User:Robert Ullmann/t1

This is an automatically generated report, intended for a future RFC that will apparently be needed. It is not yet complete. It is automatically generated as no one would want to edit a report on the enormous quantity of this abuse by hand. Thus some examples are missed, while some are benign. Note the sudden break from being anti-Serbo-Croatian to anti-Croatian and pro-SC on the same day user was blocked by the Croatian wiktionary for the nth time. (Date shown is of the revision that caused the program to pick up an edit, refer to source pages linked with any questions. Link is not to the old revision. No link means it is the user's talk page or similar.)

Important: The user is not mentioned here by name, as this page would then show up in Google when searched by a future prospective employer or academic review committee. No person demonstrating this level of capability for abusing other people would possibly be employable. The objective here is to solve the problem, restoring the standard language content, not assist him in his determination to destroy his future. For this reason his talk page and archives are not linked, but can be found and perused. (And should be, including archives. Searching on "nationalist" is useful.)

date	text
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	No, modern Macedonian certainly is not a dialect of Bulgarian, and Ancient Macedonian isn't a dialect of Ancient Greek (that's just one of the highly speculative theories promoted chiefly by pan-Greek linguists, such as yourself).
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	In the light of Greek/Bulgarian cultural/territorial pretensions and propaganda over the centuries on Macedonian language/people (both pre and post-Slavic) and especially nowadays on Internet, I found such modifications done by a person with a history of dubious pro-Greek etymological contributions here on en.wikt quite biased, pushing non-mainstream POV.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	Look, I can't force you or anyone (not) to think of Ancient Macedonian of the only "Greek dialect" that had PIE bh dh gh reflected as b d g (just like all Slavic), or to force, for example, Buglarian linguists not to be the only ones in the world to use the brain-damaged term "Old Bulgarian" for OCS (funny, the Bulgarian of all Slavic languages retained the least of OCS complex morphosyntactial features, lost cases, dual, pitch accent..all the cool things ^_^), but pushing controversial claims that do '''not''' have mainstream acceptance is just not acceptable.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	I even get very pissed when see Germans calling Indo-European language family "Indo-Germanic" (indogermanische), but then again, all of it's is their ethnocentric propaganda.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	I'm aware that Lunt published the first grammar of Macedonian just about ~50 years ago, but look - Bosnian language was codified less then 15 years ago; does this fact invalidate rights to Bosniaks to their own standard language/literary language, which they were unable to do due to inadequate political climate in ex-Yugolavia(s) surrounding the question of the existence of their ethnos? I don't think so.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	Now that I think about it, there is lots of potential for disputes like in this in other languages as well (such as "Bosnian/Bosniak" that didn't exist up until 20 years ago, and moreover with the term [[Bosnian]]/[[Bosniak]] itself, whose modern usage is under the influence of Bosnian Muslims propaganda; see e.g.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	Anything newer, say in the last 20 years, written by a Westerner? Need I to cite my own resources elucidating such propaganda?.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	Some nationalist pro-Bulgarian movement site? A sentence from your second link: ''The MPO, which publishes the weekly 'Macedonian tribune' claims that all Macedonians are Bulgarians and supports the idea of a united and independent Macedonia made up of parts of present-day Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece.'' So you're trying to incorporate a definition of some minority nationalistic stance.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	How some Bulgarian political fractions declare themselves is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	The sense in dispute is "The West-Bulgarian dialect." How can this possibly not be a question of linguistics?? It doesn't matter if 1) there is non-mainstream view of people who classify modern Slavic Macedonian as a "West Bulgarian" dialect 2) Slavic Macedonian language was being referred to as "West Bulgarian" dialect prior to formation of the Republic of Macedonia and it's codification.
2009-01-07T13:15:57Z	And the name "FYROM" is even more offensive to Macedonians and can hardly be considered NPOV either.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Since Korean is a language isolate (sometimes placed in "Macro-Altaic" scheme with Japanese, but the whole Altaic thing is highly dubious anyway), comparing '''any''' Korean word (either native Korean or borrowing) with that of any other language is '''always''' a false cognate.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage officially died with communist Yugoslavia and '''sh''' ISO code is now deprecated.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	With bs/hr/sr babelboxen available, I see no reason for keeping this other than for insultive/propaganda purposes.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Bogorm, so-called "Serbo-Croatian" is nothing but a political label that in practice meant nothing.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Do you find it funny that today people who claim to speak "natively Serbo-Croatian" here and on WP have but -3 and -4 profficiency in Croatian listed in their Babel boxes? This "separatism" you speak of is bizarre, Croat writers were caling their mother tongue Croatian centuries before communist brought us the SC thingie, and Serbs continued to have in the constitution "SC" listed as an official language up until 1997 in unsuccessful [[:w:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia #5]] even ''after'' Bosnia and Croatia declared independence.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	In practice people who claim to be speakers of "SC" are in 99% cases Serbs or Serbophiles who use it as a political manifest with a very precise meaning, especailly when they couple it with hr/sr babelboxen (why chose them at all when hr=sr=sh?).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Believe it or not, the notion of "SC" is offensive nowadays to most Bosniaks and Croats, and it would be to you to if you were more educated in language policy, propaganda machinery and fabricating history that was essential ingredient of Yugoslav politics (always at the expense of someone others heritage..).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Also, a common myth you mention - there is no "linguistics justification" for SC either; as a standard language it's dead (it never really existed because two "varieties" of Eastern and Western that were recognized roughly correspond to modern notion of standard Croatian and Serbian, post-90s changes aside), and the notion of "SC" as a "collection of dialects" is completely arbitrary as the whole South Slavic area forms a dialect continuum (i.e.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Once again, saying that one speaks "SC" is nothing but a political manifest, by modern conceptions anachronistic, obsolete and potentially offending to some.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	You are very deluded to say that Bosniaks are "Serb Muslims" or that Tito "invented" Macedonian nation/language.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	This former statement looks like it's copied from some Serb nationalist handbook, for you see today every single neutral source on Balkans acknowledges Bosniaks as being descendants of Slavs being neither Croats nor Serbs.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Kosovars have every right to secede from ex-Serbia and favour Greater Albania after ethnic cleansing and failed attempt of genocide by Milošević and his death squads, as was sacked by NATO bombs (too bad there was no NATO to aid Srebrenica or Vukovar).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	All attempts of "unity" of South Slavic people have brought nothing but misery as end results; what makes you thing that another Yugoslavia won't end up being dominated military and culturally by "heavenly people", at the expense of other less numerable ethnicities? You know, there were always "Ustasha words" in Yugoslavia, never "Chetnik words", people went to prison for writing Croatian "umirovljeni časnik" instead of Serbian "penzionisani oficir", never the other way around.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	It's absurd to see in the 21st century how the same demagogy of "unity" is being misused to justify opression both historically and nowadays (think of Georgia and Tibet, Russia is "defending" it's citizens by de facto comitting ethnic cleansing..).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Anyhow this is getting too political.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	You crystally clear state, in somewhat fascist view denying self-determination to Bosniaks and Kosovars, that your support of "SC" template is purely a token of political aspiration to some forsaken times that are furtunatelly never coming back, nothing else.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Same is valid for this alleged "Serbo-Croatian" in a sense "set of dialects".
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Political views are always personal and subjective..but I highly sympathize with Georgians today, as they are experiencing the same thing as Croats did a decade ago, when rebel Četniks declared their quasi-state [[w:Republic of Serbian Krajina|RSK]] based on ethnic cleansing of native Croats, the same way we have quasi-state Republic of Abkhazia today based on [[w:Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia|ethnic cleansing of native Georgians]].
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	"Serbo-Croatian" as a standard language existed only in a Communist State called SFRJ, describing two abstract, literary forms of "Eastern" and "Western" variant that roughly correspond to Serbian and Croatian today.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	"Serbo-Croatian" in a sense of "collection of dialects spoken by Croats and Serbs" is a completely arbitrary classification of dialects, and not a valid genetic node in Slavic language branch.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Since everybody speeks their own local idiom, and not literary language (95% of speakers don't even know the proper accents, rules for which can be extremely complex), there is no reason to put onto them a term which in practice denotes something completely different (standard macrolanguage with 2 variants of Communist SFRJ).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	"Serbo-Croatian" never existed in the past as a single literary tradition, or a state, before it was artificially made to become so (unsuccessfully though).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	No Croatian literary historian has ever had pretensions to claim this Serboslavic writings.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	"Serbo-Croatian" ultimately became political dogma, upon which Communists enforced Serbian words onto Croats, and wiped words with centuries of literary tradition and those that were even very much spoken from the dictionaries just because they were not used by the Serbs (i.e.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Everything Croat-only was systematically demonised by the Communists as "Ustasha", punishment for which was political persecution and humiliation.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	For example, the entire editio princeps of current official Croatian orthography book Babić-Finka-Moguš was burned by the communists in 1971 just because it had "Croatian" in the title, and not "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	The term "Serbo-Croatian" is still very much cherished by Serb-side, because the myth of it it legitimizes the territorial-cultural pretensions.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	E.g., while Serbs were bombing Dubrovnik in 1991-92, they published propaganda books such as ''[http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-du/istorija/jmitrovic/1992/jmitrovic-dubrovnik_l.html Srpstvo Dubrovnika]'' ("Serbdom of Dubrovnik") in which history was fabricated to legitimize annexation of Croatian territory to [[w:Greater Serbia|Greater Serbia]].
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	When the common dictionary of "language of literature" (''književni jezik'') was compiled by ''Matica hrvatska'' and ''Matica srpska'' it was not only criticised for being amateurish and in many definitions wrong, but it completely ignored a large corpus of Croatian literature tradition.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	Bogorm I understand your predilection for some myths of the past as they presumably reflect a state of affairs much "brighter" then after the 1990s, a land of "milk and honey" and "brotherhood and unity", but at the same tome there are millions of people that abhor the Communism demon for some very good reason.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	1990s wars is a direct result of Communist not being active in educating common people to come to terms with what their ancestors did in the past (the official politics was "collective amnesia"; imagine what would Germany look like nowadays had de-nazification not occurred actively by academics and the media?).
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	The term "Serbo-Croatian" epitomizes lots of bad things that happened in Communist SFRJ in the minds of lots of people, not strictly language-policy (which itself was bad reason enough), and insisting on it just because somebody living in a balloon imagines that the next Yugoslavia (#6, there were 5 unsuccessful previous attempts believe it or not) will be ''the one'', bringing economic prosperity and Pan-Slavic commonness to the impoverished people would be utilizing this project for someone's personal political fantasies.
2009-01-08T07:53:30Z	The term is in all possible sense (linguistic, regional, political) obsolete, anachronistic, misleading and politically incorrect, and there is no reason to insist on it, esp.
2009-01-20T08:29:21Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Template:xcl&curid=1089844&diff=5986600&oldid=5587030] - Also, don't you think that "Old Armenian" is preferable to "Clasical Armenian"? We don't have any "Classical X" language here, and "Old Armenian" would fit into our naming scheme for other ancient languages.
2009-01-20T08:29:21Z	We don't have to blindly follow Ethnologue in naming schemes and terminology, as it has proven to be in many respects full of amateurish errors and anachronisms.
2009-01-27T13:02:44Z	However, please do link to English-language Wikipedia for author's articles, and not to the Communist sh wikipedia which is a dead and unmaintained project with 99.9% contents copy/pasted from Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias, existing solely due to the ignorance of the so-called "language subcommittee" on the Meta (which should not look too surprising seeing how many other ingenious decision came from that body).
2009-01-27T18:25:29Z	Actually Marjanović tried to fabricate the conception of what he called the "Serbo-Croatian nation" (''Srbohrvati''), much like like the commies tried to invent the nation of "Yugoslavs" (176 self-declared "Yugoslavs" in Croatia in 2001 census, lol, I think more people would sign "Jedi order" were it given in the questionnaire).
2009-01-28T13:39:07Z	If you look more closely into this "SerboCroat" theory, you'll notice that it leaves aside lots of Croats (Čakavians and Kajavians), and also Serbs (Torlakians), beside implicitly completely eliminating two other nations (Bosniaks and Montenegrins) within its very title.
2009-01-28T13:39:07Z	So it's hardly advocating "fraternity among nations", but it looks more like some Greater Serbian scheme with Karadžić-Šešelj formula "Štokavians=Serbs".
2009-01-28T13:39:07Z	I don't have anything against unification efforts among South Slavs, but differences must be respected and celebrated, not violently repressed, eliminated and swept under the rug.
2009-01-30T01:22:15Z	It is attested in Kajkavian writings for the 4-5 centuries, whilst in Serbian only from the "Serbo-Croatian" epoch.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	SC is not used on Wiktionary, so {sh}/{lang:sh} and {hbs}/{lang:hbs} should not be normally transcluded anywhere unless in special circumstances.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	There was never such thing as "Serbo-Croatian language" or "Serbo-Croatian languages", before it was invented by Communists in SFRJ.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	Dialects of this "Serbo-Croatian" area do not form a genetic clade (there was never "Proto-Serbo-Croatian"; their last common reconstructable ancestor was Proto-West-South-Slavic).
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	Look Bogorom, I personally don't give a flying f*** what some Communist encyclopedia says about "Czecho-Slovak", or "Serbo-Croatian", or "Serbo-Croato-Slovene" language (did you here about this latter one? It was suppose to be the official language of SHS kingdom, but it failed to be codified).
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	No "traditional linguistics" endorse it but that of ignorance and laziness.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	Croats have called their language Croatian centuries before Communist decided to sanction that practice (entire book editions were burned just because they had "Croatian" and not "Serbo-Croatian" in the title), and utilize it to systematically Serbify Croatian speech in all semantic spheres.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	If you think of Communist linguistics which imprisoned people for using the "wrong words" or published dictionaries stripped of very-much-alive words which were not "acceptable" just because they were Croat-only as "politically impartial", and modern democratic peer-reviewed-journal-published views as a result of 1990s radicalisation in the Balkans, than you are very much deluded.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	I know it's simple for outsiders to "simplify" things, imagining that "SC" somehow "disintegrated" paralelly with SFRJ, a view which is still cherished by some Serbs (because it gives them right to claim Croatian cultural heritage), and some Communist-sympathising Yugonostalgics, but issuses are far, far more delicate than that, and please don't raise them here because every instance you mention it I feel like being called to explain why you are wrong.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	As for the code - this has nothing to do with Meta, but with a set of template such as {{temp|sh}} which are used by other templates to convert ISO code to language name.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	The act of borrowing of all of them predates the conception of "Serbo-Croatian" by centuries.
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	Okay, but I do have access to etymological dictionaries which give “Serbo-Croatian” (or “Serbian-Croatian”).
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	...|lang=sh}}? I'd prefer to keep doing it the old way and keep the data structured, than to enter it without the template and then not being able to locate and update later it in the wikitext soup.</nowiki>
2009-01-31T23:33:05Z	You can't use {term} with lang=sh, because there are no L2 SC entries you can link to.
2009-02-04T03:48:24Z	The order of parameters is the same as in the original scheme (the first is "from", the optional second one is "to", just like in the usual CLI pipeline "|" :), it's just that now it has been generalized.
2009-02-05T16:05:29Z	Note, however, that it was edited by Croatian Vukovians and later by pro-Serb Communist linguists, hence large volume of "unacceptable" (i.e.
2009-02-10T00:13:45Z	BTW, very neat tool for lemmatising/inferring inflectives is [http://hml.ffzg.hr/hml/unos.php HML], login with "proba/proba" as the message box informs you and enjoy the brain-damaged interface ^_^ (note that in case of ''osunčam'' it yields nothing, as it would in the case of many rare words, which you are likely to encounter in poetic writings, but it works great for the general lexis, except that it generates hypothetical forms here in there).
2009-02-10T06:14:36Z	BTW, very neat tool for lemmatising/inferring inflectives is [http://hml.ffzg.hr/hml/unos.php HML], login with "proba/proba" as the message box informs you and enjoy the brain-damaged interface ^_^ (note that in case of ''osunčam'' it yields nothing, as it would in the case of many rare words, which you are likely to encounter in poetic writings, but it works great for the general lexis, except that it generates hypothetical forms here and there).
2009-02-11T21:46:36Z	Similar to Bulgarian attitudes towards the Macedonian are Croat and Serb attitudes towards this "Bosnian", who in the last English-version of the constitution accepted by the representatives of all three Bosnian & Hercegovinan minorities is termed ''Bosniac'' (=Bosniak), as it should be and as what is called in Croatian and Serbian (''bošnjački''), but those Islamic fundamentalists have managed to internationally promulgate the term "Bosnian", as if they're the only only inheriting Bosnian ethnocultural heritage.
2009-02-11T21:46:36Z	But, regardless of my personal attitudes towards the Bosnian, I do not remove its entries (furthermore, I sometimes add them, when I add pan-Slavic cognates), or try to diminish them - I respect every nations's right to self-determination and language standardisation.
2009-02-11T21:46:36Z	Of all the Balkanic people, I personally favour Macedonians the most, as they've been the least involved in some practical forms of ethnic cleansing, genocide...mostly victims IMHO.
2009-02-11T21:46:36Z	You should be more tolerable towards other nations and cultures, regardless of some marginal extremists' position, as those do not reflect the majority of the people's opinion.
2009-02-11T21:47:35Z	Similar to Bulgarian attitudes towards the Macedonian are Croat and Serb attitudes towards this "Bosnian", who in the last English-version of the constitution accepted by the representatives of all three Bosnian & Hercegovinan minorities is termed ''Bosniac'' [http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=5907] (=Bosniak), as it should be and as what is called in Croatian and Serbian (''bošnjački''), but those Islamic fundamentalists have managed to internationally promulgate the term "Bosnian", as if they're the only only inheriting Bosnian ethnocultural heritage.
2009-02-11T21:54:20Z	Similar to Bulgarian attitudes towards the Macedonian are Croat and Serb attitudes towards this "Bosnian", who in the last English-version of the constitution accepted by the representatives of all three Bosnian & Hercegovinan minorities is termed ''Bosniac'' [http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=5907] (=Bosniak), as it should be and as what is called in Croatian and Serbian (''bošnjački''), but those Islamic fundamentalists have managed to internationally promulgate the term "Bosnian", as if they're the only ones inheriting Bosnian ethnocultural heritage.
2009-02-11T22:48:02Z	My conviction is there there can be no peace on the nationalism-ridden Balkans until nations come to terms with what they are ''now'', in this instant of time and space, and stop fantasising about some grand "unification" or "Greater X" schemes.
2009-02-11T22:48:02Z	Note to a innocent by-passer: the above map is not linguistic but ethnical, made in the 19th century when German "ethnolinguists" were striving to hierarchise nations by their own perception of a language.
2009-02-11T22:48:44Z	Note to an innocent by-passer: the above map is not linguistic but ethnical, made in the 19th century when German "ethnolinguists" were striving to hierarchise nations by their own perception of a language.
2009-02-12T04:02:38Z	I myself am very hesistant for telling you anything for sure, as my primary involvement on this project is not the English entries (hence I don't peruse the discussion relating to them, and might have been ignorant on the relevant policies, some of which might e.g.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	Regardless, modern German and Korean words are ''not'' cognates, and it would be highly misleading to have them point to each other.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	Given your bounteous record in promoting non-existent genetic relationships, edits like these cannot be interpreted as benevolent acts.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	But for the main namespace, both 1) loosely applied and misleading usages of the term ''cognate'' 2) comparisons of IE and Korean lexemes are '''not''' suitable.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	Actually the whole idea of using philogenetic trees to represent "language evolution" is a bit misleading, but completely suits the purpose of the definition of the term ''cognate'' in most, simplified scenarios.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	For starters, Douglas Harper of etymonline fame is hardly a "renown expert", and AFAICS, he's not even a trained linguist ^_^.
2009-02-14T00:09:17Z	Anyway, the misleading and loosely used wording of the above sentence hardly changes the definition of term ''cognate''.
2009-02-14T12:32:21Z	The preponderance of words indicating social and political relations (including warfare) is obvious, suggesting that the Celts enjoyed a higher level of ‘civilization’ at the time of the loans.
2009-02-14T17:01:32Z	Explaining ''Reich'' as a derivative of ''reich'' is plainly dumb folk etymology, which hardly deserves mentioning except maybe as the '''wrong one''' (just as we have in the etymology of {{term|god|lang=en}} mentioning that it has absolutely no relation to {{term|good|lang=en}}).
2009-02-14T22:10:44Z	I mean, Slavic languages before the invention of nations in the 19th century in 95% of writings self-referred to themselves as just "Slavs".
2009-02-16T13:45:06Z	Anyway, I've noticed on the Web that Bosniaks use {{term|džehenem}} both as a general-purpose word for {{term|hell}}, and as an Islamic term for English {{term|Jahannam}}, but I'm not so sure for Serbs (them declaring mostly as Orthodox Christians and all that.
2009-02-16T14:54:51Z	However, the Gypsy etymology is plainly superior if the meaning in Gypsy word meaning is indeed "dog" (as opposed to Turkish/Arabic "ignorant").
2009-02-16T20:49:29Z	However, the Gypsy etymology is plainly superior if the meaning of the Gypsy is indeed "dog" (as opposed to Turkish/Arabic "ignorant").
2009-02-18T02:14:21Z	This table should primarily be used to overcome deficiencies in SIL's ISO code assignment scheme, which is sometimes not adequate (e.g.
2009-02-18T12:18:22Z	I mean, in 479CE there was no Slavs at the stage of history, and Slavic nations got "reinvented" after the spread of Slavic speech with the rise of Avar qagante in the 6th-8th century, and for the next 1000 years (when modern Slavic nations were forged by ruling elites) in tens of thousands of attestations the autonym was always "Slavic".
2009-02-18T12:55:19Z	Robert Beekes is by far the most renowned expert for Pre-Greek substratum words and we cannot compare him with some far-fetched Greek nationalist ideologically-motivated explanations in which the -dnos suffix (non-IE, non-Greek) is left as an unsolved mystery.
2009-02-18T14:19:00Z	It is remarkable that Chantraine was quite aware of he question in his ''Formation'', but has very often withdrawn his - in my view correct - evaluation in his dictionary.
2009-02-18T23:11:24Z	Beekes, but also peculiarly misleading to a reader where "fancy" explanations are listed first, with no mention of their untenability by modern scholarship, in a suggestive and apparently straightforward cogitation that μακεδνός can be scanned as μακε-δνός (non-existing derivational morpheme in either Greek or PIE), or the second part being a "zero-grade" derivative of underlying suffix -δόνos (only 1 match for the development similar to that, plus the problem that [[zero-grade]] cannot be postulated wherever one imagines it to be, only in roots where it regularly morphophonologicaly ablauts with other vowels, having etymologically-compatible matches in cognate words).
2009-02-18T23:11:24Z	We must not succumb to nationalist-driven mythomania and history-fabricating propaganda machinery, at least not under the silly arguments of "NPOV" and "political correctness" of presenting badly outdated linguistic research on a par with cutting-edge one.
2009-02-20T06:25:07Z	''not'' Iran), so your phrasing is not only obsolete (assuming that once the term ''Aryan'' was applicable as ethnolinguistic classificator for the people of the contemporary geographical region Iran), but highly misleading.
2009-02-20T14:36:58Z	It is very interesting that lots of Slavic nations have exogenous ethnonym (Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Rus'), as opposed to other obviously regionally-descriptive ones (Poles, Ukrainians, Polabians..) that were eventually "ethnicized".
2009-02-22T08:45:01Z	Often you can find in lexicons (including the today's "standard" one - [[w:Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben|LIV]]) such PIE pseudo-forms reconstructed on the basis of one branch only (in case of LIV, usually Germanic - sapienti sat), but these are ''very'' misleading and have absolutely zero justification.
2009-02-22T09:40:16Z	Once the K is gone from research, the GT would be as good as dead.
2009-02-23T04:36:29Z	There are lots of cool tutorials, books, critically-edited texts and dictionaries on avesta.org and archive.org, if someone is really interested ;) The only particular point that needs to be addressed is the lemmatization scheme, as Avestan is equipped with lots of sandhi (very similar to that of Sanskrit), so nominals should be prob.
2009-03-02T10:49:25Z	That way, entries in German or Polish wiktionaries that would presumably choose another transcription scheme could interwiki each other properly, ultimately all pointing to the wiktionary-specific lemma form.
2009-03-02T10:49:25Z	The big advantage of using attested spellings as primary ones would be to completely solve the "which transcription scheme to use" question.
2009-03-02T14:50:13Z	I've started writing [[Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian]] which should serve as a guideline for entering SC entries and merging existing B/C/S ones.
2009-03-02T14:50:13Z	Comments are welcome at the [[Wiktionary talk:About Serbo-Croatian|talk page]].
2009-03-02T15:15:11Z	Which is kind of misleading too, so in the last few created entries, (such as {{proto|Slavic|noktь|title=}}, {{proto|Slavic|zima|title=}}), I've been putting it in the same column.
2009-03-04T12:00:14Z	bs/hr/sr/sh wikts are all dead projects with infinitesimal growth rate.
2009-03-04T12:08:13Z	soon-coming Montenegrin..) entries to ==Serbo-Croatian==, and there's this problem with mapping to individual project entries.
2009-03-04T12:08:13Z	Now, suppose we decided to merge those, and having bs/hr/sr/sh wiktionaries, could Tbot in theory update translation table links of Serbo-Croatian translations to check ''all'' of those wiktionaries for a particular spelling in the translation table? I.e., it would add superscript links as e.g.
2009-03-04T12:08:13Z	<sup>(sh b/c/s)</sup> or <sup>(sh bs hr sr)</sup> (less concise version) where each of those would individually be checked against the existence of entry in the corresponding wiktionary?.
2009-03-04T12:26:45Z	The reason why individual-language sh code got deprecated is because there is no nationial institution supporting that name any more.
2009-03-04T12:26:45Z	There is absolutely no reason ''not'' to use the sh code itself for our purposes, esp.
2009-03-04T12:26:45Z	giving the fact that ISO won't assign two-letter language codes anymore, so it cannot get "overwritten" (plus, there is always 'hbs' as a backup), and that sh is used as mediawiki language code for SC wikiprojects.
2009-03-04T12:26:45Z	It's not particularly relevant tho, since all those wikts are effectively dead (bs no activity since Dijan left it, I personally created/edited most Croatian-language entries at hr wikt a long time ago, and sr wikt's 95% entries are some bot-generated proper names).
2009-03-05T18:48:04Z	Czech and Slovak are based on different dialects, as well as Bulgarian and Macedonian (dunno about S&P), and are hence not really valid comparisons, where all SC standards are based on the ''same'' particular idiom of the same dialect (moreover, ''the only'' dialect that is shared among Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins and Serbs).
2009-03-05T19:20:11Z	Not to mention the fact that Croats and Bosniaks were 15 years ago for 5 years at war with army that called itself "Yugoslav People's Army", and the country that called itself "Yugoslavia".
2009-03-05T19:20:11Z	insulting is calling Croats/Bosniaks/Serbs/Montenegrins "Yugoslavs" and ignoring Slovenes and Macedonians which were also equal members of SFRJ, which insinuates certain propaganda theories which I shall not name here.
2009-03-05T19:20:11Z	Neither of them is "going away", no content is going to be "deleted": it's just going to get optimized for conciseness to enhance learning experience of what was 20 years ago (and in most modern linguistic books still is) treated as simply "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-03-06T09:42:50Z	Lithuanian {{term|šarka|šárka|magpie|lang=lt}} and Old Prussian {{term|sarke||magpie|lang=prg}} point to Proto-Balto-Slavic form *śárkā, with acute tone on root wovel that reglarly yielded Lithuanian acute, SC short falling tone in {{term|svraka|svrȁka|lang=sh}}/{{term|sc=Cyrl|сврака|свра̏ка|lang=sh}}, Russian stress on the second part of the pleophonic VRV reflex {{term|sc=Cyrl|сорока|соро́кa|lang=ru}} and long vowel in Old Czech {{term|stráka|lang=cs}}.
2009-03-06T11:09:26Z	Carolina, there are 5 political entities that bore the name "Yugoslavia".
2009-03-06T11:09:26Z	If there is a "need" for term to denote some arbitrarily defined notion of "interrelated peoples, languages, and cultures", it would certainly not be ''Yugoslav'' today.
2009-03-06T11:09:26Z	If he knows ''anything'' about B/C/S utilise Wiktionary as a learning tool, he has almost certainly heard of Serbo-Croatian, and the "neighbouring" standard languages.
2009-03-06T22:37:00Z	Our primary audience are ''not'' some (presumably) ignorants that randomly parachute via search engines but people that would use Wiktionary to learn/look up words of a language they already have some basic proficiency in.
2009-03-09T16:44:28Z	Unlike Czech, and like Bulgarian, Slovanian and Russian, Serbo-Croatian (standard dialect, substandard dialects are markedly different) has free accent (i.e.
2009-03-09T16:44:28Z	Interestingly, despite the brain-damaged orthography which caused >80% native speakers to have very poor knowledge of standard prosody (I was raised in a small town where pure Neoštokavian is spoken so I have no problems, but major cities like Zagreb, Belgrade..are total disaster.
2009-05-29T11:30:03Z	In the meantime, I suggest we simply follow SIL's classification scheme.
2009-05-30T13:50:48Z	Also, ''sh'' code is safe to use as ISO doesn't assign two-letter codes anymore AFAIK.
2009-06-21T22:24:25Z	Now, the obvious thing to do would be to follow the same formatting scheme in the citationspace as in the mainspace, i.e.
2009-06-22T08:28:30Z	The purpose of such categorizations scheme would be obviously to categorize all the citations on a per-language basis, so that the interested editors could maintain them.
2009-06-23T16:21:02Z	It's the most practical term to use unless we want to stray into needless political correctness with terms such as "BCS".
2009-06-23T16:21:02Z	There are lots of languages which still don't have ISO code and rightfully deserve one, and there are even some languages that have ISO code but hardly deserve one (e.g.
2009-06-23T20:27:26Z	What is important to understand here that Wiktionary is using scheme whose primary purpose is to ''enhance learning process'', i.e.
2009-06-23T20:27:26Z	This is ''not'' some kind of political agenda to "unify" languages - they're all 3 different standard based on 1 organic idiom (stylised Neoštokavian dialect).
2009-06-24T08:19:15Z	I can't read that page, what's it saying? During the Yugoslavia 1945-90 there was indeed lots of "Serbification" of the Croatian literary standard (mostly resulting from a dumb attempt by Communist authorities to suppress Croatian purism efforts which reached its peak in the 1941-45 Nazi puppet state which officially banned all "Serbianisms", coined a bulk of neologisms and introduced a new orthography, thus in the post-war era creating a subconscious connection with purism and ''NDH/Ustaše'' regime - which is all silly as purist efforts predate it for centuries, and it on the whole moreover fueled additional Croat nationalism and anti-Serb sentiments which eventually lead to the destruction of Yugoslavia..).
2009-06-24T08:19:15Z	However, the concept of unified Serbo-Croatian language predates the Creation of 1945 Yugoslavia - from the early 19th century writers sought to create common literary language (see e.g.
2009-06-24T08:19:15Z	is really inappropriate, because ''Serbo-Croatian'' is still very much used term on the West, and is treated like single language in publications (although often under the name "BCS" or similar unnecessarily politically-correct coinage).
2009-06-24T08:19:15Z	[[w:Wayles Browne|Wayles Browne]] who wrote the [http://books.google.hr/books?id=F4yvzLnMw3cC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0 chapter on SC]] in the standard reference monography ''Slavonic languages'' by Comrie & Corbett), not to mention etymological dictionaries (Vasmer-Trubačev, Derksen, Skok..) and current research papers which all still use the ''Serbo-Croatian'' terminology.
2009-06-24T10:25:06Z	Those who disagree with the unification AFAICS base their arguments on political prejudice and ignorance, and are likely to be outvoted if the issue is to be resolved by a vote.
2009-06-24T11:36:27Z	It would be a complete waste of time and space, and for what purpose? That some rabid nationalist doesn't feel "offended" seeing ==Serbo-Croatian== and not their own L2 imaginary language name? Completely silly, as 99% of English speakers who'd be presumably looking up SC words on Wiktionary have no such prejudice.
2009-06-24T13:12:04Z	So the only native-speaker contributor of SC you had was creating them under ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-06-24T13:12:04Z	I'm not sure you understand what you're saying: Every single SC entry is to be '''quadrupled''' for the sake of what? Some insane political correctness, that is not even practiced in lots of English scholarly literature (I cited authors, dictionaries, grammars, renowned encyclopedias and reference works etc.).
2009-06-24T13:12:04Z	There are indeed Wikipedias in bs/hr/sr/sh - what you may now that there was initially only Wikipdeia in sh, and subsequently 3 new ones were created (there was also unsuccessful proposal for Montenegrin), and these 4 mutually copy/paste great deal of content.
