Jump to content

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Slovenian vs Slovene)/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Guidelines for Moderation of Possibly-Insoluble Standoff

It is abundantly clear that both terms are widely accepted in English. Arguments that one or the other is wrong, whether purely subjective (how it sounds) or purportedly logical, are irrelevant POV and original research. (English is a very illogical language, and most English words are adaptations from other languanges that were incorporated by historical chance, not logic - e.g. "Indian").

If all interested parties will kindly provide pertinent references, primarily of how current scholars address the dispute (avoiding, again, original research into earliest uses, etymology, etc.) then perhaps we can form a consensus about which term to prefer in Wikipedia. I'll try to gather the references under one heading for solicitation of comments and votes. (note: WP is not a democracy - voting will only be a method for seeking consensus)

This consensus would speak most directly to the articles about the language and people of Slovenia, with redirects from the less-favored term. This would be an unofficial policy with reference to this discussion. Attempts to revert articles away from the consensus would meet strong resistance. Individual articles could link either to the article or the redirect, at the discretion of the editor(s) of those articles. Normal practice would favor linking directly to the consensus term, but it would hardly matter.

I propose listing citations with pertinent and concise quotes speaking directly to the controversy between Slovene and Slovenian. Please limit additional explanation to a short indication of the "authority" and context of the reference.

Thank you for helping resolve this disruptive conflict. Dystopos 15:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • According to this article the noun Slovene is preferred by the Oxford English Dictionary, The New York Times, The British Broadcasting Corporation, and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia as well as the US Central Intelligence Agency. Many of these prefer Slovenian as the adjectival form. This seems a reasonably authoritative group of sources. The noun Slovenians is apparently more common when referencing members of Slovenia's athletic teams.

If you read the comments section of for author's post you would have learned that The BBC, New York Times, Government of Ontario, and CIA frequently mix up Slovenian and Slovene (even in the SAME articles), and pay no attention to type (i.e. whether adjective or noun). The Oxford English Dictionary lists Slovene first and Slovenian second. The Oxford Canadian (and likely American and Australian) dictionaries list Slovenian first and Slovene as an alternative. The Oxford Pocket English dictionary mentions Slovenian first and Slovene not at all. Meanwhile, the sources providing support for Slovenian are CONSISTENT and use Slovenian exclusively, always. -BT

  • A respondent to the above-referenced article provided what I think is a reasonable guide to usage:
My two cents: Slovene [Slovenec] is the historic name in English for the Eastern Alpine Slavs and their language. The word "Slovenia" [Slovenija], referring to the country of the Slovenes, which before 1945, was merely a hope and an idea, derives from the name for the people, i.e., "Slovene." The word "Slovenian" derives from the word "Slovenia" and means "relating to the land of the Slovenes." If we want to be sticklers (and I don't), we could reserve "Slovene" (as both a noun and an adj.) for the ethnic group and "Slovenian" (as an adj. and possibly as a noun) for terms relating to the Republic of Slovenia. Hence, we would speak of "Slovene traditions" and "Slovenian laws." This might have some use. Erica Johnson Debeljak, for example, an American woman who is married to the Slovene poet Ales Debeljak and who herself writes and publishes essays in Slovenia and is, indeed, a citizen of both the USA and Slovenia, we could call a "Slovenian" writer and a "Slovenian" citizen. She also might be called, justifiably, a "Slovenian." But she is not Slovene, nor is she a Slovene. Louis Adamic, on the other hand, who was born in Slovenia but grew up in America and became a well-known writer there in the 1930s, we might call a "Slovene" writer and a "Slovene." But he was never a "Slovenian." But while this distinction might be pleasing to sticklers, it creates confusion, and in real-life terms, could actually do damage be creating two classes of citizens: Slovene Slovenians and non-Slovene Slovenians. So it's probably best to just pick one of these and stick with it. Personally, however, for terms relating unmistakably to the political entity Slovenia, I find it a little awkward to say "Slovene" -- for example, "Slovenian tolars," the "Slovenian Constitution," "Slovenian citizens" all sound better to me than if we used "Slovene" here. By the same token, terms relating unmistakably to the ethnic group seem to demand "Slovene" rather than "Slovenian": "Slovene cuisine," "Slovene fairy tales," "Slovene traditions." So I tend to use Slovene, both noun and adjective (always for the language), but prefer "Slovenian" for reference to the Republic of Slovenia. Consistency, after all, isn't all it's cracked up to be. And as Emerson said, it's the hobgoblin of little minds.

Inventing new definitions for archaic and unnatural terms is a quite sad, actually. More reasonable would be stick with what is logical and natural. Slovenians, Austrians, Australians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Californians, Virginians, Armenians, Bolivians, Bulgarians, Liberians, etc. -BT

  • Therefore, pending additional authoritative references, I Propose an unofficial policy that the preferred noun for referring to the people of Slovenia should be Slovene and the preferred adjective for referring to the language (among other things) should be Slovenian except in cases that clearly distinguish the ethnic group (Slovene) from the nation (Slovenian). This distinction should be explained in the Slovenes and Slovenian language articles. Dystopos 16:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dismiss your policy proposal for the above reasons (namely, this is not the place to invent new definitions for almost archaic words). The use of one term as a noun and the other as an adjective is very uncommon. We've been through this discussion before, and Wikipedia arbitrator Nohat sided with Slovenian. BT2 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dystopos's interim proposal. But for final resolution, since English lacks a regulating authority, the issue of what English speakers should call a foreign language ought to be decided by the regulating authority of the foreign language in question, in this case, the Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Robert Happelberg 17:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic. Are we discussing Slovene or English language? Why exactly would the regulating authority of the foreign language have the authority to regulate English - it only can regulate the foreign language. As far as I know, English is not officially regulated by Slovenes. --Eleassar777 my talk 18:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I think native-English speaking Slovenians should decide this. Somehow, I think if Slovene somehow sounded like kaka in English, XJam still wouldn't care. Slovenians do have considerable say as to what they are called by themselves and others in English, Eleassar. The vast majority (I'll provide sources later) of Slovenian organizations around the English-speaking world employ 'Slovenian(s)' rather than 'Slovene(s)'..and I think this helped propel Slovenian to dominance. BT2 19:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the SAZU's stand on this issue should be what Wikipedia goes by. If the SAZU, like other organizations mentioned by BT2, indeed calls itself "Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts" in the English-speaking world, I would consider this settled. What other way is there to decide this? All of the debate here seems to conclude nothing besides the fact that the words "Slovene" and "Slovenian" seem to occur with equal frequency in English periodicals. Anton Mravcek 20:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I have not seen yet any relevant etymological authorities recommending using Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun, I prefer using either Slovenian or Slovene for both linguistic forms.
As I trust Google and my judgement enough and still believe Slovenian is gaining rather than losing on its significance (as the source from 1994 is saying) and as the etymologic authorities contradict themselves, I think that the term Slovenian should be preferentially used. Therefore, it is my opinion that the titles of articles, and to be consistent such articles themselves, should include only Slovenian rather than Slovene (except for special exceptions, like alternative name of the topic, an official name of an organisation, discussing the word itself, links to articles containing Slovene and so on).
As I said, etymologic authorities contradict each other and it is therefore my opinion that we should be honest enough to allow the use of Slovene both as a noun and an adjective, if the article does not have Slovenian in its title and its primary author used Slovene as the only form before another user came by and changed the article. No matter how awful it may sound. By the way, one source argues that in all aspects, Slovene is much different from sloven.
Nevertheless, I am waiting for some additional sources where the contradicting authorities seem to have cooperated and perhaps I will be forced to change my opinion. --Eleassar777 my talk 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that some people still prefer to use the term Slovene, perhaps we could include a small footnote on pages concerning Slovenia, Slovenians, and anything Slovenian to acknowledge the synonym Slovene as a still valid term. Slovenian is the more natural and correct term, already dominant internationally, and only gaining popularity. For consistency (as opposed to appearing sloppy and generating confusion for others), Slovenian should be used for all categories, titles, and the like. But Slovene doesn't need to be wiped off the board. Sound good, XJam?

