Talk:Serbo-Croatian/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Macrolanguage

It seems that we have a serious problem here. Information on official ISO classification of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, is constantly being suppressed and removed from this article, and several other related articles. Archive of this talk page shows that this problem is recurring and persisting for more than a decade now. Some advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" don't like the term "macrolanguage" and they also don't agree with ISO classification. That wouldn't be a problem, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but some users are going much further, trying to suppress any mention of official ISO terminology and classification of Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage. They are constantly removing all content on that subject, not only from this article, but also from some other related articles. And there lies the problem. Any suppression or censorship of relevant and properly referenced contend on the "I don't like it" basis is by definition improper. Selective monopolization and reduction of content to one's own POV is not useful editing. Classification of Serbo-Croatian is a complex linguistic problem, and this article should provide information on all relevant views and opinions on that subject. It should go without saying that official position of ISO on that subject constitutes a relevant information, that should not be suppressed or censored from this article, and other relevant articles. It should be also noted that classification of Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage is accepted by many linguists and scholarly institutions, and there are no justified reasons for suppression of relevant content on that subject. Sorabino (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no problem mentioning the use of the term "macrolanguage" in the article. The problem has always been giving it WP:UNDUE influence, turning it into an entire paragraph, and using it solely as the basis for calling Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian "separate languages" as if they were German and French. The term "macrolanguage" is an ad hoc term that ISO 639-3 uses rather loosely. It is not widely used in linguistic literature contra the claim by Sorabino. Serbo-Croatian is the label for a small set of mutually intelligible dialects, not separate languages. The linguistic literature has been uniform in this. Using the ISO 639-3 use of the term "macrolanguage" has been used in this article (and the others) to argue that these are separate languages and that "macrolanguage" is term used for a grouping of languages. Such is not the case. I have never opposed a mention of ISO, but I have always opposed the misuse of the ISO label to push for a nationalistic agenda whereby "Serbo-Croatian" is not used in its scholarly sense as a label for a dialect complex, but in its political sense to group separate languages. Serbo-Croatian is a single pluricentric language, not a cluster of different languages. --Taivo (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Linguists do not rely on ISO 639-3 as some sort of universal listing of the world's languages. Many of the "languages" that are separated by ISO are clearly dialects and not separate mutually unintelligible languages. While ISO 639-3 separates Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian into three "languages" under the "macrolanguage" Serbo-Croatian, Glottolog, which is much more linguistically sound, lists these three as dialects of the "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" language. Linguasphere also lists these as dialects of a single language "Srpski-Hrvatski" ("Serbo-Croatian"). Klose's "Sprechen der Welt" also lists Serbisch, Kroatisch, etc. as dialects of "Serbokroatisch". I could go on and on. Thus, using ISO's use of the vague term "macrolanguage" to justify calling Serbian, Bosnian, and Croatian separate languages (as Sorabino's paragraph is trying to do), is putting WP:UNDUE weight on a single source whose main purpose is not a linguistically unassailable listing of the world's languages by consistent measure, but a system of coding useful in computer-assisted research and bibliographic cataloguing. --Taivo (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• The definitions and classifications that underlie ISO 639-3 are something of a last resort: to be used as sources in the absence of any in-depth literature on the topic. I don't think this is the case for a major topic like Serbo-Croatian. How it is defined in the various ISO standards is of course relevant information, but I'm not sure it deserves a place in the lede, at least not a very prominent one. – Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you. I placed the comment in the lead because I was getting ready to head to work and didn't want to spend a lot of time thinking about it. It is the maximum length that I think the topic deserves. I would be happy to see it moved into a more appropriate place. But at least Sorabino can no longer claim that we've ignored his "reliable source". --Taivo (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Lets get serious, because we have some serious problems here. For years, this article has been policed by advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language", who suppressed all content referring to other views, and the same censorship was also implemented in other related articles. Such practice was regrettable, and in total odds with Wikipedia editing guidelines. There is only one way to remedy this situation. This particular article should be substantially improved in order reflect the full complexity of all issues related to "Serbo-Croatian" linguistic label. From the very lead, readers should be informed that there are three main linguistic theories and uses of "Serbo-Croatian" label. First is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as an individual language, second is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language, and third is the notion of Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. All of those views should be presented and explained from linguistic and historical perspective, without misrepresentations, like in some recent edits. After several removals of content on ISO classification, that problem was raised here, forcing advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" to adopt other tactics. That resulted in this edit, which is the prime example of manipulative editing. That edit states, literally: "ISO 639-3 recognizes the pluricentric nature of the language by referring to it as a "macrolanguage""! That is not what 639-3 recognizes at all. It clearly and explicitly defines "Serbo-Croatian" as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, not as a pluricentric language. It is obvious that some users, who are policing this article for years, are not interested in constructive editing. Simply speaking, they are using all opportunities not only to push their own POV, but also to suppress all other views by removing or manipulating content. Such behavior should stop, since it is inappropriate by all standards. Sorabino (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It's also quite clear that Sorabino is neither a linguist nor familiar with either the linguistic attitude toward ISO 639-3's classification scheme nor the linguistic literature in general. He is relying 100% on ISO 639-3's label of Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage", a label that is not accepted anywhere else in linguistic literature. ISO 639-3 is not considered to be a major or particularly reliable source when it comes to determining what is and is not either a language or a dialect cluster. The vast majority of linguistic literature, a clear consensus, is that Serbo-Croatian is a single language that comprises a dialect cluster. There really isn't any debate on the issue. Sorabino refuses to recognize the importance of these other linguistic sources and overemphasizes the label "macrolanguage" used by ISO 639-3, which linguists in general ignore. I have cited major reliable linguistic sources (sources that are uniformly and universally respected by linguists) at Talk:Croatian and Talk:Chakavian already. If Sorabino continues to ignore the linguistic literature in his single-minded drive to push ISO 639-3 as the only source of interest to him, then I'll replicate the list here as well. Linguists do not treat Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage" in the sense of a small family of languages. They uniformly treat Serbo-Croatian as a single pluricentric language with three to five dialects (depending on how they treat Chakavian, Kajkavian, and Montenegrin). My sentence about ISO 639-3 was a compromise to mollify Sorabino, but if he insists on pushing the "multiple languages" narrative, then I will remove it because that is not the linguistic consensus among actual linguists in well-respected linguistic classifications. The reason that ISO 639-3 is not well-respected is simple: too many of its distinctions are based on political calculations and not solid rigorous linguistic ones. --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you are continuing to censure this article, suppressing relevant content, and deliberately misrepresenting sources. Your opposition to any mention of different linguistic views is totally unfounded in linguistics. You have no right to suppress different views, but there is no need for me to repeat myself. It would be quite enough to quote Encyclopedia Britannica, that states: "Serbo-Croatian language, term of convenience used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups (such as Montenegrins and Bosniaks, as Muslim Bosnians are known. These forms of speech have often been termed “a language,” but they are also seen as separate languages: Serbian, Croatian, and in recent years also Bosnian and Montenegrin. Neither view is completely right or wrong; the concept “language” has multiple definitions, and the status of Serbo-Croatian will depend on the definition one adopts". There you have it, my friend. That is how encyclopedic articles are written, with scientific neutrality, presenting all views. But, since you have been disregarding the views of the entire linguistic team of ISO, I guess that you will disregard the Encyclopedia Britannica too. However, it is clear that there are opposite linguistic views on "Serbo-Croatian" and all those views should be represented in this article. I propose that we redefine the lead in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, presenting all relevant views on this subject. Sorabino (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica isn't a linguistic source, but nice try. The lead should reflect the majority opinion of linguistic sources and I've listed only linguistic sources in the references that you want to ignore. The article already lists the controversial nature of the name "Serbo-Croatian" for this language and potential alternates in the Name section, but if you want to add a sentence about the political differences that prevent patriots from recognizing that they speak the same language, then if we can come to an agreement on wording here on the Talk Page, then we can add something there. But don't just shove something into the article without getting a WP:CONSENSUS here first. Propose a sentence for the Name section. But as far as the linguistic classification in the infobox and in the lead goes, Wikipedia follows the majority view of linguists. --Taivo (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

As I suspected, you are not interested in real conversation. Your claims that ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica are somehow not relevant are quite revealing, since they are exposing the true nature of your POV pushing. That article in EB was written by top class linguist Wayles Browne, who is a renown expert in South Slavic languages. It is clear that your claims on the current state of linguistic "consensus" are 100% wrong. Your suppression of other relevant views and referenced content is in total odds with Wikipedia guidelines. So, please stop censoring this article, and other relevant articles. The lead should reflect all relevant views on the subject, like in the EB article. Sorabino (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"The lead should reflect the majority opinion of linguistic sources" - no, the lead should reflect the majority opinion of reliable sources, and Britannica is one. I don't think the idea that articles on linguistic topics must rely exclusively on purely linguistic publications has any basis in wiki policies and guidelines. On the other hand, one might presume Browne did not invent anything in his article, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find additional linguistic sources that support his views.