2009-06-24T13:12:04Z	'''The only''' reason why someone contributes to hr and not bs/sh Wikipedia goes along ethnic lines, nothing else.
2009-06-24T13:12:04Z	If by "them" you mean contributors of bs/hr/sr wikipedias - I assure you you're wasting your time as all you'll get is some brain-damaged non sequiturs, long "historical perspective" type of prosaic "arguments" ridden with inaccuracies, logical fallacies and insane PoV.
2009-06-24T14:36:51Z	(I still hope that one day Wiktionary database will migrate out of this horrid PHP environment.) If you want to, feel free to ask the so-called [[m:Language committee|Language committee]] for a comment, whether the creation of bs/hr/sr wikiprojects had anything to do with languages, as opposed to the self-perceived notion of ethnicity, and how these "different languages" came to exist in the first place.
2009-06-24T14:36:51Z	I'm sure you won't hear any technical details on why this unification scheme wouldn't work.
2009-06-24T16:21:07Z	''All'' of the current Wiktionary SC contributors support the unification.
2009-06-24T16:21:07Z	Quadrupling entries is simply brain-damaged and cannot pass.
2009-06-24T17:15:56Z	The suggestion of quadruplication of entries is brain-damaged whether I say it or not.
2009-06-24T17:15:56Z	For Christ name, _who_ exactly is going to benefit from 4 identical L2 sections? Some nationalist feelings won't get hurt? (they'll more likely to laugh their ass out seeing such a mess).
2009-06-24T19:15:35Z	You do ''exactly'' the same thing as you did before, just using ==Serbo-Croatian== and code <tt>sh</tt> instead of whatever you used before.
2009-06-24T19:15:35Z	just tag the entry with {{temp|attention|sh}} and someone knowlegeable will come along.
2009-06-24T19:15:35Z	Is someone is offended by seing his beloved ==B/C/S== replaced by ==Serbo-Croatian== he should probably pay a visit to psychiatrist and come back when (and if) he's been cured.
2009-06-24T21:02:49Z	I see the <tt>hr</tt> babelbox as "I am a native speaker of Croatian variety of Serbo-Croatian".
2009-06-24T21:02:49Z	Let me repeat again and again: all the regular SC contributors, responsible for the creation of 99.9% of SC entries, agree on the unification.
2009-06-24T21:02:49Z	All the opposing arguments that were given by others here and elsewhere are based on irrational prejudices, utter ignorance and silly political correctness, do not invalidate the enormous benefits of the merging proposal in any way, and cannot be held as sound.
2009-06-25T21:48:53Z	-->{{#if:Roman spelling|<nowiki/> (''Roman spelling''{{#if:{{l|sh|бунар|бу̀на̄р|sc=Cyrl}}|<nowiki/> '''{{wlink|w={{l|sh|бунар|бу̀на̄р|sc=Cyrl}}}}'''}}<!--.
2009-06-25T21:48:53Z	-->{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:{{language|sh}} noun{{#switch:noun|prefix|suffix|affix|infix=e}}s|{{PAGENAME}}]]{{{{#ifeq:m|g|g|ns:0}}|{{language|sh}}}}}}.
2009-06-25T21:48:53Z	-->{{#if:Cyrillic spelling|<nowiki/> (''Cyrillic spelling''{{#if:{{l|sh|bunar|bùnār}}|<nowiki/> '''{{wlink|w={{l|sh|bunar|bùnār}}}}'''}}<!--.
2009-06-25T21:57:09Z	<tt><nowiki>{{sh-noun|g=m|head=bùnār|r|бунар|бу̀на̄р}} > Template:Infl.</nowiki>
2009-06-25T21:57:09Z	<tt><nowiki>{{sh-noun|g=m|head=бу̀на̄р|c|bunar|bùnār}} > Template:Infl.</nowiki>
2009-06-26T15:37:54Z	Almost all of them were taught the course called ''Serbo-Croatian'' in schools and collages, and have a degree in "Yugoslav studies" (''jugoslavistika'').
2009-06-26T15:37:54Z	As I demonstrated above with plenty of the most relevant citations, the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is still abundantly used in English literature, and dumping it purely out of concern for mental state of some petty nationalists is debatable only if you're a psychiatrist.
2009-06-26T23:21:39Z	For example, by the reflex of Common Slavic ''jat'' phoneme the Common South Slavic word for "milk" *mlěko yielded SC variant forms {{term|mlijeko|mlijéko|lang=sh}}, {{term|mleko|mléko|lang=sh}} and {{term|mliko|mlíko|lang=sh}}, which are termed ''ijekavian'', ''ekavian'' and ''ikavian'' respectively.
2009-06-26T23:21:39Z	The amount of ''really'' different words in colloquial speech for top 5000 basic words is hardly over 1-2% (my free estimate).
2009-06-27T12:54:46Z	When compiling a dictionary that should contain all the words spoken by all Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, etc.
2009-06-27T12:54:46Z	- it makes much more sense to treat the common core as a single language in one ==Serbo-Croatian== section, and mark the regional differences by means of context labels, usage notes, alternative forms header and similar.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	Here I'll briefly outline the rationale for merging L2 sections of Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian into one L2 section ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	Initially it was meant to be pretty straightforward policy when active SC contributors (Dijan, Bogorm and me) agreed to pursue the unification path, as when you're a native speaker (or have a native or good knowledge or other close Slavic language) the benefits of unification are more then obvious.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	However, given the amount of community attention by other non-native speakers, and contributors not familiar with linguistic and historical problematics of the "split of Serbo-Croatian", it seems necessary to explicitly justify the merger to interested parties.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	My topic was in theoretical Slavic linguistics on Serbo-Croatian appellative forms, which essentially included forms of address, commands, and prohibitions.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	With visible emotion, they explained that Gaj, who had sought the unity of all Southern Slavs in the nineteenth century, embodied for them a lost dream of ethnic harmony, and of pan-Slavic cooperation.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	I had studied about Gaj primarily for his role in bringing about the unity of the Serbo-Croatian language.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	Was I to understand my friends' mournful comments as an indication that Serbo-Croatian was also no longer possible?<br><br>Six months later I was back in Zagreb at the Institute for Language to disseminate my questionnaire on Croatian appellative forms.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	I had painstakingly produced two versions of the questionnaire—one in the Eastern (Belgrade) variant of Serbo-Croatian, and one in the Western (Zagreb) variant.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	I braced myself for yet another potentially embarrassing moment, but was relieved to hear that he simply wanted to know if I thought that Serbo-Croatian was one language or two.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	My theory about the basic unity of the language had been confirmed some weeks earlier, when I joined dialectologists from all over Yugoslavia at a weekend working session in the Serbian town of Arandjelovac.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	Frankly, I had had no idea that I was even capable of speaking Bosnian, since during my previous visit to Sarajevo in 1990, I had openly admitted to speaking Serbo-Croatian.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	She was not afraid to tell me that even though she speaks the Bosnian language, she completely rejects the initiatives of the Bosniac language planners, who in her view are insisting that everyone unnaturally adopt the speech characteristics of her grandmother from a small village.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	"If there were such forms," he chuckled, "they could be counted on one or two fingers." Since then, however, the advocates for a Montenegrin language have remained vocal, and given the political strains with Serbia, an official status for a separate Montenegrin language cannot be ruled out.}}<br>.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	{{term|mlijeko|mlijéko|lang=sh}}, {{term|mleko|mléko|lang=sh}}, and {{term|mliko|mlíko|lang=sh}}, all reflecting pre-form *mlěko "milk", ''jat'' originating by by [[w:liquid metathesis|liquid metathesis]] from Common Slavic form *melko.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	As you can see, basically all the real-world occurring differences can be easily handled with the proposed scheme.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	But even if you are intent on such perverse intellectual endeavor, the unified scheme wouldn't present you much of a difficulty as you'd simply had to ignore everything starting with (''Serbian''), (''Bosnian'') or (''Montenegrin'').
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	It has been mentioned that the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is potentially insultive.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	The term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is moreover very much used in English literature, as I illustrated in that BP discussion.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	in [http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/pdf/S&R/publicaties/vermeer_1996_twofold_origin.pdf this] paper by Dutch Slavist Willem Vermer he writes in the footnote: ''I stick to the traditional label of 'Serbo-Croatian' because from the point of view of the diachronic linguist a technical term denoting the dialect continuum traditionally referred to by it is indispensable and would have to be invented if it did not already exist.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	This choice should not be construed as implying a political preference.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	linguistics) that investigators of the history of the language should adapt their linguistic terminology to political priorities.''.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	But we're using the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' primarily to refer to the literary dialect, which is the same, and subliterary dialects (Čakavian, Kajkavian, Torlakian and Ikavian Štokavian) are to be handled by means of context labels as is illustrated in the proposal.
2009-06-28T13:19:05Z	I personally am not also very satisfied with the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' as it leaves aside Bosniaks and Montenegrins.
2009-06-29T09:36:08Z	Literary Czech and Slovak were ''intentionally'' made as differing as possible, whilst literary Serbo-Croatian varieties have had a common unification era for almost 150 years.
2009-06-29T09:36:08Z	But these are all irrelevant details: the most important thing to have in mind are the goals of this project, the issues resolved and the benefits gained by this scheme, and absolutely nothing else.
2009-06-29T09:36:08Z	If you have specific remarks on why exactly the proposed unification scheme wouldn't work, please leave it there.
2009-06-29T10:12:45Z	I've encountered only one case when certain IP (a well-known Serbian nationalist troll from Australia, who has a record for adding fake etymologies for Turkish borrowings) added ==Serbian== when there was ==Serbo-Croatian== already present.
2009-06-29T10:12:45Z	Using the term ==Serbo-Croatian== would not be OR as that term has more than a century of attested usage in the two senses it is used on Wiktionary (standardized Neoštokavian varieties, collection of 4 dialects).
2009-06-29T10:12:45Z	I wouldn't know how Wikimedia would think about this all (whether they do care at all - I suspect not, or whether they have anyone competent to comment upon this), but given that we have <tt>sh</tt> Wikipedia and Wiktionary already, I somehow find it really hard to believe that they'd be shutting this project for the usage of ==Serbo-Croatian== L2 section, or some alleged OR or NPOV associated with that term.
2009-06-29T10:53:30Z	Only one user commented ([[User:Carolina wren|Carolina wren]]), and I hopefully answered thoroughly to all of her queries (which becomes a bit difficult if the interlocutor isn't knowledgeable on SC, and forms his opinions on the basis of miscellaneous bits collected here and there - I hope that the illustration of how the unification scheme would work in real texts such as he Universal Declaration his dispelled that kind of prejudice.).
2009-06-29T14:22:37Z	L2 ==Bosnian==, ==Croatian==, and ==Serbian== '''cannot stay''' together with ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-06-30T07:18:41Z	You can hardly call them "internationally recognized", since most (if not all) of the western linguists devoid of nationalistic prejudices still consider them as one language.
2009-06-30T07:43:18Z	I've created a vote: [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian]].
2009-06-30T09:10:15Z	It would be misleading to imply that we're somehow "prohibiting" something.
2009-06-30T09:10:15Z	The prohibition of B/C/S L2s after the unification is implicit (it's already mentioned at the [[WT:ASH]]).
2009-06-30T10:14:50Z	People contribute exactly the same way as before, but now using ==Serbo-Croatian== instead of whatever they used before.
2009-06-30T12:33:05Z	I'm not sure whether he's willing to do it regardless of the likely positive outcome of this vote :( But since all of those 4 Wiktionaries are basically dead projects, it's not much of a loss anyway.
2009-06-30T12:59:36Z	The output of that template could be used to generate blue or red wikilinks to bs/hr/sr/sh wiktionaries, in a special translation template for SC called e.g.
2009-06-30T13:32:33Z	Numbers can be misleading.
2009-06-30T13:32:33Z	''almost all contributors to sh/sr/hr/bs wiktionaries seem to view them as individual languages for the purpose of the Wiktionary project rather than a single one.'' - No they are not.
2009-06-30T13:32:33Z	I have lots of quality edits in Croatian entries on Croatian wiktionary, and Dijan on Bosnian wiktionary, yet both of us are for this unification on English Wiktionary.
2009-06-30T20:22:56Z	Bok Nikola: Već neko vrěme nas nekolicina sh doprinositelja radimo na polisi za unifikaciju zaglavljâ za bs/hr/sr u jedan, ogledni primjerak čije možeš viděti na [[WT:ASH]].
2009-06-30T20:22:56Z	[[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian|Glasovanje]] započinje za otprilike tědan dana, a na dotičnoj stranici možeš pronaći i linkove na 2 glavne raspre.
2009-06-30T20:22:56Z	Bilo bi jako lĕpo kad bi ostavio kakav konstruktivan komentar na prědlog lišen etnopolitičkih dimenzijâ raspada sh.
2009-06-30T20:29:39Z	Bok Nikola: Već neko vrěme nas nekolicina sh doprinositelja radimo na polisi za unifikaciju zaglavljâ za bs/hr/sr u jedno, ogledni priměrak čije možeš viděti na [[WT:ASH]].
2009-06-30T20:40:22Z	tako i u sh, ovisno o govorniku/piscu.
2009-07-02T18:10:08Z	Pure numbers in global terms can be misleading, it's not ''how many states'', but ''how many of relevant states'' recognized Republic of Kosova.
2009-07-08T15:27:00Z	So comparing Korean to Proto-Germanic, Gothic and Latin has now suddenly become a "learning aid"? I'd rather call them ''intentionally misleading'', with next-to-none inherent educational value.
2009-07-08T15:27:00Z	Most of the theoretical sciences sooner or later bump into some kind of the practical limits, but in linguistics these have much more concrete consequences as soon as the conclusions collide with what people like to imagine to be their "real" history (usually - that they are ethnically and linguistically indigenous) There was a while ago a Greek nationalist that claimed that all PIE languages descend from Mycenaean Greek, since it's the earliest attested one (which is not, Old Anatolian languages are, and so is the Mitanni Indo-Aryan).
2009-07-08T15:27:00Z	Also, your comparison of ''modern'' Korean and modern IE (French, German - your common targets) reminds me of other pseudoscientific linguists, who ignore ancient and extinct languages either deliberately or out of sheer ignorance, and compare modern ones.
2009-07-08T15:27:00Z	Vukotić has also a long (almost 2 year) IP record here on Wiktionary - but it consists mostly of removing valid etymologies that he doesn't like on nationalist grounds (Serbian words derived from Ottoman Turkish), and adding protologisms and neologisms coined in the 19th century into translation tables.
2009-07-10T07:38:18Z	(Sooner or l8r some of the opposing clique will start canvassing on nationalist wikipedias, so it's reasonably assume that there'll be more of these).
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	When mentioning SC, it treats it of course as one language, referring primarily to standard Neoštokavian idiom (the primary meaning of the term ''Serbo-Croatian''), as well as sometimes to dialectal data (archaic Čakavian dialect).
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	Vasmer's some other works such as the book Die griechischen Lehnwörter im Serbokroatischen ('Greek loanwords in SC', Berlin 1944) also corroborate his view of SC as one language.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	''The Slavonic Languages'', Routledge 1993, 1078 pages, edited by Comrie & Corbett, in it namely the [http://books.google.com/books?id=F4yvzLnMw3cC&pg=PA306 chapter on Serbo-Croatian], written by the greatest Western expert on SC [[w:Wayles Browne|Wayles Browne]].
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	Quoting from the preface of the book, page xvii: ''This book is about the language that used to be called Serbo-Croatian.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	However, two major changes have occurred since the Penn State Press first published this book in 1991: (1) Croatian authorities have declared that Croatian is a separate Slavic language; and (2) the name Yugoslavia now denotes only Serbia and Montenegro since Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia are now independent political entities, recognized as a separate countries by the United Nations.<br><br>The designation of speech variety as a distinct language can be the result of a ''political'' decision and not necessarily a ''linguistic'' judgement.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	There is a greater difference between British English and American English than between Croatian and Serbian, but there exists no political or parochial movement that would proclaim American English to be a language distinct from British English.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	Throughout the book, the author refers to the language by an abbreviation "Cr&S", in fact another way of saying "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	''[http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZvDJQHaUZkC Language and identity in the Balkans - Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration]'', Oxford 2004, 188 pages, by a notable Slavist Robert D.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	The same overtone of ridiculing cynicism permeates the entire book, when he discusses the nationalist attempts of the 199s of forging "different languages", after they have been for 150 years doing exactly the opposite thing! (Take a look at the chapter names, for example).
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	I could list a number of major contemporary linguists (Slavist, Balto-Slavists) that still using the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' without a prejudice: [[w:Frederik Kortlandt|Frederik Kortlandt]] (e.g.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	in the paper ''[http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art222e.pdf From Serbo-Croatian to Indo-European]'') [[w:Vladimir Dybo|Vladimir Dybo]] (e.g.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	The mentioned [http://www.amazon.co.uk/SerboCroatian-English-Dictionary-Set-English-SerboCroatian/dp/0521384966/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247044486&sr=1-4 Morton-Benson] dictionary is still ''the only'' comprehensive and professional SC dictionary in English, and it treats B/C/S as one language, in newer reprints/editions also preserving the same name of ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-07-10T12:26:59Z	It makes ''no sense'' to write a dictionary of standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian (and/or Montengerin and/or Serbo-Croatian) ''simultaneously''.
2009-07-10T13:31:10Z	You have no knowledge of Serbo-Croatian (or any Slavic language in general), and are completely incompetent to decide which votes were cast in petty nationalist desires (interestingly, contrary to you imaginations, we have ''Serb nationalist'' here opposing the unification! Which proves even more how your claims of ''Serbo-Croatian'' being "genocidal, Serb-induced term" were completely off the mark).
2009-07-10T13:40:55Z	You ardently advocated L2 ==Norwegian== at all cost, when it turned out that the solution of merging both under single L2 was not an easy thing to do, as these two have quite a lot differences in inflection or morphology (way more than Serbo-Croatian varieties).
2009-07-10T13:40:55Z	The analogy I mentioned is perfectly applicable, and demonstrates how your opinions of merger/splitting of L2 are susceptible to arbitrary political prejudice.
2009-07-10T13:50:35Z	With striking - I primarily referred to votes of folks with 0 or no edits like [[User:Pepsi Lite|Pepsi Lite]], who are obviously not voting with a logical evaluation of the proposal in mind, but for various political and ideological reasons which do not concern us here.
2009-07-10T13:52:08Z	With striking - I primarily referred to votes of folks with no or insignificant number of edits like [[User:Pepsi Lite|Pepsi Lite]], who are obviously not voting with a logical evaluation of the proposal in mind, but for various political and ideological reasons which do not concern us here.
2009-07-10T14:11:41Z	But you still didn't explain to me what difference does it make to the browser whether it's bs/hr/sr or simply sh? What would exactly break with the browsers? Serbian is written in both Cyrillic and Roman (on the Web, much more in Roman), so the mapping of script to language cannot be dealt with language code, but with <tt>sc=</tt> parameter.
2009-07-10T14:16:07Z	Well you ''did'' assume that I was a Serbian just because I advocate SC unification, which turned out to be untrue (and neither of the other SC contributors is Serbian).
2009-07-10T14:41:08Z	About this: ''First, what language tag is given to "word" in the HTML?'' - so every Wiktionary word is given a HTML tag? Why would ''sh'' not work and e.g.
2009-07-10T14:41:08Z	''sr'' would in that case? I still don't understand why browser's ''must'' be given either bs/hr/sr but not sh.
2009-07-10T14:41:08Z	As for the other example: could it work with the format <sup>(bs)(hr)(sr)(sh)</tt> ?.
2009-07-10T15:38:17Z	What is you proficiency in those Slavic languages? Can you understand literary Bulgarian? If so, you should also understand of great deal of literary Serbo-Croatian too.
2009-07-10T15:58:53Z	The point is that there is no dictionary out there that ''simultaneously'' treats bs, hr, and sr words as if belonging to different languages, like the Wiktionary would do in the scheme you propose.
2009-07-10T15:58:53Z	It is makes ''no sense'' to insist to have not only 3 (soon 4) different sections with ''identical content'', but also a collective ==Serbo-Croatian== section! It would be ''total overkill''.
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	search results alone, in the language you don't have the faintest clue of, let alone the ability to discern differences among the lexes of SC literary varieties that are numerically ''lesser'' than that of British and American English? You see, on the vote page itself (that this is a talk page of), just a few hours ago a excerpted to Daniel Polansky (according to him, unnecessarily, but here it appears to be more then necessary!) some grammars (of SC, and comparative Slavic) that were entitled such as ''Introduction to the Croatian and Serbian Language'' or ''Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar With Sociolinguistic Commentary''.
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	Perhaps the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' itself has fallen out of usage, and got replaced by awkward terms such as "BCS" or "Cr&S" or "Serbian and/or Croatian" - but that Western scholars have started treating them as "separate languages"? Far, far from that dear DCDURING!.
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	Not a ''single one'' lexicographical work in the world has has ''simultaneously'' Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian treated ''separately'' as "different languages"! And ''that'' is what you and Lmaltier are advocating for Wiktionary! It's either all Serbo-Croatian varieties collectively (in some 90% of cases - my estimate), or some of its varieties alone (amateurish dictionaries, for tourists and such) - this latter one being at least 95% applicable to either of the other SC varieties!.
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	Anyway, you'd imagine that as an international, UN-blessed public institution with a genocidal pedigree, ''wanting'' to promote ethnic separation and hatred amongst the Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs, it would do everything it takes respect these "national languages" in its legislative outputs.
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	I get 727 Google hits! I also get [http://www.google.com/search?hl=hr&q=%22serbo-Croatian%22+site%3Aicty.org 430 for "Serbo-Croatian"] ! It is also fun to search for "Serbian language" or "Croatian language", end read the outputs [hint: it has something to do with most of the defendants being hardline nationalists, and the usage of "wrong words" could drive them insane to the point they'd pretend they don't that "foreign language" :))] <sub>A parody video on that theme [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLs-ItBjRs here] (for SC speakers).
2009-07-10T20:11:24Z	In Serbo-Croatian we have a saying ''para vrti gdje burgija neće'' that is precisely applicable in this situation (roughly translated as "money solves problems that hard work wouldn't").
2009-07-10T20:16:42Z	I suggest that everyone refrain from drawing any kind of conclusions of google search results, unless they are capable of investigating whether these results actually refer to "separate" ore single language, since as I explained below - the book titles can be quite misleading!.
2009-07-10T20:17:13Z	I suggest that everyone refrain from drawing any kind of conclusions of google search results, unless they are capable of investigating whether these results actually refer to "separate" or single language, because as I explained below - the book titles can be quite misleading!.
2009-07-10T20:22:16Z	I get 727 Google hits! I also get [http://www.google.com/search?hl=hr&q=%22serbo-Croatian%22+site%3Aicty.org 430 for "Serbo-Croatian"] ! It is also fun to search for "Serbian language" or "Croatian language", end read the outputs [hint: it has something to do with most of the defendants being hardline nationalists, and the usage of "wrong words" could drive them insane to the point they'd pretend they don't undestand that "foreign language" :))] <sub>A parody video on that theme [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLs-ItBjRs here] (for SC speakers).
2009-07-10T20:56:16Z	My comments are often long simply because this issue is ''complex'', and it is necessary to provide an objective big-picture perspective to interested readers, especially to the ones who, unlike me, don't know anything of Slavic languages, let alone Serbo-Croatian, are not familiar with sociolinguistic processes that have lead to sudden emergence of what appear to be "three languages", and don't have either the time or resources to look up verifiable academic sources that would be supportive of either side of the proposal.
2009-07-10T20:56:16Z	It's either all collectively (as Serbo-Croatian) or some of the individual Serbo-Croatian variety.
2009-07-10T21:23:25Z	Serbo-Croatian is ''no difference'' with regards to these.
2009-07-10T21:23:25Z	Moreover: Serbo-Croatian varieties are all based on the ''same'' dialects, whilst these that SIL/ISO organize as separate "individual languages" belonging to the same "macrolanguage" that we here nevertheless treat as one language are all based on ''different dialects''.
2009-07-11T01:05:37Z	For the entries you create, and that need further expansion or checking, just tag them with {{temp|attention|sh}}!.
2009-07-11T01:36:40Z	BTW there is this vote going on, that you might be interested into: [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian]].
2009-07-11T01:36:40Z	As for the ''srpskohrvatski'' vs ''hrvatskosrpski'' that you edited in [[[[Serbo-Croatian]]]] entry - both terms were officially equally "valid" in Yugoslavia, denoting exactly the same thing, but the Croats preferred the term ''hrvatskosrpski'' whilst the Serbs preferred the term ''srpskohrvatski''.
2009-07-11T13:55:03Z	Also, I haven't really noticed that some of the opponents of the unification has mentioned this as an argument.
2009-07-12T07:45:04Z	Using the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is genocidal crime against humanity, so the term itself in unacceptable (Robert Ullmann).
2009-07-12T07:45:04Z	Or it's just really all of the above combined? ^_^ If you could answer this, it would be helpful to me to know what uninvolved contributors (who don't speak Slavic languages) overall impressions is, so that I can isolate misleading points and explain on them in the rationale on the proposal's talkpage (<sub>you can answer here and not on my talkpage</sub>).
2009-07-12T20:22:09Z	If there would be complaints - it would almost certainly ''not'' be from the users who'd be presumably using Wiktionary as a learning facility, but from native speakers who are indoctrinated with some narrow-minded political/ideological agenda.
2009-07-12T20:35:11Z	He complained after he found out that the [[User:Tbot|Tbot]] (which he maintains) re-created an entry that was merged into ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-07-12T21:46:38Z	This vote is but a ''mere formalization'' of the effort ongoing for a long, long time, reflecting the unanimous communis opinio among the regular Wiktionary Serbo-Croatian contributors which authored >99% of all the separate B/C/S entries (me included).
2009-07-12T21:46:38Z	This is for the simple reason because I see no plausible scenario in which this vote would fail, and if, in theory, the voting majority would succumb to the FUD promulgated by some of the opposers, which has apparently managed to caught some of the regulars that previously showed absolutely no interest in Serbo-Croatian (or any Slavic language), I'd simply quit editing Wiktionary, as it would be completely worthless to donate my free time here where it would require four/five times more space and at least twice as much time to achieve the type of thing that could otherwise be elegantly solved by the approach outlined in the proposal.
2009-07-12T21:46:38Z	And since all of the material here is GFDL (nobody "owns it", not even the Foundation), you are free DCDURING to revert all of my "severe deletions" to your pleasure ^_^ The reason why this vote got started in the first place was because it was suggested to me to do so by some of the editors in that second Beer Parlour discussion on SC initiated by RU, where some very controversial views with lots of hard words started to be used, even the threats to terminate the entire project! (but I have some reliable information that Jimbo Wales is very sympathetic of Serbo-Croatian unification, but don't tell that to Lmaltier :p) Most language policies here on Wiktioanry are simply drafts (except for the English), but if this gets voted, it would become a formal policy everyone would have to abide by, and generally I am against that type of "rigid proscription" that should set in stone something that could be eventually changed, but in this particular case there simply doesn't seem to be any viable alternatives due to conflictive opinions by some of the major editors.
2009-07-13T12:48:09Z	<sub>NB: While dealing with Bosniak, Croat and Serb extremists on Wikipedia, I've grown quite accustomed to being simultaneously called mutually conflicting appellations such as "Serb nationalist", "Croat nationalist", "communist" etc.
2009-07-13T14:11:28Z	ISO merely reflects national standards and nothing else (but they kept Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage" [http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hbs hbs]), and as for the UN I am not familiar on how voluminous their production is to be taken as relevant: If they engaged in the same type of scenario as ICTY where they'd have to pay translators out of their own pocket to translate tens of thousands of documents, or provide the real-time interpretation of speech, I'm pretty sure they'd put it some type of generic "BCS" container.
2009-07-13T14:21:34Z	ISO merely reflects national standards and nothing else (but they kept Serbo-Croatian as a "macrolanguage" [http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hbs hbs]), and as for the UN I am not familiar on how voluminous their production is to be taken as relevant: If they engaged in the same type of scenario as ICTY where they'd have to pay translators out of their own pocket to translate tens of thousands of documents, or provide the real-time interpretation of speech, I'm pretty sure they'd put it too in some type of generic "BCS" container.
2009-07-13T14:55:52Z	If this vote fails, I hereby authorize you to copy/paste the missing ==Serbo-Croatian== sections I create from now on into the 3 identical ==Bosnian==, ==Croatian== and ==Serbian== sections.
2009-07-13T15:10:39Z	Yeah I'm sure your browser would self-destruct if it encountered <code>lang="sh"</code>.
2009-07-13T16:31:39Z	Also for voice-synthesizers: standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian have '''identical''' phonology (exactly the same phonemic inventory, prosody and accentuation the same in 99% of words) - and if this hypothetical voice-generation software would not pronounce words on the basis of tens of thousands of pre-recorded sound files (which would be absurd as Serbo-Croatian is very inflected), but instead use some heuristic algorithms (Serbo-Croatian has phonological orthography so the pronunciation is completely predictable from the spelling), it would also be absolutely no problem at all to use the <tt>sr</tt> code instead.
2009-07-13T16:46:07Z	Unlike what you would like to believe (''wiktionary is not prescriptive''), [[WT:CFI]] does exists and is proactively applied to lexems ranging from propaganda of corporate puppies ("Nortel") and ungoogleable slang to neologisms and obscure non-dictionary material like assembly instructions and Harry Potter coinages.
2009-07-13T16:46:07Z	As you can see from the other comments, most of the opposing foreigners are completely unfamiliar with Slavic languages, and simply happen to be ''heavily'' politically prejudiced by bits and pieces they happen to pick up on Wikipedia and who-knows-where (for example, I was initially called a "Serbian nationalist" ^_^), so it's always a good thing to see a free-minded native speaker providing a first-hand testimony on the differences among these "languages" :).
2009-07-13T18:06:29Z	not at all tagged (suppose we drop tagging with <tt>sh</tt> completely), or tagged "wrongly" (i.e.
2009-07-13T19:01:20Z	For example, confer the usage notes section of the Serbo-Croatian entries for {{term|nogomet|nȍgomēt|lang=sh}} and {{term|fudbal|fȕdbāl|lang=sh}}.
2009-07-13T19:06:45Z	So let me get this straight: this is relevant ''only'' to the users that use CSS customization in some obscure browser configuration files of a specific language, specifically in this case for those that use it for bs/hr/sr, where it wouldn't work when browsers would be fed with sh ?.
2009-07-13T20:07:14Z	Serbo-Croatian is usually displayed in standard Roman and Cyrillic fonts which are properly installed in basically 99.999% of Web-aware computers, so I don't think that there is plenty of potential for the experimentation with that.
2009-07-13T20:07:14Z	With all the benefits for the end-user that the acceptance of this proposal would bring, I think that the loss of language-code customization for bs/hr/sr is hardly something of that paramount importance as you guys are trying to depict it.
2009-07-13T20:40:56Z	But that's why I'm advocating that we should use ''sr'' if ''sh'' is so much of a trouble - I am pretty much sure that that a voice synthesizer for standard Serbian would work just as good for standard Bosnian and Croatian.
2009-07-13T21:19:20Z	I and the other Serbo-Croatian contributors that have been merging the entries for the past 4 months have striven to strictly abide by the proposed policy.
2009-07-13T21:19:20Z	When this vote closes and the policy eventually becomes formal, we'll probably have another Serbo-Croatian contributor but of Serbian origin, which will pay attention that those rare cases where something is Croatian- or Bosnian-only, but not appropriately marked as such by me, is conveniently elaborated on in the ====Usage notes==== section that in literary Serbian some other equivalent term is used.
2009-07-13T21:35:43Z	I don't want to be accused again and again of causing "severe damage" :) Especially the Serbo-Croatian translations on the entries such as {{term|July|lang=en}}, which Ullmann cites above, and which are simply plainly wrong (''juli'' is also Croatian, and ''srpanj'' is not valid Serbian).
2009-07-13T22:44:27Z	serving as guidelines for browser implementators), but with IANA tag assignment status of Serbo-Croatian (sh), which is ATM at the status of "deprecated", and how it would affect the completely negligible minority of Wiktionary users that would customize their CSS for bs/hr/sr, and their browsers be fed with sh, so that their hacks wouldn't work.
2009-07-13T22:44:27Z	Of course, the simplest way would be to say in [[WT:ASH]] that Wiktioanry users doing such CSS hacking in the first place should set their preferences to to the lang= code of sh, and not bs/hr/sr.
