User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 4

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

About that language page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers Hey you have apparently locked that page so if you could just change the following for me - Bulgarian-Macedonian does not exist. Bulgarian is a language with around 8.2 mill local and 3 overseas. Macedonian is a different language which according to wikipedia from a couple of months ago is spoken by 2 million. Bulgarian-Macedonian would be the same as English-German. Thank you. Rmnfox (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2011

Listen, you! Stop disturbing me by sending me private messages in some language that is not English, they are unwelcome.

Annabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)AnnabelleighAnnabelleigh (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Accused of POV

You've been indirectly accused here by User:Sir Floyd (yes, again...). I would appreciate your input here. Apparently, Tito is to be presented as the cause of the Yugoslav wars in "User:Sir Floyd"'s brand new "Legacy" section.

I'm still convinced he's a sock or meatpuppet of one of those Italian irredentists that got banned. He's proof-reading everything but his sentence structure is Italian, plain and simple. Apparently this is caused by dyslexia, even though I've never heard of such "Italianny" symptoms and I do know a bit about neurocognitive disorders. If he is a sock with no dyslexia this is a low, low move. Any ideas? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't know what to add anymore to that topic. The way Sir Floyd wants to add to the article now is not anymore by directly associating Tito with Bleiburg and Foibe, but merely mentioning it as something related to the period of his command. At any case, I think that at least the discussion of the resurfacing of those two topics after the advent of 90s nationalism should be mentioned, from both nationalist and non-nationalist side. Article on GWB has Guantanamo Bay mentioned in it, so..

At any case, 20th century history is not really my topic of interest, and I have no doubts that you'll manage to push a reasonable, historically accurate solution :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ivo Andric

I find it strange that you've reverted the same sentence you had put there two days before (diff, diff). I don't have a problem with it, I just don't get it... Pozdrav.--Vitriden (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ma slazem se, nego, iskreno, veoma ne volim kad anonimni korisnici bez objasnjenja uklanjaju deo teksta, pa sam vratio, a onda me je tvoje revertovanje potpuno zbunilo. A objasniti sta je Andric bio po nacionalnosti bilo bi prilicno tesko i samom Andricu, ali zato likovi sa svih strana tacno znaju ko je i sta je bio. Isti slucaj i sa Teslom, Mesom Selimovicem, Rudjerom Boskovicem... A da pri tom o njihovom delu pojma nemaju. No dobro, ovde je uvek bilo bitnije sta si nego ko si... Pozdrav, keep on the good work.--Vitriden (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatian spelling wars

Ivan, you may find this article to be useful for handing out to non-Croatian editors on Wikipedia or Wiktionary who are genuinely unaware of the degree of politicization in modern Croatian linguistics.

http://www.ex-yupress.com/novi/novilist31.html

This article is quite interesting and accessible for the average reader. The only thing that I guarded against was taking it too seriously when reading it because of its source (www.ex-yupress.com - presumably a pro-Serbian or "Yugo-nostalgic" source). However the facts as presented in this article by ex-yupress.com corroborate with the analysis made by Robert D. Greenberg in his book on modern Serbo-Croatian sociolinguistics.

Speaking of Greenberg, Brozovic last year derided Greenberg's work for making "many obviously wrong claims". It's a pity that an otherwise competent linguist such as Brozovic sinks to the same level as a puppet for the HDZ.

The link to an abstract of Brozovic's criticism is here: http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/IJSL.2008.023

I hope that you'll find them to be useful although ill-informed ignorami such as Robert Ullmann (to say nothing of Croatian wikipedians such as Mir Harven, Anto, Kubura, SpeedyGonsales, Imbris etc.) would probably make an excuse to dismiss the first article as Greater Serbian propaganda. :-P

Pozdrav Vput (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help on Albanian language page

People get changing the Albanian word table on the Albanian language page. Verdhë is yellow in Albanian and gjelbër yet people keep changing to thinking them around as they think this is a cognate table, but it is not. Although I have suggested the table be changed anyway. What do you think, we need a new table? Azalea pomp (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar for Proto-Slavic borrowings

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded to Ivan Štambuk for creating an academically responsible and well researched article, Proto-Slavic borrowings. Especially in the section on the debate over Iranianisms, this article publicizes major recent works from both sides of the debate. These include a fresh assessment of the issue from just last year by Matasović, who issues a call for rigor in future research. Since Matasović 2008 is written in Croatian, quoting from it here is an especially valuable service to scholars.

Re

Ma nema sourcea, nema sourcea. Da ima neki source sta ga optužuje napisali bi mi, ali nema. Rummel je izgovor, krivo citiran. On jednostavno koristi "Tito Regime" umjesto "Yugoslavia" i genijalci su se uhvatili tega ka pijan plota. Onda oni nobelovac meni pocne citirat Spidermana "with great power comes great responsibility". :P Rummel ne optužuje Tita direktno, nego Yugoslavenski režim tog razdoblja. Nije ni on lud da priča gluposti.

ja sam to napisa ali me ne shvaćaju ozbiljno (iako imam više edita na ovoj Wikipediji nego svi oni skupa). Maka sam sekciju jer je to misrepresentation of sources. Oni če počet editratovat, pa se i ti ukjuči da ne bi jednostavno brojčano izrevertali i dobili šta hoće. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sretan Božić!

xD As an atheist (unfortunately violently baptized as a child :), I don't really practice pagan customs of celebrating winter solstice, Nature and the associatedly fabricated "gods", but I do appreciate the gesture itself and the act of spreading spirit of cosmic love and brotherhood ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you should appreciate THC just as much... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Joj, saću zamotat jednu frulu :D --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Jedna božićna, jeli? xD Kao medicinar moram te ukoriti - kaže se truba, ne "frula" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kao amaterski lingvist moram ti replicirati da ovdje kod nas puše većma "frule" ^_^

Ja sam odvajkada govorio: 9delta-tetrahidrokanabinol i 1,3,7-trimetilksantin su programerovi najbolji prijatelji, naročito prilikom kodiranja za vrijeme dugih, snježnih zimskih noći, kad je sav civiliziran svijet u REM fazi a ti se rveš sa zdravim razumom trijebeći heisenbugove :P --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, discussion on what I gather is caffeine and marijuana aside... :) I'm an atheist too, but I enjoy Christmas. I think it's more a part of the Western cultural tradition than any religious custom these days. Still, no reason why you can't have a good time on the 24th and 25th (and the 7th if you wish), no? Go picket a church. :) —what a crazy random happenstance 02:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, we smart folks use trivial chemical terminology, to show just how great we are. :)

As for xmas, I'm always ready to disregard atheism when free candy(!) is involved. btw, you do know that's an orthodox Christmas greeting above in the title? Serbs are orthodox, we Croats are catholic. There's no call for such insults... ;D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Free candy naturally trumps all theological arguments, that's an unfortunate and irrefutable character flaw of us atheists. :) And whoops, sorry, I simply looked up the Serbo-Croatian Xmas greeting. Do not question Christmas! Bow down before the power of Santa! —what a crazy random happenstance 04:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well sure, (free) candy is real... or at least I'm reasonably sure there exists irrefutable empirical evidence for its existence. Oh dear, seems I shall have to do some thorough research on the subject this season. :P

(Fixed title to western variant of Serbo-Croatian. Traditional Serbian orthodox greeting is "God's peace! Christ is born!", we just say "merry Xmas!" :)) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 :D Are you sure that candy is not just a manifestation of your beliefs? A gift from the Candy Gods? Surrender your free will to find out! Thanks for fixing the title. BTW, before it broke, the link in my last post led to a humorously misanthropic and dystopian video from the Invader Zim Xmas special but the gracious people YouTube have kindly decided to protect me from being sued by Viacom and have removed it without telling me seconds after I posted it tagged as private. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The notice coldly informed me that "this video is not available in my country due to copyright restrictions". YouTube needs to get with the holiday spirit, don't they know the holiday spirit will give them candy?

The more I think about this Christmas crap the more I like it (divine inspiration?). Maybe if we spend enough money on Christmas we'll fuel the fake economy, save people's jobs and increase corporate profits - and as a bonus we just might not go to hell? Win-win, it seems... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What, you don't like the Judeo-Christian laissez-faire Capitalist tradition? What are you, a god-damn commie?! GO BACK TO RUSSIA! —what a crazy random happenstance 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell no, been there done that (the commie part, not the Russia part - can you imagine if I actually went there? I'm cold where I am right now, god...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic phonology

Hello Ivan,

I wonder if you are ready to make sure that the revised (more archaic or more Baltic looking) reconstruction of proto-Slavic phonology as championed by František Václav Mareš and recently also Holzer finds its way into the article Proto-Slavic language, also to enlighten readers who may wonder about the reconstructions in Proto-Slavic borrowings.

That said, I've just noticed that in Georg Holzer, it is claimed or at least implicated that Holzer devised his theory entirely by himself and that the theory is brand-new; however, there are obviously precedents, so perhaps this is a bit misleading and should be rephrased somehow. As I do not have Holzer's books handy, however, I am not quite sure which precedents Holzer acknowledges himself. Moreover, the article claims that his theory has been accepted in the field in the meanwhile; if so, this is all the more reason to incorporate the new reconstruction into the article about the protolanguage. Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Florian!

Yes that article on Proto-Slavic needs a major rewrite. Holzer's scholarly work primarily deals with onomastics and dating of various Common Slavic sound changes. He is mentioned in the article only within the context of the statement that Proto-Slavic had no dialectal diversification at the year 600 (judging from the available evidence of onomastics data and various glosses, as Slavic speech was not written at that time). The reconstruction of Proto-Slavic phonological system is a different matter, and much complex and broader in scope. Primarily so because lots of works on that matter is a kind of painfully obsolete, and because different authors employ different notation for the same thing. I initially wanted to create several auxiliary articles (on borrowings, Slavic palatalizations, sound changes such as pleophony etc.) before attacking the main one, but meanwhile I got fed up with the topic and my mind diverted to different things. Currently my focus is outside Wikipedia but when I come back I'll certain make the enhancement of PSl. as one of my TODO stuff. It's a major undertaking because it would require compiling data and notation from several sources in order to maintain proper NPOV approach, because they are many unresolved problems in Common Slavic language that don't have any consensus. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity, but I understand your reasoning. Still, shouldn't the reader somehow be made aware of the different reconstructions and notations, the traditional OCS-based one (which, according to Holzer, doesn't even reflect the Saloniki dialect of the 9th century, after all) and the Baltic-looking one? It should be feasible for you to incorporate at least a note into Proto-Slavic language that alternatives to the traditional reconstruction/notation have been proposed, defended and to some extent accepted in the scientific community, and are sometimes used - for example, in your article. (And that the traditional notation is often retained in addition, but labelled Common Slavic.)

As for *ōseringu, perhaps the reason that the /i/ of Gothic *ausihriggs is reflected as /e/ here is the following /h/, which is known to lower (in traditional terminology: break) preceding /i/, possibly even subphonemically and automatically, so that the spelling *ausihriggs instead of *ausaihriggs is just a purely orthographic restitution according to the morphophonemic principle (but then, perhaps the "connecting vowel" was unstable by that time anyway, so it was prone to fluctuation). By the way, the Gothic word is not directly attested, anyway; Lehmann gives it as *ausi-hriggja-. But as the progressive (traditionally third) palatalisation accounts for the shape of the Slavic word, I see no reason to reconstruct a ja-stem here. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Another point I just noticed glancing over your excellent article: Isn't PSl. *melka generally held to be a loan from Germanic, as well? Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, PSL. *melka > Common Slavic *melko is borrowed from Gothic; native Satemized reflex of *h₂melǵ- has been preserved in the verb "to milk" (Common Slavic *melzti).

