Talk:Bosnian language

Which one to use?

Just a question that requires a neutral and non-politicized answer.

There is a man named Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić who was from the Ottoman Bosnia Eyalet (province), but was born in what is now Montenegro. It is claimed that he was of a Bosniak origin (not sure what that even means when you're born circa 1500). Now, his name was historically known as Husein-paša Boljanić in the area, not just among "Bosniaks." What should this alternate name be specified as?

Should the intro paragraph start like:

• Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić (Turkish: Bodur Hüseyin Paşa, Bosnian: Husein-paša Boljanić or Husein Boljanić)

or

• Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić (Turkish: Bodur Hüseyin Paşa, Serbo-Croatian: Husein-paša Boljanić or Husein Boljanić)

We need an outside consensus on this. I'm not from the area, so I only have an outsider's point of view.

Thanks!

Ithinkicahn (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say go with SC. That's the language, and as you note, Bosnian had not been developed yet. Even if he were born today, I'd argue for SC as the actual language. To me, having a specifically Bosnian transcription is like having a specifically American transcription rather than simply using English. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, had not been developed yet? Not sure what that is supposed to mean. "Serbo-Croatian" is historically known as Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Slavonian etc. These are its ethnic and historic names which are not simply 'politic constructs'. Actually to be perfectly correct, the term Serbo-Croatian is. No language was obviously standardized back then if that is what you mean by developed. Anyway completely confusing input. @Ithinkicahn: Newsflash, Bosniaks were not invented in post-Yugoslavia, believe it or not. Ignorance is truly sad. P.S. I wouldn't either consider 'kwami' a "neutral observer" him being Croat and one of the fiercest proponents around of the term Serbo-Croatian. No offence.Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I'm not just a Croat: I'm a Bosniak Croat Serb Muslim Hindu Jewish Chinese African homosexual homophobe. But I won't admit to any of those things, which means I'm hiding my true identity. Funny how when I disagree with someone, that's proof that I'm whoever they hate. But hate is not an argument. — kwami (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to attribute hatred to Praxis Icosahedron and laughing to his comment is not more constructive than his attempt to attribute ethnicity to you. The point of his comment was that you are not neutral observer requested by Ithinkicahn because you are involved in this SC dispute, which can be easily confirmed by looking at Talk:Serbo-Croatian.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's stupid. This was not a request for an uninvolved editor to resolve a POV dispute. This was a request for an opinion. And an opinion is an opinion, no matter what it is or who agrees with it.

And I can hardly help it if he made me laugh. His response really was funny. — kwami (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy you're amused, this is a kinder-garden after all isn't it? The point is you're not an uninvolved editor regardless of what your "self-perception" might be, shall we say. Yes, being Croat or not is less important, but it can hardly be considered an advantage when someone is looking for an "outside" opinion ;) Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

