Disputatio:Mihovil Lovrić

Hi, I am this suspect son (Ph.dr. A.Ž. Lovrić) of prof. M. Lovrić - disreputed in your 'Vicipaedia Latina'. - His ignorant pseudobiography you wrote and published here, is very offensive and 90% falsified, as follows: He is not deceased but killed by Yugoslav secret police (UDBA), this was even two decennia prior to 2003 (he is born in 19th century - then in '2003' he may be even 130 old!). You are very ignorant in regional linguistics: he not 'pretended' at all to speak in 'Dalmatian' (that was a dead Romance language derived from Latin), but in a very divergent Liburnian being intermediate between the ancient Illyrian group and old-Venetic (Italic group). Moreover, I am not 'botanist' (only as young student I worked in Botanic garden for funding) but then, after my studies, M.Sc. and Ph.D. theses in other branches, I work some decennia ago in Dept. Molecular Genetics. The unique truly facts in your pamphlet is my name, and that he was college professor (of history). Thus, your falsified and offensive pamphlet in a street style of 'yellow' press is the worst one ever published on my father after Yugoslavia's disaster (and probably linked to former Yu. communists). Therefore, I am obliged to process you and Vicipaedia Latina in related European tribunals. --Dr. A.Ž. Lovrić, m.p. 2. 1. 2008.

This ignorant pseudobiography you published here down, is very offensive and 90% falsified, as follows: Prof. M. Lovrić (alias Yoshamya) is not deceased but killed by Yugoslav secret police (UDBA), this was even two decennia prior to 2003 (he is born in 19th century - then in '2003' he may be even 130 old!). You are very ignorant in regional linguistics: he not 'pretended' at all to speak in 'Dalmatian' (that was a dead Romance language derived from Latin), but in a very divergent Liburnian being intermediate between the ancient Illyrian group and old-Venetic (Italic group) ... etc. Moreover, his son (Dr. A.Ž. Lovrić) is not 'botanist' (only as young student he worked in Botanic garden for funding) but then after his studies, M.Sc. and Ph.D. theses in other branches, he works some decennia ago in Dept. Molecular Genetics. In this your pamphlet filled by malicious gossips, the unique truly fact is his name, and that he was college professor (of history). Now follows this exemplary Latin pamphlet:

I don't know if what you did was a mistake (certainly the last sentence of yours doesn't suggest that), but please do not write on the actual pages again. That is vandalism and, on vicipaedia, the best way to try and earn your cause is to discuss it. Harrissimo 11:27, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

On the 'pretended' point, praetendit doesn't mean 'pretended', it means "alleges" (Dr. A. Dalby will have written this because we have no reliable source evidence that he did). But a lawsuit!? I think it would be considered a little minor. If you really want to add something, please find reliable sources confirming it and (if you can) add it to the article (if not just put it in this talk page and somebody will add it in for you). Harrissimo 11:48, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment, Dr Lovrić. The basis of the page I began on your father was not malicious gossip, but information available to me from your own statements on the Internet, from the Croatian national library, and from widely circulated claims about Vice Bune in which your father's work is frequently cited. I have never heard or read any gossip about him. It is because of these frequent citations on the Internet that your father's work has become of wide interest, but unfortunately his own writings seem very difficult to get hold of outside Croatia. We will correct the biography, so far as we can, on the basis of your information above. We have no intention of publishing anything unfair about him.

Is there any previously published biography or obituary to which you can refer us?

I do not understand what you say of his date of death. If he was killed two decennia before 2003, was he at that time 110 years old? If you could tell us plainly at what date he was born and at what date he died, this would help us a lot. And, as Harrissimo says, if you can improve the article yourself, or can give us some more accurate information on this page for us to translate into Latin, that will ensure that your father's life is dealt with fully and properly on Vicipaedia.

I cannot see anything offensive to you in the article, though I am sorry to have described you as a botanist when in fact you are a molecular geneticist. I'll correct that, of course. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

[Later:] I have corrected the three specific points Dr Lovrić mentions: the date of his father's death (I hope he will tell us the correct date), the relationships of the unknown language of which his father claimed to be a speaker (fascinating, this) and Dr Lovrić's own scientific speciality. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

What language are 'Mitjeel' and 'Yoshamya' in anyway? Liburnian? Harrissimo 14:06, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

If you follow the second of the nexus externi on the page, you will find Dr Lovric (under the name Z. Yoshamya) talking about himself and his father. He there describes the language as "Vegliote"; hence my forgivable error when I first wrote this page, because "Vegliote" has in the past been one of the names used for the extinct Romance language called Dalmatian (see, e.g., our article lingua Dalmatica). To Dr Lovric, I deduce, Vegliote means the same as Liburnian. Yes, anyway, that is the language in which these names are said to be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

