Talk:Slovenian language

Old content moved to Talk:Slovene language/Archive 1
Contents
1 A Call For All Slovenians (and others) To Take Notice ***draft***
2 Old stuff
3 Title change, again
4 long and short form
5 Slovenian translations of section headings
6 Protection
7 New template
8 Slovene/Slovenian reloaded

A Call For All Slovenians (and others) To Take Notice ***draft***

Slovenian is the dominant term internationally and only increasing in popularity.

The University of Ljubljana (http://www.uni-lj.si/UoL/About/) and University of Maribor (http://www.uni-mb.si/dokument.aspx?id=8175) both favour 'Slovenian' on their websites. The Slovenian Philharmonic (http://www.filharmonija.si/), the Slovenian Tourist Board (http://www.slovenia-tourism.si/), and the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (http://www.uil-sipo.si/) are all official names of prominent Slovenian organizations.

The major Slovenian associations in all English speaking countries outside of UK have been using Slovenian exclusively for many years. For example:

http://www.cdnslocc.ca/ (Canadian Slovenian Chamber of Commerce) http://www.sloaus-inst.com/ (Slovenian Australian Institute) http://www.glasslovenije.com.au/sns-victoria.htm (Australian Slovenian network) [Can't find links for the Slovenian-American major organizations, but I know they use 'Slovenian' exclusively]

The Slovenian Chamber of Commerce (http://www.gzs.si/eng/) and most Slovenian companies (at least those that do international business) employ the term 'Slovenian' exclusively. So do the Olympics organization (www.athens2004.com), UEFA, and most other international organizations.

In the UK, 'Slovenian' is just now catching on. But today, even the British embassy in Slovenia is using 'Slovenian' regularly on their website. The BBC regularly uses the term 'Slovenian', and Eurosport almost always uses it. http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1050510813607 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1412177.stm

Old stuff

Like the article, this talk page seems to be full of long meandering paragraphs that go a million places at once and end up being nearly incomprehensible.

However, the question of whether this article should be at Slovene language or Slovenian language remains. I think we have to put our personal preferences for one term or the other aside and look to Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which says:

Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. ...
When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?
The Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage.

