Talk:Slavomolisano dialect

The aforementioned move was later done by Kwamikagami in February 2013‎, and went uncontested. Is this the new consensus? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

The sole inline reference in the article is Walter Breu's own submission identified by Change request number 2012-068, which is really just a primary source. Fortunately, this submission was ultimately accepted, per http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=svm The sourcing is woefully lacking here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there an outside reference to confirm the nationality of the people who speak Slavomolisano? Do they declare themselves as Italians or as Croats? Any data from Census? Until the data is available, I consider it safe to assume that the people are in fact Croats - they speak Croatian, and are descendants of Croatians from Dalmatia. Anecdotal evidence also tells me they infact consider themselves to be Croats (Croatian national television made several documentaries). I will change the article and wait for the reply and eventual correction. TX --Imbehind (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moreover the cited source from which the author contributed Italian ethnicity to Molise Croats is not the primary source, and therefore I will erase it until someone brings the relevant Census data. The source writes: "Comment on factors of ethnolinguistic identity and informal domains of use: Molise Slavs consider themselves to be "normal" Italians with an additional knowledge of there Slavic mother tongue." --Imbehind (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why the census? Rather, you need a RS to contradict the one we have. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well Kwami, if you look at your source closer, you will see that the document uses an unnamed source for the claim, which makes it secondary source or in other words - UNRELIABLE! On the other hand you have me :) telling you in good faith that I saw on Croatian television that the Croatian minority in Molise, or at least the people in the documentary declare themselves as Croats. Also you have your common sense which might tell you that if it walks as a duck, kwaks as a duck, ... It's probably a duck - they speak Croatian (Which I can understand sufficiently enough), call themselves Harvati (Hrvati is croatian word for Croats), they are of croatian descent... So, as I see it, the burden of proof falls upon your shoulders, and until you can show solid evidence that they declare themselves as Italians (At least in Census), I call upon you to revert back to my version. Thank you. --Imbehind (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

2ary sources are preferred on WP, actually. Though I agree that, in general, someone making a petition at Ethnologue is not the best source, in this case it's a prof. of Slavic studies at the University of Konstanz. I personally have no idea if they ID as Italians or as Croats, and I could care less. However, given the inordinate amount of nationalist bullshit in circulation when it comes to the Balkans, the fact that something is claimed on TV has almost no weight. I'd expect that some sociologist or anthropologist has looked into this case, so if you can find their findings, that would be worth including. Or perhaps Breu has publications on the subject. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, maybe this could help http://www.minorityrights.org/1619/italy/croatians.html I think that with this info it is safe to assume that they are indeed Croats. But to be clear, I am not certain if they declare themselves legally that they are Croats. For that I would need Census data. So, I propose that until someone brings census data (I do not speak Italian very well, and do not have that much time) that we label them as Croatians. --Imbehind (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also I have found this: http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?art=27828&sec=2839 - Sabor means parlament in Croatian, and this is an official page of the Croatian parament. If you try to read with Google translate, the problem will clarify itself. Here are the quick and important parts - (1) "Status - On November 5th, 1996 the minority protection agreement between the Republics of Italy and Croatia was signed in Zagreb. According to that agreement the Republic of Italy recognises indigenous Croatian minority in Molise region where its presence has been established. The agreement guarantees to the Croatian minority the rights of expressing its cultural identity and heritage, the use of mother tongue in private and public and free establishment and maintaining of the cultural institutions and associations." (2) there is a Croatian Consul in Montemitro / Mundimitar (3) there is "Comunità Croata del Molise" which is the association of Croats of Molise. --Imbehind (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

