Talk:Kajkavian

Kajkavian dialect is part of the Croatian language

Kajkavian dialect is part of the Croatian language, Kajkavian dialect has nothing to do with Serbian, Serbs do not understand kajkavian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.153.162 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Croatian" (i.e. Standard Croatian) is, like Standard Serbian, based on Neo-Shtokavian, a subdialect of Shtokavian. Because Kajkavian is, like Shtokavian, one of the main dialects of Serbo-Croatian, Standard Croatian and Standard Serbian are much more closely related to each other than either is to Kajkavian. So if Serbs do not understand Kajkavian, so won't Croats who only speak Standard Croatian. --JorisvS (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Map

Map File:Croatian_dialects.PNG seems rather imaginative and is unsourced, unlike File:Shtokavian subdialects1988 incl Slovenia.png which is sourced. Both however are painfully obsolete because Shtokavian has spread even more, and is gaining more ground as older generations of speakers die. If anyone has a source for the post-2000 map reflecting actual distribution of dialects (i.e. not mere reprints of those 1970s and 1980s maps!), it would be nice that they mention it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I answered that on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:%C4%8Citateljwikipedije#Kajkavian

As for shtokavian enlargment, there is no new study which would show exact borders of the dialects. In Croatia there is a trend of dialectisation in media, expecialy in kajkavian speaking areas... --Čeha (razgovor) 02:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So it's a compilation of two other maps, both unsourced and undated. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Quality of the translations?

Now, I wish not to hurt anybody's feelings, but I must say that the English in the translations of the Kajkavian sentences seem quite peculiar. I might edit that soon, but maybe I am wrong and the translations must be very literal and erroneous in grammar? -Konanen (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the grammar is off. Tagged with {{copyedit}} now. GregorB (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed some obvious errors, but without knowing Kajkavian dialect I cannot imagine an English language editor doing copy editing on this section. Expert help is needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem with it: it cites no source(s). Otherwise, using the source would have been a possibility for a non-speaker. --JorisvS (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I say that we copy editors cannot be expected to do this section without translation by an expert. No source is true, too, but no progress is possible by us without expert help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sentences under "Kajkavian phonetics" seem like something out of folk songs or generally related to folklore. I don't see the point of translating them (or having them on that page in the first place – most pages dealing with phonology don't), I think it would be better to remove them and only have one word per line, as an example of a phoneme's usage. And additionally, an English word that has the equivalent phoneme in it. I'll try to do something about it. 93.136.44.100 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Not SC

