Talk:Serbian language/Archive 1

message: The phoptograph showing a table of different languages titled "Serbian Cyrillic" and "Serbian Latin" is a fraud. The original of this table calls the "Croatian Latin" column by the name "Illyr" which stood for Croatian (Illyrian Movement, a proto-Yugoslav movement, originated and is associated only with Croatia). The Serbian language and orthography reformer, Vuk Stefanovich Karadzhich, never intended Latin alphabet for Serbian. It was introducted in Serbia by Austrian and German occupiers in 1915, and forced in the communist dominated Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1991. There is no such thing as "Serbian Latin" alphabet. It is a reformed Croatian alphabet some Serbs choose to use.
Kostadesu 04:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you (except that I dont think that standard "Serbo-Croatian" ever existed)- looks like wiki "Moghuls" or general consent among non-speakers is to retain "Serbo-Croatian" entry. I'd delete it because it's superfluous and dated-but I'm in a minority.
Mir Harven 13:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Nevertheless for the three specific standard language pages it makes sense to quote first the specific number, and then the general number. The page Serbo-Croatian language has the general number only. I put the general number in parenthesis in the three pages, perhaps there's a better way to format it... --Shallot 18:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: initial discussions

message: What is a correct and neutral term I can use in English to refer to the continuum of languages that includes Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian? Southwestern Slavic? South-Western Slavic? Western South Slavic? West South Slavic? Or is it simply best to say Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian.--Sonjaaa 06:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
: That's probably the only available compromise. We pondered this already at Talk:Serbo-Croatian language#Clarifying_concepts_.2F_National_classification_of_dialects but nobody had any really better suggestions. --Joy [shallot] 12:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Western South Slavic?

message: "Serbian language has a rare feature, in that words are spelled as they are spoken, and every letter represents one sound."
How is this rare? How is this different from any other Slavic or Romance language (other than French)??
Pius Aeneas 21:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is not the attribute of language, but the attribute of ortography... But, this was written in the sense of Adelung rule. Only Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Finish and Estonian orthographies implemented such rule. In the sense of this rule, even classic Latin orthography doesn't have such feature: "ae" should be read as "ai". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Finnish ortography does not always follow pronunciation. For example, nk is [ŋk], ng is [ŋː], np is [mp] and so on. --Fagyd 21:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't disqualify it either; so is Serbian banka, mango. /ŋ/ is not phonemic neither in Finnish nor in Serbo-Croatian. As for /np/, Serbian does normally blend it into mp, but I don't think that any practical orthography can be 100% phonetic. Duja► 09:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare Features of Serbian? 

message: added a section on tone to Croatian. don't want to assume it's the same in serbian, but someone might want to use it. kwami 02:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: tone

message: See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije
Hope, many of you will contribute! :)  --Neoneo13 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on closing down the serbocroatian Wikipedia 

message: In Serbian: --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "инјекција (не ињекција нити инекција)", Митар Пешикан, Јован Јерковић, Мато Пижурица, Правопис српскога језика - екавско издање, Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства - Матица српска, Београд - Нови Сад, 1994-2004, страна 389. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "инјекција (not ињекција nor инекција)", Mitar Pešikan, Jovan Jerković, Mato Pižurica, Orthography of Serbian language - Ekavian version, Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva - Matica srpska, Belgrade - Novi Sad, 1994-2004, page 389. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no two words written in the same way in Latin but not in Cyrillic, except in some weird cases. Combinations "дж", "лј" and "нј" are very rare (but, when we are talking about ordinary Serbian, combination "дж" iz more often then phoneme/letter "џ", but, there are no homonyms). I heard for example of personal name "Лјилјана" as well as transcription (not translation!) of the capitol of Slovenia is "Лјублјана" (this can be good example for what you need :) even we don't use transcription of Ljubljana often; i.e., this is just possible case in standard language). The main problem with automatic transliteration between Latin and Cyrillic are not homonyms (or homographs), but general rule: Engine 'nj->њ' will not work in all cases. Cases are very rare, but as bigger text is, probability for such cases is bigger. Especially for combination "dž", which is more often as "дж" then as "џ". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It should be noted inside of text that there are Unicode characters for dž, Dž, DŽ, lj, Lj, LJ, nj, Nj and NJ -- and if people use it (there is Serbian Latin Unicode keymap for X Window!), we can have problems in other way: for example, "Dž" and "DŽ" are both "Џ" in Cyrillics :) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, if you want to illustrate this with some colloquial example, make clear distinction that it is colloquial example. In this case you should write something like: "Standard writing and pronounce is инјекција, but colloquial pronounce is ињекција. This is not possible to describe using Latin alphabet." --millosh (talk (sr:)) 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But, abbervations without dots are the problem: for example, correct abbervation for Football Club Ljubovija in Serbian Latin is FKLj. BUT, raw capital letters are not correct style of computer writing. If someone needs heading in capital letters, (s)he should write it as usual text with style definition "all capital letters". So, it can be said that "Љ" is always "Lj" (etc.), as well as capital letter in the sense of text style is "LJ". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for "injekcija" 

message: Vincent, from the French wikipedia.
I am trying to understand what this language is all about, to understand how the SR version of Wikimedia works, to developp this article on the French wikipedia and even for my own web project (http://www.hr4europe.com). Which of the three variants is supposed to be the standard (+ cyrillic / latin problem)? And if there is no standard, what is the proportion of users of these three variants ?
Regards,
Vince
Vberger 08:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess... 

message: There's actually no English vocal equivalent to the dž-sound. Paulus Caesar 01:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My ears agree with yours, but the problem is that both English phonology and this article use the same IPA symbol () whereas they shouldn't. The same also holds for Š (), Č () and Ž (). However, reference books we used don't go into fine details, so we're stuck with it. Serbian ones are more Retroflex and could be described as , , , and  instead. No references to support my claim though... Duja 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Late message here, I pronounce English Lodge,  Italian Gelato, Turkish Cami and South Slavic Džandar all exactly the same way. It has never been commented by either language community that my respective pronunciation does not match eveyone elses, there may be a tendency for one form to develop in one language and another in the other but when the two forms are that close together, they don't qualify to be classed as different sounds. It is possible that languages with greater sound variations may distinguish the two, but whilst a language only has one, it isn't right to state that one language's phoneme is different from the other's, especially as each individual has his own speech system. A good example is R, originally trilled in English but rarely so now. It is still a rolling R in most European languages including ALL Slavic languages, but not everyone consistantly hits the target, particularly those who speak more rapidly. There are even those like Vojislav Šešelj who are unable to trill their Rs. Evlekis 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of dialectal issue: Macedonian [] is generally "softer" (and closer to English) than in Serbian/Montenegrin/Herzegovinian/Slavonian dialects; Bosnian and Dalmatian can be even "softer". Moren describes it as [], i.e. apical and labialized (although I don't get how the latter is applicable). Duja► 09:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dž/џ  is NOT pronounced as 'dge' in dodge 

message: Old version of the page says the latter, but it was changed some time ago to velar. I don't speak the language (I do read Cyrillic though :), but my Serbian GF seems to think it's glottal...er, well, she didn't say "glottal", but she claims to hear no difference between "Х" in Serbian and "H" in Engleski. My disclaimer is that she says her Serbian isn't as good as her English, so this could just be mistaken identity. Perhaps this is a dialect thing? Or am I crazy? --Yossarian 30px| 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fairly moot point. Generally, as one would hear with e.g. TV speakers, it's velar (/x/) but probably not as "strong" (i.e. not so much friction between the tongue back and velum) as e.g. German Ich, Russian Kharkov or Spanish Jamon. "Light", English-like glottal variation is likely to be heard with some speakers or as an allophone. Further, some Shtokavian dialects don't/didn't even have it, (it isn't a very frequent sound, and it was possibly glottalized in history before it disappeared), but it reappeared due to influence of standard language. As a curiosity, letter Х was last added to Vuk Karadžić's alphabet—apparently, he didn't use it himself in his native dialect until he "discovered" it in speaches of Dubrovnik. Duja 07:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's a really cool factoid (I'm such a Slavophile). It doesn't surprise me. Most languages have a way of letting their consonants "slip". Thanks muchly for the clarification. Cheers! --Yossarian 30px| 08:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick research—apart from loanwords and frequent "native" words hleb (bread) and hteti (want), its most frequent occurrence is in suffix -ih, occuring in genitive plural of adjectives (e.g. velikih – of large [ones]) and genitive & accusative of pronoun oni (->njih or ih – them). In such terminal position, it becomes very light or even silent by the natural laws of speech. Duja 11:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In most vernaculars it totally disapeared. Exemples like hleb, or njih are all directed to standard. Old people still say sometimes in Belgrade leb 'hleb'. H was only preserved in some vernaculars in Montenegro and in Dubrovnik area, in all chakawian vernaculars as well. Also, most of Muslim vernaculars preserve H as it's very common in Turkish and Arabian. It's interesting that a special phon h was preserved in south Banat in examples like huliti, hajka etc. Luzzifer-- 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless velar fricative or voiceless glottal fricative? 

