Talk:Serbo-Croatian grammar/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

This page was missing the aorist and imperfect tenses, so I added them. While the imperfect is not used often, the aorist is still heard in set phrases such as "Odoh ti ja", and "Taman pade snijeg." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.220.27 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to spot any case where the dative case is different from the locative case here, and neither have I seen any in any place. Is there any case of a noun where the dative is different from locative? If not, why are they two different cases? Else we could argue to English having a vocative case and accusative case which are simply no-where different to the nominative case? Rajakhr (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They (can, in some classes of nouns) differ in pitch accent, but it's not noted in the retarded orthography. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, plȁč "cry" has dative singular plȁču, but locative singular plàču. plaču can also mean other things depending on the accentuation - plȃčū "they wash out", 3rd-person plural present of plákati, plȁčū "they cry", 3rd-person plural present od plȁkati. There is also phonetically very similary word pláća having accusative singular form pláću that one can also take into account, since the urban idioms of 5 biggest Croatian cities don't distinguish /č/ and /ć/ (yes, we write imaginary phonemes in our "perfect" orthography). There are words that can mean something like 8 different things depending on how you pronounce them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami redirected this page to a page "Serbo-Croatian grammar" [1].
The person that did that is not a neutral person.
30 Dec 2008 Kwamikagami did this [2]. Declaring someone's language as just a "variety" is an insult on the national basis.
Such kind of edits [3] are disruptive.
This way user Kwamikagami has deleted the whole content of the article=years of work of other users.
This is the misuse of redirect. It's the same as page blanking.
WP:REDIRECT says "A redirect is a page which has no content itself, but sends the reader to another article, section of an article, or page, usually from an alternative title."
This was not empty page. Kubura (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a "neutral person" [4]?
Imposing his personal POV, and etiquetting the opponents as "nationalists" as a means to win a "discussion"?
This is evasion of discussion. Posting his intentions on hard-to-find pages (all contributors aren't interested in participating on Project pages, we have user- and article talkpages.). Kubura (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion I had with that user on his talkpage [5].
Precisely, my questions for him about the facts about Croatian [6], his answer [7], my message [8] and finally his answer [9]. "No, I don't know the answers to most of them.".
But he does finds himself as authority about the language he doesn't speak. Kubura (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merge notice has been up for months, with no objections. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notice was put on 20:00, 23 April 2010, 6 days later I see in history this: who ever put this "merge" on the article should be considered a vandal, well maybe not...errr... vandal, but definitely misguided person, or pretty ignorant of subject. So to write there was no objections is simply false. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No-one bothered to object here, on the discussion page for the move, in over two months. — kwami (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm objecting now, because I see it now. To my best knowledge if somebody wants to merge articles Germany and Great Britain, and nobody objects for over two months that makes it no more true that Germany and Great Britain are the same country. Likewise in this case, if nobody objected on talk page, that makes it no more true, that only means nobody willing to object on talk page to that blatant ignorance has seen that. And there were objections, I remind you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence of page Wikipedia:Content forking: A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.

As Croatian grammar and Serbian grammar are not synonyms, but they treat two different languages (Croatian language, hrv by ISO 639-2 and Serbian language srp by ISO 639-2), I see no content fork here. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two "languages" with the same grammar, apart from a couple details equivalent to American "will" vs. British "shall". Please point out any content that is not forked. — kwami (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical features of Croatian language, both diachronically (for instance, the structure of declension or now extinct third future tense that is equal to the future in Russian, but non-existent in Serbian), or synchronically (the number of Croatian vowels differ from the number of Serbian or Bosnian; the morphology prescriptions are also different) are such that no cover term as Serbo-Croatian language is logical, which still persists due more to political than to linguistical reasons.

In Croatian language futur prvi is formed with the infinitive, in Serbian mostly with an explicative dependent clause.

Merging grammars of two different languages, why? I really do not understand that. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're the same grammar. "In Serbian mostly" - exactly: There are a few minor differences, but they are not always consistent, and anyway can always be covered in a single article. This duplication of effort has been called "a huge waste of time" on one of the discussion pages. — kwami (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, is "the grammar is the same" your only argument? You are merging (without any apparent or sensible reason) two different grammars, which have different histories and scripts into some "Serbo-croatian" grammar which denoted merely a political creation (language) that never caught on. In linguistics, grammar is the set of structural rules that govern the composition of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes morphology, syntax, and phonology, often complemented by phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. And grammars of Croatian and Serbian ARE different.--Saxum (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the relevant argument, for that is what makes this a content fork.

