How is Bosnian different from Serbo-Croatian? Which alphabet is it written in? This article needs work. -- Zoe

That's what I would like to ask these experts on new languages, I just instantly added two more languages under my belt all thanks to their efforts in proving the existence of separate "Croat" and "Bosnian" languages. -- Igor 1:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've added some info on Bosnian language, using material from Herceg Bosna site (which, by the way, I'm authorised to do).

Mir Harven (mharven@softhome.net)

I know it's not a common practice on Wikipedia to delete stuff but... I propose the following rewrite of the present, rather too detailed writeup. -- Vedran 22:52, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Bosnian language is one of the standard written versions of a language that used to be known as Serbo-Croatian language. The other two versions are Croatian language and Serbian language. Latin alphabet is primarily used, although cyrillic is also specified.

Bosnian language is spoken primarily by Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere. The estimated number of speakers is 4 million.

The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina lists Bosnian language as one of three languages officially spoken in this country, the other two being Croatian and Serbian. Bosnian Croats and Serbs use these two languages respectively. The ISO 639 standard specifies that Bosnian should be denoted with acronyms bs and bos.

Why Bosnian?

Bosnian language originated mostly as a reaction to the rising nationalisms in neighboring nations. For understandable reasons, Bosniaks didn't see fit to label their language as Serbian, Croatian or Serbo-Croatian. Most Bosniaks believe that it is a single language with three names. However, divergence of language norms is gradually making it harder for their speakers to understand the people on the wrong side of the fence.

As opposed to other norms, Bosnian mostly remained faithful to the old neoshtokavian standard, with notable exception of preservation of letter h (in words such as lahko /easy/ and historija /history/), a larger assortment of turcisms and a few original inventions (treating uredu /allright/ as a single word, ?etverica /four men/ instead of ?etvorica etc.)

However, most Bosnian linguists belong to the school of thought that claims that language is a living thing that cannot be standardised and that grammars and dictionaries should merely record the factual reality. Thus, where Serbian and Croatian disagree, Bosnian typically allows both variants and sometimes offers a third one. Only ambiguities are resolved, usually preferring the Croatian solution. This, in linguists' opinion, promotes "richness" of Bosnian language.

Bosnian could best be described as an ex-Serbo-Croatian meta-language or even anti-language - considering definitions of "language" as used by Croatian and Serbian linguists.

The name controversy

Bosniak/Bosnian dualism has resulted in a similar controversy with the name of language. Indeed, historical documents frequently mention Bosnian language, but almost never a "Bosniak language". The fallacy of using the name Bosnian for a language not spoken by all Bosnians is the same as the one of using the name Croatian or Serbian for a language also spoken by people that are not Croats nor Serbs. Of course, the usual suspects that deny this name are the same ones that on other occasions deny the Bosniak national name.

External resources

Centres of institutional research:

• University of Sarajevo, Faculty of Philosophy
• University of Sarajevo, Institute for Language and Litterature
• University of Tulza, Faculty of Philosophy
• Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Major linguistical publications:

• D?evad Jahi?, Senahid Halilovi?, Ismail Pali?, Gramatika bosanskoga jezika, Zenica, 2000.
• Senahid Halilovi?, Pravopis bosanskoga jezika, Sarajevo, 1996.
• Alija Isakovi?, Rje?nik bosanskoga jezika, Sarajevo, 1995.
• Milica Babi?, Bosnian-English and English-Bosnian Dictionary, Sarajevo, 2002.
• Ilijas Tanovi?, Frazeologija bosanskoga jezika, Zenica, 2000.

Other useful links:

• Bosnian language
• Learn Bosnian language: Basic phrases
• The Oslo Corpus of Bosnian Texts

Of course that any text can be completely rewritten amd I see no problem here. But-this draft is very slanted and/or inaccurate in many details:

• it assumes the existence of "Serbo-Croatian" standard language, which is something the majority of Croatian linguists (and many others) would not subscibe to.
• it claims that Bosnian language emerged solely due to Croats vs Serbs antagonism. What kind of language it is, if it owes its existence to enmities between some neighbouring nations ?

it (probably inadvertently) falsifies linguistic history. I do agree that the page on Bosnian language should be better rephrased- but this proposal is a step backward. Mir Harven 23:36, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maknuti ovu smijesnu sliku "Povelje Kulina bana", koja je stripovska preslika izvornika na kaligrafsku latinicu puckoskolskoga tipa. Nevjerojatno kakvi debilizmi ovdje prolaze. Mir Harven 12:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Translation to English, since this is, after all, the English Wikipedia: This ludicrous picture of the Kulin ban Charter needs to be removed, as it is a comic-book copy of the original transcribed into calligraphic Latin that looks like it was made by a child from grade school. It's incredible what kind of idiocy gets by here. MH will correct me if necessary :) -- Joy [shallot] 22:09, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe the move of Bosnian language to Bosniak language is nationalist POV. The language is normally called "Bosnian" in english, and "bosanski" in Bosnian, not "bošnjački". I tried to undo the move, by first moving the new Bosnian language (with the redirect) out of the way to bosanski jezik, so that I could move bosniak language back, but it didn't allow me to do that. So I restored the redirects on "Bosnian language" to the original text (which is still at "Bosniak language". But it should be the other way around. The major text should be at "Bosnian language". "Bosniak" can be a redirect. "Bosanski jezik" should be deleted, as it was intended to be a temporary page. - Key45 18:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Help Desk, User:Noisy said:

"Your move would have worked if you had left the redirect in place, because if a redirect created by a previous move is left alone, then a move back will work. As it is, you will have to get the Bosnian language redirect deleted by an admin, by listing it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion."

