Talk:Bulgarian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject Bulgaria
Bulgaria Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-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.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list for Bulgarian language: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] Moods

There seem to be at least 6 grammatically distinct tenses in the subjunctive. However, some of them serve primarily in the formation of coplex verb forms like "I want to do" while others are colloquially used only to convey doubt (impossible to translate). Maybe these last ones should be separated their own dubitative mood, since they are not only semantically, but also gramatically distinct.

[edit] Consonants

Somebody please fix the table with the consonants because it doesn't have the dz sound. == I've weakened the claim that the suffixed article is an inheritance from Bulgar. First I've heard of it. But it might be true, so I haven't removed it entirely. I thought the orthodox story was that since Romanian, Bulgarian, and Albanian form a Sprachbund for the article, and neither the Romance nor Slavonic branches otherwise have it, it must have been an Albanian innovation. I don't know anything about Bulgar, not even what branch of 'Altaic' it was in, but neither Mongolian nor Turkish has a definite article. (Turkish omits accusative marking on indefinite objects.) Gritchka 19:30 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Romanians and Bulgarians had direct commercial/cultural links since the Bulgarians came in the Balkans and about 1000 years ago there was even a Romanian-Bulgarian common state, but both Romanians and Bulgarians had almost no link with Albanians that could bring an article.
A better explanation is that the Tracians had this suffixed article since Thracians were living in Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. Albanians may have directly inherited it (since Albanians are direct descendents of the Thracians), Romanians kept it from the Dacian language (a Thracian dialect) into the Latin after the Roman conquest and Bulgarians, establishing themselves in a region already inhabited by Thracians, add it into their language. Bogdan 11:52, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
A very similiar suffixised article exists in Aramiac and other west semitic languages, a diliact of Aramiac which was lingua franca in a large area circa 1st cent may have gotten in the Bugarian, including a great mixure of people from turkey for example. AFAIK, there aren't definate conclusions yet.
I'll start an article about Balkan linguistic union in the next week. :-) Bogdan | Talk 10:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It may be helpful to include Bulgarian grammar here. [[User:Poccil|Poccil (Talk)]] 22:36, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian naysayers

In Routledge's The Slavonic Languages, edited by Bernard Comrie, the section on Bulgarian explains that it is really only the Bulgarian and Greek linguists who do not recognise Macedonian as a separate language, whilst the general community of linguists does. I've highlighted that accordingly. Crculver 10:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Bulgarian

  • I've updated the history of Bulgarian using the aforementioned work The Slavonic Languages. I also emphasized that while Bulgarian is descended from Old Church Slavonic, so as other languages in the Balkan region, and therefore the name "Old Bulgarian" is considered an anachronism by reputable modern linguists. Crculver 16:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Juro 16:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

===VMORO

Generally agree with most of the edits but I've made some corrections. 1. A.Schleicher, M.Hatala and L.Geitler in the 19th century talk about Old Bulgarian and I have reflected that. 2. No Bulgarian linguist (and as far as I am aware, no Greek one) has ever recognised the Macedonian language, so the definition "most" is incorrect.

[edit] Just an observation

It's so comfortable that you two (Crculver and Juro) turned out logged at the same time and Crculver just happened to look the things we were arguing about with Juro in the dictionary...

Are you suggesting that Juro is identical with Crculver?!!! Juro 11:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it's silly to suggest that there's some sort of conspiracy. In the summer I spend a good 16 hours a day at the computer, so there's no surprise that I am logged in at the same time as someone else. Furthermore, I am a philologist, so it's quite understandable that I have a large library which I can consult for my work, including a number of works on Slavonic comparative linguistics. Incidentally, you would do well to take a look at some of those works, because you are generally editing from a Bulgarian-centric viewpoint, whereas I would prefer you support the international viewpoint that, among other things, recognises Macedonian as a separate language for centuries. Crculver 14:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • All linguists in Greece and Bulgaria are united in Not recognising the Macedonian language, as well as some foreign linguists (certainly a minority), for ex. Austrian Otto Kronsteiner. What my opinion is is irrelevant, I am just stating the facts. If I edited from a "Bulgarian-centric viewpoint", I would have said smth like "Macedonian language does not exist and has never existed, it is a southwestern Bulgarian dialect". As for "the international viewpoint, which recognises Macedonian as a separate language for centuries", that is certainly untrue in its "centuries" part.
Articles with definite article are something normal and used without any help words,
e.g. English "the new one" is Bulgarian 'noviat'.

This phrase is not very clear. What do you mean by "Articles with definite article" ? Noviat looks like an adjectiv (novi) + definite article (-iat). Bogdan | Talk 13:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering whether the meaning is equivalent to the Romanian: (Noul = adj. "nou" + article. "-l")

example:
Rom: "Noul este superior vechiului".
Eng: "What's new is superior to what's old".

Bogdan | Talk 13:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was a mistake, it is an adjective.

As for the sentence, it's pretty much like Romanian: "Новото е по-добро от старото" ново - new, neutr. sing то - neutr. art.

Though I must confess the sentence sounds a bit strange in Bulgarian

VMORO

"Bulgarian demonstrates several linguistic innovations that set it apart from other Slavic languages, such as the elimination of noun declension, the development of a suffixed definite article (possibly inherited from the Bulgar language), the lack of a verb infinitive, and the retention and further development of the Proto-Slavic verb system. There are various verb forms to express non-witnessed, retold, and doubtful action."

I replaced 'innovations' with developments. The connotation of 'innovation' implies an improvement upon previous circumstances. The word 'development' captures the same denotation without implying improvement. It is important to highlight Bulgarian's unique characteristics in comparison to other languages in the surrounding area (Macedonian, Albanian, Romanian) and in contrast to other languages of the Slavic branch, but this should be done in neutral language. It is no more an innovation of Bulgarian's to move away from synthetic structure than it as an innovation of Estonian's to move toward it (from agglutinative).

Nationalism and linguistics do not go well together. Norwegian and Danish are mutually intelligible and far more dialects than separate languages, but one does not see any hissy-fits over the matter on their wiki articles.

the word 'innovations' is used in this mannar in the lingiustic jargon, meaning something like 'a mutation ie, not borrowed or inherited', and does not try to imply improvement in such context, I believe this was naive jargon use rather than 'nationalism'
That's right, there is nothing remotely nationalistic or emotional about the word "innovation" as used in a linguistic sense. It simply means that a grammatical feature was newly created and introduced, and not borrowed from another language or inherited from a parent language. It's an innocent word.
— Stephen 12:03, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bolgar words

Are there any words in Bulgarian that definitely derive from the Bolgars? Alexander 007

If you mean these: [1] and [2], but I warn you that many words are wrongly added. Bogdan | Talk 11:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Many of those alleged "Turkic" words are in fact from other sources (Romanian, Slavonic, possibly even Thracian, etc.). In fact, one of these lists (if not both) I've looked through before. I was amused to see the attempted derivation of calugar from Turkic. Alexander 007

[edit] Elimination of Noun Declension

"Bulgarian demonstrates several linguistic developments that set it apart from other Slavic languages, such as the elimination of noun declension..."

Isn't the Vocativus case preserved in Bulgarian? as in "дай ми бабо, дай ми я", a google search shows these forms are still used online.

Of course the Vocative case is still preserved, it is used regularly, but there are no other cases.

[edit] Old Church Slavonic connection needs work

This article needs to explain that while some Old Church Slavonic texts can be termed Old Bulgarian, others cannot. Cyril and Methodius never set foot in Bulgaria, coming from Thessaloniki. In instructing the Slavs of Moravia they used general Proto-South-Slavonic, and the translations and writings which were created by the Moravian students (such as the Kiev Folia) were too far north to suffer any Bulgarian influence. It is only in the texts first written after the explusion within the Kingdom of Bulgaria that there is any influence from the language of the Bulgarians. Furthermore, this explanation should be done succinctly, as anything too specific would rather go on the Old Church Slavonic page. Crculver 10:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid we know who will not allow any mention of these facts ...Juro 22:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a large redaction. I have removed any information which is too pertinent only to Old Church Slavonic. VMORO et al, you are welcome to move those statements to the Old Church Slavonic article and put them into better shape there. Conciseness is to be desired in an encyclopedia article, and if someone wanted to see polemics about OCS, they can look at the OCS article. No use wasting them time of people who are mostly reading about later forms of the language. I have tried to clarify that only the OCS writings made within Bulgarian can be fairly well called "Old Bulgarian", as the manuscripts from the Moravian tradition have no connection to Bulgaria at all, but I might try to polish this more later Crculver 00:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you with the exception of one single thing: The phonological and grammatical peculiarities found in Old Church Slavonic are characteristic only for Bulgarian, what do you mean by terming them vaguely South Slavic? As from the 9th/10th century we can talk about several distinct Slavic nations, and if South Slavic can be deemed an term for the 6th and the 7th century, it is not for the 9th century. I'll see what I can do to shorten the text here tomorrow. VMORO
I will be removing the things again from the article. If you want to fight this, I will submit this to Requests for Mediation. I have at my desk a mountain of scholarly works, quotation of which will serve to show that you are attempting to deny the real state of things for nationalistic reasons. I can also present the testimony of several professors of comparative Slavonic linguistics who are unhappy with this kind of slant.
And I will repeat once again, Cyril and Methodius never set foot in the Kingdom of Bulgaria. Ever. Any "Bulgarian features" which show up in the northern OCS manuscripts can only be due to the fact that they are general South Slavonic features, found at the time among the non-Bulgarian Slavonic community of Thessaloniki. Crculver 03:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And which is:...??? VMORO
I'm going to spell this out very simply, pay attention. 1) Cyril and Methodius were from Thessaloniki, they never went to Bulgarian. 2) Therefore, their own language cannot be called "Old Bulgarian". 3) The Kiev Folia, the text of which was produced by their Moravian students, contains many of the same linguistic features present in Bulgaria, but was in no way influenced by Bulgarian. 4) Therefore, those linguistics features cannot be called "Bulgarian", for they are not specific to it, but must be generally called South Slavonic. This is what reputable linguistics do. See Schlamstieg, Nandris, Huntley, Schenker, etc. etc. If you disagree with this, you not only disagree with the bulk of comparative Slavonic scholarship (which already suggests you're wrong), but with simple logic. Crculver 03:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May be I should spell out my question for you: if they are not Bulgarian, what were they? And since when the language of a people corresponds to its borders? And sure, Juro, that separate Slavic languages can be distinguished long before the 11th century, there is something called comparative linguistics. VMORO
They are "South Slavs". That is what they are called by reputable scholars. They cannot be called Bulgarians because Thessaloniki was outside of the area where the Bulghars, the biggest element of a distinct Bulgarian people back then, settled. Incidentally, Juro is correct. There are comparative linguists who venture that Common Slavonic lasted up to the 13th century. I'll find some names for you. Crculver 04:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am actually satisfied with your answer - for the time being. I haven't forgotten my promise. Cheers, VMORO

Exactly... I can only add that it is even disputed whether one can distinguish separate Slavic languages before the 11th century... Juro 03:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Online Dictionary

There should be a better online Bulgarian-English dictionary than the one provided by the link below the article. Alexander 007

I agree, it's really horrible. It would be better to have nothing at all. There is an online dictionary at http://sa.dir.bg/ that is very fast and easy to use. It needs work, but it's useful just as it is.
— Stephen 13:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. The Dictionary you linked to is what I was looking for.Alexander 007 02:02, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palatal plosives

Quote:

Soft /g/ and /k/ (/gʲ/ and /kʲ/, respectively) are articulated not on the velum but on the palatum and are palatal consonants.

In that case, shouldn't they be /ɟ/ and /c/ rather than /gʲ/ and /kʲ/?
—Naddy 17:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are /ɟ/ and /c/ plosives? 'Cause as far as I remember they were fricatives whereas k' and g' are plosives. VMORO 20:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)~
/c/ and /ɟ/ are plosives, though to speakers of a language without them they'll sound a little like affricates /tʃ/ and /dʒ/. But the palatalised consonants in Slavic languages are different from palatal consonants, as I understand things. Palatal /c/, for example, is made with the tip of the tongue touching the palate, while palatalised /kʲ/ seems to me to be made the back of the tongue touching the velum, as with a regular /k/, but slightly further forward than /k/; foreign learners are encouraged to do this by simultaneously pronouncing a palatal approximant /j/... so, in short, the article's wrong. ;o) J.K. 07:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are free to correct it in this case:-)))) Your assumptions are basically correct with one exception - soft "k" and "g" are pronounced much more forward than the hard ones and they are articulated not with the back of the tongue but with the middle part of it. VMORO 13:40, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)~
No worries, the pronunciation section's been fixed. (I'm learning Polish at the moment and had a hell of a time with palatals, so any advice from someone who's been using them since birth is more than welcome. ;o) J.K. 12:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So how do the Polish palatals ź [ʑ], ś [ɕ], dź [dʑ], ć [tɕ] relate to the Bulgarian ones? Is, say, [ʑ] vs. [zʲ] just a difference in notation or are these actually different consonants? —Naddy 12:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to answer again that I don't know as I am not a Slavist and do not have a good idea of Polish consonants. [zʲ] in Bulgarian is a normal "z" with a [ʲ] nuance, the Polish one seems to be a bit more like /ʒ/... VMORO 22:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)~

I'll have to correct you - k' and g' are indeed palatals (at least in Bulgarian) and are articulated on the palatum. I am a linguist, though unfortunately not a Slavist:-(( VMORO 19:02, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)~

Hmmm. I take your point, but nevertheless those sounds are quite distinct from /c/ and /ɟ/. It may only be a matter of the part of the tongue they're articulated with (tip and/or blade for /c/ and middle for /kʲ/), but as things stand people still might mix them up. How to phrase it to make the difference clear? J.K. 23:35, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't have even the slightest idea:-))) I guess the greatest confusion will be the link to voiced/voiceless palatal plosive as people will surely think then it is /c/ and /ɟ/ we are talking about and not k' anf g'...

VMORO 15:07, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I think that we really should have [c] and [ɟ] instead of /kj/ and /gj/ as they are palatals in Bulgarian. OK, [c] in BG doesn't sound exactly like hungarian [c] (<ty>), but there has got to be some consistency, it doesn't make sense to have [c] in Greek & Slavo-Macedonian and [kʲ] in Bulgarian since in all 3 languages 'k' before front vowels is a palatal consonant—[c]—and not a velar one. Also there is a slight difference in the place of articulation of к and г before о/у and а/ъ. In the former case they're articulated on the velum and in the latter the tongue slightly shifts towards the palate.

[edit] Cyrillic italics vs. bold or underlining

Just a note about the italicizing of Bulgarian examples in the Morphology section.... I agree that the italics look nicer than bolding, but they are a problem for anyone who is not comfortable with the Cyrillic script. I have no problem with them, but most foreigners seem to have difficulty reading them. Consider, for example, глътки на дърветата, глътки на дърветата, глътки на дърветата, глътки на дърветата, глътки на дърветата, глътки на дърветата. In my opinion, we should not be using italics for any of the Bulgarian examples, but should use one of the other styles that I have shown here. —Stephen 11:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it will probably cause difficulties for them, I chose italics only because the other language articles I checked use italics when examples from the mother tongue are quoted. If you consider that underlining or the two other scripts you quoted are a better option, feel free to reformat the text. VMORO 13:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)~

[edit] Clitic doubling

I'm the editor of the article on clitic doubling, but unfortunately I only know about it as it works Spanish. Could someone enlighten me about clitic doubling in Bulgarian? I know that it exists and it has certain particular rules,[3] but that's it. I'd like to have some input from native speakers. Clitic doubling is, roughly, when you mention e. g. the object of a verb, and you also use a pronoun that refers to it: "I gave her a present to my mother." It'd be nice to mention clitic doubling in the Bulgarian language article, too. --Pablo D. Flores 15:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

There is clitic doubling but it is mostly emphatic. You could say: Аз го дадох подаръка на майка ми - I gave it the present to my mother. Or: Аз й го дадох подаръка на майка ми - I gave her it the present to my mother. If one speaks formally, the sentence will, however, have to be: I gave the present to my mother. It is rather colloquial and that's why it is not treated extensively in grammars. VMORO 23:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I've added the info to the article in a new "Syntax" section. However, now clitic doubling is all I know about Bulgarian syntax. :) I've marked the section as stub. --Pablo D. Flores 10:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have fixed the examples to use "ѝ" instead of "й", as that is the correct way to write the single dative female pronoun ("to her"). Lots of Bulgarians use "й" instead of "ѝ", as the traditional Bulgarian keyboard layouts do not offer an easy way to stress words. However, using "й" or just "и" is incorrect. It really should be "ѝ". I also updated the section for Word Stress to mention this rule. Ironcode 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vowels

Kostja, there are three different types of "a" (or may be even many more), a front one, a central one and a back one. In languages which don't differentiate between them, they are just allophones.