message: The picture shows some letters incorrectly. Please see Different Cyrillics at Serbian Wikipedia Challenges. It is also not necessary to print and then scan the printout to get this image - there are many better, lossless ways to achieve the same. PNG would be a better format for this.
--Aleksandar Šušnjar 21:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Italic Cyrillic п and т notwithstanding, I noticed the Latin C just now... LOL... Duja 07:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian Alphabet.jpg Image 

message: There is nothing primarily wrong with this chapter. The problem is that the whole case system is nothing unfamiliar to most languages and certainly nothing new to the English tongue. The article seems to pinpoint that this is a feature of Serbian, as if Croatian and Bosnian might actually be different. Even Latin was not different with the Filip voli Anu story. It needs only to be said that the former dialects of Serbo-Croat (or for those more sensitive), the modern languages of Serbia, Montenegro etc. uphold an inflectional case system using asides subjective/nominative, the accusitive, dative etc. As such, it is clear that you do not depend of syntax in the same manner as English or Italian which have mutated to the point that only the nominative is used for nouns in all cases. It is only for this reason that they need syntax. Anybody who can figure out cases will know this, anyone who doesn't will still be confused (ie. one only knows his own language uses the Nominative, sees the example and thinks that "Filipa" is just the Serbian for Philip, so when Filipa Ana Voli occurs, he will still be confused as to how Philip is the recipient of Anna's action. Ragusan 15 july 06
:I agree in principle; however, the four articles (Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian and Serbo-Croatian) are generally in poor shape, and should really have a common sub-article (Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian grammar) which would merge all the aspects and cover entire stuff, currently inconsistently spread all over the place. Ana voli Filipa is certainly not unique, but it could make a good example if placed among many other good examples. I do agree that it kind of stands out of context, but I'm reluctant to remove it outright now, because it can be useful in the future.  Duja 15:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morphology

message: There is absolutely nothing simple in Serbian phonology. To call a vocal system "simple" it should not have the absolute accentual circus that one encounters in Serbian (the word being used to illustrate how colorful to the point of ridiculousness this may be). There are no rules  that are firm, and even if they exist, they are not the rules of language as such, but are rather standards set (such as not being to accentuate the last syllable, which is often the case, but has notable exceptions, etc.). Although rules do exist, and they are more complex than the more general ones, calling the vocals "simple" is truly incorrect.
--Ogidog
:Let's separate two things: phonetics, dealing with individual sounds, and phonology, which deals with their interaction as phonemes, stress etc. Serbian phonetics IS fairly simple: only five vowels, no diphthongs, moderately complex affricate consonants. However, phonology (taking into account iotations, palatalizations, historic shifts, jat rendering), especially the accentuation, is terribly complicated, as you pointed out. Duja 09:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Simple" vowels

message: The fact-box states that there are 11,144,758 Serbian speakers and that's an awfully exact figure. Where does this number come from? Is this number continuously updated? And if not, I think that "11,1 million" would be more appropriate. --Saccharomyces 20:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right :))) I put "around 11 millions". --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total speakers: 11,144,758 (exact?) 

message: Mixing of diachronic and synchronic description... Also, it is not about phonology, but about morphophonology... When I would have some time, I'll fix it. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean when you have some time, you'll fix it. Apparently Serbian syntax doesn't translate directly to English. (Or vice versa, I'm sure.)  HTH. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :))) My English is has strong influence of my Serbian syntax --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology section disputed 

message: User Angr, wants to show, that Torlakian vernaculars are actually Bulgarian, or at least not a dialect but a language
"Torlakian is the name used for the Slavic dialects spoken in Southern and Eastern Serbia, Northwest Republic of Macedonia (Kratovo-Kumanovo) and Northwest Bulgaria (Vidin-Bregovo). Some linguists classified it as the fourth dialect of Serbo-Croatian language (with Shtokavian, Chakavian and Kaykavian) and today as the second Serbian language (with Shtokavian) dialect. In Bulgaria, these dialects are considered as western Bulgarian dialects. It is not standardized, and its subdialects significantly vary in some features.
Classification
Some Croatian (like Milan Rešetar and Dalibor Brozović) and Serbian linguists (like Pavle Ivić) classify Torlakian as an old Shtokavian dialect, referring to it as "Prizren-Timok dialect"[1], because some subdialects use word što for "what" (but that is also a feature of Bulgarian and Macedonian). However, some subdialects use word kvo (same as Bulgarian kvo {or simply even just ko} (informal) and kakvo (formal). Some linguists in Bulgaria (Stoyko Stoykov, Rangel Bozhkov) classify Torlakian as a "Belogradchik-Trn" dialects of Bulgarian language and also claim that Torlakian should be classified outside of shtokavian area."
--Luzzifer 14:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Angr doesn't want to show that Torlakian is Bulgarian. This is intention of Bulgarian linguists, like intention of Serbian linguists is to show Torlakian as Serbian. And different points of view should be explained inside of the article. (As well as the fact that maybe 90% of speakers of Torlakian are Serbs by ethnicity/nation.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torlakian 

message: In the morphology part it says that traditionally the dative and locative case are seperated but that they are actually the same and that therefore morpohologically the number of cases is six. This is not quite correct. The written forms in the locative and dative case are always identical, but the accent is not always the same eg. sat (clock) is sâtu (long falling accent) in the dative and sátu (long rising accent) in the locative case or grad (city) is dative grâdu and locative grádu. So there is more than only a traditional reason why there still is both a dative and a locative case in the serbian language.
That is just plain untrue. The locative and dative have the same accent in those two words. Where did you pick up that distinction, it's completely incorrect. If the accents were different, then they would definitely be different cases, but that is just not the case.
It's true, cf. for instance, Josip Matešić, Der Wortakzent in serbokroatischer Schriftsprache, Wiesbaden 1970, and earlier monumental work of Daničić. I also chacked up by reviable native speakers. 
--Luzzifer 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to verify Luzzifer's claims. Standard accents are different. However, the most of inhabitants of Belgrade don't recognize that distinction (locative accentuation won). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 17:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dative and Locative 

message: Without bothering to check edit history in detail, I assume that most of Accentuation section comes from User:Luzzifer and that  comes from User:Millosh (judging on their edit styles). I simplified and fixed some of it, but it needs more work.
Luzzifer, I urge you to provide references for the section; I think it's a mess of sourced material and your own perceptions and opinions, but I can't tell one from another. Accompanied with bad spelling (oh well, that's fixable), it gets fairly incomprehensible at times (I don't understand, frankly):
These are no accentuation rules. They can be very useful for insure native speakers when they have to mark the accent of some word, but thay cannot be of any help for a learner, since he/she does not how the word is pronounced (where the accent should be, and what kind of it).
I also removed this, being a) unsourced b) barely intelligible c) what's the relevance in stressing out that one particular vernacula accent? d) really needs IPA notation:
In Serbian language phonemes /č, ć, đ, dž/, in contrast to Croatian and Bosnian vernaculars, have in most vernaculars independet phonetic realization.
It is interesting to be noticed, that in so called Old-Belgradians vernacular, the phonemic value is preservied, the phonetic realization twisted. /Č/ is more like [čj], /ć/ is more like [čh], /đ/ like [dž(h)] and /dž/ like [džj] (for instance in words: čaj, hoću, đubre, džemper). It's also intersting that Old-Belgradian, has  (not so soft as at the seaside) for /l/, and a special pronaunciation of /r/. That explains the enormous number of kids mixing the /l/ and /lj/, /č/ and /ć/, /đ/ and /dž/ and having problems with pronaunciation of /r/ after the World War II when authentic vernacular was confronted with standart pronaunciation.
Duja 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accentuation 

