# Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian (BCS): name of language in thread titles



## sokol

Hello all!

For a while we have been considering how to refer in thread titles to the language formerly called "Serbo-Croatian" or "Croato-Serbian" and now called "Bosnian (and/or) Croatian (and/or) Montenegrin (and/or) Serbian".

So far we have left thread titles unchanged where only _one _standard variety was mentioned in the title (i. e.: "Bosnian: xxxx") and changed those where no language was given or where it later became obvious that the thread refers (in principle) to all varieties; those we changed to:

Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian: xxx

This, obviously, is a little bit clumsy; and it would be even more if we'd add Montenegrin which, since independence, is now the name of the national language of Montenegro. So even "BCS" isn't quite correct anymore as there exist four standard varieties officially.
Therefore, what do you think about changing thread titles to:
(1) *BCMS:* xxx
and in case a thread refers to one particular variety - either to:
(2a) *BCMS Bosnian:* xxx
or alternatively to:
(2b)* Bosnian (BCMS):* xxx
To combine (1) with (2a) would look more homogenuous (and it would be easier to edit out BCMS if one day we will have a "BCMS" forum).
The other option would be to combine (1) with (2b) - that is, to put the national variety first if a thread mainly refers to that one: this would put emphasis on the variety discussed.
Both options have their advantages; but whatever we choose *(if* we decide to change the language name to BCMS) - thread title style should be uniform, so it is either (1)+(2a) or (1)+(2b).
Further it would be necessary to stick to the same abbreviation - that is, *BCMS *in alphabetical order - else search results for BCMS would not show those where others (BCS, SCB, CMSB, SCMB, etc.) were used in the title: we could leave it then as well as it is (that is, with one, two, three or four language names in thread titles).

The point of this of course is that even if a thread about a particular word or feature prevalent in Bosnia still might be relevant for other BCMS varieties - and certainly would be relevant for BCMS in general.

Obvious *advantages *of this solution would be:
- a search result for a phrase in BCMS would show results with *all *varieties; as it is now search results many times are pretty random
- it would be much more convenient to have a short name for this language written in four national varieties
- also this would be an improvement especially for learners of BCMS who may not know to which variety in particular their question refers to

Please discuss now, and many thanks in advance.
Your Slavic forum moderator team is eager to get your feedback. 


PS:
- This thread concerns both native speakers and learners; so a reminder for native speakers: please try to keep a learner's perspective on that issue in mind. 
- This thread is not about wether it is good or not to abandon the term "Serbo-Croatian" and "Croato-Serbian": that's an issue already decided by recent history. What the thread _is _about is an alternative to putting three (four) language names in thread titles.


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> Hello all!
> as there exist four standard varieties officially.


 
As far as I know, not yet.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> As far as I know, not yet.


Well yes, Montenengrin and Serbian standard language still are the same as Serbian exists in two varieties - Ijekavian and Ekavian while in Montenegro only the Ijekavian one is the official one, as far as I know. (Probably in some regions Ekavian also is official - but you would know more about that than I do.)

But to leave no misunderstandings here: this is *not *about new tendencies to create a new Montenegrin standard language which differs from Serbian standard language (so this is not about the language described in this Wiki article).

What my post above refers to with "Montenegrin" is what the official language used in Montenegro is _called_, by constitution, which once was _Srpski jezik ijekavskoga nariječa _but was changed to _Crnogorski jezik_ with independence even though the language concerned did not change at all (so far): only the name was changed, of course.

This site still mentions the old term of Serbian in ijekavian variety (even though it also already mentions Montenegrin) but it relies on the constitution of 1992 (as does the Wiki article in BCMS).

English Wiki however already mentions that with independence in 2007 the official name was changed to Montenegrin; as does German Wiki.

While it is clear that this is controversely discussed in Montenegro itself this is not the point here; therefore I didn't go into much detail about this in my post above.
Because the point here is if we should change the name of a language for internal use in this forum to something like BCMS or not.


----------



## phosphore

Fine for me. Shame for such a ridiculous name is on us.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> Fine for me. Shame for such a ridiculous name is on us.


So you are in favour or against changing the language name to BCMS in the thread title?
Because this is exactly why we moderators set up this thread.

As explained, this ("BCMS" = name of language) - if adopted - only would be obligatory in the thread title to make search for threads easier.

We'd like to have feedback from our Slavic foreros before we administer a change.


----------



## natasha2000

Well, aa far as I know, the language teachers in Montenegro do not teach Montenegrin language, but "mother tongue"...

This issue is very sensible one, and it is a shame everyone wants to have different name for the same language, but then... It is their right.

On the other hand, if you want to apply the abreviation, why not by years of existance? Obviously, Serbian and Croat where the first languages that exisisted, and they are some tens centuries old, which is not the case with so called Bosnian and Montenegrin... Why not according to the order of appearance? SCBM?

On the other hand, there is always a possibility that some word is especially a part of only one dialect, so it cannot be applied to other three dialects... And if someone searches only the words in Bosnian for example, and gets all threads with all other variants... Again, he did not achieve what he wanted...

I don't know. Whatever you chose, it will not be 100 % satisfactory, so if you ask me, go ahead and implement whatever you think the best. I am sure whatever you do, there will always be someone who would complain...


----------



## phosphore

Well, just like I said, it works fine for me (maybe this expression does not really exist?), so I'm in favour of it.

Speaking of options, I think the best solution would be something like "BCMS/Serbian" or "Serbian (BCMS)" or I don't know, but not only "BCMS", it is kind of ridiculous.


----------



## phosphore

natasha2000 said:


> whatever you do, there will always be someone who would complain...


 
Well, that is true, but that is just about us.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Here's my proposal:

*BCMS* (in any order) for general threads that apply to all four languages. For instance, the question "How does one form the future tense in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian?" would be titled "BCMS: future tense", because the future tense is formed the same way in all four languages.

*Serbian (BCMS), Bosnian (BCMS), etc.* for threads that apply to all four languages, but are based on a quotation from one of the languages or a specifically Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Montenegrin context. For instance, this would be apply in the case of a question about the use of a word in a Serbian newspaper, if the use also happens to be relevant to Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin (as it usually does).

Just *Serbian, Croatian*, *etc.* for any thread that applies to just one of the four languages. For instance, a thread asking for the definition of the month of "kolovoz" would simply be titled "Croatian", because there wouldn't be any need to mention the other three.

I suppose my proposal is a bit complicated, however.


----------



## natasha2000

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Here's my proposal:
> 
> *BCMS* (in any order) for general threads that apply to all four languages. For instance, the question "How does one form the future tense in Bosnian?" would be titled "BCMS: future tense", because the future tense is formed the same way in all four languages.
> 
> *Serbian (BCMS), Bosnian (BCMS), etc.* for threads that apply to all four languages, but are based on a quotation from one of the languages or a specifically Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or Montenegrin context. For instance, this would be apply in the case of a question about the use of a word in a Serbian newspaper if the use also happens to be relevant to Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin (as it usually does).
> 
> Just *Serbian, Croatian*, *etc.* for any thread that applies to just one of the four languages. For instance, a thread asking for the definition of the month of "kolovoz" would be simply be titled "Croatian", because there wouldn't be any need to mention the other three.
> 
> I suppose my proposal is a bit complicated, however.



