Talk:Dialects of the Macedonian language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Propaganda

There's too much propaganda here. --Laveol T 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Agree with your comment. Slavomacedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, how can it have dialects of its own? The map is problematic to begin with. What are the sources for it? How many slavomacedonian speakers are there are in Mt. Athos for example? I know there is a Bulgarian monastery but wouldn't it be considered offensive to label Bulgarian a dialect of Slavomacadonian when in fact it is the other way around? Plus it is looks ugly as sin. Removed the map.Xenovatis (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You can do people what ever you want here on Wikipedia, but there is Macedonian language and nation. It is supported by almost all well known encyclopedias and scientists. I do not plan to argue with you at all.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A slavic people unrelated in all aspects with Ancient Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to answer the question from above - yes, I do find it offensive and, yes I do mind it a lot. It's pure propaganda and is supported by a tiny minority in the whole region - the ethnic MAcedonian nationalists. That's the simple fact. The whole world is clear on that case, but what do they care - it's obvious that everybody in the world are too stupid to understand simple facts - everybody from Rome to Varna and Istambul are ethnic Macedonians, everybody from Cleopatra to Lenin, too. Admit it guys - we're from that stupid ones as well. Only if we knew the truth. --Laveol T 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything this article is a POV fork. I don't see why this subject can't be covered in Macedonian language--   Avg    21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, take a deep breath everyone. Xenovatis, sorry but that objection of yours is pretty nonsensical. Of course the Macedonian language can have and has dialects, just like every other language on earth; even if you prefer to see it as itself "just" a dialect of Bulgarian, it can still also have dialects of its own (just as a part of a whole can itself has parts.) Megistias, your remark about ancient Macedonia is completely off topic. Avg, we have articles in summary style. It's absolutely normal to factor out such topics into subarticles. Now, put those nonsensical ideological defense reflexes to rest and discuss the factual accuracy of this article like normal reasonable people. Hint: those of you who are not really interested in dialectology, get out of here, this is not for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, so the authors of the page should also do this - in fact they should not have started it. First of all they use only references from RoM. Second - they present a map that they know is fake. Third - they've obviously created the page for propaganda reasons only. They've discussed the idea before. And just to clarify - I didn't say anything about the whole language/dialect issue although naturally I should be the one defending the whole: MAcedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian stuff. --Laveol T 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So, tell me, what exactly is false about this article, or about the map (apart from the fact that it chooses to cover a few parts of the South Slavic dialect continuum that go beyond the border of the present day RoM, a fact that is totally without significance from a linguistic perspective either way? As for the varieties spoken in Greek Macedonia, well of course they fall within the domain of Macedonian dialectology. I really wonder anybody can see a problem with that. Less shouting, more reasonable debate please. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
First man, I have wrote it because it is a part of my profession, I am a linguist. That is not a propaganda because we are talking for dialects and languages. I know much about Macedonian language and its dialects and for all other Slavic languages plus Albanian, so I am competitive enough to write articles from my professional orientation. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Even your own dialect map futureperfect that is Slavic Bulgarian/"Mac" does not show such an extent.And this goes for the article as well.Megistias (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that there is or used to be some level of Slavic speaking in pretty much the whole of that area in Greek Macedonia. Certainly not exclusively and certainly not a majority Slavic population everywhere, and most likely reduced to close to zero in some parts nowadays, but that's all beside the point. From the perspective of Macedonian dialectology it makes perfect sense to treat that as a single area and not bother about whatever bits within it have ceased to have Slavic speakers recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not "common" knowledge, sorry. Slavomacedonian dialects are spoken in the northern Macedonian prefectures of Florina, Kastoria and Pella. In Kilkis and Drama you find Bulgarian dialects. There are virtually no Slavic speakers in other prefectures. So related to this article, only three prefectures are relevant.--   Avg    06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
We've already established that the southern boundary should be corrected. The original source map is better in that respect [1]. See my comments on MacedonianBoy's talk page. This can easily be fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I say either delete or at least remove propaganda. --Laveol T 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained to me what is the propaganda in it. I repeat my question: What is so wrong about either the article or the map that it couldn't be healed with some simple factual corrections? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So what's wrong with calling Macedonian a Bulgarian dialect and posting a map that shows it? On this and every article relating to the official language of RoM. --Laveol T 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Would there be anything wrong in printing a dialectological map of Low German that also showed a few of the neighbouring varieties in the Netherlands? Or vice versa? No, absolutely not. This is not about labeling languages or territories as belonging to this or that nation, it's about showing isoglosses. And those darned things have the silly tendency to cut across national boundaries. Especially if you happen to be in a dialect continuum. Shrug. Live with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I imagine you're talking about the Serbo-Bulgarian dialect continuum that most linguists talk about. What a pitty they miss out good old 5,000 years old Macedonian. So it is ok to add to the article about Bulgarian language that what is spoken in RoM is a dialect of Bulgarian? This is what Bulgarian linguists say. As this article represents only what RoM linguists say (therefore a POV to start with) the Bulgarian language article should be one-POV only, too. --Laveol T 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Laveol, you are ranting now. This is confused beyond anything reasonably discussable. My recommendation is, go to bed, get a good night's sleep. That's what I'm gonna do now, and I expect when I wake up you guys won't have blown up the wiki with your rage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't like being sarcastic, too, I had a car-crash today (not my fault), but I can't see why are you defending them. I've never gone as far as they did and I really really hate when someone's telling lies (especially huge ones). I've never resolved to ranting, but this article is outrageous. And offensive as well. --Laveol T 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Or the map? Are you kidding? Even when the Bulgarian kingdom was in its full extent there was no such extent of Slavic.Megistias (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Root of problem

Future the problem is complicated but being a regular I think you will understand. First I will present what is and then how it is perceived.

Fact: In RoM, Bulgaria, Northern Greece there live people whose speak, or are descended from speakers, of a Slavic language, part of the South Slavic languages and member of the south slavic language continuum (this is important) that stretches from Bulgaria to Slovenia. The language in the areas in question is mutually intelligible, ie a Bulgarian has no trouble communicating with an ethnic Macedonian and an ethnic Macedonian can communicate with a Slavophone Greek. Now for the interesting part.