2009-07-13T22:44:27Z	Now that I think more about it - why should we care of IANA ''at all''? sh code is reserved and won't be reallocated to another language ''ever'' (no more 2-letter code assignments by ISO!), so we should simply us sh and Wiktionary users would have to change that 2 letters in their CSS scripts from xx to sh.
2009-07-13T22:46:24Z	serving as guidelines for browser implementators), but with IANA tag assignment status of Serbo-Croatian (<tt>sh</tt>), which is ATM at the status of "deprecated", and how it would affect the completely negligible minority of Wiktionary users that would customize their CSS for bs/hr/sr, and their browsers be fed with sh, so that their hacks wouldn't work.
2009-07-13T22:46:24Z	Of course, the simplest way would be to say in [[WT:ASH]] that Wiktioanry users doing such CSS hacking in the first place should set their preferences to to the <tt>lang=</tt> code of <tt>sh</tt>, and not bs/hr/sr.
2009-07-13T22:46:24Z	Now that I think more about it - why should we care of IANA ''at all''? <tt>sh</tt> code is reserved and won't be reallocated to another language ''ever'' (no more 2-letter code assignments by ISO!), so we should simply use <tt>sh</tt> and Wiktionary users would have to change those 2 letters in their CSS scripts from <tt>xx</tt> to <tt>sh</tt>.
2009-07-13T22:47:53Z	serving as guidelines for browser implementators), but with IANA tag assignment status of Serbo-Croatian (<tt>sh</tt>), which is ATM at the status of "deprecated", and how it would affect the completely negligible minority of Wiktionary users that would customize their CSS for <tt>bs/hr/sr</tt>, and their browsers be fed with <tt>sh</tt>, so that their hacks wouldn't work.
2009-07-13T22:47:53Z	Of course, the simplest way would be to say in [[WT:ASH]] that Wiktioanary users doing such CSS hacking in the first place should set their preferences to to the <tt>lang=</tt> code of <tt>sh</tt>, and not bs/hr/sr.
2009-07-13T23:32:55Z	add an example sentence, synonym...) you need to do ''exactly the same thing'' in 3-4 other places! Furthermore the separation would disable the generic type of treatment as I illustrated in type of {{term|nogomet|lang=sh}} / {{term|fudbal|lang=sh}} where really different words are preferred in different standards.
2009-07-14T09:04:21Z	This is not an exercise in computational linguistics, but the project of compiling the greatest dictionary ever! The type of approach taken on the usage notes of {{term|nogomet|lang=sh}} / {{term|fudbal|lang=sh}} is taken by ''all'' those BCS courses I mentioned on the vote page.
2009-07-14T09:04:21Z	Yeah we could possibly "clone" duplicate content with template transclusions and labeled section magic - but why bother with all that sh*** when there is ''much'' more elegant way to solve all this.
2009-07-14T20:42:05Z	Insisting on the strict format of entries (of ELE, and enforced via AutoFormat and other scripts) opens a possibility of relocating the project to some non-MW-powered website in the future, one that would provide some metalanguage that doesn't have utterly disgusting syntax, brain-damaged model of evaluation (templates are first completely expended and then processed) and is able to provide stone-age type of features such as "locate or extract substring" which would reduce the number of templates we currently use for at least an order of magnitude.
2009-07-14T20:50:11Z	Also, I remember reading somewhere that the English-language distinction of ''Serb/Serbian'' and ''Croat/Croatian'' was introduced in the 1990s during the UN's peace-keeping mission, as Serbo-Croatian makes no such distinction (or didn't make at that time, I'm not sure know when exactly the term ''Srbijanac'' was coined or became popular).
2009-07-15T00:33:46Z	Furthermore, if you'd look up the translation table for ''football'' for Serbo-Croatian per proposal, you'd read something like (''Bosnian, Serbian'') [[fudbal]], (''Croatian'') [[nogomet]], which is also trivially parsable.
2009-07-15T00:33:46Z	Also, you again mention "''make things easier for everyone''" - but the separation into 3 sections that would have 99% of duplication or triplication is hardly a step in that direction.
2009-07-15T01:29:36Z	Anyways, I've reworked the entry on {{term|Srbijanac|lang=sh}} and hope you like it.
2009-07-15T01:29:36Z	The problem lies in the people that absorb like sponge all the sh*** the "public media" serve them, and fighting the human stupidity is like fighting the 2+2=4.
2009-07-15T10:07:01Z	Conrad, there is ''absolutly no difference'' in the way Serbian used to be treated before (2 scripts + 2 varieties) and Serbo-Croatian is now.
2009-07-15T10:07:01Z	Everything that used to "not work" or required specific handling with Serbian it now takes with Serbo-Croatian.
2009-07-15T10:07:01Z	After this vote passes I'll personally add the necessary javascript code to handle the support for Serbo-Croatian, it's no rocket science.
2009-07-15T11:52:19Z	In what format? I don't have a clue, and [[:Category:Grammar templates]] doesn't appear to have something useful inside.
2009-07-15T12:58:53Z	We'll simply be following the approach of 99% of world's comprehensive dictionary of Serbo-Croatian, who treat all the three varieties collectively.
2009-07-15T12:58:53Z	This approach will enable us to waste significantly less time chasing duplicates or triplicates, immensely increasing the maintainability of the entries, as well as ease the usage of Serbo-Croatian entries by English-speaking learners, who'd wouldn't be wasting time looking up the "differences" themselves.
2009-07-15T12:59:34Z	We'll simply be following the approach of 99% of world's comprehensive dictionaries of Serbo-Croatian, who treat all the three varieties collectively.
2009-07-15T14:36:11Z	Methinks that the reason for Ullmann's opposition to the proposal is hardly based on some rational argumentation, and the consideration for the numerous benefits the merger would bring to both the users and editors.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	Methinks that the reason for Ullmann's opposition to the proposal is hardly based on some rational argumentation and the objective consideration of the numerous benefits the merger would bring to both the users and editors.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	''Thank you'' Ruakh! I again emphasize: the reason for this vote is primarly to formally confirm a practice done by Serbo-Croatian contributors since March, and which was disputed on some very contentious grounds.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	Yes, this vote would prohibit L2 ==Croatian==, but it would ''not'' prohibit Croatian words! You do ''exactly'' the same thing as before, only now you use ''Serbo-Croatian'' everywhere you used to use ''Croatian'', plus optionally a context label where applicabble.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	I'd personally have no problem of using the term ''BCS'' (as ICTY and some English handbooks are using), or ''any other term'' that is far less politically colored, but the point (that I hope have demonstrated) is that 1) the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is still heavily used in English 2) it is still the primary term when referring to what we would grup under L2 ==Serbo-Croatian== (''BCS'' and others still have really marginal usage) 3) In English language it is not that at all that "problematic" as it would presumably be for some proud native speakers, where it would bring back some Yugoslav language policies which indeed were segregational from time to time.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	I provided numerous evidence for this latter point, when Daniel Polansky asked for it, the most prominent being Encyclopedia Britannica article (one of the rare eminent scholarly publications that has not succumbed to the nationalist pressures), SIL/ISO itself which still uses the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' for their "macrolanguage" classification, and a number of the most notable Western Slavists and general linguistics, especially Wayles Browne who authored technically the most competent grammar of Serbo-Croatian in English, which still uses the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' in post-1990s reprints when these new "languages" were invented.
2009-07-15T14:38:34Z	So it would really be misleading to say that the main objective of this proposal would be to forbid individual L2 sections for B/C/S/M - it's more of a side-effect, as Widsith wrote.
2009-07-15T15:38:19Z	Sorry but having simultaneously collective L2 ==Serbo-Croatian== and 4-5 other L2s with ''identical'' content is not an option.
2009-07-15T15:54:04Z	''It hardly matters what the motive is'' - How on earth can you DCDURING write such a thing! Numerous motives for the merger abundantly outlined in the proposal are ''the'' most important thing for making such a decision.
2009-07-15T15:54:04Z	And ignoring the motives (rationale) is hardly a good-faith voting.
2009-07-15T15:54:04Z	''I am not sure what the status of any future language codes deemed to really be Serbo-Croatian would be under this proposal.'' - all will be handled under ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-07-15T15:54:04Z	''The Serbo-Croatian code would get all the positive treatment and support that would be denied the other three codes.'' Yeah, poor "language codes" ^_^ We're dealing with ''languages'' here, not language codes.
2009-07-16T16:08:26Z	What I replied to Conrad applies to you to:: the example with ====Usage notes==== on the suppletive-stem lexical pairs such as {{term|nogomet|nȍgomēt|lang=sh}} and {{term|fudbal|fȕdbāl|lang=sh}} is machine-processable by means of context labels.
2009-07-16T16:08:26Z	Yesterday I created similar suppletive-stem entries {{term|fabrika|fàbrika|lang=sh}} and {{term|tvornica|tvórnica|lang=sh}} - in those however I also marked in the definition lines which variety prefers it.
2009-07-16T16:08:26Z	It should be noted that all of those 4 verbs are known to all the Serbo-Croatian speakers, it's just that some of them are ''preferred'' over another one in certain regions.
2009-07-16T16:17:00Z	It's just that it is to be formatted under ==Serbo-Croatian==, and if it is not shared with the other 2 standard varities it should be tagged with context labels.
2009-07-16T16:19:06Z	It's just that it is to be formatted under ==Serbo-Croatian==, and if it is not shared with the other 2 standard varieties it should be tagged with context labels.
2009-07-16T18:48:42Z	Also, if you look at the [[w:ISO_639_macrolanguage#List_of_macrolanguages|list of macrolanguages]], you'll see that Serbo-Croatian is the only one missing ISO 639-2 code.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	We could easily (I could, e.g.) write a program that would generate such B/C/S-specific list from the dump - we could even generate, beside the all-encompassing [[Index:Serbo-Croatian]] also the subindexes for B/C/S on the basis of tags.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	the highest Serbian cultural institution) dictionary of "Serbo-Croatian language", simply became reprinted a few years later as a dictionary of "Serbian language".
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	So what is my point here? My point is that the phrases such as ''standard Croatian'' are '''completely arbitrary''', as there no single dictionary of standard Croatian still published, and the standard Croatian language grammar contains some very dubious claims! It's a more of a phrase used to refer to the part of Serbo-Croatian lexis that is ''primarily'' used by the Croats, some of it still having marginal usage by the Serbs and/or Bosniaks and/or Montenegrins, beside being almost completely intelligible to them.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	For example, the word {{term|kašika|kàšika|lang=sh}} is still used in various parts of Croatia (from Dalmatia to Slavonia), as opposed to the more "proper" equivalent {{term|žlica|žlȉca|lang=sh}}.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	Of course, the first word is not going to fell out of usage anytime soon, and it would be plain stupid to simply ''not'' list it as Croatian in the Wiktionary (citations for its usage satisfying the [[WT:CFI|CFI]] can be easily provided) just because some lone academician with a reality distortion shield around him that spells "Croatian nationalist" didn't find it convenient to list it in a dictionary of "standard Croatian".
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	The only reasonable option that is left is to treat them collectively as Serbo-Croatian, and to provide a combination of usage notes and context labels that would explain on the actual usage of words, and their "standard status".
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	the simultaneously BCS and the ==Serbo-Croatian== is not an option.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	[[WT:PREFS]] to switch the display between "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian"; or simply stick to the default "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	One day when the database of Serbo-Croatian words on Wiktionary reaches the real dictionary-quality in number, e.g.
2009-07-17T11:46:21Z	''Do you want to have 4 language sections instead of 3? That's where the proposal inevitably ends up'' - No, per proposal everything must be formatted under L2 ==Serbo-Croatian== and the unification of ==Bosnian==, ==Croatian== and ==Serbian== sections to ==Serbo-Croatian== is irreversible.
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	The proposed treatment of Serbo-Croatian is perfectly in accordance with [[WT:ELE]]-proscribed layout of entries works, working ''just fine'', and I've found zero deviant anomalies so far (having created/merged almost 2000 words so far).
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	''With the proposal adopted, we will have to (more or less automatically) duplicate "Serbo-Croatian" entries into the standard language sections to comply with the defined structure.
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	Quoting from WT:ASH: ''All the other L2 headers for Serbo-Croatian varieties (==Bosnian==, ==Croatian==, ==Serbian== and ==Montenegrin==) '''are obsoleted by L2 ==Serbo-Croatian==.''''' (Here ''obsoleted'' means "allowed until manual conversion occurs").
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	Quoting from [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified Serbo-Croatian]]: ''Voting on: treating Bosnian (bs), Serbian (sr), Croatian (hr), and Montenegrin (no ISO code yet) '''all as one language, Serbo-Croatian (sh).
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	Funny, they work quite '''wrong''' (But that's expected, given that you're using it to generate entries in a language you have no clue about!).
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	You appear to be more intent to write code that will "repair the damage" by the proposal (which you still call "unworkable", and which works JUST FINE) rather than fixing several technical issues left with the proposal that are not that uber-complex at all (like the format for {{temp|t}} used for Serbo-Croatian to generate 4 interwiki links in superscript) and that were noted to you many months ago.
2009-07-19T11:58:19Z	the vote atm is 16/8, which hardly represents a consensus.'' - Perhaps we should scale the voters by a coefficient representing the number of languages they are profficient in? Just kidding.
2009-07-20T01:12:15Z	Serbian/Serbo-Croatian doesn't sue <tt>sc=</tt> because it's dual-scripted and entries in both scripts always come in pair in the translation tables, listings etc.
2009-07-20T01:36:24Z	writing something like <tt><nowiki>{{t-sh|ми̑сао)}} and it would generate something like: {{t|sh|sc=Cyrl|мисао|alt=ми̑сао|tr={{l|sh|misao|mȋsao}}}}.</nowiki>
2009-07-20T13:41:26Z	Call it "recovery protocol" or whatever - you're simply planning to undo hundreds of hours of manual labour by creating 10000+ of sections in language you have '''absolutely no clue about'''.
2009-07-20T13:43:00Z	Call it "recovery protocol" or whatever - you're simply planning to undo hundreds of hours of manual labour by creating 10000+ full-blown L2 sections in language you have '''absolutely no clue about'''.
2009-07-20T13:54:37Z	One transliteration scheme would have to be chosen as the primary one, to be used in the headword, translation tables etc.
2009-07-20T13:54:37Z	As for choosing such primary transliteration scheme, I hope this will prove to be a useful accelerator, as too much time has been wasted on types of discussion whether we should use <sh> or <š>.
2009-07-20T16:57:26Z	You write kilobytes and kilobytes of texts elaborating why <sup>(bs, hr, sr, sh)</sup> wouldn't work and when I ask you would <sup>(bs)(hr)(sr)</sup> work you simply ignore it, or on that <tt>lang=</tt> HTML code wouldn't be recognized by brothers, when in fact it would be ignored in general unless the browser actually uses CSS hacks to customize their SC text presentation (which no one really does, and those one in a ten million that do can be asked to customize it to <tt>sh</tt> or whatever in their CSS scripts) - this latter one you even used as an invitation to everyone who voted to oppose the merger to vote against it!.
2009-07-20T16:57:26Z	The proposed policy and the vote itself obsoletes anything but ==Serbo-Croatian==, and yet you suddenly claim that they're still allowed and that the vote itself is still not important, any moreover plan to write a script that would generate ''more than ten thousand'' full-blown L2 sections, without a vote and without a supervision by a native speaker.
2009-07-20T16:57:26Z	Of course that could be done, but the whole thing about unification is to ''reduce needless redundancy'' by factor of 3 or 4.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	I'm not sure whether you're trying to be humorous or dead serious :D.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	''does not entitle one to unilaterally make decisions'' - Once again, this was '''not a unilateral decision''', but a consensus among ''all'' of the active Serbo-Croatian language contributors: at the moment agreeing that were [[User:Dijan|Dijan]], [[User:Bogorm|Bogorm]] and me, who are responsible for 99.9% of some 10,000+ B/C/S language sections on Wiktionary.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	''Exactly nobody expressed concern for such actions back then'', except for Carolina Wren who at the WT:ASH's talkpage was provided with a more thorough account on the differences and "differences" among Serbo-Croatian varieties.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	'' - The unification effort has numerous benefits for both the users and contributors of Serbo-Croatian entries.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	How the outcome of this vote would affect the users that ''don't'' use Wiktionary for looking up Serbo-Croatian words, and the contributors that ''don't'' contribute Serbo-Croatian entries - I couldn't care less.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	''Everything'' proposed in the unification policy was done ''in best possible faith''.
2009-07-20T19:12:06Z	Do I need to express my political views on a user subpage simply to get rid of you guys? ^_^ Of all the possible things to do on the Wiktionary, you are bothered with this tiny little thing you didn't care at all a month ago.
2009-07-20T20:20:50Z	Wikimedia foundation actually ''uses'' <tt>sh</tt> code for Serbo-Croatian Wikiprojects, e.g.
2009-07-20T20:20:50Z	the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.
2009-07-20T20:20:50Z	Person who'd not be contributing to Wiktionary just because he'd be using ==Serbo-Croatian== instead of ==Serbian==, ==Croatian==, ==Bosnian== or ==Montenegrin== needs a visit to psychiatrist.
2009-07-20T20:20:50Z	Bot can indeed "recover" (actually a real recovery is impossible since I've been greatly expanding every processed Serbo-Croatian entry).
2009-07-20T20:33:09Z	suppose I want it so to split the Serbo-Croatian L2 section as three B/C/S section, taking into account scripts and the context labels, and display such split text to the user that would select to have split display (all three of the sections, or just one of them).
2009-07-20T20:33:09Z	<nowiki>{{PAGENAME}}/hr, {{PAGENAME}}/bs, {{PAGENAME}}/sr, {{PAGENAME}}/sh that would be transcluded on the main page this would all be pretty much trivial.</nowiki>
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	''apparently it is difficult-to-impossible for a bot to repair the database, but some on-the-fly javascript can do it for a browser user? Huh?'' - Can you make ''any'' kind of counter-argument without ridiculing or insulting the interlocutor Robert? I know it's stronger than you, trying to pump your ego all the time, but can you ''please'' at least try to be civil? What I was saying is that this "reparing of damage" (has it ''ever'' occurred to you that this brain-damaged term you continue to utilize to describe what the Serbo-Croatian contributing community has been doing for the last four months is kind of...insultive?) is not something that can be "undone" as I've been greatly expanding the merged/created entries with inflections, pronuncations, etymologies etc.
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	''did he really say that people who disagreed with him should "visit a psychiatrist"? apparently so, it is right there on the screen.
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	instead of ==Serbo-Croatian==, and not "everyone who disagrees with me".
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	As for the "rejection" of Serbo-Croatian I've provided at least a dozen citatitions crom the most illustrious living and dead Slavists who used/are using the term wihtout problems.
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	We can call it "Serbo-Croatian" or "BCS" or whatever - it's the same language regardless of the name.
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	SIL/ISO still uses the term "Serbo-Croatian" as a macrolanguage, which proves it's not at all controversial.
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	''sh'' code is not deleted only deprecated, and we can reuse it for our puprose (we already have a bunch of languages without ISO codes, and SIL/ISO won't assign 2-letter codes anymore, so there's not reason for us ''not'' to use <tt>sh</tt>.).
2009-07-21T11:43:18Z	Such an activity will be outlawed by the current SC unification vote (but that doesn't really seem to bother you..), so it's moreover highly-controversial and disruptive should you unilaterally put it into action.
2009-07-21T16:35:53Z	Also Lmaltier, you might familiarize yourself with the general public's perception of English language, and British and American (Anglosaxon) cultural milieu on ex-yu nationalist area - it's not that they really like it.
2009-07-21T16:35:53Z	Croat nationalists still resent the British for Bleiburg (I've personally saw people celebrating when London terrorists attacks happened in 2005 - and these were collage students, imagine what would be the reaction of an uneducated peasant), Serbs absolutely despise America and NATO (after the bombings that had less real-world arguments than the WoMD were for the attack on Iraq), and Bosniaks and Croats also don't have much pretty words for both of them either (it was de facto embargo on weapons and the politics of "non-action" by UN/NATO(SC) for the whole ex-yu area that ''enabled'' the bloody output of the 1990s conflict).
2009-07-21T16:40:32Z	Croat nationalists still resent the British for Bleiburg (I've personally seen people celebrating when London terrorists attacks happened in 2005 - and these were collage students, imagine what would be the reaction of an uneducated peasant), Serbs absolutely despise America and NATO (after the bombings that had less real-world arguments than the WoMD were for the attack on Iraq), and Bosniaks and Croats also don't have much pretty words for both of them either (it was de facto embargo on weapons and the politics of "non-action" by UN/NATO(SC) for the whole ex-yu area that ''enabled'' the bloody output of the 1990s conflict).
2009-07-21T17:42:53Z	There is no "Serbo-Croatian party" and we don't want to emphasize South Slavic unity or whatever.
2009-07-21T17:42:53Z	SIL/ISO still uses it as a macrolanguage identifier [http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=hbs] so it can hardly be argued to be "demonized" in English-speaking literature as it is in the native ones (esp.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	Can you please rephrase this statement? What I was saying is that the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is completely benign ''in English language'', as that can abundantly corroborated by citing both the relevant scholarly publications (as I have done above to Polansky et al.), and the international authorities such as SIL/ISO which still utilize the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' for what they call "macrolanguage" (a term not used in general linguistics).
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	Such a sitation when there are 3 (soon even 4!) Ausbau languages that are standardized on the ''same'' dialect is unprecedented anywhere in the world, so drawing any kind of comparisons would be misleading.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	Please don't generalize conclusions to entire nations.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	- in practice ''exactly nothing'' has changed before the change, when each of those states had respectively "Serbo-Croatian", "Serbian" etc.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	Some of them out of courtesy use the term "Croatian language" when attending conferences in Croatia (so that the hosts wouldn't be "offended"), but elsewhere they simply stick to Serbo-Croatian, as it's pointless assign one ethnic designation to the word that is spoken the same way by at least 4 other ethnicities/nations.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	And outsiders have to respect this decision.'' - perhaps for some this is true, but how come that ''all'' of the native Serbo-Croatian speakers that have voted here (4 of them so far, of all 3 nations, as I can count), and long-time contributors of SC on this projects, are supportive of this proposal? ^_^ The term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is '''''not''''' demonised in English language, and that's what matters.
2009-07-21T21:15:49Z	We shouldn't care for the mental health of Balkanic nationalist bigots.
2009-07-21T21:35:23Z	What I am basically saying is that this type of collaborative cross-cultural wikiproject will be ''eo ipso'' repulsive for hardline nationalist bigots, especially for those that would like to think that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are 3 completely different languages that just happen to have 99% identical grammar by pure chance.
2009-07-21T21:35:23Z	I find it overall rather sad, if not ironic, that several advocates of the alleged multiethnic perspectives that are being PoVized by the proposal still haven't manage to see a simple fact: ''All'' the actual Serbo-Croatian contributors and native speakers that voted actually ''agree''; we don't "hate" each other, don't find the notion of a common language "insultive" of "disrespectful", don't want to burn each other houses.
2009-07-21T21:36:52Z	I find it overall rather sad, if not ironic, that several advocates of the alleged multiethnic perspectives that are being PoVized by the proposal still haven't managed to realize a simple fact: ''All'' the actual Serbo-Croatian contributors and native speakers that voted actually ''agree''; we don't "hate" each other, don't find the notion of a common language "insultive" of "disrespectful", don't want to burn each other houses.
2009-07-22T01:27:53Z	Don't be fooled Ruakh, Ullmann's vote on the vote page ''still'' has the "war crimes blahblah" propaganda on it, and I reminded him of that and he didn't remove it nevertheless.
2009-07-22T01:27:53Z	Absolutely everything he wrote from the start was to dismiss the proposal on various grounds, either by ad hominems against the SC proposal initiators (which I ignored at the start, as one can see), overblown alleged technical "deficiencies" of implementing the proposal, continuous belittling of the intelligence and competency of doubtless experts such as myself (I'm a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian and he can't speak any Slavic language at all!).
2009-07-22T01:51:54Z	Serbo-Croatian: {{t|sh|sc=Cyrl|мисао|alt=ми̑сао|tr={{l|sh|misao|mȋsao}}}}.
2009-07-22T10:09:59Z	some template like {{temp|-sh-}} that could display either ==Serbo-Croatian==, or ==BCS== or whatever, on the basis of a user preference (note that we could do this later, using a bot to replace ==Serbo-Croatian== with an alternative display).
2009-07-22T10:09:59Z	But the thing is that everything other than ''Serbo-Croatian'' has generally very little English usage, and ''Serbo-Croatian'' is by far the most common English term, still used by the professionals, SIL/ISO, dictionaries.
2009-07-22T10:36:26Z	Unlike English, Serbo-Croatian has very solid phonological system that basically hasn't changed at all in the last few hundred years.
2009-07-22T10:36:26Z	Just a few minutes ago I've read how the broadcast of Croatian hardline nationalist performer on the Croatian national television caused a stir of disapproval all over Serbia [http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/negodovanje-zbog-emitiranja-snimke-koncerta-tko-je-thompsona-pustio-u-srbiju/442728.aspx].
2009-07-22T11:10:39Z	Yeah it's all "my fault", It was I that started calling everyone Serbian nationalist for weeks, that still has "war crimes" type of comment on his vote, that has tried not to constructively discuss the shortcomings of the proposal but instead ''proactively find'' them, offering no workarounds or real solutions, only on "how it's bad", inviting anyone to change their support vote to oppose (!).
2009-07-22T11:10:39Z	War criminals on ICTY ''never'' use the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' (at least I never saw one of them using the term, and I watched hundreds of trial videos).
2009-07-22T11:10:39Z	Serbo-Croatian literally language (and the term itself!) was created some 150 years ago, long before the 1990s war crimes, 1945+ communist regimes etc.
2009-07-22T11:10:39Z	took place - by whom exactly? Croatian and Serbian linguistic visionaries, who wanted to the unify the divergent dialect-based literatures among their brotherly nations.
2009-07-22T11:10:39Z	If you simply can't see the ''immense'' amount of convenience that the unified approach would bring us, and all see it through some political prisma - well, I'm sorry for that.
2009-07-22T11:12:10Z	Serbo-Croatian literal language (and the term itself!) was created some 150 years ago, long before the 1990s war crimes, 1945+ communist regimes etc.
2009-07-22T12:16:00Z	I have no doubts that you are indeed acting in the goodest possible faith ''from your own personal perspective'', but it's just that some of those actions would prove to ultimately ''very detrimental'' for what I strongly believe is the best viable option for this Serbo-Croatian language treatment.
2009-07-22T15:25:22Z	I've told you before: that happened long time ago, was under investigation you have ''no clue'' about (try asking friend Connel what really happened; I started contributing to en.wikt soon after that), so I'd be grateful if you '''stopped'''' insinuating and making any kind of "conclusions" characteristic of you.
2009-07-22T15:28:31Z	I've told you before: that happened long time ago, was under investigation you have ''no clue'' about (try asking friend Connel what really happened - he was well-informed at the time; I started contributing to en.wikt immediately after that), so I'd be ''really'' grateful if you '''stopped'''' insinuating something about me and making any kind of "conclusions" characteristic of you.
2009-07-22T15:30:31Z	I've told you before: that happened long time ago, was under investigation you have ''no clue'' about (try asking friend Connel what really happened - he was well-informed at the time; I started contributing to en.wikt immediately after that), so I'd be ''really'' grateful if you '''stopped''' insinuating something about me and making any kind of "conclusions" characteristic of you.
2009-07-22T15:30:31Z	Of DIREKTOR: He is a Croat who actively contributes to English Wikipedia, native speaker of both Serbo-Croatian and English.
2009-07-22T15:51:35Z	So far you've mentioned exactly one thing: the generated language code lang="sh" would not work for CSS customizations for user that had it set up for bs/hr/sr - but such users make up a negligible minority anyway (one out of x million surfers), and could simply redefine their bs/hr/sr rules for sh or whatever (or we can simply default it to sh).
2009-07-22T15:51:35Z	That was one of the primary reasons for unification! I cannot believe that you're writing that it would be "impossible to maintain".
2009-07-22T18:54:44Z	<sh>, <ch> instead of <š>, <č>, but it would be great if users could choose some scientific transliteration schemes.
2009-07-22T19:08:21Z	Yeah beside Duncan (to whom I apologized and who'll hopefully be back here soon) there's the Polansky who's Czech and who asked me for references on several occasions, and when I cited ones from the most illustrious living and dead Slavists he changed his vote to oppose :P I guess he still holds a grudge against me when I confronted him at the article [[střední Evropa]] (which is SoP per official Czech orthography but is formatted as a ==Proper noun==; should be [[Střední Evropa]]).
2009-07-22T19:08:21Z	But generally yeah, it's easy to vote against something that doesn't touch you ''at all'': if the opposers were the ones actually ''editing'' Serbo-Croatian entries, they'd likely be singing completely different tune ;) Long live the CNN/Hollywood/Wikipedia education.
2009-07-22T23:32:11Z	I've already added some Čakavianisms: [[:Category:Chakavian Serbo-Croatian]] ;) Most Chakavian speeches will unfortunately soon die out (be Štokavianized under the influence of literary idiom used by the media and taught in schools).
2009-07-23T07:31:16Z	Feel free to add a few words in your mother tongue formatted as ==Serbo-Croatian== :).
2009-07-23T12:09:41Z	Slavic month names preferred in modern literary Croatian were dialectalisms until the late 19th century, and were moreover also used by Bosniaks and Serbs until the standardization ousted them in preference of Latinisms.
2009-07-23T14:01:35Z	It would be absolutely offensive for 2-3 million Ijekavian Neoštokavian speaking Serbs and 2+ million Ijekavian Neoštokavian speaking Bosniaks to impose ==Croatian== as a "primary entry" (that's the term that this proposal uses), and other sections being mere stubs.
2009-07-23T14:36:41Z	Believe it or not, Croats (and Bosniaks - tho for a much lesser extents) have some 800 years of tradition of using Cyrillic script, of a particular style called ''[[w:Bosnian Cyrillic|bosančica]]''.
2009-07-23T14:36:41Z	the Serbo-Croatian), which was up until 5 years ago called "Ijekavian Serbian" in the constitution.
2009-07-23T14:41:18Z	They ''must'' be all treated equally - either all at the same section such as ==Serbo-Croatian==, or all at the separate sections as full-blown entries.
2009-07-23T14:47:03Z	There is no reason why we cannot reduce duplication, follow the standards, avoid taking an official political position, preserve NPOV, and get there from here.
2009-07-23T14:47:03Z	Taking a political position has the potential to put the Foundation in a very difficult position: we must not be doing that.
2009-07-23T14:47:03Z	Why "set this aside" ??? Robert, first you open a topic that starts with '''completely irrelevant''' CNN/Hollywood type of bullshit propaganda against the Serbs, and then you ask "please stop and think for a while before posting anything here not entirely constructive" ????!!!! Once I again, I have to rub my eyes to convince myself that I am not dreaming.
2009-07-23T14:47:03Z	I can imagine that for a bunch of Westerners the very notion of bombing Serbia by NATO (the "defensive, peace-keeping military alliance") in 1999 was something "deserved", and that the destruction of thousands of civilian objects and more than 1000 unarmed innocent people that died during the bombings by NATO terrorists were something that the Serb people "brought upon themselves", but I'm sorry to disappoint you - your "independent media" lied, and you all succumbed to the NWO propaganda.
2009-07-23T14:47:03Z	The treatment of what are today separate standard languages must be '''equal''' - either all of them are treated commonly under one header such as ==Serbo-Croatian==, or all are given an option to have full-blown separate entries.
2009-07-23T14:51:23Z	As for this "Motenegrin" - all it got was a proposed orthography with 2 additional graphemes denoting allophones, and which is not used in Montengerin media or schoolbooks at all (plus the "old" spellings in conformance with phonological Serbo-Croatian orthography are also valid, thus both e.g.
2009-07-23T14:51:23Z	the Serbo-Croatian), which was up until 5 years ago called "Ijekavian Serbian" in the Montengerin constitution.
2009-07-23T15:06:52Z	Maločas sam dodao srpsko značenje uz reč 'harm' (zanimljivo!; zapravo hteo sam da vidim kako to funkcioniše); mislio sam da tu stavim Serbo-Croatian ali, vidim da tog jezika tamo još nema.
2009-07-23T15:06:52Z	Srpskohrvatske rěči se nalaze u [[:Category:Serbo-Croatian language]] pa ih možeš tamo razgledavati.
2009-07-23T15:37:49Z	The optimal solution is simply to treat it all in ''one'' common language section (termed ==Serbo-Croatian==, ==BCSM== or whatever).
2009-07-23T15:37:49Z	IMHO this proposal basically proscribes nothing that hasn't be done before when separate identical entries were being created: it simply camouflages the former practice by under misleading weasel-words such as "primary entry", appearing to have some practical effect in reducing duplication when in fact everything what was done before is still allowed (it's just not "recommended" :), and furthermore openly promotes ethnic discrimination on the basis of preference of script.