Given that, the short answer is that this article should be on the page with the name that represents the "common name", i.e. the one that is used most often. There is already evidence on this page that points to "Slovenian" being more common, but I thought I would add one more: [1] (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=slovene&q2=slovenian&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us). According to Google, instances of "Slovenian" on the web outnumber "Slovene" by more than 10 to 1. People looking for an article on the Slovenian language are probably 10 times more likely to have encountered Slovenian than Slovene, and it is for this reason, and this reason alone that the page should be there. Nohat 17:28, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style states the following: "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (i.e., not a stub) to the article who used a word with variant spellings in the article or the title." (my emphasis)
Slovenian refers to things other than the language per se, and a Google search is really not conclusive evidence on usage. Since there does not appear to be consensus on which name to actually use, and given that the article uses 'Slovene' (along with British English) in it in most cases, and that the first author to have written about it used 'Slovene language', I reckon it ought to be at Slovene language. Besides, Slovenian language links back to Slovene language, so anyone using that in the search form will get to the desired destination. Sinuhe 17:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, a Google search of "Slovenian language" vs. "Slovene language" still comes out 3 to 1 in favor of "Slovenian" [2] (http://googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22slovenian+language%22&q2=%22slovene+language%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us). And the quotation you give from the Manual of Style concerns article contents, not titles. I think that if you can present evidence that "Slovene" is preferred to "Slovenian" by Slovenians themselves, then that would be a good argument for using "Slovene". However, barring such conclusive evidence, I don't see that any test other than majority of references is preferable for determining an article's name. Nohat 18:29, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)
Actually, the quote explicitely states or the title (marked bold above), so it should refer to article titles as well. As for common usage: searching for Slovene (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.uk+slovene) vs Slovenian (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.uk+slovenian) on British websites is in favour of the former. I do not see how one may assess real usage of the word – that is, usage as appears in printed publications and as is actually spoken. A Google search for this purpose is irrelevant. Perhaps a noteworthy reference might be the only full English grammar of Slovene, Professor Peter Herrity's Slovene: A Comprehensive Grammar, which uses 'Slovene' in its name, as do most other works concentrating on the language in itself (Colloquial Slovene; A Basic Reference Grammar of Slovene; etc).
Besides, the article was moved in the first place by someone who appears to have been on a crusade to change all references from 'Slovene' to 'Slovenian' throughout Wikipedia for no apparent reason (given that both terms are equally valid). To move it back is then rightly justified: if for no other reason simply to invalidate the curious original move. Sinuhe 19:48, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Try this one [3] (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Slovenes&q2=Slovenians&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us) and think about it a little bit more. The same thing is with searching within .uk pages. Well, that someone was BT some months ago. --XJamRastafire 02:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'm not advocating changing all references to Slovenes to Slovenian. I'm just saying that, in English, as spoken all over the world, the term "Slovenian" is more commonly used to describe the language than "Slovene", and I think that is borne out by the references I made above.
I think Google searches are indeed the most relevant kind of evidence we can use—the Google database is undoubtedly the largest corpus of English texts that we have access to. Furthermore, the Google database is contemporary—as most of what's on the internet was written in the last 10 years, it reflects current usage, and not historical usage.
I think it is clear that the Wikipedia policy to follow the original author's spelling is intended only as a last resort, as one that should only be heeded if all other evidence points to an equal distribution between the two disputed usages. I don't think we've yet reached that point.
You argue that the titles of books make a strong argument about what we should call the language. I don't think that's true, but even so, there are plenty of books that use the name "Slovenian" in the title:
On the issue of British usage, it does seem clear that the British prefer "Slovene", but it seems like folly to follow the British usage simply because it's British. The whole Google database represents English as it is written all over the world; why limit your search just to the UK? And indeed, Prof. Herrity is from Britain, so it seems sensible that he would use the name most commonly used there. But there are a far greater number of English speakers outside of Britain than within, and Wikipedia should reflect global preferences, not provincial ones.
While I think we agree "Slovene" is the British term, I don't think there is evidence that "Slovenian" is therefore the American term, as English is used in many other countries, like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and India. If you do country-specific searches on google for "slovene" and "slovenian" for .au, .ca, .nz, and .in as you did for .uk, you'll find that in each case "slovenian" outnumbers "slovene". As the other searches show that "Slovenian" is more common, not only in the US, but in other English-speaking countries, I think it is clear that in the broader English-speaking world, as a whole, "Slovenian" is the more common term, and I think that provides further strong support for having the article at "Slovenian language". However, if the article's title is going to kowtow to British usage, it can at least say that "Slovene" is the British term, and "Slovenian" is used most everywhere else English is spoken.
Nohat 04:04, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)