message: I was updating reference styles with the Ref converter and there was a reference within the Consonants table redirecting from the Approximates row, Labio-Dental column to a small paragraph immediately under the table.
:...as was intended...
This hiccoughed the converter so I removed the reference because it was not really a reference.  If someone could double-check that it is still appropriately readable that would be grand.  I will not be heading back through here.MrHen 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...i.e. don't fix if ain't broken. Duja 18:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference was botched, may need more fixing 

message: There was a vote in Serbian parliament on either the 29th or 30th of October that resulted in the Cyrillic alphabet being proclaimed the only official alphabet of the Serbian language in the Republic of Serbia as being cyrillic. Someone should add this somewhere in the main article. I forgot where I found this article. Some newspaper somewhere - Vesti, Politika, maybe Nin, not sure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.48.252 (talk) 
:That's not quite right. A new constitution has been proposed, which states that Cyrillic is official and Roman script is not. It's been voted through in parliament, but it still needs to be approved in a referendum. So, let's wait for that to actually happen, shall we? --estavisti 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New constitution

message: A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in Cyrillics 

message: The constitution in Serbia passed this weekend affirmed this, there is only one alphabet for the Serbian langauge and that is the cyrillic alphabet. this should be changed within the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.160.151 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2006
: While I fully support this measure, the Serbian government is not a linguistic authority. --estavisti 04:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a quote from the constitution confirming this. I have heard conflicting reports ranging from "Cyrillic is the only alphabet in Serbian" (highly unlikely, since constitutions have nothing to do with standardisation of languages) and "Cyrillic is the only alphabet in official use in Serbia" to "Cyrillic is preferred script to be used by government offices in Central Serbia" (as opposed to Vojvodina). As I said, a quote from the constitution would be nice. I googled, but couldn't find a draft of constitution. --Dijxtra 11:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, there's no "only one alphabet" clause. Just that Cyrillic is official, but other scripts could be official too, if regulated by law. --Dijxtra 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that's simply a phrasing that means Hungarians etc can write Hungarian or whatever in Latinica. --estavisti 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ofcourse. But, the fact is that the constitution does not say that Cyrillic it the only one alphabet for the Serbian language, as 74.99.160.151 says. --Dijxtra 12:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well actually it can, in fact it is only an authoritative or administrative body which can do this. The question one needs to ask himself is "why is there an official alphabet in the first place?", and the answer is because the language is known to be or have recently been written down in more than one script. There are dozens of examples. The official language of Bulgaria according to its constitution (not some linguistic authority) is primarily Bulgarian, BUT Bulgarian has no official alphabet, should this mean that we can devise a Hebrew-based register for Bulgarian? Technicly, YES! But will we? Highly unlikely, and if we do, it will then come under attack from traditionalists and in the end, someone will lay down the law according to stature: an official alphabet will be implemented. As it happens, nobody would use anything other than Cyrillic to write Bulgarian (except modern texting etc. where Cyrill
*Once again, NO. Serbian language has teo alphabets- cyrillic and latin. Serbian parliament has only chosen OFFICIAL LANGUAGE AND OFFICIAL ALPHABET. Official language is language that is used in formal correnspondance within administration and between administration and citizens. And according to new constitution, official language is Serbian, official alphabet is the cyrrilic alphabet of Serbian language, which has two alphabets: cyrillic and latin. Maybe it's different to understand, but that's how the things work. No parliament and no constitution can proclaim alphabets or even orthography of any language.-- 17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am certainly not trolling if that was what you meant, I just found half my text wiped out and replaced with something which I never argued with. My point was that administration declares what is official indeed, but this is not important in any sense; most languages don't have an official alphabet because there is one conventional form and some countries don't even have official languages! Nobody decides what is in "cultural usage" and even if they did, Serbs are not confined to Serbia (where the stature is effective), they live in every country of the world where there is nobody to stop them writing in any alphabet ever devised! The article need only mention it once (about being official) and even then, the reader from the side will still have forgotten five lines down. Evlekis 11:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic Only Alphabet 

message: I have done some minor grammar correction and addition of wiki links.  Aleta 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contributions Aleta. // Laughing Man 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: I think it would improve the article if there were tables such as those found at Romanian phonology that have example words for each phoneme with orthographic representations and IPA transcription.  Does anybody think they can do it?  I'm good with tables but I don't know any Serbian and I can certainly work with someone who's in the opposite situation (good at Serbian and lousy at tables).  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't think so; those tables are, in my opinion, overlong, and don't contribute much to the article, as the native speakers will already know the examples, and they won't tell much to the outsiders. Actually, the Romanian phonology is not the style commonly found in other phonology articles AFAICT. That is not to say that this article is OK (it's far from good I think), but I don't think that those tables would improve it in the right direction. Duja► 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  I guess the main reason I'm interested in such a table is to help me in putting Serbian example words in various phone pages (such as close front unrounded vowel and voiceless postalveolar fricative.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoneme tables

message: I think the link to websters..should be deleted as it really is ver bad. this dictionary (I think) is very good http://www.slavicnet.com/  It contains alot of slang that others don't cover and if you mispell a word (which I manage even on Serbian!!!!!!) it gives you options.
I don't know if you have enough dictionaries already there though ..so maybe you don't want to add.  Kat-ica Kraljica 01:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dictionaries

message: Please stop reverting the map. There is no other language that shows mutual intelligibility with other languages on its map. By the same reasoning you could colour every Slavic country with some shade. By the same reasoning the Slovak language map will have Czechia and parts of Germany and Poland coloured (due to Czech and Sorbian). To reiterate, mutual intelligibility is not grounds for inclusion. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: I recently visited Montenegro and it seemed to me that the Latin alphabet has virtually taken over from Cyrillics there, at least in the region I visited on the coast. I saw only a handful of signs in Cyrillics and these all seemed to be quite old. Is this indicative of an official change of policy since independence or is it just because I was in a more "touristy" area? Perhaps someone with local knowledge could update this page? 143.252.80.100 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a tendency since late 90s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  10:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As in Serbia, Cyrillic made a comeback in Montenegro during the 1990s, but, as the Montenegrin nationalism took over since 1990s, I guess that Cyrillic is (sub-consciously?) coming to be seen as "an attempt of Serbianization" and now there's a reverse trend; heck, Montenegrins are deeply divided and entrenched along the Serbian/Montenegrin ethnic line. If my memory serves me well, Montenegro national TV used Cyrillic in the 1990s and at some point switched (back?) to Latin. I guess Cyrillic has never (at least since 1945) been dominant in the coastal towns anyway. Perhaps someone from Montenegro could give a better first-hand information. Duja► 15:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: The article should contain where the language is official, rather than just the table. --PaxEquilibrium 19:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official? 

message: Should there be a mention of the use of these to differentiate translations using the two alphabets? I see this at http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/bylanguage/serbocroatian.html#encode but do not know if has been blessed by any standards body. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt adding to article now. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC 4646 just uses Serbian as an example, http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry may be the normative resource.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Linksvayer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sr-Cyrl and sr-Latn 

message: :Image:Etimoloski recnik.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Etimoloski recnik.jpg

message: Sorry, NeroN, but your version of the lead suffers from several problems, so much that I had to interrupt my wiki-vacation to return it back. First, it contains a lot of original research on how the language can be treated; I don't think that any language textbook contains anything like this. Further, it gives too much undue weight on Torlakian dialect, which is, for the good or the bad of it, ill-defined and of fairly marginal importance to deserve the lead paragraph. It certainly must be mentioned deeper in the text, but not in the third sentence. Sorry, but even mentioning of Kajkavian and Chakavian is fully misleading. Last but not the least, it fails to summarize the article per WP:LEAD.
I'm not particularly fond of the old lead either, but I think that at least it does mention the most important aspects of the language. Duja► 12:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. also, I think that Luzzifer has a point regarding the map: it's a fairly strange mix of political borders (Republika Srpska included, but Kosovo excluded) and apparent spoken language borders—wha', Serbian is a dominant language in half of Romanian Banat? It's better moved out. Duja► 12:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of the lead 

message: The Accents section is comparing Serbian pitch accents to English, Italian, and German -- which are not languages defined as having (phonemic) pitch accent.
This seems to be a problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.27.119 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent Section Comparing Tone to Non-Tonal English, Italian, German?? 

