Talk:Abecedar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Abecedar, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.
WikiProject Republic of Macedonia
Republic of Macedonia Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Republic of Macedonia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Republic of Macedonia-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Abecedar: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned


Contents

[edit] POV

The article represents only one view (guess which one). The first paragraph is full of statements which would be found appropriate by both Greeks and Bulgarians. Either point out that this is the view only in the Republic of Macedonia (cause let me remind you Bulgaria considers these people to be Bulgarians and Greece - considers them to be Greeks). So one might say it was printed to educate Slavophones or Bulgarians. And moreover at its current state the article is completely unsourced. I'll ask Niko to revise it and give his advice on this one. --Laveol T 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In your dreams only MacedonianBoy 15:37, 11.02.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, if you bothered to ask those people, which today live either in R.Macedonia or all over the world, they would have told you that they feel Macedonian (not Greek or Bulgarian). According to the census of 2006, there are no far less Greeks in Macedonia than the number of people born in Greece and living in Macedonia today.[1] How do you figure that?Crnorizec (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

Hey If macedonian is South Slavic, than Bulgarian should be called Slavo Bulgarian, because the original is tatar language. Please be fair in some cases because I am the author of this article. MacedonianBoy

It is south slavic. The Macedonian Language, Eastern South Slavic Language and Bulgarian is south slavic as well.linguist orgMegistias (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No one is doubting that the Macedonian language is a South Slavic language. I do, though, doubt that all South Slavs, in their respective languages, refer to this book, specifically, as "Bukvar", "Буквар" etc. Köbra85 07:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Macedonianboy is doubting it above.Read the ref on what Southern slavic entails.Megistias (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
South Slavic languages. Köbra85 07:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But let me honest, this Book is Macedonian and and it is written on Macedonian Language. That thesis with Southern Slavic Languages is nonsense and please stop putting South Slavic because we all know why you are putting that phrase, to be pleased Greeks, aren't you? MacedonianBoy 10:28, 12.02.2008
Its south slavic.Sourced and referenced.Megistias (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. A lot of Macedonian words are south Slavic - because Macedonian is a south Slavic language. It is kind of pleonasmic to mention South Slavic. Why does is this in the article? BalkanFever 09:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what it is and what group it belongs to inside wikiSouth Slavic languages and in secondary sourcesSouth Slavic.Megistias (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But it's obvious. Should we put "South Slavic and Macedonian" or "South Slavic and Serbian" or "South Slavic and Slovenian" for everything? Of course not. It doesn't matter. BalkanFever 10:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, how does the reference pertain to this specific article? It seems only to state the fact that Bulgarian, Macedonian and Church Slavonic are all South Slavic languages, as everyone already knows. Köbra 85] 12:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
South Slavic is the group of languages but not MACEDONIAN. If so, I will write Germanic Languege Danish! Will be correct? So stop doing that and erase that word or rename all slavic languages by their group of Language and rename Greek as SUB-saharian language. MacedonianBoy 14:18, 12.02.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.199.196 (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason could easily be found in what I said in the previous section and which obviously grabbed only the attention of one user (thanks for the answer btw - that's the way to do it, yeah). The position of Bulgaria and Greece is that this is no way a Macedonian language. Sorry but these are the facts - Greece'd mention it as Slavomacedonian or whatever and Bulgaria - as Bulgarian. What does the book itself state by the way? I don't think it says Macedonian or something like this (as there was no such language back at the time) --Laveol T 13:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