I'm rather unfamiliar with this article so I gave it a quick scan, and noticed some problems which are roughly in line with Sorabino's criticism above. I'll take a more thorough look later and list my observations here. GregorB (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Croatian language because Sorabino perversely insists on spreading this discussion across three Talk pages). Perhaps you (Sorabino) missed the fact that Browne's education was partially at the University of Zagreb. But neverthelss, one linguist isn't a consensus. You also ignore the simple facts of the matter. 1) all the dialects of Serbo-Croatian are mutually intelligible and in a purely linguistic sense that means that they belong to one language. 2) In every source (including EB) that mentions the "many languages" option, they make very clear that dividing these dialects into languages is based on non-linguistic factors including politics. The linguistic measurement of language versus dialect is, and always has been, degree of mutual intelligibility. 3) The mutual intelligibility measure between these dialects is unequivocal and makes them uncontestably dialects of one language. This fact has been recognized in all the classifications of the world's languages that are based on scientific linguistic measures alone. 4) Thus, in Wikipedia articles on languages, in the infobox and in the lead, where editors have uniformly relied on scientific linguist measures and ignored tribal politics, these are dialects of a single language. Further down in the article, where non-linguistic political position can be discussed, then a brief discussion of the non-linguistic issues can be included. But these are not political articles, they are linguistic articles based on linguistically reliable sources. When it comes to language classification, the best linguistically reliable sources include Glottolog and Linguasphere. For Slavic languages alone, there are other sources in print. But you need to wrap your head around the fact that editors in Wikipedia have uniformly favored purely linguistic solutions to issues dealing with languages and have preferred to leave political solutions outside the door. --Taivo (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@GregorB: Language articles are subject to the science of linguistics and thus the consistent WP:CONSENSUS among editors on Wikipedia has been to rely on linguistic reliable sources and not on the variety of non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans. Since this is based on WP:CONSENSUS then it is, indeed, based on Wikipedia policies. --Taivo (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do linguists rely solely on the science of linguistics to determine relationships between languages? Because since the middle of the 19th century very clear and precise means have been developed to track the evolution of languages over time in order to determine their place within the world of languages. This isn't politics or ethnicity, but simple historical/comparative linguistics. There are standards, there are rules, there are factors to consider and factors to ignore. It's a science. --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Wayles Browne's article, quoted above, could be described as one of "non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans". That put aside, "tribal politics of the Balkans" is real and it produces sociolinguistic effects, making it all the more relevant to this article, whether one liked it or not. Sociolinguistics is science too.

Also: could you provide evidence for the consensus you were referring to? GregorB (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

See the notice at the top of the page where it comments on "In English, the language spoken by Croats...". This has been discussed at various times throughout the Archives. The notice itself is evidence of the consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You said:

Language articles are subject to the science of linguistics and thus the consistent WP:CONSENSUS among editors on Wikipedia has been to rely on linguistic reliable sources and not on the variety of non-linguistic opinions on this issue that are based on the tribal politics of the Balkans.

This, however has nothing to with the notice you mention. I'm not disputing what the notice says - I'm disputing both the idea that exclusively linguistic sources may be used in this article, and your claim - also in the above quote - that this has already been established by consensus. GregorB (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. You didn't mention which consensus you were referencing and the issue of one language versus four is always the elephant in the room in these articles. I've been editing languages articles in Wikipedia for over a decade and the consensus on language articles always ends up with linguistics over politics. I can't really point to a specific discussion, just the results of hundreds of discussions over the years here. Take, for example, the listing in the infoboxes on genetic affiliation of a language: it's a genetic affiliation and not any other kind. The genetic affiliation of a language is a purely linguistic result. If you look back over the history of this article and the articles on Croatian language, Serbian language, for example, you see that every time "Serbo-Croatian" has been deleted from the genetic affiliation in the infobox, it has been reverted by one of the linguists who watch these articles. It's all tied to the overall "consensus" that has worked on hundreds of pages in Wikipedia that linguists control "language" pages. Perhaps it's been discussed at some point or other, perhaps not, but it's been the consistent result, including here. You can look back through the archives of this article and you'll find that the end result of every dispute is a linguistic result. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I don't have the time to browse back through a decade of linguistic discussion to find X, Y, or Z specific statement. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

