Talk:Croatian language/Archive 14
Latest comment: 10 months ago by 88.207.84.109 in topic Useful videos on Croatian language, both in English and Croatian
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Useful videos on Croatian language, both in English and Croatian
Not wanting to bother readers with literature, I'll post links dealing with various controversies regarding Croatian language, and which have appeared only recently (in the past 1-2 years and later):
On various aspects on Croatian language status in the 2 Yugoslav states & in the past 2 centuries, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbOcf12jFOM
On the history of the Croatian language, linguistics & controversies about the name and ideologies,pt.1 - English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp-2eM9S6i8
Almost the same, slightly modified, but in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDONIhqHokU
On the history of the Croatian language, from the beginning to the 21st century, with Serbian and, to a lesser extent Bosnian, added- English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rhPZryNp-M
Virtually the same, pt.2, but in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovDb0YPidPU
Evolution of Croatian literary language, from 1100 on, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-PXiZzdjyg
Knez Novak's Missal, 1368 monument of the Croatian, witn English titles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsi0eGEyo7g
Short interview on the Croatian and Serbian languages, English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDDRgcs-iU
On the roots of Serbo-Croatian language ideology in the 18th century, as well its development in the 19th century, in Croatian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ng5Auot3pA Mir Harven (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop peddling your nationalist poppycock on English Wikipedia. Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop peddling Yugo-nationalist agenda that had been used for oppression of non-Serbian peoples in extinct Yugoslavia. Wikipedia has become, as regards this topic, a dogmatic Shmikipedia. The central point of modern culture is: rational arguments should be available to all, and especially to those who are interested or versed in the topic discussed. Those who try to enforce their dated & suppressive dogmas on others- and especially if they try to shut down public discourse, are doomed to fail. Critical thinking & liberty are unstoppable. Thanks. Mir Harven (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- If you, in all your desire for critical thinking and rationality, want to pretend that Croats do not understand most Serbs better than they understand some other Croats, stick to Croatian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not a forum for "public discourse". Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Calm down, you'll have a stroke. Croats perfectly well understand Serbs, as do various Scandinavian Germanic language speakers' others' languages, or Urdu speakers - Hindu speakers. But that doesn't make these languages one language, simply because cultural-historical identity & individuality are the central element in defining "what language is". English Wikipedia presents a false view on the history of Croatian because it denies the obvious: the continuity of the Croatian literary language goes from the 10th to the 21st centuries, without interruption. If one does not include Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Ragusan literature in the history of the Croatian language- one spreads falsities. No Croatian author in the 15th, the 16th,the 17th, the 18th, ... centuries ever thought of some "Serbo-Croatian", and Croatian written word has absolutely no contact with Serbian written word until the mid-19th C (and vice versa). It is true that some Croatian and Serbian intellectuals, from the mid 19th C to the 1930s tried to form some kind of unified language- but they failed. Languages do not appear out of blue, following some agreements or politicking. I have already addressed Serbo-Croatian ideology & its failure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbo-Croatian If you are not capable of understanding it- you just contribute to the further growth of contempt for Wikipedia project. Educated people increasingly see it as some kind of Stalinist gobbledegook and an instrument for spreading falsities & extreme leftist ideology. But- that's not my issue. If you intend to ruin the Wikipedia reputation- I cannot do anything to stop you (or your ideological cronies). Have a nice life. Mir Harven (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, "cultural-historical identity & individuality" do not define languages. I have no idea where you might have picked that up. Mutual intelligibility does. And no, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians do not understand each other nearly as well as Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Montenegrins do. As noted by US Slavicists, even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do. Until Croats start speaking a language actually distinct from that spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins or international academia en masse decides to entertain nationalist lies, the blabberings about the "Croatian written word" should have no effect on the content of the article. That argument is discussed (and refuted) by international philologists, however, so it may deserve to be mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, mutual intelligibility is actually worthless when it comes to standard languages. Hindi and Urdu are much more mutually intelligible than Serbian and Croatian, but are uniformly categorized by linguistic typology atlases as different languages, with different codes and different identities: Hindi: https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_hin, Urdu:https://wals.info/languoid/lect/wals_code_urd. There is no "Hindustani" ghost anymore, and no macro-language Hindi and Urdu are subsets of. If a community of speakers of a language, which is first literary, then standard language, decides that their own national language is their own- that's it and there is nothing more. Mutual intelligibility is a primitive concept, a sort of leftover from the 19th C. Also, Swiss German could, if Swiss wanted it, to become a separate language just because mutual intelligibility problems- most standard language speaking Germans have difficulty in understanding the Swiss German language. But, since Swiss Germans form a cultural unity with other German-speaking peoples (Germany, Austria,..)- they don't want to. More- there is no specifically Swiss German literary heritage they could- even if they wanted to- rely on. I will not go into details of fragility of "mutual intelligibility" concept- its varies over time for an individual, let alone a community. In the case of Croatian, Croatian lectionaries, sermons and evangels from the 16th and 17th C are almost completely understandable to modern Serbian and Bosnian speakers- and they feel revulsion to them because they are examples of cultural-national-identitarian texts which are both alien and somehow repellent. They not only don't have an interest in them- they loathe them. So, what you wrote about mutual intelligibility is simply obsolete and shallow (I won't go into other details you don't know about). In one of those videos in English, it is clearly indicated that Chinese consider their mutually unintelligible language to be one, and all efforts of Western linguists fail when confronted with the identity of 1.5 billion Chinese people and 4,000 years of Chinese historical culture. Actually- it is comical to insist that Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian are one language, and not succeeding to find a newly concocted name for that "language". This unnamed & rejected "language" is as "natural" as wooden iron. Just a contradiction waiting older linguists to die off & then it will naturally disappear even as a term of convenience (Wayles Browne still sticks to that notion: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian-language In the 21st century, then, two well-delineated standard languages exist (Croatian and Serbian) and two more are taking shape (Bosnian and Montenegrin). Educated speakers from any of the countries can converse with full understanding, hindered only by a few everyday words and technical terms (much like British boot and treacle versus American trunk [of a car] and molasses). Accordingly, some argue, they are speaking one language. When writing, however, one cannot follow Serbian and Croatian, or Montenegrin and Bosnian, language standards simultaneously, so in practice no joint standard exists. And, by the way- learn to behave civilly. Croats won't tolerate impositions & defamation, coming from anyone. As an acquaintance of mine has answered a question: Why is it mostly Croats who refuse Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin being one language while the others mostly agree? Because Croats don’t want their language heritage to be appropriated by others, even in theory. The ideology of Serbocroatism is appropriate for Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrins- what’s Croatian, it is also ours (in theory; in practice they don’t care). And, to be completely honest: it is a matter of collective psychology. Serbs and others do not pay much attention to language matters because they are not defined, as a nation, by language. The chief substance of their national being is religion. For Croats, who are Catholics, language matters infinitely more simply because most Catholics speak other, much more significant different languages. It is even more evident in the case of Slovenes, who have much higher language- national consciousness than Croats.For Serbian, Bosnian Muslim, Montenegrin national identity, national language is not of the primary importance. For Croats, it is.Or, to put it sketchily: Croatian is primarily a written language; Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are primarily spoken languages. Then, Croatian is a historical language (meaning it has fundamental texts in Croatian vernacular going back to the 1300s). Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin are not historical languages in this sense. Mir Harven (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- "even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do"
- This is blatantly wrong. What is even going on here? 2A05:4F44:B1B:BD00:7CE2:435A:F181:4379 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- "As noted by US Slavicists, even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do."
- Why is this user allowed to make or take part in editorial decisions related to the Croatian language after blurting out blatantly wrong facts like this one? 88.207.84.109 (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, "cultural-historical identity & individuality" do not define languages. I have no idea where you might have picked that up. Mutual intelligibility does. And no, Swedes, Danes, and Norwegians do not understand each other nearly as well as Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Montenegrins do. As noted by US Slavicists, even British English and American English differ more than Croatian and Serbian do. Until Croats start speaking a language actually distinct from that spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins or international academia en masse decides to entertain nationalist lies, the blabberings about the "Croatian written word" should have no effect on the content of the article. That argument is discussed (and refuted) by international philologists, however, so it may deserve to be mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Calm down, you'll have a stroke. Croats perfectly well understand Serbs, as do various Scandinavian Germanic language speakers' others' languages, or Urdu speakers - Hindu speakers. But that doesn't make these languages one language, simply because cultural-historical identity & individuality are the central element in defining "what language is". English Wikipedia presents a false view on the history of Croatian because it denies the obvious: the continuity of the Croatian literary language goes from the 10th to the 21st centuries, without interruption. If one does not include Bartol Kašić, Jakov Mikalja, Ragusan literature in the history of the Croatian language- one spreads falsities. No Croatian author in the 15th, the 16th,the 17th, the 18th, ... centuries ever thought of some "Serbo-Croatian", and Croatian written word has absolutely no contact with Serbian written word until the mid-19th C (and vice versa). It is true that some Croatian and Serbian intellectuals, from the mid 19th C to the 1930s tried to form some kind of unified language- but they failed. Languages do not appear out of blue, following some agreements or politicking. I have already addressed Serbo-Croatian ideology & its failure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbo-Croatian If you are not capable of understanding it- you just contribute to the further growth of contempt for Wikipedia project. Educated people increasingly see it as some kind of Stalinist gobbledegook and an instrument for spreading falsities & extreme leftist ideology. But- that's not my issue. If you intend to ruin the Wikipedia reputation- I cannot do anything to stop you (or your ideological cronies). Have a nice life. Mir Harven (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Presumably in WP:GOODFAITH, some information/viewpoint in those videos, which are about different topics, is probably true or has enough WP:WEIGHT in reliable scientific literature (and some scholars like M. Grčević are very reliable), but such videos mostly cannot be used as a reference for citation on Wikipedia. Every information needs to be WP:VERIFY in WP:RS. Such information, did not check every link, presumably at least by M. Grčević, most probably can be found in scientific literature. Articles related to a scientific field should mainly use & cite scientific literature, not videos. Also, article's talk page is not a forum, here should be discussed content changes. Thanks for sharing, but don't understand what you wanted to change.