Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

Hi there, Serbo-Croat doesn't exist! In any case it is not spoken in Croatia. Could you please remove any references to Croatia from the page. Or I will create an account and edit it myself. 185.207.71.146 (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. In this case, the article is sourced quite well; what makes you think that the subject "doesn't exist"? It seems extraordinarily unlikely that this is the case. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it does. Please cease and desist trolling this article's TP. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Please find who currently speaks S-C snd calls it that? 95.156.146.133 (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent Revert

Moved from User talk:TaivoLinguist#Recent Revert

 – Vipz (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(I am copying this discussion from my Talk Page to here since it now includes three participants. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC))

Hello TaivoLinguist. In you recent revert of my edit on the Serbo-Croatian article, you mentioned it is not a commonly used term. While Serbo-Croatian appears to be the commonly used term, Croato-Serbian seems significant enough as even in the infobox “hrvatskosrpski” (Croato-Serbian) is denoted in the line “srpskohrvatski / hrvatskosrpski” right under the Serbo-Croatian term. So it seemed logical to me. Why would it be less worthy or common an alternative than “Serbo-Croat-Bosnian (SCB), Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), and Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS)”? I’m a bit confused on this reasoning.

Britannica also states “Croato-Serbian” as a direct alternative which seems to imply it is a commonly known alternative term. “In 1945 the victorious communist-led Partisans under Josip Broz Tito reestablished Yugoslavia. The new government at first treated Croatian and Serbian as separate languages, alongside Slovene and newly standardized Macedonian. But soon it began pressing for a unified Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian).” Here is another example were both are stated as if commonly interchangeable.”Some 17m people in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro speak variations of what used to be called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.” Hence why I went ahead with the edit and didn’t figure it would be contested really.

It’s already listed here as well: Serbo-Croatian_(disambiguation)

Also you mentioned that a few of the other alternative names in the lead are unnecessary. Which specifically were you referring to? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, only "significant alternative names" should appear in the lead sentence. Other names can, and should, occur in the "Name" section. The title of the article is still the most common name used and the others are scattered without any consensus on what might replace S-C, therefore none of them should occur in the lead sentence as far as I'm concerned and they all should be listed at the front of the Name section. The fact that there is a name in the Croatian language that begins with hrvatsko- is immaterial because the English Wikipedia is based on English language usage only. "Serbo-Croatian" is presently and historically the primary name used by linguists, and there is no consensus on what the "new" name should be that includes "Bosnian" (no English-speaking linguists are using "Montenegrin" at this time because Montenegrin doesn't differ from Serbian as much as Bosnian and Croatian do). I have a grammar of the language that puts them in alphabetical order (BCS), but all the other grammars and book chapters in my library are just S-C. The problem is that someone writing for Bosnians or as a Bosnian will use BCS, a Serbian will use SCB or SBC, and a Croatian will use CBS or CSB. There is simply no generally accepted version that is more popular than any other. So clutter in the lead sentence is death to Wikipedia. All "clutter" should be placed in the section where it belongs, in this case, in the Name section. And I caution you against using Britannica as some sort of authority above and beyond all others. It's not. It's no more authoritative than the New York Times as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with TL on this. Move everything but S-C to the names section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why would you agree that S-C is the variant to use for the Bosnian language which is not mentioned? That's irrational and illogical. Bosnian people will object to this rebranding of their language. 95.156.146.133 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Language does not exist (anymore)

If you state Serbo-Croatian, then explain that this language 'existed' in Yugoslavia and add Croatian-Serbian from the Yugostavia time. Wiksources (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A language does not simply vanish from existence once it ceases to be official in a country. 'Croato-Serbian' is not one of the names mentioned in the lead section or lead sentence because it is not a common name for the language in English specifically. 'Hrvatskosrpski' on another hand is mentioned in the native name section of the infobox. –Vipz (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"Serbo-Croatian" is the most commonly used term in English for the language node that comprises Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian lects. It was also used for the official common language of Yugoslavian Bosnia & Hercegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, & Serbia. While the use of the term in that sense is no longer relevant, it is still the most common English label for the linguistic node in a genetic sense. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Context and further info

Because of all the confusion, and to try to prevent further biased attempts at editing and edit wars, as someone born in the former Yugoslavia let me offer some context and further information from a native speaker without a nationalist bias. I ask those who are experts at editing to use the information here to add to the article.

