Talk:Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian/Archive 1

message: The controversy of this article stems from the fact that the languages discussed are overwhelmingly similar, with identical complex grammar and tiny variations in vocabulary. The article is useful in some parts, however it appears to have premeditated goal to establish linguistic independence of new ex-Yugoslav countries.
The main sources in the text are overwhelmingly of Croatian origin. Perhaps it would be best if the article as a whole were marked with a NPOV tag until sources from Serbian (and other, e.g. Bosniak) linguists were added? --Acachinero
It is clear that merged into one country people were pushed to overcome language differences, which is not a necessarily bad thing. Also truth is that modern inhabitant of Zagreb and his equivalent from Belgrade use languages that are incredibly same. What is essential is that introduction of this article doesn't present 1850's Vienna agreement that was actual beginning of the Serbo-Croatian language and that has nothing to do with the country of Yugoslavia. Living in one country or five hundred, south Slavs would profit from common standard language that they are so much afraid off.
Mladen Panic
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.133.15 (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The controversy

message: Don't move this page to "Differences in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian" or something similar. There are reasons why it is named as it is. Nikola 06:16, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, the reason is that Nikola feels they are all dialects of Serbo-Croatian language. This page is linked from there as a supplementary explanation. Personally I agree with the saying "language is a dialect with an army and a navy" but this page is useful no matter what the title is. --Shallot 13:01, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Close. Anyway, I think that this is an excellent NPOV term as it is true both if they are dialects or not. Nikola 08:50, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  A better place for this would really be Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian (to alphabetize them). The only thing that we can accurately say about the official languages is that in Croatia it's Croatian, etc. Dictionaries and grammars are not enforced by law - they may try to be prescriptive, but ultimately, they must follow usage. I think this page should describe the differences between the subsets of BCMSxyz dialects that are standardly used by media and writers in/of individual countries/ethnicities. Zocky 03:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should cease being overly politically correct towards "yugo-nostalgism" and accept the political reality. That is, stop referring to "official language in Foo" and use "Fooian language". That would IMO also reduce some confusion for unfortunate visitors from abroad. Usage of "Serbo-Croatian" as the term for the language is slowly dying and now almost extinct (although I think that that page should remain as-is, to emphasize common points); so, since almost no one nowadays refers to "Serbo-Croatian" as the language in use in respective states, and almost everybody do use terms "Serbian language", "Croatian language" and "Bosnian language", I don't see why would Wikipedians be smarter than the rest of the world. Consequently, I agree that the new title should read "Differences in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language". 
I don't have overly strong feelings about this, so I won't change it yet; but I'd like to hear some opinions on this. Duja 10:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it has to do much with the nostalgism as it does with the fact that, over the past century, serbo-croatian has been used alot more than the individual names. It's not as if this is Austria-Hungary and we're dealing with a nation that's been gone for 100 years. And I really don't see how an "unfortunate" over seas visitor would get confused, everything is pretty clearly laid out. Besides, the differences are more or less the same as the inconsistencies between American English and Australian English, and we all know how absurd it would be to call them under very different names. If looking at the political side of this, you can't ignore either the political present (as you suggested) nor can you omit the political past. --Hurricane Angel 17:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: This whole page is a joke, I am not surprised that Shallot wrote most of it... oh brother... I'll deal with it later. --Igor 10:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you "deal with it", just one more reason to propose to the administration that they prevent further vandalism. --Shallot 16:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Igor's comment

message: At the risk of opening a can of worms, would it be worth making a comment on the political motivation of differentiation?
: Note that it's already covered in pages Serbo-Croatian language and Croatian language. --Shallot 16:42, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Motivation

message: According to this page, i adopted from Croatian to pretty good Bosnian during just three months: I started saying organizovati and to use da-constructions, but realizovati still sounds somewhat alien.
Another thing about vocabulary: in my understanding which i built up speaking with people mostly in Osijek and Sarajevo and reading Croatian, some Serbian and little Bosnian, liciti means to look like predominantly in a transferred sense (to lici na njega) while I thought the word sliciti as in to be similar to be universal (slici na brata). And I know slikati or more precisely crtati rather thant liciti for to paint. 
: "Liciti", if I understand well, doesn't mean to paint artistically but to paint a wall. "Molovati", if you wish (which is an old Slavic word, by the way, though most people doesn't know that). Nikola
::So you mean kreciti? Anyway, I would have thought molovati to be a Germanism, which my hr-nj dictionary confirms. But than again, there are many German words that are actually Slavic with most people not knowing (Grenze-granica, Ranzen-ranac,...)Jakob Stevo
:::Yes, but not only with krec, but with any kind of color. Yes, molovati comes from German "mallen" which in turn comes from Slavic "smolovati" (or was it "smoliti"?) (to cover with raisin). Nikola 14:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe "ličiti" is synonymous with "krečiti" and "molovati" in normal use, yes. Colloquially, it's not often used (in favour of "krečiti", "farbati", "piturati"... :), and the form oličiti is also not very popular, but it is used in the common word "ličilac", for the handyman who does such work. (look up soboslikar i ličilac in the .hr phone directory for a sample) --Shallot 14:22, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: That's only partially correct. The words are regionalisms but at least some of them have entered standard language, with slightly changed meaning or entrenched in phrases. As for "sargarepa", it is almost universally used in Serbian. Nikola
More general to morphology: There are certainly missing forms like porez/poreza, minuta/minut, osnova/osnov. As is the h/v stuff (suh/suv, kuhati/kuvati), and the endings -telj/-lac.
Jakob Stevo 16:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Add an example or two of them. Nikola 11:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Jakob's comments