Very nice, but moderators are looking for some system to make their life easier, not more complicated...


BTW, future tense is not the same in Croatian and Bosnian and Serbian. As far as I know, it is something like this:

Serbijan: biću, bićeš, biće...
Croatian: biti ću, biti ćeš, biti će...
Bosnian: something like Croatian, I think...

Just put the abbreviation. As I already said, there will always be someone who will complain. So, do it in your way, in a way that it makes your job easier...


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

natasha2000 said:


> Very nice, but moderators are looking for some system to make their life easier, not more complicated...
> 
> 
> BTW, future tense is not the same in Croatian and Bosnian and Serbian. As far as I know, it is something like this:
> 
> Serbijan: biću, bićeš, biće...
> Croatian: biti ću, biti ćeš, biti će...
> Bosnian: something like Croatian, I think...


 
You're right; my mistake. Of course, this also proves why my system wouldn't work in practice.


----------



## phosphore

natasha2000 said:


> Croatian: biti ću, biti ćeš, biti će...


 
Actually, I think it is: _bit ću, bit ćeš, bit će_

But it does not really matter here.


----------



## natasha2000

phosphore said:


> Actually, I think it is: _bit ću, bit ćeš, bit će_
> 
> But it does not really matter here.




Very possible, but then again, maybe this is Bosnian way...? Whatever.....


----------



## Jana337

I would like to add that we do not necessarily intend to make our (moderator) lives easier.  Rather, we are concerned about users and their ability to benefit from the search engine. We cannot expect brand new users to be familiar with our conventions, whichever we stick to, but it should be possible for an initiated member to find quickly and easily what he or she needs. So we basically need to find a clear and coherent operational criterion and to do away with randomness...

Thanks for your input so far.


----------



## dudasd

Although I myself prefer to use Serbo-Croatian (and Croato-Serbian), I simply must vote in favor of BCMS in this case, because it, by my opinion, expresses both the differences and the unity of those languages, and simplifies things for foreign users as well. (That is, if I understood well that we can put specifications like "Serbian", "Bosnian" etc. in titles if it's about that specific language/dialect/whatever you like to call it.) So far, the formal name, as you can hear it in Western media at least, is BSC, but adding M to it is really a fair gesture, and I think it will lead to a peaceful and cooperative environment, instead of political debates.

So, you have my vote, Jana and Sokol!


----------



## Duya

I can't help that the abbreviation "BCMS" reminds me to "BDSM"... Just my dirty mind, I suppose...


----------



## sokol

I'd like to say that personally I wouldn't object at all against BCS (which is already used); but as Montenegrin recently has been added to the canon of official standard language varieties I think BCMS would only be fair: we want to be as impartial as possible, you know. 
The advantage of alphabetical order clearly would be that (hopefully) no dispute will arise about which one stands in first place.
And the problem with Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian of course is that some members might object against their thread being re-named by us moderators to one of those: so they're no options anymore.

But as natasha2000 has put it - whatever we choose, it will be all but impossible to satisfy everyone.

As far as relevance is concerned my opinion is that all varieties might be relevant for any variety. Please try to see it from a learner's perspective: it is often difficult to tell if a word is Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Montenegrin.
For example I was taught once that "(h)iljada" were exclusively Serbian and mustn't be used if you want to speak Croatian, and if you prefer to be treated friendly by Croatians. Here on this forum I learnt that this is not so: "(h)iljada" indeed is acceptable in Croatian speech.

The thread dealing with this even is titled "Croatian: ...".
Now if a newbie would search for "Serbian - hiljada" he wouldn't even find that thread which could be very useful indeed.

This is the reasoning behind all this: BCMS (or whatever we call it) still is one language in four varieties (and many more dialects) - even though those are four different national languages also they all are related, somehow, even in those cases where they are distinctly different.

This applies even for the Croatian names of months which are Slavic in origin: because they might also be used by Croats in Bosnia (probably also Muslims - I wouldn't know), and because the international names of months also are used in Croatia even though the Croatian names are preferred.


----------



## el_tigre

natasha2000 said:


> Well, aa far as I know, the language teachers in Montenegro do not teach Montenegrin language, but "mother tongue"...



Yes, as a matter of fact only about 25% people of Montenegro call their language "Montenegrin" although cca 60% of population declares themself as Montengrins by nationality




natasha2000 said:


> On the other hand, if you want to apply the abreviation, why not by years of existance? Obviously, Serbian and Croat where the first languages that exisisted, and they are some tens centuries old, which is not the case with so called Bosnian and Montenegrin... Why not according to the order of appearance? SCBM?



BCMS is in alphabetical order.And to me is  fine as such. Criteria  about "oldness of language" is very disputable.

Summa summarum, I see no reason for insisting on usage any acronyms (BCMS, CBMS, SCMB,MBCS -whichever)

Existing practice is OK to me.


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

Well, as most of you know - Herr and Paní Moderators for sure do - I don't speak or study any of these language, but I usually follow the main discussion in Other languages forum even after Czech was split. 

As I see it, this discussion actually is part of three forums - Comment and sugestion, Cultural,  and Slavic. 

For the first part (Comment and sugestion), the technical one, I really admit that it is a relevant matter. I myself would know how to properly search for some information about the languages in discussion. Perhaps that TAG system could be applied to this group of languages. 

However, this technical issue is really linked to the cultural and linguistic matter. On one hand we are concerned to not consider all these three/four languages the same things, but on the other hand we really put them together. But discussions about if they are the different languages, dialects etc are endless - but I guess that at least the Montenegrinin case could be discussed (perhaps in another thread). 
"BCMS" is a practial way - although it is not very nice to "reduce" name of languages to single letters, and very recently someone asked here what BCS standed for. The chronilogical order, as Natasha2000 suggested, is interesting, but it is more neutral so less likely to be accepted. 

I guess that _BCMS_ for all languages or at least two is good. And _Language (BCMS)_ is all other cases, with the language mentioned first always. 

Another important matter - since the Forum is part of the dictionary - and if one day one of this language will have a dictionary here (I don't know if exisists a plan in the backstage) it is also to be concerned.

By the way, if *Montegrinin* is to be added, it must be in "_Other Slavic Languages_" specifications. 

Good bye.:


----------



## sokol

Yes, Tagarela is right - we haven't added "Montenegrin" to the names of "Other Slavic Languages" forum, yet.

And it *is *true that newbies won't know what BCS or BCMS or whatever stands for. This is a problem, we know that (we will have to change most if not all titles concerning Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian - if we move to BCMS).
If Jana and I had been convinced that such a change should be done we needn't have asked you. 
Thank you all for your input so far, and I hope there's more to come.


----------



## musicalchef

1 + 2b looks the neatest.

It would be especially helpful for searching, if the BCMS was always there in the thread title.  When I first joined the forum, I searched all the past Bosnian threads and of course missed some important discussions because they were under threads labeled "Croatian" or "Serbian," so I eventually had to search each of those individually as well.