For the second, phonetics is a relative science and in different languages, the same vowels/consonants are described in a completely different way. For one reason or another, "a" in Bulgarian is considered a central vowel - probably for the sake of conveniency as it makes pair with "ъ", which can not be described as anything else but a central vowel. You can check this in any textbook in Modern Bulgarian or any book in Bulgarian phonetics. When I wrote the Bulgarian language article, I have used primarily a Western textbook which also classified the vowel as central. VMORO 23:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the mid vowels (e and o) to be mid-high instead of mid-low, all of the literature I've read about Bulgarian (and I'll admit it's not much) say nothing about the vowels being mid-low. If someone can produce a source that indicates the vowels as mid-low then it'll be appropriate to change it back.AEuSoes1 03:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I am really not concerned about mid-low and mid-high, in a language with lax vowels such as Bulgarian, this is irrelevant. However, you keep changing the vowels [ɛ] [ɔ] to plain e and o and this is incorrect. e and o are much higher (or more closed) than [ɛ] and [ɔ] and they don't exist in Bulgarian or in any other Slavic language (may be with the exception of Slovenian). There are several grades of shading between o and u and a and @ (2 in the first pair and 3 in the second one), depending on the position of the vowel with regard to the stressed syllable. And finally, shading between i and e is the norm in most Eastern Bulgarian dialects but it is not ALLOWED in the formal language (for example, not [rika] but only [reka] without any shading). I have used mostly a compilation by Routledge on all Slavic languages - for the sake of English terminology. Otherwise, I draw on the classes in Modern Bulgarian which I've had at the university - I am a linguist. VMORO 21:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


All right, I guess that works. Since those are the vowels, I'll change the whole article to fit it since the changes that you are holding to make the article inconsistant. I will, however, revert my other changes. The phrase "approaching each other, though without merging completely" doesn't make sense. "Allowed" is a prescriptive term and if it's only for the formal language then that should be in the article. AEuSoes1 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The phrase which you questioned - There are several grades of shading between o and u and a and @ (2 in the first pair and 3 in the second one), depending on the position of the vowel with regard to the stressed syllable - if you can think of a better way to put it, pls do. VMORO 08:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


  • I think the value for ъ in stressed position should be marked as [ɘ] or at least as [ɤ̟] given that cardinal [ɤ] is a back vowel, whereas ъ is central and it kinda makes no sense. Also, all possible srcs I've found online give sound examples of [ɤ] that sound really distinct from BG ъ. Here are some: src 1, src 2, scr 3. Also, in 'Houston/Хюстън' <ъ> is NOT stressed therefore it should be marked as [ə] (or even [ɐ] if you want, but this only applies to really careful and well-articulated speech).

[edit] Perfective/Imperfective Pairs

Regarding the paragraph:Most Bulgarian verbs have perfective-imperfective pairs (imperfective<>perfective: идвам<>дойда “come”, уча<>науча “study”). Perfective stems are usually formed from imperfective ones by suffixation or prefixation.

I don't think pairs of the kind уча<>науча are considered perfective-imperfective pairs anymore. Although науча is derived from уча using a prefix, these are considered two separate words with two separate, although close, meanings. The imperfective counterpart of науча is научавам. These two are considered by some to be different forms of the same word. Уча is an imerfective verb without perfective counterpart. The prefix на- adds a sense of completion, but IMHO that is not equivalnt to "perfectiveness". The verb уча refers to the process of just studying something, while the verb науча refers to the proces of studiyng and rememberring something in its entirety. The later process may be reffered in both perfective (науча) and imperfective manner(научавам).

It is the same way with other preficess, and much easier to comprehend when the meaning the prefix adds to te word is not completion: from пиша (to write): запиша - записвам (to write down), опиша - описвам (to describe), подпиша - подписвам (to sign), etc., I dont see a reason why the pair напиша - написвам should be treated differently, or as in the example above, науча - научавам.

I wanted to hear some oppinions before I made any changes.--Beesuke 6 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

You are partially right but only partially. What is the perfective counterpart of уча in this case? Non-existent? науча may be a separate word but with regard to уча, it is used as the verb's perfective counterpart. науча can form a perfective-imperfective pair with научавам, as well - I don't see what is so confusing in that... A language is, anyway, a living organism, formal criteria can facilitate its understanding but they are not all-valid. VMORO 08:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It's better to think of verbs like уча, науча, научавам or пиша, напиша, написвам as a triad - the first verb is imperfective, the second - perfective and the third - secondary imperfective, because in most other non-slavic languages they would be translated by just one verb (for example in English the slight change in meaning which occurs when adding the prefix на- is unimportant and the last three verbs all mean "to write"). Arath 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are some verbs in Bulgarian thatbhave only imperfective stems - like уча. Adding the prefix in this case changes the meaning - slightly.

[edit] population

Does anyone have a source for the native speaking population of Bulgarian? Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece, Romania, and Moldova together constitue 6.7 million, but this article has 16 million (presumably not all native speakers). Thanks, kwami 07:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The population of Bulgaria is 7.7 million, however how many speakers of Bulgarian exist in Greece, Turkey, Macedonia, Albania, Moldova, Ukraine and Romania is something I'm afraid nobody can tell for sure. Numbers vary a lot.

I think that the Bulgarian speaking population is even around 10 million people, and Macedonian language is highly inteligible with Bulgarian. Actually a lot of specialists think that it's a dialect of Bulgarian. For example in Northern Greece, in the European part of Turkey, in the Dobrudja (Добруджа) region in Romania and in Southeastern Serbia thirty or fourty years ago the main population spoke Bulgarian. In official documents are declared 7.7 million speakers because of political reasons. In short: on the Balkans everything is too confused, so I think we should use only official facts because other nations can feel offended.Trutnuth 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common expressions

Could someone who speaks Bulgarian check on my edit? I'm not sure if I'm legitimatizing a vandal or not. Thanks. Melchoir 05:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

               Your list of expressions is OK! L.Kolev

[edit] Spelling Reform of 1945

Can anyone please write something about the spelling reform of 1945? Particularly what interets me is:

  • How were yat and yus pronounced before they were removed?
  • Was the iotated yus used considered a separate letter? How was it pronounced?
  • Was the Ъ at the end of the word completely unpronounced in speech by that time? When did disappear from speech?
  • I saw in an old dctionary that the word for "language" was written язикъ and now it is written език. What was the rule for replacing я with е?
  • What other changes were made?

There are also the non-linguistic matters:

  • What was the public reaction in Bulgaria?
  • Who initiated the reform? The Russians or someone else?
  • Are there today any advocates for going back to the old spelling?

Thank you very much in advance!--Amir E. Aharoni 20:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The yus was (and still is) pronounced as Ъ in standard Bulgarian, мъка (variations у, мука in the Torlak dialects, a, мака in the Macedonian dialects and o, мока in the Rodopian dialects.
  • There was a rul that the yat should be pronounced the way it's written now but it was never concidered obligatory - the tsar for example and a lot of the MPs followed strictly the western pronunciation - бел - бели, and not as the rule says бял - бели.
  • The iotated yus was concidered a separate letter but was removed by Marin Drinov in his reform in the 1880s.
  • The final Ъ lost its pronunciation in the 15th century.
  • Язикъ is a russism, the norm was езикъ, now език.
  • The reform was generally accepted cause it was seen as necessary but a lot of speakers of western dialects and especially the Macedonians from Pirin Macedonian and the diaspora wanted to keep the yat as a unifing letter although not on its ethimological place but only when the western and eastern prounuciantion differ. But there wasn't really any room for public debate in 1945.
  • The reform was purely Bulgarian deed.
  • There are some right wing cultural and political organisation (like VMRO-BND) which advocate reintroduction only of the yat. Miko Stavrev.

Actually the spelling reform had a trial run in 1921-23 under the Stamboliyski government. It was abolished after the June 9, 1923 coup. --Vladko 07:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • ѫ was pronounced as ъ at least where we have it today, here are a few examples from something printed before 1945: хвѫрчѫ, спѫ, бѫдѫще, потѫнала, рѫка, мѫгли гѫсти, дѫбѫтъ and so forth. As for the yat, now this is a tough one, based on what I've heard from migrants who've left bulgaria before 1945 I'd say that it was pronounced as 'е' in positions where there is я today, those illiterate morons who call themselves 'journalists' and who constantly mangle the BG language made fun of Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha for saying „вервайте ми” instead of „вярвайте ми”. However, it should be clear that my observations are based mostly on listening to people who used to live in Sofia before they fled. I guess back then speaking in your local dialect was not deemed as something negative. Also, my guess is that in the eastern half of the country it was pronounced as 'я', but not in every single position of course. I can't possibly imagine anybody pronouncing „съвѣсть” or „цѣна” or „очитѣ” with /ja/ (well, at least in the late 19th/early 20th century).
  • I managed to find Ѭ only in Найден Геров's dictionary, in the two other books I have from before 1945 (one from 1932 and the other from the 1880s) there is no such letter. In Gerov's dictionary there is a separate entry for Ѭ so my assumption is that it had the status of a separate letter and it was pronounced the way 'я' is. However, you should note that he considers „ш, ч, ж” to be 'soft' consonants and he writes it (along with я) after them.
  • All weak ers began to drop out of pronunciation during the Old Bulgarian period and by the end of it they were gone. For your information weak are the ers:
  1. In word-final position.
  2. Before a syllable containing a vowel different than er.
  3. All odd ers in a word with more than 2 consecutive er-containing syllables.
  • Erm, pretty much the same rule that lead to using the north-eastern dialects as a basis for the standard language... I guess. You can still hear the word „язик” in western bulgaria.
Well what you've written is not entirely true, because today's Bulgarian ъ does not represent only big yus, it also represents the yers. For example the word сърце has never been pronounced сѫрце. You can see that in many Slavic languages it is not written at all: срце (in Serbian and Macedonian, it would be сурце and сарце if it contained ѫ). In Russian ѫ gave у and ъ gave о, so: сънъ gave сон, рѫка - рука, ѫгълъ - угол, сѫобщение - сообщение. So it is хвърчѫ and спѭ, not хвѫрчѫ, спѫ,(you say аз спя not аз спа). Here´s a list that might help you. Arath 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Also. In the eastern dialects ѣ is pronounced я when it is stressed and the next syllable does not contain е or и (of course there are some exceptions) . That's why nobody pronounces „съвѣсть”, „цѣна” and „очитѣ” with я, because ѣ is not stressed. Arath 09:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic in Wikipedia

Please see the new page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), aimed at

  1. Documenting the use of Cyrillic and its transliteration in Wikipedia
  2. Discussing potential revision of current practices

—Michael Z. 2005-12-9 20:39 Z

Italics in Cyrillics:
A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

To my consideration the deffinite article suffix is not used in that way! The article ending depends on what the word ends. You have "bashta" (father), which is a noun in masculine gender, but the definite form is "bashtata( the father). "Dyado" (grandfather), again in masculine gender has a defenite form of "dyadoto, etc. As I am no linguist please consult the Petar Pashov book "Prakticheska balgarska gramatica" (Practical Bulgarian Grammar).

[edit] Tourist phrases

I removed the section containing "common phrases". If you wish to show examples of Bulgarian, please do so by excerpts of literary works, not by listing ways of how to buy bread or to greet someone. We already have list of common phrases in various languages for this purpose, eventhough I personally think it belongs in a wikibook, rather than an encyclopedia.

Peter Isotalo 12:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of referenced material

The IPA handbook has been removed from the reference section twice now, along with reverts of the very useful and illustrative vowel chart and kwami's corrections concerning some of the fricatives. I really don't understand the point of removing the only source the article has in favor of innacurate information as well as the information attached to it.

Peter Isotalo 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh man, I didn't even see that reference at the bottom. I apologize. Kwami's corrections are correct as far as the Bulgarian postalveolars not being Russian, but considering that most readers of the page will be unfamiliar with the minute details of Russian phonetics and the Russian phonemes chart has a different symbol for its postalveolar sound anyway, it seems unnecessary, especially in a table. I also think that since the page that is linked to is called "postalveolar" and the official IPA chart labels those sounds postalveolar that it's best to keep it simple and call these sounds "postalveolar" here as well.
Both Russian and Bulgarian postalveolars are often transcribed with the same symbols. There have been some recent reversions on the Russian article to ʃ and ʒ, just like Bulgarian. Also, a lot of people coming to the various Slavic language articles will have some knowledge of Russian, and might think that Bulgarian has been similarly mistranscribed. Combine the two, and a heads-up might prove worthwhile. kwami 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You are right, an illistrative vowel chart is very useful. My understanding of how the vowel charts work is that you don't put allophones on it. I suppose we could alter the image and put the allophonic vowels in parenthesis. AEuSoes1 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Usually it's limited to phonemes, but in this case there's obviously not a problem since there are so few phonetic vowels to deal with. The chart is also explained quite clearly in the paragraph right below it. And no matter what, removing a perfectly correct chart altogether is the least constructive solution.
Peter Isotalo 15:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gross misinformation

Look: I don't care where you took this chart from, remember well: Bulgarian has six vowels, SIX, SIX, SIX and NOT eight. There are four other allophones (two between a and @ and two between o and u), which appear in unstressed syllables depending on the position of the unstressed syllable to the stressed syllable within a certain word. If you are posting also allophones and not only phonemes (the reasonable question is why you are doing this but we'll deal with this some other time), then the vowel chart should include all ten of them and not only eight with information which is an allophone and which is a phoneme. But you don't know that, do you?

Then we get to another reasonable question: why do you think that you can erase the whole vowel section with the vowel descriptions? Ha?

