I use both interchangeably and I like it.

     by Danica on February 28, 2005 at 7:05 am

The big four listed at the top (OED, NYT, BBC, Slovenian Government) are good enough for me, and basically trump the fact that, say, the Football Association of Slovenia uses “Slovenian” exclusively. So I’ll keep on truckin’ with “Slovene” as noun and “Slovenian” as adjective.

Huh? The BBC doesn’t support you (they use ‘Slovene’ as both noun and adjective). And the dictionaries don’t really support your argument either. Further, the NYT and CIA say one thing but use Slovene and Slovenian interchangeably as noun and adjective! A slipshod Government of Slovenia isn’t much support either.

You scoff at the Football Association of Slovenia. Well, how about the Euroleague, UEFA, FIFA, the International Association of Athletics Federations, the Olympic organization, the International the International Ice Hockey Federation, et cetera? They all say Slovenians.

Here’s a real trump: United Nations uses Slovenians exclusively

Some corrections on some of another of sources of info:Google is NOT on your side: Google’s search returns both English and French ‘Slovenes’. 6 of the first 20 images alone are from French sources; 2 of the others are from this site; 3 others refer specifically to the ‘Kindgom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes’, and another doesn’t even contain ‘Slovenes’ but instead ‘Slovenians’!!

I will so have some more comments on this, but now I need to get some sleep.

     by |=|=| on February 28, 2005 at 7:19 am

What are you so utterly obsessed by this |=|=|? Does it matter to you this much? And why is the term Slovene so offensive?

Anyway, you have been proved wrong in your petty mindedness. Slovene is used by all he main dictionaries, including the most authoritative source in the English language. I am sorry if you believe that a bunch of football associations and sports organisations carry more weight that the most respected English linguists. As for the UN, since when has that been the official arbiter of the English language?

     by Jim on February 28, 2005 at 7:51 am

I’ve been wondering for ages, whether to use Slovene or Slovenian. So, as it was, I used Slovenian for language, people, and also as an adjective … but then my English spoken friends always used Slovene and it got me quite confused. Thanks for clearing up my guessing!

     by Bojana on February 28, 2005 at 10:31 am

Here’s a real trump: United Nations uses Slovenians exclusively

Your link goes to Slovenia’s mission to the U.N. in New York, not the U.N. A quick search of the actual United Nations website reveals 255 instances of “Slovenes.” The term “Slovenians” appears less than half as often, with just 122 hits. To say that the U.N. uses the term exclusively is, to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger in the hit film Terminator: “Wrong.”

how about the Euroleague, UEFA, FIFA etc…

If the Worldwide Wrestling Federation (WWF) was also on the list, I would be convinced.

Google is NOT on your side

Check the actual search engine. That’s all I can say. It very clearly has more instances of “Slovenes” than “Slovenians.” (I use the plural form to avoid getting hits for “Slovenian” as an adjective, in case anyone was wondering.) If you’re getting a lot of French pages, try changing your settings to only search English pages. Incidentally, I just did a search for Slovene and it turned up this interesting site from Canada: THE SOCIETY FOR SLOVENE STUDIES. (At the University of Alberta)

In the end, it doesn’t matter what I say. The fact that |=|=| values the stylistic choices of the International Ice Hockey Federation over the OED, which uses “Slovene” as its primary entry, speaks volumes.

Also: What Jim said.

And Bojana: Glad it helped!

     by Michael M. on February 28, 2005 at 11:51 am

I was under the impression that Slovene was the British term, while Slovenian was the American term. Hence why all my american linguistics professors are confused when I say ’slovene’.

     by JS on February 28, 2005 at 12:12 pm

and to think I got blasted for using
Slovene. Does this really matter? Im
starting to think that only someone
with aspergers syndrome would care
as in regard to one of the purists here.

     by connie on February 28, 2005 at 12:14 pm

and to think I got blasted for using Slovene.

You and pretty much everyone else. He even pounced on an elderly Preseren, who (correctly, as it turns out) noted that: “Somewhere I read to use ’slovene” as a noun and “slovenian’ as an adjective.”

JS: I’ve heard that exact same thing before (regarding America/Britain) although I can’t recall where.

Does this really matter?

In the big scheme of things, nope. Not at all.

     by Michael M. on February 28, 2005 at 12:42 pm

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.

     by Rolig on February 28, 2005 at 12:43 pm

A quick response before work:

Words are added to (or their definition is modified/updated in) dictionaries after the terms gain meaning after use in the real world. It’s not the other way around. What the British English says about Slovene in their dictionary means squat. It’s definition can (and will) eventually be updated.

