Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene). 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 main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Leaving this aside, as I can find many notable organizations that use either Slovene or Slovenian both as an adjective and a noun and some use Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun, I am now nevertheless more in favor of Slovenian both as an adjective and a noun, after having found two interesting and independent web pages.

The first one is a paper written by a very prominent Slovenian Canadian scholar and professor emeritus Edward Gobetz. It is available here and clearly shows why Slovenian is the preferred term.

The second one sufficiently well demonstrates why Google is not reliable in regards to this matter, although one should check these things independently as there are also some misinformations. Nevertheless, although the results are inconclusive, one could probably more reliably show that Google has more content-specific hits for Slovenian than for Slovene. It is available here. As to the number of pages that offer Slovene as a noun, be careful, as there may be many others that use Slovenian as a noun.

So, XJaM, could you too now - after I have presented these arguments - agree with us that Slovenian is the correct term or at least that it should be preferentially used? --Eleassar777 my talk 19:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry I still can not. But not because that I might be stubborn, but simply because all arguments that were presented here for using 'Slovenian' instead of "Slovene" did not persuade me. Saying that etymology is not relevant, that learning English language in Slovenia is not relevant and so on is one-sided point of view. The only argument worth investigating for me was Nohat's about how these two words came into English dictionaries and perhaps to literature. We all know, yes, that English language is a living thing, but how it can change so rapidly in these 10-20 years. BTW U.S. ambassador in Slovenia uses "Slovenian". We should further ask some Anglicists because discussions in this level are just not enough. You're getting your arguments from sleeves and you are thinking that they are valid all over. I guess that in these three years I have the largest number of contributions from Slovene users. Just because of these tottering statements I shall be forced to stop writing for English Wikipedia. --xJaM 14:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like you to be stubborn. I have been thinking much about these things and have already before agreed that authorities are important, under one condition: that their views are presented clearly and verifiably. I also have not said that etymology is not important. I only said that it is not very important which one of the terms appeared earlier, but how it came into use and how it developed subsequently. If you have read the links I provided you would see that it is not only 10 - 20 years, but at least! from 1949 since Slovenian has been advocated by respected scholars and as I already said it would be more easier to demonstrate Slovenian is preferred nowadays. And if you would go to NUK and read Zarja (November, 1949), you would probably find out that Slovenian has been used and advocated from much earlier. Although this is not certain, the majority seems to follow this nowadays. Also tell me, who was then if not me that suggested asking an etymologist here on WP and I even provided an etymological paper. However, if you can point me to a paper where Mr Košuta presented his arguments for using Slovene clearly, I will read them with interest and respect his opinion, otherwise it's impossible to judge them.

You know, after your last post I am wondering what do you mean by saying that I am getting my arguments from sleeves?

Mr Gobetz and other scholars he mentions are not from sleeves, are they? As we can read on the page I provided, he himself "is professor emeritus of sociology at Kent State University and executive director of The Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. He is an author or editor of sixteen books (with additional volumes now in print) and of scores of articles and book reviews which have been published in American and international scholarly journals and popular magazines. For many years, he was also a contributor to most Slovenian American newspapers and to several papers in other countries. He has lectured widely at scholarly conferences and has been much in demand as speaker for various Slovenian affairs in several American states, as well as in Canada." And his paper is very well and fairly written and quite well supported. If you would re-read it and would forgot your history here for a moment, it would help much. As for Google, I still believe it is true what I wrote - it is not very reliable, but probably it would be easier to demonstrate it has more hits for Slovenian and Slovenians than Slovene and Slovenes.

To the contrary, I find the claims you made till now quite unsupported, although it is possible that I have missed some of your arguments. You have been mentioning Mr Wales - he is not an authority as he is not an etymologist (as far as I know). You have been telling us to ask Slovenian children - do they or their teachers know better than respected scholars? Of course not. I asked my niece today and she doesn't have a slightest idea although otherwise she has very good grades. Nevertheless, I am open to new arguments you would present and would be especially happy if you presented any respected papers that oppose to Mr Gobetz.

