Talk:Names of the Croats and Croatia

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Names of the Croats and Croatia is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia Mid‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Etymology Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

answers to removed inline questions

[1]:

horn-armor = armor made of horn (what else?)
Old Croatian article will come one day. Unfortunately, Communist Serboslavia obstructed any kind of linguistic research that would dispel the "brotherhood and unity" magic, which included systematic negligence of much of the Croat-only literary heritage, so the first Croatian comparative grammar ever came to be published only this year [2], whilst the project of compiling Old Croatian dictionary should be finished in 2-3 years [3] [4] and hopefully merged with the Croatian etymological dictionary project parallelly held at the Institute by mr. Matasović. OCS Institute has published volumes of Croatian Church Slavonic dictionary [5], and the grammar is soon under way [6], so yeah, in 2+ years it will indeed be possible to write the comprehensive article [[Old Croatian]] (and finally continue where Jagić left in his Old Croatian grammar 150 years ago [7]).
xъrvatъ is the romanization. yers are usually "romanized" as themselves (only sometimes as u/i with breve). Open up any Proto-Slavic dictionary/grammar and see for yourself.
toponyms are named after the ethnonym, so it's the same thing --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we will need an article on horn armor, then. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] - this 'x' symbol is for the transcription of voiceless velar fricative. 'kh' is never used AFAIK. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization needed

In the English Wikipedia, a romanization for "*xъrvatъ" is needed. The Cyrillic alphabet is not really the Roman alphabet. Certainly "kh" is commonly used in the romanization of the Cyrillic "x"; please see Tikhon Khrennikov. In English and romanization into English, "x" generally symbolizes the sound "ks," while "kh" in English and romanization into English represents the Cyrillic "x" phoneme. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "Cyrillic x", it is the word reconstructed on the basis of the comparative method. Voiceless velar fricative is in IPA notation trascribed as /x/, and that is the notation usually used in the Slavic studies for Proto-Slavic reconstructions. 'kh' is never used as far as I know. What other languages/schemes use is irrelevant, as this is by far the most common practice for this particular purpose.

Yers, as I said before, are usually "romanized" as themselves. Open up. e.g. Schenker:1995 "The Dawn of Slavic" and you have this transliteration page for Cyrillic/Glagolitic letters, and you see that the yers don't have Roman equivalent. In Proto-Slavic reconstructions they are usually never romanized, but are sometimes in Old Church Slavonic and other attested Church Slavonic languages as 'u' and 'i' with breve mark, because they are reconstructed to be pronounced as ultra-short [u] and [i] (they continue Balto-Slavic short *u, *i). However, by the time of Baška Tablet both yers were phonemically merged in Croatian, were lost in the weak position (their notation is just a remnant of scribal tradition), and in strong position they were some schwa-like sound that later yielded Croatian [a] (in most dialect, in Kajkavian [e]). So "romanizing" it here as u with breve would be additionally misleading here, because it's nothing sort of an [u] sound. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kubrat theory

Kubrat Khan(632-665) was the leader of the Bulgars. (= a Turkic people at that time!) see Old Great Bulgaria.

The Slavs were living in the Western parts of Crimea at that time under the rule of these Turkic-Bulgars.

theory:

(the people of) Kubrat > Kurbat > Kurvat > Kruvat = Croat / Hrvat

These Slavs(the people of Kubrat) went to White Croatia (now in Poland!), and then they came to modern Croatia. Böri (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for this theory or is this your own original research? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not my theory. This is the theory of J. B. Bury (from: A History of the later Roman empire from Arcadius to Irene (395-800). vol II London, 1889, 275-275). Henri Grégoire (historian) and A.Maricq also supported this theory. And Kubrat's name appears in Greek, Latin, Arabic and Slavic sources in several variations: Koubratos, Kobratos, Krobatos, Crobatus, Chudbadr, Chubraat, Kour't. My source: In search of the lost tribe: the origins and making of the Croatian nation (by Osman Karatay). You can find this book on Google. I have the Turkish version of this book. Böri (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact H H Howorth apparently covers this theory ahead of J B Bury. I had added it to the main page if you care to look with the reference to the page in question. He goes into much detail including the fact that the Hungarian version of the name Kubrat is Horvath.

2020

@Shurbanm:, please do not WP:EDITWAR and do not make a WP:3RR. Follow the WP:BRD process as your edits were partly reverted due to WP:EXCESSDETAIL, is only a minor among many theories, and copyright issues.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

understood and thank you

You obviously did not and made another revert. Do you want to discuss or get reported with a potential block?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I obvoiusly did and i obviously did not make a revert if you look closer - I merely moved it to reference section at bottom if you did not notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurbanm (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the quote under the reference. If you are going to call me a liar please use facts not just vague allegations. I understood what you said and that the big quote disrupts the structure hence I added it under the reference at the bottom. If you have problem understanding the difference between the two I am sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shurbanm (talk • contribs) 14:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

@OyMosby: I don't understand your recent editing of the section "Etymology". The best version would be this because the initial sentences in the paragraph are an introduction and abstract on the current consensus. Then it is followed by historical chronology and a more detailed theoretical explanation in upcoming paragraphs. The 7th source "Budak 2018, pp. 98" is not on the contrary of sources 8-12 yet is supporting them because on pp. 98 is written: "Naime, do danas nije riješeno i ne može se reći ni iz kojeg bi jezičnoga kruga ono moglo poticati. Lingvisti su nudili različita tumačenja, a čini se da je diskusija zasad zastala na ocjeni Radoslava Katičića izrečenoj prije dvadesetak godina, da je najmanje nevjerojatno da je hrvatsko ime iranskog podrijetla". The 8th-12th sources mainly discuss Iranian etymological derivations. If the second sentence is moved elsewhere then it would appear a strange false balance because there's no other theory in the sources which is argued with the same WP:WEIGHT like Iranian nor another theory is mentioned in the article. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Miki Filigranski: I went by order. The text “ The first etymological thesis about the name of the Croats stems....” implying the first theory therefore Inout it first. Iranians theories came later. And I grouped discussion based on topic such as topic about Iranian Origin. It was a good faith edit not “BOLD” as you claimed. My edit still had the statement at Iranian origin is the common consensus among historians. Look more closely at my edit and diff it still has “ Common theories from the 20th and 21st centuries derive it from an Iranian origin,”. I see you reverted me without giving me a chance to explain......OyMosby (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't claim that about you as it was a reference to me. In the edit summary, I mentioned having made a WP:BOLD edit due to this discussion. As for content, read again old revision. It implies practically there's no scientific consensus. As such it is mandatory after "...still subject to scientific disagreement" to have a follow-up sentence "However it is commonly believed that it might not be of native Slavic lexical stock, but a borrowing from an Iranian language". Otherwise, you're making a false balance.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll revert myself and trust your judgment then. I didn’t see it that way. OyMosby (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, let it pass. It's not a big deal.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvati in Greece

Pallini is a town in Attica Greece. The old name was Harvati. It was named by an Arvanite that was named Gjin Harvat. gjin=John. 2A02:587:9857:4500:A031:BAC6:2D25:A0B5 (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%A7%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B2%CE%AC%CF%84%CE%B9[reply]