We know that they're Croat by ancestry, which is what the first link seems to be saying. But ancestry and ethnicity aren't the same thing, and how outsiders see them might not be how they see themselves. As for the second, governments are constantly establishing relations like this, but that could just be politics – take Macedonian diplomatic recognition of the Burusho as descendents of Alexander, for example. — kwami (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, if you check the Croatian Parlamant page I cited, it does not mention ancestry. Ancestry is besides the point here. The point is that the two states - Italy and Croatia have a legal binding contract in a form of bilateral agreement which regulates the legal status and rights of the Croatian minority in Molise region. In such a case it is clear that the people of Croatian ancestry are without any doubt ethnic Croats as well. However, ethnicity and CITIZENSHIP are not the same thing, and I'm sure they have Italian Citizenship. I ask you once more to revert to my version until someone brings the actual Census data because the international contract I mentioned is, we should all agree, much more reliable than some linguist's sidenote. If not, what would then cause the Italian state to legally recognize some virtual ethnic minority and bear the costs of introducing legal bilinguality in the region? --Imbehind (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ethnicity is not legally defined either. They might consider themselves to be Italian, they might consider themselves to be Croatian, they might consider themselves to be both simultaneously, or there could well be a difference of opinion within the community – you'll need a source that actually addresses the issue to decide which it is. — kwami (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, if the Italian state, and Croatian state consider them to be LEGALLY an ethnic minority, I do not see any reason for two of us to disagree. I am going to change the article accordingly now. If you can manage to pull some relevant reference to alter my decision, please let me know here before you revert once more. --Imbehind (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, I decided to leave your reference in the following form - " Some of the Molise Croats, however, consider themselves to be Italians who speak a Slavic language, rather than ethnic Slavs.[1]" until the matter is clarified further. I'm not sure about the necessity of this claim, because the similar is true for any minority so I find no reason to include it into the article. --Imbehind (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You do not legislate identity. Turkey once declared that there were no Kurds in Turkey, just "Mountain Turks". That doesn't mean the Kurds disappeared, and it wouldn't be acceptable to fudge the issue by saying that they are Turks but that "some" of them consider themselves to be Kurds. We have a source that the Molise Croats consider themselves to be Itialians, so unless you have evidence that the author is not to be trusted, or have other sources that disagree, that's what we have to go on. — kwami (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, I gave you the evidence - on this page [1], which is the Official page of the Croatian parliament you can read the following, in addition to already stated (see up): "In Molise region the Federation of Croatian-Molise cultural associations is active". Can you please explain this by anything other than by the fact that there is infact a Croatian ethnic minority in Molise? If you check the wiki article on ethnic groups you will find that the Croatian minority in Molise meets most of the the primary criteria. "Membership of an ethnic group tends to be associated with shared cultural heritage (YES), ancestry (YES), history (YES), homeland (YES), language (dialect) (YES) or ideology, ...". Probably the following is also true "...and with symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.". If you add to that the fact that there is a kindergarten and primary school in Croatian-Molise dialect, as a direct consequence of the fact that the republics of Croatia and Italy have the bilateral agreement on the legal status of the Croatian ethnic minority (the fact that the people are recognised as an ethnic minority by the state actually reinforces that minority because of the funding involved), then the sidenote of a linguist as a source is just ridiculous in comparison, and I can see no other choice then to revert back. --Imbehind (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's not a decision for us to make. I tagged the article, since you insist on edit warring over falsifying the references. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, I must say I have managed to found other sources that give your formulation more merit. Take look at this: [2] it is a scientific paper on the subject, produced by Anita Sujoldžić, Department for Sociocultural and Linguistic Anthropology, Institute for Anthropological Research, Zagreb, Croatia. You can find there the following: " Along with the institutional support provided by the Italian government and Croatian institutions based on bilateral agreements between the two states, the Slavic communities also received a new label for their language and a new ethnic identity - Croatian and there have been increasing tendencies to standardize the spoken idiom on the basis of Standard Croatian. It should be stressed, however, that although they regarded their different language as a source of prestige and self-appreciation, these communities have always considered themselves to be Italians who in addition have Slavic origins and at best accept to be called Italo-Slavi, while the term »Molise Croatian« emerged recently as a general term in scientific and popular literature to describe the Croatian-speaking population living in the Molise ". Please revert my change and explain in more details using this resource. My apologies for appearing, well, balcanic :) I assure you it is not the case all the time with us. But you must admit that this is a very strange case of ethnic identity. I will investigate further and would appreciate your help (Census would be nice to have) --Imbehind (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good find! That's perfect.

Oh, I wasn't assuming bad faith, just thought you were reading more into the refs than they actually supported.

Ethnicity is an amorphous thing, and not just in the Balkans: Think what 'black' and 'white' mean in the US. It is generally more complex than government recognition would imply. Maybe it's just more similar to what we have here in the US: Just because someone speaks German at home, or goes to Japanese or Hebrew school, doesn't mean they don't see themselves as American.