I would love to resolve this dispute and be able to allot my time elsewhere. I hope to later this year begin translating articles from here into the French and Italian wikipedias. BT2 00:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Different editors have different senses of what is archaic or natural and logical. Appeals to rationality have not been helpful so far. We must therefore, in my opinion, appeal to authority. The authorities cited in the above-mentioned article are said to "prefer" the noun Slovene, which is not so bold as to say that they use it exclusively; this is clearly not the case. SAZU seems a very reasonable authority to cite as a counter-example. Though they do not "regulate" English, they would put some thought into which term is preferred. I would argue that contemporary global English aspires to abide by subsidiarity for representing non-English concepts (witness the changing spellings for the Koran/Quran/Qur'an). We await a few more scholarly citations for the preference of Slovenian...The better judgment of one editor is not an authority. Google is not an authority on language and is relied upon entirely too much (in my opinion). Subject to the emergence of such citations, I observe that the emerging consensus is to favor consistency over ambiguity and to liberally explicate the substance of this controversy on the two pages Slovenes/Slovenians and Slovene language/Slovenian language. With respect to other articles that use one or the other term, I still vote to allow the editors of those pages to form their own conclusions as long as usage is consistent (or if inconsistent for good reason, explained). This policy would be similar to American vs. UK English. Since any links would redirect to the consensus-preferred article (with explanation of the possible connotations), there is NO reason to get into edit wars on those individual pages. (Are we making progress?) Dystopos 06:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • New sources (extracted from below):

I am forced to dismiss, again, the original research into etymology and Google hits. The former could possibly provide a logical schema for making a rational determination, but English rarely submits to rational arguments. The latter is too easily influenced by what is online vs offline (football reporting, for example) and by how a search is carried out. For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore these sources as original research (an official policy for article content, pertinent to this discussion only because I think it will be helpful in narrowing the focus away from emotional appeals, discussions of personal character, etc.). So we are left with these:

  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994/95) "Slovene ali Slovenian". Slava. Debatni list, Pg. 105.
  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994) Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih (Slovenian geographic names in English texts).
  • Gobetz. Frank. (December 1995) "Slovenian Americans Their Adjustment, Integration, and Contributions." Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. [1] - accessed 11 June 2005

Both authors cited here directly discuss the issue at hand. (Great!) Both appeal to rationality, common-sense and what is natural; yet they argue for different positions. Gobetz uses etymology and anecdote to support his preference. Klinar values brevity and claims "increasing use" for his preference (a claim that is disputed here). (Not so great.)

I don't think consensus is possible on the grounds of rationality, common-sense, or what is "natural". We must -- as I said before -- appeal to authority for a satisfactory conclusion. My proposal is that a determination, by whatever method, should apply solely to the naming of the primary articles (Slovenes/Slovenians and Slovene language/Slovenian language). Redirects would remove ambiguity and a detailed recounting of the controversy would appear on both those pages. I further proposed that the wording within other articles be left up to the editor(s) of those artices, linking to either wording and redirected where necessary. xJaM asked how that could work, observing that arbitrary editing takes place on this issue alone. My response is that any consensus made here will carry the undeniable caveat that both terms are widely accepted in English. There is clearly no need for wholesale revision of existing articles just to prefer one or the other. By reaching consensus on which term will be preferred in the main articles, we also assent that individual editors can use either term. Maybe it won't work, but at least we'll have something to point to if it comes to another useless edit war.

As a reminder, there is NO POINT in rehashing appeals to common sense, emotion, aesthetics, etymology, or the personal histories of WP editors. These tirades take up entirely too much space and contribute nothing to our progress toward consenus. We are now looking for additional citations re: scholarly consensus. If this effort is not productive and we do undertake, as xJaM has suggested, to take a vote I will abstain because my interest is to reach a solution that prevents edit wars rather than to exceed my limited expertise in matters of language. Dystopos 18:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New sources

--- December 1995 Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. Dr. Edward Gobetz 29227 Eddy Road Willoughby Hills, OH 44092

Both 'Slovene' and 'Slovenian' have long been used in respectable books and the media, yet there is still considerable disagreement as to which of the two terms is correct or at least preferable.

As Dr. Frank J. Kern pointed out in Zarja-The Dawn (Nov., 1949), the use of the term 'Slovene' had been copied from French. It was particularly popularized at the end of the First World War, when a new kingdom, known in French, then the primary diplomatic language, as 'Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovenes,' was established. The British incorrectly adopted and in the first two instances only slightly modified theFrench terms, introducing the English use of the words Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. With the exception of an accent and pronunciation, the English name 'Slovenes' is, in its written form, identical with the French term. Yet, while the use in French is quite appropriate, the use of an identical term in English is not. As a general rule, whenever the English names of countries end in '-ia,' the names of their respective peoples end in '-ian.'

Thus, we have Austria-Austrian, Australia-Australian, Russia-Russian, Lithuania-Lithuanian, Estonia-Estonian, Romania-Romanian,Bosnia-Bosnian, Cambodia-Cambodian, California-Californian, etc. Obviously, it is only logical that we should also use Slovenia-Slovenian.

This rule is so well established that it is almost impossible to imagine such terms as Austrenes, Australenes, Italenes, Russeries, Estoneries, etc. Who in the world would be willing to accept such distortions of the English language and its established logic? Yet, somehow, this is what has happened to the people of Slovenia (and let us emphasize that contrary to a recently published statement of a SIM translator, the name Slovenia, while discouraged by the Germans for purposes of easier Germanization, has been known for centuries, as we will show and document elsewhere). Dr. Kern openly and honestly regretted the 'bad influence of his own English-Slovene Dictionary and The English-Slovene Reader.' To comply with the British version he, too, at first used the incorrect 'Slovene,' but later, for many decades, tried to correct his 1919 mistake and advocated the universal use of the term 'Slovenian,' both as a noun and an adjective. The defenders of the term Slovenian range from Dr. Kern and Dr. Vojmir Bratina, an internationally prominent Slovenian Canadian (not Canadene!) metallurgist, who is also a capable linguist and is exceptionally well versed in Slovenian literary history, archeology and the arts, to Dr. Charles Gribble, an American professor of Slavic languages and literatures and director of the Slavica Publishers, who, for instance, wrote us how glad he was that The Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc., used the correct term 'Slovenian' rather than the incorrect 'Slovene' (advocated by a Slovenian-born professor in New York).

It was, however, only in November, 1995, that we heard another very interesting and witty observation on this topic, as related by Mrs. Genevieve 'Gene' Drobnic. Her late father Frank Jaksic, like herself a noted Slovenian American civic leader, put it this way: 'When residents of Virginia will no longer be called Virginians but Virgins, then, and only then, I would be willing to call our people Slovenes rather than Slovenians.' While we hope that this logic will inevitably and increasingly prevail throughout the English-speaking world, it is nevertheless comforting to know that quite regardless of whether we use Slovenian or Slovene, love is in every Slovenian. Is there any other county in the entire world which contains love in its very name?"

---


Stanko Klinar. Slovene ali Slovenian. Slava. Debatni list, No. plus 1994/1995. Pg. 105.

I apologise for any possible grammatical errors in the translation and would appreciate it very much if someone corrected them. It goes like this:

"Citation from the book Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih (Slovenian geographic names in English texts. S. Klinar. 1994):

"We prefer the form Slovene over Slovenian, as it is shorter and is being increasingly used both in England and in America; besides this the parallel forms with exactly the same meaning are not necessary." (paragraph 1.4.1). Increasingly used? That is just shameful spreading of misinformation on the part of Mr. Klinar. He may prefer 'Slovene' but it is clearly on its way out. In the early 1990s, Slovene was dominant in the international media, in books, on the internet, naming of Slovenian organizations... basically everywhere except among Slovenian communities in English speaking countries. Most English teachers in Slovenia didn't even mention to their students that Slovenian existed. Today Slovenian dominates the internet, international media, among Slovenian communities in English speaking countries, is continuously replacing Slovene in the names of Slovenian organizations, is being taught as an alternative to Slovene by English teachers in Slovenia, and so on. Clearly Slovenian is gaining popularity at the expense of Slovene. -BT

<Then, without giving any new arguments, the author continues that all arguments for Slovenian are only quackering and in the next section, he continues:>

Well, nevertheless! It has been found:

  • that none of the forms are limited only to England or America (therefore both are being approximately equally used in both countries)

Not true at all. Although not limited to one country or the other, they certainly aren't used approximatedly equally in each. Further, Slovenian is gaining rapid popularity in England (refer British based media Europort, official English language European soccer/football association site www.uefa.com --uses Slovenian(s) pretty much exclusively, official English language basketball league site www.euroleague.net --uses Slovenian(s) pretty much exclusively, etc). -BT

  • that in the past Slovenian was favored, but now its time is passing.

The exact opposite of reality and thus totally ridiculous. I would love to see Mr. Klinar try to back up his statement with even one piece of evidence. -BT

  • that associating Slovene with sloven is a nonsense, as there is such a difference in spelling, pronounciation and lingustic categorisation that by sober people, it is impossible to confuse the two words semantically or declensionally.