Slovene is the older term that had been used in Britain and elsewhere for some time; Slovenes living in the USA, however, moved to changed to word to 'Slovenian', and apparently it has spread. Originally, then, Slovenian was most certainly an American usage, not an International English one. But perhaps the article should contain a bit of history on the actual name of the language in the section discussing it somewhat now already.
The reason why the article should be entitled Slovene language is also because the entire article is written in British English, not American, and it would, I should reckon, appear rather queer for a British English article to bear an American title. Especially so since 'Slovenian language' properly redirects to this article, so if anyone should type it thus, the destination would be reached regardless ... Sinuhe 13:23, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Slovene is the older term that had been used in Britain and elsewhere for some time" This is completely untrue. The oldest quotation the Oxford English Dictionary has for "Slovene" is 1883, whereas the oldest for "Slovenian" is 1844, fully 43 years earlier. I think then it is fair to conclude that "Slovenian" is the older term. Secondly, the 1844 quotation for "Slovenian" is from the "Philological Society", which is a British organization, not an American one. I have yet to see any evidence that "Slovenian" is in any way distinctly American, and as I showed before, "Slovenian" is preferred in many English-speaking countries, not just the US.
While the argument that the article is written in British English has some merit, as the articles includes the spellings "spelt" and "favour", it includes non-Britishisms, such as the use of the word "Slavic" instead of "Slavonic", "while" instead of "whilst", and references to American geography, as in the discussion of how Massachussetts is spelled in Slovenian.
I don't think if the article were called "Slovenian language" it would be a case of a British English article bearing an American title. I have already demonstrated that "Slovenian" is not exclusively American, that it was original a British usage, and that the article isn't even strictly in British English. Furthermore, since it's not a question of British vs. American, it seems that the best thing to do would be to give the article the title that most speakers of English would expect, which in this case would be Slovenian language.
Finally, I am uncomfortable with your use of the word "queer", both here and in the article. It has a pejorative connotation and use of the word as a simple synonym for "odd" or "strange" is likely to confuse, mislead, or offend. Nohat 00:14, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)
I was not referring to the age of the word as such, but rather of the usage. Slovene was the older use in Britain and colonies, and Slovenian has crept back in these last years owing to American influence.
The words Slavic and while are not American or indeed specific to any kind of English; what is more, the COD claims that 'Slavonic' is an alternative (but by no means specifically British at that) term for 'Slavic', with the main description at 'Slavic'. 'Whilst' is a somewhat more formal (and dialectical in parts of Britain) word for 'while', which is a neutral – and often the preferable – word. Both words commonly appear in British text.
The article naturally contains many references to various other cultures: but can you claim it is, for example, Indonesian because it discusses 'Djakarta'? How does discussing something that is not in connexion with Britain render the article not British in terms of English? Not only word spellings (spelt, favour, centre, localisation to name but a few, and many more in the Slovene grammar article), but also capitalisation and word choice (including collocation) are decisively British!
That there should be an article named one way, but using another term throughout its contents (Slovene for the most part) seems absurd to me, however if you decide to move it back, I shall not attempt to revert the change.
As for your understanding of the word 'queer' as I have used it: I apologise if this was mistaken for something not meant to have been implied. The alternative use of the word is colloquial (perchance slang, I am not certain about it), so it did not occur to me that it could be misinterpreted in a formal context. Then again, what one makes of a word is but a personal rendition, a conjecture in a way; anyone who finds it offensive will no longer do so upon deciding wilfully that it confers no ill will or malice. Feel free to change it if you like ('curious' seems like a quite melodious alternative, for example!). Sinuhe 12:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have edited the section on the history of Slovenian. I took out a lot of (confusing) prose about the details of Freising manuscripts because they belong on that page, not here. I removed the David Crystal quote as it didn't seem to provide any useful information that isn't already elsewhere on the page or Wikipedia, and it seemed POV. I instead added a paragraph about the status of the language since Slovenian independence. I'm not certain if it's entirely correct, so please feel free to fix anything wrong with it. Also, since I found much of the section difficult to understand, I'm not sure that my treatment of German borrowings is correct. I think the section overall is certainly clearer, but if there are any errors, please fix them, but try not to just revert to the previous content as it was not written clearly. I also changed the name of the section to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages. I am hoping to fix the rest of the sections soon, as they too suffer from a lack of clarity and organization. Nohat 23:01, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)

I think Slovene has no official status in Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Slovene was only officially recognized by Italy as one of the minoritary languages with la legge n. 482 del 15 dicembre 1999 and given privileges with la legge 38/2001 di tutela della minoranza slovena. Boraczek 10:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion dž is a phoneme in Slovene. It's distinct from č (a minimal pair džem : čem). And it has different pronunciation than d-ž (like in podžupan) even though I don't know if there are any minimal pairs. It's very rare in Slovene and probably it only occurs in loanwords, but there's no reason to exclude it from the list of Slovenian phonemes. Boraczek 11:20, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

'Slovenian' is scarcely the internationally preferred term. I personally, and all of my acquaintances in Britain, have only ever used 'Slovene' as the adjective. It is favoured in British publications (for example, Prof Herrity's 'Slovene grammar') and in most dictionaries. According to the style guide, the original author's brand of English and therefore such terminology ought to be respected; if you could please stop your arbitrary crusade against the perfectly proper term 'Slovene', it would be much appreciated. —Sinuhe 19:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scarcely? A simple search on the Internet will quash your conjecture. Indeed, over 2 million yahoo/google results for 'Slovenian' and a mere 250 thousand for 'Slovene'. A search on even the European Union's site has the same result: under 2000 document matches for 'Slovene', over 10,000 matches for 'Slovenian'!

