Talk:Bosnian Cyrillic

message: As is evident, there is a tendency to ascribe Bosnian Cyrillic script to the corpus of Serbian literacy. Here, a few things have to be mentioned:
*Bosnian Franciscan writer Matija Divković called this script "Serbian letters" (sarpskie slova)-although not his language, which he calls consistently Slovin, Illyrian or Bosnian. Maybe there are other instances where the Serbian appellation for this script has been used, but I don't know about it & would be grateful to learn about. All of his predecessors and followers never used Serbian appellation, either for script or language. So, Divković's casual remark stands here as an anomaly.
*some editors claimed that Serbian Orthodox texts had been written in Bosnian Cyrillic. Which ? There are no known Serbian Orthodox sources written in this script. On the contrary- Bosnian Christian texts, which ended in Orthodox monasteries & were later used in liturgical services, had been invariably modified: Bosnian Cyrillic scriptory characteristics were partially moved & texts modelled according the Resava orthography principles (1400s) of the Serbian Cyrillic-examples are "Divoševo evanđelje"/"Divoš's gospel, XIV century and "Čajničko evanđelje"/Čajniče gospel, 1400s. Mir Harven 13:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first dot point, the reference to "Serbian letters" can be seen as an alternative name for the Cyrillic alphabet (plain and simple, without trying to enumerate any differences between the varieties of Cyrillic). We have to remember not to impute our worldview (in terms of the meaning we attribute to certain words) and scholarship to Divkovic or his contemporaries. By this I mean: just because we know that the Cyrillic alphabet is used by people other than Serbs - or rather, the Serbian Orthodox Church - and therefore don't use the term "Serbian" for "Cyrillic", it was not the same in Divkovic's time. It is similar to the usage where all Catholics were called Latins, all orthodox were called Serbs and all muslims were called Turks, irrespective of their actual nationality. Indeed, several heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church were ethnic Greek, but they would have still been called Serbs at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.134 (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: On the Bosnian Cyrillic texts and denominational affiliation 

message: I've put this article in "start" class. It could probably make "B" class if a table of letters was added. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article assessment

message: I think this article needs images. I'd love to see an image of the Humac tablet as well as a table of the individual glyphs. We also need to clear up the dates that this alphabet was in use. If the alphabet is extinct, then what writing system replaced it? Cbdorsett 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: lol, why Croatian Cyrillic? this is definitely the Bosnian Cyrillic and nothing else.
this Cyrillic called Bosancica and not Hrvatica. --92.225.47.250 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian Cyrillic 

message: I redirected this page because name "Croatian Cyrillic" is more often used by scientific books. 
*Croatian Cyrillic has 16.900 results results (1)
*Bosnian Cyrillic has 7.430 results results (2)
*Bosančica has 2.360 results results (3)
According to WP:COMMONNAME, Croatian Cyrillic should be used as name of the article.
--Wustenfuchs 11:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification:
*"Bosancica/Bosančica" - 881/1340 results
*"Croatian Cyrillic" - 1370 results, however; a majority of results have the term "Serbo-Croatian Cyrillic" (refering to Serbian Cyrillic), thus this cannot be served as COMMONNAME
*"Bosnian Cyrillic" - 175 results
Thus, Bosančica is the correct traditional term for this script, although its' name is disputed (this should be clarified in the article). --Zoupan (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreee with Zoupan, that Google books search is flawed. The commonly used name for the script in English language sources is Bosnian cyrllic, or Bosancica, while the term 'Croatian cyrillic' is one almost always exclusively promoted by the Croat scholarship, not seldom for political reasons. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I have noteced this page has been quite active lately with many reverts, edit wars, etc. Not wanting to enter into details, I´ll really like to adress the next observation: the two sides are radicalised. By that I mean, the group of Croatian editors wants to have an aticle where anything Serbian is not mentioned anywhere, just in the "Polemics" (or something) section. On the other side, Serbian editors consider it simply Serbian Cyrillic. I really think something here can easily be worked out. I mean, sounds silly not to mention Serbian anywhere when it was the scrypt used by Serbs and the ones that were closer to them, beside being definitelly closely related to the cyrillic scrypt used in Serbia in that period. On the other side, I´m not sure if adding "Serbian Cyrillic" up is also right. I noteced we have an article about "Bosnian Cyrillic" for this period but we don´t have the Serbian one. I think this could easily be solved without needing to radicalise it to either side. FkpCascais (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting over cyrillic? 

