Talk:Macedonian alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinese character "Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project’s quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project’s importance scale.

I have a question, raised by a discrepancy between the Macedonian alphabetical order reported in this article, and the canonical order used in articles about individual letters (e.g. the article for "Gje"). Specifically, in the order as shown, Gje and Kje do not appear directly following Ge (or Ge-with-upturn, if it were present in Macedonian) and Ka, as one might expect, and as is reported in the canonical order. I'm guessing this is just an idiosyncracy of the language, but perhaps an error has been made? Or perhaps the error is actually in the table used in the letter articles? It looks like the primary Cyrillic alphabet article has an order consistent with the Macedonian order listed here. Rmharman 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm advised by native Macedonian speaker Bjankuloski06en that indeed, the ordering of Gje and Kje in the Macedonian article is correct. This implies that the order shown in the sidebar tables for Cyrillic letters is incorrect. If it doesn't get taken care of before I have a chance to learn how to edit those, I'll fix it. But it might take me a while to find time to read up on how includes and sidebars work. Rmharman 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Letters Unique

The last section states that Karadžić's alphabet may have been based in some respect on distinctly Macedonian resources (eg. Krste Misirkov). Is this merely speculation on the part of an editor, or is this a documented opinion? If the latter, then it needs a source, and the language should be toned down a tad. I detected a little bit of a sneer in the way "Serbianization" was italicized. I dunno. Maybe I'm just reading more into than there is. I know South Slavic languages can be a sensitive subject. Anyway, I'm putting up the {{NPOV-section}} tag, and adding fact notes. --Yossarian 09:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the way I read it, it wasn't suggesting that Karadzic based his alphabet on Misirkovs (from a historical point of view I suspect this may be impossible, it was just trying to say that the Macedonian alphabet is not based on the Serbian alphabet, but more the writings of Misirkov. I've tightened up the wording and removed the tag, let me know what you think. - FrancisTyers · 10:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, actually. Nice work. On a side note, we should probably provide online/textual sources, though, for Miroslav's book. Just to add a bit of context. Cheers --Yossarian 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How was the "Macedonian language" invented

Please read the reference by Stoyan Kiselinovski in the article to learn from a witness how under pressure from the Yugoslav minority and the Communist government of Yugoslavia, the "Macedonian language" was invented. In this process, many Bulgarians, like Venko Markovski, Stoyan Mikhailovski and others, participated, because such was the politics of the Comintern, and from above the Macedonisation of Bulgarian language and history in this part of Bulgaria was ordered. Those Committees for Macedonian alphabet had the venue Sofia, Bulgaria, which is not mentioned in the article but is a solid fact. Another fact is that "Macedonian language" came into existence only because the Bulgarian government at this time (1945) was composed mostly from traitors who were under direct orders from Soviet Union.

Also, read http://www.mak-truth.com/m4_marko.htm to see how one of the principal inventors of the "Macedonian" language, Venko Markovski, regards himself and the language he speaks as Bulgarian.

Venko Markovski's judgment on the legitimacy of Tito and Kolishevski's Macedonian People's Republic, is poignantly illustrated by the following passage from his text "Кръвта вода не става" 1981, p287

"The entirety of the serious scholars via different ways, have arrived at the conviction that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Dobrudzhia, towns and villages alike, are inhabited by Bulgarians; that the national awareness of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the language of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the literature of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the history of these Bulgarians living in Macedonia, and in Thrace, and in Moesia, and in Dobrudzhia, is not a separate one such as - Macedonian, Thracian, Moesian, Dobrudzhian history, but a common, Bulgarian history; and that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia, Dobrudzhia are the geographic expression of the Bulgarian territory"

--Lantonov 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

→The Macedonian language was "invented" in the same way all the other Slavic languages were. It may not be as old as the rest, but it is still a distinct language, which is why it is recognised by almost every country except for Bulgaria. Maybe we could all follow the Bulgarian approach and say that Portuguese is Spanish or Norwegian is Swedish. ––Alex 202.10.89.28 07:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The handwritten alphabet