Not only is it heavily favoured internationally, 'Slovenian' is the exclusive term used by the vast majority of Slovenian companies, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia (www.gzs.si/eng), the Slovenian Intellectual Property Office (www.uil-sipo.si), the Slovenian Philharmonic (www.filharmonija.si), and so on.

Both the University of Ljubljana and University of Maribor use 'Slovenian' (mostly) on their websites, as does the 'Slovenian Tourist Board (www.slovenia-tourism.si), while the Government of Slovenia unfortunately still uses both 'Slovenian' and 'Slovene' interchangeably.

Even most British newspapers today use 'Slovenian' (refer to www.wn.com). Virtually all Americans, Canadians, and Australians use 'Slovenian' exclusively, and so do FIFA, UEFA, and virtually every other major international organisation now.

With respect to the style guide, "stating that the original author's brand of English and therefore such terminology ought to be respected," I do not believe this case applies because the use of 'Slovene' negatively affects Slovenians such as myself. With enough people confusing Slovenia with Slovakia and Slavonia, those who support a clearly less popular and, in fact, dying term only make matters worse. --BT

Look, we have had this discussion before. A Google search is not conducive to real-life usage. It may be that you prefer Slovenian as opposed to Slovene, but this does not automatically make it the internationally preferred variant, but merely on the Internet, in particular websites written in American English. It is a valid form regardless of your attitude towards it.

Of course Google and Yahoo are conducive to real-life usage. It is a fact that 'Slovenian' is the absolute dominant term internationally. In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, the term 'Slovene' is virtually NEVER used.

In fact, using your methodology, a Google search on Slovene websites (.si) appears to show more hits for Slovene than Slovenian, as does one on British websites (.uk). Still, this demonstrates little and has no useful value. The Oxford English Dictionary, which is based on a large corpus of written and spoken material, favours Slovene, as do all other recent British dictionaries.

The forgotten Oxford English Dictionary has little or no useful value here. How can you weigh one dictionary against world opinion and common practice? --BT

Why would you assume that wn.com is a British newspaper? It is neither a newspaper, nor is it British; its headquarters are in New York. It uses American spellings throughout. It should not be surprising, then, that they prefer Slovenian to Slovene (although their website, as far as I can tell, features both terms) and Slovak to Slovakian.

Why would you assume that I assumed wn.com was a British newspaper? World News is a search engine of thousands of international newspapers--including British ones. The Guardian, The Mirror, The Daily Record... they all have employed use of the term 'Slovenian' in recent articles. Seeing the big picture now? --BT

In the end, even if Slovenian seems to be marginally more popular on the Internet, this by no means allows you to change every instance of the term of which you are obviously not very fond. It is other people's prerogative to use the term they fancy, and, considering that it is not a misspelt word, but a perfectly valid and recognised form, it should be left intact in accordance with the Manual of Style. Provided, of course, that it does not cause inconsistency and that it fits in the general theme. Whilst I agree that using Slovene in an article about the American melting-pot might not be entirely appropriate if the rest of the article was written in American English, it is perfectly acceptable elsewhere, especially so if so written by the original author of any given article.

You are dreaming if you think 'Slovenian' is only marginally more popular than 'Slovene'. Being ten times more common is an example of pure dominance. Further, 'Slovenian' is not an American term. It's the internationally preferred term. Is even becoming slowly but surely more commonly used in the UK. In the rest of the world, it is the dominant term already and has been for many years. In ten years, 'Slovenian' will surpass 'Slovene' in usage even in the UK. --BT

Quite honestly, I do not care how using the term Slovene affects you; it is certainly the preferred form of many other Slovenes – in fact, so far, I only know of you who seems to be displeased by it. Myself, I gasp in shock why anyone should want to use the Americanised spelling, and am therefore negatively affected by Slovenian. Either form may displease some, but since both are correct, you must not change them all to the one to your liking. It would be just like changing all instances of manoeuvre to maneuver because a Google search gives more hits for the latter; something which you are not allowed to do in Wikipedia. —Sinuhe 08:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very weak. I already explained why those supporting a clearly less popular and dying term negatively impact Slovenians. What is your purpose for bringing up manoeuvre and maneuver again? Who does this affect? 'Slovene' is not to my liking. It is the internationally favoured term. I honestly could accept either one, but only one. --BT

