Talk:Macedonian language

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Macedonian language ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political issues on the Related disputes page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Archives 19 Sep 2001 - 24 Aug 2004 24 Aug 2004 - 9 Apr 2006 9 Apr 2006 - 25 May 2006 25 May 2006 - 3 Nov 2006 31 Oct 2006 - 5 Jul 2007 Arguments about the number of speakers of Macedonian should be directed at Talk:Macedonian language/Number of speakers.

The Macedonian literary language isn't spoken in Bulgaria

Official information from the last Bulgarian census in 2001 (check here in Bulgarian):

Mother tongue per provinces

Bulgaria

• Total 7,928,901
• Bulgarian language 6,697,158
• Turkish language 762,516
• Romani language 327,882
• Other 71,084
• Without self-determination 45,454
• Not shown 24,807

Blagoevgrad Province, known as Pirin Macedonia

• Total 341,173
• Bulgarian language 306,118
• Turkish language 19,819
• Romani language 9,232
• Other 2,921
• Without self-determination 2,424
• Not shown 659

There isn't numerous or significant group of literary Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria. In fact the literary Macedonian language isn't spoken in Bulgaria with exception of the emigrants from the Republic of Macedonia. Even nearly half of the small group of people who define their ethnicity as Macedonian (totally 5,071, check here) declare their mother tongue as Bulgarian. - Jackanapes 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If Francis Tyers insists on including of Bulgaria in the list of the countries, where the Macedonian literary language is spoken, he has to give serious arguments that there is significant group of local Macedonian language speakers. The last official Bulgarian census from 2001 describes the mother tongue of the Bulgarian population quite clearly. There are only 5,071 ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria, which is obviously insignificant number. The present article Macedonian language lists only countries with large ethnic Macedonian population but Bulgaria isn't one of them. - Jackanapes 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason that there is hardly any macedonian speakers in Bulgaria, is because that Bulgarians, and other dialects in bulgaria believe that MACEDONIAN is a DIALECT of Bulgarian, therefore when asked to give a census on what language they speak, they are bound to reply that their language is Bulgarian, regardless if they speak the "dialect" macedonian. This is to with the history of the countries, and how they were once ruled together. Alexandre8 (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The Macedonian literary language isn't spoken in Greece

Same arguments as per Bulgaria above. I understand that the dialects in Greek Macedonia differ as much from the official language created in Skopje after WWII, as the official Macedonian language differs from eastern Bulgarian dialects. It makes sense that the reference to Bulgaria and Greece have to be dropped. Politis 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

George Lebamoff, president of the Macedonian Patriotic Organisation (in the US) said that, if people spoke Macedonian (Slav Macedonian) in Greece before WWII, then why did Tito change it by creating a new language? The same could be applied to the areas around the Pirin mountains, if people spoke Macedonian, then why did the Skopje establishment change it? The answer is because that is where and when they created a 'Macedonian language'. They also created a slightly latinised alphabet, and finally made the male population to add the suffix 'ski' at the end of surnames ending in 'ov', but also those ending in 'os' or 'is'. So, in the Blagoevgrad region they clearly speak a Bulgarian dialect, and in areas around Florina a Slavic dialect that was once classified as 'Bulgarian'. Politis 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The approximate number of speakers of literary Macedonian

In the article Macedonians (ethnic group) the number of the ethnic Macedonians throughout the world is listed as it could be seen in the graph on the right:

Macedonian language

Total population
c. 1.7 million
Regions with significant populations
Republic of Macedonia	1, 297, 981
Australia	83, 983
Germany	61, 105
Italy	58, 460
United States	42, 812
Brazil	40, 859
Canada	31, 265
Serbia	25, 847
Switzerland	6, 415
Austria	5, 145
Bulgaria	5, 071
Albania	4, 697
Croatia	4, 270
Slovenia	3, 972
Bosnia and Herzegovina	2, 278
Greece	962
Romania	731
Elsewhere	unknown

There are only about 1,7 million ethnic Macedonians in the world. As it was proved by the current statistics and censuses in Bulgaria, there aren't neither significant group of Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria, not vast ethnic Macedonian minority in Bulgaria. This is an example for the outdated information of Friedman from 1985, which work is quoted in the article as a source. Until now there aren't relevant topical evidences about numerous Macedonian language speakers in the neighbouring countries. Moreover, there aren't large groups of Macedonian language speakers outside the ethnic Macedonian communities, even ethnic Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia traditionally aren't educated in Macedonian and have the right to use their mother tongue on official level so many of them don't have command of Macedonian language. On this ground I suppose that the real number of Macedonian language speakers is similar to the number of ethnic Macedonians. - Jackanapes 08:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are only 1,300,000 ethnic Macedonians in the Republic of Macedonia. If there are 2 millions Macedonian language speakers in the world, please, explain me, where exactly do they live? There aren't large masses of them in Bulgaria - see the statistics above. If someone wants to edit the total number of 1,7 million speakers - he is obliged to offer serious evidences. All other theories in Friedman's style are only speculations. - Jackanapes 17:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User with IP 203.59.218.120 posted on my Talk following "arguments":

What officials have to say

This is where Macedonians live:

• according to the University of St Andrews
• according to the University of Oxford
• according to the CIA (map endorsed by the University of Texas, a commonly sourced site on Wikipedia)
• according to Eurominority
• according to SOS Children's Village
• according to the CIA World Factbook
• according to Lonely Planet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.218.120 (talk) 10:23:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What I have to answer. According to the University of St Andrews - there isn't any statistics in this site, this is only a map. According to the University of Oxford - again only a map without concrete statistics. According to the CIA - again only a map without concrete statistics. According to Eurominority - there is only statement without concrete statistics. According to SOS Children's Village - what a source I would say! This is funny. 2,5% Macedonians are listed without quotation of a source. According to the CIA World Factbook - ethnic Macedonians are mentioned without any concrete statistics. According to Lonely Planet - what a source, this is ridiculous, we are talking about scientific demography... The small Slav-Speaking minorities near the northern borders of Greece are mentioned without any source and concrete statistics. All of these "sources" are general, speculative, uncourced or openly irrelevant. And, finally, there is official Bulgarian census statistics from 2001, which is concrete about the number of Bulgarian citizens, whose mother tonge is defined by them as Macedonian. - Jackanapes 12:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the SOS Children's Village reference was a one-off, but the rest are credible pieces of evidence which denounce Bulgaria and Greece's claim of "no ethnic Macedonian minority", also do not continue changing the figure to 1.7 million as it was 2 million for a long period of time (referenced). 203.59.218.120 12:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact the SOS Children's Village reference is the only one in all sources listed above which contains concrete statistics! Enough speculations. Please, offer some relevant proofs that there are more than 1,700,000 non-ethnic Macedonians, who speak literary Macedonian i their daily round. - Jackanapes 12:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

203.59.218.120, you have to give us relevant arguments with concrete and sourced statistics from relevant sources first and then edit! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackanapes (talk • contribs) 12:10:56, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

By the way, the present note to the statistics in the main article contains following strange expressions:

Although the precise number of speakers is unknown, figures of between 1.6 million [1] and 2-2.5 million have been cited, see Topolinjska (1998) and Friedman (1985). There are suppositions that approximately 2 million speakers of the Macedonian language, accepting that "it is difficult to determine the total number of speakers of Macedonian due to the official policies of the neighbouring Balkan states and the fluid nature of emigration" (Friedman 1985).

It seems that there are suppositions in these sources, but not contemporary relevant concrete statistics. Excuse me, but what are we talking about, scientific demography or nationalistic claims? - Jackanapes 12:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please give third-party Western academic sources which have been peer-reviewed that support your point of view. - Francis Tyers · 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you ask me to give you proofs about something that doesn't exist in reality! On the contrary, you have to guve us relevant proofs that large Macedonian minority and/or large group of Macedonian literary language speakers really exist in Bulgaria. Still more, you have to acknowledge that there are two censuses in Bulgaria after 1989 and their results are internationally recognized. You can't insist that suppositions from 1985 are more relevant than standard official censuses, which are not treated as corrupted until now. There isn't large group of Macedonian language speakers in Bulgaria and you will accept that fact. Enough! - Jackanapes 11:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Jackanapes, you're making a simplistic assumption if you equate "scientific demography" with complete reliance on state-run censuses. We are talking about scholarship here, and scholarship seems to have come to the conclusion that state-run censuses in certain cases may not offer all the relevant facts and that therefore estimates need to be resorted to. No logical contradiction in that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To Future Perfect at Sunrise. Your statement is true in general, but last Bulgarian census isn't treated as corrupted by now. On the contrary, its results are internationally recognized, for example from the European Court of Human Rights in several cases. Moreover, Friedman's suppositions from 1985 are made on the basis of Bulgarian censuses from the period of Stalinism (1944-1960ies), when approximately 180,000 ethnic Macedonians were listed in Bulgaria as a result of official state policy of Macedonization. Note, Bulgarian literary language was taught in Macedonia from 1860ies in the largest school net of the Bulgarian Exarchate and was the only literary language of almost all Macedonian intellectuals and revolutionaries at that time (see article IMRO for example). After 1913 all Exarchate teachers were expelled from Serbian Vardar Macedonia, but they remaind in Bulgarian Pirin Macedonia, where Bulgarian education flourished until 1944. After 1944 there were roughly two decades of education on newly standardized Macedonian language in Pirin Macedonia, but this language wasn't accepted as own by the local population mainly because of its difference from local dialects, heavy serbianization and the steadiness of the Bulgarian literary language in the region. According to the first democratic census after 1989 only 3,000 Bulgarian citizens defined their mother tongue as Macedonian and this isn't unexplainable. Today Macedonian literary language isn't taught in Pirin Macedonia and isn't spoken by the local population with exception of small group of aged people with ethnic Macedonian consciousness and people, educated in Republic of Macedonia. - Jackanapes 12:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

P. s. In connection with the expression "simplistic assumption". Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise, don't you think that in a modern democratic country like Bulgaria the demographic censuses are product of demographic science and technology? The demography is science, see the first words of the article Demography:

"Demography is the statistical study of human populations. It can be a general science that can be applied to any kind of dynamic population, that is, one that changes over time or space (see population dynamics)."

