Talk:Kastoria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kostur, "the other name of the town" (and not the prefecture), is not just Bulgarian as 207.96.224.163 claims in his edit. It's equally used by the Bulgarians, the Macedonian Slavs, and I guess it's probably used by other Slavic people as well. Feel free to edit the article and include any information about the name Kostur, as long as it doesn't contradict with the above. Etz Haim 10:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Kostur
Is there a reason for the south slavic name to be prominently featured in this article, if not to establish that there is a significant south slavic minority there? (which is not true).--Avg 15:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Historically, there has been a large Slavic-speaking population in Kastoria and the region around it. In general, in WP, we try to be inclusive rather than exclusive about things like this. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Names issues for discussion. In many cases, there is a full section of the article about the name (e.g. Bitola or Istanbul), but when there is not, it makes sense to put it in the header. --Macrakis 16:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to disagree. There has never been a large Slavic population in Kastoria, just a small minority, who recently has become very vocal. There is no special reason whatsoever to refer to a Greek city with its non-Greek name. So you want to compare it with Istanbul. Has Kastoria ever been under Slavic rule? Was the capital of some Slavic empire? No. And still, the name Constantinople is not mentioned in the first line of the article. And who would even IMAGINE to write it with Greek letters! Turkish people would be offended and perhaps rightly so. You refer to Bitola. Same here. Bitola was a Byzantine/Ottoman city officially named Monastiri, it's perfectly normal for this name to be mentioned there. But Kustur, why? When this city was officially named Kustur and by whom? --Avg 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
"In 1892 the Kostur (Kastoria) parish school council adopted the proposal of a group of teachers 'to eliminate both Bulgarian and Greek and introduce Macedonian as the language of instruction in the town school'.... However, the Greek bishop and the Turkish governor of the city prevented this from taking place." (Loring M. Danforth, The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton University Press, 1995. ISBN 0691043566, p. 62) So apparently in 1892, both Bulgarian and Greek were being taught in the Kastoria schools, and the parish council was predominantly Slavic-speaking. --Macrakis 13:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It's nice that you have a citation, but unless I completely misunderstood what the passage says, the group of teachers proposed to introduce "Macedonian" as the language of instruction, this means that it was never actually taught in any school. Moreover, since the proposal was never implemented, it means that never "Macedonian" was an official language there, unlike Greek for Bitola and Istanbul. What it can be inferred is that at some point in history, there has been a larger South Slavic minority than nowadays, which still though was not a majority, since it could not influence administrative decisions. Again, unlike Bitola and Istanbul. I'd also like to contrast this case with Xanthi or Komotini. There is a large and established Muslim and Turkish speaking minority there, hence it is a logical step to have a reference to their Turkish names. Nobody objects to that. But Kastoria's case (as almost all FYROMian claims) is an artificial issue.--Avg 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not only did the teachers propose it, but the parish school council passed this proposal. The previous state of affairs was apparently that both Greek and Bulgarian were being taught -- which already tells us that there was a substantial South Slavic-speaking community. The new proposal was that only Macedonian be taught, so the Slavic-speaking population must have been very strong in the parish school council to eliminate Greek! As for "influencing administrative issues", the passage does address that. The Ottoman empire was not any sort of democracy!
As for 'official' languages, I don't see the relevance. Of course Greek was the administrative language of the Byzantine empire, and Ottoman Turkish was the administrative language of the Ottoman Empire, but that is not what we are discussing here. Greek, Albanian, Slavic, etc. names continued to be used throughout the region, and are worth documenting. Some of the regional languages, such as Ladino in Thessaloniki and Vlach throughout the region, have never been the official languages of any government entity, yet again are worth documenting.
The situation in Xanthi and Komotini has to do, as I'm sure you know, with the population exchange of 1923. Before 1923, there were Turkish-speakers in many more areas. And in any case, the Ottoman Turkish names in all of the Ottoman domains in Europe are worth mentioning for historical reasons. --Macrakis 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Kastoriá → Kastoria – For reasons of consistency - no (or very few) other articles on Greek places use the accents in the titles. --Telex 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support --Telex 00:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, as per nom. --Aldux 09:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, latin-alphabet signs in the city of Katsoria do not use an accent. -- Avg 09:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, as per nomination --Panairjdde 14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, Miskin 15:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Skeleton?
Don't know about Macedonian, but kostur means 'perch' (genus of fish) in Bulgarian. It might have a connection to 'skeleton', though, because the root is kost (bone). Anyway, we'd need a source for that one. Todor→Bozhinov 09:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- MatriX added it [1]. I don't know anything about it, although according to this republican dictionary [2] "kostur" can mean skeleton. It's probably one of those Serbian words implanted into the original lexicon in order to create the illusion of a seperate language (it is, check srwiki and the edits Serbs have made to the article [3]). --Tēlex 10:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The dictionary says it means a 'skeleton' of a ship or umbrella (most likely not the right word in English), so it wouldn't be a literal translation after all :) I believe we should mention the kost etymology as common and leave the translation out (or include both possible translations). Todor→Bozhinov 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't understand a word of that. Do whatever you think is best - you're not likely to meed much opposition from people like me who haven't a clue what's going on. --Tēlex 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, basically, the word seems to have different meanings in Bulgarian and Macedonian. And while it does mean 'skeleton' in Macedonian, it's not the skeleton of a human (most common meaning), but the 'skeleton' of a ship or an umbrella. No matter the meaning, the word comes from kost (bone), so my suggestion is to mention that instead of any translations. Don't bother trying to understand it, it's not a major thing, I'll fix it :) Todor→Bozhinov 14:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't understand a word of that. Do whatever you think is best - you're not likely to meed much opposition from people like me who haven't a clue what's going on. --Tēlex 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The dictionary says it means a 'skeleton' of a ship or umbrella (most likely not the right word in English), so it wouldn't be a literal translation after all :) I believe we should mention the kost etymology as common and leave the translation out (or include both possible translations). Todor→Bozhinov 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