So: you post a chart which is WRONG and then you erase a section which is RIGHT. What the hell are you doing? I am getting tired of non-experts who read something somewhere and then come and try to wreak havoc on articles which they understand nothing about. A couple of months ago, one user was trying to change the article Bulgaria because he had read that the Bulgarians were descendants of the Shumers. In two words, your edit is pretty much of the same value and worth. For the phonetics section here, I've used the Routledge compendium on Slavic languages (1991) and the newest Bulgarian edition of New Bulgarian - phonetics, grammar and syntax. Please, consult any book on Bulgarian phonetics before you come again with this vowel chart. VMORO 14:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing has been removed, VMORO. I only summarized the previous information, which is overly verbose at times. And it would be really helpful if you made proper refernces to your sources. You're specifying no authors, no ISBNs and, as far as I can tell, titles that don't exist.
Peter Isotalo 15:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil, and stop removing referenced material

VMORO, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and edit summaries like "I'll remove whatever I wish" are inappropriate here. So are the slurs against other editors' level of knowledge that I see above. Please review WP:NPA. Please discontinue this unconstructive revert warring and pull in your horns. Wikipedia runs on civility. If I don't see a change I intend to either protect the article or—if you continue to post this intemperately—block you for disruption. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Followup: Well, that was roundly ignored. I have blocked VMORO for 24 hours for unrepentant edit warring and disruption, specifically for this edit summary. Wikipedia runs on civility. Bishonen | talk 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So anyway, I looked here [4] and it also verifies that Bulgarian has six vowel phonemes. I suggest that whoever can do so should take the vowel chart that's been made and edit it to either remove the allophones or put them in parenthesis. It is fairly misleading to put eight vowels in a language that has only six, even if there is a detailed paragraph underneath explaining which ones are allophones. AEuSoes1 20:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, why don't you make an effort and contact the creator of the images, Aeusoes? It sure would be a lot more constructive than just removing them or supporting the idea that no vowel chart at all is better than a vowel chart with allophones in it.
Peter Isotalo 15:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I actually stopped removing the chart since I figured it could be edited. But before the chart was put in, the article had a little table to indicate vowels which is certainly not nothing. AEuSoes1 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You try to be civil and stop removing referenced material

So, one of the sources, which I've used used is already added, the other one will follow later today when I check the name. So, let's see if you are gonna remove referenced material. As regards who's the author of the article you need to contact - well, that's me, feel free to contact me. VMORO 10:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balkan Slavic Future tenses

Expand this article please Balkan Slavic Future tenses Bonaparte talk 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it because you just copyvio'd it from Tomić's paper — interesting as it was... - FrancisTyers 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish/Ottoman

Just an outsider's 2 cents: I noticed there was a bout of reverting here about a sentence dealing with Turkish/Ottoman, which was in danger of being drawn into an apparently ongoing edit war. I'm not going to comment on the behaviour of the parties involved, but I'd like to point out that I find this addition by User:81.213.83.14 somewhat unfortunate: "the Turkish language, which was the official language of Ottoman empire along with Ottoman language (which was a version of Turkish)." [5] It may be useful in some contexts to distinguish (modern) Turkish proper from Ottoman, but it seems to make little sense to treat the two as if they had been two separate, contemporary forms side by side with each other. "Ottoman" didn't exist "along with" the official language of the Ottoman empire, it surely was that official language? Lukas 14:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vowel Chart

I am hereby placing the vowel chart on the talk page until it is brought into conformity with the actual state of affairs in the Bulgarian language: Standard Bulgarian vowels

VMORO 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The chart has been taken from the Bulgarian section of the IPA handbook which has been compiled by Elmar Ternes and Tatjana Vladimirova-Buhtz and I've pointed out many times that all the vowels are not meant to indicate phonemes and I've made this very clear in the article as well. The chart was made by IceKarma based on photos of the vowel charts in the handbook taken by me, since I was the one who asked him to do it.
As for the analysis of 6 phonemes with 4 allophones, which VMORO is insisting on, this is exactly what the info in the handbook says, except that that the allophones of two of the phoneme pairs are identical. This is pretty much the same as what the current info says, except that the current info is a lot more vague.
The symbols used are really a matter of finer detail on the part of the vowel chart makers. [ə] is quite close to [ɤ] and choosing the latter symbol is much more sensible, since it is a near-back vowel. The same goes for [ɐ], which is also very close to [ə]. Using schwa for both [ɐ] and [ɤ] would be to over-simplify an already quite uncomplicated vowel system.
Peter Isotalo 15:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be to over-simplify it, cause it's really that simple! Like VMORO, I am a native speaker of Bulgarian. We speak Bulgarian and we know what vowels we pronounce, when we speak. I myself might not be a philologist, but I am very interested in linguistics and, especially, phonetics and I also believe I am a well educated person, who speaks correct Bulgarian (I've been working as a journalist). Considering all this, you shoul not only believe VMORO, but me too, when we tell you that there are 6 vowels in Bulgarian, that is all. It's a nice and simple vowel system, which I am proud of, unlike the awfully complex vowel systems of all Germanic languages.
Please, don't take that as a personal insult, especially since its not your fault what your language sounds like and you haven't chosen it :) I just don't like it that you people up there North have so many freaking vowels, large groups of which sound like mere variations of one vowel, which we have to twist our mouths and make strange faces in order to pronounce correctly :) (Note that I'm not saying they are not separate vowels, cause I for one know they are, I'm just saying that, to an average Bulgarian, they sound the same). It's all a real mess for any Bulgarian (likewise an Italian or Spaniard, I guess), who tries to learn English, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, etc. But what is worse is that for speakers of those Germanic languages, who don't know linguistics and phonetics, it's equally hard to comprehend the simplicity of our nice 6 vowels, so it always an agony to try and explain to them the pronunciation of even one simple Bulgarian word. I've also had frustrating arguments with friends of mine from New Zealand, who don't believe me, when I tell them their "e" (as in "pet") sounds similar to the "i" (as in "pit") of other English speakers - so, in their NZ accent, the word "pet" e.g. sounds like "pit". They claim it's completely different, believe it or not! This is because they have so many forms of "i", perceived as separate vowels, that they can't comprehend that for us it all sounds like "i", cause we only have one form of it. Of course, all I've said in this paragraph is just my personal opinion - other people may like the diversity of the Germanic phonetic systems more than the simplicity of the ones of Bulgarian, Italian, etc. :)
Anyway, I digress. The main thing I wanted to say was: please, leave our language alone and don't confuse readers with vowel charts like that one. We don't need such "finer detail on the part of the vowel chart makers", when we don't actually have that detail in the language. There is no need for 2 or 3 symbols for just one vowel, which can simply be represented with the schwa - it's the closed one of the central pair of vowels, the "a" being the open one. It was also awfully hard for me to explain to those same NZ friends of mine how that vowel is pronounced in Bulgarian, which is amazing, considering how often it occurs (though apparently in variations) in English. I would have expected that from native speakers of Italian, Spanish or Russian, where they don't even have that vowel, but I didn't expect it from native English speakers :( The problem is for them there seem to be several different [ə] sounds in English and they are all different from the Bulgarian one. For me they all sound similar to it. Don't get me wrong - I don't deny the existence of the numerous vowels in Germanic languages - I'm just happy we only have six and I don't have to moo like a cow etc., when I speak my language :P And I believe it should be represented in the article exactly that way - i.e. I support keeping the current version of the disputed section or revising the vowel chart before putting it back in there. Christomir

Christomir: Your conversation with your NZ friends is typical for laypeople. An important concept in linguistic is that of a phoneme. This is what should be depicted in a phonology chart. The vowels in <pit> and <pet> are different phonemes in English (see English phonology. The distinction between phonemes is often difficult for a non-native speaker. On the other hand, there are variations in the pronunciation of phonemes according to the context (called allophones). These variations are mostly done unconsciously and therefore are not perceived by a native speaker, but they are noticed by non-native speakers. The actual pronunciation of phonemes is the subject of the discipline of phonetics. I do not speak or understand Bulgarian, but it appears to me that there are indeed six vowel phonemes in Bulgarian. These phonemes may differ in pronunciation, depending on if they occur in stressed or unstressed position, and on regional variations (see: Accent (linguistics)). A vowel chart as the one at the top of this section cannot accurately represent the phonemes, because each entry consists of an IPA symbol and therefore a specific pronunciation. A better choice would be to have a table with the six phonemes, showing their "standard" pronunciation in stressed and unstressed position. (By "standard" I mean how an educated person would speak in a neutral context, such as a news show in TV). However, because native speakers untrained in linguistic usually do not hear the difference of variants in pronunciation of a phoneme, it is important to consult scientific sources about Bulgarian phonetics. This is mandatory according to Wikipedia guidelines: judging from your own experience as a native speaker would be original research and is not permissible. Andreas 15:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said I thought the vowels in pit and pet in New Zealand English are the same, because I realize that (even in that) they are different phonemes. (In other forms of English they are completely different and almost the same as the Bulgarian "i" and "e".) I just said they sounded similar for us Bulgarians and the New Zealand "e" sounded almost the same as the "i" of non-New Zealand English. But my friend claimed they were completely different, which you have to admit they are not (though I don't know if you people have ever listened to a Kiwi speaking :P). She also claimed that all the [ə]'s in English were different, e.g. the vowel in fur was completely different from the one in stolen. In that case I'm not sure if English phonetics says they are different phonemes or not, but I'm sure for a Bulgarian they sound exactly the same, only one is stressed and the other is not. But, anyway, the subject here is the vowels in Bulgarian, rather than those in English. With all I've been saying I just wanted to show how complicated the vowel system of some languages is and how simple the one of Bulgarian is in comparison. And I'm glad it is :) Christomir
I don't think that Christomir was providing original research, he was backing up other sources. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any vowel charts that put in unstressed allophones the way the Bulgarian chart has. This vowel chart for Amharic does, but indicates the allophones the way I mentioned before, with parenthesese. I contacted IceKarma but he doesn't seem to be responding and I don't know how to upload pictures. AEuSoes1 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Amharic vowel chart.png

Bulgarian has six vowel phonemes. No has questioned this even once, but I'm glad we've cleared it up once and for all.
There is a problem here, though. There is no such thing as "standard pronunciation" of any IPA vowel. IPA symbols technically represent cardinal vowels, which are theoretical entities. There are languages that have vowel position which match the theoretical cardinal positions almost exactly, but these are mostly exceptions. Using typed characters for symbols is very ambiguous, and much more prone to dispute, since any vowel that happens to be between two cardinal positions could very well be argued to be either symbol. For example, [u] and [o] or [y] and [ø], or in this case [ɐ] and [ɤ]. Both could very well be interpreted as [ə], which is entirely unsatisfactory. For this reason a table is actually a rather poor alternative to a chart, and for other reasons as well. Displaying IPA as text is not possible on all computers. A vowel chart in the form of an image solves this problem universally and provides some reference when comparing to other languages. I'd also like to point out that the vowel chart depicts an educated form from of Standard Bulgarian, not some exotic rural dialect.
As for the issue of native speakers having some sort of last say over "their own" language article, I can only echo Andreas comments and point out that being a native speaker doesn't qualify you in the least to be a competent analyst of your own language. Native speaker input is always welcome and will often lead to great articles, but under no circumstances does it trump the contributions of non-natives.
Since I have consulted the source on Bulgarian phonology provided by VMORO without finding anything that actually contradicts the vowel chart I will reinsert the chart in the article with the appropriate comments. If anyone feels like removing it again, please accompany the removal with a detailed explanation as to why you feel it is wrong (the focus should be on "why" not "it is wrong") and why you feel entitled to reject the IPA handbook as a reliable source; i.e. violate Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm going to stress the importance of factual argumentation, because merely expressing an editorial opinion about the accuracy of a phonological fact is no more relevant than expressing an opinion about the density of chlorine or the coronation of Queen Victoria.
And please just drop the parenthasis quibble for now. I'm sure it'll be a great vowel chart once we get them in there, but removing it just because of a subjective triviality is pedantic beyond reason.
Peter Isotalo 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: the Amharic page has a chart and a table. No explanations are given there of what the parentheses stand for. Andreas 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: Andreas 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Image:Bulgarian vowel chart mod.png

Ahh, I am grateful! Thank you Ανδρέας. And Peter, I never removed the vowel chart because it didn't have parenthesis, I restored the table because at the time I felt that the vowel chart was incorrect. Two weeks ago. Before we even began this discussion. If you want to keep bringing that up, I'll bring up the time you neglected to rinse off your plate and just left it in the sink!!
I took out the X-Sampa stuff since that's mainly for situations when you can't put in IPA and we can. I also put in "lexicon" as an alternative to "word-stock" but only once. It gives it a little bit of flavor. mmm, tasty! AEuSoes1 03:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

We have still to decide which IPA symbol to use for the schwa. Andreas 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest going with whatever the conventional literature says. It can always be one of those, they-say-it's-this-but-it's-really-that kinds of things like using wedge in RP. AEuSoes1 04:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any discrepancy worth mentioning. The Slavonic Languages uses /a/ for /a/ and /ă/ for /ɤ/ respectively. I didn't have time to read the entire chapter on Bulgarian vowels, so I don't know if it's the source of the schwa. Whatever it is, I feel that using [ɐ] for the mid-central allophone is much more accurate.
Peter Isotalo 10:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I don't speak any "exotic rural dialect"!! I know very well how literary Bulgarian is spoken correctly - I am a journalist, soon to be a TV reporter and, hopefully one day, a TV presenter. I was very good at Bulgarian lessons in school and I can tell you they only teach six vowels. I am also sure they only teach six vowels in Bulgarian Philology at university too, although I've never studied it (you can ask VMORO about that one, I think I saw him saying somewhere that he was a philologist). So who do you think knows Bulgarian better - our scientists or some foreign ones? Have you ever thought that IPA are mere people, not gods and, as such, they are not faultless, so it's possible they might have made a mistake for once? Expressing an opinion about this issue is completely different from expressing an opinion about the density of chlorine or the coronation of Queen Victoria, since those fact are much more popular and widely studied that the issue in subject. Also, the fact that you didn't find anything that actually contradicts the vowel chart in that source on Bulgarian phonology doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there, it only means you weren't able to find it :) Also, I don't believe than any one of us was being a dick, but you might just be one for implying that ;) Christomir
If there is any evidence of contradiction in the sources, you're welcome to point it out. Otherwise, I find it ironic that you praise "your" scientists compared to "some foreign ones", because the source presented by me (the IPA handbook) was written by two Bulgarians while the source presented by VMORO (The Slavonic languages) seems to have been written by a native English-speaker. Not that this actually matters, though, since a trained phonetician can be adept at analyzing almost any language. Of course it helps to be a native speaker, but only with the proper education and training.
Peter Isotalo 09:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
When I said "Bulgarian scientists", I wasn't thinking about the sources - I was talking about the people, who decide what is taught in Bulgaria. Are you trying to convince me that all students in Bulgaria are intentionally taught wrong? Or maybe the scientists who write the textbooks etc. are just stupid?
OK, I'll stop arguing here, since I don't want to be a pest. I'll just assume that I am uneducated and untrained. Christomir
Few, if any, countries teach advanced phonology of their own language to students unless they actually take a course in linguistics on a university level. There's simply no need for it because native speakers know how to speak their language properly anyway and have it internalized without having to be taught things like phonetics theoretically. Things like orthography and diction are what's focused on. (Illiterate people can speak a language fluently without a single day of schooling.) But ask any average student of any country about the finer points of the phonology of their own language and I can tell you that most of them will get most of it wrong. They'll pronounce it perfectly, but won't be able to explain most of it on a theoretical level. So, naturally, this is by no means unique to Bulgaria.
Peter Isotalo 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. I'm a native speaker and to me this vowel chart seems wrong. I can't really say how many allophones any of the vowels has but what I disagree with is that the phoneme for the "а" sound is shown as more front than the phoneme for the "ъ" sound. However, they actually stand on the same line regarding frontness/backness - the position of the tongue regarding frontness/backness is the same, just the "а" is more open. In fact, the vowel chart which has been provided for Amharic represents much better the relation of the two vowels in Bulgarian - as there they are on the same frontness/backness line! How can I prove it? Well... First of all, I have observed it while pronouncing the two vowels - but I realize that no one can check that. I also have a book - "Modern Bulgarian Language", which says that the place of articulation of "а" and "ъ" is the same. But it looks like it has not been put online so I can't show it to you as evidence... Still, I hope you'll consider what I have written!

Well the chart has been made from an actual speaker. Every language has its dialects. In my dialect of English, /e/ is actually higher than /ɪ/AEuSoes1 22:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous user, if you read the discussions about vowels that have been going on on this talkpage, you'll find all the answers to your questions. If you have a source that claims that two vowels that are considered separate phonemes have the same place of articulation, then you've either misread your source or it's quite obviously incorrect, since all other sources are in agreement on this. Quite a few have been cited so far.
Peter Isotalo 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers. However, I'm afraid I don't see why two vowels that are considered separate phonemes can't have the same place of articulation. For example, "o" and "u" - their place of articulation is the same, the only difference is that "o" is more open than "u". Maybe it will be best if I try to translate the part of the Phonetics section from the "Modern Bulgarian Language" which deals with the opposition between "а" and "ъ". Here it is:
"According to the width of the passage between the most raised part of the tongue and the palate the vowels are divided into narrow and wide. During the articulation of the wide vowels (е, а, о) the space between the tongue and the palate is wide while during the articulation of the narrow (и, ъ, у) the passage is narrower.
To each wide vowel corresponds one narrow, WHICH HAS THE SAME PLACE OF ARTICULATION but with a lower position of the tongue: (е-и, а-ъ, о-у)."
I must admit there is a mistake in this text - the narrow vowels should have a "higher" and not a "lower" position of the tongue but I'm sure this is a case of oversight. Furthermore, later in the book an articulation chart of the vowels is given and there the narrow vowels are represented as higher than the wide ones. But what I wanted to show is that according to "Modern Bulgarian Language" the vowels "а" and "ъ" have the same place of articulation, the only difference is that "а" is more open than "ъ". This, combined with the fact that I notice the same when I pronounce "а" and "ъ" (from "а" I just raise my lower jaw to produce "ъ"; I don't move the tongue backwards) makes me come to the conclusion that in Bulgarian "ъ" is not a more back vowel than "а" - instead, they are at the same place according to frontness/backness. That's why I think the vowel chart in the "Bulgarian language" article is wrong.
About the dialects - I know that some Bulgarian dialects reduce "е" to "и" but I haven't heard of dialectal variation of the frontness/backness of "ъ"... But even if there are some people who pronounce "ъ" a little more back than "а", what is most important is that for Bulgarian speakers the DEFINING feature of "ъ" is that it is the closed counterpart of "а". That's what Bulgarians are taught at school from an early age. And since in the Bulgarian speakers' conscience "ъ" is the closed counterpart of "а", it would be logical that they would pronounce the two vowels at one and the same place (regarding frontness/backness)... or at least very close to each other. And I think that should be represented in the vowel chart.