I've done that now, I apologize for the screwup. Key45 20:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've restored it. I haven't seen "Bosniak language" used as often as "Bosnian language" so it should stay as is merely based on real-world use. The dilemma regarding the implications of the name can stay in the article text. -- Joy [shallot] 22:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Joy - Key45 22:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"In the days of Communist Yugoslavia the lexis was Serbianized [my comment: huh?] but the Latin script became dominant; the official name was Serbo-Croatian. After the collapse of Yugoslavia Bosniaks remained the sole inheritors of the Serbo-Croatian hybrid [my comment: hybrid? What hybrid?] in Bosnian variant and are trying to reshape it, under the new name of Bosnian, into a distinct national/ethnic standard language."

Exactly, the politicians and "linguists" are reshaping the language the ordinary people speak! Under a new name, an' all. What a brave world we live in!

Also, what is this "serbianisation" of the lexis during the communist era? Something that was recently imagined? Perhaps by Haris Silajdzic? Lol!

Also, another issue. Quote:

"The Bosniaks' national emancipation lagged behind that of the Serbs and Croats, and since denominational, rather than cultural or linguistic issues played the pivotal role, a Bosnian language project didn't arouse much interest or support."

Haha! A "project", huh? Not an evolutionary language that's been passed down and modified by each generation? Well...

However, this national emacipation of the Bosniaks, that is referred to in the article. How long did it lag behind the Serbian and Croatian national emancipations? A century, perhaps?

What did the ancestors of the modern-day Bosniaks call themselves back then (in the 19th century)?

The truth is the ancestors of the modern-day Bosniaks used to consider themselves during the Ottoman occupation as "Turks", since they considered their religion, Islam, as "Turkish". The Christian Serbs and Croats called them Turks as well. And another thing, when the Serbs were trying to liberate Bosnia in the 1870s, the the ancestors of the modern-day Bosniaks did not follow the Serbs but oppose them, siding with the imperial occupiers for religious reasons.

I believe that it was since 1878, when Bosnia and Herzergovina had new imperial masters to occupy it, that the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Christians (Serbs and Croats, of course) started to interact with each other, more than they did during the centuries of Ottoman rule.

Alan.

This article cannot be used as a neutral, it's filled with nationalism like feelings, and I would like if moderators would note that.

If bosnian is a language where does it derive from. this is not listed. i see it is slavic but if the bosnian people all of a sudden popped up on the map and they have their own language now that is basically serbian... how could that be considered bosnian? it is a different dialect of serbian. serbs in bosnia speak the same, it is just like the english spoken in new york, to california, to alabama are all different. you have bubbler-water fountaint, you guys - you guuuuys. all the other weird california words, now does new york or chicago get their own language because of small differences, what about the huge spanish influence in san diego and so-cal, is that now officially spanglish? I think this is a stupid article with no factual information just a bunch of nationalistic turkish feelings, i mean come on bosnian dictionary and all that other jive you speak of is ridiculous. i say we erase this post and i want to question the neutrality.

However, the present post-war political climate in both Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro has been very anti-Bosnian, and the faliure to recognize the existence of Bosnian language is not surprising. Both Croatian and Serbian nationalists are very unlikely to give any practical recognition to the existence of the Bosnian language, although they officially do recognize it.

This paragraph is removed because: -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I would like to see a relevant study about "present post-war political climate in both Croatia and Serbian and Montenegro". I can say that it is not true. Croats supports a lot of Bosniak emigration (in Croatia) and both Bosniak national parties are in Serbian government. (I.e., I don't see any anti-Bosnian political climate.) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Serbian government protects Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, a war criminals responsible for genocide in Srebrenica, as Carla del Ponte said. Vladan Batic a former minister in Serbian government also said similar thing when he pointed out that Serbian army had been protected Ratko Mladic until 2002. Emir Arven 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

"is not surprising" is clear political propaganda in the context. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

The information "what SR. and HR nationalists think and like" is not relevant inside of the article about Bosnian language. More relevant story is said before (about what do think RS and Serbian authorities as well as what do think Serbian and Croatian linguists). -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) reply

I dont see, how anything is relevant regarding Serb comments about Bosnian language! Emir Arven 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

You (said that you) are a fascist. I am sure that I know better dialectoloty of dialects which are spoken by Bosniaks, as well as phonology of Bosnian language then Bosniak Dado (he is an architect, I am a linguist). -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Your insult is the best proof of Serbian involvement in anything regarding Bosnia (like Genocide in Srebrenica, for instance) or maybe just lack of good manners. Emir Arven 02:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I removed this sentece, temporary:

"However, the present post-war political climate in both Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro has been very anti-Bosnian, and the faliure to recognize the existence of Bosnian language is not surprising."

I will try to get you some proofs and to quote Natasha Kandic or others Serbian intelectuals which will confirm, that above sentence is correct. And I will quote war criminals like Radovan Karadic, Vojislav Seselj, Radoslav Brdjanin, Milorad Dodik, Biljana Plavsic etc which will support that Serbian and Croatian nationalist dont recognize Bosnian language. This information is as relevant as the information about Serbian and Croatian linguists, because most of them are nationalists and they sholdnt talk about Bosnian language at all, because Bosnian linguists dont talk abot Serbian language. Emir Arven 20:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The second of all is that Millosh's intention as a Serb, is to destroy this article as many Serbs before him tried. Emir Arven 20:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

First of all, I am not a Serb by nationality. This is your fiction. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

A never said that you are a Serb by nationality. I said you are a Serb. Emir Arven 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

It seems that you know a lot about me. No, I am not a Serb. And it is clear that you are a fascist... -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Again, fascism is what happened in Srebrenica. And you are the one who should be ashamed! Emir Arven 18:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Yes, fascism was happened in Srebrenica; I agree with you. But, it is not excuse for you fascistic behaviour. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 19:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