message: I don't think Reflaction is a word in English.  From the context, I think "transformation over time" is what is meant. What is the correct word here? Key45 21:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reflex" appears to be the common term, at least in particular case of letter jat (Google for "reflex jat"); I saw it in few other similar contexts. There's currently no Wikipedia entry for Reflex (phonology) so I removed the link as well.--Duja 14:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflaction 

message: I recently reverted a semi-anonymous change that conflicts with my experiences - can someone else confirm or deny it? --Joy [shallot] 14:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  feminine/masculine 

message: I am not sure how correct example of studentkinja and studentica? It seems to me that the usage of the Prva (first) Palatelizacija was not applied to the word studentkinja. Prva Palatelizacija is the change of consonants k, g, h to c, z, s, which is the gramatical rule I was tought by my old high school teacher in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who herself was from Serbia (born and educated there). Therefore, rather than studentkinja being the Serbian word, I think it is gramatically incorrect word (although I might be wrong). - 3 June 2005 14:45 GMT
:And what palatalization has to do with it at all? The Serbian suffix in this case is -kinja and it's normally appended to masculine student, producing normal studentkinja. -Kinja is productive in Croatian too, just not in this example --cf. crnkinja, kineskinja. Duja 14:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of First (prva) and Second (druga) Palatelizacija 

message: Excerpt from an English-language manual on getting around with Croatian (but applies to all three), got this in one of those forwarded mails:
: colourful Croatian
: Croatian speakers can draw on a rich variety of swear words and obscene expressions to make their feelings plainly felt. Most swearing involves liberal use of the verb 'fuck' jebati (ye-ba-tee), which is often juxtaposed with references to the two sacred cows of Croatian society: religion and family. These unholy alliances give it impressive expressive force.
: Swearing in any language tends to be very idiomatic and difficult to translate, but even the most hardened Anglophone might blanch at the graphic nature of Croatian swearing. However, what might sound like a string of unbelievable obscenities to and English speaker is not quite as bad to Croatian speakers for whom colourful swearing is an intrinsic part of the language.
: If you're exposed to some colourful Croatian you may even find it quite amusing and it's best not to take offence, as this may not be the swearer's intention.
The forwarded mail's subject indicates that this manual was used by SFOR/KFOR, but I'd rather not trust that. The text is true, however. :)
Perhaps we should also include a Infamous exceptions section in the article :) --Joy [shallot] 19:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once upon a time, I meant to write an article on Maledicta on the subject, but I didn't find enough spare time :-). The common heritage is indeed very rich and well understood accross all variations. Here's an example, although badly translated :-) Duja 2 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)
Check out this image for a nice illustration of BCMSxyz swearing: the guy on the left is Slovene and says "tristo hudičev" (i.e. 300 devils), and you can try to interpret what the Serb on the right replies. Zocky 23:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  common heritage - swearing 

message: The last paragraph makes it seem that if you were to translate text from Croatian to Serbian, you'd get ridiculous differences. These differences actually came from nationalistic ambitions, where translators attempted to make the languages seem as different as possible. I added the truth behind it, my sources are people who actually live in the former Yugoslavia (not just one republic) and actually thought that Rane translation was a joke.
--Hurricane Angel 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation's Translation 

message: "Tisuća" was used in Croatian for "thousand" long before the war of independence. An example is the Croatian edition of the children's book "Tisuću zašto, tisuću zato" (there was a Serbian Cyrillic one too, IIRC) which was published by Vuk Karadžić publishing company, Belgrade, in 1986. So talking about "hiljada being replaced by tisuća" in 1991 is pure bull. Also, "srećan" has always been a Serbian (and maybe Bosnian) word so using it as an example of people (including the president) using a "normal" variant instead of the "recently-coined" one, as was suggested by this footnote, is misleading.
Finally, "drum" is never used in standard Croatian for "road". "Cesta" is used for "road" and "put" is mostly used for "lane" or "way". --Elephantus 08:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on all points; but I don't see which version you argue -- the current article IMO correctly addresses these issues? I recall that something like that did stick for a while somewhere (here or in Serbo-Croatian Language) but as far as I can see not anymore. If you do notice it, please go ahead and edit it.Duja 10:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiljada, srećan, drum 

message: Subsection discussing Croatian neologisms has to be there - it is vital to explain to a wider audience what is going on there. Use of jokes is also valid, and I dont see how you can atempt to portray Serbian version of the language as awkward (by a artificial sentence containing 5 'da', which is really just a derogating joke circularing in croatia - and note that this was not admitted, but perfidly veiled as how a sentence "typically" sounds), while removing jokes (which perfectly illustrate the issue) in the neo-croatian section (and which are clearly marked as jokes). croatian perfidry and hypocrisy will not stand here!! Suvarijeka 12:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the example Serbian sentence is awkward, then correct it. Croatian doesn't, contrary to popular opinion in some parts of former Yugoslavia, "use a lot of neologisms". Most neologisms coined in the 1990's never really entered the standard language and remain marked as substandard. --Elephantus 21:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Many Croatians find some Serbian words and expressions inherently funny (say, "šargarepa", "merdevine" and "vaspitanje"), regardless of what is actually being said. Mock-Serbian is sometimes used jokingly in Croatia and associated with false arrogance and general cluelessness. Yet, this is not the place for such things as a) they are hard to verify and maybe even unverifiable and b) this article deals with differences in _standard_ languages and most of what you inserted wasn't even language, let alone standard. --Elephantus 09:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian neologisms 