There was no Bosniak/Croatian/Serbian/Montenegrin language prior to 1990s, when "ethnic" languages were invented. Ethnic construct is by definition a political construct. Nation-states that equated language with the people who spoke it are an invention of the 19th century; before that they didn't exist as such. You can't retroactively project modern notions of language and ethnicity centuries before present. Unless there is concrete evidence that Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić declared himself Bosniak, or is embraced as a Bosniak by modern historians, he shouldn't really be classified as such, and neither should his language. Regarding his name, I don't see a problem as being labeled as Bosnian, if he is exclusively claimed by Bosniaks. When there is a dispute it should be SC because of NPOV. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're completely confusing the concept of ethnicity and nationhood. The recorded 'ethnic' historic names of the language are Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, which also became "national" names after the 19th century. There is no one "retroactively projecting modern notions of language and ethnicity centuries before present" here. Hüseyin Pasha Boljanić was a Bosnian Muslim and per definition a Bosniak since we are speaking of one and the same ethno-religious community. I actually like your point about nation-states since it is valid for Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs alike. Being any of those three in 16th century did not have the same meaning as it does today since the concept of nationhood. However, we don't create separate articles for ethnic groups pre- and post-19th century, do we? If the man is Muslim and described as Bosnian in sources he is obviously a Bosnian Muslim and a South Slav: the definition of Bosniak. If scholarly sources tend to use 'Bosnian' over 'Bosniak' in this circumstance it is only due its more wide-spread usage and less confusing character in the English language. There is no historic rationale to consider Bosnian Muslims of the 21st century a different community than Bosnian Muslims of the 16th century. If so, the Catholic population of 16th century Croatia ought not be described as Croats, which is absurd. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just one more thing which we seem to agree on; the languages/names indicated in a history article should reflect the historiographies involved or its "claims" if you like. History ultimately deals with specific spheres of culture. This man's life took place in the context of Bosnian history, and if some should claim it also part of Serbian or Montenegrin history then by all means include those names as well. However, there is no unified "Serbo-Croatian" historiography with the exception of a few decades of Yugoslavia. Thus, it is not purely a linguistic matter, far from. It is about conveying the involved spheres of culture. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Praxis Icosahedron: As I said, you are projecting modern notions of ethnicity and nationhood back into history where they didn't exist. The only reason why Boljanić could be classified as Bosniak today is along religious grounds. Same goes for Croats and Serbs. Those ethnic terms with modern-day strictly defined legal semantics where invariably used as geographical designations back in the day. No we don't have separate articles, but we do emphasize in existing articles how the ethnogenesis evolved over the ages. Ethnic communities weren't as strong then as they were now so this absence of self-identity doesn't warrant separate treatment, but that doesn't prove that they did consider themselves Bosniaks/Serbs/Croats/whatever. Serbo-Croatian is just a term used for the language, it has nothing to do with historiography. That being said, I have no problem with Bosnian being used as a language name, but if Boljanić is also claimed by Serbs or Croats as well it makes no sense to repeat his identically spelled name for X times, and Serbo-Croatian should suffice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No I am not. Nations were formed based on underlying ethnicities. As such nationhood is in many ways the penultimate form of ethnicity. According to your logic King Tomislav was not a Croat and should only be defined as a historical person who lived on the territory of early Croatia. Boljanic is classified as a Bosniak not only by religion, but also by language, geographical origin, biological roots and cultural identity; i.e. the corner-stones of any ethnicity. It does indeed have to do with historiography since Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia constitute separate historic entities and should be treated as such. "Serbo-Croatian" does not take this into account. I don't know if Boljanic is claimed by Serbs and Croats as well, but it's no secret Serb and Croat nationalists claim the entire Bosniak nation as converted Serbs or Croats ("poturice"), which I suspect is also the reason we are having this baseless discussion. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No he was not a Croat. He is embraced as a "Croat" retroactively by nationalist historians (and that's a citable fact). Think of nationalist histories as romantic fairy tales, fulfilling our-place-in-the-world desires by small peoples. Since Wikipedia is not paid by governments, there is no reason to serve as a propaganda outlet for them, and NPOV policy requires us to take universal history approach. There is no inherent "ethnic affiliation" in one's language, religion, region of birth or DNA - that you truly believe that there is only shows how deep does the brainwashing go. We can only categorize people as Croats/Serbs/Jedi on the basis of 1) their own testimony as such 2) classification by "respected authorities" (historians etc.) Projecting back modern notions of nationhood thousands of years back won't work. We can pretend it does, but deep down we all know it's a lie.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So with regard to "2)", any respected authority (e.g. historian) who describes Tomislav as Croat must be brainwashed and ought not to be trusted? Your kinda in contradiction here, one one hand writing Projecting back modern notions of nationhood thousands of years back won't work., and on the other We can only categorize people as Croats/Serbs/Jedi on the basis of..2) classification by "respected authorities" (historians etc.). So it is acceptable to be brainwashed as long as you're "respected"? Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't take opinions of academicians uncritically. Particularly not the ones from Balkans which are all paid by respective governments to disseminate the national version of "Truth". One ruler is according to one source Croatian, according to other Slavic, according to some other nothing specific, just "ruler". The notion of nation-state was invented in the 19th century, and it's laughable to assume that the term Croatian meant anything other than "inhabitant of the region that was by some called Croatia" thousand years ago. Ditto for Bosnia and Serbia. Sorting these people as Bosniaks, Croats or whatever must be put in the context of contemporary historiography, and not as something that those people themselves proclaimed to be, which they didn't and couldn't have. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ivan. What you have said about Boljanić being a 'Bosniak' only in today's sense (being Muslim from Bosnian territory) is indeed true but this modern approach to past characters and entities runs very deep on Wikipedia. What you have to remember is that prior to the rise of 19th century nationalism across European populations, the entire attitude to ethnicity was wholly different. Fluid as it is now with people switching one census to the next and even declaring themselves differently from their siblings or both their parents, in those days people from this region could have identified by half a dozen different ethnicities, your neighbour with three of yours and two of another; it must have been like playing Bingo or the lottery to find someone the same as you! :) Yet we accept, Catholics - Croat, and Orthodox followers - Serb, especially from Bosnia. The Bosniak view firmly acknowledges that the nation is a third Slavic group to the established and undisputed Croats and Serbs, not members of these nations who happen to practice Islam. It also observes the dominance of Islam to be the result of non-Muslims reassigning themselves Croat or Serb depending on faith. Croats and Serbs on the other hand state that the Bosniaks are their people (each claiming "ours") who converted to Islam. In truth, there had to be a bit of everything, converts, people changing, etc. Would you believe that many of the ancestors of today's Croats and Serbs actually called themselves Serbocroats when the language was new? That's how they came up in censa. Would you believe that non-Slavic nations themselves whilst assimilating adopted Serbocroat nation first before later breaking off with the faith. And would you believe that when in the 19th century there was the ethno-religious consistency for Serbs and Croats, many Bosniaks actually differentiated by calling themselves Turks, even so, it was never a claim that they were the same Turks as the Turkish speakers. This is why it is best to accept modern policies on historical subjects. --Zavtek (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Striking out sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Spoken vs. used?

Used sounds strange, could we have spoken instead? Languages, whether standardized or not, are spoken and written whichever way you look at it. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous. However, given that the whole notion of "Bosnian language" is a result of imagination, the article would make it sounds that Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak different languages, which is of course wrong and misleading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The South Slavic language spoken on the territory of Bosnia is historically known by its Bosnian name. The first dictionary in 1631 was authored by a man who clearly declared himself Bosniak and his language as Bosnian (not Serbo-Croatian). Portraying it as the result of recent imagination is extremely provocative (in which case the same could be said for Serbian or Croatian). If you'd been even slightly attentive to other users you'd realize that no one is arguing these languages as separate or distinct, which is however not to diminish the historic names "Bosnian", "Serbian" and "Croatian" as any less "authentic". Serbo-Croatian is just an arbitrary term applied to a language shared by several ethnicities and that term was modeled on nationalists of the 1800s. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Regional notion of Bosnian is not the same as "Bosnian language" invented in the 1990s. Bosnian language is the standard form of Serbo-Croatian used by Bosniaks = Bosnian Muslims. Bosnian Croats and Serbs use standard Croatian and Serbian, and call Bosnian language its more fitting name - Bosniak language (bošnjački in Serbo-Croatian). You're mixing various terms. There is no continuity between medieval attestations of the term Bosnian which was abundantly used by non-Muslim population, and modern-day Bosnian language which is defined along religious grounds. Similarly there is no continuity between the e.g. Croatian as attested in the Chakavian Baška tablet and Law codex of Vinodol, and modern-day Croatian which is based on Neoštokavian. I know it's hard to come to terms with reality sometimes but such are facts. Medieval Bosnia was not exclusively Muslim and NPOV policy requires us to present the issue in a neutral manner, not distort history to fit a particular agenda (which would in your case be Medieval Bosnian and modern-day Bosnian = one and the same, with Serbian/Croatian "splitting" from the same ethnolinguistic matrix somewhere along the road). Sorry, it doesn't add up. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Being Muslim or not is irrelevant, the Bosniak/Bosnian identity does not exclusively rest on religious attributes but is committed to a Bosnian-based identity that would ultimately also include Christian Bosnians (which for various reasons came to declare themselves as Serbs and Croats in the latter half of the 19th-century). Bosnia is not just a "region", but a historical geopolitical entity with its own identity and culture. A Catholic Bosnian has more cultural and "ethnic" similarities with his Muslim Bosnian neighbor than he does with a Croatian (religion notwithstanding). Bosnians of all three faiths are primarily Bosnians and everything else (through the wits and whims of their neighbors) only secondarily. The points brought up by you are unfortunately pervaded with the (often mischievous) misconceptions commonly found among these neighbors. Bosniaks are an ethnic group greater than the sum of their religion, and the stance of the overwhelming majority of Bosniaks (scholars and common people alike) is not that Bosnia is or should be "Muslim" but Bosnian. In fact, such assertions are in line with available historic records and attempts to deemphasize Bosnia's distinct heritage by resorting to the usual "region" argument is beyond the pale. It is also futile, reductionist and can be applied to Serbia and Croatia to an equal extent. So no, Ivan, the most fitting name for the Bosnian language is Bosnian and Serb and Croat nationalist bids to shatter and appropriate Bosnia should bear no relevance to its semantics. I certainly do not expect the Bosniaks (or anyone else) to "adjust" the name of their language only to appease nationalists who are eager to shatter a country for which they have no historic or moral grounds. And may I once more kindly remind the both of us, wikipedia is not a forum. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 17:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Standard languages are often more written than spoken, or at least better defined in writing than in speech, so "used" is probably the better term here. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually this makes sense. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent corruptions and blunders by user:Taivo and user:Kwamikagami

