If (some significant number of) Croatians say they speak Croatian then these is a language called Croatian spoken by Croatians. It doesn't matter if it has a striking resemblance to another language or if it is unique. People have a right to linguistic self-determination as much as anything else.
The language you speak is entirely political. Academics or historians don't get to determine what languages people speak, people do that for themselves.
But what I was replying to made a different claim, that a mutual language does not exist and was made artificially. This is objectively not true, and you can see it in practice (many examples available). The opposite is true: the differences are artificially magnified as a part of a political project, very similar to the actual situation on Wikipedia we are supposed to be commenting on.
For example, Dutch is derived from, and similar to, German as is Swiss German, but no-one is saying that Dutch should be called Dutch German, and the Dutch would surely vigorously object to that. Croatians have every right to reject the notion that they speak Serbo-Croatian or that such a language even exists.
Can you say there's only 10% difference between the two languages? Absolutely. Does that give someone the right to declare the languages the same outside of Academia? No. There is no objective standard to rest your claims of objective truth on.
Let's continue tying the Dutch into this discussion. The war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was in the Hague. One of the official languages there was BCS: Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian. Not three of the languages, but one of the languages. Can you imagine anything more damning than being charged in a court of law, and not understanding the charges? Fortunately this was not the case, as the languages are in fact identical. That a court of law sees them as identical is a very objective standard. There are many other examples.
You are also doing Croats a disservice by presenting them as a hive mind that rejects certain notions in unison. Some of them disagree explicitly that the languages are separate, and a lot of them disagree implicitly (if not most!). For example, only a couple years after the war there was a Serbian movie in Croatian theatres, and it was subtitled. This was met with widespread ridicule in Croatia, and the practice has been, as far as I know, abandoned. So even if people don't want to open this can of worms (that I unfortunately did here), when faced with the full consequence of it, a large number of them will find it ridiculous.
To be clear, I am a native speaker of this language, or if you wish languages. I also speak English and German, and have spent some time in Switzerland. I believe my experience is adequate to say that we are in fact speaking one language, and the differences are nothing more than regional differences, that exist everywhere else in the world.
But yeah, while I 100% agree it's one language, naming it is tricky. I tend to use BHS (short for Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian).
Any and all discussion around languages in these matters have started and stopped by politics and ultimately even supported by academia. Is there a common understanding and overlap between languages? Of course. Are there differences? Of course, and as time goes by they grow larger - new generations have no idea what the other one are talking about for a lot of even trivial examples. Whomevwr says differently either does not love in the region or lives in a bubble. Whether that's anecdotal or a docimented fact (exercise to a reader to find reactions in each country to said declaration that followed promplty lole fire from all levels from academia to politics in all countries) is a sideshow to the following: apart from yugoslavian period and a bit before there's no shared history (500+ years of ottoman empire does that to one part of the region whereas the other wasn't in it), there's no shared literature throughout history (since it's a wikipedia post, find history of croatian literature and then serbian), how come it's called serbo-croatian or croato-serbian excluding all other nationalities/countries (and how come it's only ex-yugoslavia centric?), and ultimately and the only unarguable reason relevant to the topic is that language is one of the key components to national identities which region has struggled (wars over) within recent decades - tha ultimate reason why this won't happen ever, as exemplified even by this small universe of replies within.. which was my whole point.
This is not a good analogy, because there's a separate Alemannic Wikipedia (covering slightly more than Swiss German) https://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Houptsyte
It's called "Schweizerdeutsch" (Swiss German) and is indeed a separate language. In fact, every region in Switzerland has a different dialect :-)
--- Imam automobil s dobrim strojem na unutarnje izgaranje. Krenuo sam u trgovinu u neboderu. Mislio sam, bit će tamo hljeb kruha i za mene. Nemam svoj vrt stoga kupit ću još malo sira, mrkvu, krumpir, špinat, raznog drugog povrća, gljive i tjesteninu, sve to ću staviti u posudu za kuhanje i u svom stanu na drugom katu skuhat ću dobru povrtnu juhu. Prljavo posuđe ću staviti u perilicu, a onda opeglati rublje.
Zamolio sam prijatelja u Beogradu da napravi isto, ali i da to i napiše. Evo kako je on to uradio.
Imam automobil sa dobrom mašinom na unutrašnje sagorjevanje. Krenuo sam u dućan u soliteru. Predmnjevao sam, biće tamo hleba i za mene. Nemam svoje bašče, zato ću da kupim još malo kačkavalja, šargarepu, krtole, spanać, raznog drugog povrća, pečurke i makarone, sve to ću da stavim u šerpu i u svom stanu na drugom spratu ću da skuvam supu od povrća. Prljavo suđe ću da stavim u mašinu za pranje sudova, a onda ću da opeglam veš.
https://m.vecernji.hr/vijesti/antideklaracija-ili-otvoreno-p...
