Talk:Serbo-Croatian/Archive 1

message: I'll put this text from an article to clearify a bit more the differences between the two languages:
It should be noted that difference between Croatian and Serbian language is same as, for example, difference between Norwegian and Swedish language. Common mistake is saying they are almost the same, because Croats and Serbs lived for long time in same country, and everybody (Croats and Serbs, but also other nations in Yugoslavia) learned each other languages. Since dissipation of Yugoslavia it can be noted that younger generations do not understand each other so well, and the difference between those two languages is more obvious.
[213.202.124.153]
: Yes I wonder how exact are these differences. Let me write some languages in a list:
::Serbian - Croatian
::Russian - Belarusian 
::Russian - Ukrainian
::Bulgarian - Macedonian
::Czech - Slovak
::Norwegian - Swedish
::English - American English
:: ~
: -- XJamRastafire 13:19 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
First of all, are we talking about written or spoken languages? There are number of Serbian dialects, some of them closer to Croatian dialects than to Serbian written language. This is similar to Low German dialects, they are closer to Dutch than to High German, but considered German dialects anyway. In written Serbian and Croatian there are grammatical differences as well as lexical one. But these differences are approximately of same magnitude as between British English and American English. 
Talking about written language I would put the pairs of languages like this (starting from closer languages, ending with more different):
::English - American English
::Flemish - Dutch
::Serbian - Croatian
::Czech - Slovak
::Bulgarian - Macedonian
::Russian - Ukrainian
::Russian - Belarusian 
::Norwegian - Danish
::Norwegian - Swedish
::Catalan - Spanish
::German - Dutch
user:Vassili Nikolaev
::: Yes of course. Nice to know. My list was random for shure. I am not an expert of any of above languages, except I've learned English for 10 years, Russian for 2 years in secondary school and Serbo-Croatian for 3 years in primary and secondary schools, from the strips and spoken one from my vacations at Croatian coast. I meant more a written ones. (I do believe that in a written language a spoken one is mirrored...) Oh, I see also a connection between a German and a Dutch languages. We probably can give a scale of these connections like a hardness or an earthquake scales are. Interesting indeed. -- XJamRastafire 13:50 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
:::One more thing. We should somehow put this kind of table in the Wikipedia as a full length article. I would call such a table a Nikolaev table but I guess such tables already exist somewhere around. :-) What would be a title of this article. Language(s)/Comparison perhaps? -- XJamRastafire 13:59 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)
-----
Yes, because new words were invented to emphasize differences of "new" languages. Generations born until 90`s (as for example, ME :-) learned Serbo-croatian (or Croat-Serbian, which is the same, just taught in Croatia) but latter on, Croats invented new words which were not even widely accepted in Croatia. 
It remains as kind of status quo: we have to accept reality of 3 languages, howebever these are most likely similar languages in the world, and within a week of studying local differences you can speak several more languages. However, I have no problems in communicating with young Croats or Bosnians, once adopting new words. It seems that some local dialects in Serbia or Croatia are much differenr from official language, more than these 3 langauges among themselves.
And yes, we share the same code pages in Windows, and we have created several macros and stuff to make Cyrillic-Latin conversion much easier (were Serbs are unique by using both alphabets equaly)
O.K, that`s it
Vojin /Belgrade
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.106.188.16 (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2005
------
To Vojin From Belgrade. Croats did not invent new words. Croatians and Serbs lived almost a 100 years in the same country. A large amount of that time Serbs had the majority of power. So their language was "more important". Croatian language was slowly loosing it's identity. The "new" words are only existing words or new that are not in collision with Croatian grammar standards. If you see Croatian literature before Croatia united with Serbia, the language differences are more than obvious.
:I'd say it IS true that some new words were invented for that purpose, together with reusing some obsolete ones. I'm a Croat who live in Croatia, so I should know ;). I don't approve such actions, and so what if we were starting to lose integrity, what happened happened. Should we seek to reinstate kingdom too, something we also lost to foreign conquerers? To Vojin or Unsigned abowe (not sure which): Croato-Serbian and Serbo-Croatian were NOT two different names for one language, those were two different languages, CS basicly being Croatian and SC being Serbian. --Arny 06:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of differences

message: OK, let's try again: this is an encyclopedia. The fact that many books and many universities and many linguists use the term Serbo-Croatian is in itself enough to include it. Not to mention the dictionaries. At least the term is not fictional. 
OTOH, Hindi-Urdu or Hindi/Urdu is frequently treated as single language - try to google for it. 
Zocky 12:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictionality issue again

message: Hmm...there are a few points that need to be addressed in the main article, but, later...However, I'd just say a word or two on the above text(s):
:Hindi and Urdu. Of course that one can find the term Hindi-Urdu (or similar) on the Web. But- this is hardly an argument. ISO in Switzerland has only Hindi and only Urdu-no Hindi-Urdu. The point is that standard languages are not classified according to genetic linguistics (in short: predecessors and relatives), but *excusively* according to the sociolinguistics. Since there is still "Serbo-Croatian" in ISO standards (as the third language, some kind of umbrella for Serbian and Croatian)- it's evident that this designation is only a sign of inertia. Croats and Serbs have lived in one country, Yugoslavia, for almost 70 ys. And that's the only reason for S-C in ISO, and no H-U, or B-M (Macedonian), od M-BI (Malay). It's *only* politics and nothing else.
:When one browses thru post-1990 textbooks (or other links, like University curricula), one can see that S-C term is rapidly falling into disuse and that books bearing that name are overwhelmingly outnumbered by national standard language names (S, C,B..). I wouldnt comment on Bosnian since it is not yet fully crystallized as a standard language. But- dictionaries or grammars that try to teach foreigner S-C are extremely difficult and, essentially, useless: one gets lost in the maze of Ekavian and Ijekavian, Cyrillic and Latin alphabets, different vocabulary, syntax, word-formation,...Frankly- the very tortuousness of still extant S-C grammars and textbooks is the best testimony of futility of such enterprises. Who could find the way in such a jungle:
http://www.i-depth.com/P/e/ez00831.frm.music.msg/2561.html
Later.........
M H
: Hindi and Urdu are certainly mutually understandable on a vernacular level. However, when it comes to purer forms (spoken) and literature, they become exclusive due to their huge vocabulary difference. Urdu is 40% Perso-Arabic in roots while Hindi is almost fully Sanskrit-Prakrit. The mix is known as Hindustani. Also, I am removing the link placed for some reason on the main article page.--LordSuryaofShropshire 05:39, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
:And actually, I don't find S-C grammar books any more daunting than Slovenian. In Slovenian, there's two correct methods of declension, conjugation or comparison for several classes of nouns, verbs and adjectives. There's also two correct ways to accent great many words. Not such a biggie. Zocky 18:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindi/Urdu, S-C term (dis)use