Title change, again

The current text is ridiculous, and factually incorrect. For example, it says the language is officially regulated by the "Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts", website at sazu.si, but when one visits sazu.si, one can plainly see that the Academy's name is given on their own website as the "Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts". As "Slovenian" is both the more common usage in English and the usage preferred by the official Academy regulating the language, I see no reason to use "Slovene". At the very least the Academy's name should not be misreported. --Delirium 22:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

After re-reading this debate, it comes down to this:

Arguments in favor of 'Slovenian'

  • 'Slovenian' has by far the vast majority of Google references ( aratio of more than 10 to 1)
  • 'Slovenian' is used in the English names of many Slovenian organizations.
  • 'Slovenian' is preferred in documents on the European Union's web site (by a ratio of more than 5 to 1)
  • 'Slovenian' is the preferred term in every English-speaking country other than Britain.
  • 'Slovenian' is the name with the longest history in English.

Arguments in favor of 'Slovene'

  • 'Slovene' is the spelling used by the original author of the article.
  • 'Slovene' is the preferred spelling in Britain.
  • 'Slovenes' is more often used, according to Google, than 'Slovenians'.

It seems to me, that not only are the arguments in favor of 'Slovenian' more plentiful, but they reflect a broader worldview. Sinuhe, in essence, is arguing that because he was the original author, the contents of the article should forever be written using a regionalism rather than a broadly accepted international standard. This seems not only selfish and closed-minded, but fundamentally contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. Nohat 23:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've only just had my attention drawn to this discussion, but just to throw in my €0.02...

  • The observation above that the "Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts" calls itself "Slovenian" rather than "Slovene" is irrelevant when you're discussing the name of the language. Plenty of languages use different names for a country's language and its inhabitants.
  • On this page (http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/index_en.html) where the European Union defines the list of its official languages, the EU explicitly demonstrates that for its purposes the English name of the language of Slovenia is "Slovene". -- Arwel 01:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On the first point, I don't think there is any evidence that Slovene/Slovenian are distinguished based on reference to the people or the language. It may be true for other peoples/languages, but there is no evidence it's true for Slovene/Slovenian. In particular, the specific organization that appears to be the major publisher of Slovenian language-related materials calls itself the "The Fran Ramovš Institute Of Slovenian Language" [4] (http://www.zrc-sazu.si/isj/), as linked to from the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts' main page [5] (http://www.sazu.si/English/english.htm).
On the second, I will grant that while this may be damning to the single point about EU usage, it is not damning to the point overall about Slovenian, and in retrospect is unsurprising as the English-speaking member of the EU is the UK, who comprises the singular exception to global preference for Slovenian to Slovene. The other points stand, and the evidence demonstrating an overall global preference for "Slovenian" is paramount. Nohat 01:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To weaken your point a little, I would draw the existence of Ireland within the EU to your attention... -- Arwel 02:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
These nitpicking points are not really relevant. The reality is that "Slovenian" is is preferred in all English-speaking countries other than Britain. Including Ireland [6] (http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=site%3A.ie+Slovene&q2=site%3A.ie+Slovenian&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us). I regret ever having mentioned the EU (I was just referring to BT's earlier reasearch) because the reality is that what the EU calls a language is irrelevant to what we should call the language. Do you actually have a point, or are you just here to nitpick? Nohat 04:43, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I am not the original author of the article – what in the world could have given you that impression? However, the original author did use the term Slovene.
That '"Slovenian" is used in the English names of many Slovenian organizations.' is true, but at the same time, Slovene is used in the English names of many organisations in Slovenia. The two seem to be more or less equally represented in such names.
The SAZU's official name is in Slovene. There is no official English name, so the English translation can utilise either Slovene or Slovenian. The translator of their website apparently preferred the latter, but this is scarcely relevant.
And, Nohat, who are you to say what the goals of Wikipedia are, or that keeping spelling diverse (as suggested in the style guide) is not one of them?
—Sinuhe 17:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen any examples yet of Slovenian organizations using "Slovene", and if there are, how many of them are not somehow British and how many of them are referring in particular to the language? Certainly "The Fran Ramovš Institute Of Slovenian Language", publishers of Slovenian dictionaries and grammars, use "Slovenian" in reference to the language. Second, the argument that it is scarcely relevant that the official website of SAZU calls itself "Slovenian" is ridiculous. It's the official web site, and it's in English! And it says "Slovenian"! Just because it's contrary to your preferred usage doesn't make it irrelevant.
The primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide as much information to as many people as possible, and insisting on using a rare regionalism over an internationally-accepted form is contrary to that goal. If you ask any reasonable Wikipedian, you will find that they will all agree that if the goal of providing accessible information conflicts with the supposed "goal" of keeping spelling diverse, then we should err on the side of accessibility rather than diverse spelling.
And finally, regardless of who originally wrote the article, you are the only one who is insisting on calling it "Slovene", contrary to the vast majority of international English usage. Nohat 18:14, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please note that all this only happens because of an apparent nation-state policy. People are more likely to let the changes be rolled in if they are done with a rationale, some tact and frankness about the motives, and so far we've seen too little of this. --Joy [shallot] 13:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