Hvala, mods, for all your work in making things more convenient for us!


----------



## sokol

musicalchef said:


> It would be especially helpful for searching, if the BCMS was always there in the thread title.  When I first joined the forum, I searched all the past Bosnian threads and of course missed some important discussions because they were under threads labeled "Croatian" or "Serbian," so I eventually had to search each of those individually as well.


Yes, musicalchef - this of course would be the most obvious advantage of a change.
Or probably the only one - as we seem to agree that most would prefer to have a particular, a 'real' language name in the thread title.

Nevertheless, a huge advantage. So please continue discussion.


----------



## WannaBeMe

I think we should stay at the old and for new members the best known determination Serbo-Croatian but if someone will point one of them out, no problem, he writes then Serbian or Bosnian or Croatian or whatever. I hope in futur it wont be called Bosnian-BosnianSerbian-SerbianSerbian-Datlmatinian-Herzegovinian-Torlak-Vojvodinian-Slavonian-Montenegrin or similar (BBSSSDHTVSm) Hehe
Because we should not mess the politic here like we have never done it before, but we should make it easier and understandable for all users. Besides, Serbo-Croatian is the most used therm in Europe and in the World.


----------



## sokol

WannaBeMe said:


> Because we should not mess the politic here like we have never done it before, but we should make it easier and understandable for all users. Besides, Serbo-Croatian is the most used therm in Europe and in the World.


Several threads in this forum have "Serbo-Croatian" in its title but none has Croato-Serbian: we didn't change those so far, if it was put into the title, and I see no reason why we should do in future.

The problem only is that I can imagine some foreros would object against having put "Serbo-Croatian" into the title, as explained above (that is, to change e. g. "Bosnian" to "Serbo-Croatian"*)): therefore it seems to be clear that to use "Serbo-Croatian" as the *only *(and unified) name of language for practical purposes no longer is an option.
(Except if native speakers convince me of the contrary. )
*) Some might not object - but some _might_.

So it is of course allowed to put "Serbo-Croatian" in the title (we only edit language names in the title if it is misleading or wrong, or missing at all) but this still would not make forum search easier - it would mean leaving everything as it is, that is titles may show any name of language (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian, Serbo-Croatian, Croato-Serbian or a combination of those).
(And of course it still would be allowed to write "Serbo-Croatian" in the title if we change to the new system, that is:
- BCMS Serbo-Croatian: xxx (or)
- Serbo-Croatian (BCMS): xxx)

Our suggestion of (also) mentioning the acronym strictly has practical purposes. 

(As for the number of varieties I think we have reached the possible maximum of four national languages - there won't be more, surely. )


But this gives me another idea: what about if the acronym BCMS always would be accompanied by a particular national language (whatever the forero chooses)? That is, either:
(1) BCMS Bosnian (or)
(2) Bosnian (BCMS)
(again both varieties.)
Or probably:
(2a) Bosnian BCMS: xxx
without parentesis.

Only problem then would be if the post opener didn't name any national variety - we could then put in BCMS plus given native language of the forero concerned, or BCMS alone if it isn't a native speaker (and wait for clarification in the thread).
How about that?


----------



## phosphore

sokol said:


> therefore it seems to be clear that to use "Serbo-Croatian" as the *only *(and unified) name of language for practical purposes no longer is an option.


 
That's right, the term Serbo-Croat(ian) is no longer in use, at least not by younger philologists. For real, the standard language in the basis of all three new standards is Serbian, in Croatian, Bosnian, or Montenegrin redaction. Croatian is nowadays in a way different (and it seems like their linguists are still working on it) from Serbian and it can sometimes be even not intelligible in slang, but Bosnian and Montenegrin are some half the way from Serbian to Croation and there is no real difference and no dififculties at all to understand and to be understood.

So, my point is that the name of language should be Serbian, but since it could be not accepted by Bosnians, Croats or Montenegrin (it would be widely not accepted), the best possible solution is adding BCMS to all titles. Simple as that.


----------



## Duya

"Language Formerly Known as Serbo-Croatian" (LFKaSC)


----------



## sokol

Duya said:


> "Language Formerly Known as Serbo-Croatian" (LFKaSC)


Nice try, but in that case it should be:

"Language Formerly Known as Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian" (LFKaSCoCS)

which seems just that tiny little bit too clumsy to be practical.
It would be hell for us moderators to put this in all thread titles. 


But in all earnest: we have some opinions in favour of BCMS, some who are willing to accept it, and some against.
Of course we would appreciate an 'unanimous vote', and of course we won't get one. 
Till we decide what to do we still would like to hear more opinions.


----------



## WannaBeMe

I´ve got a good idea. Lets call it YUGO since it was the mainlanguage of Yugoslavia. It sounds better to me then BCMS or SMCB or all other variations of that. And people would make no misstakes about it and it is more simple to remember and I think that nobody would be offence with this therm.


----------



## Jana337

WannaBeMe said:


> I´ve got a good idea. Lets call it YUGO since it was the mainlanguage of Yugoslavia. It sounds better to me then BCMS or SMCB or all other variations of that. And people would make no misstakes about it and it is more simple to remember and I think that nobody would be offence with this therm.


 This is a terrific idea, albeit in a crazy (no offence intended ) package. Some variation on Western Slavic would work. But not "Western Slavic -Slovenian".


----------



## Sane Helle

As a non native and student of the language(s), I support the use of BCMS. It is comprehensive and more or less neutral (alphabetical order).
And indeed, when the question focuses on one specific language, it should also be included in the thread title. All in all, I agree with the moderators.

As for the term "Yugo"... weren't Slovenia and Macedonia also part of Yugoslavia? I'm sure that calling BCMS "yugo" could start an endless debate, and that's not what we want, is it?


----------



## WannaBeMe

Sane Helle said:


> As a non native and student of the language(s), I support the use of BCMS. It is comprehensive and more or less neutral (alphabetical order).
> And indeed, when the question focuses on one specific language, it should also be included in the thread title. All in all, I agree with the moderators.
> 
> As for the term "Yugo"... weren't Slovenia and Macedonia also part of Yugoslavia? I'm sure that calling BCMS "yugo" could start an endless debate, and that's not what we want, is it?


 
Well, as you said MORE OR LESS neutral. Why should I accept that my language has the last place in this therm. Sorry but we, Yugos, are just so. It was before also this way as the therm Serbo-Croatian was changed to Croato-Serbian (whithout offence, it was just an example). Besides I dont think that brothers Slovens and Makedenians would have anything against that, please leave your sugestions other Yugos


----------



## Sane Helle

BCMS is now widely used and accepted. I understand your concern about the order, and that's why I said "more or less", although I do believe you can't find more neutral than the alphabetical order.
I gave my opinion as a learner of the 4 varieties. As long as the 4 standards are in the name, no one is left out, and that's what counts here. Plus one could argue that the last position is the best. But that's another story.