It's strange that Tilkov and Boyadzhiev have used the term "place of articulation" to refer to the frontness/backness continuum, but NOT to vowel height. It doesn't make much sense to me. Furthermore, when we studied linguistics, the distinction "place of articulation" vs "active organ of articulation" wasn't used for vowels at all, it was only for consonants. That is confirmed by the present articles on "place of articulation" and "vowel" in Wikipedia, as well as by my textbook in linguistics from 1965.

I must admit that I, too, have problems imagining "a" being THAT front. But the fact that we native speakers aren't conscious of that doesn't mean that it isn't true: we don't learn our Bulgarian phonetics at school. Look, if you find another vowel chart for Bulgarian, and one that comes from a source as authoritative as the present one, then replacing the present chart might become an option. --85.187.44.128 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology quibbles

Hey, Peter and VMORO, if you two go on fighting over "lexis", "word stock" and "vocabulary", or "writing system" vs. "alphabet", or "sound system", or whatnot, you risk nomination for "lamest edit war of the year", and the year has only just started. Take a break, you two! ;-) (By the way, I personally find all these expressions perfectly acceptable, and if you really can't agree, I offer to be the arbiter and decide on the authority of my own whims.) Lukas 16:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC comments

I have skimmed the more recent edits and recommend that:

  • Peter and especially VMORO start taking each other's knowledge and insights more seriously, which should enable them to reach consensus on more complex issues like the vowel chart dispute. Reread WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If you can't reach consensus -- take a break, as Lukas said.
  • simple differences of opinion about usage (with references for both points of view) be left for other editors to decide. Especially where both proposed terms are generic words as opposed to linguistic terminology. Take a break.

If I may suggest some pointers:

  • A possible consensus on the vowel chart issue -- is it feasible to put both approaches in, possibly indicating (based on references to reputable sources) their relative importance, various uses, etc.?
  • A distinction can sometimes be made between two versions of the same language: the "cultural language" and the "spoken language" (colloquial language/vernacular). Perhaps this helps you resolve the Ottoman vs. Turkish problem. I think the current wording (I'm not sure if it already reflects a consensus) needs to be improved.
  • When two terms are proposed for the same concept, it can be helpful if both terms are given, one of them in parentheses.

Perhaps I will give some examples by editing the article myself (feel free to revert if you don't agree). But even when you have reached a version everyone agrees on, you shouldn't be surprised when someone else comes along and edits it into something you wish you had written but didn't think of. I am not commenting on any WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc. issues since this is an Article RfC, not a User Conduct RfC. By the way, is the Terminology Quibbles section a response to the RfC? If so, you may want to move it into the RfC Comments section. I hope this helps. AvB ÷ talk 10:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish/Ottoman thang is not my quibble. I'm simply trying to include info on phonology I believe is relevant and to copyedit the article into good, reasonably uncomplicated English. I've also tried arguing facts concenring the vowel chart already. I'm still waiting for VMORO to return the favor.
Peter Isotalo 15:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I hope you'll get more comments from others. Once again, you would both do well to reread policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:NPA from top to bottom, even if you think you know them by heart. Then try to work things out in good faith -- or take that break. This advice is meant for the both of you but VMORO needs it the most I'm afraid. I hope to see you reach consensus. Much more rewarding than ending up with warnings and one or more user blocks.  AvB ÷ talk 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

  • When unstressed both a and ъ are pronounced the same way - somewhere between a and ъ - like u in but.
  • When unstressed both o and у are pronounced somewhere between о and y.

[6]

Bulgarian is a language which, like a number of Slavic languages, disprefers unstressed mid vowels. The degree to which unstressed mid vowels are disliked varies from dialect to dialect, as do the strategies used to avoid them. In most dialects of Bulgarian (including the standard dialect), unstressed mid vowels are raised: o become u, and e becomes i. [7]

The maximum number of vowel phonemes (6) is only met in stressed position, while in unstressed position this number is smaller. In the pairs /a - з/ and /o - u/, the distinction “close - open” is neutralised and the actual realisation depends on the position of the respective vowel relative to the position of lexical acccent in the word. In the pair / e - i / the close - open opposition, while still functional in minimal pairs such as векове /veko’ve/ (ages) - викове /viko’ve/ (cries - noun, pl.), also shows a tendency towards neutralisation (Tilkov and Boyadzhiev 1990:63-4) [8]

The phonetic realization of stress is rather language-specific. Trubetzkoy (1939) pointed out that in Bulgarian the contrast between close /u/ and mid // found in stressed syllables is neutralized in unstressed syllables, where only /u/ - the closer phoneme - occurs. [9]

/a/ and /ɤ/ are neutralised to [ɐ] in unstressed positions: ритам 'I kick'—ритъм 'rhythm' [ˈritɐm]. Similarly, [o] is the unstressed neutralisation of /ɔ/ and /u/: оказвам 'I exert, render' —указвам 'I indicate' [oˈкazvɐm]. [10]

Results of a spectral analysis of vowel reduction in Bulgarian (N = 2 educated male speakers of the Sofia dialect) & model experiments that test these results are reported. The hypothesis was that reduction of Bulgarian open vowels is related to neutralization of mandibular depression, weakening or elimination of lingual & labial compensation for mandibular errors, & weakening of pharyngeal narrowing: models were developed to match spectral regression for pharyngeal /a/, palatal /e/, & pharyngovelar /o/. The experiments indicate that reduction is gradual rather than discrete, suggesting that an underlying articulatory plan for a complete rendering is executed with varying degrees of attention, depending on which components are neutralized & how far. The articulatory behavior modeled in the experiments successfully reproduced the observed spectral reduction. Results demonstrate that the reduction of Bulgarian /e, a, o/ in unstressed syllables can be explained in terms of partial or complete neutralization of mandibular depression, lip spreading or rounding, pharyngeal activity, & compensation. [11]

As evidence for this statement, note that while all six vowels may occur in stressed syllables, only /i/, /e/, // and /u/ occur in unstressed syllables [12]

In a language like Bulgarian, /a/ reduces to schwa (neutralising with a phonemic schwa which does not undergo reduction by raising) and /e/ and /o/ reduce to /i/ and /u/ respectively. [13] Andreas 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Anderson, J. 1996. The representation of vowel reduction: Non-specification and reduction in Old English and Bulgarian. STUDIA LINGUISTICA 50 (2): 91-105.

WOOD, SAJ; PETTERSSON, T. 1988. VOWEL REDUCTION IN BULGARIAN - THE PHONETIC DATA AND MODEL EXPERIMENTS. FOLIA LINGUISTICA 22 (3-4): 239-262.

PETTERSSON, T; WOOD, S. 1987. VOWEL REDUCTION IN BULGARIAN AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORIES OF VOWEL PRODUCTION - A REVIEW OFTHE PROBLEM. FOLIA LINGUISTICA 21 (2-4): 261-279.

TOOPS, G. 1986. VOCATIVE FORMS AND VOWEL REDUCTION IN BULGARIAN. WELT DER SLAVEN-HALBJAHRESSCHRIFT FUR SLAVISTIK 31 (2): 324-335. Andreas 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Recall from section 2.3.2.1. that other languages, such as Bulgarian, show a slightly different pattern of vowel distribution in strong vs. weak syllables. Like Dutch, Bulgarian shows the full range of vowel contrasts in stressed syllables, but in unstressed syllables vowels do not reduce to schwa, but to a subset of the vowels in Bulgarian. Pettersson & Wood (1987:266) claim that the vowels in Bulgarian have the following distribution in stressed vs. unstressed positions: (54)

stressed unstressed
/i/ [i] [i]
/e/ [e], [ɛ] [i]
/u/ [u] [u]
/o/ [o], [ɔ], [u]
/ă/ [ɐ], [ ɜ]. [ɘ ] [ɐ]
/a/ [a] [ɐ]

The difference in vowel distribution in stressed vs. unstressed syllables is accounted for by referring to the licensing relations that hold between these positions (Harris 1997). Prosodic words are typically subdivided into feet, and a foot typically contains two syllables, a strong and a weak one. The strong, or stressed, syllable licenses the weak, or unstressed, syllable in a foot. This dependency relation suggests that restrictions are imposed on the unstressed nucleus by the stressed nucleus. In Bulgarian this is evidenced by the fact that the unstressed nucleus has to contain a vowel that consists of a subset of the elements that makes up the corresponding vowel in stressed position. [14] [15]Andreas 19:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary

According to Hungary as well as Demographics of Hungary, there is no sizable population of Bulgarian-speakers in Hungary. Alexander 007 22:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarians cites 3,000 Bulgarians in Hungary. Is that enough to mention Hungary? Alexander 007 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are more Swedish speakers in London than that, but I certainly wouldn't mention it in the (Swedish language) infobox. I'm removing Hungary and shortening the part about Bulgarian diasporas. I'm tempted to remove Macedonia as well, not because I want to take sides in the Bulgarian/Macedonian conflict, but because it's likely to be far fewer than is justified for the infobox. I suggest that you take up (relevant) minority speaker populations up under the header "Geographic distribution".
Peter Isotalo 20:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some 1000 Yiddish speakers in Sweden, however this doesn't stop the Swedes from giving it a 'minority language' status.

[edit] Sources about Bulgarian in R. Macedonia

I suggest FunkyFly and other users to point out sources about their thesis that Bulgarian is spoken in Macedonia. Many relevant and neutral sources state that Bulgarian isn't spoken in Macedonia, as for example:

I think that putting R. Macedonia in the section Spoken in has a propagandistic behind. Regards, Bomac 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because they do not mention it, it does not mean that it is not spoken nonetheless. FunkyFly 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
And just because it doesn't mean that it's not spoken there doesn't mean that it is. Wikipedia relies on sources and if you don't have a source that backs your claim, we're inclined to go with the sources that don't. AEuSoes1 22:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Never fear, I found a source [16]. Bulgarian is spoken in r. Macedonia. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian л

I'm surprised that no one has discussed the quality of the Bulgarian л. Everyone seems content to assign it only one phonetic representation: /l/. Having done only a little work with one native speaker, I have already found that the pronunciation of this letter ranges from /l/ to /w/ to /o/. I have yet to determine exactly what conditions the different pronunciations, and I am no dialectologist or expert in Bulgarian. I am interested to hear what others, more experienced than I, have to say.

The article should limit itself to the standard language, which has only /l/. The pronunciation of /w/ in syllable-final position (e.g /mawko/ "small") is typical of Sofia, although it can be heard from young people even in the southeast. The change of /l/ to a vowel or semivowel under many circumstances is common, it already happened in Serbian and in Polish, but in Bulgarian it remains a dialectal feature. CRCulver 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather call it a sociolectal feature. It is typical of young people, also if they are educated; I think it's almost fashionable. And as Crculver said, it's quickly spreading to young people in the rest of the country. It wasn't characteristic of Sofia either before the 1970's, when it was first registered in youngsters, according to my lecturer in Bulgarian. So it's more a matter of generation, and like any popular trend, it starts in the capital. It could be mentioned in the article, since it already mentions a lot of widespread provincial features (reduction of e to i and alophonic palatalization of consonants before e and i, to name but a few). Besides, it could be a useful piece of information for people trying to understand spoken Bulgarian. As for what conditions the different pronunciations, the answer is simple - it's a variant of the so-called hard /l/, which means the /l/ that is used in all other positions except before /e/ and /i/. I just added it in the article, but I don't know if it's an approximant or a semivowel. I don't have litterature about it right now, and it is too recent a development to be mentioned in standard conservative handbooks. If someone has info - help! --85.187.203.123 22:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As a native Bulgarian speaker and not as a specialist, I have these impressions: The transformation of /l/ into /w/ is not a matter of fashion, but of dialect. I have amused myself with a native speaker from Vakarel - some 50 km east of Sofia, who was a trader in chemical products, how he tried to explain to a business partner on the phone that he didn't have polyethylene in his store, byt polypropylene. The other person was very slow in catching the subtle phonetic differences. Second case: some years ago a friend of mine went deliberately everyday to a restaurant, just to listen to one of the waiters how he recited the menu, especially "пиле със зеле". Third case: I have a schoolmate from the village of Benkovski - just on the northern outskirts of Sofia, who didn't use /l/ at all (using /w/ instead) so he was a great subject of mockery at school and we kept joking with him saying "не е лесно". I have another schoolmate whose parens come from the southern side of the Vitosha mountain - he also sometimes misses the /l/. And the youngster fashion came as a form of a mockery over country people that have just arrived from somewhere around Sofia as far as Samokov into the city and is considered a bit low status and certainly funny. There was even a comic hit song Skakauec (meaning - Skakalec - grasshopper), that its lyrics were just had collected examples of this phenomenon. And about the slang - the general trend seems to me to be making all words one syllable - it remids me of French, for example "Какво ще правиш тази вечер?" -->> Ко'ш прайш та'вечь? --Komitata 23:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you have a point there, but I think we're talking about two slightly different things. Saying "w" in "powietiwen" "пиуе със зеуе", "не е уесно" "скакауец", "копеуе" is funny and dialectal, and it doesn't occur very frequently either, so whenever a normal educated or Sofian youth pronounces it, it's just for fun, a mockery. The reason is that these words normally have the "soft" l. Now what teenagers normally pronounce as "w", without even noticing it, is the "hard" ("thick", "dark") l, as in "мауко", "уодка" и "ти ууд ли си бе?"? I'm not sure how the "пиуе със зеле" type came to being. I haven't dealt with Bg. dialectology of late, but I'd be very surprised if I heard it from an old peasant. I guess the thing is that the original western dialects have ONLY the THICK "l", not only in "malko" as in the standard language, but also in "pile", as I still hear it occasionally in the low-status speech in Sofia. Next, when the youth trend is superimposed on this, the youngsters from these villages start pronouncing not only "mawko", but also "piwe". Nobody would laugh at "mawko", it sounds pretty much like "malko" with thick "l", but "piwe" is hillarious, because it's so different from a "pile" with thin "l". Personally, as a 23 yr old Bulgarian, I would always say "mawko" in a colloquial context, but I wouldn't even dream of saying "piwe" instead of "pile". And I'm sure I'd be laughed at if I did. --85.187.203.123 10:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


OK, let's put some order here shall we?

  1. /w/ for /l/ *when not before front vowels* is neither fashionable, neither typical only for Sofia or any other specific geographical region. You can hear it from people born in the 1970s and after from all over Bulgaria: Sofia, Sliven, Burgas etc.
  2. /w/ for <л> in all positions is indeed dialectal and found in the Sofia region, to be more precise in what's commonly known as the Шоплук.
  3. Also, it's typical for roughly the same region to pronounce <л> before front vowels as [l̻] i.e. <л> is still articulated with the blade of the tongue touching the alveolar ridge just like <л> before back vowels.
  4. Number 1. is a separate development and hardly influenced by #2.
  5. It's hardly a surprise that the said development was first reported in Sofia. I really doubt there's been much of 'field work' of sociolects throughout Bulgaria back in the 1970s.
  6. Under 'Hard and palatalized consonants' it states that 'The latter pre-front realization is traditionally (and incorrectly) called "soft l"', it's first time ever I hear that /l/ before front vowels is called 'soft', whenever 'soft' is used to refer to consonats it's ONLY to denote a palatalized consonant!
Is this just how you see the things or do you have any sources? I'm asking you this because I'm not sure whether you know the difference between a new development and a voice disorder (or логопедия in Bulgarian) and you might be confused. For example my brother, who is not from Sofia, has an awful voice disorder: he can't pronounce л at all (the words уча and улуча are indistinguishable), has problems with consonant clusters (inserts vowels къмет; земя змия are pronounced the same way), and many others. So are you sure that the people you mention from Sliven and Burgas don't have similar problems, because people form Sofia can pronounce ла, ло, лу, but don't use them in everyday speech. The case is the same with р. Many people form all over Bulgaria pronounce it like French r. Arath 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
— of course I'm not talking about people with speech disorder. And what do you mean by 'srcs'? Something published on paper by БАН? Sorry, I only rely on my hearing when I travel around the country.

oh, and there is no [ʎ] in bulgarian (ok, that is to say standard BG, it exists in the n-w dialects), it should be properly marked as [lʲ] b/c it's a palatalized consonant and not a palatal one.