long and short form

An analogous discussion (or the same discussion according to some), happened on Talk:Slovenians.

There wasn't much result, other than that BT2 continued to change all instances of the short form to the long form (e.g. most of Special:Contributions/BT2), and I continued to revert some specific ones (e.g. Istria, Counts of Celje). --Joy [shallot]

Since no one seems to be seriously contesting the move to Slovenian language, I will make the move on Sunday, October 10 after 2PM PST. (Approximately 24 hours from this posting). Nohat 20:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that this page has already been moved once or even twice to this current name. Crocheting about international preferred term "Slovenian" is infant and useless. Why then 1911 Encyclopćdia Britannica and Online version (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9068230) both have "Slovene language". And do not tell me it is just a British English term.. Many of you were talking what Wikipedia should be and what are its goals, but you have done quite huge damage to the language itself. Which language now? Slovene language, for god's sake. I do not know why the most prominent instutute in Slovenia for the language (The Fran Ramovš Institute Of Slovenian Language (http://www.zrc-sazu.si/isjfr/)) bears English name with Slovenian and also the SAZU? And why British Philological Society in 1844 used a term "Slovenian" instead of "Slovene"? Why the rest of the world should call this language Slovenian, and in EU Slovene? I do not see no sense in this. I've been working in Wikipedia actively at least two years and this problem is still going on. Nohat thinks (or others) that he would solve it with simple redirection or with some statistical facts from Google or whatever. We should also consider the history of English term, not just a modern (international) one. Slovene language was formed in 6th century not in 19th and I guess that there must exist even earlier terms for it in English. As I work here in Wikipedia I thought that these kinds of problems (simple naming of one language in English and so on) can be solved. But I see they can't. So, just to let know all the readers of Wikipedia that this pretty simple problem is not solved. In spite of the above strange 'call'. Its solution is now forced and I hope that some day it should be solved properly. And of course I congratulate Sinuhe for the work he had put in creating the article!! Best regards. --XJamRastafire 16:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slovenian translations of section headings