As to one-sidedness, please note that if my arguments are one-sided, they nevertheless seem to be strong. Also note that the two lists that had been added above and their titles were later rewritten by BT2 as I had made them purposefully neutral and had added absolutely no link. There were only titles (different than now - neutral) and blank lines. I was naive expecting that everyone will add links under both titles. Therefore, I have removed them now so that you won't be able to say I am not playing a fair game. As I have already said and also written below, these notable pages don't matter much, if anything, as long as we do not have complete numbered lists of pages that use Slovene only, those that use Slovenian only and those that use Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun.

And also note, I have not yet said what Wikimedia should use preferentially or what Wikimedia's policy should be towards these questions.

Please rethink this - especially what is on this page (last version edited by me - probably this) - with cool head and carefully, whatever point you may choose to defend in the future. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eleassar777, what I wrote above, it does not turn against you at all. You must know that. This debate is going on quite a while, so I have meant all those participants in it, who are getting their arguments from sleeves - not directly you. I do respect sholars as Mr. Gobetz is, and I have read those links carefully. For Mr. Košuta I can not give any links because he is deceased and he was 'merely' a primary school teacher - but a very good one, as I have already wrote. But if I wrote 'Slovenian' at my schoolwork in his lessons those days I surely would get bad mark. You must know that he gave 5s (the highest mark) only if a schoolboy did just one or two mistakes. This is just BTW. It is also true that my arguments here do not find fruitful soil at all and are for the most part unsupported, but somehow I know I am right, you know. Saying that (again I do not mean you directly) "Slovene" came into English via French word is so so. Many French words also came into Slovene language, for example Židje (Jews), but we do not name them so, but Judje, because classical languages as Greek and Latin are important here. Momentarily I do not have any other arguments to show my point of view, so it is better to wait for futher development. It is true, yes, that Jimmy is not etymologist, but he used "Slovene language" at Slovene national TV broadcast as U.S. ambassador used 'Slovenian' on the other side. If I'll meet him this october somewhere in Balkans, I'll sure aks him for his opinion on this matter. I have alredy asked Brion on IRC channel, and he said that both terms are equally valid. If I admit I do not know who to ask further more. Perhaps I shall also ask Anton since he has very shrewd answers and solutions. Someone someday will have to solve 'this problem' - and if you're (not again you Eleassar777 directly) satisfied with the solution of using strictly "Slovenian", then be it. As I have written several times, I shall always be Slovene no matter what they say. See dem a come... --Joseph Hill. --xJaM 22:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW the COBISS system says:

Slovenes: 203 hits, Slovenians: 40 hits (already shown by Eleassar777)
Slovene: 18775 hits, Slovenian: 9371 hits

Nova beseda (it is not much relevant since it deals mostly with Slovene, but anyway it is a good corpus laboratory):

Slovenes: 17 hits, Slovenians: 6 hits (already shown by Eleassar777)
Slovene: 104 hits, Slovenian: 277 hits

--xJaM 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your list names had to be modified because the most significant thing here is that Slovenian organizations are moving away from Slovene and embracing Slovenian. There are no (at least to my knowledge for sure) organizations replacing Slovenian in their name with Slovene. NONE. Same thing with regards to book publishings. For the last century, Slovene dominated the very small number of English (largely British) books on Slovenia and Yugoslavia. Things are changing. Compare the ratio of books published employing Slovene and Slovenian before and after 1991. Understandably, the internet is moving and expressing this change a lot faster. BT2 02:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Yes, indeed, internet is expressing this stupidity very fast. Please you wise guy, there are many scholars that you did not mention and I do believe that they can prove you are not quite right. But if you like to generalize everything, that is your right - but here we are trying to write encyclopedia, not just some local preferences. British books might be very important still. What is changing? Things are just coming from bad to worse, as one song sings. From 1991 only 14 yeras have passed, so I can not imagine how this time is more significant than, let us say, years from 17th or 18th century. Slovenes are here from 6th century at least. Do no forget this. Do not delete everything that does not suit you (etimology of the word "Slovene" from French, ...) Okay, I see it now that it was not deliberately deleted and I accept your apology BT2. I just want to contribute here, so someone in the beginning could make clear these things to me and spare me some precious time, because I do not want to argue with no one. --xJaM 15:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just wish to point out that this discussion is on a very low level and I am quiting it. Anyone has every right to use whatever they like. Time will show what will prevail - perhaps wisdom, perhaps stupidity - who knows what is what. I don't want fist fighting because of such unimportant things. I'm sure someone smarter than us will come by. Just do not revert me. Thanks. --Eleassar777 my talk 15:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Etymology of the word Slovene (non-English sources)