2009-07-23T15:37:49Z	Having languages named after ethnic groups is a very bad thing by itself (especially in the Balkans), and the best that we could do is by using neutral names such as ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-07-23T16:03:31Z	I think that every nation has a right to call it's own language however it wishes, but also think that it has ''no right'' to exclusively misappropriate to itself something that it's shared with other nations.
2009-07-23T16:03:31Z	I personally don't feel like any kind of a radical nationalist (though I very much worship Croatian cultural heritage, but in form of "good nationalism"), but would nevertheless feel very bad if I had to create only ==Croatian== words as a form of a ''workaround'' to reduce the content duplication.
2009-07-24T11:09:35Z	As I said, IMHO it's simply the best to stick to ''Serbo-Croatain'' because it's the most widely used English-language name, as something like "BCS" would be very confusing to the most of our readers, as that term is not that well-known even amonst English-speaking learners of SC, whilst everyone is familiar with ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-07-24T11:09:35Z	''mliko'') is shared - among Bosniaks and Croats.
2009-07-24T12:20:18Z	'''All''' of the native Serbo-Croatian speakers are well-aware how "different" their varieties are.
2009-07-24T12:20:18Z	Bosniaks and Bosnians especailly - because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a multiethnic federation state, with large-scale mixtures of population (look up the ethnic map and see for yourself), and B&H Bosniaks/Croats/Serbs, all speaking the same sub-idiom (Ijekavian Neoštokavian) with the polarization of lexis much, much lower than the standards would insinuate to the innocent outside observer, are aware that the language they speak is one, simply under different "official" names.
2009-07-24T12:20:18Z	How exactly are there native speakers of Serbo-Croatian (with the exception of [[User:Pepsi Lite|Pepsi Lite]]) that voted against the proposal? How many actual Serbo-Croatian contributors are there voting for oppose? You all seem to be concerned for problems that ''aren't there'', and proposing the type of "solutions" which - you wouldn't be the one having to clean up, or waste countless hours maintaining.
2009-07-24T14:09:25Z	Bogorm, Serbo-Croatian ''vatra'' is one of those Paleo-Balkanic substratum words (cf.
2009-07-24T14:09:25Z	Albanian {{term|vatër|lang=sq}}, Romanian {{term|vatră|lang=ro}}), of very doubtful IE ancestry, which has spread in Serbo-Croatian only during the second wave of Štokavians speakers (Slavicized Vlachs) ousting the native Slavic word {{term|oganj|lang=sh}} (which ''is'' of PIE ancestry, with obvious cognates such as Latin ''ignis'', Sanskrit ''agni'' etc.).
2009-07-24T15:11:43Z	So Russian under ==Russian==, Serbo-Croatian under ==Serbo-Croatian== and so on.
2009-07-24T15:33:42Z	So, where is the definition? He probably found it quickly after that, but not at once, because the table of contents is somewhat misleading.
2009-07-24T17:23:17Z	They define ''xcl'' as "Classical Armenian", but we chose the name ''Old Armenian'' to be in conformance with the Wiktionary naming scheme used for other ancient languages (such as Old English, Old Church Slavonic etc.).
2009-07-25T01:26:11Z	What if several languages use the same transliteration scheme - should they be defined in separate set of identical mappings, or can the script support multiple language codes (and how do I mark it if it can)?.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	The term ''Serbo-Croatian'' is perfectly acceptable in English language.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	[[w:Bosnian Cyrillic|Bosnian Cyrillic]] script (or ''Western Cyrillic'', as it is more properly called) has as much to do with modern-day [[w:Bosnian language|Bosnian language]] (Serbo-Croatian variety codified in the 1990s), as [[w:Ancient Macedonian language|Ancient Macedonian]] has with modern day [[w:Macedonian language|Macedonian language]].
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	Historically, this type of Cyrillic script was used by all 3 ethnicities - Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs, and most of it preserved literary output is in fact by Croatian writers (Bosnian Franciscan monks).
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	Also, per B&H constitution the modern-day codified Bosnian language ''can'' also be written in Cyrillic script (!), although in practice it is never so as 99.999% of Bosniaks only use Latin script.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	The effect of the proposal would be a unification of previously 3 (or 4, when so-called "Montengrin language" gets invented in a few years, if it ever does) separate sections in one.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	However, the important thing to have in mind is that ''no information should be lost'' - only the content presentation would be ''optimized'', greatly facilitating the work of Serbo-Croatian contributors (such as myself), as explained in the abovelinked rationale, as well as to SC Wiktionary users who wouldn't have to waste time chasing 4-6 entries scattered on several pages, with usually 95% of content duplication among them.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	The only problem would be folks who use CSS customization for bs/hr/sr language tags in HTML - but these are something like one out of billion surfers, and they should have no problems redefining their rules to "sh" tag.
2009-07-27T13:01:39Z	(My apologies for another longish "wannabe-abusive" reply - Serbo-Croatian is my mother tongue, and I've done some 20 000 edits on Wiktionary Serbo-Croatian entries, and upon seeing so much FUD disseminated by a person who doesn't even know any Slavic language at all I feel obliged to dismiss it under rational arguments, what RU terms "whining" but you better judge for yourself).
2009-07-27T13:07:27Z	Ullmann to cease at once with empty rhetoric wordplays, drop the ad hominems, quasi-cynical overtones and ''dangerously'' misleading abuse of words (such as "disruption", "damage", "breaking of standards" etc.), rewording his arguments in a way that is logically parsable to a civilized human brain.
2009-07-29T14:48:33Z	I thought all of the Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary speakers were notified, but I somehow forgot you: [[Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian]].
2009-07-29T14:48:33Z	If your proficiency in Serbo-Croatian is <tt>sh-2</tt> as you note on your userpage, the rationale for the merger proposal should be pretty much self-understandable :)) If you could leave a brief comment (preferebly on the <tt><nowiki>{{support}} vote :) on the differences and "differences" among Serbo-Croatian varieties from your experience, it would be greatly appreciated.</nowiki>
2009-07-29T17:06:01Z	Ask ''any'' university professor of Slavic Studies in your city (wherever you live, granted it's not ex-Yugoslavia), whether anything has changed between 1989, when it was officially Serbo-Croatian, and 2009.
2009-07-29T17:06:01Z	I won't strike any votes, but when the vote formally expires I'll provide various metrics on the numerical voting output, based the ability of the opposing voters (namely the proficiency in Serbo-Croatian and/or other Slavic languages), likelihood of being canvassed, number of their contributions in SC and/or other Slavic languages, and the overall participation on the discussion boards when this issue was abundantly raised.
2009-07-29T17:06:01Z	You surely must agree that it's pointless to equally treat the votes of superb contributors and project regulars who are knowledgeable on the linguistic and political background of the issue, and "paratroopers" who didn't even bother to read the unification rationale, landing here on the basis of some malicious rumors.
2009-07-29T17:21:08Z	I won't strike any votes or close the vote itself, but when the vote formally expires I'll try to provide various metrics on the numerical voting output, based the ability of the opposing voters (namely the proficiency in Serbo-Croatian and/or other Slavic languages), likelihood of being canvassed, number of their contributions in SC and/or other Slavic languages, and the overall participation on the discussion boards when this issue was abundantly raised, in order to help decide to what extent ''communis opinio'' among several important groups (native speakers and SC contributors on one side, and the project regulars on the other side) has been achieved.
2009-07-29T17:21:08Z	By common sense, you surely ''must'' agree that it's pointless to equally treat the votes of superb contributors and project regulars who are (or came to be) knowledgeable on the linguistic and political background of the issue, and "paratroopers" who didn't even bother to read the unification rationale, possibly landing here on the basis of some malicious rumors.
2009-07-29T22:26:37Z	B/C/S Wiktionaries themselves are prime example of how pointless the political division of SC varieties is ''in practice''.
2009-07-29T23:37:48Z	Bosnian translation is perfectly valid literary Croatian except for the two words: ''konsultovati'' (also Serbian; Croatian would prefer verbs on ''-irati'' > ''konzultirati'', see the unification rationale), ''trougao'' "triangle" (also Serbian; Croatian would prefer ''trokut'', although both of the words for "angle" ''ugao'' and ''kut'' are valid in standard Croatian).
2009-07-30T02:40:42Z	So far, as far as I can tell only two of the voters have expressed their disagreement with the name ''Serbo-Croatian'', but as I said, it really bears absolutely no negative connotation in general use in English language (as opposed to the native variant ''srpskohrvatski'' which could to some of the speakers), and is used in top-dictionaries, grammars..and no less then by SIL/ISO itself for their "macrolanguage" classification.
2009-07-30T04:20:04Z	In the meantime, I personally grew extremely sick of Ullmann's sudden but perpetual Serbophobic FUDfest, him trying to introduce needless political overtones where there were none, and in that particular BP discussion (there were other ones) with just about everybody expressing the support for the merger proposal policy, methought it was best to cut the drama altogether by a vote.
2009-07-30T04:20:04Z	''I can only assume that you're looking for this "numerical output" to further your own point of view.'' - what "point of view" are you on earth talking about ? Have you actually ''read'' what this proposal is about? I sincerely hope that you're not onto the Lmaltier's "NPOV" argument...we're being 100% NPOV as ''all the standard languages are being treated equally'', simply under a different formatting scheme.
2009-07-31T01:59:59Z	The most vocal ones completely ignore the undisputed benefits the merger proposal brings (to both sides, contributors and the Wiktionary users), and are more intent to see some imaginary Serb nationalist agenda, imaginary NPOV (how on earth can there be NPOV when we treat all the standards ''equally''?) or imaginary could-be contributors.
2009-07-31T01:59:59Z	It's ''really'' hard to reason with such folks, when they're being so irrationally against something that ''absolutely doesn't touch them at all'', as they won't be the ones wasting countless hours maintaining the entries in those "different languages" with the ''identical'' content but spread on some 4-6 different sections (I would also add "won't be the ones learning Serbo-Croatian thru such wastefully spread duplicative content", but that's obvious :P).
2009-07-31T21:18:48Z	Serbo-Croatian ''tući'' is from earlier ''tlći'' (with the syllabic /l/ which yielded /u/ in the Štokavian and Čakavian dialects), from earlier ''tlěći'' (I have no idea how ''jat'' has been lost, but it's preserved in e.g.
2009-07-31T21:18:48Z	''Jat'' can also be seen in OCS {{term|sc=Cyrs|тлѣшти|lang=cu}} (OCS /št/ regularly corresponds to Štokavian Serbo-Croatian /ć/).
2009-08-01T02:08:25Z	Also, you should note that all Slavic languages are ''really'' close (they were the last IE branch to disintegrate, 1000-1100 years ago still de facto one language), and that a native speaker of other South Slavic languages (Slovenian, Bulgarian and Macedonian) can understand a great deal of Serbo-Croatian, so I presume that e.g.
2009-08-01T02:08:25Z	The consensus ''in practice'' started to operate with [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:About_Serbo-Croatian&diff=6179801&oldid=4918806 this] edit, when I started working on the proposed policy on how to treat all the SC varieties commonly (primarily the issue of 2 scripts, 3 jat reflexes, all mapped to 3 standards, none of which encompasses all the possibilities), which was slowly expanded and elaborated on with details as it was used in merging the existing entries (so far quite thoroughly, [[:Category:Serbo-Croatian nouns]] has ATM ~ 3600 entries, more than [[:Category:Serbian nouns]] and [[:Category:Bosnian nouns]] combined, which have ~ 3100 together ATM).
2009-08-01T02:08:25Z	Carolina.Wren was the only one who expressed disagreement on the basis of SIL/ISO classification scheme (i.e.
2009-08-01T02:08:25Z	nothing against he proposed unification scheme itself), but I eventually persuaded her on the [[Wiktionary_talk:About_Serbo-Croatian#justification|talkpage]].
2009-08-02T19:43:58Z	Yes, and colloquially it is quite often spoken as [tica], as the <pt> cluster isn't easy to pronounce :) I'm not bothered by your request, au contraire! BTW, I started writing [[w:Serbo-Croatian grammar]], feel free to comment on it if you find sth confusing/interesting!.
2009-08-03T18:23:15Z	The user [[:fr:Utilisateur:Béotien lambda|Béotien lambda]] apparently even quoted from the article on Bosnian language on French Wikipedia that the "Bosnian language" is "merely a sociolinuistic (=political) construct, and that linguistically B/C/S/M are all one language", on which Lmaltier responded: ''Mais là n'est pas la question.
2009-08-03T18:23:15Z	I cannot really resent Rose, Diana or [[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] whose only knowledge on Serbo-Croatian is based on a blind belief to persons they have firm trust in, and who apparently think that the sole purpose of a vote is to [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/8/751262/-linguistic-genocide:-suppression-of-Croatian-and-Bosnian "commit linguistic genocide"], or "forbid internationally recognized languages" :) All of them would change their mind after 5 minutes of discussion with me, but what I do.
2009-08-03T18:24:18Z	I cannot really resent Rose, Diana or [[User:Urhixidur|Urhixidur]] whose only knowledge on Serbo-Croatian is based on a blind belief to persons they have firm trust in, and who apparently think that the sole purpose of a vote is to [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/8/751262/-linguistic-genocide:-suppression-of-Croatian-and-Bosnian "commit linguistic genocide"], or "forbid internationally recognized languages" :) All of them would change their mind after 5 minutes of discussion with me, but what can I do.
2009-08-03T19:03:21Z	Slovene nationalist prefer ''Slovene'' to ''Slovenian'' because Slovene is more like "of ethnic Slovene" and Slovenian is more "of Slovenia" (cf.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	''Arguments repeated throughout the conversation are often unreferenced..'' - nonsense, I listed at list a dozen the most prominent living and dead Slavists (Vasmer, Dybo, Trubačev, Greenberg) and modern Wstern experts on Serbo Croatian (Browne, Naylor..).
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	The sad truth that you are deliberetaly beeing silent on is that Croatian (Ijekavian) variety of Serbo-Croatian was by Croatian Vukovians (Broz, Maretić et al.) almost 90% standardized on Ijekavian Serbian material collected by Vuk Karadžić.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	And that was ''by far'' the most influential Croatian dictionary of the 20th century! The same can be said for Maretić grammar of Serbo-Croatian, which Pranjković called "the best Croatian grammar ever written".
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	People literally "un-learned" the language of their grand-grand-grand-fathers! If this is "natural course of development", you must redifine your notion of "natural".
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	Slavist still continue to use the term ''Serbo-Croatian''? Try going to [[w:IWoBA|IWoBA]] and advocating separate "Croatian language" to Kortlandt; he published hundreds of papers on it's prosody and accentuation, always calling ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	He'd probably mock you to complete embarrassment in front of the intelignetsia of Balto-Slavic Studies, as '''all''' of them (except for Croatian linguists, of course), use the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' without problems, as they've been doing for decades.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	''It is not necessarily a “nationalism”, such is a situation at other European nations – everybody tends to have their own language recognized.'' - yes, I've read on some movements to promote "Belgian language", and "Swiss language" recently.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	''Stating that the official state of these languages, recognized by governments, is purely a political or nationalistic POV, and that it has nothing to do with the actual language, is way out of line'' - Tell that to [[w:Wayles Browne|Wayles Browne]], [[w:Frederik Kortlandt|Frederik Kortlandt]], [[w:Vladimir Dybo|Vladimir Dybo]].
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	The fact is that there was officially only one language, and to which ISO granted only one ISO code - sh, and only ''later'' when these new "languages" were fabricated in the 1990s (at different times, not all at once) additional codes were assigned.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	We are simply treating the common core at one L2 sections for pragmatic reasons, because this brain-damaged PHP software doesn't allow any other more useful approach, and after some ~ 9 000 ==Croatian== words I personally added to Wiktionary I've grown quite tired to copy/paste (or force poor Dijan to do so) it to ==Bosnian== and ==Serbian==.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	The approach of using ==Serbo-Croatian== section is 100% NPOV as no standard language is given preference.
2009-08-03T22:55:42Z	We're trying to ignore the "different/same languages" issue altogether (or at least try to, too many have been indoctrinated to see this merger as a "political issue" so it's kind of hard), but when it is mentioned (usually on the basis of argument: is it possible to treat them collectively, and to what extant are the standards "different") I have to respond, because it's usually ignorant FUD :).
2009-08-04T14:41:57Z	Croatian Wiktionary project is ''dead'' by all imaginable criteria, and that is merely a fact :) Let's just say I've had lots of bad experiences with Krstulović on hr.wikt, and that my implied superiority has a firm grounding in some background details that are not particularly important right now.
2009-08-04T14:51:50Z	Those poor guys probably think by now that I'm some kind of "Serbian nationalist" intent on "linguistic genocide" :D.
2009-08-04T17:28:32Z	Simply the unnecessary political connotations obscure the big picture, which has caused lots of folks to vote for oppose despite the doubtless numerous ''practical'' benefits for improving the SC Wiktionary entries the proposal brings, and which are listed and were argued many times on many places.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	It is not clear whether he is knowingly pushing extreme political POV, or simply ignorant of the possibility that there may be other views in the world, sort of akin to white racists who are blithely ignorant of their racism, as it is all they know.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	In order to be consistent with the list of current existing wiktionaries, it has also been proposed to accept Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, as well as Serbo-Croatian: editors willing to work only for Serbo-Croatian would be allowed to do so, people willing to work only on their own language (e.g.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	But this proposal has been vehemently rejected by proponents of "Serbo-Croatian" only.)<br>.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	"Serbo-Croatian" was originally a language reform promoted in the 19th century (when there was a wave of such things, all more-or-less utopian, and all pretty much linguistic nonsense.) As the languages are auspraches, that is, mostly mutually intelligible, this seemed/seems reasonable to the reformers, regardless of its unworkability.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	It was revived (but not in identical form) by Communist Yugoslavia, used to promote Serbian (and Croatian) dominance.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	(Which language(s) should be considered official being quite controversial, but note that in any cases it is "languages"; no mention of "Serbo-Croatian")<br>.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	ISO, the Library of Congress (as the ISO 639-1 RA), SIL (as the ISO 639-3) have deleted "Serbo-Croatian" and the corresponding code ("sh") from the standards.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	Is it acceptable for such a vote to actively promote a language and concept that is seen as profoundly offensive and rejected by the international community and uniformly by the nations involved?.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	{{quote|Serbo-Croatian" was originally a language reform promoted in the 19th century (when there was a wave of such things, all more-or-less utopian, and all pretty much linguistic nonsense.) As the languages are auspraches, that is, mostly mutually intelligible, this seemed/seems reasonable to the reformers, regardless of its unworkability.
2009-08-05T15:04:44Z	Robert Ullmann is apparently as ignorant in history as much as he is in linguistics.
2009-08-05T16:41:20Z	The only ones he can "produce" are some Croatian and Serbian nationalist bigots, like [[User:Pepsi Lite|Pepsi Lite]] and his ilk.
2009-08-05T16:41:20Z	Don't feel embarrassed by your ignorance on the matters of linguistics and history.
2009-08-05T16:41:20Z	Occasionally engage your minions to troll Ivan.
2009-08-05T19:52:35Z	The question that you who are "against forbidding languages" must ask yourselves is: Are you rather in favor of quasi-NPOV scheme that will support imaginary contributors but make Wiktionary 10 times ''less'' convenient for both the SC language learners (of either variety, or all of them at once, as SC is usually taught) and the regular SC contributors, or a convenient scheme whose ''only'' (!) disadvantage is to potentially drive away people like [[User:Pepsi Lite|Pelsi Lite]] and Krstulović, who are more intent to promote non-existing "differences" and ethnic hatred than to actually spend a significant amount of time making a Wiktionary a better place.
2009-08-05T19:52:35Z	There is no middle ground between those two options, it's ''pointless'' to have both B/C/S ''and'' the merged SC entry: people don't contribute SC entries here to promote a particular political PoV on the issue, and I (and assure you the others) couldn't simply "ignore" if I saw e.g.
2009-08-05T19:52:35Z	someone adding a ==Croatian== entry on the page that already has ==Serbo-Croatian==, but only partial one and with errors: I'd feel obliged to amend it, and the vicious circle of wasteful editing will be reintroduced, but this time with ''even more'' pointless multiplication of identical content.
2009-08-05T22:44:48Z	In case you haven't noticed, a number of native Serbo-Croatian speakers supporting the unification effort have expressed their wish to further contribute to this project had this vote succeeded.
2009-08-05T22:44:48Z	At any case, their vote, deprived of nationalist bigotry and coming from a native spakear, or speaker of other related Slavic language (they're all very similar), surely much, much more valuable than that coming from a person who doesn't have any proficiency in any Slavic language, and such a linguistic profile sadly dominates the opposing clique.
2009-08-05T22:44:48Z	And who is Ex13? New sockpuppet of [[User:Suradnik13|Suradnik13]], who is apparently as Serbophobic as RU: [[:m:Requests_for_comment/Croatian_Wikipedia_-_User_Suradnik13_-_blocking_and_deleting]].
2009-08-05T22:46:04Z	At any case, their vote, deprived of nationalist bigotry and coming from a native spakear, or speaker of other related Slavic language (they're all very similar), is surely much, much more valuable than that coming from a person who doesn't have any proficiency in any Slavic language, and such a linguistic profile sadly dominates the opposing clique.
2009-08-05T22:55:21Z	I've already mentioned that several times, that we can use <tt>hbs</tt> as a replacement for <tt>sh</tt> if the latter would cause browsers to self-destruct or something.
2009-08-05T22:55:21Z	And it would be basically trivially to replace all the instances of usage <tt>sh</tt> by <tt>hbs</tt> by a bot, if it becomes an issue, because ISO codes are consistently used in all the standard templates.
2009-08-05T22:55:21Z	As for the introduction of Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage by SIL/ISO - that's a bit sad twist of fate for the nationalist bigots who sought to separate what is linguistically doubtless one language.
2009-08-06T01:30:59Z	He is a brain-damaged bigot who vandalized hundreds of articles over the years, replacing the real etymologies of Turkish borrowings into SC with his imaginary "explanations", like [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ka%C5%A1ika&diff=3561393&oldid=3550009 this].
2009-08-06T03:29:48Z	That "Serb user" is a brain-damaged bigot who cost me many hours of painstaking reverting, and deserves no tolerance.
2009-08-06T03:29:48Z	Really Kubura, open your biggest Serbo-Croatian dictionary and try looking up native Slavic words starting with ''a''.
2009-08-06T03:29:48Z	in linguistics, and my interests in this is purely amateurish in character, but how exactly does that invalidate everything I wrote? :) Non quis, sed quid!.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	They haven't made appearance for the last 4 years, except for poking their noses now when they "oppose" from their nationalist holes, and leaving for good.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	''terms like "bcs" and "Serbo-Croatian" is heavy insult towards speakers of Croatian.'' - that's BS, we have 4 native Croats voting for unification.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	''During times of Yugoslavia, "Serbo-Croatian" was name for Serbian, part of project of artificial merging of Croatian and Serbian at the expense of Croatian.'' - BS, please see [[w:Serbo-Croatian language]] and realize that Kubura is deliberatly lying.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	''Montenegrin language has recently got its ortography.'' - it's exactly the same "old" Serbo-Croatian orthography with 2 new letters marking optional allophones that could be trivially adapted into the proposal.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	''I've promptly replied him with the source and citations (work of an eminent linguist and Academy of Sciences member) [6], ones he should have read if he wanted to be meritory discutant'' - those "eminent scientists" have no clue what they're talking about.
2009-08-06T06:11:39Z	''And his reaction to that was calling me "troll"'' - you are a first-class troll on Croatian and English Wikipedia and pretty much everyone who ever engaged with you can confirm this.
2009-08-06T09:43:22Z	Yes Perković blocked me (among others), he is not that different from the rest of your nationalist clique, at least when it comes to paranoia and AGF.
2009-08-06T23:19:08Z	I've created {{temp|BCSM}} that could be hopefully used as a substitute for L2 ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-08-06T23:19:08Z	''Serbo-Croatian''? :D I assume that this might introduce inconsistency in the alphabethic ordering for the folks who do so, but that is not a big deal anyway.
2009-08-06T23:19:08Z	Serbo-Croatian as a macrolanguage has a reserved code {{temp|hbs}} we might use instead if necessary.
2009-08-07T17:29:20Z	Serbo-Croatian varieties are much more similar than examples you mention.
2009-08-07T17:39:09Z	Be it "BCS", "Serbo-Croatian" or whatever.
2009-08-07T17:39:09Z	So it would be very much appreciated if you would cut the political nonsense no one here is interested in.
2009-08-07T19:19:53Z	Behold, the reasoning of a Croatian nationalist! "Language has nothing to do linguistics" - I mean, ROFL! :D What does it have to do with, ethnogenetic mythology perhaps? Oh and I see he added "linguists" like Auburger that are payed by the Croatian Academy of Sciences to write their cheap propaganda nonsense.
2009-08-07T19:36:46Z	In just about every publication I saw which had the comparative dialectological material, they used "Serbo-Croatian" (or sometimes "BCS" or "S&CR") to denote Neoštokavian, and other dialects as ''Čak.'' or ''Kaj.''.
2009-08-07T19:36:46Z	Once we work out the technical details (our structure is ''much'' more complicated than Wikipedia's) the ''Serbo-Croatian'' name will be gone by default (it would be a user-definable preference).
2009-08-07T19:36:46Z	Čakavian, Kajkavian and Torlakian are dead as literary dialects for a long, long time (and they'll basically be extinct by the end of this century); they are added only sporadically and marked with context labels.
2009-08-07T19:46:06Z	Obviously canvassed by Croatian nationalist bigots.
2009-08-07T19:46:06Z	Observe the ''strictly'' political "explanation" on why these are "different languages".
2009-08-07T19:46:06Z	Only a complete ignorant (or a very malicious person) can compare the difference between B/C/S to the differences between Romance languages (which diverged ~1500 years ago).
2009-08-07T19:57:17Z	Yes, it's purely "our thing", but it has gone way too far with me being portrayed as if some "genocidal Serbian nationalist" (it's as if you're accusing a Holocaust survivor of Nazi-Supremacism) to external bodies which ''might'' influence the local community decision.
2009-08-07T20:09:10Z	Re: "stopping deliberately subversive votes is not necessary >90% of the time" - The ongoing SC vote is exactly a situation where well-defined criteria for vote-acceptance are necessary, and where relatively significant amount of votes (both supportive and opposing, more of the latter group I'd say :D) appear to come from users expressing their political opinions and not voting on the proposed WT:ASH policy per se.
2009-08-07T20:12:36Z	You mention the word "Yugochauvinist" once again, or any other derogatory political term, and you'll get blocked.
2009-08-07T21:41:48Z	We are not voting on whether B/C/S are "same" or "different" language (being an ethnic Croat, a native speaker, and versed in basic Slavic studies, I'd say that they doubtless are, but that's just my PoV) - the vote is on '''treating them at one language header''', be it ''Serbo-Croatian'', ''BCS'' or whatever.
2009-08-07T21:41:48Z	(currently the proposal says "Serbo-Croatian", but we've working out the technical details to enable the change to "BCS(M)") We don't care for Gundulić, Karadžić, Communists, Vukovians etc.
2009-08-07T21:41:48Z	{{quote|The term Serbo-Croatian on Wiktionary acts as a generic container to all 4 national varieties.}}.
2009-08-07T21:43:22Z	(currently the proposal says "Serbo-Croatian", but we've been working out the technical details to enable the change to "BCS(M)" or anything else user-customizable) We don't care for Gundulić, Karadžić, Communists, Vukovians etc.
2009-08-07T22:46:47Z	As far as I can see, of the regulars having any proficiency in Slavic languages, only 2 of them are voting for oppose The apparent "lack of consensus" was introduced by Ullmann by political FUD.
2009-08-07T22:46:47Z	These canvassed opposing votes by nationalist bigots who imagine that "linguists does not determine what language is" are worthless, and it's just matter of formally making them so.
2009-08-07T22:47:43Z	These canvassed opposing votes by nationalist bigots who imagine that "linguistics does not determine what language is" are worthless, and it's just matter of formally making them so.
2009-08-08T00:32:08Z	And what exactly does all of your boring political tirade, absolutely no one here is interested in (and which is ridden with cheap Croatian nationalist propaganda I don't even want to waste my time refuting), has '''anything''' to do with the proposal?.
2009-08-08T00:32:08Z	Not all of us are nationalist bigots.
2009-08-08T00:37:56Z	Those suppletive-stem lexical differences constitute less then 5% of overall lexis, and hardly merit the maintenance nightmare we would introduce by complete separation.
2009-08-08T00:39:14Z	Those suppletive-stem lexical differences constitute less then 5% of overall lexis (more like 2-3% maximally, but this is free estimate and not something measurable), and hardly merit the maintenance nightmare we would introduce by complete separation.
2009-08-08T01:18:29Z	Good faith is dead in the context of this vote.
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	Also, a bit more political context on one thing that MH mentioned, and that is symptomatic of the average Croatian nationalist bigotry.
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	But not by the commies! (there was no Communist Yugoslavia back then), but by the extreme-nationalist Nazi puppet-regime of the so-called [[w:Independent_State_of_Croatia|Independent State of Croatia]].
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	I mean, Ijekavian Štokavian is spoken by ''at least'' 3 other nations (4 if you count "Yugoslavs", which lots of people declared themselves as back in those days, to rise above the petty nationalism), and it's absurd to claim Croatian exclusivity on sth that is not only not exclusively Croatian, but historically has very little been so (most of the Croats were "Štokavianized" in the 19th century, and the spread of what are now subliterary dialects Kajkavian and Čakavian was much greater).
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	Also, the period of 1971 was of great nationalist turbulence (see: [[w:Croatian Spring|Croatian Spring]]), and communists sought to minimize the damage that could be done by unilateral declaration of "Croatian language", so they outlawed all the publications having that name (regardless of the content!).
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	Generally lots of modern works on "Croatian language" by most eminent native linguists evolved from earlier works on Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-08T01:51:29Z	So the insisting and the resulting change on Croatian name from the earlier ''Serbo-Croatian'' was mostly a result of political decisions (and the opportunity to make them), and not sth based on real linguistic criteria for separate languages.
2009-08-08T02:06:51Z	Things could get ''very'' ugly, not only because of these dirty political labels such as "Yugo-chauvinist": That IP address whose comments you restored said "Ivan, I'm still digging on who you are, and after I found out we'll have a little chat on this piece of s*** you've put to vote" ^_^ Not that I'm afraid or sth.
2009-08-08T11:31:46Z	You now speak of tolerance, and your first comment on the proposal (after RU's Serbophobic remark) was derogatory "Will this Balkan people ever learn anything".
2009-08-08T11:39:27Z	No one here is "Yugoslav nationalists", but those Croatian-language Wiki member are pretty-obviously Croatian nationalists, including yourself, who are more interested in non-existing political dimension of the unification proposal than on its benefits.
2009-08-08T12:12:56Z	We have Croatian nationalist bigots that plainly lie that Serbian and Croatian are as distinct as Romance languages.
2009-08-08T12:25:48Z	You can either trust them, or "academicians" who are interested in "proving" that these are separate langauges by long political and historical tirades.
2009-08-08T12:32:54Z	There is no evidence of "growing more distant" - actually quite the opposite trend can be seen (radical-nationalist attempts in the 1990s during the Tuđman's hardline nationalist regime to promote more neologisms have been mostly ridiculed by the common people, and never succeeded).
2009-08-08T13:17:01Z	Note that all of them express they political belief, and not linguistic state of affairs, as not single one of them has provided a ''single'' piece of evidence why the common treatment wouldn't work.
2009-08-08T13:26:01Z	I also personally hope that these absurd political "arguments" put forth by Croatian nationalists will cause some of the opposing regulars to switch sides, unless they also think that "language has nothing to do with linguistics".
2009-08-08T13:34:51Z	I don't see who actually can do anything to stop what has been painlessly going on for the last 4 months :P Look, [[:Category:Serbo-Croatian nouns]] surpassed 4k entries yesterday! :D.
2009-08-08T21:27:10Z	We are using the header name ==Serbo-Croatian== or ==BCS== simply as a generic container for all 4 national variants.
2009-08-08T21:54:24Z	<span style="color:gray;">>Only Yugoslav nationalists (a remnant of a tyranny) have any interest in promoting a dated & discarded concept like Serbo-Croatian "language".</span>.
2009-08-08T21:54:24Z	And why exactly did the official Croatian census of 2001 had both ''hrvatsko-srpski'' and ''srpsko-hrvatski'' as a mother-tongue option? Even the Croatian government accepts that there is a volume of people rising above the petty nationalist designations.