What purpose do they serve? None of the other language articles have them, and as far I can tell they're basically just a almost-completely-useless set of Slovenian words that have been added to the article. I'm not sure that there is any value at all in knowing how to say "geographic distribution" in Slovenian to someone who is just getting an overview of the language. I'd say delete them, as they add basically useless clutter to the article. Nohat 22:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have it on Belarusian language, but only in grammar-specific part, e.g. noun (nazounik) and pronoun (zajmiennik). --rydel 03:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, well after over a month without objection, I removed them. Nohat 03:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page because of the vandalism of self-pleasing of some authors - specially BT2. --xJaM 15:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anything in the recent history that constitutes vandalism. Can you be more specific? —Michael Z. 2005-06-2 15:26 Z
It is a quite long story and I guess someone has to do something. I have no time nor motivation to do so - without help of other users. The page has been moved and reverted several times. I am not a professional linguist but a term 'Slovenian language' seems to be inappropriate and so on. Some think that "Slovenian" is internationally preferred, but most probably is just related to the modern state of Slovenia, not to the nation of Slovenes itself. I hope this is a little bit more specific, but I am afraid that this problem should already be solved in this huge project as Wikipedia is. Best regards. --xJaM 16:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We've been through this before but "seems to be inappropriate and so on" is not a valid argument—in fact it's not an argument at all. Given the evidence of usage, Wikipedia policy supports keeping this article at "Slovenian language". Please do not move the article again unless you can show consensus support for keeping it at "Slovene language". Nohat 16:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, Slovenian and Slovene can both be used here on Wikipedia no matter what context, as British and American English are not prefered one over the other. I don't see any reasonable argument to use one or the other form. --Eleassar777 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian is used extensively in Britain [7] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=site%3A.uk+Slovenian+%2Blanguage&btnG=Search). This is not a case of British vs American usage—it's a case of common name vs uncommon name. See above. Nohat 17:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nohat, can you show me where Wikipedia supports keeping this article at this current name? I haven't found it and I think that only a small group of users here supports it. In fact my argument as was written is pretty strong. But as I wrote I am not a professional linguist and I can't deal this problem alone and against this small 'group'. Calling something "Slovenian" is just like naming NASA NESA - for example, if I may be little picturesque. The whole project of Wikipedia is great, but having articles with (just) an adjective "Slovenian" makes a big black spot on it. Sorry if you do not understand. And finally tell what can I do that this article should be named properly? On which instance, or page or whatever? Should I complain? But to whom? I won't quit so easily, because I know I am right. Soon or later. I would like to write articles and I have to argue with bunch of polymaths and waste my precious Time. --xJaM 22:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This debate (Are people from Slovenia called Slovenes or Slovenians? (http://www.carniola.org/theglory/2005/02/are_people_from.htm)) might also help to 'solve' this 'problem'. --xJaM 22:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're not really making any sense. "Slovenian" is an ordinary English word used to describe both the people of Slovenia as well as the language they speak. It is a perfectly regular English word that can be used as an adjective or a noun. There are many, many other examples of words like this in English: Lithuanian, Russian, Italian, Latvian, Macedonian, Malaysian, Hungarian, Hawaiian, Romanian, and so on. It is true that there is also a word "Slovene" which serves this purpose, but "Slovenian" is commonly used everywhere English is spoken and is the more commonly used term overall, which is why Wikipedia policy supports using that term over others. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This is not about whether the people of Slovenia should be called "Slovenes" or "Slovenians", but whether the language is called "Slovenian" or "Slovene". All the evidence I have pointed to shows that yes, both terms are used, but "Slovenian" is much more common overall. Nohat 23:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I do understand perfectly about ordinary usage of the word 'Slovenian'. In fact I do make a lot of sense. You do not have an evidence (or a proof - referencing to Google is simply not enough...) that 'Slovenian' is much more common overall. One of good policies here is also that original namings (if they are correct) remains - but this is not the case here, because some later users (including you) are changing and rearranging terms. If you have seen that this issue is a problem, you should reach the consesus about it - but there was none (yet). Currently I do not have references to show how a word "Slovene" came to English, but think of the nation. It is known at least since 6th century BC and I guess that English people must have come to contact with it after some time (let us say in 10 or 11th century) - and a question is what word did they use to name the nation. Somewhere (as I recall) you've said that the word 'Slovenian' is older than "Slovene" in English dictionaries - but is this really true? As far as I am aware of, the majority of modern English dictionaries allow equally both terms. Until we do not solve this problem, futher workings will be very difficult. And please use a little bit more nevtral or impartial sound of your language/speech (in fact it's not an argument at all, You're not really making any sense, ...) because we are equal in this manner. --xJaM 10:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary contains dated quotations of English that go back more than a thousand years to track the history of English usage.
The oldest quotation the Oxford English Dictionary has for "Slovene" is 1883, whereas the oldest for "Slovenian" is 1844, fully 43 years earlier. I think then it is fair to conclude that "Slovenian" is the older term. Secondly, the 1844 quotation for "Slovenian" is from the "Philological Society", which is a British organization, not an American one. I have yet to see any evidence that "Slovenian" is in any way distinctly American, and as I showed before, "Slovenian" is preferred in many English-speaking countries, not just the US.
Secondly, references to Google are the only reasonable way to show which form enjoys a preponderance of usage. Google shows that usage of Slovenian far outnumbers Slovene overall. This is the only empirical evidence which has been presented in this matter. It is true that a Google evidence is not perfect evidence, but unless you can show that this particular evidence is deeply flawed in some way, you cannot simply wave the evidence away by saying it's "not enough".
Last, perhaps you can explain why it is that you dislike the term "Slovenian" so much. My reasons for preferring it is because it is the most common name for the language in English and we do a disservice to our readers by insisting upon using a less common name, because fewer people will be familiar with it. That is the reasoning behind the "common names" policy and I think it's a sound and reasonable approach to naming. On the other hand, the only thing going for "Slovene" is that there is a slight majority of usage in the UK. On balance, the fact that in one (and only one) English-speaking country "Slovene" has a slight majority of usage, compared to the fact that in all other English-speaking countries "Slovenian" has a majority of usage, and in fact overall has a dramatic majority usage, the argument for "Slovene" seems pretty weak and unconvincing. Given the evidence that we have, "Slovenian" is both older and more common. What evidence is there that supports preferring "Slovene" other than the fact that you like it? Nohat 16:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, I add that even sites in Slovenia prefer "Slovenian" to "Slovene" [8] (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.si+Slovenian+language) [9] (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.si+Slovene+language). Nohat 16:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New template