'sloven' is written TWICE (exact spelling) in the Marko Snoj's excerpt, provided by XJam

  • that some years ago, Tomaž Lužar from Canada wrote in Delo's Readers' Letters that the form Slovene is making him vomit, but at the same time he forgot he himself is a member of the American society named Slovene Studies that publishes a review with unvomited Ložar's contributions.

And your point is...? -BT

  • that in spite of all this, anyone anywhere on the terrestrial globe can use either Slovene or Slovenian without shortening anyone's, the least his own, good sleep.

Sapienti sat! If this is not enough for someone, they should read the sonet of Prešeren on Abderites ("Is it correct to write kaωa or kaSha") yet."

Form Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1967):

"Slovene: slo(u)vin member of a Slavonic people inhabiting Slovenia in NW. Yugoslavia; their language XIX — G. Slowene — Styrian, etc. Slovenec (pl. -enci), f.Osl.Slov. - as also in Slovak, held by some to be f. stem of slovo word, sloviti speak."

Legend:

  • — "adoption of"
  • f. formed on
  • G. "German"
  • NW. Northwestern
  • Osl. Old Slavonic
  • pl. plural

Ok, so can we say that we have?

Two authorities in favor of Slovenian:

  • Slovenian Academy of Arts and Sciences
  • The paper written by Mr Gobetz

Two authorities in favor of Slovene:

  • Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
  • the paper written by Stanko Klinar (easily exposed for providing considerable misinformation)

Have I forgotten anyone? --Eleassar777 my talk 08:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S.:I would especially like to hear XJaM's opinion. --Eleassar777 my talk 08:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that this is quite inconclusive and can't hope to reveal policy, but the SAZU use both Slovene and Slovenian on their website in almost equal amounts: Slovene has 23 Google hits and Slovenian 36. Taking this into account I don't think the SAZU actually are in favour of either; they appear to use the two terms quite indiscriminately. Of course we always could send them an e-mail and ask.
And, with regard to Dystopos' proposal above ("Subject to the emergence of such citations, I observe that the emerging consensus is to favor consistency over ambiguity and to liberally explicate the substance of this controversy on the two pages Slovenes/Slovenians and Slovene language/Slovenian language. With respect to other articles that use one or the other term, I still vote to allow the editors of those pages to form their own conclusions as long as usage is consistent (or if inconsistent for good reason, explained). This policy would be similar to American vs. UK English"), how would such an approach be feasible? Especially considering BT2's inclination to arbitrarily change all occurrences of Slovene to Slovenian even in previously consistent articles (including Slovenes and Slovene language, which were initially written using Slovene).
82.192.47.203, California, United States.
How did that "California" get there? XJam: I AM English but am currently holidaying/visiting relatives in Slovenia. 82.192.47.203
It was me that posted California. That's the location of the IP address and I thought it was important. I do not believe it is a violation of privacy as the user himself/herself posted the number and anyone could easily track it down. If the user wished it not to be disclosed, they could have easily registered themselves and if they wished to offer relevant information about themselves, they could also easily do so and would be appreciated. I apologize to all implicated for not saying it was the IP address location and signing myself there. It seems that I caused a lot of mess, but at least we now know the real situation. --Eleassar777 my talk 17:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SAZU and many organizations use Slovenian in their OFFICIAL English name. Who cares what bad habits some other authors contributing articles have. Further, Slovenian organizations are on record for replacing Slovene in their names with Slovenian, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. -BT

The institution itself cares and my guess is that they understand both terms as valid but prefer Slovenian. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eleassar777 I am right here. Allow me, please, to add some more additional words. 82.192.47.203, you have shown some good points, if I may say so. At first I thought you're coming from UK, especially because of your style of telling. Can you see now BT2 how a word Slovene can sound lovely, concise and perfectly good English - and this is written by one American from Caifornia, as it seems. BT2 I shall first tell you something. Your sentence: I think if Slovene somehow sounded like kaka in English, XJam still wouldn't care is really not serious. How can you say something like this? As you are Slovenian American, I am Slovene and of course I do care a lot. As I've said already somewhere I may call myself a patriot - I could even die in 1991 in those events during the . Where were you at that time BTW? You've said to Anton that you have already been here and that you enjoy your time at local Slovene picnics with lots of Avsenik music, dancing. You could also volunteer to fight against the oppressors.If a war would last longer, would you enlist to fight? As a Timeline of Slovene history shows this nation (Slovenes) are dealing with one longlasting fight for their solely existance - you have attacked it for beeing nonprofessional and so on - but it is just one Wikipedia's article, written by some wikipedians. This fight is going still on. Perhaps even right now with my writing and argueing... If, for example, Decius, who is BTW Romanian, thinks that he earns the whole knowledge of human history - that is his right. I do not know now of which Veneti Homer or Herodotus wrote, I have just put in the article what I have found in other sources. I can't understand that if you were fair enough BT2 and told that your father also used Slovene, and now that he does not anymore. Why they (your father and friends in Slovenia) have to break the bad habit? Who to decide this? Native-English speaking Slovene?

For the sake of argument, let us say Slovene is not an incorrect term (i.e. is not unnatural and was not copied from French).

Hereby, Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology says that it derives from German Slowene. So we have two opposing sources and we don't know which one is right, as they did not indicate any further references. But yes, I would rather believe it came from French than German. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let us also ignore the fact the Oxford Canadian (and most probably American and Australian) show Slovenian first, and Slovene an alternative.

As already said by someone else, the use of the word Slovenian may be preferentially used in Canada, but not the etymologically preferred form. As for American and Australian dictionaries, we just don't know. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also ignore the fact the Paperback Oxford English dictionary (ISBN 0-19-860454-8) lists the following entries:

Slovenia - a country in SE Europe, formerly a republic of Yugoslavia; capital, Ljubljana. --Derivatives Slovenian adj. & n.

Austria - a republic in central Europe; capital, Vienna. --Derivatives Austrian adj. & n.

No entry and no mention exists for Slovene, and actually Slovenia is in Central (or South Central) Europe. But let us ignore this too.

You're true here. Slovenian can nevertheless be the preferred term. If someone is not a good geographer, they can nevertheless be a good dictionary writer. However, did they put the word on the first place because it is the preferred one according to Google (or some other source) or because they scrutinized etymological dictionaries? I would like to understand the process of writing these dictionaries. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How then, in the face of the (British) Oxford English dictionary and most other then-existing dictionaries (who probably just followed Oxford's lead), did Slovenian get so popular? How can the supposed so natural and pleasant term Slovene lose dominance with all that it had going for it? Think about it. --BT

I think that could happen for two reasons:
  • either Slovenian is the preferred term for etymological reasons.
  • either people just blindly follow the rule of adding -ian, when the country ends in -ia.

I do not wish to say which of these reasons prevails. Anyone should decide for themselves. I just wish to point out that the latter reason does not show the word Slovene is incorrect and should not be used. These rule may be broken if etymologists and linguists think that would be appropriate - we have no option but to believe this. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you speaking Slovene BT2? If so, then you are also invited to . I do believe, if someone has to deal this problem, then others might come into a game. If we won't be able to resolve the problem and then that we decide to vote, I suggest that this voting should last at least half a year and that these parties should be involved:

  • up to 10 or 20 native-English speakers (Dystopos, Nohat, ...),
  • up to 10 or 20 Slovenes (native speakers of Slovene (and perhaps English)) (foreigners, citizens of Slovenia - let us say) (Eleassar777, Primož, Roman, Sinuhe, xJaM, Zocky, ...),
  • up to 10 native-English speakers who might speak also Slovene (Slovenian Americans, Canadians, ...) (Anton, BT2, LightningHop, ...),
  • up to 5 Slovene foreigners (zamejci, zamejski Slovenci) (living in Austria, Italy, near borders of Slovenia, ...) (, ...),
  • up to 5 to 10 Slavic people (Boraczek, Drbug, Joy, Millosh, Vassili Nikolaev, ...).

This is my list of eventual participants in eventual voting. We can not load this task to only native-English speaking Sloevene that BT2 proposed. I guess he meant Slovene/Slovenian Americans and related.

I would not know how did you figure these numbers, but I can agree that there should be a voting process if we are unable to reach any decision and that all these groups of people have to be involved in it. Saying that only native-English Slovenians should decide because only they love Slovenia truly and only they understand the language (as BT2 argued) just does not sustain any argument. However, to some degree, it can influence the number of users being allowed to vote.
We should also think about the voting questions. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for how a word Slovene/Slovenian came into English. As we know now that it must have come somewhere in the mid of 19th century (Nohat citations about years 1844 and 1883, Baraga, who used Slovenian, Mr. Edward Gobetz, who showed and claims the word came from French Slovėnes and that Slovene is therefore not a correct term, Eleassar777 also told (showed with a reference, to be sure --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)) that it might come from German Slowene, ...). We know that the idea of a state of Slovenia was not known before 1920 or 1945 and that it came into heads of some patriots in the 1840s.