Please, don't use expressions like "simplistic assumption" without concrete reason. Greetings,Jackanapes 13:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jackanapes, you still haven't presented any third party, peer-reviewed, academically published Western sources on population figures for speakers of the Macedonian language. I don't dispute the Bulgarian census, and as such the figures are included in the article. You may see them if you read it (under "Geographical distribution"). However, the Bulgarian census does not give figures for the total number of speakers of Macedonian throughout the world, and if it did it would be surprising and I probably wouldn't believe it! - Francis Tyers · 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

About the case of Bulgaria. If you really don't dispute the results of last two democratic Bulgarian censuses, then you must not include Bulgaria (with no more than 3,000 speakers) in the list of countries with significant number of Macedonian language speakers. Note, the present list contains only countries with numerous Macedonian language speakers! In fact Bulgaria is on eleventh place in the list of countries by number of ethnic Macedonians. If you really want to include Bulgaria in the list in the beginning of the article Macedonian language, you have to write in all ten previous states, such as Australia (83,983), Germany (61,105), Italy (58,460) and so on...

About the relevance of Friedman and "western origin". Did he operate with concrete and relevant demographic data in 1985 or with suppositions that there are many Macedonian language speakers on the ground of the corrupted censuses from the period of Stalinism instead? If we have the second situation, why do you think with such conviction that his work is reliable? (By the way, Friedman was closely tied to Yugoslav authorities and their claims for vast Macedonian minoriy in Bulgaria and, moreover, he is still tied to Macedonian state policy.) Excuse me, but the "western origin" isn't argument in itself and as requirement is insulting for non-westerners.

Finally, I already gave you (on your personal talk) quotation from a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, in which is stated that according to several inquiries of the court in connection with several similar cases the results show that there are only about 3,000 supporters of ethnic Macedonian movement (and ideas) in Bulgarian part of Macedonia and not all of them are active. Still more, their public influence in the area is defined as "negligible" by the court. This isn't "academically published Western sources", but in fact this is "third party" and "Western" source, which you can't deny. Please, be so kind to accept the facts at last. - Jackanapes 09:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you didn't answer my request but instead repeated the same thing you already said. Please be so kind as to answer my request, if you are able to, otherwise do not feel obliged to respond. - Francis Tyers · 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This section concerns 'The approximate number of speakers of literary Macedonian'. No such numbers exist exept for Fyrom/Rom. It became standardised in the late 40s and filtered through the education system in the 1950s. People who left the area up to the 1950s spoke their local dialects and, initially, used the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet. As for providing, 'third-party Western academic sources', there is something rather uncomfortable, if not disturbing about such statements. What is Western? Arians by name? Bulgaria is a NATO and EU member state - ergo Western. Politis 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, Western European. - Francis Tyers · 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No considerate answer has been provided. Racist connotations are unacceptable and the whimsical tone of the answer is disturbing. I suggest you kindly remove your editing skills from these topics since they seem to act as carriers of disturbing views. Politis 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Politis, perhaps you could provide some sources for the numbers of speakers from a range of scholarly articles from all the countries in the Balkans that have been published in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals subject to international scrutiny, then we could go about formulating a more accurate expression of the number of speakers? - Francis Tyers · 19:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, perhaps my usage of Balkan is inappropriate, I would welcome articles (peer-reviewed, published in scholarly journals, etc.) in any of the world's languages or countries that relate to the number of speakers of Macedonian. Whether they be in Hindi, Urdu, Norwegian (Bokmål or Nynorsk), Danish, Afrikaans, Dutch or Serbo-Croatian. I would of course prefer living languages, but if you have anything in Latin, I can probably get a translation. - Francis Tyers · 19:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This section concerns 'The approximate number of speakers of literary Macedonian'. No such numbers exist exept for Fyrom/Rom. Very few countries have an official census on the language spoken, and those who do (like for example, New Zealand) do have figures for Macedonian language speakers. That's why estimates are made. The best estimates in this matter can be given by impartial (Western or Eastern, it doesn't really matter) sources, not only because they are inherently neutral, but because they also represent the majority (academic) view. As for the Western - Eastern rift, it would be nice if someone provided sources in Mandarin Chinese, but I think nobody here would understand them. --FlavrSavr 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian (A Slavic language)

Referring to a number of previous posts on the language (not the people):

---The name Slavic Macedonian or Slavomacedonian is considered offensive because it implies the language is a generic Slavic language spoken in Macedonia. Macedonian can only refer to one language - the Slavic one, as the other Macedonian is a dialect of Greek. Why not refer to them as Macedonian(Language) and Macedonian(Greek Dialect)? And how come there must be a prefix before Macedonian referring to the Slavic language but not the Greek Dialect? If you want the Greek dialect to be referred to as Macedonian then how about the term Hellenic Macedonian?

---Macedonian and Bulgarian are two distinct languages. That is why it is recognised by almost every country except for Bulgaria. Does Bulgaria call Norwegian Swedish? Or Portuguese Spanish? Exactly. If you want closer related examples, how about Czech and Slovak, or Malaysian and Indonesian? Also, why would there be different variations of the Cyrillic alphabet to represent one language?

Alex 202.10.89.28 08:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about Serbo-Croat ? About variations of Cyrillic alphabet, quote Venko Markovski: "Macedonian is a Bulgarian language, typed with a Serbian typewriter". Lantonov 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, purely linguinstically, there is some basis to consider Macedonian a language. It has vocabulary and some grammatic differences. And most languages were dialects before becoming separate, I agree on this. I think Bulgaria's position also evolved towards recognizing the language. Lantonov 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So would you say that, political issues aside, Bulgaria may recognise Macedonian in the future? Alex 202.10.89.28 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say sooner than later. Lantonov 09:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

See http://balkans21.org/arhiv/mirjana1.htm Lantonov 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Look in this:

Surprisingly enough, the Bulgarian authorities finally recognized the Macedonian literary language. This happened on February 22, 1999 when Macedonian Prime Minister Georgievski and his Bulgarian counterpart Ivan Kostov signed a joint declaration, as well as eight cooperation agreements. The declaration only stated explicitly that the two sides recognize the respective constitutional languages of the two countries. The terms of the declaration were w,eak but it was suitable for domestic consumption (MILS News, 2/22/99, “Declaration for Solving the Language Dispute in Sofia Today”).Lantonov 05:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"3.4.2. Ways in which the state protects or impedes the use of the minority language

In their everyday life, people from the Pirin Macedonian region in Bulgaria use their dialects to communicate with one another. When dealing with the official administration, however, they use literary Bulgarian. Even before February 1999, when the Bulgarian authorities used to deny the existence of the Macedonian literary language, there was no suppression of the Macedonian language in Bulgaria. For example, in Blagoevgrad one was free to buy an issue of the Narodna Volja, a newspaper with articles both in Bulgarian and Macedonian (Kanev, 1998a). The dialect, spoken by the Macedonian minority is very close to the official Bulgarian language. Moreover, the orthography used is a Bulgarian variant of the Cyrillic script and not of the Macedonian one. Macedonian is not taught in Bulgaria. There have hardly been any demands for that, apart from the demands of some radical OMOIlinden activists in the period 1992-1994."

Taken from the Helsinki watch report for rights of minorities in Bulgaria

Lantonov 06:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't use "makedonian" language not even slavomacedonian because there is greek history in these.So use just south slavic or i dont know...but until fyrom gets a real name dont even use MACEDONIA OR MAKEDONIAN LANGUAGE! We all know that they are slavs not even macedons! There is america thats why...

Isandros Olympios

MEMORANDUM of the Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia

Concerning the relations between Republic of Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia (the language dispute), Sofia, 1997

Being the only centre in Bulgaria directly involved with the study of the scientific problems of the geographic region of Macedonia, the Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia discussed the up-to-date problems of the mutual relations between the republics of Bulgaria and Macedonia (which constitutes only one-third of the region). One of the recent is the language dispute imposed by Skopje, since it involves not only the public in both countries, but also the world public opinion. A testimony of this is the May Declaration of this year of the Macedonian Bulgarians living throughout the world (USA, Canada, Bulgaria), yet associated by the Macedonian Patriotic Organization seated in Toronto, Canada.

Upon a comprehensive analysis of the publications (the press included), both in Bulgaria and abroad, the members of the Institute - academicians, corresponding members, professors, assistant professors and public figures, working in various areas of humanities, reached at the only correct conclusion possible, i. e. that long-term decisions could only be obtained through bringing to the fore of the truth about the process.

Any ad hoc pragmatic approach applied so far because of some of another short-lived political considerations of a domestic or international character has failed to stand the test of time and has led to further and deeper complications and, eventually, to a dead-end.

In spite of the attempts of certain politicians to influence on its development, history has never forgiven to any of those who have tried to forge it. Sooner or later, next generations find an easier approach to the mounds of facts and documents which reveal the outrageous truth and upon discovering it, the names of the politicians are either mentioned with boredom or anathematized. An example in this respect is the case of the founders of post-war Serb-Communist Macedonia - Sv. Tempo and L. Kolishevski (who bound the country to the Yugoslav chariot), and who are nowadays inherited by the old-newish authorities in Skopje.

At mentioning the names of Sv. Tempo and L. Kolishevski (authors of the state line of anti-Bulgarism in the Republic which, unfortunately, is sustained to the present day), the whole people of the Republic of Macedonia feels not only hostility but indignation, as well.

Such has been the fate of the Bulgarian authorities for the last 50 years, since their party has not yet apologized for the unforgivable damages being inflicted since 1934 on the Bulgarian national memory brought to oblivion. The present-day attempts on the part of some of its leaders to acquit their past behaviour by "recognizing" its own-created so-called "realities", are ridiculous and unworthy. Unfortunately, the deformations over the national character are so deep, that the Comintern thinking which is now labelled "European" is typical of some new politicians who received their education in the old king of Bulgarian schools. The lack of basic schooling in terms of some notions of sociology and political science constitutes the main threat to present-day social thinking in Bulgaria.

The decoration of (Com)internationalism with new "European" draperies is a sign of bad taste and reminds of the French saying: "The King is dead. Long live the King!", which implies that the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Bulgaria are to enter the new Europe remade up with their obsolete ideological Communist luggage.