I don't see the reason to put Kaykavian (and Chakavian) under Serbo-Croatian. SC is based on Shtokavian, and has low mutual integlibility w/ these two. --Munja (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "Serbo-Croatian" is used by linguists, including linguists on Wikipedia, to refer not to the standardized language called "Serbo-Croatian" during the Yugoslav period, but to the group of non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects including Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian. --Taivo (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is easy to confuse standard and linguistic term. Why don't we name that term as central southslavic diasystem and on that put all these standard languages as variants of that termed diasystem. --Munja (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether it confuses you or not, Serbo-Croatian is the most common term used in English for non-Slovenian West South Slavic. "Central southslavic diasystem" is used by no one. Using "Serbo-Croatian" is the result of a long-standing Wikipedia consensus. (And this is not the page to be discussing this on.) --Taivo (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And it is not even a diasystem, so "Central South Slavic diasystem" makes completely no sense, aside from being a neologism intended to appease speakers' misguided sensitivities. --JorisvS (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be fine by me if we described Kajkavian and Chakavian as distinct languages, and made SC synonymous with Shtokavian. But for that to not be OR, it would need to find broad support among linguistic sources. If you can do that, we'll be happy to consider the change. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree with this! --JorisvS (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You cannot describe them as distinct languages because they are dialects, and Shtokavian is also a dialect, not a language, or, more precisely, all three of them are something between a language and a dialect (we call it narječje; I don't know English word for that, sorry, but I will try to explain like this: language is consisted of narječjas, and narječjas are consisted of dialects). Your consensus is incorrect, at least politically (you leave out Bosnian and Montenegrin). I know that it's hard for you in the West (or in the rest of the world) to understand ex-Yugoslavia language situation and that the term "Serbo-Croatian" is a practical solution, but it is flawed. Serbo-Croatian (as an official standardized language) ceased to exist in 1992 (there are 4 official standardized successors of it today), and your use of that term in other meaning (as a kind of an umbrella-term) is not precise; what about Bosnian and Montenegrin dialects, which are subdialects of Shtokavian and are distinct from Croatian and Serbian Shtokavian dialects? Where are they in "Serbo-Croatian"? Central South Slavic diasystem is a name or a linguistic term that some local linguists suggested for former Serbo-Croatian to avoid politicization of language(s) (I write by my memory; maybe I am wrong), but I don't think that it came to life. -- KWiki (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't actually read what I wrote above. In Wikipedia, the consensus is that "Serbo-Croatian" is used to refer not to the standardized variety of Shtokavian used in Yugoslavia, but to the broader set of non-Slovenian East South Slavic dialects. In the English linguistic literature, this is generally referred to as "Serbo-Croatian". It includes Bosnian and Montenegrin as well as Serbian and Croatian. We don't care about your "political" sensibilities. It's based on common English language usage and consensus building. "Central South Slavic diasystem" is an unknown term in English. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, you actually didn't read KWiki's comment. He read (red) your post and also consenzus part, but said that is incorrect — and AFAIK consenzus is about to change by time, while editors get some new knowledge. Current term ("Serbo-Croatian") for this diasystem is controversy, while Shtokavian isn't. A language is a dialect with an army and navy and not the opposite, but on en-Wikipedia Shtokavian is based on Serbo-Croatian which is not true if we take this statement (see the template on B/C/S variants). I have bad profficiency of Kaykavian and I am native Bosnian speaker. How do you explain that? --Munja (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The part of my comments that you and KWiki ignore is that consensus is not going to change until you can prove that common English usage has changed. You haven't done that. You haven't even attempted to do that. You simply don't seem to understand what consensus means (you certainly can't spell it at least). There is no consensus among linguists that Kajkavian and Chakavian are separate languages. So that means that the most common term used among English-speaking linguists for the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects (K/Ch/Sh) is still "Serbo-Croatian". You've done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate otherwise. There simply is no linguistic controversy on this subject: West South Slavic comprises two languages--Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian. And your comment about "How do you explain that" simply demonstrates your lack of linguistic understanding of dialects. I'm a native speaker of Western American English and I have a limited understanding of Midlands British English. That's how every linguist on the planet will explain your "bad proficiency" of Kajkavian--dialect proficiency is not automatic between different dialects, but they are still dialects of a single language. --Taivo (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As for me, you can put Bengalian dialect in that so-called Serbo-Croatian. I will prove you wrong, I just need time. Your argument is invalid about English dialects. There is more mutual integlibility between Slovenian and Kaykavian, than with Kaykavian and Shtokavian (Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian), while on the other side there is more mutual integlibility between all English dialects. --Munja (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Munja and KWiki, you are missing what Taivo wants to say, which is the basics of Wikipedia, WP:Verifiability. You need to provide WP:RS to back up your claims here, otherwise you are just providing your own opinions and making a forum on this thread. You need to provide reliable sources by which you could