message: Can someone from Croatia please confirm or deny the usage of ko in Croatian I wrote? Google search for "onaj tko"  versus "onaj ko"  contradicts the info I entered in the article, and "Taj tko"  (which sounds horrible to my ears) versus "Taj ko"  is indecisive. Duja 11:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ko" is substandard in written Croatian in all positions. "Taj tko" is avoided and "taj koji" is usually used instead. --Elephantus 12:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, seems so. Fixed. Duja 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Onaj (t)ko...'' in Croatian 

message: :In Croatian, clitic form of accusative of personal pronoun ona (she) is ju (her), while it is je (long unstressed, jē) in Bosnian and Serbian. However, it can pose problems in the past tense with the latter, as it collides with auxiliary verb je (was). Thus, "He knew her" would be "On ju je znao" or "Znao ju je" in Croatian, but je-duplication is not allowed in this context in Bosnian or Serbian – it must be either left ambiguous ("Znao jē" differs only in vowel length from "Znao je" – He knew (that)), or reworded using long form ("Znao je nju").
Nikola wrote:
AFAIK, ju is the only correct in Serbian too, but is most oftenly incorrectly used.
:No. Je is most definitively correct. Ju is probably also correct, but considered either "archaic" or "croatism" – you will seldom hear it in vernacular. Duja 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Millosh should tell us what is correct, and you will seldom hear it in Croatian vernacular too. Nikola 07:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear ju quite often in Croatian vernacular (see for yourself (but I also often hear je). I'll leave the passage out of the article until we get more info on "official" treatments. Duja 09:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ju/Je 

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: I took a look at the German version of the article, and noticed a lot of errors concerning compared words. Some words which are used as synonyms are given as different between Serbian and Croatian, for example, stranka/partija or rezati/seći. Some words which are different in Ekavian and Ijekavian are given as different in Croatian/Bosnian and Serbian, creating impression that Ijekavian forms are only Bosnian. Some words are flat out wrong such as komadić/komadić, parče, where komadić and parče mean two different things, and osnova/osnov. If someone here knows German, please correct this. Nikola 07:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikola, in Croatian we use only the word "komadić"; for the same thing, Serbs used word "parče" or "parčić". Kubura 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German version

message: What is the word for president in Serbian? In this article it shows it as "predsjednik", but the official government websites of Serbia show it as "predsednik" ... minus the j. For example  and . Even the Serbian wikipedia has it as "predsednik", see here. -- 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction paragraph above the table stated that ijekavian version of Serbian will be used below, in order to stress vocabulary and morphology differences rather than e/ije ones – that's why I reverted. It's predsednik in ekavian and predsjednik in ijekavian of course; the point of the entry was to show that it's preds(j)ednica rather than preds(j)etkinja in Serbian. Duja 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Okay. -- 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: President

message: Dijan wrote:
This last sentence should be taken out because in this context the word "što" does not mean "what". It means "which". So the sentence literally means: That which he said is a lie.
:Well, we can't transplant English into Serbian/Croatian word by word. In Croatian, što is both relative and interrogative. In the latter context, it requires an additional qualifier to work: Sve što je rekao, To što je rekao, etc. In English, what is interrogative and that or which are relative; but there's little principal difference between that and which. So, in English, to što je rekao can be just What he said. I think that it's not ungrammatical to say That which he said or That (thing) that he said, but they sound horrible. In any case, the point is, što means both what and that/which; it just happened that the particular construct What he said was a lie is allowed in English, but many similar ones using what will fail, e.g. Everything what we said was a lie. Duja 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Šta/što 

message: E is pronounced  in Serbian and Bosnian and [e] in Croatian, and o is pronounced  in Serbian and Bosnian and [o] in Croatian. That’s according to the languages’ respective Wikipedia articles, at least.
:Nope. That info in Croatian article is mostly wrong, but I lost the nerve to cope with same info in three different articles. To be very precise, the correct IPA symbols should be  and  (more closed).  can occur as an allophone, and occasionally , but it's not the primary phonetic value. Duja 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another difference

message: I removed this sentence from the bottom of the second paragraph of the first bullet-point in the "Notes on comprehension" section, because if you think about it, it's a rather politically-charged sentence and does not need to be there, since the paragraph discusses comprehension:
"This does not answer the primary question, and that is: does a Bosniak want to speak the same language as a Serb, or to call his language by the same name as a Serb?"
Also changed the first and second sentences of the second bullet-point.
Alan. --84.66.250.254 18:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I completely missed when someone added it. Duja 07:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Edit 

message: I had to add  to the Mir's contribution; I understand he added it in a hurry though. Without questioning his good faith, the problem is that it presents one view of one linguist, which has its own conclusion (which, curiously, matches Mir's opinion); other linguists will certainly have different views. So, I agree the section is needed, but it should offer an overview of different views on the matter (plus, is it considered a copyvio as such?). Personally, I don't have a problem with this view on the things, but other views should be included as well (in my opinion, the matter comes down to whether the glass is half-full or half-empty, but it's just my view).
Also, I removed "linguistically strictly codified" from the opening sentence. "Strictly" is not accurate enough—while it might be true for Croatian, the other two are generally less picky about alleged "Croatisms" or "Serbisms". In other words, the decisions whether a phrase constitutes a valid "Serbian" and "Croatian" are often moot, especially from Serbian point of view. Duja 07:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, put the opinions that differ from Kačić's in these (or other) respects. But, let the statements be explicit & not confined to general phrases void of any concrete meaning. Audiatur et altera pars. Mir Harven 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; will do when I find some time. Duja 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mir's edits 