What does matter is the actual usage of the terms Slovenian and Slovene in the real world. In the US, Canada, and Australia, Slovenian is almost used exclusively as both adjective and noun.

And again, the google search is NOT on your side. A search for ‘Slovene’ images brings up this page, using ‘Slovenians’ exclusively.

     by |=|=| on February 28, 2005 at 1:49 pm

Please go to vukojebina

     by connie on February 28, 2005 at 1:55 pm

I was under the impression that Slovene was the British term, while Slovenian was the American term. Hence why all my american linguistics professors are confused when I say ’slovene’.

It is (was) just the British term until some influential but confused people decided things would make sense by listing one as the adjective and one as the noun. This kind of use did not exist before 1990.

Using Slovenes is exactly the same as using Croats (used ALWAYS together before 1990). Dictionaries change…

     by |=|=| on February 28, 2005 at 1:57 pm

I agree with Rolig. I might be wrong, but it makes sense to me.

     by BeeBee on February 28, 2005 at 2:28 pm

OMG! “Slovene” ownz j00!!!1!! OMG LOL!

     by crni on February 28, 2005 at 2:31 pm

interesting post!

this was a hot topic at STA after i brought it up. apparently they favor “slovenian” but don’t follow it religiously. i prefer “slovene,” based on the official united nations terminology guide, which lists only slovene as both noun and adjective. plus, i just like the sound of it better. slovenian sounds clunky and illiterate to me

incidentally, there’s another school of thought on this matter that your post doesn’t seem to mention…it relates to serb/serbian and croat/croatian (but not slovak/slovakian, which seems to be the same as slovene/slovenian, and slovak seems to be much more preferred). anyway, the point is that “serb” is used to denote ethnic things and “serbian” is used to denote civil things (associated with serbia). i.e., you can have a serb town in croatia or a croat village in serbia but not a serbian or croatian one…a serb village is populated by serbs but a serbian village is located in serbia and can be populated by anyone at all. even croats, haha

there are people who try to use slovene and slovenian like this, but it seems excessive… i guess it makes sense with serbs and croats all things considered, but slovenes, i dunno.

     by brian on February 28, 2005 at 2:55 pm

“Here’s a real trump: United Nations uses Slovenians exclusively”

I thought they employed people from all around the world.

     by Elaib on February 28, 2005 at 3:07 pm

CAMH here in Toronto offers excellent
treatment for OCD’s ( Obsessive Compulsive
Disorders).Would fixation on Slovene count
as one?

     by connie on February 28, 2005 at 3:15 pm

I think Rolig is absolutely correct. Slovene is an ethnic assignation for eastern alpine Slavs and slovenian refers to inhabitants and/or citizens of Slovenia, regardless of their ehtnic extraction. The press has assumed an instinctive repulsion to using epithets they fear might contribute ethnic division through omission or by employing an absolute ethnic term. Look at what the FAZ did to poor Monica Seles a while back– the Serbian of Hungarian extraction and naturalised American citizen. Seems a little silly doesnt it?

     by bob on February 28, 2005 at 4:30 pm

Damn! I missed my train this morning.

Anyway…

Michael, thank you very much for posting this interesting (and important) topic and your willingness to leave it open as a forum for discussion. (You can seek comfort in the fact I will confine my arguments on Slovenian/Slovene here.)

I’ll get back to business (i.e. trashing your premise that ‘Slovene’ should be used as a noun–or at all) when time permits.

     by |=|=| on February 28, 2005 at 6:24 pm

Somehow I always hear this word: sloven (as in “one habitually negligent of neatness or cleanliness especially in personal appearance”) when someone says Slovene. But then again, it’s only my High school teacher talking out of me.
I really don’t care about the term: whether it’s Slovene or Slovenian, it’s all OK with me. Somehow Slovene seems more correct. Why not use it as both noun and adjective?

     by Katsumi on February 28, 2005 at 7:04 pm

I just got a big promotion today (yay me!) and have some more pressing things to take care of. I can only pick apart the “evidence” of Slovene as the noun being more dominant, a little bit at a time.

Okay, Google first.Google occasionally returns hits for Slovene with pages including not a trace of Slovene but rather Slovenians (as proven earlier) and even slovenly. Further, it doesn’t matter what restriction you try to place on a google search, French articles with Slovene (French, and pronounced “slow-ven”) will be regularly be returned.