convince others how there is a consensus that Kaykavian and Chakavian are not part of Serbo-Croatian language anymore, and I honestly don't see how could you do that beside citing some local liguists which at no point represent the mainstream linguistics on this field. FkpCascais (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, low mutual integlibility does not mean per se nothing, for instance, Portuguese, I speak native Portuguese (from Continental Portugal) and me and most other people from continental Portugal can hardly understand Portuguese spoken in the island of Azores (Micaelense) or Madeira (Madeirense), specially if they are from rural areas of those islands and speak an accentuated local dialect. But it is all Portuguese language anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, Kajkavian and Čakavian split off from Štokavian a longer time ago than the the Spanish-Portugese split happened (actually, at the same time as Slovene split off from them). So the notion of them not being Serbo-Croatian would not be based on the idea that they're not Serbo-Croatian anymore (as if it were a recent evolution) but rather on some consensus on the definition of Serbo-Croatian. To put forward such an idea on WP one should gather some references, for example Kapović (but many others) who states that those three (Kaj, Cha, Shto) are, as far as linguistic differentiation is concerned, three separate languages (he also goes on to write how a "more convenient name for Serbo-Croatian would be Shtokavian as that is something everyone can agree on"), and one could also use the consensus on how historical linguistics treats those three, namely, they tend to often be mentioned separately due to wildly different paths they have taken in their evolution. One could also provide various references on how Serbo-Croatian has often (and still does) conventionally refer to a very specific thing within the South Slavic system - Shtokavian (even the WP pages for SC phonology and grammar, as a result of this, have a note on how they only treat Shtokavian). There's also some critique on the term Serbo-Croatian when applied to non-Shtokavian, as it is in those cases deemed to be a purely ethnic term with no regards for linguistics (similar how to ex-Yu linguists treat Kaj and Cha as Croatian dialects). I also believe that some of the Kajkavian organizations mentioned in this article treat standard Croatian (Western Shtokavian, SC) as a different language altogether from Kajkavian. So, there's plenty of things that could be referenced if the person who started this discussion wants their proposal to have merit. It certainly isn't a case of someone only basing it on low mutual intelligibility. 93.136.44.169 (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this isn't the proper place to be discussing the range of dialects to be included under the term "Serbo-Croatian". That issue should be discussed at Talk:Serbo-Croatian so that all interested parties will see it and be able to comment. Then whatever consensus is reached there will apply across the entire range of articles dealing with these languages and dialects. --Taivo (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, why are you bringing Spanish into this? Portuguese and Spanish didn't ever split because they were never the same language (they both evolved from Latin, if that is what you meant). You must be making some major confusion. Also, Portuguese language dates back to middle ages (9th to 12th century) while Baška tablet dates late 11th. Your argument how "Kajkavian and Čakavian split off from Štokavian a longer time ago than the the Spanish-Portugese split happened" is like if you are trolling. An intentional exaggeration in order to make a point. I only gave the exemple of Portuguese regarding low mutual integlibility between different dialects within Portuguese language (Continental Portuguese vs Madeirense or Micaelense). I spoke about Portuguese only, not Portuguese and Spanish, just as here we are only talking about dialects within Serbo-Croatian, not Serbo-Croatian and, exemple, Polish. Speak about dialects of one same language only, not about integlibility of different languages ;) FkpCascais (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Many linguists consider Kajkavian to be a language, so what you're saying is irrelevant. And there's no reason why a comparison between languages shouldn't be made as you're the one who decided to introduce the highly flawed method of mutual intelligibility. In this respect especially, as the mutual intelligibility is a result of separate evolutions dating all the way to around ~10th century (Matasovic, 2008). Also, the idea that one should only compare mutual intelligiblities 'within a language', rather than between "separate languages", so as to ascertain whether a dialect ought to be considered a language, makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever. I have no idea how exactly you think this is even a valid way of thinking. I'll repeat myself, Kajkavian, when linguists consider it a language, is not considered a language merely because it has low mutual intelligibility, but also because it split off from other South Slavic speeches at the same time as Slovene, Chakavian, Shtokavian, around ~10th century (hence the previous comment about SC being an ethnic definition without actual borders), because it used to be a standard language, because it has had a significantly different evolution ever since its split in 10th century, and most importantly, because when Serbo-Croatian was standardized, the term refered exclusively to Shtokavian. Therefor your remarks about mutual intelligiblity are basically irrelevant because this is not about low mutual intelligibility, it's about whether its treatment in linguistics (which is often a lot different than that of a mere dialect, both in ex-Yu linguistics and in foreign linguistics) warrants it being labeled as separate from SC.93.139.71.27 (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You still provide zero references to support your false claim of "many linguists consider Kajkavian to be a language". Perhaps because you know that the majority of linguists do not. And, as I have said before, but you continue to ignore, we follow the standard practice among English-speaking linguists to use "Serbo-Croatian" not just for the standardized language of Yugoslavia, but for all non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects, including Kajkavian and Chakavian. You have provided no evidence to suggest that the Wikipedia consensus on usage should change.