"there was no such language back at the time", in itself, is not a fact but rather a personal opinion shared by Greece and Bulgaria alike. Köbra 85 14:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I now hear the other personal opinion - that of the Republic of Macedonia --Laveol T 14:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Golly, I hope you're not referring to my last comment. I have made no comment concerning which language should be used, I just cleanup articles and what-not. I just want to know why the heck we've got a reference stating that Macedonian is a Eastern South Slavic language – totally unrelated to the article. Also, considering that we're aiming to create an encyclopedic article, shouldn't Greece be referred to as Kingdom of Greece etc. depending on the respective period? Köbra 85 14:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That facts that you have mentioned are just so called "facts" in that mentioned countries but not in Republic of Macedonia and what is most important not in the USA. Macedonian is basis of all slavic languages and Bulgrians have language thanks to us. They spoke another language before. And acording to your fact, the Modern Greek language is the same as the Old Greek language? I don't think so.... MacedonianBoy 15:55 12.02.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Then use Wiki and read about it cause its incredibly close.Megistias (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is big differences between Old and Modern Greek. I don't have to read it. I am well educated Thanks MacedonianBoy 23:26 12.02.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This guy Danforth is everywhere in Macedonia-related articles. Is he some kind of authority? He might be, but honestly I first heard his name in Wikipedia.--   Avg    21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He's a prominent anthropologist who's specialised in Greek history, culture and the dreaded Macedonian Question. Take a look at his curriculum vitae. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your reverts ChrisO don't seem at all like "stick to the sources" reverts. "Annexing" has the subtle meaning that something is not yours. The policy of hellenisation is a controversial issue, not a fact. Teaching Greek does not constitute hellenisation. Most people were feeling they were Greeks beforehand.--   Avg    21:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he know about Greek history and culture but it is obviously he doesnt's know about Macedonian at all. If he is interested in it that he should read little bit more about Macedonian History not just Wikipedia, because it is full with Greek propaganda.And the differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian are big as the differences between Greek and Albanian. Let's be honest and realistic and let's start to write a true articles not nonsenses as you do. For instance my article about Abecedar or in Macedonian Bukvar is completely different from the original and REALLY I am tired from this changes and making this article against Macedonian culture and language. There is separated Bulagrian Language and Greek Language and write there about them not here. I have impression that Wikipedia is not Free encyclopedia at all because we cannot write nothing about our own famous Macedonian culture, history and language. Best wishes to all of you. MacedonianBoy 23:26 12.02.2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of stating the obvious, Macedonia was indeed part of another state's territory (first the Ottoman Empire, then Bulgaria), it had never been controlled by the Greek state before 1913 and it was acquired by force. The term "annexed" is thus clearly appropriate; it's used both by the cited source (Danforth) and by our article on the Treaty of Bucharest (1913)). Danforth also uses the term "Hellenization" to describe the process by which the Greek government assimilated its newly acquired non-Greek-speaking populations, e.g. changing Slavic place- and personal names. Teaching Greek was just part of a much wider process. It's certainly debatable whether "most people were feeling they were Greeks beforehand", given the large population exchanges that were going on at the time (did the Slavic-speakers who left for Bulgaria feel that they were Greeks?). At any rate, the wording corresponds to what Danforth says in the cited book. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it was never controlled by Greece before 1913, the Greek government should recognize this Macedonian population because that territory was always separated from Greece even in Turkish period. The history is that. When the revolution for Greek independence of Ottoman Empire took place, it never happen in Aegean Macedonia. It took place in the real Greek territories and that gives us clue that they were not interested in Macedonia that time, because if that concidered that time that Macedonia is Greek they will have battle for Macedonia too not for Greece, right?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no Macedonia or Greece name for Ottoman provinces but Monastir,Kosovo,Selanik etc. If you talk about separations Just think of this:

"Even in Ottoman times Kosovo region included most of North Macedonia"

  • Greek revolution of 1821 took also place in Macedonia see Emmanuil Pappas

and there are many Greek-Macedonian persons and revolutionaries of that timeMacedonianX (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • As for the slavic term , since there were Slavophones who considered themselves with various nationalities (and many of them still do it) if you don't like the term slavic ..what about Bulgarian and Serbian?? which is contemporary of 1920-1930??