At the moment, the article on Proto-Slavic language unfortunately doesn't make notice of either reconstructions, but simply treats them collectively in quite a messy approach, paying no attention to diachrony and syncrhony. These 2 reconstructions reflect 2 stages of PSl. language: Early Proto-Slavic, with quantitative vowel oppositions, diphthongs.. and Late Proto-Slavic (aka Common Slavic), its last reconstructable phase, with qualitative oppositions, monophthongized diphthongs, nasal vowels, palatal(ized) consonants and other outputs of "law of open syllables" and "law of syllabic synharmony". Mapping between them is formulaic and trivial (you can devise almost a dozen sound laws just by looking at the article on Proto-Slavic borrowings). However, I do agree that in in current stage the article on PSl. should be enhanced with both newer notation, table of Early Proto-Slavic phonemic inventory (picking up were the article on Proto-Balto-Slavic left), and chronological treatment of sound changes as they occurred. That is exactly what I had in mind. However, it is necessary that all the auxiliary articles be created first, as I don't like unfinished work and prefer "bottoms-up" approach. I don't have any of literature at hand at the moment, so I can help only after January 5th or something like that.

Note that this is not some kind ogf "alternative reconstruction" or an "alternative notation", but a reconstruction of a different stage of language. The "traditional" reconstruction as you call it still very much used. Reconstructions of Common Slavic words is trivial, and can for the most part be done on the basis of OCS alone (and, as you notice, OCS was not identical to Common Slavic, but was very close to it, temporally by some 2 centuries off). Bot of them are equally valid and bot of them serve equal purpose. Someone interested in the relationships among modern and historical Slavic languages would of cause focus on Common Slavic reconstructions as a reference. Someone interested in pre-Common-Slavic times would utilize an earlier reference point; in case of prehistorical borrowings in Slavic, Early Proto-Slavic, where one can still observe the phonetic proximity to etymons and further degradation into attested forms, as well as important sound changes occurring in the process, several of which article on PSl. borrowings already makes notice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I forgot to mention that Holzer in his Historische Grammatik des Kroatischen seems to say that the "Baltoid" vowel system has remained in place in Slavic until the early 9th century (judging from loans into Old High German, for example, that still display full a, i and u), and only then changed into the familiar system featuring o and ultra-short high vowels.

Moreover, Middle Welsh carw, Middle Breton karo and Middle Cornish carow presuppose proto-Celtic *karwo- m. "deer", not *kerawo- or *karawo-, as you claimed in the article about proto-Slavic borrowings. From *karwo-, of course, the Balto-Slavic etymon can be derived in a much more straightforward way. I don't have Nussbaum available currently, however, to check if proto-Celtic *karwo- actually presents any problems in derivation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

translation?

Can you provide a quick/rough translation of these editsummaries? If they are incredibly over the top, feel free to send an email to me with them. Also, when reverting, please warn the IP. tedder (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail sent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Elly Tran Ha

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Elly Tran Ha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Warrah (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted the "hangon" tag you applied to the above-captioned article and the assertion you made on its talk page. You are correct to note that the article suggests that Ms. Ha is a "celebrity", but the category for speedy deletion contains the provision that the article must "credibly" suggest that the individual in question is a celebrity. It is not sufficient to merely state that someone is a celebrity; there needs to be something in the way of reliable sources, or an indication that an arm's-length third-party expert other than the author believes the subject to be a celebrity, and for what reason. I do not find this unsubstantiated claim to be "credible" and thus have decided to agree with the individual who tagged the article for speedy deletion. If you feel you can substantiate this claim with reference to reliable sources, and you wish the deleted content to be returned to a "sandbox" page where you can add those sources with less urgency, feel free to leave me a note by clicking on the word "talk" after my signature. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, never mind. She's the hottest chick on the Internet so sooner or later someone will bother to find some credible sources. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Badnjak

Friendly reminder, don't let these people bring you down by saying you are "overreacting" or "have something against Serbs". It is their form of intimidation, and it works on some. I only happened to look into badnjak while--shock--celebrating badnjak with my Croatian family. I'm still ill though, but it is definitely in the article's best interest for it to still be edited and portrayed accurately, i.e. not excluding anyone from "the club" that seems to have popped up.--Jesuislafete (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess there's related serious literacy published by houses like Glas Koncila or Kršćanska sadašnjost, etc. so probably available in the libraries within church institutions. Those scans are good for starting, but nothing more, you're right. Maybe I have a friend who can help, we'll see. Zenanarh (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

potalijančuje imena - Ragusan aristocracy

I think you need to face the truth...Do you remember Marino de BONA and how you said his name was Marin Bunic and it was controversial for me to write that his name was not Marin Bunic. I proved to you that in his obituary in Slobodna Dalmacija his name was Marino de BONA.

I think you need to face up to reality about Dubrovnik's past! Have you ever even been there? You have not explained why there is no document with a Bunic signature and why tombstones of the nobility in Dubrovnik all have the non-Slavic names on them. Stop using other birds' feathers to make yourself look good. Debona.michel (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LoL, of course I've been there! (I happen to grew up in a place not far from it). As far as the writers who wrote in Slavic are concerned - bulk of them used consistently Slavic versions of their surnames, the surnames by which they are generally known by in the English-speaking world, and it's imperative that does surnames have priority. Hence Marin Držić not Marino Darsa, Ivan Gundulić not Giovanni Gondola... As far as the general nobility is concerned who didn't leave us literary works of value...well, I don't really care, as I'm not much familiar with the issue of their (sur)names. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply curious

Are you by any chance related to the Kereta family in California? V. Kereta married a Stambuk. Your father lives in Japan? (I was there over Xmas).Debona.michel (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of (and I don't know much about my own genealogy, and frankly couldn't care less). All Stambuk's are related in a way: there was just one family ~ 300 years ago, but we've managed to spread all around the globe, propagating like rabbits (my grandfather had 5 sons, his father 7...) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A little older revert you did

Something came to my attention right now.

Ivan Gundulic

Why remove? you asked

Because it's broken; redirects me here: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Category:FYT-GAI

Care to elaborate? Er-vet-en (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Montenegrin

Hi,

Do you have any refs that Macedonian Montenegrin is Eastern Herzegovinian (though I can probably do that) and that the two new letters are non-phonemic? The article currently claims they're for phonemes not found in EH. Might they be due to local dialects, as Croatian also has lexical influence from other dialects? kwami (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean Montenegrin? Yeah, I could dig some refs, give me a couple of days. No they're non-phonemic, and the minimal pairs proposed by Montenegrin linguists are almost absurd. These two sounds are not spoken by the majority of the Montenegro population, and are not written anywhere in the media, papers, books...completely made up out of thin air. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry.

"not by the majority" implies they are by a (substantial) minority, which brings back the question of whether they're dialectical in Montenegro even if not found in Eastern Hercegovinian.

I would also like to rephrase the ledes of the SC articles so that they don't imply these are languages in the normal English sense of the term, as in calling s.o. quadrilingual for speaking all four, but make clear that they are national standard languages. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. kwami (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

S.o. just found your orphaned Serbo-Croatian grammar article. I've proposed merging S & C grammar there at WP Linguistics, and this will make it a lot easier! It's already the Bosnian and Montenegrin grammar article. I've started making minor changes such as commenting on the two extra Montenegrin letters, linking to the kin terms article, etc., and eventually moving over anything that the other articles have that yours as yet does not. Please let me know if I do anything silly! kwami (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally forgot about that one. It takes ridiculous amount of time to write those kind of articles - table formatting, diacritics, different scripts... The missing data from the S & C grammar articles should probably be merged. Your edits look fine. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

lols

Get a load of this :). A work of art by User:Sir Floyd --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

?

Hey, can you please join the discussion about the Oj, svijetla majska zoro on it's talk page? Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 17:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It was your message

Hi, Ivan.
It wasn't me, it was you who wrote this [1]. It was your message.
So, please, don't say that I'm the one that writes "nacionalist nonsenses" (as you did here [2]).
Please, don't attack me for the things you wrote [3]. Kubura (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please, don't revert, talk.

Ivan, why have you done this [4]?
Article was sourced.
Article about Central South Slavic diasystem is an article about the Brozović's theory about a diasystem.
Some scientists agree with him, some scientists disagree. All that is mentioned in the article, with short description.
Article has scientific references. Redirecting that article is equal to deletion.
Please, don't mix that with "Serbo-Croatian". "Serbo-Croatian" is the political project in the language area. It had long history.
Both articles can coexist.
Why do you make problem about that?
Brozović's theory can be wrong, but there're bunch of articles about theories (from various sciences) that proved wrong (or the ones that later proved to be right).
E.g., economics has a lot of theories, that were later abandoned (because they proved to be partially/conditionally/completely wrong). But students do learn those theories in the Universities all over the world.
Personally, I agree with Babić. So, I'm not pushing "my favourite version". But, according to the logic from above (example of economics), I wrote this article. We're not here to judge the theories: we give what's written in scientific works.
In any case, Brozović argumented why's the term CSSD better than the term "Serbo-Croatian". Therefore I've made replacements.
It was nice when you here wrote [5] "...there was possibly ancestor language for all Slovenian and Croatian dialects, and also similarly possibly Proto-East-South-Slavic (Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects) - but certianly no "Proto-South-Slavic" and within it some "Serbo-Croatian" node, who would be more unhomogeneous than any other real European language diasystem! The ancestral language of all idioms spoken nowadays by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins never existed.".
OK, excellent. I'd like your help. From your message from above, I see that you're informed a lot about that. Please, help me explain that to user Kwamikagami.
Sincere greetings, Kubura (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That article that you wrote is 1) content fork 2) written in an extremely PoVish manner. And as I've stated several times on that very talkpage - if Brozović's theory of CSSD should be discussed anywhere, it's on the Serbo-Croatian article page first, and only to be cut out in a separate article if it grows too big. I've already made some preparations for it at the South Slavic languages articles, but I takes a lot of time to find references and all. And what I wrote that you quote above in no way invalidates anything I said: there is really no genetic node of Serbo-Croatian, but there isn't either one for Croatian as far as that's concerned (and, there isn't even Proto-Čakavian or Proto-Kajkavian, believe it or not). Language groupings on the basics of national nomenclature in South Slavic area are arbitrary and based on political criteria. In dialectology there is only the Štokavian dialect and 4 national standards based on it. There is another thing of Čakavian, Kajakavian, Štokavian and Torlakian dialects mixing with one another throughout the history that also needs to be mentioned, for which the CSSD term is very useful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage:Croatian language - please, don't attack me

Hi, Ivan.
Please don't attack me [6]. Words like "you insolentw nationalist troll" do not belong here, as well as your implicated personal attack ("your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that...").
Please, read WP:PERSONAL, WP:ETIQ and WP:CIVIL.
"Bigoted fundamentalist just repeat their old dogmas for over and over again." Think about what you've written and say whome you can apply this sentence to: 1) to Croatian and modern foreign Slavists, or 2) to the ideologized Slavists that persistently push obsolete and ideologized serbocroatist theories from 150 years ago?
[7]"Your imaginary "three-dialectal Croatian" is just a fairy tale, and anybody with 3 brain cells can see that that myth has nothing to do with reality".
Interesting, all Croats that speak all those 3 dialects designate themselves as Croats and their language as Croatian (from centuries ago), and that's imaginary? Interesting. Please, see Population by mother tongue, by towns/municipalities, Croatian census 2001. Total 4.437.460, Croatian 4.265.081, Croatian-Serbian 2.054, Serbian 44.629, Serbian-Croatian 4.961. (there're [8] 3.977.171 Croats and 201.631 Serbs).
Am I imagining things and pushing fairy-tales?
I hope this'll help you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're trolling Kubura, and I have no problems in telling you so. I have zero tolerance for nationalist, religious and political fundamentalists who twist facts and use cheap ad-hominems as an "argument". You digged out some obscure quote of mine that is not relevant to the discussion, and you expect me to do what exactly - give you a candy? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You've required help

You've asked for help [9] "...For example, to state that e.g. "standard Croatian is based on three equally-treated dialects", without providing actual evidence to support such claims.".
You've asked me once similar question. I've answered you 05:12, 20 May 2009 on the talkpage of the article Central South Slavic diasystem [10].
Maybe you haven't read it, but here's the literature from that message:

• Dalibor Brozović, Povijest hrvatskoga književnog i standardnoga jezika, Školska knjiga, Zagreb, 2008., ISBN 978-953-0-60845-0. For this topic, read pages 75-80
  

The book generally deals with the development of Croatian language, with comparative analysis with other Slavic languages (including South Slavic ones).

