Talk:Croatian language/Archive 1

message: No need to panic. Freely write to the Herceg Bosna site,
info@hercegbosna.org if Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net) is one of
the owners of the site. The answer will be prompt.
So much for copyright panic. 
Mir Harven
Btw- you can e-mail Herceg Bosna on the Web: just
write following the contact link at http://www.hercegbosna.org/eng_index.html
M H
Unfortumately, I must object to your removal of my page on Croatian language and re-instatemt of the one I wouldnt deign to comment on. But I would on your unprofessionalism: as I have said, you will have gotten the answer from Herceg Bosna Website (you set the deadline of 7 days) on copyright issues. So, if you want professional relationship-I expect you to abide by your words.
Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)
: Ahh: you fixed it. Thanks for clarifying the source of this text - I hope you understand our concern. Sorry that nobody responded to you earlier, but we're all unpaid, hence sometimes unprofessional... :) Martin 08:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you tell him or her to email wikipedia@myreddice.co.uk? I'll have a read and get back if there are any details that need to be cleared up. Martin 15:09, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright 

message: I reverted "Nikola Smolenski" (paraphrased)
1. I'll write here the arguments.
2. I've never seen the arguments of "Nikola Smolenski"
3. If mr. Smolenski's behavior continues without intervention - then, maybe whole biz is not worth the effort.
Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net )
: If Smolenski won't explain hir reasons here, then it may be necessary to protect the page. But it's always best if the two people involved in a dispute (you and sie) can chat and resolve the differences that way. Martin 08:50, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smolenski and Harven 