My behaviour is OK, but you manners are bad! I never insulted you, but you insulted me. As I sad I colleceted you insults and I will send it to the right place. Emir Arven 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

So, you are saying that your fascistic behaviour is OK? -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 20:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Second, sorry, I read has been as is. Yes, in the first years after the war climate was anti-Bosniak. It is not now. (Also, you are mixing citizens of Serbia and Montenegro with Serbs. 80% of persons which you wrote about are Bosnians.) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

80% of persons which I wrote are war criminals, and are protected by Serbian government. Emir Arven 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Radovan Karadic (in Bosnia or in Montenegro), Vojislav Seselj (in Hague), Radoslav Brdjanin (who is he?), Milorad Dodik (a leader of the second largest political party of Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Biljana Plavsic (in prison in Sweden). You are 100% lier. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

You are rude, but not surprising. Second, Radovan Karadzic (Serb born in Serbia and Montenegro), Ratko Mladic (a Serb, protected by the govornmet of Serbia, as your minister said), Vojislav Seselj (former vice president of Serbian governmet, we all saw what he said in th ICTY abot Bosniaks), Slobodan Milosevic (a Serb from Hague and former president of Serbia:)...ok but this is for you irrelevant, now I will get you the list od war criminals (Serbs who get financial and jurisdical help from governmet of Serbia). Here we go: General Perisic (attacked Mostar, town in Bosnia), Drago Nikolic, Mejakic, Banovic (Serbian concentration camps in Bosnia), Blagojevic, Jokic, Obrenivic and Momir Nikolic (genocide in Srebrenica) and other more than 140 Serb war criminals. Do you want me to put all their names here or you would like their sayings? Emir Arven 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Third, the first sentence which I rewrote (this is not controversal) is better then present sentence. (I left your edit on Serbian language.) Central South-Slavic diasystem includes Chakavian for sure and maybe Torlakian and Kaykavian. All standard languages are Shtokavian based. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I don't think so. Emir Arven 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I suppose you are well educated liguist... -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Better than you. Emir Arven 18:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

As I said before, I will put some statemens here that will confirm the above sentence.

Serbian minister Vladan Batic's statement

DHSS vice president Zivojin Stepic said that according to information that DHSS had Ratko Mladic was in Belgrade.

'He is moving from military objects to flat in Cerak or to flat in New Belgrade.

DHSS president Vladan Batic also said that Mladic was in Belgrade. 'Authorities in Belgrade know that', Batic said.

This is very anti-Bosnian policy, because Ratko Mladic is the one responsible for Genocide in Srebrenica (Bosnian and Herzegovina). Emir Arven 20:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This can be anti-Bosnian policy, but this is not anti-Bosnia(k|n) climate. As I said, both Bosniak national parties are in Serbian government (which are included anti-Bosniak policy?) as well as Serbia has very good economic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ratko Mladic is only one person as well as structures which support him are not majority in Serbia. As well as it is not clear where is he now. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

How many ministers are Bosniak in Serbian government, and how many ministers are in Serbian government? Emir Arven 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

One minister of Serbia and Montenegro is Bosniak/ Muslim. I think that three (two, three or four) deputy ministers in Serbian government are Bosniaks. Bosniaks and Muslims has around four (of 250) members of Serbian assembly. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

OK, there is one minister in Serbian governmet, but I also asked you: How many ministers are there in Serbian governmet in general. Emir Arven 19:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

In SCG govermnet there are a few ministers (I don't know, between 5 and 7) and this number is partitioned between Serbia and Montenegro. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 17:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

You didn't answer. I have asked you for Serbian Government, not for Serbia-Montenegro Government (which is just a formal as Montenegrins say). I will repeat my question, be honest and answer:How many ministers are Bosniak in Serbian government, and how many ministers are in Serbian government? Emir Arven 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Bosniak is responsible for human and minority rights, relation between SCG and ICTY and relation with Albanian minority in Southern Serbia. Or it is not important? I don't know what is the number of ministers in Serbian government (10-15?, I don't know). 4/126 (needed for majority in assembly) is much less then 1/3 (Serbian chairs in State Union government) and at the same relevancy with 3 deputies/15 ministers. But I don't think that I can give to you any reason which would be enough for your xenophobia against Serbs. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 15:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

You could just simply say, that there is not even one Bosniak minister in Serbian Government, and thera are around 20 ministers in Serbian Government. Than you for being honest. Emir Arven 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC) reply

However, this is about present. It is a trouth that post-war climate was anti-Bosniak (as well as post-war climate in Bosniak part of Bosnia and Herzegovian was anti-Serb), but it would be better to say it better (for example: "in the second part of 1990s, after the war" or something like that). This is just better explanation, but I don't think that it should stay here, anyway. It should stay inside of some article about politics. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Well, I think that Serb linguist comments regarding Bosnian language should stay inside of some article about politics. Emir Arven 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Again, you are giving proofs that you are a fascist. And, please, tell me who is "Serb linguist" here? -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I am aware of Serb nationalism as many others in the world, so your inslut is not surprising. You came here to remove parts from article called Bosnian language. Fascism is what happened in Srebrenica, maybe you should remove that POV tag in Serbian wikipedia in the Srebrenica genocide article because that is the only POV tag about Srebrenica genocide article from all Wikipedias, which you put there. Be ashamed! I collected your insults and I will send it to the right place. I saw, you are trying to represent wikimedia in Serbia, so the people from Wikimedia will see what kind of person is going to be their contact. Emir Arven 18:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I will just quote Louise Branson an editorial writer for USA TODAY. Serb nationalism

Serb nationalism

Before the wars, in the 1980s, the Serb capital Belgrade was the cosmopolitan Paris of Eastern Europe. It is now a dreary backwater, left behind as neighbors sprout modern shopping malls, McDonald's and skyscrapers and join Western clubs from NATO to the European Union. The Serb mafiosos and gangsters remain a nationalistic, intimidating force. Despite the efforts of some human rights campaigners and hard-hitting media outlets, nationalist sentiment still runs high. In a Serb opinion poll in May, more than half denied the Srebrenica massacre even took place.

