Template Talk:South Slavic Languages Sidebar
Get Template Talk:South Slavic Languages Sidebar essential facts below. View Videos or join the Template Talk:South Slavic Languages Sidebar discussion. Add Template Talk:South Slavic Languages Sidebar to your PopFlock.com topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Template Talk:South Slavic Languages Sidebar
WikiProject Croatia (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconTemplate:South Slavic languages sidebar is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Languages (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Do all dialects, mentioned here, belong to Central South Slavic diasystem? Are you sure? Kubura 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian Cyrillic

It is based on the Serbian Alphabet but the language is not Central South Slavic. Alex 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


?or?e and Anton, you guys should come up with a consensus on whether Torlak is Western or Transitional. It doesn't surprise me that Pavle Ivi? and Stefan Mladenov would say what they did - one need only look at their surnames. So argue your points here please. BalkanFever 06:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Torlakian dialect possesses all characteristics of the Western South Slavonic dialects. and therefore is Western South Slavonic. The only thing that connects it with the Eastern South Slavonic group, and other Balkan languages, is the appearance of the so-called "balkanisms" in this dialect, however that's not a criteria to pronounce it "transitional." In origin, Torlakian is clearly of Western South Slavonic origin even though it belongs to the Balkansprachbund along with the Eastern South Slavonic dialects. Below I shall cite Pavle Ivi?, one of the most renowned Yugoslav dialectologists, explaining the Western South Slavonic origin of the Torlakian dialect, and I also expect either Stefan Mladenov's arguments to be properly cited as well, or I'll return Torlakian under Western South Slavic in the template. Since Anton suggests that Torlakian is actually closer to the Eastern South Slavonic group, I expect him to clarify what linguistic features exactly make it closer to Bulgarian than Serbo-Croatian. --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"§ 125. The dialects of the Prizren--Timok [i.e. Torlakian] zone have evolved from the easternmost group of ?tokavian dialects. Their Serbo-Croatian origin is clearly testified by those characteristics given in § 5 [that is, the characteristics of the Western South Slavonic dialects also present in Torlakian], and their belonging to the ?tokavian dialectal group is manifested through the presence of ?tokavian innovations such as *skj, *stj, *zgj, *zdj > ?t, ; ?r- > cr-, v? > u-, and vs- > sv-, and on the other hand, through the lack of innovations that occur in ?akavian and Kajkavian dialects. The difference between these dialects and their southeastern and eastern neighbouring dialects of the Macedonian and Bulgarian languages, was clear and strong even during the time of Slavonic migrations to the Balkans (§ 5). However, differences between Torlakian and ?tokavian were even not present at all at first. These dialects were barely distinct from the present-day Kosovo--Resava dialect (which, after all, is still lively connected to this dialectal group, cf. § 101). The only significant phonetic specific was the change l? > lu in a few cases, however only existent in Prizren--South Morava area. It is very specific that yat here, like elsewhere in ?tokavian dialects, before being rendered became closer than vowel /?/, which is supported by the state in Kra?ovan dialect, which originates from this area (§ 220)."
"§ 126. The central event in the later evolution of the dialects from the Prizren--Timok zone was the appearance of the so-called balkanisms, characteristics specific for other Balkan languages, Slavonic and non-Slavonic. (The significance of these features is pretty high, giving that none of the mentioned Prizren--Timok archaisms makes an absolute boundary toward the standard ?tokavian type: the reflex of semivowel is preserved as a distinct phoneme in many speeches of the Zeta--Sjenica dialect as well, the syllabic l in almost all Prizren--Timok speeches has evolved into /u/ after all in a few examples, and the final -l hasn't been left unaltered on the whole area of this dialectal zone.) The lack of pitch oppositions (of quality as well as quantity), the analytic comparison, and the doubled use of personal pronouns is also found in the Greek, Romanian, Albanian, Bulgarian, and Macedonian languages. The same can be applied to omitting the infinitive. The analytic principle exists in Bulgarian and Macedonian declensions, too. Modern Greek, Romanian, and Albanian declensions show these