However, we know that Mr Gobetz claimed the name Slovenia has been known for centuries and planned to "show and document it elsewhere". Should I find another source - although someone else could also do some work searching for printed materials. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what was here first? A state or a nation? Independent state of Slovenia as we also know came in 1991, between 1945 and 1991 it was a Yugoslav socialist republic with the same name (Slovene Slovenija).

Even before that it was a part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Royaume des Serbes, Croates et Slovenes). --Eleassar my talk 19:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How would one English speaking if he does not know anything about the nation of Slovenes translate their name (Slovenci) or even one English scholar a Proto-Slavic word *slovene? My guess is simply Slovens or even Slovenes as it probably happened. Why then 'Slovenian'? From which base or way? Consider this as simple argueing, and not sophisticated reasoning. That Proto-Slavic word nicely shows, at least to me, what is the base for naming this nation.

I have used the dictionary myself and can confirm that the word Slovene (with some strange diacritics above the first e) was used in proto-Slavic.
As to the base for naming this nation, I can't agree. It is the people that determine which word will be used in a language, not the etymologists. And it is most reasonably to assume that the word was taken from French or German, as these were the nations that English people had contact with. It is my guess that it really came from French, because it was used in England more than German and it really was and remains the diplomatic language (lingua franca). --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It came later also into Slovene naming Slovenci. I hope I have done my homework and that I won't be accused again beeing pure hypocrite. 82.192.47.203 also showed that most of first articles in English Wikipedia related to Slovenes, Slovenia were written using term "Slovene". BT2 you can admit that you came much later (as I recall even with a nick BT) and you have begun to persuade all here around that only and only correct term is 'Slovenian'. I am glad that someone else realized that. After that came categories, and now mostly all use 'Slovenian'. Also Nohat gave himself a right to decide in the name of Wikipedia for this issue. We, who write articles now find that using just one term is a bit disturbing, since we have to adopt term we do not use and leave those which are valid and in accordance of naming conventions. I might also say that I am not irrational as BT2 said, because I have changed all terms koledž to preferrable kolidž (college) and some more in Slovene Wikipedia, for what I can thank to users like Irbis are. Best regards, respect and greetings from Slovenia. Žive naj vsi narodi, ki hrepene dočakat' dan, da koder sonce hodi, prepir iz sveta bo pregnan, da rojak prost bo vsak, ne vrag, le sosed bo mejak! --xJaM 14:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to the last two sentences 1000%. Don't worry be happy! Tuuuu, tu tu tu, tutututu... Slovenija odkod lepote tvoje! --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A wonderful sentiment, indeed. Dystopos 21:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why then 'Slovenian'? How many times must it be said? Slovenia->Slovenian, Armenia->Armenian, Austria->Austrian, Australia->Australian, California->Californian, Estonia->Estonian, Latvia->Latvian, Lithuania->Lithuanian, Virginia->Virginian, Bolivia->Bolivian, India->Indian, Bulgaria->Bulgarian, etc. It's natural, it's logical.

It is natural and logical, but there are exceptions and sometimes illogic things may be also correct.

And who cares what the German word for Slovenians is. For Germans, it's Deutsche. Nobody calls them Deutschenes. BT2 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Etymologists care and we rely heavily on them to show that the word Slovene is a reasonable word. We have two etymologic sources showing that. Although the term Slovenian is more frequently used. At least I believe so and I don't see any reason not to trust Google more than Mr Klinar. Google is a very large statistical sample and Mr Klinar did not give any references where his claims could be verified. And BT2 showed sufficiently well that they should be. I still hold the opinion that the best policy for Wikipedia would be the one I briefly sketched above. However, I do not expect anyone to agree with me. --Eleassar777 my talk 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
P.S.: Please note that I made my last edits before reading Dystopos's comment that I have later transferred below. --Eleassar my talk 20:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New sources (refactored)

    • New sources (extracted from above) (time:18:13; added by Eleassar):

I am forced to dismiss, again, the original research into etymology and Google hits. The former could possibly provide a logical schema for making a rational determination, but English rarely submits to rational arguments. The latter is too easily influenced by what is online vs offline (football reporting, for example) and by how a search is carried out. For the purposes of this discussion, I will ignore these sources as original research (an official policy for article content, pertinent to this discussion only because I think it will be helpful in narrowing the focus away from emotional appeals, discussions of personal character, etc.). So we are left with these:

  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994/95) "Slovene ali Slovenian". Slava. Debatni list, Pg. 105.
  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994) Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih (Slovenian geographic names in English texts).
  • Gobetz. Frank. (December 1995) "Slovenian Americans Their Adjustment, Integration, and Contributions." Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. [2] - accessed 11 June 2005

Both authors cited here directly discuss the issue at hand. (Great!) Both appeal to rationality, common-sense and what is natural; yet they argue for different positions. Gobetz uses etymology and anecdote to support his preference. Klinar values brevity and claims "increasing use" for his preference (a claim that is disputed here). (Not so great.)

I don't think consensus is possible on the grounds of rationality, common-sense, or what is "natural". We must -- as I said before -- appeal to authority for a satisfactory conclusion. My proposal is that a determination, by whatever method, should apply solely to the naming of the primary articles (Slovenes/Slovenians and Slovene language/Slovenian language). Redirects would remove ambiguity and a detailed recounting of the controversy would appear on both those pages. I further proposed that the wording within other articles be left up to the editor(s) of those artices, linking to either wording and redirected where necessary. xJaM asked how that could work, observing that arbitrary editing takes place on this issue alone. My response is that any consensus made here will carry the undeniable caveat that both terms are widely accepted in English. There is clearly no need for wholesale revision of existing articles just to prefer one or the other. By reaching consensus on which term will be preferred in the main articles, we also assent that individual editors can use either term. Maybe it won't work, but at least we'll have something to point to if it comes to another useless edit war.

As a reminder, there is NO POINT in rehashing appeals to common sense, emotion, aesthetics, etymology, or the personal histories of WP editors. These tirades take up entirely too much space and contribute nothing to our progress toward consenus. We are now looking for additional citations re: scholarly consensus. If this effort is not productive and we do undertake, as xJaM has suggested, to take a vote I will abstain because my interest is to reach a solution that prevents edit wars rather than to exceed my limited expertise in matters of language. Dystopos 18:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dystopos, I have transferred your last post here to make it more visible. I hope you agree with this. I have only scanned it till now, but it seems interesting. You may also read the section above again, as I added some new commentaries and inbetween there may be something you would perhaps consider relevant. No new sources, however. --Eleassar my talk 20:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Eleassar. I have been reading up on the mediation process and I think we have enough goodwill here to be able to establish some guidelines that might help stabilize the ongoing revert wars even if consensus is not found about which term should be preferred overall. I will summarize them in a separate section.

Additional Secondary Sources

  • Another potential source, favoring Slovene but accepting either:

Slovenian or Slovene ?

If only this were a simple matter which some dusty grammar or usage book could resolve. But lexicology is always fickle, especially in the most widely mis-used language in the world, English.

There is indeed a general rule that the inhabitants of countries ending in -ia are designated with the ending -ian. But how do we explain, then, that the correct English for an inhabitant of Yugoslavia is the word "Yugoslav" ? And that natives of Serbia are usually Serbs, while those of Croatia are Croats?

Webster offers both Slovene and Slovenian as correct, giving the derivation of Slovene as the German Slowene. And in a gallant gesture peculiar to lexicographers, Webster defines the word Slovenian as "A Slovene." Oxford offers both variants as correct options, while Hutchinson (Encyclopedic Edition) offers only Slovene. Half a page up in the latter, we find Slovakia and its language of Slovak (not Slovakian!).

The inhabitants of Malaysia are called Malaysians. No, wait a minute, aren't they Malays? Aha! The word Malaysian was coined in the sixties as a non-racial designation for the inhabitants of the federated states of Malaya (comprising Malays, Malayan Chinese and Tamil Indians) and what became East Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah). And what does this have to do with Slovenia? Well, taking the Malay or Malaysian precedent, might we not ask: are all Slovenians Slovene?

The people of Germany are Germans, while those of Italy are Italians. No end of confusion. What should we call the people of Hungary: Hungars? The inhabitants of Albany, N.Y. should therefore probably be Albanians.