• Stjepan Babić's Hrvatski jučer i danas, Školske novine, Zagreb, 1995, ISBN 953-160-052-X, p. 246-252
  

These books are generally good, I've put some accent on certain pages. I hope that I've helped you. Greetings, Kubura (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to be understand what I was asking. I was asking for actual evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated statements that claim so, which is then nothing but wishful thinking on their author's part) that Croatian standard is three-dialectal. The quote that you provided actually states completely the opposite, which I was saying all along (narodi uzeli za dijalekatsku osnovicu standarda više-manje isti, tj. novoštokavski dijalekatski tip..). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bulcsú László

The article Bulcsú László has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable individual, does not seem to satisfy WP:BIO criteria

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European root

For some reason, I can't find a good reference for the fact that PIE roots are verbal roots. Have you got one you could add to Proto-Indo-European root#Lexical meaning? BTW, I've nominated the article for GA, so any additions, copyediting or comments would be very welcome. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fausto Veranzio or Faust Vrančić

You were involved on similar language issues so I thought this may interest you. regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding and canvassing

[11] This is called wikihounding and canvassing. Read WP:HOUND and WP:CANVASS. Don't harass me WP:HARASSMENT. Kubura (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a dangerous troll that needs to be monitored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors names, such as "troll". You can be blocked for making personal attacks by doing that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you actually willing to help out in topics involving Kubura's year-long record of disruptive behavior (for example, putting junk in articles and later accusing everyone rectifying it as "stalking" or "harassing" him), or you're flexing your muscles in an isolated act of executing blind Justice? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ljudevit Gaj

You said s.t. about Ljudevit Gaj not being actually Croat? There's not even discussion of that point at Ljudevit Gaj. Could it be a diff tween the ethnicity he was born to and what he identified himself as? — kwami (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

He was not born as ethnic Croat, just as the most major figures of what is today called "Croatian National Revival". I don't know how he self-professed later in life. Today Croatian history book call him a Croat, and I suspect that the majority of Western scholarship does the same. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be interesting if you have sources to back that up. Western, preferably, if they exist, or it would be too easy to counter with accusations of Serbian nationalism. — kwami (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

My way or highway

Hello. I am sad to say that with this [12][13] kind of behavior you are going to alienate even the people who basically share your viewpoint... like myself. I am not going to engage you any further, but I think that you are treating this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND a bit too much. And that usually does not help your cause. Could you please drop the ball a little? No such user (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is a battleground. Between good-faith knowledgeable folks like me, and PoV partisans like Kursis who see "conspiracies" everywhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no-one to talk, since I have no patience for idiots and it quickly shows. But if you can avoid calling them idiots, or other personal attacks, and maintain a professional attitude, that makes it much easier when an admin is called in to distinguish the disruptive editors from the productive editors. It's obvious they're paranoid when no-one is attacking them; it's much more difficult to see when you are attacking them. I've seen a couple very good (and very knowledgeable) editors get blocked because they fell to the level of the idiots they were arguing with. (Though you're certainly nowhere near that point.) — kwami (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I pay attention to be just sufficiently abrasive to fend the trolls off, and to keep the discussion potentially productive. So far it works pretty well. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Leave the Cyrillic in the OCS page

If the Croatians prefer Glagolitic or Latin scripts for their language, it's ok with me. but the Cyrillic is an inseparable part of OCS and most slavic languages. So let it be, where it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.60.145 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OCS corpus was written in both Glagolitic and Old Cyrillic script (see: OCS Canon). Proper Old Cyrillic needs Unicode 5.1 compatible fonts which 99.9% of Wikipedia users don't have. Just as they don't have Glagolitic fonts either. English-language OCS textbooks usually use scholarly transliteration and that's what we should too. Language has absolutely nothing to do with a script it was/is written in. You can state that a particular script is a part of a certain literary tradition - yes, but in that article it's fairly irrelevant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The used extra cyrillic characters are visible in most up-to-date browsers. And if someone cannot read them, the latin transcription is unaffected. I'm just sorry, i have no time to transcribe the whole page as of now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.60.145 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you see these characters: ꙗ, ꙋ, ꙁ, ꙃ, ꙑ ? You can't, and so can't 99.9% of Wikipedians. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you see them on the OCS page? NO! Because, they are not used for general spelling. Only in canonic text. The letters themselves without diacritics are ALL VISIBLE! So, stop fabricating arguments against the use of Cyrillic. I AM going the bring the issue to the attention of wikipedia. You are DISCRIMINATING against a valid script and information. The Cyrillic spelling affects in no way the already present information and content. So accept it. The Cyrillic is hier to stay in OCS, Serbian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Ukrainian and Russian. Deal with it! If you should add glagolitic, i won't delete it even if it's not correctly displayed in my browser. That's my, there are other transcriptions. Wikipedia is NOT the place to express personal attitude towards a script , language or folk!!!! --92.230.59.164 (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What "general spelling" ? These are actual Early Cyrillic letters. They have no replacements. They are invisible to 99.9% of Wikipedians that don't have Unicode 5.1 compatible Cyrillic fonts (of which there are only 3-4, on specialized webpages). What you're doing is is making the page less accessible. This has nothing to do with my "personal attitude toward a script"; the fact that you impute it only shows how weak your arguments are. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The only letter that is not rendered properly by most fonts is the uk. Anyway, the letters i need for the transcription are available as of Unicode 1.0. in case someone sees a question mark, he or she would at least have the chance to update their fonts and see the appropriate Cyrillic spelling. And how an i making the page less accessible exactly? The Croatians don't like to see Cyrillic and are not going to read a page containing it? That's news... --92.230.59.164 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, none of the letters I listed above is rendered properly, unless you have specialized Unicode 5.1 Cyrillic fonts instaled such as BukyVede. This has nothing do with "Crotians" - it's bout established practice in English-languge textbooks and dictionaries of OCS. Using scholarly transcriptions fixes 3 problems 1) you don't need to have specialized fonts installed 2) we don't have to deal with the clutter of biscriptality 3) it's significantly lowers the burden on readers to study these obscure scripts, and focuses the article on the grammar itself. If you want to emphasize the "true script" - you can add cross-wikilinks to proper Cyrillic and Glaglitic spellings at Wiktionary. See wikt:Category:Old Church Slavonic language --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining OCS grammar without cyrillic is like explaining Chinese without chinese characters, only because most users won't be able to render or read them! That's the last stroke of argument i excange with you. Time for the next level.--92.230.59.164 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is the English Wikipedia. As such, its intended audience is for English speakers. There are other Wikipedias in other languages available. I don't see how it adds value to the English Wikipedia to insist on including characters that almost nobody can view, especially in light of the fact that scholarly publications on OCS, as Ivan pointed out, don't use those characters either.

Regarding the last point, it is quite possible to explain Chinese without Chinese characters (many Chinese are illiterate and don't need the characters to understand Chinese), but that's a bad analogy. A better analogy would be explaining ancient Chinese without ancient Chinese characters, especially when those characters are not available in any computer character encoding, anywhere. Because of the unavailability of obscure old Cyrillic characters, I see no compelling reason to use them. Doing so adds no value to the project.

A better solution might be to create a graphic image of an example using those characters. It wouldn't be part of the article text, but everybody would be able to view the image. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Continuation

I would really rather this not turn into an ethnic conflict, but it seems the whole croatian linguistic society is busy trying to ban the use of Cyrillic on Wikipedia. I DO NOT consider mr. Amatulic's opinion neutral as his page points to his croatian heritage. Therefore I shall request a mediation and stress my points once more.

• The Cyrillic characters used for the transliteration of the article so far are available as of unicode 1.0
• They do not replace of remove the Latin transcription in the article, just aim to extend it and give the interested user more detailed information
• Cyrillic was the script in which OCS was written in almost all countries that originally spoke the language and even today is used by the orthodox church
• Latin script was actually never used to write actual OCS content, it is only used as a mean to facilitate learning OCS for non-slavic speakers. For example in english or latin language grammars (and possibly croatian)
• Even the latin transcription that Ivan uses includes some cyrillic characters that are not available in the extended latin script

(ъ,ь,...)

• Cyrillic does add to the clarity of the article as it is specially developed to represent slavic phonology and especially OCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellion8513 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

--Hellion8513 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You've transliterated one sub-sub-section of the article, that uses like 10 different letters. You argue that it worked for that atypical case, but it won't work for the entire article. Let's take a bigger picture into the account: it simply won't work. Overwhelming majority of the readers would get empty boxes because they lack necessary fonts.
• They add no useful additional information, other than being a needless clutter. Tomorrow another user will complain that we should also add Glagolitic spellings of all OCS words, which should increase article size by another 30%.
• OCS was a literary, not spoken language. It was originally written in Glagolitic and has had lively Glagolitic Church Slavonic traditions for centuries since its inception. In particular, prolific Croatian Church Slavonic tradition produced Glaglitic missals all the way to late 19th century.
• Yes! That's exactly the reason why we should use it too. Basically all of the Wikipedia articles for other ancient languages utilizing obscure (and not so obscure) scripts that need special fonts use some form of scholarly transcription. See Vedic Sanskrit grammar, Gothic declension, Old Persian language, Hittite language, Avestan language etc.
• Yers are usually transliterated as themselves (ъ,ь). That's the common Slavicist practice.
• Actually, it was Glagolitic that was originally devised to represent OCS; see Relationship_of_Cyrillic_and_Glagolitic_alphabets#Question_of_precedence. Cyrillic scripts came from cursive Greek, with letters representing typical Slavic sounds not found in Greek being "stolen" from Glagolitic.
• I also assure you that this has nothing to do with ethnic background of your interlocutors. You're too paranoid and lacking real arguments, so you make up silly conspiracy theories. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hellion8513: The only person making an ethnic issue out of this is you. My heritage has no bearing on my opinion. I was born in the US, my parents are Croatian and German. At the time Croatia was still part of Yugoslavia, and all the childrens books I inherited from my father were in Cyrillic. I took the trouble to learn the alphabet because I liked it. I didn't even know Croatia used the Latin alphabet until I visited there as an adult.