This is not an invitation for discussion but a request that you should stop engaging in POV-pushing by removing sourced reliable content. Kwami has called the source "sub-par" since it doesn't fit his agenda and user Taivo has claimed that the term is not of convenience although the source clearly says it is. The source is published by Britannica educational and the same assertion is found in the article on Serbo-Croatian in the Britannica encyclopedia [1]. Should this Wikipedia-breaching impudence continue I will take the matter to the noticeboard since there is not much to discuss, Kwami is calling a highly reliable source "sub-par" and Taivo claims it to be "wrong" by not adhering to his private view. All of this because they are determined to present Serbo-Croatian as a definite term. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My god, this is amazing. Perhaps you should review WP guidelines for sourcing. For one, 2ary sources are preferred; 3ary sources are considered sub-par. As for this not being an invitation for discussion, any posting on a discussion page is an invitation for discussion. Your intolerance for POVs you disagree with is not appropriate for a collaborative project like WP. You're welcome to take your complaint to ANI, though refusing to discuss things because "there is not much to discuss" is unlikely to win you much sympathy.

I see you added the note on Dec 29.[2] Your assertion, your responsibility to justify. When you made that edit, you were informed that it might be modified or deleted by others, so you can hardly complain when that happens. — kwami (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to call upon God here. In my opinion you are just seeking to justify a miserably failed attempt at implementing POV. The source, which might as easily be linked to the EB as demonstrated, is fine by all standards and any discussion to the contrary is absurd. Also, no need to justify a reliable source that speaks for itself. If anything, you ought to justify your removal and apparently continued opposition of reliably sourced material that elucidates the term; but as we've seen, the justification is so far beyond the pale. In theory, I am always willing to discuss but preferably with editors that operate on healthy grounds. Your actions so far have not been convincing. The term is of convenience and used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Bosniaks and etc. The term is not definite. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Serbian is not language for Bosniaks. THE END Bosnian2330 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Issue no. 2: quoting

Quoting is actually not a necessity in this circumstance as long as the material added substantially retains the meaning of the source material, obviously. The phrasing used by Britannica places the Bosniaks in "other South Slavic groups" which is fine but awkward for the primary topic of this article (the standard language of the Bosniaks). Rephrasing the text from used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups (such as Montenegrins and Bosniaks) to used to refer to the forms of speech employed by Bosniaks, Serbs, Croats, and other South Slavic groups such as Montenegrins is hardly a corruption of the original meaning but a valid adaptation to the scope of this article. However, I understand that some might be touchy to have the "ethnic supremacy" of the Serbs and Croats sapped by, God forbid, having the Bosniaks placed first. Sorry, though, this kind of nationalist sentiment has no place here. Also I would prefer to cite the EB web entry instead as it is more easily verifiable than Austria, Croatia, and Slovenia. Britannica Educational Publishing. 2013. p. 143 (which actually lifts the assertion in question from the S-C entry in the EB). Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:POINTY edit designed to push your POV, not a balanced reflection of the sources. And it's superfluous: if people don't know what SC is, that's what we have the link for. We don't need to add your cherry-picked POV to every article. Yes, it's a term of convenience, as the language has no unitary name. But "forms of speech" suggests that it isn't a language, and "other South Slavic groups", now that you've messed with the explanation, makes it sound like it's spoken by Bulgarians.