message: Quot:"Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. (Cyrillic is in official use in Serbia and Republika Srpska. Latin script is also accepted as defined by laws, and used roughly by 1/3 of native speakers as the first script, although no official records exist).". Are you sure ? I know that the source is a bit hysterical & nationally exclusive (why would Serbian language be "endangered" or "Croatianized" by Latin script ?), but I also found the following data elsewhere: Serbs in Serbia proper write predominantly, 60-80%, in Latin script: http://govori.tripod.com/cirilica.htm Mir Harven 12:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a bit hysterical & nationally exclusive ;;-)? Boy I must say I switch the channel whenever I see any of those folks on TV. I think I wrote the 1/3 number, admittedly unsourced. Look: in Serbia proper (uža Srbija), my estimate is that well over 75% people normally use Cyrillic to write by hand (even if they do so rarely :-) ). In Belgrade and Vojvodina, I'd say that the situation is around 50/50; for example, that's the situation with my working colleagues. One can also tell by the inscriptions on stores and streets; the more South you go, you will find more Cyrillic ones, but that percent would IMO incline toward Latin for commercial reasons—it certainly looks more fancy to write "Caffé Paris" than "Кафе Париз", even if the owner is member of Serbian Radical Party; young generations learn Cyrillic script in 1st grade, and the script does not look endangered like those folks would like to present. Maybe 1/3 is an underestimate, but the ratio certainly does not go above 1/2. Alas, I'm not aware of any neutral polls. Duja 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, unreliable source. Mir Harven 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyrillic

message: How many dialects are in everyday use in Germany besides the offical Hochdeutsch? Person from Hanover hardly understands Schwäbisch dialect from Baden-Württemberg. Austrians or Prussians wouldn't also understand much of a Platdeutsch. And does anyone even dream about saying that Niedersachsen is not German? No! And why not? No one is that stupid! For the same reason no one is trying to promote Australian, Canadian, American, Jamaican or South African Language. 
Why promoting Bosnian then?
Bosnian language is pure fabrication for the political purposes. It was recognized by UN during the civil war in Bosnia, as a support to the Muslim government in Sarajevo. There were no true linguistic or any other scientific reasons for its recognition. All the reasons in favor of Bosnian language are deficient and politicaly motivated.
Bosnian languaage uses Latin alphabet in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Cyrillic alphabet in the Republika Srpska. No, it doesn't! Bosnian language is not in use in Republika Srpska. Ask the locals. They are ethnic Serbs. What langugage do you think they speak?
Serbian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. 
No, it doesn't. Serbo-Croatian language uses both Cyrillic alphabet and Latin alphabet. Serbian language uses Cyrillic alphabet only. Serbian Cyrillic is unique and native to the Serbian language.
Differences between Serbian and Croatian are minor. They are even smaller than ones between German and Austrian. It is one and same language - Serbo-Croatian. 
Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (also Croatian or Serbian, Serbian or Croatian) (srpskohrvatski or cрпскохрватски or hrvatskosrpski or hrvatski ili srpski or srpski ili hrvatski). It belongs to south Slavic group of languges, along with Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. Serbocroatian language is based on Štokavian dialect and defined Ekavian (ekavski) and Iyekavian (ijekavski) pronunciations. It also has Kajkavian and Chakavian as its dialects.
For some political or any other purpose, someone can invent five or ten more languages on Balkans, but it wouldn't change a fact: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrians are speaking with one langugage: Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.198.140 (talk • contribs) 
BRAVO, YOU TOLD THE ENTIRE TRUTH! 'Croatian', 'Bosnian','Serbian' and now "Montenegrin', 'Sokac', 'Bunjevac' and soon probably 'Dalmatian' are just POLITICAL CREATIONS by some brainwashed nationalist who are temporary in position to do that, nothing else! Those all 'languages' are ONE language, and they differ between themselves less than the dialects in one language. All this craziness about having 'theirown, reagional language'is a total nonsense, a total crap which nobody serious in the scientific world takes for seirous. And very certainly everyone normal is LAUGHING to that load of rubbish! Lackily the ordinary people doesn't take it seriously either, they all know that they speak one language-SeboCroatian or Croato-Serbain. Greetings and Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.110.10 (talk • contribs)  04:13, 11 August 2007
: 03.57 and 04.13 in the morning and you, "cheer-boy", are trolling with inflammatory messages? Normal grown men are in the bed with their wives or fioncés. Can't you find a woman? What are you saying "cheers"? Are you drinking? At that hour? That's not good for your health. Kubura 08:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a load of rubish!

message: Recent addition by User:83.131.71.79 (Mir?):
However, arguments along similar lines tend to be blurred due to the following reasons:
*there is no "purely linguistic level"
 
