Talk:Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Vandalism on the part of FrancisThyers

Francis, I do not understand your vandalising behaviour. You just appeared and disregarded my note and also did not even read the sources.

For example, in the Macedonian section of the Political Views article, nobody has put any sources and you do not vandalise it. Do we have to qualify every Macedonian political view as the view of its concrete author? (VMRO 20:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC))


[edit] Removed

I've removed this as there are very few sources. The source that is quoted is linked to "mak-truth.info", hardly a reliable source. The claims of "Serbianisation" are almost universally known to be nonsense, in fact the language was designed to be far from Bulgarian and Serbian. - FrancisTyers · 19:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is from Kosta Tsarnushanov's article in "MAkedonski Pregled" referenced here very properly. There is no mak-truth.info there. Plus it is a legitimate Bulgarian view. So I am reinstating it. (VMRO 20:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

You say "The pro-Serbian codifiers of the language succeeded in prevailing over the more independent-minded Macedonians ones in purging the "dark vowel" ъ, which is found in many (if not most) Macedonian dialects and also in most other Bulgarian dialects." — I don't see a source for the codifiers being "pro-Serbian", and I don't see a source for them "prevailing over", "more independent-minded" "Macedonians". I don't see a source for the "many (if not most)" There are some other issues, but lets address these first. - FrancisTyers · 20:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, all of this section below has been taken from Tsarnushanov and those are his claims. Again, please read what he says. I am not making this up. Also, if you care to read the text you vandalised, you will find footnote 9, which supports the same claims. Please stop vandalising this page. You clearly do not understand Bulgarian or Macedonian. (VMRO 20:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC))
To quote him directly in support of the "many if not most":
1) В централните западномакедонски говори (конкретно в прилепско-битолско-кичевския) покрай думите с Ъ пред Р (дърво, сърбин и пр.) звукът Ъ се чува ясно и в думите зъмба, зъмбък, кът, сандък, калъв, фъстан, съска, съклет, късмет, фъндък, мангър, къна, басканлък (обиск), пашалък, апансъс и др., някои от които са от турски произход или са проникнали чрез посредничеството на турския език.
2) Много по-често звукът Ъ се среща в останалите македонски говори, които обхващат три четвърти от Македония, а именно:
а) В Гостиварско, Дебърско, Стружко, Охридско, Ресенско, Преспата, Костурско, Леринско, Гевгелийско, Дойранско, Воденско, Сярско, Кукушко, Ениджевардарско, Драмско, Неврокопско, Солунско, Демирхисарско и пр. чак до Места, като Ъ звучи във всички думи със старата голяма носова гласна : ръка, мъка, мъж, дъб, зъб (или зъмб), тъпан, къде и т.н., без да вземаме предвид думите с Ъ пред Р - явление повсеместно. Нещо повече: отношението на Р и Ъ е силно подчертано в някои говори, като разложкия, където Ъ идва след Р: кръв, върба, сърце и пр. Чак в Скопие ще чуете: цъфти, длъг, слънце, гъз и пр.
б) Звукът Ъ се чува и в звукосъчетанията ЪЛ-ЛЪ, срещани в думи като следните: вълк, жълт, слънце, сълзи (слъзи), гълтам, вълна, бълва (бълха), мълзе, кълна и пр.
Това явление е присъщо на говорите на Велес, Дебърско, Галичко, Кумановско (не повсеместно), Гостиварско, Леринско, Костурско, Воденско, Кайлярско. Солунско, Серско и пр.
Звукът Ъ си остава и в говорите, които изпускат от това звукосъчетание звука Л, а именно: вък (вместо вълк), жъто (вместо жълто), сънце, пъно, въна, къне, съзи, гъта, мъчи (вместо мълчи) и т. н. Така се говори в цяло Тиквешко, Щипско, Марийовско, Кочанско, Малешевско, Пиянец, Разложко, Благоевградско, Петричко и пр,
в) Звукът Ъ се чува и в говорите, в които в старобългарския език е имало отделен звук, означаван с мекия еров знак Ь (ер малък), но в ново време преминал в Е или се изравнил с Ъ, както е например в думите ден – дън, пес - пъс, сега - съга и пр. Изравнен с Ъ, той е в следните говори: кумановски, кривопаланечки, кратовски, в Скопска Черна гора. Там ще чуете: дън, съг, старъц, търговъц, дъсно, тънък, мъгла, цъфти, тъмно, овън, едън, дзът.
г) Изобщо звукът Ъ се чува навред по Македония, но сякаш най-много в ония покрайнини, където има редукция на гласните. А това са Гевгелийско, Дойранско, Кукушко, Воденско, Серско и пр. Там неудареното А се произнася като Ъ: дъ додъ, зъ майкъ, не земйътъ, мъкъ.
Означим ли на картата на Македония всички гореспоменати селища, ще видим, че цяла Македония без изключение произнася тоя звук Ъ и че е истинско престъпление да бъде изхвърлен от азбуката знакът за него, като се замества със сонатичното Р или Л с апостроф, както правят днес скопяни: с’лзи, с’лнце, р’ка, м’ж и пр. Бягайки от тоя звук, скопските езиковеди насилват народните думи, като пишат: саска вм. съска, фустан вм. фъстан, сандак вм. сандък и пр. По същата причина насилват и езика на първия поет на народен говор Коста Рацин, който пише на велешки говор и употребява звукосъчетанието ЛЪ: слънце, жълто, вълна и др., които в новите издания на стиховете му са заместени със сонце, жолто, волна и т. н.