GeoLatina: After my insight in matter, it is hardly expectable to obtain anew a direct Lovrić's reply here, but I offer a partial help as possible:

• Yoshamya's birth was in 1898 (I do not know exact date), and death in October 1976 (10th? - I am not sure).
• Names, bold = accentuated syllable: Mitjel (with a tilda above accentuated nasal -el) is Michael in Liburnic, and Yoshamya is a typical Liburnic surname: Yosha = Joseph & mya = gray-haired i.e. 'Joseph-gray'. In the largest Krk island of Adriatic at least dozen original Liburnian surnames are conserved (or now persisting archaic nicknames) as Batya, Hayana, Sarana, Shamana, Sune, Uresha, Yenda, Yoshamya ...etc. Similar archaic names formerly were noted also in eastern coast of Istra peninsula (at Labin and Rabac) being the west margin of ancient Liburnia. During early Venezian rule, such archaic surnames partly disappeared by a forced romanicizing, and recently by a violated slavicizing in Yugoslavia, so as rare examples yet persisted. The original Liburnian names now persisted the best (above hundred) in natural toponyms of Krk and Rab islands, and partly in adjacent mainland shore at Mt Velebit.
• In the text you linked as a supposed example on Yoshamya/Lovrić's data, I controlled its language-style, and it is rather dubious and heterogeneous. Justly the first 'Serbocroatian' paragraph is inutile as any original, being another false re-interpretation & compilation - with some true Serbian words rare in Croatia and surely never used by Lovrićs's family (but by another 'revisor'): e.g. prevod (Croat: prijevod), radi (cr. zbog), izuzetak (cr. iznimka), stanovništvom (cr. pučanstvom), posljednji (cr. najzadnji), upotrebe (cr. uporabe), osim (cr. izim) ...etc. After lingual style and mixed vocabulary, the person writing this paragraph was plausibly a Bosnian, not Croatian.
• The second 'English' paragraph may be probably his original but very old, of a private transcription from early 1990ies when one asked the financial support for print, but yet not well distinguished Vegliote from Liburnic. In the meantime, due to better lingual revisions of text, this confusion was corrected and it is absent in printed book, that then triply increased by added inverse glossaries and English digest.
• The indications of Dr. P. Šimunović (a good linguist - but otherwise careless man) on the last Vegliote speaker T.A. Burbur are partly wrong: he does not lost his life in fishing boat, but from a mine in quarry - that is documented in situ, and also by a note in Fiume newspaper 1898. In general, this illustrating forum-blog is rather doubtful chit-chat, as any true information on Yoshamyas. --GeoLatina, II Januarii MMVIII

Thanks, GeoLatina. I appreciate the time you have taken to provide this new information, both here and at Disputatio:Pseudohistoria Vincentii Bunei. I'll work further on these articles tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 2 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I controlled as possible, the real 'background' and appearing history of this book 'Gan-Veyan', and accessible results are the next ones:

• In its second edition with English digest (2005), at the end of this book occurs its official scientific review by Prof.Dr. Sanja Vulić from Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, being also the lecturer both in Universities of Zagreb and of Split, and a recognized academic specialist on the regional minoritary linguistics of eastern Adriatic coast & islands. In short, the positive review confirmed this original book is the largest so far in this topic, and the first one in matter related to northern Adriatic islands Krk and Rab.
• The prolonged 'birth' of this book was rather dramatical. When prof. M. Yoshamya was dead in 1976, he left a manuscript (about 500 p.) of unidirectional GanVeyan - Croatian glossary, but the interest to fund its publishing was yet scarce, i.e. local island authorities there were mainland immigrants ignorant in local islander culture, and interested chiefly in touristic business. In the meantime its manuscript increased by computer adding inverse glossaries English / Croatian - GanVeyan, and by adding extensive English & French digests.
• In 2002, the local prefect in Krk island became ing. Maryan Dekanić, formerly a professional overseas navigator, and born in the last NeoLiburnic hamlet Batomal (that is ancient Liburnian toponym Batoni Malum = Baton's Hill), being an old citadell at main island peak. His first mother tongue in youth was justly this Gan-Veyan and its reality was quite unquestionable to him. Therefore he opened generously insular touristic funds for a maximal representative edition of this voluminous monograph: the unique precondition was its academic review (added at end). Then first 120 specimens (yet without English & French digests) in 979p. were printed, payd and distributed gratis among the aborigines of Krk island. Its solemn official presentation was on 25. 6. 2004 in a cultural gallery on Krk, followed by Veyan songs recitation, exotic music on archaic Liburnian instruments 'sjurli' and 'sopyli' in peculiar Istrian scale, etc. This was a recent apogee of NeoLiburnic culture.
• Then in 2005 followed its second enlarged edition in 1224 pages including 27,500 original words (with English & French digests) - but suddenly, its main sponsor M. Dekanić was seized by leukemia, and its first luxurious specimens were presented to him yet on death-bed. Then shotly he deceased, but his follower was anew a pragmatic businessman neglecting local island culture. Therefore 200 additional specimens only were completed; i.e. its both editions then included 320 specimens. Lastly one prepared its third shorter edition including English & French digests only (with glossaries), but so far any funding for this was anew inaccessible. --GeoLatina, III Januarii MMVIII