Why don't we put your new ref in the ethnicity article? That needs it more than here. — kwami (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kwami, I will research further and post here first. Seems to me that they (at least some of them) consider themselves both Croatians and Italians. Very complicated indeed. --Imbehind (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I, as a croat, confirm that we consider ourselves italian, at least in Montemitro. Mostly because I lived there, and learned the dialect. Argument ended. kwami (talk) 19:50 25 April 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.246.52 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Slavomolisano is not Chakavian - it is Ikavian Neoštokavian belonging to "Western" type. The confusion has apparently been going on for a very long time - from at least 2006. It is discussed as a Štokavian dialect in Josip Lisac's Hrvatska dijalektologija 1. Hrvatski dijalekti i govori štokavskog narječja i hrvatski govori torlačkog narječja ("Croatian dialectology 1. Croatian dialects and speeches of the Shtokavian dialect and Croatian speeches of the Torlakian dialect"). Lisac is the most prominent Croatian dialectologist. The article itself has in the references section a link to Lisac's article in Kolo where he discusses this, concluding with Same bi se moliške hrvatske govore danas moglo tretirati kao dijalekatnu oazu, ali mislim da je opravdanije njihovo uvrštavanje u novoštokavski ikavski dijalekt, "These Slavomolisano dialects could be treated as a dialectal oasis, but it would be more justifiable to include them within the Neoštokavian Ikavian dialet". It shares some old isoglosses with some south Chakavian dialects but it is not Chakavian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why are you translating moliške hrvatske govore from Lisac's article into Slavomolisano dialects? There is no mentioning of Slav or dialect?--Rovoobo Talk 00:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Rovoobo: That's the English name. Slavomolisano speakers probably don't consider themselves "Croats", since their migration predates the invention of nation-states. That is, unless they've been brainwashed by statist "educational" system ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Slavomolisano dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408045928/http://www.mundimitar.it/hr/porijeklo_prezimena.htm to http://www.mundimitar.it/hr/porijeklo_prezimena.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20100223202658/http://web.uniud.it/cip/min_tutelate_scheda.htm to http://web.uniud.it/cip/min_tutelate_scheda.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.vjesnik.com/Pdf/2001%5C01%5C09%5C13A13.PDF
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://novinet.info/cgh/skupno/news.cfm?id=10212&jez=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220051357/http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/Vij186.nsf/AllWebDocs/DOGADJANJA to http://www.matica.hr/Vijenac/Vij186.nsf/AllWebDocs/DOGADJANJA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: So can you explain to me again how ethnic CROATS that migrated to italy from CROATIA and came to by know as molise CROATS actually speak chinese or something? SerVasi (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SerVasi: Sure. Ethnicity is not language and has never directly corresponded to language. Americans speak English, not American, even though most Americans are not ethnically English. Similarly, Austrians speak German, not Austrian, even though most Austrians don’t consider themselves ethnic Germans.

There are two types of languages at issue here. One is what linguists call a standard language. A standard language is a variety of a language that has been codified in terms of grammar, usage, and so forth, usually on the basis of a particular dialect. Because the standardization process involves conscious codification, all standard languages are artificial to some extent. Examples of standard languages include the varieties that are called Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian in modern times, as well as the variety that was called Serbo-Croatian during Yugoslav times. All of these standard languages were standardized on the basis of one and the same dialect, the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect.

Which leads us to the other type of language at issue. Linguists refer to a language that is actually distinct from other languages in terms of its linguistic characteristics as an abstand language. (Sorry, in my edit summary I typed the wrong one; I meant to type abstand rather than ausbau.) A typical way to decide whether two languages are distinct abstand languages is on the basis of mutual intelligibility: if the speakers of each variety can understand each other, then the two varieties are considered a single language. On this basis, all the Štokavian dialects form a single abstand langauge. This language is conventionally called "Serbo-Croatian" by linguists. Note that this is not the same thing as the standard language spoken in the former Yugoslavia, also called "Serbo-Croatian"; the fact that the same term is used to refer to both of them is an unfortunate historical accident. For this reason (among others) some linguists refer to the abstand language by other names, such as "BCMS" or "Central Western South Slavic"; in either case, it refers to the same thing. Other historical names of this abstand language include things like "slovinski" and "ilirski", which were commonly applied to it before the 19th century.

Now, we look at Slavomolisano. Is Slavomolisano a part of the standard language called Croatian? No, because it doesn’t share the same codification of grammar and usage. Its grammar is extremely divergent, and its speakers don’t consider standard Croatian to be their prestige register. Is Slavomolisano a part of an abstand language called Croatian? No, because from the perspective of abstand languages, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, etc. are not separate languages but a single one, conventionally called "Serbo-Croatian". From either perspective it makes no sense to call Slavomolisano a variety of Croatian.

