Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
Molise Slavic is really the only name for this microlanguage I had ever heard, but never mind. I saw that the Wikipedia community had chosen to use Molise Croatian dialect as the name for the article and to have Molise Slavic language redirect there. But this "Croatian dialect" is nowhere mentioned in the whole article Croatian language, so it has to be mentioned in this template. However, the template lists languages, not dialects. Consequently, if the template treated Molise Slavic as a Croatian dialect, then it could nowhere be found, not even via Croatian language. Therefore please either treat Molise Slavic in the article Croatian language or let us use the name Molise Slavic at least in the template (as non-Croatian scholars like Aleksandr Duličenko or Peter Rehder usually do). -- Daniel Bunčić 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the question how to call that speech form should really be going on on Talk:Molise Croatian dialect. The main thing here is not to have dialect in the name, as we don't have language in other names, either. Thanks! -- Daniel Bunčić 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. That discussion is definitely decided. Bosnian is both the official name of that language (if it is a language; in my personal opinion it isn't, but that's not the question here) according to the Dayton Agreement and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the most common one in English. See the long discussion at Talk:Bosnian language#Naming. -- Daniel Bunčić 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Many "languages" here beside Montenegrin are disputed (Bosnian, Bunjevac, even Croatian), as there are not only true languages listed here, but dialects as well (Old Novgorod dialect, Banat Bulgarian). Therefore, it is not neccessary to mention that Montenegrin is disputed as a separate language. This template is a list of many Slavonic languages, dialects, and speeches. -- Djordje D. Bozovic 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Recently, article
Slovio is deleted. As I've seen, no Slavic user from en.wiki contributed on
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovio_(2nd_nomination), after the 2nd time was nominated for deletion.
This should't happen. This is one blooper, that Wikipedia cannot allow to itself. Slovio is most known constructed Slavic language, or put it this way, a constructed language with Slavic languages as its base.
Deletion of Slovio shows the typical anti-Slavic bias of non-Slavic Wikipedia users. Some, if they could, would delete everything Slavic from the Wikipedia. The deletion was done by-non-Slavic Wikipedia users who don't understand the topic and have absolutely no idea about Slavic languages and cultures.
Please, gave your opinion here. If we collect enough votes, we can try to bring it back to life and end any further nominations for deletions. Kubura 07:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Doncsecz, please stop edit-warring and discuss the content of this page. Provide some scholarly references for your position instead of your personal opinions. I suggest that you start with these recent works:
http://books.google.si/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false (page 2)
http://books.google.si/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indo-european+language+and+culture&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (pages 375–378)
Check the books out from your nearest library. If you cannot support your position with verifiable sources, then please stop contributing to this template.
Doremo (
talk)
08:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are interested in Slavic microlanguages, please read this: Микроязыки. Языки. Интеръязыки. Сборник в честь ординарного профессора Александра Дмитриевича Дуличенко. Тарту, 2006. Doremo ( talk) 08:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please provide some scholarly references for your position. Do you disagree that Cambridge University Press is an authoritative source? Doremo ( talk) 11:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This template addresses Slavic languages in general. Please cite a scholarly work on Slavic languages in general (as I did above) that supports your position, not a dialect-specific study. Doremo ( talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Doncsecz, I do not understand your "perish the communism, also perish the dogmas" comment. Please explain. Doremo ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I still do not understand your comment. The content of this template should follow standard scholarly works on Slavic languages in general. If you cannot cite any such works supporting your position, you should remove your changes. Doremo ( talk) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please try keep the conversation in English on English WP (for other users' benefit). So far you have failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position at Talk:Prekmurian_dialect and you have also failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position here. Doremo ( talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Tou je že trno stara hištorija. Doncsecz talk 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Which the received standpoint? As the foreign and slavic linguist have 20-30 several standpoint, for ex. the Silesian language in the group of the West-Slavic languages. Few linguist decline, that this is language, but simply polish dialect. All the better the quesition of the Serbocroatian languages. You be a stranger to the theme. For nothing the official standpoint, for ex. Yugoslavia also was beguile the outside world on the score of some dialects and languages. Doncsecz talk 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest you people stop editwarring over Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin etc. This is a navigation template, for heaven's sake, not a political pamphlet! Its purpose is to give links to the Slavic languages as well as the major Slavic dialects and microlanguages, just to facilitate navigating between them. This is surely not the place for all kinds of statements regarding who disputes what. Nobody denies that Upper and Lower Sorbian are two separate languages, but I haven't heard anybody complaining about them being grouped together between brackets under a common header. The same should also go for Serbo-Croatian, BCMS, or whatever anybody wants to call it. That is completely justified since all four standard languages are nearly identical to each other. This is definitely not the place to fight for the emancipation of whatever language or dialect, simply because that is not what this template is for. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist at all.
