Talk:Chakavian

message: Chakavian is a dialect of Croatian language and was a standard Croatian language dialect throughout history. 
Serbo-Croatian is a language construct based on Shtokavian dialect.
Chakavian dialect is taught in Croatian schools trough some major works like Judita (1521.), Planine (1536.), Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje (1568.). and is used in modern Croatian literature and film. No other language includes or use Chakavian dialect.
Be so kind and point to a scientific consensus talk where it was allegedly agreed that Chakavian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.184.29.68 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chakavian is a dialect of Croatian language 

message: I think that it would be worth mentioning that in chakavian dialect Č and Ć are noticeably different sounds, while in standard Croatian there's virtually no difference, they both sound like Č.
Also chakavian doesn't have Lj, which is replaced with J(or in some cases L).
Martin 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Č and Ć 

message: I've removed some unreferenced parts, that were nigh-on- original research. Kubura (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My edit 

message: The maps are a bit wrong. Nobody speaks Chakavian around Split, and in Split itself only older folks in the very city center. In the islands it s abit more common, but rare nontheless. People usually don't say "cha" but "shta?" (i.e. "šta?"). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: Your views here are political and not real.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.112.209 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you get yourself acquainted with linguistics before meddling with things that relate to languages or dialects. I'm aware that the temptation to consider yourself an expert is high being that everyone *speaks* a language and *communicates* in one, but I assure you, having an emotional response to something that's written *doesn't make you an expert*. Calling Kajkavian, Čakavian and Štokavian dialects "Serbo-Croatian" is reasonable and isn't considered a fringe opinion (I'm perfectly aware of the fact that Kajkavian and Čakavian aren't spoken by non-Croatians but unless the effort is made to standardize them and turn them into independent languages, putting them into the Serbo-Croatian dialect continuum doesn't equate to "killing a culture", and certainly no more than the practice of subjugating those same dialects in Croatia). Tty29a (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What kind of policy you run here ? 

message: Ther are chakavian speaking Slovenes or chakavian speaking Slovenian citizens claiming to be ethnical Slovenes south of Podgrad (Golac, Polane, Starod), community Ilirska Bistrica, Slovenia.
http://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak.aspx?id=2291
http://www.primorske.si/Primorska/Srednja-Primorska/Cica-ni-prevarija-nidan-hudic!.aspx
80.109.224.73 (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, but does that factoid merit inclusion? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

text: We have an 'ethnicity' field for that.  Question:  does this change the speaker population?  — kwami (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chakavian speaking Slovenes or chakavian speaking Slovenian citizens claiming to be ethnical Slovenes 