--Taivo (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Then why are Checz and Slovak considered as separate languages? Why are Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian? Why are Norwegian, Swedish and Danish considered as separate languages?

Quality of English generally

As the sentence "it is more closely related to neighboring Slovene language with which it shares considerable amount of vocabulary" makes clear, whoever wrote this article doesn't know English well enough to make correct use of definite and indefinite articles (the sentence should read "it is more closely related to THE neighboring Slovene language with which it shares A considerable amount of vocabulary" - I've put the missing articles in capitals to draw attention to them). How I wish non-native users of English would have their English articles checked by a native speaker before posting them, as this proliferation of unidiomatic English is lowering the quality of English on Wikipedia generally. How often you now see things like "in Croatian language", which should read "in the Croatian language" or, in more everyday English, "in Croatian". People simply copy the mistakes on the assumption that anything on Wikipedia must be correct. I've just seen an even worse mistake: the use of "speeches" (which can only mean "addresses" or "orations", for instance by politicians at meetings) to mean something like "dialects" (I can only guess at the intended meaning, since this is simply un-English).188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)188.230.248.85 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:NNS, just correct the usage of (in)definite articles yourself. Non-native speakers are and probably have always been allowed to edit Wikipedia, which is an ungrateful, unpaid job done by people who just want to share knowledge. If you don't like the quality of our articles you can improve them yourself - or just use an encyclopedia that is written by native speakers. No need to be a dick, man. Remember that non-native speakers by definition speak other languages (or at least just their native one) in addition to English. This means that they can read the relevant literature in that language, which sometimes is a language that the vast majority of other editors don't speak. This can be invaluable. Thousands of Wikipedia articles wouldn't exist (or they'd be utterly irrelevant stubs) if it wasn't for non-native speakers of English! Sol505000 (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Should it say "microlanguage" instead of "language"?

We've got an article Slavic microlanguages that lists Kajkavian and Chakavian, I also think these two would better fit the description of a microlanguage (or regiolect) with a significantly lower number of speakers than Shtokavian. Just the first sentence should read "microlanguage" with a link to this article, all other mentions would stay "language" to flow better. -Vipz (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

IP's proposed changes from May 2023

Special:Diff/1153928192: Restored to the state that actually says in the sources before editing [link] Vipz if you change what is written in the source one more time, you will be reported to the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard, where we will talk together with the administrators about your denial of what is written in the sources.

I'm not looking forward to citing whole parts of the source and potentially infringing copyright, because one can go and read it for themself. Alexander (2006), page 388, section 171a very clearly supports Kajkavian, together with Shtokavian and Chakavian, being either or:

• one of "three major dialects" of BCS (which stands for "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian", the language that is commonly called Serbo-Croatian)
• based on "general linguistic criterion of mutual intelligibility, these three dialects would qualify much more readily as different languages than do standard Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian"

It does not support the case of Kajkavian being a "Croatian dialect" the IP editor keeps revert-warring claiming it does. I won't dispute the fact there are numerous sources claiming otherwise, many reputable ones, but we're supposed to go with the common academic consensus, and when it comes to languages, mutual intelligibility is the standard criterion.

These two sources recently added by the IP are not in any way reliable sources, while this one is an original scientific thesis about Kajkavian that is otherwise useful but cannot be a "be-all end-all" source for supporting the opposite claim.