But in this particular article, I've already provided references to reliable linguistic sources that consistently use linguistic methodology to list Croatian, Serbian, etc. as dialects of a single language that is most commonly (but admittedly problematically) called "Serbo-Croatian". I don't have a problem with mentioning the political issues of tribalism in the Balkans in the body of the article. It would be appropriate there. But the linguistic issues in a linguistics article must always be given pride of place just as physics must be given pride of place in a physics article. --Taivo (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take a look at Talk:Croatian language too, but it's borderline TLDR - maybe I'll just leave a short comment. GregorB (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• It is obvious that advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" have no interest in following Wikipedia editing guidelines. There is no justification for their continuous suppression of relevant linguistic views, expressed (for example) by linguistic experts of the ISO team, and also by linguistic experts of the editorial team of Encyclopedia Britannica. Some advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" have often claimed here that there is some kind of "consensus" that supports their views, but it is clear that there is no linguistic consensus regarding Serbo-Croatian controversy. Sources are showing that there are three distinctive views on the subject. First view regards Serbo-Croatian as an individual language, second view regards Serbo-Croatian as a pluricentric language, and third view regards Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Precisely because of that plurality of views, editorial team of Encyclopedia Britannica decided to present the full scope of views in their article on Serbo-Croatian, and we should follow that example in our articles. So far, not a single reference was produced that would support the claim that there is any kind of "consensus" among scholars regarding the Serbo-Croatian controversy. Therefore, the "consensus" claim, that is 100% false, can not be used as an excuse for censoring and policing the content of this article, and other related article. We are not debating here which view on the subject is right, but whether all views should be represented in this article. That should be a non-issue, since it would go without saying, according to editing guidelines, but unfortunately advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" are not respecting those guidelines, nor facts. Maybe it is time for administrators to take a look on what has been happening here. Sorabino (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Addition: Here is a helpful quote, from another American linguist, Ronelle Alexander from the Berkeley University, who noted in 2013 that "The current post-Yugoslav language situation is one of several distinct but closely related languages: Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian have been internationally (and by all the actors themselves) recognized as distinct languages; and although Montenegrin is on the way to such recognition, its status is not yet fully accepted". That is just one of many references that show the non-existence of so-called linguistic "consensus", invented by advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" as a tool of their POV pushing. Sorabino (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You clearly don't have a real understanding of how Wikipedia works or the process of building WP:CONSENSUS. You've already demonstrated that you have no real understanding of linguistics, the science of the field, the nature of linguistic classification, or the nature of ISO 639-3. Your edit to the article, while well-intentioned, had a couple of problems that I have fixed. First, it was just placed in the article without care for the context or the flow of the existing text. I've moved it to a more logical place within the text--just before the section where national constitutions label the different varieties and treat them as distinct languages. Second, the use of extensive quotes that are easily summarized is discouraged, especially in articles that are already on the long side. I've summarized the quotes. --Taivo (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Are you still claiming that there is so-called "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, and if you are, can you provide any reference that would state the existence of such consensus? So far, you repeated the "consensus" claim many times, but never produced any reference that would support such a claim. Sorabino (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have provided several times a list of well-respected linguistic classifications that all treat Serbo-Croatian as a single language, but you have simply chosen to ignore them. I understand that you don't know how the science of linguistics works or what a linguistic classification means in terms of language relationships. But I agree with you that a comment in the article is appropriate and have left the substance of your comment and references in an appropriate place in the flow of text. --Taivo (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, you are avoiding to answer the question on your "consensus" claims. You have repeated those claims many times, but now, when called out and proven wrong, you are avoiding the issue. You even went so far in claiming that there are no linguistic sources that would oppose your views, and you claimed that by posing here as some kind of a linguistic expert. Now, when it is factually shown that those claims were wrong, you are trying to avoid the issue. Are you still opposed to inclusion of all views in the lead of this article, and if you are state your reasons? On several occasions, you opposed to such inclusion on the basis of your "consensus" claims, but it has been shown here that such "consensus" does not exist. Sorabino (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You simply don't understand the issue, but it's pointless to argue with you because you 1) don't understand what linguistics is or how linguistic science functions and 2) refuse to learn anything that contradicts your non-linguistic worldview. Even Ronelle Alexander states that native speakers consider their language to be "one language", but that non-linguistic factors divide it into multiple entities that are labelled "languages" (pages 424-426 of his grammar of BCS). --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Man, we are on a talk page, discussing serious issues regarding the lead and content of this article. So, I simply have to ask you again, are you still opposed to the inclusion of all views in the lead of this article, and if you are, please state your reasons? That is the initial issue that is discussed here. And please respond, do you still claim that there is "consensus" on the Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? Sorabino (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I still oppose the inclusion of non-linguistic information in the lead other than the sociolinguistic issues that are already discussed in the third paragraph (the one that begins, "Serbo-Croatian was standardized"). Since the labelling of Bosnian etc. as separate "languages" is a sociolinguistic issue (per every author) and not a linguistic issue, a very brief mention in that paragraph could be agreed on, but the purely linguistic issues in the remainder of the lead and the infobox must remain purely linguistic. Even native speakers recognize that the four national standards are "one language" (per Ronelle Alexander, whom you cite as an authority), but that they are distinct for non-linguistic reasons. I've never disagreed that non-linguistic factors have been used to label these as different languages, but purely linguistic factors dictate that they are one and that is where linguists are in agreement. --Taivo (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, now we are making some progress, finally. The view that Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian is supported by relevant linguistic sources and should be included in the lead. Many linguists support that view, not just those who are from the lands of former Yugoslavia, but also the foreign ones, as shown above. Sorabino (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand my comments--they are the same things I have been saying from the beginning. Once you understand then we can come to a complete agreement on the lead. Even those linguists who refer to these four dialects as "languages" admit that the decision to call them languages is not a rigorous linguistic decision but a non-linguistic one. Most of them freely admit that the linguistic reality is that this is one language, not a "macrolanguage", but one pluricentric, mutually intelligible language across three or four dialects, each with separate national standards. As long as that distinction--between linguistic reality and non-linguistic factors that shape terminology decisions--is clear in the wording of whatever changes or additions are made in the third paragraph of the lead, then we can agree on exact wording. --Taivo (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that you are just trolling this entire discussion. All of your claims have been proven wrong, and now you are just stalling, since you have no arguments for your false "consensus" claims, that served you as an excuse for censoring this article. And let me add another quote here, from American linguist Robert D. Greenberg, of the Yale University, who stated: "Perhaps the Serbo-Croatian language is still in the throes of language death, and at some time in the twenty-first century it will be relegated to the realm of other extinct languages such as Cornish. Or, perhaps it really never existed as a living language, since it always had such a variety of urban and rural dialects". Maybe we should include that into this article too. Sorabino (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree with TaivoLinguist here. Regarding the nature of Serbo-Croatian, there are obviously two (or more) views. But, per WP:DUE, we should present those views in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Thus, a view that is held by a minority of reliable sources should not be given the same prominence as a view held by a majority. TaivoLinguist shows that clear majority of linguistic sources holds the view that Serbo-Croatian is one language. Based on WP:DUE, minority view (that it is a macrolanguage) should not be given the same prominence in the article. That is not "censorship", that is what Wikipedia policy tell us to do. Sorabino denies existence of such consensus by providing some non-linguistic sources (like ISO and Encyclopedia Britannica). Per WP:SOURCE, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources [...]. Thus linguistic (academic) science papers and books should be given precedence over other sources (like encyclopedias). Citing prominent scientists that hold minority view cannot be an evidence against the existence of scientific consensus (Every scientific consensus has its opponents, but that does not mean that there is no consensus). So, there is no question whether the ISO classification ("macrolanguage") should be mentioned: of course it should. But it should not be given the same prominence as the majority scientific view. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: You are known to be a staunch advocate of Serbo-Croatian "language", so there is no need for you to pretend to be neutral in this debate. For years now, you were just fine wit continuous suppression and censorship of all other views in this article and other related articles, and now, when it is obvious that those views are relevant and must be included in the content of this article, you are trying to cover yourself, as an administrator who bares great responsibility for the creation of this problem. Since you are part of the problem, you should let other administrators to make their impartial judgement here. But since you joined the discussion, can you quote any source that would prove the existence of any kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy? You implied such "consensus" as basis for your majority-minority qualifications. So, what are your sources for the existence of such consensus? Term macrolanguage is used in linguistic literature as designation for Serbo-Croatian long before ISO adopted that classification, for example - here is a quote from a Czechoslovakian linguist Jiří Marvan from 1988: "One of the official languages is Serbo-Croatian; this is the local national language, a "macro-language" in the Yugoslav context". The same term has been widely accepted by modern scholars, and there never was any justified reason for its suppression from this article. But you did not react on that, obviously. Sorabino (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorabino doesn't seem to notice that Marvan's use of "macrolanguage" equates to "pluricentric language", a single language with multiple standards, not to his interpretation of ISO 639-3's usage as a cover term for a group of languages. And his nationalistic attacks on me and Vanjagenije simply show that he's not interested in a scientific discussion and a reasonable evaluation of WP:UNDUE, but only in pushing his agenda. Right now, all that needs to be said about Serbo-Croatian in terms of the sociolinguistic issues has been said. He still shows no effort to compromise and does nothing to show that he understands a single one of the scientific reasons for my position. I have provided all the references necessary to a scientist to demonstrate the validity of my comments, but he's too lazy to look them up or to understand what they mean. Nothing more needs to be added to the article despite Sorabino's unscientific protestations. I have provided multiple references to the scientific community's attitude toward Serbo-Croatian--it is a single pluricentric language with dialects that are sometimes labelled "languages" for non-linguistic reasons. I have even provided a reference where one of Sorabino's own two sources said that very thing--that Serbo-Croatian is one language that has to be referenced as four for non-linguistic reasons. I even gave him the precise page number where the comment occurs. But he's not a linguist and therefore doesn't understand the science. --Taivo (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• I am sad to see that Sorabino is using tired nationalist propaganda phrases, such as "artificial project that failed miserably". That is not what I expected based on our sporadic interaction. I am afraid that this discussion is futile, as only one party is discussing science and understands WP:DUE. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the problem of nationalism in this discussion. The Serbo-Croatian linguistic project was 100% artificial, since (for example) there never was any linguistic basis for placing Čakavian and Kajkavian under the same linguistic umbrella with Serbian language. There is not a single modern scholar who would claim that those two variants of Croatian language have any linguistic connection with Serbian language. And jet, they were all pushed under the same artificial construct, the so-called Serbo-Croatian "language". Such unfortunate ethno-linguistic engineering greatly contributed to creation of unnecessary problems between nations, thus becoming the tool of conflicts. It is quite shameful to suppress here the truth on the real nature of the entire Serbo-Croatian project. Sorabino (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. So Čakavian and Kajkavian are Croatian, while Shtokavian = Serbian? Surtsicna (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you for real? Both languages, Croatian and Serbian, share some (but not all) dialects of Štokavian. For example, all Ikavian forms of Štokavian are Croatian, and have nothing to do with Serbian language, while on the other hand Prizren-Timok dialect of Štokavian is Serbian, and has nothing to do with Croatian language, and so on ... some variants are shared, others are not. But it remains the indisputable fact that Čakavian and Kajkavian are 100% pure Croatian variants, with no linguistic connection with Serbian language. Sorabino (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you are 100% wrong about Kajkavian. Many linguists now consider Kajkavian to be a separate language independent of Serbo-Croatian because of its close relationship with Slovenian. If you look at Kajkavian here, you'll see that a WP:CONSENSUS has formed to remove it from the Serbo-Croatian complex. It's not "Croatian" at all, it's not even Serbo-Croatian. It has very low mutual intelligibility with Croatian, meaning that it's a separate language. Croatian is almost perfectly intelligible with Serbian and Bosnian, but not very intelligibile with Kajkavian. Your statement about 100% Croatian is utterly and completely false (see references at Kajkavian) which shows that your motivation here is completely nationalistic and not the improvement of Wikipedia. See also the classification at Glottolog. --Taivo (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are also wrong about Chakavian. According to Sussex and Cubberley, 2006, pages 505-506, "the B/C/S [Serbo-Croatian] language area conventionally involves three groups, named after the word for 'what'....the Kajkavian (kaj 'what') dialects...The Chakavian dialects (ča 'what')...[and] The core of the modern literary languages [Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian]...Shtokavian (što 'what')." This is typical of dialect descriptions of Serbo-Croatian (with the exception that Kajkavian is now often considered to be a separate language outside Serbo-Croatian): Chakavian isn't part of Croatian, which is Shtokavian. Ronelle Alexander (2006, page 388) says "There are three major dialects, each of which is so distinct from the others that speakers of any one of them usually have considerable difficulty understanding speakers of the other two. Indeed, if one follows the general linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibility, these three dialects would qualify much more readily as different languages than do standard Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian...The names of these three dialects are shtokavian, chakavian, and kajkavian." Thus your contention that Chakavian and Kajkavian are 100% Croatian is completely false. Note that you mentioned Alexander as one of your sources for dividing Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian into separate languages. --Taivo (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, it seems that you have some serious problems. These are common facts: 99% of Čakavian and 99 % of Kajkavian speakers declare themselves to be ethnic Croats, and they also declare their language to be Croatian. Those are the official and undisputed census results. Therefore, your claims are not founded in reality. You are operating with artificial pseudo-linguistic categories, and you are trying to impose those fictions upon reality. Science works the other way around. It starts from facts, and then proceeds towards categorization. There is no basis in reality for any kind of separation of Čakavian and Kajkavian from modern Croatian language. All such attempts are by definition unscientific and also could be seen as anti-Croatian. Sorabino (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