Hi, I am translating the English article into Bulgarian. Could anyone please help me with the image of the handwritten version of the Macedonian alphabet? I would like the Bulgarian article to look as close as possible to the English one. Thanks in advance! Regards --StMt 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to upload the image onto the Bulgarian page, I think an administrator from the Bulgarian Wikipedia can help you get that done. Cheers BalkanFever 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! I will do that. Cheers! --StMt 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoyan.stoyan (talk • contribs)

[edit] Article overhaul

I have overhauled the article on the Macedonian alphabet with some help from Macedonian and Bulgarian editors. I have tried to steer the article away from language or ethnicity controversies, so if making changes, make sure they reflect a neutral point of view and are properly sourced. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I should actually name the editors who helped me:
Thanks again guys! AWN2 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Great work! BalkanFever 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The South Slavic nature of the language should be included in the lead, as there is no way for the casual reader to know from the outset that "Macedonian alphabet" doesn't refer to the writing system of another language. According to WP:MOSMAC, "Macedonian can be used where the context is limited to the country, and there is no need for disambiguation". That limited context is not immediately obvious in this case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read, "In articles dealing only with the majority language of the Republic of Macedonia......Use "Macedonian language" ". So no. BalkanFever 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What a pathetic argument; "Macedonian" is already used undisambiguated throughout. By the same logic, we shouldn't classify it as a South Slavic language in the main article either. It isn't Slavic, after all; it's the same language Aleksandar the Great spoke to his generals Slavko and Zlatko. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So when you use MOSMAC it's fine. Ah I see. So sorry to interrupt. BalkanFever 09:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The guiding principle behind MOSMAC is the need for disambiguation. Unlike you, I have never used Macedonia or Macedonian in articles where it isn't absolutely clear that the context is Greece/Greek. The term "Macedonian alphabet" doesn't automatically imply a non-Greek context, especially considering both words are actually Greek. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The need for disambiguation does not exist everywhere the word "Macedonian" is used. "Macedonian language" is quite clear. Especially in an article where anything ancient or Greek is not mentioned. "Macedonian alphabet" is even clearer, as there is no "Ancient Macedonian alphabet" or variant of the Greek alphabet specifically for Greek Macedonians. If "the words are Greek" is the best you can up with, maybe you shouldn't continue this. BalkanFever 10:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not the "best" I "can come up with", it's a simple statement of fact. The "Greek alphabet" is not the only writing system ever used to write Greek; the Cypriot syllabary and Linear B casually spring to mind. For the casual reader, "Macedonian alphabet" may as well be referring to ancient Macedonian. After all, according to you it was a separate language, right? How are the masses to know that it didn't have its own alphabet too? That's why there is no harm in classifying the language as South Slavic in the lead rather than burying the information further down the article. Unless of course you're disputing the classification, in which case you can't be helped. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We covered that it's not for ancient Macedonian, it's the alphabet used for writing the Macedonian language. The fact that you can't imagine anything non-Greek being called "Macedonian" is your problem. Nobody cares. "Macedonian language" is clear, so stating in the lead that the "Macedonian alphabet" is the writing system for that language is more than enough explanation. Again, maybe not to you, but then again you also fail to see the difference between harm and need. BalkanFever 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
How have we covered that it's not for ancient Macedonian? Because the word "ancient" is missing? Please. The fact that you can't imagine anything non-Slavic being called "Macedonian" is your problem. Nobody cares. Your attempt to whitewash the classification of the language says a lot. It's valuable information, and whether or not it causes you distress or offense is patently irrelevant. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Not because the word "ancient" is missing, but because the article being linked to, without a pipe, is the one about the South Slavic language - the Macedonian language. So now you're saying the classification of the language needs whitewashing. Is there something wrong with South Slavic languages? Well bravo, that's racism at its best. BalkanFever 11:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
So why do you keep removing it, then? It's your lot that's always trying to deny their "offensive" Slavic identity, so don't even bother trying that line on me. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Because the family of the language does not need to be reiterated everywhere the language is mentioned. If people care about classification, they can go to the article. "Macedonian language" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the South Slavic language, and not your Greek dialect or that ancient idiom of which the relation to Greek is unknown. Hence the location of the article. And I'll thank you not to spread your monopolisation malakia here. If you want to cry like a bitch, go somewhere else. BalkanFever 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Unlike you, I have nothing to cry about, bitch. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit break 1