2009-08-08T21:54:24Z	I recently started writing [[w:Serbo-Croatian grammar]], which should replace all the individual articles on B/C/S grammar.
2009-08-08T22:35:41Z	This proposal is about treating all the 3 (or 4, when Montenegrin gets codified) standards at the same header (quoting from [[WT:ASH#Introduction]]: "''The term Serbo-Croatian on Wiktionary acts as a generic container to all 4 national varieties.
2009-08-09T09:41:45Z	We're not trying to "promote" any kind of common "standard Serbo-Croatian", only to be descriptive of existing standards in the most possible convenient way.
2009-08-09T09:41:45Z	In case you haven't noticed a bulk of people voting oppose here are under the impression of exactly the opposite, that we ''are'' promoting some kind of "Serbo-Croatian of Yugoslavia", which is far, far from truth.
2009-08-09T10:57:36Z	Quoting from [[WT:ASH#Introduction]]: "''The term Serbo-Croatian on Wiktionary acts as a generic container to all 4 national varieties.
2009-08-09T10:57:36Z	It is exclusively a matter of formatting convenience, and not "political platform" or sth...(contrary to sb's imagination).
2009-08-09T10:57:36Z	As for the dialects: I'm quite aware how divergent they are, but as I said, they are sub-literary, have a ''very'' low production nowadays, and we are chiefly focused on the standard idiom (when you say ''Serbo-Croatian'' or ''BCS'' nowadays, you primarily mean "Neoštokavian").
2009-08-09T11:31:52Z	We're currently discussing the problems with the move to ==BCS== header name, the ''Serbo-Croatian'' proved to be a comletel fiasco.
2009-08-09T11:31:52Z	Your figure of 70% is highly exaggerated BTW, and we focus on English-language audience of which 99% is completely politically agnostic as to whether ''Serbo-Croatian'' or ''BCS''.
2009-08-09T11:31:52Z	It is also the name still used by most of the professional Slavists, and also by SIL/ISO as a "macrolanguage" designator, so it can hardly be said to be politically compromised in the English language (as opposed to the B/C/S itself).
2009-08-09T11:33:14Z	We're currently discussing the problems with the move to ==BCS== header name, the ''Serbo-Croatian'' unfortunately proved to be a complete fiasco.
2009-08-09T11:55:26Z	<span style="color:gray;">> Does Wikipedia forms its articles on the scientific facts or on the wishes and personal points of view of certain users? </span>.
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	Slavists OTOH still prefer "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	Whether you call it "Serbo-Croatian" (as most foreign dialectologists still do) or "Central South Slavic" is unimportant - the need for such term very much exists.
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	I cited Dutch /Balto-)Slavist Vermeer on the rationale page on this already: ''I stick to the traditional label of 'Serbo-Croatian' because from the point of view of the diachronic linguist a technical term denoting the dialect continuum traditionally referred to by it is indispensable and would have to be invented if it did not already exist.
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	I agree that SIL/ISO are under the influence of lots of politics (they even assign codes to imaginary languages!), but I hardly doubt that the creation of SC macrolanguage was one of those decisions.
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	They had the old SC code <tt>sh</tt>, and when the new standard languages emerged in the 1990s they've obsoleted it and grouped them all under the SC macrolanguage.
2009-08-09T12:20:41Z	The point I was making with it, however, is of the politically-uncompromised usage of the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' in English language, as opposed to the native B/C/S usage, and nothing else.
2009-08-09T12:22:25Z	Whether you call it "Serbo-Croatian" (as most foreign dialectologists still do) or "Central South Slavic diasystem" (that's what Croatian dialectologists use) is unimportant - the need for such term very much exists.
2009-08-09T12:22:25Z	I cited Dutch (Balto-)Slavist Vermeer on the rationale talkpage on this already: ''I stick to the traditional label of 'Serbo-Croatian' because from the point of view of the diachronic linguist a technical term denoting the dialect continuum traditionally referred to by it is indispensable and would have to be invented if it did not already exist.
2009-08-09T13:17:21Z	As I said, this is English wikiproject and we should follow the most prevalent name in ''English language'', which is, as it turns out, "Serbo-Croatian".
2009-08-09T13:17:21Z	Those voters figures are hardly representative - in Croatia 60%-70% of eligible voters doesn't vote at all (and it can firmly be assumed that they're as "insulted" by the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' as they're insulted by the mafia politics of their ruling parties).
2009-08-09T13:17:21Z	"CSSD" is obscure term indorsed only by Croatian dialectologists for political reasons.
2009-08-09T16:33:19Z	But then we'll have to add a special case for all the other automatic-categorization templates such as context labels, {proto}, {etyl}, {suffix} etc, that would sort the lang=hbs/sh to all the 3 corresponding categories.
2009-08-09T23:24:28Z	Naziv ''Serbo-Croatian'' koristimo isključivo kao generički kontejner (da ne kažem ''smećnjak'' :D) za sva 4 nacionalna standarda.
2009-08-09T23:24:28Z	Trenutno raspravljamo tehničke nedostatke zamjene naziva ''Serbo-Croatian'' sa ''Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian'', što ćemo zasigurno i uraditi u dogledno vrijeme (par sati botovskog posla).
2009-08-10T00:56:44Z	Do you speak Serbo-Croatian Dominic?.
2009-08-10T02:04:42Z	Serbo-Croatian is definietly not a mere "politiacal construct", because that language had dictionaries, grammars, orthographies...for more than a century.
2009-08-10T02:04:42Z	I am a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian who posses superb knowledge of the language, so your silly accusations such as "you have no clue whatsoever you are talking about" can only make ''you'' look dumb, so please keep that in mind.
2009-08-10T02:04:42Z	What was taught in the federal state of Croatia during the period of SFRJ is ardent Vukovian Serbo-Croatian, under the name ''hrvatskosrpski'': the terms ''Serbo-Croatian'' and ''Croato-Serbian'' were synonymous, Serbs used the former Croats the latter, all in order not to give prominence to either of the ethnic component of the name; in English language OTOH, only the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' gained usage, and is still very much used.
2009-08-10T02:04:42Z	nothing to do with Yugoslavia, politics and all that jazz: this is merely a formatting convention to treat 3 (or 4) different standards (or "languages") at one header ==Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian== (currently ==Serbo-Croatian==, but we'll change that).
2009-08-10T02:04:42Z	Why shouldn't we do it? I have yet to hear a satisfying argument on that one, other that "a minority of Croats/Serbs would fill insulted by the notion that they speak 100% mutually intelligible languages".
2009-08-10T09:04:28Z	<sub>Translation from SC: "I have a need to say this in my mother tongue; I've been reading the voting debate for days with complete fascination: Croats and Serbs argue on Serbo-Croatian language in English.
2009-08-10T09:15:46Z	Now I hardly remember most of the words I used to speak.
2009-08-10T09:15:46Z	Why exactly is "ridiculous" ? Anatoli is a professional translator proficient in at 3-4 Slavic language, which quite naturally gives him almost sh-1 proficiency in Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-10T09:15:46Z	Also you've completely missed the point, like many of your hardline nationalist comrades: we're not "combining languages into one", but simply treating 3 different standards at one header, completely independently, reducing redundancy where it is appropriate (please read this sentence one more time, I imagine you could have difficulty grasping it).
2009-08-10T09:31:40Z	No one here believes your cheep propaganda that "SC was never a language", because you know, there are some 7-8 folks here who claim otherwise, from kids to uni professors, and not to mention hundreds of dictionaries, grammars and orthography books that that language had and still has :) Actually by the very fact that you mention the perverted analogy with "Canadian language" you actually ''support'' the merger, as you've been de facto saying that "Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are all political not linguistic constructs"!.
2009-08-10T13:08:52Z	Dude, can't you see how ridiculous your nationalist bigotry makes you look like?.
2009-08-10T13:08:52Z	Serbo-Croatian is partly mutually intelligible with Slovene and Bularian/Macedonian (other South Slavic languages), but lot less so with other East and West Slavic languages.
2009-08-10T13:08:52Z	It depends on your notion of "language": in sociolinguistic sense they're different, in genetic-dialectal they're not.
2009-08-10T15:18:38Z	whether use ==Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian== or ==Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian==, whether to use <hbs> or <sh> language code, and similar ''trice i kučine''; we vote on the vote acceptance rules (X edits 7 days before the vote starts), and then restart the vote (but this time only for a week or so), but with time limit of July 1st so that votes of meat-puppetted, canvassed and other users don't count (only of the "strict community").
2009-08-10T15:20:09Z	whether to use ==Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian== or ==Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian==, whether to use <hbs> or <sh> language code, and similar ''trice i kučine''; we'll vote on the vote acceptance rules (X edits 7 days before the vote starts), and then restart the BCSM vote (but this time only for a week or so), but with time limit of July 1st so that votes of meat-puppetted, canvassed and other users don't count (only of the "strict community").
2009-08-10T16:44:54Z	I've provided irrefutable evidence of the name ''Serbo-Croatian'' still abundantly used by top scholars in the field, including the most important publication in Slavic studies in a decade, the latest and shiniest Rick Derksen's ''Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon'' which uses it consistently throughout, even for subliterary dialects such as Čakavian.
2009-08-10T16:44:54Z	Personally, I don't care of neither Ullmann and his minions, nor of these nationalist bigots.
2009-08-10T16:44:54Z	In the meantime, we'll just continue to use the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' and see how deep does the rabbit hole go :D.
2009-08-10T17:19:11Z	Dear SpeedyGonsales, the usage of the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' in the disputed sentence you quote above is in the sense "generic container for all of the referred national standards".
2009-08-10T17:19:11Z	Please see [[WT:ASH#Introduction]]: "''The term Serbo-Croatian on Wiktionary acts as a generic container to all 4 national varieties.''" So if either of the national varieties is spoken in each of the individual countries, it logically follows that the language used as an umbrella term for all of them applies to all the countries all the individually encompassed terms refer to.
2009-08-10T17:19:11Z	The whole policy more-or less actually deals with the ''differences'' among them! Our usage of the term ''Serbo-Croatian'' has abs.
2009-08-10T18:20:33Z	Lots of them are also shared with Bosniaks and Croats (e.g.
2009-08-10T18:20:33Z	[[:s:hr:Laž za opkladu|Laž za opkladu]] : [[:s:sr:Лаж_за_опкладу|Лаж_за_опкладу]] - one of my childhood favorites :D) - irrefutable evidence of people's cultures intermingled for centuries.
2009-08-10T18:21:00Z	[[:s:hr:Laž za opkladu|Laž za opkladu]] : [[:s:sr:Лаж_за_опкладу|Лаж за опкладу]] - one of my childhood favorites :D) - irrefutable evidence of people's cultures intermingled for centuries.
2009-08-11T01:19:14Z	Again, I ask specific questions, and all I get is ignorant, unreferenced FUD.
2009-08-11T12:09:20Z	{{term|knjiga|lang=sh}}, it would be shared between all the 3 (4) standards.
2009-08-11T20:37:06Z	High-profile Croatian daily [[w:Večernji list|Večernji list]] has published an article ''[http://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/wikipedia-mala-vrata-uvodi-srpsko-hrvatski-jezik-clanak-7657 Wikipedija na mala vrata uvodi srpsko-hrvatski jezik]'' ("Wikipedia introduces Serbo-Croatian language by backdoor").
2009-08-11T21:16:16Z	I'm being shamelessly portrayed as some kind of bigoted anti-Croat, who wants to "destroy Croatian name" and reintroduce the "Serbo-Croatian of Yugoslavia".
2009-08-11T23:43:52Z	My Morton-Benson dictionary for English "river" gives both {{term|reka|lang=sh}} and {{term|rijeka|lang=sh}}, for "fly" it gives both {{term|muha}} and {{term|muva}}, for "salt" it gives both {{term|sol|lang=sh}} and {{term|so|lang=sh}} and so on.
2009-08-12T02:03:05Z	{{term|sc=Cyrl|стабљика|lang=sh}} : {{term|stabljika|lang=sh}}.
2009-08-12T08:45:35Z	The nationalist bigots on Croatian Wikipedia have apparently "voted" on indefinitely blocking me (Note that I haven't broken _any_ of the rules, have been 100% civil and tolerant on the related discussion board, despite heavy intolerant insults that were targeted against me, and which where completely unsanctioned, as anyone proficient in the language can convince himself of).
2009-08-12T10:57:11Z	The above unanimous witch-hunt against me on the alleged "community harassment", without a single piece of evidence proving it (as you are unable to engage me in a productive discussion, me being 100% correct all the time), simply proves that Croatian commiepedia is governed by narrow-minded bigots, who imagine that their hive-mind aptitude for "strenght via unity" actually, eh, means something, other than being a symptom of intellectual feebleness and paranoia.
2009-08-12T11:12:20Z	Why are you so obsessed with blocking Jure (which we use only for disruptive edits and vandals anyway, not for political machinations like Croatian Wikipedia)? Why don't you focus on the voted policy itself, by actually providing arguments why it wouldn't work, or it shouldn't be done, sth other than "some Croats imagine that these three are completely separate languages" ? I'm sure that Opiaterein would have much, much more tolerance in case you provided actual ''arguments'', and not simply commentless "no" which is absolutely unhelpful and uninformative :-).
2009-08-12T16:20:40Z	nothing to do with Serbo-Croatian of SFRJ, and we're merely using that term as a generic container for 3 (4) modern-day national standards.
2009-08-12T17:06:42Z	The term ''Serbo-Croatian'' will probably be replaced by ''Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian'', we're waiting for this vote to end so that we can reiterate it (and change various other points in dispute) after we decide on that.
2009-08-12T17:06:42Z	English-speaking users who'd presumably be using Wiktionary to learn SC would in 99% of cases feel no political prejudice at all to the term, as opposed to some of the native nationalist who associate it with the times of Communist Yugoslavia (despite the fact that the term is at least a century older, *sigh*).
2009-08-12T21:38:17Z	The only "mental asylum" I can see is that in which the young people in those little Balkanic puppet-states live, thinking that their nationalist worldview is shared by the rest of the planet, which it isn't.
2009-08-12T21:38:17Z	B/C/S are all based on the same dialect, thus are the same language; they share identical phonology, accentuation system and 99% of inflection, which makes them linguistically one and the same language, different only in sociolingusitical (=political) perspective.
2009-08-13T17:59:03Z	I suggest that asking you to format that entry as ==Serbo-Croatian==, since it means exactly the same thing, is pronounced exactly the same, and has exactly the same etymology in standard Bosnian and Serbian? :).
2009-08-13T17:59:25Z	I assume that asking you to format that entry as ==Serbo-Croatian==, since it means exactly the same thing, is pronounced exactly the same, and has exactly the same etymology in standard Bosnian and Serbian, wouldn't make much sense? :).
2009-08-13T17:59:49Z	I assume that asking you to format that entry as ==Serbo-Croatian==, since it means exactly the same thing, is pronounced exactly the same way, and has exactly the same etymology in as standard Bosnian and Serbian, wouldn't make much sense? :).
2009-08-13T19:07:50Z	You just contribute ''exactly'' the same way as before, but simply using ==Serbo-Croatian== instead of ==Croatian==.
2009-08-13T21:13:28Z	I personally don't see much need for Serbo-Croatian (for almost all practical intents and purposes it's a dead language)'' - Strictly linguistically speaking the Neoštokavian (=Serbo-Croatian) is still very much alive :) What is "dead", however, is the usage of that term to denote a particular standard language, that is non-linguistic, political (=sociolinguistic) creation.
2009-08-13T21:13:28Z	Also, it's hardly dead for "all practical intents and purposes", for you see it's still used e.g.
2009-08-13T21:49:10Z	I just hope that they'll sooner or later realize how pointless is to have both of them simultaneously, and join the "BCS" side :) (at least until we manage to finally push the BCS section unification formally).
2009-08-13T22:23:09Z	The thing is, in all of these cases you ''don't'' have the overlap, since they're written in different scripts (if Croats used Glagolitic, Bosniaks Arabic, Serbs Cyrillic and Motenegrin Latin - we'd have no issue at all), and here you have all the 4 standards using the same script (Latin) in the same "variety" (ijekavian), so you'll get 4 identical sections in >90% of words (in the other 10% cases you'll get "only" triplication or duplication).
2009-08-15T02:09:31Z	It's not! Serbo-Croatian is not an exclusive property of either Serbs or Croats, because it's spoken by ''at least'' 4 different nations in 4 different countries.
2009-08-15T02:09:31Z	We can, out of political correctness and courtesy, provide different title such as "BCS" or some other silly abbreviation that would satisfy their nationalistic appetites, but that's the best we should do.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	Kako »nikom ne pada na pamet« kad čak i u leksikonu jezika svijeta (Klose<sup>2</sup>2001, 153) piše da se taj jezik na engleskom naziva ''Dano-Norwegian'', na njemačkom ''Dänisch-Norwegisch'' ili ''Danonorwegisch'', pa i na samom norveškom ''Dansk-Norsk''? A kad Pranjković već želi usporedbu s dansko-norveškim primjerom, onda može vidjeti da je taj primjer identičan s našim jer se i srpskohrvatski na engleskom naziva ''Serbo-Croatian'', a na njemačkom ''Serbisch-Kroatisch'' ili ''Serbokroatisch''.}}.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	The analogy with Serbo-Croatian would be proper if e.g.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	In the history, both the Croats and the Serbs used literary languages that were exclusive only to them (quite a few more than average person would think of), but today both of them, as well as Bosniaks and Montenegrins, use only one dialect as literary, and that dialect is one and the same: Neoštokavian = Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	Compare this to the situation in Serbo-Croatian varieties: All of the varieties have ''exactly the same'' phonemic inventory, ''exactly the same'' phonological orthography ("write as you speak, speak as you write"), and ''exactly the same'' Neoštokavian accentual system, with 2-way opposition between the rising and falling tone, short or long, plus the optional post-tonic lengths.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	No such thing at all in Serbo-Croatian varieties, where the numerals and pronouns are equal: ''jedan'', ''dva'', ''tri'', ''četiri'', ''pet'', ''šest'', ''sedam'', ''osam'', ''devet'', ''deset''.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	Actually, the comparison in morphology the best proves the oneness of Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	Serbo-Croatian has some 10 times more complex inflection than Danish and Bokmal.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	For example, I've recently started writing [[w:Serbo-Croatian grammar]], mostly based on the several grammar books I have, namely the ''siva gramatika'' published by the Institute for Croatian language.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	The point is, there are so extensive shared traits among the literary varieties of Serbo-Croatian, resulting from the fact that all of them are based on the same dialect, that it's pretty much pointless to compare it most of the other apparently "similar" situations, which are in fact underlyingly quite disparate.
2009-08-15T10:27:52Z	Danish/Bokmal, or Hindi/Urdu (other often cited example of "analogy"), Serbo-Croatian varieties actually had the period of almost 150 years of common treatment, in common grammar books, dictionaries, orthographies.
2009-08-15T19:41:50Z	Please don't generalize your conclusions to all the Croats, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Montenegrins.
2009-08-15T19:41:50Z	As you can see from the vote page, there are enough of us that that do not live in the world of nationalist fairy tales, and consider the notion of B/C/S as if "different languages" as something completely ridiculous, if not outright insulting to human intelligence.
2009-08-15T19:41:50Z	Also you should read the article [[w:Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache and Dachsprache|Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache and Dachsprache]] - they can only be considered "languages" in political (socolinguistic, "Ausbau") sense, and not in real linguistical sense.
2009-08-15T19:41:50Z	I assure you that there are no subjective criteria in real-world dialectology (Incidentally, it is the dialectologists themselves that the most firmly still push the notion of indivisible Serbo-Croatian dialect continuum).
2009-08-15T19:41:50Z	Do we target native speakers who see Communist boogeymen in everyone who tries (or appears to try) to invalidate their nationalinguistic credo? Or do we target English-speakers who'd "learn three languages at the price of one", as is the motto with which they've seductively try to allure you to enroll to BCS studies program at the University of Kansas [http://www2.ku.edu/~slavic/languages/bcs/index.shtml].
2009-08-17T03:35:18Z	if they contain maliciously crafted inaccuracies, or other deliberately misleading type of information that would otherwise be silently approved if not immediately refuted our explained upon.
2009-08-17T11:11:25Z	Ko hoće već sad ima ima sh viki i nek tamo drnda.
2009-08-17T14:06:03Z	No kad bolje razmisliš, to bi se čak i moglo napraviti - primjerice otvoriti na sh wikipediji 3 dodatna taba koja bi identičan članak prezentirala u sva 3 (4) jezična standarda, našeg dragoga nam jezika.
2009-08-17T14:07:40Z	''What I was saying is that the key criteria is what the langugage communities themselves consider their language to be.'' - It's only key to define the sociolinugistic (=political) notion of "[[w:standard language|standard language]]" (or "[[w:Ausbausprache, Abstandsprache and Dachsprache|Ausbau language]]"), not the ''linguistic'' notion of language.
2009-08-17T14:07:40Z	Note the important fact: per the proposal we are ''not'' depriving either of the modern-day Serbo-Croatian varieties of their standardization - in fact, the whole thing is to pretend that it's the same language (as it is), and emphasize the differences wherever they occur (either in modern or older usage, or the prescribed stanadard norm), by utilizing usage notes and context labels.
2009-08-17T14:07:40Z	Absolutely nothing is "forced" upon Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs, either in Croatia or those who'd contribute here.
2009-08-17T14:07:40Z	Since, as you say, university courses usually group "Central South Slavic languages" (obscure term, otherwise usually known as "Serbo-Croatian") together, and never provide separate courses on "Bosnian languge", "Croatian language" and "Serbian language" simultaneously, we should focus on making it easier for learners who follow such courses to look up words.
2009-08-17T14:07:40Z	You can find dictionaries of various Croatian dialects that are ''much'' more divergent (in just about every aspect of the grammar) from the standard language then either Serbian or Bosnian, yet the very notion of "separate" ==Chakavian== or ==Kajkavian== language would prob.
2009-08-17T14:12:16Z	The entry at [[govor]] now looks ridiculously misleading, as if the "Bosnian", "Croatian" and "Serbian" have completely different set of meanings, which they don't.
2009-08-17T14:14:59Z	Can you speak Serbo-Croatian?.
2009-08-17T14:45:02Z	You just add your beloved ==Croatian==, and we the native speakers of all the other Serbo-Croatian "languages" will just make sure that the information is appropriately propagated :).
2009-08-17T15:08:34Z	Croats have been always speaking "Croatian", Bosniaks have always been speaking "Bosnian", Serbs have always been speaking "Serbian", and Montenegrins have always been speaking "Montenegrin".
2009-08-17T15:08:34Z	Some 40-50% pages of all Serbo-Croatian words will look ''exactly like this'', where B/C/S/SC entries will be the only ones on a page! In some cases (such as this one) words will be shared with Slovene or (much rarely) with Czech/Slovak, but with 4 identical sections (or 5! Montenegrin will get ISO code this fall!), it would nevertheless look completely ridiculous.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	Since yesterday two of our nationalist friends starting contributing :P.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	He claims to speak "only Croatian", and his addition of ==Croatian== entries are entirely copy/pastes of my former entries, that were merged to ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	He also makes a few mistakes here and there, forgets to change <tt>sh</tt> to <tt>hr</tt> and similar.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	For every newly-cloned ==Croatian== entry we must add the appropriate ==Bosnian== and ==Serbian==, and for every newly-created ==Serbian== section we must add ==Bosnian==, ==Croatian==, and ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	It's pointless to insist on "Croatdom" or "Serbdom" of words that are otherwise identically spoken by millions of people of other ethnicities, being centuries than the "nations" that were all invented in the late 18th century.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	Hopefully the users will realize how the entries such as [[govor]] or [[sinonimija]] look utterly ridiculous, how their individual enterprise on focusing on only one "language" is pointless, and will join the unification effort.
2009-08-18T11:13:51Z	BTW, I'm currently compiling a list of Turkish LW in Serbo-Croatian (some ~800 entries so far).
2009-08-18T14:21:26Z	Webster 1913 [http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=secretion]).
2009-08-18T17:43:45Z	Serbo-Croatian entries use {sh-decl-noun} with the same ordering as Croatian.
2009-08-18T21:08:10Z	Please don't remove or "Croatize" existing Serbo-Croatian sections.
2009-08-18T21:08:10Z	It is an inherited, native Slavic word also spoken by Serbs, Bosniaks and Motenegrin, pronounced the same way, whit the same accentuation and inflection.
2009-08-18T21:08:10Z	One of the primary benefits of unified Serbo-Croatian treatment is the fact that we can tag the word as being perceived today as markedly Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, and mention the correspondingly preferred synonyms in the usage notes or the ====Synonyms==== sections in the other Serbo-Croatian varieties.
2009-08-18T21:50:17Z	Did you click on the link above? The real situation is that there are is a food additive called ''sušena mrkva'' ('dried carrot') produced and sold in Serbia :P You might however imagine, given the recent polarization of Serbo-Croatian into national variants, that there is something more "Croatian" in the word ''mrkva'', and that somehow 15 million of Serbo-Croatian speakers which are not Croats don't use that word, or have not preserved it from Proto-Slavic down to the modern times, but the evidence proves otherwise.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Croatian contributor {{user|Elephantus}} started cloning existing Serbo-Croatian entries to ==Croatian==.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	He claims that he can only speak "Croatian", and is not confident enough to clone to other Serbo-Croatian varieties' sections.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Since Dijan and I have always strived to maintain the balance of the treatment (as Serbo-Croatian words are no more "Croatian", than they are "Serbian", "Bosnian" or "Montenegrin"), I am thus forced to waste my time copy-pasting his cloned ==Croatian== entries to ==Bosnian== and ==Serbian==.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Now, anybody reasonable and incidentally ignorant in Slavic languages would upon seeing that very page think of something like....."What the f***?!".
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Someone who has more than casual interest in this project, and is intent on actually ''learn'' Serbo-Croatian words, would be not so fortunate.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	He'd actually have to painstakingly compare '''every single entry''', to see for himself whether there is some hardly noticeable difference in the definition lines, pronunciation, inflection...perhaps some of the derived terms is accented differently...who knows.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	He was apparently quite shocked to realize that the word {{term|mrkva||carrot|lang=sh}}, native, inherited Slavic word - was also very much used all over Serbia.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Before the Croatian nationalists invented the so-called "Croatian language" in the 1990s (prior to which they have been celebrating Serbo-Croatian it as "one and single language of our brotherly nations" for a century and a half), there was only a slight polarization in the lexical perceptions.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Even ''much'' before the period of Communist Yugoslavia, when you turn at the beginning of the century, you'll see even a bigger paradox: the most important Croatian writers such as [[w:Miroslav Krleža|Miroslav Krleža]] and [[w:Antun Gustav Matoš|Antun Gustav Matoš]] used hundreds of what are today perceived as outright "Serbianisms".
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Cyrillic script is kind of badge of "Serbdom" (''srpstvo''); being devised by Vuk to perfectly reflect Serbo-Croatian phonemic inventory; it is still celebrated as one of the pinnacles of Serbian cultural achievements.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	Many a Serb would say "the most perfect alphabet in the world" (Just try Googling that term alone in Serbo-Croatian'' [http://www.google.hr/#hl=hr&q=%22najsavr%C5%A1enije+pismo+na+svetu%22&btnG=Google+pretra%C5%BEivanje&meta=&aq=f&fp=12b27d993ebc3e13 "najsavršenije pismo na svetu"]'' :)).
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	How and why is that so is not of particular importance right now (those who know Serbo-Croatian can read the articles), but the practical concerns for this project are immense, if we are to focus only on Cyrillic script as "proper Serbian", as Nikola has been doing, or renaming or Cyrillic-script based ==Serbo-Croatian== entries to ==Serbian==, as Robert Ullmann has proposed.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	To sum it all up: so what exactly have we achieved by not passing this vote? We've introduced more and more of an immense amount of completely absurd and ridiculous redundancy, by drawing "contributors" such as Elephantus whose sole interest is to clone existing ==Serbo-Croatian== sections into ==Croatian==.
2009-08-19T16:44:04Z	In fact, this whole surge of activity aiming to disprove the oneness of Serbo-Croatian has turned to tragicomic senselessness, epitomized in the entries such as [[govor]].
2009-08-19T19:03:36Z	I didn't "delete" them, I merely reformatted them as ==Serbo-Croatian==, as they're equall valid Serbian, Bosnian, Montenegrin etc.
2009-08-19T19:03:36Z	Before we chose to pursue the Serbo-Croatian unification paths, [[User:Dijan|Dijan]] usually copied the ==Croatian== entries I created to Bosnian and Serbian, and also in Cyrillic script (which prior to the unified approach I didn't create at all).
2009-08-19T19:03:36Z	Perhaps you might convince some casual reader ignorant on the issue, but anyone seeing tens of thousands of words having identical inflection, pronunciatino and meanings should be sooner or later convinced otherwise.
2009-08-19T20:28:26Z	I was thinking of formatting them by using the same scheme as LIV, i.e.
2009-08-19T20:49:46Z	Correct, there are 6 new Serbo-Croatian contributors which suddenly started contributing in the last 2-3 days, all of which had no activity at all prior to that.
2009-08-19T23:48:41Z	Similarly for words that are today rarely used - you'd probably wouldn't want to see the word {{term|tisuća|lang=sh}} in your Serbian wordlist, despite the fact that it has centuries of attested usage in Serbian literary monuments (attested in e.g.
2009-08-19T23:48:41Z	Elephantus to simply copy/paste existing expanded ==Serbo-Croatian== entries as ==Croatian== - but these were not created at once, and resulted from gradual improvement over the years, with many a painful hour wasted.
2009-08-19T23:48:41Z	Syncing 2 Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic & Latin entries is a nightmare itself, let alone the total of 8 of them.
2009-08-20T02:47:33Z	I'd rather see it all treated as ==Serbo-Croatian==, except for some words that are ''really'' different (e.g.
2009-08-20T11:17:03Z	This was a concession for the usage of ''Serbo-Croatian'' language name, that Dijan and I agreed on.
2009-08-20T11:23:02Z	Invite Croatian nationalist such as {{user|Elephantus}} that will come and waste countless hours simply copy/pasting existing ==Serbo-Croatian== entries to ==Croatian==, and not to ==Bosnian== and ==Serbian== (as if the 15 million non-Croats speaking the same language don't use those words - which Elephantus very well knows they do, it's just that he cannot see beyond his Croatian nationalist nose).
2009-08-20T11:29:17Z	No, ''macrolanguage'' would make it look to obscure (and cumbersome, who'd wanna type ''Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage'' all the time).
2009-08-20T11:30:13Z	No, ''macrolanguage'' would make it look too obscure (and cumbersome, who'd wanna type ''Serbo-Croatian macrolanguage'' all the time).
2009-08-20T13:16:50Z	Yeah I know that "BCS" has negative political connotations in ex-YU countries, primarily because it was introduced by ICTY.
2009-08-20T13:16:50Z	However, that is the only English-language term beside ''Serbo-Croatian'' that has any usage at all, and is endorsed by several recent university-level English manuals and handbooks.
2009-08-20T15:32:44Z	IHJJ's corpus gives hits for only one instance of ''brzoglas'' [http://riznica.ihjj.hr/cgi-bin/philologic/search3t?dbname=Complete&word=brzoglas&OUTPUT=conc&CONJUNCT=PHRASE&DISTANCE=3&DFPERIOD=1&POLESPAN=5&THMPRTLIMIT=1&KWSS=1&KWSSPRLIM=500&trsortorder=author%2C+title&sortorder=author%2C+title], in a work published in 1943 (hardly a coincidence).
2009-08-20T16:14:14Z	Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings: Serbo-Croatian is one language and billions of neologisms cannot change that, as long as 99% of grammar is identical.
2009-08-20T16:14:14Z	If he makes further contentious political claims, he'll be blocked.
2009-08-20T16:14:14Z	I hardly consider "newly minted Croatian crap" an insult - 99% of common people in Croatia think that words such as ''zrakomlat'' and ''munjosprem'' are ROTFL.
2009-08-20T16:30:17Z	Silić is paid to write that nationalist crap.
2009-08-20T16:30:17Z	[[w:Wayles Browne|Wayles Browne]], [[w:Kenneth Naylor|Kenneth Naylor]], [[w:Vladimir Dybo|Vladimir Dybo]], [[w:Frederik Kortlandt|Frederik Kortlandt]], [[w:Jay Jasanoff|Jay Jasanoff]] and hundreds of others world's top linguists that use the term ''Serbo-Croatian''? Nobody.
2009-08-20T16:31:43Z	The simply proclaim separate "Croatian language", and imagine that the rest of the world has to follow illusion that what was for 150 years (since the time of codification) treated as one language, Serbo-Croatian, are now suddenly 4 "different languages".