message: Now to the text of mr. Smolenski. It is, I quote:
"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated
Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of
Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for
36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito,
during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically
opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954) and Yugoslavian
lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and
practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and
operated by Croats. Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as
Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of
life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."
Let's see:
===1===
"Some Croats believe that their language was supressed in "Serbian-dominated
Yugoslavia". While that could be possible during 23 years of Kingdom of
Yugoslavia, ruled by Serb kings, nothing could be farther from the truth for
36 years of SFRY, held in totalitarian rule by a Croat Josip Broz Tito,"
Rubbish. Tito was a Croat, but not a *Croatian* dictator. He was a bolshevik, communist authoritarian leader who deftly managed to hold the power with the combination of charismatic leadership (in a "soft" totalitarian state SFRJ), balancing inter-ethnic animosities and wielding Yugoslav People's Army- essentially his own, private weapon. His rule was that of a nationally indifferent despot- if we refer to his supposed Croatian national loyalty. He didn't display any during his rule. On the contrary- he brutally crushed "Croatian spring" in 1971. (more than 4.000 Croatian refugees) and tried to centralize his fiefdom of Yugoslavia- and this inevitably meant to Serbianize it, to a degree, because the capital was Belgrade and Serbs a relative majority in his Yugoslavia (some 40% of the populace).
:Even if all of this would be true, then Croatian language was oppressed by a Croat, or a communist, and not by Serbs. Nor was Yugoslavia Serb-dominated.
:*OK- I'll cut you some slack here. Croatian was oppressed by Yugoslav communist elite that tried to impose Serbian as the official language of Yugoslavia. Serbs, as people, did not have a decisive say in this matter.
===2===
"during which Serbian language and its Cyrillic alphabet was systematically
opressed (Most notably in the Novi Sad agreement of 1954)"
Rubbish. Serbian language was in fact *imposed* in vital areas of life: it was the official language of the Yugoslav Army, Yugoslav diplomacy, lingua franca in communication of Yugoslav republics that spoke 
:Idiocy. Serbo-Croatian language was the official language of Army and everything else. Are you saying that Serbo-Croatian language actually is Serbian language renamed?
:*Exactly. During communist Yu, Croats used the term "Croatian literary language" (in the climate of liberalism), "Croatian or Serbian" (when they were forced to) and "Croato-Serbian" (in the stifling era of cold war and Soviet-type centralism). The term "Serbo-Croatian" was, in the content (grammar, morphology, dictionary,..) nothing other than Serbian language. It was forcibly imposed, for instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (media, press, educational system), which is documented in Bosniak linguist Isaković's "Glossary of characteristically Bosnian speech". For instance, Serbian word for municipality, "opština", was first recorded on Bosnian soil in 1930s. Croatian "općina" was recorded in 1500s. And yet- the Serbian word "prevailed", due to Serbianization of administration.
languages other than Croatian and Serbian (Slovenia, Macedonia). During 1971. virtually all copies of Croatian orthography manual, authored by academicians Babić, Finka and Moguš was *burnt*, and one remaining copy was smuggled into Britain, where it was printed and distributed among Croatian emigres. Humorously, it got the name "the Londoner", according to the name of the city where it was reprinted. 
http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cro/crolang.htm
In September 1971, a manual of Croatian Orthography, designed for primary and secondary schools, was published in Zagreb. Compiled by three eminent linguists (S. Babic - B. Finka - M. Mogus), it codified the current norm of Croatian spelling and orthography: "In all ways, from a purely language point of view, The Croatian Orthography is probably the most authoritative guide to enlightened language practice in Croatia today". Forty thousand copies of this handbook awaiting distribution were seized and destroyed on the orders of the political authorities. This auto-da-fé threw a particular light on the "cultural" policy of the Belgrade government. But one copy of the Croatian Orthography survived, was smuggled abroad and reprinted in London in 1972.
:Three men wrote a book called "Croatian ortography manual". But was it really a Croatian ortography manual? I guess not, more likely it was a nationalist pamphlet. And anyway, it was burned by communist regime with Croats on top, not by Serbs.
:*Bwaahhha....and *this* is a "debate", I guess ? Hear, hear. Well- the 6th edition of the "Londoner" is official Croatian orthographic manual now, in 2003. Well- who the hell are you to denounce anyone's work as "nationalist pamphlet" ? What's wrong with you Serbian guys that you think you're entitled to flout insults at anyone's face without any argument or anything similar. I guess I was too polite with this chauvinist junk.
The same fate-censorship and suppression- befell Croatian grammars (Babić-Težak), Croatian grammar of the Institute for language in Zagreb and many Croatian language related books (history of language, language counsellors,..).
Also, many Croatian men and women lost their jobs or were, in extreme cases, incarcerated because they used typically Croatian words that had unmistakeably "nationalist" resonances in the ears of Yugoslav political watchdogs: (siječanj, protimba, promidžba-january, contradiction, propaganda). Needless 
:Contradiction and propaganda are purely Croatian words that do not exist in Serbian language :)))) Oh, those evil Serbs, not allowing Croats to use Croatian words :))) And as "januar" is understandable to both Croats and Serbs and "sijecanj" isn't, it is logical that it should be used in publications intended for whole yugoslavia. And of course that communist authorities were firing people which didn't want to follow their rules.
:*Nonsense. "Protimba" is a Croatian word, and "protivurečnost" or "protivrečje" Serbian. Are you really so inferior that you think that Latin-roots words are the issue here. No- the Serbian and Croatian are. As for "understandable"-who the hell are you (or any Serbian chauvinist) to meddle in Croatian language issues ? We use Slavic word "tvornica" for factory, instead of Serbian "fabrika"-a German loan-word. Russian language has "konstanta pronicaemosti" for "dielectrical constant". Why don't you go to the Russians and berate them for using their own words instead of those with Graeco-Latin roots, eh ? Kick those nasty Russian linguistuc nationalists, yea.
 
to say- *no* Serbian grammar or orthograpy manual or whatever was prohibited. Nor any Serbian person went to jail for ostentatively using characteristically Serbian words.
:No Serbian grammar existed. All grammars were of Serbo-Croatian language. Even officialy used ortography manual of today mentions Serbian language only in its title, in inside it talks about "Serbian language variant" and similar phrases.
:*It did and it exists. Stevanović's grammar is Serbian grammar which differs from Croatian grammars (even in Yugoslav period) in the title and content. Wanna check ? http://www.fil.bg.ac.yu/katedre/srpski/05.html  As for "Serbo-Croatian"- in title, content and structure (phonetics, phonology, morphology,syntax and semantics)- it was (and is, where it is still used) Serbian language. Weird- why these damm Croats persistently try to write some grammars and manuals that have "Croatian or Serbian" or "Croatian literary language" in the title, and differ in content from those "Serbo-Croatian" ones ? If this is just a technical issue-why the Serbs insisted on "Serbo-Croatian" title and content, and Croats opposed both title and content ? Maybe because "Serbo-Croatian" was de facto Serbian-eh ?
As for "Cyrillic alphabet oppression" myth- Yugoslavia was in the "golden age" of Tito's detente with the West, from 1960s to his death in 1980, more or less sucked into sphere of Western influence (tourism, workers from Yu in Germany or France,..) so that Serbian Cyrillic alphabet was gradually abandoned by pro-Western Serbian youth. Even now, in 2003. (23 years after Tito's death, 13 years after the collapse 
:It will be that that is the reason for all government institutions to be equipped with Latin typewriters only.
:*B...b...bwaaahha...Yeah, that "typewriter conspiracy" theory I've heard of.  Just one teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy problem: PROVE IT.
of Communism and 2 years after the demise of Slobodan Milošević)- the vast majority of books, press, signs, advertisments,.. etc. in Serbia proper are in Latin script. Well- if more than 70% of city signs in Belgrade are in Latin and not Cyrillic script now, and if Serbian parliament issued a special resolution (some 2 months ago) that tried to impose Cyrillic script as the primary script in Serbia- then, it's hardly the old dictator to be the scapegoat to blame. As for Novi Sad "agreement" in 1954.- Croatian participants were outnumbered by Serbian in 3/1 ratio, and the entire "agreement" was essentially a capitulation of Croatian linguists and writers in the atmosphere of threats and oppression created by Yugoslav Communist elite that tried, following centralizing tendencies of Communist dictatorship, to "create" the official language for Yugoslavia- in this case, Serbian. It isn't for nothing that Croatian cultural institutions withdrew their signatures in the climate of growing liberalism, 1967 (Decalaration on Croatian language)- while Serbian institutions didn't move for an inch. Why would they ? The "agreement" from 1954. perfectly fit their aims.
So much about "oppression" of Serbian language during Tito's totalitarian rule.
===3===   
"Yugoslavian
lexicographical institute (which was creating and publishing official and
practicaly the only encyclopedias and dictionaries) was based in Zagreb and
operated by Croats."
This time- only partially true. First- this was virtually the only Yugoslav institution located in Zagreb. All others were in Serbia, and the majority in Belgrade- from military history institute to 
:Isn't it logical that all institutions of a state are located in capital of the state?
:*No. The USA are the best example. And Yugoslavia was a multinational (not multiethnic- this is classic American English misnomer. Yugoslavia was never a nation, but was composed of various nations: Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, Macedonians,..) country. Centralization was in this case Serbianization.
history institutes and the rest. "Yugoslav" simply meant- located in the capital Belgrade.
As for Lexicographical institute, it was a compromise that stemmed from two reasons: its director, famous Croatian writer Miroslav Krleža, was Tito's personal friend. Second- only Croatia, among all Yugoslav republics, had a vital lexicographical tradition. This is evident especially now, when Croatian 
:Well, there existed a small encyclopedia called "Sveznanje" and its publisher was working on a much larger encyclopedia, but some twelve tomes of manuscripts somehow got lost. Nikola
lexicographical institute, http://www.hlz.hr/eng/home.html , is teeming with impressive lexicographical
activity. In Serbia and Montenegro- nothing, zero, zippo, zilch. Who prevents you now ?
As for "publishing official...dictionaries"- rubbish. Dictionaries were published across Yugoslavia by various publishers. Serbia, in order to avoid unwanted possible Croatian influence in the field, translated, in 1970s, most of famous Larousse encyclopedias. And- some encyclopedias were edited in "mixed" Croatian ijekavian and Serbian ekavian languages (Encyclopedia of Fine Arts, Encyclopedia of Forestry), while general ones had Serbian issues. And the collaboartors were from all republics of former Yugoslavia- as anyone can check.
===4===
"Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as
Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of
life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."
Bwaaahh...what can I say ? Does the page on Croatian language "deserve" such a lucid insight ? Really-no comment.
Well- that's all, folx. Little language, much politics. If anyone considers Nikola Smolenski's "doings" on this page appropriate- then, I've wandered in the wasteland.
Hastalavista baby
Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)
*
Hm..nice. I would like, if possible, to add to the "disputed part" of the Croatian language page, a link pointing to this, discussion page, in order that someone who might stumble upon the page could hear pro et contra arguments. And see for themselves why the disputed part is debatable at all.
M H
: A splendid idea. :) Martin 20:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  text 

message: "Tito himself was natively speaker of what is known as
Kajkavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian language and for more then 40 years of
life in Belgrade never learned Serbian accent nor pronounciation."
Bwaaahh...what can I say ? Does the page on Croatian language "deserve" such a lucid insight ? Really-no comment.
Well- that's all, folx. Little language, much politics. If anyone considers Nikola Smolenski's "doings" on this page appropriate- then, I've wandered in the wasteland.
Hastalavista baby
Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)
*
Hm..nice. I would like, if possible, to add to the "disputed part" of the Croatian language page, a link pointing to this, discussion page, in order that someone who might stumble upon the page could hear pro et contra arguments. And see for themselves why the disputed part is debatable at all.
M H
: A splendid idea. :) Martin 20:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: Suspicion of copyright infringement to http://www.hercegbosna.org/engleski/croatian_language.html .
:Since I'm one of the owners of the site http://www.hercegbosna.org , I'm free to use the material from this site. If someone has dubieties- email info@hercegbosna.org. Anyway-I'm a bit puzzled, since this issue had been discussed ca. 5-7 months ago and I thought it was a resolved "problem". I guess it's somewhere on this page, or on my Talk page. In any other case- email info@hercegbosna.org . Mir Harven 17:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is the issued resolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_language/Archive#Copyright Mir Harven 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyright 

message: This article argues that Croatian doesn't come below Serbo-Croatian in the categorization. The article Serbo-Croatian language does. Please let's just keep things separated as they are and avoid casting judgement from one article into the other. --Joy [shallot] 11:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea how to handle this thing, but I would just like to mention that having contradicting articles at Serbo-Croatian, Serbian and Croatian is probably not a good thing. Zocky 13:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are not contradicting, at least not any more contradicting than e.g. articles on different religions :) Some interpret things one way, some another. All articles make note of both interpretations and link to the other articles, but we have them all to avoid being partial to one interpretation only. It's pretty tidy compared to how it could look AFAIACS... --Joy [shallot] 13:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: That is not actually true, because there are various theories in dialectology that differ in explanations. --Joy [shallot] 14:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Um, I don't see how that overrides what I said. That article is accommodating both interpretations -- that it's all together, and that it's separate. That doesn't imply that this article has to do the same in its taxobox. --Joy [shallot]
----
I don't really mind the low-key revert war over this, although it would be much more sensible to discuss it here first before changing it in the article again. What I do mind is people calling those with a different opinion vandals. That's just counterproductive, plus see wikipedia:No personal attacks. Zocky 18:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, you'd really have to talk to Jugoslaven, because he incited the latest round of controversy and continues to inflict it upon us all. --Joy [shallot] 23:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  categorization in the taxobox 

message: There is no language called Serbo-Croatian. They are not completely different, but they are not the same either. Also, its not only the fact that they are different languages, the cultures are different as well. Therefor one can not combine the two.
What nonsence! :))) HolyRomanEmperor 16:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbo-Croatian.. 