Google returns 2730 pages from Canada for Slovenians and only 573 pages for Slovenes

Google returns 764 pages from the UK for Slovenians and only 525 for Slovenes

Google globally returns 9610 pages for “slovenians” AND “croats”; 6710 for “croatians” AND “slovenes”; 39,800 for “slovenes” AND “croats”; 5,200 for “slovenians” and “croatians”. Why so many hits for “Slovenes” AND “Croats”? Because all old British texts uses “Slovenes” AND “Croats”. I challenge anyone to find a pre-1990 book referring to a country called the “Kindgom of Serbs, Croatians, and Slovenes.” It doesn’t exist. A significant number (most?) of the hits for Slovenes on the web are in fact referring to this historical name and are not examples of contemporary usage of the term Slovene.

Here come the big guns, serious proof…

Google search for “Slovenians were” returns 673 hits, “Slovenes were” 566 hits.

Google search for “Slovenian who” returns 415 hits, “Slovene who” just 131 hits.

Google search for “Slovenian is” returns 2260 hits, “Slovene is” just 1160 hits.

And finally…

Google news search for Slovenians returns 19 articles, Slovenes just 7.

As I was saying earlier, Google is NOT on your side. In all fairness, Google should be withdrawn from your list of sources favoring Slovene. Google rather heavily favors Slovenian.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 3:42 am

l=l=l This pedantic stuff is getting very old especially since it is not all that well informed. Just give it a rest.

     by Zorka on March 1, 2005 at 4:12 am

www.pb-vojnik.si/

     by connie on March 1, 2005 at 4:19 am

Zorka: Don’t be so incredibly lame. I dare you to add some substance to your petty claim.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 4:31 am

l=l=l I don’t have to do that, you have done it all for me!
And speaking of lame, what is the meaning of this l=l=l? Can’t think of an alias without giving yourself away in some way?

     by Zorka on March 1, 2005 at 6:05 am

Slovene Slovene Slovene
I dont care if its correct or not
this debate sucks big time. you can go
stuff an accordian

     by connie on March 1, 2005 at 6:13 am

It’s been many years, allmost 30 that I had questions about this subject. These are some of te best explanations I read until now.
Thanks for doing the research, Michael and posting it.
Great article. And a few great comments!

     by m on March 1, 2005 at 10:45 am

You have been talking about “eastern alpine Slavs” as ancestors of modern Slovenians. I wonder, who are/were “western alpine Slavs” by your definition?

     by Karantanec on March 1, 2005 at 10:59 am

|=|=| you still have not told us what you find so utterly offensive about the word ’slovene’!

Really, I think that this visceral reaction of yours to the word is a far more interesting issue that the actual correct usage. Come on, talk to uncle Sigmund.

     by Jim on March 1, 2005 at 12:24 pm

Karantanec: Are you saying there were Slavs in the western Alps?

Zorka/connie: Read Michael’s post again. He welcomes comments on this debate, in this forum. You may cry about it, but I obliterated Google as a source Michael considered significant enough to list in support of Slovene. The fact is Google favors Slovenian. I welcome efforts to dispute this.

As long as trolls aren’t able to torpedo this debate into a flame war (there is plenty of flame bait floating around!) and get this forum closed, the pro-Slovenian argument and evidence supporting it will pile on for a little while.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 12:35 pm

Jim: I apologize. It’s not that I am trying to avoid the question, I just haven’t the time to answer.

I don’t think having 2 terms helps Slovenia.

People have enough difficulty differentiating Slovenia from Slovakia and Slavonia. Further, the vast majority of countries don’t have two terms.

But why Slovenian over Slovene?

I’ve occasionally had search engines like Google return pages with “slovenly” instead of the sought after “slovene”.

Slovenian is already dominant as both the noun and adjective being used in most of the world. Slovenian is simply the much more natural of a term for a country ending in -nia.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 12:58 pm

Slovenian is simply the much more natural of a term for a country ending in -nia.

More natural term, that is.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 1:00 pm

|=|=| I don’t know if you’re misusing Google or deliberately making stuff up, but it’s getting annoying.

1) If you go to www.google.co.uk, click the button for “pages from the UK” you will get the following results:

Slovenes: 5.270
Slovenians: 889

2) If you go to www.google.com.au (Australia), click the button for “pages from Australia” you will get:

Slovenes: 461
Slovenians: 484

(Notice how I don’t change the results to suit my point.)