message: The page, as it is now is-crap. Another piece of dumb Serbian propaganda, and easily detectable at at that:
-there is no Štokavian dialect in ca 25-30% part od SE Serbia, but Torlak
-classification of dialects along denominational lines is idiotic- an even if accepted (for fun9, the figures are wrong. For instance, no more than 2 M Serbs (I guess it's "Orthodox", including Montenegrins) speaks some kind of Ijekavian
-classification along the "jat reflexes" is stupid, since "ijekavian" are bot New-Štokavian (Eastern Herzegovinian or "southern") and Old-Štokavian (Eastern Bosnian and Zeta dialect).
-the opinions of Serbian linguists are falsified. For instance, the most prominent Serbian linguist Ranko Bugarski doesnt follow the Greater Serbian linguistic propaganda exemplified in this article (or in works of his lesser colleagues like Brborić or Čupić). The greatest Serbian linguist alive doesnt think that Serbo-Croatian still exists-or that it was Serbian-based.
-much more crap..
This page needs to be reverted.
M H
-And YOU and your IDIOTIC theories are the GREATEST CRAP on this page and all other pages wherever you put your crappy(M H) signature!:)) Serbian language is Croatian language, it's ONE language, and no miserable morons like you can change those true facts! 
And watch your trashy language, because everything bad you say is returning to you like a boomerang;Cheers! 
-------------
Other reasons for reversion:
:since Serbia has, according to last census, 6.2 M Serbs (including ca. 0.7 M refugees from Croatia and Bosnia); also, some 200 k Serbs in Croatia and ca. 1.3 M in Bosnia and Herzegovina-all in all, there are no more than 7.8 M Serbs in ex-Yu. The demographic drop due to emigration, war losses and lower fertility rate is ca. 600 k from 1991., when there were ca. 8.4-8.5 M Serbs in Yu. So:
:there is no way one could ascertain how many Serbs speak now this or that dialect
:no way combined "Orthodox" dialectal speakers (funny phrase) could add over 7.8 M people.
:the author persistently uses the term "Muslims" for Bosniaks. This is a dated designation, which can easily be verified consulting CIA Factbook
:the map of dialects is false
:the division along denominational lines is nonsensical
:the division along "jat reflexes" (Ekavian, Ikavian, Ijekavian) is nonsensical
:the contention that dialects can be considered as separate languages is nonsensical, especially since difference between some Čakavian and some Štokavian dialects, especially diachronically, is not more than 3 (even 2) features, and representative authors, like Croatian Renaissance poet Hanibal Lucić (the most original Croatian poet in the 16th century), who wrote in predominantly Čakavian dialect, in his works used interrogatory pronoun "što" instead of "ča" more frequently-the textual analysis is best covered in monumental monograph "Hrvatska renesansna književnost"/Croatian Renaissance Literature, authored by Marin Franičević in 1983. All in all- the page should be reverted.
:M H
::Actually, there are 6.5 M Serbs in Serbia; 1.5 M in BH; 200k in Croatia and 200K also in Montenegro. That altogether alone gives you an 8.5M figure, more-so including all Montenegrins getting ever closer to 9M. --PaxEquilibrium 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda allegations, reversion justification

message: He did it again, no explanations. Sysops, you're going to have another edit war here just as soon as someone takes the plunge and starts reverting his junk. --Shallot 10:48, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting Igor

message: The latest reorganization of the article has actually caused the article to be less organized. As it is now, the genetic linguistics and sociolinguistics are stuffed down there below the political connotations, and the standards bodies' markings are too, whereas those things are essential to understanding the political issue. It just doesn't make sense to me to first throw in a bunch of fairly unsubstantiated zealot opinions and then go about explaining the real deal. We should definitely acknowledge that there's enough zealotry to go around, and then some, but this is an encyclopedia, it should retain a focus on the right stuff. --Shallot 15:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored now. --Shallot 19:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The broken logical flow in Tox's version

message: The first sentence said that it was an official language of Yugoslavia, not that it was the official language of Yugoslavia. I am fairly sure that there's a semantic difference between those two. I don't think we should clutter up the initial paragraphs with a lot of extra data just because of this may theoretically be confusing to some readers. The "Simple English" Wikipedia exists for a reason... :) --Shallot 16:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "an", not "the" 

message: In case anyone's interested why the recent reversions in the edit history happenned, the topic of emigrants to Molise and to Burgenland has already been discussed somewhat at Talk:Slavic_peoples#Gradisce/Burgenland, Molise, etc. In short, this anonymous user has been posting stuff with some sort of pro-Serbian agenda, and it has yet to be substantiated with any pertinent facts. --Shallot 19:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molise and Burgenland 