Perceived: In Bulgaria that language is called Bulgarian. In RoM Macedonian. In Greece it is called slavica or dopia (local). This by those of its speakers that identify themselves as ethnically Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek respectively.

However: There are those in Bulgaria that self identify as ethnically Macedonian and call this language Macedonian. In RoM there are those that identify as ethnically Bulgarian and call this language Bulgarian. In Greece there are those among the slavophone population (a tiny minority) that self identify as Macedonian and call the language Macedonian. Now do you see the problem?

A south slavic language is spoken in most of the areas coloured in the map but deciding to call it Macedonian is imposing the POV of one tiny minority on the rest. I realize that in Linguistics you can technically call something a language even if it is mutually intelligible with an actual language but calling it a dialect was not done in vacuum, the two languages (Slavmacedonian and Bulgarian) are mutually intelligible. It is not as silly as you wish to paint it.

In light of the above Macedonian, defined as the language of those slavophones that idenitify as Macedonian, can only be spoken in areas in which they reside. In areas where the "exact same language" (qualified as above, I mean mutually intelligible) is spoken but by ethnically Greek or Bulgarian slavophones it needs to be labelled as Bulgarian or Slavica/Dopia respectively.

I know this whole thing is silly but it is the Slavomacedonians that want to establish a dialect of Bulgarian as a different language and since they are using the argument of self-determination they can't complain when it is used by others, I tried to be as clear as possible but anyone is invited to offer corrections to the above or ask for clarifications. Xenovatis (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know all that. I still don't see the problem. This is nothing but a normal "Dialects of X" page, and if the areas it treats are those areas that Macedonian linguistics happens to treat as its topic domain, then that's just it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't this the English language wikipedia where we need English language sources or at least neutral ones? I'm not taking any of the RoM schoolbooks' stuff as we already defined the informative part of the article comes from such readings --Laveol T 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No, there is no requirement for sources to be in English. And about any biases there might be, we could start talking about them once you started identifying where the map is actually factually wrong, something I've been asking you now for like an hour or so to do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The map is wrong in showing places where dialects of Bulgarian are spoken as places where some other language is. And you didn't answer my question - since there's no problem in calling these dialects Macedonian, what's the problem with calling dialects in RoM Bulgarian? I somehow got the impression this was something wrong and offensive. And are you telling be that sources should not be neutral? I thought this was important as well. --Laveol T 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Repeat after me, slowly and carefully: This is NOT about claiming this or that territory for this or that national language. This is about describing dialect boundaries. Got it? Have you understood the comparison I gave above about Low German and Dutch? Try, at least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have. But still I insist on only neutral sources. I want to see a source other from those coming from RoM or Bulgaria or Greece that speaks about a Macedonian language in Pirin that is different from the Bulgarian dialect spoken there - the Bulgarian dialect that is part of the Bulgarian language continuum. Borders do divide after all and self-identification counts - Less than 1% of the people in Blagoevgrad province have described their language as Macedonian. It would help if you change the map to dialects spoken by the whatever minority lives there (slav, ethnic Macedonian, Slavomacedonian or whatever). --Laveol T 23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anybody is claiming that those (possibly few) local people in Blagoevgrad who call their own variety "Macedonian" speak a dialect different from their neighbours who call it Bulgarian. They apparently speak the same, and the article correctly points out that there are those two perspectives (read it!). The map simply makes the point that the dialect spoken just west of the border, around Delcevo or whatever it's called, is essentially the same as that spoken just to the east of it in Blagoevgrad. Which, from the perspective of the scope of this article, makes it a perfectly reasonable choice to show those two areas together. Apart from silly nationalism there is absolutely no problem with that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And besides the fact that the article is labeled "Dialects of Macedonian language". Shouldn't it be "Dialects of the region of Macedonia" or something? Isn't this the neutral way? Or taking into account the Greek view since this language is certainly not spoken by the majority of people in Greek Macedonia, it should be "Dialects of the Slavic language spoken in the region of Macedonia". Labeling it simply as the Macedonian language is POV. I think we've mis-understood from the beginning. You say that they speak the same language - ok, I agree (to some extent - they have lived in two different countries for over 60 years). And I say - yes, but it shows Bulgarian dialects as Macedonia, and you say - no - it's talking about dialects of both (or it's how I read it). But it is not - it claims the dialects as Macedonian as the title is such. Are you really telling me that in its current state with the current sources (RoM exclusive) and with the current map (not from a neutral source, but from a RoM schoolbook) this article is not POV? --Laveol T 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the name of the language is an issue of self-identification it needs to be ensured that those slavophones labelled as Macedonian speakers do indeed identify as ethnic Macedonians. I brought up the case of Mt. Athos, there is a Bulgarian monastery where Bulgarian is spoken and by the categorization used it cannot be labelled Macedonian. Similarly we need to identify which areas in Greece are inhabited by those who identify as ethnic Macedonians and only colour those, i.e. which prefectures, villages etc. Given their number I doubt they are spread all over the coloured are and this is misleading. What are the sources saying that there are people who identify as Macedonian in all those areas? Can someone bring sources from the election results for the minority party Rainbow? This could be used as an indicator. The map as is is misleading because it could lead the unaware reader to assume that the slavic language spoken in most of the coloured areas is Macedonian when in fact by the schema followed it is not, even though it is mutually intelligible. Another indication the map is misleading is that it follows the border of the Macedonia idealized in Slavomacedonian irredentism. What is the purpose of using this particular deliniation that the map employs? Xenovatis (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not about people identifying politically as Macedonians, and it's also not about how people call their language. It's about objectively describing patterns of similarities between dialects that are or used to be spoken in those areas. The map claims, for instance, that the Slavic dialects around Florina are somehow different from those spoken north of Thessaloniki. Not more and not less. Political self-identification is completely irrelevant to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Politics comes into it with the decision to label the slavic diaelcts of Florina and Thessalonica dialects of Macedonian. If the formulation you used above "slavic dialects" is used then there is indeed no problem nor should there be. If they are labelled as dialects of Macedonian however there is since they could equally well be labelled dialects of Bulgarian or dialects of dopia etc. The fact is that they are sourh slavic. Macedonian academics will label them all Macedonian (that is why I am leery of 100% trusting sources on this issue from RoM and the article only uses RoM sources now), Bulgarian ones will label it all Bulgarian and Greek sources deny there is an ethnic Macedonian minority.Xenovatis (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why I want neutral sources. Labeling those dialects as such or such to start with is POV. --Laveol T 23:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, show us one single reliable source that does not describe the dialects around Florina or Thessaloniki as "Macedonian". (Except of course for those Bulgarian sources that deny the existence of a Macedonian language altogether, which is a non-notable fringe view these days.) "Dialects of Dopia" in the sense of a language separate from Macedonian is something I certainly have never seen in any respectable linguistics source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the burden of proof is with the one making the assertion. There are Greek and Bulgarian sources that claim exactly what you are suggesting I should provide you with but you just dismissed them out of hand. Using the equally if not more biased RoM sources alone does not really solve the issue. Like I said the same language is presented with one name or another based purely on political considerations. The argument you make about Dopia not being a language separate from Macedonian is the exact same argument made about Macedonian not being a language separate from Bulgarian.Xenovatis (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed a trillion times. This is a technical linguistic article, only technical linguistic literature counts as RS. Show me a serious linguistic treatment that treats the varieties in Greece as a language separate from that to the north of the border. (Hint: There isn't any.) Ball is in your field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that this article and that map has not been deleted yet is pretty weird.There is no such extent of Slavic/bulgarian/"mak" nor was it in the past.They were never a majority in Greek Macedonia.Megistias (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about "majorities", you are confusing things. It's a dialect map, not a demographic map. Showing some place in a certain color doesn't mean that place is inhabited by a Slavic majority; it only means that whatever Slavic dialects are there (or were there), share some distinctive structural features with those of other places shown in the same colour. How many or how few speakers are there, or indeed whether any such speakers are left at all now, is immaterial. The presence of other languages (such as the majority presence of Greek) is outside the scope of such a map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Well its time we start showing the real extent of Greek in the Balkans and in Turkey which is a great part of them.Most Albanians known it show we ll just make all of Albania Blue and add all the past Greek dialects so most of the Balkans will be blue"
Your belief that there were 10% Greeks in Macedonia as you expressed in the past goes to show you should take some distance from this. Megistias (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have some constructive input to make to Varieties of Modern Greek, including dialect data on outside-of-Greece varieties, be my guest. Apart from that, your grammar and orthography as well as the level of off-topicness in your argument indicate you are getting back into your disruptive editing mode. Approaching blockable level of disruption soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Those sources were not in English and were not verifiable.Neutral verifiable sources could be used.Megistias (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement for sources to be in English. And what did you do for "verifying" them? Stop engaging in disruptive editing, or I will see to it that you are banned from this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: page creation