Moreover, the term "yugo" is reminiscent of your former country, and it used to refer to the people, not the language, as it could not include slovenian and macedonian, which are southern slavic languages as well. It might just be linguistics, but on a language forum, I think being coherent is essential. That's why I would go for the academic term, which is BCMS (so far, it might yet change of course).


----------



## phosphore

This is off topic, but are you, Sane Helle, really studying Serbian? It really surprises me (in a positive way, of course), I did not know it was even possible.

Back to topic, I agree that we can't find anything more neutral than the alphabetical order.


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

*Yugo*? Do you, who live in these countries, like this term?  I thought that something like Yugo, Yugoslav etc would be offensive, I imagined that if I call a Croatian or a Bosnian *Yugo* I would had a not very kind reply. 

As for the BCMS or whatever, Serbians could also claim to have it in cyrillic alphabet . 

Sane Helle and other learnes of the language(s), how is it usually taught? As Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian...or as unique-standard language and when you have a good basis teachers and textbooks encourage leaners to learn the idiossincracies?


Good bye.:


----------



## texpert

Tagarela said:


> Hi,
> 
> *Yugo*? Do you, who live in these countries, like this term? I thought that something like Yugo, Yugoslav etc would be offensive, I imagined that if I call a Croatian or a Bosnian *Yugo* I would had a not very kind reply.


 
I do believe that many Serbs in Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and Republika Srpska in Bosnia - and possibly other places where the _Yugo-nostalgia_ still thrives - would actually feel flattered if the _*Yugo *_label had passed the authorisation. As the Serbian writer Dragan Velikic has once put it, "Yugoslavia carries on in my head as the land where I can travel freely without visa requirements." 

*But going back on topic - how do you people suggest that the non-native speakers and learners call your multiply single language in other threads? *So far I assumed I was speaking some basic version of _Serbian_, mainly because of acquiring it on the Bosnian Serb territory. One way or another, I became attached to the name although I recall vividly how my collegaues and I had swapped it readily for _Bosnian_ in Kosovo (where it was deemed mostly harmless while _Serbian_ could put one's life in danger) or how we eagerly agreed to the notion that one identical love song heard throughout Balkans could indeed be _Croatian national_ in Hercegovina. To cut the long story short, should anyone with limited experience with _Serbian _*feel encouraged to carry on calling it Serbian in other threads*, for practical reasons as much as pleasure, or is he *actually expected to adopt your abbreviation? *


----------



## WannaBeMe

Tagarela said:


> Hi,
> 
> *Yugo*? Do you, who live in these countries, like this term? I thought that something like Yugo, Yugoslav etc would be offensive, I imagined that if I call a Croatian or a Bosnian *Yugo* I would had a not very kind reply.
> 
> As for the BCMS or whatever, Serbians could also claim to have it in cyrillic alphabet .
> 
> Sane Helle and other learnes of the language(s), how is it usually taught? As Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian...or as unique-standard language and when you have a good basis teachers and textbooks encourage leaners to learn the idiossincracies?
> 
> 
> Good bye.:


 
I, as a Serb, dont feel offended if somebody calls me Yugo. It´s only abbrevation for Yugoslav what would mean South-Slav. And I am proud of my Serbian language an my Slavic mind and soul (like Njegoš says) so why should I feel offendeed if somebody calls me that way?
Actualy this therm is used only outside of Balkan becouse barely someone in Germany, for example, knows what the situation on Balkan is like. If I say I come from Bosnia and then I say I am an orthodox Serb, they all wander what the hell a Serb is doing in Bosnia; and if I say then that I am born in Zagreb they are all totaly confused. Or if I say Bosnia, they "Oh my God, where is that??? Perhaps in Latin America" but if I say Yugoslavia they all say something like "Oh why dont you say..." so I thought, this therm would be funny, non offensive and neutral. 

And I know that I cant patent my own language like Swiss did with its Cheese, but I will never accept Bosnian or Monteneg...( I cant even spell it) language just because some of them hate all what contains the word -serb- in it. 
When Americans start to speak American and not English, Australiers Australian and not English, Kanadians Kanadian and not English and France, Austrians Austrian and not German, Argentinians Argentinian and not Spain , then I will accept Bosnian and Monte...something. 
So I would call it Serbian like it did the most famous Montenegrinan poet and ruler Njegoš 200 Years ago but I will make a secrifice  and agree with a name that is easier for people who are not native speaker of this whatever called language. 
I have proposed the therm JUGO or YUGO because everybody could recognize it and because it is so obvious and not because I am an nostalgic comunist or whatever.

I would have some other ideas how to call this whatever-language:
SSS (Stokavian South-Slavic) or YUS ( Yugoslavian Stokavian) or WSSS (Western South-Slavic-Stokavian) you just have to be creative 

But I can also agree with BCMS; if youall like it, I have no problems with it. 

Have a nice day!


----------



## Sane Helle

phosphore said:


> This is off topic, but are you, Sane Helle, really studying Serbian? It really surprises me (in a positive way, of course), I did not know it was even possible.



Yes, I really am studying Serbian, along with Croatian and Bosnian. Regarding Montenegrin, the situation is not completely clear yet, as the standard is still in the process of being decided by linguists.



Tagarela said:


> Sane Helle and other learnes of the language(s), how is it usually taught? As Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian...or as unique-standard language and when you have a good basis teachers and textbooks encourage leaners to learn the idiossincracies?



I can only speak for myself and my university. I study BCMS at La Sorbonne in Paris, and admittedly it must be one of the smallest (if not the smallest) language departments in the uni.
They really insist on the plurality of the languages/dialects they teach, as well as on the common grammatical system, and we have native teachers from Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia, making it possible for us to hear the different standards. What we are taught linguistically speaking is štokavian ekavian and ijekavian. Each of us can decide on which standard we want to actively use, but we are expected to know all of them.


----------



## sokol

Thanks for the lively discussion  - to straighten this out:

- There was a political battle about the name of this language in old Yougoslavia. *Serbo-Croatian* was the older term (before that others existed, noticeably Illyrian - used mainly but not only by Croats - and Serbian in the 19th century).
*Croato-Serbian* emerged as a result (used mainly by Croats), and the official name was something like Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian (srpskohrvatski ili hrvatskosrpski jezik - both in Cyrillic and Latin script).
Both Serbo-Croatian and Croato-Serbian are disqualified for modern use because they aren't acceptable for all native speakers.
Further, this probably makes clear why _"being in first position"_ is so important to many native speakers. The more important it is to find a "neutral" name, and a "neutral" order - thus the alphabetical suggestion.

- Since independence of all the states emerging from old Yougoslavia the use of *Bosnian, Croatian* and *Serbian *(and recently, Montenegrin) has increased; also learners use either of this name or courses for this language include the individual names - currently, Austrian universities offer courses for "Bosnisch/Kroatisch/Serbisch", with Montenegrin not included (yet).
I fear there is no way back to any other name of the language: still this language is to be considered *a pluricentric language in three (four) national varieties,* but we do not have a common name for it, accepted by all speakers of this language(s).
The situation unfortunately is not as relaxed as in other speech communities (English, Spanish, German etc.) where it is possible to use a common name for all those varieties without "risk".
As for *Montenegrin,* for now this is identical to Serbian in ijekavian variety (while mainland Serbian is ekavian) - so it is clearly different from mainland Serbian but not really different from Bosnian Serbian. Most learners don't realise nowadays that Serbian still exists in two varieties (ijekavian and ekavian): so I wanted to explain this to make clear that no additional variety has been added (so far) - but only an additional name.
Montenegrin independence is young and it remains to be seen if Montenegrin language will ever go its own way and branch off from Serbian, but this is not really the point here; the name exists, and the name is official.