Last month, however, Serbs got a chance to break out of the denial. Serb TV broadcast a video of part of the massacre. In it, Serb paramilitaries — the "Scorpions" — pull six battered, emaciated men from a truck, hands tied behind their backs. At least three are shot at close range. A Serb Orthodox priest blesses their actions against the "infidels." It was the Serbs' first incontrovertible evidence that they, not just rogue Bosnian Serb "cousins," were complicit: The Scorpions, as other paramilitary groups, were under the direct command of the Serb police.

The fact that it took a full 10 years for the video to emerge is already testimony to the resistance. The film was first played at The Hague tribunal, where it was sent by Serb human rights campaigner Natasha Kandic, who has long been subject to death threats. The Hague has, until now, largely enabled Serbs' denial. Milosevic's trial is being carried out far away, by foreigners, encouraging many to feel they, too, are being victimized. But the videotaped evidence cannot be so easily dismissed.

There are signs it might provide the needed psychological jolt out of the surreal world that Milosevic — much as Hitler — constructed. His nationalist propaganda denied inconvenient realities — though the truth was known.

Serbian men, as the Scorpions, were drafted to fight in the wars, often going with gusto. They knew what was happening, bringing information back to families and friends. When I visited Serb homes near Srebrenica months after the massacre, people shrugged about what might have happened to the "disappeared." But their exchanged glances told a different story. Police cars pulled up at the houses after I left, suggesting an official effort to suppress any breaking of the collective coverup.

So it is very important to know what nationalists think, because this will give a full picture as you just mentioned Serb linguists. If the Serb linguists are relevant to talk about Bosnian language then it is relevant to see the whole picture and to see the context. Emir Arven 21:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Biljana Plavšić a Serb intellectual and professor, the highest-ranking Serbian politician from the former Yugoslavia pleaded guilty to a single charge of crimes against humanity. Plavšić's statement repeated her admission of guilt. It said she had refused to believe stories of atrocities against Bosniaks and Croatians and accepted without question the claims that Serbs were fighting for survival:

"I have now ... accepted that many thousands of innocent people were the victims of organized, systematic efforts from the territory claimed by Serbs...The knowledge that I'm responsible for such human suffering and for soiling the character of my people will always be with me."

Statements by Jovan Rašković a Serb intellectual, founder of the Serbian Democratic Party of Croatia:

"I feel responsible because I made the preparations for this war, even if not the military preparations. If I hadn’t created this emotional strain in the Serbian people, nothing would have happened... My party and I lit the fuse of Serbian nationalism not only in Croatia but everywhere else in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It’s impossible to imagine an SDP (Serbian Democratic Party) in Bosnia-Herzegovina or a Mr. Karadzic in power without our influence. We have driven this people and we have given it an identity. I have repeated again and again to this people that it comes from heaven, not earth."

Statement by Radovan Karadžić an intellectual, co-founder of Republika Srpska and its first president, alluded to the origins of this ideology on March 4, 1992 to the Bosnian Parliament:

"...the road to which you want to take Bosnia and Herzegovina is the same highway of hell which Slovenia and Croatia took. Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation... Muslims can't defend themselves if there is war here"...

These statements are the best proof for Serb policy toward Bosniaks and their heritage including language. Emir Arven 21:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

So, you are trying to say that Biljana Plavsic, Jovan Raskovic and Radovan Karadzic are (were) citizens of Serbia and Montenegro, not Bosnia and Herzegovina (Croatia)? -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 23:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I am not trying anything, I am just quoting. Emir Arven 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Please, write something better about Bosancica... -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I removed this part, I have already explained why (script is not language, it is heritage) Emir Arven 16:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC): reply

"Bosnian Cyrillic is an extinct Cyrillic script from where the bosnian language is descending,Bosnian Cyrillic had been used in Bosnia and Herzegovina by bosniak bogomils. It's name in Bosnian is bosančica. The origin of the bosnian language is, when looking at Bosnian Cyrillic, the oldest of all three counting bosnian, serbian and croatian. And it may very well be thought that croatian and serbian developed from bosnian."

And I replaced this with the sentace:

Bosnians have also used script, that was less standardized, so it had more versions and names: bosančica, Bosnian Cyrillic (means the script that was originally from Bosnia), begovica (used by Bosniak nobility). Bosniaks have also used arabic script.

Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at

1. Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
2. Discussing potential revision of current practices

— Michael  Z. 2005-12-9 20:36 Z

The line

The vast majority of linguists do not consider Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian as separate languages, since they are fully mutually intelligible

is transparently bogus. A significant percentage of linguists have no opinion on the matter, not knowing the first thing about Bosnian, and two different idiolects are likely not to be fully mutally intelligible. Moreover, it's simply not true; according to the ausbausprache page, "Two language forms that allow easy mutual communication are regarded as two different languages by sociolinguists if they are each an Ausbausprache according to this definition." I don't know if using a term such as ausbausprache is appropriate here, but that's the best I could do.-- Prosfilaes 18:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I agree that three *sprache definitions fit the situation perfectly (and maybe B,C,S & SC could be back-linked from that article, as I suppose many readers are at least basically familiar with the current situation in ex-Yu). Only, the German nomenclature is quite ugly unexpected (sigh)... Duja 08:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply

See: Glasovanje_o_zatvaranju_srpskohrvatske_Wikipedije Hope, many of you will contribute! :) -- Neoneo13 13:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

An anonymous user added this note to the introduction:

However it is considered by ISO-639 individual language member of a macro language; [Serbo-Croatian]]

It's true, except that ISO-639-3 is still a draft not really included in ISO-639 yet. But all that means is that the Bosnian is sometimes considered part of the Serbo-Croatian language, just like many unrelated languages are sometimes considered Chinese (zh). It's too pendantic to include in the intro, and needs too much explanation for me to write it up for elsewhere, if the article even needs a note.-- Prosfilaes 19:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Which alphabet is the main in the Bosnian language? -- HolyRomanEmperor 23:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC) reply

As far as I get it, it is self-declared to use both; I doubt that more than few native speakers use Cyrillic actively though. I'd say it's declared as active chiefly for political reasons, but I wouldn't comment further. I ammended the intro to reflect that. Duja 01:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

It didn't come out of thin air though. Remember that Bosniaks used cyrillic before they used latin. Live Forever 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

And Croats did use Glagolitic and Cyrillic before the Roman script. Gone with the wind. Mir Harven 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Considering that the existance of the language is determined by literature writen on that language, the Bosnian language can not be considered as such. A language needs poets, scientists, writers, esseyist using the language and they are acctually a groundwork of the language. If we take it as writen in this article that it is represented only by geographical position and name of the republic, then it can not be declared as a language, but a dialect. If there is no a difference between Serbian language spoken with ijekavian dialect and Bosnian as language, then it can not be considered more as dialect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.51.2 ( talk • contribs)

Why shouldn't it be mentioned that "Bosnian" is 100% mutually intelligible to speakers of "Croatian" and "Serbian"? I would have thought that such a fact would be of interest to a reader disinterested in petty politics. I don't dispute that "Bosnian" has been recognised as a language, but it should be made clear that any speaker of "Serbian" or "Croatian" can understand "Bosnian" as well as their "mother tongue". It's totally kafakesque that you could have three friends in some town in Bosnia speaking three different official languages to each other, and this utter absurdity should be noted on WP. -- estavisti 17:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) reply

How can bosnian be spoken in sanjak when serbian is spoken inbetween the "bosnian" zone and the sanzak. -Lazar

Isn't written "Bosnian" also identical to Croatian? Are there any differences between Bosnian and Croatian? john k 03:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, there are some (orthography, word-formation, syntax,..)-for instance, Croatian word for "chemistry" is "kemija", Bosnian "hemija"; to undervalue is "podcijeniti" in Croatian and "potcijeniti" in Bosnian; also, syntactically, Bosnian is more prone to "infinitive-amnesia" & "dakanje" (the Balkan use of present tense instead of the infinitive")- "I have to go", Croatian "Moram ići", Bosnian "Moram da idem". Mir Harven 08:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Are these differences as significant linguistically as those between, say, British English and American English? Or Quebecois French and France French? john k 11:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

As regards standard languages, they are more significant. It seems to me that most native English language speakers, considering the Croatian and Bosnian languages (I'll omit Serbian), think along the lines of pronunciation, phonetics and mutual intelligibility of colloquial speech. In these areas, colloquial Croatian and Bosnian languages are, with a very limited word-stock, roughly similar to the British and American English situation. However, difference is very visible in all other areas: for instance, I've read university textbooks on various fields of physics and mathematics (topology, classical chaos, mechanics of fluids, quantum thoery...) authored by a few writers, both British and American. Of course, there have not been "American" chapters, nor the "British" ones in these books. They were written in one language, since there is no significant difference between American and British syntax, lexicon and scientific terminology. In case of Croatian and Bosnian, a textbook (university, high school, elementary school) cannot be written by "mixed" authors because it would be immediately recognized as "either-or". Take high school textbooks on, say, chemistry, law, sociology, psychology, mathematics, biology,...and you will know, immediately, in which language it has been written. The same with newspapers, TV programmes etc. Mir Harven 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

There are considerable orthographic differences between American English and British English, which render it relatively easy to tell whether a book is written in one or the other. "color" vs. "colour," "theater" vs. "theatre," and so forth. There are also definite differences in the lexicon itself. "Lorries" and "flats" are rarely used in American English; the word "pants" means something different in the two. That there may be British and American writers of a single textbook presumably only means that an editor has standardized things one way or the other. It will generally take me not very long to determine if a written text has been written by a Brit or an American. john k 11:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a bit belated, I know. Whatever....Of course, anyone knows about-ise/-ize (realise/realize) & -our/-or (colour/color), plus a list of different terms (lorry/truck). But- ordinary books, specialis/zed ones as well as, say, novels, do not have much different forms (word-formation, orthography, syntax, lexicon). In Croatian and Serbian case (here, Bosnian is somewhere in the middle), you got: ca. 100 different accentuation rules; ca. 400 different rules in morphology and word-formation; ca. 20-30 different rules in syntax; too many subtle differences in semantics & stylistics, and ca. 40.000 different words in a dictionary of 120.000 words. Bosnian-Croatian differences cannot be split meachanically, but, this is a picture. Also-British scientific books tend to be Americanized. I've seen -ise and -our falling into disuse by British authors of British-American textbooks in physics. Also, my fave example: solving a problem in electrodynamics (from a Serbian textbook), I've found 11 different words and some different syntax in just one sentence (elektromagnetni, naelektrisanje, pravougaoni, harmonijski, talas, jonizujući, ravan, oscilovati,..). And-one simply cannot "translate" an American novel (say, Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises") into British English, or British novel (say, Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway") into American English-you'd end up in a few colours and trucks. But, if you get a Serbian novel like Crnjanski's "Seobe", and Croatian novel like Krleža's "Na rubu pameti"- the effort is perfectly possible. You'll get different stuff on virtually every page-orthographically, morphologically, syntactically, lexically, semantically... Mir Harven 21:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) reply