2009-08-20T16:32:17Z	They simply proclaim separate "Croatian language", and imagine that the rest of the world has to follow illusion that what was for 150 years (since the time of first codification) treated as one language, Serbo-Croatian, are now suddenly 4 "different languages".
2009-08-20T16:39:27Z	{{quote|At the first scientific [?] conference dedicated to Croatian language as the second, and Croatian a foreign language, we found out that Croatian language is still treated on some [I'd say most] universities (and not only universities) under the name ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-08-20T16:58:30Z	I would interpret it as a direct attack, and an attempt to diminish my irrefutable arguments by committing logical fallacies such as [[w:Argument from authority|argument from authority]].
2009-08-20T20:57:47Z	In particular, Kubura raised the notion of the need to promote the ''Croatian language'' name, citing a certain PDF, and explicitly calling me ("Silić says so-and-so, and who are you Ivan to suggest otherwise").
2009-08-20T20:57:47Z	It was of utmost importance for me to engage in "verbal warfare", as you call it, to refute the necessity and practice of using the term ''Serbo-Croatian'', from the very PDF Kubura used as an argument.
2009-08-20T20:57:47Z	In that case, both myself and the goals promoted by the draft policy (the oneness of Serbo-Croatian, and the practical concerns to retain it, despite the political pressures from Croatian nationalists) were defended, in quite civilized and decent tones if I might add.
2009-08-20T20:57:47Z	I didn't use the f-word, or called anybody "ignorant".
2009-08-20T23:00:55Z	This whole thread started as a pathetic attempt to discredit me, as who am I to voice my opinion against the big-shot uni professor Silić, by linking to PDF which is a nationalistic proclamation to political action in the "defense" of Croatian language name (as if the change of signifier has an impact on real-world referent).
2009-08-20T23:00:55Z	He uses the same mode of discussion at WP, "who are you to be against the professor Brozović" (former communist apparatchik who sang praise of common Serbo-Croatian standard), "who are you to be against the XYZ", despite the fact that I have been providing not my opinion as evidence, but the evidence of external sources.
2009-08-20T23:00:55Z	So far most of Kubura's edits here are either very contentious or very disruptive, and any kind of offensive action against him is hardly overreacting.
2009-08-20T23:00:55Z	Since the policy itself will be reiterated when the time comes, this page might as well suit the purpose or providing a place to discuss things related to all Wiktionary-related Serbo-Croatian language business.
2009-08-20T23:00:55Z	As for the modification beyond expectations - common Serbo-Croatian treatment will "win" in the long run, either in exclusive or inclusive form of treatment, there is absolutely no doubt about that.
2009-08-21T14:58:38Z	So it's hardly that easily definable term.
2009-08-21T20:39:30Z	And it's ''always'' Croats trying to "prove" these things, playing on the old card of Communist self-victimization, apparently "forgetting" (= deliberately lying) that SC standardization preceded Communist Yugoslavia by a century.
2009-08-21T21:39:13Z	Entries such as [[govor]] are utterly ridiculous, (and missing one ==Montenegrin== section, and Cyrillic spelling [[говор]] with both ==Serbian==, ==Serbo-Croatian== and ==Montenegrin==, and also optionally ==Bosnian==).
2009-08-21T21:39:13Z	All Serbo-Croatian national varieties have 99% identical grammar (same phonology, accentual system, inflection), strictly linguistically they're one undoubtedly language, and it makes sense to treat them similar to how we treat other pluricentric languages with national variants (e.g.
2009-08-21T21:39:13Z	98% of what are today perceived as ''kroatizmi'' can be attested in usage by Serbs and Bosniaks, and the same can be said for ''srbizmi'' and Croatian writers (if you've read any early 20th century works, and earlier, you know that very well).
2009-08-21T21:39:13Z	Hence, the overlap would be much greater, beyond the wildest dreams of any nationalist.
2009-08-22T00:33:48Z	[http://www.openbook.ba/bmss/books/kemura/kemura_index.html] - what do you think of the idea of adding a few Serbo-Croatian words spelled in arebica? I've noticed a few SC Arabic-script entries on German and Korean Wiktionaries, IIRC.
2009-08-22T01:52:09Z	''Serbo-Croatian" is not my language.
2009-08-22T01:52:09Z	speak Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-22T01:52:09Z	By taking "politically correct" stance with nationalists such as yourself, who don't want to "be offended" by the fact that they speak the same language as Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, you are trying to make them very uncomfortable to even write the word ''Serbo-Croatian'', let alone the support the unified treatment effort for all the SC national varieties.
2009-08-22T01:53:00Z	By taking "politically correct" stance with nationalists such as yourself, who don't want to "be offended" by the fact that they speak the same language as Serbs, Bosniaks and Montenegrins, you are trying to make them very uncomfortable to even write the word ''Serbo-Croatian'', let alone support the unified treatment effort for all the SC national varieties.
2009-08-22T13:24:03Z	Seeing Croatian words cited in Arabic and Cyrillic script could/would moreover act as a cultural bridge to some proud Islamophobic/Serbophobic Croats, who think that the polarization of words/scripts as "ethnically marked" that occurred in the 1990s was always so - it wasn't, and this "dirty" part of their history they've not been taught of.
2009-08-22T21:49:02Z	99.9% of people nowadays cannot read it, and the only place they can encounter it once they live high school are the election campaign placards of the right-wing parties such as [[w:Croatian Pure Party of Rights|HČSP]] (together with ''pleter'' and similar nationalist iconography).
2009-08-22T21:51:42Z	99.9% of people nowadays cannot read it, and the only place they can encounter it once they leave high school are the election campaign placards of the right-wing parties such as [[w:Croatian Pure Party of Rights|HČSP]], together with ''[[w:Croatian wattle|pleter]]'' and similar nationalist iconography which measures the scale of your "Croatdom" (''hrvatstvo'' :).
2009-08-23T10:11:12Z	Perhaps one day when we had an extensive coverage of SC verbs, some 20-30k lemmata, also accented, and when they finally fix the brain-damaged MediaWiki search (so that it searches also the template _output_), we might as well do exactly that!.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	I'll simply disregard the self-victimizing political perspective, and focus on linguistical.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	'''At that period Ijekavian Neoštokavian was virtually dead in Croatia as a literary language''', and only a really tiny minority of Croats actually spoke it (less then 20%).
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	Broz-Iveković's dictionary is the single most influental dictionary for the formation of Croatian literary variety of Serbo-Croatian.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	Elephantus essay is is a political tractate not by a chance - ''the only'' way Croats can claim some kind of "Croatian language" is by politics.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	Read this once again: 1908 book on "barbarisms in Croatian language" advocates Serbo-Croatian language purism, expelling words that are not spoken by Croats eastern brethren!!.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	To sum it all up: essentially Elephanuts said exactly ''nothing'' on what Zocky asked for - why should we treat B/C/S(/M) separately, and instead provided long political essay ridden with deceptive inaccuracies.
2009-08-23T18:58:00Z	It would be much more appreciated if he actually addressed the beneficial points I raised above, during the break from his copy/pastings of entire ==Serbo-Croatian== sections to ==Croatian== (the only changes being lang=sh -> lang=hr, and {infl|hr} -> {infl|sh} - I'd say that this says pretty much everything on the separateness of "Croatian language", but that's just me).
2009-08-23T19:00:26Z	It would be much more appreciated if he actually addressed the beneficial points I raised above, during the break from his copy/pastings of entire ==Serbo-Croatian== sections to ==Croatian== (the only changes being lang=sh -> lang=hr, and {infl|sh}/{sh-Pos} -> {infl|hr} - I'd say that this says pretty much everything on the separateness of "Croatian language", but that's just me).
2009-08-23T20:07:44Z	I've created templates {{temp|sh-form-noun}} and {{temp|sh-form-verb}} for the inflected forms of Serbo-Croatian verbs and nouns.
2009-08-23T21:00:50Z	Elephantus' essay is a political tractate not by a chance - ''the only'' way Croats can claim some kind of "Croatian language" is by politics.
2009-08-24T10:58:01Z	The header "Croatian" is a sure marker that what they're getting is proper Croatian meaning, usage, etc, regardless of whether there is a same or similar word in other languages.'' - And that you say after last several hundreds of your edits are ''plain copy/pastes'' of common ==Serbo-Croatian== to exclusive ==Croatian== ? How many of them you exactly had to change the definition lines to fit "proper Croatian meaning" ? 1 out of 100 ? Please.
2009-08-24T10:58:01Z	You also claim ''IMHO, for almost all practical intents and purposes it's a dead language'' - for all ''practical'' purposes it's still very much alive, disguised under silly politically correct acronyms such as BCS! What we are trying to do here is ''not'' to revive the Serbo-Croatian standard of 2 varieties of Yugoslavia, but to treat all 3 (or 4) modern standards under one header name, which makes sense for the abovementioned reasons (they're usually taught commonly, it would ease maintenance etc.).
2009-08-24T14:37:52Z	Elephantus will be happy to clone 99% of ==Serbo-Croatian== entries to ==Croatian== (simply by changing <tt>lang=sh</tt> to <tt>lang=hr</tt>), but he'll never admit that percentage - it would be "similar languages" and would compare the situation with faulty analogy with Scandinavian languages (who differ much, much more).
2009-08-24T14:37:52Z	In Serbo-Croatian we'd say ''praviti se lud'' for such behavior.
2009-08-24T14:54:15Z	Wow Elephantus, do you really think that changing ==Croatian== to ==Serbo-Croatian== was any kind of content loss? (actually, I've moreover greatly expanded almost all of the merged entries - it's easier to do it in a single place than at 4-6 different places).
2009-08-24T14:54:15Z	On the other hand, what you are doing ''now'', mostly plainly copy/pasting entire existing ==Serbo-Croatian== sections to ==Croatian== with switching language codes <tt>sh</tt> to <tt>hr</tt>, is actually contributing no really content at all, as everything of interest is already contained in the merged entry.
2009-08-24T15:04:21Z	While I understand that it would be very difficult for you to actually answer yes/no to the questions raised by Zocky above, it's annoying that you furthermore seem to trivialize the whole issue, by repeating irrelevant political issues and faulted analogies "''key criteria is what the language communities themselves consider their language to be''" - not it's not, there is no such thing as a right to "linguistic self-determination" - a common myth in Croatia.
2009-08-24T20:09:23Z	In theory, the 3 separate B/C/S headers could be relatively easily generated from the properly merged ==Serbo-Croatian== header at the presentation-time (i.e.
2009-08-25T12:15:13Z	{{term|kašika|lang=sh}}.
2009-08-25T12:15:13Z	All the Croatian-only words in ==Serbo-Croatian== entries are marked with context label (''Croatian''), all the Serbian-only words are marked with (''Serbian'') and so on for Bosnian and Motenegrin.
2009-08-25T15:57:03Z	If we add all the words passing CFI outside the standards themselves (as we do, and I do with delight citing Serbian sources for "Croatian words" and Croatian sources for "Serbian words" :P), there'll probably be 99% of overlap in lexis too, but the percentage of words that would have to be marked as substandard would be ''increased''! In common treatment this is solved trivially: we mark both ''križ'' and ''krst'' as ==Serbo-Croatian==, tag in the definition line that the former is preferred in Croatian and the latter in Bosnian, Serbian and Motenegrin and that's it.
2009-08-25T20:22:24Z	When exactly will you be willing to answer Zocky's questions, without needless political clouding?.
2009-08-25T21:52:36Z	In most of the usages, it's written only in Romans script, but Cyrillic could also be equally used (we don't used it, and though [[User:Dijan|Dijan]] did mention me an idea of using Cyrillic for Bosnian once, but it kind of didn't made much sense when we already had ==Serbian== being used for Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic spelling, plus we were actively migating to ==Serbo-Croatian==).
2009-08-25T21:52:36Z	I've added many old Croatian words from dialects and even from modern dialect (Štokavian) which have long been forgotten, which would hardly be considered "modern standard", but are beautiful and have abundant historical attestation.
2009-08-25T21:52:36Z	Hence, if we argue on Croatian words (words spoken/written by Croats), and their overlap with that of other Serbo-Croatian varieties, dialects should also be had in mind, since their words merit inclusion on the same criteria as non-standard ones.
2009-08-25T21:52:36Z	Also you still haven't answered Zocky's questions :) They are all yes/no...it is as if you're deliberately ignoring them :) You wasted 8K of space to give a historically inaccurate political account of "Croatian language", and it's hard for you to end it with putting a "yes" mark on "B/C/S/M have 99% identical grammar, and the difference among them all would fit on 1-2 pages of texts?" ? :).
2009-08-25T21:53:48Z	In most of the usages, it's written only in Romans script, but Cyrillic could also be equally used (we don't used it, and though [[User:Dijan|Dijan]] did mention me an idea of using Cyrillic for Bosnian once, but it kind of didn't made much sense when we already had ==Serbian== being used for Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic spelling, plus we were actively migrating to ==Serbo-Croatian==).
2009-08-26T00:04:27Z	You still seem to be more concerned whether someone will be "insulted" with seeing their national standard treated commonly (it's ''standard'', all there is - it's not a different language, it's standardized variety of one pluricentric language called Serbo-Croatian) with other national standards, than with everything else.
2009-08-26T01:14:44Z	Hence, your claim is absurd and misleading, and it would be much appreciated if you refrain from repeating such FUD.
2009-08-26T01:14:44Z	"modern literary Serbian" words from merged ==Serbo-Croatian== entries wouldn't be much of problem either, if all of the merged entries complied to the proposed policy: you'd only need to need to exclude from the list of the SC words those ones which have either (''Bosnian'') or (''Croatian''), but not (''Serbian''), context label in the definition lines.
2009-08-26T01:14:44Z	That's some 10 line of codes max (granted you have the code which parses the Wiktionary XML database for ==Serbo-Croatian== sections already).
2009-08-26T01:14:44Z	This can hardly be a serious argument.
2009-08-26T01:14:44Z	Actually, I'd like one for ==Serbo-Croatian== too :P (But it's not that much of a problem for me, I manually create/edit only SC entries in Roman script, copy the entire entry to clipboard and the program I wrote "converts" it on-the-fly to the corresponding Cyrillic entry.
2009-08-26T01:15:36Z	That's some 10 lines of code max (granted you have the code which parses the Wiktionary XML database for ==Serbo-Croatian== sections already).
2009-08-26T01:15:36Z	If we add all the words passing CFI outside the standards themselves (as we do, and I do with delight citing Serbian sources for "Croatian words" and Croatian sources for "Serbian words" :P), there'll probably be 99% of overlap in lexis too, but the percentage of words that would have to be marked as substandard would be ''increased''! In common treatment this is solved trivially: we mark both ''križ'' and ''krst'' as ==Serbo-Croatian==, tag in the definition line that the former is preferred in Croatian and the latter in Bosnian, Serbian and Montenegrin and that's it.
2009-08-26T03:06:20Z	In the merger scheme these are handled trivially: not marked as Croatian at all (only as Bosnian and Serbian): and if someone actually manages to look up those words while reading e.g.
2009-08-26T03:06:20Z	In the merger scheme we ignore the issue altogether - it's substandard today, regardless however it was used or is still used.
2009-08-26T03:06:20Z	"''since the decision as to whether a tongue is a language or a dialect is political and not scientific,''" - I've told you already that that is an urban myth.
2009-08-26T03:06:20Z	That it an irrefutable fact.
2009-08-26T03:25:37Z	We have our own target audience, and 99% of it is ''not'' bothered with petty Balkanic nationalist fairy tales, according to which your next-door neighbor whom you knew all your life speaks "different language" just because he says ''sedmica'' and not ''tjedan'', or ''hiljada'' and not ''tisuća''.
2009-08-26T03:25:37Z	Find me a single Western Slavist and/or SC specialist that claims that B/C/S/M are linguistically different languages, and not merely standardized nationial varieties of one common underlying pluricentric Serbo-Croatian, and we can talk.
2009-08-26T03:25:37Z	The concept of "Central South Slavic Diasystem" (where on earth did you heard that term? :) It's completely unused in English; being coined by Croatian national-linguists to unsuccessfully replace the term ''Serbo-Croatian'') is obsolete and has been disproved in the last decade, by Croatian linguists no less.
2009-08-26T11:39:49Z	Croatian Wikipedia is populated by nationalist extremist whose views are not shared by the general population of Croatia.
2009-08-26T11:39:49Z	This has absolutely nothing to do with "political games", I assure you.
2009-08-26T12:08:31Z	How the separation/common treatment deals with the project of recording of all the Serbo-Croatian (B/C/S/M) words in this dictionary, with respect to its target audience and its contributors?.
2009-08-26T12:08:31Z	From modern linguistic perspective, Serbo-Croatian is one [[w:pluricentric language|pluricentric language]] with several codified, national standards.
2009-08-26T12:08:31Z	No it's not our mandate to settle the dispute on whether B/C/S/M are separate languages or not, in the view of some arbitrary politically-defined notion of "language".
2009-08-26T12:08:31Z	We are neither taking sides in the treatment, like it was done in the Serbo-Croatian of Yugoslavia, when some old Croatian word were often politically "suppressed" - we are purely ''descriptive'' of modern standards, 100% NPOV.
2009-08-26T12:08:31Z	The only issue that you are fighting against here is the issue of the ''perception'' of some of the natives that their "right to linguistic self-determination" (which is imaginary and doesn't exist anyway) is somehow being invalidated, which is not.
2009-08-26T12:15:44Z	If she wrote anything else she'd be fired and her career would be as good as dead.
2009-08-26T12:38:06Z	It's hardly a "lie".
2009-08-26T13:15:57Z	The notion of Croatian speakers receiving "interpretation" from Serbian/Bosnian/Montenegrin speakers is completely ridiculous.
2009-08-26T15:10:20Z	He has a history of disruptive behavior, and was recently only warned for something that is pure [[w:Vojislav Šešelj|Šešeljevian]] [[w:Greater Serbia|Greater Serbian]] propaganda (the part on "ye Croats stole Serbs Štokavian language"), and for which he should've been bloked immediately (but wasn't, because he was doing other productive work).
2009-08-26T15:10:20Z	annoying because most of the Serbs (the common people) are ''even more'' receptive to the Serbo-Croatian linguistic unity than Croats ("Serbo-Croatian" was official language of the remaining Yugoslavia [Serbia & Montenegro] all the way till 1997!), and he pretends to be speaking in the name of all of Serbs, which is silly (even more because he doesn't seem to be completely literate in the SC).
2009-08-26T18:20:39Z	It appears that most of this separatist extremism comes from diaspora nationalists who feel obliged to "prove" their nationalist sentiments to the outside world (Šušak would now be on trial for war crimes in ICTY did he not die prematurely, just like his friend Tuđman).
2009-08-26T18:20:39Z	The political pressure of nationalist circles on academia in terms of dictating curricula or terminology used is something completely pathetic, and furthermore very indicative that in fact it takes ''more time and money'' to separate the inseparable, than it would take by common approach.
2009-08-27T18:25:22Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian&diff=7153140&oldid=7152913 This] was first-class example of [[w:Greater Serbia|GS]] propaganda, moreover its very ideological underpinnings (outlined by [[w:Vuk Stefanović Karadžić|Vuk Stefanović Karadžić]] in his [[:w:sr:Срби сви и свуда|Срби сви и свуда]] article, later used abundantly by all later GS ideologues, up to today's [[w:Voivode|vojvoda]] [[w:Vojislav Šešelj|Šeki]] whose linguistic exercises upon ICTY witnesses are legendary).
2009-08-28T22:57:53Z	''molitva'' is the general-purpose word for "prayer" in Serbo-Croatian, and ''namaz'' can probably also be used in that sense by extension (though obviously with Islamic marking).
2009-08-30T16:39:11Z	Odatle je izveden pridjev ''*bъzovъ'' "bazgin", odakle poimeničenjem imamo {{term|zova|lang=sh}}.
2009-08-30T16:39:11Z	sh.
2009-08-30T16:39:11Z	dijalektalno {{term|bazati|bázati|lutati|lang=sh}}) nije ničim utemeljena.}}.
2009-08-30T21:32:08Z	Its primary aim is to filter out bad-faith votes cast by users out of sheer ignorance, malevolence or stupidity, which should ultimately prove to be a giant leap forward in reaching consensus in votes in which the abuse of the absence of voting threshold is likely to surface.
2009-08-30T23:33:09Z	That percentage is not the point (it matters not whether the regular non-contributing viewers are registered or unregistered - they're out of our reach): the point is that there is no way that Lmaltier's scheme on non-contributors exclusively deciding on what contributing users should be doing can work.
2009-08-30T23:33:09Z	We, however, satisfy for much less then blue blood: 50 edits hardly makes you a member of "Wiktionary aristocracy".
2009-08-31T11:58:12Z	The only votes that would be affected would be the ones that would attract a significant amount of voters that do not pass the threshold, which we didn't have up until that SC vote, and probably won't have until it reiterates or some similar votes with possible implications for invalidating somebody's perception of political reality reappears.
2009-09-03T16:44:39Z	New Montenegrin standard is a superset of old Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian standard.
2009-09-03T16:44:39Z	It has many "double forms" (''dublete''), just as Bosnian standard, which again makes it another transitional form of Serbo-Croatian, something between Western and Eastern tradition.
2009-09-03T21:37:37Z	This demonstrates the flexibility of common Serbo-Croatian treatment, similar to what we already have with "Serbianisms" in Croatian (not necessarily modern standard) and "Croatianisms" in Serbian ((not necessarily modern standard)): the form ''đevojka'' is actually ''spoken'' by today's Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs, it can be attested in such usage by Croat/Bosniak/Serb authors, but it's sub-standard in the modern literary language.
2009-09-03T21:37:37Z	This latter form is shared with B/C/S standard, so we simply treat it as unmarked ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-09-03T21:38:49Z	This demonstrates the flexibility of common Serbo-Croatian treatment, similar to what we already have with "Serbianisms" in Croatian (not necessarily modern standard idiom) and "Croatianisms" in Serbian (not necessarily modern standard idiom): the form ''đevojka'' is actually ''spoken'' by today's Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs, it can be attested in such usage by Croat/Bosniak/Serb authors, but it's sub-standard in the modern literary language.
2009-09-06T02:00:44Z	how the brain-damaged scheme of "independent counting" makes it impossible for a person to simultaneously both prefer #1 but support both, that's your problem.
2009-10-08T07:57:55Z	It's the same language with regional varieties (like Serbo-Croatian, Hindustani, European/Brazilian Portuguese and Spanish, Germany/Austria/Swiss German...).
2009-10-08T07:59:28Z	It's the same language with regional varieties (like Serbo-Croatian, Hindustani, European/South-American Portuguese and Spanish, Germany/Austria/Swiss German...).
2009-10-09T13:35:39Z	The current "common practice" as regards SC and B/C/S/M is that editors who are pro unification treat it unifiedly (and merge the entries they edited), and those who are against are allowed to both clone existing merged SC to separate B/C/S/M (usually it's just one of them), as well as create new ones (which then will not be merged).
2009-10-13T09:23:55Z	for languages you have absolutely no bloody clue about.
2009-10-13T09:23:55Z	You can start a proposal, and then I'll explain to you why your brain-damaged bot wouldn't work (as I've already partially done, but you seem to simply ignore any kind of discussion).
2009-10-13T09:34:19Z	"deleting it without consensus" - there was a consensus for 4 months while the merger was ongoing, and which you happily ignored, until you imagined it was some kind of "linguistic genocide" (and sadly, too many ignorants have succumbed to many to your FUD).
2009-10-13T09:34:19Z	What I have problem with is this unilateral bot-running of yours, for languages you are completely ignorant of.
2009-10-13T09:44:33Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=vrpca&diff=prev&oldid=7534589] - Perhaps you're "offended" by seeing ''Serbo-Croatian'' instead of ''Croatian'' (which I find as amusing symptom of nationalism disease), but note however that you've deleted during the "undo" process a certain amount of useful information which wasn't present before.
2009-10-13T09:46:39Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=vrpca&diff=prev&oldid=7534589] - Perhaps you're "offended" by seeing ''Serbo-Croatian'' instead of ''Croatian'' (which I find an amusing symptom of nationalism disease), but note however that you've deleted during the "undo" process a certain amount of useful information which wasn't present before.
2009-10-13T10:22:26Z	As one can see, the way the Ullmann bots does his work, is by looking up the page history and restoring stubbish entries that were later expanded as ==Serbo-Croatian==.
2009-10-13T10:22:26Z	At the entry [[[[cigla]]]] you see all the 3 entries restored, but without the information that was added in the merged ==Serbo-Croatian== entry (the declension table).
2009-10-13T10:41:06Z	What do you mean by "Serbian vukopis"? Does that alphabet have a Serbian ethnical marker attached to it? Latin script used for Serbo-Croatian today is mostly a result of the work of [[w:Gaj's Latin Alphabet|Ljudevit Gaj]] and his associates.
2009-10-13T10:41:06Z	I generate Cyrillic-script Serbo-Croatian entries from Latin ones automatically by means of the program I wrote - first I write the Latin-script entry manually, copy it to clipboard, click on the Cyrillic-script redlink linked to in the inflection line, and do CTRL+V (i.e.
2009-10-13T14:31:38Z	''You deleted valuable content during your undo.'' Furthermore, by your replacement of ==Serbo-Croatian== with ==Croatian== you also removed any kind of notice that the word ''vrpca'' is nothing peculiar of Croatian language standard (it's all there is to the so-called "Croatian language" - a particular standard of pluricentric Serbo-Croatian language), but also spoken by 15 million non-Croats, i.e.
2009-10-13T14:31:38Z	You could've simply copy/pasted the expanded ==Serbo-Croatian== section to ==Croatian== (like some of your colleagues as {{user|Elephantus}} have been pointlessly doing), or restore the previous version of the ==Croatian== section from the page history, but you didn't.
2009-10-13T14:31:38Z	{{IPA|/ʋřptsa/|lang=sh}}.
2009-10-13T14:31:38Z	Whether it's Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin, Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian, Serbo-Bosniako-Croato-Montenegrin...you couldn't answer, because it's all of them simultaneously.
2009-10-13T14:31:38Z	Your "undo", after a ''month'' of a complete inactivity on this project, comes only hours before Robert Ullmann's Beer Parlour notice of his silly bot, which is hardly a coincidence, and which strikes me as a deliberate provocation.
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	the rarely-maintained ones), but I'd really hate to see all that ''already fixed'' sh*** resurrected again.
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	Now, since the first group (the people who actually contribute Serbo-Croatian entries) is responsible for some 99.9% of all the entries, these non-merged entries would not, as you say "spread and grow organically".
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	The net result of everyone contributing sections they prefer would be: Serbo-Croatian entries growing to tens of thousands, and individual B/C/S/M entries serving primarily as a hole to channel various passing-by nationalist contributors, who'd give up once they realized how much time-consuming adding quality content here is, despite the apparent "easiness" of contributing (as opposed to Wikipedia).
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	Our Serbo-Croatian learners would be horrified upon encountering such mess.
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	Ever since his blogpost at DailyKos in which Ullmann described me as some kind of "genocidal Serb nationalist", he has done absolutely nothing to deal with this issue in a civilized, respectful way.
2009-10-13T15:22:44Z	everything he did was to ''obstruct'' the Serbo-Croatian proposal (of which he was notified, as did the entire community, 4 months earlier - which begs for question: what has changed in his mind in the meantime?): from the "intractable technical difficulties" with some silly HTML languages codes that upon inspection came to be completely irrelevant for some 99.99% of websurfers, to this brain-damaged bot which he writes on his home computer and then "announces" that he'll run in on BP as something completely legitimate and "normal", barely worth of discussing.
2009-10-13T17:25:47Z	My edit was done in good faith, taking Wiktionary users, the learners of Serbo-Croatian, in mind, and your "undo" out of petty nationalist hysteria.
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	Pretty much all the opposes are either complete ignorants, or do so on some bizarre ideological basis.
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	Your comparison of Serbo-Croatian standards to Latin and Ido is preposterous.
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	For once, you should familiarize your self with Serbo-Croatian to see why.
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	''Refusing the bot would be accepting this removal of valid sections.'' - You keep being obsessed with the notion of "valid sections".
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	Croatian sections (users looking for Serbo-Croatian sections would find them, and not bother about other sections).''.
2009-10-14T07:48:33Z	Modern Serbo-Croatian standards are taught together, as one language, (as "Serbo-Croatian", "BCS", or other similar name) in 99% of FL world's unis.
2009-10-14T09:11:47Z	I personally find the artificially "over-civilised" tone of yours above, and out-of-place smileys in your BP notice particularly abhorring, in the context of everything you've done in the last few months to obstruct the Serbo-Croatian business, insult and defame everyone participating in it.
2009-10-15T09:48:40Z	That's because you (and your colleagues) cannot argue with me: my arguments are for the most part flawless and irrefutable.
2009-10-15T09:48:40Z	Were they trully interested in the status of ==Croatian== entries here, they'd actually be creating quality entries, not emit their nationalist BS.
2009-10-15T12:53:59Z	What is really interesting to me is that you Robert can't understand a iota of any Slavic language (Serbo-Croatian included), and yet you somehow claim out of thin air that some randomly quoted IP, that posted on Croatian Wikipedia discussion board several weeks ago, is me.
2009-10-15T13:19:02Z	It would also restore some of the obsolete templates and sections, not to mention ambiguous and sometimes downright wrong definition lines (which were fixed and expanded in the merged entries), introducing not only ethnical imbalance (by not generating sections for all the four modern Serbo-Croatian standards), but by also misleading the poor reader of Wiktionary that there actually ''are'' some differences in the meanings among standards, where there is none (cf.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	By exercising the pure commonsense mental logic, taking into consideration the immense increase of mass media, urbanization, education of all classes of people as well as language standardization in the last half of century, and especially the fact that today Čakavian and Kajkavian are virtually dead as literally languages, it's safe to assume that that in the following century they'd be reduced to the brink of extinction.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	It's just a matter of time before inertia and ignorance finishes what Turks initiated 600 years ago :).
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	''And in reality there are 3 different languages (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian) and one forming (Montenegrin).'' - In reality there is one linguistical entity, in dialectology usually called Neoshtokavian, more commonly known as Serbo-Croatian, actualized in 4 national standards whose mutual differences in grammar could fit on some [[WT:ASH|2 pages of text]] :) Now, whether you call these national stanadards "languages" or not is a matter of somebody's perception.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	The third one on the list, a particular innovative speach of it to be more precise (Neo-Štokavian), is used as a bases of the standard, codified language of all the 4 nations of that 4-part dialect cluster.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	Voting "no" on the Unified Serbo-Croatian vote page was perceived as a step to re-affirming one's "Croatdom" (''hrvatstvo'') by many of the voters.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	Some even requested that, can you imagine that, they'd be apologised to, due to "being insulted" :) Most of the Balkans still lives in the 19th century state-language-nation fairy tales, a state of mind commonly described by the word ''nationalist''.
2009-10-15T15:12:58Z	Sorry, but to ignore the nationalist dimension in all this would be to simply play dumb.
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	''No changes are made to the restored sections, except to add attention tags in some cases'' - which will result in thousands of created entries requiring manual cleanup, which you, I suppose, have no intention giving a hand with, since you have no clue about the language.
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	I haven't touched the new creations done by your nationalist friends, except fixing errors in them.
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	OTOH, they've quite benefited from my edits (many a such new ==Croatian== entries are blatant copy/pastes of the neighboring ==Serbo-Croatian== entry, so much for the "different languages").
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	The only entries that are merged are those created by the contributors supporting the unification effort.
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	In a more general sense they're called ''Serbo-Croatian'' and ''English'', respectively.
2009-10-15T15:42:37Z	We already have much, much better entries today ''because'' of the unification effort, since Dijan and I don't need to waste time and space on anymore doing exactly the same thing on seven different places, we do it on only one or two, thus doing it much faster.
2009-10-16T23:51:32Z	Serbo-Croatian inflected forms have the same peculiar issue as Slovenian and Lithuanian, with whom you have experience here, so I was wondering of your opinion on the matter: The preferred way of treating inflected forms which are spelled the same way, but are pronounced differently (i.e.
2009-10-16T23:51:32Z	E.g., SC Latin-spelling {{term|ime|ȉme|name|lang=sh}}, genitive singular ''ȉmena'', nominative plural ''imèna'', genitive plural ''iménā''.
2009-10-22T02:38:02Z	Some online dialectal dictionaries also list it [http://nastava.tvz.hr/~usck/index.php?option=com_glossary&func=view&Itemid=88888921&catid=88888895&term=pran%E8iok].