You are quite right, I don't speak Macedonian, Bulgarian, or any other Slavic language for that matter. You say, "Well, all of this section below has been taken from Tsarnushanov and those are his claims." — they should be presented as his claims then. - FrancisTyers · 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You are being super picky. These features of Macedonian anyone can ascertain for himself. It is not that I was plagiarising Tasrnushanov - he is referenced in every paragraph. I will rewrite it and fix it then. Also, will restore the other text and source it properly. Please do not vandalise it then.

[edit] Bulgarian claims of Serbianisation

Bulgarians today view the standard Macedonian language as heavily Serbianised, especially with regards to its vocabulary. This allows some extreme nationalists to claim that the modern Macedonian nation is a Serbian (or Communist) construction and the modern Macedonian language is "artificial". There are several ways in which standard Macedonian was (sometimes deliberately) influenced by Serbian:

1. Alphabet and phonetics The Bulgarian letters й, ъ, ь, щ, ѣ, ѫ were thrown out and the Serbian ј, џ, њ, љ were introduced. The pro-Serbian codifiers of the language succeeded in prevailing over the more independent-minded Macedonians ones in purging the "dark vowel" ъ, which is found in many (if not most) Macedonian dialects and also in most other Bulgarian dialects.

2. Vocabulary

(a) purely Serbian words instead of local Macedonian or literary Bulgarian ones. For example: благаjник (treasurer), безбедност (security), друштво (society), заедница (community), мора (must instead of the Macedonian требе), постои (exists), пороѓaj (birth) instead of раѓaње просечно (average) instead of средно, намештаj (household items) instead of покуќнина, etc.[1]
(b) Macedonianised versions of Serbian words that are not present in native Macedonian dialects. For example: чамец (Serb. чамац - boat), значаен (Serb. значаян - notable), заключок (Serb. заключак - conclusion), поредок (Serb. поредак - order), почеток (Serb. почетак - beginning), очигледен (Serb. очигледан - obvious).[2]
(c) widespread use of Serbian personal names: Душан, Љубиша, Видоja, Бранко, Жарко, Ґоко, Велибор, Небоjша, Оливера, Слободан, Томислав, Доброслав, Урош, Драгосав, Бранислав, Витомир, Зоран, Кокан, Властимир, Велимир, Мирослав, Видое, Драгутин, Синиша, Данило, Чедомир, Бранка, Радмила, Слаѓана, Гордана, Славица, Даница, Ружица, Милица, Лепа, Зорица. [3]

3. Morphology

(a) word formation with Serbian-style suffixes instead of Old Church Slavonic (Old Macedonian), local Macedonian or literatry Bulgarian ones:
- use of Serbian -ачки, -ички instead of Old Church Slavonic -ещ, -ащ: загрижувачки (загрижващ), очаjнички (отчайващ), решавачки (решаващ), насрчувачки (насърчаващ), охрабрувачки (охрабряващ), застрашувачки (застрашаващ), отстапувачка (отстъпваща), понижувачка (унижаваща)
- use of
- use of

[4]

4. Syntax One example is the use of the Serbian construction "а да не" instead of the local Macedonian "без да", which is not found in Serbian. For example: “Тоj никогаш не работи, а да не посака награда” instead of „Тоj никогаш не работи, без да посака награда" (He never worked without demanding a reward).). [5]

[edit] Bulgarian Propaganda - Does Wikipedia allow propagandas?

This article is pure Bulgarian propaganda. There is no place at Wikipedia for propagandas. Administrators, this article has to be deleted!