Of course Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, and Montenegrin are linguistically one language, and all my compatriots know this rationally, except that today out of varied political reasons many prefer to fantasize that these are completely separate languages. But practice shows the truth, e.g., we don't use subtitles for films and TV series recorded in any of the four variants, and in one or two cases when this was attempted, it quickly ceased because it had the tendency of making even a drama film elicit a comedic response at the absurdity (this famous comedy sketch from the 1980s illustrates this perfectly and would be great to include in the article, there are English subtitles, but it is best if you can understand the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMlLPRj64iA).

It is part of nationalist propaganda after the wars in the 90s to declare the Serbo-Croatian language as something which was attempted in Yugoslavia and which no longer exists, while the reality is that many centuries before there was a Yugoslavia the native speakers of those languages commonly and matter-of-factly identified them as one and the same language, even though they also used their distinctive national name for the language (which is their right), just like as an American in patriotic fervor might say "I speak American" and at the same time understand that American and British are both variants of the same English language.

Following are two examples that I think should be placed in the article. The priest and scholar Ivan Paštrić in 1699 made a copy of the Lectionary of Bernardine of Spalato and described the script and language as "Character est Cyrillianus, lingua Serviana vel Croatica vel Dalmatica vulgaris" - "the script is Cyrillic, the language is Serbian or Croatian or Vulgar Dalmatian" (by "Vulgar Dalmatian" he probably meant to differentiate it from the literary "Dalmatian" used in the liturgy, which was another name for Church Slavonic). This is from John Fine: When ethnicity did not matter in the Balkans, p. 444.

Another example (https://digitalna.nsk.hr/?pr=i&id=10660) is the dictionary of Peter Loderecker and Faust Vrančić (Fausto Veranzio), in which in his Foreword Vrančić says "jazik dalmatiski, hrvatski, srpski, ili bosanski (jere ovo sve jedan jazik jest)" - "the language Dalmatian, Croatian, Serbian, or Bosnian (because all of this is one language)".

The most frequently used name for that common language from the Middle Ages onward was Slavonic/Slavic ("slovinski", or in the north "slovenski") or (at least from the 15th century onward) Illyrian. The term "Serbo-Croatian" was created and began to be used extensively in the 19th century because Ferdinand I of Austria banned the name "Illyrian" in 1843 for political reasons, to prevent the forming of a unified Illyrian nation/state, which would result in Austria losing a vast ammount of territory.

Unlike those original terms, the term "Serbo-Croatian" is controversial, sounds artificial and leaves out the other nations as if they are inferior, as well as leads to interminable bickering about which of the two largest nations should come first, and the term "Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian" as a name for a language is an unwieldy mess. However, calling it today the "Slavic language" or even a novel term like the "South Slavic language" can easily lead to misunderstandings, which is why Illyrian was chosen as preferable by the Illyrian movement in the 19th century, until Ferdinard I banned the name and forced them to choose something else.

Of course, until the linguistic consensus shifts to a different name, Serbo-Croatian remains the internationally recognized and accepted name, however much it bothers those of the nationalist persuasion, who do not care to admit that despite their many differences the nations of the former Yugoslavia are actually in many ways very similar.

Also, linguistically speaking Chakavian and Croatian Kajkavian (to differentiate it from Slovenian, which is by its nature also a kajkavian language) are languages and do not properly belong to SC, the former should be in a subgroup of North South Slavic together with Slovenian, and the latter in a special subgroup of West South Slavic. It is for political reasons that this is not done, but in recent times Kajkavian has begun to slowly assert this right, while Chakavian so far has not and, unlike Kajkavian, is quickly losing ground to SC. I suggest adding a sentence that there is a debate among linguists as to whether these two are dialects of SC or separate languages. 86.33.68.239 (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)