there were also 2 treaties where slavic minority was recognized as Serbian and then Bulgarian in that periodMacedonianX (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • You obviously don't know the Histry of Macedonia! --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

this is not an obvious argument MacedonianX (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense with South-Slavic? People who speak the "South-Slavic" in Macedonia and in Greece call their language MACEDONIAN. Any problem with that? Crnorizec (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Slavophone minority is divided to Macedonists,Grekomans and Bulgaromans (So every side has its own opinion). The language is also called Slavic language of Greece[2] or Slavomacedonian [3] , the word bukvar exists in every South Slavic language and the minority had been recognized as Serbian and Bulgarian in the past MacedonianX (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
This division is made just in your mind. When Macedonia is concerned along with the Macedonian langugae, every Macedonian is united with one thought. That name that you are using are typical propaganda. Live in the reality don't speak nonsenses.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The division exists http://www.macedonian.org/ Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia and cannot be ignored Most of the Slavophones in Greece declare Macedonian-Greek identity and you call them Grekomans MacedonianX (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They call themselves Macedonian-Greek because the ones who didn't were kicked out of Greece and deprived of civil status and property from 1947 onwards. Essence of democracy! Crnorizec (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just like the expelled Germans and other groups of WWII.
People with ethnic Makedonski identity is just one part of the Slavophone community in Greece MacedonianX (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say there were no other examples in WWII, I say that the ones who remained were under pressure to change their ethnic determination to whatever was safe in order to protect their lives and properties. Crnorizec (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This cannot explain the case of Slavophone Grecomans who existed before 1945 and 1900 MacedonianX (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Read this, pages 71-77 MacedonianX, this is what I've also heard first-hand from those people. Especially on pages 76-77 that it was "not possible" do declare nationality other than Greek. Although your point is correct for those that free-willingly adopted Greek nationality, there was a large portion that did not and ended up in the worst possible way. Crnorizec (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it ; this and other reasons are explanations of the divided identity of Slavophones in Greece as I said above MacedonianX (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you know it, then your statement above "Most of the Slavophones in Greece declare Macedonian-Greek identity" does not apply for 1925 when the Abecedar was published. Correct? Crnorizec (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By your assumption Bulgarian and Bulgarian-Macedonian would be ALSO contemporary (as it is documented in WWII history of Macedonia concerning the local Slavophones) but Abecedar was rejected by Slavic-speakers in Greece and was never actually used in schools; in one village, the villagers reportedly threw their copies of the book into a nearby lake. South Greeks would have no success without the local Grekomans MacedonianX (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Just compare the Local Resistance of Makedonci in Vardarska Banovina (1918-WWII) against the Serbs. IMRO was a Terror for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They killed over 100 state-officers and the King. No such thing in Greek part of Macedonia MacedonianX (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop using derogatory terms like "Grekomans". BalkanFever 07:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It means also fanatical Greeks but if you find it so I can use "Pro-Greek Slavophone Macedonians" MacedonianX (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. BalkanFever 10:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Re. Terror by IMRO in Greece: IMRO was established in Thessaloniki, and modern terrorism was invented by Macedonians with the attacks in Thessaloniki (Otoman Bank, the ship Guadalquivir, ...).

The Serbs terrorized the Macedonian population in Vardarska Banovina since earlier: for example, my family's last name was changed in 1920. In Greece they did it later with the names - mostly after WWII. Probably the repression was lower in Greece 1920-1940 than in Serbia and this is why the reaction (terrorism etc.) was lower (or none?). But, keep in mind that immediately after that, the Macedonians comprised 60% of ELAS, and worked together with Tito's partisans by the end of WWII. Probably they were with irredentistic ideas, but they certainly weren't very loyal to the Greek regime at that point.

Are we out of the subject? what is the "Neutrality" of this heading about? I will try to summarize the question and the facts debated here and the proposed first paragraph sould be:

“ Abecedar (South Slavic languages: Буквар, Greek: Ἀναγνωστικόν) is a school book first published in Athens in 1925. Cited by Greece as proof that it had fulfilled its international obligations towards its Slavic-speaking minority, the book became the subject of controversy with Bulgaria and Serbia due to its being printed in the Latin alphabet rather than the Cyrillic alphabet used by the Slavic languages of the southern Balkans.

There is an issue whether the language in which the Abecedar was written is Macedonian or not. At the time, the Greek government never referred to the language of the book. Furthermore, Macedonian language was not officialy used in any of the countries in the region. However, looking at the text of the book, it belongs to the South-Slavic group of languages, and it closely resembles the modern Macedonian language, more than any other language of that group.