Not looking forward to more ad hominem. –Vipz (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In Alexander (2006), page 388, section 171a is clearly written Serbian language, Croatian language, Bosnian language no Serbo-Croatian stop making up something that is not written. And I added three sources as an example, not two and they are all from verified sites. I could have put 10 more sources that say the same thing, but it would be overcited.93.138.3.122 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, since we can't agree on this, let's wait for a while to see whether anyone else responds and if not, seek a third opinion. –Vipz (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In no source does it say Serbo-Croatian only Croatian language is written in all of them. Shtokavian is a dialect in Serbian language, Croatian language,Bosnian language , and Chakavian and Kajkavian only in Croatian language.93.138.3.122 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If you don't restore the page to its previous state before the fake edit [[1]] and what it actually says in the sources you will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for supporting that ip that wrote the lie and deleting my verified added sources.93.138.3.122 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that there may be room for improvement in terms of neutrality, as the goal is to present all relevant views, and not to pick one. The "standard" BCS unity/trinity is "štokavian only" (Alexander, section 171a), so neither kajkavian nor čakavian can be *part of* "standard BCS". BCS can be viewed as an umbrella term (in linguistics) for similar štokavian-based language varieties, more or less standardized, and it covers the region of several ex-YU countries. From a scientific perspective, it makes sense to study them as one, then each of the varieties (standard B/C/S, što/kaj/ča-kavski, i/je/ije-kavski, and other mutually non-exclusive divisions). Only in this sense kajkavian and čakavian belong to the *geographical region* of BCS. However, kajkavian and čakavian are two Croatian languages/dialects (as in "developed and spoken by Croats", even as in "Croats are the people who speak those languages") that existed long before any unification attempts. It's wrong to replace every instance of "Croatian" with "Serbo-Croatian", and it is also not wrong to refer to something as Croatian if BCS is understood as Bosnian plus Croatian plus Serbian. For example, Marulić's Judita of 1501 is based on Split čakavian speech and the štokavian lexis, and he himself referred to the language as "in Croatian verses laid out" on the cover. Judita belongs to Croatian literature, which is part of broader BCS literature (also known as "jugoslavistika" in the past), South Slavic literature, and so on. But most specifically it's Croatian literature. And so is all kajkavian and čakavian literature. Ponor (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, in this article as well as in Croatian language, the mainstream viewpoint of Croatian linguistics and other is not present at all and there's no valid reason not to be per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Croatian language is not only standard language as it also has literary variety and both standard and literary variety are influenced by Kajkavian and Chakavian dialect groups. As far as I see, the main misunderstanding is with the misconception that the Croatian language means only the contemporary Croatian standard language variety which is mainly based on Shtokavian dialect group hence having a different language family line than Kajkavian and Chakavian dialect groups. Another misconception is ignorance of the dialect continuum between the dialect groups and local sub-dialects, ignoring the fact they are modern age terminological and conceptual inventions which are not solid. Also, it is a historical and linguistic fact that all the Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kajkavian sub-dialects with which Croats spoke and wrote until modern age were known as Croatian language. Croatian language since historical times was basically a macrolanguage and, indirectly as dialectology did not exist at the time, was understood as such. Croatian language shares Shtokavian dialect group with neighboring languages (not all sub-dialects), but does not Kajkavian and Chakavian dialect groups on whole. This understanding of the Croatian language started to change from the 19th century, due to other more political than linguistic reasons, but it is alive and scientifically valid even today. Scientifically, it is valid saying both that the Kajkavian is: a dialect group of sub-dialects of Croatian language of Western South-Slavic; a dialect group of sub-dialects of Serbo-Croatian language of Western South-Slavic; a South Slavic dialect group of sub-dialects (of Western South-Slavic). However, the first is most accurate. Actually, according to expert linguists, both Kajkavian and Chakavian cannot be removed from Croatian language and considered as separate languages. Such an act is basically anti-Croatian, it is removing ethnic/national name and identity from them and replacing it with some modern terms and concepts to the point some dare thinking about separate historical and ethnical Kajkavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian nations. Such controversial and racist thinking already happened in the 19th century when was argued that the Kajkavian must be identified with the Slovenes/Slovene, Chakavian with the Croats/Croatian and Shtokavian with the Serbs/Serbian. We must be careful, although here on Wikipedia are followed various codes and often are quoted those linguists which argue such a viewpoint, must not ignore that such codes do not represent scientific consensus and there is no linguistic consensus. We must represent neutrally all the scientific viewpoints per NPOV and WEIGHT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream viewpoint of Croatian linguistics does not carry more WP:WEIGHT than any other in the world, so using it as an argument is void. What matters for contemporary classification are contemporary linguistics. Kajkavian and Chakavian correspond to the geographical area of Croatia and that's as far as you can go describing them as exclusively Croatian. If Kajkavian belongs to a wider macrolanguage, it belongs to the macrolanguage that contains standard Croatian as well, and the whole Shtokavian as well, which is Serbo-Croatian/BCMS (these are just names of convenience). As for "representing all scientific viewpoints per NPOV and WEIGHT", please see WP:FALSEBALANCE.

As for anti-Croatian; controversial; racist thinking, this is a pure attempt at appealing to emotions and exists only in nationalist minds (if you're looking for something racist here: "Two schools under one roof" is the way to go). Don't forget that it's a Croatian Croat writing this message to you (if it matters), except an anti-nationalist one. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not about carrying more WEIGHT but representing on the article(s) all the relevant viewpoints as it should be. I was referring to contemporary linguistics and there's no consensus on the topic, S. Kordic which is often quoted doesn't not represent it as she represents only one viewpoint, being often criticized by contemporary linguists. Actually, as far read into the literature, there's no viewpoint without valid criticism.