I know what grammar is. (Standard) Serbian and Croatian are grammatically the same language, as is profusely documented in any number of sources, mostly at the SC article. This proposal was unanimously accepted by the linguistics projects, and I gave notice several times to make sure there were no valid objections.

The only objection is that many Croats do not like the term "Serbo-Croatian". However, that is a political argument, and in English the term is generally used for the language of which Croatian, Serbian, and Bosniac are official registers. On English WP, we use English terminology, but I moved the article to 'Serbian and Croatian grammar' to try to avoid offending Croats. However, the latter term may end up offending Bosniacs, and it may need to be moved back to SC. — kwami (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redundant material, which is the standard shared with Serbian and Bosnian, and tried to come up with an outline for an independent article. The only way I can think that this article can be justified is if it covered something other than the material at Serbian and Croatian grammar, which would mean covering something other than Shtokavian. Perhaps editors who know Chakavian and Kajkavian can expand those sections? — kwami (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently a bit too tired to leave a smart and elaborate comment here, so here is a crude analogy: this article is to Serbo-Croatian grammar what Krafne is to Berliner (pastry). (Local crowd will understand it, apologies to all others...)

Are they the same thing? One could argue that they are not called the same, that maybe the jam is different and the dough recipes are slightly divergent, or that krafne have a distinct and separate history, or that they are eaten on different occasions.

These are all decent arguments - but let's face it, these things are essentially the same. Still, it is important to understand that "essentially the same" does not mean "identical", and that difference (or likeness) in naming does not imply a difference (or likeness) in substance. Should we infer that Croatian krafne are different than Serbian krofne because they are called differently? Should we imply that krofne in Serbia and Bosnia are the same?

Here in Wikipedia, "essentially the same" usually means "described in the same article". It is a matter of logic and utility, and not some kind of certificate of sameness. On the contrary: it is precisely this organization that offers the best opportunity to describe the differences in a systematic way, and to give the reader a sense of perspective. Either that, or a quadruple fork. GregorB (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "either that". Croatian grammar is fine, but would need to be different material from Serbian grammar, whereas the old article was not: What Speedy is restoring is primarily how Croatian is the same as Serbian. We even have an article on the differences between Croatian and Serbian, so we need something specifically Croatian. My thought was that we could cover all three dialects, or the differences between them, since while Shtokavian is Serbian, Chakavian and Kajkavian are not. Either that or a simple merge, as everyone on the language project agreed.

The author of this article, User:Coldipa (his version here, essentially what Speedy is reverting to now), has agreed that the articles should be merged, since they duplicate each other.

There are quite a few editors here who make ridiculous claims, such as that Serbs need subtitles to understand Croatian television. Part of the problem may be to counter such nonsense without going overboard.

For the English reader, the subjects are effectively the same. For instance, US diplomats learn "Serbo-Croatian" at the FSI. Of course, they may concentrate on Serbian or Croatian, just as a learner of English may concentrate on RP or GA, but the language material is essentially the same. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics not only doesn't have separate articles on the grammar, but doesn't bother with separate articles for Croatian and Serbian at all! Separate WP grammar articles for the standard languages are no more justified than it would be to split British grammar and American grammar. Separate grammar articles for the dialects would be justified, IMO, if anyone cares to write about them.

— kwami (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"For instance". Yeah, and for instance, in USA and South Africa there were official signs "whites only".
"language material is essentially the same". Kwami, you don't speak Croatian nor Serbian, and than you dare to say something about the language material.
Kwami, I still wait for your answer on those questions I gave you on your talkpage. [10]Kubura (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know not to attack other editors, and to restrict the talk page to discussions on improving the article. And I've answered your questions. — kwami (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't attacked you.
You're avoiding discussion. You haven't answered on my questions from 25 May 2010 [11].
If you don't know Croatian, please, don't mess into topics you don't know.
I'm not speaking Choctaw, so I'm not playing that I know more about Choctaw language than the Choctaw maternal speakers themselves.
More questions for you: do you know anything about the historical development of Croatian grammars? Kubura (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I answered your question, you'd just say that I haven't answered your question, so what's the point?