Your arguments don't address the fact that using characters that aren't visible by most Wikipedians doesn't add value to the article or clarify anything. I certainly don't mind seeing Cyrillic in articles, but I do mind when someone insists on adding pointless cruft. Your arguments would have more merit on a Slavic language Wikipedia, but a rationale that such characters "give the interested user more detailed information" has no merit if most readers can't view them anyway. I honestly don't see the point of including such characters here, when the benefit is near zero. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

коњугација

Believe it or not, I stumbled upon wikt:коњугација (i.e. it wasn't a result of wikistalking you :) ). Since I don't have (and I'm lazy to make) a wiktionary account and cannot move it, may I ask you to fix it yourself? Namely, the proper Cyrillic spelling (and pronunciation) is конјугација, not коњугација. Check with Google; granted, most hits for коњугација stem from Serbian Wikipedia, which should be definitive proof that it's wrong. The word originates from Latin, therefore the merging does not take place. Similar case is with "konjunkcija", "konjunktiv"; there are couple of hundreds words (mostly obscure) where "d+ž", "n+j" and "l+j" do not merge. No such user (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these ought to be fixed. The problem is that in colloquial speech these are actually never spoken as two distinct sounds, and that it's just one of those failed prescribed rules that never took off, so people "make errors" in spelling which are actually not errors, because that's how these words are actually spoken... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's one of those "failed prescribed rules" and that it's "how these words are actually spoken" -- anyone with basic knowledge should know how it is pronounced, and those words aren't exactly everyday ones. And I consider myself a [moderate] descriptivist. We could use "инјекција" vs. "ињекција" as the most common example; for what it's worth, I was taught in basic school about it, and it wins the google fight 3:1 (well, at least in Cyrillic version). Granted, Cyrillic here really helps, because proper spelling forces you to proper pronunciation; in Latin, the ambiguity remains.
Not a reliable source (well, the dictionary is), but here's a list of such words:[14] No such user (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

...anyone with basic knowledge should know how it is pronounced. - Aye, that's the rub! You need to know it, it's not something 100% intuitive. The problem is that the sequence nj is pronounced as two distinct sounds only in a handful of learned borrowings, which are normally encountered by people very late during in their education. By that time, the equation њ=nj=њ is firmly imprinted into one's subconsciousness. One utters it as two distinct sounds only after paying careful attention to it. Words with diphonemic dž are another category - in almost all the cases these occur at a morpheme boundary, and it makes a lot of sense to utter them as two distinct sounds. Thanks for the list, it will be very useful. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case regarding Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hello Ivan Štambuk and sorry for intruding; however, a request for mediation has been filed here. If both parties agree, Philknight and I would be glad to try and help you out! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Image of Bogdan Bogdanović

There is an image of B. B. on the Serbo-Croatian WP: http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Bogdan_Bogdanović.jpg. Can you tell whether this image is free (i. e. could be copied to enwiki or to Commons without copyright violation)? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer instead of Ivan: no. The image is apparently lifted from http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/kultur/aktuell/die_phantome_des_baumeisters_1.2247864.html. No such user (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Ivane. I was wondering, do you have a cdopy, or access to the article by Ante Milosevic about cultural continuity in Dalmatia, from O kontinuitetu kasnoantičkih proizvoda u materijalnoj kulturi ranoga srednjeg vijeka na prostoru Dalmacije, Starohrvatska spomenička baština. Rađanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža. Exegi monumentum, Znanstvena izdanja 3, Zagreb. ? Hxseek (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting developments...

...at Croatian grammar and Serbo-Croatian grammar - drop by sometime... (OK, maybe not exactly "interesting", but still...) GregorB (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-15/Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hi, I'm just dropping by to let you know that I've just closed the case, as hellion8513 (talk · contribs), the requesting party, hasn't edited since. Regards. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Biblija kajkavski

Zdravo! A ti ne veš kdo je avtor kajkavske Nove zaveze? Moja lektorica na univerzi mi je rekla, da dve leti videla v hrvaški televiziji, da hočejo prevesti Sveto pismo v kajkavski jezik, ampak se ne spomni, kdo je bil prevoditelj. Doncsecz^talk 14:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Kajkavian languge". Kajkavian is a bunch of dialects some of which are not even mutually intelligible. I have no idea who wrote the abovelinked text. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Kajkavian

Hi, I was just wondering if you could confirm that I'm not going crazy or something. In the second paragraph of the introduction in the article on Kajkavian it's written that Kajkavian is a fusion of Štokavian and Croatian Čakavian. Is this even correct or justifiable in diachronic linguistics? I learned that Kajkavian has been something separate since the fragmentation of Proto-Slavonic and recall an article by Marc (not Robert) Greenberg discussing the problem of assuming Kajkavian to be a predominantly Croatian dialect (as is now conventional but pushed first by Croatian intellectuals). He observed the trickiness in Croats' incorporating of Kajkavian's development as part of Serbo-Croatian. What I got out of it was that with a fair amount of philological or linguistic justification, Kajkavian can be viewed less as a Croatian dialect and more as a Slovenian one, regardless of what Croats have stated.

Here's a link to Marc Greenberg's article (in particular, look at the section titled "Reinventing the past: Junkovic on the ancient relations of Slovene and Kajkavian, and the Serbo-Croatian question" that starts of pg. 8): http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/969/1/yugoslav_myths96.pdf Vput (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was BS. Croatian nationalists have a predilection for bending reality to suit their make-believe. That whole article needs a thorough rewrite. The map on the bottom is also a century out of date, as Štokavian mercilessly obliterated most of the peasant speech on its way. Yes, Kajkavian is much more connected to Slovenian dialects just across the border, than anything Čakavian or Štokavian. There was lots of historical contention regarding that - once the nation-states where carved out of thin air in the 19th century, their brainwashed proponents sought to encompass as much as territory or population as possible, on the basis of the fallacious inference such as "if most of the people speaking dialect/language X call themselves Y, then all of the people speaking dialect/language Y are Y". When it comes to Slavic dialects, simply all the ethnic/national designation should be dropped and new ideologically-detached names should be made up as replacements. (A combination of letters and numbers as in genetics would certainly be more preferable). When Proto-Slavic dialects disintegrated in situ in the 9th-10th centuries, all of its speakers still called themselves "Slavs" (= "those speaking Slavic"). Greenberg's article looks fantastic, thanks for sharing the link :D BTW, you should check Kordić's recent book [15], it's a seminal work in dismantling a sea of lies proping up the "Croatian studies" of the last 2 decades. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up and I see that the statement in question has now been removed. Add Marc Greenberg's article to the list of reputable Western scholarship on Southern Slavonic languages. Hvala na linku o knjizi Snežane Kordić ali na žalost ne znam dobro štokavski. Vput (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Croatian language

I suggest that you revert yourself here. I don't care one way or another, but I'd rather have that crap publicly visible for anybody to see the "strength" of their argument; WP:RPA is a controversial practice. Those folks should be given enough shovels to dig themselves a deep enough hole; they're doing it fairly well already. Suggested reading WP:COOL. No such user (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi Ivan,

I left a request at Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_Serbo-Croatian#request, in case those are names you're familiar with. I don't know the accents. (Though most of our SC transcriptions lack accents, so it probably doesn't matter much for these: if no-one responds, I'll just fix up the Cs & Vs.) — kwami (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ivane Štambuče!

Kao prvo pozdrav iz Sinja.

Kao drugo; "Šta napravi čovječe?", a pod tim mislim da si trajno narušio ugled, tradiciju, opstojnost, postojanost, razvoj,.... hrvatskog jezika kao cijeline ne samo na wikipediji nego i u svijetu općenito svojim radom na člancima koji su vezani za hrvatski jezik na en.wiki i rječniku. Uz svesrdnu pomoć suradnika koji nema pojma o jezičnom nasljeđu i jeziku prostora Hrvatske, BiH, Srbije i Crne Gore, citiram ga

Yes, we all know there are books on Croatian grammar. So what? It's practically identical to Serbian grammar, and from that POV the two are a single language. This was the consensus on Wikipedia, as well as all non-Croatian (and many Croatian) sources. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) (radi praktično indentičnog i konsenzusa zajednice imamo pogrešan POV)

Ne znam iz kojeg razloga si bio ponukan na takvo djelovanje jer ja osobno ne pronalazim razloge sjedinjavanja hrvatskog jezika sa srbskim (i obrnuto) na bilo kojoj osnovi. Povijesno gledano većina znanstvenih referenci koja se odnosi na hrvatski jezik, srbski jezik, srbsko hrvatski i hrvatsko srbski jezik su sami po sebi nastali političkim utjecajem na području bivše Jugoslavije, Kraljevina SHS|Kraljevine SHS i Austrougarske. Za vrijeme Austrougarske i sam znaš da želja naroda područja tadašnje "Hrvatske" bila da se oslobodi čizme germanizacije i mađarizacije u bilo kojem obliku te se narod (Ilirski pokret)priklanja hrvatskom jeziku i jezicima koji su mu "srodni" (slični) da bi pod istim našli zaštitu vlastitog jezičnog nasljeđa, i uz pomoć toga se narod bori (Kukuljevićev govor u saboru). Samim time (borbom) i jugoslavenstvo (svi južni slaveni pod "istom kapom") se rađa. Nastankom Kraljevine SHS i spajanjem teritorija na kojima se govori hrvatski jezik i teritorija na kojima je srpski jezik primaran javlja se ideja o sjedinjavanju ta dva jezika koja će u SFRJ i konačno zaživiti ali u smislu zatiranja nacionalnih indentiteta svih naroda i narodnosti SFRJ nešto što će narode Jugoslavije trajno spajati i omogućiti im razumjevanje na posebnoj jezičnoj razini. Samo se ispostavilo da ono što nas spaja, da nas i razdvaja. Ljudi, pojedinci su u zatvorima stare Juge gulili drakonske kazne zbog uvrede jezika i slova drugog naroda naročito ćirilice i srpskog jezika kao takvog.

Npr. Želježnički službenik (srbin inače) iz Knina učestalo je provodio preglede teretnih vlakova iz Niša te pregledavao transportne listove pisane ćirilicom. Premda odličan govornik srpskog jezika i odličan poznavatelj (čitalac) ćirilice često je imao problema sa čitanjem rukom napisanih ćiriličnih teretnih listova pojedinih autora iz Niša. Vođen time da si olakša život da ne mora zvati svaki put u Niš prevoditelja za pojedini transportni list, napiše jednu zamolbu u kojoj traži od službenika u Nišu da čitkije piše ćirilcu i brojeve na transportnim listovima jer on nemože pročitati "švrakopis". Za ovu svoju zamolbu je želježnički službenik kolodvora u Kninu na osnovu uvrede naroda i narodnosti dobio 2 godine robije u Lepoglavi.

Politika nema veze sa jezikom? Ili ima? Represija koja je zbog tvog djelovanja na člancima koji su vezani za hrvatski jezik na en. wiki ista je ona represija koju je provodio režim bivše Juge samo što suradnici koji se usprotive tom ne idu u Lepoglavu, Zenicu ili što već, nego idu na blocklist. Svjesno ili nesvjesno radio ti to iz nekih svojih ideala, nepoznatih razloga, kurtoazije ili što već moram reći da si naštetio hrvatskom jezik, srbskom jeziku, bosanskom jeziku, crnogorskom jeziku i samim time ugnjetavaš suradnike koji su nacinalno svjesni (po svemu viđenom ti ćeš reći da su nacionalisti) a na wikipediju dolaze iz Hrvatske, BiH, Srbije i Crne Gore. Ja sam nacionalist; u smislu da volim svoj narod, svoj jezik i svoju zemlju a nisam nacionalist zato što mrzim neki drugi narod, neku drugu zemlju i neki drugi jezik. Ja smatram da je moj narod je moj narod, moj jezik je moj jezik, moja zemlja je moja zemlja. Tuđe ne želim niti bih uzeo, al moje nek ostave na miru.

Po mom mišljenju bilo bi pametno ukoliko su pojedini jezični članci vezani za hrvatski, srbski, srbsko-hrvatski, hrvatsko-srbski, crnogorski jezik preklapaju informacijama, referencama, jezičnim normama ....da ne nabrajam dalje ne svode pod jedan srbsko-hrvatski, hrvatsko-srbski ili što već, nego da se razdvoje svaki za sebe hrvatski pod hrvatski, srbski pod srbski, bosanski pod bosanski, crnogorski pod crnogorski, srbsko-hrvatski pod srbsko-hrvatski a da se u samim člancima navede da su dio jezične skupine koja pripada južnoslavenskim jezicima koji imaju istu izvorišnu terminologiju vezanu za sam jezik. Samim time bi se omogućio kraj ovoj agoniji hrvatskog jezika na en. wiki i omogućilo suradnicima (s područja Jugoslavije) koji uređuju iste čanke da im ne upada trn u oko radi pojedinih jezičnih objašnjenja koja sad imamo na pojedinim jezicima. Time bi se smanjio broj vandaliziranja istih članaka, broj blokiranih suradnika, broj članaka zaštićenih za uređivanje a i ti bi imao manje posla :).