Marko Snoj's Slovenski etimološki slovar (Slovene Etymological Dictionary), Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana 1997, at page 582 says (translated and written without accents):

slovenski (Slovene) slovenska (Slovene - feminine gender) adjective Slovene, Slovene (f),
older Sloven; Slovene language, to slovene (to slovenicize ?), to translate into Slovene, Slovenia. 
The same or related is cslovan. sloveninь 'Slav', stcslovan.
slovenьsky 'Slovene', hrv. kajk. Slovenci 'Kajkavci, residents
between Drave, Sotla and Mura', literary Croatian Slovenac 'Slovene', 
slovēnski, slovènski 'Slovene', rus. славянин
(slavyanin) 'Slav', словенец (slovenec) 'Slovene', češ.
Slovan 'Slav', slovensky 'Slovak', older Slovenec 'Slav', young(er)
Slovinec 'Slovene'. Pslovan. *sloveninъ 'Slav', 
*slovene 'Slavs' is derived from one basis *slov-, known in geographical
names and is preserved in names of rivers lit. Šlave, rus.
Sluja, polj. Sława, Sławica. Very similar is
also hrv., srb. slavelj, slavina 'bung, 'pipe'. If a 
hypothesis is correct *Slovene firstly meant *'inhabitants along the river *Slova
or *Slovy '. Ide. basis is *klou- 'to wash, to rinse', and 
is known, for example, in lat. cluere 'to clean, to wash', lit. 
šluoti 'to clean, to wipe'. After older interpretation, which is weaker in word
formation and stronger in meaning, the name of the nation *slovene might be derived
from pslovan. *slovo 'word' (see sloves, slovo). If this surmise is correct
regardless to word formation, the name of the nation primarily meant something like 
*'people, to whom is possible to talk and who understand our language'. For behalf of this
surmise could be a fact that Slavs called their Eastern neighbours, Germanic tribes,
later Germans, *nemьci, sloven. , primarily
*'nemi ljudje' ('speechless, people'), namely *'poeple, who can not speak (in our tongue)'.

--xJaM 17:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism." Wikipedia:Wikiquette Dystopos 20:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- For what it's worth as a native English speaker and son of an immigrant from Slovenia, learning Slovene at an old age, I much prefer "Slovene" to "Slovenian." "Slovene" sounds more elegant, in my opinion. "Slovenian" can easily be made to sound derrogatory, I think. Anton Mravcek 20:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

No offense, but perhaps you are too old. And it is Slovene that is just one letter off of the derogatory Sloven. Nothing elegant about Slovene. You said in another thread that you remember your father speaking to you in English and saying Slovene. Maybe this memory is having some influence on you. Do you keep in touch with any Slovenian communities in the US? The vast majority of native-English speaking Slovenians shun Slovene, particularly because it sounds (to most of us) so clumsy and awkward.

No offense taken. Besides, I've never claimed that childhood memories don't influence me. No, I don't keep in touch with Slovenian communities in the US, but given that, for practical reasons, I can't travel to Slovenia, traveling to one such community might be a good second best. Anton Mravcek 20:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record, my father also used to say Slovene. But now, he says Slovenian. It took a while for him (and friends in Slovenia) to break the bad habit. ;)

I am sorry to hear something is preventing you from visiting Slovenia. I believe you will really enjoy your time at local Slovenian picnics, though. (Great food, lots of Avsenik music, dancing, etc.) BT2 20:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further, Slovenes is a completely unnatural derivative for a country called Slovenia. Austrian, Australian, Scandinavian, Estonian, Virginian, Latvian, Lithuanian, etc. -ia, get it?