simplifications as well, and tend to use a reduced number of grammatical cases. The usage of the three postpositive pronouns is common in most of the Macedonian dialects, and in other Macedonian dialects and the huge majority of Bulgarian ones the true postpositive article has evolved. The true origin of each of these characteristics is not clear yet, but it is certain that they have been transmitted from one Balkan language into another. It is clear that these balkanisms in the Prizren--Timok dialect have not evolved spontaneously, but have rather been brought from the neighbouring languages. [...] After all, it is clear that the dialects of the Prizren--Timok zone have entered the Balkansprachbund not sooner than the 15th century. Therefore, the main isoglosses that connect the Prizren--Timok dialects with the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages are chronologically only secondary in relation to those that show their connections with other ?tokavian dialects. Thus they, even though they may be important for the typological characterization of the dialects, yet mean nothing when it comes to their origin. (Although the structural phenomena may be linguistically important, it cannot be used as a criteria for defining the connections between language types. [...] If only structural criteria was taken in count, one would have acquired most absurd conclusions, e.g. that Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects are closer to Aromanian and Romanian than Slavonic languages.)"
-- Pavle Ivi?, "Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika" (The Dialectology of the Serbo-Croatian language). --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Stefan Mladenov (Geschichte der Bulgarichen Sprache, Berlin - Leipzig, ? ? ?, 1979, ?. 360-362) these dilects are transitional between Bulgarian and Eastern South Slavic languages. Also he comments some similarities with Ucrainian languge. Mladenov considers these dialects as more closer to Bulgarian language, than Serbian (Serbo-Croatian) . Similar are the statements of Benjo Tsonev, Rangel Bozhkov, the russian Afanasii Selishtev etc.--JSimin (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, but please state which linguistic features exactly make Torlakian closer to Bulgarian than Serbo-Croatian? Not even Mladenov and other linguists can simply say that; are there any proofs, any references? --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, Ivi? in his "Dialectology" (§ 5) lists the respective Western South Slavonic, i.e. Serb(o-Croat)ian, features of the Torlakian dialects. For example, Torlakian has *? = *?, *? > u (as in "ruka"), *v?- > u- ("udovica"), *tj > ? (as in "sve?a/svije?a"), *?r- > cr- ("crn"), vs- > sv- ("sve"), and so on -- and all these are typical Western South Slavonic features. Eastern South Slavonic, including Bulgarian, has distinct reflexes of the semivowels (*? and *?), *? > ? or a (as in Mac. "raka"), *v?- > v- ("vdovica"), *tj > ?t (as in Bulg. "sve?t"), and ?r- and vs- unaltered ("?rn", "vse"), respectively. So what makes Torlakian closer to the Eastern group then, when it possesses all those features which actually separate it from the Eastern South Slavonic group, reflecting its Western South Slavonic origin? Please name what linguistic features exactly make it transitional and closer to the Eastern South Slavonic dialects rather than just simply claiming, "Torlakian is transitional, someone said it is closer to Bulgarian, and also resembles Ukrainian a little bit", will you? --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I hope this explanation of the Western South Slavonic features of Torlakian is pretty satisfactory, right? --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that there is necessity to explain the oppinions of these linguists who consider the Torlak dialects as more closer to the Eastern South Slavonic group. One of the reasons - here isn't a court who will decide whether they are Bulgarian/Macedonian, Serbian or Transitional. The fact is that these prominent authors have this oppinion and they argue it. In the relevant article and its discussion page we can concentrate to the essence of the concrete arguments. For me is very clear that the grammar of my own dialect is not Serbian (the lack of the cases (only remainders as in some other BG linguistic structures), the articals etc), (also - ? (, ?, ?, ?, , , ..), -l in the final (? not , ??, not ...) etc., etc.), byt there is not important my or your oppinion. Important are the facts:

  1. Some linguistics consider these dialects as Bulgarian (on the base of the arguments, part of which I quoted above);
  2. Some linguistics consider them as Serbian (on the base of the arguments, part of which you quoted above);
  3. Some linguistics consider them as Transitional [1].