3) If you go to www.google.ca (Canada), click on “pages from canada”, you will get:

Slovenes: 3.640
Slovenians: 2.860

4) And if you go to www.google.com, you will get:

Slovenes: 74.400
Slovenians: 43.000

The thing about google is that it’s only good for hinting towards a general trend. These results show that “Slovene” is currently a more common term in Canada, the UK and overall in the world among online sources. In Australia, it seems to be a dead-heat. In other words, it is ridiculous to insist that: “In the US, Canada, and Australia, Slovenian is almost used exclusively as both adjective and noun.” (One wonders why there are barely any traces of this “exclusive” usage…)

The UN uses Slovene, and Google clearly leans towards Slovene. (See also Brian’s comment on your first trump card, the UN)

In the news results, you’re right that “Slovene” appears slightly less often, but for that it shows up in respectable, top-tier sources: Reuters and The Financial Times. “Slovenian,” on the other hand, appears in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and some sports pages. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

I can’t believe I got pulled into this. I would rather talk about some of the issues that Rolig and brian brought up, but - what can I say - the lying irks me.

     by Michael M. on March 1, 2005 at 3:37 pm

Hmm. Shouldn’t say “lying.” It’s more like propaganda.

     by Michael M. on March 1, 2005 at 3:55 pm

I just obtained 3640 Google hits for pages with ’slovenes’ also. I’m stunned. This honestly is not what I got last night. I’ll retract my statements concerning Google until I figure out what happened.

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 4:33 pm

I went to www.google.se and…perhaps I made some mistake or something but…I got 4 880 000 hits on slovenian and 440 000 hits on slovene.
I use the term slovenian because I find the term slovene so….ugly :o)

     by Peter Zrinski on March 1, 2005 at 7:09 pm

Oh, ‘Slovenian’ will always give you many more hits than ‘Slovene’. Michael is pointing to the fact Google returns over twice as many hits for ‘Slovenes’ than ‘Slovenians’. Many of the hits for ‘Slovenes’ are actually for French pages and several even incorrectly refer to pages containing the word ’slovenly’ or ‘Slovenians’ exclusively. (This is can be taken as propaganda, but it’s true. As for my weird numbers on pages in Canada yesterday, I still have no idea what happened there. All I know is that I was, as you’d expect, very pleased to witness those results yesterday. Today, unable to duplicate those results, I am stunned and completely aware that my credibility has been damaged.)

As I pointed out, a huge share of the pages’ returns refer to the historical name “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes” and not actually examples of contemporary usage of ‘Slovenes’.

Serious proof of this is:

1) Google search for “Slovenians were” returns 673 hits, “Slovenes were” 566 hits.

2. Google search for “Slovenian who” returns 415 hits, “Slovene who” just 131 hits.

3. Google search for “Slovenian is” returns 2260 hits, “Slovene is” just 1160 hits.

4. Google search for “in Slovenian” returns 44,400; “in Slovene” 29,300.

5. Google news search for Slovenians returns 19 articles, Slovenes just 7.

My argument is that ‘Slovenian’ is the dominant term around the world. More people say Slovenian than Slovene. Way more, everywhere. As listed in an earlier post, all major international sports organizations stick consistently to Slovenian. Michael’s NYTimes and CIA sources use Slovenian and Slovene interchangeably as noun and adjective on the very pages they define Slovene as the noun! On the other hand, my sources (Slovenian Chamber of Commerce, international organizations, etc) are pretty darn consistent.

Michael’s argument is basically that in a battle of Oxford, a few respectable newspapers, and a skewed Google search engine versus the rest of the world (small newspapers everywhere, the hefty majority of International organizations), the world loses.
And Michael, why mock sports organizations and sports media? Slovenian athletes make international news on a weekly basis. How frequently do the Financial and NY Times mention Slovenia?

     by |=|=| on March 1, 2005 at 8:17 pm

aaaaah, who cares? I use both, Slovenian more often than Slovene.

     by Anonymous on March 1, 2005 at 9:22 pm

Phew! I was able to duplicate the results at home, for some yet unknown reason. Credibility restored (pending confirmation from others that this works, of course). I will test these tomorrow from work (please work!).

From www.google.ca, choosing websites in Canada returns 2730 for “slovenians” and just 585 for “slovenes”. The URL Google showed for these searches are below:

Slovenians:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=slovenians&meta=cr%3DcountryCA

Slovenes:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=slovenes&meta=cr%3DcountryCA

     by |=|=| on March 2, 2005 at 3:17 am

Okay, scratch that. This is TERRIBLE.