*speaking of the genetic level, no classification of languages pays much attention to this category. For instance, South and Eastern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian, Ukrainian,..) belong, genetically, to the one category and Western Slavic languages (Polish, Czech, Lusatian,..) to another, without repercussions for the individuality and identity of particular languages
*speaking of the typological level, languages are classified according to the root grammar, ie. morphology and syntax. So, according to this criterion, Hindi and Urdu are one and the same language- which is not the dominant position among linguists today (see. Ausbausprache). In the case of Croatian and Serbian, two levels are confused: the language as a system and a language as a standard. Since Croatian as a system is based on three dialects and Serbian on one (with the peripheral Torlak dialect), these two languages cannot be considered typologically one language. But, Pranjković's argument can be refined: Croatian and Serbian (as well as Bosnian) standard languages are all based on the neoštokavian dialect, therefore share virtually the same elementary phonology, morphology and syntax (with a few minor differences). According to this view, Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian can be considered to be varieties of a single abstract language-the number of phonemes, declination and conjugation are the same. Opponents of this contention claim that this is unduly reductionist view on standard languages since it tries to describe a phenomenon of language resorting to the incomplete set of variables describing a standard language: theoretical linguistics description of a standard language does not include phonology, morphology and syntax only, but also phonetics, word-formation, semantics, lexicology and stylistics. According to this view, Pranjković's argument is valid (although not completely) until the level of standardology: at this level, it fails due to the flaw of reductionism.
While I'm not particularly against the views stated above, this looks like an original research. If this is a quote from some renowned linguist, it should be attributed; if not, it cannnot stay in the article. Wikipedia articles are not essays; we are not here to polemize with quoted experts, but to report their opinions. As stated, the addition tries to interpret the opinions and offer a third view; readers should draw their own conclusions. Duja 16:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was me (forgot the expire). I agree with your moving the explanation since it doesn't belong to the article proper. But, I must stress that it was, actually, a sloppy citation-interview "extracted" from Pranjković, sensationalist-styled mainly with the aim of producing hysterical reverberations among the language-sensitive public. In a nutshell, it's not Pranjković's view. I'll give a few linx & my brief explanation of Pranjković's positition re this matter (won't bother to translate):
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/135/tekstovi/08.htm
http://www.matica.hr/MH_Periodika/vijenac/1999/138/tekstovi/06.htm
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/477924/index.do
http://www.vecernji-list.hr/newsroom/culture/495867/index.do
My take: "Ivo Pranjković, kao kroatist poznog-srednjeg naraštaja (kao i nešto stariji Silić, ili mlađi Samardžija i još neki) ima "kompleks" jednoga od doajena hrvatske lingvistike Stjepana Babića. Babić je, uz Katičića i Brozovića, smatran glavnim hrvatskim jezikoslovnim auktoritetom koji je prekinuo s lingvističkom starudijom i utemeljio suvremenu kroatistiku, baziranu na strukturalizmu i drugim smjerovima modernoga jezikoslovlja. Primjer Pranjkovićevih kompleksa vidljiv je ovdje: http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/vij209.nsf/AllWebDocs/prenja
U cijeloj priči neki Ćorić i slični ne igraju praktički nikakovu ulogu. Ako se ide u motive Pranjkovićevih nerijetko protuslovnih izjava, a prati što je pisao (npr., njegova polemika sa zagovornicom hrvatskoga unitarizma Snježanom Kordić, izašlom u nekoliko brojeva časopisa "Književna republika"), razvidno je sljedeće:
a) Ivo je Pranjković stalno opterećen kompleksom jezikoslovaca starijega naraštaja (rođenih od 1920.-1930.), te njihovom dominacijom zbog čega nije primljen u HAZU
b) Pranjkovićeva je djelatnost u samostalnoj Hrvatskoj uglavnom u oprjeci spram svega što dolazi iz tih dominantnih krugova vitalnih staraca-napose u pravopisu, te je praktički "antiprotivan" u odnosu na sve njihove prijedloge oko jezičnoga normiranja. Ili-Pranjković je u više navrata izrazio pozitivno mišljenje (kasnije modificirano) o djelima Vladimira Anića, nekim radovima Josipa Silića i dr., a koja su dobila negativnu ocjenu zbog ustupaka jezičnom unitarizmu i "Novosadizmu".
c) što se tiče Srba i srpskih lingvista, Pranjković je imao (i ima, sudi li se po njegovim intervjuima) pozitivno mišljenje jedino o Ranku Bugarskom i, dijelom, Ivanu Klajnu. Dobro mišljenje o Pavlu Iviću je definitivno pokopano velikosrpskom bljezgarijom potonjega, a o ostalim srpskim jezikoslovcima se i nije izjašnjavao-osim o Čoriću, u ovom slučaju, a potaknut polemičkim prikazom rečenoga.
d) velik je dio Pranjkovićevih tekstova polemičke naravi, a ne znanstvene (što je i jedan od razloga što nije u HAZU-nema dovoljno radova), no u svojim je istupima i polemikama ipak dovoljno jasan, bar što se tiče statusa hrvatskoga (i srpskoga):
1) što je jedan jezik, a što dva ili tri ili četiri-za to lingvistika nema odgovor. To nije lingvistička tema
2) Pranjković, za razliku od drugih hrvatskih lingvista, stalno naglašava genetskolingvističko jedinstvo dijalekatske baze hrvatskog i srpskog (i bošnjačkog). Uz njega, to čini, tu i tamo, i Dalibor Brozović. Ostali lingvisti (Katičić, Silić,..) smatraju da je to nevažno, jer standard nije sustav, po Silićevim riječima, i za standardni je jezik nepotrebno naklapanje o narječju na kojem je temeljen, to prije što narječna baza čini samo jezgrenu gramatiku ili morfosintaksu, dok je lingvistički opis standarda, od fonetike do tvorbe, semantike i leksikona, ovisan o samom procesu standardizacije. Valja reći da dobar dio lingvista drži da su kriteriji genetske lingvistike slabi i nedostatni za opis jezika (i na strukturnoj, a kamoli na standardološkoj razini)-pa je u tom pogledu Pranjković usamljen.
3) hrvatski standardni jezik je samosvojan jezik koji ima početke u vernakularu 15. stoljeća, s početkom standardizacije u 18. stoljeću i dovršetkom u 19.
To je Pranjkovićevo mišljenje koje ponavlja ad nauseam, u svih ovih 15-20 godina, što se može vidjeti iz njegovih jezikoslovno polemičkih knjiga (Kronika hrvatskoga jezikoslovlja, Jezikoslovna sporenja,..). Tvrdnje o tom da nema kriterija koji bi odlučivao što je jezik, da su hrvatski i srpski temeljeni na istom narječju, te da su hrvatski i srpski standardni jezici različiti jezici, kao što su različiti hindi i urdu (Pranjkovićev primjer iz polemike s Kordićkom).
I to je sve. Ako tko želi vidjeti s kojim je tezama Pranjković polemizirao, može to iz sljedećih tekstova (nisu Pranjkovićevi): http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic_PDF4.pdf i http://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/sprachvariation/fgvaria/Kordic1_PDF.pdf Mir Harven 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting reading; however, I dislike the direction where this section goes; those are two views from two linguists, and we focused to Pranjković for whatever reason, while there is really a broad spectrum of opinions on various topics on all sides of country borders and political spectrum. Some of them are enumerated at Serbo-Croatian language#Views of the linguists. The "outline" topic is so broad that it potentially deserves a separate (and fat) article. I'd prefer a brief overview here and even briefer in Serbo-Croatian language, with a main article called... whatever... The current section leaves the sense of incompleteness and partiality, while its more comprehensive treatment could easily "eat" the rest of the article. Duja 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pa kako da se to napravi ? Mogu navesti teze sa su to varijante, da su potpuno odijeljeni bez veze, da su odijeljeni ali nekako povezani i bliski, i manijakalne (da je to sve hrvatski, srpski, bosamnki..?. To semože ukratko, uz popis lingvista, ali bez citata jer su oni ionako mijenjali stavove, a tko bi i tražio po njihovim člancima. To su zapravo 3 teze, ili 3,5 uključimo li bizone. Any other idea ? Mir Harven 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition 