And, as I have pointed out numerous times before, you are utterly ignorant of the science of linguistics and the well-known unreliability of surveys that are based on speaker self-identification. I have given solid examples of this from both Europe and Native America. I have quoted highly-respected Slavic linguists who utterly contradict your baseless nationalistic ignorance. You, yourself, introduced the scientific credentials of Ronelle Alexander when she supported your view. Are you now calling her "unscientific and anti-Croatian"? You can't have it both ways. --Taivo (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

No, do not hide behind your misrepresentations of other peoples views. It is you who is actually claiming here that all those ethnic Croats who are Čakavian or Kajkavian speakers have no right to call their own language Croatian. Are you actually saying that they are in some kind of error, and that they should accept your artificial reclassification of their own language? Really man, you have gone totally of the tracks. What gives you the right to deny any people the right on self-identification of their own language? If an entire Čakavian and Kajkavian population calls their own language Croatian, why are you responding to that with denial? How can anyone deny those simple facts, that should be the very basis for all research and classification. Instead of building on those facts, and drawing conclusions on the complexity of modern Croatian language, you are doing the opposite and denying reality in order to fit your delusions and prejudices. Sorabino (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Croats have the right to call their lects whatever they want, but their self-identification doesn't have to be considered by actual linguistic classification. Speakers of Chakavian are free to call their idiom "Croatian" and at the same time linguists might well use a different name, just as speakers of Papuan Malay may call their language "Indonesian" (in extreme cases, without even recognizing that their lect is actually distinct), yet linguistic classification doesn't have to reflect that at all. Nama.Asal (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

But, why would linguists do that? What would be the scientific basis for deciding which of three variants of Croatian language is "proper" Croatian? How would you decide, genius? Are you aware of the fact that Čakavian is actually the oldest form of Croatian language, self-identified as Croatian in all linguistic monuments since the middle ages up to the modern times? What "science" would you apply to deny that? Sorabino (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It is amazing how ignorant you are of science, especially the science of linguistics. And I did some research about your comment that Chakavian is "Old Croatian". You don't know what you're talking about and are misinterpreting the facts. 1) Chakavian is not Croatian. It is a separate dialect of Serbo-Croatian and considered not to even be a part of Serbo-Croatian by some linguists. (That doesn't mean that Croatian isn't part of Serbo-Croatian, just that Chakavian isn't Croatian and might not be intelligible enough with the Serbo-Croatian dialects--Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian--to be part of that language.) 2) The oldest writing by people who are now residents of modern Croatia was by speakers of Chakavian, not Croatian. Chakavian did not evolve into Croatian, however, so calling Old Chakavian "Old Croatian" is a nationalistic myth. 3) Self-identification is not science and every real linguist knows this and knows not to trust the judgements of speakers. Science is the measurement and description of actual facts and the analysis of evidence, not listening to tall tales and linguistic myths. By analyzing the Chakavian dialect/language, we know that it is structurally different than Croatian. It is more different from Croatian than Croatian is from Serbian. That is a linguistic fact (see the quotes that I have provided above from reliable Slavic scholars, one of whom you first quoted in support of your position). --Taivo (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You unfortunate statements have a disturbing anti-Croatian tone. It is you who is using non-linguistic argumentation here! There is not a single linguist who would deny the fact that Čakavian linguistic monuments self-identify their language as Croatian, but you are deliberately misrepresenting not only the facts, but also the views of others. You are denying Croatian nature of Čakavian on a purely non-linguistic grounds. And you do not have an answer to the simple question: if all three groups of speakers (ethnic Croats who are Čakavian, ethnic Croats who are Kajkavian and ethnic Croats who are Štokavian) self-identify their language as Croatian, what is the "scientific" basis for your acknowledging some of them as speakers of "real" Croatian, while denying others the same right? If all of them call their language Croatian, what "linguistic" criteria are you applying for your selective labeling? It is obvious that there can be no real scientific ground for such selective approach. The only scientific position, based on real facts, is that modern Croatian language has three variants: Čakavian, Kajkavian, and Štokavian. All other claims have no basis in reality. Sorabino (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

To the contrary, you are affirming the ‘Croatian nature of Čakavian on purely non-linguistic grounds’ — namely, self-identification, which has no relevance to modern abstand language classification. The linguistic criteria most commonly applied are those of mutual intelligibility, which has nothing to do with ethnicity. This is the scientific ground for such a selective approach, and your continuing error is a failure to distinguish between ethnic identification and linguistic difference. Vorziblix (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) I wouldn't object to merging Serbo-Croatian into Shtokavian and treating Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian as separate languages. It makes more sense than lumping them all under one language (while somehow excluding Slovene), and a hell of a lot more sense than considering standard Croatian and Serbian separate languages, since both are Shtokavian. Rua (mew) 21:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Your merging proposal is totally unfounded. Artificial as it is, Serbo-Croatian "language" as phenomenon has its place in linguistic history, and therefore it is proper to have an article on that subject. Terms "Serbo-Croatian" and "Štokavian" have been used to designate different linguistic phenomena, and those two articles should be kept separate. The real problem with article Serbo-Croatian and its current content is that it was reduced to one point of view, and that is the result of years of suppression and censoring of content by advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language" as shown in this discussion. Sorabino (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are talking about the Serbo-Croatian standard language, which is, like every other standard language, in some ways artificial. However, linguists (and Wikipedia) also use the term ‘Serbo-Croatian’ with a second meaning — besides the standard language, it also refers to the abstand language from which that standard language was standardized. (Hence the anachronistic but unavoidable use of the label for pre-19th century lects.) In this sense, Serbo-Croatian (the abstand language, not the standard language) can be seen as equivalent to Štokavian, or as Štokavian + Čakavian + Kajkavian; the choice between these two viewpoints depends mostly on what cutoff is chosen for mutual intelligibility. Vorziblix (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to disabuse me of this notion, but according to the Croatian viewpoint, the term "Croatian", apart from Kajkavian and Chakavian as you mentioned, also includes Croat-spoken Shtokavian lects, while Serbo-Croatian, in its non-ex-Yu definition, covers all these idioms along with other forms of Shtokavian (e.g. Standard Serbian). How can the "Serbo-Croatian" classification be less scientific than the separatist grouping, keeping in mind that the term "Croatian" (in its Balkan definition) too encompasses both Shtokavian and non-Shtokavian (Chakavian/Kajkavian) idioms? If Serbian has nothing to do with Chakavian or Kajkavian, then neither does standard Croatian. You could argue for treating Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian as individual languages and perhaps that would be more or less sound scientifically, but your proposed delineation seems to be drawn along purely sociopolitical lines, unless there's some major point I'm missing here. Nama.Asal (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you reducing modern Croatian language on its Štokavian variant? It seems that you consider Štokavian variant of Croatian to be identical with standard Croatian? Modern Croatian language has three totally equal standardized variants: Štokavian variant of Croatian, Čakavian variant of Croatian, and Kajkavian variant of Croatian. What would be the basis for separating them into different languages? Modern Croatian language is an individual language with three standardized versions, and that is a very simple fact. Sorabino (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are completely backwards: Shtokavian isn't a variety of Croatian, Croatian is a variety of Shtokavian. Shtokavian is the dialect of broader Serbo-Croatian that Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are part of. Shtokavian is all of Serbo-Croatian that isn't Kajkavian and Chakavian. See the quotes that I have provided above from reliable sources. Your "simple fact" is just your baloney and not the simple scientific facts. Chakavian and Kajkavian are not dialects of Croatian, they aren't even part of the same dialect (Shtokavian) that Croatian shares with Serbian and Bosnian. --Taivo (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting facts and avoiding to answer simple question: on what grounds are you reducing the term "Croatian language" only to language of Croatian speakers of Štokavian, while excluding Croatian speakers of Čakavian and Croatian speakers of Kajkavian from the full scope of the term? It is clear that modern Croatian language in its full and real scope has three variants: Čakavian, Kajkavian and Štokavian, and there is no basis for your reductionism of Croatian language to Štokavian variant of Croatian. Your approach is 100 % selective and unscientific. Sorabino (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