message: Serbian is constitutionally co-official with Albanian at the national level in Kosovo. Please note that some irresponsible users keep removing Kosovo from the list shortly after I put it on the article.--Getoar (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because Kosovo is not a sovereign state. It is widely recognized as a province of Serbia and other provinces aren't listed (if they were then Vojvodina would be listed). --Tocino 01:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

text: That is your blatant Kosovo Albanian separatist POV. Kosovo is recognized as a Serbian province by 150 of 192 UN member states. --Tocino  21:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tocino, please be quite and WP:Civil. Let's add Kosova on that list. Ari d'Kosova (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kosovo is not recognised as a Serbian province by 150 UN states. It is by 148. This is why i suggest we include the word "disputed" next to Kosovo, as this seems fair. As this is true. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have moved Kosovo down to other instead of what it was before to make it more NPOV Ijanderson977 (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official status in Kosovo 

message: Need Serbian (Cyrillic) spelling at Diple. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help at [[Diple]] 

message: My edits today are mainly to make the article more pleasant to read.  However:
* I have removed the text "Only 15 years ago čaršav (чаршав) was usual for tablecloth, today it is stoljnjak (стољњак)" because the relative time will be so quickly out-of-date and the time-of-writing is not indicated..  Perhaps the author can substitute some absolute dates?
* I have replaced "up to 40-50%" by "up to half".  A limit cannot be a range:  if it's "up to somewhere between 40% and 50%" then it's up to 50%.
* The absurd metaphor "juxtaposed on" should perhaps be "juxtaposed with", but is, in any case, rather strained and poetic, so I have removed it.
Mike Shepherd (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi I see you've made a large edit, and I am sorry to have to have reverted all of it. But there were a lot of red links caused by converting US to British spelling. Kind regards, --Île_flottante~Floating island  Talk 11:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 15.08.2009 

message: Kosovo needs to be listed on the side one way or another. Serbian is an offical language there. Northern Cyprus is listed on the Turkish language page and only one country regonizes it. -- Al™ 11:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Northern Cyprus is a different territory from Turkey, and Kosovo is one province INSIDE Serbia (discutable, of course), but when you say "Serbia", you are already including Kosovo. When you say "Turkey" you are not including N.Cyprus, so that is why in this case isn´t necessary, and in Turkish is. Two different situations. For Spanish, you are not including Andalusia, becose it is already covered by "Spain" (it is Spanish province). If you say United Kingdom you can´t writte Scotland as well... It is already included. FkpCascais (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Northern Cyprus shouldn't be listed on the Turkish language page since it already includes Cyprus.--Pepsi Lite (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Some more examples: Abkhaz language lists Abkhazia, Ossetic language lists South Ossetia. Both of those are within Georgia, yet are listed separately. Good luck getting Northern Cyprus removed, by the way. -- Al™ 10:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? I am not excluding nothing from anywhere. I am just saying. You can support the inclusion of Kosovo next to Serbia and other countries (giving them the "country" status that way) (hey, even I support a Kosovo independence but for some completely private reasons) but until the issue doesn´t resolve, the name Kosovo just can´t stand along with Serbia... I gave you other exemples (UK, Scotland or Wales...)(Spain and Basque Country)... The one automatically includes another one. When you say that Serbian is the official language in Serbia, you are already including Kosovo, just as the Central Serbia and Vojvodina... Its not that hard to understand. Look at the map! FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo 

message: Croatia (Croatian language): region in Dalmatia, Istria, Dubrovnik area, including the islands of Mljet and Šipan !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.101.249 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not serbian 

message: Croatian academy (HAZU/JAZU) Zagreb, is croatian academy = Croatian language !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.101.249 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian academy (HAZU/JAZU)  Zagreb 

message: Croatian Latin script Gajevica, which has reformed Croat Ljudevit Gaj !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.101.249 (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gajevica is Croatian latin script 

message: Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia and there's no need to mention that Serbian is official in Kosovo. You have mention it is official in Serbia. If you want to separate it, then mention Republika Srpska and other parts of other states!
:That is a POV that will not be clear to all readers. Some will understand "Serbia" to include Kosovo, others will not. Regardless, Serbian is official in Kosovo, not (only) because Belgrade says it is, but because Pristina says it is. If we omit Kosovo, the reader will be left wondering if Serbian is recognized as official by Kosovo. Therefore it is clearer for us to explicitly list Kosovo. Perhaps we could word it "Serbia, including Kosovo" if you wish, though I'm sure that will spark an edit war as well. — kwami (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo and Metohija is a part of Serbia

message: Hi, I was just wondering if anyone could edit the section on the vocabulary section, in particular the reference to the word "avlija".  This is NOT a turkish word, but a Greek one.  It entered Turkish as "avlu" from Greek "AVLE" (the E being the long Heta) and at the time of transmission pronounced as "i" as the "upsilon" after the initial "a" was pronouced as a bilabial fricative "V" as per the great vowel and consonant changes in Greek (see the Hellenestic Greek sound changes).  The etymology means "courtyard" and the online etymology dictionary reference is here:  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=curtain
or pasted as:  
"1300, from O.Fr. cortine "curtain, tapestry, drape, blanket," from L.L. cortina "curtain," but in classical Latin "round vessel, cauldron," from L. cortem (older cohortem) "enclosure, courtyard" (see cohort). The confusion apparently begins in using cortina as a loan-translation for Gk. aulaia ("curtain") in the Vulgate (to render Heb. yeriah in Exodus xxvi:1, etc.) because the Greek word was connected to aule "court," perhaps because the "door" of a Greek house that led out to the courtyard was a hung cloth. The fig. sense in curtain call is from 1884. Curtains "the end" is 1912, originally from stage plays."  NB:  aule = courtyard.  Garden would be Kepos.  
The equivalent word in turkish for garden is "Bahçe".  Whether or not the term entered into Turkish and transmitted by them or by the Greeks is a different story.  What is important is that the word is etymologically Greek, just like many Persian words and Arabic words were transmitted to some European languages by the Turks who absorbed many different vocabularies for their daily use.  
Thanks, Etymon.
128.250.254.122 (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed at Talk:Serbian language/Archive 1#avlija. The compromise was to put a footnote -- which is still there, see note (15), about the ultimate Greek origin of the word. There are many other Arabic and Persian -- and, in this case, Greek -- loanwords in Turkish, but from Serbian perspective, it does not matter, as Turkish was the mediator and apparent origin. No such user (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I fail to see the big deal, but here you go. All that the text says about the issue is, quote, "some 30–50 years ago avlija (авлија < Turkish avlı[15]) was a common word for courtyard or backyard in Belgrade[...]". Here's a reference for the origin: . So, BCS word is indeed a loan from Turkish word, and it is pretty much irrelevant (esp. for the considerations about Turkish loanwords) who Turks loaned it from. Despite that irrelevance, there's a footnote about the ultimate Greek origin. The suffix "-ija" is common BCS reflex for Turkish final "ı", compare e.g. čaršija < çarşı , which is of ultimately Persian origin, but I haven't seen many Iranians protest on the talk page. We also have a lot of Greek loans, especially in church and related terminology, but they were not the focus of the paragraph in question. So I don't see why would we enter into too much detail, except perhaps to select a different example to keep Greek editors happy. No such user (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: HJP is the only online scientific etymological dictionary of Serbo-Croatian (see translated credentials), so it is the most convenient online source to quote. As a linguist, you certainly know that Serbian and Croatian share a large point of vocabulary, and this word is no exception (though it's rather archaic by now, except partly in Bosnia). Most of the Turkish loanwords did not enter BCS through modern Turkish, but through Ottoman Turkish language, which is characterized (among other things) by a larger number of non-Turkic loans. Avlija is most probably one of those. I certainly expect some WP:AGF on your side: we did not borrow the word directly from Greeks, one indirect proof being that it is most frequently used among Muslim Bosniaks, who generally keep the largest share of Turkisms. No such user (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: See also  quote: ‡ Od: I. avlija ‘1. dvor 2. ograda, yid okolu ku}ata’ od tur. avlı, avlu ‘dvor’ < gr~. aìl™ ‘dvor’;] or new Serbian Претраживач страних речи и изразa [авлија, -е ж, ген. мн. авлија [тур. avlı од нгрч. avlī од грч.  (limited preview). No such user (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Jesus Christ. I give up. Do you want me to perhaps perform a belly dance for you? No such user (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: It's borrowed from Ottoman Turkish per numerous etymological dictionaries of Serbo-Croatian (Skok, Škaljić, Gluhak..). Your "protest" is a result of nationalist frustration that there is a significant layer of Turkish borrowings in Serbo-Croatian (at least 8000 recorded lexical units) resulting from 5 centuries of political domination of Ottomans on the Balkans. Grow up. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Suggested reading: User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur. You were given 3 reliable sources, got informed opinion of 2 educated native speakers, but you chose to believe your own fictive etymology. I doubt that you're an educated linguist at all, judging on your attitude and statements. Good bye. No such user (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Then, please do attempt to read properly the word that has been repeated at least 10 times in this discussion. The Turkish word ends in -ı, avlı. The BCS reflex of -ı is systematically -ija. I do not care which form was used in Levant, because it could not possibly influence BCS. I doubt that Ottoman Turkish was a monolythical language without significant regional variation. Now, if you have any reference that it was direct borrowing from Greek to BCS, please put it forward. I've had enough of your speculations. No such user (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Who are you dude? Some IP frustrated that Turkish language has contributed thousands upon thousands of words to their mother language. This is your reasoning: "From a pure linguistic perspective, it's impossible for the term to have been inherited from Turkish given it's pronunciation was "avlu" and if so, it would have been rendered as "avluja" not "avlija"." - Except that Turkish word was not avlu but avlı as No Such User has stated. Epic fail dude. You were given 3 perfectly credible etymological dictionaries as sources for Turkish etymon, and the only evidence that you gave in response was your personal opinion based on fallacious logic. Dude, read this analysis of Rumelian Turkish dialects spoken at the Balkans and pay special attention to point 1.41. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: No avlı is (was) an alternative form of the "courtyard" word, attested at least since the 16th century in that spelling. But regardless, either avlu or avlı in Western Balkans Rumelian Ottoman Turkish was rendered as [avli]. Read the link I gave above, page 3 point 1.41. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vocabulary section

