Talk:Serbo-Croatian

Croatian linguists section

User:Aca, please abstain making major edits () removing reliably sourced information which is significant to the understanding of the topic, without proper discussion as well as edit summary substantiation (as WP:POV isn't it). Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Hi, thank you for your comment! The material I removed conflicts with several policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Firstly, the disputed material reads like an argument in favor of a nationalist interpretation of pre-19th-century Dalmatian writers (as demonstrated by bolding and "before Serbo-Croatian ideology appeared"), rather than neutrally reporting what modern Croatian linguists say about the Serbo-Croatian language. Secondly, the narrative about 30–odd Catholic writers from Dalmatia is given multiple paragraphs of detail (including two block quotes), yet it represents a niche historical claim far less central to the linguistic debate over Serbo-Croatian than mainstream scholarship. Lastly, the text is simply not related to the subject, as it focuses almost entirely on pre-19th-century Dalmatian writers' ethno-religious identity and loyalty to Catholic Christendom—a historical narrative that is not directly about contemporary linguistic viewpoints. Including it here unnecessarily bloats the section and distracts readers from the actual scholarly debate on Serbo-Croatian classification. – Aca (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The removed material is indeed not relevant to the subject of the article, other issues aside. It should be removed. –Vipz (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

NPOV has almost nothing with it. The whole scope of sub-sections "Croatian linguists" and "Serbian linguists" is showing nationalist POVs (which can be even more expanded, especially of the Serbian linguists). Their POV is more or less different than international mainstream POV. I've removed unnecessary statements you mention. Other part of the section does not distract, it's factual information even common knowledge, without which this complex topic & scientific debate since the mid-19th century cannot be understood. There exist other sources for it, there's no UNDUE issue. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Your edits still don't address the issue. Both quotations are about ethnic identity of Dubrovnik, and, as you yourself wrote here, Dubrovnik's literature. That's not the topic here and we don't need in–depth discussion about that in this article. Feel free to move it somewhere else. This whole section needs rewriting (expecialy "A more detailed overview..." part) to comply with the encyclopedic standards and tone, and I would like to address that as well, following this discussion. – Aca (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved. Feel free to explain what would rewrite.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! This whole "detailed overview" should be presented in simple prose, without indentations and bulleted lists. Gröschel's opinion should also be moved out of this section. The material should be summarized a bit, but all the relevant points should stay, including the references. You're welcome to edit it if you are interested. I intended to edit the section gradually in the coming period. – Aca (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: Hello! I finished rewriting the section. You can check it now. – Aca (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Aca, thanks for the notification and editing, you did well, much appreciated. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hrvatska has an RfC

Hrvatska has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

how many BCMS speakers are there actually?

Hello.

I'm curious how you came up with the number 17 million? If the other data on Wikipedia is correct, then "BCMS" is spoken as a native language by more than 18 million people on the planet. Plus 7 million as a second language. I saw this while traveling around Europe. There is no place in Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece where I didn't get along with people and they spoke our language politely. Where is the rest of Europe? I've met dozens of Turks, Germans, Poles, Russians, English, Americans who speak better than people from Balkans. I'm not saying this without context. I worked as a security guard, a waiter, a salesman. I've had various experiences. What do you think about it?

Daniel

Best regards Hoobastank8790 (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on your personal experience. (WP:V/WP:CITE) And we should not show our personal feelings in the article. (WP:NPOV)

If you do not believe this number, you should provide sources (WP:RS).

If you only want to question, please visit WP:RD. ~2026-33253-5 (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Naški used in Bosnia and in diasporas

I think that we fail to convey the degree of mixing of the written standards in speech in both cases, which proves that actual non-regional Serbo-Croatian is a real thing, at least in spoken language (and Egyptian Arabic exists despite not having a codified written form). This article and Bosnian language could use some improving. Croatia and Serbia seem to be more stable in that regard (closer to codified standards), but that still varies regionally AFAIK.

And where's the mention of the one language policy in ICTY? What about the EU - is it true that Bosnian/Serbian/Montenegrin texts all fall under the 'Croatian' label? Sol505000 (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is Serbo-Croatian South Savic or Western South Slavic?

My edit was reverted with edit summary "A majority of reliable sources on the topic do not go into that degree of specificity, re: Western South Slavic language. Sources tend to treat South Slavic overall as a dialect continuum, not just the Western part."

I disagree with the revert.

