Many of this words are not obsolete forms, this forms are rather archaic. Obsolete forms of Croatian language are: chekati, lyubav, bratya, scivati, plac, sagriescenie, Bogh, mach, csarati, rodyen... and countless others. This forms written on this page are very much in use by Croatian cultural élite and preeminent Croatian linguists, but not by government and media, so this forms are rather archaic. 46.229.244.12419:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
By such conception, one could easily misplace Ivan Štambuk as Serbo-Croatian (rather "Veleserbian"), "Vukovian" nationalist nut job. Wouldn't you agree? And those spellings are far from extinct. 46.229.244.12401:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Pure projection. Objective and unfortunately oftentimes hurtful supervision is needed to keep nationalists in line, otherwise they do more damage than good. That it tends to be naively perceived as siding with the "other side" is most unfortunate. At any case, if those spellings as in use today as you suggest, could you kindly point out several pieces written and published in recent years by the aforementioned "élite" that utilize them? I think not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Most of works written by such "élite" Kruno Krstić, Franjo Cipra, Miro Kačić, Stjepko Težak, Mato Marčinko, Ivo Škarić, Bulcsú László, Zorislav Šojat, Dragan Hazler, Marijan Krmpotić, Marijan Horvat-Mileković, Branimir Petener..., but there are just "few nationalist nutjobs" - Right?
I'm not a nationalist, neither am I for so call'd korienski pravopis, however this spelling are not extinct and that must be mention. This spellings are obsolete; chekati, lyubav, bratya, scivati, plac, sagriescenie, Bogh, mach, csarati, rodyen...(No longer in use, and no longer likely to be understood.) They are really out of use, and no longer likely to be understood even by educated people, even less by general public. So forms like; liepo, glasba, izčupati, bezsmrtnost... are archaic (No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts, and generally understood (but rarely used) by educated people.). So please for good sake of Wiktionary, that you allow this to be correct'd. Otherwise you are more "nationalist" (driven by ideology) then the most of nationalistic nationalists.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein. Friedrich Nietzsche
Butt pretty much all of those people are right-wing extremists and nationalists, some even conspiracy nutjobs. I repeat my request: please point out several works written and published in recent years (not self-published, e.g. catalogued by NSK) that utilize the etymological orthography that you deem "archaic". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Re-publishing of Gjalski, Šenoa... and others Pod starimi krovovi, 1996., Zlatarovo zlato, 1998., so please don't cavil pointlessly. And this orthography is not etymological, but morphological, there is a big difference; čto, květje, gvězda, sdravje... is etymological, etymological orthography is rather obsolete, but still can be found in some works, more especially in works Kurlec) 46.229.245.16723:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Those are all 19th-century works, which are today reprinted in modern orthography. No, the etymological orthography would be korienski pravopis; forms such as květje, gvězda are based on Proto-Slavic reconstructions and nobody has ever written like that, that orthography doesn't even have a name. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