thank you to who ever created this page! about time :)P m kocovski (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm away for one day and................

First of all, да ви го ебам и дијалектот и све!. (That means: "fuck your (plural) dialect [all of you] and then some!"). Now that I've got that off my chest, I'd like to say a few things.

First, this article was not created as a propaganda tool. It was created by MacedonianBoy on request of P m kocovski, who wanted to know more about the dialects of the Macedonian language. The "dopia" dialects are in fact part of the Macedonian language (excluding Thrace), and this is backed up by the neutral scholars quoted in the Slavic dialects of Greece article. It focuses on linguistics, not politics, and it seems only the linguists can understand that.

About the map, I don't see the point in having the region of Macedonia borders. I'd rather see that map, and actual country borders over it, and in the caption we can (briefly) explain the terminology/view in the countries.

If you aren't interested in dialectology (specifically dialectology of the Macedonian language) then go away. What possible contribution can there be in this article from idiots who say "there is no Macedonian language". And you know it is possible for someone to say "I speak Makedonski, but I am Greek". While most of the time people would be influenced by politics in regards to what they call their language, it isn't always the case.

With the Macedonian language sources, they are verifiable, and your (all of you) only option is to trust me and the users who possess those sources. If you automatically assume they are propaganda, well then you will have to learn the Macedonian language and check them out for yourself (have fun). And you will find that they are about technical linguistics.

BalkanFever 11:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing a new, hopefully better version of that map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the kind of abusive and behaviour and swearing exhibited by balkanfever tolerated here? I guess it must be. Interesting. (edit:removed personal attacks and swearing by user:BalkanFever, per WP:NPA)
  • The works quoted are in a foreign language so will need to be quoted in full and translated. Hopefully Laveol, who is Bulgarian but for some obscure reason still perfectly capable of understanding that completely different language will help with that. In any event the relevant passages need to be presented in full and translated in English per WP:SOURCE before they can be used.Xenovatis (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Fuck oath, I did swear. But please point out my abusive behaviour. And no, calling my language by its name (which you may not like) does not count as abusive, much less a "personal" attack. BalkanFever 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You will find it was in referrence to your, repeated, use of the f- word. The comment in the edit summary was also uncalled for and might be read as a PA if someone were less charitable. I do not participate in these sorts of discussions. This ends now.Xenovatis (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For future reference, Wikipedia is not censored. While we'd prefer it that editors don't curse, that doesn't mean that we go ahead and redact comments. (See this part of the CIVIL guideline). The only things that get removed are blatant personal attacks that would have real world consequences (ie, Oversight). Generalized profanity doesn't meet that standard. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I can't imagine why balkafever would be so proud of that comment that he'd sick you to make sure it stays[2]. I mean given the level of his other contributions...Oh wait yes I could.Xenovatis (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusing another editor of "siccing" me on you isn't quite correct. He pointed out that you were refactoring his comments, and that he'd go with my opinion on it. My opinion happens to be that refactoring talk page comments (except in extreme cases) is bad, as I said above. There's not really much more to this. I think the productive thing to do here is to comment on content, and get back to building an encyclopedia. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back on content

@Balkan Fever's original comment:

  • Your comment about the map's region/country borders is appreciated. Other issues are discussed in Fut.Perf's talk.
  • Your language is a language, and not a dialect.
  • There is the other kind of idiots: The ones that want to show your dialects on a map covering the whole of Eastern Europe. We need the non-dialectology prone idiots to counterbalance them here. We don't get to decide which idiots will edit here or not. Unfortunately.
  • Abundance in technical linguistic terms is irrelevant. The sources from your country are partisan, and we have very good reasons to automatically assume they are propaganda. Unhide below for sources:
Sources 