You're pushing its inclusion, so you need to show that it improves the article. Whining about conspiracies against the Truth just makes you sound like a zealot. — kwami (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Kwami, I'm sure you spent a great deal of time making up that self-centered convenient "argument" of yours but it has no relevance whatsoever to anything of what has been said or done so far. The "WP:POINTY" bit is even unworthy a reply. Your conduct is a case study of how arguments are being made up only in order to advance a certain POV. The note is an overview that explains something which is not immediately apparent otherwise, not even in the S-C article because of obvious neutrality issues there which you ought to be happy I have chosen to ignore. Serbo-Croatian is a term of convenience (arbitrary if you like) used to refer to the forms of speech employed (or shared if you like) by several ethnicities. And it is not a definite term per the "logic" that the language inherently belongs to the Serbs and Croats (with Bosniaks and Montenegrins merely being offshoots of the former). A highly reliable tertiary source as the Encyclopedia Britannica is exactly what's optimal for this kind of overview: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. This as opposed to the pushing of cherry-picked secondary sources by yourself for years. Also, I'll make sure to notify the Britannica of the confusion their phrasing creates with you. I seriously doubt we will make headway though. Allow me to quote Ronelle Alexander, Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary, Univ of Wisconsin Press (2006), p. xvii: Some claim that Serbo-Croatian still exists as a unified language and that to call the successor systems separate languages is a political fiction required by the existence of separate states, while others claim that there was never a unified language and that the naming of one was likewise a political fiction required by the existence of a single state. Most thinking falls somewhere between these two poles. No need to explicate which pole you belong to and so eagerly advance without any concern for NPOV. Oh, and yeah, let me know when your done with bashing Britannica. I have wiser things to do. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Praxis Icosahedron: You're pushing one particular point of view as a universal fact. That "Bosnian language" existed in times of Kulin Charter, bosančica and has anything to with the 16th century dictionaries is a point of view advocated by some Bosniak linguists. Croatians and Serbian linguists generally do not acknowledge that, and neither do foreigners. You're very keen to establish some kind of "deep" cultural continuity in order to legitimize Bosnian. However we must present facts as bare facts, and opinions as opinions. Cherry-picked sources that mention Bosnian language without their authors knowing what they're talking about don't matter. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What a pleasant visit. You're discussing matters which are of no relevance to the discussion at hand, and most of it is wrong, actually being your own take and not that of some supposed "foreigners". You're just a biased editor and a nationalist from the region putting words in my mouth in order to discredit and misrepresent me. I have nothing more to add and will not be responding to simple provocations as those of Ivan any longer. I am sourcing Britannica and that is the end of it. Shall we just take this to the noticeboard right away? I am in no mood to waste time with a ragtag of POV pushers. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Uskufi's dictionary cannot be official dictionary of Bosnian because Bosnian language didn't officially exist until the 1990s. Charter of Kulin has nothing to do with modern Bosnian and is also claimed by Serbs and Croats. The source for Charter of Kulin being written in Bosnian is Miklošič reprint in Monumenta Serbica. We can mention that some Bosniak linguists claim that modern Bosnian is a continuation of literary tradition that has its roots in bosančica-written documents, but that has too be sourced to them specifically because it's not generally accepted. Feel free to involve whomever you like, what I speak is facts, and your edits are simply POV-pushing. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have to re-phrase the content then re-phrase it instead of blanking. I have already filed a complaint at ANI. The claim that "Uskuf's dictionary has nothing to do with modern Bosnian" proves your POV-agenda. Svein Mønnesland, professor of Slavic languages at the University of Oslo and the leading Slavist in Norway, states the following in Norewegian:– I dag er det de politiske aspektene som gjør boken mest aktuell. Den viser at bosnisk språk har en lang tradisjon, sier Mønnesland. (Today the politic aspects make the dictionary most topical. It shows that the Bosnian language has a long tradition, Mønnesland says)[3]. But he probably knows nothing, right? Your view, and not that of "foreigners", is Croat nationalist POV. I'm adding a neutrality tag to the article and we'll hash this out at the ANI. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Svein Mønnesland is on the payroll of the Bosnian Academy so yes it's just a non-neutral POV. We can attribute it to him and that's it. However native sources by codifiers of Bosnian would be preferred (Halilović, Jahić et al.). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy arguments, really? How old-fashioned. Please provide sources. Tomasz Kamusella, The politics of language and nationalism in modern Central Europe, Palgrave Macmillan: The codifiers of the Bosnian language refer to Bosancica (local type of Cyrillic influenced by Glagolitic) and to the tradition of writing in Slavic with the use of the Arabic script (Arebica) as the roots of the contemporary Bosnian language.. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure they do, but that's just their opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Bosančica and Arebica fell out of use centuries ago, and standard Bosnian was basically created by decree as a continuation of Bosnian form of Serbo-Croatian. Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not even written by Bosniaks. And the connection with Kulin's Charter is just laughable. Once again: There is no problem with mentioning other opinions, but it has to be in a neutral manner. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So Bosniaks are not also Bosnians? They are an alien element with no descent from medieval Bosnia? Not sure I'm following. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern Bosnian language is the standard form of Serbo-Croatian used by Bosniaks. Bosančica-written documents written by Catholics in Bosnia are considered as a part of Croatian language history by Croatian linguists along ethnic/religious grounds. (open any book on the history of Croatian language and see for yourself) Whenever there is a conflict of opinions it has to be written in a neutral manner citing whose opinions are being represented, and not as facts without contexts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol are you seriously invoking Croat nationalism and hegemony in Bosnia, thought that rubbish was discredit ages ago!?! Its crown jewel Herzeg-Bosnia was shot down miserably. Croatian interest in Bosnia is pseudo-science as is the Croat ethnicity of Bosnian Catholics. Bosniaks at least have authentic ties to Bosnia than some "fathers of the nation" in Zagreb. What do you think personally, is it all just Croatian? Be honest now. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Politics and Herzeg-Bosna is irrelevant. Catholic Bosnian literature (Matija Divković etc.) is considered as a part of Croatian language history by Croatians whether you like it or not. I don't know how Halilović and co. treat it though, sine I don't have access to their books. But if they do - it's just one POV that needs to be carefully put into context, and not as a fact as you're so keen to do it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, in such case, since Bosniaks were part of non-Muslim medieval Bosnia before embracing Islam, it should follow that they are merely converted Croats in the minds of those Croat scholars. That's actually worse than good old plain POV, it's chauvinism. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Before Islamification, they adhered to Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Bosnian Church - whatever), or were pagans/atheists (possibly, but unlikely after 10th century). Whether you make of them Slavs, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks or Martians doesn't matter, or whether such classification is chauvinistic or not. The first are facts, the second is arbitrary cultural assignment which is inherently just one POV. We need to summarize all relevant opinions in a NPOV manner and not champion "truth". The real truth is, incidentally, none of those major POVs which are mostly just fabricated nationalist propaganda (ask Mønnesland ‎what language did he teach before 1990 and under what name did he refer to it). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Actually I don't even care anymore. Let's just end it here. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Same for the note you keep pushing, which serves no purpose but to suggest that SC is not really a language. You will need to involve someone else if you want to get consensus for such biases. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The note is referenced to the Britannica, the most scholarly of encyclopedias. I'm sorry if it collides with your POV. Wikipedia is not a democracy so it doesn't matter how many biased editors you manage to pile up against me. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That note is unnecessary, because unlike Britannica we have separate articles on both Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian. If the reader wants to know what the word Serbo-Croatian means on Wikipedia, or can mean in English language, all he has to do is click the wikilink. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Britannica has no separate individual articles for Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian at all. What are you talking about? Bias in the style of "I think it's unnecessary so let's get rid of it" just won't do. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As opposed to yours "I think it's necessary so it would do?" --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a RS saying so, where's yours saying it's not? All we have is your opinion. Doesn't count for much. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a matter of sources but whether that note has its place there or not. The article Serbo-Croatian already deals with that. So your note serves no purpose. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not satisfied with the way the S-C article presents itself. It's way too slanted towards one of the poles mentioned by Alexander. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have issues with that article bring it up there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And so I shall~in due time. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like...

