Category talk:Serbo-Croatian language

Serbo-Croatian as a standard language died with Yugoslavia in 1991, where it was politically coined umbrella term to designate a mixture of Serbian and Croatian which was forcefully used in official paperwork and (to a limited extent) spoken by puppets of communist regime. Nowadays almost nobody uses that name, except maybe for a number of everlasting yugonostalgic preachers that bear fond memories of that period.

Lexis of Serbo-Croatian is completely contained in those of standard Croatian and Serbian, no exceptions whatsoever.

Since this category already is and most likely will remain empty, I suggest that it should be deleted, since the term "Serbo-Croatian" has gained extremely pejorative connotations after the bloody split of Yugoslavia and most ex-yu folks that were in some way involved in the recent wars would consider it insulting. --Ivan Štambuk 12:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This category was not created so that it can be filled up with entries like the other categories. Well, at first it was.  Now, however, it serves more like a redirecting purpose.  I don't think the category should be deleted.  It is used simply as a redirect to the individual standards.  By the way, I would not argue that "almost nobody" uses the name.  Most people from the region that I know refer to it by that name and so do many English speakers.  Today, as a dialect continuum or language continuum it is valid and widely called and studied as such in USA.  --Dijan 20:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a difference when refering to SC as a 1) standard language (which it isn't, ISO 639-1 code 'sh' being deprecated and all that) and 2) common features of Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, for which the term 'BHS' seems to be gaining use.


 * Anyway, if it's OK to have empty category for a language name that is mostly misused political coinage either propagating yugounitarism or ignoring differences between 3 different standard languages (putting aside all the minor morphological/syntactial details that distinguish them and that can pretty much fit on ~ 20 pages of text) for the sole purpose of redirection - it's fine with me too. --Ivan Štambuk 16:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The category is not propagating anything, as you might think so. What I meant to say is that many English speakers refer to all three languages (whether politically correct or not) as Serbo-Croatian.  Now, if they venture into this category, they will not find words that belong to Serbo-Croatian as such language, like you said, does not exist anymore.  Rather, they will have the option to be redirected to a specific standard that they seek.  "BHS" only seems to be used on wikipedia (few other wikis included), by anyone that has been "educated" through wikipedia and through United Nations related matters...neither of which make it offical.  I have yet to come across "BHS" or "BCS" in an academic setting in US.  Presently, there are two options that I know of:  either Serbo-Croatian or a specific standard.  But, if you truly believe that this category gives a bad name to the Croatian standard, then please feel free to remove the redirecting link to the Croatian language category.  --Dijan 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that official UN docs (that use BHS/BCS all along) should be regarded with more respect than certain academic programs that were made prior to Yugoslavia breakup and that use SC mostly by inertia, teaching primarily 'Serbo-Croatian' of Yugoslavia, not the common characteristics of 3 different standard languages.

BHS/BCS seems to be used by the following academic institutions:


 * Berkeley Slavic department:
 * The Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures provides instruction in the languages and cultures of Russian and other Slavic peoples—Bulgarian, Czech, Polish, and Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (BCS) ... The major tracks in other Slavic languages and literatures allow students to focus intensively on Czech, Polish, or BCS (Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian).


 * University of Washington in all of the course names.


 * UCLA Slavic department:
 * The Intensive Summer BCS course at UCLA offers the equivalent of first year of instruction in only six weeks


 * University of Chicago in all of the course names.


 * University of Pittsburgh's Slavic department, in form of 'B/C/S'.


 * Princeton's Slavic department


 * Arizona State University


 * University of Kansas uses 'Croatian-Serbian' in course names but BCS is used almost everywhere else


 * Slavic and East European Language Research Center (SEELRC) uses the term BCS in it's Handbook of Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, as explained on page 7:
 * Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are three standardized forms based on very similar linguistic material. For many people the term "language" means standardized form of a language, and in this meaning we can speak of a Bosnian language, a Croatian language, and a Serbian language. "Language" can also be a system that permits communication, and in this meaning we can consider all three to make up one language. Serbo-Croatian was the traditional term. The non-native learner will usually want to choose to concentrate on Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian, but learning any of these actively plus some knowledge of the differences will permit the learner to take part in the communication system throughout the whole area. This description will use the term BCS to denote what the three standards have in common. The differences in grammar are not very numerous and will be discussed as we go along. The differences in vocabulary are more numerous; some will be pointed out in the vocabulary section.


 * It's used throughout the Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian: A Grammar and A Textbook, as exemplified here. Apparently most BCS courses in USA use this textbook.

And this all comes from the first 2 pages of googling up the .edu top-level domain..

Term 'Serbo-Croatian' is obsoleted for a very good reason. This and this category should be deleted, and should be renamed to. --Ivan Štambuk 09:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that the name Serbo-Croatian was not an artificial political tool.  I'm simply stating that it is OK to leave the category as a redirection device.  However, I am in agreement with you on .  If you have time, please do go ahead and change that to .  Just remember to remove  from the etymology templates page and make sure you update all entries that use .  --Dijan 03:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)