Talk:Slovene dialects

message: How many times I do still have to say that Wikipedia does not prefer one form of English over the other? I moved the page back terefore (Slovenian-->Slovene). If consensus will be reached, I'll respect it, but has not been yet. --Eleassar777 my talk 07:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slovenian/Slovene

message: Are any of the Slovenian dialects h slavic?
-iopq 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the German edition of this article, which contains at the end a separate section on this specific phenomenon, the dialects of "Küstenland (Primorsko), in Oberkrain und Kärnten," that is the dialects spoken in the Slovenian regions of Primorsko, Gorenjsko, and Koroško. Woollymammoth (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  H Slavic? 

message: A key for the map is required (color->dialect). 79.11.24.218 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No key for the map 

message: This article was tagged per process for comparison tot he external site . I have checked archives of that site, and it only archives back to 2008, while the text has been present in this article for several years. It does not seem to have been copied from that source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article should use the map based directly on the Fran Ramovš source and not that webpage which is not an academic source directly.  The map from the website is based on the one from Fran Ramovš, but it isn't that map exactly. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright concerns

message: The prekmurščina and rezijanščina form apply the utmost publication. I know this publications from the Museum of Murska Sobota. Marko Jesenšek, the rector of the Maribor University also adopt this form STYLISTICS IN ADVERTISING TEXTS IN PREKMURJE. I recite the complete publications about the prekmurščina, if necessary. The Zora's book alike apply the names. Doncsecztalk 15:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Prekmurian/Prekmurščina, Rezijanščina construction is the correct 

message: The source currently cited in this article (Smole, Vera. 1998. "Slovenska narečja". Enciklopedija Slovenije, vol 12. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, pp. 1–5) has "prekmursko narečje" and "rejijansko narečje". This can be easily verified. If you think the source is being misquoted, please explain why. In line with good WP dispute resolution, I suggest that a 3rd editor make any change (or not) on this detail, rather than myself or user Doncsecz.Doremo (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have ca. 10-15 book (and learned books from the 2000s years), where wrote about the prekmurščina. Doncsecztalk 16:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Your statement (at least what I understand of it) is incorrect: [], []. I suggest that you undo your unilateral change and show good faith by allowing a third editor to make any such change.Doremo (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prekmursko/rezijansko narečje 

message: Doremo exert stulifity the prekmurščina name. The -ščina have other and other denotation. The prekmurščina is out and away rich dialect between the Slovene dialects through the literature. Vilko Novak, Franc Šebjanič, Ivan Zelko, Franci Just, Ivan Škafar in few book and article wrote aboute the extensive prekmurian literature, but Doremo evidently it is beyond him. Regrettably few Slovene linguist aspire underplay the prekmurian literature, as in the 1990s again come to light the Wendish question. Doncsecztalk 13:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doncsecz, please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please direct constructive comments at content (e.g., grammaticality of -ščina, reliability of Rigler, Logar, Zorko, etc.) rather than people (e.g., "campaign," "beyond him"). Doremo (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doremo's campaign 

message: In July 24 the Catholic Church published the new hymnal in prekmurian language, within a few years the Evangelic Church also published his hymnal. Still planned to the publishing of new books in the Prekmurje, other dialects is not dominate in the liturgy and literature. Moreover most people in the Prekmurje think, the Prekmurian is a language, his language. The situation is similar in Croatia, where the Kajkavian and Chakavian language have older, abundant literature. The Prekmurian, Kajkavian, Chakavian, Burgenland Croatian languages is homogeneous variants, in the slovene regions almost only the older generation speak the dialect, in the Prekmurje the younger generations active speakers of the Prekmurian. Doncsecztalk 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prekmurian liturgical language 