Which are those absurd Communist ideas which, consciously or unconsciously, still dwell in the minds of the politicians from both sides of the Ograzhden Mountain:

1. The idea that nations and languages are established on certain dates, on the decisions of certain persons, groups of people, parties, or institutions.
2. The idea that in the 20th c. the "new" nations and languages (in Europe including) could emerge through splitting up of former nations and languages priding themselves of a millennial history.
3. The idea that a sign of equivalence could be placed between a state, a nation and a language or, more precisely, that the nation and the language are "attributes" of the state.
4. The idea that the nation and the language are political and not ethnological realities (which are the subject of science).
5. The idea that the nation and the language should be "recognized" in terms of recognizing a state.
6. The idea that the newly formed state could not only usurp and forge the history and culture of the old state, but it could even "counterpoise" the two cultures.
7. The idea that the newly formed state could have territorial claims towards the former states.
8. The idea that the newly formed state could establish "national" minorities within the former state, etc.

Those Stalinist presumptions emerged in the east (the USSR) during the 1930's when, according to the principle "divide and rule", a number of new states were founded on the basis of the numerous Central-Asian Turkis. State differentiation was also proclaimed a national-linguistic one, i. e . ethnical.

Further on, in 1923-24, and especially after 1944, the Comintern model was transferred in the European part of the USSR where, a "Carelofinnish" nation (and language) were conjured up on the basis of the Finnish nation and language, and the Romanian nation (and language) gave the origins of a "Moldovian" nation (and language). The Western countries comprising more than one ethnos did not compile new languages but rather chose one or two of the former ones. This applies even for whole continents, such as America and Australia.

The Soviet model was also mechanically adopted by the Communist movement in Southeastern Europe and in the Balkans, in particular, where the Bulgarian nations was torn apart after the First and the Second Balkan Wars into the neighbouring countries. After the replacement of the national ideal for an union with the class one, Bulgarian Communists were put on by cunning on the part of the Serbian, Greek and Rumanian ones and adopted the thesis of the existence of "Macedonian", "Thracian" and "Dobroudjan" nations not only outside the country, but also within its borders. An echo of those ideas is still to be found nowadays in the cases of conjuring up of new "languages" throughout the Bulgarian national territory - "Pomak's" in Greece, "Shop's" in Serbia, etc.

The 1934 Stalinist Comintern decisions made under the dictate of the Yugoslav Communists reflected, in fact, the 100-year-old Great-Serbian utopian theories, namely that Serbia was the Piedmont of the Southern Slavs and that all Slavonic peoples gathered around it were "Serbian" by origin, hence they should unite around it and comprise one common state (cf. "The Outline" by I. Garashanin, 1848). A variation of the Garashanin thesis is the later concept of St. Novakovich (1888), i. e. that in view of the Serbization of the Bulgarian people in Macedonia - which reacted strongly against the direct foreign influence - it was necessary that its conversion to Serbism passed through an intermediary "Macedonistic" stage. During that period, the Bulgarian national consciousness and awareness were to be destroyed.

In certain periods, in Macedonia, under the Serbian power, either the Garashaninov plan (1913-41), or the Novakovich one (1848-1913; 1944-90) were applied. The contemporary government of the Republic of Macedonia leads no policy differing from the Serbian-Communist one. As an ideology and a practice, Macedonism is an attempt at a denationalization of the Bulgarian people and language in Macedonia.

Apart from Serbian Macedonism (in the Vardar region), there is also a Greek Macedonism (in the Aegean region). The latter also appears in two variations: a direct one - through crude and forcible conversion of the Aegean Bulgarians into Greeks, and an indirect one - through the indirect assimilation of the "Bulgarian-speaking" (later on the "Slavonic-speaking") into Greeks - by occasionally creating the impression that the native "Slavophones" were granted certain rights.

During the Civil War years (1946-49) in Greece, the Greek Communist Party "created' an Aegean-Macedonian "nation" differing from the Skopje one and, along with this, the "Nea Elada" Publishing House proclaimed the conjuring up of another - Aegean-Macedonian - "language", differing from the Skopje one, as well. In 1953, the Publishing House also published textbooks in that "language" to be used by the children of the political immigrants from Aegean Macedonia to the former socialist countries, on the basis of the alleged Kostour-Lerin Bulgarian dialect. (At present, the Bulgarian "languages" on the Balkans number already five.)

Thus, the Bulgarian language body hosted two more "languages" - in Greece and in former Yugoslavia, which, in turn mutually denied each other and their varied norms.

For the truth's sake it should be pointed out that the anonymous authors of the Aegean "language" have never concealed that they had used Prof. L. Andrejchin's "Basic Bulgarian Grammar", as well as the traditional Bulgarian alphabet (including the letters , , , etc.)

In Greece, the inventors of the second "Macedonian language" have not striven at differentiating the Aegean norm from the literary Bulgarian one. In contrast, in the Republic of Macedonia, the line of St. Novakovich was followed for a gradual Serbization of the Bulgarian language through conjuring up of a "Macedonian literary language" - a political order of Belgrade, fulfilled by the loyal subjects from Skopje.

In principle, the creation of a literary language on the basis of an existing dialect is usual for linguistics. In this was, even nowadays, a number of languages appear to serve the needs of some African and Asian tribal and ethnic groups which have been retarded in their social development and have failed to assert a writing of their own. However, the case of Macedonia - which is the native land of the Bulgarian and the Slavonic scripts (9th c.) and has a more-than-thousand-year old tradition behind its back - is not the same.

Europe has long ago seen the end of the processes of emerging nations and modern literary languages. These were most typical during the National Revival and it is namely that period in Macedonian history (19th c.) that has experienced the strongest Bulgarian influence.

Being the cradle of the Bulgarian National Revival, Macedonia has made its contribution to the emergence of the Bulgarian nation and the modern Bulgarian literary language (Father Paissiy, J. Karchovski, K. Pejchinovich, T. Sinaitski, K. and D. Miladinov, J. Hadjinikolov-Djinot, N. Zografski, Gr. Parlichev, K. Shapkarev, R. Zhinzifov, M. Tsepenkov, and many more).

All of the ideologists of the revolution in Macedonia (Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Hristo Tatarchev, Georche Petrov, Pere Toshev, Todor Popantov, Todor Alexandrov) wrote in the literary Bulgarian language, emphasizing their explicit Bulgarian national awareness. The literary Bulgarian was also the language used by Vladimir Poptomov, Yane Sandanski, Metodi Shatorov, Pavel Shatev (and even the most outright Comintern supporter, Dimiter Vlahov). The statements of the authorities in Skopje that those active figures did not know their own language and therefore wrote in a foreign one, as well as the attempts to posthumously preach to them that they had been wrong, is a blasphemy par excellence. The names of Gotse and Dame are an icon for the Republic of Macedonia. Their Bulgarian self-awareness and their literary Bulgarian language are bound to be linked with that icon and are an indisputable evidence in the language dispute fabricated by Skopje. In spite of the final statement of the documents to be signed between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia, it is very clear that, in any case, they would be signed in the language of Gotse and Dame, who have determined their ethnical appurtenance on their own.

On a certain date towards the end of World War II (2 August 1944), and at a certain place (the "Prohor Pchinsky" Monastery), it was for the second time (after the Comintern decision of 1934) that a decree proclaimed and institutionalized the existence of an "formal" language. (There were not any norms yet. Poets, such as Venko Markovski and Kocho Ratsin had so far written both in the literary Bulgarian language and in their native dialect. That was the cost of K. Ratsin's life, for he was killed in the partisan camp.)

After an about three-year-long activities controlled directly by the Central Committee of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the three orthographic commissions instituted by Tito and Tempo finally came to invent norms which did not correspond to the pronunciation, yet approached in graphical terms the Skopje construct to the Serbo-Chroatian one. The protocols of those commissions published in the press testify that the so-called Macedonian language is a fabrication. And it is not the Bulgarian state that denies such a linguistic formation, but rather it denies itself through self-confessions. Here we shall quote the most important of these in order to make clear that it does not go about a natural language phenomenon but rather about a political act for which no attempts are even being made to conceal.

The main ideas of the protocols are as follows (quoting the Macedonian members on the commissions):

• "We, the Macedonians, who have never had a literature of our own so far, have no definite common literary language".
• The Republic of Macedonia appeared "due to the efforts of the Communist Party", "due to the efforts of the troops of our far-sighted and dearest Marshall Tito".
• The people are "still to assert themselves as a nation", taking into account "the interests of the Federative and Democratic Yugoslavia".
• "We have no time to wait for that language to be created. We are facing the issue of having a literary language of our own, yet we have not the time to wait for this language to be created by poets, men of letters and journalists".
• "We have no time to wait for some of our dialects to develop into a literary language".
• "Our teachers would have finished the fifth or the sixth grade of school. Education with insufficiently qualified teachers world be very difficult".
• "The word goes about pedagogy and students. However, the same applied to adults. Those people will never learn the language rules".
• "We should therefore set the basics of our orthography by establishing a Macedonian alphabet and a Macedonian literary language"; "These literary materials are to be completed by certain political circumstances which are also influential in the Macedonian language dispute "; "We should be careful about our actions"; "it is better to make a grammar mistake than to make a political one"; The same applies to the letters of the Serbian alphabet; "It would be no use to maintain the differences between ourselves and the Serbs through the alphabet".
• The language of our people "has not been completely formed yet"; "If the Bulgarians have a look at the Serbian letters, they would say: 'Those people have turned Serbs"; "the editor of "Bregalnishki Glas" newspaper (a publication of the SRM at that time) acts as if in a shock upon hearing of Serbian letters. On the other hand, we shall be having troubles with the Federation of Yugoslavia. Therefore it is necessary that we adopt the Serbian letters as soon as possible, instead of the Bulgarian ones"; "not to make our brothers in Serbia and Croatia angry"; "it may be possible that we find out something in-between, although not quite scientifically grounded, but well-tempered and of practical use"; "I am afraid that we might make a mistake which would cause people laugh at us".

The confessions testify that the literary language in Skopje was conjured up in a haste, that it is far from being natural - like most languages throughout the world - and that it is not the result of centuries-long continuing historical development (which is the most typical feature of any normal language formation). It does not rest on any non-Bulgarian literature to serve as its basis (poetry, fiction, journalism), and has no definite dialect basis on which to develop (so far there was a misconception that at least such a basis existed), therefore the fabricated rules could never be learned for they have no scientific foundation to lie on.

The most important goal in fabricating that "language" (or rather "a political language") consisted mainly in serving the purposes of the Yugoslav Federation, and the Serbs in particular, by its gradual conversion to the Serbian language. That is all the product of the Communist Party and the Marshall Tito's troops who was no to be angered in order to prevent troubles. Consequently, the so-called Macedonian literary language is a partially destructured literary Bulgarian language.