To ask user JorisvS not to delete edits by users because deleting content with reference is vandalism. ;) --LightWiki91 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This statement is, of course, nonsense. Just for example - if the reference does not meet Reliable Source standards, it is junk, and out it goes. There are many other reasons - like WP:CONSENSUS - that "sourced" statements might be rejected/deleted.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Uskufi's dictionary and Charter of Kulin

There is no problem mentioning them but they have to be carefully contextualized. Something along the line "Modern Bosnian language proponents trace back the Bosnian language literary tradition to Uskufi's dictionary, or early vernacular monuments such as Charter of Ban Kulin." Modern Bosnian language as such was invented out of thin air in the 1990s together with modern Croatian and Serbian, and such opinions merely represent a particular POV and not absolute truths. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyrillic

@Surtsicna: Even if we take Alexander [4] as the ultimate source, she says that Bosnian ... officially use both alphabets. Outside of the Serbian entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bosnians almost always use Latin alphabet. Within that entity, ... both alphabets are regularly used. This leaves some precision to be desired, but obviously has in mind Bosnians, not Bosniaks. However, on page xviii, she goes on to say Now, Croatian and Bosnian use the Latin alphabet exclusively, while Serbian uses both freely. I can quote you several books which use similar phrasing; for example, Comrie has it The Cyrillic alphabet continues in use among Slavonic peoples of traditional Orthodox religion: [...] Serbian variety of Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian, while the others use the Latin alphabet. I think it's fairly obvious that Bosnian uses Cyrillic pretty much only de jure and for historical reasons (corpus of Bosnian literature from SFRY period). Maybe "marginal" was not the best choice of words, but Cyrillic, if mentioned, do need some sort of adjective in the lead to stress its secondary role, per WP:DUE. No such user (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The historical reasons go back much further than the SFRY period; correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Latin script was hardly prominent before the late 19th century. The earliest surviving Bosnian documents were written in Cyrillic, including one particularly famous charter... Isn't one is considered semi-literate at best if not proficient in both scripts? Students are required to learn and use both. Surtsicna (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but still, Cyrillic is almost entirely in passive use today, right? You will hardly find a recent book or magazine printed in Cyrillic, or its usage in media. We should stress that in the lead somehow and explain in more detail in the text, as the two scripts are not on equal standing in practical terms. No such user (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't we have this exact same discussion at Talk:Bosnian language/Archive 4? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Official" Dictionary

"Official" implies a government sanctioned designation. Since there was no "Bosnia" in the 17th century, there could be no "official" designation for a dictionary. --Taivo (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Neo-nationalist agenda

This article is written with a clear neo-nationalist agenda in mind, meaning that a new nation that started to officially exist in the 90's invented a new name for a well codified Eastern Herzegovinian dialect which is not only spoken by its authentic speakers the Serbs but also by the Muslims of Bosnia as well as a large portion of Croats. American is not a standard language, English is, in the same manner as Swiss and Austrian are not standard languages but German is. For the standard Serbo-Croatian language the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect was used as a literally basis, since it is the most wide-spread. Muslim Bosnians do not have a separate language other than the very same dialect which they use as well, the standard language however is/was called Serbo-Croatian. Since Croatian also uses other dialects than the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect like Kajkavian and Chakavian, the so called "Bosnian" language actually falls into the category of the Serbian language, since it has only one literally basis namely the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect which the Bosnian Muslims also use exclusively. The correct classification would be Bosnian Serbian, like Austrian German or American English, however like stated before, this article is written with a clear neo-nationalist agenda in mind (as in inventing a new national identity) rather than the analysis of actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.88.72 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The actual facts, as you name them, are that Bosnians, since their independence from Yugoslavia, have codified a standard variety of Serbo-Croatian, and named it "Bosnian". This article describes that standard variety, there is nothing nationalist about it. Could you be more specific about which parts of the article need changing? CodeCat (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, I wouldn't waste my time. All of a sudden Serbs are the lone "authentic speakers" of Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. And so, the Bosniaks (who magically appeared as a pseudo-nation in the 90s) and Croats are Islamicized and Catholicized Serbs? Please.. go away. The problem with Balkan-related topics as I see it is that so many bring their nationalist passions and convictions instead of the "analysis of factual facts" as our good friend calls it. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 23:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No one's talking about "Serbians" as the authentic speakers. Historically there was little, if any, distinction among the various dialects that constitute what is called, for lack of a better term, the Serbo-Croatian language. --Taivo (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

the insistence that "Bosnian" may only apply to the modern-day Bosnian standard

Please see Talk:Croatian language#the insistence that "Croatian" may only apply to the modern-day Croatian standard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk

So it appears a discussion is needed here. First of all, I ask everyone not to bring any nationalist claims here (example: Bosnian language is just altered Serbian), etc. We have information that, during the time of the Banate of Bosnia and Kingdom of Bosnia, Bosniaks (then known as Bošnjani) already spoke a language very similar to Bosnian today. However, due to the lagging behind of Bosniak nationalism and the powerful Croat and Serb nationalism, an official naming of the language seemed to have come a bit late. Notable is the fact that Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi, a Bosniak writer, made the first official Bosnian dictionary (originally used to translate Bosnian to Turkish and vice-versa). This was in 1631. In it, he specifically accents that we wrote a dictionary of the Bosnian language and that this is the language he and his countrymen speak. The first Serbian dictionary and first academic mention of Serbian language at all was in 1818 (by Vuk Karadzic). As such, it seems a bit boggling that some consider Bosnian to be just a variety of Serbo-Croatian when the Bosnian language was established and written about in professional circles some 200 years before Serbian? I would like to get some feedback on this (historically accurate, please). The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus among linguists is that there are four standard varieties based on the same dialect, the Eastern Herzegovinian form of Neoshtokavian. The wider linguistic area, which includes Eastern Herzegovina as well as the rest of Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia (minus perhaps the southernmost part), speaks different forms of a language that linguists call Serbo-Croatian. So yes, Bosnian is a form of Serbo-Croatian, and the dialects spoken in other areas do not descend from Eastern Herzegovinian. Only the four standard written languages (standard Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian) descend from Eastern Herzegovinian. CodeCat (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"Controversion"

This article is an example of policy of some editors over here. First, it is possible to see that Controversy part takes about 50% of the article making it the main (sub)heading. All this Controversy part is about politics, not linguistics (meaning: not as it is asked for articles about some language), and it's still left untouched. All the other text (except Controversy part) is subject to cleanse and minorization, which suggests that language never existed seriously. Another political part is note about Kosovo: like it is important to give a long sentence about its' dispute with Serbia (OMG it's so important, meaning that it would not be used there if Serbia take it away - which is not true, Bosnian is used there before 1995, but under other name). Next thing I want to tune it on is its' history. All the history about Bosnian language is moved to article Serbo-Croatian. Why do you do that if term Serbo-Croatian is coined (meaning, first mentioned) in 19th century, and Bosnian (also with other terms: Serbian and Croatian) is mentioned far before it? All I can see (and probably others too) is that someone is trying to make this article minor and zipped, until it becomes article of no value, ready to delete or move-it-into-other-article. --Munja (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Languages are not the same as the name by which they go. The name "Serbo-Croatian" may have been coined in the 19th century, but the language has existed for many centuries before that. This article is really about Modern Standard Bosnian, not Serbo-Croatian as spoken by ethnic Bosnians/Bosniaks (which is not even a coherent topic). This means that any history about the speech of Bosnians/Bosniaks prior to 1990, including the famous "Bosnian" dictionary, is actually off-topic. --JorisvS (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The name Serbo-Croatian is used because that's the convention in international linguistic literature. It is also considered one language because that's a convention in international linguistic literature. Simples. Do you have any questions? 93.139.13.170 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You're wrong. It not used because it is a convention, but because the national languages that fall under it are oh so easily mutually intelligible, with only minor differences between them, which makes them squarely part of a single language. Contrary to popular belief, delineating languages is not arbitrary. --JorisvS (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You said that this article is about Serbo-Croatian which Bosniaks use, and that history prior 90's is off-topic. So, where should we mention that history? That dictionary existed by this name: Bosnian-Turkish. If modern Bosnian has nothing to do with old Bosnian (in the time of dictionary), and modern Bosnian is same as Serbo-Croatian, then how could we say that Serbo-Croatian has anything to do with this dictionary? There's no logic to me. I was learned that friend of my friend is my friend, if you know what I'm saying. --Munja (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian is the modern term for the language which was referred to with a variety of names in the past. So such history goes at the Serbo-Croatian article, since the name "Bosnian" was one of the names formerly used for Serbo-Croatian. Nowadays, it specifically refers to the Bosnian standard of Serbo-Croatian. So really, the word "Bosnian" can mean different things depending on which time in history it was used. CodeCat (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both Modern Standard Bosnian and the Bosnian from the Bosnian–Turkish dictionary are part of Shtokavian Serbo-Croatian plus that its speakers are part of the same ethnicity, so they are closely related. However, they are nevertheless distinct (I never said they have nothing to do with each other). There is no article about an ethnically defined "Bosnian" (which would have included the info about the dictionary), because there is no coherent entity that can be called that, with Bosnians speaking multiple (sub)dialects shared with ethnic Croats and Serbs. The dictionary can simply be covered at the article about the complete language, Serbo-Croatian, where it is mentioned. --JorisvS (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood! But I still see no rule on Wikipedia that article about Bosnian language must be just about that modern language, it should also be about that term. Both ways Bosnian is variety of policentric language, so I see no reason not to mention term usage history, same as mentioning dictionary of Uskufi. What about Bulgaro-Macedonian, isn't it also the policentric language? --Munja (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about concepts, though, not about terms. Terms on their own are generally not notable enough for articles, with a few exceptions like You. If you want information about terms specifically, you should go to Wiktionary: wikt:Bosnian. CodeCat (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