- The suggestion *Yugo,* I fear, also is not a possible option. I don't think that Slovenians and Macedonians would object but I fear that quite some native speakers of BCMS would (except for Serbians, I'd say).
I sympathise, WannaBeMe, and I would welcome Yugo as a name for the language if native speakers from all four nations are willing to accept it; but the latter is the point - I think they won't.

- The suggestion *Shtokavian *(Štokavian, or SSL Shtokavian Standard Language or whatever) is an interesting idea; native speakers would know its meaning and none could object against it as all four national varieties are Shtokavian, but there are still some problems:
-> If we change thread titles to Shtokavian I fear that threads titled "Croatian: Čakavian/Kajkavian" or similar might appear, probably even written in those dialects. While it is of course okay to discuss dialects discussions should be in standard language - especially for the benefit of learners.
-> Further, Shtokavian as name of language in the title might be misinterpreted as "Shtokavian dialects" (a particular dialect, that is) while the thread is about standard language.
So again I see problems with this choice.

In *Cyrillic *alphabet, by the way, it would be ridiculous to use the English akronym - БКМС = BCMS is not an option; in Cyrillic it would have to be an akronym of the native names (Bošnjački/Crnogorski/Hrvatski/Srpski) = БСХЦ = BCMS (this time with Serbian in second and Croatian in third position). So we could adopt *BCMS/БСХЦ  or БСХЦ/BCMS* - problem: usually international names are put in titles, which is only for convenience, and also still one variety would have to be in _first _place, either Latin or Cyrillic.
(The native names in alphabetical Latin order - BCHS - still would put Serbian at the end. But we also could use Latin script, Cyrillic order of the native acronym = *BSHC *- if this is more acceptable for both Croatians and Serbians it's fine with me. We should however choose one - and not two. Else the advantage of the acronym again would be lost.

(And on a sidenote, *Sane Helle,* nice to hear that teachers still insist in university courses that the language still is one language in three varieties. That's also what my teachers said (also a Croatian one very much insisted on this!); also my teachers put very much emphasis on not mixing the varieties - and told us learners to choose one variety and stick to it, for homeworks and tests. How else could they measure our progress? Some things which are false in Croatian are correct in Serbian, and vice versa.)

----------

To choose a name or an akronym used for all four varieties would be a huge help for learners: the advantages are obvious.
Also it would be easier to refer to the language - as it is now you will have to choose one variety if you talk about the language, e. g. you say that in Croatian has aorist and imperfect - but you really mean all varieties, same as when you say that Serbian has no article.
It would be great to have a generic name for all varieties for those to use who prefer not to put one variety forward.

However, if native speakers are *not happy* with this solution I am strictly *against *changing to BCMS - for a simple reason: we do not want forerors been put off by an offending name (offending for whatever reason), and we do not want political debates here. 

I summarise - we could:
- leave it as it is (this of course _still _is an option!) or:
- change to BCMS:
_Bosnian BCMS: xxx_
*Or,* if the thread opener didn't give a language name, the language given as native language of this forero if he or she is a native speaker of BCMS.
*Or,* if no language name was given and the thread opener is no native speaker, simply the akronym (and later edit in a language name if a particular variety is given in the thread):
_BCMS: xxx_
(I think opinions so far are clearly for putting the acronym after the national language.)

So far I see no real alternatives. Except (probably?) BSHC.


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

O God! We should call Durão Barroso, Obama, that Korean leader of ONU, Lula and former Yugoslavia leaders here to solve this! 

Although I myself have mentioned the cyrillic option, perhaps it is not the best. I mean, if it was to be used, the whole Word Reference should follow this pattern, once I have suggested it - that, for example, Portuguese forum name should be "Português/Portuguese" etc. 

If Serbians aren't really against it - because, as Sokol said,  their opinion must be respected - I vote in_ Language (BCMS)_ pattern, with the language always mentioned first...expect in the case in which the group of language is real the goal and then only _BCMS _would be mentioned.  

I guess that we must keep four important points in mind:

1) How it sounds for native speakers
2) How it is going to help (or unhelp) moderators job
3) How it sounds for learners
4) How it is going to work for new members. 

The order of the acronym, as I see it, only says about 1) - they, the native, have the last word on it. But for sure, I don't expect that we have an unanimous vote here... we can only count on the majority - if there will be any. 

And after we have a decision, perhaps it would be nice to have a fixed thread (at least for a while), explaning all the discussion - with a brief of the former Yugoslavia's language(s) and so on. 

Sane Helle, merci! I'm wondering if one of your teachers is the same that taught Juliette Binochet in _Breaking and entering_. 

Good bye.:


----------



## phosphore

I personally like better "Bosnian (BCMS): rahmetli" or "Serbian (BCMS): Hristos se rodi" and so on, than "Bosnian BCMS: rahmetli" etc. But it is not really important.


----------



## sokol

phosphore said:


> I personally like better "Bosnian (BCMS): rahmetli" or "Serbian (BCMS): Hristos se rodi" and so on, than "Bosnian BCMS: rahmetli" etc. But it is not really important.


Why, it *is.*

It would emphasise that this abbreviation only were an "auxiliary device" for practical purposes, that is: it would de-emphasise the importance of it.
And as we already have established, more or less, that quite some native speakers don't like the acronym it would probably help making it more acceptable.

If this were the case - why not, put it between parentheses.


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,

Parentesis have my vote!  (if it is to be voted).

Good bye.:


----------



## Sane Helle

I'm in favour of the brackets too.


----------



## trance0

I would prefer something better than BCMS, because I think it is ridiculous to invent a new language every time some state gains independence. I still consider all varieties of "ex Serbo-Croatian" to be one language. But since this is politically(much more than linguistically) a complex matter, it is impossible to deal with it rationally. I believe our Croatian neighbours would have the hardest time excepting any variaty that wouldn`t have Croatian in the name of the language. I would prefer either the newly coined "Yugo" or simply the good old "Croato-Serbian or Serbo-Croatian".


----------



## Tagarela

Hi,
_
Staff_, has anything been decided? 

Good bye.:


----------



## sokol

Hello all,

thank you all for the discussion so far: your feedback was very much appreciated and gave quite some valuable insights.

As we haven't received an unanimous vote for BCMS but support for a 'simplified' name for the languages concerned we have decided that BCS should be put into titles:

Bosnian: Forever and ever
-> *Bosnian (BCS):* Forever and ever

The term BCS is already well established - while BCMS only is used by a few institutions and universities.
Thus we think BCS should be acceptable for all native speakers.