message: The claim that Bosančica has strong links with Glagolitic script is not supported by any reliable sources. Bosančica is clearly derived from Serbian Cyrillic minuscule (brzopis). It was indeed used in correspondence at a number of foreign courts and cultural centers (Wallachia, Istanbul, Mt Athos, Dalmatia, Albania; for examples and facsimiles see P. Đorđić, Istorija srpske ćirilice, Beograd 1971). Please leave out the nationalistic BS and stick to the facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.69.205 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no "Serbian Cyrillic" in the Middle Ages, a Serbian variant of the Cyrillic script was in fact created only recently (19th century). Serbs, like the rest of the Orthodox population in Europe, used the general Early Cyrillic script. Bosnian Cyrillic could thus not have been a minuscule of some supposed contemporary  "Serbian Cyrillic" variant in this period. It is true that Bosnian Cyrillic was mostly written by Bosnian Church adherents, and Catholics of southern Dalmatia - however ascribing these medieval Dalmatian Catholics a supposed Croat ethnicity is gravely anachronistic, if anything they were more akin to the Bosnian socio-political sphere than the Croat one; as evident by their use of Bosnian Cyrillic. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Medieval Dalmatia was the "Croat socio-political sphere". The centre of modern Croatia, the Zagreb area, wasn't even called Croatia back then. Zhmr (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dalmatia is historically not a consistent part of Croatia; the Bosnian state periodically included parts of it and it was also ruled by the Republic of Venice during a long period: Dubrovnik was in addition a republic of its own. The national modern-day state of Croatia was formed on these territories in the 19th century based on common language and religion, however historically Dalmatians have had a number of identities and masters.90.230.54.125 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely incorrect. What we NOW call Dalmatia (and how it is used in the article) WAS medieval Croatia. It was where Croatia was founded and its core territory. Only parts of the coast changed hands continuously. (The Bosnian rule of the hinterland was a very short exception.) It was the coast that was referred to as Dalmatia in the Middle Ages. Not the hinterland. You are confusing modern and medieval meaning of the name Dalmatia. Zhmr (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When was the Republic of Dubrovnik ever a part of Croatia? You are anachronistically applying the modern sense of Croatia to regions which were extremely fleeting during that period. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mention Dubrovnik anywhere in my comments. "Croatian" doesn't have to mean "part of K. of Croatia", it can also refer to the Croatian character of the R. of Dubrovnik. Anachronism is using "Dalmatia" for medieval Dalmatian hinterland (and most of the coast) instead of "Croatia". Zhmr (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statements might have had some validity had Bosnian Cyrillic also been prevalent in northern Dalmatia (around the Krk island) where the Croatian state was actually formed in the Middle Ages, however the southern Dalmatian regions (where Bosnian Cyrillic was in fact used) were largely semi-independent. In this regard, Bosnian Cyrillic was used both in maritime and hinterland southern Dalmatia; your little play on words is unfortunately irrelevant. If anything, Dalmatia is a region and a toponym much older than Croatia: how can it be anachronistic? Whatever, I won't make an issue out of this seeing how predetermined your understanding is. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you have very little knowledge on this subject. Krk is not Dalmatia, nor was it in the Middle Ages. The Croatian state was founded in what is now modern Dalmatia (which you erroneously call southern Dalmatia), in the Nin-Knin-Klis triangle. It was in the 9th century and all the rulers ruled from there, built the churches there and their inscriptions are there too. Yes, Dalmatia is an older toponym than Croatia, but what varied over time was what it geographically referred to. In the Middle Ages it referred to a few coastal cities and islands (sometimes anachronistically also for the entire ancient Roman province, but only in literary sources). Zhmr (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK thanks for the info; the occurrence of Bosnian Cyrillic in Dalmatia however locates somewhat south of that triangle. Moreover, it was primarily used in urban coastal Dalmatia (i.e. what "Dalmatia" would intend in the medieval sense of the word and which was definitely outside of centralized Croat rule during long periods (not to mention that Croatia was dismantled as a state following the Hungarian conquest)). My proposition is to write Coastal (Maritime) Dalmatia and the Republik of Dubrovnik (today part of modern-day Croatia) 90.230.54.125 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S. I had in mind Pannonian Croatia when mentioning the region around Krk. This is however probably rather inaccurate since the capital was Sisak it appears. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pannonian Croatia" is a historiographic name and the region (called "Slavonia" in the Middle Ages, again, not the same as modern Slavonia) only started attaining Croatian character in the Early Modern Ages (unlike the Dalmatian cities which were Croatianized already during the Middle Ages, so calling the regions "Croatian" in the article is correct and should stay). This may sound rude, which is not my intention, but I think needs to be said: You obviously don't know even the absolute basics about the history of this region, so I think you should refrain from editing this and similar articles. Zhmr (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I might not know a lot about the early Croat polities, but this article is obviously primarily about the history of Bosnian Cyrillic. As a matter of fact I seldom or never edit proper Croatia-related articles, and I have no problem to reassess my understanding when presented with new information. But even so there is no sense in claiming from your side that these Dalmatian regions were firm parts of medieval Croatia which even ceased to exist following the Hungarian conquest. You would have to acknowledge foremost the Italian but also Bosnian influences. For a long time Dalmatians did not refer to their language as Croatian but as "Dalmatian" - it is thus questionable to what extent these regions were really Croatianized, notwithstanding the nobility. In this sense, for example, the Serbian polities were much more consistent with the use of the word "Serb" 90.230.54.125 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Glagolitic? 