message: Doremo's arguments is the official government position about the Slovene dialects. In recent years been mentioned several times, that the linguistics is not decided what the dialect? Incidentally, if there is a living literature of dialects and have old literary roots, this is language. On the other dialect literature is only NOW! But the official Slovene dialect-research try to prove it, also the Old Prekmurian literature also a primitive village-literature of the Slovene literature, as in the 19th century the prekmurian language received many Central Slovene words (some terms!). They try to let alone challenge the Prekmurian identity, however the Prekmurje not as a part of Slovenia but something peculiar within its borders – so says the Slovene civilians, some the politicians think otherwise. But this official opinions is official lies, while destroying the Prekmurje, because ideological propaganda will be Slovenia, economic help no.
I quote User:Benf86's opinion:
I have yet to meet a qualified Slovenian => English translator or at least one such translator in training and/or a native English speaker who would actually prefer 'Prekmurian' to 'Prekmurje'. While 'Prekmurian' is used by locals and Slovenes in general, it is used more or less jokingly or in a non-serious context, similarly to 'Over-Mura (moving cake)' and similar examples. I recognize the possibility that some Slovene authors use the 'Prekmurian' adjective but that doesn't make it the norm by itself. The English pages are primarily for English speakers and they will, as a rule, use 'Prekmurje' so I would say that the version preferred by native speakers should take precedence. On the topic of dialect:language, professional opinions in Slovenia differ. The more Slovenia-centric linguists argue that Prekmurščina is nothing more than a dialect of Slovene. Ideologically unbiased linguists, however, at least privately admit that it's a separate language. The Statistical Bureau of Slovenia Eleassar quoted is certainly the official point of view but one could argue that it is severely biased and does not necessarily reflect real circumstances, as it is the case with certain minorities not being officially recognized in Slovenia etc. Personally I am in favor of the 'separate language' theory, since the differences between Prekmurščina and Slovene are (common opinion, though scientifically unproven) larger than between Slovene and certain other south Slavic languages e.g. Croatian. Historically it is a question of choosing a reference point in time, which can be used to prove either that it's a language or a dialect. It is clear, however, that modern Prekmurščina lacks any kind of official standardization, then again, so do many other >languages<. The argument I would use for using 'language' instead of 'dialect' is that if different versions of English, German, Spanish, Portuguese etc. can all be referred to as different languages or at least language variants, as opposed to dialects of English, then Prekmurščina (and many other dialects) deserve the same courtesy. However, as the joke goes - A language is a dialect supported by an army. And Prekmurje doesn't have one.'
The SIL international organization has been asked to make a note of the Prekmurian Slovene, hopefully it does. Doncsecztalk 07:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sided opinions 