message: I was a bit stunned to read that Slavonians use Ikavstina. They most certainly don't in Osijek: instead a kind of Ijekavstina with slight Ekavian input ( something like dvje instead of dvije). But clearly Ijekavica. In Western Slavonia (Pozega area) it's even purer Ijekavian. They actually say mlijeko, not mljeko or ml'jeko as would Eastern Slavonians. So I wonder where in Slavonia in would be Ikavian? Jakob Stevo 14:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The old Bunjevci and Šokci use ikavski, yeah. It has the characteristic Pannonian drawl :) but it's ikavski all right. --Shallot 21:16, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I never met any old Bunjevci or Šokci while living there for over a year:-) Where have they gone? Anyway, I like Slavonian drawl, zagrebacki accent sounds rather crude to me (a bit like continental Spanish) Jakob Stevo 23:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nowadays, they are a minority population and are generally restricted to smaller villages, štokavski has long been dominant in the region and kids in school who speak ikavski generally get mocked by their peers for using the "strange" speech so it tends to die out among the youngsters. Yay for language standardization. --Shallot 13:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Štokavski' and 'Ikavski' are not opposing terms, in fact a dialect used where I live is mostly Štokavski+Ikavski. Those terms address different issues, so here is how it goes: either Ikavski/Ekavski/Ijekavski combines with Štokavski/Čakavski/Kajkavski. --Arny 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ikavica in Slavonia??? 

message: I've added a relatively large section on phonology, stress and orthography, which definitely needs polishing. Namely:
- check IPA and X-SAMPA symbols and see whether they match the actual pronunciation
- put in accent diacritics (images/unicode characters?)
- spare few words on palatalizations, voiced/unvoiced shifts, ioting, etc.
- wikify
- etc.
Also, I moved "Dialects", which are IMO not central to the topic (but are fairly long section) into separate article. Duja 13:44, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology & Orthography 

message: Only few additional words are misspelled, mostly in order to resolve ambiguity: otčepiti (uncork) - pronounced očepiti (to avoid confusion with "očepiti" (hurt))
: Um, I'm pretty sure that otčepiti comes from odčepiti, and that the d morphed into t because of pronunciation. Also, there's little or no need to disambiguate because the accentuation is different (the accent on the "e" is long in the second word). --Joy [shallot] 18:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My bad. Actually, there's no rule by which <tč> should merge into <č>, and (in slow speech) the [t] in otčepiti is prounounced (although only just, or with a slight glottal stop in-between) (accentuation difference notwithstanding). There are few more (rare) words where merging does not occur (potčinjeni). I'll remove the entry.Duja 13:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  *&#269;epiti 

message: <Moved to User_talk:Stephen G. Brown> (147.91.173.31 14:37, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen G. Brown's Edits 

message: The article claims: These arguments are political. However, the speed of communication today makes it unlikely that the languages of the Balkans will diverge naturally. This may make easier determining which changes are authentic and which are artificial.
Does this mean, the Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian speeches (a) won't further diverge from their current differences, or (b) that they won't become mutually unintelligible, or (c) that the standardised written forms of the languages will probably stay roughly static from now on? Only (c) seems to be remotely plausible. 
(a) is clearly false. The formerly homogenous speech mass of Australia has began diverging in this age of fast communication and mass inter-migration. Particularly in the eastern states, we are first and foremost Australians and only incidentally Victorians or New South Welsh or whatever else. Nevertheless, there is divergence along state lines, with Victorians pronouncing 'celery' and 'salary' as homophones, but New South Welshers not, even in towns nearish the border (though not necessarily on the border). This change has occurred between my parent's generation (tail-end baby boomers) and mine (I'm 20). This without there even being a strong Victorian vs New South Wales identity. How can it be claimed no further natural divergence is likely in an area where there is a huge difference of identities amongst speakers of the various speeches? That's unbelievable!
(b) is probably false by implication. The speech is not one day intelligible and the next day not; the gradual increase in minor changes such as the merger of /el/ and /æl/ in Victorian Australian English (which I pick on primarily because I realise that it's the only innovative geographic variable in AuE), which build upon each other (as well, of course, as grammatical/lexical changes), eventually (over hundreds of years, admittedly) makes it increasingly difficult for the speakers of now distinct dialects to understand each other.
I also take issue with the words 'naturally' and '... changes [which] are authentic and which are artificial'. What does that mean? Is there some secret cabal of Croatians and another of Serbians who say, behind closed doors, that as of next year, Croatians shall instead pronounce /l/ as [w], and Serbians will pronounce it as [j]? that Croations will increase the use of present participles but Serbians will use the simple past (or whatever is comparable)? Who knows what the causes of linguistic diversion are, but surely any distinction such as 'natural' and 'artificial' are, unless well backed up, themselves artificial!
Is there some special meaning of this in Serbo-Croatian linguistics, or is it just a  point-of-view statement in a difficult article?
Felix the Cassowary 1 July 2005 12:57 (UTC)
Have to say I've lived in Victoria for about 40 years, and never heard anyone pronounce 'celery' and 'salary' as homophones! 202.156.6.54 12:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Divergence 

message: The article addresses most of the issues that Millosh brought up. If you are concerned about factual innacuracies, then simply provide a source for what you think is correct. --Dejan Čabrilo 03:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dejane, don't behave like a vandal. So called "facts" inside of article should be explained with real facts. For example, I would like to see tha facts about the number of speakers of SC. Also, how can anyone claim that SC was written in Glagolitic and/or Arabic alphabet when SC didn't exist in that time? --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not a short story and a lot of people think that this article is POV. If you want to talk about that, please talk, but don't remove POV template before the talk is finished. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 05:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You are Yugoslavian nationalist and this is the main problem with this article: a number of Yugoslavian nationalists (and people who support them) are trying to represent facts in their way. And this is the clear POV. And, your nationalist eyes only see "us" (Yugoslavian nationalists) and "them" (Serbian, Croatian, etc. nationalists). There are no others. This is typical form of nationalism. (Also, we can talk a lot about your cultural intolerance; for example, about your intolerance towards Cyrillic alphabet.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 06:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed POV tag 

message: Well,
Without much historical and nationalistic reviewing, there are reasons for language to stay. I am a 25 yrs old Serbian, living in Belgrade and most of my education, until nationalistic uprising, was in Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian (when reading Croatian books). I will point out just obvious reasons:
*Wether it is a political creation, I don`t know of two more similar languages.
I have travelled to Croatia several times, and as far as Zagreb is concerned I feel that Croatian and Serbian as official literal languages, prior to 1991. silly changes like `brzojav` or `zrakomlat` (not funny just for me, for
my friends in Zagreb too`)are most similar languages I know of. List of different words can be learned `on road` or in a week.
* In Serbia today we use many Croatian books without any problems, in science, in culture etc. Same goes vice versa in Bosnia and Croatia, with slight difference that they don`t use and learn what is written in cyrillic.
*Since new languages came with new `reborn` nations after long years of being under Turks or Austro-Hungaria, then Yugoslavia, not all grammar books etc. needed to fully standardize languages are created. So in Bosnia for example, they still use SERBO-CROATIAN books. 
* And if you ask me, I speak either Serbo-Croatian, or if you like 3+ languages. I admit Macedonian and Slovenian are very different, but these languages really look like a dialects of one. And no one argued that until separation
came and new nations needed everything new. It seems that Serbs are most romantic. I wouldn`t say just being for "Greater Serbia". Remember that intelectuals that wanted to have one SouthSlavic country were Croats too, and altough Yugoslavia was under Serbian influence it also weakened traditional Serbian kingdom and country and I believe Croats had more rights than under Austro-Hungarian (Republics, Banovinas etc. with local gov.). So don`t think it`s all about Serbian domination. There are a lot of common roots in language and tradition, no matter how much nationalist leaders want to divide us. 
So long, so good, my Croat friends. Don`t use what unite us, to divide us more. War is over, and everything goes forward. Come to Belgrade, and I like to drink "Ozujsko" at "Ban Jelacics" square. And I won`t stick or flash any photos. I`ll just admire your culture, history and beauty.
--Rastavox 02:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for Serb-Croat language 

message: I tried to devide discussion into two separate question. I think that solutions for those questions is soultion for the POV tag on this article (of course, with a number of consequences inside of article). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this "Accuracy dispute" tag still there? I'm sure we can agree that once upon a time there was a language officially called "Serbo-Croatian", which presented the "common denominator" for all the languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) it is based on. We certainly can not agree what is the correct denomination of it and whether it really existed (but it had a name, a state, and a written standard), but we can put the dispute notion and let readers decide. Or am I missing a point? Most of this article describes features which are common for all "covered" languages officialy "supported" nowadays. Duja 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that we can. But, for a half of month I am waiting someone who is willing to talk about this issue :) (As well as I am not so quick, too.) So, I started with implementation of correction the day before yesterday. And you are welcome to join me. We need just a little bit better description of disputed parts of the text. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Whoever started this complication about Bosnians, Bosniaks, Croats in Bosnia, Serbs in Croatia etc. will find it removed. We can accept the fact that not all members of certain ethnic group call the language by its own people name, and that they're entitled to do so, but 1) they're certainly a minority and 2) where will we get by enumerating all the nuances? ...ali Mujo iz Vlasenice zove svoj jezik Fatin posto se udo. Duja 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Bosniak nationalist propaganda. They want to say that all Bosnians (including Croats, Serbs, maybe Germans, Jews, etc.) call their languages "Bosnian". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is rare, but it exists. Afrikan names (with starting "m" or "n" followed by some plosive) are transcribed with syllabic m or n. A lot of place names (such as "Vlčje") from Southern and Eastern Serbia are as-is in standard pronounce. Syllabic l was often enough always. "Ljvov" is example of syllabic "lj", as well as idiolect "žlj", "šnj", etc. This is the fact in Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) phonology. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic and political questions 

message: There are no dubt that Serbian and Croatian (and Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian) are almost the same standards (in the sense of grammar). I think that there are no rational person from the area of Neo-Shtokavian dialect who would say that (s)he doesn't understand Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian or Serbo-Croatian (or some future Montenegrin) standard. We can understand each other very well. If someone doesn't understand some word, it can be understandable from the context. So, this is not any kind of rational question. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialects, history of languages and standard languages (linguistic question)

message: Linguistic terminology can use term SC in two ways: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this "Accuracy dispute" tag still there? I'm sure we can agree that once upon a time there was a language officially called "Serbo-Croatian", which presented the "common denominator" for all the languages (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) it is based on. We certainly can not agree what is the correct denomination of it and whether it really existed (but it had a name, a state, and a written standard), but we can put the dispute notion and let readers decide. Or am I missing a point? Most of this article describes features which are common for all "covered" languages officialy "supported" nowadays. Duja 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that we can. But, for a half of month I am waiting someone who is willing to talk about this issue :) (As well as I am not so quick, too.) So, I started with implementation of correction the day before yesterday. And you are welcome to join me. We need just a little bit better description of disputed parts of the text. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Whoever started this complication about Bosnians, Bosniaks, Croats in Bosnia, Serbs in Croatia etc. will find it removed. We can accept the fact that not all members of certain ethnic group call the language by its own people name, and that they're entitled to do so, but 1) they're certainly a minority and 2) where will we get by enumerating all the nuances? ...ali Mujo iz Vlasenice zove svoj jezik Fatin posto se udo. Duja 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Bosniak nationalist propaganda. They want to say that all Bosnians (including Croats, Serbs, maybe Germans, Jews, etc.) call their languages "Bosnian". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistic terminology (political question)