At this point, it has become clear that 1) Sorabino is ignorant of the science or methodology of linguistics; 2) is unwilling to learn anything whatsoever about the science or methodology of linguistics; 3) has no basis other than unreliable speaker self-identification for any of his statements; and 4) has nothing whatsoever of substance to offer to this article. I'm done with him per do not feed the troll. --Taivo (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You are just running away from the discussion, since proven wrong on all accounts. You claimed that there is some kind of "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, while it is clear that such consensus does not exist, since there are many different linguistic views on various subjects related to Serbo-Croatian as a linguistic category. You advocated here a radical view that reduces Serbo-Croatian to Štokavian, and you also denied the full scope of Croatian language, excluding Čakavian and Kajkavian from that language without any explanation. Not to mention your offensive language and labeling of other editors. Now, when called out, you are unable to answer to basic questions and that is why you are walking away. Sorabino (talk) 09:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Regarding the co-called "consensus" on Serbo-Croatian as real "language", here is another helpful scholarly quote, from American linguist Ronelle Alexander of the Berkeley University, who noted: "Some claim that Serbo-Croatian still exists as a unified language and that to call the successor systems separate languages is a political fiction required by the existence of separate states, while others claim that there never was a unified language and that the naming of one was likewise a political fiction required by the existence of a single state. Most thinking falls somewhere between these two poles". This quote is just one of many linguistic sources that shows the non-existence of the so-called linguistic "consensus", invented and promoted here by advocates of Serbo-Croatian "language". It is clear that the current misleading and one-sided lead of this article should be redefined in order to reflect the reality of Serbo-Croatian linguistic controversy, by including all relevant views on the subject. Sorabino (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Since you, as an administrator, openly supported actions of user "TaivoLinguist", he continued to police this article, suppressing relevant and referenced content here and again here, thus continuing with his long-standing practice of censoring this article. There can be no justification for such summary removal of content and source references. I am alerting you first, since you are supporting him as an administrator, before I take this entire problem to the community. This article has been censored and policed for years and that practice has to stop. Sorabino (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. The practice of putting certain articles on SME (Subject Matter Experts) watchlists for the enforcement of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not "have to stop." That is being a good Wikipedian.50.111.22.143 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

TLDR, but "macrolanguage" is not a linguistic concept. A macrolanguage is not a "language cluster" (as we said in this article before I removed the wording) or even a pluricentric language, though in practice there's a lot of overlap with pluricentricity. Rather, it's a book-keeping device for inconsistent ISO codes. BTW, in my personal emails with the ISO, they've stated that their division of Serbo-Croatian, Hindi-Urdu and Malay-Indonesian into multiple ISO-3 codes is an unfortunate concession to politics and inconsistent with their standard practice, which is to distinguish languages based on such criteria as mutual intelligibility, but that these cases are too entrenched to fix. (Though presumably we'd want separate ISO-2 codes regardless, since those tend to reflect language standards.) That is, the 'macrolanguage' of Serbo-Croatian is the actual language, whereas the Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin standards would not be given ISO-3 codes if the ISO were being internally consistent. Thus the 'macrolanguage' status of Serbo-Croatian is not evidence that Serbo-Croatian is somehow "not a language". — kwami (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Western South Slavic isoglosses

I'm not exactly an expert on these lects in particular, but this is what I've gathered from the articles Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian and this one. I believe it would be useful to illustrate the points where they differ and where they coincide. All of these show innovations only, not retentions, as retentions are not indicative of dialectal grouping. Feel free to comment, correct or improve. The idea is taken from West Germanic languages.

	Slovene	Kajkavian	Chakavian	Shtokavian
u- > vu-	Some dialects	Yes	No	No
ǫ > o	Yes	Yes	No	No
-ojo > -o in instrumental singular	Yes	Yes	No	No
ć > č	Yes	Yes	No	No
Neocircumflex	Yes	Yes	No	No
Loss of vocative	Yes	Yes	Some dialects	No
Final devoicing	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
đ > j	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
žV > rV	Yes	Yes	Yes	Western
Final -m > -n	No	No	Yes	No
ľ, ň > l, n	No	No	Yes	No
jd, jt > đ, ć	No	No	Yes	Yes
ř > r	No	No	Yes	Yes
čr > cr	No	No	No	Yes
Dat/loc/ins plural -ma/-u (from dual)	No	No	No	Yes

From this table, it's very obvious Kajkavian patterns with Slovene in almost all cases, while Chakavian is sometimes like Shtokavian and sometimes like Kajkavian. I wasn't able to find information about the Chakavian outcome of some of these isoglosses, hopefully someone else can fill them in. Rua (mew) 21:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Excellent table. Shared innovations are precisely the best evidence. --Taivo (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea, of course, is to include it in this article, or perhaps South Slavic languages. But I will leave that to others as I don't want to involve myself too much in the drama going on. Rua (mew) 22:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

A very interesting and illustrative table - it is quite literally worth a thousand words. I remember being quite surprised a couple of years ago when I learned Kajkavian was being classified as a non-Serbo-Croatian language/dialect - now I'm surprised this point was not made sooner. I'm fairly certain that "Final devoicing" and "ć > č" is "No" for Chakavian; not quite sure about the bottom four question marks in the same column. GregorB (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: Copied to South_Slavic_languages. — kwami (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW, if you spell it "Cakavian", you get several Google hits with "devoicing". E.g. The Čakavian Dialect of Orbanići Near Žminj in Istria (sect. III.2.4 Devoicing of obstruents in word-final position). Also, our article mentions Kajkavian and Chakavian as devoicing.

FYI, Irena Sawicka, "Segmental clusters in the Slavic languages", in Kempgen et al., Die slavischen Sprachen / The Slavic Languages, vol. 1, p 65, says "... are shorter and less frequent in Čakavian as compared to Croatian ...". So that would seem to be a case where Croatian is identified with Shtokavian. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

North Macedonia

North Macedonia is still mentioned as Republic of Macedonia in the article. Taxydromeio (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gallery

Let me note that \by some accident\ the gallery shows no photo of some Serbian heritage, like Miroslav gospel or Dušan's code. The second thing is that there is no reason to put gallery in the first part of the article; (e.g. look the pages on Hungarian, English, German, Punjabi, Swahili...; no gallery, or gallery at the end) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.27.158 (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Misspelling

Please correct the misspelling: "u uerish haruacchi slosena", it should be "uersih" (versih, eng. verses).

Disputing the accuracy of a paragraph

Under section Present sociolinguistic situation -> Views of linguists in the former Yugoslavia -> Croatian linguists -> Serbo-Croatian is not a language -> second bulleted paragraph:

I dispute the accuracy of this entire paragraph, as well as part of the paragraph preceding the Jagić quote. It contains no citations and is clearly biased. This is the basis for disputing its accuracy:

1. The language of Držić and Gundulić is labeled "Croatian", even though they never called it "Croatian" or anything but the generic terms Slavic and "naški" ("our language");
2. The claim is made that the language used in their works "is virtually the same as the contemporary standard Croatian", which is somewhat of a stretch even for Gundulić, who purposely used words that could be understood by all Serbo-Croatian speakers (and whose language can just as easily be said to be similar to contemporary standard Bosnian or Serbian), but it is entirely inaccurate for Držić, who purposely wrote in the Ragusan idiom, using many Italian and specific Ragusan words that make his works very hard to understand for most speakers of Serbo-Croatian. Hardly "virtually the same";
3. It is stated without evidence that the Serbian "vernacular was likely not as similar to Croatian as it is today" - an entirely gratuitous statement;
4. The paragraph preceding the Jagić quote gratuitously claims that "However, most intellectuals and writers from Dalmatia who used the Štokavian dialect and practiced the Catholic faith saw themselves as part of a Croatian nation as far back as the mid-16th to 17th centuries" - this is not supported by historical facts, because even though some of them explicitly identified as Croats, the majority did not but used other terms such as Dalmatian, Ragusan, Slavic and/or Illyrian, e.g. see Fine, "When Ethnicity Did Not Matter in the Balkans", The University of Michigan Press, 2006.