These differences are almost totally insignificant. For example, the example that Mir Haven gives as being indicative of differences between languages is absurd. Sometimes I say "Moram ići" and sometimes I say "Moram da idem" - and I'm from Serbia. Which "language" am I speaking - "Croatian", "Serbian" or "Bosnian"? I can talk to a speaker of Croatian in the same way I can talk to someone from "up north" - a few slang words might be different, but that's pretty much it. No one would dispute that the same language is used in London and Liverpool. The problem here is caused by two things. Firstly, the language is written phonetically, so regional differences in accent appear in the spellings of words. Secondly, spelling conventions, grammer etc have all been messed around with since the early 1990s in a deliberate (and unsuccessful) attempt to make "Bosnian" and "Croatian" as different as different as possible from "Serbian". It's simply ridiculous that 3 or 4 "different" languages belong to the same dialect (See: Shtokavian)... As a Londoner, I have more trouble understanding Welsh people speaking English than I do as a Serb talking to Croatian speakers. -- estavisti 12:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Some sections read pretty awkwardly as English. AnonMoos 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Thunderman, for the umpteenth time: check out the bs:Bosanski jezik, written by Bosniak editors. Check also out Dževad Jahić, Senahid Halilović, Ismail Palić: Gramatika bosanskoga jezika, Zenica 2000. Please don't link superficial "references" like online dictionaries posted on sites like home.freeweb.uk; I can do equally well with Google. No one denies that Latin is the primary alphabet; please read my edit. Regards, Duja 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Duja:

Well, look now in the Bosnian wikipedia.

And listen now:

Not a SINGLE bosnian language speaker uses the Cyrillic! Not a single one!

Understand? It is a fact as clear as that it was Hitler who started WW2. You cant say that Bosnian language uses the Cyrillic alphabeth because no one of the Bosnian language speakers uses the Cyrillic.

Understand? Thunderman 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Oh my god... Is it that difficult to comprehend? I KNOW THAT NOT A SINGLE BOSNIAN LANGUAGE SPEAKER USES THE CYRILLIC TODAY. The Cyrillic alphabet is 'declared as official alphabet of the language though, for the purpose of "backward compatibility", politics, whatever. If Cyrillic was not declared that way, that would mean that e.g. books of Meša Selimović and medieval works of Muslim authors were not a part of Bosnian language corpus, which the language claims. First we had Bosniak editors who tried to spread Cyrillic everywhere the Bosnian language is mentioned, and now we have another Bosniak who tries to reverse that. Make up your mind, I don't care: I was reporting what is the official language politics written in state-sponsored grammars. Duja 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Who cares about Mesa? He is a betrayer.

Anyway, Cyrillic is NOT official alphabet of the language. So I will revert that as soon I find a good source.

Just wait...

Pozdrav // Thunderman 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Okey, Duja.

It took me 30 sekunds, then I find a source. Parlament.ba, the bosnian parliament.

And I will keep waiting for tomorrow because I think I have edited 3 times now.

I will put on more sources. Be sure of that. Thunderman 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Then please go discuss your reasons with User:Dado, User:Live Forever, User:Emir Arven, User:Kseferovic and other prominent Bosniak editors. I'm pretty sure they will tell you the same thing I'm unsuccessfully trying to tell you. And they won't be happy with your recent edit on bs:wiki. As for the parlament.ba source, you're welcome to put it forward, although I can't google anything relevant myself. Duja 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, I am just telling you the truth. Bosnian language DOESNT USE CYRILLIC.

As for the bosniak writers, you shouldnt take them serious. Just look at that bosniak user who said that the Srebrenica massacre was an alleged massacre. That is saying all...

Anyways... wait to tomorrow and I will put at least 5 sources. Thunderman 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

And, btw...

If you look at a government page, and searching for bosanski... then you will allways find the Latin alphabeth. That is also a source cause if it is like that, how the hell can Bosnian language in that case use Cyrillic?

Thunderman 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC) reply

@Thunderman:Cyrillic is equal with Latin alphabet by "Declaration for Bosnian Language" singed by all respected bosnian linguistics

@Duja: Are you saying, that Croats denied their literature written in "glagoljica", literature in cyrilic has nothing to do with cyrilic staying alive in bosnian.. Kroatika 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I think the source of confusion isn't so much which alphabets are for the Bosnian language as much as which alphabets are for Bosnia, the country itself. I've had brief discussions in the past about officialdom and this is something which is nowhere near as drastic or as powerful as it sounds; it applies only to national administration and however they write their constitution. An example is that the Holy See (Vatican) has Latin as an official language but everyone knows that it is not used day to day by its few citizens. The republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is indeed the hub of the Bosnian language, and its shape and style may be used as a flag of identity by Muslims by Nationality and Bosniaks living both inside and outside of the country. This I believe is written entirely in Latinic as is Croatian. Inside Bosnia though is another situation: Bosniaks/Muslims form a relative majority; the other two big groups, the Serbs and Croats, also have linguistic rights. Written Croatian which stands alone is easily identified by distinct vocabulary not used in Bosnian and Serbian, usually in the shape of Slavic words in contrast to 20th century Americanisms in Serbian and Bosnian, and Serbian - whose vocabulary is closer to Standard Bosnian - tends to be written in Cyrillic. All forms are nationally accepted, as such, the Cyrillic form of the Serbian language spoken in Ijekavian (as in Montenegro) is an official language/writing system of Bosnia and Herzegovina even though the Bosnian language (since its more recent resurfacing) is unlikely to be written in anything other than Latinic because whoever it is from Bosnia who is writing in Cyrillic will probably not call his language Bosanski. I'm not attacking any user's edits here. Evlekis 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