message: FYI,
 Thank you for contacting the Ethnologue with your comments on Serbian [srp] in Serbia.
  
 Based on the census statistics for 2002, we will change the population number for speakers of Serbian. 
 Please note that any changes will not be made on the Ethnologue website until the 17th edition is published.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 <name withheld>
 Managing Editor
 www.ethnologue.com
No such user (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: From the Ethnologue Editor

message: Should this article be placed under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC?  There's been a Croatian POV pusher changing "Serbo-Croatian" to "Croatian" the last 24 hours.  --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO that's not necessary. We can block that editor if need be, but there hasn't been much of a problem with this article. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR under [[WP:ARBMAC]]? 

message: The article states:
"Although Serbian language authorities recognize the official status for both scripts in contemporary standard Serbian language for more than half of a century now, due to historical reasons, Cyrillic was made the official script of Serbia's administration by the 2006 Constitution."
Which part of the sentence "due to historical reasons" refer to? Do both scripts have an official status for historical reasons, or was Cyrillic made the official script for historical reasons? (And what kind of historical reasons are these? "Historical reasons" sound very broad to me...)
--Image of me (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The due to historical reasons is linked with the rest of the sentence, meaning that the authorities recognise both scrypts for more than half century now, but, Cyrillic was made the official script of Serbia's administration by the 2006 Constitution, trying to reinforce it as the traditional scrypt because historically Serbs used Cyrillic, but just recently, since 1945, have been using both. The sentence could possibly be expanded. FkpCascais (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous punctuation 

message: Throughout Wikipedia (see Albanian language, for example), we list Kosovo as a separate state although in italics with a note as to its disputed status.  This is the NPOV way to indicate it so that those readers who expect it to be separate see it separately and those readers who expect it to be not separate see it in italics.  This has been discussed and agreed to in multiple places in Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 10:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo usage in Wikipedia 

message: This whole issue of Serbian as part of Serbo-Croatian has been hashed out with verifiable, reliable sources over and over again here, at Serbo-Croatian language, at Croatian language, etc.  --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbo-Croatian 

message: Look at the facts on wikipedia about Croatian written documents centuries before so called "serbian".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.200.160 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see that you know that Croatian is written with capital C, but you can´t even write Serbian with capital S... Is there anything to discuss here? Can we remove this thread? It is really about the most cruel nationalism... FkpCascais (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's really only one-Croatian language. No such as "serbian". 

message: It states in the head list of places that use serbian as an official language that serbian is an official language in croatia, but on the map,croatia is light green, meaning that serbian is a recignized  language.
Which one is right???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.82.211 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Serbian is an official minoritarian language in Croatia. Some municipalities in Croatia give equal status for Croatian and Serbian (ex.: administrative use, street names in both languages, etc.). However, it is only limited locally to those municipalities, which mostly correspond to the ones where there is a strong presence of Serbian minority. This official document lists all municipalities case-by-case. FkpCascais (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian: Official language in Croatia  

message: According to the article Serbs there are 10.5 million of Serbs, with an higher estimate available, how come that speakers of the Serbian language have only 9 millions of speaker? Should`t be something similar to the number of Serbs?Adrian (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Serbs may use English as their native language - immigrants and what not - and not be too familiar with Serbian.
-True- but ... there is also a larger number of serbs in the world and besides that there are also second language speakers eventhough they arent mentioned in this article (or. number) that i have posted (majority of slovenians, a singificant number of kosovar albanians and ofc. macedonians)
dont forget that a vast majority of montenegrins around the world also declare serbian as their native language. and its said here that there are 12 million serbian speakers around the world (number includes republic of serbia) - which means it includes aprox. 7,2 million speakers exc. kosovo (despite ca. 6,5 mil. native speakers in the country)and ofc most of serbian diaspora and nabering country serbs (dont foget the foreigners who have left serbia and went into diaspora). ... so ca. 12 million speakers 
http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/Dru%C5%A1tvo/45760/Srpski+jezik+govori+12+miliona+ljudi+.html
the source should be reliable ... as its from national serbian television news (RTS - Radio televizija Srbije)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be divided to standart, all and L2 language, same as here: German language. This should resolve yours dispute. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I don`t know what is L2 speakers but I see that the article contains 12 million number which is fine and according to the ref you provided. I have inserted that ref in the article also just in case. Adrian (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted because (a) the numbers don't add up, so we were misrepresenting the sources, (2) the ref does not specify native speakers, and (3) it's not a RS. (L2 BTW means 'second language' = not native. The ref says 12M total, and so presumably includes L2 speakers.) — kwami (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will answer by points. (a) I don`t know about the numbers because the first ref is not available online. (b) Agree, it doesn`t specify anything, it only states that there are 12 million of people using the Serbian language. Nothing about native or second language speakers. (3) I don`t agree here because RTS is a respectable media in Serbia. As far as I have seen, media, newspapers and similar are taken as RS. Thanks for the explanation about the L2. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be fine. But newspapers are not generally reliable. They report claims, but often get them twisted. Also, people are constantly exaggerating the number of speakers of their languages; the fact that the article repeatedly emphasizes how admired the linguist they're citing is is a bit odd too - perhaps they do protest too much. Anyway, for linguistic claims we generally follow linguistic sources to hopefully avoid such problems. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Pravicnost a friendly advice. Please try to keep your posts concise and more right to the point. Simply state your sources and in one sentence(max two) explain what they represent. Anyone who is interested will easily check them. Like this, I doubt anyone will pay much notice. Adrian (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, see too long, didn't read. — kwami (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of speakers - Confusing 