Kajkavian and Chakavian are not Croatian only geographically. They are Croatian also historically, culturally, politically and liturgically as the literature, legal documents, liturgy etc. were written using them and specifically identified with Croatian identity/language. The argumentation about macrolanguage can differ, for some it is not the most accurate, as the Serbo-Croatian/BCMS does not exist as a language, arguably for some it never did, as it was a short-lived political intention & invention which was never completed while Croatian language existed much longer and has all attributes to be considered a macrolanguage. What you are referring to is Serbo-Croatian/BCMS/Central Southslavic language which is another theoretical invention and more accurate is talking about Western South-Slavic/Southwest Slavic language (which includes Slovene or only some Slovene dialects), but which again is another theoretical invention. Bosnian, Montenegrin and Serbian were never a macrolanguage as were only based on Shtokavian dialect group (exception being furter argumentation on the division of Western and Eastern Shtokavian, while with the Serbian language the existence of Torlakian dialect and Slavonic-Serbian literary-standard language). From the Croatian language, only the Croatian standard language variety can be placed, but not exclusively, to the Serbo-Croatian/BCMS "standard" macrolanguage which is primarily Shtokavian. I am saying "standard" macrolanguage because both SIL International and Ethnologue, which are followed on Wikipedia, have much inconsistencies and poor definitions which are sometimes used and sometimes not in the infobox and article text on Wikipedia which again makes the whole case even more confusing because it is not evident on what other viewpoints such corrections are based upon (good example is Slavomolisano). Due to the dialect continuum, standard and literary languages development - the genetic tree is not linear, it is more-or-less interconnected with some making clusters which can be argued as macrolanguages. The case is much more complex in scientific literature than represented on Wikipedia. There does not exist only one diagram and classification of these languages, dialect groups and sub-dialects. Hence we are not dealing only with the concern of some editors/readers but rather their confusion. We need better NPOV representation and explanation of all the relevant viewpoints, otherwise it is not NPOV and likewise discussions/edit changes will never end.

Regarding the "nationalist" part, are you aware what were the arguments for Kajkavian and Chakavian dialects to get their own codes (they were based on irrelevant and unscientific sources and claims)? Are you aware who suggested, especially in the case of Kajkavian, the proclaimed "official recognition" (an unscientific small group from Austria/Croatia who publicly claim existence of a separate Kajkavian nation who was never ethnically, historically and linguistically Croatian)? Both codes were recognized based on poor, unsientific sources and motivations. That's not something to ignore. We are having a complex situation of mutual accusations and strange activities of nationalism and anti-nationalism between linguistic purists, linguistic separatists and linguistic uniformists.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Cultural, liturgical, identity, political, and the historical status (modern form of which differs a lot from it) are not aspects of linguistics that determine a language's classification. "Standard" macrolanguages do not exist either, it's a buzzword which you just made up. What you might be referring to are pluricentric languages, which contain only standardized varieties. Macrolanguage is a classification invented and used by ISO for its book-keeping purposes. Even if ISO's classifications sometimes correspond, Wikipedia's articles about pluricentric languages are not based on these ISO classifications, i.e., it is incorrect to state both SIL International and Ethnologue, which are followed on Wikipedia. They are of course documented where appropriate, i.e. infoboxes and sometimes sections near the bottom of articles explaining the history of these codes. What Wikipedia does follow is academic literature and the prevalent (not definite) academic consensus.