• In wikipedia we have a distinction Western South Slavic and Eastern South Slavic, and I may reasonably assume that there articles somehow based on RS.
• in the infobox for Serbo-Croatian it is under "Western
• Please provide evidence for your opinion about "majority of reliable sources"
• Regardless what majority sources go into that degree of specificity, this does not deny the fact that this specificity does exist and I see no reason to disregard it.
• On personal opinion, I would see weird to put Serbian and Bulgarian into same contginuum. --Altenmann >talk 03:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the sources presented on this article discuss Serbo-Croatian as a South Slavic language, or identify South Slavic as a dialect continuum. Kordić 2010 for example covers the dialect continuum in detail, concluding that “kompletno južnoslavensko područje predstavlja jedan kontinuum dijalekata (Hetzer 1993: 33; Friedman 1999: 8; Alexander 2000: 4; Kristophson 2000: 180)” ("the entire South Slavic area represents one continuum of dialects"). Serbo-Croatian is, indeed, a Western South Slavic language. I cannot provide concrete proof, such as a statistics, to back up my initial claim that a "majority of reliable sources on the topic do not go into that degree of specificity"; it came off to me from sources I've seen that they introduce the language as South Slavic first and foremost, and more often as such than Western South Slavic right off the bat. Yes, this might be on us to form consensus about. I'm not as opposed to this change as I am to the one on South Slavic dialect continuum, but while we're dealing with a legitimate and well-established categorical and organizational label, it is a narrow genealogical subclassification. – Vipz (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, the link you cited, South Slavic as a dialect continuum, says The two varieties started diverging early on (c. 11th century CE) and evolved separately ever since without major mutual influence, meaning it is a valid classification. --Altenmann >talk 17:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

@Altenmann: Are you still proposing both of your changes, or just the one that calls Serbo-Croatian a Western South Slavic language? – Vipz (talk) 08:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This is currently accepted as the most reliable scholarly consensus for classification. I could add a dozen other similar references from reliable sources, but since Glottolog's classification is based on them, it would be redundant. No reliable scholarly source that I have ever seen as a linguist fails to divide South Slavic into two parts: Western and Eastern. The article should reflect that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

And the issue of a "South Slavic dialect continuum" versus a "Western South Slavic dialect continuum" is pointless since we could just as easily talk about a "Slavic dialect continuum", since all are valid historical constructs. However, the only true contemporary dialect continuum is the Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian one. The Western South Slavic dialect continuum is nearly contemporary depending on how much mutual intelligibility one ascribes to Slovenian. But the South Slavic dialect continuum has no real contemporary validity since true mutual intelligibility between Eastern South Slavic and Western South Slavic was lost several centuries ago. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Does it though? I'm sure this is a divisive field of discussion, but does "South Slavic dialect continuum has no real contemporary validity" prevail against all those other sources stating otherwise? – Vipz (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Vipz The problem is that one must weigh the relative linguistic scholarship and value of "all those other sources" compared to the the highest quality of linguistic sources, especially those who are working under strict methodological considerations. "Dialect continuum", as I noted above, can be relative to the time-frame involved as all the Slavic languages evolved over the last 1500 years or so from a single dialect continuum and most native speakers of Slavic languages can manage to "get by" understanding most of the other Slavic languages (except, perhaps, those on the extreme ends). As in this case, the dialect continuum should be defined as the narrowest continuum rather than the older and oldest layers of the continuum since mutual intelligibility is not an absolute measure, but is itself a continuum. Glottolog has used standard measures of what is and is not a close relationship. While there may very well be a "South Slavic dialect continuum", there is a major mutual intelligibility gap between the West South Slavic Continuum and the East South Slavic Continuum and both of these Continua have distinctive characteristics that define it as something different than the other. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: I understand the intentions behind the change, but leaving out the South Slavic dialect continuum entirely in favor of a narrower grouping can suggest the dialect continuum ends strictly where Torlakian begins. Yes, nobody disuputes the division of South Slavic languages or dialects into Eastern and Western, nor the major gap in mutual intelligibility between those, nor the distinctiveness, but the sentence is misleading in its current form. I believe WSSdc should be put into the context of the wider SSdc, and that all of these should be well-referenced statements. – Vipz (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

can suggest the dialect continuum ends - nothing of the kind follows from its mentioning here. Where something starts or ends is covered in the corresponding articles, starting with "Dialect continuum". --Altenmann >talk 17:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Altenmann: It kind of follows, given your impression "On personal opinion, I would see weird to put Serbian and Bulgarian into same contginuum". This is exactly the kind of thought that I seek this sentence to avoid implicating. – Vipz (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC) implication that I want this sentence to avoid. – Vipz (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It is a normal "kind of thought" and not to be avoided. It is normal to narrow down grouping to something reasonable in a given context. As user:TaivoLinguist mentioned, just as well, we can put them into Slavic laanguages continuum, but in this context will not be helpful. --Altenmann >talk 17:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Imagine how you might describe a grizzly bear. You could describe its subspecies within its species ("It's a subspecies of Ursus arctos") or as a subspecies within its genus ("It's a subspecies of Ursus"). Which is more useful for placing that bear within its zoological reality? Both are true, but the former does a far better job of description than the latter as it is more accurate and specific. It makes no claim that "Ursus" is not a valid genus, it only places the subspecies accurately within its most closely defined sister subspecies of a single species. In the case of language relationship that we are discussing here, by placing Serbo-Croatian within the clearly defined lowest level, and least controversial. It leaves the placement within higher-level dialect continua up to other discussions as to whether or not a "South Slavic dialect continuum" even exists. The existence of such higher level continua is not relevant to this article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there's no debate whether "South Slavic dialect continuum" exists or not, because it does. It is also of high relevance to Serbo-Croatian, just as much as Western South Slavic subgrouping is. Whether or not Slavic languages as a whole comprise a dialect continuum is the question, but it is a question of no relevance to Serbo-Croatian, and poses an undue comparison. There's a lot of work to be done in this field (coverage and sourcing) of Wikipedia. – Vipz (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)