Ofcource, these 3 points are not so categorically defended by all authors. As I wrote, some of them have important nuances (for example Mladenov - Transitional, but Bulgarian). However I know that you will not deny that there are such oppinions. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you're right. It seems I forgot this is popflock.com resource after all, and started arguing myself. :)
However, you'll notice that lack of cases and postpositive articles also appear in other Balkan languages as well -- Romanian, Albanian, Greek, Macedonian -- and may not necessarily mean that Torlakian dialects are exclusively Bulgarian. On the other hand, the semivowel (?) also appears in various Serbo-Croatian dialects, and is a phoneme in some Zeta--Sanjak speeches as well. That may not have anything to do with Bulgarian, but would rather show that some Serbian dialects have also been included into the Balkansprachbund processes, whereas such other Torlak features, like "ruka" (not "r?ka"), "udovica" (not "vdovica"), "sve?a" (not "sve?t"), "crn" (not "?rn"), "sve" (not "vse") etc. clearly show that these dialects cannot be Eastern South Slavonic but essentially ?tokavian. --George D. Bo?ovi? (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with this POV. The similarities with Eastern, Bulgarian-Macedonian group are accidental phenomenons, but the similarities with Serbo-Croation group are basical. But why exactly these "serbian" dialects have exactly these features? Maybe they are not only Serbian? :). ?.S. "crn" (not ?rn) we can notice and in the other Bulgarian dialectical regions outside of the Torlak area. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with classification of Slavic languages into language families by descent is that this is generally not possible if the languages are mutually intelligible and thus form a dialect continuum. Within such a continuum, different linguistic features can spread in different ways and thus form different isoglosses. This is analogous to classification of biological species that fails when the individuals of two groups can interbreed.  Andreas  (T) 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Division of South Slavic

Genetically there are 2 groups of dialects: Western South Slavic and Eastern South Slavic. Slavic Dialects of Croatia, Serbia, B&H, Montenegro and Kosovo belong to WSS, not some godforsaken "Central South Slavic" group, which is a term coined by Brozovi? for the sole purpose of replacing Serbo-Croatian anachronism. --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. It's not used in the articles. Restored "Serbo-Croatian", which is the WP:Common name in English. kwami (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nigger" was also "common name". Kubura (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why have I removed "Serbo-Croatian" and inserted "Central South Slavic diasystem"?
Colleague Ivan ?tambuk nicely explained that here [2]
"Dear Serbo-Croatian comrades,... you...having been indoctrinated by books written by ex-professors of "Serbo-Croatian languages" who graduated "Yugoslavistics", which for pure political reasons pushed the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" as an alleged "genetic node" in the South Slavic branch. This notion of abundantly exploited for misappropriation of Croat-only cultural heritage, of which there are plenty of remnants in modern Serbian books (...bugarice by Molise Croats and medieval ?akavian writers like Hektorovi? as a part of "Serbian epic poetry"...)...". Kubura (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange grouping

"Western Shtokavian", "Central Shtokavian" and "Eastern Shtokavian"
Wikipedia is not a place for original works. Kubura (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that has been taken care of. kwami (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Position of Slovene in the template

The current position of Slovene in the template makes it look as if it is a part of the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian language or language family, which is a bit odd, so it would be nice if someone could correct this error. (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Moved to the top of the list. kwami (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You people are producing complete mess. Croatian ?akavian, Croatian Kajkavian and Slovene Kajkavian were mutually in close relations in history and by historical developement. These idioms cannot be covered by S-H umbrella since in no way they contributted to Serbian language. All these S-H mania is one huge original research by a few wikipedians, probably politically frustrated individuals who use popflock.com resource for healing their private wounds. How it is possible that it works? How do you let them do so? (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ikavian in Serbian