Berto456 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Spanish

please change ((Spanish)) to ((Spanish language|Spanish))

 Done Suingtent (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Spoken SC, especially in BiH

How strictly do speakers identifying as Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (and Montenegrin too) adhere to the respective written standards in speech, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina? I mean specifically where Standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian are claimed to differ in vocabulary and some grammatical aspects. Can you guess someone's ethnicity with any accuracy? Because in Yugoslavia there existed only two standard varieties of the language. Standard Bosnian as described in Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian looks to me like a mere amalgamation of Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian with some loanwords thrown in, which would (partially) explain why Serbo-Croatian is called as such in English.

So:

1. Can Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs reliably tell each other apart in Bosnia and Herzegovina (and other places, also abroad in e.g. Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Sweden and Australia) based on language alone? What about Montenegrins?
2. Are Croats and Serbs in BiH just as likely to use Turkish, Persian, and Arabic loanwords as Bosniaks?
3. Do Serbs in Croatia tend to use Croatian technical vocabulary and vice versa?
4. Is the accentuation used by Croats and Serbs living in BiH pretty much the same as that of ethnic Bosniaks (4 tones in stressed syllables and two lengths in the unstressed ones)? In other words, could a Croat from Croatia label the accent of a Croat from BiH as Bosnian?
5. Are Croats and Serbs in BiH just as likely to reduce unstressed vowels as ethnic Bosniaks?
6. How likely are Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia to have an Ekavian accent?
7. Can anyone (especially a non-Serb) reliably identify a speaker of Montenegrin who doesn't use the obsolete accentuation (e.g. livȁda instead of lìvada [or with a falling tone in the latter case, it's the stress that's important here])?

If you have sources to back up your claims, we could improve this article with answers to these questions.

Also, can't we just redirect Bosnian language, Croatian language, Montenegrin language and Serbian language to Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian? Aren't this article and the comparision article enough? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic map of Bosnia and Herzegovina according to 2013 census

1. Generally, no. On the other hand, Montenegrin accent is pretty distinguishable, although it blends into the accents of Eastern Herzegovina (Trebinje, Gacko, Ljubinje).
2. Broadly, no. Vernaculars of chiefly Bosniak suburban mahalas tend to be rather strongly influenced by oriental loanwords and derivatives, but in more urban environments it tends to level down.
3. Yes to both. However, note that the older technical lexis (machine engineering, car repairs...) heavily borrowed from German, and the newer (IT) from English, which brings a certain level of common ground. Domestic terminology tends to be used in technical schools (wikt:odvijač rather than vernacular šrafciger < de:Schraubenzieher, that sort of stuff) and it will generally more differ between Sr and Hr the more specialized the field is.
4. Accentuation is generally an areal feature, and ethnicity correlates with areas to an extent: Bosniaks chiefly in central Bosnia, with East Bosnian as a basis; Serbs in east Herzegovina and Krajina, with Eastern Herzegovinian; and Croats in several areas, most notably western Herzegovina, also with Eastern Herzegovinian. And it all blends together in the central area around Sarajevo, where most bets are off. However, AFAIK, the Bosnian Croatian one is easily recognized by Croatian Croats, since it is close to the "book accent" that nobody in Croatia actually has natively :), and also helps fuel cultural stereotypes.
5. Again, an areal feature, although I couldn't easily pinpoint its isogloss. Very broadly, "somewhat less likely"; I would say that it does not affect most Croat-inhabited areas.
6. Totally unlikely. No native ekavian speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina at all.
7. That "obsolete accentuation" – a feature of Zeta accent – is sort of (stereo)typical for Montenegro, but not all areas speak like that. Search e.g. for "tv niksic" on YouTube to hear the local speech of the western city of Nikšić, and it's a very standard Eastern Herzegovinian accentuation with just a few giveaways (wikt:nijesam) identifying the speakers as Montenegrins.

I don't think redirecting the articles would be a good idea; there is a significant history and sociolinguistic commentary to be told about each of them. No such user (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Bunjevci

@TaivoLinguist: Check the page 93 of the RS, if you will. You can see some older data here and the basic fact that they declare a seperate group cheers Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing on that page proves your point. Every dialect in Croatia has their own unique identity and newspapers etc. That doesn't make them a seperate ethnicity. Peace SerVasi (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Only four standard varieties?

When people say that BCMS has four standard varieties, they mean that something that could be called ‘ex-Yugoslav BCMS’ comes in Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Serbian standard varieties. This is the language form that historically was treated in works with titles like Serbo-Croatian Grammar.

There is no justification for not counting Burgenland Croatian as a separate standard, as it is undoubtedly a codified standard, and as the difference between the Croatian and Burgenland Croatian standards is much greater than the difference between Croatian and Bosnian. Furthermore, Burgenland Croatian already existed as a separate standard back when BCMS was being treated as one language, and grammars of Serbo-Croatian sometimes make mention of this other BCMS variety as a standardised form not treated in the present book. (Adding Burgenland Croatian wouldn't entail having to rename Croatian, as even Burgenland Croats call it that, cf. the dictionary Nimško-gradišćanskohrvatsko-hrvatski rječnik from 1982.) That leaves us with five standards, but the language Molise Slavs learn in school is not one of those standards, and any language that is taught in schools should be considered to qualify as a ‘standard language’.

So as an absolute minimum, we should be talking about six standard languages. There is definitely an argument to be made for distinguishing even more; the difference between Ekavian Serbian and Ijekavian Serbian is greater than between Ijekavian Serbian and Bosnian. But at least there exists a unified Serbian standard that offers the choice between Ekavian and Ijekavian, while there is no unified standard for the language forms spoken by Croats.

I propose that we change the number of standard varieties in the lead from four to at least six and add at least Burgenland Croatian and Molise Slavic to the list. Ryvyly (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ryvyly: The Bunjevac language has been officially standardized in Serbia in 2018 (see the Decision of the National Council of Bunjevci no. 18/2018-192) and was approved for learning in schools in 2020 (see [1]). So, there are eve more standards. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2020

223.24.163.90 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 17:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

1. SERBO-CROATIAN IS NOT AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE IN BOSNIA

2. I AM A BOSNIAN AND I SPEAK BOSNIAN LANGAUGE, ANYTHING ELSE IS PURE UNDILLUTED FASCISM 146.255.145.82 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

{ec} Not done. Bosnian is one of the national standards (like Croatian and Serbian) of the single language that linguists call "Serbo-Croatian" or, in some works, Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS). It's a well-documented linguistic fact whether patriots like it or not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

try a decaf coffee, anon ip - HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.158 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Post-Modernism in all its glory

"Pluricentric" language in four varieties. No, it is the same language. I have no vested interest in entering this argument. But post modernism is completely ruining academia and fueling human conflict, not preventing it. Who came up with the idea of a pluricentric language with distinct varieties? That's just a play of words, a typical post modern approach of inventing terms to complicate and obscure to the point of incoherence where anything is both true and false. There is no way that Oxford or Cambridge Slavicists would have agreed to this lunacy without the influence of corrosive PC authoritarian ideologues. Recently the academics from the region were starting dialogues about how to end the madness they found themselves in where artificial constructs were dividing - I recall a conference invitation - and now the intersectional lunacy has clearly overtaken western Slavicists too. In some way, the Balkans are a mirror of the madness and a foreshadowing of what happens when everyone's subjective whim is equally valid and valuable. They live in societies where they speak the same language, have the same culture and have incredible desire to be with one another and visit and sing the same songs, and live life in closeness, but they all have to go to their university campuses and PRETEND that here is a different language and act like they don't understand one another. This sort of reality leads to nothing but disaster - when we okay ever subjective idea and pretension and put it on equal footing with objective truth you get a state of affairs where everyone knows the truth but everyone denies it. Canlawtictoc (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOAP, WP:FORUM - please re-read what the purpose of a Talk Page is. Sigh. 104.169.37.72 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I am challenging the concept of pluricentric language with four varieties: and presenting arguments as to why I believe the idea is absurd. I recognize most editors would simply change the article, but I would like to hear the counter argument first. That is how we get to truth. There is no need to 'sigh' - talk page is to have a discussion about the article; it is so much easier to destroy than to build, and efficiency and speed and brevity and lukewarm opinions might be how industry creates marketing of products for everyone, but isn't the proper method to discern truth. Canlawtictoc (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