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	[...] I'm aware that Lunt published the first grammar of Macedonian just about ~50 years ago, but look - Bosnian language was codified less then 15 years ago; does this fact invalidate rights to Bosniaks to their own standard language/literary language, which they were unable to do due to inadequate political climate in ex-Yugolavia(s) surrounding the question of the existence of their ethnos? I don't think so.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	Basically everyone who wasn't Croatian nationalist, or who dared to touch the subjects that were somehow perceived as some kind of a "national treason" were driven away.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	The reason why I got indefblocked recently is not because I've broken any rule or something, but after the nationalist clique out of thin air (initiated by one of the banned ex-burecurats [[User:Roberta F.|Roberta F.]], and that everything was well-organized can be seen by the fact that votes were colellected in a matter of minutes) decided to "vote" to indef block me after I tried to reason to them in ''Kafić'' (I was 100% polite and civilized in that discussion, as everyone who can read serbo-Croatian can see for themselves, and received plenty of unsanctioned abuse BTW) on how SC unified treatment on Wiktionary is not something reflective of "Communist oppression", or "next step towards the obliteration of bs/hr/sr wikiprojects", or something similar that they paranoidly imagined.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	I cited them the most competent living Croatian Slavist Mate Kapović, who wrote in a nationalist magazine ''Kolo'' published by [[w:Matica hrvatska|Matica hrvatska]] (the central Croatian cultural institution) that "dialectally, Croatian and Serbian are of course the same language" - which of course created an "outrage", and the "defense" that languages are not merely "linguistically defined" yada yada.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	''On February 28, he moved Wiktionary:About Serbian to Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian and set about editing it to change the language(s) to Serbo-Croatian.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	(Hence his vociferous objections to having a brain-damaged bot restore all of the deleted sections, that would defeat his entire purpose.)'' - Nonsense, it was with regard to the modifications of the [[WT:ASH]] policy and the unified treatment contained in it, and which was agreed to by ''all'' of the Serbo-Croatian contributors at the time.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	He still holds the positions stated eloquently above, he knows that "Serbo-Croatian" is offensive, insulting, and linguistic nonsense.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	FFS, what would I ''possibly'' gain by pushing Serbo-Croatian, and privately holding that it's ''not'' one language, and that the name ''is'' insultive? I'd have to be clinically insane to do that.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	I personally don't give a flying **** on the state of mind of folks on Croatian Wikipedia :) My sole concern here is the quality of both content ''and'' presentation of Serbo-Croatian (i.e.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	As a person who has some 30 000 quality edits (you know, actual ''content'' edits), I'm quite concerned that that goal not be obstructed by maliciously-intented individuals, as a form of trivial remedy for their personal mental issues (nationalist pride, ego..).
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	What else can he do? And the noise level itself adds to the obfuscation, leading to some people thinking it is some sort of he-said-she-said argument, when it is not.''" - And ''I'''m the one who's trolling? ^_^ Here are my arguments I've stated repeatedly over and over and over again, on various places, and which irrefutable, undeniable facts of nature which can be verified in the books.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	Modern standard Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian(/Montenegrin) are all standardized on the same, ''identical'' speech/subdialect (Neoštokavian) of the same dialect (Štokavian), the ''only'' (!!!) speech that is spoken by all 4 nations.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	This was ''deliberately'' chosen in the 19th century to bind the dialectally diversified literatures and their respective languages of our neighboring brotherly nations, to suppress Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian yoke (see [[w:Vienna Literary Agreement|Vienna Literary Agreement]]).
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	These 4 were prior to 1990s treated as different regional varieties of one and the same language Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian by ''all'' of the world's Slavists (including venerable Croatian linguists like [[W:Tomislav Maretić|Tomislav Maretić]], [[w:Vatroslav Jagić|Vatroslav Jagić]] etc.).
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	This is the stance of pretty much all of the Western Slavists today (including the top-ones like Browne, Kortlandt, Dybo...who actively publish on Serbo-Croatian and still use that very term).
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	If you look in the early 20th century and earlier, ''Serbo-Croatian''/''Serbokroatisch'' is in fact ''the only'' term you'd find in the books.
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	From the perspective of modern linguistic science, B/C/S/M are four independent standard languages, 4 national standards of one underlying linguistic entity (call it ''Neoštokavian'', ''Serbo-Croatian'' or whatever).
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	This makes Serbo-Croatian polycentric standard language, as Croatian linguist Snježana Kordić meticulously elaborates in her recent paper [http://www.snjezana-kordic.de/Policentricni_standardni_jezik.htm here].
2009-10-23T19:40:44Z	We all know that you don't know ''iota'' of Serbo-Croatian, or of any other related Slavic language, and it's astonishing that you even have the courage to emit such immense amounts of BS directed against an expert on the language (me), failing to mention ''a single'' reputable source refuting any of my claims.
2009-10-23T19:53:26Z	The Serbo-Croatian unification proposal has absolutely nothing to do with Croatian Wiki-Community, or my alleged "revenge" against it.
2009-10-23T19:53:26Z	Ullmann kind of really "hates" me now, and given that he has no knowledge to confront the irrefutable logical soundness of the Serbo-Croatian unification proposal in linguistic terms, he must resort to trolling and ad-hominems.
2009-10-23T19:53:26Z	If it is really the case, that I want to "take revenge", why I'd be bringing the SC unification proposal ''after 2 years'' of creating independent B/C/S entries, and why I'd be ardently defending the oneness of SC on some other unrelated projects (namely the English Wikipedia?), where there is not a single Croatian Wikipedia contributor (I run only to [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] from time to time).
2009-10-23T20:16:52Z	[[rog#Bosnian]] has different set of meanings than [[rog#Croatian]], so the poor Wiktionary user would be mislead into assumption "gee, this must be one of those cases where there actualy ''is'' some kind of differences among the standards", when in fact there is none and all 3 senses are valid in all 3 (4) Serbo-Croatian standards.
2009-10-23T20:16:52Z	The reason why I principally oppose such restoration of the merged entries is because 1) they're worthless as everything of any worth in them is ''already'' contained in the merged entry, and properly rectified/expended in the process 2) Thousands of these restored entries would need manual cleanup (actually, every singly one of them would have to be checked, because bot doesn't have a clue whether there was sth wrong or not in the unmerged entries).
2009-10-23T20:16:52Z	are ah-so-concerned with the status of ==Croatian==, ==Serbian== and ==Bosnian== entries they should perhaps focus instead on extracting (OK, let's be honest, copy/pasting) the information from the ==Serbo-Croatian== sections, as that would be much, much easier thing to do (90% less LoC), and much less error-prone, in some kind of semi-automatible way, but supervised by humans.
2009-10-23T20:16:52Z	I personally don't care at all for B/C/S/M entries now, other than as a means to enhance ==Serbo-Croatian== entries.
2009-10-23T20:28:54Z	I have a database on my computer of ~ 1 million inflected forms for Serbo-Croatian lemmata, but before any bot-readable inflected forms are generated, I need to make sure that all the bot activity is properly logged so that I can later do cleanup such as the one I mentioned (i.e.
2009-10-24T13:26:15Z	{{user|Elephantus}} attempted doing this manually - restoring from history previously merged ==Croatian== sections, but after a few edits he realized how inane activity it was, how ridiculous it looks like to have stubbish ==Croatian== entry next to moderately complete ==Serbo-Croatian== entry with the same content, and thus he eventually started simply copy/pasting whole ==Serbo-Croatian== entries to ==Croatian== the only changes being modifying ISO code from <tt>sh</tt> to <tt>hr</tt>, and removing non-Croatian ==Alternative forms== when they occurred (Ekavian Serbo-Croatian).
2009-10-24T13:26:15Z	The only proper way to handle this "issue" (the non-existence of redundant data for non-existing languages) is not by restoring rubbish from page history, but on cloning the existing ==Serbo-Croatian== entries, so that all of those thousands entries look as silly as [[[[govor]]]].
2009-10-24T13:26:15Z	We can also add a note to the corresponding language policy pages, for all the future WTF complains by Serbo-Croatian learners that end up on Wiktionary, why is one language handled in 5 mostly identical sections, to seek "explanation" by Robert Ullmann, because someone has to take responsibility for this nonsense.
2009-10-24T16:40:26Z	The thing is DCDuring that this whole "issue" surfaced as an exercise in planned trolling where Ullmann hoped to have cast me as an "abusive POV-pusher" in order to get me blocked, in assistance with his new "friends" from Croatian and Serbian Wikipedia (a bunch of nationalist bigots, one of which ironically even openly confessed pro-Greater-Serbian viewpoints).
2009-10-24T16:40:26Z	The thing is that these folks are simply too lazy to do it themselves, and they'd rather see bot do it, only to see they beloved nationalist designations on Wiktionary, regardless of the quality or the necessity of such entries.
2009-10-24T16:40:26Z	You want every single Serbo-Croatian entry to look as ridiculous as [[[[govor]]]]? Fine by me.
2009-10-26T12:33:56Z	The usage of different scripts that trivially map 1:1, or as well regionally confined terms does not justify the notion of "different language".
2009-10-26T12:33:56Z	And in case of Serbo-Croatian national varieties, grammar coincide 99%.
2009-10-26T12:33:56Z	B/C/S/M are 4 different national standards of what is linguistically doubtless one entity, call it ''Serbo-Croatian'' or whatever.
2009-10-26T12:33:56Z	You cannot argue that just because they've been assigned different ISO codes under the pressure of nationalist governments in the 1990s that it justifies the notion of "separate languages".
2009-10-26T12:33:56Z	Especially because there was only one code <tt>sh</tt> for a very long time before that, and that nobody had any problems with.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	It is necessary to educate you on the basic concepts, lack of understanding of which blurs your perspective on the subject and lead you to fallacious conclusions such as "words spelled in different script belong to different languages" and "lexical dissimilarity necessitates the notion of a 'different dialect'".
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	Have you absolutely any clue what SIL International does? How many professional linguists do you think give a **** about that nongovernmental non-profit Christian organization? I'll tell you: none.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	article on it in Elsevier ''Encycolpedia of Language and Linguistics'' on what exactly do they try to accomplish with it, which is '''not''' to proscribe the notion of a "language" at all).
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	Some nationalist might be deceived that it internationally legitimizes their "separate language", but a quick glance of recently published authoritive FL sources (e.g.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	Additionally, once you realize that we are not here to mindlessly chase 3-letter codes but to describe the linguistic reality as it is/was with our readers/contributors in mind, you reach the conclusion that the common Serbo-Croatian treatment is the Right Thing to do.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	We ''can'' add those national varieties of Serbo-Croatian too, but that would be simply a waste of time and bytes.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	I can see on my watchlist that our proud admirer of Vojislav Šešelj {{user|Pepsi Lite}} has been more than industrious in copy/pasting ==Serbo-Croatian== entries to ==Serbian== lately, why don't you give him a hand? :).
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	They contain a large number of factually wrong data, obsoleted formatting as well as ambiguous content that would introduce unnecessary confusion, misleading that there is some kind of additional difference between those "languages" when in fact there is none.
2009-10-28T15:57:11Z	There is absolutely no loss in not having them because everything of use is already contained in the merged ==Serbo-Croatian== sections.
2009-10-28T16:00:10Z	It is necessary to educate you on the basic concepts, lack of understanding of which blurs your perception of the subject and leads you to fallacious conclusions such as "words spelled in different script belong to different languages" and "lexical dissimilarity necessitates the notion of a 'different dialect'".
2009-10-28T16:00:10Z	article on it in Elsevier ''Encycolpedia of Language and Linguistics'' on what exactly do they try to accomplish with it, which is '''''not''''' to proscribe the notion of a "language" at all).
2009-10-28T16:00:10Z	Some nationalist might be deceived that it internationally legitimizes their "separate language", but a quick glance of recently published authoritative FL sources (e.g.
2009-10-30T22:16:49Z	And you please refrain from interpreting edits in languages you have no clue about.
2009-10-31T04:12:23Z	I usually type modern Turkish in Latin script, which is the form found in all the etymological dictionaries I have access to, and let Dijan fix it (he monitors my edits as well as [[:Category:sh:Turkish derivations]], and has resources on Ottoman Turkish spellings).
2009-10-31T16:00:34Z	*búrja apstraktna je imenica izvedena iz glagola *buríti (sh.
2009-10-31T16:00:34Z	{{term|buriti|búriti se||ljutiti se|lang=sh}}, rus.
2009-10-31T16:00:34Z	{{term|sc=Cyrl|бурить|tr=burít||udarati, rušiti|lang=sh}}.
2009-10-31T16:00:34Z	U sh.
2009-10-31T18:48:22Z	And who exactly is supposed to take care of all those? You? Me? Those lazy nationalist provokers? If they truly cared so much on their "separate languages", they would've already added all those entries (semi-)manually.
2009-10-31T19:32:01Z	I reverted all of your bot edits because it would simply take hours to manually check and expand them, to be all in sync with ==Serbo-Croatian== section.
2009-10-31T19:56:38Z	(For the sake of fairness - I have discussed the edits with native speakers and academics at UBC who have said the quality appears to be high, but are biased to a specific '''political''' [their word, not mine] point of view.
2009-10-31T19:56:38Z	However, it is also encouraging the user to remove language sections which do not fall within xyr POV, replacing them with higher quality entries which reflect xyr view.
2009-10-31T19:56:38Z	I am sincerely interested, what "political views" did those academics of yours had in mind? Did they mention some particular ideology or a political viewpoint, or it was some vague phrase? :) (One should have in mind that the notion of ''Serbo-Croatian'' precedes Communist Yugoslavia by more than a century, as well as all of those future nation-states which were part of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire at that period).
2009-11-01T19:01:41Z	LOL, I had no idea that Interwicket ceased adding sh: interwiki at some point.
2009-11-02T04:22:03Z	Their opinion was you were a "Yugoslav", though I was not able to understand what they meant by that (it was pretty clear they did not mean "communist".) I do not have evidence of your assertion regarding Serbo-Croatian, and have seen some revisionist (that is, I do not trust it) evidence to the contrary.
2009-11-02T04:22:03Z	Then they're obviously a bunch of ignorants.
2009-11-02T04:22:03Z	This "assertion" of mine that Serbo-Croatian (both the name and the notion of one South Slavic languages) dates to the first half of the 19th century can be verified in any handbook.
2009-11-02T04:22:03Z	Serbo-Croatian, from edited books and journals, to you, Ullmann and other interested parties on several related discussions, but I doubt that you even read them (I don't think you can understand them at all).
2009-11-02T04:35:10Z	Wow, look who's talking, a person who ran Ullmann's script from his own username account (so much for the respect of "community consensus"), who thinks that the same word written in 2 scripts belongs to "different languages", who claims that no peer-reviewed evidence was provided to him that supports the notion of one language.
2009-11-02T04:35:10Z	If you have trouble with that, learn Serbo-Croatian and add separate B/C/S/M sections, if you care so much.
2009-11-02T05:03:40Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80&curid=217576&diff=7636398&oldid=7636216] [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=manastir&curid=217577&diff=7636402&oldid=7635988] - What is this, you too succumbing under Ullmann's domain? Or you started learning Serbo-Croatian and thereby express genuine interest in asborbing knowledge from those "deleted sections" ?.
2009-11-02T05:05:31Z	There is consensus among all Serbo-Croatian contributors.
2009-11-02T05:21:00Z	Why should I care what trolls think, imagine to think, or pretend to think? I am adding and expanding entries in one language - Serbo-Croatian, and cannot simply pretend that this separate B/C/S/M nonsense "doesn't exist".
2009-11-02T05:32:19Z	In this edit of yours you introduced vocative singular of ''brače'' which doesn't exist because ''brak'' does not refer to animate being, and which was fixed in the ==Serbo-Croatian== section.
2009-11-02T05:32:19Z	Your edit was ultimately more harmful than useful, as per "separate treatment" rationale some innocent ignorant user would 1) acquire factually wrong information 2) be likely mislead into thinking that this word is not used in Bosnian and Serbian standard of Serbo-Croatian, and that is Croatian-only, which is not the case.
2009-11-02T05:32:19Z	We must aim for NPOV coverage of all modern Serbo-Croatian standard.
2009-11-02T15:25:01Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=nasljednica&diff=prev&oldid=7638392] - and here someone would be mislead into thinking that there is an additional non-legal sense sense in Serbo-Croatian which is not present in "Croatian".
2009-11-02T15:25:01Z	Why don't you simply get back to your usual Catalan words and leave Serbo-Croatian language(s) to knowledgeable folks like me, eh? :).
2009-11-02T15:30:06Z	And common Serbo-Croatian treatment passes that as we are ''not'' forbidding any word.
2009-11-02T15:30:06Z	We define our notion of "language" on how we see it fit to fulfill the goals of the project, and in this case, it's more than appropriate.
2009-11-02T16:00:00Z	Serbo-Croatian is linguistically one language by 99% of world's Slavist.
2009-11-02T16:00:00Z	It's taught as one language on every single university in France, UK, Netherlands, Germany and Russia (which have the best programs in Slavic Studies), as well as almost all (98%) of USA and Canadian collages (unless they're sponsored by nationalist diaspora, as [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian&diff=prev&oldid=7195099 we've been informed by an insider]).
2009-11-02T19:30:58Z	I have a program that converts Serbo-Croatian entry in Latin script to the equivalent entry in Cyrillic script, because Cyrillic characters with combining diacritics that Slavists' use to denote accents are impossible to type.
2009-11-03T02:42:49Z	There is no 'y' in Serbo-Croatian alphabet, see {{term|boja|lang=sh}}.
2009-11-03T14:45:27Z	All I could find is {{term|teli|lang=sh}}/{{term|sc=Cyrl|тели|lang=sh}}, {{term|terli|lang=sh}}/{{term|sc=Cyrl|терли|lang=sh}}, borrowed from Turkish {{term|telli||wired, stringed, funicular|lang=tr}}, which in turn might be derived from {{term|tel|lang=tr}} (probably is, but you should better check somewhere).
2009-11-04T20:30:11Z	IPA symbols are a bit misleading here: the distinction between fortis (traditionally transcribed as /p t k/) and lenis (traditionally transcribed as /b d g/) stops in German is not in voicing.
2009-11-04T22:56:21Z	When mentioning "the needs of our users" I was referring to the vague notion of our anonymous readers, whose knowledge (i.e.
2009-11-04T23:48:47Z	These two new letters are used by some 0.01% of Montenegrins (try googling words with them from [[Index:Montenegrin]] if you don't believe me :), and the necessity of their introduction (which breaks the 2-centuries old phonological orthography of Serbo-Croatian) has been almost unanimously scoffed at by the venerable ex-yu Slavists (I can give you links to some papers if you're interested :) One language!.
2009-11-05T02:49:50Z	No, it's Neoštokavian, don't trust Wikipedia on contentious issues such as this, as facts gets distorted by bigoted nationalist PoV partisans.
2009-11-05T02:49:50Z	(As we already saw on the SC merger vote, where several Croats and Serbs blatantly lied on the differences among the modern day Serbo-Croatian standards, comparing them to that of Czech and Slovak, or Scandinavian languages).
2009-11-05T02:49:50Z	The new "Montenegrin standard will be", in the words Milenko Perović, one of the writers of the Montenegrin orthography that I commented upon - ''Crnogorski jezik je sastavni deo novoštokavskog jezičkog sistema'' - "a constituent part of the Neoštokavian language system", who also explained that linguistically "they'll both be correct" (''će biti u pravu''), those who "up until today created a culture of Ijekavian Serbo-Croatian, and those who obeyed by the rules of the new orthography" (''do sada izgradili kulturu ijekavskog srpsko-hrvatskog jezika i oni koji koji budu govorili i pisali po novom pravopisu'').
2009-11-05T07:44:54Z	My comment on ignorance as no excuse was in reference to the presupposed knowledge of a user who would be prevented in the start from acquiring the required information on Wiktionary as a result of his (un)willful ignorance, as is illustrated in your comment above: ''Do you expect it to be understood by English-speaking people..'' - No we don't expect anything.
2009-11-05T07:44:54Z	I wasn't claiming that the dumb-down has anything to do with intelligence or any kind of innate ability to reason: I was merely remarking that the dumbing-down approach of ''presenting'' the material under the excuse of some vague anonymous user's ignorance is not something that I'm personally fond of, although it's unfortunately becoming quite trendy around here.
2009-11-08T04:33:47Z	I've finally found {{term|tel|lang=sh}} and added it.
2009-11-11T20:58:24Z	Search on the Internet for Orel's historical grammar of Albanian and Albanian etymological dictionary and try to obtain some ''real'' knowledge on your mother tongue without the layer of nationalist/religious mythology.
2009-11-15T03:53:45Z	It doesn't mean anything in Serbo-Croatian.
2009-11-17T15:20:33Z	Anyhow, I'm about to put my glorious Serbo-Croatian conjugator to action on many a thousand Serbo-Croatian verb, so I was wondering (following a notice on your userpage) if you could spice this baby up a bit before I give it a go :D.
2009-11-19T11:55:06Z	[[Appendix:Avestan alphabet]]) where one could see which transcription scheme we should prefer.
2009-11-20T08:52:33Z	Pretty much the same is in Serbo-Croatian, where the surge of politically-correct neologisms eventually created monsters such as ''borkinja'' "female figher" (< {{term|borac||fighter|lang=sh}}) which are ridiculed by the common people (and not used in spoken language) but purists tend to advise their usage and put them to dictionaries, and some cocky writers use them.
2009-11-20T08:52:33Z	Turkish suffix {{term|-džija|lang=sh}}) and sometimes ''mocijski parnjak'' (that's the fancy name for these feminine counterparts in the grammar books) cannot be coined due to semantics (e.g.
2009-11-20T08:52:33Z	for {{term|cinik||cynic|lang=sh}}, there is no *{{term||cinika}}).
2009-11-20T11:07:53Z	this one<sup>[http://www.vreme.com/cms/view.php?id=879587]</sup> ''Radila je u Ekonomskom institutu SFRJ, bila je šef kabineta..'' "She worked at the Economic Institute of the SFRJ, serving as a chief of the cabinet.." (masculine ''šef'' instead of feminine ''šefica'').
2009-11-20T12:13:45Z	Ima još toga u [[:Category:Serbo-Croatian nouns]], pa samo daj.
2009-11-21T03:24:20Z	If you cannot comprehend in what terms is common Serbo-Croatian treatment a Good Thing, that is a personal problem of your ignorance and malice.
2009-11-21T03:24:20Z	You haven't participated in ''single one'' of those discussions, but in the last of Ullmann's disgusting trollfests, where you apparently argue that word written in 2 different script belongs to "different languages", and mention some kind of "international linguistic standards" where you clearly demonstrate that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2009-11-21T03:24:20Z	For ''any'' external presentation of Wiktionary data there is absolutely no need to separate Serbo-Croatian entries ''simultaneously''.
2009-11-21T03:24:20Z	I have several such lists and I'm continuously improving them because I need them in one of my projects (machine translation among B/C/S standards, one day hopefully to be installed at sh wikipedia trivializing the importation of articles from bs/hr/sr ethnopedias presenting different versions of articles in different tabs.
2009-11-21T03:24:20Z	Cases which words such as {{term|kašika|lang=sh}}, which are not really "proper" Croatian and are often frowned upon by the purists (people like [[User:Kubura|Kubura]] who see Communist/Serbian boogymen everywhere), but are nevertheless still abundantly used, should also be taken care of at the reader's preference.
2009-11-21T15:22:17Z	Proto-Slavic accents are however pretty easily reconstructable from the comparative evidence (in languages which have preserved them, like Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Bulgarian..even vowel lengths in Czech are of value!), and we can make quite precise educated guess on prosodic properties of those words in the 9th century, but as I said: things like vowel lengths, and ''real'' Slavonic accents (acute & circumflex) were unmarked in the OCS MSS.
2009-11-22T08:20:39Z	I am supposed to believe that you ''genuinely care'' for Serbo-Croatian entries, and the effect the merger has on the users? Puh-lease.
2009-11-22T20:07:51Z	''for every other re-user who draws from downloads.wikimedia.org.'' - and how many are those? tens? thousands? millions? Of them, how many would be interested in specifically Serbo-Croatian? You're again arguing with imaginary numbers.
2009-11-22T20:07:51Z	Are you saying me that javascript cannot do if (userlanguage==bs|hr|sr) then lookup(sh) ? I've been using [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7675 WikiLook] for months and it works perfectly fine for Serbo-Croatian entries.
2009-11-22T20:07:51Z	Defaulting bs/hr/sr to sh is a matter of trivial conditional.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	We would hope that every single one of them is interested in Serbo-Croatian, but whether they are or not does not prejudice whether en.Wiktionary should be developing and presenting generically useful information.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	Especially when those few, if they genuinely are interested in SC data, can compensate for Serbo-Croatian formatting scheme on Wiktionary rather easily.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	And, as the statistical probability goes, probably 1 out of 100 of those "database re-users" would ''not'' share your and Ullmann's opinions of Serbo-Croatian, which is according to the 99.9% of English-language scholarship one language.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	And hypothetically, if they don't, they can easily disregard the information they're not interested into, as outlined in the algorithm above (which is straightly deducible from [[WT:ASH]] guideline page for Serbo-Croatian).
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	Defaulting bs/hr/sr language preferences to sh L2 on Wiktionary is a matter of a trivial conditional.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	Not to mention that there is absolutely no reason why the above algo cannot be implemented in javascript itself, or ''any other'' layer between database (XML/SQL) and the presentation (HTML), where it could present the users the option of looking up both SC and individual bs/hr/sr, depending on their choice, if they happen to have "problems" with the name ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	The notion of a "meaning of a word" is so 20th century.
2009-11-23T06:29:45Z	Spoken language does not abide by arbitrarily-defined orthographical conventions which define the notion of a "word".
2009-11-23T06:32:24Z	And, as the statistical probability goes, probably 99 out of 100 of those "database re-users" would ''not'' share your and Ullmann's opinions of Serbo-Croatian, which is according to the 99.9% of English-language scholarship one language.
2009-11-23T06:32:24Z	And hypothetically, if they don't, they can easily disregard the information they're not interested into, as outlined in the algorithm above (which is directly deducible from [[WT:ASH]] guideline page for Serbo-Croatian).
2009-11-23T14:55:15Z	Eastern Serbo-Croatian, or both as is in the first quote below :D).
2009-11-23T20:13:47Z	Wiktionary won't reach the quality of commercial dictionaries in English language alone within a decade at least, and you're talking as if it's ready for prime time this very instant, about to rock the world of lexicography, and the only thing that it's keeping it from doing so is how we chose to format obscure language such as Serbo-Croatian, of which most English speakers prob.
2009-11-23T20:13:47Z	the differences between the individual Serbo-Croatian standards are irrelevant, only the meaning of a particular word is, and whether that word is Serbian or Croatian or whatever it doesn't matter).
2009-11-23T20:13:47Z	Your imagination that the very existence of separate bs/hr/sr wikipedias somehow legitimizes the existence of "separate languages" breaks on its first stumbling point: there is also something called [[w:sh:Glavna_stranica_/_Главна_страница|Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia]], and it was originally ''the first and the only one'', before enough bigoted nationalists expressed their separatist desires for their own individual 'pedias.
2009-11-24T04:13:01Z	What TOC redirection you speak off? All "redirection" that is required in your programe is a matter of adding <code>bs/hr/sr/sh -> "Serbo-Croatian"</code> resolve to a few of the code->langname maps in the code.
2009-11-26T16:08:21Z	Because in Serbo-Croatian infinitives end in ''-ti''.
2009-11-26T16:15:23Z	Because the word "odit(i)" doesn't exists in Serbian language, and they (Serbs) maybe have a clue but they couldn't understand it (if they don't have Montenegrin origins).
2009-11-27T17:41:00Z	Look for the headword line, the adjective ends in ''-an'' so it's an indefinite form for sure, and it lists ''-zni'' as '''odr.'' ({{term|određen||definite|lang=sh}}), so it must have both.
2009-11-27T17:41:00Z	So use your wits to eliminate junk, or tag with {{temp|attention|sh}} and I'll check it out for ya.
2009-11-27T17:41:47Z	Look for the headword line, the adjective ends in ''-an'' so it's an indefinite form for sure, and it lists ''-zni'' as ''odr.'' ({{term|određen||definite|lang=sh}}), so it must have both.
2009-11-28T14:54:35Z	We're chiefly focusing on the prescribed literary idiom with the label ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-11-28T14:54:35Z	<tt>sh</tt> is one letter shorter (and thus more "elite" :D), used by Wikimedia, and more intuitive to users, and <tt>hbs</tt> is kind of newish.
2009-11-28T14:54:35Z	<tt>sh</tt> is officially "obsolete", but they don't assign 2-letter codes anymore so it's usage is completely safe.
2009-11-28T14:54:35Z	If you think that we should switch to <tt>hbs</tt> because <tt>sh</tt> is somehow "unsafe" or something, I suppose you could mention it on some discussion board ([[WT:ASH]] comes to mind) and we could see what the other think.
2009-11-28T15:27:23Z	I'm a bit confused: Does Interwicket still remove it as you mention it [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bogorm&diff=7892078&oldid=7892045 here] on new entries, or just not adding it as you informed me on my talkpage a while back? If necessary, I can write a bot that will propagate sh interwiki specifically (and Volkovbot already does it AFAICS?), so that you don't need to waste time doing that manually.
2009-11-28T16:02:41Z	Dear Robert: could you please make Interwicket not [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=dan&action=historysubmit&diff=7652419&oldid=7600856 remove] interwiki to Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary? If it's not adding it, could at least not ''remove'' it? If you don't want to make it add interwiki to sh:, we'll solve that by other means, but it cannot be dealt with while Interwicket keeps removing it.
2009-11-28T16:09:26Z	No ''guber'' is from Hungarian {{term|guba|lang=sh}} (apparently that meaning is missing in the linked Hungarian entry).
2009-11-30T20:37:41Z	There is absolutely no reason why you'd do this other than annoy me and other Serbo-Croatian contributors.
2009-12-01T20:02:20Z	Hi! I'd be interested if you could run your tool against the latest Wiktionary dump (from today/tomorrow, because I did a major cleanup in the last few days) finding all Serbo-Croatian entries satisfying either of the following criteria.
2009-12-03T18:10:40Z	''dr'' sequence is abundantly attested in Serbo-Croatian, so I figured out it was OK to hyphenate it as ''hi-drat'', especially when there is a short rising tone on medial ''-i-'' which itself is kind of micro-syllable-breaker :D.
2009-12-06T13:17:58Z	[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B3&diff=prev&oldid=7975448] - Blocked for one day for spreading ethnic hatred with Greater Serbian propaganda comments.
2009-12-08T12:01:17Z	You've specifically removed ==Serbo-Croatian== section header above.
2009-12-08T12:01:17Z	This is needed because it's linked to by {{temp|seeCites}} with <tt>lang=sh</tt>.
2009-12-08T13:11:00Z	Use ==Serbo-Croatian== + manual categorization instead, because otherwise section linking from {{temp|seeCites}} wouldn't work.
2009-12-09T14:55:08Z	My question was hardly "vacuous".
2009-12-09T14:55:08Z	That is hardly the case.
2009-12-09T14:55:08Z	Toponyms are hardly an "intellectual masturbation" - their study is a well-established discipline in lexicography and historical linguistics.
2009-12-10T13:07:45Z	Lmaltier is correct: comparisons with traditional monolingual dictionaries are pointless and misleading.
2009-12-11T19:31:06Z	The same is in Serbo-Croatian and Slovene (where you also have vowel lengths and rising/falling tone!) There are probably some rules where it's ''most likely'' to be placed, depending on the word structure, and whether the word is an inherited, basic word (which would mean that the stress is also likely to be inherited, unpredictably), or a recent borrowing or coinage (which would mean that the stress is likely to be artificially placed on a certain predefined syllable), but generally you must look up the position of stress in a dictionary to be 100% sure.
2009-12-12T15:07:49Z	{{term|polje|lang=sh}} -> ''ljem'', {{term|rad|lang=sh}} -> ''radom''.
2009-12-12T15:08:25Z	{{term|polje|lang=sh}} -> ''poljem'', {{term|rad|lang=sh}} -> ''radom''.
2009-12-14T17:21:51Z	However, at this moment the category hardly deserves to be created, and recategorizing the three entries it contains into the empty supracategory [[:Category:Hindu mythology]] would suffice IMHO.
2009-12-15T02:01:11Z	We want to keep the list of cognates on the PIE appendix page as minimal as possible (max 1-2 languages per branch), with as many possible early attestations as possible (which means that, with the presence of Old Church Slavonic, modern-day South Slavic languages are hardly being missed..).
2009-12-15T20:09:45Z	BTW: What we treat here as ==Serbo-Croatian== is all modern are previous standards of Serbo-Croatian, see [[WT:ASH]], it's stated in the very first paragraph :).
2009-12-15T20:10:12Z	BTW: What we treat here as ==Serbo-Croatian== is all modern & previous standards of Serbo-Croatian, see [[WT:ASH]], it's stated in the very first paragraph :).