wikt:Bosnian shows less than one sentence about the term. --Munja (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK no, because standard Macedonian is based on a different dialect than standard Bulgarian. Peter238 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason that this article is about Modern Standard Bosnian is because that is the consensus among interested editors that developed a year or two ago. The reason is precisely because of the Bosnian nationalism that is cropping up here. (BTW, the same consensus affects to the Serbian and Croatian articles as well.) These are three names for the same dialect of a single language--which is the Shtokavian dialect of Serbo-Croatian. The Wikipedia consensus is that Serbo-Croatian will be the term we use for the non-Slovenian West South Slavic language which has often been called by different names depending on the religion (not any linguistic factor) of the speaker. So "Bosnian", in the pre-Modern era, refers to Muslim speakers; "Croatian" refers to Catholic speakers; "Serbian" refers to Orthodox speakers. These are not linguistic determinations, but religious ones. That's why the "Bosnian", "Croatian", and "Serbian" articles refer only to the modern standard languages and not to the common pre-Modern form, which is subsumed under the label "Serbo-Croatian". --Taivo (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Consenzus should be to put only Shtokavian dialect, so that Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian are standard languages based on Shtokavian dialect. Bosnians and Serbians (and probably some Croats) don't understand Kajkavian and Chakavian at all (or do hardly understand), so it is not fully right to call B, C and S standardized variants of S-C! --Munja (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not? CodeCat (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Because in official use during Yugoslavia and today, Kajkavian and Chakavian were not used, but as it's possible to see, Kajkavian and Chakavian are considered under Serbo-Croatian tree. Standard Serbo-Croatian was/is based on Shtokavian, but not on these two (K and Ch), so we might say that B, C and S are based on Shtokavian. --Munja (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And Shtokavian is part of Serbo-Croatian. CodeCat (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Why it must be like that? Why isn't Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian part of Shtokativan (as it is)? Modern Croatian does not use Kaykavian and Chakavian officialy, even if they (some Croats) talk in these dialects in some parts of Croatia, and even if they mention them in literature as part of Croatian. All 3 (or 4) languages are officially based on Shtokavian! --Munja (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not a matter for us to discuss here. CodeCat (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned in Kaykavian and Chakavian articles, they have low mutual integlibility with Shtokavian, and by many linguists they're considered different languages (which is true), so why is it put in Serbo-Croatian (sub)group. --Munja (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also not a matter to discuss here. CodeCat (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Chakavian and Kajkavian are indeed really distinct languages, and if they would no longer be commonly subsumed under Serbo-Croatian, Shtokavian and Serbo-Croatian would become synonymous. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are all based on Shtokavian and therefore part of Shtokavian. This means we can call them standardized varieties of Shtokavian. Shtokavian is (part of) Serbo-Croatian, which means it is correct to call them standardized varieties of Serbo-Croatian, regardless of whether Chakavian and Kajkavian should be considered distinct languages. --JorisvS (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Discussion at Talk:Serbian_Cyrillic_alphabet#Serbian_Cyrillic_script_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina, with the question "Should the name of Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles (predominantly Republika Srpska-related articles) be simply "Cyrillic"?"--Zoupan 02:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The name of the language (glottonym) in English

The article gives an alternative name to "Bosnian" as "Bosniak" in English. The term "Bosniak" language is usually not used in English. All English-speaking language encyclopaedias (Routledge, Glottolog, Ethnologue etc.) register this language solely as "Bosnian" language. The Library of Congress registered the language as "Bosnian" and gave it an ISO-number. The Slavic language institutes in English-speaking countries offer courses in "Bosnian" or "Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian" language, not in "Bosniak" language. The same thing in the German-speaking countries: the language is taught under the name "Bosnisch", not "Bosniakisch" (with very few exceptions). The term "Bosniak" language is only used by some Serb and Croat linguists due to a controversy which was already described in the article. I think, there is no need to introduce the alternative name "Bosniak" language into English, when this glottonym is preferred only from some Serb and Croat linguists. Bosniak linguists, speakers of Bosnian, and the international linguistics call the language (almost) exclusively "Bosnian". My suggestion is to erase the alternative name "Bosniak", as there is no need to create any additional ambiguity in English. The paragraph about the "Controversy" should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDaRiva (talk • contribs) 11:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Although I haven't followed this article too closely, I seem to recall that "Bosniak" was added to the lead relatively recently (lazy to search, I admit). No such user (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have limited the use of "Bosniak" to the relevant parts of the article, and removed the unsourced reference from the incipit. I also added MrDaRiva's explanation in the Controversy section, together with links to the sources--Dans (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: may I ask the reasons of your revert? --Dans (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was hasty in restoring "Bosniak". Sorry. However, I am also concerned about attempts to project the Bosnian language back in history. We've had attempts both here and at Croatian to create pseudo-histories of the languages: attempts by nationalists to claim that any historical use of the term "Bosnian" or "Croatian" is proof of the independent existence of the language at that time. Historical background is useful, but we don't want to say that a "Bosnian" or Arabic-script text from centuries ago is in the Bosnian language, since Bosnian did not exist as a separate language at the time. Not all references to "Bosnian" (or to "Croatian" for that matter) are instances of the topic of the article.

Sorry if I've been unfair to you; we've had so much nationalist edit-warring on these articles that I no longer devote as much time into reviewing edits as perhaps I should before reverting them. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami:, thanks for the reply. No problem, I understand, the topic is sensitive indeed. I agree with you that we shouldn't fall into the fallacy of looking at the past with today's eyes, and I hope my edits didn't. I think we should agree on which time-period is this article about: only the post-1990s language, or also its preconditions (as some paragraphs speaking of late-Ottoman times seem to imply). There are some other paragraphs that I'd like to recover, but please advise me if they'd fit better here or in the page on the developments of Serbo-Croatian languages.--Dans (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to spend the time to investigate it all. Since you seem reasonable, I'll leave it to your judgement and to whoever else might be monitoring this article. I'll revert myself so it doesn't look like you're edit-warring. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

School book of Latin and Bosnian, 1827

Hello! This is not a school book of Latin and Bosnian, but of arithmetics translated from Latin to Bosnian. Amator linguarum (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC) (Amator linguarum)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bosnian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118131924/http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=7474 to http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=7474
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617081137/http://www.pravda.gov.me:80/vijesti.php?akcija=rubrika&rubrika=121 to http://www.pravda.gov.me/vijesti.php?akcija=rubrika&rubrika=121
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sveske.ba/bs/content/i-dalje-jedan-jezik