Is someone joking here [3] "Ikavian" as part of Serbian? Some isolated groups of Croatian diaspora speak Torlak, but that doesn't make that dialect as Croatian. Also, if some Serbs used Ikavian speech (children of JNA officers from Serbia distributed in areas where Croatian Ikavian is majority speech), that doesn't make that speech as Serb speech. Kubura (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. kwami (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Some isolated groups of Croatian diaspora speak Torlak, but that doesn't make that dialect as Croatian. - that is precisely what makes it "Croatian". "Croatian" is not a valid linguistic term, but ethno-political. Josip Lisac in his series of books on Croatian dialects (Hrvatska dijalektologija) includes and extensively discusses Croatian Torlakian dialects [4]. See the title of the book itself: Hrvatski govori torla?koga narje?ja - "Croatian speeches of Torlakian dialect". You cannot just selectively include some dialects and exclude others as you see fit. The same criteria have to be applied to all of them. --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't make it Croatian! There are American Croats in USA and they speak English in their common lives, but it doesn't mean that English language is Croatian! Torlakian is Torlakian, it served as base for Serbian language developement in history, never Croatian. Existing of small groups within other ethno-cultural territories doesn't change those ethno-cultural territories. It changes small groups outside of their native environment! You, mr. I.?. are throwing dust into eyes, you want to produce complete mess from what unexisting Serbo-Croatian will arise as a phoenix. (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Croatian IS valid linguistic term. There're Croats in Belgrade that declare as Croats, that speak with the local dialect of Serbian, but that doesn't make the Shumadian dialect as a Croatian dialect. And there're Croats in Sofia and some other Bulgarian towns, originating from the Kosovo, that live there for more than century. They declare as Croats, but they speak the local dialect of Bulgarian. But that doesn't make that dialect as Croatian dialect. Kubura (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Torlakian is Croatian?

What? The Torlakian is Croatian dialect? Doncsecztalk 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the discussion above. It's spoken by Croats, which makes it Croatian along ethno-religious lines. --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Religious? Ethno? --Laveol T 12:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? The division of Slavic languages is 100% along ethnic lines, because for the most part Slavic language area forms a dialectal chain which does not match country boundaries (especially if they're ridiculously shaped like Croatia.) There are Croatian Torlakian speakers, there are credible Croatian dialectology books that discuss their speeches, I don't see what's the problem with that?! --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I was pointing to the ethno-religious line you were referring to. How exactly are Torlaks Croatians? Should they be Catholics to be Croatians along religious lines? --Laveol T 13:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
If you by Torlak mean "speakers of Torlakian dialect(s)", then yes some Torlaks are Croatian because they self-identify as such. Not many, but there are some. Croatian dialectological handbooks describe their speeches. Linguistic and ethnic/national classification are mutually orthogonal. When fitted inside a 1-D format like this temple, redundancy necessary arises. --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The Krashovani are Torlakian-speaking Croats. -- kwami (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Torlakian is Serbian dialect, no matter who speaks it. (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Only dialects spoken in Croatia or dialects that originate from Croatia can be considered as a part of the Croatian language. Torlakian does not originate from Croatia and cannot be considered as a Croatian dialect. The Krashovani in Romania identify themself as Croatians, however the majority of them originate from eastern Serbia and Bulgaria just as their Torlakian dialect. -- (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Real categorization


  • Kajkavian - Ekavian


  • ?akavian - Ikavian / Ekavian (only Croatian dialect and original one, close to Kajkavian dialects of Slovene and Croatian)
  • Kajkavian - Ekavian (Croatian variant close to Slovene & ?akavian Cro)
  • ?tokavian - Ikavian / Ijekavian (Ijekavian used for standard Croatian, although Ikavian ?tokavian uses a lot of Kaj, ?a vocabulary)


  • ?tokavian - Ekavian / Ijekavian (Ekavian used for standard Serbian)

