Talk:Bosnian language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Actually this makes sense. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 01:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken vs. used? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'd like... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uskufi's dictionary and Charter of Kulin 

message: Even if we take Alexander  as the ultimate source, she says that  This leaves some precision to be desired, but obviously has in mind Bosnians, not Bosniaks. However, on page xviii, she goes on to say  I can quote you several books which use similar phrasing; for example, Comrie has it . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cyrillic 

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Official" Dictionary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neo-nationalist agenda 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the insistence that "Bosnian" may only apply to the modern-day Bosnian standard 

message: 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. http://bosnjaci.agency/muhamed-hevaiji-rjecnik-bosanskog-jezika/ 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Talk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: wikt:Bosnian shows less than one sentence about the term. --Munja (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAIK no, because standard Macedonian is based on a different dialect than standard Bulgarian. Peter238 (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Why not? CodeCat (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  And Shtokavian is part of Serbo-Croatian. CodeCat (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  That's not a matter for us to discuss here. CodeCat (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Controversion" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Serbian Cyrillic script in Bosnia and Herzegovina 

message: 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)
thread_title:  School book of Latin and Bosnian, 1827 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  tag to http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=5907
*Added  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arebica variant 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lies 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting - large blank space 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bosnian Language - IJEKAVICA