NikoSilver 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the sources used in the article are about technical linguistics. They are not about history. Has the Greek MFA complained specifically about Dopia being called Makedonski (as opposed to complaining about the Slavophonoi being called Makedonci)? If I use a Macedonian source saying "Branko Crvenkovski is a politican", are you going to scrutinise that too? How about a source on the area of Skopje? A Greek source will tell me "Skopje has an area of 25,000 square kilometres", but I guess that's perfectly reliable. Honestly, I would love to see study on Dopia by an ethnic Greek. A technical linguistic study, not a political one. But unfortunately, I am led to believe there is no such thing as a Hellenic Slavist. BalkanFever 02:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Niko, I haven't looked through your hidden-section refs, but is any of that about complaints regarding biased dialectology? What has biased politics to do with anything here? Of course, we have an issue here between balancing POVs, but the good thing is, the POV issues are purely about naming choices and the like, not about factual claims. The fact that the RoM sources are (naturally) written from a RoM-centered perspective and employ its typical naming/scope preferences fortunately doesn't detract from their reliability regarding the concrete factual information; we can easily filter out the one issue from the other. Of course, it's conceivable that some of the info might be tainted by political bias -- a dialectologist very well might overrate or underrate the linguistic significance of this or that isogloss to fit his political conceptions of linguistic units better. But as long as we have no indication that this is the case here, based on competing descriptions of equal academic standing, we have no reason not to use what we have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was beating a dead horse with this comment above. Look, I have a great distrust on ethnic Macedonian sources, and it is not unjustified. I see that your talk section and your proposed map has largely incorporated my concerns. You do notice the differences (extent towards the south, Bulgarian language vague border, names etc) between the schoolbook map and yours, don't you? NikoSilver 11:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed page move

  • Since it is not clear where are the borders between Slavomacedonian and Bulgarian speakers.
  • Since both countries claim that the majority of the speakers in the region is theirs.
  • Since Bulgarians claim that Slavomacedonians speak Bulgarian.
  • Since Slavomacedonians claim that all Greek Slavophones speak Slavomacedonian.
  • Since Greeks claim that all Greek Slavophones speak "Slavic".

I propose that this page (and the new nice map from Fut.Perf.) is moved to South Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region). --   Avg    22:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with both hands - Already proposed it somewhere in the text above. --Laveol T 22:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
To both of you ¿Por qué no te callas?  :D. Avg που είναι αηδίες & Laveol - що се филмаш. regards--Raso mk (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Should we take it as Hugo Chávez did? I hope you don't mean to offend us? --Laveol T 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Only into your dreams can you think what you want. I would not tolerate this. Your sugestions are irrelevant--Raso mk (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
???Are you sure in what you're saying? Telling us that we cannot think what we want? It must be a language mistake, surely. --Laveol T 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
@Raso: The WP community will not give a dime on whether you'll tolerate it or not, nor will it take into account your opinion on the relevance of these suggestions. On top, next time I read you say "shut up", even in the form of a joke I'll arrange that you are indeed shut up from editing. Discuss productively, or not at all. NikoSilver 23:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Initially I thought you were located in FYROM and this was due to excessive brainwashing. But no, you're in Germany, so I can't really find many excuses for your behaviour.--   Avg    00:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Macedonia is part of the Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum where the boundary between Macedonian and Bulgarian is not clear, Avg's suggestion makes sense. This article includes dialects which have been classified as Bulgarian (according to Roland Schmieger, for example, some dialects of eastern Greek Macedonia are Bulgarian, I'm not sure about the situation in Pirin and northeastern Vardar though). Moreover, as this article will be misused for propagandistic "United Macedonia" promotional purposes sooner or later, that's all the more reason to consider renaming it. I support the idea, however, I think that other alternative titles should also be considered.--Dexippus (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they will, and that's why we are here. Dialects also classified as Bulgarian are a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and in combination with the fuzzy isogloss borders it becomes even more important. Funny, we don't have an article on dialects of Bulgarian language, but we have a great "analysis" both here and in the minuscule Slavic language (Greece). I keep bumping on reasons that prove my theory that personal POV push is the major cause that made this encyclopedia the biggest on earth (that's why Citizendium et al has failed or is doomed to fail...) NikoSilver 00:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should this article be moved! It is really new and some people have put effort into it, rather other people would rather adjust the article for political use. The note has already been made that the "Maleševo-Pirin dialect" and "Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect " could be considered dialects of the bulgarian language! South Slavic dialects is an extensive term which refers to the languages spoken from carinthia to Edirne! The article takes in to account that the previous 2 dialects could be considered part of the Bulgarian language, no change is necessary. People will also could also begin to question where does the macedonian language and bulgarian clash? in the pirin-serres-drama region?, or further east kumanovo-stip-kilkis. just South Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region) is to disambigous, incorrect and unneccesaryP m kocovski (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that the article covers the transitional dialect zone towards Bulgarian (a choice that makes perfect linguistic sense quite independently of any political overtones), I could agree to Macedonian Slavic dialects, where "Macedonian" can be construed as a regional term rather than the language name by those for whom that would otherwise be an ideological issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So we're moving it then? Hmmm, Slavic dialects of the region of Macedonia or something more specific would do better in my opinion. But if everyone are fine with your suggestion, I'll take it. --Laveol T 09:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before somewhere, but just in case somebody missed it: The only place I can think of to get sources about the technical linguistics of Dopia would be from RoM, where they would describe it as a dialect of the Macedonian language. You (any of the Greek users) can call that propaganda, but I haven't heard of any Greek scholar specialising in the field of Slavistics (maybe that counts as treason, I don't know), much less for the Slavic dialects of Greece specifically. Maybe Bulgarian linguists have published work on this too, but "those dialects are Bulgarian" is not what we are looking for. Because Western linguists have also done some work on this, and they call the dialects of Greek Macedonia (except in Drama) Macedonian. BalkanFever 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

hear, hear P m kocovski (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; the inclusion of the Greek varieties poses no problem whatsoever and doesn't require us to jump through additional hoops as far as the naming is concerned. The delimitation towards Bulgarian is a legitimate issue, that towards "Dopia" is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Move. Agreed with above. Either to South Slavic dialects in Macedonia, Slavic dialects in Macedonia or Macedonia Slavic dialectsXenovatis (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
With the following suggestions there are some fundemental flaws,

1.South Slavic dialects in Macedonia, this implies any south slavic language bieng spoken in the geographical region of macedonia, be it macedonian,serbian,or bulgarian. This article was set up to identify the dialects and forms of the Macedonian Language and i think it is acceptable that the Pirin, and Serres-Drama dialects could be considered bulgarian, and this is an appropriate concession.