Bitching aside, there is, of course, no need for disambiguation. Out in the real world, except in the very limited specialist context of Indo-Europeanist/ancient Balkan linguistics, the phrase "the Macedonian language" always, 100% of the time, refers to the Macedonian language. Professional reference works don't waste a dot of ink for disambiguating that. Nobody except perhaps for a few Greek readers could be preoccupied with XMK enough to be in danger of misunderstanding it. And the Greek crowd doesn't need a disambiguator either; they understand perfectly well what's meant here – they want the allegedly "disambiguating" addition not for the purpose of real disambiguation, but as a badge of recognition of their rival usage. Which is not a thing we should take notice of in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not rule out the legitimacy of a Macedonian alphabet article. We're not going to include all this in the same article, are we? NikoSilver 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL. If you can be bothered to bury a sample of the Macedonian alphabet somewhere in the ground in Pella, I could perhaps arrange for an archaeologist to discover it. Then we write the article on it. After that, we will contemplate the best article names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Still, the assumption by the "uninformed reader" that such an alphabet exists should be a valid reason. We're not going to bury the glorious past's potential over a dab-no-dab concern for a minor language of today, are we? :-) NikoSilver 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The current text of this article's lead squarely places usage of the "Macedonian alphabet" in the present, which in and of itself makes the sense crystal clear, in the more than unlikely case that anybody might have doubts. There isn't a single reader in this whole wide world who knows that an ancient Macedonian languages existed but does not also know that a modern Macedonian language exists too. (Oh, and if you are going to bury that artifact, please make sure it contains something interesting. I propose a set of extra letters for those darned non-aspirated media please.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(How about I bury some cash too?) NikoSilver 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why not something more direct, like "ελληνες εσμεν"? Just make sure you don't mix up your spirits or one might think that (ancient) Thessalian pranksters dumped it there. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This monopolization issue is getting ridiculous. There is no single Macedonian Alphabet. There is a Slavic Macedonian Alphabet. However the majority of Macedonians use the Greek Alphabet. Hard to swallow for our Skopjan friends, but this is what the demographics say. And all these Macedonians can't even read this "Macedonian" Alphabet this page refers to. --   Avg    07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sucks for you, then. BalkanFever 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've used it many times, but once more doesn't hurt. Here's one famous Greek proverb: "The thief shouts to scare the landlord". --   Avg    07:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's another Greek proverb: "Close your dirty mouths for that theme, OK?" BalkanFever 07:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? You must have understood it has to be a real proverb to make sense? Try again mate.--   Avg    07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's more something that a nationalist Greek has said, rather than an actual proverb, but I'm not in a serious argument here with you. I'm just taking the piss because I'm bored. BalkanFever 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Give a diff then and it will make sense, unless you expect people to watch each and every conversation in wikipedia. You know people usually have a life?--   Avg    07:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I find BF's argumentation amusing. He says no disambiguation is needed as there was never an ancient Macedonian alphabet, but much of his compatriots' desire to monopolize the name stems precisely from their concomitant claim to the heritage of ancient Macedonia. And if history is not his motivation for wanting to monopolize the name, what is? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture near the middle here explains very well why they don't like the "Slavic" part...--   Avg    08:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Македонци (Slavic Macedonians) and Μακεδόνες (Greek Macedonians) obviously have strong feelings on this issue... As I am neither, I will try and make the argument from a procedural viewpoint only...
I disagree with Avg -- there is only one Macedonian alphabet, and it is the Macedonian (Cyrillic) alphabet (i.e. the subject of this article). The Macedonian language (and you know what I am referring to when I say that!) can also be written in Latin characters, but insofar as there is a Macedonian alphabet, it is the Macedonian (Cyrillic) alphabet. As far as archeologists know, the Ancient Macedonian language was written with the ancient Greek alphabet, which is why very technically, there should be no need for disambiguation in this article.