I just clicked the links and obtained 2870 for “slovenians” and a whopping 3630 for “slovenes”. I don’t know what the heck is going on with these machines here.

     by |=|=| on March 2, 2005 at 3:23 am

If you lived in Toronto I would come
get you and take you to the hospital.
But just to be fair I will have a
friend who could care less about Slovenia
check these stats

     by connie on March 2, 2005 at 4:04 am

OK for starters I don’t awfully care if it’s Slovenes or Slovenians, the evidence really is for Slovenes, but the world is not going to come to a crashing END if this is different.
At the risk of practiceing psychiatry without license I would like to suggest that l=l=l 1. please get an actual name unless that’s what he or she is really named on the home planet,
2. if l=l=l is not from some other planet please get some help, this looks suspiciously like OCD.

     by Zorka on March 2, 2005 at 4:13 am

I (The Wanderer), have the numbers from Google Search. To find my method, I used 37.com.

Here are my results:

3,620,000: Slovenian

19,200,000: Slovenia

Yours Truly,
The Wanderer

     by The Wanderer on March 2, 2005 at 5:11 am

I love how always within minutes of one of connie or zorka writing a message, the other is right there to back the other with another serving of whine.

Are you writing from within the hospital, connie/zorka?

By the way, never mind the Slovenians-Slovenes debate for a second. “Croats” returns nearly FOUR times the number of hits from Google compared to “Croatians”!!! I dare you to start calling your Canadian-Croatian friends Croats, connie. (If you manage to do that regularly without pissing them off, I’ll check myself into the hospital
367,000 Croats:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=croats&meta=

102,000 Croatians:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=croatians&meta=

Michael, any comments?

     by |=|=| on March 2, 2005 at 5:19 am

There is a considerable geographic distance involved Mr. l=l=l. We don’t even live in the same country!

     by Zorka on March 2, 2005 at 5:30 am

My friends from Croatia are civilized
and normal people. And have you ever
heard of instant messaging . If you
are a Slovene I pity the country

     by connie on March 2, 2005 at 5:33 am

Interesting, today I click the links from my home computer and Google gives me 98,800 hits for Croatians, 279,000 for Croats. Bizarre. This reduces to multiple of Croats over Croatians to a little under 3.

Still a lot more than the double number of hits Google returns for “Slovenes” over “Slovenians”. And again, the “Slovenes” hits return many French pages, significantly skewing the result; the “Croats” hits do not (”Croates” is the French word).

     by |=|=| on March 2, 2005 at 1:32 pm

And now, at work, I get again 367,000 “croats” and only 102,000 “croatians”.

Anybody else?

     by |=|=| on March 2, 2005 at 4:02 pm

alright, tell me again why anyone gives a govno?

     by Zorka on March 2, 2005 at 10:24 pm

you tell him.why the fixation
on croatians now.did you check
yahoo for their stats on this issue

     by connie on March 2, 2005 at 11:01 pm

Just wanted to change the subject, this was fun!
Unless everyone here has suddenly decided to be against fun of cours, look at this!

artpad.art.com/gallery/?icqyct5axzw

     by Katja on March 3, 2005 at 12:12 am

I would just like to add that the students of English at the Faculty of Arts (Lj) are taught to use both of the terms as noun and adjective. However, most of the lecturers prefer Slovene, including native speakers.

     by TihaVoda on March 4, 2005 at 6:55 pm

It is an interesting discussion about slovene and slovenian,
I am curious about the use of the word “slovensko” on the web. I think this can get confusing. I was doing a web page and am not sure, do I put for a choice of language Slovenska stran? Or use english so less people think it’s slovak or slovakian?

     by m on March 5, 2005 at 11:04 am

For some reason, I automatically adapted to the Oxford English Dictionnary rules (this while having a CPE from Cambridge, Oxford’s eternal rival; life’s funny that way) without even knowing them. I don’t know why but my language instinct felt it was right. Must be the fact that I’m an artist, judging by the lecturers at the Ljubljana Arts Faculty’s preference…

     by Arf on March 12, 2005 at 5:06 pm

What rules? So the British Oxford English dictionary lists Slovene first. It also mentions Slovenian as both adjective and noun. British English isn’t international English.

(More to come when I have time…some really interesting stuff, too).

     by |=|=| on March 18, 2005 at 3:45 am