The point is whoever uses Cyrillic in BiH would not call his or her language "Bosnian" (Bosanski). They would call it Serbian. Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian are all constitutionally recognized languages. So, the Cyrillic one would see in Bosnia is not Bosnian but actually Serbian. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina one can hardly see any Cyrillic on the streets except on some government papers or buildings, for reasons stated previously. The only reason Cyrillic was used a lot in Republika Srpska was out of political reasons. (To attempt to spread more Serbian culture). Now the signs in RS are both in Latin and Cyrillic which makes sense considering a foreigner, who does not know Cyrillic, would not have been able to travel through that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosancica was the Cyrillic script used in Bosnia but it is extinct. Look at the Wikipedia in Bosnian it does not use Cyrillic. In general stating that Bosnian uses Cyrillic is absurd considering that newspapers and other national programming from the Federation, as an example, never implements it. I mean on voting papers one sees the heading twice in Latin (Bosnian then Croatian) and then once in Cyrillic,

Therefore, the use is because of the use of Serbian in BiH. Serbian is the script one could say uses both, because there are definite lines and Cyrillic is seen all over the country. Bosnian cannot be compared to the Serbian case when it comes to language.

Thank you, Vseferović 21:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You're probably right. The spoken language of a single individual living in Sarajevo could be three languages at the same time, either because he mixes vocabulary or because he is sat in a cafe with two friends, each from one of the other two groups and they are all able to communicate as they wish. We are discussing a named language of a specific people who, as you rightly say, use Latinic. I was even tempted for a moment to add Gjuha Maqedone to the Macedonian language page signifying its name in Albanian which is an official language even though not to the same level as Macedonian itself, but I'd probably be branded a traitor and an enemy for attempting such a move. It is easy to forget that it is the language we are discussing and not the country which is seen as the pivot. There is one black spot though: since there is for the time being no regulator for the language (just to clarify, I am against these establishments but that is just my own POV), then it is undemocratic to say "Cyrillic has no place". I don't think anyone has carried out a survey to see if there may be some Bosnian language users who use Cyrillic even though I'm sure they'd be few. One more small thing, RS having signs in two alphabets is absolutely irrelevant, even for the foreigner. If he has learnt Serbian, he will have learnt Cyrillic, or should have been tought it by the professor. If he has never learnt the language and should stumble accross a sign that says "Забрањени улаз", which he cannot read, he won't suddenly comprehend its transliteration as "Zabranjeni ulaz" either. If they write signs in Latinic, it is for their own reasons. If foreigners are to be taken into account then it is dual-language signs they need, their own in whichever script they want, followed by an international language such as French or English, this would be more helpful to outsiders but a Srpska/Makedonska Latinica alternative might just as well be actual Hungarian or Lithuanian. Evlekis 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. However, it is relevant for road signs. I mean, road signs in Serbia are in both alphabets. It is absurd having it in only Cyrillic in BiH. Honestly, how can one travel considering that he or she does not know Cyrillic. You cannot just tell the foreigner to learn Cyrillic, what if they are just passing through BiH. Government signs, papers, etc. need to have both writings. As I mentioned above, all three languages are listed as constitutional. In general Bosnian, I think that so far the majority of people have agreed that Bosnian does not use Cyrillic to a great extent. ^{(We could argue that the languages are the same, but have different dialects)} Thanks, Vseferović 05:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree that the languages are the same, or to be more precise, the former segments of old Serbo-Croat still qualify as several variants of a single language but I won't start POVs on that. In Serbia, I think you'll find that the vast majority of road signs aren't in two languages but rather in just one, Latinic. There are some international road signs with Cyrillic only in cities but these are accompanied by a logographic image (ie. No entry; no parking). In RS though, it seems to me that Cyrillic-only is used there more than in Serbia and there are areas where it is the only alphabet used, this for roadsigns too. You're right when you state that one should not learn a different alphabet to get by in another country, and for that reason, it is all right to list towns in local form Latinic on national highways etc. Problems can arrise, especially when a town may have dozens of exonyms and they can't all be listed. But notices in both alphabets are just a waste of time and space. If you travel to Greece to find the sign: ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΕΤΑΙ Η ΣΤΑΘΜΕΥΣΗ, you'd be forgiven for not knowing what it meant, so if this is accompanied by a standard transliteration: APAGOREVETAI I STATHMEVSI, does it now become more intelligible? Does being able to read it matter? Can you be sure that the last two letters of the first word are a single vowel pronouced "e"? If so, how without ever having learn Greek?! South Slavic Cyrillic is no different: Пали светло, is no easier for foreigners when displayed as Pali Svetlo. I know we've gone off the rails of Bosnian language here but I fully agree with the key issue that Bosnian exclusively uses Latinic. Evlekis 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

ps. The Greek sign meant "No Parking" but tell the truth! You didn't know without checking!!! :)

Update (not that it matters much for the article subject): most new road signs in Serbia are in both Cyrillic and Latin; old ones are chiefly Latin. Street name plates vary from town to town AFAICT. Duja ►

The newer ones, yes. Belgrade sets the best precedent through its toruist organization: the brown-coloured signs which have Cyrillic followed by English, they are newer, tidyer and more useful to everyone. Evlekis 13:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I understand your point with the Greek language and their alphabet, but for Cyrillic or at least Serbian Cyrillic you can translate any text into Latin and still have the same meaning. Greeks do not have the same "opportunity". I mean a person could write English in Cyrillic but then we are just exaggerating.

For Republika Srpska, signs from late 2004 must have mandatory Latin inscriptions. My home town, Bosanska Dubica/Kozarska Dubica, is now in both Latin and Cyrillic. The first time I went after the war in 2001 it was a different story. The first noticeable change was the border crossing (my town is right on the Una river where the BiH-Hr border is) it was in Cyrillic and what was stated was "Welcome to Republika Srpska" (in Serbian in Cyrillic). Next, (all of you guys currently live in Europe, so will know what I am talking about) the town to town yellow signs were all in Cyrillic. Now all of them are in both Latin and Cyrillic.