2.Slavic dialects in Macedonia this implies any slavic lanaguage or dialect spoken in the geographical region of macedonia. As stated the article was designed to out line the differences and similarities of the dialects of the macedonian language. A slavic dialect may not necesserily be a macedonian one, and plus the article was created about the DIALECTS of the macedonian LANGUAGE, there is no ONE Slavic Language, it is an encompassing family of languages.

3.Macedonia Slavic dialects this implies that the slavic dialects in macedonia are uncodified and are not part of a language. IN fact there is 2 codified languages, Macedonian in the west,center and south and bulgarian in the east. Plus the term Macedonia slavic dialects in grammatically wrong, and the article is focused on the dialects of the Macedonian Language. Macedonian Slavic would be appropriate if their was another Macedonian NON-slavic language, seeing as the "original" language is from ancient times it does not really count, as well as the fact that the other "languages" with macedonian in their name are merely dialects, not a seperate language.

4.Even Macedonian Dialects would be an innapropriate name eg. Macedonian Dialect of Greek, Macedonian Dialect of Aromanian etc.

I think to avoid any bias if this page was created Dialects of the Bulgarian Language the appropriate sections on the Pirin and Serres-Drama dialect would be allowed to feature in the Article as dialects also considered to be part of the macedonian diasystem. To avoid controversy from the Greek Users, as fut perf. has already stated the map and this page is devoted to the LINGUISTIC aspect, not the ETHNIC one. I believe the name is appropriate with the appropriate concessions in the article as i have already stated. P m kocovski (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All your comments miss on the fact that Bulgarian is definitely spoken in the region of Macedonia. It is not only acceptable, but it is a fact that the dialects in Blagoevgrad province are Bulgarian. And since the map originally created by MacedonianBoy deals explicitly with the dialects of the region (can't imagine why) it seems more than valid the article to have a name of that sort. On the contrary it is a POV to present parts of the Bulgarian language as dialects of another language and imply that the view this is actually the Bulgarian language (which it is) is minor or something. Since you're dealing with dialects outside the borders in which Macedonian is officially spoken, this is not the proper naming. If you dealt with the borders of RoM only (where the language is official) it'd fine, but since you insist on having it on the map of United Macedonia this is not the name we're looking for. --Laveol T 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, look at the wording in the article. Prevailing opinion is that Blagoevgrad dialects are Bulgarian, and this is reflected. BalkanFever 11:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why the article talks about two languages. The western non-partisan dialectological literature we have deals with both of them. It is a fact that Bulgarian linguists choose to call the whole "Macedonian language" as a dialect, and in terms of abstand, they have a point. Of course, the only reasons for calling a means of communication a "dialect" or a "language" in these cases is only political. So I think that, at least for the northern part, our isogloss border should directly coincide with the political one. NikoSilver 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, for the proposed move, since those two languages are related to such a great extent, and since their dialects are intermingling, and since the very standard languages themselves could be viewed as dialects of one another in terms of abstand, I guess the only logical thing would be to assign an article name that encompasses both. Note, that this should not mean in ANY way that the (Slavic) Macedonian language is a dialect of Bulgarian. NikoSilver 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, and by tweaking FP's proposal to reflect the regional approach, I would suggest Slavic dialects of the Macedonian region. Any comments? NikoSilver 12:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support here. Alternatively Slavic dialects of Macedonia (region). You simply can't separate Slavomacedonian from Bulgarian, especially when you include Bulgaria and Greece in the mix. As Laveol says, if you want to stick to country specific borders, that's fine. --   Avg    20:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To Niko's and Avg's proposals: no problem POV-wise with me, but do we really need this tortured wording? It's too long. And I'd also say, let's not be over-precise just in order to eliminate the last bits of ambiguity. Ambiguity is a good thing. If it has "Macedonia" or "Macedonian" in it and we leave it open whether it's the country or the region or whatever, what's so bad about that? If the title is vague enough for everybody to read their own prefered POV into it, all the better. (We are not Mimilanders who can't handle ambiguity, are we?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. On reflection, you're right. Both meanings in Macedonian Slavic dialects seem OK. I'm all for it. NikoSilver 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This does not help though where Laveol has issue. How we can protect the article from POV pushers labelling Bulgarian dialects as Slavomacedonian?--   Avg    21:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I do prefer it to have the mention that this is about the region and not anything else. We on Wiki know what this means, but how does someone from outside? --Laveol T 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Continued below where unindented... NikoSilver 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We have an article on the Slavic dialects of Greece, and that article probably needs technical linguistic information to expand it. We have this article here, about the dialects of the Macedonian language (and Dopia is included in this by everyone except Greek non-linguists). We don't have an article on dialects of Bulgarian. I think this article should focus mainly on the dialects in RoM, because that is where there is most variation, and a bit on Dopia. Maybe it could very sparingly mention Pirin dialects, or not at all. BalkanFever 12:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
What I'm saying is: maybe we shouldn't cover the transitional dialect zone to such an extent. Otherwise, it seems kind of random to stop at Macedonia, and leave out the Bulgarian in Thrace. That is what Eastern South Slavic diasystem should be for. This article should stick to Macedonian. BalkanFever 12:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so one way would be the article sticking to this name and to the borders of the country (where the language is spoken in a political sense) or we can throw away all politics and use Niko's naming. I don't prefer either, but it is clear that a move is needed or some of the info has to go. --Laveol T 19:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued from three comments above: Yes, but for once we get to use the name of Macedonia for what it really should be for: The region. Also, you'll allow me the crystallballing that this is one of the few titles we're not gonna be changing... :-) NikoSilver 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave a thought to that as well. Ok, I support the move to the title that Fut.Perf. proposed. I tried thinking as a neutral reader who comes across the article - and I couldn't do it properly :(. I guess I'm too deep into this stuff. --Laveol T 22:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable that instead of a name change the Maleševo-Pirin dialect and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop be included under a page titled dialects of the bulgarian language? Most linguists do not consider the dialects to be merely 'slavic' or 'south slavic' but they acknwolwedge them to belong in the macedonian diasystem and they acknwoledge that the eastern dialects are transitional beetween macedonian and bulgarian. Like Torlacki, and similar to Kajkavian speech. People are forgetting that this is a 'linguistic' map, and the 'slavophones' although they may speak a dialect of the macedonian language, does not mean they identify as Ethnic Macedonians. If we do not have an article call Macedonian Slavic Language, then why should we have one called Macedonian Slavic Dialects??? we have moved on from the macedonian vs. slavomacedonian debate! Even macedonian dialects would be innacurate. The only effective name i believe would be its current title, with the disputed dialects also defined as bulgarian.