message: I removed the entry on vocalic L because it's stretched at best -- Vltava is a Chech word (which has a vocalic L) imported without changes, but IMO its existence does not justify the claim that "L can be vocalic". It cannot, except in this very case. I've never heard of vocalic Lj, M, and N, and even if they can appear, they're so rare and unstandard that aren't worth mentioning.Duja 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is rare, but it exists. Afrikan names (with starting "m" or "n" followed by some plosive) are transcribed with syllabic m or n. A lot of place names (such as "Vlčje") from Southern and Eastern Serbia are as-is in standard pronounce. Syllabic l was often enough always. "Ljvov" is example of syllabic "lj", as well as idiolect "žlj", "šnj", etc. This is the fact in Serbo-Croatian (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian) phonology. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocalic Consonants

message: I'm inclined to move the linguistic topics of this article (from Grammar to Orthography) elsewhere, as the page now is a mixed bag and overly long. Further, much of those contents are already copied from here to Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian article -- but where? Shtokavian dialect is one possible candidate but I'm not happy with it, and something like (Main article:) "Linguistic topics of Serbo-Croatian language" looks clumsy. I'm open to suggestions... Duja 13:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language seems to be gaining currency as a fixed expression replacing S-C. --Elephantus 13:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Grammar should go to Shtokavian (language description) or inside of article "Neo-Shtokavian dialects" or something like that.  --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Orthography in the sense of differences, should go into "Diffrences between official languages..." (which should be moved into "Differences between Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian". Otherwise, it should go into articles about Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, SC language. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguistic topics 

message: PING: THE TITLE CONTAINS A WRONG STATEMENT!CHEERS!
Even both Croatian and Serbian linguists in former Yugoslavia tried to fuse both Croatian and Serbian language into single Serbo-Croatian language they have eventually failed. No one in Croatia doesn't talk Serbo-Croatian language, and no one in Serbia doesn't talk Serbo-Croatian language either. Croats talk Croatian and Serbs talk Serbian language. 
  
    * Bosniaks call their language Bosnian
    * Croats call their language Croatian.
    * Serbs call their language Serbian. 
I'll provide few sentences in English, Croatian and Serbian to compare both languages.
  
    * Can we eat? - English
    * Možemo jesti? - Croatian
    * Možemo da jedemo? - Serbian"
This is grammar difference. Serbian language is prone to use word "da" in questionable sentences with object (in this case, object is hidden). Croatian language doesn't use that kind of sentence structure.
:Croatian form is correct in Serbian, too. --millosh (talk (sr:))
Also Serbian form is in use in Dalmatia and Slavonia i.e. 85% of Croatia;
"
   * What time is it? - English
   * Koliko je sati? - Croatian
   * Koliko je časova? - Serbian
Časova (sing. čas = hour)
Satovi (sing. sat = hour)
:Partially wrong. You will never hear "Koliko je časova?" in Serbia. Actually, sat replaced čas in colloquial usage almost everywhere by now (except when referring to school class). čas sounds overly formal. Duja 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in refering to 24 hour clock. It is more usual to say "sada je 13 casova" ("it is 13 hours now") then to use "sat". But, it is very unusual (as Duja said) to say "sada je 1 cas posle podne" ("it is 1 hour PM"). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wrong again. Such writing is allowed, just less common. I doubt you will find "Yuriy Gagarin" in many Croatian texts, either. As for ruter, svič, hard disk, these became imported words so it's proper to write them as that, even in Cyrillic. OTOH, when an English (or other foreign) term did not become common, it is usually written in original form, and in Latin script if in Cyrillic text. Duja 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And your point is...? Duja 08:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Croatin form is correct in Serbian, too. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Croatian and Serbian language are two simmilar, but quite different languages

message: Estavisti, care to expand why you added cleanup tag? The article has gone through many iterations and, being relatively stable for a while, I consider it pretty NPOV  and in line with facts. It could be made shorter by moving Grammar section to a separate article, with links from Bosnian language, Croatian language and Serbian language as the main article, but until that job is undertaken by someone, I don't see what's otherwise essentially wrong with it? Duja
:Maybe because of my English :) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with it (your English); I'm removing the tag, as it's too ubiquituous and doesn't specifically pinpoint anything. If Esti wants to return it, I don't mind, but I'd like to hear concrete objections first.Duja 08:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever it's called, I'd like to have it... (sigh). Duja 08:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|cleanup}} tag

message: Thus a bi-variant language appeared, which the Serbs officially called "Serbo-Croatian" and the Croats "Croatian or Serbian". The variants of a supposedly single language functioned in practice as different standard languages. The common phrase used to describe this unusual situation was that Serbo-Croatian/Croatian or Serbian is a unified but not a unitary language.
How is that unusual? What makes it different from UK/US/Australia/etc English or German/Austrian German, or any other language that has more than one standard? Zocky 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't overly unusual indeed. Fixed. Duja 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing... Can "Serbs" and "Croats" really call anything "officially"? Who called it that? The governments? Matica srpska/hrvatska? JAZU/SANU? Zocky 17:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ack, more: Now that this is no longer considered unusual, what's the value of including it at all, especially with words like "supposedly" and "in practice", which imply that all those people, governments and writers who supported the single-language view were objectively wrong. Zocky 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual? 

message: Someone put a hidden message in the text querying the use of "vice versa". It went like this:
:"So if one compares Serbo-Croatian words to the similar Russian words, the stress in Russian will be on the following syllable if the Serbo-Croatian word has either rising stress and vice versa."
I think the problem is actually the use of the word "either". If that is removed, the sentence seems to make sense, but does it then express the thought that the writer meant? If not, perhaps he/she can find another way to put it. I have removed the "either" for now, and the sentence in question is now flagged with the hidden message "". Kelisi 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vice versa" hidden message 

message: I've changed the term register into 'language' in the infobox. "Register" seems inappropriate here, as it refers to a subset of a language used in a particular sitauation by a single person. --Elephantus 13:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Register -> Language