[edit] Participles

In the article is written that there are six participles in Bulgarian: укриващ, укриван, укрил, укривал, укрит, укривайки. Then what participle is укриел? In the sentence Ако той се укриел, никой нямало да може да го намери it can be replaced by none of the others, without changing the meaning. --Arath


It isn't a participle, it's a verb in the renarrative mood, (which is, in Bulgarian, either derived from or morphologically - identical to the participle). You can see that it's a verb if you transform the sentence into the indicative mood: then would be either Ако той се укрие, никой няма да може да го намери or ако той се укриеше, никой нямаше да може да го намери. It's obvious that укрие and укриеше aren't participles. Now if укриел was a participle, it would be used like an adjective: един *укриел човек, *укриелият човек, just like укриващ човек or, say, изказалият се човек (човек, укриващ/укривал престъпници, се наказва според закона; но не и човек, *укриел престъпници). --85.187.203.123 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is a verb, isn't it in the subjunctive mood as well as in the renarrative. I know that the form укриеше is a perfective verb in the past imperfective tense (глагол в минало несвършено време, свършен вид) and the form укриел is the same but in the renarrative mood. But in the modern Bulgarian language haven't these forms (simultaneously preserving their original meaning) begun to play the role of a subjunctive mood? There might be several reasons for this. Firstly, in the sentence Чак след като спечелех мача, щях да мога да си почина the action, denoted by спечелех, is complete but also unreal (I'm talking about the past, and at that point in the past the action hadn't happened yet, I hadn't won the match yet, but after I won it, I would be able to rest). Secondly, I've heard many people wrongly say ако станах лекар, щях да мога да лекувам хора, instead of saying ако станех лекар, щях да мога да лекувам хора. And when I ask them whether the sentence would sound better if станех is used, they agree. And when I ask them if they could describe the difference between станах and станех, they say that станех sounds as if the action is unreal, as if it hasn't happened yet. They think of it more as a verb denoting unreal action than as a perfective verb form. --Arath 17:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well .. I was just saying that it wasn't a real participle. I'm not sure what to think about the subjunctive, because I'm not sure how to define a subjunctive in the first place. I can only compare with foreign language counterparts. The first thing that comes to my mind is that "ако/когато станех лекар" is simply the past counterpart of "ако/когато стана лекар" (and indeed, as you mentioned, it is the imperfect vs present tense form of the prefective verb) and, logically speaking, both are about equally unreal. And, in turn, the counterpart of "ако/когато стана лекар" doesn't automatically require the subjunctive mood form in, say, French: "si/quand je deviens médecin", not *"si/quand je devienne..". In English, "if he become/be a doctor" isn't OK either. On the other hand, an imperfective close-counterpart "ако ставах за лекар" certainly does have an contrary-to-fact meaning, and English constructions like "if I could make / were a good doctor" are, apparently (according to the wiki article on subjunctive mood) regarded as past subjunctive forms in the English grammatical tradition. Just some thoughts. Never mind, all of this can hardly have any significance for the article. --85.187.203.123 21:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If укрит, разбран, построен are participles, aren't укриваем, разбираем, построим also participles or are they considered to be just adjectives? They have gender forms and you can say разбираема задача, they also refer to actions. For example Триъгълникът може да бъде построен and Триъгълникът е построим have the same meaning. Furthermore, if you look up построяваш, постороих, построен in a dictionary you won't find them, nor will you find построим, you'll find only построявам. So построим must be some kind of a word that is derived from a verb, and, as the other participles and conjugated verb forms, it is considered not worthy to be placed in a dictionary because its meaning can easily be understood. --Arath

No idea. All I know is that I've never heard of such a participle (English -able, German -bar etc.). Where is the boundary between lexical derivation and grammatical declension? Maybe it's just a matter of tradition? Ask a linguist.

[edit] Merger of the Grammar section with "Bulgarian grammar"

I think the merger is a bad idea. This article should only contain some general information, and it's good as it is now (I'd even say it's already too big). More importantly, the article "Bulgarian grammar", just like the recently incorporated section on adverbs in "Bulgarian language" is nothing but a translation - by a very laborious enthusiast - of Borimir Kr'stev's "Gramatika za vsichki", published in Sofia, 1992. First of all, I suspect that violates copyright. Secondly, I think wikipedia should contain some intelligently summarized information and not entire grammars or handbooks. Thirdly, I don't think Borimir Kr'stevs grammar is that good, partly because it's intended for Bulgarians and neither for foreigners, nor for linguists (just read the introductory sentences). It includes many unnecessary details and much of the info isn't well summarized or is intended to teach Bulgarians basic grammar and what we call "common culture". Finally, that would only be satisfactory if also the other sections (phonetics etc.) were merged in the same way (as in the article on the Russian language).

A separate complete Bulgarian online grammar would be useful, but I guess its place would be in Wikibooks or somewhere else.

--85.187.203.123 22:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think merging is a good idea - I've just been working on the grammar page and it seems to me to be too incomplete. The information on this page, particularly the verbs, might help fill that gap. IMO it's too specialised to be here. --Latinus 22:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure the grammar page is incomplete, but I think the most logical way to complete it would be to finish what has been started and translate the remaining relevant pages of Borimir Kr'stevs grammar. :) --85.187.203.123 22:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think merging is a good idea, because ,as 85.187.203.123 says, the grammar section on this page is too big. Besides, not everything in the article "Bulgarian grammar" is a translation of Borimir Kr'stev's "Gramatika za vsichki". There are some additions, like the sections: forming the vocative, pronouns, and verbs.

I was wrong to say that Wikipedia isn't the place for detailed grammars (compare the Latin page). However, Arath has already started writing the verbs section, and I think his approach fits in well with the rest of the "Bulgarian grammar" article, because it is detailed (including entire conjugations), while the verb section in "Bulgarian language" is too concise and just wouldn't do. So maybe the grammar section in "Bulgarian language" should indeed be reduced to its basics after its useful parts are added to "Bulgarian grammar" (a long and difficult process, I'm afraid), in the way it has been done on other language pages, but that shouldn't happen before "Bulgarian grammar" is completed. Even then, I still think it's a pity if these overviews are lost. They are long, but much of them is nevertheless written with a view to providing a linguistically competent foreigner with information about the way the language works in principle plus some interesting peculiarities, while the "Bulgarian grammar" page, apart from its "popularizing" parts (the legacy of Kr'stev), has a very different orientation, namely to describe every single detail and serve as a reference work for an active learner of Bulgarian. --85.187.203.123 16:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

The recent edits are reproduced here, they were removed for being a) unsourced and b) written in bad English...

Bulgarian is a South Slavic language, and belongs to the tree of Indo-European languages. As it first adopted cyrillic alphabet, its ancestor Old Bulgarian language had many years of influence over slavic literary context. However nowadays

Fewer than 20 words along with some names like Krum remain in Bulgarian from Proto-Bulgarian,

The Proto-Bulgarian, a member of the Turkic language family or the Iranian language family (Pamir languages), is otherwise unrelated to Bulgarian. Also there are some thracian words which remain in Bulgarian language.

When they are cited, they can be re-introduced. - FrancisTyers 16:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jot

These edits are very messy, not to mention their terrible English. To begin with, there is no reason to put the semi-vowel and palatalisation together (except for Bulgarian orthography). Only semivowels should be mentioned between vowels and consonants. Secondly, palatalisation and its expression in orthography are treated later in the article, so this edit repeats a lot of things that have been said elsewhere. Thirdly, at least parts of it are written from a Bulgarian point of view ("The rule is that you write йо at the beginning of words and ьо never at the beginning"). Comments as to which letter is "rearer" are also unnecessary. For all these reasons I am going to tighten the section. --85.187.44.131 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it/Isn't it?

Bulgarian is closely related to the Macedonian language, recognised by all non-Bulgarian linguists except J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe as a distinct standard. The prevalent opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

This names the two non-Bulgarian, non-Greek linguists who thinks that "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language". This is important because it is an extreme minority point of view. Of course, this is not to say that there is no truth in this. I would imagine that many linguists could imagine categorising Macedonian-Bulgarian as a pluricentric language. But they would never say "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language", that is subordinating one under the other. I'm open to sources though :) - FrancisTyers 08:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stress and orthography

In case like this stress maybe put on written text [...] It is not explained how this is done. Is an acute accent put on the vowel? The reader would like to know; examples should be given. Andreas 14:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Done, except for the examples. --85.187.44.131 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of supporters

How many supporters of a given position should one have so that they can be referred to as "some"? 2,3,5,50,100? Francis you are obviously trying to make your essay seem more plausible, arent you :) FunkyFly 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More than two, that is for sure. Besides, Wikipedia councils against weasel words. I think it is safe to say that considering there are only two linguists not from BG or GR who think this that we can list them without affecting the flow of the article. We don't even have the full name for one of them! I am reverting back until you can find a more substantial number. - FrancisTyers 16:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you think I am somehow misrepresenting facts, I encourage you to ask, I have sources for everything in that essay... and more besides. Sources who aren't Greek, Macedonian or Bulgarian in fact. Regarding your previous edit summary I would encourage you to assume good faith. You made mistakes while reading my essay, so there is no guarantee you aren't making them here. :) - FrancisTyers 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, well you still have not specified exact figure? How many sources would you consider enough to qualify as some then? Three, Four? FunkyFly 16:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
None, "some" shouldn't be used, see Wikipedia:Weasel words. - FrancisTyers 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, it is a guideline, subject to common sense. Second, it is not used anymore. FunkyFly 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial section

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists including J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe, is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

I have removed this section per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for its controversial content. See arguments above.

I would support something along the lines of:

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

How can there be no international and two international linguists in the same time? Have you lost your mind? FunkyFly 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you aren't going to suggest an alternative:


Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

And by the way, I don't see where Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is not used anymore... Yes I realise it is a guideline. But a good one. - FrancisTyers 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagre, because it presents a biased view of the problem. You cannot source every single linguist in the world, you only can sample opinions, and it is not fair to claim there are only two in support. With the same success I can claim that 90 or 100 or whatever sources you have still do not constitute a majority. Btw, what's with your bias? FunkyFly 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By "it is not used anymore" I was refering to "some", now substituted with "certain", which according to my understaning of English expresses a smaller quantity. FunkyFly 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My "bias" as you put it is just good linguistics. I remain surprised that there are two people calling themselves linguists who would say "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language". I am truely astonished. It just is not done. It does not present a biased view of the problem at all. Really I am beginning to doubt you've ever studied linguistics or sociolinguistics at all. Ok, here's a suggestion, how about we take all the linguists I can find say "Macedonian is a separate language", and all the linguists you can find saying "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language" and we divide your number by my number and multiply it by 100 to get the percentage? I can guarantee it will be below 10%, if I wasted enough time finding names, probably below 1%. Perhaps I could do a survey and get it below 0.1%. The fraction would be miniscule.

On the other hand, provide sources or don't include it. How about this:

Appeal to motive here? FunkyFly 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists who have studied the language, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

With regard to "certain", "some", doesn't matter. We have sources for "two", so two it shall be. Unless you can find more sources instead of continuing this farce. Why don't you want to find sources? I am quite happy to provide a source for anything I add. - FrancisTyers 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you realise we can't do my suggestion because of WP:NOR ;) - FrancisTyers 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is you demand that all sources I find be added as an exception, except this linguist, except that one and so on, which is POV. Now the number is up to three, it can climb more in the future, so I stick to this - certain linguists, without naming. Sources in the reference section.

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

As for your comment about how a serious linguist can consider Macedonian to be Bulgarian dialect - well that just shows that you are full of yourself my dear. FunkyFly 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't demand all the sources you list be added as an exception. You have provided two linguists, which is a small enough number to add as an exception. They are an exception. For example, fifteen linguists could not reasonably be added as an exception. Three probably could. But as you have refused to present any sources we will not know. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you finally name your price :) The magic number of 15. We'll see if we can get there. FunkyFly 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That isn't static, if you can find eleven I'll be impressed :) Don't worry, I'm not going to be unreasonable about this. And remember when you are looking for sources... "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language", they must present Macedonian as subordinate to Bulgarian. Doesn't have to be the precise wording, but words to that effect. "Macedonian and Bulgarian are the same language" will not do. - FrancisTyers 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Prof. James F. Clarke
  • Prof. Heinrich A.Stammler
  • Prof Afanasii Matveevich Selishchev --Komitata 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Prof. Antony Giza, Poland.
Erm, You realise those aren't citations right? A name is not sufficient, I need a reference for where they said it. - FrancisTyers 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian online 80.80.128.73 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Distance learning online instruction in Bulgarian for foreigners - http://www.mastylo.net/#foreigners_en 80.80.128.73 13:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palatalized consonants

Are there any palatalized consonants which can occur at the end of a Bulgarian word? --84.61.28.226 07:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No.--85.187.44.131 00:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are there no palatalized consonants which can occur at the end of a Bulgarian word? --84.61.68.58 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are, but this is not 'standard Bulgarian': конь, соль, пакь.

[edit] +2 million?!?

That added number of speakers are Macedonians, who don't speak Bulgarian, but Macedonian. The article is POV and pretentious, and has it's aim to represent Macedonians as Bulgarians. Bomac 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It says Bulgarian. Macedonian is treated in a different entry [17], where 2 million are listed. --Telex 15:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but before you reverted, the edit was: +1.5 to 2 million. That number was surely not reffering to Hottentots. Bomac 16:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It refers to the Bulgarian speakers all over the world (including the Pomaks in Greece). I think you're paranoid - it clearly lists Macedonian seperately, so I don't know what your problem is. Do you not like facts? --Telex 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha... OK, but +2 million is really ,,separatistic". Anyway, I may overreacted. OK, I'll remove the tag. Bomac 16:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, should I follow the example of other users and report myself for 3RR? ;-) Bomac 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, as long as the racism goes on, its fine :)  /FunkyFly.talk_   17:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if that insults you, but I am just quoting, my intention is not to insult the Bulgarian nation. Have on mind that I find it very insulting the nation I belong to be called ,,Bulgarian". Bomac 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee whiz, how could such thing ever cross my mind. Noone calls your present day nation Bulgarian my friend administrator at the respectful mk.wiki.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You should not claim the history of Macedonia as Bulgarian too, without at least thinking of the difficult circumstances Macedonia was when everyone around it was free and can create it's own society. Bomac 20:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, the end justifies the means - it's ok to steal history from another country. And that's why the Bulgarians living in your present day country were the one trying to liberate it?  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave Machiaveli out of this. It doesn't means that Macedonians were ,,Bulgarians" only because they were declaring as such (the Macedonian national awakening didn't started as early as the other surrounding countries as a result of what I mentioned before - Macedonia wasn't free, this land was still under Ottoman tyrany). If we see the things from that POV, the French people, who are descendents of the Franks, a germanic tribe, are Germans. Bomac 20:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you Macedonian only because you deaclare as such? Or should you point out genetic research which shows the Macedonian race to be the purest in the world, like a true racist? Ridiculous... Anyway, since Wikipedia is following the self-id principle, your history is as Bulgarian as it gets. And by the way, since you start with the examples, no one calls the Ancient Romans Italians, although the Italians are their descendants and noone doubts that.  /FunkyFly.talk_   20:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a racist - this insults me too - and I don't believe in ethnic purities. BTW, your last sentence was as Balkanistic (maybe you should create Balkanism, too) as it can be... Bomac 21:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then since you dont believe in ethnic purities, you are contradicting yourself, because there's no other way to confirm enthnicity other than self identification.  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are limiting yourself. Bomac 21:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, to sourced information. :)  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the ,,genetic link" you saw on mk.Wiki is a comparison between Ancient Macedonians and Greeks. For your info, genetic researches about Mac., Bulg., Greeks... (there was some other nation, but I don't remember it) say that these peoples have ,,similarities". Bomac 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I consider that comment a joke, and I highly doubt that Misirkov says anything of the sort. The only sources that could come from are Macedonian nationalistic websites. I must say though, that theory is a creative way of explaining the fact that no one had ever heard of a Macedonian ethnic group before the 20th century ;-) --Telex 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, your POV (but it says). Bomac 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see really extreme claims, see Turkish language. I'd bet that figure includes Tatars, Azeris and Turkmens. --Telex 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See also the turkish article for Bulgaria, especially the picture under the map. I bet that there are that kind of, hmm, ,,vehicles" in Turkey and every other Balkan country. Bomac 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! I've seen "vehicles" such as that in both Romania and Bulgaria. I wouldn't say it was "typical" transportation though... - FrancisTyers 20:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] /a/ and /ɤ/ as raised?