BCMS is Frankestein-project. You can also cut the pig's head, goat's legs, peacock's tail, tuna's fin and sew them all on the cow's body and say: the pig-goat-peacock-cow-tuna (PGPCT) exists! Same thing is so-called Serbo-Croatian. PGPCT.
These Slavic languages aren't nearly identical. They are different, live with that. Related, but different.
In Croatian is:
Sjest ću za stol i naručiti ću juhu od mrkve, pečenu tuku, sol, papar i bocu vina. Obvezno moram popiti kavu s mlijekom.
In Serbian is:
Sešću za sto i poručiću supu od šargarepe, pečenu ćurku, so, biber i flašu vina. Obavezno moram da popijem kafu s mlekom.
I'm not sure how these sentences are said in Bosnian and in Montenegrin.
This template is not for emancipation of the dead political project, and the project of so-called Serbo-Croatian is exactly that - dead political project.
Just like the Serbo-Croato-Slovenian language, the name of the official language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Finally, you're just another anonimous Wikipedian. This author isn't
Srpsko hrvatski nikad nije ostvaren jer nije postojao.
Kubura (
talk)
02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Slovianski be listed as part of the Pan-Slavic languages? Gringo300 ( talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will remove this entry per these sources.[1][2] It is a subset of Croatian. For balance all or none of the subsets of Croatian should be mentioned. The source provided earlier seems to be a company website and is not a reliable source. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 15:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is it that this template has more info about philology unlike the templates for Celtic, Germanic and Romance languages? -- PK2 ( talk) 06:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It has to be written italic in the table. How to do this? It would be good to have the languages that have once been clustered into Serbo-Croatian first and then Serbo-Cratian in the brickets and italic behind them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umno22 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
Molise Slavic is really the only name for this microlanguage I had ever heard, but never mind. I saw that the Wikipedia community had chosen to use Molise Croatian dialect as the name for the article and to have Molise Slavic language redirect there. But this "Croatian dialect" is nowhere mentioned in the whole article Croatian language, so it has to be mentioned in this template. However, the template lists languages, not dialects. Consequently, if the template treated Molise Slavic as a Croatian dialect, then it could nowhere be found, not even via Croatian language. Therefore please either treat Molise Slavic in the article Croatian language or let us use the name Molise Slavic at least in the template (as non-Croatian scholars like Aleksandr Duličenko or Peter Rehder usually do). -- Daniel Bunčić 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the question how to call that speech form should really be going on on Talk:Molise Croatian dialect. The main thing here is not to have dialect in the name, as we don't have language in other names, either. Thanks! -- Daniel Bunčić 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please. That discussion is definitely decided. Bosnian is both the official name of that language (if it is a language; in my personal opinion it isn't, but that's not the question here) according to the Dayton Agreement and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the most common one in English. See the long discussion at Talk:Bosnian language#Naming. -- Daniel Bunčić 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Many "languages" here beside Montenegrin are disputed (Bosnian, Bunjevac, even Croatian), as there are not only true languages listed here, but dialects as well (Old Novgorod dialect, Banat Bulgarian). Therefore, it is not neccessary to mention that Montenegrin is disputed as a separate language. This template is a list of many Slavonic languages, dialects, and speeches. -- Djordje D. Bozovic 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Recently, article
Slovio is deleted. As I've seen, no Slavic user from en.wiki contributed on
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovio_(2nd_nomination), after the 2nd time was nominated for deletion.
This should't happen. This is one blooper, that Wikipedia cannot allow to itself. Slovio is most known constructed Slavic language, or put it this way, a constructed language with Slavic languages as its base.
Deletion of Slovio shows the typical anti-Slavic bias of non-Slavic Wikipedia users. Some, if they could, would delete everything Slavic from the Wikipedia. The deletion was done by-non-Slavic Wikipedia users who don't understand the topic and have absolutely no idea about Slavic languages and cultures.