message: Now, this requires a thin ear, an existing serious phonetic analysis of the language(s) (is there one?), and a sort of compromise. In my opinion, SC postalveolar consonants (Š, Ž, Č and DŽ) should be actually retroflex ones. Actually, the retroflex feature and lack of any palatalization make affricates clearly distinguishable from alveolo-palatal ones (Ć and Đ) in most dialects. 
Now, this is also a dialectal issue. For entire Serbia, Montenegro and Herzegovina, eastern and western Bosnia (1) (speeches on which the standard is based), this is so. However, in wide Zagreb area speech, central Bosnia, and most of Dalmatia, a "softening" takes place (at least in affricates) (2), while in eastern Slavonia (Osijek) and by some Belgrade speakers (sometimes mockingly referred to as "džiber-speak"), "hardening" takes place (3). Guess I have to make a table to make it clear:
  	Belgrade (1)  	Zagreb, Sarajevo (2)	Osijek(3)
Č 	retroflex,    	postalveolar,       	retroflex,
Ć 	alveo-palatal,	alveo-palatal,      	postalveolar,
DŽ	retroflex,    	postalveolar,       	retroflex,
Đ 	alveo-palatal,	alveo-palatal,      	postalveolar,
In some idiolects, there's even a merger of Č-Ć and DŽ-Đ (considered substandard), either on the "soft" side (common in Bosnia) or on "hard" side (in eastern Slavonia). A neighbour of mine from Ilok uses retroflex pretty much everywhere.
Similar happens with fricatives Š ( West /  East) and Ž ( West /  East); however, as they don't have alveo-palatal counterparts, the distinction is less important. I'd say that they're "slightly less" retroflex than Russian ones even in Eastern speeches.
My point is, at least Serbian standard should list Č and DŽ as retroflex. It's less clearcut for Croatian and Bosnian, where both retroflex and postalveolar variants are acceptable (and can be heard) as long as they're distinguished from alveo-palatal ones. Duja 10:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonetics: Retroflex vs. postalveolar 

message: According to the most recent census here, there was a total of 
7,015 speakers of Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian in Croatia, which is less then the number of speakers of Albanian, Bosnian, Czech, Hungarian, Roma, Slovenian, Serbian, or Italian. Also, it has no official status or recognition in Croatia, that's why I removed it from the category "Languages of Croatia". --Elephantus 11:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I'm not really into mind reading. As I said, there is neither a significant community of speakers nor any kind of official recognition to warrant its inclusion in the category. --Elephantus 12:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is about what people themselves think, say and claim. And people, in this case, have spoken. So, second-guessing census results is a no-no. --Elephantus 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here, "people" meant speakers. Languages are formed by a community of speakers, not linguists. --Elephantus 09:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with Elephantus re: languages are formed by a community of speakers, but I don't believe his reasoning necessarily supports his conclusion, it is counted in the census and is as the category includes Istriot language, Istro-Romanian language, I think it needs fixing. We don't have Dalmatian language in there, so there isn't a precedent for historical purposes. - FrancisTyers 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that in the case of Serbo-Croatian we don't know how this "language" looks like-unlike Dalmatian, Istriot etc. One can easily recognize whether a short text (say, the Lord's prayer or the Isha upanishad) is in Croatian or in Serbian. But-what would be a Serbo-Croatian ? A 50-50% mix ? 70-30% ? 20-80% ? Serbo-Croatian is not a cover or "encompassing" term, but a derivative one. Sure, one can say that they speak Serbo-Croatian, but if this conention possesses any thruth, this would mean a mixture of Croatian and Serbian: something like a mix of Bulgarian and Macedonian, or Czech and Slovak. A possibility of mixing, without rules, of 2,3,... elements doesn't imply existence of a stable mixture. In case there were rules for combining Serbian and Croatian into another language-then, the S-C would have meaning. Otherwise, it's just a fossil notion from the past ("Slovin" language, luminiferous ether,..).Mir Harven 21:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I admire your knowledge on the matter, but, to reuse Francis's words, I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from it. In a dialect continuum like ours, it's a matter of definition (and/or political force) where you draw the language borders. A Croat from e.g. pre-war Sarajevo might say that he spoke Croatian, but one could not distinguish his idiom from his Serb neighbour who spoke Serbian. And both idioms would not be identical to those of Zagreb or Belgrade. I don't imply that Bosnian idiom is the Serbo-Croatian language; rather, my point is that "language existence is in  the eye of beholder". On both questions, "did Serbo-Croatian exist?" and "does it exist?" I reply mu. Duja 21:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well-actually, the "official BH language" was not a mix: it was Serbian Ijekavian, a variant of the Serbian language (although it was not desirable to say it loud).And-I learned it as wu. Lu Kuan Yu, "Ch'an and Zen Teachings". Eh, tempus fugit..Mir Harven 21:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: I noticed that Elephantus removed :Category:Languages of Croatia from two language articles from my watchlist: Istro-Romanian language and Dalmatian language. I have reverted them. They are/were languages spoken in Croatia and they belong to that category. I won't join your disputes and instead, I just ask you to please stop disrupting the rest of Wikipedia. Thank you. bogdan 13:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:POINT]] 