However, an uninformed user (and this is who Wikipedia is aimed at) may not know this, and therefore I think a relatively neutral disambiguation-link may be warranted in the event -- however unlikely -- that someone with no knowledge of Macedonian issues/disputes confuses the (modern) Macedonian alphabet with the (non-existent ancient) Macedonian alphabet.
My suggestion for a disambiguation is as follows: {{dablink|This article refers to the modern [[Macedonian language]]. For the unrelated, non-[[Slavic languages|Slavic]] language spoken in the [[Classical antiquity|ancient world]], see [[Ancient Macedonian language]].}} (see revised suggestion below)
What do people think?
Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
תודה רבה, I think it's a fantastic idea. Others, however, seem to disagree. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ΚέκρωΨ! Actually, now that I think of it, BalkanFever rightly pointed out that this article is not about the Macedonian language, so here is my revised proposal for the disambiguation link: {{dablink|This article refers to the alphabet of the modern [[Macedonian language]]. For the unrelated, non-[[Slavic languages|Slavic]] language spoken in the [[Classical antiquity|ancient world]], see [[Ancient Macedonian language]].}} Any other thoughts? Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear AWN2, thanks so much for trying to help. I'm afraid you will soon realise that there is a very specific and dark reason one side doesn't want any disambiguation...--   Avg    17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my position, argued for above, that disambiguation is factually unnecessary. This might be discussed, calmly, but as long as this discussion is kidnapped by people like Avg who can't stop themselves from ranting on and on about their pet nationalist obsessions (like people "stealing" their oh so precious heritage), there's no need and no room for further talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
...So as I was saying, you will soon see that a very specific set of editors is always against disambiguation. --   Avg    21:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it doesn't need any. See the reader testimonials:
"Hi, I'm Mimi from Mimiland. I am non-Balkanian, non-linguist, I know nothing, I fell in this article after reading about Macedon, and I need to know something: WTF? Cyrilic? Hell, that's how the Greek alphabet must look like too... I'll print it for reference before my next trip to Salonica!"
"Hello, I'm Fritz from Fritzland. I speak Fritzish, and English. Fritzipedia has no pages for Macedonia. I was searching for how to write "s'agapo" to a girlfriend I met on my vacation trip to Chalkidike. Thank you! С'агапо all of you!"
"Hi, I'm a gambler. I want to make a reservation to Hotel Hayatt in Salonica. Танк йу фор дис фантастик референс!"
"Dear customer service, please be advised that the maid in your hotel got very grumpy when I wrote a message using her оун алфабет. It may be because I'm a fan of Wikipedia, and I know more things than anybody else."
"Hello, I'm Mimi, remember me? I need directions for -wait, I can't pronounce it, lemme write it down for ya: Тесалоники. OUCH! Why did you have to hit me on the head with that shovel??"
 :-) NikoSilver 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pure POV-pushing. Thessalonians are -never- that angry; well the ones that aren't PAOK fans, that is.
How about something like "This article is about the alphabet used to write the modern Slavic language. The non-Slavic Ancient Macedonian language, insofar as it was written (Hesychius be blessed), used the Greek alphabet". That's a semi-serious(?) proposal but I'm really not sure if disambiguation is needed on every single Macedon-related page. Don't insult the average reader's intelligence or knowledge, Niko! 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, those Mimilanders really are a gullible lot, aren't they. Like, last time I was flying to Atlanta, Georgia, half of the Mimilanders on the plane were frantically trying to learn the Georgian alphabet. Hapless victims of a missing dablink in Wikipedia. But don't worry too much about us Fritzes from Fritzland. Unlike some people here, most of us are mentally capable of discussing Cyrillic alphabets for a few minutes without bothering too much what our hotel maids in Thessaloniki might think of us. You know, for us, the world actually doesn't revolve around you guys. Also, we are usually pretty adept at finding out what languages our girlfriends speak. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Specious analogy. There was never a Georgian language spoken in Georgia. And, believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you guys ("Macedonians" and their know-all foreign sympathizers) either. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest "йу" actually read the article at some point, Niko ;-). BalkanFever 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Niko's suggestion