Now for a quick technical recapitulation: the ending deriving from countries with -ia is usually -ian, except where another variant is possible. Such possibilities are rare, and curiously had a high concentration in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. We tend to use Slovene simply because we can; it is more elegant than Slovenian. There are very few words (most of them chemicals) in English that end in -ene. Jesus is thought to have been an Essene (and not Essenian!). The ending -ian is in effect a "catch-all" ending for use where no other possibility exists. The logical translation into English of "Ljubljanean" is "Ljubljanian", but this sounds so forced that we avoid it, preferring to use something like "resident of Ljubljana". For the same reason, probably, we have to contend with Iranians on the one hand and Iraqis on the other. And then there are the Omanis, not forgetting of course the Jordanians, the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There are no lexical opportunities in the penultimate syllables of most country names to allow for a "short form" ending. We could not say "Australs" or "Cambods", let alone "Romans" (the ones from Bucharest, that is), simply because these words sound very strange or else they mean something else (like the Virgins of Virginia), and lexicologically it does not work in English - at this time. We should not forget that English is evolving (degenerating, some would say) at a fast rate.

Incontrovertible proof of the acceptability of the word Slovene alongside Slovenian is provided by none other than the revered lexicologist (and songwriter) Cole Porter. I quote:

In Spain the best upper sets do it. Lithuanians and Letts do it, Let's do it, let's fall in love Lithuanians and who? Letts, of course, the felicitous inhabitants of Latvia, and not to be confused with Latvians.

So the long and short of it is that neither Slovene nor Slovenian has any greater claim to correctness. Ultimately, some argue that Slovenian refers to the state, while Slovene refers to ethnicity. This could be a workable solution, except that it is usually still too confusing to have two different designations in the same text.

At Amidas, we tend to use Slovene since it has a more elegant ring to it. On the other hand, Slovenian is widely used and accepted (particularly in the USA),

Roger Metcalfe, Amidas Translation Company (link) Dystopos 18:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • And this essay, favoring both(!)

Slovenija, slovenski, Slovenec, Slovenka, slovensko, slovenscina - Slovenian or Slovene?

The controversy of Slovenian or Slovene has been kept alive largely due to strong feelings people have regarding its usage in the English language.

I first came across the English word in 1945, when we were told to say: I am Slovene.( Sem Slovenka). Later I found that in Slovenia during the post WW2 period Slovene was used exclusively to denote the person, the adjective, the adverb, as well as the language.

From about the late seventies o Slovenian immigrants in the English-speaking world began increasingly to use Slovenian in preference to Slovene, since the word sloven and slovenly in the English vocabulary had the meaning of a habitually untidy, careless person. It was an association that they wished to avoid (the word is actually Flemish in origin slov pronounced as slof,)

When I became involved in introducing Slovenian as a subject in Australian school system in 1976, I consulted the Oxford dictionary and found the word b]Slovene[/b] for noun and adjective and Slovenian principally to indicate the language (slovenscina).

Since independence the word Slovenian has largely replaced Slovene as meaning Slovenec, Slovenka, slovenski, slovensko, slovenscina, although many Slovenian authors and academics still adhere exclusively to the use of Slovene for nouns, adjectives and to denote Slovenian language.

The Oxford Dictionary in the most recent version now cites both Slovene and Slovenian as alternatives without discriminating either way, to indicate "a native or national of Slovenia or a person of Slovenian descent or relating to Slovenia, its people or language".

My own inclination is to use both terms, based on the belief that the greater variety of form corresponds to the variety existing both in Slovenian and English languages. In short, we should use both forms.

I like to use the term Slovene for Slovenec and Slovenka, as being closest in form to the Slovenian word and the term Slovenian for slovenscina (language) and as an adjective - pertaining to Slovenia, for example: Slovenian countryside, Slovenian people, Slovenian song...

I have found that I can seldom persuade anyone about the rightness of my approach (particularly those who dislike the association with the word slovenly ; personally I believe in wearing proudly the word, which has possibly been used in a mean, downgrading way by ancient enemies. After all, the word Slav or slovo (which by the way means word in contemporary Serbo-Croatian) is much more ancient than any other and it means to speak. In Slovenian today it refers to grammar (slovnica), glory (slava), fame (sloves), celebration (slovesnost), to be famous (sloveti), parting, saying good-bye (slovo), to part, to say good-bye (posloviti se).

In conclusion, the present usage both within and outside Slovenia, allows for people making their own choice of usage when writing and speaking English.

Sasha Ceferin. The Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria (Australia). Post to Thezaurs forum. Aug 05, 2003. (link). Dystopos 18:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Note in searching for additional references, the only times I have seen reference to Slovene being an archaic term or "rapidly decreasing" in use have been mirrors of Wikipedia content. It gives pause to realize that what we say about things in our articles spreads so easily across Google's index of the web. Dystopos 18:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Possible Points of Consensus (Please limit length of comments in this section)

I believe there are some helpful points on which we can agree that might not settle the larger question, but may establish some ground rules and reduce the burden on those who feel compelled to engage in revert wars. I propose in this section that comments be limited to one-sentence summaries of opinion so that we can easily see if a consensus is forming: Dystopos 21:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a great idea. However, my opinion is that we do not have all possibly available information yet to answer on all of these questions, so I have also added the answer Don't know. I still believe Google and libraries can be very relevant in making the final decision (will argument this later), I am waiting to see the paper I mentioned above and perhaps I will also write an e-mail to both authorities. It doesn't cost me anything more than a few minutes. I have also split the second point in two separate questions and have made the item 6 more neutral (IMO). --Eleassar my talk 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Item 1: Both Slovene and Slovenian are widely accepted in English usage and both should be accepted in English-language WP articles.
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Agree. More than evident. --Eleassar my talk 12:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DISAGREE. Slovene tolerated, not accepted; discouraged and called incorrect by Dr. Gobetz. BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). comment The wide acceptance of English does not begin and end with Dr. Gobetz. Please add new sources of evidence to above sections as they are uncovered. Dystopos 04:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Item 2: There is a legitimate controversy about whether one or the other term should be preferred universally.
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Disagree. This controvery is not legitimate. We have all means to find that out what is preferred and use these terms in titles and in the corresponding text to comply to Naming conventions and consistency. I believe it is possible to do so by using Google and libraries. See below. --Eleassar my talk 08:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DISAGREE Slovenian is already internationally preferred and many Slovenian organizations have already replaced the incorrect Slovene with Slovenian. There is no legitimate controversy. BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Item 3: The substance of this debate should be summarized, without POV, on the main articles (Slovenes/Slovenians and Slovene language/Slovenian language).
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Disagree. The substance should be summarized, but not in the articles suggested. In my opinion, it would be best to merge the articles Slovene and Slovenian in a new article named "Slovenian or Slovene" and summarize the discussion there. --Eleassar my talk 12:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. See Eleassar's point. BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Item 4: Within a single article, consistency in usage is preferred, regardless of whether or not it is reasonable to implement a wholesale policy (similar to US English vs UK English).
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Agree. Consistency makes reading easier. --Eleassar my talk 12:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Item 5: Despite the risk of confusion, it is possible to distinguish between separate connotations for each term (ethnic identity vs national identity). In some cases this distinction is worthwhile, but the reason for the apparent inconsistency should be explained if the editor makes such distinction.
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Disagree. Too artificial and unsupported for my taste. We're not discussing Ilmen Slavs here. --Eleassar my talk 09:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. I can hardly believe that English language is distinguishing this. The same thing is in Slovene language. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. This is really a non-issue, i.e. [ethnic] Slovenian/Italian/Austrian/-ian [ex-patriot or national]. On the other hand, Slovene refers to either a) A Slovenian b) An Ilmen Slav! BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). Comment it seems that if Slovene can refer to a wider category of people than Slovenian, then the terms should be distinguishable (though not for the same set of cases). Dystopos 04:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Item 6: Until a consensus is formed, editing articles to favor Slovene for Slovenian or vice-versa should only be done to establish consistency within the article or to create a distinction (and if the latter, the term's connotation should be explained).
    • Agree / Disagree / Don't know
  • Agree, under the condition that all users refrain from changing consistence established by another user. --Eleassar my talk 10:03, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. But BT2 should sustain his actions for pure reverts all over until that time. After this debate took place he is still doing this. --xJaM 18:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment This would also follow from consensus on Item 1. Dystopos 21:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. My edits establish consistency within the same article. BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Comment I just have corrected these two articles (Ronald M. Sega - original terms were used in different way, Slovenian Americans - I've used term 'American Slovenes' ). --xJaM 09:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Comments about "Possible Points of Consensus

Without participation of those who know or at least care about the facts (i.e. not XJam, Dystopos), the above survey loses its validity. It is already written in a self-serving and misleading way (see items 1 and 2). BT2 02:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BT2, All interested parties are welcome to participate, whether or not they appear to you to care about facts (which are themselves) disputed. I apologize if my wording seems self-serving. I really have no stake in this argument except that I'm tired of seeing Plečnik's page show up on my watchlist five times a day as a result of your edit wars. I'd be proud if I could moderate any points of consensus that could make everyone happy contributing instead of just reverting. It looks like a second round of comment will be needed, one that puts to rest the items (or slants of items) on which there is no hope of consensus. I know this problem has surpassed the patience of several well-meaning participants and I am close to an end myself. Dystopos 04:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to item 2, I think that there is controversy for now, but only because we do not use Google and libraries. I think we should trust them more.

It is my opinion that one can search Google reliably by using Slovenian respectively Slovene (an adjective) and Slovenians respectively Slovenes (a noun) in a combination with topic-specific commonly used words, like money, health, software, business, sex, music, news etc and limiting the searching to English results only. That way, the search covers many fields of knowledge (not only history or sport) and also avoids including French pages.

Searching in libraries (the most relevant are COBISS, Britisih Library, Library of Congress) should be done by limiting it to the items that have one of these terms in their title (to avoid other influences) and that are written in English language. As for COBISS (COBIBB), which has the largest number of hits, one can see easily see (by using sorting by publishing year - descending) that these items were published mainly later than 1991 (many come from the last 5 years) and that they also cover a wide array of knowledge. The British Library and the Library of Congress also both show the same results for what is preferred as a noun and as an adjective.

After much has been said I have done such searching yesterday in the evening and as I wish to follow the most reliable sources, I have to doubt now in my previous opinion that one could more easily demonstrate Slovenian is preferred in all cases internationally rather than that it is preferred for the adjective and Slovene for the noun. This is what I discovered by using Google no matter what the other keyword was and also by searching the libraries' catalogues. I would be very grateful if one finds an exception to this rule by using the same procedures that I have described above.

I believe that the results given by the databases correctly show what are the preferred terms (the most commonly used terms). Even if this is not based on the etymology. Especially because these are large and contemporary databases which both support each other. And are supported also by a third, although perhaps somewhat unreliable source, Michael's page. On the contrary, they oppose to the opinion of the authorities (that do not support each other). I also do not imagine where else could Mr Klinar turn himself to estimate the frequency of this terms than to Web and libraries.

So, Mr Gobetz claims that Slovenian should be used as a noun (nation) and Mr Klinar claims that Slovene should be used (as an adjective, I presume. By the way, in all cases, also for the country Slovenia). As already said, this is exactly the opposite of what one would expect to be the preferred form according to two largest databases. And according to authors' opinions, we could more easily extrapolate that for the nation, we should use Slovenian and Slovenians, but for the country, we should use Slovene and Slovenes! I would prefer to do it another way - but yes, this is artificial indeed. On the other side, I do not wish to say anything else about etymology and who has right here.

After all this my current standpoint is that Slovenian should be preferred as an adjective and Slovene as a noun in titles and the corresponding articles. In all other cases any form could be used, as long as we are consistent.

It is so because it can be sufficiently well demonstrated that common users use Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun, but on the other side it is really hard (and impossible with the sources that we currently have) to prove that one or the other form is preferred etymologically or linguistically. Neither of the references provided is comprehensive and well enough supported and we can all doubt in them. --Eleassar my talk 08:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

It is so because it can be sufficiently well demonstrated that common users use Slovenian as an adjective and Slovene as a noun..

Eleassar, I totally disagree with this. The major international sports organization websites (publishing new articles frequently about Slovenia and Slovenians) alone obliterate your theory. All we've seen here in real support of Slovene as noun, Slovenian as an adjective is Michael Manske's personal blog! There is also the CIA website, but it uses Slovenian and Slovene interchangeably on the very same page it states (incorrectly Slovene is the noun, and Slovenian is the adjective). Slovene is well on its way out my friend. By the way, do you say Croat or Croatian? I asked XJam the same question: BT2 01:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I get it. This is really splitting hairs. My Webster's indicates "Slovene" is a perfectly OK term. I wondered if it was considered an insult, like calling a "Chinese man" a "Chinaman". Or maybe an Irishman an "Irene". Apparently it's simply a foreign word. My guess is that the "vandal" thought he was being correct. If he does it again, maybe you should state in your reversion that Slovene is a French term, Slovenian is an English term, and the last time you checked, this encyclopedia is written in English. You'll be doing everyone a favour. Or do you say favor?

This also raises a question... was Jesus of Nazareth a Nazarene, or a Nazarenian? ;) Wahkeenah 23:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why I am using Croatian instead of Croat? Simply because I really do not want to fall in another debate which term is preferrable. This is no mistery - a simple fact that Wikipedia now uses this term. But don't think I shall switch to 'Slovenian' because of that - only if we would reach a consensus and if someone with good arguments shall persuade me. --xJaM 00:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My Webster's says it this way:

  • Slovene - noun - One of a southern Slavic group usually classed with the Serbs and Croats. The dictionary says Slovene is Greek. Maybe that's where we get "Nazarene", as the New Testament was written largely in Greek.
  • Slovenian - adjective - Slovene; noun - a Slovene. Also, the language of the Slovenes, closely akin to Serbo-Croatian. Wahkeenah 00:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Interesting, Wahkeenah. From where a Greek language now came? During the last days we are just hearing that a word "Slovene" came from French word Slovėnes, or from German word Slowene. You can also see my non-English etymological source at Talk:Slovenians where a Proto-Slavic word '*slovene' is described and of course other debates. I would say in a simple manner that Jesus was Nazarethian, or Nazarethe :-) --xJaM 00:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast, XJam. I think our friend Wahkeenah is having trouble reading his dictionary. I, too, have a Webster's dictionary (1971 -- several years older than me). Its entry for Slovene is the following:

Slovene n, [G, fr. Slovene Sloven] 1 a : a member of southern Slavic group of people usu. classed with the Serbs and Croats and living in Yugoslavia b : a native or inhabitant of Slovenia 2 : the language of the Slovenes -- Slovene adj -- Slovenian adj or n

Legend: G = German (Gk = Greek), n = noun, adj = adjective

Now, XJam, I think we can agree that Croat is to Croatia, as Slovene is to Slovenia. Croat has been, as I think you've conceded, effectively replaced by Croatian. Slovene is not far behind. By the way, there's our beloved 'Sloven' again. BT2 01:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Some comments. 1) "Webster's" in the title of a dictionary is not protected by trade mark. Anyone can publish a Webster's Dictionary. 2) I really don't see how these etymological quibbles are going to lead anywhere. Just because a word is French doesn't mean it isn't English. English uses thousands of words from French. English borrows most of its vocabulary, and rarely on a rational basis. The word "etymology" itself comes from French. (ethimologie) 3) As I've stated more than once, I proposed rejecting Google search results and etymology because drawing conclusions about what is "right" from those primary sources is original research. It may be useful research, but it should be published somewhere else before it it made Wikipedia policy. Clearly it is also prone to dispute.
2) Naming conventions are very important. Further, it doesn't matter what the root of a word is. Etymology is borrowed from French, but the actual French word is NOT etymology (ethimologie). Slovene doesn't even look like an English word. Slovenian follows natural and logical naming conventions one expects for a country named Slovenia. 3)Can you provide the ISBN of a non-Merriam-Webster Webster's dictionary/encyclopedia?? BT2 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No, BT2, I do know the first thing about copyright law. The name Webster's, even if it were protected, would be protected as a trade mark, andnot by copyright, which protects creative works. See Webster's Dictionary and note Random House Webster's College Dictionary published by Random House (ISBN 0375425608),Webster's New World Dictionary published by Warner Books (ISBN 0446360260), Webster's Dictionary published by Landoll (ISBN 1569873518) et al.
Hmm.. I stand corrected. Sorry, Dystopos. BT2 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Slovene is an English word. That fact is not even up for discussion. The matter up for discussion is whether a consensus exists to prefer the term Slovenian or Slovene (or some defined combination) in Wikipedia. Dystopos 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many more votes do we think we can generate for the above items? Are there alternative wordings, not seen as "self-serving," which should be added to the list of items? Are there any more secondary sources to be found which address the issue directly? Let's give ourselves until Friday with these questions and then see if we can build on whatever small bits of consensus we may have revealed. Dystopos 03:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vestnik