INCORRECT - the TP are for the discussion of RELIABLE SOURCES to IMPROVE the article, not to discuss the topic. What you are doing is pure WP:FORUM, and it is forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.24.158 (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude, please read up on what linguistic pluricentrism is. Yes, calling four entities varieties of a pluricentric language is tantamount to stating that they all constitute the same language. Standard Serbian and Standard Croatian are not identical, they have their differences, but the English-speaking world considers them to be one language, and the (minor) differences are accounted for by using the term "pluricentric language". American English and British English also have their differences, even when speaking of standard usage. Yes, English is another example of a pluricentric language. There's nothing wrong about this term. 83.23.193.95 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I went to an entire three-day conference on linguistic pluricentrism and pluriareality last February in Münster. Here's the program. It's a serious scientific linguistic thing, not just something from the imagination. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

English is a good example too. I've seen Brits having hissy fits when someone writes something like "neighbor" (without the "U") and Americans calling people illiterate when writing something like "realiSe". Those are different standards and it would be quite inappropriate to call them all identical. --Arny (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, put an image of the Miroslav Gospel or Vukan's Gospel in the Galery Section

I dont understand why miroslav gospel is ignored in the S-C Galery. Miroslav gospel is an masterpiece, and related to the S-C language too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.40.130.98 (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. The gallery section is merely examples of the language and more pictures won't necessarily help. You should also provide a source that both texts are of this language. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

add back

• naš jezik / наш језик

sarajevo publishing sells school books which call the language "naš jezik" considiring it informal and removing it isnt correct OJBRATENEMOJ (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Britannica

Please refer to the definition on Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian-language):

Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian language (BCMS), formerly Serbo-Croatian language, term of convenience used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). The term Serbo-Croatian was coined in 1824 by German dictionary maker and folklorist Jacob Grimm (see Brothers Grimm). In the 21st century, linguists and philologists adopted Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS) as a more accurate and comprehensive label to describe the shared tongue.

As it is defined by the "term of convenience" I suggest reconsidering the statement (• In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croatian23 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian#Sources shows that the language is still being referred to as "Serbo-Croatian", also in German (as "Serbokroatisch"). You can also check how many hits you get (and how recent they are) when you type in those names on Google Scholar. Sol505000 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Linguists and philologists" do not universally use the "BCMS" formulation. Glottolog, for example, uses "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian". The standard grammar in English, Alexander 2006, uses "Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian". The "Montengrin" translation of The Lord of the Rings is consistently labelled as and sold as "Serbian". So your contention that there is a standard name to replace "Serbo-Croatian" is false. Until there is a standard name in English that recognizably and consistently labels Serbo-Croatian as a single language with different mutually-intelligible dialects and differing national written standards, then "Serbo-Croatian" is Wikipedia's label for "non-Slovenian West South Slavic". Wikipedia isn't a clone of Britannica. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

There are standard names to replace Serbo-Croatian; Serbian and Croatian. I only urge it is recognized that this USED TO BE a language but does not exist anymore. It is not a clone of Britannica but it should, however, acknowledge the existence of other definitions and diverse sources. Croatian23 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

And we use those names wherever it's appropriate. For example, we make a consession to the idea that people in Bosnia "speak" Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (not even ekavian, as in Serbia, but ijekavian) just because those are official "languages" of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We also don't go around removing claims that there's a Serbian-speaking (not: Serbian) minority in Croatia, even though it is nonsense (Francophone Belgians in France aren't a "Belgian French-speaking minority", they speak French like the rest of the country, and their accent is just as likely to attract comments as the Provençal accent spoken in Marseille). In Portugal, nobody cares how many speakers there are of Angolan Portuguese, nor do they care in Colombia how many speakers they have of Venezuelan Spanish. This article clearly proves that the situation with Serbo-Croatian is analogous to other pluricentric languages. Sol505000 (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, this thread is POV-pushing and should be ignored. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just the most recent in a long line of political POV-pushing non-linguistics. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Croatia does recognize the Serbian language as an official minority language and provides education for the Serbian minority in the Serbian language. Also, it can be quite difficult for students who have only learned Serbian in school to adapt to a Croatian high school due to the difference in writing and vocabulary. That is what I'm trying to explain to you; Serbo-Croatian used to exist, education was based on it, everyone knew how to read Cyrillic and were using the same vocabulary. After the disintegration of SFRY, it all went back to the pre-Yugoslavian times. The same way Slovenians (who were also using Serbo-Croatian and were taught Cyrillic in schools) started using Slovene, Croatians started reusing Croatian. Croatian23 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to look into that. If what you're saying is true, then this seems like a conscious refusal of Serbians to properly integrate into the Croatian society. Again, it's silly.

Are you trying to tell me that Slovenians used Serbo-Croatian among each other when they were a part of SFRY, and after the breakup of SFRY they magically switched back to Slovene?! SC was the language of the army and it was taught in schools. Of course they spoke some Serbo-Croatian, but as a second language. Sol505000 (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, it can be quite difficult for students who have only learned Serbian in school to adapt to a Croatian high school due to the difference in writing and vocabulary. . If you mean "students born and educated in Serbia", there might be a grain of truth, since high-level technical vocabulary does tend to differ somewhat more, but even then quite difficult is an exaggeration. If you mean "Serbs born and educated in Croatia", the statement is downright ridiculous. No such user (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It's "difficult" for Serbian students to adapt to reading Croatian literature since Serbian is generally written with the Cyrillic alphabet and Croatian is always written with the Roman alphabet. Of course it's hard for them to adapt to a new alphabet. It has zero to do with whether this is the same language or not. Can they walk into a Croatian school on day one and understand 90% of the language? Of course they can. They don't need to take "Croatian classes" to learn a new language. American students attending British schools have the same problem with new vocabulary, but they're still speaking the same language and they don't need to take "British" classes in order to learn a new language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Serbian is not "generally written with the Cyrillic alphabet": it is generally written with both alphabets. Every Serb claiming to be literate must be proficient in both, since at least 50% of all texts one can encounter in Serbia are written in Latin. That includes most printed news media; over half of printed books (except for textbooks); and >90% of the internet. No such user (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Condemnation of Wikipedia for using the term Serbo-Croatian language

Reading through multiple articles about the countries of Western Balkan, as well as Croatia, I have again realized that it is common to read the term "Serbo-Croatian" as an explanation of all the languages which are spoken in the region which used to be the Soviet Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I urge Wikipedia to change the narrative of accepting to use the term "Serbo-Croatian" as a convenience, or I'll be forced to go through articles and start doing the changes myself. My request is based upon the following arguments:

- Serbo-Croatian language does not exist. The definition used in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian : "( Serbo-Croatian (/ˌsɜːrboʊkroʊˈeɪʃən/ (About this soundlisten))[8][9] – also called Serbo-Croat (/ˌsɜːrboʊˈkroʊæt/),[8][9] Serbo-Croat-Bosnian (SCB),[10] Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS),[11] and Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS)[12] – is a South Slavic language and the primary language of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. It is a pluricentric language with four[13] mutually intelligible standard varieties, namely Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin.[14][15]" should at least be put in the past tense, it is absolutely factually wrong.

-it is discriminatory to other languages. The widely used term "Serbo-Croatian" does not include Bosnian language

-it is utterly unacceptable to call the Croatian language variety of Serbo - Croatian language. It is an autonomous language spoken by Croats living in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Croats living in other countries of the world. "Croatian (/kroʊˈeɪʃən/ (About this soundlisten); hrvatski [xř̩ʋaːtskiː]) is the standardized variety of the Serbo-Croatian language[9][10][11][12] used by Croats,[13] principally in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Serbian province of Vojvodina, and other neighboring countries. It is the official and literary standard of Croatia and one of the official languages of the European Union. Croatian is also one of the official languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a recognized minority language in Serbia and neighboring countries."

"Standard Croatian is based on the most widespread dialect of Serbo-Croatian."