Please, gave your opinion here. If we collect enough votes, we can try to bring it back to life and end any further nominations for deletions. Kubura 07:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Doncsecz, please stop edit-warring and discuss the content of this page. Provide some scholarly references for your position instead of your personal opinions. I suggest that you start with these recent works:
http://books.google.si/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false (page 2)
http://books.google.si/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indo-european+language+and+culture&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (pages 375–378)
Check the books out from your nearest library. If you cannot support your position with verifiable sources, then please stop contributing to this template.
Doremo (
talk)
08:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
If you are interested in Slavic microlanguages, please read this: Микроязыки. Языки. Интеръязыки. Сборник в честь ординарного профессора Александра Дмитриевича Дуличенко. Тарту, 2006. Doremo ( talk) 08:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please provide some scholarly references for your position. Do you disagree that Cambridge University Press is an authoritative source? Doremo ( talk) 11:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
This template addresses Slavic languages in general. Please cite a scholarly work on Slavic languages in general (as I did above) that supports your position, not a dialect-specific study. Doremo ( talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Doncsecz, I do not understand your "perish the communism, also perish the dogmas" comment. Please explain. Doremo ( talk) 14:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I still do not understand your comment. The content of this template should follow standard scholarly works on Slavic languages in general. If you cannot cite any such works supporting your position, you should remove your changes. Doremo ( talk) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please try keep the conversation in English on English WP (for other users' benefit). So far you have failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position at Talk:Prekmurian_dialect and you have also failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position here. Doremo ( talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Tou je že trno stara hištorija. Doncsecz talk 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Which the received standpoint? As the foreign and slavic linguist have 20-30 several standpoint, for ex. the Silesian language in the group of the West-Slavic languages. Few linguist decline, that this is language, but simply polish dialect. All the better the quesition of the Serbocroatian languages. You be a stranger to the theme. For nothing the official standpoint, for ex. Yugoslavia also was beguile the outside world on the score of some dialects and languages. Doncsecz talk 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest you people stop editwarring over Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin etc. This is a navigation template, for heaven's sake, not a political pamphlet! Its purpose is to give links to the Slavic languages as well as the major Slavic dialects and microlanguages, just to facilitate navigating between them. This is surely not the place for all kinds of statements regarding who disputes what. Nobody denies that Upper and Lower Sorbian are two separate languages, but I haven't heard anybody complaining about them being grouped together between brackets under a common header. The same should also go for Serbo-Croatian, BCMS, or whatever anybody wants to call it. That is completely justified since all four standard languages are nearly identical to each other. This is definitely not the place to fight for the emancipation of whatever language or dialect, simply because that is not what this template is for. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist at all.
BCMS is Frankestein-project. You can also cut the pig's head, goat's legs, peacock's tail, tuna's fin and sew them all on the cow's body and say: the pig-goat-peacock-cow-tuna (PGPCT) exists! Same thing is so-called Serbo-Croatian. PGPCT.
These Slavic languages aren't nearly identical. They are different, live with that. Related, but different.
In Croatian is:
Sjest ću za stol i naručiti ću juhu od mrkve, pečenu tuku, sol, papar i bocu vina. Obvezno moram popiti kavu s mlijekom.
In Serbian is:
Sešću za sto i poručiću supu od šargarepe, pečenu ćurku, so, biber i flašu vina. Obavezno moram da popijem kafu s mlekom.
I'm not sure how these sentences are said in Bosnian and in Montenegrin.
This template is not for emancipation of the dead political project, and the project of so-called Serbo-Croatian is exactly that - dead political project.
Just like the Serbo-Croato-Slovenian language, the name of the official language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Finally, you're just another anonimous Wikipedian. This author isn't
Srpsko hrvatski nikad nije ostvaren jer nije postojao.
Kubura (
talk)
02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't Slovianski be listed as part of the Pan-Slavic languages? Gringo300 ( talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I will remove this entry per these sources.[1][2] It is a subset of Croatian. For balance all or none of the subsets of Croatian should be mentioned. The source provided earlier seems to be a company website and is not a reliable source. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 15:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is it that this template has more info about philology unlike the templates for Celtic, Germanic and Romance languages? -- PK2 ( talk) 06:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
It has to be written italic in the table. How to do this? It would be good to have the languages that have once been clustered into Serbo-Croatian first and then Serbo-Cratian in the brickets and italic behind them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umno22 ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)