You're correct that there is no linguistic consensus on a single identifying criterion for languages, but the discourse is between dialect or language. Kajkavian is either its own language or supradialect (group of dialects). If viewed as a supradialect, there is no linguistic-grounded logic to group it together with only those dialects of Shtokavian supradialect spoken by Croats (ethnically) and/or within Croatia (geographically). –Vipz (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the classification in linguistics and including these codes is often influened by conservative political ideology. In the territory of former Yugoslavia everything started and still is closely related to politics. That's a fact. If it was not, we would not have categories and definitions like "Serbo-Croatian" but only complex dialect continuum with its own boundaries which go beyond political and geographical borders, and some "(macro)language(s)" which include some sub-dialects. The definition and terminology of all three dialects was also closely related to politics including nationalism since the 19th century. Later were proposed different definitions and currently those we have are those that stuck through time and doesn't mean they won't change. Kajkavian (and Chakavian) can be linguistically grouped with those dialects of Shtokavian supradialect spoken by Croats which are predominantly of the former-Western Shtokavian supradialect. That's natural dialect continuum of the Kajkavian, it is basically a transitional dialect between Chakavian-Western Shtokavian and Slovene dialects. Your argument would have been more valid if you stated that there is no linguistic-grounded logic to group it together with those (Eastern) Shtokavian(-Torlakian) dialects spoken by the Serbs, but that's again not completely true because also exist some common characteristics due to the dialect continuum, but much less. Anyway, thanks for your response, agree on almost everything with you and in a sense everything presented here is argumentation with valid arguments. Back to the initial question of the discussion... Considering academic literature, I partly agree that it is not precise enough saying that the Kajkavian (and Chakavian) are "South Slavic" supradialects or (supra)dialects of the "Serbo-Croatian/BCMS" language rather than the "Croatian" language by which name were named, known and identified until modern age before the invention of "Serbo-Croatian/BCMS", and still are. We do not need to replace the term "Croatian" with "South Slavic" and "Serbo-Croatian/BCMS" neither the replacement is more accurate. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Why it is said that Slavomolisano dialect (having a language code) is a "variety of Shtokavian Croatian", while Burgenland Croatian is a "regional variety of the Chakavian dialect of Croatian"?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

These two articles (Slavomolisano and Burgenland Croatian) have been paid much less attention to than the main four ones and by extension articles of these three supradialects.

Politics did their thing in the 19th century, as they did in late 20th and are still doing throughout present day, but agreement or disagreement with a historical circumstance does not linguistically determine a language's contemporary status or classification. Yes, one day this could change, though what the fiercest advocates and implementers of this language separation did not count on is the advent of Internet and Digital Age right as Yugoslavia broke up, making their efforts much less effective. Shtokavian is much likely to remain fully mutually intelligible for a very long time. The only realistic way standard Croatian becomes a separate language (in linguistical sense) before then is if it switches to either Kajkavian or Chakavian.

Dialect continuums see no borders. It is true Kajkavian is more related to immediately neighboring dialects of Shtokavian, but this relatedness (i.e. Kajkavian to Western Shtokavian) is incomparable to relatedness of these Shtokavian dialects with other Shtokavian dialects. In what world mutually unintelligible groups of dialects form a language while mutually intelligible dialects within the same group do not? There is no linguistic basis for that.

Croatian, Serbo-Croatian, BCMS, Illyrian, Dalmatian, Slavonian, whatever, are just monikers to describe the state of affairs. If a better moniker was invented tomorrow and widely picked up, we would switch to using that. The state of affairs is that there is a common language based on Shtokavian, and you may call your Shtokavian speech whatever you want, it does not change that fact. –Vipz (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What a nightmare this issue is on every relevant article's Talk Page (Talk:Serbo-Croatian, Talk:Serbian language, and Talk:Croatian language primarily). And the very same nationalist nonsense can be prolifically found on every page. In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not you hate the other people who speak varieties of your language or not, you still speak the same language in the end. The classification at Glottolog represents the consensus view of reliable linguistic sources. West South Slavic consists of Slovenian, Kajkavian, and Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian (or "Serbo-Croatian" in many sources, but the exact name doesn't make it any less of a single multi-variety language). (Slavomolisano isn't usually drawn into these discussions.) There are excellent sources in the bibliography that discuss the classification issue. Kajkavian is different enough from Croatian varieties of Serbo-Croatian to be considered a different language. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are more alike to each other than any of them is to Kajkavian. Serbo-Croatian is linguistically divided into Chakavian and Shtokavian dialects, with the national standard varieties of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia being Shtokavian varieties. Those are the linguistic facts and can be found in many of the sources listed in Glottolog. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just answered at Talk:Serbo-Croatian. I don't know where you see hatred, and I'm sorry if these discussions are too overwhelming for you to say such things. I do see some double standards on enwiki: the ways Czech language and Slovak language are described are much different from what we have for B+C+S. Czech-Slovak is languages, while Serbo-Croatian is a language (Alexander's grammar says: one, and more than one). I find the former approach much healthier because it takes into consideration all aspects of why and how languages are called, including e. g. this (sheet 5). Ponor (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Linguists do NOT consider Czech and Slovak to be one language because the differences between them are greater than the differences between the Serbo-Croatian varieties. Czech and Slovak, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian. It's subjective linguistic reality from the judgment of a wide variety of real linguists, not any kind of "bias" being pushed by people with a political ax to grind. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)