Such lies...I'm not surprised by the level wikipedia sinks too, to allow such garbage and blatant trashing of another culture. Racism at it's pure best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 01:31, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is not NPOV and cannot be NPOV. It is describing a POV which automatically pushes the point of view. It should either be deleted or have a template stating it is describing a point of view. Has this even been a candidate for deletion? If I were to write an article on the Macedonian view on Bulgarians (it would pretty much say that Bulgarians are Tatars) it would be deleted straight away (as it should, but only if this one goes too). If people want to know about the Bulgarian view on the Macedonian language they can google it themselves. Alex 202.10.89.28 09:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not claim having any NPOV ideas - it is pretty obvious from your edits. Stop POV-pushing already. And just why do you continue with this on the Makedonsko devoiche page? Just like a banned editor did? --Laveol T 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I know I don't have a NPOV. But my POV "pushing" is nowhere near as bad as yours. I have more of a NPOV than you. Now there are two possibilities here: You are either stupid and actually believe that everything Macedonian is Bulgarian and you are POV-pushing, or you are just an ass and should be banned from Wikipedia. I don't really care either way. But if we can't have a neutral point of view article then we should at least have two equally POV-pushing articles, so that they neutralise each other. And do you see the problem in that? We will have hundreds of articles about different points of view. Alex202.10.89.28 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And how come Bulgarians edit every article concerning Macedonia? I could edit every Bulgarian article and replace it with Tatar if I wanted to but I'm not an asshole.
Calling other editors names will get you nowhere. And stop being such a racist - the tatar part is just that. Oh, and what in the world does "I have more of a NPOV than you" mean, seriously? I'd be interested in buying some you know. --Laveol T 13:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's just it, I don't actually believe that Bulgarians are Tatars. They aren't. But Macedonians aren't Bulgarians, either. I'm not racist but I can see why so many Macedonians are. Racism against racism. Зло за Зло. I can re-word my statement for you: You're POV is more extreme than mine. And better that I call you a stupid ass than a Tatar. This is just a page being being used to express Bulgarian views. Expressing your views on a page that should exist anyway is different from creating a page to express your views. They both shouldn't be happening but there is absolutely no need for this article. This should be a Yahoo answer when someone asks "What do Bulgarians think about the Macedonian?", not a Wikipedia article. Alex 202.10.89.28 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I see I have to repeat myself once again - I, personally, and at least some part of all Bulgarians, do think that there currently is an ethnic Macedonian nation. Our issue with the citizens of RoM are mostly linguistic and historical. I have never called an ethnic Macedonian Bulgarian. Where did you come up with this? You can go through all my edits if you want. I have not created this page, but since it is properly sourced with academic sources and even Western scholars it seems a pretty worthy article (which cannot be said for a whole bunch of other articles concerning Bulgaria). Have you even taken a look at the sources before saying something like "Expressing your views on a page that should exist anyway is different from creating a page to express your views". And bare in mind that calling other editors (or in fact anybody) a stupid ass or making racial comments about him (like the tatar part, I repeat) is not welcomed here (try some forums - it might pass there. --Laveol T 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Properly sourced - so what. If I found academic sources saying the Germans believe English has been heavily Gallicized, making it drift away from German (sound familiar?) it still wouldn't be a worthy article. The article is saying: here is what the Bulgarians think about Macedonian. That is not Wikipedia. Just because some academics analyzed what some Bulgarians think it does not mean there should be a Wikipedia article for it. Alex 202.10.89.28 08:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And it seems I need to repeat myself as well. I have not called a Bulgarian a Tatar. I have stated that many Macedonians think that - and so if there were a sourced article about that it should be treated the same as this one: both stay or both go. I'm not going to make the article because you or someone else will probably delete it straight away. But the point still remains. Alex 202.10.89.28 08:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point of Article?

I recently stumbled upon this article and cannot see how it fits into Wikipedia. Correct me I'm wrong but have we started to make articles devoted to the way one cultures sees another? I do not see the use of this type of article. This would be like having an article called "French views on the English language" or "Russian views on the Italian language". Ireland101 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a smart person. Just a heads up - either the Bulgarians won't respond or will defend the article. To get them to so much as comprehend how pointless this article is someone will have to actually create an article like "French views on the English language". Alex202.10.89.28 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is pointless and non-sensical

I agree that the article at this stage is a complete nonsense:"... the Slav-speaking people of the regions of Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace and Macedonia generally referred to their language as Bulgarian and called themselves Bulgarian without that necessarily signifying any sort of national awareness." So the people called themselves Bulgarians and their language Bulgarian but they didn't mean this? They were only joking? What did they mean by Bulgarian? Lantonov (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian_views_on_the_Macedonian_language

I have nominated this article for deletion as it has no place in an encyclopedia and only pushes nationalistic POV from nationalistic sources. The bulgarian view is already explained enough in Political views on the Macedonian language Capricornis (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I agree that a move is not that bad of an idea, but the article should be merged into the other as whole, with all its points. But that would make Political views on the Macedonian language rather unbalanced. I mean we'd have three small sections and one enormous. --Laveol T 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea merge it and remove this article. A merge would be better. Also not every point is necessary? eg widespread use of Serbian personal names?? What kind of an article uses points like this. ? Merge is necessary P m kocovski (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


      The point is quite clear. Check out personal name records from Macedonia during the Ottoman yoke - no Serbian names! Boban, Velebit, Gordan, Srecko, WTF?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.181.152.2 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)