message: After the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbo-Croatian language, which was defined as the common and unified language of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, also followed suit and officially split into three languages, still fully mutually intelligible.
That paragraph is illogical, so the language, seeing widespread political transformation decided to divide itself? A better paragraph would be something like that after the division of Yugoslavia, all former nations begun calling their dialect of Serbo-Croat a separate language, or maybe that the languages formerly grouped under the Serbo-Croat umbrella term have gained separate recognition or something like that, not that a language split itself, whatever that is supposed to mean. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . I think the intention of the sentence is fairly clear (I think I wrote it), but on second look it is clumsily worded. Duja► 08:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 

message: The following paragraph is confusing:
Pronunciation and vocabulary differs among dialects spoken within Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia themselves. Each larger region has its own pronunciation and it is reasonably easy to guess where a speaker is from by their accent and/or vocabulary. Colloquial vocabulary can be particularly different from the official standards.This is one of the arguments for claiming it is all one and the same language: there are more differences within the territories of the official languages themselves than there are between the standards (all of which inherit from the standards established in Yugoslavian times, when Serbo-Croatian was the official language). This is not surprising, of course, for if the lines between the languages were drawn not politically but linguistically, then there would be no continuum at all. As Pavle Ivić explains, the continuous migration of Slavic populations during the five hundred years of Turkish rule has scattered the local dialects all around.
It looks like the author meant to argue that there is a dialect continuum across the three countries, but what he says is the opposite! FilipeS 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I think the only problematic phrase was "no continuum at all". Duja► 08:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialect continuum, or not?

message: Olaf, please see the 221,000 GHits for forms of "srećan" (in Cyrillic, to stick only to Serbian results) and 30,900 for forms of "sretan" (which include many unrelated Macedonian results, as a bonus) before trying to impose your opinion on a language apparently foreign to you. Thanks. Duja► 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sretan/Srećan 

message: People, your boldness is appreciated, but arbitrary page moving is a Bad Thing. Please list the article in WP:RM if you want the article at a different title, and let the concensus develop. I don't have any particular preference for the title, but I don't want to fix the ton of double redirects screwed by someone else. Duja► 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: This was the language policy in former Yugoslavia.
See this link from the Croatian Institute of Language and Linguistics
Problemi jezične politike: 
Zaključci radnog dogovora predstavnika centralnih komiteta SK Bosne i Hercegovine, Crne Gore,
Hrvatske i Srbije i pokrajinskih komiteta SK Kosova i Vojvodine o aktualnim problemima jezika i jezične politike na srpskohrvatskom/hrvatskosrpskom, hrvatskom ili srpskom govornom području [dvotjednik "Oko", 1986].
See the section 2. "... Negativne, društveno neprihvatljive pojave u jeziku, jezičnoj politici i jezičnom planiranju na srpskohrvatskom govornom području, koje se često ispoljavaju u vidu jezičnog nacionalizma..."
"...Stoga je potrebno... temeljito i svestrano razmotriti stanje i aktualne probleme jezika i jezične politike i iznaći najefikasnije forme djelovanja, međusobne suradnje i koordinacije aktivnosti organa i organizacija SKJ, SSRNJ, SSJ, SSOJ, državnih organa i organizacija i drugih organiziranih društvenih snaga u području nauke, javnog informiranja, izdavačke djelatnosti i odgojno-obrazovne djelatnosti. 
Ta aktivnost mora se jasno određivati protiv separatističkih i unitarističkih tendencija u području jezika, a za afirmaciju bratstva i jedinstva i jezičnog zajedništva Crnogoraca, Hrvata, Muslimana, Srba i drugih, tj. za afirmaciju jezične politike koja uspostavlja sklad između nedvojbene jednosti srpskohrvatskog/hrvatskosrpskog, hrvatskog ili srpskog standardnog (književnog) jezika i njegove varijantne razudenosti, takvog jezičnog zajedništva koje ne ugrožava jedinstvo kulturnog života nijedne nacije i nijedne sociokulturne sredine, već ga, naprotiv, osigurava." 
"...Negativne tendencije u području jezika posebno su došle do izraza u posljednje vrijeme tako da se može govoriti o eskalaciji jezičnog nacionalizma, koji se manifestira:
- u praktičnom razdvajanju našeg jezika na srpski i hrvatski (u nastavi na nekim stranim sveučilištima),
- u isto takvom razdvajanju jezika u međunarodnim dokumentacijskim klasifikacijama,
- u izdavanju rječnika, odnosno priručnika posebno za hrvatski, posebno za srpski (srpskohrvatski) jezik,
- u zlonamjernim i neistinitim prikazivanjima naše jezične situacije u pojedinim enciklopedijama, knjigama i studijama širom svijeta itd. ..." Kubura 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "unwanted tendencies" and language policy 