 ”

Question: Can we put this in the text and remove the disputed tag? Please share your thoughts. Crnorizec (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


I agree + Slavic language (Greece) link on Slavic-speaking minority
About the IMRO terror it was Selanik and Ottoman empire then :) MacedonianX (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abecedar = Alphabetary

Just a question, abecedar means alphabetary (in Greek αλφαβητάριο). How come in its modern edition it was named Буквар/Αναγνωστικό (reading book) and not Абеседар/Αλφαβητάριο?--   Avg    23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "Abecedar" refers to the Latin Alphabet whereas "Буквар" refers to the Cyrillic; or something along those lines. BalkanFever 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is actually called "Абецедар" but if you look at the front cover of the book, they call it "Буквар". Köbra 85 07:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well there goes my theory :). BalkanFever 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
On standard Macedonian Language is Bukvar because it uses Cyrillic alphabet, but this Book is published in Latin so it is normally to be called Abecedar Абецедар. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by Kobra85

Kobra85 reverts my edits of the first paragraph, about the language in which the Abecedar is written. He puts "south slavic" or "eastern south slavic" language all the time, but if you follow the link which he has referenced, you find that south slavic is a group of languages. The Abecedar is not written in a group of languages, but rather in one language, and this is Macedonian, as the example below in the article shows. I have deleted his latest revert. Kobra85, if you realy have some objections, please let's discuss it here. Crnorizec (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the history, Kapnisma and Laveol reverted you. BalkanFever 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it was us - and I did it again. Would you care to provide a reason as to why you're doing it. --Laveol T 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The reason, as I explained above, is that you don't write books in group of languages, but rather in one language. In this case it is written in Macedonian. If you want to extend the list of languages in which Bukvar (Буквар) has the same meaning, you can add Serbian, Russian and probably some other languages which are not even south-slavic. Your actions only show that stubbornes and ignorance go hand-in-hand. Bless you, Crnorizec (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Bear in mind it was not me who added the Bulgarian language. And I'm not really getting what's your idea in the Russian/Serbian thing. --Laveol T 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea with the Russian/Serbian thing is to illustrate that there's no idea with the Bulgarian thing either. We can add Romanian there as well, and maybe also Mayan, for further confusion of a simple fact. Crnorizec (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danforth`s book falsely cited

Whoever included the citation from Danforth`s book on page 70, they took out certain words. Here`s what page 70 actually says: [4] I already corrected it in the main article. --Polibiush (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Macedonian" or Bulgarian? How about neither?

What did the original edition call the language? If it was "described by contemporary Greek writers as a primer for the children of Slav speakers in Greece ... printed in the Latin script and compiled in the Macedonian dialect," then the proper name is still Slavic. It could not have been "Macedonian", which was only recognized as a separate language two decades later and only in Yugoslavia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that every Slavic language (this includes; Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Ukranian, Polish etc.) will refer to it as 'Буквар', especially using the Cyrillic alphabet. The article is primarily focusing on the Second Edition of the Abecedar and, as you can see on the front cover, 'Буквар' is the title given to the book in respect of the Macedonian language the Second Edition was published in, as well as the Greek and English languages. The whole "Slavic" ordeal should be contained within the section about the First Edition. Köbra 85 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
To avert the "strong doubts" I have included the references for Russian and Serbian "Bukvar"s in cyrillic here. Bukvar means book of letters, and it is universal with all slavic languages which use the word bukva for letter. The Abecedar is so called because it does not use bukvi (cyrillic) but rather latin letters. And the language IS Macedonian, as you can see from the given examples. Furthermore, Greece recognized the Macedonian language in the census of 1920. Crnorizec (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, bukva is used only in Macedonian and in other slavic languages is SLOVO so the name is for sure on Macedonian. And also in other Slavic languages the name BUKVAR is known as SLOVAR. Just additional information for your "knowledge". That book is written on Bitola dialect and considering the fact that standard Macedonian is based on Bitola Prilep dialect, there is no doubt that it is Macedonian. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Ihaaaa, and how about if I tell you it is actually Bukvar in Bulgarian. I could show you a bunch of if you like. --Laveol T 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
sorry but bulgarian is not slavic--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2008