New template has been created (copied from Commons): {{template:Slovenian flag}}. It appears like this: Template:Slovenian flag. It works also by using:

  • template:Slovene
  • template:Slovenian
  • template:Slovene flag.

Cheers! --Eleassar777 17:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovene/Slovenian reloaded

I would like to discuss these things again if anyone is interested. Perhaps we can start by building a list of pro and contra arguments for the name Slovenes as opposed to Slovenians as such a list is already available above for Slovene and Slovenian. --Eleassar777Missing image
Slovenia_flag_300.png


my talk 16:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Slovenian_language"
Navigation

  • Art and Cultures
    • Art (https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Art)
    • Architecture (https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Architecture)
    • Cultures (https://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Cultures)
    • Music (https://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Music)
    • Musical Instruments (http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/List_of_musical_instruments)
  • Biographies (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Biographies)
  • Clipart (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Clipart)
  • Geography (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Geography)
    • Countries of the World (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Countries)
    • Maps (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Maps)
    • Flags (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Flags)
    • Continents (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Continents)
  • History (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/History)
    • Ancient Civilizations (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Ancient_Civilizations)
    • Industrial Revolution (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Industrial_Revolution)
    • Middle Ages (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Middle_Ages)
    • Prehistory (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Prehistory)
    • Renaissance (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Renaissance)
    • Timelines (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Timelines)
    • United States (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/United_States)
    • Wars (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Wars)
    • World History (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/History_of_the_world)
  • Human Body (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Human_Body)
  • Mathematics (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Mathematics)
  • Reference (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Reference)
  • Science (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Science)
    • Animals (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Animals)
    • Aviation (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Aviation)
    • Dinosaurs (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Dinosaurs)
    • Earth (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Earth)
    • Inventions (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Inventions)
    • Physical Science (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Physical_Science)
    • Plants (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Plants)
    • Scientists (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Scientists)
  • Social Studies (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Social_Studies)
    • Anthropology (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Anthropology)
    • Economics (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Economics)
    • Government (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Government)
    • Religion (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Religion)
    • Holidays (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Holidays)
  • Space and Astronomy
    • Solar System (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Solar_System)
    • Planets (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Planets)
  • Sports (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Sports)
  • Timelines (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Timelines)
  • Weather (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Weather)
  • US States (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/US_States)

Information

  • Home Page (http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php)
  • Contact Us (http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Contactus)
  • Clip Art (http://classroomclipart.com)
Toolbox
Personal tools