message: See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije
Hope, many of you will contribute! :)  --Neoneo13 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on closing down the croatian Wikipedia 

message: If any two (one serbian and one croatian) person can fully understand each other while each one is talking in the language he/she learned from his/her mother, then separate serbian and croatian languages do not exist, those are only dialects of the common serbo-croatian language then.
Just like biological races are defined as such that multiplication and production of fertile offsprings must be impossible between any two different races of animals, languages must be fully unintelligible to each other in order to qualify as true autonomic languages. Otherwise they are just dialects and chauvinists and fascists are using them to artifically incite racial hatred in people. It is a matter of fact that the serbian nation liberated the balkan with arms from the nazi rule and therefore serb race has superiorty over the other, seni-slavic nations that supported fascism in WWII, like the ustasha. They were responsible for the 1971 school textbook counter-revolution which Marsall Tito crushed so majestically. 195.70.32.136 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, wiki policy is that idiocies remain on talk pages. Mir Harven 13:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ustasha did attack serbo-croatian language already in 1971 from london exile. 

message: Mir (or anyone else), I'd appreciate if you could expand more on the  ije/ie/je debate (and possibly fix my addition on about exactly what is the disagreement). I wanted to move your addition from Montenegrin language:
:like Dalibor Brozović, while others like Ivo Škarić dismiss Brozović's arguments
but I don't quite follow who argues what (not that I delved too deeply into the matter), so I expanded somewhat on the debate, but it certainly needs some improvement. Duja 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ije je je or ije je ie? 

message: RAZGOVOR Prof. dr. IVO PRANJKOVIĆ, UGLEDNI JEZIKOSLOVAC,
SUAUTOR NEDAVNO OBJAVLJENE GRAMATIKE HRVATSKOGA JEZIKA
Hrvatski i srpski su jedan jezik
VARIJETETI ISTOGA Na standardološkoj razini, hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, pa i crnogorski jezik različiti su varijeteti, ali istoga jezika. Dakle, na čisto lingvističkoj razini, odnosno na genetskoj razini, na tipološkoj razini, radi se o jednom jeziku i to treba jasno reći
 
Here’s the translation of the main title and the introduction article of this interview:
INTERVIEW: PROF.DR. IVO PRANJKOVIC, THE FAMOUS LINGUIST AND CO-AUTHOR OF THE RECENT PUBLISHED, GRAMMAR OF CROATIAN LANGUAGE’.
CROATIAN AND SERBIAN ARE ONE LANGUAGE!
VARIETIES OF IT: On a standard level, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and now Montenegrin language are just varieties, but from a same language. Therefore, pure linguistically and typologically they are all ONE LANGUAGE and it should be said very clearly!
The rest of the text just confirms what’s in the title and the main article. In spite of all sick nationalists and evil propagators:-SERBOCROATIAN IS ONE LANGUAGE AND WILL STAY ONE FOREVER!CHEERS! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.127.107 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006:A famous croatian linguist confirmed the unity of serbian and croatian language! 

message: Can the Croatian language can be sometimes Cyrillized? --Blake3522 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillization 

message: What does this phrase mean? It appears high in the article.
Can someone who knows the author's intent please rephrase.
Coughinink (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear phrase - " If the subject is narrowed out" 