Kao treće (ironično) Hvala! --Domjanovich (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Ako imaš nešto za odgovorit (premda nije potrebno) molio bih lijepo na moju stranicu.

Ivane, ovo gore su sve same gluposti; nadam se da si vec razbio i ovog retardiranog nacionalistu ("Domjanovich") i da si ga otstranio zauvjek sa uredjivanjem bilo kojih clanaka na wikipediji. Pozdrav i sve najbolje tebi Ivane! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments on other editors

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Croatian language. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. While you are fine to discuss content issues with other users, please do so without attacking other users. Thank you. This issue is being discussed at WP:WQA. Netalarm^talk 20:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescinding comment. I just noticed that this was about an issue a month ago. I'll go ahead and mark the WQA report as archived, as it seems that the reporting user has posted about this a while ago. Netalarm^talk 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly has been complaining and where? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

IŠ, it was our old friend Kubura. Vput (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

This is what you wrote as a reply to me on [16] Croatian nationalist Vodomar (a diaspora Croat - these are the worst) recruited from Croatian Wikipedia repeatedly demonstrates exceptional ignorance and a propensity to fabricate history. . This kind of attack is against Wikipedia policies, and such name calling. I do not deserve to be treated like this. Vodomar (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do. Don't make me translate the propaganda from Croatian wikipedia where I and others are called by much harsher names by you and your associates, without you so much raising an eyebrow (which you should as one of the admins there). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a threat or a warning, or both ? Vodomar (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Ivane, razbij do kraja sve ove umno poremecene hrvatske nacionaliste, do kraja i zauvjek! Zivio Ivane! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Croatian linguists and attitudes

Though it's not my intention to frustrate you by having you repeat something that you may have already said multiple times, trying to access your viewpoint in previous discussions would mean scouring the archives of multiple articles and user talk pages, which elicits a WP:TLDR glaze in my eyes just thinking about it. With that in mind, I have two issues that I'd like to discuss with you (either here or at my talk page):

• What is the criteria of determining whether Croatian linguists are reliable or not? For example, you mention that Brozović, Katičić, Babić, and Laden are "proven history fabricators." What is the basis of this? How do we determine which Croatian linguists are academically dishonest nutjobs and which aren't?
• I'm getting the impression from other Croatian editors that most Croats have a problem with calling their language Serbo-Croatian or part of a Serbo-Croatian diasystem and from you that most Croats don't care. Is there a way of knowing which is correct (polls, statistical data)?

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Polls and statistical data is a real guide line. No one can not deny that there was one standard language before, but we can not deny that the Croatian and Serbian existed on their own prior to the 19th century, after that there was a point of convergance and this continued for some time. Later, a divergence happened and everyone went their own merry way. The Croatian Census of 2001 and the Serbian census, show a very small number of people who declare themselves as speakers of the "Serbo-Croatian" language. Vodomar (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Vodomor, this has nothing to do with the standard languages. That's what so many Croats don't seem to understand: In English, "Serbo-Croatian" simply means the language that Serbs and Croats speak. Ijekavian, Ikavian, Ekavian, Shtokavian, Chakavian, Kajkavian, it's all "Serbo-Croatian". It has nothing to do with language politics, it has nothing to do with Yugoslavia, and it has nothing to do with whatever connotations srpskohrvatski may have in Croatian. — kwami (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We determine that by individual case-by-case analysis. For each of those particular "experts" one can find a number of their citations that demonstrates that they are at least intellectually dishonest, if not plainly stupid indoctrinated nutjobs. That shouldn't necessarily mean that they are lying: they're simply telling something that is aligned with the community creed, which they must to since their monthly payment comes from the Ministry of Truth, I mean Ministry of Education. Whether they truly believe in those statements or not, I do not know, but whenever there is some kind of explanation attached (which is rarely the case if I might add) it is commonly based on such a flawed logic that even a child could see through it. I translated you a piece from a Croatian linguist Alemko Gluhak (who is an established academician, member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts) who was interviewed on the this particular issue (thanks to the Croatian wikipedia clique, the news of the "attack on Croatian language" have hit the Croatian media), and his comparison of the situation to British and American "languages" speaks for itself. Of those mentioned above, two of them are dead, and the other two regularly write pieces worth of ridiculing. Just two months ago Katčić was interviewed by a prominent Croatian right-wing magazine (taxpayer-subsidized, of course..) called Vijenac, and there he literally claimed "Serbian language is not Štokavian". His reasoning being:

Srpski se ne može govoriti čakavski ili kajkavski, pa se onda ne može govoriti ni štokavski. Štokavski je štokavski u odnosu na čakavski i kajkavski. Ako je kao da čakavskoga i kajkavskoga nema, a Srbima jest tako, onda i ono što oni govore nije štokavski. Ako pitaju što ne znači da su štokavci. I Makedonci pitaju što, i Bugari, i Rusi, pa nisu štokavci.

In translation:

Serbian (language) cannot be spoken as Čakavian or Kajkavian, and thus cannot be spoken as Štokavian. Štokavian is Štokavian in comparison to Čakavian an Kajkavian. If there is no Čakavian and Kajkavian, and with Serbs that is the case, then their speech cannot be Štokavian. Macedonians also ask što, as do Bulgarians and Russians, and they are not Štokavians.

The sheer amount of stupidity and ignorance in this paragraph is simply stunning. Of course Katičić knows very well that Štokavian dialect is not defined by the interrogative pronoun što (but named after its overwhelming usage in the dialect), but by numerous isoglosses that separate it from other dialects, but the readership of that magazine not so conversant with the basics of dialectology doesn't. That's how myths are created, Herr Katičić then as an "established authority" being cited as an evidence, and the sheeple believing that everybody who claims otherwise must have some hidden anti-Croat agenda.. Of course, Katičić is merely an amateur when compared to Stjepan Babić, who has built an entire career on spreading lies and instigating Serbophobia. In this lengthy overview appropriately titled Filologija laži ("The philology of lies") you can find a thorough analysis of some of them, appearing in a single book of his alone. You'd need to use same translating service for it unfortunately. For the crux of it, just translate the last paragraph of it on e.g. Google Translate.

Well the Croatian wikipedia has been hijacked by the extreme nationalists in the past 4 years, which is a serious problem that even some people with the Foundation are familiar with, but nobody as the balls to cut the Gordian knot. They are definitely not representative of the population in general. The problem with them is that they're extremely intolerant for dissenting opinions, and have over the years pushed away (banned, humiliated, frightened..) everyone who does not subscribe to the nationalist idolatry. They don't really have the problem with what they perceive as "Croatian language" being grouped together in the same tree as what they perceive as "Serbian language" - what they have a problem with is the Serbo- part in Serbo-Croatian. If you asked them to substitute every instance of Serbo-Croatian with e.g. Central South Slavic, they'd gladly accept it. But really, does it matter? I'm sure that they are some Arabs that find it "insulting" to have their language being classified as Semitic, Hindus to see their language with an "Islamic" suffix -stan and so on.. Who cares. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You say that the measure of determining whether sources are reliable or not is by our own common sense but even your example relies on more than common sense. You'll have to pardon my ignorance regarding štokavian since I was under the impression (fed by our Štokavian article), that the primary distinction was with the word što. What are the other isoglosses that separate it from other dialects? Turning to your example with Alemko Gluhak, what makes Gluhak (assuming he does sees American and British as separate languages, which I'm not sure about) wrong and us (who see American and British as dialects of the same language) right?

You also paint the picture that Croatia is a place where there is a conflict of interest in academia. Is it really the case that a paycheck from the Ministry of Education motivates academics to tote the party line at the expense of academic integrity? Is there no tenure? Do you have sources that discuss this?

I understand your claim about speaker attitudes, but I'm interested in sourcing that backs this up. Vodomar (above) has pointed to census data, but this doesn't really prove his case since saying you speak Croatian doesn't mean you have a problem with grouping Croatian and Serbian together in a higher order. Surely this is a question that has been pursued by others. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Aeusoes1, I don't know if I.Š. has a copy of something close at hand, so I'll help a bit with answering your questions. On the topic of isoglosses that distinguish Chakavian, Kaykavian and Shtokavian, have a look at pp. 98-100 of "A Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian" by Wayles Brown and Theresa Alt (SEELRC 2004). The link to this sketch is [17].

The notable thing about Gluhak is that he uses the example of American and British "languages" (note how he did not use "American English" or "British English") thus on the surface applying the sociolinguistic differentiation as used by the current ex-Yugoslavian governments and many nationalists from the region who insist on "naming rights of a language" (it makes a language seem like a stadium. I know how corporations can have "naming rights" to a stadium...). At the same time, he contradicts himself in a way by referring to English since FEW if anyone ranging from ill-informed native-speakers of English to linguists specializing in English or Germanic languages (and these latter are not necessarily native-speakers of English i.e. part of the "Anglosphere") treat the "Englishes" as different languages. There's not only the high degree of observable/testable mutual intelligibility but also the application of the pluricentric model of language differentiation (Scots is borderline since there is a noticeable degree of mutual unintelligibility between speakers of Scots and speakers of English).

For some discussion about the degree to which linguists from the former Yugoslavia flash their national allegiance so as to give a respectable sheen to questionable state-sponsored theories on ethnolinguistic relationships, read again Marc L. Greenberg's article on linguistic myths in the former Yugoslavia [18]. In particular read on from p. 8 where Greenberg begins with a description of how the Croatian linguist Zvonimir Junković put together a philological reinterpretation of Kaykavian that fits better the political divisions as opposed to the linguistic evidence. On p. 15, Greenberg explores how another Croatian linguist, Dalibor Brozović extended (arguably "he bent the rules") the definition of a diasystem to explain how a language like Serbo-Croatian could be nominally united yet composed of heterogenous dialects in Kaykavian, Chakavian and Shtokavian. On p. 15, Greenberg shows the questionable results that can arise if one uses Brozović's reinterpretation of the rules (per Brozović's model, we can extend the diasystem to include virtually all Slavic languages. In other words, the Serbo-Croatian diasystem would be open to including all of the other Slavic languages regardless of how divergent the actual languages involved are - why classify things as "Slavic" when we can just say "Serbo-Croatian diasystem"?). Perhaps the most telling part of Greenberg's analysis is in the conclusion (p. 15) when he writes of how these Croatian linguists allowed national interests to take precedence over academic inquiry.

However, if one takes as a premise that language is the primary marker of national identity, one is then forced to see the two as inseparable. This is what happened in the constituent Slavic nations of the former Yugoslavia. Here the ranking of national identity over other considerations (truth, academic integrity) caused otherwise very intelligent and well-informed linguistic researchers to selectively filter reality (to speak plainly: misuse facts) to make linguistic data conform to an idealized national conceptualization. (p. 15)

Another work that deals with the nationalist and governmental influence on Croatian linguists is "Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration." (2006) by Robert Greenberg. See in particular Chapter 5 "Croatian: We are separate but equal twins" (pp. 109-134) where Greenberg digs into how politicized the work of Croatian linguists has become. The political meddling is exemplified for one by a recent row over orthographic dictionaries with a prescriptivist state-sponsored one cleared of "Serbianisms" competing with another one that was descriptivist and inclusive of "Serbianisms" (pp. 125-131). This particular dispute is also touched on in the following article [19] which includes the impressions of some writers and journalists in addition to the Croatian linguists Josip Silić and Stjepan Damjanović.