Of course we are aware of the fact that this isn't a perfect solution - but it is the best we can think of for the time being.

An announcement concerning this will follow soon.
This thread we will leave open for further discussion.

We hope that this is a compromise acceptable for all of you, both native speakers and learners of BCS.
Thank you for your understanding, and let's hope that this change is beneficial for all of us.

Your Slavic languages moderator team.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> As we haven't received an unanimous vote for BCMS but support for a 'simplified' name for the languages concerned we have decided that BCS should be put into titles:
> 
> Bosnian: Forever and ever
> -> *Bosnian (BCS):* Forever and ever
> 
> The term BCS is already well established - while BCMS only is used by a few institutions and universities.
> Thus we think BCS should be acceptable for all native speakers.
> 
> Of course we are aware of the fact that this isn't a perfect solution - but it is the best we can think of for the time being.
> 
> An announcement concerning this will follow soon.
> This thread we will leave open for further discussion.
> 
> We hope that this is a compromise acceptable for all of you, both native speakers and learners of BCS.
> Thank you for your understanding, and let's hope that this change is beneficial for all of us.



I was away with limited internet access for the last few weeks, so I couldn't participate in this discussion, but nevertheless, I'd like to add that I support this decision. "BCS" is, in my opinion, by far the best available option.


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> "BCS" is, in my opinion, by far the best available option.


Thank you for confirmation, Athaulf, much appreciated.


----------



## Cuius

natasha2000 said:


> Well, aa far as I know, the language teachers in Montenegro do not teach Montenegrin language, but "mother tongue"...
> 
> This issue is very sensible one, and it is a shame everyone wants to have different name for the same language, but then... It is their right.
> 
> On the other hand, if you want to apply the abreviation, why not by years of existance? Obviously, Serbian and Croat where the first languages that exisisted, and they are some tens centuries old, which is not the case with so called Bosnian and Montenegrin... Why not according to the order of appearance? SCBM?
> 
> On the other hand, there is always a possibility that some word is especially a part of only one dialect, so it cannot be applied to other three dialects... And if someone searches only the words in Bosnian for example, and gets all threads with all other variants... Again, he did not achieve what he wanted...
> 
> I don't know. Whatever you chose, it will not be 100 % satisfactory, so if you ask me, go ahead and implement whatever you think the best. I am sure whatever you do, there will always be someone who would complain...




Yeah, Bosnian is almost 1000 years old, what a new language.


----------



## WannaBeMe

Cuius said:


> Yeah, Bosnian is almost 1000 years old, what a new language.


Ok I will believe you if you can name me or show me some old document in which it has been proved or nemed.
As far I now there has been a state of Bosnia and their kings and bans called their language Serbian or eventualy Croatian and the script was called "srpscia" but in 20 ct. it has become the name Bosančica. I base my state by the "Povelja bana bosanskoga Mateja Ninoslava Kotromanića" from the year 1232-35 and "Povelja bana bosnaskoga Stefana Kotromanića" from 1333.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/9/97/Matej_ninoslav.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Charterofstjepan.GIF


----------



## sokol

Guys, there's no point talking about individual Slavic languages in the year of 1.009 AD - at this time the Slavic unity only just began developping into separate Slavic languages. 

Political units now, that's a different matter - for a different forum, as this is a language forum.


----------



## WannaBeMe

sokol said:


> Guys, there's no point talking about individual Slavic languages in the year of 1.009 AD - at this time the Slavic unity only just began developping into separate Slavic languages.
> 
> Political units now, that's a different matter - for a different forum, as this is a language forum.


Absolutely right Sokol, but I dont see any politics here, only the historical facts about existing or not existing of a language, thats all.
But thanks for concerning anyway


----------



## sokol

WannaBeMe said:


> Absolutely right Sokol, but I dont see any politics here, only the historical facts about existing or not existing of a language, thats all.
> But thanks for concerning anyway


Yes, right  - the political context I mentioned because this is obviously what Cuius *should *have referred to, but then *should not* as politics really is off-topic here.


----------



## Cuius

WannaBeMe said:


> Ok I will believe you if you can name me or show me some old document in which it has been proved or nemed.
> As far I now there has been a state of Bosnia and their kings and bans called their language Serbian or eventualy Croatian and the script was called "srpscia" but in 20 ct. it has become the name Bosančica. I base my state by the "Povelja bana bosanskoga Mateja Ninoslava Kotromanića" from the year 1232-35 and "Povelja bana bosnaskoga Stefana Kotromanića" from 1333.
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/9/97/Matej_ninoslav.JPG
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Charterofstjepan.GIF



I wasn't referring to politics and I'm happy this point has been pointed out by WanaBe 

First of all, we don't have any originals of the "Povelja bana bosanskoga Stefana Kotromanića", which were 4, and all we have today is a copy of a writer from Dubrovnik. 

Here goes the charter:



> Priziraje blagovoljenje sviditelj’ i mnogo porabotanje o baštine i vlastela i ljudje Dubrovaèci i našijem praroditeljem i nama vele mnogo,i hote odsele porabotati sa Božjem hotijenjem…Zato mi,gospodin Ban Stefan,i moji sinove i unuèje i dokoli sime moje bude,do vijeka vjekoma,dasmo i darovasmo u baštinu i u plemenito ljudem Dubrovaèkijem,a našijem drazijem prijateljem:Vas Rat i Ston i Prevlaku,i otoke koji su okolo Rata,i sa svijem što se nahodi unutra…i gore i polja,dubrave,lijes,trave,vode,sela,i vse što je od Prevlake do Lojišta;i sudcbo i globe i krvi u miru,da budu njih’ volju,da imaju i drže i da èine vsu svoju volju i hotijenje kako od svoje baštine – do vijeka vjekoma…
> (...)
> Literatura:
> M.Dizdar,Antologija Starih Bosanskih Tekstova,Alef,1997


*Mod note: quotes must not be longer than four sentences.

* Only in the last passage the copier reffers to the cyrillic alphabet with srpsci (I hope you won't dispute that, unless you want to claim that latinsci must be the latin language). And as in Bosnia both those scripts were used, albeit more cyrillic script, there's nothing wrong with that. 

The document is one among a few hundreds of charters of Bosnian rulers. In a few of them Serbian name is mentioned for the script, and particularly so for the charters issued by Tvrtko Kotromanić who employed scriveners from conquered areas of Serbia-hence the name, and peculiarities of these few charters that set them aside from the majority of the other texts (legal documents, sacral texts of Bosnian Church and stone inscriptions). In other texts the name of the language is almost never mentioned, except a few documents that call the language in Bosnia "Croatian" (the letter of Stjepan Kotromanić to the pope in 1347.), and the majority of legal texts refer to the language as "Slavic" or "Dalmatian" (in rare occasions when this reference occurs at all)



So Serbian is used by Serbian writers only (as you know the bans and kings themselves never really wrote themselves their charters, but obviously used writers), Croatian one time only when the Pope was needed (I can see why) and the rest is called "Slavic". We can agree Bosniaks spoke Slavic before Bosnian.