message: ok straight to the point then....
http://www.ritell.org/Resources/Documents/language%20project/Serbian.pdf
http://books.google.si/books?id=7oVNbsmOqWwC&pg=PA441&lpg=PA441&dq=serbian+11+million+native+speakers&source=bl&ots=BhSxitqzkP&sig=r4ybryYBO9By4FCAELGpZ7EJLFo&hl=sl&sa=X&ei=ww_JUNz-KITl4QT1m4DoAQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
number of serbian speakers in balkans alone(these numbers are correct check them up):
Serbia (excluding kosovo) - ca. 7,186.000 (all or over 95% of citizens of serbia speak the language like in every country people would speak the main and official language of the country. (out of these ~7,2 mil. about 6,5 mil. consider it as mother tounge according to 2002 census)
Bosnia & Herz. - ca. 1,5 - 1,7 million
Montenegro - almost 266.000 (check out latest 2011 montenegro census on linguistics)
Croatia - 201.000
Kosovo - 140 000 Serbs
Slovenia - almost 39.000 , Macedonia over 35.000, Romania over 22.000, Albania 10 000, Hungary over 7 000 etc... = 110.000+
Only by counting these you get over 9,4 million (not including huge serbian diaspora) ... and even when you count the datas of serbian native speakers on the already existing wiki page article .... you will get far over 9 million speakers... try for yourselves... the data about 9 million is false. true data would be 11 million native speakers and an additional 1 million+ of L2 speakers (mostly of these kosovo albanians). while we can only neutraly categorize slovenians ,macedonians and others as L2 serbo-croatian speakers only.
Правичност (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If your sources were not adequate the first couple times, what makes you think they'll be adequate now? The one introductory linguistic ref you provide might be acceptable if that's all we had to go on, but we have the ELL, which is a more respected source. Maybe they're wrong, but you'll need to do better than this to demonstrate it. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Sources, please. That's all we ask. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

text: If you're not going to read the responces we give, there's no point in us reading your claims. Goodbye. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  data needs change 

message: your reference says this:
″Including, as of 2006, 6.62 million in Serbia sans Kosovo (88% of the population), 1.49 million in Bosnia (37.1%), 400,000 in Montenegro (60%), 133,000 in Kosovo and 45,000 in Croatia (not counting refugees), and perhaps a million in the diaspora. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed.″
count all those numbers together and youll get around 9.688.000 ... so thats nearly 10 million, how does that make the number ~9 million then? ... - ive changed it to up to 11 million - eventough officials say there are 12 million, coz there are more speakers in diaspora also (and dont forget that not all speakers of serbia are counted in up to 600 000 more people, also in croatia (200 000 serbs))..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Правичност (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You used the old reference for new data. I don`t think that is valid. If you counted to the 9.688.000, why did`t you put aprox:9.688.000 and not 11 million. I am sorry, but I don`t see any valid reason for the 11 million number, nor more important the reference for it.Adrian (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

text: That website (freelang.net) is not a reliable source.  On the one hand we have an authoritative linguistic encyclopedia, on the other a commercial non-linguistic website.  It's not contest really.  The published, scholarly, linguistic source wins.  --Taivo (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The infobox already has an about sign (~) before 9, but unless you have an actual reliable source, we go with the source we have which says 9 million.  --Taivo (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

text: About the other refs I don`t know, but for the ref from RTS (Serbian national TV) we already talked about. The ref is ok but very vague. It doesn`t specify the L2 speakers and as such I don`t think it can be used in this context. Adrian (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The problem with your sources is that none of them are specialized linguistic sources so it's hard to give them more weight that the source from 2006.  It's also hard to imagine how 9 mill > 12 mill in just six years.  That's an unbelievable growth rate.  The 2006 source is not just "some author", it is one of the standard works in linguistics and is considered reliable in the field.  Too many of these web site sources are not reliable because they don't rely on legitimate linguistic surveys, but on simple population counts.  Until you can get a reliable linguistic source rather than just website estimates, I'm not in favor of making this change.  We have a reliable source that is scientific (not political), linguistic (not general knowledge), and produced by a named expert in the field (not an anonymous website creator).  Those are very strong endorsements for a piece of information.  --Taivo (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would changing it to "~9.5 million" be in line with the source? At least it would be in line with the accompanying note. --JorisvS (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We shouldn't be doing math here anyway.  What we need is the precise number that the International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics says.  Doing math here is improper WP:SYN if our reliable source says "9 million".  This reliable source has only 7 million, so we should use the precise number published in IELL, not an estimate based on our addition.  --Taivo (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Are you holding the International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics in your hand?  If not, then you don't know what it says.  You only know what some other editor wrote here in a footnote that may have been changed since it was originally written.  In this case, we need to go back to the original source of the information and get clarification on exactly what it says.  --Taivo (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Find a copy of the International Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics and look up the number.  I won't be close to a copy for a couple of weeks.  Until then, we have to go with the reliable sources we have and none of your websites match the IELL for scientific accuracy or reliability.  Until we check the actual source, the world will not end over how many Serbian speakers Wikipedia lists, but until we have a reliable source, the one reliable source we have takes precedence.  There is, however, a fundamental problem in that many of these non-scientific websites simply take the population of Serbia and add a couple million.  That is not an accurate count.  The fact that Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are virtually the same language doesn't help the accuracy any.  --Taivo (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We rarely post L2 speakers for minor languages like this because the numbers are virtually always inaccurate.  What is your agenda?  We have a very reliable source that we will check after the holidays to ensure that the 9 million is exactly what it says and that is the end of it.  We don't list L2 speakers, we list a number from the most reliable scientific linguistic source we have, which is the IELL.  --Taivo (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

text: You're going to have to "calm down".  The world didn't end on the 21st and it's certainly not going to end before we can check the reliable source of the IELL.  Go eat your Christmas feast.  --Taivo (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Heheh, oh well... ty, but my Christmas is on 7th january (julian calendar - orthodox christian) but i can wish you a marry christmas. (Правичност (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text: A language learning service is not a reliable source.  That article looks more like it's a mirror from somewhere else anyway and there's no reference as to where they got that number from--a sociolinguistic survey, national propaganda, thin air....  --Taivo (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 million speakers 

message: Both are from Belgrade.  Considering the recent problems with WP:RS above ... ?  Do the editors feel they can handle the current level of vandalism w/o an administrator protecting the page for a while? HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there is a mistake with the number of speakers. I can`t check this references that are now present (not available online) but there is a source stating that there are 12 million of speakers . Adrian (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection required to stop IP vandalizing number or speakers? 

message: I know this was discussed several times but in the light of a new source , where it states that there are 12 million of speakers I will make the change at the article. I see that it is not specified the L2 speakers, but I believe it can be used as a higher estimate. If there is any problem, please discuss it. Adrian (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The EU commission on languages is not generally a reliable source for accurate linguistic surveys.  It relies not on actual scientific surveys, but on numbers that are provided by the member states and that have serious political undertones.  Until a neutral, non-political, scientific survey is done, Ethnologue remains the primary source.  --Taivo (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. I understand that in this case the European Commission source is not very adequate for this usage, but nor do I think we should dismiss it totally. But ok. If there is a source by an linguistic survey I will change the data. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

