Talk:Arebica

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bosnia and Herzegovina Low‑importance

	Bosnia and Herzegovina portal Arebica is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Croatia Low‑importance

	Croatia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clashpoints

Arebica or arabica was a variant of the Arabic alphabet:

"...used by Bosnian Muslims to write the Bosnian language."

So, it looks like that Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins weren't struck by islamization during Ottoman rule? Come on. All these nations suffered (partial) islamization waves. Literate ones (among them) used Arabic letters. Also, what about Herzegovina Muslims, and Muslims outside Bosnia and Herzegovina (Turkish Croatia, Semberija, Posavina, Polimlje). Are they excluded? Also, important is to note that islamization struck areas outside todays country Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Aren't Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks all essentially the same ethnicity (with even mutually-intelligible languages) and distinguished almost exclusively by faith? If you're a Catholic South Slav you're a Croat, if you're an Orthodox Christian South Slav you're a Serb and if you're a Muslim South Slav, you're a Bosniak... --GCarty (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 20th century there were some efforts made to accept Arebica..."

Interesting. But we need references for this claim.

"...as the third alphabet for writing the Serbo-croatian language.".

Serbo-croatian language doesn't exist, it existed as political Frankenstein. If you think on Kingdom of Yugoslavia, that country had serbo-croato-slovenian as official, if I remember well.

"... Arebica was officially forbidden".

Interesting. But - citation needed. Kubura (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but it's extremely difficult to find anything concerning arabica. My only source was Enciklopedija leksikografskog zavoda and it doesn't answer all your questions.

Of course - Croats, Serbs and Montenegrins were struck by islamization. Those who got islamized became ethnic Bosniaks. The main difference here is religion and cultural tradition based on it - not language.

I can give you more info on Serbo-croatian language: The term Serbo-Croatian was in use since 1850, when Serbians and Croatians signed "The Vienna Agreement", declaring their intention to create a common language. Kingdom of Yugoslavia (1918-1941) had serbo-croato-slovenian as only official language (serbian, croatian and even slovene treated as dialects). In SFR Yugoslavia (1945-1991) however, there were three official languages: slovene, macedonian and serbo-croatian (serbian and croatian treated as dialects). Marino-slo (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) and 12:03, 26 March 2008.[reply]

I noticed a contradiction: ي is used to write /i/ in the sample, but in the table it's listed as /j/. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sample completely wrong

The text sample at the bottom is written by someone not knowing an inch of ´Arabic writing. Correct form see External links "Haveji".

I tried to mend it.

Nuremberg - Angel.García 131.188.3.21 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabet

I replaced the old table with a new one to show contextual forms. If someone with more knowledge of both Bosnian and Arebica could go through it to make sure it's all correct that would be great. I'm especially concerned about اٖى and ە.

Medial and final forms of اٖى are inconsistent based on what can be seen in the names, Arebica (آرهباىڃآ) and Bosnian (بۉسآنسقاى), versus the text examples, i (وٖ), bića (بٖىڃا), etc., where the diacritic simply appears on the preceding letter. (Out of curiosity, is there a reason they chose that diacritic and alif maqsurah in the first place? :? The alif maqsurah being dotless already makes it quite distinct from yaa.)

ە seems, in terms of connecting to other letters, to be kinda acting like a dotless taa marbutah, this is very evident in the text examples, while in some places it seems to act like a normal haa, with distinct forms for all contexts. The word Arebica (آرهباىڃآ) itself is again a good example of where it contradicts the text examples.

My assumption is that the names Arebica and Bosnian are indeed correct and that the wrong letters have been used to type out the text examples, can anyone please confirm or deny this? --CeNobiteElf (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be contradictions regarding the letter for "a": text examples seem to be using ا, the chart is using آ, and the "Epohe fonetske misli kod Arapa i arebica" book (as well as the previous transliteration of "Arebica" in the lead section before I edited it) used ع to represent "a". I second with the above in asking if anyone can confirm which are the correct ones. Pixelranium (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia didn't exist before World War I

The sentence "Before World War I there were unsuccessful efforts by Bosnian Muslims of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to adopt Arebica as the third official alphabet for Yugoslavian alongside Latin and Cyrillic." made no sense, since

Yugoslavia didn't exist before World War I.
There's no "Yugoslavian" language, but local, mutually intelligible varieties in the (controversially named) Serbo-Croatian language continuum.

This either happened in Austria-Hungary before WW1 or in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia before WW2. It makes more sense that it'd be later since Bosnia was only annexed to A-H in 1908, and since Bosnian Muslims had more relative political power in KoY. Removed references to the non-existent language and to the time period since KoY already dates it, added citation needed template. The article is badly in need of attention from someone who knows more about the subject. – Miranche^T C 03:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the source stating that the request for equal status of the Arabic script with the Latin and Cyrillic scripts was made during the Austro-Hungarian rule. I would assume during the struggle for religious-educational autonomy, although the source doesn't mention that specifically. So it is correct that the request was made before World War I, although not in Yugoslavia, but in Austria-Hungary. Considering that the other source I found mentions that after Austria-Hungary, the script was used only sporadically, and considering the politics in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia ("three tribes of the different names" i.e. only Slovenes, Croats and Serbs) I highly doubt this issue was raised at that time. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you, I'll put in the change. Given the complex politics of KoY in which Bosnian Muslims very much fought for ethnic recognition and political rights, I wouldn't be surprised if it was brought up at that time too. (The 2 linked sources are right about the extent of my background on the topic.) – Miranche^T C 01:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]