(UTC) You intentionally confuse Bulgar language with Bulgarian language just like you want to confuse Ancient Macedonian with Slavic Macedonian MacedonianX (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC) In your mind. Where are your sources? (Bulgarian [5])(Serbian [6]) Slovar is in Slovenian [7] MacedonianX (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to say that it is different language???!!!! So we should consider that Bulgar language as part of Maya language hahahahahhaha. please stop. It refers to same people and culture. Ans please read more about Venti culture and theory and stop using Slavic as different from the Old Macedonian. visit the site www.veneti.info--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

adopted the Slavonic language for his state.

Yes, it is a different language. I always say - better not to say anything - that way you won't reveal how much you don't know on the subject. --Laveol T 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
MacedonianBoy, read the links that I have provided here. Slovo and Bukva are used in parallel in many slavic languages and so are Bukvar and Slovar. Thera are also Slovars from Macedonian authors (prerodbenici) in the 19th century. Cheers, Crnorizec (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I find this argument about the "second" edition funny. The article (as it obviously says in the first line) is about the book published in 1925. And what has the Greek State to do with the "second" edition? --Avg (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take into consideration the whole sentence, rather than just the date. It says "is a book first published in 1925", not "is a book published in 1925". Köbra 85 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you probably miss the point (or rather want to miss the point). This book was made at a specific era for a specific reason. The fact that it was republished for purely propaganda reasons and sold to a different audience is irrelevant. Was the "second" edition published in ... Perth directed to the Slavic speaking population of Greece? Or was it simply a propaganda tool? Same with the "third", published from Rainbow. These two "editions" did not help anybody except the interests of extreme nationalists.--Avg (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the article could mention that the Abecedar was recently re-published to remind the public about it's existance, (personaly, I had never heard about it before some 10 years, thank you for steering up the nationalists :) ) but this was done mainly for propaganda reasons. The article should focus on the original edition. Crnorizec (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language

OK, let me make this clear to everyone. The Macedonian and Greek languages are only there (at the beginning) because they are seen on the front cover of the 2nd edition and the translation is written as such. The "Slavic" language does not even need to be there as the 1st edition used the Latin alphabet and was titled "Abecedar" (the name of the article). This point was made very clear numerous times. Therefore, Macedonian (Буквар) and Greek (Ἀναγνωστικόν) are only there because they are seen on the front cover of the 2nd edition. If it wasn't for this 2nd edition there would be no other languages listed as the 1st edition was titled Abecedar and this is also the title in English for the 2nd edition. Anyone who wants to say otherwise can do so at their own expense. Köbra 85 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to add a note next to the title indicating what I just said. Köbra 85 08:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps then the "Macedonian" and Greek versions need not be in the introduction at all, especially considering that the 2006 edition is only mentioned later on in the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me, we can include these languages in the section about the 2nd edition which, may I add, needs to be greatly expanded *hint*. Köbra 85 09:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Go right ahead, if you can be bothered. I've already adjusted the infobox accordingly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

In regards to the sourced sentence of "The Republic of Macedonia argues it demonstrated a separate Macedonian language and people existed in northern Greece in 1925, and the Greek government recognized it as such" - how can this be when ROM wasn't even a country at the time? Their is major POV and I hope somebody does a fact check on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania only gained independance from the Ottoman Empire in 1912. But this does not mean the Albanian language and Albanians as a distinct population came into existence in 1912. Similarly, the sentence you dispute deals with the recognition status of a language and people, not a state. The Macedonian language preceedes the existence of the Republic of Macedonia by ,at least, a number of decades. Dimadick (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So then why does the sentence say "The Republic of Macedonia"? Chaldean (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A little thing I like to call "present tense". Köbra Könverse 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Did the government of The Republic Of Macedonia existed in 1925, in that it argued its positition to anybody? Chaldean (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The letter Ü

Why was it necessary to represent /ʏ/? --Hegumen (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)