text: WRONG. The EU Commission is completely unscientific and must be dismissed with utter contempt. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying that the EU commission is "completely unscientific and must be dismissed" without any arguments isn`t really an argument. If you believe this is the case, please present some valid arguments why with evidence. Adrian (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Here is another source saying 12 million http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/Dru%C5%A1tvo/45760/Srpski+jezik+govori+12+miliona+ljudi+.html - even tough its not linguistic, but its a statement from one of wide known linguists... i think there should be a higher estimation. I highly disagree with ethnologue "scientific studies" - it shows 4,5 million serbian speakers in Serbia - which is 2 million less than the previous censuses shown (and im not talking about whole of Serbia). then it states almost 300,000 speakers in Albania... how is that possible when there are probably only 2-4000 serbs and montenegrins left there? Did they count maybe Kosovo under Albania? Is that how they got 300,000 speakers? ... this source is very weird... also its weird that out of 2,5 - 3,5 million serbian diaspora only 500.000 speak the language... really weird studies... (Правичност (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is a number of Albanians (not Serbs/Montenegrins in Albania which are hardly any there) that speak Serbian, specially in the north and around Skadar.  They don´t speak Serbian as mother tongue, but they know it. FkpCascais (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: "even tough its not linguistic".  That says it all.  It's not a reliable source for linguistic information.  It doesn't matter whether your addition matches Ethnologue or not, Ethnologue is a reliable source for scientifically based linguistic information and you are not.  Neither is a news article which quotes a guy.  Has that specialist actually done a valid scientific linguistic survey of Serbian speakers?  Or is he just talking off the top of his head?  Either way, Ethnologue is still the only reliable linguistic source we have.  --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: you are mainly concentrating on the link i posted instead of what my opinion is; you cant missout 2 million people from serbian speakers, and ethnologue does that. If im not right, check serbia census... and you will find for example 127,000 macedonian speakers in serbia nowhere - instead of that there are something about 10-20,000. Hope a reliable source will appear soon somewhere on google. (Правичност (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did, indeed, say what I thought of your opinion--it doesn't count.  The Serbian census isn't a reliable source because it is not a scientific census focused on linguistics.  Many people will say "I speak Serbian" because 1) they don't trust census takers to keep their information confidential, 2) they think there will some kind of reprisal if they say something besides Serbian, 3) they don't know that there's a choice.  Linguists know how to get around these issues when they do a survey based solely on scientific linguistic methodology.  --Taivo (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on Taivo. Since we all agreed that "Serbian" is a socio-political, not a linguistic construct, then the Serbian census is perfectly reliable source how many people (in Serbia) consider their language "Serbian". How else could you estimate number of "Serbian" speakers? And this is a perfectly normal census, people have the liberty to answer whatever they want, do not additionally speculate about their choices. You're making a moving target out of this. As for Ethnologue "reliability", please just check the #Number of speakers thread above, from three years ago. Do you really believe they cross-check 50 sources and conduct surveys for each and every of ~5000 languages on their list?I mean, I don't give a damn about the issue, but let us not pretend that estimating number of speakers is an exact science, where thousands of them (abroad) only speak a few words, other thousands don't have an attitude if it's "Serbian", "Bosnian", "Serbo-Croatian" or just "mine", for many others it is actually a second language, etc. Let us not mystify this whole "science" business. No such user (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Its true the Serbian census gave people free will to declare whatever language, ethnicity, religion they "feel like" or a will to not declare at all. Some numbers of Ethnologue are just redicilous, they count 1,6 million albanian speakers in serbia and about 300,000 serbian speakers in albania... so on one hand they recognized kosovo, but on the other they havent? or how they even came up with those numbers... god knows... i recently did a study of serbian declared speakers overseas: In Usa (187k), Can(73k) and Aus(69k) --- up to 330.000 people declared as Serbs (not counting Yugoslavs (cca. 400,000), out of which --- (Usa-47k, Can-55k, Aus 39k) about 140,000 declared they speak Serbian so thats roughly 50% of Serbs living in those 3 countries; thus it is far away from their homelands and culture in Europe. Now what would be the number if we counted Serbian speakers in Europe (outside of Balkans) where number of Serbs vary from 1,5 - 2 million and they are much closer to their homeland, culture and stronger serbian communities?... this all tells us that 500k speakers abroad is way degraded... Please also include that a significant percentage of Serbs declare their mother-tounge as Serbo-Croatian (for example in Slovenia rouglhly 10k out of 40k Serbs declared serbo-croatian, while the remaining 30k declared serbian as their maternal lang.). - I also think European Comission cant report their studies based on nothing or no research at all, they have huge credibility, i also propose this number to be used instead of ethnologue figures... or as a higher estimate simply... it could be 9-12 million based on both estimates for example. (Правичност (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit about the total number of speakers 

message: Although we've been over this before (see Talk:Croatian language/Archive 10), I'll bring up again the topic of this article, and that of the parallel ones, at Talk:Croatian language#The topic of this article). --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The topic of this article 

message: Dear editors,
until some time ago, there was a link from this page to Serbian Language and Culture Workshop (www.srpskijezik.edu.rs). It is important to keep this link mainly because Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) is a less commonly taught language, the resources on learning it are very important, and Serbian Language and Culture Workshop is the only highly specialized institute in Serbia of that kind (not a language school that teaches English, French, etc, and some Serbian aside, nor a big faculty or university which runs only semesterial bachelor, master and PhD programs). Second, Serbian Language and Culture Workshop is not really a profitable organization - even though we charge for our programs, we have shared many scholarships and we have been supporting Serbian and Slavic studies in many universities around the world.
Currently you have some strange external links, like learn-serbian.com - a totally commercial on-line language school from NY city. Now I don't have anything against these guys, but the  question is how relevant is this link. Also some of those web sites which you linked with your article have not been updated for more than 5 years, or .
I would like to recommend you to divide external links in couple of categories, like "on history of the language", "learning resources", "on-line dictionaries and libraries", etc. And please return the link to www.srpskijezik.edu.rs
Best regards!
SLCW team  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.165.244 (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your issue has not been addressed yet - I don't know if the link you wish to restore is valid or some crackpot nationalistic site not supported by valid linguists or not.  One of them needs to step in to answer you. It looks "okay" to me but it may have been deleted due to promoting a commercial website, which is not allowed on Wiki. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Did you mean to say "Come on, guys" above? :-) Anway, commercial sites aren't allowed to be RS's on Wiki. The Wikipedia Foundation made the rules. It is your job to abide by them as if they were spoken to you in a voice from the sky, lest the ground is cursed under your footies. 50.111.62.84 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The external link to Serbian Language and Culture Workshop 

message: I have noticed someone painted land of Kosovo in light blue on a map showing countries where Serbian language is official or recognized as minority. This would mean Serbian is recognized as minority language in Kosovo - which is not the case in reality; eventough you are recognizing Kosovos self-proclaimed independence; you are providing false info about language statuses there. Serbian and Albanian are both official languages in their self proclaimed Rep. of Kosovo. This is why it should be painted dark blue; regardless wheter you want to show your compassion with their independece proclamation or wheter you arent. (Правичност (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a Reliable Source to back up your claim?  If you don't you are just wasting time here. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Serbian language - Kosovo 

message: Hi all. In an unrelated matter I ran a search of English-language book results of Serbo-Croatian language, Croatian language and Serbian language phrase search and came up with this:
Right now, there are 18,600 Google books search results containing phrase "Serbo Croatian language" and 13,000 results containing phrase "Serbo Croat language", contrasted by 19,700 results containing phrase "Serbian language" and 21,300 results containing phrase "Croatian language" while simultaneously excluding phrase "Serbo Croatian language", making a roughly 4 to 3 preference against "Serbo Croat(ian) language" being a WP:COMMONNAME in English language books. (All four searches exclude results linked to Wikipedia and Books LLC to avoid mirroring wiki per WP:CIRCULAR.) Granted, there are 1,140 results among above ones containing both "Croatian language" and "Serbian language" phrases (i.e. duplicating results in the two groups), but they are quite offset by 1,310 results for "Serb language" phrase search.
Given these results, I wonder if the notice at the top of this talk page saying: "Serbian is a standardized register of a language which is also spoken by Croats, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins. In English, this language is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia." is accurate or not in terms of Serbo-Croatian being the common name of "the language in English" as the note says. It is quite possible that the notice was well intended (and based in facts) when it was devised and likely the number books published in English noting one term instead of the other simply changed over time. There's a near identical notice at the top of Talk:Croatian language too. Regards.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose to centralize the discussion at Talk:Croatian language.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Number of results is really not relevant - what matter is what the linguists say. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, HammerFilmFan, that's your arbitrary position, WP:COMMONNAME says something else explicitly. Ad, that's probably a good idea.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they were correct and you were not - as the TP notice here and on S-C and Croatian language has remained solid and in-line with the linguistic sources, not some "common name" mumbo-jumbo.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.42.136 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate tagging of the talk page 

message: User:Adjwilley has fully protected this article. Semi-protection suffices, because the unsourced content was added by anons. --JorisvS (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was an error on my part. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: Dear Editor(s),
I found on Wikipedia Interaction page that this is the best way to contact you.
I would kindly like to ask if it is possible for other websites to be adder to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language, section: External links. These are the websites:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SerbianLanguage/
http://serbian-language.blogspot.com/
http://e-word.co/en
Thank you,
Ivana Marinkovic
:. Wikipedia is not for such a random collection of links. The external links section is specifically for links to information that adds something above and beyond what is already in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit 

message: Serbian language template needs to be added.
Within, one would be able to find direct links to various subjects to do with the Serbian language, such as the features of the language, dialects, names, history and literature in the Serbian language, and other related topics.
I feel that this is a necessary addition. Many other pages to do with language have this template, such as Croatian language.
The question here isn't why, but rather, why not. It's a very useful addition. I have used the Croatian template as the framework to make the Serbian language template. This will, naturally, change with time. For now, it is suitable.
Below I have added the template.
Kukulj (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2014 

