Talk:Miladinov Brothers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guys - the book says "Bulgarian Folk Songs" on its cover - what is there to dispute at all? I mean, Shakespeare's plays don't have "English" writtent on the cover - you are free to claim those I guess.

If the Macedonian consciousness was "not developed", then you should remove the double Bulgarian/Macedonian in the lead. On top of, they were quite clear that they regard themselves as Bulgarians and consider the Macedonians a subset of the Bulgarians - do you want me to paste other pages of Bulgarian Folk Songs or what? I have taken the double Bulgarian/Macedonian as a compromise to avoid future quarrelling but if you intend to play your horse around, I can also pursue a harder policy - they, Parlichev and Shapkarev have left enough evidence of what they thought about their language (Bulgarian), about themselves (Bulgarians) and about the "Macedonians" (a subset of the Bulgarians = Macedonian Bulgarians). The fact that you wrote that bullshit about the "dialect of Struga" on which they "wrote" their songs (they collected them, darling) clearly shows your intents and knowledge on the subject. VMORO 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, interprete your rethorical abilities from the type of "bullshit" etcetra outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no place for such talents. Other, they collected songs not only from Struga, but also from other macedonian regions. "Wrote" is my mistake, I meant to write "collect" (I know that they didn't wrote the songs). You can't judge whether the different poets and writers from that time were Bulgarians or not, without to consider the circumstances in which they were and without some kind of analysis (Yes, Prlichev and Shapkarev could have left evidence that they were Marsians, so?). I prefer the number of 584 macedonian songs to stay, because they signifficantly differ from the 76 bulgarian, if nothing else, in their accustic independence, they have typpical macedonian-speech characteristics. Also, the part about the letters from Konstantin to Rakovski should stay in the text. Cheers, Bomac 08:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, I will remind you that "wrote" was your mistake and in BG Wikipedia too. :) (bg:Беседа:Константин Миладинов - Obviously, you meant to write "collect" too). Miladinov Brothers considered all of their songs Bulgarian. It includes all of the songs - from present Bulgaria, Republic of Macedonia and Northern Greece. Miladinov Brothers define their language and the language of the songs like Bulgarian. Why do you separate the songs according your own present concepts? You can create a separete section about your opiinion about Miladinov Brothers or the predominant oppinion in Republic of Macedonia, but please do not transfer present political reality to the our common history.--AKeckarov 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Anton, I don't know what it would change even if I was "planning" to write "wrote". As for the political realities, the term "Bulgarian" was a political reality in that time, which means it was not an ethnical reality. Please, do not transfer past political realities in the present by misjudging them. Bomac 16:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, I think that exactly here you are in a mistake. The term Bulgarian wasn't a part from some political reality in the middle of ХІХ century - at least not in today's meaning. There was not a BG state, BG church, even geographical region Bulgaria (sometimes it was Moesia(Misia), but not Macedonia). The example with Miladinov Brothers clearly shows one: the term "Bulgarian" had ethic meaning. Please, look at their life and work without emotions: In their capital work they publishes a materials from verious Bulgarian regions - Macedonia, Thrace and Moesia (if we accept that Sofia is in Upper Moesia, which is discutable), they consider their people as Bulgarian (as a part of Sout Slavs) etc. If it is not an evidence that the term Bulgarian is an ethnical reality according Miladinov Brothers I really don't know what means "ethnical reality". Regards, --AKeckarov 09:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there wasn't a BG state, church etcetra even more strenghtens the other fact that Bulgarian was not in ethnical, but in political sense. I think that it is a continuum from the middle ages, when Bulgarian was used to describe all the South Slavs. And, you have to know the NPOV policy, if nothing else, Miladinov Brothers are counted as "Macedonians" in Macedonia. Cheers, Bomac 11:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Do NPOV mean that we can distort the facts? I am not hindering to express how Miladinov Brothers are counted in Republic of Macedonia (not Macedonia, but only in the Republic). This is a fact and you can create a separate section and explain this. But there are one certain fact: Miladinov Brothers was the activists of Bulgarian National Revival. This is not only my assertion, but their. Many years later somebody decides that they aren't Bulgarians (present doctrine in Republic of Macedonia). But why we have to accept one political doctrine in Wikipedia?