In the texts that we have nowadays, the name "Bosnian" first appeared in the work of Constantin Filosof in his "History of written languages" from 1300, where he lists Bosnian among Croatian and Serbian.


----------



## sokol

Cuius said:


> So Serbian is used by Serbian writers only (as you know the bans and kings themselves never really wrote themselves their charters, but obviously used writers), Croatian one time only when the Pope was needed (I can see why) and the rest is called "Slavic". We can agree Bosniaks spoke Slavic before Bosnian.
> 
> In the texts that we have nowadays, the name "Bosnian" first appeared in the work of Constantin Filosof in his "History of written languages" from 1300, where he lists Bosnian among Croatian and Serbian.


But the point is, whatever they called their Slavic languages in the Middle Ages - they weren't the same languages as modern ones, and in the case of BCS they were even significantly different with the later codification of Neoštokavian standard language now used by all nationalities of the BCS linguistic region.

In the Middle Ages all those "languages" still were dialects which were named after "imagined tribes" (not real ones actually), or regions, or kingdoms, and so on. As you say yourself Croatian had "many names" - but what you did not mention is that those names, over time, also referred to different dialects. The dialect continuum of South Slavic languages was still very much alive in the Middle Ages, and no national languages did exist at this time - as there were no nation-states yet.

So the first appearence of the name "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in this region (which was _probably _a predecessor of  modern Šćakavian dialects but definitely not Neoštokavian, and definitely without Turkish loans) rather has political significance: it tells us that at the time a Bosnian state existed. Linguistically, the name of "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in 1300 is not really significant.


----------



## WannaBeMe

sokol said:


> But the point is, whatever they called their Slavic languages in the Middle Ages - they weren't the same languages as modern ones, and in the case of BCS they were even significantly different with the later codification of Neoštokavian standard language now used by all nationalities of the BCS linguistic region.
> 
> In the Middle Ages all those "languages" still were dialects which were named after "imagined tribes" (not real ones actually), or regions, or kingdoms, and so on. As you say yourself Croatian had "many names" - but what you did not mention is that those names, over time, also referred to different dialects. The dialect continuum of South Slavic languages was still very much alive in the Middle Ages, and no national languages did exist at this time - as there were no nation-states yet.
> 
> So the first appearence of the name "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in this region (which was _probably _a predecessor of  modern Šćakavian dialects but definitely not Neoštokavian, and definitely without Turkish loans) rather has political significance: it tells us that at the time a Bosnian state existed. Linguistically, the name of "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in 1300 is not really significant.



I must definitely agree with you Sokol.


----------



## Cuius

sokol said:


> But the point is, whatever they called their Slavic languages in the Middle Ages - they weren't the same languages as modern ones, and in the case of BCS they were even significantly different with the later codification of Neoštokavian standard language now used by all nationalities of the BCS linguistic region.
> 
> In the Middle Ages all those "languages" still were dialects which were named after "imagined tribes" (not real ones actually), or regions, or kingdoms, and so on. As you say yourself Croatian had "many names" - but what you did not mention is that those names, over time, also referred to different dialects. The dialect continuum of South Slavic languages was still very much alive in the Middle Ages, and no national languages did exist at this time - as there were no nation-states yet.
> 
> So the first appearence of the name "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in this region (which was _probably _a predecessor of  modern Šćakavian dialects but definitely not Neoštokavian, and definitely without Turkish loans) rather has political significance: it tells us that at the time a Bosnian state existed. Linguistically, the name of "Bosnian" for a Slavic idiom in 1300 is not really significant.




Can you point me out how it contradicts anything I said? I only said Bosnian as a language was nominated almost a thousand years ago. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying Bosnian is purer or anything like that, I'm well aware of the history of BCS languages. What will always be funny to me is how they claim it's an "invented" language, while anyone can make a quick research to see the real history of the language. And that's it. Serbian and Croatian are so full of foreign loanwords (of Turkish loanwords too btw) but that somehow never bothers people. My whole point being, Bosnian never came from Serbian, both Croatian, Serban and Bosnian came from the BCS proto-language, and I don't think any serious linguist can deny that.


----------



## sokol

Cuius said:


> My whole point being, Bosnian never came from Serbian, both Croatian, Serban and Bosnian came from the BCS proto-language, and I don't think any serious linguist can deny that.


I agree in principle except that there wasn't quite a BCS proto-language but different dialects splitting off from Old Slavonic.
And you're right, there are prejudices concerning Bosnian not being a language in its own rights - and here in this thread, as it is about the name of languages in the BCS region, is the right place to oppose these prejudices.

The history of BCS dialects is a different history than that one of standard language; dialects as they exist now can be traced back to its medieval ancestors - but as for BCS standard language it is clear when and how it emerged: it was in the 19th century, and it was based on Štokavian and was adopted by all BCS nations, over time.
Not even the name of this language was very clear then however, and I've read in one of Asim Peco's books that this was the case even in the 20th century when some (especially Bosnians I guess, he being Bosnian himself) preferred to call their language "naš jezik" or even "naški" (= "our language" for the benifit of those not understanding BCS) in order to avoid any "national" choice of name.

Actually in the 21th century the naming of BCS standard languages is much more straightforward than it was in the late 20th century - there is only Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian left, while native speakers themselves can't quite agree yet wether the name Montenegrin also should be used: but apart from that everything's quite straightforward now.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

sokol said:


> Actually in the 21th century the naming of BCS standard languages is much more straightforward than it was in the late 20th century - there is only Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian left, while native speakers themselves can't quite agree yet wether the name Montenegrin also should be used: but apart from that everything's quite straightforward now.


 
Some native speakers, however, still refer to their language as Serbo-Croatian. I don't know how numerous there are, but there is even an extensive Serbo-Croatian version of Wikipedia (quite distinct from the Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian Wikipedias).

As someone mentioned a while ago in another thread, there was even a "Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian" in pre-WWII centralist Yugoslavia. It was the country's official "language," but it existed only in documents (Slovenian is too far removed from BCS lexically, grammatically, and phonetically for any such combined language to work in practice. I don't think that anyone even attempted to define what "Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian" was supposed to be like.)

As a side note, several 19th century Slovenian intellectuals argued that Slovenian should be merged into a newly-fangled "Illyrian" language that would presumably have been based on Shtokavian, as was eventually the case with standardized Serbo-Croatian. They thought that Slovenian was too small, insignificant, and vulnerable to survive on its own. Needless to say, those who favored the retention of Slovenian as a separate language eventually prevailed.


----------



## natasha2000

> (Slovenian is too far removed from BCS lexically, grammatically, and phonetically for any such combined language to work in practice. I don't think that anyone even attempted to define what "Serbo-Croatian-Slovenian" was supposed to be like.)


That is because Slovenian IS a different language, and Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are only dialects of the same language. *All the rest is pure poltics*, no matter how some of the foreros want to present that it isn't. You don't have to look for the evidence of this in the remote past: the simpliest evidence for this is that I can speak to a Bosnian and Croat without any problems, speaking each of us in "their own language". We can also quarrel, insult, or love and kiss, give compliments and insinuate things, make the most sophisticated word plays, and the three of us wouldn't have the slightest problem in understanding perfectly the most hidden meanings... The thing that is possible only if two native speakers of the same language speak, and NOT possible if I or a Bosnian or a Croat, try to understand ourselves with a Slovenian or Macedonian....