Think of a fictional country called, say, Blabenia. Naturally, you'd call the people of Blabenians. This may sound trivial, but it is a significant point. If one were to know nothing about Slovenia other than it existed and was called Slovenia..what do you think he or she would refer to its people as? Slovenes? NO. Slovenes is derived from the French Slovėnes, and it is actually pronounced Sloven. BT2 21:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was drawn to this debate because of the several references to Jews, but I find this issue itself quite interesting. In all my reading, I think I've seen the term "Slovene" twice, and the term "Slovenian" also twice. In my own poetry magazine I used the term "Slovene", but probably only because it was the one I had seen most recently.

Both terms probably have instances of nearly equal recency. In the September 2002 issue of Score, Zalec native Cassandra is referred to as "our horny Slovenian" (page Xtra 13). In the March 2, 2005 issue of The South End, in the article "Although current, Wikipedia not always reliable source of information", the writer speculates:

"An article on a more esoteric topic in a Wikipedia in a less used language, such as the article on the number 47 in the Slovene language Wikipedia, might only have been looked at and edited by a couple of people."

Between a porn magazine and a student newspaper, you might wonder which one has greater credibility in matters of spelling and usage. In this case, the porn magazine has greater credibility, though a large portion of its subscribership might not appreciate that. The student newspaper is guilty of some pretty damn embarrassing spelling mistakes (one of the most recent being the word "dissolved" with just one 's' in yesterday's paper, in a headline, no less!). Robert Happelberg 17:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Hm, Slovenian is just three words off Sloven (-ian). I could call those inhabitant Blabenes (and also I can form adjective from Anglia as Anglian (or Anglic) meaning English). Are you sure that Slovenes was derived from that French word? I would like to see some serious English etymological sources on the word "Slovene" (yes, Eleassar777 had provided some sources - Mr. Gobetz, ...) Does other non-English etymology has nothing to do with this term? See above - a word Slovene in Proto-Slavic means Slavs and is derived from one basis *slov- ~, which I guess have nothing to do with (most likely later) English word sloven. Also consider the similar situation with the word Jew, which came into Slovene from French word, but in modern Slovene Jews are called Judje and not Židje, becase the later term is considered mainly as an offensive word. I do believe that there are many words, both in English and in Slovene, which have similar ways of formation. Very similar is a word college, which in past 10-20 years is now in modern Slovene (okay, let us say Slovenian for a change) called merely kolidž and not koledž anymore. I guess it has to do with a pronunciation of this English word - [ko´lidž] (as is written in Veliki angleško slovenski slovar (Great English Slovene Dictionary)) How about if we can not agree and we 'better' form a few new words 'Slovic'/'Slovenic' for Slovene/Slovenian, or 'Slovens' for Slovenes/Slovenians, a... --xJaM 22:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Dystopos have already warned us for obeying three-revert rule and that you do not considerate that I have protected some pages which you have been almost vandalised BT2. I know this won't help much, but I am trying to do my best. You are simply not able to discuss one thing at all. You are just accusing others being hypocrites and irational. There is nothing more I really can do. But I won't subordinate to no-one until a good and fair consensus is found. Good night - I have to sleep a bit yet. I am also glad that Anton gave his opinion in this matter and I respect it. If he would say that using 'Slovenian' is better and preferred I would also respect that, because he really helps if you ask him. In contrast to some users here, who don't actually and are just playing smart. --xJaM 23:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Interesting, it appears Slovenian American Frederic Baraga already used the word Slovenian some 150 years ago. http://www.prah.net/slovenia/history/inbaraga.htm