message: It seems that we have some serious problems in several segments this article, particularly regarding the use of "Serbo-Croatian" label. Some of those problems are caused by the innate ambiguity of that term, while others are created by inaccurate, anachronistic or misleading use of the same term as a linguistic label. Some of the biggest problems can bee seen in the history section. For example, article does not mention some basic facts of crucial importance. There is no mention of the fact that in Čakavian textual monuments, dating from the middle ages and up to the modern times, the language of Čakavian speakers is by themselves called Croatian (archaic autonym: horvatski). In other words, Čakavian is the "Old-Croatian language". But, for some reason, this article fails to present that crucial fact, and also suppresses the classification of Čakavian as a variant of Croatian language, while promoting the artificial "Serbo-Craotian" label, coined in the 19th century by some linguists. That is very misleading, because such anachronistic use of "Serbo-Croatian" label in segments on medieval and early modern history is factually inaccurate. It is clear that there can be no justification for current suppression of authentic Croatian label, and its replacement with "Serbo-Craotian", since that artificial term, coined in the 19th century, has nothing to do with linguistic reality of earlier historical periods. Unfortunately, all those things are just the tip of an iceberg. Current article on the Serbo-Croatian "language" is filled with similar problems, and same goes for all articles on related languages. Sorabino (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article follows the broad consensus of fact described by linguists in the majority of reliable sources concerning Serbo-Croatan (aka, Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian), for example, Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001), etc.  Whether Chakavian is a variety of Croatian (which itself is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian) or a separate dialect of Serbo-Croatian outside Croatian is a mixed issue among linguists, but that Serbo-Croatian is the language that unites the dialects of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian is without serious challenge in the linguistic community (outside the nationalist circles of Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, that is).  --Taivo (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. Term "Serbo-Craotian" has several different meanings, and it is not used in modern linguistics as a designation for an individual language, on the contrary - it is commonly used just as one of several technical designations for a linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisting of four individual languages: Croatian, Bosniac, Montenegrin and Serbian. That linguistic consensus is reflected in official ISO classification, that recognizes term "Serbo-Croatian" only as designation for a macrolanguage. Indiviadual Serbo-Craotian "language" does not exist. Sorabino (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You simply don't know what you're talking about.  1) You overplay the ISO labels.  Actual linguists, not the armchair novices like yourself, do not put very much weight on ISO labels other than to use them as cataloguing nomenclature.  We all know that the ISO is more subject to the whims of politics (such as that which you practice) than it is to rigorous linguistic methodology.  Your assertion that ISO 639-3 represents a "linguistic consensus" simply shows your ignorance of linguistics and of the nature of the ISO standard.  If you made such a comment in the presence of linguists, you'd be laughed out of the room.  For example, the ISO system lists Lushootseed, Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish as separate languages with individual codes.  But it is well-known that "Lushootseed" is the name of the language (see Bates et al. 1994, Mithun 1999, etc.) and Southern Lushootseed, Skagit, and Snohomish are dialects of that language.  It is exactly parallel to the Serbo-Croatian [hbs], Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin situation--a language with dialects, and each dialect has a separate ISO designation.  Yet Lushootseed is listed as a "language", not a "macrolanguage" for political reasons, not linguistic ones.  The same is true of the Serbo-Croatian dialect cluster--the four dialects are listed as separate languages for political reasons, not linguistic ones.  Linguists therefore do not use the ISO listing as a reliable linguistic classification or as a scientifically rigorous listing of the world's well-defined languages.  And there is nothing "official" about it.  It is an industry standard that is useful for library cataloguing, but nothing else.  There is no requirement that linguists even pay attention to it.  In the International Journal of American Linguistics, for example, its use behind the first instance of a language's name in an article is entirely optional.  One article might reference the abbreviations, the next might not.  Your ignorance of the science shows in your insistence that it is somehow an important source of scientific rigor.    2) Of course you ignore all the references that I have provided here and elsewhere that show that actual linguists treat Serbo-Croatian (or Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian or Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian or whatever you want to call it) as a single language with Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin treated as dialects of that language:  Glottolog, Comrie, Corbett 2002, Linguasphere (Dalby 1999/2000, vol. 2, pg. 445), Sprachen der Welt (Klose, 2001, pg. 444), etc.  It is not "common knowledge" as you so blithely assert based on a single, solitary source that isn't considered a very good source among actual linguists (which you are clearly not).  --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misinterpreting all those sources. Not a single one of those sources state that "Serbo-Croatian" is an individual language. You are very well aware of that, and that is why are avoiding that linguistic term, replacing it with colloquial term single language in order to blur this discussion. There is a clear distinction between basic linguistic terms, like individual language, and pluricentric language. Modern linguists are using term "Serbo-Croatian" either as a designation for a particular pluricentric language, or as a technical term for a particular linguistic cluster, or macrolanguage, consisted of four individual languages: Bosniac, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. Those are common facts. You did not address a single argument on the anachronistic use of "Serbo-Craotian" label in history section of this article. Sorabino (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: They all label Serbo-Croatian as a "single language/individual language" (the terms are identical in meaning).  I have written elsewhere (Talk:Croatian language) about your ignorance of the meaning of "pluricentric".  It doesn't not mean "different languages", but "different national standards within ONE language".  You simply don't know much about the subject and are projecting your patriotism onto a linguistic discussion where you don't fully comprehend the meaning of the linguistic terms.  This is not the appropriate article to address the political problems with the most common label--Serbo-Croatian--for the single language that comprises Croatian, Serbian, etc.  That issue is addressed at Serbo-Croatian.  --Taivo (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of "Serbo-Croatian" label