The proposed title "Slavic Dialects of the Maceodonian Region" is really unnecessary as this language is about the dialects of the language, if by chance that there are dialects found in a neighbouring country, this must be acknowledged but it does not make claims like United macedonia or irredentism. This is about the dialects WHEREVER they are to be found. The current title is appropriateP m kocovski (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question Say we removed the Bulgarian dialects, would there be a need to move the page? BalkanFever 10:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal is to move it to Macedonian Slavic dialects. I agree with this because it uses a confirmed alternative name to Macedonian language so it could be interpreted that way or just meaning Slavic in Macedonia. It also is less ambiguous, it's clear that it does not refer to contemporary Greek or Aromanian dialects in Macedonia or even ancient Macedonian dialects. Finally, I don't see how we can remove the Bulgarian dialects because, as we're dealing with a transitional zone, it's not really possible to pin them down. Unless we restrict the article's scope to the dialects in the Republic of Macedonia where, because of the people's self-identification, they're clearly part of the Macedonian abstand language..--Dexippus (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If you remove them from the template as well. I still think the name needs changing. No matter how much you twist it, this is not only the Macedonian language in whatever terms you put it (be it political, linguistic etc.). The way the article is written it speaks about all the Slavic dialects used in the region of Macedonia. And where is the Macedonian language spoken? In the Republic of Macedonia. It's more of an issue with the Greek contributors, but I think it'll still need moving even if the Bulgarian is removed. But again - I'll vote for consensus. --Laveol T 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, Maleševo-Pirin is transitional, obviously. What it comes down to is: Maleševo is in RoM, therefore called/classified as Macedonian, and Pirin is in Bulgaria, therefore called/classified as Bulgarian. With the Slavic dialects of Greece, Drama and everything east of it is considered Bulgarian, but I guess Ser would be transitional. Everything west is considered Macedonian, and not in a regional sense. The article will mostly focus on the dialects in the Republic of Macedonia anyway. It can mention the Macedonian dialects in Greece, but since they have their own article most of the information can go there. Essentially, what everyone wants is for the article to call the transitional dialects transitional, and not Macedonian. I believe this can be achieved. I really would like to see a dialects of the Bulgarian language article by the way, if only because I don't know much about the dialects of Varna or Rousse or Lozengrad. Finally, I don't see a reason to have an article on the (Eastern South Slavic) dialects of Macedonia, as opposed to all the Eastern South Slavic dialects, wherever they may be. It seems rather arbitrary if you think about it. BalkanFever 07:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What was the whole point in actually moving the article anyway??? P m kocovski (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not "was", "is". Have we reached a consensus and I missed it?--   Avg    09:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - the only thing required is to remove Bulgarian dialects and/or label transitional dialects as transitional (apparently to a greater extent than is done now). An article on the Slavic dialects of the region of Macedonia isn't needed, as opposed to an article incorporating all Eastern South Slavic dialects. BalkanFever 10:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the proposal point and why they are essentially flawed

  • Since it is not clear where are the borders between Slavomacedonian and Bulgarian speakers.

Although it is unclear where the boundary ends or starts the map has been adjusted accordingly and fades off into the blugarian sphere as per the map. Although they are not definate the accepted transition zone is the pirin-malesevo and ser-drama-kavala dialect. Anything east bulgarian, anythign west macedonian.

  • Since both countries claim that the majority of the speakers in the region is theirs.

Actually the bulgarian government recognised the language here. And the consensus is that the 2 language are different and it only some bulgarian scholars who still classify the langauges as one. It is also bizarre how the speakers continue to be classified as bulgarian when the languages are different, the same goes for the macedonians in albania etc.

  • Since Bulgarians claim that Slavomacedonians speak Bulgarian.

Some bulgarian scholars do but the government does not as in the source above. It is near-unilaterally accepted that macedonians speak macedonian not bulgarian, so this argument is baseless.

  • Since Slavomacedonians claim that all Greek Slavophones speak Slavomacedonian.

Actually they only claim that the macedonians in greek macedonia speak macedonian as per the appropriate dialectial zones. They do not claim the pomaks in thrace to speak macedonian, because they dont, they speak bulgarian.

  • Since Greeks claim that all Greek Slavophones speak "Slavic".

Actually slavic language is a closely related gourp of languages spoken by the slavic peoples. Not any one particular language. Greek scholars and politiicans call the language slavic to disencourage any particular either macedonian or bulgarian ethnic identity.