Also interesting, XJam claims he would call the people of fictional country Blabenia Blabenes. For real? Earlier today he posted to me the "Okay BT2 what can I say more? I am prepared to use 'preferred' terms here (just for the sake of the order), but you must know that your actions do not show high productive work." just minutes before going on a revert rampage again replacing Slovenian with Slovene. In the past he blasted me for doing the opposite while replacing Slovenian with Slovene in documents of others (documents I had never touched). He's been doing this since at least October 2002! (Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maribor&diff=383198&oldid=380931). So he's the biggest wikipedia contributor from Slovenia, by far. Much of his contributions have only lessened the quality level at Wikipedia. He's already been scolded for trying to stuff unsupported and highly controversial material into the (soon to be renamed) Timeline of Slovene history and recently he cheapened the page on Slovenian Americans by adding Jewish-American astronaut Resnik based solely on her surname. I'm wondering how long before we see Denis Rodman and his arguably Slovenian surname in there too. :( BT2 00:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim - I just might say..., as you might say. I've posted that message because I am forced to use some 'preferred' terms here. If I want to write good articles I have to use bad words and terms. So what do you expect of me? To stop writing for Wikipedia or what? I can do, and you can write you own Wikipedia related to Slovenes and Slovenia if you please. Yes, I have changed Zocky's term 'Slovenian' to Slovene, because I was taught so and because I know it is a valid term - so I did nothing wrong on that October three years ago. When did you come to WP? Some year after that or even later - I can't even remember correctly. As I see you have been mostly reverting.
I was not trying to stuff unsupported material there. I just collected what I have found from other sources. Of course there are greater specialists on history as I am - I am not a professional historian, but I am trying to be at least good wikipedian.
As for Resnik. It is not based just on her surname. I've told you that I have found only one dead link on the net (now it works as it seems) (DOGODKI IN ODMEVI IZ VESOLJA Events and echoes from space) (in Slovene). It says:

Judith Resnik, rojena leta 1949, po izobrazbi pianistka ter diplomirana elektroinženirka, članica posadke Discoveryja in po neuradnih podatkih slovenskega porekla…;

Judith Resnik, born 1949, pianist by education and graduated electrical engineer, member of Challenger team and by unofficial data of Slovene origin…;

As I recall and I went to find how Vojko Kogej in his booklet Vesoljske pasti (Space traps, 4) wrote (sorry for fast translation): Is Judith Resnik of our origin? Further inthere: In the year 1978 when she was elected for astronaut, her surname woke my interest. I've asked NASA if Resnik is perhaps of Slovene origin. What a question, suchlike the answer: "NASA astronaut is not of Slovene origin." Obviously I've asked to the wrong adress, even for astronaut Walter Schirra, who was born in 1923 in a family of pilots ~ Istrian emigrants have reported in 1971 from US that he comes from Labin (a small town in Istria note-xJaM) ~ According to one surmise a Slovene Jakob Resnik, who has emigrated to USA in 1912, was married there twice, secondly without fail to Slovene Brigita from Vodice near Ljubljana. He was among others a butcher and he lived for 90 years, perhaps a grandfather of Judith Resnik. After information from 1978 which came from Cleveland I have said during the first start of Challenger in 1984 on TV that after unofficial data she is of Slovene origin and I have pulled the trigger of avalanches of guesses, which have not yet given any more reliable results.
I hope this will silence you a bit. --xJaM 01:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if Resnik was indeed of Slovenian ethnicity..that's great! I wouldn't call it "probable" though. As for your claim that you are being forced to use 'Slovenian'.. huh?? Nobody is forcing you. If a native-English Slovenian refines info you contributed a little, what does this have to do with you personally? Call yourself Slovene, if you like. But please try and accept the huge difference between an insignificant naming style difference like 'organization' vs 'organisation' or 'favour' vs 'favor' and the difference between using 'Slovenian' and 'Slovene'. You referred to the considerable trend (especially rapid on the Internet) of moving away from Slovene and to Slovenian as stupidity. The trend is not stupid but natural and logical. Slovenian, as does Californian, Austrian, Australian, Estonian, etc, dervies naturally from Slovenia and this is simply how any English speaker would call people of a country called Slovenia. Efforts to continue supporting 'Slovene' in any way (e.g. reverting, coming up with new definitions for Slovene, etc) only helps to maintain the confusion over Slovenia, Slovakia, Slavonia, etc. BT2 04:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Darling, you do realise of course that the adjective used of Slovakia, a country ending in '-ia', is preferably Slovak rather than Slovakian, don't you? The article below, I find, is written without much substantiation; mere analogy does not make something right. Its only point is that countries ending in -ia have adjectives ending in -ian; and by finding a counterexample this rule has been proved false. That this may be a general trend is acceptable, but this has little influence on how a specific instance to which this 'rule' might apply should behave. Besides, 'Slovenes' are special. :) (And no, 'Slovak' is not really that similar to 'Slovene' to warrant a much more unwieldy name for either one.)

