think the factoid (which I've encountered before) is just one of those "fun facts" that people like to cite but doesn't hold up well to scrutiny. Doremo (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian and Italian speakers have numerous contacts, have a Committee in the Parliament responsible for the development of these contacts[4] and form a deputy group in the National Assembly of Slovenia.[5] Italian minority is not officially recognized in Austria. In the article Italian language, Italian is described as a foreign language in Austria, and it is not even mentioned in Languages of Austria. The situation is not comparable at all.

I also certainly don't think Slovenia being the meeting area of the listed cultures is just a "fun fact" (a trivia) neither do think so the leading Slovenian historians,[6] geographers[7][8] (Tunjić is a political geographer) and linguists.[9][10] The description of Slovenia as a point of convergence of these cultures is even included in the Resolution on National Security of Slovenia.[11] Per WP:WEIGHT, "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". We can only discuss the phrasing of the sentence, not its inclusion. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The German speakers are not a recognized minority in Slovenia, which is perfectly parallel to the unrecognized Italians in Austria (check the more complete German WP article); that is, Slovenia recognizes 2/3 of its Gmc/F-U/Rom minority, and Austria also recognizes 2/3 of its Slav/F-U/Rom minority. (However, that's linguistically irrelevant; the speakers nonetheless exist whether they're recognized by the current states or not.) I still recommend that the factoid be removed; it's simply factually incorrect both geographically and linguistically. It could be repaired by rephrasing it as "Slovenia one of the meeting areas ...". Doremo (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is admittedly odd that Snoj wrote "prebivamo na edinstvenem stičišču romanskega, germanskega in slovanskega sveta" ('we live in the only juncture of the Romance, Germanic, and Slavic worlds') in Eleassar's reference above, unless he meant this region of Europe, not Slovenia itself. Obviously, Slovenian- and German-speakers live in Italy, for example, so it would be absurd to claim that Slovenia is the only place where these language groups come together. Doremo (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've rephrased it. BTW, the correct translation for Snoj would probably be "unique", not "only" or "sole".[12] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

One should also add Hungary to the list of countries where F-U/Gmc/Rom/Slav intersect, both geographically (neighboring countries) and in terms of linguistic minorities (Languages_of_Hungary). Doremo (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I think the article should be restructured in a way similar to the article Languages of Italy, as there are numerous ethnic groups with different legal status present in Slovenia. I'm thinking particularly that the section Legal status could be introduced. Any thoughts? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the structure of Languages of Italy; it would serve well here too. Another useful section could be "Historical languages," mentioning the presence of Lombardic, Celtic, etc. in what is now Slovenia. Doremo (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Prekmurian also is a language of Slovenia

Doremo do not attack! The Slovene linguistics in Hungary in 2010 published a new book Prekmuriana from Marko Jesenšek. Jesenšek is the rector of the Maribor University. Jesenšek in this book wrote, that the Slovene linguist before the 1990s he wrote about the Prekmurian language, that some primitive dialect, although literary language. And the prekmurščina today still literary language, not dialect. It is not disputed. Riegler's, Toporišič's and Logar's opinion is primitive, political propaganda. The SIL International he picked up the list and will recognize the Prekmurian (and not Prekmurje). If you do not recognize, would not take it to the list. The Prekmurian one of the language of Slovenia. Doncsecz^talk 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Languages of Slovenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414150808/http://www.sova.gov.si/en/media/resolution.pdf to http://sova.gov.si/en/media/resolution.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223221038/http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=351&docid=25&showdoc=1 to http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=351&docid=25&showdoc=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217232608/http://www.centerslo.net/index.asp?LANG=eng to http://www.centerslo.net/index.asp?LANG=eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402185328/http://www.pmk-kocevje.si/media/pdf/nemski_jezikovni_otok/pdf/20.pdf to http://www.pmk-kocevje.si/media/pdf/nemski_jezikovni_otok/pdf/20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languages of Slovenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010191129/http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/Medkulturni_dialog/Programska_knjizica-low.pdf to http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/Medkulturni_dialog/Programska_knjizica-low.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511064247/http://geo.ff.uni-lj.si/pisnadela/pdfs/dipl_200610_dejan_strubelj.pdf to http://geo.ff.uni-lj.si/pisnadela/pdfs/dipl_200610_dejan_strubelj.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)