message: "while Bosniaks, although acknowledging Bosnian Cyrillic heritage, have been focusing efforts on investigating Bosnian vernacular literature in a modified Arabic script. The heated dispute on the nature and status of Bosnian Cyrillic is probably destined to remain confined to specialist academic circles."
This is a false claim which should be substantiated by a quote. The only place where i found this claim is neo-communist website of Buka.com, which deals with politics, not history.
Acording to the information i received at Sarajevo museum only 2 people in Bosnia are working on researching Arebica script, and have published a book on that research, whereas Bosancica is an obligatory part of education at universities specialising in history during 3rd grade.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrulj (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim on study of Arebica over Bosancica 

message: The article claims that "It was particularly used by the Bosnian Church community." This is only partially true. The Bosnian church was extinguished following the Ottoman destruction of the Bosnian Kingdom in 1463. However, bosančica in Bosnia continued being used until the 19th century by those who were literate, namely Catholic clergy and Bosnian and Hercegovinian border nobility. The border nobility used it in their correspondence with Croatian officials across the border in Croatia, in Venetian-controlled Dalmatia, and in the independent Republic of Dubrovnik. The Catholic clergy cultivated the bosančica script and indeed were the ones who produced printed works in the script. The use of Croatian Cyrillic in Croatia continued until the middle of the 19th century – the last dated inscription being on a gravestone for a Catholic priest in the Biokovo area of Croatia. In conclusion, the association of this script with the so-called Bosnian Church was of more limited scope than its association with the Catholic Church and with the Croatians who cultivated and nurtured its use throughout the Ottoman occupation of Bosnia and Hercegovina.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by the Bosnian Church 

message: Bosančica is Cyrillic type written in fast-written (original word is "brzopotezni"), while Charter of Ban Kulin is written in the same Cyrillic type as that in Rascia and Zahumlje. This was briefly explained by Milan Rešetar in his work "Dubrovački zbornik od god. 1520". But, if there are some sources that claim or in which is explained why and how it is different and categorized as "Bosancica" then, they should be added as references. If there aren't, then it should be removed from this article.
Also, according to Istrarska enciklopedija, for example, Supetarski fragment was text written in Cyrillic and Croatian Glagolitic script, but it is not mentioned at all that it is "Bosancica" type of Cyrillic or some specific type of Cirilic. Also, reference for that is missing, and if there is some, then it needs to be added. If there aren't any sources (which are not copy-paste from the text from this article) that it Supetarski fragment Cyrillic script is Bosancica, it should be removed from page.
Also, Humac tablet is the oldest Cyrillic epigraph found in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the sources are missing that it is written in Bosančica specificaly. Again, if there aren't any sources, then this claim is false and it should be removed. James Jim Moriarty(talk) 12:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bosančica is a name that describes the westernmost variety of the Cyrillic alphabet, hence the alternative names, Western Cyrillic or Croatian Cyrillic. It was used in the areas of present-day Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina, mostly by the Roman Catholic, Bosnian Church, and later Muslim populations. The main distinguishing features from the Cyrillic used by the Orthodox populations are not so much in the shape of the letter forms (these varied, from "ustav" forms used in the charters to lapidary forms used on "stecak" graves, to "brzopis" forms used in parish records and private letters, and to printed forms used in Franciscan publications), but in the "redaction" or the orthography, the letter set (which excludes letters like jus with sound values that are not found in Croatian or Bosnian), numerical values given to the letters (depending on the region, these nay or may not be the same as the Glagolitic values), as well as in the propensity to allow a larger element of colloquial forms (ie. Croatian & Bosnian language elements) as opposed to Old Church Slavonic forms. At around a century in age, Milan Rešetar's work has been supplanted by more recent scholarship. From memory, Eduard Hercigonja wrote an article explaining the salient features of bosancica and how it differs from the other Cyrillic types.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.135 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of dubious things