Right, but this does not make it different languages because I just made up a reason. These differences exist between all regions and in all countries. The differences between American and British English are even more pronounced. The differences between German and Swiss German are more substantial than the similarities etc. And even when the Swiss speak German for the Germans to understand them, there are differences, e.g. Fahrrad vs Velo, the construct "es gibt" vs "es hat". There are differences between German spoken in Saxony and Bavaria. There is nothing special going on in the Balkans, contrary to what a lot of people there think.
Most people will understand almost everything in the quoted texts, although almost no Serb will understand the quoted Serbian text completely. You will need a lot of luck trying to find a person in Belgrade who understands what "predmnjevati" means. I have no idea. No actual person speaks like this. There are other comical errors that illustrate what is going on here: artificial magnifying of the differences. But the only outcome possible for those that attempt it is to fall flat on their face.
What gives it out is that, although it mainly uses "correct" words, with some obvious slips, makes some pretty obvious gramatical and ortographical errors. I guess that it's written by a Croatian journalist, who obviously can speak, read, and write "Serbian" rather well, but who wrote several things wrongly because he imagined that Serbian uses these distinctive features. I can attest that I understand all words in the "Croatian" version without any help, and that the "Serbian" version sounds closer to what is spoken in Belgrade, but only to an extent (it sounds silly and artificial to my ears).
Really, all languages are basically the same language. Draw a circle around any <del>50km</del> 5km area and almost everyone in there will understand each other, with only minor differences in speech.
Think this is wrong? Okay, then: English should be divided into Romantic and Germanic. It's two languages (basically French, and basically Dutch) that have been mashed together, with a splash of Celtic influence.
These are all bad takes. So's yours.
"Experts have the viewpoint that if 70 percent of the words between two languages are common, then they are not languages but variants of the same language. And in our case it is not 70, but over 90 percent".
Original quote in Serbian: http://www.rtv.rs/sr_lat/drustvo/govore-li-srbi-hrvati-bosnj...
People either understand each other or they don't. There's absolutely nothing political about that.
Speaking of… Wikipedia (Dutch):
> Wikipedia is een online encyclopedie die ernaar streeft inhoud te bieden die vrij herbruikbaar, objectief en verifieerbaar is. Het project is gebouwd op vijf zuilen. De Nederlandstalige versie startte op 19 juni 2001 en is, gemeten naar het aantal lemma's, met meer dan 2 miljoen artikelen de op vijf na grootste taalversie.
And Wikipedia (German):
> Das Ziel der Wikipedia ist der Aufbau einer Enzyklopädie durch freiwillige und ehrenamtliche Autoren. Der Name Wikipedia setzt sich zusammen aus Wiki (entstanden aus wiki, dem hawaiischen Wort für ‚schnell‘), und encyclopedia, dem englischen Wort für ‚Enzyklopädie‘. Ein Wiki ist ein Webangebot, dessen Seiten jeder leicht und ohne technische Vorkenntnisse direkt im Webbrowser bearbeiten kann.
Different languages. Neither is too hard for an English speaker. (If in doubt, try pronouncing the words.)
While I'm at it, Wikipedia (French):
> Wikipédia est un projet d’encyclopédie collective en ligne, universelle, multilingue et fonctionnant sur le principe du wiki. Ce projet vise à offrir un contenu librement réutilisable, objectif et vérifiable, que chacun peut modifier et améliorer.
Also a different language! But just you tell me you don't understand that.
Your comment sounds fine on the surface, if you don't actually stop to think about it. It's horribly wrong in lots of Europe, Africa, south America and Asia, hell even in the US it's not correct everywhere.
Even this is only to a point; namely, all these languages use Latin alphabet, while Serbian also uses Cyrillic (Serbian uses both alphabets). Croatian originally used Glagolitic script (many centuries ago). This Latin/Cyrillic division is caused by Catholic/Orthodox church split and Habsburg/Ottoman empire border rather than being some central feature in languages.
Snježana Kordić's book made the case that there is a polycentric language shared by those countries and that much of the current politicking over this topic is nationalist in basis. I think it's easy to see that this bickering over language is yet another useful distraction from the catastrophic state of society and the economy in those lands.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Common_Lang...
Encouraging the affected communities to discuss the possibility of re-merging Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian language projects into the original Serbo-Croatian language projects to re-align with the practices of other pluricentric Wikipedia language versions.
Which will not happen, and on top of it is border-line offensive and shows a dose of not understanding the differences. Serbo-croatian or Croato-serbian (as the full name of the language is) was an artificially constructed language during social-communist Yugoslavia. All involved parties agreed to part ways on unification of the languages for a myriad of reasons, not all political ones.. and that's now water over the bridge.. and now this entity, probably through ignorance, wants to offer re-introduction of the topic which countries have fought wars over? Nah. One of the reasons why SH (serbo-croatian) wiki even exists is because there's a group of people living in the past and which makes, for themselves, communities like that. Raisong the issue as a possible course of resokution and common ground not only gives legitimacy to it, but is border-line offensive and absolutely ignorant of the issues at hand.
Otherwise, apart from that, great. Something needs to haooen to ex yugoslavian wikis throughout to make them at least half-thrustworthy.