(I am ignoring Kajkavian and Čakavian for the purpose of this discussion, since some linguists consider them entirely separate abstand languages, but the question is still debated.) Vorziblix (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: Molise Croatian branched out of Croatian. Wether they are mutually inteligible today is absolutely irrelevant. There are countless examples of neighbouring villages in Croatia not understanding eachother but still being branches of croatian. Also their alleged slavic only identification is irrelevat. As you mentioned austrians can identify themselves as pinoy for all i care but at the end of the day they speak german. Croatian is internationally recognized as a language so i dont understand your denial of it. SerVasi (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SerVasi: You don’t seem to have read what I wrote. Croatian is a standard language, not an abstand language. I am not “denying” it exists; it is internationally recognized as a standard language. But it is not an abstand language. Molise Croatian didn’t branch from Croatian because the standard language today known as Croatian didn’t exist in the 16th century; it was first standardized in the 1990s. (There actually was a different standardized language in parts of Croatia back then, but it was based on Čakavian, so it was not the language that Molise Croatian branched away from either. In any case languages don’t really “branch out of” standard languages.) In the 16th century only a single abstand language existed in the Štokavian speaking regions. Whether you want to call that abstand langauge Serbo-Croatian or BCMS or Slovinian or Illyrian or whatever is irrelevant, the point is that there was no distinction of language by ethnicity among Štokavian-speakers in the 16th century. You say that “There are countless examples of neighbouring villages in Croatia not understanding each other but still being branches of croatian”; well, the government of Croatia might consider them all “branches of Croatian”, but linguists don’t agree. They consider such differences instances of separate abstand languages. That is why there is a debate right now in the linguistic community about whether Kajkavian and Čakavian should be considered separate languages. Mutual intelligibility is not irrelevant, it is literally the main criterion by which linguists determine what is a separate abstand language and what isn’t. —Vorziblix (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: Croatian being only a standard is an opinion not a fact. You use the term linguists very losely. This topic is debated to this day so at most you can say "some linguists".The only concensus that was reached was the one by the international community that recognized Croatian as a seperate language. Furthermore you skimmed over cakavian and kajkavian but they are very important. A person from Belgrade wont understand a person from Pazin but a stokavian speaker from Zagreb(with some effort) would. That is also a proof of Croatian as an ausbau language.Also by your logic Molise Croatian is uninteligible to all "BCMS" so i guess it shouldnt be listed under that either? SerVasi (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SerVasi: Yes, you’re right, Molise Croatian is likely a separate abstand language of its own rather than part of BCMS. Most of the linguists who work directly with it (such as Walter Breu) treat it as separate. However, the wider linguistic community has not yet settled on a consensus on that subject, and much of the older literature used to treat it as a dialect of Serbo-Croat rather than a language, so we’ll probably have to wait a few more years for sources to catch up to the more modern view before we can change it here.

A speaker from Zagreb would understand a speaker from Belgrade with infinitely more ease than either one of them would understand a speaker from Pazin, so that certainly doesn’t “prove” Croatian is an abstand language. If anything it shows the opposite: that if speakers from Zagreb and speakers from Pazin are considered to belong to the same abstand language, speakers from Zagreb and Belgrade a fortiori also belong to the same abstand language, since their mutual intelligibility is greater.

How do you define Croatian, if not as a standard language? What unique linguistic criteria divide all, and only, the dialects that some Croatian nationalists group under “Croatian” from the remaining dialects of BCMS? There are no such criteria. Standard Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are not only based on the same dialect but the same subdialect of BCMS (Eastern Herzegovinian), and practically any linguistic features found in any one of those standard languages are also found among speakers of other ethnicities. There is not a single dialectal isogloss that cleanly divides Croats from Serbs or Bosniaks. For this reason it is not correct to say Croatian refers to anything but a standard; there is no other definition of “Croatian” that has any linguistic coherence. This topic is only “debated to this day” in Croatia for political reasons, but it’s hardly debated at all by linguists in the rest of the world, where there is widespread consensus on the unity of (at least Štokavian) BCMS. Vorziblix (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: Croatian reasonably unites the dialects of kajkavian,shtokavian and chakavian while the others dont. Thats a fact that was enough for the international community to unanimously recognize it as a language and you just cant refute that. SerVasi (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SerVasi: You haven’t addressed a single point I raised. What does ‘reasonably unites’ even mean? Again, what linguistic criteria unite those dialects but exclude the langauge spoken in Belgrade, Sarajevo, and western Montenegro? What is the linguistic isogloss that divides ‘Croatian’ from the rest of BCMS? The international community recognizes Croatian as a standard language, which is what it is, nothing more or less. In short, there is nothing to refute. Vorziblix (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: Croatian is a recgnized as a LANGUAGE by the eu and the international community. Saying otherwise is just fact twisting. Croatian has many more similarities to czech,slovak and slovene than the rest of "bcms". The rest has more similarities to turkish and the whole word adoption system is different. Them being mutualy inteligible is normal cuz they fall in the group of south slavic languages. If you disagree with this then please explain to me your views on belarusian. Can they speak to russians? Yes. Can they speak to ukranians? Yes. Can russians speak to ukranians? Barely. SerVasi (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@SerVasi: Baldly asserting that it's so doesn't make it any more true. To be precise, the EU recognizes Croatian as an 'official language', which is the term for a language adopted as standard by a particular government. Even if you don't agree with that, what the 'international community' recognizes is a matter of politics and not linguistics in any case; what matters for linguistics is the academic consensus among experts in the field (i.e. linguists), which recognizes BCMS as an abstand language and Croatian as one of its standards, as you can see at Glottolog, in textbooks, at universities, and so on without end. The last link is particularly explicit: 'Serbo-Croatian has split into three separate standard languages', but they are 'based on the same basic dialect type' and so 'the Academic norm [is] to treat BCS as one language'. This is the universal consensus among linguists outside the Balkans.