Hi! Currently I am studying at NUK and have finally got the promised source in my hands. It is a very interesting article signed by Mr Klinar and will surely need further evaluation. It includes the already seen source of Mr Klinar, the already seen source of Mr Gobetz, a comment by Roger Metcalfe, then again the opinion of Mr Klinar, who criticises Mr Gobetz, then to conclude the opinion of BBC journalist Mojca Belak. As this is a lot of text and a lot of translation to do, I'll probably scan it and post it as images, so that XJaM will be able to help me in translation in the forthcoming days. The article also includes new references. Greetings! --Eleassar

Klinar stated Slovene is on the rise and Slovenian on the decline. He's clearly delusional and can be dismissed from being regarded as a reliable source. (I mean, would anybody like to try and support his preposterous claim?) BT2 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • We will not dismiss sources because they disagree with your contested original research and opinions. And please remember that No personal attacks is official Wikipedia policy. Dystopos 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sure we will dismiss him. Does your interpretation of facts and reality differ? Do you actually think Slovene has GAINED popularity at the expense of Slovenian since 1991? My 'original' research is neither contested nor an opinion. I was merely pointing out the obvious. If you want to try and contest this yourself, somehow, be my guest. BT2 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BT2, even if Mr Klinar's claim about the popularity of both terms can be seen as unreliable, we won't dismiss him as he is not a statistician but a proficient linguist and English translator. Besides that, what we have seen till now was intended for debates of his students and actually he was not very happy to see his paper in Slava. It happened without his consent. In the article that I am currently reading he calls this first paper "ridiculus mus". Besides this, Mr Klinar offers new and reliable linguistic arguments.
Another thing is that I can contest your claim that Slovenian as a noun has gained popularity. In fact, I still believe Slovene did. You list some pages as a counterargument - well, we're not talking about individual pages here. We're talking about the general pattern and about differences in thousands of hits.
Perhaps, BT2, you'll present new arguments. (Comment: You bet I will :) ... but only later this week probably as I am swamped right now with other responsibilities. BT2 01:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) ) However, even if you are right indeed, you have to convince us first that what you believe is not original research --> according to Wikipedia's policy of No original research. You could claim so if you published your arguments somewhere. Only then we can start to examine them. Happy wiki-ing! --Eleassar my talk 17:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) comment To clarify, The "No original research" policy applies to article content, not officially to talk pages. I proposed using the policy here as a means of narrowing the debate. (And I think it is a reasonable proposal) Dystopos 21:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think it impossible to decide about the contents of Wikipedia's articles on the basis of original research, so the only arguments that need to be evaluated are those that conform to the mentioned policy. But leaving this aside, gentlemen (are perhaps some ladies here?), let me introduce Mr Roger Metcalfe!

A view from the rainy side of the Alps (autumn 1996)

To the Editor of Marketing Magazine

SLOVENE or SLOVENIA: a view from the rainy side of the Alps

Dear Sirs,

If only it were as simple as Pofessor Gobetz suggests; we would not have had to waste so many hours agonising over whether to use Slovene or Slovenian. But lexicology is always fickle, especially in the most widely mis-used language in the world, English.

There is indeed a general rule that the inhabitants of countries ending in -ia are designated with the ending -ian. So how do we explain, then, that the correct English for an inhabitant of Yugoslavia is the word "YugosIav"? And that natives of Serbia are usually Serbs, while those of Croatia are Croats? Is this the dreaded French influence at work again? Or is it perhaps some special punishment, some linguistic ostracism for the crime of being Balkan?

Webster offers both Slovene and Slovenian as correct, giving the derivation of Slovene as the German Slowene. And in a gallant gesture peculiar to lexicographers, Webster defines the word Slovenian as "A Slovene". Oxford offers both variants as correct options, while Hutchinson (Enryclopedic Edition) offers only Slovene. Half a page up in the latter, we find Slovakia and its language of Slovak (not Slovakian!). Things become clearer now: it is clearly a Slav/Slavic/Slavonic conspiracy to pervert English.

The inhabitants of Malaysia are called Malaysians. No, wait a minute, aren't they Malays? Ah yes, now I remember, the word Malaysian was coined in the sixties as a non-racial designation for the inhabitants of the federated states of Malaya (comprising Malays, Malayan Chinese and Tamil Indians) and what became East Malaysia (Sarawak and Sabah). And what does this have to do with Slovenia? Well, taking the Malay or Malaysian precedent, might we not ask: are all Slovenians Slovene? And who were the real Yugoslavs?

The people of Germany are Germans, while those of Italy are Italians. No end of confusion. What should we call the people of Hungary: Hungars? The inhabitants of Albany, N.Y. should probably be Albanians. And they probably are.

Now for a quick technical recapitulation: the ending deriving from countries with -ia is usually -ian, except where another variant is possible. Such possibilities are rare, and ironically had a high concentration in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. We tend to use Slovene simply because we can; it is more elegant than Slovenian. There are very few words (most of them chemicals) in English that end in -ene. Jesus is claimed to have been an Essene (and not Essenian or Essential!). The ending -ian is in effect a "catch-all" ending for use where no other possibility exists and can even sound somewhat clumsy on occasions. One logical translation into English of "Ljubljančan" is "Ljubljanian", but this sounds so primitive that we avoid it, preferring to use something like "resident of Ljubljana". For the same reason, probably, we have to contend with Iranians on the one hand and Iraqis on the other. And we must be friendly to the Omanis, not forgetting of course the Jordanians. And equal rights should of course be accorded to the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Stanko Klinar (Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih, 1994) can find no reason to damn Slovenes in favour of Slovenians. Indeed he points out that both words are used in equal measure in Britain and America, and that the decisive issue here is simply vernacular vogue. If people say Slovene {pronounced entirely different from sloven, Klinar reminds us), then that is justification enough.

There are lexical opportunities in the penultimate syllables of most country names to allow -for a "short form" ending. We could not say "Australs" or "Cambods", let alone "Romans" (the -ones from Bucharest, that is), simply because these words sound very strange or else they mean something else (like the Virgins of Virginia or the benighted burghers of Wank in Germany), and lexicologically it does not work in English - at this time. We should not forget that English is evolving (degenerating, some would say) at a rate of knots, and you never know we might soon all have to speak Padanese if Bossi has his way.

Incontroversible proof of the acceptability of the word "Slovene" is provided by none other than the revered lexicologist and songwritter Cole Porter. I quote:

"In Spain the best upper sets do it
Lithuanians and Letts do it,
Let's do it, let's fall in love"


Lithuanians and who? Letts, of course, the felicitous inhabitants of Latvia, and not ot be confused with Latvians.

I wish Professor Gobetz were absolutly right - it would make things much easier, and would obviate the necessity for further tortured debate into the early hours. But the word Slovene has as much validity as Slovenian. The best solution might be for the Slovenes/Slovenians themselves to decree one as absolute and one as nisi. In fact, why not make it a central issue in the forthcoming election? Why not slip this decision into the December referendum? It might even sort out the Slovenes from the Slovenians.

Yours,

Roger Metcalfe
Editor-in-Chief
AMIDAS, d.o.o (note by Eleassar: translation company)

P.S.: (Eleassar's translation, please correct) In the article of prof E Gobetz at least two weaknesses are apparent (both also pricked Roger Metcalf): 1. on the current stage of development of the word Sloven-ia/-ian/-e the -en- is part of the root and not of the suffix, so it cannot be associated to other roots, like by Austr-ia, which would - by prof. E.G. - give *Austrene/*Austrenes, or Russ-ia, which would give *Russene/Russenes etc. Here the systemically correct solutions - if I refer to the model of prof. E.G. - by the pattern Slovene/Slovenes should be *Austre/*Austres, *Russe/Russes (namely:Sloven-ia/ian/-e, Austr-ia/-ian/-e) (by Russes I omitted the asterisk on purpose; the form is quoted by RHD as possible; it also quotes the singular form Russ, which can also be plural; however, it does not quote *Russe), but the language did not create them and they are actually equally nonexistant. Of course, by the wrong analogy the language could have also created *Austrene(s), *Rusene(s) etc., but it is hardly believable that the starting point would be exactly the low frequent Slovene(s). (Also Slovenian(s) could incorporate itself in the already formed process, as is correctly pointed out by prof. E. G.) - 2. *Virgin(s) (<Virginia) is too occupied by the secondary (actually primary) meaning to be paralleled with Slovene(s)(<Slovenia). However, formally there would be no hindrance for this or such formed word (Eleassar:added italics and translated - tvorjenka), as has been found out on the parallel examples by Roger Metcalfe (and is also hinted to by the just quoted word Russ).