2009-12-15T20:44:07Z	The language is as what people utilize it for communication, not what some dim-witted academicians in nice suits (bought by text payers' money) imagine it to be for the nationalist agendas they serve to.
2009-12-23T10:29:49Z	Yeah, I'm kind of saturated with all the Serbo-Croatian business now.
2009-12-23T11:33:20Z	As for the merging - I wouldn't really want to do that lest Ullmann and his puppets would again try to troll me to death with their empty-worded homoerotic extravaganzas.
2009-12-23T11:33:20Z	It's one of those ugly words that rose to promimenence during the Tuđman's dictatorship in the 1990s and which unsuccessfully tried to replace the common (and still much more prevalent) everyday word ''radnik'', and which modern-day nationalists with a knack for purism boast about as some kind of big "badge of Croatdom", ignorant of the fact that their Bosniak, Serbian and Montenegrin brethren have also been attestedly using that same word for more than a century (in both Ijekavian ''djelatnik'' and Ekavian ''delatnik'' forms).
2009-12-23T23:16:20Z	My only objection with all this "plurals approach" is the inherent notion of projection of categories that are designed and well suited for languages such as English, but not so for other languages where there are additional grammatical markers beside plurality.
2009-12-24T22:31:42Z	given the fact that almost all of duplicative entries that PalkiaX50 mercilessly obliterated, the act of which you deviously misname "vandalism", are in fact blatant copy/pastes of Serbo-Croatian entries I made.
2009-12-25T00:17:20Z	And you again abuse terminology: Governments or international officials don't "coin" words, the only thing that those ignorant politicians do is signing some sheets of paper whose actual affect ''might'' be adoption of some new words in the language, or it might not.
2009-12-25T00:45:52Z	This is misleading in several levels.
2009-12-25T01:23:01Z	What does communism have to do with this anyway? Serbo-Croatian language existed long before that ideology was created, and has had its grammars and dictionaries written while Karl Marx was still pissing his pants.
2009-12-25T01:23:01Z	You all (primarily you and Elephantus) simply look silly while advocating "separate" Croatian and Serbian languages, and simultaneously copy/paste entire ==Serbo-Croatian== sections to ==Serbian== and ==Croatian== with trivial changes (e.g.
2009-12-25T01:23:01Z	changing <tt>sh</tt> code to <tt>sr/hr</tt>, and adopting different parameters in templates).
2009-12-25T06:58:27Z	Kubura's insisting on ''šport'' and ''športski'' is purely based on some ludicrous nationalist paranoia, as he abundantly "explained" in Kafić some weeks ago when he decided unilaterally to rename hundreds of pages and categories containing ''sport'' and ''sportski'' to ''šport'' and ''športski''.
2009-12-25T06:58:27Z	He was also explained to how silly is to insist on that form simply because eastern variants of Serbo-Croatian tend not to use it.
2009-12-25T06:58:27Z	Most of these puristic neologisms are never spoken, only written as propaganda words in right-wing media.
2009-12-25T06:58:27Z	And also the fun of infuriating nationalist of all kind, by providing citations of Croatian authors for "Serbian words", Serbian authors for "Bosnian words", and Bosnian and Serbian authors for "Croatian words".
2009-12-25T10:51:42Z	No need to be ignorant.
2009-12-26T22:24:04Z	The point is Pepsi Lite that you are, due to your ignorance, stating bizarre claims such as<sup>[http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PalkiaX50&diff=8134648&oldid=8133677]</sup>.
2009-12-26T22:24:04Z	''talijan'' and ''talijanski'' were abundantly used by Bosnian and Serbian writers, and have you actually been put thru proper schooling and read a few hundreds of books of ''lektira'' in Serbo-Croatian literature, by most illustrious writers such as Crnjanski, you'd also know that.
2009-12-26T22:24:04Z	Croatian younglings are learning exactly the same language as their parents did, language that they've been brought up on, language that is 100% intelligible in Beograd, Banja Luka and Sarajevo, and that fact cannot be changed no matter how many time you nationalist hate-mongers repeated your infactual statements on the "separate languages", sprinkled with imaginative historical lies.
2009-12-26T22:24:04Z	The more you lie, the more one and undeniable truth soars above your small-minded self-contained perspectives: Serbo-Croatian language and literature is one and only, indivisible and inseparable, and its oneness will only be confirmed with the ever-growing tendencies for economic globalization.
2009-12-26T22:24:04Z	Its separation, or better-said pathetic attempts thereof, is evolutionary unstable strategy, and the uniformative sweep of Smith's invisible hand will kick your nationalist butts.
2009-12-26T23:49:30Z	Not "ye Croats", but one specific person, Kubura, who is a radical extremist hate-mongering nationalist that deliberately spreads lies and propaganda to promote his cause.
2009-12-26T23:49:30Z	Get a clue.
2009-12-26T23:49:30Z	I can imagine how it's easier for nationalist psyche to ascribe bombings to some mythical ''bjelosvjetske zavjere'' cause, "evil Croats" taking revenge on their arch-enemies Serbs, but puh-lease.
2009-12-26T23:49:30Z	You know, radical nationalist that commit terrorism and stuff.
2009-12-26T23:49:30Z	These were not "ye Croats" and only an imbecile can generalize their actions and attitudes to the general Croatian population.
2009-12-27T23:56:17Z	Your bot happily worked with <tt>sh</tt> code for Serbo-Croatian wikiprojects ''for years'' after which you deliberately modified to ''explicitly remove'' it.
2009-12-27T23:56:17Z	<tt>sh</tt> is perfectly valid code that will never ever mean anything else beside Serbo-Croatian (2-letter codes are not assigned anymore).
2009-12-27T23:56:17Z	(Especially not with languages you have absolutely no clue about).
2009-12-28T05:13:51Z	Simple ISO scheme will never be sufficient for lexicographical purpose of describing all of world's languages in all periods, and our [[Wiktionary:Languages_without_ISO_codes#List_of_exceptions|list of exceptions]] will only grow larger in the course of time.
2009-12-28T05:13:51Z	It is meaningless to argue on the particular case of Library of Congress whether SC is one language or not (although it's amusing to see you Amgine still trying to do so, on the basis of empty contextless quotes): FYI, Library of Congress switched their bibliographical tags for SC only after 18 years of lobbying of Croatian nationalist diplomacy, and they did not do it retroactively (meaning that tens of thousands of books tagged with "deprecated" scr/scc tags will not be reassigned to new separate tags, meaning that 99% of SC literature that is of any worth whatsoever will forever be tagged as scc/scr in their catalogs).
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Yes Kubura is a radical extremist hate-mongering nationalist.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	So terminate your malicious propaganda at once, and keep those imaginative figures of 94.17% to your Serb diaspora meetings.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	That word has been in use by Serbo-Croatian writers for centuries, and his own usage is merely a continuation of that firmly-established practice.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	> <span style="color:gray;">In Serbian, "Talijani" should be marked as non-standard, but in Croatian it should be marked as standard, which is why merging Serbian and Croatian into Serbo-Croatian for language dictionary purposes is such a problem.</span><br> You miss the whole point.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Or, as your countrymen would say, ''Promašio si ceo fudbal!'' The purpose of a unified treatment inside the common Serbo-Croatian section is ''not'' to proscribe a particular spelling or a meaning, but, conversely, to provide a common platform for all of the modern-day standards to co-exist.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Serbo-Croatian language is one and only one language, and that position has been firmly embraced by the scholars in the field of Slavic studies for the last 2 centuries, and has no signs of diminishing in intensity.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Change in quality - perhaps, namely the terminological shifts from ''Serbo-Croatian'' to absurd abbreviations such as ''BCS'' or ''BCSM'', which are nothing but a layer of redirection in order to satisfy blood-thirsty nationalists who feign "insults" when faced with the term ''Serbo-Croatian''.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	In practical notions SC linguistic unity is very much alive (last time I checked, we were still all bordering each other), and is moreover experiencing unification and pan-regional cultural integration beyond anything that has been accomplished in SFRJ.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Several of them already made their presence for their nationalist cause: one of them even accused me that I've added "Croatian" word ''[[mrkva]]'' (which is inherited from Common Slavic) as "Serbian", because allegedly Serbs don't used it, which was proven to him otherwise.
2009-12-28T07:33:56Z	Curiously others evaded direct questions: I openly asked several people whether modern-dan Serbo-Croatian standards termed "Croatian language", "Bosnian language" and "Serbian language" share 99% of grammar (phonology, accentuation, morphology, inflection, syntax), but none of them was comfortable enough to reply in a simply yes/no manner.
2009-12-29T05:18:20Z	I almost doubted that the only conclusion you would draw from my response was "Croats want to reestablish Communist Yugoslavia, and the common Serbo-Croatian treatment on Wiktionary is a step towards that goal".
2009-12-29T07:10:51Z	Both ''ovisiti'' and ''zavisiti'' (and their derived adjectives/nouns) are valid in all 3 standards, and inflected forms of ''ovisiti'' have thousands of hits on Serbian websites (even few hundreds on Serbian Wikipedia), so I'd hardly consider it something Bosnian/Croatian-only.
2009-12-29T07:59:22Z	You did not type овиси by accident; you typed овиси because you utilized that verbal connective to express the notion of dependence in your mind.
2009-12-29T07:59:22Z	Serbo-Croatian orthography is phonological, write-as-you-speak, and there is no chance that you cogitated ''zavisi'' and written овиси.
2009-12-29T07:59:22Z	Nobody denies the existence of genuine differences among modern-day standards, but these "differences" are nothing but artificial and far-fetched generalization hardly reflective of actual language use.
2009-12-30T05:44:41Z	And it "failed" only because you canvassed countless non-contributors to vote against due to the lack of proper voting policy (which you also sabotaged) here; as analysis shows, almost all of the active Wiktionary community supports the unification effort, overwhelmingly so of those who are actually familiar with any Slavic language.
2009-12-30T05:44:41Z	Again Ullmann you do pathetic ad hominems when confronted with irrefutable evidence.
2009-12-30T05:44:41Z	Given that the Interwicket operated perfectly valid for some time with Serbo-Croatian interwiki, and that this disruptive behavior came only after your efforts to abuse me failed (dirty e-mails to Wiktionarians, Wikmedia board, ludicrous attempt to desyop me at meta), the only reasonable conclusion that establishes itself that you did it as a sign of "revenge" against me.
2009-12-30T05:53:02Z	Wikimedia project codes don't reflect ISO scheme, and many of them are assigned pseudocodes (e.g.
2009-12-30T05:53:02Z	Regardless whether Ullmann personally disagrees with the existence of Serbo-Croatian wikiprojects or not, it is not up to him to decide whether the Interwicket bot, that he was in best possible intentions given bot flag, can act in such destructive way.
2009-12-30T06:15:04Z	'''November 24, 2007''', [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pivo&diff=3336962&oldid=3313342] - Interwicket adds sh: interwiki.
2009-12-30T06:15:04Z	'''November 1, 2009''', [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pivo&diff=7634282&oldid=7005602] - Interwicket '''silently removes''' sh interwiki form the very same article it added it to.
2009-12-30T06:26:07Z	And for the record, Ullmann has been notified of this destructive behavior as early as '''[[User_talk:Interwicket#replacing_instead_of_adding|10 May 2009]]''' by our Bulgarian contributor who was utilizing Wiktionary to learn Serbo-Croatian language, and also contributed Serbo-Croatian words here and on Serbo-Croatian (and other-language, he's a polyglot!) Wiktionaries, cross-linking them with interwiki, and was disturbed by the fact that the very same interwiki links he manually added were silently vanishing.
2009-12-30T06:26:07Z	Code sh is an invalid (deleted by SIL/ISO) code, and should not be linked.
2009-12-30T06:26:07Z	The "sh" wiktionary will be closed in due course when someone gets around to running the process.
2009-12-30T06:26:07Z	Since Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary as well as Wikipedia show no signs of decay and are unlikely to be closed anytime soon, I was wondering if mr.
2009-12-30T06:26:07Z	Ullmann has changed his opinion on the value of having Serbo-Croatian interwiki links by fixing the destructive behavior of his bot accordingly.
2009-12-30T06:58:50Z	Just discovered this online dictionary: [http://www.google.com/intl/sh/#hl=sh&source=hp&q="тур."+site%3Aprometej.co.rs].
2009-12-30T07:05:11Z	Just discovered this online dictionary: [http://www.google.com/intl/sh/#hl=sh&source=hp&q=тур.+site%3Aprometej.co.rs].
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	The only ones who didn't were your puppet votes (Amgine & Co.) who have absolutely no knowledge on Slavic languages whatsoever, and other ones that you canvessed via IRC and e-mail in order to "revenge" against me, as it turned out that I had overwhelming support despite your disgusting "genocidal Greater Serbian nationalist" propaganda.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	The vote was merely a codification of > 4 months of effort of Serbo-Croatian contributors, which was initially announced at the Beer Parlour and and complained by no one.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	One should merely look at this very section: Ullmann is asked a simple question by an Icelandic contributor, and Ullmann's reply contains my peronal name, epithets such as "destructive troll" (and this troll is the most productive Wiktionarian for the last several months, mind you), terms such as "genocide" etc.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	That is merely a recommendation however, countless US libraries still use Serbo-Croatian and have no intention of supporting the ahistorical fabrication of these new "languages", simply because it's impossible to draw the lines on the basis of idiotic criteria of script used (which would categorize ''Na drini ćuprija'' in Roman script as "Croatian", and in Cyrillic script as "Serbian").
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary is nowhere need "locked" or "inactive".
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	It's active, as well as Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, and has no signs of decay.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	You yourself claimed that the only reason why Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary is not linked to is because, in your opinion, "it should be closed".
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	Interwicket worked perfectly fine with adding interwiki to Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary, and only later did you deliberately alter its functionality in order to install the destructive behavior.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary is nowhere near of being "locked" or "inactive".
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	It's active, as well as Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, and has no signs of decay (as opposed to B/C/S ethnopedias).
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	You yourself claimed that the only reason why Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary is not linked to by Interwicket is because, in your opinion, "it should be closed".
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	Interwicket worked ''perfectly fine'' with adding interwiki to Serbo-Croatian Wiktionary, and only later did you deliberately alter its functionality in order to install the destructive behavior that is being complained about.
2009-12-30T12:50:37Z	Can you simply fix your bot so that it doesn't ''remove'' existing and valid sh: interwiki? It doesn't even need to add it (I'll do it manually, or write a bot that does so).
2009-12-30T13:03:50Z	Serbo-Croatian {{term|kamenje|lang=sh}}, it would be weird to have in the definition line.
2009-12-31T00:56:38Z	Nowhere does any Wiktionary policy state that we ''must'' follow the WMF scheme of language codes for Wiktionary L2 sections: in fact, we're already breaking it in numerous instances.
2009-12-31T00:56:38Z	Serbo-Croatian is '''not''' a "macrolanguage" - there is no such thing as "macrolanguage", it's an imaginary clade invented by Christian organization SIL International.
2009-12-31T00:56:38Z	There is no such thing as "Croatian language" : all the edits I do for Serbo-Croatian are simultaneously equally valid "Croatian", "Serbian" and "Bosnian", modulo exception labels.
2010-01-03T06:02:13Z	That entry was created by [[User:Pepsi Lite]] [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=m&diff=8135243&oldid=8126485] who is a Serbian nationalist and is not particularly fond of common Serbo-Croatian treatment due to his ideological bias.
2010-01-03T06:02:13Z	That entry is of course also perfectly valid Bosnian and Serbian (alphabet, ordering, and the sounds represented are exactly the same), so the only necessary thing for conversion would be to switch from ==Serbian== to ==Serbo-Croatian==, and replace "Serbian Latin alphabet" to "Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet" (LOL, there is no such thing as "Serbian Latin alphabet"; when ''[[w:Gaj's Latin Alphabet|gajica]]'' was devised these nationalist fabrications didn't exist!).
2010-01-03T18:03:57Z	To your knowledge, are there any English-language works that use Cyrillic script for unwritten Caucasian languages that way? Is that particular scheme for K standardized in any work, or it's devised ad-hoc by linguists such as Bokarev (or any Khwarshi speaker that happens to write it)? In other words: Is it used consistently, or is there some kind of variance in it?.
2010-01-16T01:00:06Z	Absolutely nothing forbids these hyptothetical editors of yours eager to add new B/C/S entries to do so, with the presence of existing ==Serbo-Croatian== entries.
2010-01-16T04:37:43Z	Whence does this sudden surge of interest of yours for Serbo-Croatian originate? Not so long ago you were singing praise on my talkpage for the great efforts done it expanding Serbo-Croatian entries over the last few months.
2010-01-16T04:59:35Z	On the other hand, any newbie Wiktionary editor for SC will sooner or later find out that > 90% of the most common words already have a thorough ==Serbo-Croatian== entry, more thorough that he could've possibly created by himself initially, and is likely to get discouraged and demotivated to continue his activity other than in the merger direction.
2010-01-16T05:28:35Z	Half of it is simply junk (political nonsense, differences not of standards which are 99% identical but of colloquial speech/dialects etc.) that needs to be relocated elsewhere.
2010-01-16T05:28:35Z	It's very misleading to draw any kind of conclusions from it as the article was deliberately crafted by PoV fundamentalist to make it appear as there are some significant difference when in fact there are none.
2010-01-19T18:13:22Z	The family of related words includes terms such as {{term|spor|lang=sh}}, Russian borrowing {{term|poprište|po'''pr'''ište|lang=sh}}, {{term|raspra|raspra(va)|lang=sh}}, {{term|parnica|lang=sh}}, {{term|suparnik|lang=sh}}, {{term|prijepor|pr(ij)epor|lang=sh}} etc.
2010-01-28T04:49:30Z	the definition of "language" in the Serbo-Croatian context, where we're dealing with one pluricentric language in 4 national variants that some naively perceive as 4 different languages whose separate treatment is guaranteed by the WT:CFI).
2010-01-28T16:52:06Z	Kassad's parable of Chinese secret agents firing nuclear missiles on European capitals reflects typical cultural prejudice stemming from systemic brainwashing by Rupert Murdoch's media propaganda.
2010-01-28T18:50:01Z	Most of the relevant world's governments are in fact totalitarian; it's just that some of them are more clear about out it, whilst other ones have to go through the pains of staging elections every 4-5 years, giving ''vox populi'' a chance to channel its accumulated frustrations by selecting among a list of candidates none of which would ultimately make a difference in the end, because things such as foreign policy, military and economy are conditioned by factors that are much more resistant to a change of (nominal) political leadership.
2010-02-16T11:48:20Z	Perhaps if we could find the exact reason?! Certain spelling mistake consistently propagated, faulty transcription scheme used to wrongly generate Kannada script, or something?! I'm sure the problem is systematic in character, rather than being you randomly typing Kannada letters.
2010-02-16T12:05:25Z	Or just copy the inflection from either and place {{temp|attention|sh}} for me to verify it later.
2010-02-16T17:39:06Z	What I've seen across various languages on Wiktionary, is that there is hardly any kind of standard scheme for numbers, and that the formatting varies significantly across languages according to the editors' preference.
2010-02-23T22:12:17Z	Hah, nope I haven't, and thanks for pointing that out! An:) y surge of Serbo-Croatian nationalist activity is disturbing and well as indicative of Ullmann's noxious tentacles preparing to strike another "deadly" move.
2010-02-23T22:12:39Z	Hah, nope I haven't, and thanks for pointing that out! :) Any surge of Serbo-Croatian nationalist activity is disturbing and well as indicative of Ullmann's noxious tentacles preparing to strike another "deadly" move.
2010-02-23T22:24:41Z	I agree with others, let's keep ''dialectal'' to (more or less) strictly defined linguistic notion of dialect, and mark the words that are merely regionally confined/characteristic with (''regional X''), or some similar type of context label.
2010-02-24T00:44:49Z	If somebody is interested, I could generate cleanup lists for Serbo-Croatian entries of interest, satisfying any particular criteria you can imagine.
2010-02-24T00:44:49Z	I'm also making preparation for the generation of form-of entries for the already present Serbo-Croatian entries.
2010-02-24T11:21:12Z	E.g., ''vremena'', as an inflected form of {{term|vrijeme|lang=sh}} / {{term|vreme|lang=sh}}, being either ''vrȅmena'', ''vremèna'' or ''vreménā'', should appear one beneath the another, under the same ===Noun==== section.
2010-02-24T11:21:12Z	Serbo-Croatian accentuation schemes are ''very'' complex, for nouns alone there are almost 300 morphological-accentological inflectional paradigms, and given that lots of words can have both multiple base accents and multiple paradigms, the feat of synching the manually updated lemma form and the accompanying declensional table with the previously-generated form-ofs doesn't seem to be worth the effort.
2010-02-25T23:24:34Z	Adjectives {{term|nezavisan|lang=sh}} and {{term|neovisan|lang=sh}} are synonymous, both meaning "independent", and both being valid in either SC variety.
2010-02-26T01:18:33Z	Feel free to add translations on the basis of bs/hr/sr/sh pedias, they're all going to be checked one day, sooner or later.
2010-02-26T01:44:36Z	Use sh, we're going to forbid individual bs/hr/sr/montenegrin sooner or later.
2010-02-26T01:44:36Z	Fake languages fabricated by nationalist bigots are a waste of everyone's time.
2010-03-05T20:58:35Z	Sure, thare are already some users that are copy/pasting my ==Serbo-Croatian== entries as ==Bosnian==/==Croatian==/==Serbian==, the only changes being switching language codes.
2010-03-05T21:09:33Z	Serbo-Croatian treatment on Wiktionary is designed to be a generic container for all 3 (or 4, if you count Montenegrin) standard varieties.
2010-03-09T03:19:43Z	Create a specialized template to handle bs/hr/sr/sh pedias.
2010-03-11T03:44:37Z	OTOH, it's preposterous that quality entries are being deleted on the basis of CFI which hardly reflects community consensus of today.
2010-03-12T10:15:58Z	If he truly pursues his interests in various languages, I'm sure that sooner or later he'll reach the same conclusion on oneness of Serbo-Croatian, and the triviality of diferences among its national standards.
2010-03-12T10:32:01Z	Not for the deletions of obvious vandalisms, or my primary edits in Serbo-Croatian entries which are more-or-less automatized and occur very rapidly in succession.
2010-03-16T09:56:15Z	There ''is'' SC descendant {{term|guba|lang=sh}} but with the modern-day meaning of "leprosy" (obsoletely and regionally denoting some type of mushroom).
2010-03-18T05:16:56Z	What we treat as ==Serbo-Croatian== at Wiktionary is ''all the 3 national standards combined''.
2010-03-18T05:16:56Z	It can be done pretty trivially, and there's no reason why not to do it other than hurt nationalist sentiments.
2010-03-19T19:26:59Z	when used for Bosnian and Croatian Serbs by Croats and Bosniaks, esp.
2010-03-25T16:01:54Z	''osnovan'' means "founded", and is a passive participle of {{term|osnovati|lang=sh}}.
2010-03-25T16:01:54Z	"fundamental, essential" is {{term|osnovni|lang=sh}}.
2010-03-25T16:01:54Z	Also, re: ''tovariš'': despite some impressions and other people's propaganda, I'm not pro-communist at all.
2010-03-25T16:01:54Z	My political views are classical liberal/libertarian.
2010-03-25T16:01:54Z	Or simply populate [[WT:RE:sh]] or place {{temp|attention|sh}} and I'll create/rectify whatever you find confusing.
2010-03-27T22:43:31Z	''To me, it just makes things much harder to find information on Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian words because while Serbo-Croatian is supposed to encompass all three of them and Montenegrin, not having the separated entries makes it very difficult for someone to discern between the languages where subtleties could exist in the different languages.
2010-03-27T22:43:31Z	''I would much rather the community support the unification before more unifying is done.'' - Seeking approval from uber-troll Ullman and his (not particularly bright) disciples on the basis of rational discussion has proven to be a glorious waste of time.
2010-03-27T22:43:31Z	Most of the "unification" work is already done anyway (currently there are more than 20k SC lemma entries, which is more than pre-unification B+C+S).
2010-03-27T23:00:52Z	''...is highly unethical'' - No, unethical would be telling ''other people'' how they should spend ''their'' free time contributing in a topic ''you have absolutely no clue about or interest in'' and in which you've neither made ''any contributions at all'', or utilized it for learning purposes.
2010-03-27T23:24:07Z	{{term|peder|lang=sh}} and {{term|gej|lang=sh}} are the most common.
2010-03-27T23:44:11Z	there is no policy that ''forbids'' "unification" (no content is lost, so it's not against CFI).
2010-03-28T14:42:42Z	From there also Slovene {{term|modo|módo|lang=sh}} which you also added.
2010-03-29T00:22:13Z	Apparently added by [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=rainbow&diff=3399730&oldid=3122405 this IP], which is a well-known troll from Australia adding fake words in translation tables, for which he was blocked many times.
2010-03-29T21:29:04Z	I think both are OK at this case, but no, I don't have a source (my only source on accented Eastern Serbo-Croatian forms is also RSHKJ).
2010-03-31T21:57:44Z	I guess that it means the same as in Serbo-Croatian: numeral for ninety (90).
2010-04-03T14:42:20Z	{{term|rukomet|lang=sh}}, {{term|glavomet|lang=sh}}, {{term|kopljomet|lang=sh}}).
2010-04-17T18:28:33Z	In the past, prior to the artificial standardization efforts committed by nationalist forces, such differences were much more blurry in character.
2010-04-24T04:17:34Z	Yeah Robert, stick it up to your comrade Kubura [http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=cvijet&diff=8235588&oldid=8106831], he was the one who originally removed the Serbo-Croatian section.
2010-04-24T04:17:34Z	And puh-lease finally dispense with these obscene accusations of me "attracting abusive supporters" - I never, ever requested any of those folks actively supporting the SC unification effort (some of which have even commenced learning the basics of language!); they did it on the basis of their own ''free will'', with plenty of prior credentials in benevolent contributing.
2010-04-27T10:49:53Z	For example, the verbs {{term|doprijeti|lang=sh}} and {{term|dopreti|lang=sh}} display [[Ijekavian]]/[[Ekavian]] variation in their infinitive stem, and are lemmatized as variant forms at different pages (and mutually linked to in ===Alternative forms=== section).
2010-04-27T10:49:53Z	first-person singlar present of {{term|doprijeti|lang=sh}}/{{term|dopreti|lang=sh}}).
2010-04-27T19:52:04Z	My free estimate of their collective stupidity is that they are likely to be compiling "evidence" which would undoubtedly result in yet another juicy cocktail of dirty lies, pseudoliberal propaganda, and nationalist hysteria directed towards executive branches of WMF, the only ones that could possibly make a difference to their advantage in all this (after failed coup at meta, and here we're firmly entrenched).
2010-04-27T20:19:17Z	Your observational abilities serve you well: ever since that vote took place a total of three additional regulars have started contributing Serbo-Croatian entries.
2010-04-29T05:27:17Z	[[ambijentalni]], [[ambulantni]], [[amfiteatralni]], [[amoralni]] - these are not lemmata, but inflected forms, which means that they shouldn't be categorized in the main PoS category (Categoy:XXX adjectives), and that they should soft-redirect to the lemma form displaying appropriate grammatical information instead of translation (which more often than not, cannot be given easily in languages with relatively non-simple inflection such as Serbo-Croatian).
2010-04-29T05:45:23Z	It is ''you'' who have '''absolutely no idea''' what you are talking about, have no competence in Serbo-Croatian language whatsoever, and yet have the courage to troll abut it and tell others what to do.
2010-04-29T05:45:23Z	Ullman should have been desysoped and blocked long time ago for his disgusting dirty lies, e-mail propaganda to uninvolved Wiktionary admins, WMF board and meta.
2010-04-29T09:23:24Z	About few months ago while I was on wiki-break I even received abusive e-mail from him which he "threatens" me to stop making Serbo-Croatian edits, citing: ''If it were up to me, your merging after the vote closed as no consensus would all be reverted as vandalism, and you would most likely be desysopped and indef blocked, but that would be the scenario if I were in charge.'' To him Wiktionay is just a social playground where he wants to exert influence on individuals as if moving chess-pieces.
2010-04-30T11:14:35Z	The trick: 30% of votes coming from diaspora, which of course do not pay criminally high taxes (nor have the benefits of making ends meet in this soon-to-bankrupt banana state), but are nevertheless eligible for voting, which ''always'' turns out in absolute majority in favor of the same particular party.
2010-04-30T12:15:09Z	Your contributions are more than welcome in Croatian-only part of Serbo-Croatian lexis, which I presume would be the focus of your edits, but please evade unused neologisms and hypotheticals because we're strictly usage-based dictionary (which means that if a term cannot be verified as being actually used, it doesn't "exist").
2010-05-01T05:43:29Z	The point was that it was a relative adjective (''odnosni prid(j)ev'' in Serbo-Croatian grammar terminology), thus the proper lemma form being ''ophod'''ni'''''.
2010-05-01T11:26:41Z	The difference in that banknote titles of yours is in the words {{term|hiljada|lang=sh}} and {{term|tisuća|lang=sh}} in ''dvadeset hiljada dinara'' vs.
2010-05-01T16:59:24Z	Fortunately, we're not as gridlocked into immoral democratic method of the "tyranny of the majority" as modern-day political systems of representative democracy, since we require general, overwhelming consensus, and situations such as 51% of congress outvoting 49% passing an extremely controversial bill costing trillions of dollars cannot happen.
2010-05-04T17:23:54Z	Bosnian standard is an inconsistent cross-mutation of former Eastern and Western varieties of Serbo-Croatian.
2010-05-04T17:23:54Z	B&H is a multiethnic state, and depending on one's definition of ''Bosnian'' ("language of Bosnians", "language of Bosniaks"), either/all can be "proper", depending on the region.
2010-05-04T17:23:54Z	The qualifier guidelines for Serbo-Croatian require that the labels be used only inclusively, i.e.
2010-05-04T18:23:52Z	Regardless, I never really explicitly named anyone; that I referred to RU is your imagination: I merely stated that they apparently congregate in such obscure occasions, which is hardly coincidental.
2010-05-09T19:03:50Z	When neo-Croatian becomes unintelligible to Serbs and Bosniaks, it will also become unintelligible to most of the Croats too.
2010-05-10T12:13:01Z	This irresistibly reminds me of the situation with various worker unions; all of them exert a political pressure in one specific direction (e.g.
2010-05-10T19:06:16Z	Da nije vas pacijenata i vaših bedastoća ja bih se odavna sa srpskohrvatskog prešaltao na X drugih jezika u doprinošenju (koji me stvarno zanimaju i koje učim), a ovako jadan moram nastaviti sve dok ne dodam top 99% sh riječi.
2010-05-12T12:15:59Z	It's an old world preserved in some dialects, ousted nowadays by normal Štokavian word {{term|brašno|lang=sh}} (probably because of the similarity with the "torment" word; both of which are inherited from Proto-Slavic, but there they differed more significantly in accent and vowel lenghts..).
2010-05-12T15:52:06Z	It's imperative that all the entries be added as they are actually attested, and not as reverse-engineered from transliterations which are often wrong, lossy, obsolete, based on an unknown or ambiguous scheme, and oftentimes no transliterations at all but some kind of phonetic reconstructions (Egyptian language encompasses a few millennia of literature, and during that period many sound changes occurred, and the same sign could denote several different sounds depending on the period).
2010-05-12T17:06:27Z	(unindented) I already proposed last year what Kassad is mentioning as one of the alternatives, but nationalist forces from Croatopedia and Serbopedia don't like that either: the whole idea of B/C/S being "generated" almost trivially in xy lines of code from Serbo-Croatian entries is to them even more sacrilegious than B/C/S being considered one language.
2010-05-13T07:02:54Z	If I see you blocking "trolls" such as [[User:Kilibarda|Kilibarda]], you are so dead.
2010-05-13T07:21:32Z	''Are you aware of how many "authorities" he has cited have recanted, now that they aren't under threat of being imprisoned or shot for not supporting SC? '' - And who would that be? Even during the Communist regime no one was shot or imprisoned for "supporting Serbo-Croatian".
2010-05-13T07:21:32Z	Slavists in the rest of the world (Russia, Germany, US...) have (had) no doubts on whether Serbo-Croatian is a single language or not.
2010-05-13T07:21:32Z	I'd personally ''support'' their unified treatment if it can be done relatively painlessly, if it's the preferred method of treatment in FL dictionaries, and the preferred method of learning (as in the case of BCS; you cannot simply learn one of them and be ignorant of others).
2010-05-13T07:27:40Z	Ahahah, a ti ćeš nam reći što "poznaju bošnjački i srpski jezik"? Evo ja koristim ''kužina'' i ''pjat'', i velim da mi je materinji sh.