BTW, I think that maybe this discussion should be cut from here and merged with a thread that was (I think) closed a long time ago, and it was about precisely this thing: if Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is the same language or not...


----------



## sokol

natasha2000 said:


> I think that maybe this discussion should be cut from here and merged with a thread that was (I think) closed a long time ago, and it was about precisely this thing: if Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian is the same language or not...


It was a thread from before "my time" here at WordReference, but you are right, Natasha - that thread was closed. (And when I read it first it was closed already.)
And that was for a reason - because BCS foreros moved on from a linguistic discussion to a political one; and as you know it is very difficult to maintain a cordial atmosphere when it comes to politics, especially in this case. So best avoid it, yes? 
(We can't possibly re-open and merge; it'll begin all over again, right? )

As for the definition you gave, you're of course right - Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are mutually intelligible, everyone who knows just a little bit about BCS knows that. 
BCS is *a* language with three (or four) national varieties, thus three (or four) standard language*s.
*
I can live with that formula.


----------



## natasha2000

hehe.. Very diplomatic answer, Sokol, I must admit. Call it whatever you want, but BCS is ONE language with three different variants. Maybe in some 100 or 200 years they really become three different languages (as it happened with latin - it evolved into a variety of different Romanic languages), but for now it is simply one language. Of course, FROM POLITICAL REASONS I will respect the wish of Croats and Bosnians (and now Montenegrians), to call language the variety of BCS that they use, but if we talk about linguistics, then there is no room for poltiics and in linguistic terms, it stays one language. 

I also know that I risk of being called very ugly names, but I simply cannot stay silent when I read some things that simply do not have anything with a common sense.

As far as reopening the old thread... You're moderator, it will be your decision what to do, but may I remind you that this thread has the title *name of language in thread titles, *and not if those three are the same language and what of those three is the oldest one (which is, I must admit, a nonsense), and this is the way it took in last 5 or 6 posts. Also, avoiding to reopen that old thread will not prevent BCS native speakers to reopen the battle field if they want to (sincerely i hope they wouldn't). It all depends on common sense and cold head of BCS speakers, which is sometimes very hard to achieve, as we all know...


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Both of you raise some great points. It seems that in this case, the old saying that a language is "a dialect with an army and a navy" is particularly apt.


----------



## natasha2000

TriglavNationalPark said:


> All of you raise some great points. It seems that in this case, the old saying that a language is "a dialect with an army and a navy" is particularly apt.


hehehe.. Something like that, Triglav...


----------



## Cuius

natasha2000 said:


> hehe.. Very diplomatic answer, Sokol, I must admit. Call it whatever you want, but BCS is ONE language with three different variants. Maybe in some 100 or 200 years they really become three different languages (as it happened with latin - it evolved into a variety of different Romanic languages), but for now it is simply one language. Of course, FROM POLITICAL REASONS I will respect the wish of Croats and Bosnians (and now Montenegrians), to call language the variety of BCS that they use, but if we talk about linguistics, then there is no room for poltiics and in linguistic terms, it stays one language.
> 
> I also know that I risk of being called very ugly names, but I simply cannot stay silent when I read some things that simply do not have anything with a common sense.
> 
> As far as reopening the old thread... You're moderator, it will be your decision what to do, but may I remind you that this thread has the title *name of language in thread titles, *and not if those three are the same language and what of those three is the oldest one (which is, I must admit, a nonsense), and this is the way it took in last 5 or 6 posts. Also, avoiding to reopen that old thread will not prevent BCS native speakers to reopen the battle field if they want to (sincerely i hope they wouldn't). It all depends on common sense and cold head of BCS speakers, which is sometimes very hard to achieve, as we all know...




Natasha, I agree with every single words of yours, just wanted you to note that you also call your variety of BCS with the name you want. Just that.


----------



## natasha2000

Cuius said:


> Natasha, I agree with every single words of yours, just wanted you to note that you also call your variety of BCS with the name you want. Just that.



He.. The tricky thing is that this BCS language doesn't have one neutral name so we all can call it by the same name. I am glad that you agree with me, since I got the impression you were trying to convince us that your variant of BCS is much older than mine or Croatian...

Pitty we have this problem, because it introduces much confusion for foreigners not familiar with the matter in question. Sometimes I imagine what would happen if, all of a sudden, new languages start to appear, such as Australian, North American, New Zealandian, or maybe Argentinian, Bolivian, Chilean, Mexican... But, whatever. If calling Bosnian the language you speak makes you feel better, I really do not have any problem with that. Really.


----------



## sokol

natasha2000 said:


> ... may I remind you that this thread has the title *name of language in thread titles, *and not if those three are the same language and what of those three is the oldest one ...


Thanks for mentioning this, you're quite right, we were going off-topic here.

My wrong - I let the discussion run (up to a limit) so as not to leave the impression that we like to censor - because we do *not*. (That is, we do not like it when we *have *to censor.  We *really *have to if discussion is getting nasty, right? )
So, as I see no way to reopen that older thread, or create a new one inviting political discussions, without foreros getting at each others throat, I let this discussion run for a while - also because it *is *remotely related to the original topic.



natasha2000 said:


> He.. The tricky thing is that this BCS language doesn't have one neutral name so we all can call it by the same name.


Right you are, you've hit the nail on the head - that is indeed the problem. Take Spanish or German or English - even though there are slight irritations concerning the language name in some contexts the viewpoint of native speakers towards their respective "more or less" neutral language names is rather relaxed.

It *is *different with BCS as we all know.


----------



## natasha2000

My dear Sokol....  What makes you think I haven`t accept it? Didn't I say (I hate being forced to quote myself, but here it goes):



natasha2000 said:


> Of course, FROM POLITICAL REASONS I will respect the wish of Croats and Bosnians (and now Montenegrians), to call language the variety of BCS that they use,...



...


----------



## Duya

This is going nowhere now:

Person A: I agree with you, but I'd rather say X than Y. By the way, Z.
Person B: I agree with you, but I'd rather say W than Z. By the way, Q.
Person C: I agree with you, but I'd rather say A than Q. By the way, ...

Can we have this thread locked please? (And let me have the pleasure to have the last word?  )


----------



## sokol

natasha2000 said:


> My dear Sokol....  What makes you think I haven`t accept it?


I am very sorry, Natasha, of course I know that you've accepted realities as they are, I shouldn't have suggested (even implicitely) that you hadn't. 


Duya said:


> Can we have this thread locked please? (And let me have the pleasure to have the last word?  )


Request fulfilled; you're quite right, no point really in keeping that thread open any longer.
If anywone wants that thread reopened please contact a moderator of Slavic forum, but be warned - you will have to give a really good reason for us doing so.
Thank you all for your contributions, and your understanding.
Cheers
sokol


----------