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I posted videos links just to make it easier for those interested in the topic to understand the issues involved. I think it says something very significant that Croatian language (and "Serbo-Croatian language" pages) are almost always locked -they present a false view on almost everything they purport to explain or describe. Serious works on the Croatian language history are available, in Croatian, German & English. For instance: https://www.worldcat.org/title/71239290, https://www.worldcat.org/title/34315583, https://www.worldcat.org/title/40473913, https://www.worldcat.org/title/1045615360, https://www.worldcat.org/title/930760832,
- https://www.worldcat.org/title/47701994,
- https://www.worldcat.org/title/796388529,
- https://www.worldcat.org/title/166422849,
- .. So- there are books galore. But they are completely out of sync with the content of Wiki pages on these South Slavic languages, and to post links to them would be futile. The entire pages on Croatian language, and especially Serbo-Croatian as an ideological historical construct need re-writing; the page on Serbo-Croatian can remain only as a description of a phase of language ideologies, a sort of historical sociolinguistics review on Croatian and Serbian languages. For instance, in Croatian universities they teach Croatian historical grammar from this book: https://www.worldcat.org/title/310741374; in Serbian universities they teach Serbian historical grammar from this book: https://www.worldcat.org/title/555049502. There is no use in denying reality.Mir Harven (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- For those interested in scientific books and articles on Croatian language language structure, history and standardization, there are numerous works available in Croatian, and in German, plus some in English. I'll post a few links so that those interested in these issues can refer to them (not videos, which are for educational purpose only). Matasović's Croatian historical grammar:https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaceajkouarraou5xwqyt4l6uoazlt65upxrgtid4azjphlhprpndkcc?filename=%28Biblioteka%20Theoria%29%20Ranko%20Matasovi%C4%87%20-%20Poredbenopovijesna%20gramatika%20hrvatskoga%20jezika-Matica%20hrvatska%20%282008%29.pdf, Auburger on Croatian language and Serbo-Croatism: https://archive.org/details/leopold-auburger-hrvatski-jezik-i-serbokroatizam/page/1/mode/2up; Moguš, Croatian language history: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedp4vx5du7n4p7fhseprf5e2iyp77eb5hjf2bj6ysromazeufaolu?filename=%28Biblioteka%20Priru%C4%8Dnici%29%20Milan%20Mogu%C5%A1%20-%20Povijest%20hrvatskoga%20knji%C5%BEevnoga%20jezika-Nakladni%20zavod%20Globus%20%282009%29.pdf, Matasović on the Central South Slavic concept: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/198263, Tafra on the periodization of Croatian language: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/116823, Dubravka Sesar on the 18th C Slavic languages "fog" & the Croatian position:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/7139, Grčević on modern German Serbo-Croatism:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/219463, Ivić on linguistic geography and historical dialectology- work from the 1950s, but still valuable (in Serbian Cyrillic):https://dais.sanu.ac.rs/bitstream/handle/123456789/5418/ivic.lingvisticka.geografija.1957.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y;, Grčević on Vuk Karadžić's reform of Serbian language:https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/68919, Lisac on Croatian dialects: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzaced2b6uws3llmilasmnioh3avl5vy2qtgkpd3ksgpchw6pyk2ah7pc?filename=Josip%20Lisac%20-%20Hrvatska%20dijalektologija%202.%20%C4%8Cakavsko%20narje%C4%8Dje-Golden%20marketing%20-%20tehni%C4%8Dka%20knjiga%20%282009%29.pdf; https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacecsnnemrcb4tg3qhscqqy3y7apjdfmrngln4yi7vdgmlqadbvjspo?filename=Josip%20Lisac%20-%20Hrvatska%20dijalektologija%201.%20Hrvatski%20dijalekti%20i%20govori%20%C5%A1tokavskog%20narje%C4%8Dja%20i%20hrvatski%20govori%20torla%C4%8Dkog%20narje%C4%8Dja-Golden%20marketing%20-%20tehni%C4%8Dka%20knjiga%20%282003%29.pdf, Okuka on Serbian dialects: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedzumdqu26h65qmc6kikd5j3mmhtj7r5nf2rj4ye2q5oc2wyqirtu?filename=Milo%C5%A1%20Okuka%20-%20Srpski%20dijalekti.pdf So, there are tons of modern and universally accepted scientific books & articles- but one has to read them & draw conclusions. These are just a more significant texts for those interested in editing Wikipedia languages pages. Mir Harven (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- If you, in all your desire for critical thinking and rationality, want to pretend that Croats do not understand most Serbs better than they understand some other Croats, stick to Croatian Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is not a forum for "public discourse". Surtsicna (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop peddling Yugo-nationalist agenda that had been used for oppression of non-Serbian peoples in extinct Yugoslavia. Wikipedia has become, as regards this topic, a dogmatic Shmikipedia. The central point of modern culture is: rational arguments should be available to all, and especially to those who are interested or versed in the topic discussed. Those who try to enforce their dated & suppressive dogmas on others- and especially if they try to shut down public discourse, are doomed to fail. Critical thinking & liberty are unstoppable. Thanks. Mir Harven (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)