message: Montenegrins use words:
*"osoba" instead of "lice"
*"nogomet" instead of "fudbal"
*"neodgojen" instead of "nevaspitan"
Momisan, Crna Gora, are you kidding???
Predominant use of Latin letters? Since when? 
I had the opportunity to watch Montenegrin TV programme before and after the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but I've never heard (nor seen) that. Kubura 18:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kubura, Montenegrins use both osoba and lice. Montenegrins do use nogomet and neodgojen sometimes, however, they use fudbal and nevaspitan predominantely. --Crna Gora 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Osoba" is perfectly normal Serbian, and I guess it applies to Montenegro as well; it's just not as ubiquituous as in Croatian. Briefly, in Serbian, "osoba" is restricted to "a human being", thus one would use "lift za 4 osobe", "hendikepirana osoba" etc. See this Google search. "Lice" is largely synonymous and interchangeable, but it's slightly more legalese/formal; one can say e.g. only "pravno lice", not "pravna osoba". However, you will never hear e.g. "sto za 2 lica" in normal speech; it is just convoluted. "Lice" is also exclusively used in the context of grammatical person: "govorimo u trećem licu" (isn't that the case with Croatian as well?). As for the adjectives, only "ličan"  is used in practice, seldom if ever "osoban" . Duja► 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeez, Kubura, have you checked the Google search I provided above -- this GHit comes from The Commitee for Standardization of Serbian Language. And I was referring only to the word "osoba"; again, "lice" is not normally used in informal speech: compare this and this: only the latest hit of the former is Serbian (as opposed to Macedonian), and "lice" is here used in formal context meaning "citizen". On the other hand, "tvornica", "nogomet" and "odgoj" are not normally used (bur are understood) in Serbia (although "tvornica" is used among Bosnian Serbs ). "Odgoj" is also occasionally used , but note that it often comes from Church texts (, , marking it as archaic/poetic), or it means (e.g. cattle) "breeding" (although uzgoj is more used in this context).And, yes, I do trust you regarding your experience in JNA; but, as you well know, the rules of normal life cannot be applied there by any stretch of imagination, and to its "language" as well: in Army, stupidity and bureaucracy are a rule rather than an exception. Duja► 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd call anyone in Serbia far too politicized/businessman for saying "lice" instead of "osoba". :) "Odgoj" indeed is a typical word, and to an extent "tvornica" (btw "zeljezo" is too). As for nogomet, I don't think it's used in Serbia (elsewhere is), but it's just a result of internationalization (Fussball or Football); "Nogomet" was used before (just like were once the Croatian months, btw; a long time ago). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs)  23:28, 29 March 2007
Odgoj "typical"?? Where? 
As I know, using of words "osoba, odgoj, tvornica" in Serbia, as well as in ex-YU republics that had "Serbo-Croat language" as official was considered as Croat provocation, even "ustashi"(!). Bunch of texts were written (in Serb language), with those words as subject of mocking, or those words were used in negative, derrogative context ("...pa neka "gospoda" "bojovnici" "odgajaju" "osobe" u svojoj "demokraciji"). Duja, you're older, I don't have to prove you this, you had opportunity to read, see and hear such texts in all Serbian and Montenegrin media. Kubura 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Kubura, everyone in Serbia says "odgajati". How else would they say? And "lice" is used strictly and solely as "face" and in cases like "vojno lice", formally, but very rarely. "Osoba" is a most typical wording for "person". BTW, in Serbia they say "krst" instead of Croatian "križ", but "prekrstiti" means almost exclusive the religious one - while most people in Serbia say "prekrižiti" when they're solving crosswords. :) In the end, this (together with zeljezo) is all the best way to show that that's all just one big Serbo-Croatian language, doesn't it? :) BTW when you're referring to the Serbian language, do not just mention Serbia - it's spoken in Bosnia and Montenegro too (and inner-dialect wording differs). --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegrin language - features 

message: Why not mention the Bunjevac language? --PaxEquilibrium 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunjevac 

message: It's finally the time to archive this page, its over 100 kb's long.
Second, shall we make new sections in the article, sections regarding the differences in terminology in certain areas? (Razlike u znanstvenom i stručnom nazivlju). Kubura 12:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving and new sections 

message: "Šargarepa" is more used in Serbia ("we" are also only saying "šargarepa"), but "mrkva" can be used too. Look at the sources: 
http://www.bosna.unas.cz/slovnik.html
(srpski ekavski: šargarepa, mrkva / hrvatsk iijekavski: mrkva /  bosanski ijekavski: mrkva)
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/serbo-croatian/mrkva
(Croatian mrkva carrot.
Serbian (Latin Script) mrkva carrot.
etc.)
"Sretan" is SURE also used in Serbia and therefore I don't need sources (ja ne govorim hrvatski ili bosanski, srpski je moj maternji jezik). I'm from Serbia (not from BiH or Hr) and 
we are always saying "sretan". Please do NOT delete the word “sretan” again. It is really not necessary (and it's out of order) to make the differences between the languages bigger as they are!
[Edit: 
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sretan 
Bosnian Sretan happy. 
Croatian sretan fortunate, happy. 
Serbian (Latin Script) sretan glad. 
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/translation/sre%25C4%2587an
Serbian (Latin Script) srećan auspicious, blessed, fortunate, happy, happy-go-lucky, lucky, prosperous, successful
Another source: http://www.krstarica.com/dictionary/index.php?u=sretan]
Pronouns (Editwar):
Serbian language:
"Gdje/Gde ćeš biti?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da budeš?"
"Gdje/Gde ćeš ići?" AND "Gdje/Gde ćeš da ideš?"
Both versions are correct, so it is enough to mention the first sentence, but it's wrong to mention ONLY the second sentence.  172.180.86.246 13:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point, I'm afraid. No one is trying to "artificially create more differences", but just to document the common usage. Yes, "sretan" and "mrkva" are valid Serbian words, which you can find in a dictionary, but they're seldom used in Serbia. The text above the table contains a disclaimer. I've added a paragraph and changed the table heading to reflect that the differences are geographical rather than in standards; the introductory sentence on "inclusiveness" vs. "purism" also states that. "Срећан" beats "Сретан" by 188,000:533 GHits. Similar for "шаргарепа" vs. "мрква" (the latter also gets hits from Bosnian Serb websites, so the difference is smaller). Duja► 08:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocabulary, Pronouns 

message: Among other things English description for "kuda" and "kamo" strikes me as odd and imprecise:
Kamo has answers in these adverbs:ovamo, tamo, onamo, with similar English translations, but these adverbs refere to the certain side, wider area, meaning here (on my side), there (on your side), there (neither by my side nor by your side).
Simple English translation of "gd(j)e?" but be "where" whereas "kuda?" and "kamo?" would be translated as "where to?". English-equivalent examples of use of "gd(j)e":
* Where are you?
* Where is the airplane?
* Where should we meet?
Examples for "kuda" and "kamo"?
* Where are you going to?
* Where is the airplane headed to?
* Where should we be going to?
Consequently, answers to "gd(j)e" would be "in/on/at/by something" or similar (possibly but not necessarily related to here/there stuff) and answers to "kuda" and "kamo" would begin with to, towards, etc.
--Aleksandar Šušnjar 21:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuda/Kamo 

message: Hey guys.  I am serbian and yes we do use the latin script as well as the cyrillic script.  We can read and understand croatian perfectly including the minor differences you listed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.31.83 (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey guys

message: I've moved pagename to this version, in alphabetical order. First goes B, then goes C, and finally goes S. Kubura (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: There's one mistake.
At first sight, it may seem all OK. But, AFAIK, at least for Croatian, the active form is being preferred, not the passive form (as it is the case in Germanic and Romanic languages). Passive form is used mostly when it cannot be avoided, in order to avoid double meanings (for that reason, it appears mostly in iuristic stuff), or to be more polite (active form is too direct, it may sound too imposing).
So, "Nitko ne smije biti držan u ropstvu..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije držati u ropstvu..." and "Nitko ne smije biti podvrgnut mučenju..." should be "Nitkoga se ne smije podvrgnuti...". Kubura (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 4. and 5. 

message: And one more thing:-whoever removed my previous post on the same topic on this page, should know that it's an act of violence, and if we all start being violent, everyone can change or remove parts of wikipedia that he/she doesn't like. That is not ok, and it might lead to a chaos on wikipedia. Personally I have a few posts in mind, and nothing will stop me from removing or changing them if I find any of my recent posts removed again. There are many ways to change or get a new IP address in case of banning, so let's be more civilized and stop the vandalism. With respect to this wikipedia. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:TALK. Talk pages are not for exchanging your personal opinions about topics, however well argued they may be. This page is not for working out "the truth" about Serbo-Croatian, but only for working out how best to represent all relevant opinions about it that have been expressed in reputable publications out in the real world. Kubura was in principle right to remove your post (although at this point I'd recommend not repeating that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You didn't listen to a word of what I was telling you. "My post is just representing an opinion about A FACT"? Yes, indeed, that's what it is, and that is exactly what this page is not for. Therefore, for the last time, stop it. Next time you post anything that is not directly related to a concrete, constructive suggestion about improving an article, you will be banned. That means that anything that you post, anywhere on this project, will simply be rolled back on sight and any IP you use blocked immediately. -- That said, I am not going to discuss my opinion about Kubura's or anybody else's edits with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Declaration of Human Rights-sample text of the 3 standards tells the truth 

message: I'm not a native speaker, but I still miss the variants for bread. I thought that they were characteristic. I cannot add them because I do not know what to do with the Bosnian.  Andreas  (T) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cro: kruh, Bos: hljeb, Ser: hleb. Zenanarh (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Manja ispravka: Serb. hl(j)eb. --Hegumen (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kruh vs. hleb