P.S. Who exactly states (historian) that in the Middle ages the term "Bulgarian" was used to describe all the South Slavs? Excuse me, but it is very strange for me? There are a few exceptions (and a few historians with political purposes) but I think that you gone too, too far. I do not understand Macedonistic logic: for the time when was BG church and state, you state that the term Bulgarian used due to them. For the time when was not BG political institutions and Bulgarians from Macedonia considered themselves like Bulgarians you state that exactly this shows Bulgarian are political term :). However, Miladinov Brothers considered them as Bulgarians and if you read their book (please do it), you'll understand weather they used the term Bulgarian in political or ethnical sense. Regards, --AKeckarov 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Anton, NPOV means that we cannot distort the facts - It's a fact that in R. of Macedonia, nowadays, in the present, Miladinovs are counted as Macedonians. We can't create a separate section, 'caus many historians (not only Macedonian) state that Miladinov Bros were Macedonians (just as those who claim that they are Bulgarians). Your great desire that they were Bulgarians pushes you on and on to claim that they were Bulgarians, without to consider the circumstances in which were all the Macedonians in that time, and not to mention the apropriate usage of the term "Bulgarian". In one word, what you see is what you get.

I don't exactly recall what is a "Macedonistic logic". I'm sure I'm going to find the answer in Bulgaria :-) Cheers, Bomac 17:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, Do you state that Miladinov Bros had a Macedonian ethnic consciousness? That they was not Bulgarians? From where are these "many historians" which state that Miladiniv brothers was not Bulgarians? I see that it is difficult to somebody who accepts Macedonistic logic to imagine that the MK intelectuals considered them as Bulgarians in ХІХ, but read Perface of the Folk songs of Miladinov Brothers and you will understand the meaning of the term Bulgarian for them - One of the South Slavic people which are belonging Miladinov Brothers.--AKeckarov 13:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anton, I will repeat myself - CIRCUMSTANCES and the context of "Bulgarian". Nevertheless, they were talking on a Macedonian dialect (Struga dialect, which has not many similarities to Bulgarian), they were editing the songs on the phonetic script (not the etimological, which was in use in Bulgaria). And, I repeat, don't percept things on the yin-yang way. Cheers, Bomac 15:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bojan, why you are looking for some obscure circumstances which have a very different explanations, when we have clear situation - Etnic sense of the term Bulgarian according Miladinov Brothers themself. We can argue about Krste Misirkov or some hesitate intelectualls in next period, but Miladinov Brothers are indicative about one process among Bulgarians not only in Macedonia. The name of this process is Bulgarian National Revival. If you want to look circumstances look them from the point of view of the epoch. Of course there wasn't and aren't white and black realities, but the history works with facts. This is one of the cases when we have facts and you can see them if you are looking for sources not for retold stories.

P.S.

1. Obviuosly you did not read the "Bulgarian folk songs" since you assert that "they were editing the songs on the phonetic script (not the etimological, which was in use in Bulgaria". Please read it and something about the Bulgarian script in ХІХ c. and its codification.
2. I am not agree that the Struga dialect has not many similarities with Bulgarian, because this dialect is Bulgarian. Ay least according D. and K. Miladinov (if their language is Bulgarian, their dialect is BG too). Regards, --AKeckarov 19:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Editing" does not mean only "writing", it means corrections, style, redaction etc. More, I can tell you that не е злато се што сјае, ofcourse, in the meaning of the usage of "Bulgarian" in that time. I know that you are a Bulgarian and think that everything where "Bulgarian" was written in those periods is actually something related to Bulgaria, but if you relax a little bit, you can understand what I mean.