message: From the article:
There are seven tenses, four of which (present, perfect, future I and II) are used in contemporary standard Croatian, with the other three (aorist, imperfect and plusquamperfect) considered stylistically marked and archaic.
This sentence should probably be considered misleading and/or incorrect.  The overwhelming majority of modern linguists agree that most languages have two tenses, and that no language (at least, no language with a vectorial tense system, such as all Indo-European languages) has more than three.  Theoretically speaking, and based upon the linguist's definition of "vectorial tense", there can only be three tenses.  Please see <I>Tense</I> by Bernard Comrie () and the chapter on tense in <I>Linguistic Semantics</I> by William Frawley (), among many others.
The author(s) must forgive my guesswork, for I know nothing of Croatian; but perhaps the author meant to say that the language has seven distinct classes of verb affixes that indicate various combinations of tense, aspect, and/or modality.  Phrasing the sentence along this general arc would give a more syntactic (as opposed to semantic) flavor to the assertion, which in turn would improve its correctness.  Or, perhaps it is commonplace in the prescriptive teaching of Croatian to assert that the language has seven tenses (similar tricks are common in the teaching of many languages).  Such pedagogical shortcuts should not necessarily be considered valid descriptive frameworks.
Ericbg05 (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: It's not just a "version" of Central South Slavic dyasystem.. It's an independent language, with its own development.
Further, some Croatian communities outside Croatia and B&H aren't considered as Croat diaspora, but as autochtonous one. 
Croatian: inhabitant of Croatia, or Croatian citizen, not necessarily a Croat
Croat: nationality, not necessarily a Croatian citizen nor inhabitant of Croatia.Y
That's the explanation of my edits. Kubura (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Could someone please revise the two consonant sections into one, it's a little confusing (and I am not qualified to do it myself!). Thanks! 77.100.4.112 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consonants 

message: *(hrvatski, Croatian pronunciation: [xř̩ʋaːtski]) = inaccurately, croatian language has no Cyrillic!
*Croatian language is a separate and independent of other language based on the three dialects western shtokavian, kajkaviyan and chakavian.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.101.186 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not Cyrillic script but IPA transcription: /x/ = voiceless velar fricative --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to put a stop to this confusion. I have skimmed through the article and I can confirm that there are no Cyrillic characters in it anywhere. International Phonetic Alphabet is not the same thing as Cyrillic and somebody is getting incredibly upset about an entirely imagined problem. They need to calm down, stop insulting people, and understand what is really going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurately 

message: thsi language is spoken in croatia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.85.79 (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This language 

message: The image of Vojvodina in this article is really bad.
I didn't do the edit myself (it should be at least just removed for start).
The truth is that there are 6 official languages in entire Vojvodina (it's not divided by municipalities).
These are: Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovakian, Rusyn and Croatian.
It would be the best to just use the census data as in this image...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.120.74 (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your analysis is entirely correct (as far as I know there is such thing as "official language on municipal level", because you cannot expect all local administrations to handle documents in all 6 languages). However, I agree that the map is largely useless and not really important for the article, so I removed it. No such user (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image official languages in Vojvodina 

message: I'd like to comment the fragment of the article:
"Književni jezik (literraly:language of books) is a common phrase for any standard language.'
Although my knowledge of Croatian is very rudimentary, I believe that the literal English translation should be "literary language", as "književnost" is a Croatian word for "literature". Wie man wird, was man ist 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. I removed the whole paragraph, because it's pretty meaningless. Every major language has a "literary language" and there's no point in defining the term. No such user (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literary language 

message: In my opinion term Croatian language is inappropriate.
Croatian pertains to the country, and Croat to the nation. Croatians can be Croats but also Serbs, Italians, Hungarians etc.
Croat is spoken by Croats regardless of where they live, similarly German by Germans, English by the English and French by the French.
Just like in England, France and Germany - the people gave the name to the country, not the other way round (as is the case with Italy or Hungary). Using Croatian language instead of Croat language to my mind smacks of cultural snobism. No one would ever say that they speak Englandian or Frenchian.
All of the above goes for Serb - Serbian and Serbo-Croat.
Vladbohm (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In English, it's Croatian and Serbian. The ambiguity exists for many languages: English, French, German, Russian, Japanese, etc. (The French can also be Serbs, Italians, Hungarians, etc.; in fact, their president is.) I notice you didn't change Bosnian - the same argument could be made there. kwami (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Slovakian and Slovenian, of course. Without the word "language",Slovak and Slovene can also be used, but the people aren't "Slovenes", they're "Slovenians". Thanks for pointing out the bad English at Slovak language; that needs to be moved. kwami (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croat versus Croatian