For Greece, the maps are in the Greek letters, however, in BiH the maps one can buy at tourist shops are 97% Latin. The new highway, Corridor 5c, that is (finally) being built in BiH has signs in only Latin. This decision was primarily made by some European Commission. I mean if we look at SFRJ, as far as I know and as far as I have asked people, Latin was the primary script written in school, but Cyrillic was also thought. Both were valid scripts, but for many practical reasons people chose to write more in Latin than in Cyrillic. (This is true at least for BiH). I do not know how it was in Serbia.

Thank you, Vseferović 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't dispute for one minute that Latinic has been more successful than Cyrillic, I don't protest against the decision to gradually introduce it more. If we are listing town names and number of kilometres distance to reach them, it is fine. Text however is of no relevance to outsiders, as I said, "ПОЖАР!" is as unintelligible to Danes/Belgians as "POŽAR!", so if anyone believes that using Latinic will ease matters for outsiders, they kid themselves. As for Greeks not having the same "opportunity", you are 100% incorrect. All internationally recognised languages, in order to be recognised, are obliged to have a Romanised format, and Greek is no exception. There is such thing as Romanised Greek and it is used more widely than is often realised. If this were not the case, nobody would be able to travel through Western Europe because the police at Passport Control won't read their Passports, and people from a Latin-only-script country would not be able to write to non-Latin countries either. Addresses in Saudi Arabia, Japan, Georgia, Greece etc. are all displayed in their own transliterated forms for international purposes. The Westerner will not have a clue how to pronounce some of these; will be baffled by the consonant clusters and the purpose of the diacritical marks, but so long as he copies it as he reads it, the letter will be received. Greek roadsigns are more sophisticated than ours in the former Yugoslavia. Still, the transliteration of ΑΘΗΝΑ is ATHINA. This is a Greek-only variety; English call it Athens, we as you know call it 'Atina' (no voiceless dental fricative). You'll also find Romanised Greek on pop-folk albums, where tracks are listed. They say it is for international purposes, but, the listings are purely in Greek transliteration, with Greek preferences which include carrying over diacritics for stress and use of 'KH' or 'CH' for their 'X', but it is not a pronunciation guide. There is no indication that a 'D' between vowels in the voiced dental fricative and as you know, not all languages have that sound. So the notion of an alphabet being "more practical than another" is all in the mind. Finally, the reason we don't write English in Cyrillic is that there is simply no purpose. Cyrillic applies to the second largest number of languages after the Roman alphabet, and like the Roman alphabet varieties between languages, Cyrillic is no exception, the farther away you go, the less we make sense of it until in some languages, you barely notice that it is based on Cyrillic. English English is said to have 44-46 phonemes depending on dialectal choice, and to create a Cyrillic for these sounds from what already exists in over 100 languages would be child's play. Evlekis 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Apologies for not being specific, I meant Childs Play as in a walk in the park (very easy), 'not as in Childish behaviour. There has been no international requirement for Cyrilicisation of other scripts except inside 20th century Russia. Evlekis 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

You must have misunderstood me, no one writes Greek in Latin. I am not saying that it is not possible; all that I am saying is that it is not correct (according to the Greek language standards). Serbian for example can be written in both scripts, which go along to the actual Serbian standards. I understand that for pronunciation reasons anything is/can be turned into Latin. Thank you, Vseferović 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

aaah! :) Yes sorry! To write Greek in Latinic would be unprecedented. It would be folly to sacrifce your own alphabet for one which is directly descended from it. Greek however, like English, is a demotic language: regulated by the people. No academy there is nationally recognised to implement central preferences. Because of Wikipedia's neutral policy and NOR system, we are all forced to take the descriptive approach to any language, which suits me fine because that is how I am anyhow. As such, using Latinic for Greek cannot be deemed incorrect because, as in Serbian, it is ultimately the choice of the writer. But yes, if someone publishes a book or newspaper in Athens written soley in Latinic, it would raise a few eyebrows. Greek just hasn't been embroiled in the same recent politics as Serbian: ie.linked for decades with another language; beaurocratic measures constantly taken which suppress your writing system, and finally the inevitible: peoples own decision to use one script over the other in a bid to forge closer ties to high profile cultures. Just for your own interest Kserovic, other languages which have been written in more than one alphabet for similar reasons are Turkish (Arabic/Latinic), Albanian (same), Georgian (own/Cyrillic), Armenian (own/Cyrillic), Mongolian (own/Cyrillic), Chinese (own/Pinyin {Latinic}), and a host of others. I now see what you were trying to say, so thanks. Evlekis 09:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply

According to this, there are (2004 estimate) 4,000,000 speakers of Bosnian. -- PaxEquilibrium 18:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree it actually makes sense. I am not trying to make bias, but looking at the Bosnian populations, both displaced and in BiH, there are probably somewhere around 4,000,000 speakers. I mean...there are a lot of Bosnians living in Turkey that have knowledge of Bosnian (it is more like an "archaic Bosnian", however, situations like that need to be covered, too. I'll search some more on this. Thanks, Vseferović 06:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it just proves several claims I heard before (by people who know what they talk, like Francis) that Ethnologue s*cks as a reference. Their entry Bosnian obviously displays a blind assumption that almost all BiH speakers call their language Bosnian, and the population figures of 400,000 for Serbian, Croatian and Roma (!) each within BiH myself definitely demonstrate their total ignorance. Maybe the Bosnians in Turkey could make some difference, but Ethnologue's counts [1] [2] don't show any traces of that. Duja ► 08:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply