Talk:Bosnian language/Archive 4

Cyrillic
The secondary source cited for the use of Cyrillic in Bosnian is not nearly as clear-cut as the reference to it seems to imply - :
 * Croatian is written exclusively in the Latin alphabet, while Bosnian and Serbian officially accept both alphabets. Outside the Serbian entity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, however, Bosnians almost always use the Latin alphabet. (p. 1)
 * Students who will be functioning in a Croatian or Bosnian context need only learn to write the Latin letters. (p. 1)
 * Following are the letters of the Cyrillic alphabet as used in Serbian (and as an accepted alternative in Bosnian). (p. 2)

When the source itself qualifies the use of Cyrillic in Bosnian - defined as the language of Bosniaks - as largely non-existent; adding it without such qualification in the article is a misrepresentation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is not factually correct. Students who function in a Bosnian context need learn to write and read both Cyrillic and Latin letters. For example, both alphabets are used in textbooks. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So what source do we have for your claim? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My claim? I am not sure what you are referring to. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim that both alphabets are used in textbooks. Can you cite a source for that? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from obvious sources such as the actual elementary and high school textbooks, this article appears to explicitly confirm it. This one seems to say the same thing, but specifically about history textbooks. I was surprised that you even requested a source for something that obvious, but a quick Google search did not do any harm. Surtsicna (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally, why would you be surprised? How do you suppose the typical English reader would verify this without sources? They'll have an obvious problem even with these sources, because they conflict an English-language source.
 * But furthermore, specifically, I read those and they're not convincing. The BH Dani article from 2001 says that learning other alphabets should start to be included in curricula next year - it's not definitive. The 2008 article about reforms is better, but still lacking - it says
 * Svi udžbenici na bosanskom jeziku, koji su objavljeni 2007. godine, tiskani su i latinicom i ćirilicom. U prethodnim godinama neki udžbenici pisani na bosanskom jeziku objavljeni su na oba pisma, ali se čini da je tek od 2007. godine u praksi izdavanje udžbenika na oba pisma prihvaćeno kao opće pravilo.
 * So there's no exception to the publishing, but that does not necessarily imply that there aren't exceptions to the use. The state can force all publishers to have a token amount of Cyrillic books in stock but that still doesn't have to reflect the sales (the readership). The fact that your quick Google search didn't find information that was straightforward is proof enough that there's still a problem with the article's overly simplistic description of matters. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Verify what? Does the article say that both scripts are used in textbooks? If not, what is there to verify? What is this discussion all about anyway? Anyway, you do not understand how it is done. Each textbook contains texts in both Cyrillic and Latin, so there are no "Cyrillic [text]books in stock" as opposed to "Latin [text]books in stock". One cannot go to the bookstore and buy only parts of the book that are written in, say, Latin, so there is nothing about it that would reflect the sales or the readership. Simply put, both scripts are used in textbooks and the source is blatantly wrong, since students do have to write and read both Cyrillic and Latin letters from elementary schools onwards. Semi-literate students cannot graduate. Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again, please demonstrate a source that simply says what you're saying, otherwise you may just be another random person on the Internet making stuff up. (Why do I have to explain the basics of WP:V to someone with as long a history here as yourself? *sigh*) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources do simply say what I am saying (that the source is wrong) and I have provided more of them than I had to. We do not seem to be discussing anything related to the content of the article and I am not particularly inclined to waste my time satisfying users' curiosities. I am sorry if my connaissance of Wikipedia policies disappointed you, but I too expected you to know that Wikipedia is not a forum. Surtsicna (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Did you even read the relevant part of the article? The one source that we do have referenced there say something that you have said conflicts with your sources. The onus is on you to prove your contention. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've explicated the source in the article with a note. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not conflict at all and the article does not say anything about the usage of scripts in schools. The fact that one script is mainly used in one part of the country certainly does not mean that students are not required to learn and use the other one as well. (Do you seriously believe that students in Republika Srpska do not have to learn and use Latin alphabet?) Surtsicna (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who ever posited such a thing? Certainly not the aforementioned source. Why are you arguing a straw man? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then how on Earth is this related to the fact that students are required to learn and use both scripts? Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I merely reproduced the relevant context in the source. (Maybe you're thinking of native Bosnian students? The source seems to refer to foreign people who study Bosnian.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian language
Hello!

I can barely remember a few dozen words of Bosnian, but I am interested in languages in general, and in Bosnia in particular. I find the name "Bosnian (language)" interesting, as there are living (at least) three ethnic groups in Bosnia. All of them speak Slawic languages. According to linguists, the Bosnian language is a subgroup of Serbo-Croation. But Serbian and Croatian is used also in Serbia and Croatia. So, the Serbs and Croats in Bosnia do not speak "Bosnian", although they are mostly citizens of Bosnia and may feel "Bosnian". The only large group there, which do not say that they are using Serbian or Croatian are the Bosniaks. So, would it not be better to call this language "Bosniakian"?

You may ask from where I came to this question. A few months ago, I noticed that in Wiktionary, it is no more possible to create entries in the Bosnian language. So, all entries must be entered under "Serbo-Croatian". Even templates using the official language code of "bs" do no more exist. Therefore, I began to think about whether the Bosnian language is really regarded as a separate language. And if this is the case, I do not understand why Bosnian entries vanished on Wiktionary. --Sae1962 (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's because it is not a separate language. It is a standardized register of the language that is called Serbo-Croatian (and therefore Wiktionary only allows the header "Serbo-Croatian". This language has four dialects: Kajkavian, Chakavian, Shtokavian, and Torlakian. The only of these that is used in Bosnia is Shtokavian. Barring maybe specific vocabulary (such as religious vocabulary), the particular dialects locals use will typically be more similar between ethnicities in neighboring areas than within an ethnicity. --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Linguistically, Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are varieties of one language which is called Serbo-Croatian in English. They are considered separate for political, not scientific reasons, and have been given separate ISO 639-3 codes as if they were different languages.  ISO 639-3 is not a purely scientific listing, but is pulled this way and that by political forces as well, not just in these European cases, but internationally as well.  (There are three Native American languages in Washington state that have four ISO codes.  I have tried for three years now to get them to decide which of the four codes to give up, but the tribes want to keep all four codes without any linguistic reasoning.)  And you are quite right--while Bosnians, Croatians, and Serbians can live next to each other in Bosnia and speak identical languages to each other, they base their identification on their religious heritage and say they are speaking three different languages, even though without talking about politics or religion or writing their speech down they couldn't tell one from the other.  --Taivo (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)