Changes

''Robert Greenberg, the foremost English-language scholar on South Slav languages, believes the root of the language polemic lies in the Vienna agreement of 1850, which “reversed several centuries of natural Abstand developments for the languages of Orthodox Southern Slavs and Catholic Southern Slavs.” (Greenberg 2004, 23) Croatians and Serbians came to the negotiating table with differing experiences. Serbian linguists were standardizing a single dialect of rural speech and breaking with the archaic Slaveno-Serbian heritage of the eighteenth century “Serbian enlightenment.” Early [[Croatia|Croat]] nationalists proposed a standard language based on a widely spoken dialect linked with the literature of the Croatian Renaissance. With an eye towards South Slav unity they also encouraged liberal borrowing from various dialects (Greenberg 2004, 24-26). This basic difference in approach created conflicts throughout the history of the South Slav movement and the Yugoslav state (Greenberg 2004, 48).'' }}</ref>. This is reflected in its later labeling of the language as Illyrian, Croatian, Croatian-Serbo and the Serbo-Croatian, BCS and etc. This was a fundamental mistake made when political extremist ideology influenced decision-making regarding language and culture. It was an attempt at imitating Western imperial empire building egotism (a super Southern Slav State), which failed. The idea was to merge elements of Croatian and Serbian language into one so a greater unified Super Southern Slavic state can have one language, of course this was at the detriment of other cultures. Old Croatian was rejected for this future super state (Old Croatian is now a nearly extinct and is referred to as a dialect, it's called Chakavian).  

''Robert Greenberg, the foremost English-language scholar on South Slav languages, believes the root of the language polemic lies in the Vienna agreement of 1850, which “reversed several centuries of natural Abstand developments for the languages of Orthodox Southern Slavs and Catholic Southern Slavs.” (Greenberg 2004, 23) Croatians and Serbians came to the negotiating table with differing experiences. Serbian linguists were standardizing a single dialect of rural speech and breaking with the archaic Slaveno-Serbian heritage of the eighteenth century “Serbian enlightenment.” Early [[Croatia|Croat]] nationalists proposed a standard language based on a widely spoken dialect linked with the literature of the Croatian Renaissance. With an eye towards South Slav unity they also encouraged liberal borrowing from various dialects (Greenberg 2004, 24-26). This basic difference in approach created conflicts throughout the history of the South Slav movement and the Yugoslav state (Greenberg 2004, 48).'' }}</ref>. This is reflected in its later labeling of the language as Illyrian, Croatian, Croatian-Serbo and the Serbo-Croatian, BCS and etc. This was a fundamental mistake made when political extremist ideology influenced decision-making regarding language and culture. It was an attempt at imitating Western imperial empire building egotism (a super Southern Slav State), which failed. The idea was to merge elements of Croatian and Serbian language into one so a greater unified Super Southern Slavic state can have one language, of course this was at the detriment of other cultures. Old Croatian was rejected for this future super state (Old Croatian is now a nearly extinct and is referred to as a dialect, it's called Chakavian).  

   

   

====Cultural Assimilation of the Republic of Ragusa's History====

====Cultural Assimilation of the Republic of Ragusa's History====

A process of cultural assimilation (Croatisation) of the Republic of Ragusa's history began in the 19th century (and in the Kingdom of Dalmatia) and this process is still continuing today. This process happened firstly in relation to the Ragusan-Slavic history and later with the Ragusan-Italianic history.

A process of cultural assimilation (Croatisation) of the Republic of Ragusa's history began in the 19th century (and in the Kingdom of Dalmatia) and this process is still continuing today. This process happened firstly in relation to the Ragusan-Slavic history and later with the Ragusan-Italianic history.