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.
This seems to imply that: "Proto-Greek" is a sub-unit of "Paleo-Balkan languages", and that "Paleo-Balkan languages" is in turn a sub-unit of "Greek dialects", and that "Greek dialects" is a sub-unit of "Ancient Greek".
This is pretty absurd and certainly not what Ninio meant.
As dab pointed out, "Greek dialects" is not a classificatory unit in a family tree at all; if something is a Greek dialect, then its next higher taxonomic unit that should appear in the tree is "Proto-Greek", per definitionem.
Putting "Paleo-Balkan languages" below Ancient Greek in the classification makes no sense at all.
Also, this version of the tree presents "Ancient Greek" as uncontroversial, which it is not.
I can understand if Ninio has objections against including "P-B" at all in the tree, there is indeed something OR-ish about it. "P-B" isn't a genetic taxonomic unit anyway, if at all it's an areal unit.
Leaving out "P-B" really leaves us with "Indo-European" as the only secure family information; plus:
That "possibly Greek" in the Infobox doesn't make any sense. Why not just leave it as Indo-European (all further discussion will be in the body of the article)?--Barbatus 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it implies that Macedonian was an independent branch of the Indo-European family, which is a minority view. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case something like "Paleo-Balkan or Proto-Greek" would be better, otherwise it implies that Ancient Greek was an independent branch of the family, no?--Barbatus 17:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Greek was and is an independent branch of the family. Proto-Greek is merely the theoretical ancestor of all the ancient Greek dialects, and refers to a much earlier period than would be appropriate for Macedonian. Palaeo-Balkan meanwhile is not a proven language family at all, more a geographical denomination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed "Ancient" from the infobox. The language family that contains all forms of Greek, ancient and modern, is simply called Greek after all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Merci, --Barbatus 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry this is my first discussion about edits on Wikipedia, I value all the contributions you have all done to this site. But where can I find this "Paleo-Balkan" branch of the Indo-European languages? Are we just inventing branches on Wikipedia to satisfy a minority or unfounded view? Hairamess 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairamess (talk • contribs)
Hi all, I would just like to contribute that there is no ambiguity upon whether Ancient Macedonian Greek was a Greek Dialect. "possibly Greek" should be just "Greek" or "Greek Dialect", because that's the only truth.
The Pella Curse Tablet dating to the 4th or 3rd century BC was found at the Capital of Macedon, Pella. if that's not Ancient Macedonian, I don't know what is..
I am Greek and I can understand what the script of the Curse is telling.
Any seven year old who can read Modern Greek, can read that and translate most of the words from it. it was an Ancient Greek dialect of the many Ancient Greek Dialects. there are other Dialects who are fully recognised as Greek, that are far more difficult for me to translate.
The whole subject is ridiculous for anyone knowing Greek. i can't believe the international community of linguistics doesn't bash un-scientific "theories of ambiguity" brought by enviers and thiefs of History. i guess because the "ambiguity" is so new. the VARDASCAns slavs have no right in history upon anything Greek.
your cheap political agenda cannot and won't be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope (talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
78.151.173.120 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)I suggest that Ancient Macedonian is the branch of Lithuanian language together with Phrygians. Macedonia can be derived from Lithuanian words for 'Manke Duona'=knead bread and Phrygians for 'Parugiai'=people cultivating a rye (from the same word comes and 'pyragai'=cakes). Moreover in Lithuanian language Aleksandras 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras'=born second and Pilypas 'Paliepias'=giving the orders78.151.173.120 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Among historical linguists, Hellenic and Greek do not mean the same thing. So in fact, if you wanted to use that a source, it would be a source that claims that Macedonian was not Greek. But there is considerable debate about the linguistic affiliations of the old Macedonian language and that is why the table on the main article says possibly. SoapTalk/Contributions 22:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you put the ISO order and put 'Hellenic' in the language family? and you have to explain how the linguists differentiate Greek to Hellenic. are you those linguists? Do you think the linguists that made the family grouping aren't fully aware of how the terms Hellenic and Greek are related? of course they are. that's why they grouped it like that in the first place.150.140.226.174 (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
..Family tree... we have this classification in the article:
"==Classification==
Due to the fragmentary attestation various interpretations are possible.[1] The discussion is closely related to the reconstruction of the Proto-Greek language. The suggested historical interpretations of Macedonian include:[2]
an Indo-European language which is a close cousin to Greek and also related to Thracian and Phrygian languages, suggested by A. Meillet (1913) and I. I. Russu (1938),[3] or part of a Sprachbund encompassing Thracian, Illyrian and Greek (Kretschmer 1896, E. Schwyzer 1959).
an "Illyrian" dialect mixed with Greek, suggested by K. O. Müller (1825) and by G. Bonfante (1987).
a Greek dialect with a non-Indo-European substratal influence, suggested by M. Sakellariou (1983).
a NW Doric Greek dialect with a Phrygian influence on a par with the Anatolian substratum on Pamphylian Greek (C.Brixhe, A.Panayotou 1994).[7][8]"
and from all these scenarios the sum-up is "Indo-European, possibly Greek" ?
which can mean
1."IE, not Greek",
2."IE, related to Greek" and
3."IE, Greek".
isn't that a wrong approach since the 1. scenario does not exist among any of the scholars' proposed classifications? as you can see none of the views excludes the relation to Greek.
so the "possibly Greek" is OR.
the only sourced family tree is the Linguist List one. and it's the one the international standard ISO 639-3 uses too. I know it's in the language codes sections already but that's a coincidence because sil.org uses it. (which again shows its validity amongst the wider linguist community).
so i propose
what do you propose? do you think "possibly Greek" is a right approach? when no linguist/scholar classifies it like that? 150.140.226.79 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
References
^B. Joseph (2001): "Ancient Greek". In: J. Garry et al. (eds.) Facts about the world's major languages: an encyclopedia of the world's major languages, past and present.Online paper
^A. Meillet [1913] 1965, Apeçu d'une histoire de la langue grecque, 7th ed., Paris, p. 61. I. Russu 1938, in Ephemeris Dacoromana 8, 105-232. Quoted after Brixhe/Panayotou 1994: 209.
^ abMasson, Olivier (2003) [1996]. "[Ancient] Macedonian language". In Hornblower, S. and Spawforth A. (eds.) (ed.). The Oxford Classical Dictionary (revised 3rd ed. ed.). USA: Oxford University Press. pp. pp. 905-906. ISBN0-19-860641-9. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help); |pages= has extra text (help)
^Hammond, N.G.L (1993) [1989]. The Macedonian State. Origins, Institutions and History (reprint ed. ed.). USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-814927-1. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
^Ahrens, F. H. L. (1843), De Graecae linguae dialectis, Göttingen, 1839-1843 ; Hoffmann, O. Die Makedonen. Ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum, Göttingen, 1906.
^A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity p.498 [1]ISBN0521833078
^Indo-European Linguistics [2] p.28 by Michael Meier-Brügger, Matthias Fritz, Manfred Mayrhofer ISBN3110174332
Hi
Hi there, I'm a student of Ancient History at KCL and this article confuses me a little bit, it seems to put forward the proposition that there is currently a widescale scholarly debate occurring as to whether Macedonian was a Greek language or not, or even more absurdly, whether it was a Slavic language! As far as I am aware, there is no such debate, practically every primary and secondary source I have read refers to the Macedonians as speaking a dialect of Greek. I refer to secondary sources as well because if there was such as debate as so many users claim, then surely it would transcend the Republic of Skopje and encompass respected institutions such as Oxford and their professors as well, but it simply doesn't.
Take it from someone who studies Ancient History, call it disputed, but to claim there is an academic dispute other than from Skopjean 'Academia' is patently false, practically every scholar of note considers it to be a Greek dialect.
The article does not claim that Ancient Macedonian was even possibly Slavic. It offers 3 conjectures: dialect of Greek, a language closely related to Greek (sister language), an independent IE language in contact with Greek. The article also indicates that the first is believed by the largest number of scholars, and the third by the fewest. If you go into the article, you will find references for all of this. If there are problems with the references, please fix them or bring them here for discussion. Jd2718 19:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat, my impression of what is academic mainstream is different from yours. See /archive3#Checked sources. The result of that survey was: Practically every linguistic reference work, except Greek authors, considers the issue to be undecided and undecidable. It's true that there isn't a lively ongoing debate right now, but that's owing to just this lack of data, for all I can see. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
indeed, there is no "lively debate" at all. We are just laying out the status quo, that is, the three possibilities mentioned. The issue is static, and unless some spectacular (non-forgery) inscription turns up, it is bound to remain so indefinitely. dab(𒁳) 09:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anybody seriously puts forward the idea than Ancient Macedonian would have been Slavic, I've never encountered such an idea. It's true that some scholars in the Republic of Macedonia try to stress the difference between Ancient Macedonian and Greek, just like some scholars in Greece try to claim a definite link between Ancient Macedonian and Greek. Both these opposing efforts are more politic than scientific. Most serious and non-biased scholar will agree that we simply do not know enough about Ancient Macedonian to be sure. What we do know for sure is that Greek was a language used by the Ancient Macedonians, but we cannot say for what reason. Perhaps because it was their own language, or a dialect of the same language? Or perhaps because they spoke a different language but used Greek because of its importance at that time, just as we are using English now even though many of us speak language not closely related to English. The article, to be NPOV, should make it clear that the only consesus there is on this matter is a consensus of us not knowing enough. JdeJ 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Fut.Perf: Olivier Masson said: "Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it [Macedonian] an Aeolic dialect, we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek. This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested..." Olivier Masson, French linguist, "Oxford Classical Dictionary:Macedonian Language", 1996. so he says both earlier and new views give it as a Greek dialect. so what you say about "Practically every linguistic reference work, except Greek authors, considers the issue to be undecided and undecidable." is proven wrong. see "classification" section of this article. many scholars have spoken. Non-Greek scholars. and all of them can see the close relation to Greek and moreover a good bunch sees the language as a Greek dialect. Not to mention the Linguist List.150.140.226.79 (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
..and another one: " * Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Otto Hoffmann, German linguist, "Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum", Göttingen, 1906
and more: "The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all contending that it was a dialect of Greek." "Cambridge Ancient Histories", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998..
150.140.226.207 (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
the katadesmos
The Pella curse bit is phrased most misleadingly. The tablet is in Doric/NW Greek. This proves the presence of Greek speakers in Macedon in the 3rd c. BC. The tablet is ostensibly not in XMK, so what does it tell us about XMK, beyond the theoretical possibility that XMK was influenced by Doric/NW Greek from at least the 3rd c.? (We know that it was influenced most severely by Attic from at least the 4th c., so what is new?) The Pella tablet is a red herring. dab(𒁳) 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong dab. The language of the tablet has been considered as the actual, uninfluenced "ancient Macedonian language" itself, and not just a Doric dialect that was spoken along with it. To quote from Olivier Masson:
“Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it [Macedonian] an Aeolic dialect, we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek. This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested..."
It all comes down to the fact that everything some people take for granted about a "Macedonian language" are nothing but assumptions. Miskin 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. No one has ever provided an adequate explanation as to why the Macedonians would choose to speak an aberrant form of Doric as a second or "foreign" language, if we accept the theory that the language of the katadesmos was not XMK. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Plus that "3rd BC" bit is misleading. All academic sources printed or otherwise date it in between the middle to early 4th century BC: Voutiras, Dubois, Brixhe, Panayotoy, Masson, Hall, Hunter, O'Neil and others that I can’t remember right now; I do have the references back at home though. There is also at least one source (Hammond quoted by Borza, I think) that describe it as late 5th century; but it was probably based on an early draft report. The only "exception" is the web entry of Radcliffe which most likely is a mix-up of dates i.e. 380 – 360 BC or something became "3rd century BC" by mistake. The tablet, is most definitely dated, so far, by scholars as 4th century BC. Ninio 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Now I’ve brushed up the Hammond-Borza case again; in his paperback edition (1992) Borza included Hammond in the Appendix (see google books). In his earlier edition (1990) Borza did not consider the Pella tablet and Hammond "pointed" that out to him. As it seems Hammond was aware of the finding at least since 1990-91... Ninio 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since everybody agrees that there's no consensus leaning towards the "separate language" view, then how come this article is still called "ancient Macedonian language" and not simply "ancient Macedonian" or something equivalent? Pseudo-neutral editors like Decius/Alexander 007 who had chosen to use Borza as their primary source (a scholar who admits his views are not mainstream) are not around anymore (except maybe ocasionally as anon vandals), so maybe we can reconsider a less contradictory name for the article. Miskin 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
First, as with most other language pages, we need the disambiguation in order to clarify the page deals with the language and not the ethnicity, culture or whatnot. Second, in real life and in the serious literature (as opposed to Wikipedia jargon), the term "language" as used here does not entail "separate language". So the problem doesn't exist. Third, all the English-speaking literature that deals with the issue talks of the "ancient Macedonian language" or "language of the Ancient Macedonians", even those authors who tend towards the view that this language was in fact a Greek dialect. Because, as I just said, this is simply not a contradiction, as you seem to assume. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
A. Garrett
Part of the 'Paleobalkan' section reads:
"In 1999, A. Garrett has surmised that Macedonian may at an early stage have been part of a dialect continuum which spanned the ancestor dialects of all south-western Indo-European languages (including Greek), but that it then remained peripheral to later areal processes of convergence which produced Greek proper. He argues that under this perspective sound-change isoglosses such as the deaspiration of voiced stops may be of limited diagnostic value, while ultimately the question of whether Macedonian belongs or does not belong to a genetic union with Greek is moot."
Maybe you should consider to revise this bit. Garrett's paper is treating Macedonian as an outlier of Greek using also a Greek 'dialectological' approach. - Kim (26/3/07, 20:30) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.240.229.65 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I wrote that summary. To the best of my understanding, it is correct. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added the Britannica video to the Links in view of the fact that Ancient remains that have been discovered inAiani (macedonia) prove that the ancient Macedonian society spoke and wrote in Greek Vladreal 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
if by "ancient" you mean "Hellenism", that's hardly news. dab(𒁳) 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The new is the region of Upper Macedonia
Overturning,once and for all,the common accepted belief that Upper Macedonia was both socially and culturally isolated from the rest of ancient Greece.On the Contrary by the (6)Sixth Century BC
Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic,artistic and cultural level
Inhabitants of this area lived in well-planned cities and not in nomadic groups
depending on farming and animal husbandry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanos (talk • contribs) 13:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Actually dab. No. We're not talking about Hellenistic era, 323 BC. We are talking earlier. Earlier than this and the ancient Macedonians article already digs. We are talking about 14 century BC. Yes. Fourteenth century before Christ. So for us interested it is news. Have a look:
[this] is the video from Britannica, that talks about the Macedonian tribe in 14th century BC talking Greek and making Greek art since then. that is another Britannica original [[3]]
..And dab, you like many others confuse the term "Hellenism" with "Hellenistic era".
Hellenism means the Hellenic culture as a whole. the Greek culture. Before and after the Hellenistic era. As you can see by this sentence in the [Britannica video]: "On the contrary, by the 6th century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic, artistic and cultural level".
When she says "Hellenism in 6th century BC" she obviously is not referring to the Hellenistic era that started in the 4th century BC. But the Hellenic culture and identity of the people in the region.150.140.226.174 (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Strattis comedy MAKEDONES
Here is the "ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ Η ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΑΣ" fragment of Strattis (fr. 26-32):
In fr. 28 they are discussing the Macedonian word σφύραινα. The Macedonian answers in rural Greek. We are only positively told that sphuraina is a Macedonian (xmk) word for some fish called κέστρα "hammer" in Athens. The Macedonian speaks funny, but he speaks comprehensible Greek. Which is to be expected in an Athenian play (no subtitles -- even the Persians are forced to speak some comical but comprehensible form of Greek. Much like the stereotypical Nazis or Soviets of Hollywood, which speak funny but comprehensible English). dab(𒁳) 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, for the record, in Modern Greek we have a very popular (and tasty!) fish called "sfyrida" (σφυρίδα). You could probably use this as a piece of evidence that XMK was entirely absorbed by Koine. (provided we're talking about the same fish, which I find very probable given its popularity in the Greek waters). NikoSilver 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I'm the one in the background, and it weighs about 20Kg, and I caught it myself. I asked for help eating it. NikoSilver 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
you are right: the alleged Attic name "κέστρα" is practically unattested, and was apparently replaced by the Macedonian name very early on. It's an item for our "XMK loanwords in Attic Greek" list. Sorry I wasn't there to help you finish your κέστρα σφυρίδα dab(𒁳) 15:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome anytime you set your foot in Athens. On a side note (and despite my beliefs but for the immaterial "satisfaction" of our gene-hungry audience), which of the two below would you consider a stronger linguistic indication that a modern ethnic group partly "carries the blood" of an ancient tribe:
The ancient tribe's language derived from the main ancient branch of the language spoken today -or-
The ancient tribe's language was fused into the main ancient branch of the language spoken today?
I'm afraid your response would shift the long standing edit wars to more "applicable" terrains, so you'll be excused if you refrain from posting it. (you still get to eat the fish though) NikoSilver 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid it is my considered opinion that excluding modern (post-1600) migrations, genes have a far higher 'viscosity' than language, and the genetic descendants of any given ancient tribe will mostly (say, 80%) simply remain nailed to the spot geographically, never mind language. dab(𒁳) 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ναι, ρε! και που να δεις τα υπόλοιπα! NikoSilver 19:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Είσαι λίγο γεματούλης πάντως - και μάλλον όχι από τα πολλά θαλασσινά. Η φτώχεια θέλει καλοπέραση, έτσι; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Athenian comedies used to make fun of the idioms and the dialects of other Greeks like those of Spartans, Boeoteans and of course Macedonians. Some time in the 5th century BC a comedy entitled "Pausanias or Macedonians" written by the Athenian Strattis was played in Athens. In various parts of this comedy a Macedonian explains how various words of the attic dialect are called in the Macedonian dialect.
It can be inferred from these references that Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect. In a work of the ancient writer Athenaios, one can find samples of the work of Strattis. In an article written by A. Koerte quoting Athenaios VII,323b we can find in that comedy of Strattis the following conversation:
"STRATTIS GOYN EN MAKEDOSIN EROMENOU TINOS ATTIKOY VS AGNOOYNTOS TO ONOMA KAI LEGONTOS: H SFYRAINA D' ESTI TIS;" FHSIN O ETEROS " KESTRAN MEN YMMES VTTIKOI KIKLHSKETE".
In English (as it appeared in the article by M. Sakellariou) an Athenian asks "sledfish, what do you mean?" and a Macedonian replies "wha ye Attics ca' a hammer-fush, ma freen" i.e. in my own words, which I hope do not change the meaning of this phrase "what you Attics call a hammer-fush,(we call a) freen".
One can appreciate the value of the Macedonian's reply for the object under discussion if he does not forget that as is clear from many passages in Aristophanes the attic comedians made their non-Greeks speak broken Greek with an a mixture of barbarian words (some of them imaginary) while Lacedaemonians, Boeotians, Macedonians and other Greeks spoke their own dialects. The Macedonian's reply is in good Greek with dialect (ymmes, sfyraina) and archaizing elements (kiklhskete). Both YMMES and SFYRAINA are not attic words but they are Greek. Therefore claims that Athenians "hellenized" Macedonians seem to be baseless. It is also noted that these words were used by the Macedonians some time in the 5th century BC that is at least 50 years before their alleged hellenization.
It might be added to the section on ancient references that Plutarch notes that when Alexander got angry, he would start yelling in Macedonian; implying that the two languages (Greek and M.) were different enough that the substitution of the one for the other seemed striking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.123 (talk • contribs)
No more striking than the juxtaposition of Pontian or Cypriot and standard Greek would be today. Another non sequitur. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
MACEDONIANS+AETOLIANS / Illyrians
I removed some material here ([6]) and was reverted without a comment. The passages I removed constituted "original research", as they were not attributed to reputable modern secondary sources making these arguments. To the anon who reverted: Please make yourself familiar with the policy about verifiability, and then come here to bring sources if you wish to keep these passages. Thank you, Fut.Perf.☼ 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Polybius is a primary source. We need secondary sources telling us how modern historians interpret Polybius. Any speculation on our own part about what significance those Polybius quotes have, what they mean, how they have to be interpreted, what conclusions one can draw from them etc., are not legitimate here. You were not just quoting him, you were using him as an argument to support a position. We can't do that. - As for the Strattis section, I know it wasn't by you, it's been around for a while and was discussed earlier, but nobody ever bothered to either confirm it against the literature or remove it. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is secondary source about Strattis
The Fragments of Attic Comedy After Meineke, Bergk, and Kock - Page 823
by John Maxwell Edmonds, and [7][8]
Dialect in Aristophanes: And the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek[9]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Meineke/Bergk/Kock and Edmonds publication seems to be just the text edition of those fragments, not a piece of secondary literature discussing them in relation to the question at issue here (namely, to what extent the fragment is representative of whatever one might understand by "Ancient Macedonian"). The only truly relevant bit I can see at first sight here (and thanks for digging that out for the first time!) is the one by Stephen Colvin, Dialect in Aristophanes: And the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek. That's a nice one. Of course, it contains hardly anything conclusive, stating in fact: "Our ignorance of the linguistic situation in Macedonia remains almost complete". Amen. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing conclusive offcourse,just an evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
and the secondary source about Polybius is Marcus Alexander Templar
[10][11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't see whether Templar is a reputable scholar and whether his writings would count as a reliable source. Judging from a few passages I found in your web search, he is certainly no linguist. Was this argument made in a printed peer-reviewed publication? Fut.Perf.☼ 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Polybius suggests that nothing more
What about "Attempts to link Macedonian with Thracian and/or Illyrian in various ways are quite incoclusive
[12]
Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction - Page 405
by Benjamin W. Fortson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That seems like a legitimate thesis to me. I'll let you do the honours. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Fortson book is definitely a good source, yes. Of course, we should use it both for its estimation of the XMK-Illyrian and the XMK-Greek link. It would be good to have access to the whole chapter on XMK, probably just the preceding page of the one shown in Google. Anybody got access? Fut.Perf.☼ 14:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again, the Fortson book is nice but it doesn't contain anything we don't already have. Basically, he's just saying in so many words: We don't know. Which is exactly what we ought to be doing too, instead of filling up the page with argumentative crap. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
WHY POLYBIUS QUOTE IS IMPORTANT?
DID THE MACEDONIANS NEED A GREEK TRANSLATOR TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER GREEKS?
IS THERE ANY SUCH SOURCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not if it is used in a context where it could be understood as insinuating something about their "Greekness". We don't use quotes and references to send a POV message, except when explicitly reporting on the POV proposed by a reliable source. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Re. this "source" [13], [14]: where in that book is the Titus Livius quote used as an argument about the Greekness of Macedonian? It isn't, it's not even mentioned. What about "bring a peer-reviewed academic source that uses exactly this argument" do you not understand? -- That said, the book is interesting as it's the first linguistic reference I've seen that sums up the scholarly opinion as falling on the side of "probably" Greek (still based on Brixhe/Panayotou, which is also our own main reference, so it's basically still nothing new.)
And for heaven's sake, stop edit-warring on two articles in parallel. Let's have this discussion here, shall we? Fut.Perf.☼ 09:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is already in the article.Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars like H. Ahrens and O. Hoffmann [15]
and we have also a primary source supporting that Macedonians did not speak the same
language with Athenians but Aetolians and Acarnanians which are by definition NORTH-WEST,DORIC DIALECTS
and it's not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? I asked you a simple question: WHAT RELIABLE SOURCE USES THE TITUS LIVIUS QUOTE AS AN ARGUMENT? None does, apparently. As long as that is the case, I'll revert this passage again.
By the way, please sign your talk page postings with ~~~~, which will automatically turn into a time-stamped signature. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Secondary Source with the quote of Livy
A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity - Page 435 [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, finally. Not that I personally find it particularly convincing, but I see the argument is actually made. I'll slightly reword it to make sure that the implication that by "same language" Livy meant specifically Northwest dialect rather than just Greek as a whole is by no means a self-evident, established fact, but an interpretation proposed by some Greek authors. (I personally find that interpretation pretty bizarre, given the context, which is all about "Greeks vs. Romans", not about "Dorians vs. Athenians" or anything like that, but that's just my opinion of course). Fut.Perf.☼ 10:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A. Panayotou: The position of the Macedonian dialect. In: Maria Arapopoulou, Maria Chritē, Anastasios-Phoivos Christides (eds.), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007. 433-458 [17]
another secondary source (non-greek) using the quote of Livy regarding the distinction Greeks VS Barbarians
[18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but not with the claim that they meant specifically Northwest Greek as opposed to Koine (which would be trivial for that time period). Also, don't forget that the passage quoted is in the speech of a Macedonian ambassador who is trying to convince the Aetolians that they should prefer Macedonian rule over Roman rule, with the central argument that the Romans are evil foreigners. He had an obvious political interest in stressing how Greeks and Macedonians belonged together. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And please please please learn to sign your talkpage contributions. Use ~~~~ after your posts. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I now see you were actually trying :-) You need to put those tildes in the text itself though, not in the edit summary. Just after what you write, where you want your name and the time to appear. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Athenians were also present in the event but not mentioned as having the same language
Thank you for all the pieces of advice 77.49.0.219 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WHAT IS MORE INTERESTING IS THAT BOTH ACARNANIANS AND AETOLIANS(like Macedonians) HAVE BEEN LABELLED AS BARBARIANS
77.49.0.219 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The northwest Greeks -Epirots and Macedons-
Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."
E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62
Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78
Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98
Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."
Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996
EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)
North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.
Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.
Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.
Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.
A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.
Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.
The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.
His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.
An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.
It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.
Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.
Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.
Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547
The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.
Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997
Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.
David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995
Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994
the Satyres by Juvenal
Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225
"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284
"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman
Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443
Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423
A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith
Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.
That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients
History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439
Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74
Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.
Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;
Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.
Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Mistake
In the Macedonian in Classical sources section, it states:
The late (1st century AD) historian Quintus Curtius suggests that the Macedonian language may not be intelligble to the average speaking person (Hist. Alex. 6.11.4): "He (sc. Philotas) found the country people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia ridiculous, and he was not ashamed, though born in Macedonia, to have an interpreter with him when listening to people speaking his own language."[14]
This section should be removed as the people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia themselves spoke their own strange dialects that any Ancient Greek would have trouble with, let alone a Macedonian. The Phygians and paphlagonians were not as the paragraph suggests, the average speaking person. Here For example is the article on the Phrygian language. Any Greek would struggle to understand these dialects without help so this paragraph should not be here as it has no bearing on the Ancient Macedonian Language or any other. Reaper7 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll reintroduce it, though with a different wording. The passage in its context is quite important; it's about Alexander and his generals being described as essentially bilingual, with Standard Koine and Macedonian as markedly different varieties/registers/languages/whatever, and Macedonian serving as a marker of social/ethnic identity. The context makes it quite clear that the variety Philotas is accused of having neglected is in fact Macedonian proper, as used also by Alexander himself. This is a pretty central argument for those who favour a view of Macedonian as rather markedly distinct from Koine, to the point of non-intelligibility. (Even though the Kapetanopoulos study referenced tries to debunk that argument, rather unsuccessfully in my own professional opinion, but the argument is still there.) Fut.Perf.☼ 21:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
what has got this to do with the macedonia-skopje dispute
The ancient macedonian language has got nothing to do with the ongoing macedonia-Fyrom dispute.
I suggest removing the part of the article suggesting it is of "some importance", unless someone can explain the link between the two...here on the talk page, don t edit this as spam because it s not!
This above is misleading.The people of Fyrom dont speak phrygian,thracian,illyrian or any anceint language of the area.They speak Slavic related to Bulgarian.The above is misleading and makes on think that Slavs would be in Ancient Greece.Megistias (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the wording is not optimal. The issue is ideologically important, not scientifically important. But some such notice might still be good to have. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Reword it then,".....even if no slavic language was present in the antiquity in this region" or something to that effect.Megistias (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I would disagree. It is important issue. The debate between Rep. of Macedonia and Greece is to use or not use the atribute Macedonian and the atribute is in ancient macedonian language. This wikipedia article can be used in the debate. However the ancient macedonian language is disputed to be Greek even though if someone reads this article it will be 99% sure that is a Greek language.
The fact is that few words are analized and that can lead to confusions. That should be pointed out in the article. Even the contemporary Macedonian language (a slavic language) can be regarded as Greek dialect if few word are analized. Our usual word for hat is капа (kapa) (we also use шапка (shapka) (a Turcism)). Greek word for hat is καπέλο, similar to contemporary Macedonian, Italian and Polish. We use кромид (kromid), for onion, ела (ela) is short for come here. As you can see it can sounds like a dialect of Greek by few words.
The contemporary Macedonian language is excluded in the debate for the ancient Macedonian language on the ground that is "slavic" language and the "Slavs" came later. There are lot of slavic words that we use (Macedonian has two or three synonims for most of the words) and lot of word of unknown origin that we regard as old. We use kaucija as usual word for something left as garanty, an ancient Macedonia word for hat. We use broj (in all Balkan slavic languages, but not in the north and east slavic languages) that you can read it as broi for number (in ancient Macedonian it is koios, whereas the ancient Greeks use arithmos). We use kopile for bastard (korinaios). We use bukti for something that raises and makes noise. Ognot bukti (the fire is growing and makes noise). buktas is wind in ancient Macedonian (the wind can also bukti, grow and make noise). We use zbori for talk (bazô in antique Macedonian) The readers should also take in consideration that we don't use -os. Alexandros is Aleksandar in contemporary Macedonian. Theodorus is Todor. Dimitrios is Dimitar or Mitre. But on the ground of the analyses of 20 or 30 words there is no possibility to say anything about one language. (Toci (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
Modern macedonian language is close to Bulgarian a south slavic dialect.Megistias (talk) 09:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Macedonian is in the slavic group of languages. It is close to Bulgarian (similar gramatics, similar vocabulary, different pronounciation) and Serbian-Bosnian-Croat (different gramatics. similar vocabulary, different pronounciation) and a bit far from Slovenian. But there are lot of Greek, Turkish and Latin words as well in contemporary Macedonian. There are also words of unkonown origin and some of them are similar to the few ancient Macedonian words. But neigher the Macedonians or Greeks can't say on base of similarity with few words that it is a dialect or root of their language. It will be a biased view.
I was reading this article several years ago, and then the dispute was that the ancient Macedonian is either an Indo-European language (without "which is a close cousin to Greek") close to Thracian and Phrygian (as is written in the heading Abstracted Indo-European language), a dialect of ancient Greek or ancient Greek language. Now if you read the classification you can see that it is written "Indo-European language which is a close cousin to Greek", even though in the heading says "Indo-European language in its own right, not especially close to Greek". The classification of the language as "Greek" or not is by all means important in the Rep. of Macedonia-Greece dispute as Fut.Perf. writes. If the ancient Macedonian exist as Greek language then Greece can claim their heritage, if ancient Macedonian exist as non-Greek language, but other Indo-European language, the Greek claim on ancient Macedonia is very weakened. (Toci (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
You dont understand a basic thing.Slavic is unrelated to Greek,Phrygian,Thracian,Illyrian.Even if it turned out that ancient macedonian was Phrygian it would be irrelevant since Fyrom is in Dardanian and Paeonian soil and not soil of ancient Macedon.11:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias (talk • contribs)
Even if it was phrygian they were hellenised and were Hellenes since many centuries BC and the issue is simple.Megistias (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
if you count "four" as "many", then yes. dab(𒁳) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
lol dab, you would disagree? because 4 centuries before Christ is a mere 'few' centuries from the present dispute? a tribe north of Greece with indisputably Greek kings like Alexander the Great being Hellenes 2400 years before today is something to argue about today? ...150.140.227.78 (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted Proof, Deleted evidence about the Greekness of Macedonians
why do you delete evidence?
why is this article not including the fact that "All of the over 6000 inscriptions found in Macedonia until now are in Greek.[1]"
is there a reason? why you hide evidence like that? if there is not, can you see why we should not put this in there? is anyone here a historian or archaeologist? or anyone consulting one? and why is there not some ancient sources here like there are there: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia ? how can the reader know about ancient Macedonian inscriptions? it must be there. DefendEurope (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
sigh, being in Greek, these inscriptions are not in Macedonian, even though found in Macedonia, and are thus completely offtopic to the question. dab(𒁳) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The archeological excavation in Skopje's fortress discovered a bronze coin of Alexander III (the Great). The coin has of course Greek inscription, but that is not proof that the people that lived there were Greeks and spoke Greek language. On the territory of Republic of Macedonia the inscriptions in Greek are common until the Romans conquered Macedonia (168 B.C.), then both Roman and Greek (photographies from Scupi and Stobi) inscription are common. Greek language was in the antique as English is today, everyone that was literate used it (sometimes in a broken manner). Even more it was the only written language on the Balkans in that time (later Latin was added). But that does not mean that the entire Balkan was Greece and everyone was speaking only Greek or Latin. (Toci (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
It depends on what period we are talking. Skopje was in ancient Dardanian land and there are no Greek inscriptions of 5th c.BC there.Catalographer (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The Greek inscription are rare everywhere in the region of Macedonia before 5th c.BC. Alexander I of Macedon was named philhellen and his Greek origin was disputed by the other Greeks. With his reign probably the Greek alphabet was introduced in Macedonia as well as the hellenizatation. There is not much archeological data from present borders of Skopje from the 5th c.BC (even from before the 5th c.BC) to the foundation of Scupi (the remains are mostly on the hills and mountains around Skopje, whereas Skopje today is in the valley. Scupi lived only few hundred years in the valley. It was located in an unstrategical position and was easy to be conquered and plundered). Skopje valley entered the Roman Empire after the last Macedonian-Roman war and the settlement Scupi was founded as coloniae, which means that it was city of Romans (retired legionares). If the Romans have found a settlement of non Roman population they would have not named it coloniae (Stobi was municipium for example and included a pre-Roman settlement). Ancient Skopje, Scupi, was part of Moesia after Moesia was conquered. Skopje is hypotetically assumed to be a Roman base (a camp of two legions, IV Scythica and V Macedonica) for conquering of Moesia by the archeologists that worked on the excavations of Scupi (Koraċeviċ, 2002, Scupi, Skopje:Museum of the city of Skopje).
Albanian today try to prove that Albanians are kin to ancient Dardanians and saying Skopje is an ancient Dardanian land is a bit Great Albania politics. Skopje or Scupi was not a city before the Romans, it is marked as Roman city on the Peutinger tableTabula Peutingeriana and it is placed between M and a of Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Philellene in Ancient Greek means Greek patriot.Many Athenians also had that Epithete.Fyrom was in Paeonian & Dardanian soil and not in Macedon and had nothing to do with Ancient Macedonia.Hesiod mentions them in 700 BC along with the Thessalians in Theogony.Megistias (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Alexander I proved on the court that he is a Greek. You don't judge the Greek patriots for being Greek. I agree about the Ancient Greek inscriptions, they are everywhere from India to Italy, as I wrote we have them a lot in Republic of Macedonia. (Toci (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Inscriptions of 5th BC/6th BC are also rare in other Grecophone regions. Only the future excavations in Lower Macedonia
(around Aigai) will discover the whole truth.
Because Macedonians conquered it and Romans founded a colony this does not mean that Skopje area was not inside an ethnically Dardanian land Catalographer (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree on that, the etnicity is unknown, could be Dardanian, but then the only sure archeological remains are those of the Romans. Until earlier distinctive settlements are discovered we can just assume that is maybe Dardanian, maybe Paionian, maybe ancient Macedonian land. By the Peutinger tableTabula Peutingeriana (copy from the 13 century) Scupi it is in Macedonian land. (Toci (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Skopje lies like some dusty carpet in the old Dardanian plain..The later settlement (6th century BC), in addition to Dardanian ceramics.. a Dardanian settlement refounded as a Roman town..[19]
And East Macedonia is considered Macedonia after 400 BC but it was mostly a Thracian land , see Bisaltae and other tribes Catalographer (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You can read the text from a bit up: "Go south. Get into Bosnia. Get into Macedonia... Skopje lies like some dusty carpet in the old Dardanian plain..." [20]. One of the key words in your pointed book is Macedonia (not related to Greece), not Dardania.
From your second source: "During the 5th and 6th century Scupi and other Macedonian settlements were increasingly under attack..."
These sources are touring guides, even they write about Macedonia, not about Dardania??? Is it legible to refer to touring guides at all??? (Toci (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Fyrom is in the soil of Dardania and Paeonia not that of ancient Macedon.Megistias (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Page 49:
"... historic Lychnitis around Ohrid and in Dardania around Skopje in the upper Vardar basin. Among the many tumuli surviving in Pelagonia only Visoi has so far been fully investigated. ..."
Page 201:
"... the Pannonians the Scordisci have an Illyrian name perhaps connected with the mons Scordus or Scardus (Sar planina west of Skopje). ..."
Page 213:
"... Siscia and Sirmium at either end of the Sava valley, Aequum among the Delmatae in Dalmatia and Scupi (Skopje) among the Dardani in Moesia.33 Though its beginnings were marked by atrocity, ..."
Page 245:
"... was a potent symbol, especially among the southern Illyrians. Even in the Roman period altars were dedicated in Dardania (near Skopje) to the serpentine pair Dracon and Dracaena. ..."
Page 266:
"... whose varieties of Romance language are descended from Latin-speaking pastoralists. In Dard- ania the old Roman city of Scupi (Skopje), destroyed by an earthquake in AD 518, was abandoned as its Romanized population chose to remain in the surrounding hills, ...
Megistias (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
^Inscriptiones Graecae, Part X: Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Multiple vols., Berlin. See Online Epigraphical Database
Vasil Ilyov and others
I’m not sure what we can make of it but with regards those citations underlining real or perceived political connotations of this language with the (Slavic) Macedonian and the Macedonian (Slavs), here's something that you might find interesting.
Ilyov's invaluable contribution is listed as a "Selected Internet Resource" within the Library of Congress' - Portals of the World, Macedonia as an "Introduction to Macedonian Language", no less! To my knowledge it's being there for at least 3 to 4 years. Notice the complete state of confusion (or is it their attempt to NPOV?) within its "Selected Historical Resources" listing [21]. Have a look around the "portal", you might be surprised what kind of resources the "European Division, Collections and Services Directorate" of the Library of Congress (online) recommends. --05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The Portal's links are advertised as "Resources Selected by the Library of Congress Subject Experts", while the European Division (European Reading Room) is listed as The Library of Congress >> Especially for Researchers >> Research Centers.
Iljov research is based on Marija Gimbutas and her theory of Old European culture and the Old European script. The neolithic inscriptions are found all around the Balkans as Gimbutas shows and Iljov tries to relate these inscriptions found in Republic of Macedonia to words in Macedonian language (we prefer not to be named as Macedonian (Slavs), see Talk:Macedonia (terminology), Macedonian language and ethnic Macedonians is accepted in Wikipedia). Iljov argues that there are words that exist both in the neolithic inscriptions and Macedonian language (you can agree or disagree reading the Iljov's interpretations). Iljov's interpretation is excluded in the debate for the ancient Macedonian language on the ground that Macedonian language is a solely Slavic language and has no connection to the languages before. (Toci (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
If the MKD is related to XMK then all the Slavic languages are also.
Acc. Ilyov..Payonian, Pelazgian, Venets or Enets, Brygian or , Phrygian...all of them Macedonians!..
As I wrote Iljov interprets the neolithic alphabet. I think there is an example from Thrace. The neolithic alphabet from Old European culture precedes the Greek alphabet by at least 2 millenia.
It is not necessary that if MKD is related to XMK then all the Slavic languages are, maybe it is the XMK addition that makes MKD different then the other Slavic languages (no cases in the gramatics, article, unique words etc). If you see the evolution of Bulgarian from Thracian, maybe there is analogy XMK-MKD to Thracian-Bulgarian. If ancient Macedonian was similar to Thracian and Bulgarian is a mix of Thracian and Slavic, then probably XMK is mixed in MKD as much as Thracian is in Bulgarian. That will stand only if today the Macedonians and Bulgarians speak very similar languages (and they do). Even if XMK was a Greek language or close to Greek, the intermix can exist as well. The Slavs didn't kill the local population, they blended. If they did the Vlachs and Roma (who speak Latin and Indian for centuries before the Slavs and they still speak it with Slavic intermix) would have not existed today. I just don't know how the Slavs blended in Greece. I was reading that the Slavs conquered all the Greece and settled even on Peloponnese. (Toci (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Ouch. At least the last part makes his intentions clear to everyone (one can hope?): "Macedonians were and remain an authentic people on the Balkan peninsula while others came and went as guests or conquerors." Hrm, off-topic ranting, nevermind me. 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats a fringe theory.Bulgarian is slavic and so is the language of Fyrom nothing to do with thracian phrygian of illyrian.Megistias (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Toci Fyrom is in Dardanian/Paeonian soil meaning mostly Thracian soil, the people now speak slavic kin to bulgarian urelated to all and any ancient languages and you think there is some relation with macedon?No geography,no language no nothing.Megistias (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Old European culture precedes Indoeuropeans and XMK is indoeuropean centum , Thracian is indoeuropean satem Catalographer (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
MKD Macedonian shares nearly all the same distinct characteristics which separate Bulgarian from other Slav languages lack of cases, the post-positive definite article, replacement of the infinitive form, and preservation of the simple verbal forms for the past and imperfect tenses-but whether it is truly a different language from Bulgarian or merely a dialect of it is a moot point.
Hugh Poulton Page 116 Who Are the Macedonians? Catalographer (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Old European culture precedes the antique Indoeuropean languages, but it can't be dissmissed as non-Indoeuropean. Maybe it is the cradle of the Indoeuropean languages because the Neolithic cultures were in contact and their three centers were Old Europe, Mesopotamia and India (China had also Neolithic culture in the same time, but rather separate from these three centers). Before Gimbutas it was thought that only Mesopotamia and India were centers of the Neolithic cultures and the Indoeuropean languages were import in Europe. Gimbutas based on 300000 artifacts from Old Europe culture shows that it was a separate center of Neolithic culture. In that time maybe the languages were not rich with words and as each word was invented it was transfered from Europe to India (words like one, two three... yes, no, etc). So you can't dissmiss the Old European culture as non-Indoeuropean.
Even Herodotus writes that when the Hellens settled the Balkans there were people before that didn't speak Greek, but changed their language to Greek. Like the Athenians, who by Herodotus were hellenized. Maybe the Athenians in 3000 BC or any time before they were hellenized they spoke pre-Greek, pre-Germanic, pre-Italic or even pre-Slavic language (but they surely spoke Indoeuropean language).
The Old European culture theory is new and it will be researched in the future to give these answers. Iljov tries to give explanation for the foundings of Old Europe script in Republic of Macedonia. So if you comment, comment on his explanation of the inscriptions and how logical are they, don't comment on where each language belongs.
About MKD and Bulgarian. MKD is Unicode language. Its existance is not disputed. This is Bulgarian POV that tries to negate or delete the Macedonian language (WP:NPOV). It is like saying that Norwegian is a dialect of Swedish or Danish language, or Swedish and Danish are a dialects of German. It is offensive. The difference between Macedonian and Bulgarian language is set. (Toci (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
There is no factual dispute. PRE-Indoeuropean peaceful, Matrilineal, and possessing a goddess-centered religion Old European culture VS Indoeuropean warlike Patrilineal Indo-European people (this further excludes the warlike Indoeuropean Macedonians)
MKD has its unicode but You started saying that MKD has unique features which separate it from other Slav languages (Bulgarian has also the same features) and that MKD and Bulgarian are so close related like XMK and Thracian...
About Ilyov..No direct attestation of the languages of pre-Indo-European Europe survives apart from some possible Pelasgian loanwords to Ancient Greek and the non-indoeuropean Basque language...another Rosetta-stone farce-attempt ..Neolithic is also PRE-Macedonian.. and even if his theory was true Neolithic script would be related to MKD and other Slavonic languages but not to XMK Catalographer (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I should have written that both Macedonian and Bulgarian are different then the other Slavic languages. You are true. That is why there analogy from XMK and Thracian... I wrote in this talk that there are XMK words that exist (a bit changed in regard to 2000+ years between) in MKD. Some Thracian words are also connected with Bulgarian and in a way with MKD. All the written examples in this article show that XMK words are only Greek. Even for the XMK word for number koios there is assumption in Greek. We and the Serbs-Croats-Bosnians use broj (Bulgarians will write broi because they don't have j in their alphabet) for number. Here is the Greek explanation why XMacedonians used koios: "Athenaeus when talking about Koios, the Titan of intelligence; and the Macedonians use koios as synonymous with arithmos". Sounds to me like a farse Greek attempt as well and the bad luck for the Greeks is that koios is explained with MKD.
I was thinking to add the MKD explanations to some XMK words in the article, but I doubt that they will stay there for long, so I wait for consensus among the editors. I will make a different heading in the talk about XMK words in MKD as soon as I go back in Macedonia and take some books on that topic. The research on XMK is ongoing in Republic of Macedonia as well.
About Ilyov. Iljov interprets rock inscriptions found in Republic of Macedonia. These are inscriptions from neolithic times, direct artefacts. Maybe his attempt is farse, but no one else had interpretation to be compared. Iljov is architect and works with archeology and conservation, so if there is a doubt, we should wait for new interpretations. The neolithic script could be related to XMK, because the evolution can be Neolitic language(pre-Slavic)-XMK(close to Thracian)-MKD(Slavic-close to Bulgarian) if XMK was language not very close (or independant) of Greek and close to Thracian and Phrygian. (Toci (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC))
Most names for numbers are derived from verbs like count,think,compose,compare,read,divide
Number Numerus PIE base *nem- "to divide, distribute, allot[25]
Thracian and Phrygian are indoeuropean and the most close languages to Ancient Greek are Phrygian and Armenian
In any case we need the oldest form of the word (so Proto-Slavic precedes Mkd) Catalographer (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In MKD the verb for counting (one, two, three...) is broi (брои) and number is broj (број). Sobiram (literature MKD) or zbiram (dialect MKD) fits the verb collecting, or picking out, or gathering (Sobiram it is used also for mathematical aggregation). Zbir is aggregation (sum) of two numbers in MKD and sobir (sobor) is gathering of people. (Toci (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
And I'm sure very similar words exist in all the other South Slavic languages as well. Broj and zbir are identical in Serbian; does it too derive from ancient Macedonian? I challenge you to find a single ancient Macedonian word that has allegedly survived in your modern "Macedonian" language and isn't also found in the neighbouring Slavic languages like Bulgarian and Serbian. By the way, the Koine Greek form of koios is poios (just click on the word to see the default Greek form), which is still very much in use in modern Greek. Much closer than broj, wouldn't you agree? Your folk etymologies aside, even if there are words that are similar, that doesn't mean that any Slavic language could possibly descend from ancient Macedonian, just that they are cognate Indo-European languages. We knew that already. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kaucia, the XMK word for hat is used as garanty in MKD. Darron, the XMK god for health is similar to zdravje (health), zdravo (healthy). Usually z is connected with s or so (with, together). So zdravo is z-dravo=s-dravo(with-dravo)=s-Daron(with Daron(god of health)). We use zdravo for greetings hi and bye (we use aj zdravo for bye usually) and it means greeting (in (with) good health). Just two examples for your chalenge. Darron is unique XMK god, the Greek god for health is Asklepios (Ἀσκληπιός).
I think Belgrade is around same distance from Ancient Macedonia as Athens, whereas Sofia is much closer. So you can't say that Serbians and Bulgarians are far from the land of Ancient Macedonia and unrelated to the people who bordered the Ancient Macedonians. You can't also say that they are purely Slavic people and the people who were living there in the antique all disappeared. I mean if you say that all the other tribes disappeared then also the ancient Greeks should have dissapeared in the medieval conquerings of the Slavs, Huns, Bulgars, Normans, Franks and the rest of the crusaders.
You can't say that the words must be completely same in XMK and in MKD. For example I can't understand Old Church Slavonic and that was official medieval language in Macedonia and predessesor of many Slavic languages including MKD. There is an evolution in MKD as language. Macedonian is rather chaotic in the cognition with the other Indo-European languages. The Macedonian numbers are cognitive with Indo-Iranian, Italic and Germanic languages. Word in Macedonian like umbrella (chador) is same with Hindi and a word dark (mrak) is similar with Swedish (mork). I have met also people from Iran and we have also some words that are used in Persian, we have also words similar to Greek and Turkish. MKD is quite a mix, with mostly Slavic words, that was evolving, because it was never official language (have that in mind when you are interpretating the languages). The Greek language on the other hand was official language in the antique as was later in the Eastern Roman empire (biblical christian language) up to the XV century and has kept most of its vocabulary throughout the ages.
In that context (an explanation) in MKD we don't use -os ending so you can use the root koi from koios (Greeks say Theodoros and my name in MKD is Todor (Theo-dorus(EL)=God'd gift(EN)=Bogov-dar(MKD)~Bodar~Todor(MKD)).
In modern Greek number is arithmos by the dictionary (arithmos is not cognitive with koios or koi). I wrote that Greek is very pracisely kept language through the ages. Mentioning poios I thought of poe or (poje) in Skopje's Black Mountain dialect or pee in literature dialect is sing. Some quasi-linguists in Macedonia say that poetry comes for MKD poe=pee (to sing). The Greek story is that poetry comes form poesis (to create). As you can see, every side on the Balkans has rather narrow view holding on one word and proclaiming antique heritage. Perceive=poios in MKD can be primeti (примети) (also in Serbian probably from meta=mark (Latin)), zabelezi (забележи) (Slavic origin from beleg=mark belo=white), vidi=to see (види) (Latin origin)(see=gleda in MKD), or percepira (перцепира) (Latin origin). Lot of choises, lot of ideas.
If there are translation of XMK in Greek with explanation, the editors can put some MKD words as well in the article. It is good to have an overall view. I just want to contribute in the quality of the article so people can get view both on the Greek (with small evolutionary explanation) and MKD (with some evolutionary explanation) words.(Toci (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
What is the etymology of broj,zbir,sobor etc? It seems to be ciphre , Arabic sifr, which gave also English zero.
Pokorny gives PIE *keu perceive for both Macedonian koios and Ancient Greek koeô perceive Catalographer (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be, but maybe it is broj and zbir that inspired the Arabic sifr (even though the Arabic numbers are used firstly by the Indians). Ancient Macedonians invaded the region where today Arabs and Indians live. If ancient Macedonians used some words for XMK number and XMK sum like broj and zbir maybe it evolved in cifr later (or maybe the ancient Macedonians learned it from there and brought it back to the Balkans). On the other hand in MKD we also use cifra (цифра) (Swedish use nummer and siffra in a same way as we do). Skopje and parts of Macedonia was conquered by the Vikings in the medieval few times, so we have some far links probably even with the Swedish. So we use broj (for whole number) and cifra (for digits) parallel as the Swedish (cifra is usually one broj, 12 is broj and 1 and 2 are cifra's). As I said, we use lot of words for one thing. We also use suma (сума) for zbir (aggregation), zbir is not the only word. Suma is used more for the final aggregation of money, or final aggregation for things that you can see as quantity, whereas zbir is more mathematical. (Toci (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC))
International cipher ,ciphra, Chiffre
1399, from M.Latin cifra, from Arabic sifr "zero," "empty, nothing," from safara "to be empty," loan-transl. of Sanskrit. sunya-s "empty." Came to Europe with Arabic numerals. [26]
International word sum- from Latin summa summus highest[27]Catalographer (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In MKD empty=prazno (празно) zero=nula (нула). Thank you for the source, seems that in MKD we have same understanding for suma as in medieval Latin. (Toci (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC))
JP Mallory and EEIC
According to the above (I quote) "the historical interpretation for Macedonian are:
an "Illyrian" language mixed with Greek (notice the use of quotation marks);
a Greek dialect mixed with Illyrian and Thracian;
a Greek dialect with a non-Greek substratal influence; and
a close cousin of Greek but not part of the Greek stock (and also related to Thracian and Phrygian) [notice the use of brackets]".
Therefore I see no clear-cut, non-Greek, "external" attribution as to justify a sub-title as an "Indo-European language external to Greek". The use of "Abstracted" was an attempt to nullify terms as "Independent" or "Separate in order to avoid possible modern-day, political connotations. I admit I was being a tat inventive but went ahead since terms as "Independent", "Palaeo-Balkan" were being tolerated for years. I'm open to any sensible propositions. --07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Not only tolerated as part of the analysis but as a sub-title, as a category, even as a language family in its infobox/tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.118.212 (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite see your point. The whole section clearly is about scenarios according to which A.M. is a non-Greek language, that's the whole point of having the section. "Non-Greek Indo-European", "Indo-European external to Greek", "Indo-European outside Greek" - whatever, take your pick. "Abstracted", as a term, simply doesn't exist in this meaning. "Indo-European" on its own doesn't fit the section well, because in all other scenarios it's IE too. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course all scenarios are talking about an IE language. I left the title open ended to get some ideas. The point is that the sources that we are circulating around here do not present a clear-cut case of an IE language external to Greek, non-Greek (not simply in the sense of a dialect), or completely out of bound to Greek etc. The whole sibling scenario(s), took over the years a completely different root in this article. To clarify: Joseph and others speak about a "sibling" language, and if my understanding is correct more so, in a sense of a sister language. JP Mallory directs it a little bit further (as a close cousin to Greek and related to Th-Ph); this is still a sibling scenario. Hence to name it as completely out of bound with Greek is, in my understanding, not correct. --09:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.118.212 (talk)
Well, a "sister language to Greek" is, by definition, outside Greek. If you are a sibling of X, you are not X. By the way, please learn to sign your postings. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we can name it a "sibling IE language to Greek", since we agree on that. I do sign my postings. I just do not feel the need to cluster the talk page with IP addresses --09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. It seems that, it's not only this "bot" which doesn't know how to interpret a non-alias signature (add a ~ more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.118.212 (talk)
No, you are not signing your posts. Please do, it's important for following an argument. We want those IP addresses on the page please. "Sibling IE language to Greek" is extremely clumsy but, well, if you must. By the way, it also lack any real content, because all IE languages are sister languages to Greek. There is no commonly recognised hierarchy within IE according to which any of the known languages are more closely related to Greek than others. The IE family tree is a flat tree with very little known internal structure. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Not "siblings" in the sense we are talking here though i.e. under a common group (Hellenic) or just a tat further (a "close cousin" with influences from near-by tongues), which also puts these dialects in extremely close proximity (not in a geographic sense) more than any other IE language (there is also the case of Greco-Armenian, but that's another story). By using 5 tildes I put a correct date & time stamp. I feel that's all is needed to follow up a conversation. I'm sorry but I do no understand that "We need you IP address" (even though it’s openly available)--157.228.118.212 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I just want to see your IP address, on the page, so that I can follow who wrote what. And please spare us those continual Sinebot edits. You know the IP address will end up on the page anyway, through Sinebot, so why are you obstinate about it? It's impolite, and it's just not the way we do things here. By the way, as you have already quoted the relevant guideline, you will have seen the sentence: "Note that if you choose to contribute to Wikipedia without logging in, you should still sign your posts. In this case, your IP address will take the place of your username.". Fut.Perf.☼ 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(und) Spare me the nonsense about being impolite and pseudo-policy quoting, please. "Abstracted IE language close to Greek" then? --157.228.118.212 (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for signing now. About "abstracted", I simply have not the slightest idea what you want to express by that. To my knowledge, that word has no meaning in any way applicable to describing relationships between languages. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
In the sense of a somewhat independent (not separate in the sense of Hellenic) but not quite there. I've already admitted it's my (clumsy?) invention. Do you propose something better? You are the professional here (no pun indented)--157.228.118.212 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the spectrum of opinions documented in that section goes as far as "intermediate between Thracian and Illyrian", and neither Thracian nor Illyrian are in fact particularly close to Greek in any well-documented way, I think "non-Greek" is really the only thing that holds that section together in contrast to those further down. That some of the opinions within that spectrum do assume a closer affinity with Greek is better left to be described in the text, in my view. Why do you insist it must go in the section heading? Fut.Perf.☼ 10:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
There might be an issue here. In a way I feel that this should not be a completely separate section from the "Hellenic" one. Having Masson come into play here (talking about 2 schools of thought) would justify such a grouping i.e. a somewhat separate tongue (in contrast to a purely Greek dialect with some sub/ad-stratum influences) but with a variety of sub-groupings; i.e. people looking at it as Th-Ill (which we have established that this is mot-propably bunk), people looking at it as Greek-Th-Ph (but with unwarranted fragmentations) and a contemporary school of linguists viewing it as a sibling language, being so close to each other (as to form a Hellenic supergroup) or a tat further (as to be a close cousin, which it may well be a Greco-Macedonian/Hellenic group, again) or a great-grand-uncle from it's sister's, mother-in-law, side. Somewhere there might justify, in my understanding, that new model proposed by Garret (which, if my view is correct, nullifies some of the above debates) making Macedonian an outliner, of ultra-close-proximal ancestry, which was not able to survive due to this and that. I do not insist on anything here. I just feel that all these "Independent Palaeo-Balkan" headings, categories and trees were not doing justice to this article, nor representing the cited views. I also feel that the sibling theory (either being a twin brother or a close cousin) is the more prevailing one by the academic community, that view it from this angle (not the Greek dialect one.) There are some other issues that I think need to be addressed here but I hope we will discuss them in due course. As it stands though, I feel that the section in question should be under "I-E language close to Greek" or thereabouts. By doing so we justify our lead and we do not contradict the classification’s interpretations . --157.228.118.212 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's make a Linguistic map of Ancient Macedonia (5th c.BC)
Standard XMK in (Aigai ,Emathia), Pieria (except Pydna and Methone), (Bottiaea, Pella capital after Archelaus ~ 410 BC) and East Mygdonia after Alexander I ~ 480 BC)
Upper XMK(close to Epirotic dialects) in Elimeia, Eordea, Orestis, Lynkestis, Pelagonia
Attic/Ionic in Chalcidice , Mygdonia (Aineia,Arethusa,Dicaea,Therme), Pieria (Pydna, Methone) ( Doric Potidaia was atticized in 5th c.BC) and all the coast to the east till Nestus river. Attic was also spoken/introduced in Pella,Aigai,Dion.
If sourced correctly it would be very interesting. I do not know though, how it can be implemented, solely into this article. On a side note, since you seem quite versed into "macédoniene linguistique" matters, why not expand the Greek dialect section a bit? One-liners here and there, nothing too garrulous. A possible structure plan can be:
Citing views of early scholars (like Hoffmann, having also contemporary views as that of comparative philologist Peter Giles, of Cambridge University and Cambridge Philological Society, in his magnificent Britannica article on Greek language, 1911 (best viewed with this plug-in)). Maybe the views of Hatzidakis, Daskalakis, and Kalleris; how Aeolic got a strong foot amongst this Greek dialectology. Continuing to Hammond, Sakellariou, Brixhe, Panayotu, Babiniotis, Masson. Here we can clarify parts as that of "tentatively" Greek (it was a bone of contention a few times) since even with the quote, it looks like referring to the whole section. The way I read it is this; Masson points out to this "Aeolic dialect" stronghold but seeing evidence (e.g. katadesmos –analysis of Voutiras, Dubois, the works of Brixhe and Panayotu) he reconsidered and tentatively suggested that NW Greek link. However he was convinced all through these debates about the Greek character of the tongue. -- 157.228.98.153 (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
These are just scenarios. XMK has its own "agnostic" place. If you want to disagree on the districts where every dialect or language was spoken , you are welcome Catalographer (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry do I miss something here? Did I erase something you posted and this is being perceived as a disagreement? If so it was by mistake. The so-called "agnostic" perception is not affected to the slightest here. I just think that the Greek dialect section is somewhat lacking; that's all. There are good sources out there and with the use 5-6 one-liners we can give a nice showdown of this "school of thought". --157.228.118.227 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
So what is your specific suggestion? that Aeolic or Doric colour should be shown in Lower or Upper Macedonia? Even so it would be Aeolic Macedonian or Doric Macedonian just like Aeolic Thessalian or Elean Doric with a distinct colour from proper Doric in a linguistic map of Ancient Peloponnesos. And even Masson who proposes that Macedonian is close to NW Doric , he does not call it a proper NW dialect (marginal position ,local pronunciations and deviant Greek dialect by Brian Joseph)
So there is no possibility of Aeolic or Doric having the same colour with Macedonian even if a Greek dialect. Catalographer (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response, I’m quite busy these days. My suggestion was to expand a bit the “Greek dialect” section, using the plethora of sources we have here, by adding 5-6 (?) concise lines. As for the map, please, if you got the time, will and skills go ahead, and present us something in the talk pages. I, for one, would love to see a nice visual aid. --157.228.x.x 19:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Not only fierce anti-Greek sentiment
has created a monstrosity of a page having 'Macedonian Language' not a disambiguation page but a direct page to a Slavic language (as the article itself admits) but now the ancient Macedonian language is too treated as potentially slavic. This is wikipedia, not the soapbox of the nationalist extremist from F.Y.R.O.M. --Leladax (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Where do you see the claim that Ancient Macedonian is "potentially slavic"? The disambiguation notice refers to the "unrelated" modern Slavic language (which isn't strictly true, as they're both Indo-European :-) ); the political section refers simply to the existence of political overtones in the classification of the language. --Macrakis (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant to modern politics. MKD took Macedonian regional name because of XMK lack of texts, inscriptions or literature. If there were 200 texts in Ancient Macedonian , the disambiguation page would be relevant. Now we have a modern live language and a possible ancient language or dialect without indisputably written texts and with unknown classification.
Let's see two other "Indoeuropean" homonyms ((Doric dialect may refer to Doric Greek or Doric dialect (Scotland))).Doric Greek has numerous texts. Otherwise the name Doric in linguistics would refer mainly to Scottish dialect and secondly to Ancient Doric. Catalographer (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Marginalized from the 5th century BC, it was gradually replaced by the common
This implies, that an alleged Macedonian language other than Greek existed, and that was "gradually replaced" implies that it was replaced by a foreign language in this case (Greek).This is certainly distortion. My edit, that "It evolved into the Koine", was deleted by the Perfect Sunrise, due to his remark, that Macedonian was certainly not an ancestor of the Koine.
From the Koine wiki article:
The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the Hellenistic age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main Ancient Greek dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by Austrian linguist P. Kretschmer in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while the German scholar Wilamowitz and the French linguist Antoine Meillet, based on the intense Attic elements of Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of Ionic.[1] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[1] In that respect, the idioms of Koine spoken in the Ionian colonies of Asia Minor and Cyprus would have more intense Ionic characteristics than others. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as Common Attic.[1]
Certain thing is that the language of the Macedonians during Alexanders Campaign participated in the evolution of the Koine, among the armies of Alexander.
And another fact is that, the current remarks such "gradually replaced" "marginalized", imply a foreign origin of the Macedonian language, which is not even the minority view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.55.180 (talk • contribs)
Data show Ancient Macedonian was a Greek language and not phrygian or something of the sort.Megistias (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello anon, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for discussing. I disagree. The question of replacement vs evolution has nothing to do with the amount of genetic distance between the two varieties, and speaking of "replacement" implies no such thing as foreignness, as you feel. You've basically already given the answer with the piece about Koine that you quoted. Koine evolved from Attic-Ionic. Speakers in other parts, be they canonical Greek dialects like Aeolic or outliers further afield such as Macedonian, gave up their native dialects and adopted Koine instead. It's just like in present day societies when people in some rural areas gradual abandon their local dialects and start speaking the standard language instead. That doesn't mean the standard language has evolved out of those rural dialects. – As for the other issue, you changed " there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" to "There are no texts from Macedonia that are indisputably written in a language other than Greek". Now, the second bit is true too, but it's not what the article needs to say at that point. What the article needs to be saying is, there are no surviving texts that are indisputable specimens of whatever it is that "Ancient Macedonian" refers to. Be it Greek or whatever. There are only texts in Standard Greek, and those wouldn't count as examples of Macedonian even if Macedonian was in fact Greek. There's a single possible exception, the Pella Curse tablet, but that's exactly why the article says "indisputably": The text on the Pella tablet may be a sample of XMK (and in that case XMK would be Greek); but it may also be a sample of yet some other variety spoken in the area besides XMK proper. (XMK had β,δ,γ for mainstream Greek φ,θ,χ, from what we know, and the Pella text doesn't show those traits).
To Megistias: Stop being a broken record. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
FPaS: would you be as kind as to include the citation you just tried to add so the world can see? 85.75.93.132 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, sock, now that I re-read the two sources, I notice they actually only speak of the replacement of XMK with Attic/Koine in the nobility, not as the vernacular of the populace. That's obviously simply because nobody knows when and how it happened in the broader population. But, sock, what happened in the nobility is very clearly described as a replacement, not a linguistic evolution. And, for any reader of average intelligence, sock, that of course entails that it was a replacement in the population too, we just don't know when it happened. Other than that, the sources are sound, sock. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Enlighten me and the world here or in your talk-page [28]. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Megistias: I agree with the It gradually evolved into the common Koine, etc. part, go ahead and add it. 85.75.93.132 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
"Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion.
Second, the citations, you mention further prove the unfeasability and fallacy of "replacement" by the Koine, because the Attic speakers and the KOine speakers are certainy divided by evolution and not replacement.
Third, if you are willing to argue that theorized XMK(or the Doric idiom found in Pella Curse tablet) was replaced by the Attic, then you will need to provide evidence that, the Attic replaced the XMK by political decree, on the vernacular of the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, since thi article is about the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, and not specific to their nobility.
Fourth, the term "replacement" applies only when there is replacement by political decree, and the replacement is forcible, evolution is more accurate and precise, and on par with majority view.
I need to demonstrate nothing of the sort. WP:V. You provide sources for your claims, or they go out again. Your speculations are clueless, and too irrelevant to this article for me to even discuss them. Read what the literature says. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I have obviously read the literature, and what i say makes much sence. The "replacement" term applies only when there is replacement from X to Y, by agent M. The amjority view agrees that whatever this language might have been, is very related to Greek, and as all other Greek, speech evolves or gets replaced, by political decree.
It does not get replaced by the blening of time, it evolves in the blending of time.
Reagrding your citations, i repeat: The Attic and Koine speakers are certainly replaced by evolution.
The replacement of the X thing that anceint sources refered to as the language of Macedonians, apllies only to the nobility, and not to the Macedonian vernacular. And this article is about the language f the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, not stricty about their nobility.
For a term such "replacement" to be valid, then sources and citations are needed,which would verify that the language of Macedonia, was replaced from X to Y by political decree. Such sources are non-existant, therefore "replacement" is inaccurate and distortive.
You didn't get the point. You want "evolved", you source "evolved". Good luck searching. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You are mistaken dear Sir, "replacement" applies only when there is such a thing, and only when there is a source, verifying it.
Evolve applies when dialects through time evolve to the their common denominator, that being Koine.
This is the Linguist List, and Ancient Macedonian, is classified in the tree Hellenic:
Also: "Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion, that is bad POV.
This text : "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" is not original research but rather cited [here][29]:
Someone aware of the wiki system adding citations, please add it, because i am uneducated, on the system.
In addition: "It was probably spoken inland and away from the coast" is also original research, and hence deleted, as well.
Also, see definition of "replace":
"replace implies a filling of a place once occupied by something lost, destroyed, or no longer usable or adequate"[30]
Since in the Linguist List, Ancient Macedonian, belongs to the Hellenic family tree, there can be no "replacement" of X with Y(ie Macedonian to Hellenic), since they are both the same. And if there is replacement, then that is not any different as the Ionic replacing the Doric, which oughts to be made clear. There can be only evolution, from X to X1. There are indsiputable in the same family tree.[31]
In addition, the Linguist List does not write "possibly" Greek, but classifies it as Greek, with the rest Greek languages. This oughts to be clear in the article.
The LinguistList classification represents one among several approaches in the literature, and is already covered as such in the text. WP:NPOV means we don't just pick one opinion and present it as fact. The intro will remain neutral. Besides, that classification is not exactly a top-notch source; it's a useful tool but not much more. Go and write them and ask whose professional authority is behind that editorial decision in making that tree. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, you are mis-quoting: The LinguistList proposal doesn't classify it as "Greek", but as "Hellenic" in the technical linguistic sense of a hypothetical supergroup comprising Macedonian and Greek proper. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It classifies it among the other dialects that being Attic and Doric, and clearly in the Hellenic family tree, do not delete citated material, and replace them with original research.--Elampon (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition the Linguist list does not present one opinion, but presents the accepted one. The Linguist List classifies the languages, and not wikipedia administrators. This oughts to be clear.
The original research you defend, present the minority opinion, more than the accepted fact of the Linguist list database. --Elampon (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me here, why are you deleting citated material and replacing them with original research? --Elampon (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And why are you threatening me with ban, when i have properly citated the edits conducted? --Elampon (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who has violated the three-revert rule, for you have reverted into original reserach by deleting citated material.--Elampon (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dab citations
I really do not see any serious issue with the previous phrasing at all but I won't go into any length on this one. Anyway(s), the new 'dab text' is cited from the Linguist List, here and a paper by Professor B. Joseph, here. (It would be somewhat clumsy to use in-text citations in a dab note). --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Peer-review
User:Elampon before disappearing submitted a request for peer-review here. I am not sure if his aim was the improvement of the article's quality or some kind of third party opinion during an edit-warring. In any case, whatever he wanted, this section of WP:GREECE aims not at mediating but at suggesting proposals for the Greece-related articles' improvements. Under these conditions, a peer-review can be useful, and this article's peer-review is still there. I have no problem reviewing it, but I want to know if my review is going to be read by somebody intending to upgrage the article. So, I want to know if the article's editors are interested in this peer-review and in what me or/and other users wnat to suggest. If yes, I'll review it with great happiness. But if my review is not going to be read, there is no reason to do it; I'll just archive the peer-review. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see a peer-review from you Yannis (or from any kind soul willing to do it; the more, the merrier, I say). I have in mind some issues that might require some attention, too. I 'll also try to implement your suggestions, to the best of my abilities, but without any (and I mean that) time frame. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello YannisMarou, apologies for my lack of clarity on my request. My experience with wikipedia processes is next to nothing, so i wasnt aware of what would be the appropriate action. The article contains many discrepancies. First of all, the fact that the ISO-standards have recognized the XMK as a member of the Hellenic language family tree, oughts to be made clear in order to avoid the confusion that the article supports, indirectly. The Linguist List is clear on the matter[32] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List[33]
See Description at Linguist List
From this, the text "most likely" related added just recently by 3rdAlcove oughts to be deleted. In addition, the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" is original research, the actual quote is "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" [34] I will kindly wait for your approval before i submit these edits on the article.--Elampon (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not a specialist on the issue, but I would think about a wording like "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek", if there are texts of ancient Macedonian authors in ancient Greek and only in ancient Greek. But again I don't know the whole story of the edit war that you and other users were part of. In any case we can have a discussion here, trying to reach a consensus with proper arguments by all sides exposed. My peer-review is here.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yannis, the point about that "there is no text..." sentence is to say, there is no text in whatever it was that is the topic of this article. (With the Pella curse tablet as the only possible exception.) If you have a wording like "there is no text in a language other than Greek", that would suggest to the uninformed reader that "... okay, then if there are only texts in Greek, Ancient Macedonian must have been Greek". That is most emphatically not the correct conclusion. The "Ancient Macedonian" we are talking about in this article is a problem of research exactly because, whatever it was, it was not what people wrote. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter FpAs is that the Academic community has reached a consensus, and this language is no loger debated on whether it was Greek or not, the debate is whether which dialect of Greek was more apparent in Macedonian speech and whether this language deserves a place of its own in the Greek family tree, or whether it is just another Greek dialect. Whatever the case may be, as i said already: The Linguist List is clear on the matter[35] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List[36]
See Description at Linguist List
In addition, since the particular quote that you have been defending constitutes Skopjian propaganda, due to the fact that it infers the existence of another language in juxtaposition to Greek, which even though such a theory has been pronounced by particular circles on the past which is also clear later on the article, the fact of the matter at this very moment is that this theory has been superseded, and since the iso-standards are content with the opposite theory, i do not see why wikipedia should not, and instead opt in its Preface article for a theory that is found in Skopjian nationalist websites[37]
To note, Ulrich Wilken is not a linguist, and his book Alexander the Great was written in 1967. The limited amount of words mentioned refer to the terms found in the Hesychius lexicon, and his words are refuted by a Linguist by the name Otto Hoffman in his book Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum(published 1974), which translates to Makedonians, their Language and their Ethnicity.[38] And i quote:
And now after supervising the ancient Makedonian linguistic thesaurus we are posting the decisive question,if what is adding to the Makedonian language its character,are the Hellenic or the barbarian elements of it,the response can not be of any doubts. From the 39 "languages" that according to Gustav Mayer their form was "completely alien", it has been proven after this research of mine, that 10 of them are clearly Hellenic,with 4 more possibly dialectical forms of common Hellenic words,so from the entire collection are remaining only 15 words appearing to be justifiable or at least suspected of a non-Hellenic origin. Adding to those 15, few others which with regards their vocals could be Hellenic,without till now being confirmed as such,then their number, in comparison to the number of pure Hellenic ones in the Makedonian language, is so small that the general Hellenic character of the Makedonian linguistic treasure cannot be doubted.
So, we have 2 options either opt for a quote in a wikipedia article about Linguistics found in a book about Alexander the Great and written by a Historian, a quote which is currently being used by nationalistic websites to support the existence of a frictional link between modern "Macedonians" and Ancient, or opt for a fact that is a) The mainstream theory accepted by the Iso-Standards, b) that is quoted by a Linguist(Otto Hoffman) and not a Historian, and c) by a Historian as well[39]
FPaS wrote:
"That is most emphatically not the correct conclusion"
That is most emphatically the conclusion adopted by the Iso-standards, and your own POV is used by Skopjian nationalists as seen, from the image above, and quoted in a book from a Historian and not a linguist dated (1967). A variety of Linguists and Historians agree with this conclusion, and whatever the case may be, the ISO-standards have adopted this conclusion. And despite what the uninformed reader should be informed according to your POV, the fact of the matter is that: "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek" is a factual statement. If you have any evidence whatsoever showing otherwise or refuting the sources already posted please do, be my guest and submit them. Until then, my edits, cannot be replaced by the pov of a user. --Elampon (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Please point out where ISO has taken an official position on the linguistic affinities of Ancient Macedonian. Certainly in the Web page you point to, they are only interested in standard names for the language, and do not enter into historical linguistic debates.
The Linguist List site does indeed classify Ancient Macedonian under the "Hellenic" languages, but contrary to what Elampon says, it does notclassif[y] it among the other dialects that being Attic and Doric", but instead shows it as more distantly related, a cousin, not a sibling. That said, LL is simply summarizing in this tree, and you need to go back to the full scholarly literature for further discussion.
You have also mischaracterized FuturePerfect's edits. He is not a disruptive editor and not POV-pushing. He has discussed his reasoning repeatedly on this Talk page. He is also (unlike I think anyone else discussing on this page) actually a professional linguist, and knows something about this topic. As a Greek, I am embarrassed that this really very narrow technical subject is subject to such silly POV-pushing by Greeks, who somehow think that what language was spoken 2500 years ago in Macedonia has any political relevance at all today, especially since no reasonable person claims that it was a Slavic language. --Macrakis (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
In his talk page he has failed to illustrate his point and hence his silence(and hence his deleting of my post as well[40]) much like his silence in here. Second, the link from the ISO-Standards is explicitly clear: It accepts the Linguist List position.
See Description at Linguist List
Wikipedia is bound to do the same, whether it is of your liking or not. In addition, i never claimed that it classifies it among the other dialects, and hence the part of the article which goes like this:
"but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly a dialect of Greek; a sibling language to Greek; or a close cousin to Greek, and perhaps related to some extent, to Thracian and Phrygian languages."
Which covers, both FPaS position, my position, and the scholarly position. My edits do not contradict this fact and are not POV as they are clear citations, something that is not the case with FPaS POV-pushing. They simply illuminate the current consensus, as manifested by the Linguist List and the Iso-standards, and are mere quotes from those 2 websites.
The political relevance is illustrated by the nationalist Skopjian websites linked above, which aptly prove that the quotes defended by FPas are used for nationalist purposes, and are POV-pushing. In addition if you were not aware that Skopjian scholars claim it as their own language then you should better be informed:[41], read "Professor" --Elampon (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Like Mr. "embarrassed to be Greek at times like this" Macrakis told you, no such completely, utterly fringe theories are mentioned (I could probably find you even funnier ones on youtube). The rest is fine and perhaps you should extend some courtesy to people who have actually worked on this article -productively. 3rdAlcove (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The translation of the Rosseta Stone by Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov is proclaimed as fringe theory in Wikipedia. But is it?
Their theory is geting publicity in Russia these days. The authors were invited in Saint Petersburg to present their work on a conference that among other things dealed with pre-Cyrilic Slavonic literacy. They were also ivited in Slovenia.
To explain, the Rosseta Stone shows three scripts: Egyptian hieroglyphs, Demotic and Ancient Greek. In 2005 the Academy of Macedonian Sciences and Arts published a study "Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" by the authors Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov. This is a study where they were trying to decipher the Demotic script with a help of Macedonian language. The ispiration to connect these languages was by the last line of the deciphered text in Greek that says: "And this Decree shall be inscribed upon stelae of hard stone, in holy, and in native, and in Greek letters,” and shall be set up in the temples, alongside statues of Ptolemy V." Boševski & Tentov assumed that the native letters were used to write in Ancient Macedonian language, and they made a deciphering theory in regard to the Macedonian language.
The authors were having an interview yesterday on the private TV Channel 5 in Republic of Macedonia and I decided to investigate and test their theory as a native speaker of Macedonian language. I took a Ptolemaic Demotic text from schillerinstitute.org and I applied their deciphering rules on a word that is Demotic parallel to the name Ptolemy in Egyptian hieroglyphs. I got a translation (ZeCeNeIBeBog₳??? or in Cyrilic:ЗеЦеНеИБоБог????) (the unknown ???? are 4 lines that are not included as letters in the rules, but by the rules after the three straigt lines that mean God there comes some specific discription of the God even as symbolized hieroglyphs). The most intriguing thing is that ЗеЦеНеИБeБог is very close to СеЦеНет И ПоБог ???? that is translated in English as all respected (praised) and (next to, by, following, preposition for comparative -er) God ????(unknown name)). The text from the schillerinstitute.org is not included or connected with the study, I found it on a Google Image search, but by Boševski & Tentov rules it gives translation in Macedonian language on my big surprise. Maybe their theory should not be dissmissed so lightly. It is getting publicity in scientific conferences and it worked on a random Demotic text, again I will say on my big surprise. (Toci (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
Toci. Could the cyrillic characters you quoted translate to "systematic disorganization of the senses" (:in hopes of prophecy). Also: could this disorganization happen through the systematic (excessive) use of psychoactive substances (droga or narkotikum in the Slavic languages, the current proprietor of the Ancient Macedonian language) or through systematic fasting? ktr (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Try to translate the Demotic text yourself and if you find some fault in my translation to Latin and to Cyrilic point out to it. I refered to their theory and to a try as translation of a neutral text according to their theory. The mention of drugs (droga or narkotikum are not unique to all the Slavic languages btw, in Macedonian language the unique word for drug is opijat) or exhaustion in manner of me writing creative talk is unpolite. This is new published theory with examples that you can check. I was also sceptical to the theory and tried to test it on a word that is unpublished in their article. Seems that the theory gives results. In science if some theory can be tested and repeats its results there is possibility that is true. And this theory is getting publicity in conferences in Slovenia and Russia. That was my point. (Toci (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC))
The single useful property of such ultranationalist fringe-theories is to entertain bored WP editors. Sorry if I appeared impolite to you by expressing my cheer after you announced that hilarious theory. I hope you'll remit that impropriety of mine. Won't you Toci? ktr (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems by your talk that you have no direct complains to my translation, but in any case you state that the theory is ultranationalistic. Try to be objective. Even more try the theory itself on some other Ptolemaic Demotic text. The theory is rather simple and a translation takes several minutes. (Toci (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC))
Toci, please give us a break. That "theory" is of the same order as those "decipherments" where some amateur cranks took a perfectly straightforward ancient Greek pottery inscription or floor mosaic and "proved" it was Albanian, or the writings of that lunatic who claims all languages of the world were in reality invented by medieval monks by means of shuffling Basque words around. They are obvious nonsense. The proof of their idiocy is typically that they don't even go to the trouble of assuming some historically plausible ancient form of their desired target language – they happily decipher straight into modern Macedonian/Albanian/Basque/whatever. Have you any idea what the linguistic ancestor of modern Macedonian would have been like, a thousand years before Old Church Slavonic? Do you think Boshevski and Tentov know? I don't, but I'd bet some sum that СеЦеНет И ПоБог would not have been a phrase in it. Now come back when you've found Boshevski and Tentov got their ideas published in a peer-reviewed international journal. That conference in Moscow they attended was apparently hosted by somebody who isn't much better than they. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The tries to decipher non understandable ancient European inscriptions with Slavic languages is not new Future. Wolański Tadeusz (there is no page about him in the English Wikipedia) tried it in the 19th century. It was heavily criticized by the scientific community then as well. So, it will take time to be peer-reviewed. The estimation by the authors is around 20-30 years for the reviews. In meanwhile here is a link to the Russian journal Organizmica. Here we are quoting people, the judgements if the Russian journal is better or worst should come from other people.
You are absolutely right that there is small possibility for a direct link of the ancient and the modern languages (maybe with exclusion of Greek that was both official and international language from the ancient to modern times). If you read their study the deciphering is not directly and exactly into modern Macedonian, only the roots of the words are compared (and even with words that are not used anymore directly in Macedonian). Their method for the translation is same as the one that Ilyov assumes for the Neolithic inscriptions (consonants only writings plus right to left). The end results are not exact, ZeCeNe (written ZCN) might not be SeCeNet, but it is rather close. Read the text and you will see that it is not deciphering straight into modern language.
You are right, it is our editor obligation to wait to see the international reviews on Boshevski and Tentov's theory. That is why I am writing about the development of the theory in the talk page. (Toci (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
You should wait for a couple thousand years; most likely, it will have been proved by then. 3rdAlcove (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I love this stuff. Wikipedia truly taught me that you will find some people that will give anything the benefit of doubt, no matter how surreal. dab(𒁳) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And even if it does get published somewhere (proceedings from an unrefereed abstract workshop, for example), serious academics probably won't think it worth their time to refute: I ran into Janet Johnson last year and asked her about it, and she just laughed. It's not even on the radar in the real Egyptological community.Mundart (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(Rant moved here from subpage)
This article is just one more proof that anything goes on the internet.
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
The truth can only be covered up for so long.
Kiki678 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is just one more proof that anything goes on the internet.
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
The truth can only be covered up for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.223.22 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2009
Classyfekaytion
ok, I changed it from the ambiguous "possibly Greek" to the more solid "related to Greek; degree of affiliation discussed below" that allows all positions to be seen analytically plus it includes the common denominator of all theories no matter how fringe: relation to Greek. Now tell me which one sux less of the 2 and why. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Introduction
I reworded the introduction of the article without any significant change in its content, as the previous version had some inaccuracies and I thought it could be rephrased as well. I don't understand why 3rdAlcove has started an edit war without any obvious reason.. Could anyone give his own opinion about the rewording? - Sthenel (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Category
I don't know how long this has been in the "varieties of Greek" category, but we've been going in circles here long enough to know that there is no consensus on the question. Yes, there are some scholars that tentatively assume it might have been. They don't claim to be convinced, and they by no means form a majority or mainstream position. There is, in fact, a mainstream position: "unknown". "Paleo-Balkans language" is an undisputed fact. Anything else isn't, and I will oppose this sort of pov-pushing by categorization. --dab(𒁳) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay with me, although I've long been of the opinion that we ought to be tolerant about category inclusions. Inclusion of article X in Category:Y ought not to be construed as an encyclopedic statement that X actually is Y, but that treatment of topic X can be read as part of the treatment of topic Y. Which is a different thing really. But it's true the policies say somewhere that categories ought to be only used when they are uncontentious. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Uhm I hope you are kidding, right? I put it there. And yes I / we've been here long enough to know that many (if not most) scholars look towards Greek (as a dialect or a sibling language). And long enough to know that, that "tentatively" used by O. Masson underlines, most probably, a change of direction within the very Greek dialect "school of thought"; namely, from an Aeolic Greek dialect to a North-West (Doric) Greek one! The irony is, that some people who use this "tentatively" red herring now, were practically launching a smear campaign, within this very project, against its original author (i.e. professor O. Masson) and the publication in which it firstly appeared, namely, the third edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary! Enough already with these nonsense. We also have been around long enough to know that that "indisputably" "Paleo-Balkan" categorization is most probably a pile of hogwash, as citations were unambitiously requested, time and time again, and none was produced. For more than 4 (!) years now. And for Christ sake, please do not come up with this. I recognise my own writings there, as I'm sure you two, and other editors from WP, are... Seriously, I kindly request to direct me to peer-reviewed academic, reliable, current, English-language sources (plural) from reputable publishing houses or journals that discuss the ancient Macedonian dialect (language) as part of this "Paleo-Balkan" sensation. Please. --157.228.x.x (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the "Paleo-Balkan" category pending the request of reliable sources. On the other hand I think it is fair to say that this tongue can well be categorized within the [[Category:Varieties of Ancient Greek]] in conjunction with a possible [[Category: Hellenic languages]] containing all known ancient, medieval and modern Greek varieties along with this one. To make clear the inclusion of this tongue to the former category, I am thinking to compile a concise, easy-to-read list of scholars that have treated the subject, many of whom are already cited, in one way or another, within the article as it is, to see where we stand. Of course, there is always the issue of how to succinctly but accurately present their views on such a matter and avoid erroneous or even biased interpretations or whatnot at the same time. I hope though, that any possible misjudgements or misconceptions will be promptly spotted by any interested parties. Any thoughts? --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what your beef is with the Paleo-Balkan languages. Since nobody is claiming it is a genetic unit, there isn't really any significant factual, linguistic claim attached to that categorisation. It's just a handy ad-hoc grouping for readers who want to know: "what languages were spoken in the Balkans in antiquity"?. Not more than that. Just like you might have an article and/or category about "European languages", "languages of ..." et cetera. If you don't think the article/category is of any use, the solution would be to propose them for deletion; as long as we have the category, XMK clearly belongs in it. As for the "Varieties of Ancient Greek" category, as I've said somewhere further above, I'd personally not be too averse to it, but I have to concede the point to Dbachmann that it's not quite within the guidelines. A new category "Hellenic languages" would be utterly useless, as it would only ever be filled with two entries: Greek and Macedonian. What would a reader profit from it? That's again one of those ideas only designed to stroke the collective national egos of certain groups of editors (seeing the Hellen- word on the page more often), not to actually help readers navigate stuff. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong. Are you saying that just because a user (or some users) created a category here in WP, named it "Palaeo-Balkan" (and yes I am aware about the use of the term in the literature) then this tongue "clearly" belongs there and you see no problem with the policy regarding contentious categories, while at the same time, where a great number of scholars (the clear majority in my understanding), eventhough they are discussing various scenarios, clearly and unambiguously conclude to a Greek or "Hellenic" (as per a Lingusit-List sense) character of the tongue, you see a problem with it? --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
P. S. And please enough already with that "national pride" brouhaha. You should know nothing about my character and if you do know of me personally then, well there is something really fishy going on here. Please stop these demeaning remarks. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The difference is that the categorisation as "Greek" does contain a substantial linguistic claim of fact, and this claim happens to be contentious. The categorisation as "Paleo-Balkan" (which is just a categorisation of Wikipedia articles by topic area, not a linguistic classification of languages by genetic descent) implies only the trivial fact that the language was spoken in a certain time and space. Which happens not to be contentious. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. There is nothing contentious about the Greek/Hellenic generic character of the tongue. Well at least nothing that can be attributed to modern scholarship and not various cranks in their nationalistic (or for other geopolitical reasons) lala-lands that is . On the other hand we know next to nothing about this "Palaeo-Balkan" sensation, especially with regards to this tongue. Can you provide anything of substance on the matter?--157.228.x.x (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned there is nothing further to be known or said about the Paleo-Balkan classification. It was spoken in antiquity, in the Balkans, it was Indo-European; there's nothing more to it. As for Greek, I'll stick with Woodard's Ancient Languages of Europe. The relation to Greek is unknown and unknowable. Fut.Perf.☼ 19:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I presume you’ve read the book or at least his treatment of the tongue yes? That's the only conclusion Woodward makes in this book with regards to "Greek relation"? Is it a conclusion or an opening phrase for his discussion/treatment? I will try to grab a copy of this book and see what's what. Thus as I said maybe it is a good idea to compile a list of scholars that treated the issue, present their views in a clear, concise but 'accurate manner and see where we stand. As for this "Palaeo-Balkan" thing well that's simply not enough. We need substance not personal opinions. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
It's an excerpt from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages, the most relevant reference work for the issue you could imagine. He has a 1.5-pages section on Ancient Macedonian, in his introduction about sparsely attested languages, in a row with Thracian and Illyrian (no mention of XMK in the chapter on Greek proper). The section starts with the sentence, "North of the Greeks, bracketed by Illyrians and Thracians, lived the Macedonians. Much uncertainty surrounds the linguistic status [...] it remains unlcear if Greek was the native language of the Macedonians". It then reviews some of the primary historical sources mentioning Macedonian (Demosthenes, Plutarch ...), cites Brixhe/Panayotou and Katičić as the relevant state of the art surveys, and finally has a short discussion of the attested lexical material, suggesting that a large number of Macedonian words that look similar to Greek might actually be loanwords from Greek, and that those words that look like genuine cognates that "evolved historically from words occurring in a common parent language, either Proto-Indo-European or, alternatively, some later, intermediate Balkan Indo-European language", point to a status where XMK "departs conspicuously from Greek". Fut.Perf.☼ 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try to have a look at it. Are you talking about this publication then or about this one? I presume that they would not differ in any noticeable or meaningful degree, since both are edited by Woodward, but just to be clear. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
What I have in front of me here is the second one, the Ancient Languages of Europe. According to its preface, it's basically the same content, the big Encyclopedia just split up into a series of smaller volumes, by world region. But it could be that the sections have been refactored somehow, as the introduction seems to have been rewritten for the Europe volume; they might be separate entries in the bigger one. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S."Departs conspicuously from Greek" does not mean not related to Greek. On the other hand OED goes a step or two further and "usually regard it as Greek" (i.e. as a Greek dialect). But here we are talking about the very least, probable, realistic scenario, regarding its relation to Greek. And please do not start about how all I-E languages are related to each other and all that. We are talking about any close, special relationship, and what modern scholarship tells us about it. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As the sentence I quoted above shows, Woodard explicitly considers a scenario where the latest common ancestor was IE itself, as an alternative to one where the latest common ancestor was a later ("Paleo"!)-Balkan language. Note also that he is speaking here of those rather widely different word pairs as danos - thanatos, and that he considers it possible that the more obviously similar words are loans and hence not a sign of genetic relationship at all (something that, incidentally, I personally don't find very plausible). Fut.Perf.☼ 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I will have a look at it in so to comment further, if need be. So in your view where do you think scholarship stands on this special relationship of these tongues? Needless to say that there are many other views, many of which are already cited in the article. --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
As I keep saying, the rock-solid consensus in all competent scholarship seems to be that we simply don't know. (Somebody who is apparently an academic expert once posted here saying that he personally believes there wasn't a single XMK at all, but that the words attested in the glossary come from several widely different languages. That's a view I'd personally find quite attractive.) Fut.Perf.☼ 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
If s/he was referring to the attested words from the Hesychius' lexicon well I would have to agree with you and him/her. There's a hint in the article with regards to this aspect, by quoting Masson on how many words from that lexicon are actually contested. He made a whole treatment on abrouwes as you probably know (already cited within). --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Macedonian, Tocharian, Greek. spot the most distant
hey Dbach. you changed the Classification of the ancient Macedonian language with the argument(?) that as much as xmk is related to ancient Greek, this much is Tocharian "related to Greek".. do you believe that? based on what?
1. Tocharian, Armenian and other languages who are said to be related to Greek are labeled as such by phonologies and by the similarity of changes occurred from PIE towards their existence and not by the fact that we can find exact same words with dialectal changes between them.
2. yet xmk has shown that the vast majority of its attested words can be found in standard Greek exactly the same or with dialectal phonology changes.
3. Moreover the classification as it has been given by the 12 relevant linguists given there, 12 out of 12 mention close relation to Greek. They all seem sure about that. The Thracian/Phrygian/Illyrian substratum/adstratum speculations change, but all theories contain relation to Greek with certainty. Not to mention O. Masson.. So what is wrong with giving the wording "related to Greek; degree of affiliation discussed below"? Is the phrase "related to Greek" misleading and false in your view? isn't it a sum-up of all given classifications? as they all mention it without an exception?
(and btw of course they know about the hypothesis that xmk could be a lang originally not related to Greek or that the Pella tab could be written in the NW Doric Greek dialect-slash-supposed-lingua franca of..that area..)
4. also the very respected Linguist List is somehow ignored when it contains Greek and Macedonian in the same family: Hellenic (and that's not a random linguistic name choice -of course- too). while most times it is treated as god, considering wikipedia uses it, ISO 639-3 uses it etc.. --CuteHappyBrute (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Very good remarks, I cannot see what is the reason for this change either, in terms of purely linguistic view.... - Sthenel (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The closeness, the affiliation if you like to Greek is rather obvious. Plus, to my knowledge, it is also supported by the vast majority of the relevant, current literature within the modern (and not only) scholarship. I will provide some quick references within the article's infobox/tree structure for good measure. --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
There is not a consensus among linguists of Ancient Macedonian's precise affiliation within Indo-European. Statements such as "rather obvious" are meaningless. Is it rather obvious? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
According to the provided references more than obvious. It states explicitly that this tongue is "usually regarded as Greek" i.e. as a Greek dialect (in contrast to a somewhat separate but sibling language). On the other hand what you have, in a rather unwarranted manner, deleted was only pointing out to a mere relation, an affiliation if you like; the brief note was not going as far as to declare it an unambiguously Greek dialect (eventhough I do believe that this is the case, as supported by numerous scholars too). Do you have anything of substance to add instead of echoing rumours? --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please also provide your reason/s of removing the cited sources. Do you not consider them as WP:RS? --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The OED is certainly a reliable source about English usage, but it's hardly a very good source about specialist debates in classical Indo-European linguistics. That's not their job. We have specialised linguistic sources, so we'll use those. (Unfortunately, for you, all of them are much more reluctant to endorse a Greek hypothesis. Wonder why that is.) Fut.Perf.☼ 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is exactly where we defer. OED is certainly not a "state of the art source" for expanding specialists debates about "classical linguistics" but it is a state of the art source for hinting us to the general consensus of what are regarded as state of the art specialist sources. This is exactly the reason for choosing these concise, general reference-type but well-respected sources; plural. Please do not overlook the fact that OED is cross-referenced here by Merriam-Webster. It is also echoing such specialist state-of-the-art sources (about Classical antiquity and linguistics) as the Oxford Classical Dictionary (OED is not OCD). And again let me remind you, that here is an attempt to hint to this (obvious IMHO) special relation to Greek (by simply using something as "related to Greek") instead of going as far as "usually regarded as Greek" (by quoting the source, verbatim). Eventhough I do agree with the latter assessment. That's all. --157.228.x.x (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The Oxford Classical Dictionary (a special-topic encyclopedia) of course is an appropriate source here. The Oxford English Dictionary (a general-purpose historical dictionary of English words) is not. The OED is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Its purpose is only to talk about the usage of words in English, it has no pretensions to be well informed about the specialised academic topic domains behind those words. You wouldn't look up the OED to get information about the theory of relativity or the consumption function; you shouldn't look it up about anything not directly related to English lexicology. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. These sources are far more useful, in this or similar cases, than what you present them to be. Plus they are not the only ones to support this obvious linguistic relationship (note: I am not going as far as declaring 'Makedonisti' as an "explicitly Greek" tongue, but merely, "related to Greek" tongues). It seems to me that some people come here, with professional baggage, parading around academic debates revolving this matter. I agree; there is discussion on the issue and I was writing about these very debates, here in this article and elsewhere, long before some people appeared, trying to through around their WP "weight" or other fishy business. But most importantly before (or during the time), when some people appeared to outguess or even discredit sources like the OCD and now, in a way, the OED. Oh, the irony. We are addressing these discussions within the article but here we are talking about the infobox, meaning that we need educated but concise statements of fact. Again I remind you that OED is not the only source to state, concisely that this tongue is "usually regarded and Greek". And at the end of the day, as I said, I am proposing "related to Greek" not "usually regarded as Greek". The latter would put this tongue clearly within the Greek family. No questions asked. Can you spot the difference? And with all due respect, we do not need mine, your or anyone else's interpretations. What we need here are succinct but well-researched, reliable sources, with a universally good reputation, to provide us with their assessment or interpretations. Their views on a potential general consensus away from the unavoidable mist created by any, otherwise useful, in-depth discussions or analysis. Either we like this consensus or not. And, in my view, dictionaries or concise encyclopaedias are just what we need for the job, even when we are talking about "a general-purpose historical dictionary of English words".(FYI, OED acknowledges in its notes some debate, that's why, in my understanding, concludes to "usually Greek")--157.228.x.x (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent): tl;dr. Look, you don't need the OED. There are enough real sources that give enough validity to the Greek hypothesis, so what's your beef? This is merely a matter of what source to use. You want to use a dictionary as a source for a statement of fact. It's unsuitable for that. Dictionaries are not about facts, they are about words. Its editors were chosen for their expertise on English lexicography, not for their understanding of other academic fields. Why use an inferior source when so many better ones are around? Fut.Perf.☼ 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Because these sources are neither inferior nor irrelevant. On the contrary, I believe that, they are exactly what we need to make up our minds and give this matter a rest. Explicit, concise, to-the-point but well-researched and respected statements of fact are what we need, in this infobox. And for the Nth time; we are not talking about the Greek "hypothesis" here but for the special relationship between the dialects. An explicitly (or even with some sub/ad-stratum influences) Greek dialect is different from a dialect related to the Greek tongues. Come off it already. Please. --157.228.x.x (talk)
Encyclopedias are about facts. Dictionaries are about words. Two worlds apart. It's no more the business of the OED editors to tell us what XMK was than to teach us about the best cures for cancer or the chemical composition of the Sun. What makes you think their statement about XMK is any more "well-researched and respected" than whatever they wrote about those other topics? Its function is to define the meaning in which the word is being used, not more and not less. Fut.Perf.☼ 18:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Have you even bothered to look-up the cited OED entry? It seems not, so here it goes: "b. The language of ancient Macedonia, recorded in fragmentary remains, and usually regarded as a variety of Greek within the Indo-European family". Then it goes to list numerous sources starting from 1556 (!) AD Robinson's tr. More's Utopia, to C. D. Buck's (1933) Comparative Grammar: Greek & Latin treatment and after a few more it concludes to W. D. Lockwood's (1972) Panorama of Indo-European Languages, quoting: "Since Macedonian was in contact with Illyrian and Thracian, borrowings from these languages could account for the exotic strain...It is to be assumed that the Macedonian dialect (or language) succumbed to Attic Greek [...]". Thus in contrast to your, rather unwarranted opinion (and odd attempt to outguess it), OED is well-resourced in linguistic matters. As for being well-respected, hmm, I will not even attempt to comment on that. At the end of the day lexicographers (and lexicologists) are competent linguists too. And I could bet my socks of that OED employees some of the finest in the field. As for the Encyclopaedia vs. Dictionary nonsense, OCD is also a dictionary but well respected in this field and widely cited for classical antiquity and linguistics matters. Should we discarded just because it is a "dictionary"? What about The Oxford Companion of the Classical World? It is "just" a companion after all. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I did look it up. And, unlike you, I know how to read the OED. Those are attestations of usage. The purpose of those cited examples is not to give a representative survey of opinions about XMK in the literature. It is to give a representative sample of when and in what kinds of contexts the word was used. What exactly is actually being said about XMK in those examples is entirely irrelevant for the purposes of the dictionary.
And I'm not talking about the use of the words "dictionary" or "encyclopedia" in the titles of those works, I'm talking about the difference of genres. If you don't understand what the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is, you really have no business trying to edit one. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I know that those are attestations of usage of the word "Macedonian". But I've cherry picked some of its notes to demonstrate that they did and do use "competent" and relevant linguistic sources to come up with this "usually regarded as Greek". What's your beef with OED? If you think that a dictionary of this calibre can not provide us with educated clues on linguistic matters then you too have no business on trying to edit an Encyclopaedia, let alone to administer one. I maintain that this source is reliable, pertinent and well-researched. We can and should use it. On the other hand this whole "OED-boo issue" still remains marginally pertinent to our topic here. I maintain that this and numerous other sources (some of which are cited below) are an attestation to this "relativeness to Greek." (Again note not a declaration of something like this "usually regarded as Greek", which is attested after all). The only thing I've seen from you is your own personal interpretations on what OED is or how to use it. We know it is a dictionary, so what? --157.228.x.x (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
They didn't use those sources to come up with that statement of fact about XMK. They used them to demonstrate that the word was used mainly in a scholarly context, and they seem to be using the Lockwood bit specifically to demonstrate that the word was being used both as a standalone noun, and as an adjective in collocation both with "... dialect" and with "... language". And that's all they were interested in. Everything they do is strictly on a meta-linguistic level; it's talking about words, not about things. Everything else is simply not what they were being paid to do. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Or so you think. On the other hand, I think that they were clearly aiming to attest to this "usually regarded as Greek", as a statement of fact. Using Lockwood for the reason/s you're suggesting or not is somewhat irrelevant, and rather "unknowlable". A guessing game. Don't you see that this discussion is marginally pertinent to our main topic here? OED and other (specialist, competent, pertinent, reliable, well-researched linguistic or historical) sources, attest to this "usually regarded as Greek" (as a statement of fact). Still, here we are aiming for "related to Greek" which is also attested by reliable and relevant sources. Thus, for now, I propose to use the latter in the infobox. See below why. --157.228.x.x (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. It's a waste of time discussing this. Especially when this whole damned impasse is about a f..ing infobox. Infoboxes must burn in hell (see my user page). This one contained nothing, nothing at all, that a reader couldn't take in more easily and faster by just reading the first few sentences of the intro. I've kicked it out. I hope we can now put this to rest. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's call it a night. I will review your edits tomorrow. A quick comment now is that I do no believe that we should get rid of the infobox. Someone will replace it, in one form or another, sooner or later. --157.228.x.x (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. (not relevant) There is also an open issue with the categorisation of the tongue. One of these days, I will try to elaborate my thoughts in the relevant thread, above. Also, (just to avoid to portray myself as a trollish, hit-and-run, editor) I have not forgotten our open discussion on the Macedonia/Macedonian disambiguation talkpage. I just thought to abstain for a few days from it in so to clear my thoughts and to get some input by other editors. But I will be back. :-> --157.228.x.x (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A quick summary. OED and Webster conclude to "usually regarded as Greek", OCD -eventhough it examines other views- clearly sides with the Greek dialect school (e.g. Aeolic) but tentatively (see the duck?) concludes to North-West Greek. The Linguist List (LL) groups the tongues together, under a Hellenic name (not accidentally). Facts about the world's major languages: an encyclopaedia of the world's major languages, past and present: if not a Greek dialect then properly seen as a Hellenic tongue. (FYI, B. Joseph noted that "deviant Greek dialect", use in modern literature. I spotted it in an academic mailing list, he used to frequent, when I was lurking around some years back. Deviant but Greek nevertheless). EIEC provides us with JP Mallory's interpretations , all of which are Greek, or related to Greek in one way or another. --157.228.x.x (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my God!!!! Yes, yes!!
Kάπνισμα 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes what??? Isn't this even older than the Greek language itself? Isn't it worth mentioning? I don't see anything funny, perhaps you can share the joke with us... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks about as noteworthy as the "decipherment" of the Rosetta Stone by Skopje University's Electrotechnical Faculty. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It's actually rather bitter than funny, considering that many people in ROM do believe in such, err, theories... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
They also believe they're ethnic "Macedonians"... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is too often ignored that Wikipedia can and does in fact cover this sort of thing, at the appropriate locations. In this case, you want Macedonism. Please refer further discussion there. If you review the history of this talkpage, it is clear that 90% of its content isn't in fact linguistic discussion, but nationalistic pov-pushing, as such off topic to this article, which covers a marginal Trümmersprache of the Balkans. We should be more strict in redirecting nationalist prancing around to the relevant articles (Macedonian nationalism, Greek nationalism etc.) --dab(𒁳) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What's a Trümmersprache? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A marginally attested one, of which only "bits and pieces" (lit. "pieces of rubble") are attested. Can't remember who coined the term, but it's used as a technical term in the literature in some places. Fut.Perf.☼ 23:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Illyrian/Thracian origin
Why are sources and data stating Illyrian or Thracian origin ignored in Wikipedia? Look at the article: "dialect of Greek", "related to Greek" "Hellenic"... they only show the Greek view and this is frankly too often observed. Mactruth (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
.jpg)
![[37]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v695/optimaton/propagandann1.jpg){kind=link}