Nomine articus

Hoc articulus debet ad transnominatum "Mihovil Lovrić" quod sit verum nomen eius. -- Neven Lovrić (disputatio) 21:25, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Soccum ut puppa

Mentio pseudo-historica assertam per Mihovil Lovrić tolli potest, sicut de his operibus fabricatin per Andrija-Željko Lovrić qui tendit uti nomine patris sui soccum ut pupa. Vide articulum in Vicipaedia in Anglicus. -- Neven Lovrić (disputatio) 21:42, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

OK. Please supply a link to the English article that you mention: I can't find it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

I think he is referring to the now deleted en:Mihovil Lovrić; see en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mihovil Lovrić. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:15, 10 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think now that far too much time has been wasted on what seems to be family bickering, and we had better delete the lot, particularly in view of the BLP issue. I'm only on line intermittently this week, so if another magistratus sees this and agrees, please delete at once. Thanks Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 14 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

I cannot contribute to the article in Latin, so whoever can should try to improve the article – if possible – as it is likely libelous towards Mihovil Lovrić. Mihovil Lovrić studied, graduated, and was a professor of history and Andrija-Željko Lovrić is a botanist. Andrija-Željko Lovrićs' office was attached to, and physically located at, the Department for Mollecular Biology simply because there was no Department for Botany. Andrew Dalby calling Andrija-Željko Lovrić "a botanist" was not an offense in reality. As I wrote at Wikipedia in English, Andrija-Željko Lovrić tends to use Mihovil Lovrićs' name in publications which may have little or nothing to do with Mihovil Lovrićs' work. The administrators of Wikipedia in English found this so proposterous and unbelievable that they deleted the – as far as I know – factual article, closed and blanked the discussion on it after mere hours, closed and blanked the deletion review, banned me, and closed an inter-administrator discussion with dissenting opinions. As you can see, the article here – which I neither wrote nor contributed to – states that some of the work published by Andrija-Željko Lovrić – with Mihovil Lovrić as the alleged primary or secondary co-author – is fiction. The history of Vice Bune at hand may be false, but the falsehoods might be solely Andrija-Željko Lovrićs' work. The innocent dead cannot defend themselves and considering the probable circumstances of Mihovil Lovrićs' death as stated at Wikipedia in English, the article may be very offensive towards the victim in its' present form. The subject is otherwise worth an article. -- Neven Lovrić (disputatio) 17:42, 14 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your further comment, Neven Lovrić! People have been acting hastily over this issue, and perhaps I was hasty too. Certainly, if they have banned you on en:wiki, they may well have over-reacted ...

Although I am far away from reliable internet connections at present, I did, after your earlier note, revise the articles on Vice Bune to ensure no unfair comments were made about Mihovil Lovrić. I think those articles are now OK (but please comment further if you wish).

Yes, we could retain an article about Mihovil Lovrić, but only if we have reliable sources about his life and work. I cannot evaluate this right now: perhaps others can. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 16 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to no longer be possibly offensive, but I don't know if it is factual as we have no easy way of determining which works may or may not be his and to what degree, but that is a research and not an encyclopedic matter, so we can't apply it unstil someone publishes a reliable source on the subject. If you're interested, I can provide the article from Wikipedia in English so that you can translate what seems suitable to you and include it into the article here. Note that my interest in Mihovil Lovrić is more of a personal matter as as of 2006, strange things have happenned – e. g. I have been arrested on no charges on claims that I was an unknown person in my village, that a white car with Zagreb plates come to me every 2 – 3 nights – which was probably someones' idea of abuse by attacking me with nonsense accusations – etc., so a few years later, I started exploring the information that he was killed by the State Security Service of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – which I had almost no interest in before, so I have little interest in his true or alleged work itself, after which the authorities attacked further, so it seems this has something to do with e. g. my request for the police report on the discovery of his corpse, the authopsy report etc. Also, can you rename the article to Mihovil Lovrić and link it to the article with the same name in the Croatian Wikipedia – I'm using the Tor Browser and the linking program doesn't seem to work with it – I've tried multiple times? -- Neven Lovrić (disputatio) 15:26, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

OK, for now I have made the link as you suggest and I have revised this page so that it makes no assertions about how many of the doubtful writings are really by Mihovil Lovrić. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)