How about we all give it a rest and just place a link to my divine article on top? NikoSilver 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? 3rdAlcove and FP, don't overestimate outsiders' knowledge; I've met people who thought "Macedonian" and Greek were "the same", kind of like the feuding Croats and Serbs who nonetheless speak more or less the same language. And then you have to explain to them that actually, yes, Macedonian is Greek, but "Macedonian" is not. FP, you say that "out in the real world, except in the very limited specialist context of Indo-Europeanist/ancient Balkan linguistics", people "always" mean the Slavic language when they say "Macedonian". Clearly, you're speaking within the very limited specialist context of Slavicist linguistics and/or modern Balkan politics; there's a whole other world out there that may never have even heard of the word, or, if it has, possesses a very vague understanding of it. You then say that "professional reference works don't waste a dot of ink for disambiguating that", but weren't you also the one who once said "let's do it better than the others"? Our purpose here is to educate, not perpetuate the world's confusion. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not @ overestimating. I've had similar experiences too (even on wiki, which has all the articles in front of you, so to speak, did I hear that Alex III was born in "what is today RoM"), but these people represent an extremely small number of 'outsiders' (as far as I can tell, at least). I do feel that it's a case of excessive disambiguation in this case, though. Don't you think that all the Macedonia-related articles do a decent enough job of educating rather than perpetuating confusion? 3rdAlcove (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how a simple dablink constitutes "excessive" disambiguation; it's a simple statement of fact that doesn't affect the gist of the article in the slightest. If there were an ancient Macedonian alphabet, I'd advocate the same for that article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Excessive as in, in every single article. Do you at least agree with my last rhetorical question? It should be OK now, after your small change, anyway. 3rdAlcove (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Erring on the side of caution, perhaps, but not excessive. I sincerely hope it will be OK now; fingers and toes crossed. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
No, the current version is worse than any of the previous ones. "to write the modern Slavic Macedonian language" makes it definitely sound as if "Slavic" was part of the language name. Unacceptable. The language name is Macedonian only. If you absolutely need "Slavic" as a disambiguator, then at least package it so as to make it clear it is a disambiguator and only that. But I maintain, it's not needed, the only essential dimension along which disambiguation is remotely an issue is "ancient" versus "modern"; its genetic (non-)relationships and your ideological anxieties over them are irrelevant both for the dab issue and for the substance of the article itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And the Macedonians called their tongue Macedonian only, so what? "Ancient" is only there for disambiguation purposes; it's not part of the name of the language. But whatever; change it to whatever you feel is appropriate and make sure you keep BF on a leash when he comes to exercise his ideological anxieties. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You call that a compromise? That's even worse. We have more than enough coverage of the Macedonian naming issue in all sorts of places, we don't need it being spammed to each and every place where the Macedonian language is mentioned. That's what you want, right? It's POV spamming, nothing else. About practical needs and users' knowledge, fact remains that nobody ever thinks there is a second, modern "Macedonian language" besides the one we are talking about here. That's all a dab issue would be about. They may well be confused about what it is, where it's spoken and how it's related to other languages, but that's not for this article to work out, the main Macedonian language article is about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really. The article makes no such temporal distinction; it simply notes that the alphabet is "used to write Macedonian". And before you rush to tell me that the present tense is enough to convey that meaning, think of all the ancient languages that are routinely transcribed using modern scripts, e.g. Hebrew for Aramaic. The matter is simple; we need to make clear which "Macedonian" we mean, end of story. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. "Modern Macedonian" then. Has the added advantage of disambiguating not only against XMK, but also against Old Church Slavonic and whatever other pre-1945 written forms of South Slavic might be claimed as Macedonian ancestor varieties by some. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So it's not disambiguation you're against, but the explicit classification of the language as Slavic, which is the only unambiguous and meaningful form of disambiguation. For the uninitiated or deliberately misguided, "modern Macedonian" could imply that it derives from ancient Macedonian, just as modern Greek derives from ancient Greek, modern English derives from old English, etc. Is that the intention? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we're making this too complicated... There is only one Macedonian language, just as there is only one Macedonian alphabet (irrespective of what we may think of the language or alphabet), so technically, there is no need for any disambiguation. The wording "The Macedonian alphabet is an adaptation of the Cyrillic alphabet used to write the Macedonian language" (with appropriate hyperlink to the Macedonian language article) tells people exactly what they need to know (the Macedonian language article makes it quite clear that it is a Slavic language unrelated to the Ancient Macedonian language).
My argument for a small neutral disambiguation link is for the uninformed user who is looking for articles about Ancient Macedonian, and needs a nudge in the right direction.
My revised, revised suggestion (which would hopefully eliminate the need for any more disambiguation in the article) is therefore:
{{dablink|This article refers to the alphabet of the modern [[Macedonian language]]. For the unrelated language spoken in the [[Classical antiquity|ancient world]], see [[Ancient Macedonian language]].}}.
(I removed the reference to Slavic language because if (Slavic) Macedonian is unrelated to Ancient Macedonian, it is obvious that Ancient Macedonian is non-Slavic!) Any more thoughts? AWN2 (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And PS, can we please stop changing the article until it's settled here in the talk page?! ;-) AWN2 (talk) 08:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
PPS The wording "The Macedonian alphabet is an adaptation of the Cyrillic alphabet used to write the modern Macedonian language" would probably also suffice, although there is redundancy in saying "modern Macedonian". The two languages in question are Macedonian and Ancient Macedonian.
PPPS Before someone picks me up on it, what I mean by saying "there is only one Macedonian language" is that the term "Macedonian language" only refers to one language (Македонски јазик). "Ancient Macedonian language" obviously refers to something else! AWN2 (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But that's just it; it doesn't only refer to one language. Ancient Macedonian is also Macedonian, the original Macedonian in fact. The word "ancient" is not part of the name of the language; it is simply a disambiguating qualifier. The same principle should apply here. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The "uninformed user who is looking for articles about Ancient Macedonian" will never see this article. They will type "Macedonian" in the search box and will be led to the right disambiguation page. Or, if they simply come across this one by chance and wonder what it's about, they'll follow the link to the language page and find the dab link there. Insisting on disambiguation here is a slippery slope, a POV maneuvre of the Greek gang to get a foot in the door for claiming that each and every mention of the language must be flagged and linked and "disambiguated" everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh? You've already accepted disambiguation with your proposal above, nein? And how exactly does AWN2's proposal constitute a "POV maneuvre of the Greek gang"? He's arguably the most neutral participant here, especially given your attitude of late. How about taking a break from your Greek containment mission and letting someone else have a go for a change? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that AWN2 can be a neutral participant only if he agrees with Fut.Perf.--   Avg    16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion renewed

