Talk:Official script

Status of Greek alphabet in Greece

The greek alphabet does not have official status. As in practice no other "alternative" alphabet is in use for the language (in any context other than email), there was probably no incentive for such regulation on behalf of the lawmakers. Note that for most (if not all) of the other languages listed, two or more alphabets have been in use historically. Contributor175

[[File:Example.jpg]]==Russia/Cyrillic==

quote:

In Russia, the designation of the Cyrillic alphabet as an official script also has the consequence   
that officially recognised minority languages must use it for their script when used officially  
(which does not necessarily have to be the case; for example, in Serbia and Montenegro minority 
languages use their own scripts). Some consider this to be harmful, especially in the case of Tatar  
language.

I think this needs cleaning. As far as I know, republic of Tatarstan, in fact, *do* use Latin script for Tatar language currently. So I don't see how they *must* use Cyrillic?

They seem to oscillate between sctipts for a number of times, but that's it - they can choose.

This refers to a law on use of Cyrillic made by Putin. I don't know what the law exactly says - maybe they need to use Cyrillic only in communication with central government? Nikola 15:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Serbia

The listing mentions the latin alphabet as being co-official with the cyrillic alphabet in Serbia. Yet, a mere 5 lines after that, it is asserted that only the cyrillic alphabet is official (which contradicts the previous claim). Until the issue is clarified and a reference is provided by someone, the article should remain flagged as containing contradictions. Contributor175 12:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I resolved the issue and added a reference [1]. Today a new constitution adopted in Serbia, specifies that the cyrillic alphabet is the only one with official status. Thus I am removing the tag. Contributor175 04:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I messed up, it was only the proposal that was unanimously accepted by the parliament, it still has to go through a referendum within a month. I fixed this now. Contributor175 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's media red herring. Cyrillic is the only official alphabet in the current constitution as well. Nikola 08:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I assume that the current constitution has "interim" status, dating from before the dissolution of SCG and that this is the reason that a new one is now required. In this light, do you know what the current situation in Montenegro is? I will add a request for some reference next to the respective list entry. Contributor175 11:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Both Serbia and Montenegro had their own constitutions which simply continue to be used and new ones are not required. There are various reasons for constitution change in Serbia. In Montenegro, old constitution is still used, and I'm not aware that there are plans for introducing a new one. Here is Official English translation of the Constitution of Montenegro, relevant is Article 9:

In Montenegro Serbian language of the iekavian dialect will be the official language.
Cyrillic and Latin alphabets shall be deemed to be equal.
In the municipalities in which the majority or a substantial number of population consists of the national minorities and ethnic groups, their respective languages and alphabets shall be in the official use.

Nikola 08:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Status of Cyrillic alphabet in Bulgaria

Could anyone verify whether the Cyrillic alphabet indeed has an official (in the legal sense) status in Bulgaria or not? I am not disputing that Cyrillic is used in virtually all cases; that is exactly my point: for the need to regulate alphabet usage, there would first have to be some observed "deviance" from this standard. Why bother pass a law when Cyrillic is a de facto standard and there are no instances of anyone using any other alphabet for the language? To give another example of this, English is not a de jure official language in either the United Kingdom, Australia or the U.S.A. for the reason that its de facto status is unchallenged.

The list should only include countries for which some alphabet has official status by law. I am weary of the addition of Bulgaria/Cyrillic to the list for the additional reason that it was introduced by an unregistered user (the single edit so far under that IP) and (judging from the misplacement within the wikitext) a relative newcomer who (despite good intentions) might not have had the time to properly understand what the article is about. Contributor175 03:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is the same as in other countries with an official language - alphabet is an integral part of a language, and when e.g. Slovak is an official language in Slovakia, no one ever even thoughts about using a different script (since there is no norm for that). Had someone used cyrillic or greek script to write down Slovak, it would be refused on the ground that this is not a Slovak language text (and rightly so). Serbian is special in that it has two different scripts and two different norms. rado 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Official English translation of the Constitution of Bulgaria simply says, in Article 3:

Bulgarian shall be the official language of the Republic.

212.200.204.186 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for feedback by experts

To the invited experts: Please go through the previous discussions first because they are related to the issues in question. Together with the other editors, we have made some efforts to maintain consistency in the listing but it appears we need some guidance:

• The opening sentence currently reads: An official script is a script that is specifically designated to be official in the constitutions or other applicable laws of countries, states, and other territories. In my understanding, this means that for a script to be listed here, it has to be itself designated official (not just the language is is used for). Is this understanding correct?

• If so, wherever there exists a regulatory body for a language designated as official and that regulatory body mandates the exclusive use of one script, should the corresponding script be considered official by extension (and thus merit inclusion in this listing, perhaps in a different subsection) or not?

• De facto official scripts (ie. used for an official language without any "competition") appear to not merit inclusion into this article (based on the opening sentence). Is there then a need for a separate article for them? Would we then perhaps not have trouble finding references?

• More references for this article, from those who could provide some, would be welcome.

Contributor175 16:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nubia

There is no country like Nubia in modern times, why does this article list it as a country Nubian Christian Alphabet?

Or why does this article say, Lybia uses Lybian Christian Alphabet, if there is no such a thing at all?

I noticed here other horrible mistakes, for example listing Ge'ez Latin Alphabet as Ethiopias official script, whereas it's the Ge'ez script itself?

Pleace look for those mistakes, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.65.181 (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Latin alphabet

Do no countries which use the latin alphabet (with or without various diaetrics) have it as an official script? - for example English in USA, UK, Canada; French in France; etc. Astronaut (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Turkey, presumably? Sabik (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"official" and "de facto" scripts

The opening paragraph of this article explicitly defines "official" scripts.

There is no need at all then to include in the list of official scripts languages who are explicitly stated to have a "de facto" script. Unless someone has a strong reason why I should not do it, I will remove all references to languages with de facto scripts.

As there seems to be a lot of unofficial scripts listed, I think that there should be a reference for every case of the claim of an official script. —Coroboy (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Official script. 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/20111101013639/http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6478&Itemid=36 to http://ubpost.mongolnews.mn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6478&Itemid=36

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)