<sarcasm>No, I had no idea Slovak was preferred by Slovaks.</sarcasm> Your argument is ridiculous because we are discussing Slovene, not Sloven. Slovene was a British mistake (like the deportion that led to the massacre of 10,000 Slovenians). Does Slovene even LOOK like an English word? It is not natural at all. On the other hand, there is Slovenian. Perfectly valid, popular, and natural. BT2 14:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to be condescending really. If you could be so kind and tell me what makes my argument ridiculous just because we are discussing Slovene and not Sloven, I'd appreciate it. I don't think I've mentioned Sloven anywhere here. The fact that there exists a nation which has an adjective ending in something other than -ian and whose country's name ends in -ia simply means that the rule put forward by that article by Dr Gobetz is not something rigid to which all adjectives from country names adhere. Therefore, since this is the only point the article appears to make, and it is not really true (disproved by counterexample), it follows that there is nothing unusual, let alone wrong, with using an adjective other than Slovenian to refer to Slovenes. I wish to make no such point that because the adjective from Slovakia omits -ia the adjective from Slovenia ought to do the same thing.

And yes, Slovene seems like a perfectly good English word to me. You can't just go on to call something a mistake when it is different from your standpoint. Many English people use Slovene; and because many do, it is part of our language and thus quite correct. No one has the right to tell me that what I (consciously) use as good language is wrong for whichever reason, etymology included. This is why I write realise rather than the "etymologically preferable" realize. Maybe you could read up on descriptive linguistics.

And of course the author is North American and can only speak for American practice. This has absolutely no bearing on how we use our language. It has absolutely no right to claim that a usage which speakers of English find appropriate is for one reason or another incorrect, as it attempts to do. And although 'Slovenian' may be more common of a word, this does not make 'Slovene' less valid. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, you're not supposed to change valid words to make them more suited to your regional variant of English (except perhaps in article titles if the word is much more common). In what way is there a huge difference between Slovene and Slovenian on the one and organisation and organization, or perhaps draughts and checkers, on the other hand?

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. And the less correct, less popular, and less natural Slovene is sufficiently different from Slovenian to cause confusion.

This is your opinion. I have yet to meet anyone who would be confused by something so trivial.

The president of the United States confused Slovakia with Slovenia. Enough said. ;) BT2 17:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find 'Slovene' to be a lovely, concise word. I don't see a pressing need to add new characters to the word if they don't convey any additional meaning. And whilst I don't see anything particularly wrong in using 'Slovenian' either, it does seem to me to be against the spirit of this project to insist on either form. Given that 'Slovene' was, if I understand this correctly, the one used initially, it seems to make sense to retain that usage, but only where it was originally used. 82.192.47.203

You are not correct, actually. Slovenian is on record as the older term.

The oldest version of this article used Slovene, as did the oldest version of Slovene language:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenes&oldid=75152

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovenian_language&oldid=282599

82.192.47.203

---

Slovenian the correct term, Slovene incorrectly copied from French

Since it hasn't been posted in full yet:

___________________________________________________________________________________

I can't take it any more. And there is an even longer archive of the dispute! This dispute is not worth having.

On a serious note, this seems to be no more than a difference between US (American) and UK (British) usage, and the word 'correct' does not apply, IMHO. With due respect to those who have a serious interest in being correct, I suggest that it is a matter of opinion at best, and a matter of comfort otherwise. So pick one and move on. Google-hits or oldest reference are irrelevant when the issue is 'correct' versus 'incorrect'. Just say which choice is your convention, without prejudice to other views.

On a less serious note: Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia) contains a passage under Slovak language stating that

The correct American English adjective for the language, people, and culture of Slovakia is 'Slovak;' Slovak belongs to the 'Slavic' group of languages. British usage sometimes employs 'Slovakian' for the American 'Slovak' and uses 'Slavonic' where the American usage is 'Slavic'.

On an even less serious note: I will continue to say Slovene, as do my relatives, and as did my ancestors when they immigrated (to the US). It is not a big deal; heck, it isn't even a Slovenian word.

Oh, yeah, one more thing, and I mean it with great affection: it's a bit amusing to see such interest in this topic (that is, to pick one of two words) from Slovenia, a land of about 40 dialects. To find consensus on Slovene versus Slovenian is like trying to find consensus on which dialect uses 'correct' pronunciation.