An indirect demonstration of the politically-motivated sensitivity of one mainstream Croatian linguist can be seen here [20] in this review by Radoslav Katičić on the aforementioned book by Robert Greenberg (which was well-received by academics outside the Balkans). Katičić actually works in Vienna but he has been a pillar in Croatian academia and his review contains comments and barbs not unlike many of the arguments made by the Croatian nationalists in the talk pages for Croatian and Serbo-Croatian. By the way, I.Š. also mentioned above the recent interview posted in Vijenac where Radoslav Katičić somehow claims that Serbian is not Shtokavian after all. I understand some SC so I could get the gist of the whole interview including the particular section where the claim of Serbian not being Shtokavian was made. Such statements really seem outlandish when confronted with linguistic evidence and make me discount further Katičić's standing who is otherwise a competent linguist. He's now basically contradicting findings made by his colleagues inside and outside the Balkans. His denial of the Shotkavian basis of the Serbian variant is either a lame attempt at being a comedian or just a way for the nationalist Croatian mindset to distance itself from Serbs since the Neo-Shtokavian-based standard of modern Croatian would now appear on the surface to be even more divergent from what's used by the neighbours.

If you're really interested in getting other Croatian linguists' views on BCMS/SC (and not just the usual nationally-coloured stuff from Stjepan Babić, Dalibor Brozović, Miro Kačíć, Radoslav Katičić, et al. who are deemed mainstream by virtue of holding the final word on matters of Croatian language-planning policy), then check out stuff by Damir Kalogjera, Dubravko Škiljan or Snježana Kordić. Kalogjera and Škiljan contributed essays to a compendium of linguists' essays called "Language in the Former Yugoslav Lands" (2004) edited by Ranko Bugarski and Celia Hawkesworth. Their essays focus on the sociolinguistic aspects of BCMS/SC for Croats since the days of Yugoslavia and show how government and linguists have had a strange relationship depending on political circumstances. Kordić's recent book "Jezik i nacionalizam' (2010) deals with similar topics but goes a bit further by challenging the degree to which nationalism and politics affect Croatian philological research. Unfortunately this book is not available in English translation but she does have a website here [21] with links to various monographs about perceptions of BCMS/SC. Most of her available articles are in BCMS/SC but a few are in French or German so perhaps you can get a certain glimpse into her views without too much reliance on Google translator :-) Vput (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoah, guys. I came to Ivan's talk page to avoid this sort of tangential spiraling. I'm cordoning off your comments (rather than deleting them) and asking that you refrain from contributing to this conversation. I'm here for answers, not discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

@Aeusoes1: I've expanded the article [[Shtokavian dialect]] and the differences between it and Čakavian and Kajkavian should be a bit more clear now.

What makes Gluhak wrong and us right - well Englishes of the world are generally acknowledged to be regional varieties of one underlying language, and not different languages per se. Gluhak is (methinks) very much aware of this, and the fact that he claims that they are different languages only shows to what lengths people like him are willing to go to corroborate the claim that B/C/S/M are "different languages". He is wrong because his notion of language is not really shared with the rest of his colleagues (outside Balkans)

> Is it really the case that a paycheck from the Ministry of Education motivates academics to tote the party line at the expense of academic integrity?

Yes! And when they were on the payroll of the Communist party in the days of Yugoslava, all of these guys were speaking of a single language in two regional variants without a second thought. That's the typical scenario in post-Yugoslavia banana states: the worst "patriots" that are the most willing to "prove" themselves were the most ardent commies back in the old days. Think of them as the most heinous intellectual prostitutes stripped of any sense of justice and integrity. They'd say and do anything for a financial gain. E.g. see on [[Talk:Dalibor_Brozović]] what comrade Brozović thought of Serbo-Croatian as a single language back in the 1970s. For all of them you can find such mutually conflicting statements in different periods, all of them reflecting a particular cultural milieu feeding those perceptions. There is extensive documentation of these former-commies-turned-nationalists both in Serbo-Croatian and English. Prof. Greenberg's books is an excellent introduction, though IMHO nobody cuts through their BS like S. Kordić :)

> Vodomar (above) has pointed to census data, but this doesn't really prove his case since saying you speak Croatian doesn't mean you have a problem with grouping Croatian and Serbian together in a higher order. Surely this is a question that has been pursued by others.

Average guy on the street trying to make ends meet (not and easy things to do since the "patriots" have wrecked the local economy, pillaged the treasury and sold you as a collateral to international banksters) couldn't care less about the language that he speaks: he'll state that the speaks whatever the most acceptable answer is according to contemporary Zeitgeist. The very fact that the official censi data of 2001 also have hrvatsko-srpski ("Croato-Serbian") and srpsko-hrvatski ("Serbo-Croatian") along B/C/S at least 1) indicates that the Croatian government committing the census accepts those two as valid languages 2) people change their mind really fast, because according to 1981 census 73% Yugoslavs (16.342.885 people, which is more than the total declared number of Croats+Serbs+Bosniaks+Montenegrins at that time) declared to be speaking Serbo-Croatian. People certainly didn't start speaking different languages once the former Yugoslav republics declared independence. The only things that these censi measure is the level of statist indoctrination. People who invoke it as an argument remind me of psychobabble on "emotional intelligence", and how one can "solve problem through feelings". It's like stating that objective reality doesn't exist and all that matters are opinions of the initiated. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Using the average ignorant struggle street guy argument is really a poor one, so what would the situation be in another country that is even poorer then Croatia, and that have similar language differences and similarites. Then a bunch of outsider would claim that they would change their mind on what do they speak if they were given a loaf of bread. Have you conducted the survey yourself, or do you have somehow to back this argument up, or is this something of your gut feel. Your empty belly logic is flawed.. No people do not change their mind quickly, SFR Yugoslavia was not a democratic country and it is not true that there were 73% of Yugoslavs declared in the census http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/85-4-120.shtml, and also the article in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslavs#Second_Yugoslavia_and_later, Yugoslavs in 1981 only made a 2 odd million. Take the full census data that goes back to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and you will see a pattern. By claiming the census argument as psychobabble, where the alternatives is gut feel with no survey conduted and empty belly existentialistic argument is waved in front as the stark reality. The non-verifiable ones surely can not stand ground reeks of pseudoscience. Vodomar (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I said that 73% of all people (Yugoslavs, citizens of Yugoslavia) stated that they were speaking Serbo-Croatian, which is in absolute numbers more than total numbers (according to census) of self-declared Croats+Bosniaks+Montenegrins+Serbs, which means that pretty much all of them declared to be speaking Serbo-Croatian. This is comparable to the fact that majority of the population (especially the young) at the period declared as atheists according to various surveys, only to embrace radical Christianity/Islam once that became an official state/tribe doctrine. People are generally morons susceptible to whatever ideology you ram down their throats (which is why democracy generally sucks). Hopefully the "leveling" occurring with the decentralized media and education of Internet will change everything. As you can see Vodomar, nobody beside your own "clique" buys your story. Not even Bosniak and Serb colleagues from sister projects want to support you. It's pointless to try to hide the truth in the age of Internet. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, because the government considered anyone who spoke Croatian or Serbian - merged them into Serbo-Croatian. Besides the fact, what point does atheism have with the subject of Croatian Linguists and attitudes; atheism is not uncommon in European countries ( http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/01/collapse-of-church-in-france.html ), actually atheism in: Sweden, Czech Republic and Japan together with agnostics constitute the majority in terms of religious belief: http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1hbaAHsAlUC&pg=PR10&dq=atheism+in+the+czech+republic&hl=en&ei=MWy1TKCsAoPWvQOK0uCCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=atheism%20in%20the%20czech%20republic&f=false . So if in a country the majority are non-believers then, in a country where believers are the majority then there will be a climate for this wouldn't it. So it works both ways, doesn't it. In Yugoslavia, there was a constant push against religion in the media in schools - wear a cross in school and you will be punished and accused of spreading intolerance. Saying that "people are generally morons" and are susceptible and that "democracy generally sucks", borders on nihilism. What is truth ? Are you it's keeper ? If truth is described as light, then the light you hold is quite dim. When a one's whole world is based on lies, lies are the only truth. But is that false or true ? If a whole life was spent in a lie, why change it, it is too hard to change. Also without democracy, there would have been no Internet, no Wiki.... Oh what a waste of time Vodomar (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you (RL concerns). I appreciate your help with štokavian (particulary as it's translated into an expansion of the shtokavian article). If I understand correctly, then, the features you've added to shtokavian are features that have the same or roughly the same isoglosses as the što/kaj/ča boundaries? If, as the SEELRC source says, the ikavian, ekavian, (i)jekavian yat reflexes are present in all three of štok/kajk/čak (or is it just što/kaj, as Greenburg says?), this means that there are other isoglosses that don't closely line up with the što/kaj/ča boundaries, right?

In regards to Alemko Gluhak, I feel like your explanation isn't getting at the issue. If Gluhak is wrong because he disagrees with us, then there's no objective basis for these categories; the different varieties are English because we happen to group them together into one language, partly for political reasons. If he's wrong because of some other criteria, what is that criteria?

I'd really like to see evidence of the academic conflict of interest you describe of Croatian universities. I'm also curious to see examples of the change from seeing Serbo-Croatian as a single language to a group of languages. The Brozović quote you provide at Talk:Dalibor Brozović doesn't show this clearly as you think, as it seems he is saying that the term Serbo-Croatian refers to both a standard language and a diasystem. It's hard for me to find sources from or about Brozović, Katičić, Babić, or Laden. What I have found hasn't been very convincing.

For example, Greenberg, who seems like the prime resource for English-language criticism of Croatian scholars, wrote a review of Croatica--Slavica--Indoeuropea a work done in honor of Katičić. Greenberg doesn't criticize Katičić and instead characterizes his recent work as being directed "at the standardization of his native Croatian." Katičić, he says, is "a master of all the disciplines represented" in the work (which have mostly to do with Croatian). What complicates this further is that Katičić works in Vienna so he isn't even employed by the Croatian Ministry of Education.

In "The Role of Language in the Creation of Identity" Greenberg seems to be saying that Junković is motivated by national identity over academic integrity but he doesn't really show it with his example. He says Junković shouldn't split up early Proto-Slavic into dialectal divisions that align with modern dialect grouping: "From the outset Junković's results cannot have linguistic validity because they project onto the distant past (7-9th cc. AD) a political and ethnic division that is observed in the 19th and 20th cc." I don't understand why that a priori makes Junković's results invalid. Greenburg questions Junković's "backward" family tree model for being unable to account for areal features. Junković may be wrong, but Greenberg hasn't demonstrated that he's academically dishonest or motivated by nationalism. He just says he is.

Similarly, Greenberg says that Croatian linguists (quoting Brosović) have given the term diasystem a more abstract meaning. He says that Brosović believes that "any group or groups of similar linguistic systems can be a diasystem if the linguist decides to make it so." If that means that such linguists are academically dishonest, then what do we make of the many English-language sources that have extended Weinreich's meaning? Moreover, because "the term is used frequently by Croatian linguists" it seems to me that the change in meaning simply represents a novel semantic change, which Greenburg somehow finds inappropriate. If this sort of semantic change is inappropriate when done by Croatian-language scholars, what do we make of attempts to do the same for the phonologies of Spanish and English or between English and Japanese (both cited in our article on diaphoneme)?

Finally, I'm still not convinced by census data. You and Vodomar are both extrapolating nuanced attitudes from coarse census data. Is this the only basis from which you make claims about speaker attitudes? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Check this

Hi buddy, it seems you're engaged in some heavy discussion.

When you get a chance, check this article out. Don't know if you've come accross it yet ? [22]

Hxseek (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI/notification

Just realised I had used your name but neglected to add notification.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keristrasza (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian" article name

Do you think the title "Differences between Serbo-Croatian standard varieties" would be a more suitable article name than "Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian"? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Serbo-Croatian is in fact a singular pluricentric standard language by itself, and national "standards" are better called varieties. Balkans linguists have a notion of "standard language" that is a bit different from that of established use in linguistics (it means "supra-regional, unmarked idiom" not "words/spellings prescribed by some government-approved body, even if generally not used by wider populace"). That article needs some trimming too: all that history stuff is irrelevant and misleading, and a bunch of content deals with non-literary dialects which are also irrelevant. It should exclusively focus only on differences in the modern literary variants. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree w Ivan on cutting down to the standards for most of the article, though IMO we should mention the dialectical diversity as well; that could be one of the points we list (C = all 4 dialects, S = 2, B = just the 1). However, as I mentioned on my talk page, I think the current title is appropriate, because I expect most readers will be coming to the article from the POV of the national languages, and thus be expecting the names S, C, & B. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article contains a lot of unnecessary clutter. If you ask me, we're choosing between an article name that is linguistically correct and one that is politically correct. It's only a matter of time until someone vouches to move it to "Differences between standard Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin". -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably. But since these aren't really linguistic distinctions, I'm not convinced that a linguistic term is warranted. People more commonly speak of "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian", etc., so the reader wanting to know what the difference is will be wondering about those names. If it weren't for those names we probably wouldn't have this article at all. We don't need to deny that these names are in common use, and commonly contrasted. Someone argues, "that's not Croatian, that's Serbian!" -- okay, so what's the difference between Croatian and Serbian? I don't see that as politically motivated, just an answer to a common question. That's a very different situation from classifying Croatian cladistically, where we do need to be clear that it isn't a coherent language in the formal sense. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. I've noticed that downright stupid title quite a while ago. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Croatian, debate

Please check out User:Chipmunkdavis/Sandbox, where I've drafted something that hopefully can get placed on the Croatian article after it is unlocked. I'm hoping here that if this goes in the article there would be a nice setup of both arguments In addition, if you could check the one of two sources there in...that language, it would be appreciated. I pulled them directly off the talk page, supporting evidence others said they supported. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary: PIE categories

Hi Ivan! Would you care to give a comment here? Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Category:Proto-Indo-European verbs. Thanks, --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Balkans sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.

I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block. This will happen even if the incivility is in response to incivility from another editor. The appropriate response to that is to complain, not to respond in kind. I intend to apply this to everybody involved. According to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions, editors can only be blocked if they have been notified of the sanctions. You can find a list of the editors who have been notified at WP:ARBMAC#Log of warnings. If I have missed anybody, please bring it to my intention. I am very serious about this. Looie496 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hasanaginica/Asanaginica

You really should provide a reference for the footnote. Not saying it's incorrect just that without one it could be interpreted as original research. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

Croatian and Bulgarian are more similar than Croatian and Serbian, but Bulgaro-Croatian don't exist. All Slavs understand each other, but Slavic language isn't one. All of languages (Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin) have different vocabulary, grammar, ortographie and ortoepie. My first language iz Croatian, no Serbo-Croatian. Who ussualy speak stupid word Serbo-Croatian? You speak in life... "Možemo li mi to na srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski? " "Hajde ti to meni na srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski. " "Ima li prijevod na srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski? " "Govorite li srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski? " "Jedan od predmeta koji su mi bolje išli bio je srpskohrvatski odnosno hrvatskosrpski. " JA SVOJ JEZIK U SVAKODNEVNOM ŽIVOTU ZOVEM HRVATSKIM (NIKAKO DRUKČIJE).

--Jolo Buki Original (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We require WP:reliable sources (RS). If you have a RS that Croatian is closer to Bulgarian than it is to Serbian, please supply it. Otherwise your opinions of WP:Truth are irrelevant for the article. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Jolo, you're not the one who gets to define what language "exists" or not. You can call your mother tongue whatever you'd like, but it's still the same language as the one spoken in Sarajevo, Beograd and Podgorica. Ako se želiš busati u prsa nacionalizmom bolje odi do najbližeg ogranka mladeži HDZ-a i tamo ljubi zastavu, klekni pred portretom "oca domovine", podmaži grlo šljivovicom i zapjevaj koju filoustašku napitnicu, i sve drugo što već uostalom tamo radite.. Ovdje nikome ne imponiraš takvim izjavama i napadačkim diskursom, i možeš samo biti predmed sprdačine i rugla od strane iskusnijih suradnika (a vjeruj mi da bilo je ohoho takvih kao ti). Ovo je enciklopedija svih, ljudi ne samo Hrvata, i tvoja nacionalost, osobni stavovi i etnički pedigre ne igra baš nikakvu ulogu prilikom valorizacije tvojih argumenata. Stoga se spusti malo na zemlju prije nego počneš soliti svima pamet i mesariti članke koje su pomno uređivali mnogo upućeniji od tebe. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, bravo Ivane, razbio si ga faktima i pametnim odgovorom. Congratulations. 50.98.147.64 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

SC

Listen, Freund, "Nationalist propaganda" is not an argument. We aren't in Communist Yugoslavia, that's the way they solved the problems, but this is Wikipedia. You can't call something as propaganda without argument. Look, better end this nonsense. I have a milion of references to support Croatian and Serbian and Bosnian languages as individual langages. Don't revert my changes as "nationalist propaganda", and in friendly spirit, I ask you to stop with WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. It's not nationalist propaganda, we don't live in 1950-is. Those are the facts. Please understand. I don't give a damn about propaganda.

P. S.

If you whant to reply this message, please, contact me at my talk page.

Friendly regards, --Wustenfuchs 12:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wustenfuchs, Your arguments about Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are nothing but a pure TRASH. SerboCroatian is ONE language, as is English, Spanish, etc. We have a BILLION of references to support this fact, if needed. You act like some brainless Balkan-cro-nazi brainwashed you with all those nationalistic nonsense. Wake up and see the reality, otherwise you'll sink to the abyss along with long defeated cro-nationalistic propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.147.64 (talk) 08:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Cyrillic

Before reverting my edits, see a talk page. I redirected the page acroding to WP:COMMONAME. If you whant to reply, please, do it on my talk page.

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 14:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I know... I saw mistake, but even so, Croatian Cyrillic has most votes, check your self. I just wonder, you know how it works, but still you wanted to brake WP:COMMONNAME. See that even so, Croatian Cyrillic is on the first place, fallowed by Bosnian Cyrillic and then Bosančica...--Wustenfuchs 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Balto-Slavic languages. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Insinuating others of using nationalist sock puppets (apart from your general combative attitude there) with no basis whatsoever is really no-go. Please reconsider your attitude. Thanks in advance. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 23:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you guys later. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Baltic languages. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I've actually too short of wikitime to compose a report concerning your edit warring and persistent personal assaults, but please take the warning seriously. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tomislav Petković

The article Tomislav Petković has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, at least not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or especially not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Notability questioned, andnnot established, since July 2008

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GrapedApe (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ivan, you are invited!

Maybe you can include some information on Croatian universities? I have invted you, because one of the purposes of this new project is to share information about the universities in Southeast Europe.--Comparativist1 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tzv hrvatski jezik

Kako tvoji sunarodnici ne bi stalano dolazili i vandalizovali članak hrvtaski jezik i brisali srpskohrvbatski a dodavali hrvatski zašto ne predložiš da se taj članak zaključa? 24.135.72.236 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedija je zasnovana na principima slobode širenja informacija, ne cenzure i propisivanja jedine Prave Istine. Znam da je to pomalo teško za shvatiti tipičnom balkanoidu, kome su totalitarne težnje genetski uprogramirane uslijed sustavnog višestoljetnog i višenaraštajnog pranja mozga što i kako drugi moraju činiti i razmišljati. Hrvatski nacionalisti nisu ništa češći od srpskih i bosanskih - dapače, ovi potonji (c.f. User:Zabadu) su često puno zadrtiji, agresivniji i agilniji u propagiranju gluposti. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

možda bi na vikirečniku trebao da bolje obeležavaš reči jer su tvoji sunarodnici napravili spisak srpskih pretpostavljam nepodobnih reči http://hr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Razlikovni_rječnik_srpskog_jezika_i_hrvatskog_jezika takođe možda bi trebalo da budeš manje kroatocentričan i malo manje uređuješ reči isključivo iz hrvtaskog ugla jer ne znam da li znaš ali gvožđe i železo su jedno te isto,a gvožđe nije nikakva klopka.takođe ako nisi znao veče nije kolokvijalizam i književni izraz već standardna reč u srpskom nemoj mi reći da si se vodio idejom da je veče skraćeno od večer?i moraqm ti reći da je više nego neobično da ozbiljan korsinik kao reč dodaje svoje sopstveno prezime kao unos.24.135.72.236 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikirječnik je zasnovan na principu opisa upotrebnog jezika, ne propisivanja koje su riječi, spelovanja, sintaksni konstrukti etc. "ispravni" ili ne, što je uostalom još jedna manifestacija većspomenute patološki notorne težnje upravljanja tuđim životima. Uobičajene kroatističke cenzorsko-preskriptivne škare "ispravnosti" zaodjenute u livreju hrvatstva su izbljuvak nazadnog tuđmanizma koji polako ali sigurno izumire europeizacijom i sekularizacijom hrvatskog društva, kao i razvojem kritike koja slaboumnike sa kojekakvih katedrî i institutâ prokazuje u svoj njihovoj intelektualnoj bijedi i predrasudama. Ako imaš kakvih primjedbi po sadržaj natuknicâ i više si nego dobrodošao da ih izneseš na stranicama za razgovor, odnosno sâm urediš. Glede prezimena - to je svojevremeno bio zahtjev od strane jednog suradnika (V. Petrosyan) u trenutku kad sam dodavao velik broj onomastičkih unosâ. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zhang Weiwei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Croatian language

Jedino kaj je očito, je to da hrvatski neznaš, ni si ga ikad poznaval. Skrivaš se iza vela "bratstva i jedinstva" ter govoriš o nekom hrvatskom nationalismusu, dok je jedina očita stvar da si ti jugoslavenski nacionalist, i mrziš sve što je hrvatsko, pa tako sama pomisel da je hrvatski jezik zaseban, i neima nikakve veze s srbijanskim je za tebe nacionalizam, - a to je blago rečeno sramota. Ar si upravo ti koji si tu najvećji nacionalist. Neznam kaj ti imaš protiv svih hrvatskih jezikoslovci ki niesu opijeni Vukom Stefanovićem, nu koliko ja znam Bulcsú László je priznati i cienjen jezikoslovac (novotvornice koje je stvoril danas su diel standarda; zrakoplov, zrakomlat, računalo, suosnik...), pa takoj njegovi stavi važe. To kaj ti nepriznaješ hrvatski jezik, nije razlog da truješ pamet ovim tupavim Englezima. Nego daj dopusti da ljudi znaju da hrvatski iz viesti, novina... nije hrvatski jezik, jur obični srbijanski vukopis. Ti mene možeš lahko proglasiti nacionalistom i moje kot i Bulcsove stave nevažećima, nu to nemienja činjenicu da hrvatski jezik (onaj iz književnosti) neima veze ni s srbijanskim, ni s srbskohrvatskim. Slavić (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm da - poznata teza suvremenih kroatistâ - hrv. jezik kako su ga oni zacrtali "nitko ne poznaje", pa zato slijepo imamo slušati direktive centralnog komiteta, pardon kojekakvih uhljebâ s institutâ i agencijâ koji parazitiraju na mojim porezima. Već sam ti objasnio da sam apolitičan, i da je najbliži opis mojih političkih uvjerenjâ globalist/internacionalist, no to nikako do dopre do tvog mozga.. No dobro.

Od riječi koje si naveo mnijem da je samo suosnik njegovo djelo - ostalo je sve starije od njega. Da je cijenjen - daleko od toga, uglavnom je predmet sprdačine. Ono malo radova što jest napisao su akademski bezvrijedni, i jedini razlog njihove publikacije jesu poznanstva s urednicima časopisâ (kao što je prečesto slučaj u ovoj banana-državi). To što tebe opisujem pojmom nacionalist nije "proglašavanje" već dijagnoza. Većina suradnikâ na ovom projektu nisu Englezi već Amerikanci i internacionalno-osviješteni pojedinci iz drugih zemaljâ; malo se informiraj prije nego počneš tako lupetati.