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bosnian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103175919/http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/EvaluationReports/SerbiaECRML1_en.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/minlang/Report/EvaluationReports/SerbiaECRML1_en.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=5907
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ohr.int/decisions/statemattersdec/default.asp?content_id=7475
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pravda.gov.me/vijesti.php?akcija=rubrika&rubrika=121
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117002803/http://www.hrvatska-rijec.com/2011/04/matija-divkovic-otac-bosansko-hercegovacke-i-hrvatske-knjizevnosti-u-bih/ to http://www.hrvatska-rijec.com/2011/04/matija-divkovic-otac-bosansko-hercegovacke-i-hrvatske-knjizevnosti-u-bih/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202111003/http://www.pozitiv.si/dividedgod/texts/Aljamiado%20and%20Oriental%20Literature%20in%20BiH.pdf to http://www.pozitiv.si/dividedgod/texts/Aljamiado%20and%20Oriental%20Literature%20in%20BiH.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425214525/http://katalog.hazu.hr/web/slike/str165.JPG to http://katalog.hazu.hr/web%5Cslike%5Cstr165.JPG
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sveske.ba/bs/content/i-dalje-jedan-jezik

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bosnian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160128123421/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/BCRS/W1202-20161-001/ to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/BCRS/W1202-20161-001/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721164105/http://www.usefoundation.org/foundation/research/olp/viewLegislation.asp?CID=15&LID=32 to http://www.usefoundation.org/foundation/research/olp/viewLegislation.asp?CID=15&LID=32

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Arebica variant

The Arebica variant of "Bosanski jezik" is بۉسانسقٖى يەزٖىق. Arebica was formerly used to write Bosnian language, but it doesn't hurt to keep it. سقەندەر جۆمحۆر (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Lies

95% of this text is simple not true. It has no foothold in historical facts. This article is the product of a politically revised history.

So, let's go with historical facts: 1. In Bosnia and Herzegovina arabica almost never been in use. 1a) Arabica've been in use only in officials of the Ottoman Empire who served in Bosnia, not in common people. 2. Bosnian/Bosniac language is product of politically revision of language in B&H started with 1993. 2a) Bosnian president Alija Izetbegović, who's the "guilty" for the creating the bosnian language, said: "We, Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, need to invent our own language to make difference of Serbs and Croats!" [Dnevni Avaz - february 1993.] 3. People in B&H always people wrote in Latin and spoke Croatian with Serbian grammatics 5. Bosnian Cyrillic is not really Bosnian. That letter originated on the Dalmatian island of Brač in XI. century in Povlja. 5a) The first document wrote in that letter is Povljanski prag (The threshold of Povlja) from 1180. 5b) Second one document wrote in that letter is Povljanska listina (Document from Povlja) from 1250.) In that time Bosnia no not exist, but Dalmatia hold most of nowadays Bosnia and Herzegovina. 5c) Third one document in this letter where "Poljički statut" (The Statud of Poljica) from 1655. (Poljica are area in Middle Dalmatia between Split and Omiš).

So... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.51.17 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Protection?

@Bosnian2330:, can you please stop with disruptive editing? This is unreasonable. Mhare (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Rua

Bosnian language is not Serbo - Croatian language. Mun24 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The first Bosnian dictionary published in 1631, the first Serbian dictionary published in 1818. How can Bosnian be Serbo-Croatian? Mun24 (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The language in question is a Pluricentric language. The term Serbo-Croatian is just a particular name used commonly in English. There is further information on this article and related articles linked to within it. CMD (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This page is full of Serbo-Croatian fascist propaganda, and apparently that propaganda has a foothold in those who rule this part of Wikipedia. It is most likely Serbian and Croatian ultra-nationalists. Quote: "The Bosnian language is a variant of the Serbo-Croatian language"? "Serbo-Croatian language" invented by the so-called Serbian and Croatian communists at a meeting in Novi Sad (now Serbia) in 1954 during the former Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian language has its roots for at least 1,500 years? What ridiculous and wrong propaganda. 86.243.35.100 (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Formatting - large blank space

This page has quite a bit of blank space -- after Standardization to see the old Bosnian alphabet image I have to scroll down an entire length of my screen before the article continues. Is this the case for anyone else? If so, perhaps some reorganization or reformatting is necessary. I'm using a 13" laptop. –– Iskerník (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bosnian Language - IJEKAVICA

Bosnian (/ˈbɒzniən/ (listen); bosanski / босански, [bɔ̌sanskiː]), sometimes referred to as Bosniak language, is the standardizedvariety of the Serbo-Croatian pluricentric language mainly used by ethnic Bosniaks.

To say and write that Bosnian(Bosanski jezik) language is standardised variation of the Serb-Croat language is demeaning and insulting. They may be similar in writing and in speaking but they all differ at its HEART and CORE.

- All 3 languages(Bosanski,Srpski,Hrvatski) are originated from the Slavic language

- Bosnian(Bosanski) language is the language that is based(spoken and written) on IJEKAVICA. - Serbian(Srpski) language is based on EKAVICA - Croatian(Hrvatski) language is based on IKAVICA

Which makes all of them separate languages and to call selectivly one of those 3 as standardized version of the other two is misleading and demeaning.

-The name "Bosnian language" is a controversial issue for some Croats and Serbs, who also refer to it as the "Bosniak" language (Serbo-Croatian: bošnjački / бошњачки, [bǒʃɲaːtʃkiː]). Bosniak linguists however insist that the only legitimate name is "Bosnian" language (bosanski) and that that is the name that both Croats and Serbs should use. The controversy arises because the name "Bosnian" may seem to imply that it is the language of all Bosnians, while Bosnian Croats And Serbs reject that designation for their idioms.”

- Both Croats and Serbs reject it because they originate by Nationality and Ethnicity to Croatia(christians) and Serbia(Ortodox-pravoslavlje) However in reality speak the Bosnian language which is spoken in IJEKAVICA form of slavic language. I am a bosnian and hercegovinian and when i read some parts of these texts on wikipedia i was discusted.

I demand that the administration of the Wikipedia page fact checks propperly, respectfully, objectively and publishes in the same way!!!!!!! 92.240.33.174 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)