User:194.12.250.232 has marked the alveolars as laminal, and /a/ and /ɤ/ as raised. Does this make sense to anyone? Does this make no sense to anyone? --85.187.44.131 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No. The deal with alveolars may be correct but I don't think it's appropriate for broad transcription. AEuSoes1 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm reverting it, just in case. I've left him/her a message, so if s/he explains what s/he meant, it can always be restored. --85.187.44.131 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually my intention was to mark them as advanced, but i've messed it up. As for the alveolars only /l/ /s/ /z/ /ts)/ & /dz)/ are laminal, /t/ & /d/ are dental [t̪] [d̪]. Also, if you don't think all this is appropriate for a broad transcription can you please tell me how do you suggest that the article should be organized? I'd also like to add a few things about the allophones—the way unstressed vowels are pronounced and that /m/ before labiodentals is [ɱ] etc.

[edit] Gender or declension class?

What determines the form of the definite article (-qt/a vs -ta vs -to vs -te, etc.)? If it is gender, as the article and many other sources say, how can we explain starshina-ta (masculine) and zhivotni-te (neuter plural)? Obviously, form and not gender is decisive here (Victor Friedman analyses Macedonian in the same way). In Russian, the same problem (masculine papa-papoy conjugated like feminine mama-mamoy) is solved by distinguishing between gender and declension class.

Now if we accept the idea that gender itself is decisive, then we can say that Bulgarian nouns, unlike Russian ones, inflect for gender - and so we have said, in the article. But it seems pretty weird and imprecise to me. --85.187.44.131 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I found a source that clearly expresses the same thought: Петър Пашов, Българска граматика. Изд."Хермес", 1999. Стр.65-66, 73-75. It's also a standard textbook in Bulgarian universities. So I'm modifying the article accordingly. --85.187.44.131 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm curious isn't bulgarian cloaser to ALL serbian than it is to albanian?- Lazar

Absolutely.--85.187.44.131 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "influenced"

Maybe it really is better to eschew it altogether. Those words aren't influenced by Russian or Church Slavonic, because words aren't influenced; languages are. The words are from Russian or Church Slavonic. --VKokielov 06:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'Influenced', because they were modified to fit the Bulgarian phonology. And a whole lot of them are actually originally South Slavic words borrowed from Old Church Slavonic (Old Bulgarian), then altered by Church Slavonic and used in Russian. So, in many cases it's like reintroducing Old Bulgarian words to modern Bulgarian, because they were lost during the Ottoman rule (and that's why one wouldn't find them in dialects).
Anyway, I wouldn't object removing the 'influenced' part, it simply has to be clear these are generally not ordinary loanwords. Todor→Bozhinov 10:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Since Modern Bulgarian is based on a somewhat different series of dialects than Old Church Slavonic (OCS was based on the speech of Solun, outside the Kingdom of Bulgaria), and this is evident when one considers things like the variant treatment of VRC groups in the two, there was no "reintroducing". The term "Old Bulgarian" is no longer used in English as a name of Old Church Slavonic. The only mention of it one will see in a modern English handbooks is an exhortation not to use it. Much the same situation as scholars preferring "Anglo-Saxon" to "Old English", since modern English is based on dialects different than what one finds in that corpus. CRCulver 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
These dialects from around Thessaloniki have the phonetic changes of Common Slavic *dʲ to ʒd and *tʲ to ʃt, just like modern Bulgarian and most of what are considered its dialects today, so they're very close if not the same (differentiating Slavic languages back then was a difficult thing to do). The Bulgarian recension of OCS is what influenced Old East Slavic and subsequently Russian. It gradually developed into Middle Bulgarian while Church Slavonic was only a liturgical language that, apparently, was not a vernacular. What I mean by this is OCS (or at least a form very close to its original) was what Bulgarians actually spoke back then, no matter how you'd call it, and it's indeed reintroducing. Todor→Bozhinov 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In OCS, the metathesis of VRC shows lengthening, while in Modern Standard Bulgarian there is no lengthening. Compare "rob" to OCS "rabU". This fact alone makes it clear that modern Bulgarian is not derived from OCS, but from different dialect(s) that split off from the common ancestor with OCS (Proto-South-Slavonic or Proto-South-East-Slavonic) before this sound change took place in each. This is a simple matter of historical linguistics. CRCulver 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Allright, I'm not a specialist, just an amateur, but can't this a → o be the result of later evolution? And by the U in 'rabU' do you mean the final 'ъ', because I believe its dropping is a later development (though I might be wrong).
Even if it was the result of some earlier split, can this be a single reason to classify the Thessaloniki speech as a separate language from what was then Bulgarian, so we couldn't classify those much later loanwords as being reintroduced? I myself would regard it as the same language as Bulgarian. Not that it has any relevance to the article now, but I'm just curious since I'm very interested in the topic. Todor→Bozhinov 20:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
YESIR!  :) er, mnogo dobre.  :) --VKokielov 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that, although the history behind the loanwords might be unusual (and certainly noteworthy), there is no uniqueness in modifying a word to fit the borrowing language's phonology. That's why we say [ˈsoʊviət] instead of [sʌˈvʲɛt]AEuSoes1 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, pronouncing a loanword in a way that would sound natural in the recipient language is what happens most of the time. But in this case we're talking about different evolution of sound groups in the different Slavic languages — what in Russian became oro became ra in Bulgarian, for example, and this was usually taken in consideration when borrowing (though not always). Todor→Bozhinov 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POV

Here there is a POV. There are 3 numbers here on population. 8,5; 8,9 and 11,5 millions. Which one is correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_language&diff=67095412&oldid=67086402 --ElevatedStork 19:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian is not spoken only by ethnic Bulgarians living in Bulgaria.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. I understand that, but by how many? --ElevatedStork 19:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless I will receive an explanation of those numbers I will revert to 8.5 millions. That's the most realistic number. --ElevatedStork 06:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism?

"such as the elimination of skoal (dip) declension,"--{{User:Coryma}} 03:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments from a native Bulgarian who speaks fluent English and Bulgarian

Macedonian is called a separate language but really is not. Macedonia broke away from Bulgaria; the language of its people does not differ from Bulgarian in any significant manner. I have entered and maintained a conversation with a Macedonian without either of us realizing that the other spoke a "different" language until I asked what city he was from.

More importantly, a lot of the sentences on this page were written by someone that is either

  • an illiterate Bulgarian
  • someone who has learned Bulgarian as an adult

Either way, that person should not be touching an article on the Bulgarian language. Specifically, I am referring to the section on syntax: Аз го дадох подаръка на майка ми made me laugh. Just to make doubly sure, I asked my father, and he laughed as well. That sentence is the exact equivalent of "I gave it the gift to my mother" and is embarassing.

Anastas5425 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I don;t have a source for this, but Bulgaria is definitely WELL below 8.5 million. That is completely incorrect. Walk down the street and you will notice that you will see only old people; a significant portion of the national population emigrated in the early 90s in response to the failing economy, including my family. A more accurate estimate might by 6 million, at most.

Anastas5425 04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian was a Bulgarian dialect. Now, however, it's not due to the long divergence from the Bulgarian standard language and to the Serbian influence.I, personally, do not want the two languages to become one again, because I do not want Serbian dialectisms in my language. If a Macedonian citizen claims he is an ethnic Bulgarian and wants to live in Bulgaria, he/she should learn the standard language.
I'm also a native speaker of Bulgarian (form Stara Zagora) and the mentioned sentence sounds correct to me. Of course I wouldn't say it in an official context, but I don't see what's the problem with it. Arath 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
'Bold text'

[edit] On clitic doubling in Bulgarian

Hello, I tried to help to foreigners, because the original entry seemed quite bizzare for me, and I am native Bulgarian speaker. It was written that this phenomenon is not adequately covered in the grammars, so I have provided both correct and incorrect structures, plus direct trasnlation and explanation where redundancy of semantics occurs. The original aimed at "literal" translation, but actually it was "wrong translation". Simply English language contains no grammatical cases, and actually one tries to "literally" translate remnants of Bulgarian cases, which is impossible -- simply English language has not appropriate word for literal translation. So if "literal" translation in such case cannot be done, at least one can do "semantical translation", which is better alternative than "wrong both semantical and literal translation" claimed to be "literal". Danko Georgiev MD 07:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Who says that sentences like "Подаръка додох на майка ми." are incorrect? And who says that clitic doublings like "Аз й го дадох подаръка на майка ми." are also incorrect? Cite a grammar book. It's true that some sentences sound better than other, but none of the above sound incorrect. Incorrect is "един кифла", "аз разбира" and something like that. In his book "Българска диалектология" Сойко Стойков says that the clitic doubling is one of the things that distinguish Bulgarian from Serbian, and he doesn't say that there are cases when it's correct and when it's incorrect. Arath 08:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"Подаръка дадох на майка ми." is perfectly correct; it would be used to stress 'to whom' the present was given; exactly as the English form "The gift I gave to my mother." Example of such use in a relevant context: "I had three things: a book, a present, and a pen. The book I gave to my brother. The present I gave to my brother. And the pen I gave to my sister." Apcbg
"Граматика за всички" by Боримир Кръстев, page 202:

"В българския език прякото допълнение може да се дублира. Това става по два начина:

  1. изразява се със съществително име и с местоимение във винителен падеж (Написах го писмото);
  2. изразява се с местоименни винителни форми - дълга и кратка (Питам го него)."
"Граматика за всички" page 203:

"В българския език и непрякото допълнение може да се дублира. Това става по два начина:

  1. чрез съществително и местоименна дателна форма (Казвам му на Иван);
  2. чрез дълга и кратка местоименна дателна форма (Казвам му на него. Казвам му нему. Нему му казвам)." Arath 09:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, however the usage of
"Подаръка дадох на майка ми." - "The present - I gave to my mother"

is completely different from

"Подаръка го дадох на майка ми." - "I gave the present to my mother"

The first sentence is incomplete and there is something "missing" in it. The second sentence is gramatically complete and can be used always. So the second complete sentence is indeed equivalent to "I gave the present to my mother", while the first one cannot be translated correctly in English and is context dependent. The first incomplete sentence can be used in gramatically correct way only in subordinate sentences, or in cases when it is clear that you are omitting parts of the sentence, e.g. when you have mentioned once the "present", and while talking on another topic you make the remark on what happens with the present: (in bulgarian) "Подаръкът беше в опаковка. Опаковката я изхвърлих, а подаръка дадох на майка ми". - "The present was in a packing. The packing I have thrown away, the present - I gave to my mother". In any case an incomplete sentence cannot be called gramatically correct. If you ask someone directly "What did you do with the present?" - "Какво направи с подаръка?" and he replies "Подаръка дадох на майка ми" - this is completely wrong gramatically and sounds in English in a way similar to "Present gave my mother". Danko Georgiev MD 09:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is encyclopedia, so foreigners should know how to talk in gramatically correct way, and not whether they can be understood even if their grammar is completely disorganized. Danko Georgiev MD 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my humbe knowledge of Bulgarian and English, both "На кого дадох подаръка? Подаръка дадох на майка ми." and "Whom did I gave the present? The present I gave to my mother." are gramatically correct, both of them. There is nothing incomplete or missing in their respective second sentences. To be correct is to be correct in some, not all instances or contexts. Apcbg 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you watched foreign films sound-screened in Bulgarian? Have you heard at the end of the film the sentence "Ролите озвучиха артистите:..."? Is this sentence incorrect? Is there something missing in it? Or is it correct because someone asks before it "Какво стана с ролите?" It is true that "Подаръка го дадох на майка ми" sounds better than "Подаръка дадох на майка ми"? And it's true that the two sentences sound differently in different cases. But it's wrong to say that "Подаръка додох на майка ми" is incorrect. It emphasizes on the present, it means that I'm talking about the present not about my mother. It can be said that the sentence "Давам подаръка на майка си" is incorrect if you're talking about the past (the correct one is "Дадох подаръка на майка си"). I agree with Apcbg: "To be correct is to be correct in some, not all instances or contexts."
Also I think it's better in all of the above sentences to be "на майка СИ" not "на майка МИ". Arath 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the fact that you focus the question, and make central the semantics "whom?", does not eliminate the fact that you omit parts of the sentence. Typical example is Q:"Whom did you give the red big present with the nice packing?", A:"To my mother!", still the answer is NOT gramatically complete as a sentence. It is part of sentence, and is context dependent. Maybe my original point when I have marked the sentence as "gramatically incorrect" is to WARN the foreigner that this is part of sentence, and does not have equivalent semantical load with the sentence "The present I gave to my mother". Actually I was trying to explain what is the subtle difference, and not to argue whether there is some particular case in which the piece of sentence may sound well in Bulgarian. -- Note "did I gave" is wrong English grammar of past tense. But don't worry, I also make a lot of grammatical mistakes when I write or speak in English. Danko Georgiev MD 10:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I agree with ""Ролите озвучиха артистите: .." but this is still incomplete sentence. Possibly one can write - "gramatically correct piece of sentence with omitted but understood parts". Is it too bizzare? Danko Georgiev MD 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian cases

I have seen also somewhere statements that the incorrect usage of nominative case is gramatically acceptable. Example "Аз ми се иска .." -this is parody of Bulgarian language, and the fact that some ill-educated people might use such gramatically incorrect expressions, does not mean that this is not wrong grammar. The correct is "На мен ми се иска ..". So I think that all these wrong grammatical forms should be deleted from the encyclopedia. ps. I guess most of the text is written by Bulgarians, possibly trying to push their own original ideas on what is acceptable and what not in "modern" Bulgarian language. My conclusions are based on the bad "literal translations" in English. I guess if the text were written by native English speaker, he would probably say -- untranslatable -- instead of literal translation. One cannot translate accusative case "го" with nominative case "it" and after that claim "literal translation". Translation means "to keep the semantics". Danko Georgiev MD 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not grammatically acceptable, neither is the wrong usage of "кой" instead of "кого". The article just says that in the language there is a trend toward losing the accusative and dative cases, even in the pronouns. Languages, such as Spanish, French and English, have also lost the noun cases, but have preserved them in the pronouns. There no trends in these languages toward using "yo/je/I", "tu/you", "el/il/he" instead of "me", "te/you" "lo/le/him", whereas in Bulgarian there is. Arath 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this negative trend towards bad grammar is due to bad education in Bulgarian schools in recent years. Also I am not from Sofia, but particularly in Sofia, the Bulgarian language is extremely bad. As if in the family one is taught to speak as bad as possible. Danko Georgiev MD 11:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Another example of the bad education in recent years is the so-called mekane (пишеме, правиме instead of пишем, правим, wide-spread in our capital. Sofians even don't consider it dialectical, because so many politicians and journalist also мекат. I know many people from Blagoevgrad and Pirin Macedonia, where the mekane is part of the local dialect, but they do not say пишеме and правиме. Arath 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The good language norms that you defend are the result of 'bad' developments in the past ... Language is living and evolving; what's wrong today may (if enough people adopt it) become the norm of tomorrow, that's the way of things. Otherwise Bulgarians would have spoken the language of Sts. Syril and Methodius ... or those of Kubrat and Spartacus :-) Apcbg 11:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The modern Bulgarian language is too young. It was codified about 130 years ago. In contrast, modern French, English, Spanish and many other modern West European languages have much longer history. Compare "Istoriya Slavyanobolgarskaya" in Bulgarian and "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" in English and French, they both were written around the same time - the second half of the 18th century. Read the declaration in English and French. Do you notice any differences in the French and English languages spoken then and now? Read the History (which wasn't written in Old Church Slavonic, rather in the spoken language) and look how many differences there are between the Bulgarian language then and now. They are due to the lack of education between the second half of the 18th century and the second half of the 19th century.
The differences between the spoken Bulgarian language now and the literary language are due to the influence of the local dialect, which is different in the different parts of the country. There are few differences which are due to internal processes of the language and are valid for all the Bulgarian dialects. One of these is the wrong use of the nominative forms of the pronouns instead of the accusative and dative. Although I have noticed that in Western Bulgaria "кой" instead of "кого", is much more common than in Eastern. This is perhaps due to the fact, that in the Western dialects the form is not "кого", but "кога", and the first form sounds strange to most western speakers.
Unfortunately, the mekane and the other differences from the literary language, found in Sofia, aren't valid for all Bulgaria and are due, as I said before, to the local Shopski dialect. It this dialect the form of the verb in first person singular present tense is "Я пишем" (this is the form for first person PLURAL in most of the other Bulgarian dialects: "Ние пишем"), while the form for first person plural is "ние пишеме" (the final "е" distinguishes singular from plural). In the literary language, and in most of the other dialects, the forms are "Аз пиша" and "Ние пишем" respectively, and as can be seen the distinction between singular and plural is achieved by other means and a final "е" is unnecessary. It is observed that in the evolution of languages the unnecessary things fall into disuse. That's what happened to most of the Bulgarian cases, they became unnecessary, because prepositions took their place.
In conclusion, there should be difference between modern Bulgarian trends, which are due to language evolution, and local dialectical features. In Sofia the shops have always said "пишеме", which means that the mekane isn't an example of evolution, while the disuse of the accusative and dative cases is definitely an example of evolution. There's no point arguing that the Bulgarian education is not as good as it should be, especially in Bulgarian language. The education should converge the Bulgarian dialects, so that they could have common future. The mekane shows that the education is still failing to do so. The speed with which a language evolves is inversely proportional to the quality of the education in that language. Arath 13:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A very interesting and informative comment indeed. I don't know if "пишеме" will become established (dominant), but apparently the location of Sofia within the Shoppe region in western Bulgaria results in a strong influence of the regional dialect on the city talk, even though a vast majority of the city inhabitants or their parrents or grand parents have moved to Sofia from other Bulgarian regions -- both eastern and western, with particularly great input by ethnic Bulgarian refugees from Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. One particular impact from this 'western dominance' nowadays seems to be the progress of 'e' replacing 'ya' (mlyako, hlyab => mleko, hleb) in words where the literary norm follows the Eastern dialects; if true — I may be wrong — that would be a sort of historical compensation correcting the disbalance in favour of the eastern Bulgarian dialects introduced by the prominent writers and educators in the late 19th Century who came mostly from present central and eastern Bulgaria, and naturally shaped the literary norm to favour their native parlance to the expence not only of the Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia but also those in the wider Shoppe region (including parts of present eastern Serbia too), and present northwestern Bulgaria. Apcbg 14:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The Shopski and Torlak dialects are considered transitional between Bulgarian and Serbian (see Torlak), that's why they weren't included in the literary language (because of the many Serbian features). The problem were only the Macedonian dialects, but it should be noted, that in 1/4 of the Macedonian dialects the yat is pronounced like in Eastern Bulgaria (мляко, хляб) (see this map). These dialects are indeed very poorly represented in the modern language (only the adverbial participle "пишейки" is a Macedonian feature). Nowadays, that most of Macedonia is not part of Bulgaria, the so-called "disbalance" is not so significant, because, as can be seen from the yat border (which divides the Bulgarian dialects into eastern and western), the literary norm, shaped by the prominent writers and educators, favours almost all Bulgarian dialects (excluding the transitional ones) on the territory of the present country. It is not worthy to change the norm in favour of people who not only live outside Bulgaria, but no longer consider themselves ethnic Bulgarians. Arath 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"... It is not worthy to change the norm in favour of people who not only live outside Bulgaria, but no longer consider themselves ethnic Bulgarians." — We are talking about natural evolution of the spoken language not language engineering, and about the impact of people who are Bulgarians, and who live in Bulgaria today: in Pirin Macedonia (yes it exists, and nowadays "most of Macedonia" speaks Greek, there is also Pirin Macedonia, and Vardar {R. of) Macedonia), Sofia, the Shoppe region, and northwestern Bulgaria. I know the 'Yat' border, but when the norm was shaped in the late 19th century that was not done on the basis of early 21st Century realities with some people changing their national identity (like I pointed out many of them actually did keep their national identity and moved to Bulgaria — several hundred thousands of them at a time when the population of the country was some 4 million); also, could you please provide sources confirming that any 19th Century Bulgarian writers, educators or linguists might have regarded the western Bulgarian dialects as 'transitional' and less Bulgarian? Apcbg 17:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I can provide sources that NOW Bulgarian linguists regard the Shop and Torlak dialects as transitional. Read "Българска диалектология" by "Стойко Стойков". You are wrong if you think that if the literary language accepted forms like "млеко" and "хлеб", this would bring the Shop and Torlak dialects any closer to the literary norm (closer maybe by a millimetre), because there are many other features that set them apart from the other Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects and bring them closer to the Serbian language (read the book).
By the way I hadn't heard that there was such a trend, I thought that the opposite was happening: "видяли/живяли/четяли" instead of "видели/живели/четели" (that's written in "Граматика за всички"). And I haven't heard anyone from Eastern Bulgaria who has changed their pronunciation from "хляб" to "хлеб". If in the Shoppe region say "хлеб", is this evolution? Arath 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
So you have no relevant sources; the 19th Century writers and educators had no access to Mr. Stoykov's book I am afraid, and (if I am not wrong) they considered the Shoppe dialect as a Bulgarian language dialect not Serbian one. I don't know if Stoykov regards the Sofia city brogue as 'transitional' to Serbian, but Sofia naturally has a considerable weight in Bulgarian language evolution nowadays, and then in many aspects not just 'ya-e' shift (Sofianites say 'pravime' as mentioned above, also 'she' instead of 'shte' etc.). I agree that the rule 'byal - beli' is not working (if it ever worked); people say either 'byal - byali' or 'bel - beli'. We are discussing the evolution of the literary language (not that of the Shoppe dialect), but that could be sensibly done on the basis of representative data rather than personal opinion. Apcbg 21:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for my incompetence, but for me 'byal - beli' always worked :-) It depends on the family educational status, my parents were living in western part of Bulgaria, but they both have obtained their high education in Varna Universities. So for me, if one says "byal - byali" or "bel - beli" I will immediately spot the person as ill-educated, and that he speaks wrong Bulgarian. The correct feeling of the language as far as I remember is obtained early in the 4th-6th degree in school, which corresponds to 10-12 years old. And yes, it was a communist regime then, or shortly after that, but the educational system was the same in whole Bulgaria. Only late in the years of democracy, in schools it become modern for one to speak in dialect, and not in correct Bulgarian, that you will usually hear in TV news Danko Georgiev MD 01:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. the trend towards "ill-education" or "miseducation" is unserious to be called "language evolution" :-) Danko Georgiev MD 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you've understood me wrongly. No Bulgarian has ever considered the Shoppe dialect as Serbian, it is considered as TRANSITIONAL. Even you can't say that there are no Serbian dialectisms in it. The border between Serbian and Bulgarian is blurred. The one language gradually changes into the other. Where do you think this gradual change takes place? In Plovdiv? Burgas? Varna? Of course in the west. Now do you notice any political bias in Stokov's book? Do you think he's wrong?
And how can I explain you that "пишеме" and the other features are not examples of evolution? To be evolution there has to be difference between present and past. If you compare the Sofian dialect now and in the time of Cyril and Methodius, yes, there is a difference. But we're talking about processes in the modern language, the one codified around 1880. Can you point me a time between 1880 and now when Sofians didn't say "пишеме"? I think you can't. This is influence of the local dialect. The case is the same in all other parts of Bulgaria. Local people's idiolect is a mixture between the local dialect and the literary language. Many Eastern Bulgarians say "мен мъ", "теб тъ", "нас нъ", "говори съ". Is this evolution? No, it's not. That's just a local dialect, as the Shoppe one. Arath 09:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there may exist gradual changes between two related languages, but the two languages in question are not so close as to be inseparable, and the line between them runs somewhere. For all know it was considered at least by the 19th Century Bulgarians (when the literary norm was formed) that that line run west of the Shoppe dialects an not east of them. Therefore, those language engineers might have made better use of western dialects features than they did.
Nobody says that "pisheme" or any other particular feature is an example of evolution; it's their appearance or disappearence in a dialect (or in the official norm) that is evolution. Such features may have always (or for centuries) existed in the Sofia talk, and that of course is no evolution; however, when they acquire wider usage (meaning that they may eventually become part of the norm when well established) that is evolution; the incorporation of features from dialects into the literary norm (or vice versa) is evolution.
I am not at all convinced by your attribution of people's speaking in dialect to their poor education. They speak in dialect because they like speaking it in the first place, they like the feeling of belonging to their distinct community; that's an expression of regional identity. Sometimes you may realize that people are not poorly educated when you see them promptly shifting from dialect to literary norm as soon as an outsider joins them -- if they care that the outsider might regard them as uneducated, that is; if they don't they may keep speaking in their dialect, even with an element of demonstration. In other words, the literary norm and the local dialect seem to have two different social functions. Apcbg 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I say that the improper use of "кой" (which is really an example of evolution) is due to bad education perhaps, although it's debatable, of course, not just speaking in a dialect. The aim of primary education in any language is to teach people which is right and which is wrong, not to force them to use the right one. They are free to use their dialect or the literary norm whenever they want to.
But a recent research, conducted by Krasimira Aleksova, showed that the education in Bulgaria is failing to fulfill its purpose. The people who were tested were to listen to some dialects and to the literary norm, of course, and to identify the deviations from the norm in the different dialects and to arrange them according the the remoteness from the literary language. Well, they failed, they weren't that bad, but did not do as expected. You can find the research in internet (Красимира Алексова, езикови атитюди). And on this site you can find additional language materials and researches, concerning the processes in the Bulgarian language and their causes.
There are people, whose professions require that they use the literary norm, such as teachers, journalist, politicians, TV spokesmen and so on. If such people do not use the norm, when they're required to, this is an example of bad education. My son's textbooks in Astronomy ("Астрономия, Педагог 6, Никола Николов, Веселка Радева, Елисавета Илева") and History ("История и цивилизация, 11 клас, Кръгозор, Йордан Андреев, Елена Стателова, Красимира Мутафова, Петко Ст. Петков, Тодор Мишев") are full of spelling and grammatical errors. An example of what is this? If you've seen Bulgarian forums, you surely know how many people can't write. It is a shame that Bulgarians, whose orthography is much simpler than that of the English or French language, make more spelling mistakes than Englishmen and Frenchmen. As I said before, the Bulgarian education is not as good as it should be. Arath 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the interesting link. If I understand it correctly, Krasimira Aleksova studies four groups of language features — let's call them 'moderate western', 'moderate eastern', 'heavy western', and 'heavy eastern' — ranking them all plus the literary norm as perceived in several respects including correctness, prestige, pleasantness etc., and the study demonstrates that the 'moderate western' features are perceived markedly more favourably than the rest. From this one may probably conjecture that features like 'ya-e' shift, 'mekane' and hard endings ('mislya' - 'misla' shift) have good chances in becoming established as eventually adopted as a norm in the future. (The tendencies are better showing among the younger recipients in the study I believe.) I am curious about 'she' instead of 'shte' which is typical for Sofia I believe, but she has only included 'che' in the 'heavy western' group which is something else.
You may well be right about the present state of Bulgarian education (hey, didn't our parents have the same opinion of the school education of their children? :-)). However, I am not convinced that it's education deficiency that changes the language. It is a bit peculiar to imagine the most illiterate people as the pioneers of language evolution; and if illiteracy is the motor of language evolution, then either illiteracy is good or language evolution is bad :-) It seems more likely to me that e.g. TV people start to use a new language feature not because a particular person there is ill educated, but when enough of them have the confidence that that feature is prestigious, pleasant, and — very important — already enough established in popular speech. But anyway, maybe this talk page is not the place for such a discussion, at least I have no particular suggestion regarding the article text at this point. Apcbg 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"Шъ" is not typical for Sofia, it is typical for the eastern dialects, and in recent years it has spread in Sofia, too. "Че" is typical for Sofia. There are very few dialects where the particle is "ще", it was chosen for the literary language because it sounded to the engineers better than "шъ", not because it was more common (it´s not). Arath 09:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I's 'she/ше' not 'shə/шъ', see above; I haven't heard the latter other than from natives of eastern Bulgaria, while the former is overwhelming in Sofia — as far as I can tell. Apcbg 11:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a compromise between "че" and "шъ". I don't live in Sofia and I haven't heard it a lot. It's not spread in other parts of Bulgaria. But I don't think it will gain any popularity in Eastern Bulgaria, because "шъ" is easier pronounced than "ше", it requires less breath ("ъ" is a narrow vowel, while "е" is wide). And here it is even contracted to "ш'": "ш'пра'я", "ш'ходя", "ш'съ върнеш". Arath 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the point is not what gains popularity in eastern Bulgaria but what might get into the literary norm some day. I'm not saying that 'she' necessarily will make it, nevertheless it's interesting to what extent people don't realize how they actually speak; if you ask Sofianites how they pronounce the particle in question probably everyone will say it's 'shte' while they actually say 'she' (which of course is easier to say than 'shte'). Apcbg 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that nowadays anything can get into the literary norm if its usage is restricted only for Sofia. Arath 13:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. At the same time, the Sofia language features have probably the best prospects of becoming 'prestigious', 'pleasant' etc. and via the Sofia based national electronic and other media spread nationwide. Apcbg 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You think people should be deliberately taught and exposed to the Sofian dialect via the media in order to acquire the dialect? Linguists from BAS think that should be done so that Bulgarians could learn the literary language, not a dialect? You should explain your views to them, not to me. Why do you think everybody has to speak the Shoppe dialect? Don't you like the literary language? I don't know why a person would want to change their dialect to another one, but not the literary language. The research showed that the literary norm is more prestigious even than the "moderate western" dialect. So according to your logic, that people change their idiolect, because of prestige, Bulgarians will change their dialect, so it's closer to the literary norm. And they are doing that to some extent or other, even in Sofia. I don't see why this process should be stopped.
As I told you before, people's idiolects in all Bulgaria are influenced by the local dialect and the literary norm, not the Sofian dialect.Arath 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I never said this or that should happen, I am just curious what and why is happening in the contemporary evolution of Bulgarian language. Yes the literary norm appeared as most 'prestigious' in that study; the point is that after leaving the school people don't regularly consult the authoritative dictionary of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences that sets the norm and from time to time introduces new amendments to it, people generally take as 'norm' what they hear and see in the national media (TV and press in the first place), and being Sofia-based the national media is naturally more influenced and infiltrated by Sofia language features than e.g. Varna ones. And if post-school-age people outside Sofia accept new language features from the national media (from where else?) they would do that assuming it's not something from another dialect (you are right in that) but something 'correct' from the literary norm.
So you think people are deliberately taught and exposed to the Sofian dialect via the media so that they can acquire the dialect? Well I don't think that's exactly true, but we'll wait and see what will happen.
Let me draw your attention to a few things: the people who took part in the research were not only students, and after the age of 25 is difficult to change one's habits. The fact that they put the moderate western dialect after the literary norm and particularly before the moderate eastern when they were asked to arrange them according to correctness tells us that they didn't register the mekane, the hard endings and the ekane at all or to a very small extent. They registered the ikane ("и" instead of unstressed "е") of the moderate eastern dialect (which is its only deviation from the literary norm) and that's why put it after the moderate western. They registered some incorrectness in the moderate western, most possibly the ekane, but not everything, otherwise they would have put it after the moderate eastern, which contains much less errors (correctness is an objective aspect, not one concerning the personal taste of the testant). I can tell from personal experience that these errors are hardly distinguishable when listening to TV. I can register only the mekane, but when I'm concentrated on the grammar not on the meaning of what I'm listening to. I didn't know about the hard endings before I saw the research, and I doubt that many people know exactly how the Sofian dialect is different form the literary norm. I still don't know anyone around me (or living outside Sofia) who has changed their idiolect to match the Sofian one. But we'll wait and see what will happen in future. I only say that this is not happening now and that I doubt it will happen some day, but that's only my opinion. You've said yours (both opinions are subjective and neither can predict exactly how the language will evolve), so I think this debate, not concerning the article, is over. Arath 10:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and thanks for your information, points, and opinion. Apcbg 12:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax section