Obviously nobody saw my previous suggestion up there, so let me spell it out:

  • {{dablink|For the often confusing terms related to [[Macedonia]], please refer to [[Macedonia (terminology)#In linguistics|Macedonia (terminology)]].}}

Which wiki-translates to the NPOV:

For an analysis of the often confusing terms related to Macedonia, please refer to Macedonia (terminology).

What do you say? NikoSilver 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I commented on this one earlier already. [1]. Nothing much to add now really. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
According to my understanding of this, FP has begrudgingly accepted something along the lines of this, leaving BF as the sole conscientious objector. Someone go ahead and add it so we can wrap this up already. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that I don't see how that wording achieves anything of what you guys want. It does not suggest to the reader that this Macedonian is not the only Macedonian, and that the hotel maids in Thessaloniki don't speak it (Niko's worry about those naive Mimilanders). Sure, that's just as well, it shouldn't, because there's no need of doing so anyway. But if it doesn't do that, then why do you want it? This wording helps nobody, it introduces "Slavic" just as a useless appendix of random information. In fact, the only satisfaction you can get from it is for demonstrating you have again successfully left your scent mark on a territorial outpost article ("see, you can't use the M word without us forcing you to go through some silly contortions just to acknowledge we are still here.") Silly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yer, whatever. So AWN2's dablink it is, then? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AWN2 and BF that the current version is just fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry -- don't like that one. The term being 'confused' in this article is not 'Macedonia', but 'Macedonian' (in terms of language/alphabet). An article on the Macedonian language/alphabet does not need a disambiguation on everything Macedonian. If were are going to disambiguate, it should be between the Macedonian language and the Ancient Macedonian language. AWN2 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Before this all gets personal (again), what I think FP☼ is saying is that we should not be disambiguating just for the sake of disambiguating. Disambiguation is warranted where there is a genuine possibility of good faith users/editors being confused. I find it difficult to believe that someone looking for things in geographic Macedonia (such as, say, Thessaloniki or Bitola) being confused by an article on the Macedonian alphabet! Again, I believe that the current wording/hyperlinking requires no disambiguation. However, if someone genuinely believes that an uniformed reader could be confused between the (Cyrillic) Macedonian alphabet and the (non-existent) ancient Macedonian alphabet (and I accept that this is possible), then there may be a case for... a short, neutral disambiguation between the Macedonian language and the Ancient Macedonian language. AWN2 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Go for it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
But no-one here genuinely believes that. BalkanFever 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "not a drop of ink" is a great exaggeration given my recent search in Google scholar which provides 144 explicit sources: [2]. NikoSilver 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They mustn't be "professional" enough for FP's Anatolian standards. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As usual, most of the links in that list are false – either not containing the exact phrase at all, or not applying it to the language but the ethnicity, or using it as an accidental syntactic collocation. In fact, several of the pages in that list are perfect counterexamples to your claim. One would have thought your previous experience with google searches had led you to wisen up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Σε μένα μιλάς; ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Translación, por favor. BalkanFever 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Traducción, quieres decir. Y por supuesto que no es greco; es griego. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Y yo no hablo castellano (y griego). Traduis-le dans le français ou l'anglais. Icã tu armãneashti. Li v slovenščini. Ili vo naši. BalkanFever 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
If I wrote it in a language you don't understand, then it obviously wasn't intended for you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No shit. It was probably some form of insult directed at FP. BalkanFever 07:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess you'll never know. And what's it to you, anywho? He's a big boy; he can look after himself. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it just said "are you talking to me?" - well, not very much, it was really more directed at Niko of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought so, but the indentation threw me off. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I liked your older sig better. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been in two minds about it, actually. Τώρα είναι πιο αρχαιοπρεπές· λέω να το κρατήσω. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
To be truly archaeoprepes, shouldnt it be ΚΕΚΡΟΦΣ? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Φ was as much a Greek innovation as was Ψ, ¿no? I guess if you wanted to go really Phoenician you could write it ΚΕΚΡΟΠΣ or even ΚΕΚΡΟΠΜ, but it looks like something my six-year-old niece would come up with. I'm an æsthete, remember? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
"ΦΣ" would have been the orthography of glorious 5th-cent. BC Athens [3]. Wouldn't Kekrops take particular pride in that form of writing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
He might have done, if he were around in the fifth century BCE to see it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So the semicolon is a question mark in Greek? BalkanFever 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

¡Да! Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
daß Mischung von spanisch und kyrillisch sein lustig :) BalkanFever 10:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Since Macedonian orthography and Macedonian alphabet cover pretty much the same ground, I think they ought to be merged. While a case can be made for merging the alphabet into the orthography (the opposite way from how I've tagged it) the orthography page is woefully undeveloped as it is anyway. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the orthography article is quite new, I think we should just wait a while for it to be improved. When I have time, I'll contribute, and I'm sure other Macedonian users will too. Russian alphabet and Russian orthography is a good model. BalkanFever 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh shit! I didn't even notice that. I think I just bit a new article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL! No harm done :D BalkanFever 03:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)