Pitanje "hrvatskog jezika iz književnosti " koji ne postoji nigdje drugo nego u tvojoj glavi, nadam se da smo već riješili. To što ti pišeš je čista štokavština (sintaksa, morfologija, fleksijski nastavci) - ako misliš da će par isforsirano poprskanih dijalektalizama, ustašopisno ie i odsustvo l-vokalizacije tvoj jezik učiniti "hrvatskijim", onda si stvarno prolupao. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Prvo nečem se s tobom svađati, to mi nije bila namjera. Nu fino da ti koje reknem pak zbogom.

Normalno je da su hrvacki lingvisti rekli da nitko nerazmi, nepoznaje hrvacki jezik, gda je to istina. Nakon višegodišnjeg jezičnog trovanja svih ljudi u bivšoj Jugoslaviji od Makedonci, Crnogorci, Bosanci pak do i samih Hrvati, to nije ni čudo. Pa gle kak ljepe čarape, ćupove, đake, terete, inate, mirise, šećere, čekiće... i ostale druge baš naše rječi. Ja neznam kojim ti imenom svoj jezik nazivaš ni, ni bitno. Ja svoj nazivam hrvackim, ono od uvjek. Zato je za mene nepojmljivo da ovaj hrvacki kakši got on tebi bil, moj nije, i nemre meni netko govoriti kak je standard u Hrvackoj hrvacki, isto kak nemre mi netko govoriti da ja govorim srpskohrvacki, to je za mene glupost. Istina je da su međusobno razumljivi, nu i slovenski i hrvacki su međusobno razmuljivi, pa tak ta tvoja teorija pada fino u vodu. Ak češki i slovački moreju biti različiti jezici onda moreju i hrvacki i srbijanski, ar hrvacki nema veze s srpskim (naravno ovaj hrvacki vukopis, pod kojim nemislim na fonetičko pisanje kim i ve pišem, jur o jeziku uvaženog Vuka Stefanoviča Srbijanca). Samo kaj nitko neče priznati da je Hrvackoj "njihov" opče nije njihov, i ve ti to dopovjedaj tim "velikim" Hrvatima, tim polupismenim Ustašama (s kojimi ti mene tak ljepo usporđuješ), kvazi-Hrvatima iz BiH, posrbljenim Damlatincima iz zagore i obližnjih brda, i Slavoncima. Hrvacki jezik je sam po sebi zapadnoslavenski jezik, kaj se ljepo more vidjeti iz tisuče spomeniki, knjigi, pjesmi... i drugih dokaza povjesne pismenosti. Koju srbijanski nema.

Gle ja nisam nacijonalist, nisam le ni domoljub, ali ostale sličene idiotarije. Ja sam isto za potpunu globalizaciju, pak naj sve otide u kurac, fino se zglasa engleski ali latinski jezik za službeni, ovo sve ostalo se ljepo zapre, svi se proglase građanima svjeta i bok. Svi srjetni i zadovoljni. Več se nitko nemora mučiti dali govori ov jezik ali koji drugi. Sve ti je jeno! Ljepa utopija. Nu ona je isto tak neostvariva kot i Marksov Komunistički Manifesto, ali Hitlerov Majn Kamf, ali koji drugi pokušaj čiste ljepote i međuljubeznosti.

To kaj ti umanjuješ Bulčov rad, je tvoja stvar, ja ti samo velim da je to više nit vodilja tvojeg antinacijonalizma, nego nekše stvarne slike. Zrakoplov, zrakomlat, računalo... i ostale te novotvorenice kije je ne Šulek zmislil, su više ali manje njegove, njegov rad za sve koji hočeju poznavati hrvacki jezik, a nemeti ispranu glavo kvazi-karađičevsko-srbijanskim jezikom, on je fina pokaznica, mada je i on u mnogočemu fulal, od srbijanskog št skupa pa do srbijaske gluposti kak su: ili, u nekoga... nu on je tebi sam još jedan nacijonalist i kak i ja - glupost nu kaj bum.

Većina suradnikâ na ovom projektu nisu Englezi već Amerikanci i internacionalno-osviješteni pojedinci iz drugih zemaljâ; malo se informiraj prije nego počneš tako lupetati. - gle za mene je svatko ki lupeta engleski je Englez, i tačka. Tvoja opčinjenost Englezima (odnosno Amerikancima) je, o njimi bum govoril, o kak si ono rekel; internacionalno-osviješteni, Amerikanci ali Englezi ali bilo tko iz kojekašneg kuta ove male okrugle loptice koju Rusi nazivaju mir (kak i mi, samo kaj nam je to isprano iz glave). Ja ti najtoplijeg srca preporučam da odeš u Ameriku aliti Junajted Stejc of Amerika (JSA), ali Englesku (odnosno Grejt Britan), nu ne onak on holidej jur živjet, na jeno par ljeta. Baš kak sam ja živjel do nedavno, pako budeš vidjel, kaj se ono ima za vidjet. Od crnci, azijati, hispistanci... i ostalih poluljuckih pasmina ki gmižeju u svojemu smradu isto kot i večina bjelci (sam kaj se razmimo njesam rasist, samo teški nihilistični realist). Jedino kaj me jošče na ovomu svjetu drži, da nepotegnem ovaj jebeni okidač na samokrjesu, je moja ljubezan spram umjetnosti, ter ljepoj rječi. Od Šejkspira, Danteja, Vagnera, Göteja, Bodlera, Bajrona, Prešerna, Držiča, Krleže... i ostalih da jih tu nenabrajam, pak mi samo srce krvari gda vidim da se govori da je ovo danas (le službeno) hrvacki jezik. Gda se je to zdavnja od hrvackoga rastavilo (Sve počevši od Dr. Luwiga von Gaya, s konačnim bloautom Vuka Stefanoviča Srbijanca, koji je bogec nikaj ni ne kriv, jur ovi takozvani Vukovci, Štovatelji velikog Wolfa i mnogopismenog hercegovačog sela). Ja stvarno (ali res, alipak prosto) ne vem koji je tebi cilj na ovom pakom svjetu aliti wrldu (pošto ljubiš englesku rječ). Ja bih te ljepo prosil da pročitaš Krležine Balade, evoga to napravi, pak bu ti sve jasno, o naškom jeziku, o bilo čemu drugomu, o ovom i Bogima prokletom svjetu, sve to pak si spi liter ali dve dobrega starega vinca, i pleši skup z menom pod ovim našim galgami, ar za sto let ni mesa, ni čavla, ni lesa...

Pitanje "hrvatskog jezika iz književnosti " koji ne postoji nigdje drugo nego u tvojoj glavi, nadam se da smo već riješili. To što ti pišeš je čista štokavština (sintaksa, morfologija, fleksijski nastavci) - ako misliš da će par isforsirano poprskanih dijalektalizama, ustašopisno ie i odsustvo l-vokalizacije tvoj jezik učiniti "hrvatskijim", onda si stvarno prolupao. - Pa daj mi iskreno rji odnosno reči, pa kaj tebi Marulič, Držič, Frankopan, Domjanič, Gundulič, Menčetič, Lucič... pa le i polusrbijanski Relkovič liče na srpski jezik, dali se da po njimi naslutiti bilo kakšna poveznica da su srbijanski i hrvacki jedan jezik, ali da je možda i slovenski jezik tu isto zmešani. Moja štokavica je proizvod moje okoline, i to je tak, ja sam ti jedan od onih danas sve brojnih polukajkavci koji su izmješani s štokavicom ono do kraja, pa valja poznaš Zagrepčance. Pak mi je onda prirodan Kaj, i onal -l, i polu jekavica natrunuta ekavizmima, nu su mi i prirodni ti dijalektizmi kak jih ti nazivaš, koji su u stvarnosti pravi jezik u Hrvatah, ar više ljudi u Hrvackoj veli, a rjeđe kaže... osim ovih stilski rječi kaj su mi ljepe (onak privučene) pak mi se bolje uklapaju nu, cjeć, kot, jur... - ah kaj bum, alti kaj češ. Mislim da "ustaško" ie, je glupo razpravljati, jer ak su ustaše izmislile ie onda ja neznam o kojim ti to ustašama pričaš, možda o onima kaj su ustale protiv Sulejmana. Jer in orginale ide O liepa, o draga, o slatka...

Kaj se tiče mog pravopisa, a tuj je ono redicule, kaj ti voliš raditi, kot i svi ostali vukovci (nu nejma veze) ja sam za dosljednost, a moj pravopis koji je više osnovničen na slovenskom pravopisu, nego na onom debilnom Klajičevom iz Endehazije, je prije svega dosljedan, i jednostavan, čisto tvorbeni (morfološki), bez korjenskih rječi ali pisanja (sdrav, dći, kto, čto...). Znaš pravopis je izbor pojedinca, meni je službeni pravopis idijotarija par ekselans. Kakve gluposti rastviti, ispjevati, lijepo, bijelo, odčepiti... notorna glupost, uopče nije dosljedno, ali srbijanski koji nikaj ni bolji platićeš, Hrvatska..., iskreno boli me kurac dali pišem "korjenski", tvorbeno ali fonološki samo da je dosljedno, ali nek fino izglasju kot engleski, pa fino imaš tisuče i tisuče rječi koje se moraš učiti na pamet, i još si moreš birati dal bu color ali colour, ali bu show ali shew... to je pravi jezik, to je prava ortografija kompleta (ali incompleta). Nemam več rječi, žal mi je kaj smo stali na krvu nogu, nu nemam več snage, probal sam malo ispravit nepravdu danu hrvackom jeziku, nu kot i sve - zaman! Kaj človjek more drugo neg' reći:

V kmici, v pivnici,
brez ikakšne luči,
čul se je veter
kak v praznini huči,
s kervavemi nokti v drobu, v mozgu, v žuči,
zalajal sam kak samec, kervavi pes vmiruči.

Slavić (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Stranice za razgovor su namijenjene diskusijama vezane za projekt - ne za trokilometarske komentare, poeziju i laprdanja o tome kako ti osobno (i nitko drugi) percepiraš hrvatski jezik, ljudsku civilizaciju i povijest. Najbolje je da otvoriš blog i tamo se svađaš s istomišljenicima, ili da prošetaš do najbliže kongregacije drugih penzića u tvom selu koji zacijelo imaju štošta nadodati na tvoja zrnca mudrosti. KTHXBYE --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha, ha, Bravo Ivane, zacepio si tom mutavom magarcu usta. Zivio Ivane!

BLP violation

In this edit, you were completely out of line with the claim that the topic of the article is insane. Please remove that immediately. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm being called names and attacked by low ad-hominems by Slavić the entire discussion, and the only thing that you find objectionable is the attribute insane?a --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A rowdy dispute between two editors is one thing, unambiguously insulting the living person who is the article topic is another, a much more urgent one. In any case, just because Slavić is digging a hole for himself with the ad hominems from the get-go, that doesn't mean you should follow his lead. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I see you didn't really get the message. retards employed at the Ministry of Education (courtesy of zločinačka organizacija) is another set of insults levied against two sets of living people. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have a bone to pick with these people, do it elsewhere. (JFTR I'm warning "Hrmak" of the same thing in my next edit.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

POLICE

Zbog zlouporabe mrežnih stranica, lažnog predstavljanja, omalovažavanja službenog jezika Republike Hrvatske te samim time vrijeđanja hrvatskoga naroda, bit će poduzete mjere identifikacije mjesta prebivališta i lociranje izvora signala počinitelja kaznenog djela. Ova upozorba vrijedi za sve zemlje članice Interpola. http://www.mup.hr/53.aspx

Zanimljivo ja koji tobože širim neistine i "kršim zakon" se potpisujem punim imenom, a svi veliki "borci za istinu" su nekakve IP adrese ili nickovi iz crtića. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)