What is important here that Serbian language has connections only to ?tokavian Croatian. If you want to invent and introduce S-C in categorization, it can work only for ?tokavian dialects of Croatian and Serbian. It can't work for ?akavian and Kajkavian Croatian, in this case you should invent Croato-Slovene language too! Categorization you use is false. (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) But if there would be Croato-Serbian nad Croato-Slovene then there should be also Serbo-Macedonian! The Serbs have used Croatian language as model for standardization in the 19th century and borrowed a lot, but the most of Serbian vocabulary remained the same and that's one share with the Macedonians. So Slovene would be S.S. and Croato-Slovene, Croatian would be S.S and Croato-Slovene & Croato-Serbian, Serbian would be S.S. and Croato-Serbian & Serbo-Macedonian, Macedonian would be S.S. & Serbo-Macedonian. LOL Completely useless but anyway it's incomparably more accurate than insisting on only some Serbo-Croatian. (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian dialectologically is used for ?akavian+Kajkavian+?tokavian. Furthermore, these three need special common together due to their historical convergence in the last 5-6 centuries. If you know of any other term used for that in English language other than Serbo-Croatian, I'm all ears. --Ivan ?tambuk (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is no unique ?tokavian dialect. Croatian ?tokavian developed from Ikavian akavian to Ikavian and Ijekavian ?tokavian. The last one was used for standard. Montenegrin Ijekavian ?tokavian and Serbian Ekavian ?tokavian are different. You hide this fact. SC is political term. (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You need WP:Reliable sources if you wish to be taken seriously. As for SC being a political term, do you have a better one? "BCS/BCMS" is unduly awkward. -- kwami (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Colleague Ivan ?tambuk nicely explained that here [5]:
"Dear Serbo-Croatian comrades,... you...having been indoctrinated by books written by ex-professors of "Serbo-Croatian languages" who graduated "Yugoslavistics", which for pure political reasons pushed the notion of "Serbo-Croatian dialects" as an alleged "genetic node" in the South Slavic branch. This notion of abundantly exploited for misappropriation of Croat-only cultural heritage, of which there are plenty of remnants in modern Serbian books (...bugarice by Molise Croats and medieval ?akavian writers like Hektorovi? as a part of "Serbian epic poetry"...)...". Kubura (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Do I have a better one? Oh God. Yes I have. And it's not mine. It's "South Slavic languages". What is your problem? If you want to invent new linguistic classifications go to academy, write your own original research, get some UDK number and your idea wil be treated as scientific work. If you want to write encyclopedia, then be an ecyclopedist. Don't invent anything. What you have made here is a circus. Now it's gone too far and you don't want to change anything. This give popflock.com resource a very bad name! (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

SS includes Bulgarian and Slovenian, and so is not as synonym. SC is a node between SS and Shtokavian. If you think I'm inventing anything, then you are apparently not familiar with the literature on the subject. Start with any linguistic encyclopedia. -- kwami (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Does it mean that Macedonian is SC too? (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Torlakian dialect is not Croatian dialect. Torlakian dialest is Bulgarian, Serbian ad Macedonian. http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/balkan_dialects_1914.jpg http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/bosnia/serbia_macedonia.jpg http://www.experiencefestival.com/torlakian_dialect_-_assimilation_of_torlaks http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Torlakian_dialect::sub::Literature http://www.bulgariagovernment.com/images/bulgaria_simeon_i_893-927.png http://forum.banjaluka.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=51863 --Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Croats speak "Croatian", even when they speak Torlakian. -- kwami (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
That is a lie. Whoever speaks Torlakian, it is Serbian dialect, which has no any relation to Croatian language! (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Torlakian is not spoken in Croatia and does not originate from Croatia. Therefor it cannot be considered as a Croatian dialect. The Krashovani in Romania identify themself as Croatians, however the majority of them (ethnically) originate from eastern Serbia and Bulgaria just as their Torlakian dialect. -- (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes