Talk:Macedonian language/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 WP:OWN 2 Dialects 3 Perfect tense 4 Vreden 5 New reference style 6 Grammar 7 Semivowels 8 Equating Serbian and Bulgarian claims about the language 8.1 Common expressions 9 Bulgarian dialect? 10 O Telex! 11 On the Greek or otherwise character of the Byzantine monks 12 To CRCulver 13 lord's prayer in Macedonian 14 Macedonian Past Tense Formation 15 Not readily intelligible 16 The map 17 Serbianization 1 18 Serbianisation 2 19 Serbianisation 2.1 20 Serbianization 3 21 Serbianisation 4 22 Anglicisation of Macedonian 23 Vocative and Balkan sprachbund 24 About the references 25 Italics in Cyrillics 26 New Ref about language name 27 ISO 639-1 28 Citation needed 29 What the...?

WP:OWN

I'd encourage anyone who thinks I have violated or am violating the article ownership policy here to take it up with dispute resolution. - FrancisTyers 17:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialects

I've removed the majority of the Dialects section because it is a copyvio from Friedman's (2001) Macedonian. - FrancisTyers 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See [1]. - FrancisTyers 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about re-wording it so that it isn't a copyvio any more? --85.187.44.131 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be great :) If you haven't got time to do it, I'll do it this weekend. - FrancisTyers 01:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently added some addidional info on the Seres-Nevrokop dialects as being considered Eastern Bulgarian dialects by Bulgarian scholars, which was deleted. I really do not understand why. The history page says there is no reference for that. In fact there is a reference in the text: Stojkov's "Bulgarian Dialectology". Someone posted a link to that text online (http://www.promacedonia.org/jchorb/st/index.htm) but it was deleted without explanation. Also, I would prefer it that the link to Kronsteiner's article be changed to: http://www.promacedonia.org/en/kronsteiner/ik_3_eng.html - a much cleaner version from a more serious website without the spam-like propaganda links.(149.77.24.89 12:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

I think the info as of now is quite sufficient, and the opinions of Bulgarian linguists are mentioned clearly enough. The references to Stoykov were things that I had posted previously, so I didn't know that he was also the source of your additions. I now see that he does indeed confirm Nevrokop and Serres' being rupski. But in any case, I don't see why their being rupski is notable enough to deserve a mention. As for the link to Stoykov, I don't know who deleted it and why (I had no idea that book was available online, that would have spared me a walk to the library). I'll add it back in the references section. --194.145.161.227 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The significance of their rupski nature is that they are far closer to the rest of the rupski dialects from the Rhodopes to the Black Sea than the Prilep-Bitola dialects. Hence the whole idea of the Macedonianness of all Slavs of Macedonia being based on some shared common linguistic traits looks very dubious. Also, classifying the inhabitants of Razlog, Goce Delchev and Melnik as Macedonian speakers and therefore ethnic Macedonians based on language becomes rather difficult. This is not to deny the legitimacy of OMO "Ilinden" activists' right to self-identification, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. (149.77.24.89 18:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

OK, I see what you mean, but to make this point clear to the general reader, we'd have to explain the geographical extension of the Rupski dialects. As for the conclusions from it, the fact that the dialects can be classified as (close to) East rather than West Bulgarian in several respects (yat-vowel behaviour, unstressed vowel reduction) is already mentioned in the article and pretty telling. Anyway, I'll insert a mention of the Rupski thing again. --194.145.161.227 19:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I had mentioned the extent of the Rupski dialects in my original sentence. On a sidenote, it is funny that the activists of the VMORO left at the turn of the 20th century, to which current Macedonian (and a lot of Western) scholarship tries to impute some sort of Macedonian nationalism, came almost exclusively from the Seres district or from Bulgaria proper (the Principality). Whereas the pro-Bulgarian nationalists of the VMORO right came mostly from Western Macedonia, whose population was already at that time being perceived by some (e.g. Brailsford) as somewhat different from the Bulgarians in the Principality.(149.77.24.89 19:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

Interesting, I had no idea about that. Yes, you had written that they "strech across southern Bulgaria, through the Rhodope and Strandja mountains." But I didn't have your reference then, and you see, we have an awful lot of trouble with anonymous IP users on sensitive topics like that. Nothing personal. It still seems borderline excessive as a detail, given the scarcity of proper linguistic information about the language itself in the article. --194.145.161.227 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perfect tense

In contrast, in other Slavic languages that have the perfect tense, it is almost universally built with the verb "to be" and a past active participle; that is also an option in Macedonian. The older common Slavic form with сум "to be" is predominant in the east of the country, while the form with "to have" is more widespread in the west, but has spread in the younger generations due to the influence of the standard language. Example: имам галено (new perfect) - сум галил/галел (old perfect) - I have caressed.

Do we have a source for this? - FrancisTyers 00:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Friedman 2001, Macedonian, p.40, 2.5.2.4. --85.187.44.131 01:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :)

2.5.2.4. Perfects. Macedonian has preserved the Common Slavic perfect in the sum series and has created a new series of perfects: the ima series. The new perfect is characteristic of Western Macedonian and is marked for present statal resultativity (resultant state). The sum series has lost its marking for resultativity in connection with the rise of the category of status (see 2.5.2.10). Speakers from Eastern Macedonia use the ima-perfect less than speakers from Western Macedonia or not at all, and consequently the sum series in their speech and writing has a broader range.15 In the southwest (Ohrid-Struga), the sum series has become limited to the expression of status, while in the extreme southwest (Kostur-Korc#a) the l-form and its paradigms have disappeared entirely or nearly so. In the rest of Western Macedonia, the sum series retains some of its perfect uses as well as entering into status oppositions.

Thats the section --^ - FrancisTyers 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. + Footnote: "Younger generations from Eastern Macedonia, however, use the ma-perfect more frequently as a result of the influence of the literary language".

The thing that the text in our article doesn't mention is that the sum-series tends to acquire renarrative functions. It can be added. --85.187.44.131 01:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Need I say that there is NO official Macedonian grammar that lists: old perfect and new perfect! The only perfect tense "accepted" by Macedonian grammars is, what you term, the old perfect! For fifteen years I have been studying my native tongue, but not once I found any source, or grammar book, or school book reffering to the има-constructions as to new perfect. This is just not right... True, има-constructions are common to the western dialects, but in the Skopje dialect (nowdays somewhat closest to the literary language) their usage is quite seldom. Profesorot 12:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Vreden

For the record - vreden just can't mean "ureden" ("orderly") in standard Bulgarian. In some really exotic dialect, maybe. :) --85.187.44.131 01:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See my reply. Francis, it's better to archive only inactive discussions or wait until things settle. Todor Bozhinov  → 08:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remember that in future, although it was going outside the remit of the talk page somewhat. - FrancisTyers 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello!! It's Lazar again. I just listened to the same bible passage in Macedonian (standard) and in Bulgarian (standard). I am a serb and have concluded yes, macedonian is bulgarian. However it is heavily serbinized. -Lazar

Lazar, do see Folk linguistics. BTW How did you conclude Macedonian is Bulgarian and Bulgarian isn't Macedonian? --dcabrilo 03:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

New reference style

FrancisTyers - What didn't you like about the reference conversion in this article? Armedblowfish 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See comments at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes. The new system is buggy. - FrancisTyers 00:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see anything significant there. Can you be more specific? Duja 09:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth the reference text is set so small that the arrows get munged and no longer show up as arrows, just little tick marks. --Cyde↔Weys 12:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Does anyone else think that the Grammar section could probably make its own article now? We could summarise in this article and have a {{main}} link, like with the history section. - FrancisTyers 01:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not detailed enough yet, IMO. Why, the "Verbs" section starts with the perfect tense! Just compare with the Latin grammar article. --85.187.44.131 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Semivowels

Removed as we have conflicting sources. - FrancisTyers · 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are four semivowels in standard Macedonian: /r/, /j/, /l/, and /ł/. ^{[citation needed]} There are cases when /r/ is syllabic. Then the sign ' is used before the letter Р. Samples: 'рж ('rzh), за'ржи (za'rzhi), 'рт ('rt), 'рбет ('rbet), 'ркулец ('rkulec) etc.

Re-added the "syllabic /r/" bit. Nobody disputes it.--85.187.44.131 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Equating Serbian and Bulgarian claims about the language

Currently, the article seems to suggest that Serbian and Bulgarian nationalist claims about the "Macedonian language" are equally invalid:

Both Bulgarian and Serbian nationalist commentators and linguists have attempted to pronounce Macedonian as merely a dialect of their own respective languages. The academic consensus outside Bulgaria and Serbia is that Macedonian is an autonomous language within the South Slavic dialect continuum.

This seems misleading. As the article itself notes, Macedonian is very close to Bulgarian, and, furthermore, was considered to be a dialect of Bulgarian until the late 19th century, at best. The claims that it is a dialect of Serbian were just totally bogus. I think we should say, at the very least, that the academic consensus is that "Macedonian is an autonomous language within the South Slavic dialect contiuum, but is most closely related to Bulgarian." Or something along those lines. john k 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbian linguists claim that Torlakian, which is very similar to Macedonian and is more similar to standard Bulgarian than Serbian, is a Serbian dialect (see the article in question). --Telex 12:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no real point in saying "Macedonian is an autonomous language within the South Slavic dialect contiuum, but is most closely related to Bulgarian.", any more than there is saying "Bulgarian is an autonomous language within the South Slavic dialect contiuum, but is most closely related to Macedonian."

It isn't "totally" bogus to claim that Macedonian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian. There is an interesting quote by (I think) Lunt about this. I'll try and find it. - FrancisTyers · 12:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This the Serbs who dominated the inter-war Yugoslav government seem genuinely to have believed that Macedonians were their ignorant brothers who would be all right after a few years of education, but they quickly became annoyed at the linguistic ineptitude of the mass of Macedonians and found a righteous justification for accusing them of stupidity and ingratitude and hence for treating the region almost as a colony. (Lunt 1959)

- FrancisTyers · 12:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any suggestion from that quote that suggests that Macedonian is closer to Serbian than it is to Bulgarian. Is there any non-Serbian source which indicates that Macedonian is either closer to Serbian, or equally close to both Serbian and Bulgarian? It seems to be pretty undisputed that it's more closely related to Bulgarian. This ought to be mentioned - the two cases aren't equal. The Macedonians were considered Bulgarians before 1913 pretty universally. We shouldn't imply equality. And the idea that this is exactly the same as saying the same thing about Bulgarian is nonsense - Bulgarian and Serbian are generally understood to be their own languages, and both had their own written standard long before Macedonian did. Macedonian has been disputed between the Bulgarians and the Serbians. It's not as though Macedonian nationalists claim Bulgarians are actually Macedonian. john k 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any suggestion of that, but still it is an interesting quote on the subject. It is undisputed that the literary form of Macedonian is closer to the literary form of Bulgarian than the literary form of Serbian. Bulgarian has been standardised in its current form for between 50-100 years more than Macedonian. I really don't see what you want to change. "The academic consensus outside Bulgaria and Serbia is that Macedonian is an autonomous language within the South Slavic dialect continuum" is succinct and accurate.

In case you think that Bulgarian isn't mentioned enough, and that it isn't stressed enough that Macedonian is really like Bulgarian, here are some highlights:

• Macedonian is closely related to Standard Bulgarian.
• Along with Bulgarian, Macedonian is the only Slavic language not to use noun cases (except for vocative) and to have a definite article.
• The closest relative of Macedonian is Bulgarian, spoken in Bulgaria...
• Bulgarian and Macedonian properly form a dialect continuum, with the Bulgarian standard being based on the more eastern dialects, and the Macedonian standard being based on the more western dialects
• characterisic of East Bulgarian as opposed to West Bulgarian dialects, so these dialects are regarded by Bulgarian linguists as transitional between East and West Bulgarian
• As with the Bulgarian language, the grammar of Macedonian is markedly analytic in comparison with other Slavic languages
• The article is postfixed, as in Bulgarian
• In this respect, both Macedonian and Bulgarian differ from other Slavic language
• As a result of the close relatedness with Bulgarian

- FrancisTyers · 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

An important aspect of Macedonian is that prior to the 1940s, linguists regarded it as Bulgarian (and today's "Macedonians" as Bulgarians). --Telex 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Largely true. The following from Trudgill (1992), which I reference:

Conversely, dialects which have acquired autonomy during the course of this century and have come to be perceived as independent languages include Afrikaans (formerly a dialect of Dutch) and Macedonian (Serbian/Bulgarian).

- FrancisTyers · 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vardar Macedonia btw was called Old Serbia from 1918 to 1941.   /FunkyFly.talk_   23:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's check a few maps as they were before the ascent of Titoism and the brainwashing imposed on the inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. This confirms Krste Misirkov's words: We are Bulgarian more than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria. The population of Skopje is pure Bulgarian. --Telex 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, if irrelevant. You of course realise that all "nations" are elaborate myths for the brainwashed. ^____^ - FrancisTyers · 23:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How about ethnic groups? --Telex 23:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Its been said that bg.wiki that they're calling the Slavic speaking inhabitants of Golo Brdo "PURE" Bulgarians. - FrancisTyers · 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're Gorani/Torbesh/Pomaks (I'm not certain which term is appropriate here), and identify as Albanians. --Telex 23:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So much for the "neutrality" of the Bulgaro-pedia. - FrancisTyers · 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, again you reveal your pro-FYROM bias! Why call the place Golo Brdo (Slavomacedonian name) and not Golo Bardo (Bulgarian name) or Gollobërda (Albanian name)? What do you think they should call them? --Telex 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fran, Not quite. It does not say they are pure Bulgarians, in fact it mentions some consider themselves ethnic Macedonians. Read here.   /FunkyFly.talk_   23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it says that Part of the Slavic population of Golo Bardo have a Macedonian national consciousness. I don't know what you're getting at FT - it calls it "Slavic population", not Bulgarians. So what's the problem? It doesn't say that part of the "Bulgarian" population of Golo Bardo have... --Telex 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but before mentioning that, it does say clearly in the heading that they are Bulgarians [11] (Голо бърдо (мак. Голо Брдо, алб. Gollobordë или Gollobërdë) е планински район в Източна Албания и западната част на Република Македония, югозападно от град Дебър, населен основно с българи - предимно мюсюлмани и малко християни.). Also, the article about the Gorani says that they are Bulgarians ([12], "Гораните са малка група българи, живеещи в планинския район Гора, по северните склонове на Шар-планина от двете страни на границата между Албания и Косово, на юг от Кукъс и Призрен."), although, judging from oyter info, the Gorani themselves haven't realized that yet. --85.187.44.131 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the comment that started it all - yes, the Bulgarian claims would have been more adequate than the Serbian ones a century ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the current Bulgarian nationalist position is as ludicrous as teh Serbian one, because, as Francis said, nations are an invention and not some biological or metaphysical reality that can't be changed. --85.187.44.131 23:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. :) - FrancisTyers · 00:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My basic point is this - as Telex notes, until fairly recently just about everybody outside Serbia/Yugoslavia considered Macedonian to be a dialect of Bulgarian. This included Bulgarian nationalists (of course), but also a lot of other people, as well. Only Serbians have ever considered Macedonian to be a form of Serbian - everyone else recognized that this was bullshit. The current phrasing seems to imply that "Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists" each try to claim Macedonians as their own, but that supposedly neutral linguists realize it's its own language. This seems to me to be misleading. To the extent that linguists recognize this, it is not because the assessment of the linguistic similarities between Bulgarian and Macedonian has changed. It is because a) Macedonian has its own literary standard now; b) it has a distinct politico-national identity which considers its people not to be Bulgarians; and c) linguists tend to be a lot more generous of late in how they define what a "language" is. In other parts of the article this is made clear, but I feel like that statement shows kind of a bias towards the idea of Macedonian as a separate language, by presenting the idea that it is a dialect of Bulgarian (universally held until fairly recently) as though it is a fringe opinion only held by Bulgarian nationalists. john k 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"fringe opinion only held by Bulgarian nationalists", at this moment in time, it is a fringe opinion only held by Bulgarian [nationalists,linguists]. Previously it was not so, and that is fully covered in the History section. - FrancisTyers · 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, chill out. Do we have to go through the process of me listing international linguists that support that Macedonian is a dialect again? It is simply not true that Macedonian is considered dialect only by Bulgarian linguists and you know it.   /FunkyFly.talk_   01:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You never did provide proper citations, though. I would also require a citation that shows that the opinions of these linguists are considered noteworthy by anybody mainstream, e.g. their being mentioned in a book like Combrie and Greville's The Slavonic languages. --85.187.44.131 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage you to quote them, giving full citations. I'm aware of three, perhaps four, and of those, at least one produced a significantly flawed paper published by a Bulgarian organisation. I've yet to see you cite any papers published by reputable linguists that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. I believe Mr. Malherbes was in a book. - FrancisTyers · 01:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded that section slightly to take into account your criticism. How does it sound now? - FrancisTyers · 00:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

john k wrote that "The current phrasing seems to imply that "Bulgarian and Serbian nationalists" each try to claim Macedonians as their own, but that supposedly neutral linguists realize it's its own language. This seems to me to be misleading." He still hasn't explained how this is misleading. It is the simple truth. Yes, the opinion of linguists hasn't changed so much due to changes in the languages themselves (although such exist), but a proper linguist knows very well that a "separate language" is not defined on the basis of how great linguistic similarities there are. It can only be defined, objectively, according to those same criteria that john k listed (a literary standard) and that do imply that Macedonian is a separate language. --85.187.44.131 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, very briefly. Macedonian can certainly be considered a separate language on the grounds that it is linguistically distinct from Bulgarian, has its own written standard, and is considered by the government of Macedonia to be its own language. This is perfectly reasonable, and my point doesn't have to do with that. But that doesn't mean that it's intellectually equivalent to say "Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian" and "Macedonian is a dialect of Serbian," because Macedonian is much more closely related to Bulgarian than it is to Serbian. If political circumstances had differed, and the area of the modern Republic of Macedonia had gone to Bulgaria, rather than to Serbia, after the Balkan Wars, it is highly probable that there would be no idea of a separate "Macedonian" nation, and that these people would simply be considered Bulgarians, and their language a dialect of Bulgarian. As I understand it, this happened to people speaking dialects closely related to Macedonian who happened to be on the Bulgarian side of the border. On the other hand, the area did become part of Serbia, and, in fact, did not become assimilated with the Serbs. The idea that Macedonian is a dialect of Serbian was a political lie concocted by the Serbs. The idea that it is a dialect of Bulgarian is a former possibility that did not come to pass due to political circumstances. At this point it's silly to say that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. But that doesn't mean that the two claims are on the same level, as our paragraph currently implies. Basically, the issue is this: Macedonian is a very new language. The fact that it is now its own language is historically contingent. Had political facts been different, it is perfectly likely that Macedonians would now be considered Bulgarians. On the other hand, the fact that it is not considered to be a dialect of Serbian is not historically contingent. This difference should be noted at this point in the article. The different experiences of Serbs trying to Serbify their Macedonian population, and Bulgarians trying to Bulgarify the neighboring population in Western Bulgaria, shows a real and substantive difference between linguistic-based arguments about whether Macedonian is a dialect of Serbian, or if it is a dialect of Bulgarian. The first argument is crap, the second is arguable, even if we ultimately realize that the definition of "language" on which such an argument is based is probably untenable. john k 03:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Given the right historical circumstances, the Serbs could easily have assimilated the Macedonians, just as the Bulgarians could have. The reason a separate Macedonian nation was created in Yugoslavia was not because the Serbs couldn't get away with saying Macedonian was a dialect of Serbian, but rather that it was expedient in the political climate of the time. - FrancisTyers · 09:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, there are many languages further apart than Serbian and Macedonian that are considered "one language". - FrancisTyers · 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, whatever, I give up. The current text is acceptable. john k 10:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I admit that the Serbian assimilation would have taken more time, but ultimately, I think it would have happened (this is just my opinion, of course). These things usually do happen in due course. Compare:

1. the Scanians, who were clearly Danish and spoke Danish until annexed by Sweden in the 17th century, but nowadays identify as Swedes,
2. the Bretons, who mostly identify as French, although they have a totally different language and origin, much more different than Macedonian is from Serbian;
3. the Slavs in Greece, who, AFAIK, for the most part prefer to identify as Greeks who just happen to speak a totally different Slavic language in everyday life (the initial motive for this identification was probably to avoid any trouble, but the same could have happened easily to the Macedonians in Serbia).
4. the Muslim Slavs on the Balkans (Pomaks, Bosniaks) who were converted ("assimilated") to Islam for practical reasons, in many or most cases by force, but nowadays regard that religion as an integral part of (and the basis of) a distinct ethnic or national identity.

The conclusion: in identity-related matters, what was once bogus becomes truth with time, because they have no objective basis. --85.187.44.131 11:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Common expressions

FrancisTyers, why you don't do the same in the article about the Bulgarian language? Thre are allowed Common Bulgarian expressions. Only in the article about the Macedonian language is not allowed that? Is it ussual here at EN Wikipedia to spread only the Anti-Macedonian propagandas? Unfortunately I got that feeling reading most of the articles here. --Amacos 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, truely I am acting in an anti-Macedonian fashion, pushing the POV of the Bulgarian/Greek/Albanian [delete as appropriate] government (subtext: read my comments on this talk page, read the archives before you accuse me of anything). However on the other hand, if you look here, you can see we already have a list of common Macedonian expressions. The examples section of this article should include phrases which highlight interesting linguistic features of the language, such as clitic doubling etc. - FrancisTyers · 20:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't accuse you personally for anything :) My point was: Look at the article about the Bulgarian language, there are Common Bulgarian expressions, and there is also separate article including the bulgarian phrasses too, look here. I did the same. If it's allowed for the Bulgarian language why it's not allowed for the Macedonian language? I hope you did understand my point. Regards, --Amacos 23:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but it shouldn't be in the Bulgarian article either. The example section should be reserved for demonstrating interesting linguistic features of the language. Unfortunately many language articles disregard this. - FrancisTyers · 00:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian dialect?

I mention that in all books about Macedonia published in Romanian by Aromanians from this region, Macedonian language is considered a Bulgarian dialect. However, I see in Wikipedia a trend to accept very easy (and without scientific arguments) the aparition of new languages. Serbo-Croatian was divided in Wikipedia in Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, soon will follow a "Montenegrian" language. It seems that politics interfere with linguistic in new language definition, and I don't believe this is a good thing.--MariusM 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with that. Not to mention that the possibility that Aromanian is a Romanian dialect (which is the view Britannica takes) is suppressed here.--Tekleni 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. There is no generally accepted definition of a language as oppose to a dialect.   Andreas   ^(T) 18:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we go by how people call their language today. The majority of the native speakers of this language in the Republic of Macedonia call it Macedonian and consider themselves ethnic Macedonians. It is also good to point out the historical developments, sure. Plus modern Macedonian is a standardised language, it can hardly be called a dialect. And what was spoken in Macedonia in 1913 was not one Bulgarian dialect but a group of very diverse Bulgarian dialects. Modern Macedonian is based on a small subset of those and it has undergone a lot of Serbian and other influences. I would not call it a dialect of Bulgarian. It is a separate language vis-a-vis standard Bulgarian. (VMRO 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

O Telex!

Couple of questions:

"It's interesting that Greek and Romanian are centum languages, and Bulgarian-Macedonian and Albanian are satem languages, so the Balkan sprachbund includes many kinds of Indo-European languages."

Do we have a source for that? (Also "It's interesting that" is not a particularly encyclopaedic way to start a sentence).

"Macedonian is closely related to and mutually intelligible with Standard Bulgarian. "

I think this is simplifying it slightly, and is already covered better in the "Classification and related languages" section. No need to repeat outselves. - FrancisTyers · 21:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You need a source for the first??? That's a linguistic fact - see Centum-Satem isogloss. As for the second - your Macedonistic agenda is rearing its ugly head yet again. --Tēlex 21:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much relevance it has here, it should be mentioned at Balkan sprachbund. As for the second oh no! I've been exposed once again! But seriously, if you would prefer mention of the mutual intelligibility be made in the lead we can do that, but I think it makes sense where it is at the moment. - FrancisTyers · 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure we can't mention it everywhere. --Tēlex 22:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article already leaves it to no doubt that standard Macedonian is really like standard Bulgarian and that they are mutually intelligible to varying degrees. - FrancisTyers · 22:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, all this mutually intelligible stuff is tiny bit excessive, IMHO. If the languages are indeed almost same, we could have some chalange where an average Bulgarian with average education, but good English, without roots from Macedonia read random article from some Macedonian newspaper and translate it on the fly. The article can be selected by some some non Macedonian/Bulgarian like Telex or Francis. My guess is the result will be quite poor. Now on the other hand, Croatian,Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are mutually intelligible.--Cigor 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was more like the Azerbaijani language and the Turkish language (which are mutually intelligible). --Tēlex 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Turkish/Azerbaijani to agree or disagree. It is possible that the connection is asymmetric, that is the Bulgarian to understand Macedonian lang. better than vice verse, but for myself, when I try to read Bulgarian, although I understand most of the words, sometimes I can’t understand the entire context. I wonder if there was a real science study to research mutually intelligible level between Mac. And Bulg.--Cigor 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Cigor, as far as I am aware there has been no quantitative research published on this issue. It should be something that is fairly easy to quantify, I have in mind an idea for a study, but as of yet I don't have the resources to put it into action. Interested parties should contact me about this. - FrancisTyers · 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have a bunch of hot-blooded Bulgarian and Macedonian wikipedians on disposal :-). However, somehow I feel that the outcome of a potential poll would be that most Bulgarians would (pretend to) understand Macedonian text perfectly, while Macedonians would (pretend to) have significant problems reading Bulgarian text :-). Duja 15:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of taking ~30 school age kids from Macedonia and Bulgaria, controlled for "aptitude" and giving them a series of tests on comprehension and performance over a range of tasks over bilingual aligned text. Possibly using some kind of SAT "multiple choice" option for the comprehension part. My suspicion would be that the Bulgarians over-report and the Macedonians under-report and they both have approximately the same comprehension (good) and performance (bad). Of course the Bulgarians may be able to perform in Macedonian more easily as the alphabet is easier. - FrancisTyers · 15:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite. User:FlavrSavr (Macedonian Slav) speaks mk-N and bg-1, and User:TodorBozhinov (Bulgarian) speaks bg-N and mk-N. --Tēlex 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As a non-expert, I think that FrancisTyers has presented us with the most up to date linguistic persepctive on the language based on the work of a number of scholars and Todor Bozhinov has present us with hiw own learned arguments. Politis 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Greek or otherwise character of the Byzantine monks

Can we just remove "Greek, Slav, Greekized Slav", we have sources for all of them, but it doesn't really add to the article. - FrancisTyers · 17:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If we have Greek, we have the rest, if we don't have the rest, we just have Byzantine. What is the problem with having "Byzantine" ? Or not mention the ethnicity and just have "monks". Their pages clearly state their ethnicity. - FrancisTyers · 18:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

U don't have any idea when we should include something cause it is accepted by the majority of scholars/historians etc, do u? they are considered greeks by the majority of scholars, a reader curious about them, will take a look in their article, where the issue is presented. If we have Greek, we have the rest, so, why not everywhere in wikipedia that we mention Macedonian language, shouldn't we mention Slavomacedonian' or 'Bulgaromacedonian' as well? If we have Macedonian language, we have the rest, if we don't have the rest, we just have "the official language of RoM"-NPOV enough... just because the monks lived in the state that we call 'Byzantine Empire', it does not mean that we should not call them 'Greeks' (and there are reliable sources to do that!). btw, here take a look and "correct" Francesco I Sforza's article that says he was italian, to a version that says he was Ambrosian... haha --Hectorian 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As an Orthodox Christian, I accept the hagiography of the Orthodox Church, which states that the mother of Sts Cyril and Methodius was Maria, a devout Slavic woman from the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, while their father was a Greek-speaking aristcrat. If you are Greek, then you must be Orthodox, therefore I ask why are you trying so hard to edit the article against the teachings of your own Church. CRCulver 22:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information. It could be considered vandalism. - FrancisTyers · 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We have several options on offer, "...Byzantine monks...", "...monks...", "...Byzantine Greek, Slav, or Greekized Slav monks..." — personally as this is covered in detail in their respective articles I prefer to leave it out of here. - FrancisTyers · 18:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't, don't worry... Btw, u were the one who removed sourced info [13], so it is u whose edits could be considered vandalism... --Hectorian 18:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is absurd. We don't have to consent in every damn talk about what these two were. Address your objections in their main article if you wish (and feel they would stand). In the meantime, we're calling them "Greeks (i.e. Byzantine)" and we only include one source that states so. Anything else is POV ommission. :NikoSilver: 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If this was an article on monks yes. Macedonian language, no. - FrancisTyers · 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

copied from my talk:

Actually this is better. Those monks get too much screen-time anyway. - FrancisTyers · 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The coding system for this language was invented by some neighbours with whom there is controversy today. I think this is highly relevant, highly informative, avoids mis-information (you know what I mean), and should bring the two of us closer, than further apart. I really think you should add it back and call them "Greek (i.e.Byzantine)" with only one source that states so. Anything else is POV ommission. :NikoSilver: 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Niko, if you are Greek, then you are Orthodox. Why don't you want the article to reflect the Tradition of the Orthodox Church? The hagiography of Sts Cyril and Methodius clearly teaches that they were born to a Leo, Greek-speaking aristocrat and Maria, a devout Slav from the hinterlands of Thessaloniki. CRCulver 22:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is particularly relevant or informative, particularly if you're just going to edit war about it. The writing system is more important than the supposed ethnicity of any monk. - FrancisTyers · 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an orthodoxically scientifically thinking editor. Cite your information in Saints Cyril and Methodius, and state any documented hypothesis for that. Then, alter the consensus there, call them smthng else (other than "Greek (i.e. Byzantine)") and copy that in the language article, citing the one source that states so. Have you read WP:NOR? :NikoSilver: 22:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There were sources to back up the claims that they were Slavs, half-Greek half-Slavs, or "Greekized Slavs". Those sources were removed. And if I claim that the article should obey the teachings of the Church we both belong to, that is not original research, but rather the opposite: respecting authority. CRCulver 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Monk moratorium. - FrancisTyers · 22:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They have passed to immortality, as you know. You can't kill them. :NikoSilver: 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They won't mind the wait then... - FrancisTyers · 23:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice argumentation! Sound! Congratulations on making the article less informative. I'll be back you know. When I am right, I am right. :NikoSilver: 23:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

end of copy

You forgot to copy my pithy retort, your selective inclusion of dialogue is apparent. - FrancisTyers · 23:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your selective inclusion of data is apparent. Be sure you've openned a can of worms now...:NikoSilver: 23:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy it yourself. You added it after I copied the rest here, anyway. Oh, and you will be surprised. I've never been more determined, and I see no arguments. Not serious at least. Goodnight for now, and help a little with all those comments if you wanna do something productive... :NikoSilver: 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Arrrrgghhhh! Good heavens, παιδιά, I can't believe you are sqabbling over this here. This is an article about the language, not about the monks. There's a controversy about the monks, live with it, keep that controversy in their article. Wherever else the monks must be mentioned, like here, use the most neutral term possible to describe them. Just "Byzantine" is fine. It has strong connotations of Greekness anyway. And it does make clear the one and only point that's really of relevance for this article: that they were culturally outsiders, not native members of the Slav communities they were working for. They could have been Armenians, Goths, Arabs, Alans, it wouldn't make the slightest difference for this article. -- Note to CRCulver: your religious beliefs or Niko's or mine are entirely irrelevant here, I'm afraid. Deference to church traditions just because they are church traditions is out of place here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That has been my position from the get go :( - FrancisTyers · 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fran, your gesture is highly appreciated. The question of the monks ethnicity has already been subject to several furious crusades by Slavic editors, to repeat them here would be absurd.--Aldux 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded 100%. Thank you for your politeness, Fran. :NikoSilver: 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing is certain, to my mind, if we carried out this conversation during the Byzantine days, we would all end up in a mental asylum, or more probably, in prison for subverting the faith - and I am sure that Cyrill and Methodius would have been glad to see the back of us. Politis 14:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You know the scene from Βαλκανιζατέρ that this all reminds me of, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To CRCulver

What's the problem now? You have an extremely aggressive manner. --Tēlex 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive how? You added a factual error, that could have been avoided by looking at any grammar of the Romanian language, and I simply reverted. CRCulver 18:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what happened, but look at the revert [14]. Is the nominative/accusative of "the friend" in Romanian prietenule? --Tēlex 18:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Telexule! The vocative case ending is -ule. - FrancisTyers · 18:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, seems like I'm wrong on that one, the ending is simply -e and -ul is the definite article. - FrancisTyers · 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, Franc(h)ise! :) It's e in Bulgarian too with a number of nouns, but it's yu in the case of priyatel and many others. It could also be o... not sure about any rule when to use which one, though I'm assuming good faith and believing there must be some kind of it.

Oh, did I mention personal names are always e and there's a whole lot of words (and personal names!) that simply can't be used in the vocative? For example, it would sound unnatural to address me as Todor in Bulgarian (it has to be Todore), but Francis, as a foreign-sounding name, isn't supposed to have a vocative ending (it would be simply Francis). Todor→Bozhinov 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not Priyatelyu in "Macedonian" too? --Tēlex 09:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, Torlaks are often ridiculed in Serbia for using prijatelje so I guess it extends further south. Duja 11:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

lord's prayer in Macedonian

I thought it would be much more accurate to include the correct grammatical structure in the last three lines of the Lord's Prayer in Macedonian. The first person plural direct object "ne" has an accented "e" to differentiate it from the negative particle. This is standard in Macedonian and is certainly necessary in the case of both appearing in the same line!

As well, the Macedonian language uses the standard south-slavic Latin alphabet variant. The two are interchangable! š, č and ž are always used in the standard Macedonian transliteration instead of sh, ch, zh; This transcription should be consistant especially because otherwise "c" would be anglicized into "tse", etc.

I can't help feeling that the transcription and transliteration was done begrudgingly in such a way as to minimize the unique structure of the Macedonian and to bulgarianize the latin spelling!

--24.193.68.141 03:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Macedonian Past Tense Formation

Also missing from the grammatical section of the past tense was the formation of the aorist, past definite complete tense. The passage is taken from "Makedonski Jazik" by Christina E. Kramer, published in 1999 by The University of Wisconsin Press;

Because this is a politically sensative topic, it should be noted that this is an entire grammatical structure that differentiates Bulgarian and Macedonian. Not to mention the fact that the endings of the first person singular and 1st person plural in almost all grammatical tenses differ in Bulgarian and Macedonian. To be fair, these differences should not be omitted! Linguistic similarities and differences should be given EQUAL presence especially in light of the political conflict on the matter!

--24.193.68.141 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have inaccurate information about Bulgarian grammar. Both Bulgarian and Serbian have an aorist tense. In fact, Bulgarian has "more" of an aorist tense than Macedonian, because it forms it from imperfective verbs as well. As for the endings, they don't differ in all types of verbs. Anyway, we've already devoted so much space to differences from Bulgarian that the reader can draw his/her conclusions. I think it's better to focus on adding whatever else is missing (such as a present tense section) until the article finally contains a proper and complete description of the language. --194.145.161.227 21:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's bulgarian past tense formation. It might help determine what are the differences between it and the macedonian past tense formation.--Arath 10:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not readily intelligible

According to Euromosaic, the dialects spoken in Greece are not readily mutually intelligible with standard Macedonian [15].

I had a brief look through the source and couldn't find where this was stated. It does however state that, "La compréhension mutuelle ne pose pas de problèmes particuliers." (Mutual comprehension does not pose any particular problems). If it really is in there, could someone please indicate the line. - FrancisTyers · 15:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

“

L'Etat grec a essayé épisodiquement, par le biais de personnalités plus ou moins "scientifiques", d'imposer l'image d'une langue "indigente" et "non-civilisée". Des théories inventées de toutes pièces entendent démontrer que la langue serait un mélange de grec et de slave, ou encore qu'elle serait dérivée du grec ancien. La relative difficulté de compréhension de la langue officielle de Skopje et de celle de Sofia, telle qu'elle est utilisée dans la presse et à la télévision, a contribué à ce sentiment, encore alimenté par la thèse selon laquelle la langue parlée dans la République de FYROM est différente.

”

What they are saying here is that the Greek authorities have propagated the view (amongst others) that Slavic language (Greece) is a mixture of Slavic and (Ancient) Greek [Trudgill and the Greek Helsinki Monitor also add Vlach and Turkish to the list], and the actual existence of a difficulty in the mutual comprehension between understanding a dialect of Slavic language (Greece) and the official language of Skopje and Sofia (as used in the media) gives the Slavophones of Greece the impression (this is the Greek authorities' intent in the first place - remember the ABECEDAR incident) that the language spoken in the Republic of FYROM ([sic] LOL :p) is a different language (if I'm understanding correctly, this would also have the effect of implying that Slavic language (Greece) is an autonomous ausbau language). --Telex 21:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I was actually looking for this quote the other day. The part about it being "derived from Ancient Greek". I see that part now, "The relative difficulty of comprehension of the official language of Skopje and that of Sofia, which is used in the press and television has contributed to this sentiment, also assisted by the idea that the language spoken in the Republic of FYROM [sic] :D — is different." — We could say something like "It has been reported that speakers of the Slavic dialects of northern Greece have relative difficulty in understanding the language of the press and media of both the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria." — to be honest I would imagine they would certainly have difficulty understanding the press, as they probably aren't taught the Cyrillic alphabet. I'm not sure about the rest of the media, but it is plausible I guess — I mean they subtitle certain accents/dialects of English when featured in the USA. I don't know, I mean, the source seems to contradict itself. What do you think? - FrancisTyers · 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction. The sentence "la compréhension mutuelle ne pose pas de problèmes particuliers" is in reference to the comprehension between different Macedonian/Slavic/Bulgarian dialects in Greece. I do admit that it doesn't mean much as an argument in the ongoing nationalist dispute, but it is notable enough to be included if true. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The map

I removed it because it's an obvious copyvio (scanned from a book) and has to be deleted. Also, it is highly biased to refer to the dialects in Greece and Bulgaria as Macedonian, since their speakers don't consider them such and neither does the international science. I'd like us to have a map of the Slavic dialects of Macedonia, but I'm not tolerating RoM propaganda in any case. Todor→Bozhinov 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the map, those sassy guys! When will they learn? Friedman is good, but he tends to take a linguistic inclusivist viewpoint, as the map shows. What I think would be wonderful (if it were possible) would be three/four maps -- one for each perspective.) - FrancisTyers · 18:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reworking the Political views on the Macedonian language section dealing with Bulgarian views. Please give me some time to source it properly. There is a dated map representing the Serbian view. Here are some maps based on Stoykov although they were created by a friend of mine and only deal with the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. And here are some others. (VMRO 23:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC))

Serbianization 1

I've removed this section pending reliable sources. Yes folks, thats non-partisan, peer-reviewed articles, publications, etc. that describe this process as "Serbianization". - FrancisTyers · 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You can at least write that after the act of removing. Is the word "Serbianization" the only thing bothering you? Another source: [16]   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole section, whether it be titled "Serbianisation" or "Horrible Serbian plot to Corrupt the Noble Bulgarian [sic] Language". Get reliable sources as specified above. - FrancisTyers · 18:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Talking about extremes... How about "Post 1944 Serbian influence on the Macedonian language".   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt Friedman refers to any of this as "Serbianisation", and you are talking about an anachronism. What you mean to say is "Serbian influences on the Bulgarian language, which transformed into the Bastard tongue of the Bulgarians who call themselves Macedonians". - FrancisTyers · 18:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Friedman is a pupul of Lunt's - both very partisan. I have spoken to the former - his views on history were pretty much those of the Skopje historians - he completely is out of line with most impartial Western scholars (Banac, Mazower, Brown, etc.). (VMRO 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

I have not done extensive research on this but I believe the new Macedonian language was at first not taken very seriously among linguists in Europe, even though Macedonian dialects had been of great interest to them. It was people like Lunt who were the pioneers in establishing the new orthodoxy. In reality, Yugoslavia and later (since the 60's) Bulgaria both nurtured foreign champions of their respective viewpoints. We are talking free tours of the country, conferences, banquets, vacations in Ohrid and Struga, the Black Sea coast, etc. I think Yugoslavia had the natural advantage of being the West's darling whereas Bulgaria was a sinister Stalinist dictatorship. It was hard to sympathise with it. The few remaining pro-Bulgarian scholars like Clarke, Stammler and Kronsteiner did so not because they liked Bulgaria's government but because of their ties to the old Macedonian emigration which stuck to a Bulgarian identity. Bulgaria also lagged behind in the international propaganda game because it did not suit the interests of its suzerain (USSR) and Macedonia was a taboo subject almost until the 1970's. It did make a comeback with the ridiculous "1300 Years of Bulgaria Campaign" but a feeble one. Plus all these foreign and objective scholars respond to incentives just like anyone else. Philip Shashko, for example, of Ukrainian-Bulgarian descent was staunchly pro-Bulgarian. He switched for unknown reasons recently. Someone was telling a story about him from a couple of years ago. At a conference dedicated to Misirkow in Skopje, he read his report in standard Bulgarian trying to "Macedonise" it by replacing "във" and "със" with "во" and "со". (VMRO 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree Serbianisation is a non-neutral term and does not belong in the article. However, the Serbian influenceis there. A lot of it was deliberate (throwing out the "dark vowel", etc.), a lot of it the result of close communication with Serbian and the dominant sstatus of Serbo-Croatian in Yugoslavia. The claim of "Serbianisation" is raised not just by Bulgarians, it has also been voiced by many Macedonian nationalists in in the post-1991 period (Kiselinov, etc.). Also, by many Macedonians with a Bulgarian identity (Srbinovski, etc.). The German linguist Christian Voss has a few articles on the subject, mostly in German. He is an expert on the Slavic dialects of Greece. See his webiste here. This is an English-language abstract of one of his works. (VMRO 22:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I've read some of Voss' work, and yes of course there was Serbian [Serbo-Croatian] influence, and Turkish influence, and [more now] English influence. This is very common in languages, and does not denote some kind of "sinister plot". I completely agree that the dominant status of Serbo-Croatian in Yugoslavia would have had an effect on the Macedonian language, and yes claims of Serbianisation have probably been raised from Macedonian 'native' nationalists who were probably concerned about the effect of bilingualism on their "pure" language. Basically, this phenomenon can not be placed down to any kind of "evil serbianisation plot", it is much more complicated, and discussing the relative "Serb-ness" of words like "avion" is not the way to tackle this. Incidentally, I think that the vocabulary section could do with improving, so this might be a good place to start. - FrancisTyers · 23:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are (perhaps unintentionally) insulting the intelligence of the Bulgarian nationalists by reducing their views to claims of an "evil Serbianisation plot". I don't happen to agree with the Bulgarian nationalist position but have ended up playing devil's advocate on many occassions now just because I don't think "objective" views are that objective. The claim as I understand it is the following: Serbian influence was natural given the circumstances of Yugoslavia and was tolerated while everything Bulgarian was actively proscribed. Serbs came to occupy important positions in Macedonia, including the media, etc. Again, it is purely anecdotal (although verifiable if someone applied himself to it) that many language editors of Macedonian newspapers were actually Serbs. And again, these identical claims are raised by Macedonian nationalists who have nothing to do with Bulgaria. If you really take the case to its logical extreme, a lot of the purged "high" as opposed to "dialect" Bulgarian vocabulary was common to Bulgarian and Russian by way of Church Slavonic. Which is essentially... "Old Macedonian"! (VMRO 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I've yet to read any Bulgarian nationalist text discussing language that doesn't essentially reduce it to this. Verily all of the articles etc. that I have read verge on the hysterical. Again, including information on the view of Macedonian nationalists would be important if we were to include the view of the Bulgarian nationalists. - FrancisTyers · 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Which ones have you read actually? I do not think that claims of intentional Serbianisation of the Macedonian language (supported by Macedonian nationalists like Kiselinovski and Western linguists like Voss and [humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/slavic/papers/Friedman-MacLgNatBalkanistica.pdf Friedman]) are equivalent to claims of an evil Serbian plot. I think Bulgarian historians and linguists are mature enough to attribute this Serbianisation to the very rational political goals of Yugoslavian leadership rather than some putative irrational Serbian evil. (VMRO 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Anyway, in view of the fact that no impartial detailed sources about intentional Serbiansiation exist outside of writings of Macedonian nationalist or pro-Bulgarian scholars and Bulgarian scholars, I think we should not present those views as Wikipedia views and only as Bulgarian (and Macedonian nationalist) views. On the other hand, the Serbianisation of unspecified or natural type might be metioned in the Vocabulary sectrion of the article since it is claimed by "impartial" foregners like Voss and Friedman. (VMRO 18:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Also, bear in mind that Crnushanov's text that was referenced is based on an analysis of Macedonian political documents and newspapers (the media most likely to be influenced by Serbian) from the 70's and 80's (when Serbian influence was at its height. I see things changing these days: a lot of English/Latin/French borrowings ranging on the absurd. Also some return to the true "Macedonian" forms (which are identical to Bulgarian but that is not mentioned for political reasons). (VMRO 00:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Interestingly Voss uses the terms "Vardar" and "Aegean" Macedonia. This makes him a Macedonian nationalist in the minds of many of our Greek contributors. - FrancisTyers · 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But not in the minds of everybody else - I think the three way terminology (Pirin, Aegean, Vardar) is not contentious for anyone else. The term Macedonia changed its geographic scope and by the 19th century it coincided much more with the Roman province of Macedonia rather than the Kingdom of Macedon (which itself had very flexible borders - mostly flexible outwards). Anyway, even the narrower Greek concept of Macedonia prior to 1913 included parts of what is now Vardar Macedonia. (VMRO 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree that the three way terminology is not contentious for anyone else. - FrancisTyers · 00:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbianisation 2

Friedman says, "This did not exclude borrowing from Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian, but made a principle of seeking native material first". He also mentions: "It marked the beginning of Bulgarian claims that the Macedonian standard was a Serbianizing plot" (p. 9). He gives some interesting examples. - FrancisTyers · 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That Bulgarian borrows from Bulgarian is an interesting concept but OK, I relent on this particular presentation. The issue should be mentioned in some form though, because it is eminent.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is really more of a political view than a linguistic view, and I think VMRO is covering it in Political views on the Macedonian language. The information can be fitted in the article if it is sourced. It can be contrasted with Bulgarian and Serbian. We can't say "this is serbianisation" though. - FrancisTyers · 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I just noticed this gem: "авион (replaces Bulgarian: самолет, English: airplane [sic])" — oh yes, that famous Serbian word, "avion". Presumably it is called "Serbian" instead of "Romanian", or heavens forbid, French because the author of this article has some kind of political agenda to push. Isn't it also that "самолет" is a Russian loan anyway? FrancisTyers · 21:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In Russian it's spelt the same, although it is pronounced самольет/самољет. --Telex 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it's exactly like that. Turns out in Russian it's samalyot - even more different. --Telex 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Truely it must not be a Russian word, but an authentic Bulgarian word! Probably from the ancient Bulgar language! - FrancisTyers · 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh Francis, your Britishness is showing again. Airplane is spelt correctly, look it up. Anyway, the point is that Bulgarian words (loaned or not) are replaced with Serbian (loaned or not).   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More like fixed-wing aircraft :) And no that isn't the point, that is your interpretation. Man -isations are pretty funny. Incidentally, does the fact that many Turkish words appear in the Macedonian lexicon denote a turkification of the language? Or does that not fit into your (for the want of a better word), "fairy tale"? - FrancisTyers · 23:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Авион" is a Serbian borrowing from French. Bulgarian opted for the native term "самолет" (literally "self-flying" machine). Might have been a borrowing from Russian. The point is that for many terms that were lacking in the peasant dialects the Serbian form was chosen over the Bulgarian. This includes Serbian transliterations of Western words, etc. For example, geographic names are in many cases the same as in Serbian (Данска, Шведска instead of Даниja, Швециja). (VMRO 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Friedman is right that in theory, the idea was to build up Macedonian based on the West-Central dialects, that are have less Serbian influence than the Northern ones and are sufficiently distant from Eastern Bulgarian. The people who started this "ethnic" brand of Macedonian nationalism were from Bulgarian families, with a Bulgarian education, with left leanings and ties with the Comintern and the Bulgarian Communist Party. But ultimately the power was with the Yugoslav Communists and their former Serboman Macedonian followers. Koneski is from a Serboman family, his uncle was a Serbian chetnik. Vidoeski/Vidoevich was himself a Serbian chetnik leader, not even a partisan! These are the guys Lunt was in contact. So in three language commissions they managed to introduce many of their views over the opposition of the more nationalist-minded Macedonians. Also, the Serbian influence was very much in vocabulary. It did not happen overnight but the first dictionary did not appear until the 60's - plenty of time to codify new stuff. Plus since then the Serbian influence has only grown - the presence of Serbian media, etc.. (VMRO 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Haha "Serboman". We don't quote Koneski once. I have a paper by Vidoeski, but it is very pro-Macedonian, and we don't reference that. We don't reference any of Lunts less "mainstream" views, nor those of Friedman. I have a feeling that the chap that the section was based on is a Bulgaroman (did I get the ethnic slur right?) - FrancisTyers · 23:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha "Serboman" does not seem like a very intelligent answer to me. The "chap" you are referring to is a guy from Prilep, a native speaker of the West-Central dialects. Incidentally, he taught my grandfather in high school. I did not mean to use "Serboman" as an ethnic slur. It is a common term for both Bulgarian and recenty Macedonian historiography. We can say Slav Macedonian with a Serbian national identity, if you prefer. So it was these Slav Macedonians with a formerly Serbian identity who ran the show and those with a formerly Bulgarian identity had to sit and listen. (VMRO 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

The way I was introduced to it was as a slur. From Macedonia (terminology), "Srbomani (србомани) or srbofili (србофили) are derogatory terms used to refer to people in the Republic of Macedonia self-identifying as Serbian, or having a pro-Serb orientation" — perhaps it should be added that this is a common term and not necessarily derogotary. The reason for my laughter (aside from the general banter that we all enjoy on these talk pages) was for your use of what I understood as an ethnic slur to describe someone. So is this guy a "true Macedonian patriot", or is he one of those horrible "Bulgarofils" :D - FrancisTyers · 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a negative term but not a slur in the Western sense of the word - a derogatory term for someone who is considered in some sense inferior. Serboman and Grkoman have the connotation of "traitor" for people who first converted to those "religions" but when it comes to their offspring they are merely descriptive terms meaning that the person refereed to is not a "real" Greek or Serb but only considers him/herself to be such. (VMRO 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

By the way, Francis, if you really want to sound intelligent on the topic, do yourself a favour and learn Bulgarian or Macedonian. You are really out of your depth at the moments since you cannot really evaluate what is Serbian influence and what is not. (VMRO 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

It has been on my mind. In fact I was going to learn Serbo-Croatian instead of Romanian, but unfortunately was unable to find anyone to teach me for free. In this particular subject it is not particularly a specific help. If you think I'm sounding "unintelligent", you are welcome to your opinion, personally I don't really need to "sound" (or have the appearence — or façade one might say) of being intelligent. :) - FrancisTyers · 23:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Did not say you sound unintelligent but I am not sure you are fully aware of the political subtleties everywhere. You strike me as someone who takes Lunt and Friedman at face value. I think Friedman is a good reference for learning Macedonian - grammar, phonetics, etc. but politically he is pro-Skopje. Anyway. Read what I sent you, I pretty much agree with this guys's views. (VMRO 00:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Certainly not. Lunt is notably more pro-Macedonian than I am — you should read some of the drivel he writes about "authentic literature" — and Friedman has his moments (his at times simplistic view of the Slavic dialects spoken in northern Greece). There are certain aspects of their views that I subscribe to, others which I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if I am perhaps missing some political subtlety, but that doesn't mean that I can't detect that a section entitled "Serbianisation", with a few examples of different words is not good content for an encyclopaedic article. I have repeatedly called for inclusion of peer reviewed literature from the Bulgarian or Greek side, and in fact the article encompasses currently quite a wide range of views. It does however probably represent the English speaking Western orthodoxy on the matter. Which is a good thing. I would expect that it would seem horribly pro-Macedonian to a Bulgarian or Greek, but horribly "unfactual" to a Macedonian. I read one of the papers, and I'll read the 91 page one when I have a bit more time. The guy strikes me as quite reasonable, and probably not one to subscribe to the kind of thing written in the section I removed. - FrancisTyers · 00:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Serbianisation name is probably incorrect because it implies a conscious top-down act. But the claims as to the words are not incorrect. My friend would definitely subscribe to the claims in the article although not necessarily with its political tone. He is not a Bulgarian nationalist so he does not view "Serbianisation" as some evil thing, just as a thing that happened. In fact he is not even Macedonian so he is a bit more detached from the issues. In fact, in my conversations with Bulgarian friends about Macedonian affairs we really like to use Macedonian and especially Serbian words to have a laugh at the nationalistic disputes. (VMRO 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

What I'm trying to say is "can you be sure that the word was adopted from Serbian-Croatian, and not from French"? I'm sure there are many Serbo-Croatian loan words in the Macedonian language. I was not trying to say that "no Serbo-Croatian loan words crept in", what I was trying to say was that it is difficult to prove a "top down" policy of serbianisation. The claims of "serbianisation" are therefore in my opinion a political label for a perfectly normal linguistic phenomenon, that of words being loaned. The geographical name changes may have a point, but the word for "aeroplane", come on ;) - FrancisTyers · 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and to a relatively uninformed external observer this seems a very logical conclusion. But take for example the word for "train" - воз which is from Serbian. It is not the Bulgarian влак or the more archaic Bulgarian borrowing from English (or French?) трен. In Russian it is поезд by the way. You cannot say for sure about aвион but it is much more likely to have come from French through Serbian rather than directly. It could be a vestige of the earlier Serb period in Macedonia (1918-1941). After all, aeroplanes really became more widespread during that time. (VMRO 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

What is interesting is that (at least according to Friedman) there was a conscious serbianisation during that period. - FrancisTyers · 15:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of Serbian influence in Macedonian is more complex than what nationalistic squabbles make it seem to be. There was an original Serbian influence from the 14th well into the 19th century and although overlooked by Bulgarians, it is to a large extent responsible for some differences between the Central and Northern Macedonian dialects and Old Macedonian/Bulgarian. But when Bulgarians talk about Serbian influence they only talk about the influence in modern times - after roughly 1870 (when Serbs decided Macedonians are not Bulgarians but really "Old Serbs"/"Southern Serbs" or a Slavic "masse flotante"). And specifiacally after 1944. (VMRO 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

That is precisely what I've been trying to say. You can't boil something as complex as down to a "Serbian plot" or more hilariously "invention of Tito" (which some of our contributors would like to have it). What do you mean by "Old Macedonian" (I'm not sure this term is widely in use)? It would be interesting to cover both the old and the new influence of Serbian/Serbo-Croatian. - FrancisTyers · 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Old Macedonian" I am simply using the modern term used in RoM for the language of the First Bulgarian Kingdom. It was based on the speech around Salonica. Old Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic are the internationally used terms I believe, although neigher of them is appropriate in my view. On the first Serbian influence, read the Serbian philologist Павле Ивич: Српски народ и његов език. Српска књижевна задруга. Београд. 1971. стр. 47-48. (VMRO 15:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Oh, I've been told that this isn't described as such, in fact that "Old Macedonian" is one of the names for the Ancient Macedonian language. Discussion here: here and here. I understood that "Old Church Slavonic" was the most used term. - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So to summarise, I don't think that the process of loaning Serbian words (after 1944, not in the earlier periods) was as natural as the process of loaning Albanian or Vlach words for example. And Serbian influence is not just in loanwords. It is in word formation (suffixes, etc.), syntax and other things. Indeed the codification of the alphabet and prthography was a very pro-Serb act. It was very contentious and politically charged, there were lawsuits (Kiselinov vs. Koneski), etc. No doubt a lot of "Serbianisation" came unconsciously. But a lot of it did not. Unlike the development of dialects (arguably), the development of a standard language is a normative act. When somebody publishes a grammar or a dictionary, they fix a particular norm. It is people like Koneski, who pushed for more Serbian forms in Macedonian and managed to get those codified. Also, a lot of the influence that came "naturally", i.e. not deliberately, was a result of Yugoslav dominance and would not have happened in an independent Macedonia. I am talking about people of formerly Serbian persuasion (Serbomans!) and even ethnic Serbs from Serbia being powerful in government, in media and in academia. They had grown up in a Serbian cultural millieu and it was only natural for them to borrow Serbian forms freely when coining new phrases, words, etc. Bulgarians are not claiming that all such acts were deliberately done with evil intentions. Add to this the fact that Macedonians learned Serbo-Croatian in school as a second language, that they watched Serbian TV, that most existing specialised and technical literature was in Serbian and you get the picture. This is all fine of course but for example Bulgarian was very much unnaturally denied access to Macedonia, it was definitely proscribed. These are the Bulgarian views in a nutshell. (VMRO 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Train (in English) it seems is originally from French. I know the Romanian word is "tren" and they also took it from French. I would be interested in reading about the lawsuits. I agree that to a certain extent the influence came naturally, as you mentioned, all high level education was in Serbo-Croatian. The prevalence of Serbo-Croatian effecting the language would be interesting to discuss. If you could find reliable sources which show the parts which were "conscious attempts" to make the language closer to Serbo-Croatian (or Serbian if you will), I would be interested in reading them. If they are in Bulgarian or Macedonian I will get a friend to translate them. If they are long, please supply paragraph or line references. - FrancisTyers · 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that someone outside of Bulgaria has seriously studied the issue. The formation of the alphabet was clearly a conscious attempt - there are documents from the language commissions, etc. One should analyse the early work of Koneski and to what extent he was pushing Serbian suffixes as opposed to Bulgarian ones, etc. One should also analyse the evolution of Macedonian grammars and dictionaries through time, etc. Reliable sources will come when some foreign linguist seriously takes it up to investiage the problem. For now you will have to make do with Bulgarian linguists like Duridanov (originally from Shtip), Kochev (originally from Struga), Shklifov (from Kostur), Crnushanov (from Prilep), etc. (VMRO 15:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

If you can present the sources then that would be great. But links from nationalist run websites are a no-no. - FrancisTyers · 18:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by nationalist-run websites. A website may merely publish some text that appeared elsewere. The Bulgarian linguists mentioned above did not publish their view on websites. There are established journals (Български език, Македонски преглед), books, etc. So Crnushanov is one such source that appeared in Македонски преглед (Macedonian review). The article by Kochev and Alexandrov was not published on a webiste either. It was from Македонски Преглед as well. You can also check out the 1978 publication of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, etc. (VMRO 18:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I am told that a new book came out in Bulgaria about the Macedonian norm but I know nothing about it and have not read it. (VMRO 18:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Finally, I think that standard Bulgarian and Macedonian are equally "artificial" languages but at least Bulgarian had a long tradition of a literary language in Old Bulgarian/Old Macedonian/Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic. It was very archaic by the 1800's but the codifiers of Bulgarian thought it natural to draw upon that tradition when developing the written language. Modern Macedonian nationalism claims that tradition only on paper. Effectively, it was purged so as to sever ties with standard Bulgarian. (VMRO 02:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

We agree on that part at least. Any kind of standardisation process is "artificial". - FrancisTyers · 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

They are a just a few examples but you will agree that one cannot fit all cases in an article. One would have to write a mini-dictionary. The only valid claim you have is that it is not peer reviewed (well, actually it is but it is a Bulgarian journal and they do not publish pro-Skopje works). On the other hand, I am not sure any foreign author has seriously rsearched and published on the issue so it will be impossible to find a non-partisan article that it is as detailed. (VMRO 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Then we don't really need to give it in that much detail. As I said below, this can probably be summarised in a few sentences. - FrancisTyers · 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In view of the above, I included these examples in the page about the Bulgarian views. I think a description of the Serbian influence is necessary even if it might be politically contentious. I am not sure if FunkyFly should have transferred (and expanded) them here but one should be able to see them and judge for himself/herself. (VMRO 00:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm happy to describe the Serbian influence in the Vocabulary section. It would also be interesting to comment on the other influences. I remember Friedman particularly singles out Turkish and [later] English. - FrancisTyers · 00:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbianisation 2.1

Here is a quote from Palmer & King, I think the best treatise on the Macedonian question that has come out in the West:

In 1958 several Bulgarian statements declared that the Slavic inhabitants of Macedonia spoke Bulgarian, not the "semi-Serbian literary language which is fabricated in Skopje." Lazar Kolisevski, defensively answering the Bulgarian claims, denied the "alleged Serbianisation" of the Macedonian language but justified the frequent use of Serbian expressions... (VMRO 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

Interesting, can you give me a full reference? - FrancisTyers · 23:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Page 159, "Yugoslav Communism and the Macedonian Question", Archon Books, 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMRO (talk • contribs)

Thanks, sounds like an interesting read. - FrancisTyers · 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a must-read. Check your e-mail by the way. (VMRO 23:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

A few words, if I may answer to Francis, is not all there is to say. There are at least a couple of sections, with words, expressions, stresses and changes to words, as well as geographical names. Read the source at the botom of the deleted section. By the way I did not finish translating all the stuff.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues with vocabulary can go in the vocabulary section. It really strikes me as something that could be expressed in two or three sentences, and certainly not describing it as "Serbianisation". One might say something along the lines of "Vocabulary was adopted from Serbo-Croatian, and placenames were changed in what has been called a policy of 'Serbianisation' by Bulgarian linguists". It would also help if you actually found a good source that these words were specifically 'adopted'. - FrancisTyers · 00:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you cut the Serbianization off already? I agreed to it, read above "Serbian influence on Macedonian". 00:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the best source is the most recent Macedonian dictionary. If someone cares to browse thrugh it and note if those words are indeed used in Macedonian, then here we go. Plus it goes far beyond just a few words - it is also about Serbian syntax, word formation, changing the meaning of words common to Serbian and Macedonian to the Serbian one, etc. For example, "постои" in the Prilep dialect would mean "to stand for a while". In standard Macedonian and Serbian it means "to exist". The Bulgarian word for "exist" (which is "Old Macedonian"!) is not used. You give me one newspaper article and I will point out the Serbisms to you! (VMRO 00:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

As is indeed the case that "постои" means to stand a while in Bulgarian as well, even in its Eastern Dialects.   /FunkyFly.talk_  00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Are you sure that "syshtestvuvam" is "old Macedonian", though? Does it actually occur in (Old) Church Slavonic? In any case, I think it's pretty clear that the modern Bulgarian language was created through borrowings of words and models from Russian (e.g. an entire grammatical form, the present participle, was borrowed in its Russian form). The words that were borrowed from Russian were exactly the ones that were naturally missing in the peasants' vernacular (see Naiden Gerov's dictionary, based solely on the people's vocabulary, to get an idea of what it did contain). When the Macedonian standard was created, it was just as natural to borrow from Serbian (since the country had been subjected to Serbian influence for some time, and why on Earth should we expect them to borrow from Bulgarian and not from Serbian anyway) - because, of course, "aeroplanes" and "existence" hadn't been particularly central concepts for the Macedonian peasant. It's obvious that Bulgarian words like "samolet" and "syshtestvuvam" are Russian loanwords or calques. Even if "syshtestvuvam" has been a common word in Old Slavonic, which I doubt, Revival writers are more likely to have borrowed it from Russian than to have tried to adapt Church Slavonic vocabulary to modern needs on their own when the Russians had already done the job; a lot of them were heavily influenced by Russian literature, and in some cases they had studied in Russia. Thus explains, maybe not all, but in any case many of the so-called examples of "Serbianziation" in Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language. Of course Naiden Gerov's dictionary - and the normal peasant population's vocabulary in both Bulgarian and Macedonia - don't include words like "treasurer", "security", "society", "existence", average (as opposed to "middle"), "notable", "conclusion", "sequence", "obvious" etc.. Note, BTW, that not a single one of these words is native in English either (all of them are French/Latin loanwords)! --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is here. Certainly, a lot of Church Slavonic words got into Bulgarian through Russian. Similarly they got into Russian through the Bulgarian linguistic influence that Russian writers such as Лихачев speak about. Since Bulgarian writers of the time tended to know both Russian and Church Slavonic, I doubt they would have been oblivious to the Church Slavonic provenance of many Russian loanwords in Bulgarian.

Nobody is claiming that the Bulgarian "high" language was native to Macedonian dialects. The claim is that in the process of development of standard Macedonian after 1944, "high" language words were borrowed from Sewrbian and not from Bulgarian/Church Slavonic/Old Macedonian/Russian. As for "съществувам" it may well be a Church Slavonic word rather than a native Russian one. Native Russian dialects are as likely to have had it as native Bulgarian/Macedonian dialects. No doubt, modern Bulgarian took it from literarty Russian, so what? Мisirkov does not say постои but сашчествува! Also, the real point is that постои means something different in the Macedonian dialects and this new meaning was taken from Serbian. (VMRO 19:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

My point is that the word "Serbianization" and such lists in general suggest inappropriate conclusions - as has been explained by FlavrSavr and Francis Tyers elsewhere on this talk page. I am glad that we apparently agree that the words of the "high" language are loanwords or calques in many if not most languages, and that Bulgarian is not different from Macedonian in that respect. My conclusion is that it's silly - or evidence of a nationalist agenda - to call that phenomenon X-language-isation, or regard it as evidence of being somehow improper or illegitimate as Bulgarian nationalists and scholars do. By the same token, we should speak of the Russification of Bulgarian. Such a term would perhaps be relevant if a high language has already existed and if it has been ousted by another one. However, that was not the case. Misirkov's effort to discuss politics, "existence" and the like in a "Macedonian" language had not been popularized in Macedonia by the 1940s, and so we can say that a Macedonian "high" language hadn't existed before -and it hadn't been the same as standard Bulgarian, hence it couldn't have been "Serbianized". --Pseudonymus Bosh 21:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong in talking about the Russification of Bulgarian. In fact, may Bulgarian linguists like Balan talked about it. And in the post-1944 period it gained a new impetus. The contentious nature of Serbianisation comes from the claim of Bulgarian and some Macedonian nationalists that it was deliberate. I tend to agree with them on many counts although most of the lexical Serbisms I consider to have crept in "naturally". (VMRO 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

The thing is that Macedonians did have a "high" language prior to 1918 and that was standard Bulgarian. It was the language of the revolutionaries, of the intelligentsia, of education, etc. The desire to build a new "high" language came as a result of the severing the ties with the "high" language and the desire to resist Serbianisation. But even until the late 1930's, those efforts were limited to cicles connected with the Bulgarian communists whose concept of a Macedonian language did not coincide with that of Koneski. Have a look at Katardjiev’s foreword to Ivanovski’s “Why We Macedonians are a Separate Nation?”. Here it is as quoted and translated by a Bulgarian (non-nationalist) historian:

В предговора си към съчиненията на Васил Ивановски, македонският историк Иван Катарджиев описва тази любопитна ситуация в цялата й сложност: “На кадрите израснали в крилото на КПЮ, които имаха властта в ръцете си, им беше по-близък и в практиката употребяваха сръбския език. Същевременно те не познаваха или слабо познаваха историческото минало на македонския народ и имаха резерви към него. От своя страна, кадрите, които дойдоха от България след освобождението... познаваха по-добре миналото на македонския народ, историческите традиции, с декларирано македонско чувство, но говореха български, поради което допирът с новия македонски литературен език преживяваха като разочарование и поражение.”[3] Тъкмо получилият българско образование Васил Ивановски се противопоставя на “сърбомана” Лазо Колишевски, който заявил, че Гоце Делчев е “един българин без значение за Македония”. (VMRO 23:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Here are some quotes from Palmer and King (p. 137):

In the Macedonian assembly he [Chento] called for increased self-determination and, shortly before his arrest, made a speech in Prilep town square attacking the prevailing official tendencies towards Belgrade. He expressed specific disapproval of the projected uprooting of the traits of the Bulgarian language, and of Skopje's dependence on Serb adminitrators and experts. (VMRO 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

To what extent Bulgarian was the language of education and intelligentsia in Vardar Macedonia during its existence as part of the Ottoman Empire (1878-1918) I do not know, but I doubt that there were many opportunities for education and intelligentsia to develop to a significant extent in Macedonia at that time, or that they managed to influence the population a lot; in any case this is irrelevant, because we are talking about the situation almost 30 years after that time. "Syshtestvuvam", "ocheviden" and "samolet" wouldn't have had any popular basis in Macedonia in 1945. The accusation here is not that Bulgarian is abandoned in favour of a new standard language, the accusation is that the new standard language was "Serbianised", that the the native words (supposedly identical to Bulgarian) were replaced with Serbian ones. I believe that the word and the description of the process are inaccurate for the reasons stated above. Of course cadres trained in Bulgaria would feel that Macedonian should be closer to Bulgarian, with "syshtestvuvam" and "ocheviden", and so would, mutatis mutandis, the ones trained in Serbia. The choice of Serbian and not Bulgarian loanwords was probably deliberate, but the point is that there was no reason to expect Bulgarian ones to be chosen in the first place. As for the term "Russification", the fact is that it is not a common term for the creation of the modern Bulgarian language - whereas, when used for the Communist period, it has clear political and accusatory overtones (personally, I don't think that the loanwords of the Communist period - "uroven", "kasaya" etc. - are comparable to the enormous influence of Russian in the National Revival Peropd, so the term "Russification" is hardly adequate in the former case). Other examples would be the "Hellenisation" of Old Church Slavonic, the "Arabisation" of Urdu, the "Sanskritisation" of Hindi and the "Germanisation" of the Scandinavian languages, to name but a few. --Pseudonymus Bosh 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you don't know, it is not difficult to find out but let me help you. By 1912 the Bulgarian educational network in Macedonia was very much comparable to that in free Bulgaria in scope. The language of that education was Bulgarian. By intelligentsia, I mean teachers, priests, "revolutionaries", etc. Sure they were not numerous but that would have been the case anywhere. So the "high" language these guys used was Bulgarian. I may be wrong of course.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt that there are many independent and neutral sources for that. Bulgarian ones, sure. --Pseudonymus Bosh 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, for "сашчествувам", I gave you an example how a Serbian-trained guy used it in his Macedonian text. Anyway, I agree that the peasant would not have used such words. Anyway, the influence of Russian in the "Revival" period was never the imposition of the view of a minirity over that of a majority. I really do think and I believe it is hard to argue against it that the influence of Serbian on the new Macedonian language after 1945 was far more politically motivated or facilitated. Agasin, it is not just a view of Bulgarian nationalists. Read Kiselinovski's text. (VMRO 15:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, Kiselinovski's version of the events could be accurate, but I don't really see why I should trust him. He obviously has a political agenda, he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable about linguistics, and he is apparently advocating some sort of a "jazicna revizija" (pretty meaningless, once a standard has been established). His main objection to the "linguistic commissions" of the 40s is the adoption of the current alphabet, which he thinks doesn't adequately represent the Macedonian language and is just Vuk Karadjic's alphabet (Vukovata azbuka). When comparing the alphabets, I find that the few specifically Vuk-ian things (single letters for "lj", "nj" and "dj") seem more adequate than their Bulgarian equivalents, provided that a single phoneme should be expressed with a single letter. As for Ъ, it had been my impression that the issue here wasn't about orthorgraphy, it was about which dialects - with or without schwa - to codify. --Pseudonymus Bosh 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbianization 3

It's not a matter of renaming Serbianisation to Serbian influence on Macedonian. The matter here is subtly push the idea that the original language was actually Bulgarian that somehow went "Serbianized" by coercion - but Serbs might also argue that the language was actually Bulgarized during the educational monopoly of the Bulgarian Excharhate, and have a "good point". I don't see a particular reason why we should pressupose the Bulgarian language as the "true" language that was influenced by foreign factors, especially when some of the words given as "Bulgarian" are also general Slavic words. What was the native language spoken in Macedonia? You can see that Misirkov's On Macedonian Matters, which closely resembles the standardized version of Macedonian made 40 years after it's publication. See also Gjorgji Pulevski's speech, I believe that it perfectly illustrates the spoken tongue of ordinary Macedonians in the 19th century. --FlavrSavr 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that serious obvservers regarded the Macedonian language as a separate language in the 19th century, see, for example, Karl Hron, Der Volksthum der Slaven Makedoniens, Wien 1890: ".. it can be confirmed that the Macedonian language with his own laws of development, and his gramatical rules, as well, forms a separate language which still hasn't got it's own literature and that's why it relies on the similar Bulgarian literature, with whom, in no case, has some closer relationship, except a general similarity." --FlavrSavr 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee whiz, you seem to have lost your marbles my friend. Did or did not the Miladinovi brothers, Kuzman Shapkarev, Rajko Zhinsizov, Marko Cepenkov, Grigor Prlichev, as well as all the Macedonian inteligentsia call their language Serbian? Or did they call it Bulgarian? Was not it the author of the Konikovo gospel himself as well, that specified it was written in the Bulgarian language? But you'd probably delve into the depths of Macedonism and claim Bulgarian mean something else but not an ethnic group then?   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to disagree with you, FlavrSavr. The point is not that before 1944 Macedonian was identical to standard Bulgarian. I have no doubt that a small fringe of uninformed Bulgarian nationalists may believe that but 99% of Bulgarians don't. The point is that many of the differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian today are a result of this later Serbian influence as well as other recent developments (English borrowings, novel terms being coined,etc.). For example, Bulgarians have little difficulty reading texts in the dialects. Miladinovi, Shapkarev, Zhinzifov, Pulevski even Misirkov read very easily. A modern Macedonian text on economics, law or science does not. (VMRO 02:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Also bear in mind that the grammatical or phonetic peculiarities of standard Macedonian vis-a-vis standard Bulgarian (e.g. three forms for the definite article

a) are not a feature of all dialects in Macedonia but in many cases were selected for inclusion in standard Macedonian to make it more distant from standard Bulgarian

b) exist in Bulgarian dialects from outside of Macedonia (Trn region, Rhodope and Strandja regions, etc.)

Regarding you claim that "the Macedonian language... forms a separate language which still [relies on Bulgarian], with whom, in no case, has some closer relationship, except a general similarity.", tell me the following: where is the natural border between Macedonian and Bulgarian? (VMRO 02:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

BTW, regarding Pulevski, his "dictionary" was in the Mijak dialect. It was originally advertised as a Mijak-Serbian-bla bla bla dictionary but in the end came out as Macedonian-Serbian-bla bla dictionary. Are you claiming that everyone in Macedonia spoke the Mijak language? You are offending all honest Brsjak here, let me tell you! (VMRO 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

He'd probably say somewhere around Pirin Macedonia :) FlavSavr, have you even been to Pirin Macedonia and talked to people on the street? What language do they speak? I can tell you it is not Macedonian.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now they all speak standard Bulgarian or some mix of standard and dialects (the old people in the villages). Those dialects are very close to east Bulgarian anyway. In fact, the dialect of Gotse Delchev is a completely east Bulgarian dialects. Nevermind that the majority of OMO Ilinden people come from a couple of villages in that same area. As for the Blagoevgrad (and general Maleshevo area dialects) they are far closer to the talk to Kjustendil and Dupnica than the talk of Bitola and Prilep. (VMRO 02:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I would gladly dispute FF's assertion, but I guess it would be better, and more constructive to discuss with you. According to your opinion, what words exactly were a result of a Serbian influence, and when did this influence took place? --FlavrSavr 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to remind you that those are Karl Hron's words, not mine. And also another question, where is the border between Macedonian and Serbian? --FlavrSavr 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont have the balls to argue? Maybe you've visited some of OMO's meetings, so that you explicitly hear Macedonian. Karl Hron - you're talking about the infamous Austro Hungarian spy and his political agenda? Not to speak you ignore dosens of other travellers who noted nothing of Macedonians at that time.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Read Kosta Crnushanov's article in the Macedonian review. It is referenced in the article on "Political Views", etc. Kost Crnushanov was from Prilep. Was the head inspector of all Bulgarian schools in Macedonia in 1941-44. In 1945-48 was in charge of Macedonian language (read Prilep-Bitola dialect) programmes of Radio Sofia.

We are not talking about the Serbian influence of 14-19 centuries, we are talking about post-1944 (and perhaps 1918-1941 but it is hard to separate the two). (VMRO 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

VMRO, I haven't read the article, however, from a first glance there are several really dubious assertions, like for example: авион (самолет) - not only "авион" is not a Serbian word, and not only "самолет" is a Russian word, there's not a single evidence that Macedonian locals used "самолет" instead of "авион". A great deal of the words are definitely not in use in Macedonian. A great deal of the "Bulgarian" words are actually Slavic words, and a great deal of the supposedly replaced "Bulgarian" words are used simultaneously with the "Serbian" words (of which, again, a great deal are general "Slavic" words). Also, I'm not convinced about your claims on Pulevski - he published a dictionary of Macedonian, Albanian and Turkish, and I wouldn't dissmiss him as a Miyak, he writes, for example, that the Macedonians are a people and their place is Macedonia. --FlavrSavr 03:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read the whole discussion about "avion" back so I do not have to repeat myself. I am not sure what you mean by "Slavic" words. If you mean common between Bulgarian and Macedonian then I agree. In fact, a lot of the Serbian words came to replace words that are non just standard/Eastern Bulgarian but common to Macedonian and East Bulgarian. Or even words common to Macedonian only. These words are present in out languages but not in Serbian. And yes, Serbian and Macedonian/Bulgarian forms are used together in some places but why have the Serbian one anyway? They did not exist in the first place. The ones designated as Serbian may well be simialar in other Slavic languages but were not the same in Macedonian and Bulgarian. Finally, the article describes the state of affairs as of the 70's and 80's. I am sure a lot of Serbian influence has been scaled back since then. (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Just a random thought, take Misirkov's text and do a search for влада and постои.

The thing is, it is not for me and you to judge the article. I doubt you know what the lexical composition of the original Prilep-Bitola dialects was like. I suspect you have no basis of comparison since you have grown up with the new Serbian-influenced modern Macedonian language. To find out the differences one needs to analyse existing recorded texts, etc. Crnushanov is obviously writing from a Bulgarian point of view but he is also a прилепчанин who knew the local speech before the 1940's. (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Not dismissing Pulevski as a Mijak, I am just saying I doubt his language was the one spoke throughout Macedonia as you claimed. He represented one dialect of Western Macedonia. What I was saying is that his dictionary was originally advertised as Mijak and not Macedonian. In any case, a minor point. The real point is that old texts like Pulevski's are quite intelligible to modern Bulgarians who know nothing but standard Bulgarian. For example, Misirkov is very, very understandable. It is the new texts that present difficulties, with all their new terms. My point is that the Macedonian dialects are not all that different from the dialects of Thrace or Bulgaria proper. What makes Macedonian a different language today is the "high" language and the developments of the last 60 years, not its fundamental basis. (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

In the end, all linguists agree at least that Bulgarian and Macedonian form their own subgroup within the South Slavic languages. Only Macedonian nationalists claim that it is either closer to Serbian, equidistant from Bulgarian and Serbian or even that its relationship with Bulgarian is as close as with any Slavic language. The latter view is clearly absurd. (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

I have no problem with Macedonians being a separate nation, having a separate language, etc. But I do have a problem when they say they have been different from Bulgarians from time immemorial, that they never considered themselves Bulgarians, etc. These are all myths that started developing in the 1960's with people like Tashkovski, Dimevski, etc. If you read the original Macedonian historiography from the 40's and 50's, it is a whole different story. You will be surprised at what they really think the Macedonian nation is. (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Funky, let's leave the balls out of it, OK? If you are Bulgarian, you are totally counterproductive if you ever wanted to counteract anti-Bulgarianism among Macedonians in RoM. You are just creating more anti-Bulgarianism. (VMRO 02:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

As a matter of fact, I've been told that before on several occasions.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not unjustifiably so. Any way, it is Friday, time to go out! (VMRO 06:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Let me just quote Voss, who is an expert linguist and hardly pro-Bulgarian:

The Macedonian standard language was exposed to strong Serbian lexical interferenceincluding many internationalisms, a process from which the population of Aegean Macedonia was excluded, first, on the strictly linguistic level, by choosing the dialect basis Prilep – Veles – Bitola; second, by adopting a strong Serbian roofing; third, as a result of the political situation, which led to an asymmetric standard/dialect-continuum. My thesis is that standard Macedonian is unfamiliar and strange to the minority beyond the Macedonian border [with Greece], and this to a higher degree than in the normal case of roofless borderland minorities. The supraethnic ideal of bratstvo i jedinstvo exposed standard Macedonian to heavy Serbo-croatian interference, expressing the Macedonians’ devotion to Tito – in the end it functioned as a mechanism for the exclusion of all ethnic Macedonians living outside Yugoslavia. (VMRO 06:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Doing fieldwork in Greek Macedonia, I often heard sentences like “Over there, they mixed the language with Serbian”, or “They speak in a different way from us”, “Over there, it’s mixed”, or “They have forgotten their own language. They have given up their own language”. Even radical Macedonian ethnic activists in Greece are very reserved and distant towards their potential “mother nation” language: High-ranking leaders of the “RAINBOWparty of national Macedonians in Greece” (a member-party of the “European Free Alliance”) showed their annoyance, telling me that for them it is easier to buy cigarettes in Plovdiv than to start a conversation with a young waiter in Bitola, 15 km on the other side of the border. There is a strong feeling shared by the elder generation of being excluded from a standard language they often simply call “skopjanka” (“Skopian”). (VMRO 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

That's an interesting article, indeed! We could use it as a reliable source to illustrate that some linguists (Voss) detect a high influence of Serbian on the Macedonian language (note that he doesn't consider the Macedonian language to be a mere Serbianized Bulgarian dialect), while others (Lunt, Friedman) do not. Unfortunately, for the time being we can only cite the article with the permission of the author, since it's a draft paper. As far as Kosta Crnushanov is concerned, he cannot be taken as a neutral and reliable source. I can state a myriad of reasons for this, starting from his obvious non-neutrality to some factual mistakes - like for example, the Ада example... it's not in use in Macedonia - we use Остров, Serbs use Острво, Bulgarians Остров, Russians Остров. Ада is a rarely used term indicating a river islet. Another example... гром etc. The problem with Crnushanov is that he pressuposes some "autochtonous Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian" - we have absolutely no reason to take his version of the original Macedonian as accountable, considering the fact that written Macedonian was quite rare. --FlavrSavr 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Crnushanov claims that ада came from Serbian and was not used in Macedonian before. The only way to check the validity of this claim to do lexical analysis of early "uncontaminated" Macedonian texts. Now you say it does have some limited usage. Again, he is basing his text on analysis of 70's and 80's newspapers and other documents when the picture was different from today - Serbian words were more widespread. It is good to know that oстрво did not take off. Гром is am all-Slavic word for sure but it is registered in Macedonian in its Serbian phonetic form, in Bulgarian it is гръм or гърм in some dialects. Not sure what most Macedonian dialects would be like but I guess what Crnushanov is implicitly claiming is that it was г'рм or гр'м. There is a folk song about the Ilinded uprising called Топовите гърмат, not Топовите громат, right? On the other hand, it is fully possible that in some of the the Polog, Skopje and Kumanovo dialects (which Bulgarian linguists classify as part of the transitional Bulgaro-Serbian dialects) the word is гром. (VMRO 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Again, Crnushanov's claims must be verified by someone impartial. I am not saying that his version of original Macedonian should be considered as the absolute truth but it is beyond any doubt that the original speech of Macedonian Slavs was very different before. I think the Aegean dialects are a great source of comparison as Voss says. The fact that the recorded early texts are few should not discourage people. Look at the Konikovo and Kulakia gospels, look at Daniil's dictionary. See what you find. If you don't mind the fact that the language of those is called Bulgarian, of course. (VMRO 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Moreover, I have no intention to deny any Serbian linguistic, or for that matter, cultural influence. That is really undeniable. However, to claim that what makes Macedonian a different language today is the "high" language and the developments of the last 60 years, not its fundamental basis. is something that will need tons of reliable linguistic sources, covering it from a modern perspective. --FlavrSavr 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That was my claim and I am not claiming it should be included in the article. What is a dialect and what is a different language is a matter of politics. There really are no objective traits that determine language borders within a dialect continuum. But it seems to me that many of you guys from Macedonia really believe that there is something intrinsic about Macedonian which makes it different from Bulgarian. It is all a matter of self-identification. (VMRO 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

As for Misirkov, I found the use of the alleged Serbian word "заедно". For the Brsyak part, incidentally, my father comes from the region of Debar, and Pulevski's language is strikingly resemblant to his speech! :) --FlavrSavr 07:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you are reading the article carefully. Nobody says заедно is a Serbian word. Заедница is, заедно is used in Bulgarian, too. Let's not mix the two. Misirkov's text is very close and intelligible for Bulgarians, as grounded in the Western Macedonian dialects as it is. As for Debrani - they are considered Mijaks actually, not Brsjaks so I am not sure what you mean. (VMRO 14:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Serbianisation 4

I am going to repeat my and clarify my views here and stop arguing because it is a waste of time:

• The original codifiers of Macedonian sought to make it distinct from both Serbian and Bulgarian and rely on the West-central Macedonian dialects
• In practice a minority of linguists and politicians with previous pro-Serb leanings managed to impose many traits that were more characteristic of Serbian
• In view of the fact that no impartial detailed sources about intentional Serbiansiation exist outside of writings of Macedonian nationalist or pro-Bulgarian scholars and Bulgarian scholars, I think we should not present those views as Wikipedia views and only as Bulgarian (and Macedonian nationalist) views. On the other hand, the Serbianisation of unspecified or natural type might be metioned in the Vocabulary sectrion of the article since it is claimed by "impartial" foregners like Voss and Friedman.
• The Macedonian literary language was built and developed in Yugoslavia and its development would have been very different in an independent Macedonia.
• In particular, it experienced a heavy Serbian influence especially in the areas of "high" vocabulary (technical, scientific, legal, political, etc.)
• This influence was a natural result of the position of Macedonia within Yugoslavia with its dominant Serbo-Croatian language, as well as the severed ties with Bulgarian
• The situation with the Russification of Bulgarian during the time of Soviet dominance is very similar but lesser in degree as Bulgarian already existed as a codified literary language
• What is mainly behind the differences between modern standard Bulgarian and Macedonian are the developments in the "high" language over the last 60 years and not the dialectical basis. On that basic level, while differences do exist, the languages are more or less mutually intelligible (VMRO 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

I basically agree, as far as I am competent to judge at all, except for the last point. The main obstacles to mutual comprehension are probably the Russian vs Serbian loanwords. But the differences that are more interesting from a linguistic point of view - the phonological and especially the grammatical differences - are indeed a result of the dialectal basis (i.e. of the particular dialects that were chosen by the codifiers). --Pseudonymus Bosh 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

These considerations are purely theoretical, of course, and have no significance for the Wiki article.--Pseudonymus Bosh 10:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are differences in the dialectal basis, just as there are differences within the rest of the Bulgarian dialectal territory. But my point was that these differences on their own do not impede mutual intelligibility. (VMRO 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Anglicisation of Macedonian

Check out this article in "Vreme" - the reader comments are particularly telling. Two Macedonian liguists are complaining about the absurd use of English and otehr foreign words in Macedonian. Some readers attack them as being Bulgarians (which they are not and neither are they pro-Bulgarian). (VMRO 01:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Набилда! :) Hahahahah! Sounds so lame. For Francis: билд = build.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not so lame. I think билдам is actually from German "bilden". AFAIK, German "bilden" has a more abstract meaning than "bauen" - "to form, construct, organise" as opposed to just "build". It is a nice word, difficult to translate, which could motivate borrowing it (the snobbishness of it all aside). As for the addition of a prefix - well, I often think that there is a lot of rigidity and a lack of vitality in the Bulgarian reluctance to bilden new words by means of native morphemes. :) --Pseudonymus Bosh 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bah, it's just yet another example of Serbianization rather than Anglicization :-). Over here, there's a plenty of билдери. Gotta run now, морам да избилдујем some software :-). Duja 07:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very soon Macedonian and Bulgarian will become the same language again. It will be called... English. (VMRO 02:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Nah, the situation in the Republic is reminiscent of Bulgaria in the early 90s. It was fasionable to use loan words on TV then, but it gradually fell out of style. The whole loan word thing is stupid, people use loan words to simply show off, and I hope Republicans realize this is stupid.   /FunkyFly.talk_  02:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I commented on this above. It is also commented upon by (I think) Friedman in one of his papers. He also notes some outrage at the use of the Latin alphabet :) - FrancisTyers · 10:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Vocative and Balkan sprachbund

The section about the "Vocative" currently has a comparison with other neighbouring languages and mentions the term "Balkan sprachbund" in that context. That seems to imply the existence of a vocative is an areal feature. Is it? I can't remember hearing it mentioned as a Balkanism. I mean, there might be something areal about its preservation, but first of all the existence of these forms, and their similarities, is simply a matter of common genetic inheritance, surely? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this is not an areal feature. The fact that there is a vocative seems to be, but not the form. - FrancisTyers · 13:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's my copy of Thomason's Language contact when I need it? Heine/Kuteva (2006) don't seem to mention it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The vocative is mentioned as a Balcanism e.g. in "Balkansko ezikoznanie" ("Balcanisms") by Petya Asenova, 2002, p.22,292,294,305.

She says that the preservation of the vocative is typical for the BLU, just like the preservation of a distinction between an aorist and a perfect tense (simple vs complex preterites, as she calls them). My explanation: other Slavic languages than Bulgarian tend to lose the vocative (not Serbo-Croatian, though), and so do other Romance languages than Romanian. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pseudonymous, and thanks for the explanation! Makes sense. Always good to see a few sockpuppets around who can actually read. :-) (by the way, he's not my sock either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

About the references

I cant see any reason the specified bug would affect this article in any way by changing form {{ref}} → {{tl<note}} to using Cite.php, as long the first reference specify what it reference. If at later day the patch is applied, you may change the reference data to the second referenced place, if that's necissary (dunno when it would be necissary thou). _→AzaToth 15:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If you have ever worked on an article with new references using large numbers of journal articles or correct referencing using citeweb, you'll know that it is almost impossible to write and reference properly using Cite.php. That is what the bug is about. Please do not change the referencing system without having consensus on the talk page. Contrary to popular belief, ref/note templates are not deprecated. - Francis Tyers · 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The probles with ref/note is that it easly breaks a citation, and can give the impression that a citation exist even if it doesn't, I'll fix those problem now (was two in this article), and let you use the more archanic system untill cite.php is patched. _→AzaToth 15:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the downsides. Periodically I go through the article to check the references in this way. I'm glad you spotted (and fixed) a couple. The Lunt reference did exist, just not in this article (I've fixed that). Just because a system is old doesn't mean it is bad. And yes, it does require more care on the part of the user, but this is not always a bad thing :) — did you ever get involved in programming holy wars? :) - Francis Tyers · 15:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Italics in Cyrillics

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

New Ref about language name

I don't care if the name presented in that last source (diff) is correct or not, or if the source is reliable enough to be included in the article or not, or if the correct place for that is there or not, but I find such edit summaries quite insulting for our intelligence! What exactly is "Rv. That's not an appropriate way of making a citation" supposed to mean? Should we revert all changes for all external links in all articles because they are not cited according to someone's standards? And if you know which is the correct way, then why don't you go ahead and correct it, instead of biting the anon? If there are other reasons I'd like to hear them, and I am only reverting now, because of the anon's treatment. •NikoSilver• 22:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the fellow didn't put it in a ref tag, it doesn't look right on the page, and the edit shouldn't stand as is. It's still there in the history to bring back if the editor or another wants to learn how to cite appropriately. As for correcting it, why must I correct other people's mistakes more than reverting to a mistake-free version? CRCulver 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

diff Suppose you are right. Anything else? •NikoSilver• 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This reference to a map is indeed not valid. See my comments below under the heading #ISO 639-1. If the name "Slav-Macedonian" is to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, it would need a better justification than a spurious map produced by an unofficial organization."   Andreas   ^(T) 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Andrea, I think you're exaggerating the reason for declaring the source moot. The source does nowhere state that the codes in that page are ISO-whatever. We can safely suppose that they are just acronyms used within the site. Other language acronyms are different too. As per the 'officiality' of the site, check where the secretary is from here. •NikoSilver• 19:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To all Greek users: try to understand ALREADY that Macedonian is a Slavic language, no need of "Slav-Macedonian" stuff. It is excessive. Bomac 19:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's factual. Leaving aside the fact that the ethnic Macedonians in Greece are reported to use it and not find it offensive at all (this is a Helsinki Monitor quote - see the links here), the sources are cited. Unfortunately the Eurolang page for Greece has been closed down but their old page can still be found at the web archive (what do they call it [17]). You know that Eurolang is funded by the EU. Also, Ethnologue mentions it.--Tekleni 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Eurominority does not have any connections with European institutions, such as the European Union, the Council of Europe or any other organization financed by public funds. Eurominority is based on the work of many associations promoting minority languages and rights of the minorities. [...] Eurominority is financed exclusively by private funds and does not profit from any government aid. That allows for complete editorial independence within legal boundaries. [18]   Andreas   ^(T) 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, try not to erase factual information from obviously non-partisan sources.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that is a bold advise! Certainly, from a person who thinks that Macedonian is Bulgarian. Bomac 19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont really know what you are implying.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, sure you don't. Bomac 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have diffs or something, or you are making things up as usual?   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please abstain from personal comments here.   Andreas   ^(T) 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to revert again, but, Tekleni, you did not actually put a new reference into the article, you left the old one there. If you believe that have a valid source, then remove the reference with the map from Eurominority from the reference list at the bottom of the article and put a reference to your source there. Or better still, show it here at the talk page first.  Andreas   ^(T) 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Euromosaic calls the language Macedonian[19],[20].   Andreas   ^(T) 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you're right. Euromosaic never refers to it as [slavo]macédonien, it must be my imagination. I guess it is also my imagination that Ethnologue lists "Macedonian Slavic" in their "other names" section. I should see a shrink for psychotherapy.--Tekleni 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did add a second source, check the diff more carefully. I am talking about Euromosaic, which unlike Eurominority was funded by the European Commission (this is an EU body in case you didn't know). Even if it wasn't though, it was partially undertaken by something called the Institut de Sociolingüística Catalana (of the Uni. of Barcelona), which is reliable enough IMO.--Tekleni 20:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ther Euromosaic page refers specifically to the language spoken in Greece, that is treated in a separate article, Slavic language (Greece). Of course, the naming of the slavic lanugage(s) spoken in Greece is a matter of dispute, i.e., whether it is identical and should be called "Macedonian". But this is not the issue here. The language spoken in the RoM is called Macedonian almost everywhere except in Greece. Since this is the English WP, we do not care what the Greek name of the lanugage is. Therefore, as long as there is no prominient sources for the language spoken in RoM to be called slavic-macodonian or something similar in English, that name should not appear in the opening paragraph. The reasons why Greeks dispute the appropriateness of the name "macedonian" for the lanugague an be explained somewhere further down, for example in the section "Political views on the language".   Andreas   ^(T) 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The question should be is this language also called Slavic Macedonian? If so, then there is nothing to discuss. If this article is not about the language spoken in Greece, then any reference to that effect should be removed and the infobox should be amended accordingly. According to "official" (ie coming from local authorities in Greece and quoted by the Greek Helsinki Monitor) estimates, Slavomacedonian has 100,000 speakers in Greece. That is a significant number - to significant to ignore. The Greek Helsinki Monitor also tells us that they have no objection to that name. Essentially you're proposing stripping them of their regional (as ethnic Macedonians or Greeks as the case may be) identity and imposing the uniform nationalistic perception of the situation in northern Greece as emanating from Skopje.--Tekleni 20:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Telex, the languge is called Slavo-Macedonian in Greece. That's why you've created Slavic language (Greece). Again - double standards. Bomac 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, saying that the language is not spoken would be Greece is POV. The fact is that some regard the slavic language spoken in West and Central Macedonia (Greece) as being the same as that spoken in the RoM (e.g, this is the view of many of those who fought on the communist side in the Greek Civil War, but also of others concerned with the rights of ethnic minorities), whereas others disagree and say that the slavic idioms spoken in Greece are vernacular and therefore cannot be classified as being part of a standardized language. This is something that has to be included in the Slavic language (Greece) article. I would suggest putting a sentence (possibly in the intro) saying that (a) the language is often called "slavomacedonian" in English by Greek sources and (b) the language is often called "slavomacedonian" in English when referring to the use of the language inside Greece. Both statements would have to be backed by carefully selected relevant sources.   Andreas   ^(T) 21:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is called Slavic Macedonian by its own speakers in Greece. Are you proposing denying their right to self-identification - you read the GHM quote didn't you (how some of them are pround to be Slavs (a blasphemous thesis from FYROM point of view)!) - just because of the state doctrine of FYROM (Macedonism - Alexander Donski) find such a view unacceptable.--Tekleni 21:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, it's Greece we are talking about, not to mention the fringe conditions the minorities live in (Greece's doctrine of "quiet" racism and separation from the world - creating a "special" Slavic language). This question (about "Slavo-Macedonian") is in it's appropriate section - Political views on Macedonian. Bomac 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can speculate all you want - finding sources is a waste of time, I agree. Anwyay, as the GHM notes: ...the term Slavomacedonian was introduced and was accepted by the community itself... If you think that was the result of racism or anything else, you'll have to cite a source. They are a significant number, and I have seen no proof that the self-id of some of these people is a political issue. It may be considered political by Macedonists, but there is no evidence it is considered such by the people in Greece who have it as their mother tongue.--Tekleni 21:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This for instance, speaks of violations of rights. These are the fringe conditions I'm talking about. Bomac 21:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And this speaks of racism in Greece. Too fringy for me. Bomac 21:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to accept "faq.macedonia.org" as a reliable source. None of your sources indicate however that the Slavs of northern Greece were "compelled" in some way to accept the term 'Slavomacedonian'. Also, hasn't every country experienced periods with a high racist sentiment. Should I discuss the "human rights" of the Albanians in FYROM before (and after) the Ochrid agreement,--Tekleni 21:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

However, Minorities in Greece are subjected to racism, discrimination and intolerance by society, despite recent positive developments taken by the State to combat racism. Bomac 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You may read partizan sources ("it is also the legendary land of Alexander the Great" ^[21]) and "closed blogs" ^[22] if it comforts you, but don't cite them in WP. •NikoSilver• 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

(to Bomac): It doesn't say "Macedonians" :-) It says Roma (which number 200,000 according to the Greek gov.), and the Muslim minority of Greece (I started that article, I'm so proud), as well as immigrant communities such as Albanians in Greece. Tell me BTW, what is happening with Archbishop Jovan of Ochrid - I hear he has been imprisoned again (what did he do, perform a baptism or some similar heinous crime?). Check this website which campaigns for his release [23]. Apparently, Jovan is supported by the Orthodox Churches of Albania, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria (i.e. you're surrounded), and for some strange reason, this website refers to your country as "FYRO Macedonia" ^_^ --Tekleni 21:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Note 4 is in French and therefore irrelevant for English Wikipedia. Notes 5, 6, and 7 have (Slavic) Macedonian, not Slav-Macedonian. The attribute is put in parentheses. This indicated that the authors do not think that "slavic" is part of the name of the language, but is added to disamibuate from Ancient Macedonian. The author referred to in note 7 explicitly notes that. In his footnote he uses the attribute withoung parentheses but poits out that this is his personal choice (I say “Slavic Macedonian”).   Andreas   ^(T) 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with AndreasJS. BTW, Tekleni, that minority you were talking about, does not self-identify as SlavoMacedonian . --FlavrSavr 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As inclined as I am to accept the word of a political party which amassed a total of 2995 votes in the area where the minority purportedly lives (that's how much these people support them - WOW!), over that of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (who also says that the vast majority of them declare as Greeks, i.e. Grkomani - a fact that supporters of Macedonism ignore), according to the US State Dep.'s report, some do use "Slavomacedonian". If this article is to discuss the people in northern Greece who self-identify as "Slavomacedonians" (as per the US State Dept), then this little factual info ought not be excluded.--Tekleni 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the Macedonian language, called "Macedonian language" in 99,99% of the reliable sources available in English. As far as those "Slavomacedonians" in Greece are concerned, I'd be happy to discuss about them on some other occasion, using the same sources you've pointed out, including Eurominority. --FlavrSavr 19:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No one is proposing renaming the article. If an alternative name exists (and btw it does get a couple of non-Greek hits in Google Scholar [24]), then there is no reason to exclude it - the "what is the most common name" question doesn't apply here, as only the title is bound by that convention. All factual information must be included in the main text (as per WP:NPOV).--Tekleni 19:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but it has not to be in the first sentence because the name S. M. and its variations are rarely used.   Andreas   ^(T) 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Note 2 needs (a) page number(s) where the term Slavic Macedonian is mentioned as the name of the language as a whole so that it can be found in a book of 241 pages.   Andreas   ^(T) 01:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It does ("p. ix" - that's 9 in latin numerals, i.e. in the intro). Plus the link pops up that page for you, if you care to login Google-books (free). •NikoSilver• 15:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The references have been moved to the appropriate section of the article in line with WP:NPOV. - Francis Tyers · 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha the Eurominority map is laughable. Are you guys trying to say that 'Slavomacedonian' is spoken by all those Greeks[?]! :D Slavomacedonian == Macedonian?! Then why is it not spoken in Macedonia! :)) - Francis Tyers · 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Euromosaic report again discusses the language in Greece. Not Macedonia. - Francis Tyers · 18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The other papers are interesting, but aren't linguistic papers or directly related to the language, ergo they have their proper place in the section on the naming, not in the lead. - Francis Tyers · 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Says who? If alternative terms exist, then they go in the lead - the last place they go is in an obscure section at the bottom of the article, where they are discredited as fabrications of a "naming dispute". This is the self-identification of some Slavophone Greeks we're talking about. I guess from the point of view of Macedonists though, the only people entitled to self-determination are the "ethnic Macedonians" and them alone. Everyone else (especially the dissidents of the doctrine) are fiercely excluded.--Tekleni 19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They do not go in the lead if they are offensive, we do not have 'Jewish people, or Kikes, Heebs, etc.' Also, the name is used by a small minority. You need to take some action man, you're getting a bit hot under the collar. The 'naming dispute' section is appropriate and sourced. In the overwhelming majority of academic sources the language is referred to simply as 'Macedonian', as such, Wikipedia, as an academic endeavour will thus name it. You know, this 'naming dispute' section is a compromise, it probably shouldn't be in at all, as an exceedingly minority POV. - Francis Tyers · 19:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. I proposed this earlier - to claim or to imply that there is a minority in Greece considering itself and its language "Macedonian" is POV. If the Slav... is to be removed, then any reference to Greece should also be removed (and moved to the Slavic language (Greece) article). A compromise I (I don't know if anyone else may have a problem) is to have a footnote, and every mention of Greece should be linked to it.--Tekleni 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The Greeks who identify their language as 'Slavomacedonian' (I'm not sure if there actually are any -- given the GHM report quoted) are noted in the article. The Slavic language (Greece) article deals with the people who identify their language as Slavic, not Macedonian. If you can find enough sources I would strongly recommend you start an article on Slavomacedonian (Greece). But I suspect you won't find so many sources that state that people speaking the language call it Slavomacedonian. We've been through this one million times, so if you have any alternative formulations, why not post them here for discussion first. I would be happy with your alternative solution, but would consider it somewhat of overkill. - Francis Tyers · 19:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We can't be seriously argueing if the language is also called Slavo/Slavic/Slav-Macedo-Slav/Slavic/Slavo extensively by all kinds of sources, can we? I just dropped 7 in 10 minutes to show how extensive that is. And it is not mainly in Greek-related context. It is in every context pertinent to the region in general, which can be easily understood for dab purposes. As for your 'insulting' suggestion, I am sorry, I don't buy it. It is one source, and it goes on to attribute it to those in Greece during the 50's. What about those others up North who hadn't heard of it? Isn't it WP:OR to assume that the residents proper of ROM/FYROM will have the same mentality as their few compatriots in Greece? •NikoSilver• 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You can 'drop' as many sources as you like, it isn't going in the lead unless it is shown that it is used in serious linguistic research. The papers you 'dropped' used (Slavic) Macedonian, but none of them were about Macedonian linguistics, they were discussing politics of the region. The article already has too much of an emphasis on politics. Greetings from Skopje, - Francis Tyers · 11:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Poulton (sounds non-Greek - so much for it being the product of the name dispute with Greece), doesn't call it (Slavic) Macedonian. He calls it "Slav Macedonian".--Tekleni 13:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid it doesn't really matter how 'linguists' only call it, although I haven't searched. This article is addressed to all kinds of readers, liguist-oriented or not. There is absolutely no doubt that people (including scholars) call that language with some kind of a "Slavic" addition. We are not talking about renaming the article here, we're talking about listing the alternative names. BTW, since you're there, check for that plaque you wanted. Does your e-mail work? •NikoSilver• 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The footnote should look something like:

Although acceptable in the past, current use of this name in reference to both the ethnic group and the language can be considered pejorative and offensive by ethnic Macedonians. In the past, the Macedonian Slavs in Greece seemed relieved to be acknowledged as "Slavomacedonians". A native of Greek Macedonia, a pioneer of ethnic Macedonian schools in the region and local historian, Pavlos Koufis, says in Laografika Florinas kai Kastorias (Folklore of Florina and Kastoria), Athens 1996, that, “[During its Panhellenic Meeting in September 1942, the KKE mentioned that it recognises the equality of the ethnic minorities in Greece] the KKE recognised that the Slavophone population was ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians]. This was a term, which the inhabitants of the region accepted with relief. [Because] Slavomacedonians = Slavs+Macedonians. The first section of the term determined their origin and classified them in the great family of the Slav peoples.” The Greek Helsinki Monitor reports: "... the term Slavomacedonian was introduced and was accepted by the community itself, which at the time had a much more widespread non-Greek Macedonian ethnic consciousness. Unfortunately, according to members of the community, this term was later used by the Greek authorities in a pejorative, discriminatory way; hence the reluctance if not hostility of modern-day Macedonians of Greece (i.e. people with a Macedonian national identity) to accept it."

- Francis Tyers · 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We mustn't forget Misirkov who was a native from Greek Makedonia and he treated the language solely as "Macedonian" 1, and not "Slav-Macedonian". Bomac 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's utter hogwash and you know it ;-) Misirkov is a known embarrassment to FYROM nationalists because he uses heretic terms such as "Macedonian Slav". My second favorite Misirkov quote is [t]he only Macedonian Slavs who played a leading part in the Uprising were those who called themselves Bulgarians [25]. I suppose FYROM nationalists have come up with some ingenious explanation for this, e.g. he was using terms like that because of the naming dispute with Greece.--Tekleni 22:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... Latinus (Telex), that is a utter hogwash for Hellenic nationalists. And my favourite quote from Misirkov is the one in which he includes places from Greek Makedonia as base for the Macedonian language.

Anyway, we are talking about the Macedonian language, which he never refered to as "Slav-Macedonian", and not for the Macedonians. Bomac 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, although a) there is no evidence that the Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs he was talking about have anything whatsoever to do with today's FYROM Macedonians, b) he does not say that the language of the Macedonian Slavs (as he calls it at least once) exists, but he speaks of its standardization as a future enterprise, i.e. ...the Prilep-Bitola dialect [should be adopted] as the central dialect in Macedonia for the purpose of creating a literary language equally different from Serbian and Bulgarian, and c) my No. 1 favorite quote is that reported bit about the ethnic composition of Skopje (you know what I'm talking about :p).--Tekleni 23:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be hilarious, Latinus (Telex)!!! Oh, this gave me a huge laugh! Nationalism can be very funny, that's for sure! Bomac 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah lets have good laugh then.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Does this has somt. to do with the Macvedonian language article or... a pale nationalistic feetback? The second, I guess. Bomac 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all other nationalism is pale against Donski's   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Focus on the article. Anyway, Donski's nationalism reminds me of some users here on Wikipedia. Bomac 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, right. I know. I have them linked on top of my talk page.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ISO 639-1

SL is the ISO 639-1 code for slovenian, not for macedonian. The Organization for the European Minorities (Eurominority). lists this language as Macedonian [26]. Apart from this, the Organization for the European Minorities is a private organization and does not have any official status, therefore is not suitable as a source when the official source for ISO 639-1, the International Organization for Standardization is available [27].   Andreas   ^(T) 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The source does nowhere state that the codes in that page are ISO-whatever. We can safely suppose that they are just acronyms used within the site. Other language acronyms are different too. •NikoSilver• 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

In the Eurominority map, the code for Slovenian is SI. This is in fact the country code for Slovenia, see List of Internet top-level domains . The language code according to ISO 639-1 is sl. So, this cannot be the language code for Macedonian, because two languages cannot have the same code (or do you want to tell us that Macedonian is the same language as Slovenian?). Even if you personally disagree with the naming of the language treated in this article, in WP we have to conform what is present in the sources. A single source, that does not mention specifically ISO 639-1, cannot be taken a evidence for an ISO 639-1 code , even less so if its main aim is entirely different: the codes used in this map are just meant as abbreviations to put into the map because the full names of the languages would not fit.   Andreas   ^(T) 21:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

I removed "It is also officially recognised in the District of Korçë in Albania." from the lead. We don't have a citation for it. - Francis Tyers · 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is, because they can have primary schools which teach this language (according to nationlist websites though). We just need a good source... BTW Francis, great minds think alike.--Tekleni 12:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What the...?

What do I see here? Is it really, let me count, 15, 16, or maybe 17 reverts within 24 hours? Over the issue of inclusion of a name in the lead? Does this remind us of something? Are you guys maybe, just, I mean, could it be that you are all, horribili dictu... - revert-warring?

Just you wait. Keep it coming for another few days, by that time somebody might have a certain new button and might gladly try it out on the lot of you. ;-/ Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, rather than just mocking you tired warriors, I'll actually venture a compromise proposal. The principle is the same as with the foreign placnames: Any alternative names that require extra explanations, disclaimers, historical discussion etc., should not be in the lead sentence. Instead, they should be mentioned towards the end of the lead paragraph, with a pointer to the more detailed discussion further down in the text.

Now, go on fighting if you must. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was just like you've described it (that is how it is supposed to be), but Tekleni, NikoSilver (and their revert-pal FunkyFly) want to put-on the name (Slav)-Macedonian. Reasons are well known. It's not that i'm bitchin' about, but this is getting really out of control (not to mention boring). Bomac 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Read my proposal more carefully: the mentioning in the lead paragraph is missing. Mind if I put it in? That is, when those citrus socks have settled down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The queston whether the language name is (Slavo)-Macedonian or not is elaborated in the "Political views on the Macedonian language". Because they are political views, I don't see why Wikipedia should "enlighten" them. Bomac 18:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is non-Greek Henry Poulton who calls it the 'Slav Macedonian language a politician. There is no evidence whatsoever that they are political - that's FYROM POV.--Tekleni 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If we accept Fut Perf's proposal, can we include Makedonski Slovenski and Slavomakedonski?--Tekleni 18:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tekleni, read "Political views on Macedonian" once again. Bomac 18:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've read it many times - I don't follow you.--Tekleni 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, leave that to the details paragraph further down. In the lead paragraph, just one version: "It is also sometimes referred to as Slavo-Macedonian or similarly (see below)'. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with FPaS - didn't read his comment below) How do you manage it - the article got protected in your version without you even editing it. You have some uncanny influence over me ;-) --Tekleni 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Tekleni, you are too fast. :-) You edit-conflicted me before I could get in my version of the compromise (just slightly different). And that was last second before someone protected it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The name (Slavo)-Macedonian itself is used to differ from the Ancient Macedonian language. How come there is {{other uses}} introducing sentence which says for the unrelated, non-Slavic language, and shortly after that we read Slav-Macedonian? It is confusable, because it is mentioned at least 1000 times (in the leading paragraph) that Macedonian is a Slavic language. It is really, well, hilarious. I will say this again: Wikipedia doesn't have to endorse political views, it is more than obvious why some users want to put-on that name. Regards, Bomac 19:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-biased sources use the term and the term pre-dates the naming dispute, ergo it is not a wholly political issue like FYROM propaganda presents it.

Those non-biased sources are like 1:1000.000. It's like searching a needle in grass. Bomac 19:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the compromise position in place for at least one week. After that it will be removed unless very good justification is made for the inclusion. I have yet to read a non partisan linguistic paper that uses the terms 'Macedonian Slavic' (the only variant I will accept) or the seemingly pejorative terms 'Slav Macedonian' or 'Slavomacedonian'. Out of the ~30 papers and books I have read not one uses these terms and certainly not to refer to the standardised official language of the Republic of Macedonia. They are almost exclusively used by partisan commentators who have extremely bigoted views. Note I use the terms 'almost exclusively', there may be one or two exceptions, but by and large, the name is 'Macedonian' and 'Slavomacedonian' is used by people who have an axe to grind. You all know this, I all know this, lets get over it. In fact, perhaps I'm starting to think that we should have an article on Slavomacedonian language. - Francis Tyers · 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I must admit I'm only now catching up on reading all that previous discussion above. If I can convince myself that the "Slav"-modified name forms are as marginal as you say they are, I'll concur with you. However, I would tend to agree with Niko (hey, I actually do agree with my friend Niko, for once!) that usage in linguistics publications shouldn't be the only criterion here. We linguists certainly have a monopoly on describing and analysing languages, but we have no monopoly on talking about them, and hence naming them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the linguistic and historical arguments here have an undeniable political subtext. I do not believe that there can be an unbiased, "objective" discussion about Macedonian history or language. This is because the very proprietors of that language and history (the people of Macedonia) are asserting an identity, while others opposed to this point of view are denying their identity. Therefore, all talk of finding the "true" history of both language, ethnicity and the like, are in today's context assertions and denunciations of a national identity. Through the guise of academia or history one group is defending its existence as "Macedonian", while other groups are attacking that existence. This entire debate cannot escape being reduced to nothing more than politics. regards, Jack1983 16:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)