If Croatian has 'many more similarities to czech,slovak and slovene', what are these supposed similarities? Can you name them, and show that they are shared by Kajkavian, Chakavian, and all the Shtokavian dialects spoken in Croatia (ikavian as well as ijekavian) and that they are not shared by any Serb, Bosniak, or Montenegrin speakers? Because otherwise you're not giving any evidence that Croatian (as you've defined it) is a single abstand language separate from BCMS. There are neologisms in standard Croatian based on Czech that are not found in standard Serbian or standard Bosnian, but this is only true of the standard registers, not the underlying dialects. For instance, "Serbian" speakers in Croatia use the same "Croatian" words, and "Croatian" speakers in Serbia use "Serbian" words, so those words fail to be any kind of criteria to divide "Serbian" from "Croatian" as abstand languages. As for the "word adoption system" (I assume you're talking about the different ways of writing loanwords?), that's a matter of orthography, not language. The situation of Belarusian and Russian is not remotely comparable to BCMS; the oral mutual intelligibility between Belarusian and Russian is only around 75%, whereas the oral mutual intelligibility between "Croatian", "Bosnian", and "Serbian" is over 95% (informal source here), and unlike BCMS, Belarusian and Russian are not standardized on the basis of one and the same subdialect. Vorziblix (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: So where do we draw the line of seperate languages? Is it 91.36% inteligibility? Or maybe 87.68%? Croatian recognition by eu is in the same vein as french,german or any other so please stop. You are flip flopping between de fact and de jure when it suits your argument but at the same time dismissing my case on the same basis. SerVasi (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am not flip-flopping on anything; my position is that of the linguistic scholarly consensus, as it has been from the beginning: BCMS is a single abstand language with several standards called Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin. The EU is, as has already been said, entirely irrelevant to that scholarly consensus. (And French and German are languages for linguistic reasons, not because of anything the EU declares or doesn’t declare.) There is no hard-and-fast line for a threshold of mutual intelligibility, but luckily, there doesn’t need to be one in this case, because there is widespread scholarly consensus that Štokavian is over that threshold. You still have not mentioned a single linguistic criterion for dividing Croatian from Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin as abstand languages, and you keep avoiding the question, probably because you know as well as I do that there isn’t any such criterion. Unless you have some concrete examples to the contrary, we’re done here. If you really want to litigate this further, take it to Talk:Serbo-Croatian and argue against the Wikipedia (and academic) consensus there, since at this point this conversation has nothing to do with Slavomolisano. —Vorziblix (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: Again you are talking about some made up concensus. I can easily point you to these articles Bosniaks,Croats,Montenegrins and Serbs. You claim my de jure statements dont matter yet you ramble on about easter herzegovinian. I can flip flop (de facto) like you and claim that croatia has barely any native speakers of it making your point about belarusian completely irrelevant. I have provided you examples but decent comprehension instead of tunnel vision is necessary. Cheers SerVasi (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would like to tell you a very important thing, I have been researching Slavo-Molisan and if it really is an independent language, it is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian. In recent years, Slavomolisano has already been considered an independent language, there is enough evidence to prove this (this according to recent research): 1. Slavomolisano has many archaicisms from Old Serbo-Croatian, many of the words in Slavomolisano are archaic forms of words about 5 centuries ago, probably even older (this means that Slavomolisano and Serbo-Croatian have a common ancestor and we could call this ancestor medieval Serbo-Croatian or Slavomolisan-Serbo-Croatian), and 2. Slavomolino has too much influence from other languages. Many words have been replaced by terms from Romance languages (mainly from the dialecto Neapolitan Abruzzese and Italian), 45% in the case of nouns. and 3. Isolation has meant that Slavomolisan words that come from Old Slavomolisan-Serbo-Croatian are different from their close relative Serbo-Croatian, and the conclusion Slavomolisan is totally different from Serbo-Croatian and is not a dialect but a language. Bolitachan (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply