Jump to content

Talk:Slavic languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mention of serbo croatian language

[edit]

The serbo croation language ceased to exist at the disintegration of the republic of Yugoslavia. People speak serb, bosnian croatian, montenegran 2A02:A03F:8328:E700:B5FC:B7D2:A3CF:7E19 (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this is confirmed by the citation of Ivanov 2001 In the article 2A02:A03F:8328:E700:B5FC:B7D2:A3CF:7E19 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2023 and this polemic has been long-settled, at least on Wikipedia. Ivanov's (and Browne's and others') Britannica article does not support your claim regarding the breakup of YU resulting in the breakup of a language, as far as I can tell; it does nominally refer to BCMS as different languages, but also treats them as a single unit when providing the number of speakers, and says that they might be considered one language too ("sometimes grouped together as Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian"). The idea that a language can appear or disappear along with a country is odd in itself. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Ivan Ohienko,

[edit]

I clicked on the highlighted name Ivan Ohienko, and the pop-up photo and caption were about Metropolitan Ilarion. Is this a mix-up? 100.40.191.180 (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Ivan Ohienko" was his birth-name, "Ilarion" his new name as the metropolitan, just like how Jorge Bergoglio renamed himself to "Francis" when he became the pope. It's the same person. — Phazd (talk|contribs) 13:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual intelligibility

[edit]

@Walter Tau, recently you've added a reference to E. Stankiewicz's book in the passage on mutual intelligibility of Slavic langs. However, the book is largely concerned with historical linguistics and accentology, and I can't find out which passage you were referring to (you didn't provide the relevant page number for the citation, and the book is quite long, so it's impossible to find the relevant passage just by skimming). Is the book really a source for the claims regarding intelligibility, and if so, which chapter? — Phazd (talk|contribs) 13:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phazd, thank you for your note. Indeed, I cited this book, because it was cited by another source. I did not check the book content. In order to address your concern, I did Scopus+The Lens searches, created an small EndNote library on this topic, and placed proper references into the wiki-text. I also placed my EndNote library with full-text pdfs here: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/64d6HFRLDLYXCQ . Since I have never been able to convert an EndNote library into a Zotero library (despite numerous resources saying it is possible), I cannot share the latter with you.

You are welcome to continue improving this article and to use the resources I provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Tau (talkcontribs) 02:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]