P.S. If they were Bulgarians (in ethnic sense), they would have lectured their Collection, named as "Bulgarian folk songs" in the etimological script, which all people (who lived in today's Bulgaria territory in that period) used it then (and maybe nowadays). Bomac 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bojan, I asked you many times in BG and EN Wikipedia in vain to look the book . I am holding in my own hands "Bulgarian folk Songs" in this moment. I am looking corrections, style, redaction etc. I can not see some diferences from the script used from other Bulgarian writers in these time. I do not know where are you wrote that their script was phonetic script (not the etimological). Believe, it is not truth (the other question is how much the bulgarian script is etimological). There are the letters я (you can see it in the cover bellow - Дiмитрiя, Якич), yat vocal (in pronunciation like "e" in Western Bulgaria and "ya" in Eastern parts), old ъ in the final of the words ("одъ" in the cover), щ (for sht), ю, other old vocals (nosovki) etc.

P.S. Please do not seek some evidences only for the "sport". This is not a competition. I write something about retold stories....Regards, --AKeckarov 20:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are speaking about stories? No matter, if you want retold stories, let we leave K. Miladinov to speak (about the transcription in the Collection):

"Правопис употребихме по возможноста најлесен и најсходен со произношението од словата; на пример вместо трите букви Ъ, Ь, Ѫ кои имает еднакво произношение, употребихме една Ѫ; напр. сѪнце, сѪрце (итн.). К‘де по грам. правила се пишит Ѫ, но се произносит а, се употреби последново. Еднакво се грижехме да предадиме верно народното произношение, по кое се водит тукашниот правопис; напр. млатЪ, потЪ, ретЪ (итн.) вм. младЪ, подЪ, редЪ (итн.). Еднакво човекот или човекѪт, вм, човЪкЪ-тЪ и др." итн.

All of this tells us that Konstantin was going in a way to establish the principle Write as you hear. There are many sentences in the book where he uses this: "Сиве почти песни се слушани од жени" or "От там одам у град Белограда" итн.

P.S. You know very well that many Bulgarian scientists have disputed the Collection, because of the dialects (Macedonian people's language) the songs are, dialects which are not suitable for the Bulgarian language. Cheers, Bomac 21:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, exactly this was a script of the other Bulgarian books from these times. Look at many of BG newspapers some books and you'll see that this was a common BG script (there was some diferences because there was not codification of the script, but differences had not a ptinciple nature). In all of BG notes of folklore materials reflects local dialects (because it was a folk song), but the script was not phonetic in present MK or Serbian sence, еven in today's BG ("etimological") script. (Your example prove it: Haw you can pronunciate ъ in млатЪ. Is this a phonetic?)

P.S. Do you think that the principle of the other BG folkorists was Write as you not hear? :) --AKeckarov 12:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that "many Bulgarian scientists have disputed the Collection, because of the dialects (Macedonian people's language) the songs are, dialects which are not suitable for the Bulgarian language.". On the contrary - BG public oppinion welcomed this Collection. --AKeckarov 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the macedonian script was not codificated either. You are not making progress much with your upper thoughts. And tell me, on what script was it then (if you exclude Bulgarian too)? Maybe at first BG public oppinion did welcomed this book, but in the after-that linguistic studies, this was a not a principle. I guess, the BG officials were seeing at first on the black-white way - "it writes "Bulgarian", and it must be Bulgarian". But, it appeared that it was a strange "Bulgarian" dialect. I repeat - most of dialects in which these songs are, have verry little similarities with Bulgaran, which are irrelevant. Cheers, Bomac 13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What that means: "maybe", "I guess"? You don't know the facts, but you make a suggestion and what is more important - you change the article. The Bulgarian public and scientific oppinion was not against the book and the dialects. Contemporaries like L. Karavelov, M. Drinov etc. welcomed this book. Who of them defined the dialects (NB! not one dialect) like strange Bulgarian? These dialects was regarded as Bulgarian (There was dialects not only from present Republic of Macedonia). If you asserts that somebody in BG scientific society doubted about their belonging do you think that it is good to point him?

About the script: This was a kirilic script which was in use among BG authors and publishers. Where is the problem?--AKeckarov 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)