What user:AVG is forgetting whether these people regard themselves to be greeks, macedonians, bulgarians or italians THIS IS IRRELEVANT what we are talking about is the Dialects of the Macedonian Language and the diferences and similarities. this proposed title South Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region). is really bizarre, it implies that the region is full of uncodified primitive speech. This is incorrect, their are two languages spoken by the slavic peoples in the region (not including greek), Macedonian in the west and center, and bulgarian in the east. This article is based on the macedonian LANGUAGE not the geographical region of macedonia, if its speakers happens to coincide with the region then this cannot be helped. This article is full of to many people who are not interested in improving the article and adding information rather with nationalistic and discriminatory information. And avg what is this slavomacedonians rubbish, get over it! the word is MACEDONIANS, P m kocovski (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and none of my 5 points refers to what the people regard themselves. I'm referring solely to speakers. And there is a political issue regarding what language do they speak, not only what they feel they are. As for "Macedonians" well you'll soon be forced to accept you're not the only Macedonians around, so start getting used to it, sooner rather than later. Oh and Macedonians for me means Greeks, so, unless you admit you're Greeks, I cannot call you Macedonians. --   Avg    12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, stop with the crystalballing (again). Second, this is not about politics either. It's about technical linguistics. BalkanFever 12:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
BF you're really starting to get on my nerves. I'm REPLYING to a provocation of your buddy there. Anyway I was clear enough for those who don't deliberately want to make things unclear, i.e. you.--   Avg    12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The political issue has its own article. The naming dispute (and the developments) has its own article. What do you want to achieve from your posts here? To stop us "monopolising"? Give me a break. BalkanFever 12:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are left alone, you'll unfortunately mess up the whole project. So you have to be monitored. And regarding this article, I'll repeat myself for the last time, the issue is that you claim more than what belongs to you. This article started by labelling almost all Slavic dialects in Greece "Macedonian" and by claiming large part of Bulgarian dialects as "Macedonian". Only after systematic pressure you finally started to accept that this was way too much. So, unless we have indisputable, independent, reliable sources of what should DEFINITELY be considered a Slavomacedonian dialect, then this article HAS to be renamed.--   Avg    12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of the dialects in Greece are Macedonian. Everybody knows this, except for Greek non-linguists, such as yourself. BalkanFever 13:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When I hear someone mentioning the phrase "everybody knows this" I'm almost certain he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I'll leave you to your illusions.--   Avg    13:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I pity you. It's right here. Indisputable, independent, reliable source. Must be an antihellene, eh? BalkanFever 13:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for another violation of the WP:NPA. And where exactly do the sources say that all Slavic dialects are "Macedonian"? You use your selective reading skills again. It clearly says that SOME of the dialects are similar to the language spoken in FYROM. And this is what you've been doing for ages. You try to extrapolate to cover all the area of your irredentist wet dreams.--   Avg    13:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding removing the undisputed dialects of Macedonian, I think that would be a mistake because it would leave the transitional dialects in limbo (i.e. since they can't be included here, they can't also be included at Dialects of the Bulgarian language either; what are they then?).--Dexippus (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

They should be mentioned in both articles, as transitional dialects. BalkanFever 13:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Then why not go one step further and include all dialects that have ever been claimed as dialects of Macedonian and mark some as "disputed" and some as "transitional", while naming the article Macedonan Slavic dialects, Macedonian (Slavic) dialects or Macedonian dialects (Slavic)? After all, that's the real problem here, the name and the territory marking. What makes it even more painful is that its a language not recognized by Greece and it's monopolizing the name, the result being that the Greek majority of Macedonia (Greece) are being made to look like foreigners in their own land.--Dexippus (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Bingo. I think it becomes clearer now who has an agenda and who hasn't.--   Avg    13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither considerations of official "recognition" nor the political sentiments of the Greek-speaking majority there will have any influence on this article. They are completely off-topic. It's a fact that Macedonian is spoken by the minority in Greece, live with it, that's what the literature says unanimously. Everything else is non-notable fringe opinions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You're missing my point. I'm saying that the literature is inconsistent as to where Macedonian ends and Bulgarian begins (relating to the dialects of Greece at least). This is why BF's proposal to exclude everything which has ever been considered Bulgarian won't do; it's adopting one POV to say they are Macedonian, it's adopting another to say they are Bulgarian. We could of course keep the title of this article as it and {{main}} the information relating to Greece to Slavic dialects of Greece and deal with the question in depth there on neutral ground (the title doesn't give more weight to either opnion).--Dexippus (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, I notice that many people here seem to have misunderstood the scope of the term "Dopii". It doesn't mean Slav, it means non-refugee, regardless of ethnicity and language. It's just happens to be used more as a euphemism for terms which could imply loyalties to another country. In the more ethnically mixed (Macedonian salad) areas, it could also refer to people of mixed ancestry (e.g. in an extreme case, what ethnic identity does one with Orthodox Albanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Vlach grandparents have?).--Dexippus (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your take on the Macedonian/Bulgarian delimitation issue. A legitimate issue, but not one serious enough to create real problems for article titling. What I was rejecting as irrelevant was just the second part of your post, about it being "painful" and all that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That was just my assessment for the real reason, the one behind all the facades, we're all here now discussing. "Some" are territory marking, "others" are resisting it. What do you think about {{main}}ing information relating to Greece to Slavic dialects of Greece. A list of the dialects' names (the place name stuff) could make it more interesting and the information there (Abecedar, the dialects it was based on, the history and the dialects' suppression) could supplement it.--Dexippus (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer it if we could keep one purely linguistic overview (geographical divisions, important isoglosses etc.) together in one place, since the political boundaries don't coincide with those. However, some of that material could well be re-hashed in the "... in Greece" article, but under a different perspective: for instance, what linguistic criteria can be used and have been used for delimiting MKD from BUL within the Greek zone; what distinguishes the Greek varieties from those beyond the border, etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What you say is that a move is better? --Laveol T 15:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I really have no strong preference. The present title is clumsy and too wordy; so are several of the proposed alternatives. Anything longer than three or four words strikes me as ugly. The only solution that would truly be unacceptable for being too simplistic and ambiguous is "Macedonian dialects", because that's one occasion where ambiguity with a conceivable article on modern Greek dialectology would be an issue. "Macedonian Slavic dialects" works for me. In principle, even "Dialects of Macedonian" would be okay with me, as long as the transitional nature of the eastern bits is treated properly. It's really just like Dutch dialects, which also includes a couple of transitional dialects on the German side and nobody really has a problem with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Title aesthetics aside, it is definitely possible for the transitional dialects to be treated properly. You will be able to help in that aspect, no? That is the only actual problem with the article. BalkanFever 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the delimitation issue is best described in terms of the entire Eastern South Slavic range, rather than just Macedonia. And yes, more linguistic info is needed for the Slavic dialects of Greece article. BalkanFever 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC
Against ! There are no clear reasons for renaming the page and there are no strong reasons for such thing. Leave the page as it is.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Against...there are no reasons for that...--Raso mk (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] move to "dialects of the macedonian language"

would it be ok if the article is moved to "dialects of the macedonian language" instead of "dialects of macedonian langauge". It is gramatically correct P m kocovski (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple and non-controversial so I did it. BalkanFever 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool! P m kocovski (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placenames

Another issue that was already briefly hinted at yesterday and that we can hopefully solve without too much nationalist hysteria on either side. Placenames and dialect labels containing them. The article speaks of things like the "Voden dialect" or "Solun dialect". Now, I have no problem with that in general – if that is what international anglophone literature generally does. Indeed there's no reason why it shouldn't. Presumably, in the context of Greek dialectology you'd speak of "Smyrna dialect" and "Constantinopolitan dialect", just as in German dialectology you'd speak of Breslau and Danzig dialects. But can we please:

  • see some confirmation that English-language literature actually does this?
  • adopt a habit of explaining such names by adding the local standard placename (or whatever else is common in English, usually the title the article name would be at)?