message: There's a wrong statement in the text that the word paprika origins from Serbian word papar. There's no such word (papar) in Serbian, Bosnian or Montenegrin language. Black pepper (Piper nigrum) is called papar only in Croatia and only in Croatian language. In Slovenian language they call it poper (very similar to papar). In all other Southern Slavic languages they use word biber to refer to black pepper. So black peper is papar in Croatian and biber in Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin, hence the word paprika might only be a derivation of Croatian word papar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrin Falcon (talk • contribs) 16:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the statement is sourced. You need sources for your statements here. FkpCascais (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Serbo-Croatian is the same language . . . and the more complete explanations are listed below.  But Croatian and Serbian are interchangeable 99% of the time.  68.19.5.179 (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Paprika" is of course Hungarian, as the -ka is a diminutive suffix in that language.  The OED says it's from SC pàpar.  Whether you want to call that "Serbian" or "Croatian" is about as meaningful as arguing over whether an English word is "Protestant" or "Catholic".  It's true that today papar is used in the Croatian standard, and biber in the Serbian standard, but "paprika" in English dates to at least 1896, and in Hungarian it is of course even older, so what you're claiming is that papar was not used by Serbs in the 19th century.  That would require some referencing.  "Vampire" is another Hungarian/German word of Slavic origin, but to claim it's Serbian is rather silly, as it has the same form in Croatian.  The word was first used in English in reference to the Kingdom of Serbia, but it appears even earlier in French, at a time when there was no distinction between "Serbian" and "Croatian".  When languages borrow the word "radio", do we argue over whether it was an American or British loan?  In any case, "paprika" itself is not a Serbian or Croatian word. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I left "vampire", since it is associated with Serbia.  The other words were either SC or not Serbian at all, so I placed a link to the section on SC words in English.  — kwami (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'modern' idea of a vampire more or less originated in Serbia, but that modification of the vampire myth was done to an idea that dates back clear to the old Hebrew tale of Lilith, and the Greeks and Romans were familiar with the idea of "vampires" - for the Euro variants; Asia also has its own vampiric mythologies. The toothsome ones have been around quite a while. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

text: A Magyar Nyelv Történeti-Etimológiai Szótára (Historical-Etymological Dictionary of the Hungarian Language) (1976, Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó), 3:93.  "paprika 1748...Szerb-horvát eredetű...Ez a szb.-hv. pàpar 'bors'..."  (paprika 1748...Serbo-Croatian originally...This is the Serbo-Croatian pàpar 'pepper'...[followed by an explanation of the Hungarian suffix -ka]).  --Taivo (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  papar and paprika 

message: Could you put "...used by Serbs." just like it is case with other variants? It's not "chiefly". --164.40.230.72 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Don't see a problem with this. Saying it is "used chiefly" means that the language is mostly used by Serbs in the areas described Cannolis (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The comment for change was to make this article more like Croatian language, Bosnian language and Montenegrin language. To make them look more same, but this article stands out from those three (because of "chiefly"). It probably shoud be just: "used by Serbs." Regards. --164.40.228.247 (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: Agree with Cannolis. "used by Serbs" suggests that it is exclusively used by Serbs, while chiefly indicates that it's mostly (or primarily) used by Serbs. The four articles do not need to be exactly the same, and it could be argued that the other three should adopt similar text. -- ferret (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014 

message: Please add  to the external links. It will add a link to the phrasebook for the language at Wikivoyage. Thanks.
130.88.141.34 (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: Not sure why this phrasebook should be linked to versus any of the ones already there. any wiki content is always more susceptible to error Cannolis (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2014 

message: Please see Talk:Croatian language#the insistence that "Croatian" may only apply to the modern-day Croatian standard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Joy, speaking as a historian, this is a dead-end argument - you are a bright person and have been a good administrator, but as such, you must know you have to yield to the overwhelming academic majority of linguists that have set these standards - which are taught at any non-nationalistic-controlled university or K-12 school. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the insistence that "Serbian" only applies to the modern-day Serbian standard 

message: Dear Madam,Sir,
I would like to ask you to add an external link to srpskijezik.edu.rs which is the website of the Serbian Language and Culture Workshop, an institute for Serbian as a second language. We used to have such link before somebody erased us. We provide Serbian courses in Serbia and on-line, and conduct research in the field of Serbian as a second language. Some of our programs are commercial, but some are sponsored by various donors or the scholarships have been offered for them - currently there are about 80 scholarships offered. Please check out the website and you will see that it is a valuable resource for Wikipedia users. Best regards! Predrag Obućina, MPhil, Project Director.
109.93.120.195 (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2014 

message: A couple of sections were cited over a year ago - surely there are strong linguistic RS's to put these to bed? 50.111.211.140 (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  still needs referencing ... 

message: I request the removal of српски as its Russian and not Serbian 72.73.104.239 (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Then how do you write it in Serbian Cyrillic? Rua (mew) 22:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: Nope. српски is indeed Serbian. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 23:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Serbian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130221600/http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/hu_de.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/hu_de.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110174015/http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=02&dd=09&nav_id=65083 to http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2010&mm=02&dd=09&nav_id=65083
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/475567.Jezik_i_nacionalizam.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623102722/http://www.rastko.org.rs/isk/pivic-standard_language.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/isk/pivic-standard_language.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Could a "In Popular Culture" section be added? In Santa Clarita Diet, the disease is from Serbia, the book about the disease is in Serbian, the clams are from Serbia... A lot of the stuff is from Serbia and/or Serbian descent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaxx37 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the language, not Serbia - or Serbs. 50.111.62.84 (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: Aren´t we missing a history section in this article? I made some recent aditions dealing with the fact that Serbian language became dominant in Republic of Ragusa in early 14th century, and I wasn´t sure where to add it... FkpCascais (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: diff which modern sources? FkpCascais (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Can you provide a contradicting source please? FkpCascais (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 14th century the nationalistic nonsense of standardizing a "Serbian," "Bosnian" and "Croatian" language had not happened - everyone, just like today, spoke Serbo-Croatian.104.169.29.171 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Another issue is that if you take a look at the geographical situation of Middle Ages, you can see that Ragusa was surrounded by Serbia and Serbian vassal states for centuries between 900s till 1400s, with Croatia quite distanced away, so current claims of Croatian being spoken there a are more based on nowoadays biases than on historical accuracy. See this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Kwamikagam don´t joke with me. The source clearly says Serbian was "igorously proscribed by earlier local lows" (I made a typing mistake, it should be "laws") and became dominant by early 14th century when actually Ragusa became Serbian vassal state for a period. So help me adding that info in a proper place. FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: What refugees? Don´t you read the source? Leave out your bias please, there are no refugees in 14th century. FkpCascais (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Serbs were no poor neither hadf refugees in 14th century when they actully had an empire. FkpCascais (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: The source says "Her welthy citizens, though they spoke the Serbian dialect of Dubrovnik in their family circles, sent their children to the Florentine schools (to learn Italian). Wealthy citizens, not refugees, where did you get the idea of refugees? It is 14th century, period of Serbian Empire. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: "Its just a bunch of Serbian refugees"... for God´s sake... FkpCascais (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I will ignore your povocation. Stop removing sourced material. I will bring more sourced content don´t warry. FkpCascais (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Here is second one to start: This clearly indicates one Serbian notary office existed in Dubrovnik during medieval period. It conducted official correspondence with surrounding Serbian states and lords, in Serbian language and Cyrillic alphabet, plainly indicating identity of those with whom they corresponded and negotiated merchant contracts. FkpCascais (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Here is third one: Dubrovnik gained great respect with the Porte so that the representatives used their own Serbian language when they... FkpCascais (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, I did some work already Kwami, and I hope, despite some limited time I am having these days, to further improve the issues I am expanding. I apologise if my reaction was a bit too harsh. Be sure I consider you a highly regarded editor who´s work and dedication to this project I appreciate very much. But the issue is the following: the articles Dubrovnik, Republic of Ragusa and Dalmatia, were basically "cleaned" from any mentions of Serbia or Serbs. Sources seem to say otherwise. Ever since Croatia lost its independence and fall under Hungarian rule in 1102, it is Serbia that expands its influence in the region and uses Ragusa and other coastal towns as their commercial outposts. Besides that, local Slavic population contibutes sigificantly to Serbian culture and literature. Any mention of this seems to have been removed from the articles, and all I want is to properly reinsert it, with sources obviously, and in a neutral balanced manner. As you can see I avoided using local sources. FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing history section?