What exactly was problematic in my edit? --Ivan Štambuk 01:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
so here it goes the "Rationale behind the first undo
I couldn't help myself and then allow such an edit of yours - because it was somehow biased also, instead of just inprecise, incomplete and therefore incorrect. Firstly, I don't reckon that you have considered all of the previous work involved in this entry: the terms and the definitions used in in the so-called Serbian language weren't completely regarded appropriately (the meaning: inhabitant of Serbia - just for example - isn't included in the definition). Secondly, your wording The word has almost no usage in spoken common speech, - is statistically hard to prove. Although I trust you that you hope that it is so, my own experience gives me different point of view: even the people who declare themselves as Serbs us it in common speech (as you call it). Not to mention those who don't declare themselves as Serbs. I could, but wouldn't like to imagine what the situations is outside Serbia. The derogatory tone of the term is used "manywhere" (in many places) - is what I had in mind and what I am afraid of. Unfortunately. And thirdly, the wording: and is primarily used in literary language, such as within the phrase srbijanski preds(j)ednik (“‘the president of Serbia’”). is confusitive, poorly explained, to the least. And not documented at all. Not to mention that it is here where I sense the bias. Why: because you don't give any explanation for this literary language you mention. Is it just written in some newspapers, or is it literary as in official dictionary(-ies) and used in literary works id est literature - literary is a not so easy to be used word, IMHO. As for the phrase srbijanski preds(j)ednik - this syntagma might quite non-difficultly reveal the location where it is used. Or even the source of it. My "firmest" point of view which I wished to illustrate is that the very word carries some heavy weight with it. Not just the usage of the word, but perhaps its very existence. I'm stating this with the risk of sounding ultra-xenophobic, even paranoid. I'm sorry for that. Sorry for myself. And what to say then for my sorrow, regret, grief, remorse, utter sadness for the others? - who read this!!! All the best, --Biblbroks 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- the meaning: inhabitant of Serbia - just for example - isn't included in the definition - how it was not included in the definion??? this was the definition: "a Serbian (either a citizen of Serbia, or an ethnic Serb from Serbia)" - are you saying that the meaning "inhabitant of Serbia" is not covered by it?
- statistically hard to prove - yeah that is my personal estimate. Unfortunately there are no resources that calibrate spoken language. I've never heard it, and I've talked to quite many Serbs (but of Croatia). Don't know on the usage of it in Serbia though.
- ..is confusitive, poorly explained, to the least and how is that so? What it was meant to say is that it is chiefly used adjectivally when referring to something pertianing to Serbia (srbijanski predsjednik/mediji/vlada..), and not to the people themselves (citizens of Serbia). When I say "literary" I mean "standard language" - the one that is edited in the media (newspapers, TV..). I am also pretty sure that this distinction srpski/srbijanski is advised in at least one jezični savjetnik..
- Now go to sleep xD --Ivan Štambuk 02:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Biblbroks why don't you simply polish the entry to the most appropriate form you think it would be, and then we can discuss it? You seem to favor a series-of-gradual-improvements approach, for which I have very little patience for :p --Ivan Štambuk 10:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is used in common speech in Bosnia (at least in the eastern parts where I'm from). Usually it is used in the context of pointing out differences between Bosnian Serbs and Serbs of Serbia (especially when discussing speech differences, Ekavian / Ijekavian). --Dijan 18:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- The article on Serbian Wikipedia on this term also claims that the usage and the meaning varies regionally. The specific points stated in that article are beyond me, so I encourage anybody knowledgeable (or with access to resources such as Речник српског језика which the article references) to expand and rectify existing usage notes. --Ivan Štambuk 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
We need qualified sources for this claim. --22.214.171.124 18:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)