What we personally know is irrelevant, though of course it is better to know what you're talking about. What we rely on at WP are WP:reliable sources. The reliable sources demonstrate that Serbian and Croatian share a common grammar. That has been demonstrated ad nauseum. Therefore they are a single subject matter. Therefore they need to be merged.

Now, there's plenty that we can profitably discuss, such as: what is the best name for the merged article? and: is there s.t. we can write about here that wouldn't be a content fork? (I made a stab at the latter, but my attempt was rejected.) — kwami (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every language in the world share some common grammar, but question is how similar they really are. I see above sentence: that has been demonstrated ad nauseum. - I question that.

Serbian and Croatian are different languages, history of written Croatian is over 10 centuries long, would-be SC language is imagined for the first time somewhere around 1850, and you can not learn it today either in Croatia or Serbia. So content in article on Croatian grammar can be about history of Croatian language grammars, it can write about grammars of three dialects Croatian language is stilized on, article can speak of todays changes. So article on Croatian grammar is not fork of SC grammar, actually it can be only other way around. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on article (adding new content), and using references for almost all content I write. I would be very happy if users who do not contribute content to article abstain of meddling (deleting parts of article), whichever reason they give, if they do not provide sources/references for their claims. Thank you. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of tagging the article with {{under construction}}. GregorB (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile you should not be forking the content of Serbian and Croatian grammar. The grammar of the standard language is now covered there, a decision made with months of notification and discussion, and any duplication of that article will be deleted. This article either needs to cover a different subject, or be a redirect, or perhaps you can think of some other use for it, but not just the same material under a different name or with different refs. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writes above: grammar of the standard language is now covered there - grammar of which standard language? Croatian? Serbian? Some third language?

If it isn't grammar of Croatian language, then anything written in this article is not content fork by definition. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both, of course, as well as Bosnian and Montenegrin. Come on, you know this. Repeating all the declension and conjugation tables is, of course, content forking.

Since you've rejected attempts to create a valid article, and no-one else is contributing, we're back to a redirect. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, who do you think you are?
Who are you to allow yourself to determin what'll go into redirect or not?
Other people are contributing or they've announced their contribution.
This merging is the self-willing obliteration of a language.
"grammar of the standard language is now covered there ". What standard language? Creating a Frankenstein out of two separate persons and artificially merge their properties?
Kwami, do you know Croatian grammar?
Kwami, this article isn't your property.
Kwami, do you speak Bosnian language? Do you speak Montenegrin language?
"Repeating all the declension and conjugation tables is, of course, content forking.". So, Lionel Messi appears in the article FC Barcelona, Argentina national football team and Lionel Messi, and since they have the same sections, we should redirect article FC Barcelona to Lionel Messi and Argentina national football team to Lionel Messi.
Please, don't interfere into the topic you don't understand.
Reminder: American Library of Congress determined abbreviations hrv and srp as sole valid abbreviations (instead of scr and scc). Decision was published 17 June 2008, and it became obligatory since 1 September 2008. So please, don't spread your personal attitude here. Kubura (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this merge was posted for months. There was no objection on the talk page, only discussion on how best to do it. Notice was posted on the language and linguistics projects. Consent was unanimous, with people bemoaning what a waste of time it was to write separate articles. Sorry, that's the consensus. It has nothing to do with ownership, mine or yours. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: Merge notice was put on 20:00, 23 April 2010, 6 days later I see in history this: who ever put this "merge" on the article should be considered a vandal, well maybe not...errr... vandal, but definitely misguided person, or pretty ignorant of subject. So to write there was no objections is simply false. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? That person never bothered to discuss it, but instead deleted the merge tag, which makes him a vandal. Also, decisions are made on the strength of one's arguments. There was no argument, so he was of course ignored. No-one is interested in unanimity here, but in creating good articles. The unanimous opinion of everyone who bothered to discuss this was that the two articles, C grammar and S grammar, were a content fork. — kwami (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would imagine that in order for an objection to the merge to be valid, i.e. even considered as such, it should be consisting of at least some kind of talkpage argument. There's really no question that the merge was unopposed, I would suggest that my countrymen propose an article split rather than engaging in an edit-war here.

P.S. "Misguided", "ignorant"? WP:NPA, keep it up gents... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]