I think the present content of the section is parody of "syntax" section as it says nothing on general syntax. The current focus is on a topic of marginal importance. Danko Georgiev MD 11:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for provoking such a heated debate on bulgarian cases, dialects, etc. I just wanted to say that the syntax section needs attention of professionals, and I guess the main article is written (possibly) by the very people cited in the published grammars :-)) Even if this is not the case, I think that there are wikieditors that can repair the current syntax section. It says nothing that deserves attention, and the clitic doubling is of marginal importance. Danko Georgiev MD 01:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian Scouting

Can someone help render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Bulgarian? Thanks! Chris 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Schwa

I'm confused. Which vowel represents the Bulgarian sound "Ъ": the mid central vowel (ə) or the close-mid back unrounded vowel (ɤ)? Previously in the article "Ъ" was represented as ə, but now it is as ɤ. Arath 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm completely sure that the vowel chart is wrong. The sound "ɤ" sounds like "o", not like "Ъ". I ask any native speaker of Bulgarian, who reads this, check out the two sounds ə (the Schwa) and ɤ, and tell me who sounds like "Ъ". Arath 10:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a native speaker of a language does not make one an expert in phonetic analysis. If you want to dispute the chart, you should refer to an alternate source. In this case, the chart has been taken from The Handbook of the International Phonetic Association.
Peter Isotalo 08:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I hear it much closer to "ə" as well. Here is a source:
...С тези си особености конфигурацията на гласовия канал за изговор на гласната [ъ] наподобява конфигурацията на гласовия канал в състояние на покой, при която се артикулират неутралните гласни от "шва" тип. Характерна особеност на гласовия канал при изговор на българската гласна [ъ] е обаче очертаването на известно стеснение в областта на гърлената кухина. -- Граматика на съвременния български книжовен език. Том първи. Фонетика, София, Абагар. ISBN 954-584-235-0
I'm not sure that I can translate it well in English but it says that the vowel is similar to schwa but with some narrowing of the throat. --Nk 13:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone here can read Bulgarian. Do you think you could translate this for us?
Peter Isotalo 07:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Translation: ...Because of these features, the configuration of the vocal tract, while articulating the vowel [ъ], resembles the configuration of the vocal tract when not speaking, which is the configuration used when articulating neutral vowels from Schwa type. A characteristic feature of the vocal tract when pronouncing the Bulgarian vowel [ъ] is a certain narrowing of the throat. - Grammar of the contemporary Bulgarian literary language. First volume. Phonetics, Sofia, Abagar Arath 12:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it's been discussed time and again but the ъ /ɤ/ still bothers me. On the vowels chart its placed pretty close to ə and IPA ɤ is basicly an unrounded o (I think). IPA ɤ doesn't sound anything like ъ. Schwa, on the other hand, sounds exactly like stressed ъ. So IMO it should be ъ /ə/ with a note that the tongue is further back. As crazy as it may sound, someone might be using Wiki to learn Bulgarian phonetics and I can't help but think the current symbol is misleading. 90.154.149.171 (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Small problem in the header paragraph?

Hi - I'm a pretty good Bulgarian speaker, but not a native one, so I don't want to simply introduce changes myself. This sentence (at the end of the head paragraph) gives me problems: "Various verb forms exist to express unwitnessed, retold, and doubtful action." Two things bother me:

1. These forms express "unwitnessed, retold, OR doubtful action" - the way it is written suggests that there are are different forms for each of the categories, which is not true. I think "and" should be replaced with "or".
2. These "various verb forms" are not (as far as I know) independent, additional verb forms - they are a specific use of particular tenses and aspects to express the "not personally verified" concept.

Please, someone with proper knowledge address this situation. --Martha 18:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

2. The renarrative mood has its own specific forms (different from those of the indicative mood). You can see them here (only past aorist renarrative is almost identical with present perfect indicative).
1. Well, this is a bit difficult to answer. The renarrative mood is used in all these situations, but it is given a different name (admirative, etc). However, as you can see from the table of formation, in third person singular and plural the auxiliary verb "съм" can be omitted, but not without a change in meaning. Here's the following narration (in English): "The burglar entered through the window, while the victim was taking a bath. He had already cut the telephone cable. He was about to attack when he heard someone knock on the door." In Bulgarian in can be translated in two ways (both using the renarrative mood). The first one: if someone told you this story and you want to retell it, you'd better omit "съм": "Убиецът влязъл през прозореца, докато жертвата се къпела. Предварително бил отрязал телефонния кабел. Щял да нападне, когато чул някой да чука на вратата." The second one: If you're, let's say, a detective and you're making a logical conclusion (you're not retelling, because nobody has told you this story before, you're deducing, considering the clues: the broken window, the cut cable, etc), you have to use "съм": "Убиецът е влязъл през прозореца, докато жертвата се е къпела. Предварително е бил отрязал телефонния кабел. Щял е да нападне, когато е чул някой да чука на вратата."
Moreover, the renarrative mood has additional forms, which I haven't included in the table. They are formed by adding an extra "бил/а/о/и" (past imperfect participle of "съм") to the usual forms ("четял съм бил", "била съм била чела", "щял съм бил да бъда"). These forms are used exclusively for expressing sarcasm, irony, disbelief, etc. Imagine that someone told you that you can't sing, but you reject to accept it, you're absolutely sure that you can sing, and you want to belittle this statement. In Bulgarian you can do this by saying "Не можел съм да пея" or "Не можел съм бил да пея". These sentences are heavy with irony, because they are the statement "I can't sing" but in the renarrative mood, so they mean exactly the opposite. Thus you're not only saying (retelling, renarrating) that somebody told you that you can't sing but you're also conveying your disbelief, rejection of the statement, sarcasm, etc. The difference between the two sentences is that the second one is more emphatic. This construction is used solely for such purposes. Arath 11:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian is NOT a standard form of the Bulgarian Language!

The Bulgarian language has two literary norms which are mutually intelligible:

Standard Bulgarian - established during the 19th century and based on the North-Eastern Bulgarian dialects. It is currently used mainly in the Republic of Bulgaria.

RE: Macedonian - established in 1944 and based on the South-Western Bulgarian dialects. It is currently used in the Republic of Macedonia. -this statement is incorrect.


Macedonian and Bulgarian are two distinct languages. That is why it is recognised by every country except for Bulgaria and Greece. Does Bulgaria call Norwegian Swedish? Or Portuguese Spanish?. Other 'closer' examples include Indonesian and Malaysian, Czech and Slovak.

Could someone please tell me why the population who speaks MACEDONIAN in MACEDONIA are bieng counted as bulgarian speakers??? A czech cannot count slovak speakers as czech ones!

- could someone please tell me why??? thank you P m kocovski (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
It's quite simple actually. If you've been in Bulgaria you'd know that the old people here talk quite as you in Macedonia do. This is why we, Bulgarians, say that your language is a dialect of ours. And, as you perhaps know, Macedonia has always shown its Bulgarian origins after Bulgaria was liberated from Otoman rule. --87.121.65.44 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, actually nobody in Bulgaria "talks quite as you in Macedonia do". But the fact is that, unlike Swedes and Czechs, we Bulgarians have not had the opportunity to grow used to the idea that two languages can be so much like each other and yet be separate languages. The other neighbour languages have very little in common with Bulgarian. The only exception is Serbian, but even Serbian feels significantly more different compared to Macedonian, mostly because of the case system.
The more important factor is, of course, not linguistic but political. Macedonians tended to regard themselves as Bulgarian until very recently. And it's in the nature of the ideology of nationalism to believe that ethnicities/nations are somehow created by God for all eternity, so they can't split and those who have belonged to them at one point will always objectively belong to them, no matter what they decide and how they identify subjectively. The history of the world is literally one big list of counterexamples that disprove this idea, but who cares. So, according to this logic, since the Macedonians "were" (= identified as) Bulgarian once, it means that they still "are" Bulgarian and always will "be" Bulgarian, no matter how they feel about it and what they identify as currently. Most Bulgarians learn this way of thinking at school, so again, the "Macedonians are Bulgarians" stuff seems like common sense to them. Sadly, most Macedonians also learn this same way of thinking at school, so they are forced to play the game according to rules that will never let them win.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error in the Syntax Section?

I think that an error has crept into the examples given in the Syntax section. I am a native Bulgarian speaker and not a linguist, hence I decided first to write here and invite opinions rather than to edit the main article.

Here is what I think is wrong:

1) Example as given (wrong): Аз (го) дадох подаръка на майка си.

2) Example as it should be (correct): Аз (го) дадох подаръка на майка ми.

Why? Answer: because in modern Bulgarian the short possessive pronoun "си" is used in accusative and "ми" is used in nominative and dative. Cf. accusative: "Извиках сестра си." "Обичам майка си." "Откарах брат си до университета.", but dative: "Казах на сестра ми да дойде." "Обадих се на брат ми." "Подарих на майка ми букет за осми март." Hence it must be "Дадох на майка ми подарък." Having said this, I do admit that certain ambiguity is present in the modern usage and that people might say "Извиках брат си" as well as "Извиках брат ми." However, I feel that the usage "Дадох го на майка си." is stretching the rules of modern Bulgarian a bit too far. And as one final illustration, consider the following dialog which sounds natural (although a bit formal):

  Учителката: Иванчо, ти каза ли в къщи за родителската среща?
  Иванчо: Да.
  Учителката: На кого каза?
  Иванчо: Казах на майка ми.

The following answer, I think, would be unnatural for a Bulgarian: "Казах на майка си."

For these reasons I suggest that the two examples in the Syntax section are corrected as follows:

"Аз (го) дадох подаръка на майка си." --> "Аз (го) дадох подаръка на майка ми."

"Аз (ѝ го) дадох подаръка на майка си." --> "Аз (ѝ го) дадох подаръка на майка ми."

Also, please put full stops where required (most of the sentences in the examples end without any full stops. Is this intentional?)

Again, I am not a linguist, only a native speaker. This is why I felt that I should not edit the article, but rather write here. Do excuse discussing such a minor issue here (I would not want to comment on the issue raised previously in this discussion about the credibility and usefulness of the entire Syntax section).

Plamen Grozdanov (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Both versions are correct, as far as I know, in the accusative as well as in the dative, and the grammar I can consult right now doesn't tell me otherwise. It's true that the "mi" version is the more popular one and is getting more and more common specifically with words for relatives and family, but I think it sounds too colloquial and looks even worse when written down. I think the norm is in a state of flux in this case. It's true that the "si" (reflexive) version often sounds too cold and objective: it simply points out, impersonally, the nature of the relations from an outsider's point of view, while the "mi" (non-reflexive) version appears to treat the word as a personal name. Compare: "Nikoga ne bih ubil brat si" (I would never kill my brother) - implying "because he is my brother, and killing one's brother is a bad thing to do". "Nikoga ne bih ubil brat mi" - implying "because I love this specific person, my brother".--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed in this case both versions are correct, but there are cases, where the use of the non-reflexive pronouns is wrong. For example, it's definitely incorrect to say: "Никога не бих МИ убил детето", it should be "Никога не бих СИ убил детето". Perhaps it's because the possessive pronoun doesn't follow the noun, I don't know. Arath (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "CIA" language map

Image:Bulgarian language map.png
Dubious?

I can't find the source for that allegedly CIA-based map. The World Factbook doesn't seem to contain such a map (and everywhere it lists languages by country, it lists only "Macedonian", not "Bulgarian" as spoken in Macedonia.) Where is that map taken from?

Besides, the CIA may well be an authority about many things, but certainly not about linguistics.

Could it be that the uploader really meant only the blank base map was CIA? (Actually, now that I re-read it, that's really literally what he says.) The linguistic content seems entirely the uploader's own fabrication. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Finaly something nice from you!!!It was abou time that you show neutrality!!!Pozdrav/Regrads--Makedonij (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dialects

What has recently been written about the Bulgarian dialects is not entirely true. The pronunciation of the Yat vowel in the standard language is based only on the Eastern dialects, where it is pronounced either as ya or e. Nobody says "свЯтец", "млЯкар", there is no such Bulgarian dialect. Moreover, people from the capital and from Western Bulgaria, in general tend to pronounce it only as ya "голЯми, видЯли" compared to standard and East-Bulgarian "големи, видели", this phenomenon is called "свръхякане".

The pronunciation of the personal pronouns as "мъ, тъ, съ" is not at all restricted only to Eastern Bulgaria, here's a map. The person who's written the dialect section should revise it according to this site. Arath (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "свЯтец", "млЯкар", I think you're right that there are no such dialects. When Stoykov says that some Eastern dialects have only "ya" or only "wide e" for "yat", I think he only means the stressed syllables, while the unstressed ones probably get "e" (or simply "i" because of reduction) in all or most dialects. Maybe "wide e" does occur at some places in unstressed syllables - свêтец, млêкар - but I'd be very surprised if "ya" does. But Stoykov doesn't say that explicitly, and I'm not 100 % sure that he means that, so I don't feel entitled to write it in the article (WP:NOR etc.).--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, just as I thought. Only a small part of the Rhodope dialects have млêкар ("wide e" even in unstressed syllables). None has млякар ("ya" even in unstressed syllables). [18].--Anonymous44 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 12 million & map

1/ Can we source the claim that there are 12 million speakers of Bulgarian in the Balkans?
2/ Suggestion: I understand the delicacies about FYR Macedonia involved in a map showing where Bulgarian is spoken. But until WWII many areas were considered to speak Bulgarian, so I suggest introducing a historical linguistic map of Bulgarian speakers.

Also consider this:

Guide to the Peoples of Europe, edited by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, Times Books 1994 A division of Harper Collins Publishers. P223
page 223. "Language: The Macedonians’ claims to separate nationhood depend heavily upon arguments supporting the existence of a Macedonian language. The South Slav languages are all close and the native idioms used by the Macedonians vary from region to region and can be difficult to distinguish from the vernaculars of their immediate neighbours in Bulgaria and Serbia. The Macedonian literary standard exhibits the characteristics which distinguish Bulgarian from the other Slav languages. It is based on the dialects of the Bitola Veles region which are close to those of western Bulgaria, but since the Bulgarian literary standard has as its basis the dialects of eastern Bulgaria, the two literary standards are sufficiently distinct for Macedonian to be classed as a separate language."
page 228. "The biggest external concentration of alleged or would-be Bulgarians is found, owing to the continuities of language, in the present Macedonian republic, where pro-Bulgarian parties have a meaningful presence and where their representatives in the legislature speak standard Bulgarian in preference to standard Macedonian – though the difference between the two is a much exaggerated feature of south Balkan life."
Politis (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Issue No.1 - removed the number - it was ridiculous.; Issue No.2 - yes, a map is needed especially given the fact that other languages have POVed maps - why not this having an NPOV one; Issue No.3 - I've never heard of a Bulgarian party in RoM (besides the one that was banned) - I've only heard of authorities writing in the Bulgarian version of the Cyrillic alphabet.--Laveol T 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Found a modern map - could you tell me what's the colour of Bulgarian and Macedonian here (just a note - the legend explicitly states these are Bulgarian and Macedonian, not Bulgarian only) - see [19]--Laveol T 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)