message: Inasfar as this page is a private playground for a tiny minority in ex-Yugoslavia, that minority will do well to remember the following.  "Categories" are visible to the entire site.  Adding "Languages of Croatia" as a category goes against not only the official Croatian government stance, but also against the prevailing majority opinion in Croatia.  There is no national agitation in the other direction.  No one is proposing that we destroy the article or, worse, that we destroy the article about shtokavian dialects.  But on this question there should be no compromise.  --VKokielov 21:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vkokielov, we don't care about official Croatian government stance all that much. It's important for the article, but it will not determine its content. Also, do bare in mind that, e.g. most of the world doesn't think abortion should be allowed, but that does not mean we are going to delete Abortion. Look up for discussion. --dcabrilo 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zivote moj...trebaju ti naocare.  I say in particular no one is suggesting we delete anything -- except for this little lie -- and you tell compare to deleting abortion...--VKokielov 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, the burden of proof is on DCabrilo, not on us.  Second, there was never an independent Croatian state which listed Serbocroatian as an official language.  --VKokielov 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The language you are using right now does not have any single standard. Prescriptivism is not as wide spread as you may think. BTW. I'm not sure if you read my argument. Term Serbo-Croatian is primaraly descriptive, not prescriptive. Nobody denies that idiolects are different, although it is a fact that a person from Belgrade will communicate much easier with a person from Zagreb or Sarajevo, than with a person from a village near Leskovac. But, once again, we cannot and should not try to define languages, just describe what we know. --dcabrilo 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Elephantus, do try to take my arguments into consideration. It took me some time to type it all out, not because I'm usually that verbose, but because I tried to present it from a different perspective. --dcabrilo 05:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure at all. But, "Dano-Norwegian" gets less than 30k google hits, while "Serbo-Croatian" gets 2,900,000 (it doesn't prove anything but that Serbo-Croatian is more widely used concept). --dcabrilo 13:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories.  My portion 

message: The article has now been unprotected per a request by User:Duja at WP:RfPP. I'm hoping that you've all reached agreement on the debated aspects of the article and will be able to edit responsibly, taking into consideration the ideas of others, and with adequate discussion. Please do your best to abide by WP:1RR, or even 0RR where possible--discuss changes and reverts, and then implement with consensus. If edit-warring begins to flare up again, I will have this page watchlisted and will jump in at the first sign and reprotect. Please drop me a note on my talk page or here if you feel protection is necessary again, or if you need my assistance with anything else. Thanks, and happy editing! AmiDaniel (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Duja 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: It is said in the article that Ijekavian word grijati was formed by the rule that r + short ě gives ri. That's not true. Usually there would be an e here (because of consonant + r + short ě, which gives re*), but there is i because of j that follows it. When a vowel or a soft consonant follows short yat, it turns into i in Ijekavian dialect. --213.244.208.49 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grijati 

message: Due to recent edits, I went ahead and did a google and google scholar search on the included alternate terms for Serbo-Croatian.
Here are my results
                      	Google   	Google scholar
Serbo-Croatian        	3,350,000	6,570
Croato-Serbian        	1,340    	90
Serbo-Croato-Bosnian  	368      	1
Serbo-Bosnian-Croatian	6        	0
Bosnian-Serbo-Croatian	535      	0
Bosnian-Croato-Serbian	999      	0
Croato-Serbo-Bosnian  	9        	0
Croato-Bosnian-Serbian	9        	0
This is, of course, a rough count since I noticed a number of instances were a result said "Bosnian (Serbo-Croatian)" or some other non-dashed format.  But the point is clear.  The top two are clearly the most common to such a degree that the other forms can be considered mistakes. Of these terms listed, only Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian should be included.  AEuSoes1 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbo-Croato-Bosnian, etc

message: If I wanted to refer to all of these closely related languages combined, which would be the preferred terminology? Since Scandinavian languages and Hindustani are terms agreed upon by linguists, there should be some acceptable term here as well, trying to avoid political overtones... 惑乱 分からん 15:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I use "Serbo-Croatian" wherever practical (i.e. if brevity is called for); a very linguisto-politically correct name would be "Central South Slavic diasystem" (which, of course, carries the risk that you won't be understood). "Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" could be a "politically (hyper)correct" term (waiting for Montenegrins to object). Duja► 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I still think it's a better choice than having the exact same linguistic examples described three different times for political correctness... 惑乱 分からん 16:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: The article was moved from 'Serbo-Croatian language' to 'Serbo-Croatian' -- any idea why? - Francis Tyers · 14:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Don't know, but why not? Naming policy: shortest possible non-ambiguous term. "Language" is not needed, because "Serbo-Croatian" hardly ever refers to anything else, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages#Structure, note below 2). Not that I think it's exactly applicable ("Esperanto language" is pretty nonsensical, "Serbo-Croatian language" isn't), but as FP said, "why not". Duja► 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Serbo-Croatian, differently from Esperanto, wasn’t a 100% artificially-constructed language. The eventual differences between the ways of speaking and writing from Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians are similar (or even smaller) to the differences between British English and American English. And Bosnians, Croatians and Serbians don’t need interpreters to talk with each other. So, Serbo-Croatian still exists somehow, but nowadays it’s called Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian basically because the religious nationalism that arised during Yugoslav Wars. That’s it.--MaGioZal 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, but religious nationalism is not the point. --PaxEquilibrium 16:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we need two articles - one about the Central South Slavic diasystem and the vernacular dialects (srpskohrvatski narodni jezik or srednjojužnoslavenski dijasustav), and one about the Serbo-Croatian literary language of 1850s-1990s (srpskohrvatski/hrvatskosrpski književni jezik in Yugoslavia). --George D. Božović (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a great idea. Mrcina (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Are there words that have dj and tj inside them? As in, words that would conflict with writing Đ as dj or Ć as tj? The article says it causes ambiguities, but can someone provide an example? -Iopq 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nadjačati (to overwhelm), tjeskoba (anxiety). But your question is wrong: Ć is never writen as Tj, and Đ is written as Dj only when one has to stick to "pure ASCII", in which case there are even bigger ambiguities regarding omission of diacritics from Š, Č and Ć: (ASCII) sisati = sisati (to suck) or šišati (to trim); (ASCII) pice = pice (pizzas) or piće (drink)? The language is not meant to be, and normally isn't written that way. Duja► 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, my question is not wrong because I never said that it was written as tj. I am actually working on a project and I'm trying to see how many Slavic languages distinguish tj (тй, тj) from ть (Ć, t'). I assumed serbo-croatian doesn't, but obviously this is not the case. Thanks, it seems that the majority of the languages do. -Iopq 08:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK. But then, it contains an incorrect assumption that Ć and Đ in Serbo-Croatian chiefly come as result of Iotation of T and D. Some of Đ's do (nađen (found), građani (citizens) ), and few Ć's might [compare S-C poći (to start), peći (to bake) the exact morphology of which I'm not sure of, with Russian пойти, печь] but iotation in Serbo-Croatian is seldom productive today. DJ and TJ combinations at morpheme boundaries which occured later during the course of language development are mostly preserved. Some notable dialects do still morph TJ into Ć (potjerati->poćerati, (to drive off)) but it's not standard. Many Đ's and Ć's actually seem to have an origin of its own, or stem from Turkish, Hungarian and Italian loanwords. Was this more helpful? Duja► 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Russian пойти comes from the same root as idem, not poći which comes from the same root as начать (correct me if I'm wrong). Unless you're using it for the "go" meaning instead of the "begin" meaning. Well, from some words like ђаво (compare to Russian дьавол) which comes from Greek διάβολος it would seem that the loans also had the same transformation. But names like Ференц Ђурчањ do come from actual palatal sounds in Hungarian. -Iopq 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, poći (more precisely, "to start going") and пойти are cognates, coming from "to go" root. Also, početi and начать are cognates ("to start" (doing something)). However, I'll throw a random list of words containing ć and đ whose origin is unknown to me: ćaskati (to chat), vreća (bag), kuća (house), ćutati (to be silent), međa (landmark, boundary), riđ (red-haired), đubre (trash), lađa (ship). I can identify etimology of some other: đinđuva (Turkish), ađutant (Italian), aforementioned đavo (Greek), rađati (by iotation from rod-, to give birth); ćar (Turkish), ćurka (dunno how, but apparently cognate to Turkey (bird)), vraćati (by iotation from vrat-, to return). Duja► 16:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if you consider that ćurka at some point was tjurka then the resemblance to turkey becomes undeniable. -Iopq 14:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wait, tjeskoba is only in Ijekavian, right? What about a word that contains тj in Ekavian? -Iopq 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mention them because I couldn't have recalled any. There are (IIRC) no prefixes ending in -t, and few suffixes starting with -j did affect the preceding -t, resulting in iotation: Хришћани, љући. I did a brief search in few documents I have around and found none -tj-'s in Ekavian texts. It seems to be rare or even nonexistant (except in foreign text translations, e.g. Тетюхин -> Tetjuhin). Duja► 09:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dj and Tj 