"Croatian, although technically a form of Serbo-Croatian, is sometimes considered a distinct language by itself."

-Wikipedia is extremely biased using the references in order to support the narrative of the Serbo-Croatian language

-it is a very important issue considering many students use Wikipedia as a source of knowledge

-Serbo-Croatian is not a language of the European Union (but Croatian is)

It is not simply a political issue, it is a factual issue. If Google is advanced enough to have all the languages as an option in terms of translation (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian), Wikipedia, as the largest Free Encyclopedia, should contain facts, and not narratives benefiting one particular interest group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croatian23 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have again realized that it is common to read the term "Serbo-Croatian" as an explanation of all the languages which are spoken in the region which used to be the Soviet Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slovene and Macedonian are treated as different languages on Wikipedia because that's what they are. They, unlike "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Montenegrin" are not based on the same Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. The mutual intelligiblity at least with Slovene (dunno about Macedonian really) is considerably lower than among the different standards of the same Serbo-Croatian language. The fact that some native speakers find the term "Serbo-Croatian" offensive is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not censored and that's how the language is commonly called in the literature.

Serbo-Croatian is not a language of the European Union (but Croatian is) Croatian is a valid name for modern standard Croatian, one of the standardized varieties of the language called Serbo-Croatian (among other names which are listed in the lede) in modern literature. Things can have more than one name that nevertheless refers to the same thing (cf. Czech Republic and Czechia). Croatian is a slightly narrower label than Serbo-Croatian, but that's about it. The fact that some movies are said to be dubbed in Brazilian Portuguese doesn't make Brazilian Portuguese a language separate from any other variety of Portuguese (same with Latin American Spanish and European Spanish). It all comes down to mutual intelligibility, pretty much. Sol505000 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Croatian23, Wikipedia doesn't care whether or not you and the Croatian people are offended at the use of "Serbo-Croatian" in English as a linguistic label for the "non-Slovenian West South Slavic" language. It's still the most common name for that language in English so Wikipedia follows usage, it does not prescribe usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Funny you say Wikipedia is not censored, yet however, there is a semi-protection on this article. The fact that it is commonly used in the literature does not make it factually right. Bear in mind, the Croatian language dates back to the 9th century. Throughout history, the Croatian language and its dialects were the sole language of many great literally works. Only by the creation of first Yugoslavia did the Serbian language take over Croatian due to the immense power of the Serbian government. Therefore, it was during the totalitarian communist regime that the two languages were merged in the form of Spelling of the Croatian-Serbian literary language with a spelling dictionary (1960).

In the new political circumstances, which occurred in 1990, when the Republic of Croatia embarked on an independent and sovereign path and became an independent, sovereign, and internationally recognized state, linguistic activity was intensified. In 1990, the second edition of the Handbook of Grammar was published under the changed title "Grammar of the Croatian Literary Language", and the third book of great scientific grammar, "Historical Review, Voices and Forms of the Croatian Language", the work of several authors.

With the creation of independent Croatia, the Croatian literary language began to become Croatian again. In one sense, it goes back to 1918 to continue where the Croatian language tradition was interrupted due to the Serbian domination in first Yugoslavia, and in another to 1945 to return those linguistic features that had been persecuted or banished and then forgotten. This is evident in all areas, especially in the administration, legislation, and the military.

The Croatian language differs by 20% from the Serbian language making it an autonomous, independent, official language. Serbo - Croatian ceased to exist as it was an official language of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and yes at that time used by the Slovenians and Macedonians as well.

Also, comparing it to Spanish and Portuguese is completely irrelevant because histories differ in such a great manner it wouldn't make sense to explain it as one answer.

Taivo, I don't care for your ignorance. I do care you represent yourself as a linguist and are not familiar with facts, but ground your argument on convenience and frequency of usage. Therefore, you would suggest that political and historical events should not result in the recognition of changes by others? Croatian23 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Croatian23, the ignorance is yours. You don't seem to know any of the science of linguists, since you quote not a single reliable, linguistic source, just continue to spew force a solely political diatribe. That "20% difference" is laughable since that could mean anything you want it to mean without linguistic science and a definition of what's being compared. It's utter nonsense. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Taivo, the "20% difference" was surely not laughable when Croatian was finally an independent language from the artificially created Serbo-Croatian. I have not yet said I was a linguist nor it is in my user name but did however use a few important linguistic sources in my post which you have chosen to ignore. However, in my own profession, I tend to use different aspects to find out what is really closest to the truth. I suggest you do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croatian23 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Croatian23 (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Since I'm not a linguist, let me quote Master of Croatian Language and Literature Mirjana Crnković:“ South Slavic groups include: Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic. Precisely because Serbian and Croatian belong to the same group of Slavic subfamilies, we often hear that they are the same languages, but the communicative role of language is not the only criterion in the standardization of a language. The fact that the sender and the recipient do not speak the same language, and yet the message is sent and received, tells us that the Serbian and Croatian languages are based on the Novoštokavski dialect on which they build their standardization, which explains why we understand each other. But at the phonological, morphological, syntactic and lexical level there are differences that indicate that it is not one and the same language, but two different languages. Thus, for example, one speaker of the Serbian language may not understand what the word kino (cinema) means, and a speaker of the Croatian language may not understand what the word merdevine (ladder) means. The word merdevine has its synonym in Croatian (ljestve), and cinema in Serbian bioskop, but the languages will avoid complete synonymy due to the principle of economy, so both words will not be found in the standards of both Croatian and Serbian. But if we put these two words in a sentence, we will no longer be on a lexical level, but on a communication level, and there the speaker and interlocutor will be able to understand what those words mean.“

Croatian23 (talk) 10:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This "Master of Croatian Language and Literature" is speaking nonsense. Standardization has zero to do in the science of linguistics with determining whether or not two speech forms are two languages or dialects of the same language. If, as this so-called "Master" states, Serbian and Croatian languages are based on the Novoštokavski dialect, and they understand each other, then they are, by simple and universally-accepted linguistic definition, one language. Your comments are nothing more than political posturing and not based on linguistic science. Your ignorance of linguistics is rather obvious so there's no need for further comment since you have provided a quote that clearly defines Croatian and Serbian as, at most, dialects of one language that are clearly mutually intelligible. Whether you call it "Serbo-Croatian" (which is still the most common term), or "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian" or "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" or "Non-Slovenian West South Slavic", it's one and only one language in a scientific linguistic sense. Pluricentric, yes, but just one language. End of story. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

At a minimum we should treat it like Czech–Slovak languages and Czechoslovak language. Make a distinction between the "serbo-croatian group" (within the yugoslav language continuum) and the "serbo-croatian language" (a constructed language/an official written standard intended to unify the Yugoslavs(but was mostly based on serbian rather than other languages)). We would never say someone speaks czech-slovak so "serbo-croatian" sticks out like a sore thumb among all the other languages on wiki. This is not NPOV. SerVasi (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In a word, no. See TaivoLinguist above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In a word, AnAmazingAdditionToTheDiscussion.SerVasi (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SerVasi, you have a common misconception and confusion about what the term "Serbo-Croatian" means in a linguistic sense. Serbo-Croatian as used by today's post-Yugoslavian linguists is not the written standard used in the former Yugoslavia. In contemporary linguistic usage it is a label for the pluricentric language that comprises the dialects of non-Slovenian West South Slavic. Among these dialects are the official written standards of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as well as Chakavian, and, according to some linguists (although not Glottolog and others), Kajkavian. So when this article uses the term "Serbo-Croatian", it refers to the written Yugoslav standard until after the breakup of Yugoslavia and then it refers to a label for the dialect group mentioned above, not the former written standard. Until the modern linguistic community comes to a consensus on another term for this language, then "Serbo-Croatian" is the only label that has any real common usage among linguists. There is simply no common usage among the various "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian", "Croatian-Serbian-Bosnian", "Serbian-Bosnian-Croatian", "Bosnian-Serbian-Croatian", "Croatian-Bosnian-Serbian", and "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian" variants used by linguists to avoid "Serbo-Croatian". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

You are taking one side off a debated topic and presenting it as fact. The very definition of POV pushing!!! Why don't u keep the same energy with czech and slovak?SerVasi (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The topic is not debated outside of nationalist POV-pushing Croatians and Serbians (the Bosnians generally lay low in such matters). Linguists (outside of said POV-pushers) nearly universally treat Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian as a single language with three slightly differing national standards. The most common label for that language is "Serbo-Croatian" because no other post-Yugoslav label has been agreed upon by specialists. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)