Signing off now, best regards to all for a great encyclopedia,

Anonymous (the famous author) - June 13, 2005

---

December 1995 Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. Dr. Edward Gobetz 29227 Eddy Road Willoughby Hills, OH 44092

Both 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian' have long been used in respectable books and the media, yet there is still considerable disagreement as to which of the two terms is correct or at least preferable.

As Dr. Frank J. Kern pointed out in Zarja-The Dawn (Nov., 1949), the use of the term 'Slovene' had been copied from French. It was particularly popularized at the end of the First World War, when a new kingdom, known in French, then the primary diplomatic language, as 'Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovenes,' was established. The British incorrectly adopted and in the first two instances only slightly modified theFrench terms, introducing the English use of the words Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. With the exception of an accent and pronunciation, the English name 'Slovenes' is, in its written form, identical with the French term. Yet, while the use in French is quite appropriate, the use of an identical term in English is not. As a general rule, whenever the English names of countries end in '-ia,' the names of their respective peoples end in '-ian.'

Thus, we have Austria-Austrian, Australia-Australian, Russia-Russian, Lithuania-Lithuanian, Estonia-Estonian, Romania-Romanian,Bosnia-Bosnian, Cambodia-Cambodian, California-Californian, etc. Obviously, it is only logical that we should also use Slovenia-Slovenian.

This rule is so well established that it is almost impossible to imagine such terms as Austrenes, Australenes, Italenes, Russeries, Estoneries, etc. Who in the world would be willing to accept such distortions of the English language and its established logic? Yet, somehow, this is what has happened to the people of Slovenia (and let us emphasize that contrary to a recently published statement of a SIM translator, the name Slovenia, while discouraged by the Germans for purposes of easier Germanization, has been known for centuries, as we will show and document elsewhere). Dr. Kern openly and honestly regretted the 'bad influence of his own English-Slovene Dictionary and The English-Slovene Reader.' To comply with the British version he, too, at first used the incorrect 'Slovene,' but later, for many decades, tried to correct his 1919 mistake and advocated the universal use of the term 'Slovenian,' both as a noun and an adjective. The defenders of the term Slovenian range from Dr. Kern and Dr. Vojmir Bratina, an internationally prominent Slovenian Canadian (not Canadene!) metallurgist, who is also a capable linguist and is exceptionally well versed in Slovenian literary history, archeology and the arts, to Dr. Charles Gribble, an American professor of Slavic languages and literatures and director of the Slavica Publishers, who, for instance, wrote us how glad he was that The Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc., used the correct term 'Slovenian' rather than the incorrect 'Slovene' (advocated by a Slovenian-born professor in New York).

It was, however, only in November, 1995, that we heard another very interesting and witty observation on this topic, as related by Mrs. Genevieve 'Gene' Drobnic. Her late father Frank Jaksic, like herself a noted Slovenian American civic leader, put it this way: 'When residents of Virginia will no longer be called Virginians but Virgins, then, and only then, I would be willing to call our people Slovenes rather than Slovenians.' While we hope that this logic will inevitably and increasingly prevail throughout the English-speaking world, it is nevertheless comforting to know that quite regardless of whether we use Slovenian or Slovene, love is in every Slovenian. Is there any other county in the entire world which contains love in its very name?"

______________________________________________________________________

Comment Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We could probably narrow the argument successfully by restricting our statements to the opinions of verifiable authorities rather than expounding on our own reasoning. Dystopos 12:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I have translated a large amount of text from Slovene, where it is argued that Slovene is the right term both as a noun and an adjective. The source was:

S.Klinar. Slovene ali Slovenian. Slava. Debatni list No. plus 1994/1995. Pg. 105.

Unfortunately, the system crashed (that happens a lot of time - does anyone know why?). I'll try to post the complete text later - today or tomorrow.

It is interesting that S.Klinar posted an article with the same title two years later in cooperation with Mr Gobetz. I have ordered it and expect it will be available to me the following Monday or Tuesday.

I also took a look in the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1967). It only has one entry: Slovene. It claims that Slovene was adopted from German slowene. Later, I'll post it too.

Greetings!

--Eleassar777 my talk 13:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)