message: This article is (or was) a list of Slovenian dialects with attested native names and sources. User Doncsecz is damaging its neutrality by giving undue weight to certain dialects while suppressing verified information about others, and is damaging its factual accuracy by selectively deleting standard/reliable sources that do not conform to his/her unique theory (see above). Doremo (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The old sources at risk the neutrality, as only rely on slovene sources, yet foreign opinions other divided into the dialects and language. Many slovene sources biased againts the Prekmurian and Resian, insults and deny the Prekmurian and Resian literature. The views are so one-sided, otherwise the Slovene language also a dialect of the Croatian language. In the foreign opinions is detemining the identity and history of a language/dialect (Anna Jászó Adamik). Doncsecztalk 16:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yerpo, ti si bil agresiven in delal osramotje na slovenski wikipediji. Ti si rekel: da ti ne zanima, kaj pravijo drugi, ker tam ti pišeš zgodovino. Prekmurski viri od prekmurskih raziskovalcev kot Franc Kuzmič in Vilko Novak Vam niso bili "relevantni," samo tisti, ki zanikajo veliko stvari. Yerpo, dobro bi bilo, če ti tukaj ne brblaš, ker ti si zakrknjen ponarejalec zgodovine. Ti in drugi so bili sposobni uporabiti take vire, ki jih so kreirali "uradni" raziskovalci in avtorji slovenske komunistične partije. Kakor Doremo, tak Vi tudi ste argumentirali na te "vire," ki poskusijo blatiti vzhodno slovenščino, oz. prekmurščina, da je madžaronski propagandni jezik, da prekmurska naselja nimajo imen v prekmurščini, čeprav če greš v Prekmurje, boš slišal ta značilna imena. Yerpo, pa drugi so večinoma iz Ljubljane, in kakor znamo Ljubljančari sovražijo tistega, ki pride iz vzhodne regije Slovenije. Tukaj so bili različni viri, kot iz Madžarske ali iz Francije, ki pokažejo, da slovenski jezikoslovci v tem vprašanju zelo enostranski. (Yerpo's behavior is very-very objectionable, it is rejected by the Prekmurian sources in the Slovene Wikipedia and he stated, he is the "creator" [forger] of the history, that is not interested in the prekmurian sources. Yerpo is also unilateral). Doncsecztalk 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above slur illustrates perfectly what I was talking about. — Yerpo Eh? 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Contrary to you, I acknowledge sources from both sides, as evident from my first message on this topic, while you want to completely reject and ignore some of them on ideological basis. It's clear who is neutral and who isn't. — Yerpo Eh? 20:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I took the liberty of pointing out a couple of problems in this new slur of yours. Please stop wasting our time with this childish attempts of diverting attention (this also goes for your messages on my talk page). — Yerpo Eh? 20:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Doncsecz, please use English on this talk page so that other editors can follow the conversation. Your parentheticals are not accurate or full translations of your comments in Slovenian. Doremo (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify, this internet spitting contest (salabajzer.si) that Doncsecz quoted suffers from the exact same syndromes as his own approach, outlined above (granted, it's at least written in understandable Slovene). No wonder that he can relate. — Yerpo Eh? 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doncsecz, please stick to the topic at hand and refrain from talking about "witches," "hyenas," "bastards," "liars," etc. So far two editors favor restoring the deleted sources. Additional comments from other editors are welcome. Doremo (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: And we're again at "he said, she said". No sources whatsoever, we're just expected to believe His Authoritativeness Doncsecz's claims about wide popular support of his opinions. Sorry, this is not how it works. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your One and Only Truth. If what you claim is supported by reliable sources, it can be mentioned in a proper place, along with other opinions published by other reliable sources - see WP:NEUTRAL - "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (emphasis mine). A large part of our disagreements at Slovene Wikipedia comes from your inability to understand that. I also suspect this is behind the issue with the anonymous salabajzer that wrote the above joke, but I honestly can't say, because he was very careful to avoid any specifics. Since I suspect you'll continue like this (judging by my experience with you), I'll stop "debating" on this level now. — Yerpo Eh? 07:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Clearly, you don't know what a personal attack is. Hint: you already made several against me in this "discussion" alone, not to mention my talk page. But I forgive you. — Yerpo Eh? 07:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Yerpo. I think the note will fairly address Doncsecz's concern while also maintaining balance in the list itself. Doremo (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: , I think it's time to start providing good references to what you're claiming in your edit summaries. I know it's a highly political issue, but Croatian is a language that has dialects (according to Ethnologue), whereas Serbo-Croatian is considered a macro-language - a class higher. I also note that you seem to be the only person advocating a different interpretation around here and that your edits tend to be unreferenced. Which is highly problematic in the context of Wikipedia, especially since you're instructing other people to read on it. — Yerpo Eh? 11:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "bordering on Croatian" and "bordering on Serbo-Croatian" are factually accurate. The first is a single language by sociopolitical criteria, and the second by linguistic criteria. Perhaps you can compromise with "bordering on (Serbo-)Croatian" or by piping the link to Serbo-Croatian so that it reads "Croatian". Doremo (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, I think referring to Serbo-Croatian is misleading here, the sentence in question implying that it represents a single point in the dialect continuum. — Yerpo Eh? 12:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But Slovene cannot form a dialect continuum with Standard Croatian, because Standard Croatian is a formal standardization and not a dialect located somewhere in the dialect continuum. Serbo-Croatian is the entire language, including all the dialects that are a part of it, which can (and do) form a dialect continuum with the neighboring Slovene dialects. --JorisvS (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As artificial standards, neither Standard Slovene nor Standard Croatian can form a continuum with anything. But Slovene (as a linguistic division of South Slavic) can be accurately described as forming a dialect continuum with Croatian (as a sociopolitical division of Serbo-Croatian), with Serbo-Croatian (as a linguistic division of South Slavic), or with all other South Slavic languages. Doremo (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordering on Croatian/Serbo-Croatian issue