Just as a pragmatic aid for the reader, nothing to do with national claims and stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could agree with that if the name of cities on the map is changed to only the English one.Xenovatis (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Peter Hill refers to a "Lerin" dialect [3] and Victor Friedman refers to "Voden-Kukuš" [4] BalkanFever 10:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the Friedman ref settles it for me. If Friedman uses such terms, we have the responsibility of explaining them to our readers, and that entails we have to show those placenames on the map so the outsiders can identify them and link them to the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical grouping question

User:Alekishere raised the issue [5] of the seemingly unintuitive classification of the dialects in the southwestern border zone (Korča, Kostur, Nestram). Even though geographically they are of course "southwestern", MacedonianBoy's original text classified these as part of the "Southeastern" group, in accordance with the legend to the source map he provided us with [6]. However, according to that map, they are divided by a major dialect boundary (i.e. presumably isogloss bundle) from both the "Western" dialects just to the north of them (Prespa etc.), and from the "Southeastern" dialects to the the east (Voden etc.). The main dialect boundary is the one that runs north-south dividing the "Center" from the "Eastern" group; then, near Lerin/Florina, it branches in two, with one border dividing the Prespa from the Kostur corner, and one branch dividing Kostur/Pestram from Voden/Solun. Can anyone clarify on what criteria they are grouped as "Southeastern"? Alekishere, are you aware of a different classification actually proposed in the literature, or did you act just on geographical intuition? Also, does anybody know what linguistic features those isoglosses actually represent? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The division border is made on linguistic way (according to the similarities btw the dialects). OK, in the book they were divided like this, but I can change it. Korča and Kostur can be south-western and the rest of them will be south eastern and the group will be named Southern group of dialects. The line divides the dialect as it can be seen on the map, on eastern major group and western major group. The western major group share many similarities such as use of A instead of E, they do not use inter vocal V, have same accent and the grammatical features are same. On the other hand the dialects of the eastern part share similarities such as shortening of the words, same accent, and specific use of some grammatical features. This is the reason of dividing them with the line. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And the division is made from the Institute of Macedonian language so everywhere is accepted like this.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, did you see the classification cited in the main Macedonian language#Dialects article? It's based on a book by Comrie, so should be pretty reliable too. It differs in a few details from yours, but unfortunately the presentation is also a bit self-contradictory. The text speaks of 5 groups, but then lists 6. The southwest corner is listed as a separate top-level division (makes sense if those isoglosses are the way they are shown in the map), and the internal treatment of the northwestern parts is different too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there are maybe many divisions, but this one is most reliable, because it divides the dialects by their characteristics. And do you agree to be like this or should I do as I said before to reclassify the last group? This is not a big deal at all--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And that division is a bit unusual (I mean about that from that man Comrie).--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I must say, the Comrie one strikes me as somewhat more plausible, because in our map the division of "groups" doesn't seem to quite match the isogloss divisions. (Like, it shows a principal isogloss boundary cutting right across what it calls the "northern group" - if it's such a big boundary, how can dialects on both sides of it form a common group?) Comrie is a leading authority in East European linguistics, so I we wouldn't get into problems with "reliability". Of course, best thing would be if we weren't reduced to blindly copying maps, but could actually understand what those classifications are about. It would be great if we could have a summary, like: "The western group is distinguished from the eastern by having feature X1, Y1 and Y3 while the eastern dialects have feature X2, Y2 and Z3. Within the western group, the Prespa-Ohrid-etc group is distinguished by having feature A..." That sort of thing. Can you get such info for us? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I can get some info for every group but I plan to finish the dialects first. The border line divides the Korče and Kostur from the rest, so that`s why I proposed to put them in southwestern group? Is it ok?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it ok like this?

Southern and eastern dialects

  • Eastern group:
  1. Tikveš-Mariovo dialect
  2. Štip-Strumica dialect
  3. Maleševo-Pirin dialect [8]
  • South-western group:
  1. . Korča (Gorica) dialect
  2. . Kostur dialect
  3. . Nestram-Kostenar dialect
  4. . Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect

And also I plan to make articles for each group.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, but why would Ser-Drama be again in the same group with Kostur etc.? Both schemes agree that Ser-Drama belongs firmly with the Eastern dialects, don't they? BTW, I made a modified version of the map with colors that are more like the Comrie scheme:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

BUT Ser will not be in same group if I divide them. And the old map is better because the division that is now made is officially recognized. We can just divide Korča and thats all, isnt it? I have never heard of group such as Ohrid.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And the map is real misunderstanding. The Polog dialect is not same as Poreče, but you have made another divison. Please forget the division of that guy, it is not natural. We cannot divide the dialects as we want.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Also, I commented out two footnotes added (I think by P m kocovski) to the dialect list ([7]). I cannot see what these refs are supposed to verify (the existence of those dialects?) Moreover, they are both to some 19th-century texts, (primary sources?), with insufficient and obscure source information, certainly not quoted after the original but from some intermediate source (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT), and show no indication of being of linguistic nature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

that wasnt me P m kocovski (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, it was Raso mk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the footnotes, but I thought that it is relevant what the Serbian authorities say that the population in that region do not want to study on Serbian, but they speak on Solun dialect as a part of Macedonian language different from Serbian and bulgarian.--Raso mk (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed tag

I have removed the POV tag, because the article quotes credible sources and many universities and linguistic schools worldwide teach Macedonian language and Macedonian dialects supporting the facts presented in this article. Crnorizec (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me. Maybe only the name of the article. --Laveol T 23:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)