Stanko Klinar

Summary of Sources Found

These are secondary works that directly address the question of whether Slovene/Slovenes or Slovenian/Slovenians should be preferred in English. Additional sources are welcome in this section. Additional arguments should go to a different section. All are encouraged to vote Above

I have tried to encapsulate each author's position, but it is not so easy to discern. If you think I have been unfair to an author, let us know.

PUBLISHED WORKS

  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994/95) "Slovene ali Slovenian". Slava. Debatni list, Pg. 105. (Favors Slovene)
  • Klinar, Stanko. (1994) Slovenska zemljepisna imena v angleških besedilih (Slovenian geographic names in English texts). (still Favors Slovene)
  • Metcalfe, Roger. "Letter to the Editor: SLOVENE or SLOVENIA: a view from the rainy side of the Alps" Marketing Magazine. Autumn 1996. (Favors a vote of citizens of Slovenia)

ONLINE REFERENCES

  • Gobetz. Frank. (December 1995) "Slovenian Americans Their Adjustment, Integration, and Contributions." Slovenian Research Center of America, Inc. [3] - accessed 11 June 2005 (Favors Slovenian)
  • Sasha Ceferin. "Slovenija, slovenski, Slovenec, Slovenka, slovensko, slovenscina - Slovenian or Slovene?" The Institute for Slovenian Studies of Victoria (Australia). Post to Thezaurus forum. Aug 05, 2003. (Favors BOTH (for variety))
  • Rolig. "My two cents" Post to The Glory of Carniola website. Feb. 28, 2005. (Favors distinguishing ethnic from national identity)

---

More Slovenian support (not hard to find)

Google News Sources search results

Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 news sources in English worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely see new stories each time you check the page.

Slovenians: 92 http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=slovenians&btnG=Search+News

Slovenian: 502 http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=slovenian&btnG=Search+News

Slovenes: 60 http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=slovenes&btnG=Search+News

Slovene: 125 http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&ie=UTF-8&q=slovene&btnG=Search+News

World News Network News Sources search results

For past two months...

Slovenians: 145 http://search.wn.com/?version=1&language_id=1&search_string=slovenians&sort_type=nwf&corpus=twomonth&search_type=any

Slovenian: 145 http://search.wn.com/?version=1&language_id=1&search_string=slovenian&sort_type=nwf&corpus=twomonth&search_type=any

Slovenes: 87 http://search.wn.com/?version=1&language_id=1&search_string=slovenes&sort_type=nwf&corpus=twomonth&search_type=any

Slovene 87: http://search.wn.com/?version=1&language_id=1&search_string=slovene&sort_type=nwf&corpus=twomonth&search_type=any

Take a look at the very first (as of the time of this posting) article from the World News result sets for Slovenes and Slovene. ZERO instances of Slovene/Slovenes in the article, but 1 instance of the very near match slovenly. Disgusting! Link to article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8126-1649774,00.html

BT2 03:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've outlined before, I don't think it is helpful to us to amass primary research on usage. If a statistically accurate methodology is possible, we would benefit from having such research vetted in peer-reviewed journals. Unfortunately, I don't think such research is being conducted on a serious level. In any case, if we did accept your sampling of Google news we could only be forced to conclude that both terms are widely used in current practice. A score of 145 to 87 would be decisive for Beno Udrih and Rasho Nesterovic but doesn't really tell us anything we don't already know. Dystopos 03:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's not helpful..for you! These are statistics of a very large sample size and instantly verifiable by anyone (just click the links). You support the unnatural, incorrect, and to some vomit inducing Slovene so you champion as meaningful evidence carefuly selected samples of comments by people of the same opinion as yourself. BT2 03:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know where you got the idea I was championing one side. If anyone was asking my opinion, I believe that "Slovenian" is more commonly used and would be the easier term on which to produce consensus. I don't think, however, that my opinion is authoritative, Nor should opinions alone determine this matter. What is verifiable by clicking on the links (and I did click on them, to see what sort of results were being returned) is a sampling of word occurances on the subset of news items that Google indexes. Google's search methodology is not by any stretch optimized for linguistic research. To say that Slovene is "incorrect" is to flatly disregard the overwhelming weight of evidence that says both are correct. The logic of "vomit-inducement" is interesting. Shall we purge the word "Flemish" because it sounds like "phlegm"?. Dystopos 05:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slovenian (adjective)

Thanks both for providing new sources and arguments. Now it is already evident that Slovene is not a marginally used arhaic word, but should be - at least from the linguistic aspect - treated on the same level as Slovenian.
We are discussing two problems here: adjective and noun. Let's deal with the easier part first - the adjective.
From the linguistic point of view, Slovene is the preferred adjective by Mr Klinar and Mr Metcalfe, while Mr Gobetz prefers Slovenian. Mr Klinar and Mr Metcalfe offer stronger arguments than Mr Gobetz idependently of each other and therefore, Slovene prevails as to the linguists.
What about statistics? Mr Klinar advocates Slovene in a onesided unsupported paper intended for debates of his students, which he himself later calls "ridiculus mus". The opinion of another reference, a journalist Mojca Belak, from 1996 confirms that the adjective form Slovenian rather than Slovene was more used then and seemed more natural to BBC journalists, so the BBC Slovene section renamed itself in Slovenian section after the war (1991). But be careful when using Mojca Belak as an argument in support of Slovenian - the current section's name is BBC Slovene section again. By the way, it is also an example of a (notable) organisation that changed Slovenian to Slovene in its name!
So (at least for me) none of these two sources is usable in this regard.
Then we also have our original research. We are all getting the same results here - no matter what statistical databases and methods we use. On the other side, we also get a large number of hits for Slovene (even by using Google News!). To resume, we get the impression that Slovenian is surely favored nowadays, but also see many occasions where Slovene is used.
Last but important, we shall not forget about Sasha Ceferin: she presents views of all sides and confirms that Slovenian is the predominating term.
To conclude, my opinion is that Slovenian should be generally used in the titles and in their corresponding articles. Why? The Naming policy states that for the titles the most frequent and most easily recognizable name should be used, where two or more terms are valid. We all also prefer consistency.
On the other hand, there are special cases where Slovene should be used in titles and articles. This is especially true for proper names (Like Slovene press agency or BBC Slovene section) and cannot be seriously disputed. Not using the proper name of the organisation would be like calling Milosh Harry, because Harry is the more common name, so I could not agree to this.
In other articles everyone has every right to use Slovene if he prefers doing so and is consistent in using it, as the majority of the authorities (except for Mr Gobetz, I think) claim that it is a valid (from the linguistic point of view even more valid) and still much used word (again: even Google News).
So, I will not be able to agree that Slovene should be only marginally used and tolerated. It should be fully accepted where the original author consistently used it, except for articles with specific titles and similar, as described above. This should also apply retroactively. I can explain my opinion further, but if no new source (by this I don't mean published or unpublished sources that do not treat this subject specifically - even less personal research or arguments of aesthetics) will be presented, I won't change it.
Hereby, please also remember that we (me at least) wish to write a neutral encyclopedia, not to advocate any point of view. --Eleassar my talk 09:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We are also forgetting something still here. Me, as one of the first users from Slovenia or of Slovene nationality or orgins here in English Wikipedia, and some other users have used term "Slovene" in many articles. (See histories for Slovene language, Slovenes, ...). I think the issue here is not whether 'Slovenian' should be generally used just because some advocate that it is the most frequent or easily recognizable naming and that "Slovene" can be used. It was already used consistently in the early days of Wikipedia. If those authors who favor 'just' 'Slovenian' would gave some reasonable warnings instead of just pure revertings, all others, who think "Slovene" is a valid and appropriate term, would use 'Slovenian' for the sake of consistency. And also because many sources, presented here, demonstrate how "Slovene" is perfectly good word in English. BTW, now we have two (almost) identical texts of Mr. Metcalfe, where in that which was posted by Dystopos, a paragraph, which mentions Mr. Klinar is missing and was not translated in English version of that page. In original text in Slovene this paragraph exists. I guess we can leave one out. I can also hardly support using 'Slovenian' as an adjective (as in Slovenian language) since the language itself is very close connected with Slovenes. If we name Slovenes so, we must also name their language from the same base. Quite interesting idea is that 'Slovenian' might be used for Slovene term slovenščina, (althought "Slovene" would do just fine). In Slovene there are many synonims for languages - angleščina and angleški jezik, both meaning English (language). --xJaM 13:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea how we would perhaps be able to credibly estimate the frequency of these terms. I think there may be large databases (analyses) of frequency of different words in English language (both spoken, written and online). We just have to find them. --Eleassar my talk 13:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Slovenian_vs_Slovene)/Archive_4&oldid=1136086593"