message: Could do with a citation. - Francis Tyers · 07:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive

message: Per Duja's request in edit summary, let me clarify why (I claim) there were no three official languages. A quote from Pravna enciklopedija, 1979, entry "Jezik" (my emphasize): Prema odredbama čl. 246. Ustava SFRJ jezici naroda i narodnosti i njihova pisma ravnopravni su na teritoriji Jugoslavije. U SFRJ su u službenoj upotrebi jezici naroda, a jezici narodnosti su u službenoj upotrebi u skladu sa ovim ustavom i saveznim zakonom. Osim toga, prema ovoj odredbi, zakonom (republičkim i pokrajinskim) i statutom društvenopolitičke zajednice i samoupravnim aktima organizacija udruženog rada i drugih samoupravnih organizacija i zajednica obezbeđuje se ostvarivanje ravnopravnosti jezika i pisma naroda i narodnosti u službenoj upotrebi na područjima na kojima žive pojedine narodnosti i utvrđuje se način i uslovi primenjivanja ove ravnopravnosti. For more clarification, "narodnosti" are peoples who live in Yugoslavia but their majority lives outside of the country. E.g. Albanians, Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks... while "narodi" are peoples who's majority lives in Yugoslavia. So, while the constitution gave Macedonian, Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian a "primus inter pares" status by making "narodnosti" languages having to have a sort of local self-governing policy for usage (e.g. Albanian and Serbo-Croatian shall be used in Kosovo in such a way that...), it does not state that languages of "narodi" are any more official than the languages of "narodnosti". While the three languages were de facto languages of communication on the federal level, they had no de iure status of that sort (at least I can't find a law saying that). This encyclopedia also states in one of its articles (or was it Vojna?) that Yugoslavia has no official language, but I can't find that reference right now. To the best of my knowledge (prove me wrong though) "zvanični jezik" was not used on the federal level, but rather the term "službeni jezik" (which are languages of all peoples). --★čabrilo★ 10:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, OK; I guess just used to that intro; I more objected to your replacement sentence. Apart from legalistic nitpicking (which shouldn't concern us too much anyway), the definition of official or non-official or whatever is really not binding to the language. I'll try to rephrase... Duja► 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, my replacement sentence was a bit awkward and in the spur of the moment (I just went in to change that it was official, but then remembered something new had to be written:). Current version is just fine. --★čabrilo★ 14:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official language status 

message: Total speakers: Some 17 million speak Serbian, Bosnian, or Croatian.
This is an article about the Serbo-Croatian language. Why you don't give a real number of people who say that they speak Serbo-Croatian? --N Jordan 00:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In truth, that number is very low. But for most linguistic bodies, particularly those which promote a descriptive approach to languages and related matters, they generally agree that the three named languages are the "main" successors to Serbo-Croat. To an extent, they existed before its creation; obviously not in their modern forms, but then who speaks the same in any languge as they did nearly 200 years ago! For a local from Belgrade and Zagreb to communicate would pose no problem; one can call his language Serbian, the other Croatian. If either chose to call their language Serbo-Croat, they wouldn't be speaking anything differently. So technilcy, you are right - 17 million declare one of the three, it is not "Serbo-Croat" in the strict sense. Evlekis 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total speakers 

message: The consideration of this court with regard to how do the employees of this court call this language is stupid. The sentences refering to this language from the point of view of this court are useless as this court is not an international institution for standardisation of languages. On the other hand, actually, translations are made there differently depending for whom these are made and it is quite often that people there request translation into their mother language from this serbo-croato-bosnian "artificial" language.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia