Talk:Kajkavian

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Kajkavian dialect is part of the [[Croatian language]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I answered that on https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Indeed, the grammar is off. Tagged with  now. GregorB (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Quality of the translations? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not SC 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Quality of English generally 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Should it say "microlanguage" instead of "language"?