Language, however, is an ethnical category, and not a suit or a handkerchief which could be replaced easily on somebody's will. That was something some of the "inventors" of the language soon came to realize. V. Markovski, whose proposal for preserving the letter in the alphabet, protested and was sent to the "Goli Otok" prison camp. Later on, in his work titled "Blood is Thicker than Water" ("Kruvta voda ne stava"), which was published in English in the USA, he wrote: "All serious researchers have reached in different ways at the conclusion that the villages of Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Dobroudja are inhabited by Bulgarians; that the people's and national awareness of those Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobroudjan, but Bulgarian; that the language of those Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, not Dobroudjan, but Bulgarian; that the history of those Bulgarians living in either Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia, and Dobroudja is not any separate Macedonian, Thracian, Moesian, or Dobroudjan history, but a common Bulgarian history; that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Dobroudja are a geographical expression of the Bulgarian territory".

In short, we are facing a repetition of the self-denial once made by Kr. Misirkov, the author of the booklet "Za makedonckite raboti" ("On the Macedonian Problems") published in 1903. (At present, the Institute for Macedonian Language in Skopje bears the name of Misirkov.) Later on (in 1924) he wrote: "The beginning of the 19th c. in Macedonia saw a Greek clergy and a Bulgarian national awareness among the brighter Macedonians... That intellectual and national unity of Moeasians, Macedonians and Thracians followed and preceded the emergence of a Bulgarian Exarhate and the Liberation of Bulgaria. The Serbs... took over the greatest part of Macedonia... It was given to them by those who, in the long run, recognized the Bulgarian national character of Macedonia. Yet, this is not the end of the nationality of the Macedonians... However, the Bulgarians are not fond of philology and history, they do not like being reproached of chauvinism and are inclined to live, at any price, at peace with their neighbours even if they would like to take over half of their villages, yards, etc.... Yet, there are appeals on the part of the Macedonians themselves: "We are Bulgarians, even more than the Bulgarians living in Bulgaria... That is what we call ourselves today and that is what we would like to call ourselves in future... Would you want concessions from us? Would you want us to be less Bulgarian that the Bulgarians themselves? To concede to you?... We shall be Macedonians rather than Bulgarians, but Macedonians with a consciousness different from your own Serbian national consciousness, with a historical past of our own, with a literary language of our own - common to the Bulgarian one - and with Macedonian-Bulgarian national schools of our own".

The further development of the Macedonian language is a plagiarism proper.. The name has been cribbed. Under the name Macedonian, world linguistics classifies a completely different non-Slavonic language which has nothing to do with the present-day language Slavonic formation in Skopje, which is Bulgarian by its origin. The Macedonian tribes (Orestes, Linkestes, Aeordians, Elymyotes, etc.) were ethnically related to the Greek ones in Thessalia, and partly to the Illyrians and the Thracians. As early as 148 B. C., the former Macedonia was defeated by Rome and the ancient Macedonians were Romanized and Greecisized. Their language became extinct and not much is known of it today.

Six or seven centuries later, those lands hosted the Bulgarian Slavs; yet not even the memory has remained of the ancient Macedonians. The name of the region was not updated by the Greeks until the National revival period. Until then, it was called Lower Moesia, in contrast to Upper Moesia (Northern Bulgaria).

Cribbing is not the monopoly of Skopje alone. That was earlier done by the Serbs who had proclaimed Tsar Samouil a Serbian Ruler. Now, the attribute "Serbian" is simply replaced by "Macedonian", in spite of the fact that the Macedonian dynasty of Basil II Bulgaroctone fought against the Bulgarians. This is a complete paradox which is hardly to explain in Skopje, for it turns out, after all the metamorphoses, that the Macedonian dynasty of Basil II was at war with... the Macedonians.

The Skopje alchemists after 1944 are hardly ashamed to cross over the words "Bulgarians" and "Bulgarian language" even in historical documents. In "The Homily of Kliment of Ohrid" by Theophilactus (11th-12th cc.), the Skopje historian Dragan Tashkovski has made an enormous forgery. the Greek original has been forfeited through a "translation": "Kliment, a Bulgarian bishop" becomes "Kliment, a Slovenian bishop". The text "...because there were no even words of praise in Bulgarian... he made up words... comprehensible for even the most common Bulgarian and with those he fed the souls of the most common Bulgarians... and became the new Paul for the new Corinthians - the Bulgarians... As a whole, Claimant has given it all to us, the Bulgarians" was transformed to: "There being no festive words in the Slovenian language... he wrote preachings... accessible for even the most common Slovenians, and with these he fed the souls of even the most common Slovenians. And he became the second Paul for the new Corinthians - the Slovenians. And, as a whole... Kliment gave it all to us... the Slovenians..."

The plundering of Bulgarian culture knew no limits: the collection "Bulgarian Folk Songs" by the K. and D. Miladinov brothers (1861) was re-published in Skopje as a "Zbornik" ("A Collection") in 1962 by D. Mitrev, K. Penoushlijski and A. Spasov; St. Verkovich"s book "Narodne pesme makedonskih Bugara" ("Folk Songs of Macedonian Bulgarians") - (1860) was re-published in 1961 by K. Penoushlijski as "Macedonian Folk Songs".

The title "Polog and Its Bulgarian Population" ("Polog i ego bolgarskoe naselenie" ) by the eminent Russian scholar A. M. Selishtev was cited by Blazhe Koneski as just "Polog". The very same Blazhe Koneski (as an undergraduate in Sofia - Blagoy Konev), known for his trial for plagiarism from G. Kiselinov in the Republic of Macedonia, re-wrote the main postulates of the "Historical Grammar of the Bulgarian Language". For that he was appointed an Academician at the Macedonian Academy of Sciences.

The present President of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences, Bozho Vidoeski (Bozhidar Vidoevich), re-wrote the bibliographical works of M. Mazhdrakova (1905), Hr. Gerchev (1911) and St. Stoykov (1937) and, in fact, published them as a collection under the title of "Prilog kon bibliografijata na makedonskiot jazik" ("A Contribution to the Bibliography of the Macedonian Language") in 1953.

The list of intellectual robberies (to put it mildly) is so rich that in itself it could constitute a number of volumes of bibliography.

Here, for sure, belong neither "the translation" of G. Delchev's letters from literary Bulgarian into the Serbian version of the Bulgarian language which was proclaimed as "authentic", nor the adapted version of Vaptsarov's poetry into the folklorized "native" language of the Tempo-Kolishev variation, since the poet had no idea that it would be conjured up upon his death.

All forgeries aim at one and the same thing - the delusion of the young people within the country. Skopje science has been highly appraised from Gevgely to Koumanovo. Outside the Republic of Macedonia it is of no value. Linguistics turns into linguistic mythology, history - into historical mythology, and humanities as a whole - into humanitarian mythology.

That is the source of the fears experienced by the present minister of foreign affairs Bl. Handjijski in terms of internationalizing the language dispute between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia. Evenmore, international experts would consult the documents of their own countries, they would look up such reference books as the Larousse and Encyclopaedia Britannica, they would seek for references in the reports of their ambassadors and consuls to the Balkans, they would make themselves acquainted with the results of the Carnegie Inquiry and Churichill's memoirs, they would get hold of the thousands of documents kept at the scientific institutes in Bulgaria which have been published and translated into foreign languages, they would become acquainted with the hundreds of forgeries done both in the past and recently.

The dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece about the name of the former Republic of Yugoslavia is only fictitiously related to Antiquity.

The dispute between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia refers not only to the romantic past, as the Bulgarian President P. Stoyanov delicately put it, but also to the present history which is far from being romantic, since the anti-Bulgarian campaign in Macedonia has never stopped at all. And it has been led not only in terms of words but also an exterminatory one.

By force of the "Law for Protection of the National Dignity", thousands of Bulgarians were pursued in our southwestern neighbour-country. Since 1944 till the present day, more than 720 trials have been held in the Republic of Macedonia, and over 200 death sentences have been passed, mainly against the elite of the Bulgarian intelligentsia. Here do not fall the mass slaughters in Veles and other towns which were accomplished in 1945 without any charge or trial. More than 150 000 Bulgarians have been put to prison (mostly in Idrizovo and Goli Otok). Over 180 000 have left their native places to seek their real freedom throughout all continents of the world. Bulgaria could hardly recognize those "facts" as totalitarian, not in the least to consider them "European".

In terms of science, police methods are still applied as the main means of mental cruelty. Those who have been invited to international conferences are being called on by the local authorities to be "counselled" until they give up on their participation in such events. The most daring ones, which do not accept the "advice", are being taken down off the plane and closed up in the vicinity of Skopje, until the end of the respective international meetings.

The Slavonic centres which have sent invitations to these people, mail distress cables to the University and the Academy. Yet, the formal denial of Serbian Communism as a theory does not mean its denial as a practice.

Serbian communism (Blazhe-Konevism in linguistics) fights those who truly aim at reforming the Skopje Karadzhitsa, which comprises superfluous Serbian letters and lacking written symbols for the so-called Bulgarian symbols which are, naturally, typical for the speech of the population of Macedonia.

The inceptive linguistic mythologists L. Spasov and O. Vanguelov, which are successors of the Blazhe-Konevism, fill up whole pages of the "Pulse" newspaper, blaming every reformer of pro-Bulgarism, or Kronsteinerism (after the name of the Austrian scholar Prof. Dr. Otto Kronsteiner, who emphasized the Bulgarian essence of the Skopje formation), etc.

Goshev and Popovski have also turned themselves to "linguists", and Argirovski sagely assumes that the Bulgarian language could be considered a dialect of the "Macedonian". Although humorous, this statement could contain a grain of rationality, insofar the relations between dialects and literary language are to be sought for within one and the same languages.

The feigned scientific mythology in Skopje has simply consciously closed its eyes in order not to see that the Bulgarian situation is not the only one (unique) on the Balkans, but is rather to be found in every neighbouring country. The Greek language is represented by two written variants - Dimotiki and Katarevus; the Serbo-Croatian has two, and recently even three forms - Serbian, Croatian and recently Bosnian ones (and, furthermore, the Croatian language could be considered separately from a historical point of view, i. e. in the same way this could have happened with the Macedonian language, which has had an explicit 13-century-long Bulgarian history); the Albanian language is known for its two varieties - Toskian one (southern) and Gegyan one (northern); Rumanian also exists in two variants - Rumanian and Moldovian. It was not long ago that, on Bulgarian TV, namely the Moldovian President Mircha Snegur announced that it was now already accepted in the Republic of Moldovia to speak of a Rumanian, and not of Moldovian as a separate language. He compared the situation in the Republic of Macedonia to that in Moldovia and gave a perfect lesson to many of our nihilistically-minded paper-writers.

It would, however, not be fair to determine language variations as a Balkan feature alone.

The Armenian language also has two variants: eastern - in Armenia, and western - in Turkey (and at present throughout Europe). Norway, which is par excellence European country, also uses two written forms: a) Rejksmole - the official language which also bears the name of Boeksmoel (literary), and b) Lansmoel - the language of the people, also called Nejnorske (Norwegian).

Rejksmole (or Boeksmoel) has developed on the basis of Danish, while Lansmoel (or Nejnorske) has emerged on the basis of Norwegian dialects. Being an educated people, Norwegians have no qualms of consciousness that Danish lies at the basis of their official (literary) language. The common life of Danes and Norwegians in the 1380 Danish-Norwegian Union, as well as their joint fight against the Swedes are the historical circumstances which have formed up the language variations of present-day Norwegian.

From time to time, among the allegedly scholarly mythological writings of Skopje, there are certain sparks of regaining consciousness; emphasis is laid on the so-called B- (Bulgarian) complexes of the most eminent men in the Republic.

In this respect, indicative is the confession of Gane Todorovski made on 8 February 1991.

"During the Macedonian 19th century - he wrote - literature was made by fifty or more people which had been brought up with pro-Bulgarian oriented ideas in a nationalistic sense... This has been the case with Djinot, the Miladinov brothers, Parlichev, Tsepenkov, Shapkarev, Dinkov, Zhinzifov, Sprostranov, Chernodrinsky. How were we supposed to deal with that legacy?... Who were these people and what are they now? I avail of the manuscript of "A History of the Macedonian Literature of the 19th c.", yet something constantly prevents me from presenting it to the public. What stands in the way? It was not long ago that Blazhe Ristovski formulated it genuinely during a public debate. This is the political barrier, or rather the barrier of the political prejudices. In other words, to put it figuratively, the word goes about the Macedonian "B-complex" (the Bulgarian orientation in the acts of the most eminent of our people during the 19th c.).

There is a necessity, once and for all, to clearly state that Serbomans in Macedonia have, for those 45 years of freedom and being protected by Kolishevski and Yugoslav unitarism, blocked the development of Macedonian literary science with their sturdy prejudices... Science was not supposed to subject to everyday politics, yet it did so".

The above truths, spelled out by Gane Todorovski and Blazhe Ristovski - one of the most prominent Macedonian scholars - reveal the overall picture of the social and political realities in the republic of Macedonia during the past half century of totalitarianism.

That is why it is hard to understand the wailing of the "New Macedonia" newspaper on the occasion of the concise statement made by the Bulgarian President Stoyanov in Strassbourg, namely that "Macedonia is a part of Bulgarian history, and what is more, one of its most romantic parts".

Gane Todorovski is a Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Macedonia to Moscow. Bl. Ristovski is the author of voluminous books filled with impossible tasks - to give proof of Macedonism where it never existed. Yet, being hard pressed by the facts, they have confessed to the truth. That truth, pronounced or not, is known to every citizen of the Republic. It is also known to the author of the pamphlet against the Bulgarian President - the Skopje journalist D. Chulev, originating from an old Bulgarian revolutionary family.

From what has been said so far, it becomes evident that the problems of the relations between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia constitute a whole range of questions which should be strictly differentiated in order to avoid their mixing, since they have no uniform solution. These are the problems related to the state, the nation and the language:

1. The problem of the state. Bulgaria has passed its way of approaching the new state by being the first in the world to recognize it. Recogintion is an institution of international public law. It provides for the legal status of newly emerged legal subjects of international law itself. Recognition grants the possibility of the international subject under question to enter international life.

The centuries-long practice is absolutely unanimous: recognition is given to states and governments. No subject of recognition are formations and groupings. There is also no precedent in international law in terms of recognition of ethnic groups, nationalities, or nations. Even more absurd seem the claims for recognition of a language. Contracts could be signed in internationally recognised languages, as well, which are foreign to the contracting parties.

Of all the world's states, Bulgaria is the most friendly disposed towards the Republic of Macedonia: 1) it was the first to recognize its status of a state; 2) it saved its economy 9without any sighed agreements) during the double economic embargo imposed from the North and the South; it was its only window to the world; 3) it did not concede to a division of the territory with Greece; 4) it rejected a similar suggestion from Yugoslavia; 5) it interceded for its recognition from Russia, and a lot more.

The dignity in its behaviour is also evident from the fact that it has stood for years against responding to the continuous (thousands of) attacks which are daily imposed, with or without any occasion, in the press, radio and TV and, above all, in the edition specialized in state anti-Bulgarism - the "New Macedonia" official gazetteer. Along with doing a bad favour to our country, it also creates among the population of the Republic that it has not been left to oblivion and there is still a constant interest in it. In fact, the Bulgarian propaganda in the Republic of Macedonia, whatever it may be, is being carried out by the media of these states themselves.

The efforts and means spent by the small state on supporting the so-called Macedonistic organization OMO "Ilinden" in the Pirin region - a formation created with the help of the former Yugoslav embassy in Sofia - were futile. This is testified by the words of the attache on the press and cultural affairs, M. Knezhevich: "In our contacts with OMO "Ilinden" we have considered it a legal organization".

Later on, some joint and one-man companies emerged for the sake of covering up the foreign financing (e. g. "Koukoush-1913" with President At. Kiryakov, which published several anti-Bulgarian newspapers). The financial affairs and the outrageous struggle for allotting the money among the leaders divided the "Organization" into winglets, the more so as it consisted of a "carful of people".

2. The problem of the nation. The unskilled politicians, journalists and graphomaniacs from both sides of the Ograzhden mountain misplace an equivalence sign between state and nation, without taking into account that, as a political category, the state is of a temporary nature (Cf. Austro-Hungary, the USSR, Yugoslavia), while the nation, which is constituted on an ethnical basis, is of a long-standing nature.

The claims for the emergence of "a Soviet", "a Yugoslav", "an Eastern Gernam", etc. nations in the nearest past proved futile.

The consolidation of the Bulgarian nation (18th-19th cc.) on the basis of the centuries-long Bulgarian nationality existing since the 9th c. in Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia is a completed process in line with the changes which have taken place in Europe.

The new phenomena in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, i. e. the regions under Greek domination, could be termed quite precisely "a denationalization".

During the totalitarian and post-totalitarian periods, when personal and social freedom was restricted, the exact state of the national relations was hardly possible to account.

Furthermore, the concepts about the content of the term "nation" vary considerably. The Stalinist (or Comintern) postulate about the nation, on the basis of which the Macedonian nation was decreed, collapsed. The American, British, Spanish and French definitions about the nation also differ. There is no unanimous view on that problem even in the Republic of Macedonia itself, in terms of the inclusion or the exclusion of the Albanian element (30-40 %).

Ignoring the fact that nations are not a subject or an object of international law, hence they are not to be "recognized", no one could tell exactly what is to be recognized.

3. The problem of the language. The incorrect relating of language and state also causes comic and even absurd effects. Just like nation, the language is not "an attribute" of the state. Otherwise, we should have spoken of "Swiss", "Belgian", "Cyprus", "Luxembourg", "South African", "Australian", "Mexican", "Chilean", etc. languages which, as a matter of fact, do not exist.

In its function of a means of communication between people, every language consists of three important elements: 1) language history; 2) dialects; and 3) written (or literature) form.

The so-called Macedonian language is characterized by: 1) thousands-of-years-long Bulgarian history; 2) Bulgarian dialects; and 3) following World War II, a written form which is, in fact, partially destructured literary Bulgarian (by means of a certain lexical Serbization and certain grammatical dialectization).

As a whole entity comprising the three elements, Macedonian language does not exist. The third component which has allowed certain variations - the written one - is not sufficient to cover for the whole range of the concept of a language. What is more, it is of a regional nature not because of its being denied in Bulgaria or abroad, but for certain objective reasons - it is the official norm for only one region of the geographical area of Macedonia, i. e. the Vardar region. The other two regions - the Pirin and the Aegean - are not related to it. Until 1913, for about a century, literary Bulgarian (despite the Turkish yoke) was the language used in schools, literature and press throughout the three regions and the area as a whole; it was of an all-Bulgarian nature rather than of a regional one.

Down to the present day, the Skopje norm is not stabilized even in the one-third of the area (the Vardar one), since there is a linguistic chaos evident. As the "Focus" newspaper wrote in its issue of 13 December 1996, "If one day, hopefully in the near future, some of the simpletons in Bulgarian government sign the agreements between the Republic of Macedonia and the Republic of Bulgaria in the Macedonian language, using the ridiculous writing of which not even half of Macedonia is aware of, then probably a part of the police-supported scribblers would lose their jobs".

The claims of the written form in Republic of Macedonia to represent the "Macedonian language" as a "whole entity" in the three areas - with the purpose to substantiate not only pretences towards the language and the dialects, but also further political aspirations, are groundless. The aspirations of Skopje are stipulated for in the country's constitution - Art. 49 - providing "care" for the minorities outside the borders.

For a certain period of time, there was a kind of understanding on the part of Skopje, that the language dispute could not be solved outside the borders of Macedonia.

The latest "ultimatum" of Minister Handjijski, that the signing of the agreement would consider the matter of "a Macedonian language in general", i. e. Macedonian language in the Pirin region, is an expression of the great-Macedonism and megalomania which would, inevitable, lead to an international arbitrage.

The two countries may be able to solve the problems by themselves, on the basis of their good will. The pertinence of Skopje to apply different approaches to its neighbours (the agreements with Greece are signed in English, which is not the case with Bulgaria) indicates that the policy of equidistancing towards its neighbours proclaims is, in fact, just an empty statement. Obviously, the present authorities in the Republic of Macedonia are not able to solve their domestic political problems and it would be advisable to wait for a more sensible government.

The threat by Handjijski that Bulgaria would not join the NATO if it does not sign the agreements is groundless, since the problems Macedonia is causing to its neighbours are even four times bigger.

Bulgaria's problems refer only to that new state. The Republic of Macedonia, however, has urging problems with all of its neighbours: with Serbia - about the northern border and the church; with Albania - about the Albanian minority which is about to become a majority in the near future.

It is only the political short-sightedness of the present Skopje government that could prevent the country from relying on its closest and faithful friend - the Republic of Bulgaria - which is already really tired of forgiving.

The attitude of our country towards the young republic is in no case prompted by patronising, but rather by the thousands-of-years-long tradition which cannot be simply neglected, in spite of the efforts made to this end. The same names of scientists, writers and artists are studied in the schools and universities in both countries. These names have been given to various cultural institutions, streets, places and boulevards with equal affection and respect on both sides of the border.

From an objective point of view, there are no reasons for our countries not to be integrated into NATO and Europe.

The problems lie excessively with the present state authorities of the Republic of Macedonia which are following along the traditional lines of anti-Bulgarism and are continuously conjuring up points of dispute.

7 July 1997 Sofia

---

I sincerely hope that the situation with Macedonian language has improved now, 10 years after this memorandum, and the position of Sofia is more positive.

--Lantonov 15:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Broken references

What is the deal with references on this page? The normal linking conventions seem to be broken, and there are embedded comments in the article saying that it should not be changed? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Former Yugoslavia

In the info box of a language we list countries were the language is spoken. We do not list non-existent countries. It is self-evident that in Yogoslavia, Macedonian was spoken, and consequently it is spoken in some of the succession countries, but the latter are already enumerated in the info box.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the Mac. languages in significant numbers in countries like Slovenia is not supported by sources.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the Slovenian census?--NetProfit 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Macedonian is not spoken in Slovenia nor Croatia for pity's sake! You don't just count in every country where there is at least several speakers of Macedonian!!! It is spoken in Serbia, OK, and not in the bordering regions between Serbia and Macedonia, but rather in Vojvodina (i.e. northern Serbia) where a significant number of Macedonians migrated following the WWII. Therefore I will remove all added countries, except Serbia. --Filipgd 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Macedonian language is spoken in Slovenija and i asure you that!I live in Slovenia!!See www.gov.si!!!National census in Slovenia shows these numbers: census 1991--10300 Macedonians census 2002-- 3978 Macedonians,Many of them have accepted Slovenian nationalaty when Slovenia become independet Macedonian language is protected in Slovenia like minorety of ex Yugoslavia. Makedonij 11:15, 10 October 2007(UTC)

I didn't say that there wasn't any speakers of Macedonian in Slovenia!!! But the number of speakers is not as significant as to be placed in the (probably) very first thing someone would see when reading this article, i.e. the welcome language-table. There are more Serbs in Slovenia than Macedonians, but Slovenia is not mentioned as one of the countries where Serbian is spoken. See here. In kaj bi to značilo? --Filipgd 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, that doesn't make any sense. I'm Slovenian and I'm gonna have to agree with the Macedonian on this one.. The link that you provided does not make any sense, as it includes Serbs in Romania. In that case, Slovenia should also be noted, after all there are more Serbs in Slovenia than in Romania. Kind regards to the both of you. Just thought I'd give my opinion, brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.218.206 (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Minority language

Now I'm confused. What exactly does this mean: "recognised as minority language in..."? Though, Macedonian is recognised as a language of the Macedonian minority in numerous countries, but we can see that Australia and Canada are among them from the articles about the languages in those two countries, this is clear. But in Pustec (Liqenas), it's an official language (besides Albanian), because the vast majority of its population is Macedonian (it's difficult to find a source on the net though, I guess we'll have to call the Albanian statistics center :D ). My question, however, was about the meaning of "recognised as minority language". iNkubusse^? 20:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A language is a recognized minority language in a certain country if it is recognized by law in that country (either by being explicitly mentioned in the law or by attaining the status through fulfilling certain criteria set by the law), I'd imagine that most immigrant languages wouldn't qualify. If languages like German, Italian and Spanish, which are spoken by significantly higher numbers of people in Australia and Canada than Macedonian, don't mention having such status, I don't see how Macedonian or any other Balkan language can.Decx 21:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll be surprised. ;) Greek, Croatian and Macedonian are among them. Feel free to use google.com. iNkubusse^? 21:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I don't have to use google. If you want to say that Macedonian has minority language status in Australia and Canada, it's your responsibility to prove it. Until you do so, such claims should be removed from the article, and why did you remove the relevant tags?Decx 22:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all what "recognised" would mean in Australia either. Australia has no legislation about an "official language" in the first place; not even English has any particularly defined legal status, so why should other languages have? Individual Australian states seem to have separate regulations about things like how to treat indigenous languages and "community languages" in education; it's quite likely that Macedonian would fall under some such rule, but that's probably about it. There's quite a bit of sociolinguistic literature about language policies in Australia, but I haven't quickly found access to anything that would confirm or disconfirm anything about a special "status" assigned to Macedonian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another strange case - why don't we just dump the whole official in part if it is that controversial. It certainly cannot be proved that the language is official in AUS and CAN by the meaning of a law or any other administrative act with such particular meaning. I doubt any minority language has a similar status. --Laveol ^T 23:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

International usage

Interested parties, please source the international usage of the Macedonian language. ForeignerFromTheEast 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Slav-Macedonian language

I am Macedonian and noone can speak on behalf of me.Title needs change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle of Pontus (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, won't happen. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Like it or not, "Macedonian", pure and simple, is the internationally accepted term for this language both in scholarship and everyday usage, outside Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And outside Bulgaria, and outside the houses of about 100+ linguists worldwide. --Lantonov (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ι was born in Thessaloniki,Macedonia and i live here.How come their language monopolize the adjective Macedonian; In any case their language is truly and scientifically a branch of Slav languages so using the term Slav-Makedonian it's not simply closer to truth ethnological-wise but more accurate linguistically too. Eagle of Pontus 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think we can or should rehash this issue for the umpteenth time. Sorry, but look it up in the archives. There's been reaaaaams of debate, and this is the stable consensus that has emerged. Not a snowball's chance in hell you'll get consensus to move this article, in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why calling wiki an encyclopedia is a way way long call. Eagle of Pontus 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to call Wikipedia an encyclopedia just becuase it doesn't suit your views... OK! :D iNkubusse^? 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Things aren't decided by vote in an encyclopedia but by scientific facts.You are a Slav Mr -ovski and there isn't any vote in the universe that can change that. Eagle of Pontus 10:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, guys. First of all, Eagle, please remain polite and keep the tone constructive; that's a very important part of Wikipedia culture. Second, the point about naming decisions in Wikipedia is, we follow established usage in English (plus, if that doesn't settle it, we follow the self-identifying names used by the subjects themselves; see WP:NCON). That's really all we need to know; whether you or I think this usage is justified or correct or whatever is really irrelevant. The consensus out in the real world, not here in Wikipedia, is that this language is called Macedonian. Like it or not. This may not be easy to see from your perspective, since usage in Greece is obviously different, but the consensus in the English-speaking world is in fact overwhelming. Some editors here once made a wager, one of them saying he could come up with 100 reliable sources that called the language "Macedonian", for every one source that the other guy could come up with that called it something else. He won. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, technically in order to win, he needed several thousand more sources, but he very well illustrated the prevalence of the un-disambiguated term. Eagle: let it go. Either we like it or not, this means of oral and written communication is overwhelmingly called by English sources as "Macedonian language". NikoSilver 11:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the casual reader doesn't want to dig in archives but we still have to help him right? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Maybe the title doesn't need change, but redirecting all uses of Macedonian languages (note:plural) to one Macedonian language is wrong. Please check out Caucasian language redirection for that matter and read the discussion topic I've created at the top. - Kin 83.235.191.12 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Montenegrin

If you count Montenegrin isn't it closer than Serbian? That's what I inferred from the article. If not closer than Serbian then at least closer than Bosnian. Alex 202.10.89.28 10:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Official language in Albania?

Can someone cite a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heracletus (talk • contribs) 04:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. I knew I had a source around somewhere for that. Here is the out-take as I imagine it might be rather difficult to find.

In the Socialist People’ s Republic of Albania (SPRA) 4,697 people in the Prespa region were recognized as constituting a national minority (pakicë kombëtare). Article 10 of the constitution of the RA guaranteed them the protection and development of their language and culture and the right to use their language in schools. These rights were respected in the RA, which provided primary education in Macedonian (see Hill, 1991a).

Hill, P. (1999) "Macedonians in Greece and Albania: A comparative study of recent developments". Nationalities Papers. 27(1) p. 26

- Francis Tyers · 12:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian language/Egyptian Arabic_ XMK Macedonian/ Macedonian Slavic

If Ancient Macedonians had left texts and documents about their language like Ancient Egyptians did, Macedonian name would belong only to their original Ancient owners. btw Egyptian Arabic is used and is not considered offensive by scholars Maqedan (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS HAVE LEFT TEXTS AND DOCUMENTS IN GREEK

usage of omniglot.com as a source?

who believes that we should use omniglot.com (3 million) as a source for the numbers of macedonian speakers??? - 3rd Alcove seems to disagree

note- it is used on the Bulgarian language page.P m kocovski (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove it from that page, then (without removing the number, like it was done on this page). 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

sureP m kocovski (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is it really necessary the language to be called Macedonian Language (Slavic) ? If so, than rename for example Danish language into Danish language (Germanic). I really do not see any reasons for that word in brackets. If someone is interested about the classification of the language than he could read the article.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its important and linguists use it as well to avoid confusion with the Greek language of ancient macedonians.Megistias (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Greek Macedonian?? Tell me relevant sources where it is written?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? Ancient Macedonian is Hellenic.Hellenic tree.Megistias (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me reliable source from some scientist, or historian (but not Greek one or Macedonian one) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave you see the link and Wikipedia is full of them in respective articles.Also being that Macedonian is a Hellenic name and ancient hellenic language the modern "Slavic Macedonian" has the Slavic descriptor to avoid any confusion with the unrelated ancient hellenic one.13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Megistias (talk)

Read this page (it is made by University in Skopje) [2] --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read it in the past and it is a Fringe theory and perhaps the queen of fringe theories.Take some time to read proper bibliography on the subject.Megistias (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

british Museum the Rosetta StoneMegistias (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read a lot of different bibliography do not worry about that. And read something from Demosten and Plutarch and you will see what I am talking about. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously there is some confusion here. This article was moved only today, against consensus (wiki and real world) by user:Leladax. Blatant POV-pushing. I moved the page back to its correct title. All the arguments presented here are useless. BalkanFever 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Macedonianboy didnt clarfiy this and i hadnt realised it wasnt like this from the start.Still Macedonian (slavic) seems to be correct as to why? the reasons above.Macedonian language can be a disabmig for a number of things.Megistias (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No way. This language is called "Macedonian", pure and simple, 99% of the time, in the real world. The other Macedonian language only plays a role in a tiny area of specialised linguistic and historical studies. As per disambiguation MOS, this here is clearly the predominant meaning of the term. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok then.Megistias (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the ancient one is called 'Ancient Macedonian language' (same as the Ancient Greek). This is utterly unnecessary. --iNkubusse^? 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But the modern one is called Modern Greek, not just Greek .And if Modern Greek was a Slavic dialect then it would be named definitely Slavic Greek

See the reason MKD has the name Maqedan (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your point here? There is no reason to continue any form of "argument". This article is at Macedonian language and will stay as such. BalkanFever 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the moment this might be the case. Until we resolve the naming dispute that is. If we agree to "New Macedonia" this will apply to everything, including the language and the people.--   Avg    20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's hilarious because we won't. You can WP:CRYSTALBALL somewhere else. BalkanFever 10:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a big statement, given the recent events [3]. I think you'll soon be surprised BF.--   Avg    18:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"The red line that is non-negotiable should be the preservation of the Macedonian nation and language." I didn't say we are stopping talks, I said you will find it very hard to change the name of our language. Again, this fortune-telling can go elsewhere. BalkanFever 07:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is "we" and "you" here anyway? Wikipedia editors? If you want to negotiate the fate of your respective nations, go elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"We" for me is the ethnic Macedonians. "You" for me is the Greeks. And you just repeated what I said. BalkanFever 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue

Went to their link and I'm really baffled. There has not been a census in Greece in 1986. Censuses occur every 10 years in years starting with 1 (That's why we have this famous 1951 census). This data is at least dubious.--   Avg    20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right to be baffled Avg. Furthermore I cannot understand the reason to use [16] Shea, John (1992). The Real Macedonians for the upper bound, and not use the same source for the lower bound. Here is a link directly to the text of this book [[4]].You can read on page 125 some numbers:

180,000 slavic-speakers in Greece (citing 1987 Encyclopedia Brittanica)

The London paper Indepent suggests there are anywere from 50,000 to 300,000 (note: a journalistic source, not a scientific source)

recent observations by the US State department giving the number between 20,000 and 50,000

So correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Shea John suggesting a lowest estimate of 20,000 and highest estimate 180,000 if you use the scientific sources or lowest 50,000 and highest 300,000 if you use the journalistic source. In plain English.

Therefore the correct thing is to use the dubious ethnologue source along with source [16]Shea John and source [17]:Dulicenko (a biased source if you ask me) for the upper bound of 300,000 which they roughly (round-up) all agree upon, together with the outdated 1951 census that Dulicenko cites.

The lower bound must also be changed to the average of the lower estimates of all the sources which is about 35,000. Dulicenko also uses the 1949 number of 40,000 as a lowest estimate. The US State deparment source for this is: 1990 Country Report on Human Rights Practices published by the United States Department of State (1991:1172) . We can also add this independent source[[5]] on section 5. Macedonian Human Rights and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The writer is Loring Danforth who wikipedia states as the preeminent expert. Loring Danforth accepts the US State Deparment figure and actually narrows down from there but let's overlook that.

There is also the recent source of CIA world factbook which clearly states for Greece under language: 99% speaking Greek (official), other 1% (includes English and French) which translates to no more than 100,000 by current population of Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Greek Helsinkmi monitor had commented [[6]]

on the lower range of under 10,000 and upper of 50,000 given by the US as being of a Macedonian language (and not a dialect) but doesn't challenge the numbers in this report [[7]]

Northwestern Greece is home to an indeterminate number of citizens who speak a Slavic dialect at home, particularly in Florina province. Estimates ranged widely, from under 10,000 to 50,000. A small number identified themselves as belonging to a distinct ethnic group and asserted their right to “Macedonian” minority status.

On Ethnologue citation: the only census that were performed IN ANY COUNTRY IN THE WHOLE WORLD in 1986 [[8]] ::where these:

1986 Census of Australia, Egypt, Qatar, Swaziland, Tonga, Ukraine

So what is this 1986 census cited by Ethnologue??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Added another source: The Council of Europe in a very recent document (2004) identifies the number as 40,000. This is at least an estimate for the lower range number (it isn't specified as a minimum or maximum) [9] although stating the difficulties in obtaining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowmorph (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The source reads at page 90: 40,000 speakers of Romani and Macedonian Slavic, and 30,000 Pomak speakers(southern Slavic language). This source actually pours some light on the distinction between Northwest Slavic (as Macedonian-Slavic) and Southern Slavic (as Pomak-Slavic which is a different thing).Shadowmorph (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Shadowmorph (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

re:slavomacedonian

is anyone aware about who keeps changing macedonian to slavomacedonian??P m kocovski (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The i.p. is from Corinth or near it. --Laveol ^T 22:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright thanx, should have guessed! P m kocovski (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote technique

This article has for a long time has a chaotic double use of both the old {{ref|...}} style endnotes and the newer <ref>...</ref> style notes. This has resulted in two separate footnote lists, and for some reason the internal links in the old-style notes are no longer working properly. I'm going to ignore the comment note in the text that asks not to convert the old to new-style refs, because this state of affairs is clearly wrong and the new-style refs have become standard all over the wiki by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Definite article

They are also the only Slavic languages with a definite article (in fact there are three definite articles: masculine, feminine and neuter).

The above statement is not correct: The masculine, feminine and neuter forms are just variants of the same definite article, which depend on the grammatical gender of the noun. But there are indeed three distinct definite articles in Macedonia: the difference between them refers to the proximity of the noun to the subject of the sentence (neutral, proximal, distal). The page about the Macedonian grammar says Definiteness is expressed by three definite articles pertaining to the position of the object (unspecified, proximate and distal) which are suffixed to the noun. AFAIK: Bulgarian has an additional fourth definite article '-a', but I don't know how is it used, and what is means. NikNovi (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the guys who constructed our literary norm decided that our language should have noun cases (nominative -at vs oblique -a) in the definite article. Much to the distress of all Bulgarian speakers trying to learn Bulgarian orthography. It's always pronounced -a in practice.--Anonymous44 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Official language-Serbia

The sourcing is a bit dubios. Focus News (July 4, 2003) Kosovo Government Acquires Macedonian language and grammar books for Gorani Minority Schools. Does that mean minority language part should now be serbia and kosovo?? because in the recognition of the macedonian minority in serbia, the serbian government recognised macedonian as a minority language. So if so, wouldnt the 2 countries be more appropriate?P m kocovski (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that source should be removed. What kind of source is that? And which focus agency is it - there should be at least a link. --Laveol ^T 09:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

yes it was and it was replaced.P m kocovski (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's better.--Laveol ^T 09:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I found where the source came from here. This is the link to focus news. P m kocovski (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

US Institutions that teach Macedonian?

I know that this is not a forum for general Q and A, but could somebody provide an answer? I was wondering if anybody knows of something such as a list of US Colleges/Universities that offer courses in Macedonian? If anyone has a source of where I could find this information (on Wikipedia or externally), it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.122.118 (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Why is the intro mainly about its relationship to the Bulgarian language? The Croatian language article doesn't even mention the Serbian language in its intro. Most of what's in the intro is already given in more detail in the classification section anyway. The intro should be shortened and focus more on the specifics of the Macedonian language and its origin as is done for all other language articles. --Hegumen (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement regarding mutual intelligibility between Macedonian, Serbian and Bulgarian should by no means be removed, I just think that it focuses too much on its relationship to other languages. --Hegumen (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the intro doesn't seem problematic to me. Why don't you make an attempt at a rewrite? It can always be undone if it comes out worse. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro looks a lot better, a lot of info just needed to be moved. --Hegumen (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it looks better as well. Good work. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

All wrong...

Here is a thought - why all of you claim that Macedonian language is Bulgarian? Isn't it more appropriate that Bulgarian is a dialect of the Macedonian? I mean, where did the Slavs first appear? In Macedonia or Bulgaria?

And another thought - at the Bulgarians: if we speak the same language, why your's is Bulgarian, and our's Macedonian? Or Slavo-Macedonian? Can't we just name our's and yours Macedonian, since Macedonia existed much, much earlier than Bulgaria? Face it, you speak Macedonian language, and if you find this insulting, than re-think what you claim here :)))) 212.120.7.4 (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While it's justifiable to argue that Macedonian is not a dialect of Bulgarian, going the extra step and saying that Bulgarian is a dialect of Macedonian has no justification. Remember that quite a few linguistic divisions around the world are governed partly by politics. This is one of them. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For those fluent in Greek, a text from Giorgos Babiniotis, the leading linguist in Greece, at To Vima [10]. His references are of special interest: The Italian linguist Vittore Pissani says (in 1957) that the "Macedonian" language is a political construct. The French linguist Andre Vaillant (a Slavist) mentions (in 1938) that the name Bulgari is the national appelation of the Slavs of Macedonia. The German linguist Heinz Wendt defines the Eastern South Slavic sub-group consisting of Bulgarian and Slavic Macedonian back in 1961.--   Avg    00:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

going the extra step and saying that Bulgarian is a dialect of Macedonian has no justification Exactly my point - an extra step has already been made by Bulgarians, see where I'm headed? 212.120.7.4 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're arguing that Macedonian is a language of its own right, then I believe the article reflects this. If you're arguing against the idea that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, you can certainly build a case for that. However, one could also build a case that Macedonian is indeed a dialect of Bulgarian. Though such an argument is on shaky ground, Avg has shown above that reputable experts have made such a claim. I know of no justification for arguing that Bulgarian is a dialect of Macedonian, though claiming that they are dialects of the same language while remaining neutral to any sort of hierarchy sounds better than saying Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

To the anon: this page simply isn't for you to discuss your private opinions. We are here to document what the literature says, not more and not less. Your speculation is out of place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dissambiguation, misleading redirects, and "languages of the Macedonians"

I don't want to be involved in this "war" but I came looking for Macedonians Languages (in plurar) and I was redirected to this entry. While everybody understands the difference between plurar and singular there is nothing on top of this entry to disambiguate. I, myself, knew immediately that this entry was about the Macedonian language, which is the language of the ethnic Macedonians, but this is ONLY because I have already researched this topic a little and understand the terminology. I believe that there ought to be a link or two in the top to find other Languages spoken in Macedonia (the region): "Macedonian Languages".

I've added the obligatory link to Macedonia (terminology) and a link to find which language someone searches for, through the Macedonians link - since Wikipedia already has entries for other Macedonians. The logical thing for this topic is to have an other entry like Caucasian language which quite logically redirects to "Languages of the Caucasus" (and not - to say - Georgian language the way this entry does). I give this example because Caucasus like Macedonia is another region with many ethnicities.

Frankly I can't see the reason that an entry languages of Macedonia doesn't exist and while I don't want to choose sides I think that for the casual reader this entry's title is a little missinformative to redirect all the languages of Macedonia to just one language of Macedonia. Maybe you guys who are actively researching this should consider:

1.renaming this entry to "ethnic Macedonian language" to reflect the Macedonians (ethnic group) entry

2.creating an entry "languages of Macedonia"

3.keep the links in the top for dissambiguation (at least)

I'm not such an authority in this topic to do these edits myself (except for No.3), so be my guest. - Kin 83.235.191.12 (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.191.12 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right that Macedonian languages (plural) should not redirect here. I've changed it to redirect to the disambiguation page Macedonian. But once a reader has come to this page here on a legitimate route, they no longer need that disambiguation notice. There are only two things called "Macedonian language", this one and the ancient one, and that's the only thing the dab notice here needs to cover. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Try typing "Macedonian languages" and "Languages of Macedonia" in the search box now. Is this result more acceptable to you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's much better now, thanks. I'm glad you understood my point. Of course the problem remains for the singular too. In other entries e.g. Caucasian language (singular) also redirects to Languages of the Caucasus, Baltic language, European language etc. This is the only entry that uses this singular provision. You are right about the "two things" that exist but only if someone knows that. When searching for something usually one doesn't know that there is a "Macedonian language" and it is different from other languages in Macedonia and may be driven to believe it is the one and only. Especially since the map shows all of the region painted. Changing the title may be POV or too much but surely there must be something more we can do.

There is also the case of anyone coming in by Google or other engine that also redirects plural to this entry and be confused. That's why I thought of putting the links on the top. I guess some new entries wouldn't hurt too. I still think that putting a small link in the top won't hurt anyone especially to an entry Languages in Macedonia. This is what the top links are for! They very much help people coming in from search engines.

It is also logical that someone comes here searching for language spoken in Macedonia (the republic). There should be a link to languages of the Republic of Macedonia. I originally could only find this info: Other languages including Albanian, Bulgarian, Romani, Turkish, Serbian, Vlach (Aromanian and Megleno-Romanian), Circassian, Greek and others are spoken roughly in proportion with their associated ethnic groups in Republic_of_Macedonia#Ethnic_and_cultural_diversity which links to here as "main" article but the same info (or more) is nowhere to be found here.

There is very little accessibility for anyone trying to find out what sorts of languages are spoken in this part of the world, I have to admit.

I guess it's a difficult problem that we cannot solve until this naming dispute is resolved. -Kin 83.235.191.12 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know and just noticed that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) shares my point. Quote: There are even cases where a redirect would be incorrect; compare Kalenjin languages and Kalenjin language.

See the disambiguation link on the top of the page of the singular Kalenjin language. Quote:For the broader linguistic family of Kalenjin languages spoken in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, see Kalenjin languages.. This is what I'm talking about for this page, same case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.191.12 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That example is different, because Kalenjin languages (plural) is not just a geographical collection of languages, but a language family, and thus the term "Kalenjin" alone can actually refer to both. Imagine somebody saying something like: "In Kalenjin, verbs are inflected for tense and mood". The sentence is truly ambiguous between a statement about the individual language or about the whole family. But "Macedonian" is not the name of a family of related languages, and nobody uses it as a linguistic cover term for all the languages spoken in the area. (like, nobody would ever say: "In Macedonian, objects come after their verbs" when they wanted to refer to all those languages together.)

The issue you raise is more similar to German language and Languages of Germany. Check it, there is no dab link either. If you're at "German language", you already understand that the article is going to be about one individual language, and not all languages that happen to be spoken in that country.

Of course, Languages of Macedonia could in principle be turned into an article of its own too. But that would still not present a disambiguation issue to be solved at the top of our article here. And when you go to Greek language, you are also not expecting to find information about Turkish, Vlach, Arvanitika, or Slavic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about Kalenjin, of course there is no family here but do you say that nobody uses Macedonian for the region? Furthermore your analogies are wrong. First of all, German language refers to the language spoken by the Germans - in Germany. If you want to refer to geographic Germania or you are talking about Germanic language which of course redirects to the group (not family) of different Proto-Germanic descendant languages. Fortunately for Germany and Greece there is no confusion regarding Greek or German language. This is not true for Macedonia.

If you think about it a better analogy is Iberian language. See the link at the top?

For other uses, see Iberian languages.

That's because anyone can easily mistake "Iberian language" for "Iberian languages". In this case the article talks of the ancient Iberians and there is no country of Iberia at the time. Still if there was it would only pose a greater reason for the link to be there as there would be two types of confusion. This is the case in Macedonian language since Macedonian could refer to ethnicity and an adjective.

Chinese language also states that there is a debate regarding dialects or languages in the first paragraph and links appropriately. Shouldn't the Macedonian language controversy (although of different type) be stated in the fist paragraph?

I'm not talking of renaming the entry or anything like that but I can't understand why a disambiguating link is so much of an issue to you. Why not keep it? I will propose this version

For other uses, see Macedonian languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.191.12 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work, because that article doesn't even exist. We don't dablink to entries that are in themselves just redirects to yet other dablinks. And I cannot follow your argument why you reject the parallel with German. There's the German language (only one of it), and there are languages of Germany. There's the Macedonian language (only one of it that is ever called like that today, plus the ancient language that our dab is already covering), and there are languages of Macedonia. The fact that there's an additional diambiguation about what "Macedonia" is doesn't change anything about the language. Fact remains, "Macedonian languages" as a cover term for all those languages spoken there today is not a term in common use, and therefore a highly unlikely search term. (Unlike "Iberian language", which may or may not be common; I don't know about that.) – By the way, please make yourself acquainted with the three-reverts rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EBLUL

Crossthets, I know how much you don't like interacting with me, but oh well. The EBLUL only identifies the Macedonian language as "Makedonski (Macedonian)" in the same way they call the German language "Deutsch (German)". It's not an identification, it's a naming convention, where they put the name of the language in that language first, and then its name in English. Also, the note about classifying it as Slavic is redundant, since everybody classifies it as a Slavic language, because it is. On top of that, you removed the passage of real importance to the paragraph, which is that they call the language spoken in Greece "Macedonian" as opposed to "Slavic" or something else. Thus I have reverted your changes. BalkanFever 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You caught me in mid-response when you reverted back (and I'd appreciate it if you stick to the article discussion points rather than try to shove in person jabs at every opportunity as you did in revert heading)

I have several distinct reasons for making the changes.

First... it was verbatim description of what the Eblul website calls it... Makedonski (Macedonian). If you notice I didn't remove the Macedonian despite (as you know) we obviously have different views on the subject. (although if you prefer to change the order I wouldn't object as long as "Makedonski" is listed alongside "Macedonian")

Secondly, I think its important to note Eblul does list the language under Slavic (which was an entirely different point and you certainly shouldn't have edited out given you are the one quoting this non-governemental organization (NGO).

Third, the phrase "should in fact be called "Macedonian and it recognizes it as such" is awkward and sounds like it's coming from a FYROM nationalist. I have changed it back pending a further response from you (or some sort of editing different than a wholesale revert that tries to deal with my concerns) .Crossthets (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it calls it "Macedonian", not "Makedonski (Macedonian)". That phrasing you refer to gives the autonym and then the English name, just like it does with German and most other languages there. About the classification, it is not important in that context, because there are no sources which don't classify it as Slavic. Anyone who reads the article will understand that Macedonian is a Slavic language, it's so plainly obvious. About the last point, I never actually noticed the exact wording, and yes, it does make a bit of a stretch. Will try and reword. BalkanFever 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the time FYROM citizens complain describing them as Slavic is a pejorative so I honestly don't know which sources define their language as Slavic and which don't. Any how your rewording will suffice. At least we finally managed to compromise on something.04:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs)

Voting for Macedonian letters in 1944

Materials from the shorthand notes:

Стенографски белешки од конференциите на филолошката комисиа за установување на македонската азбука и македонскиот литературен jазик , Скопjе, 27.XI.-3.XII. 1944

"Сега, да продолжиме со гласуването. Се извърши гласуване со следниот општ резултат:

3а ќ,ѓ,љ,њ – 9:2 (против К. Тошевски и М. Балванлиева)

3а j – 8:3

3а ъ – 9:2

3а џ – 10:1 (против М. Балванлиева)

3а s – 10:1 (против М. Балванлиева)" (с. 46.)

Комисиjа: Ристо Проданов, Ристо Зографски, д-р Ѓорче Шоптрајан, Даре Џамбаз, Васил Илиев, д-р Михаил Петрушевски, Круме Тошевски, Мирко Павлов, Ѓорге Киселинов, Блажо Конески, д-р Милка Балванлиева - учители, Венко Марковски - поет, Епаминонда Попандонов (од АСНОМ). Стенографирал Ј. Костевски --Lantonov (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

250,000

Yeah,right. The ethnologue writes about 180,000 in 1986 census when there isn't a greek census in 1986 at all! The other citation says about 20-50,000 according to state department officials (!!!!!) in other words the number is a total joke with false citations which on their part are also jokes. Someone please correct the POV. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Borrowed words!?

quote: "Many words and expressions were borrowed from the Serbian language to replace those taken from Old Church Slavonic, but also present in the Bulgarian language, which include известие → извештај, количество → количина, согласие → слога, etc. This change was aimed at bringing written Macedonian closer to the spoken language and distancing it from the Bulgarian language which has kept its numerous Russian loans, and represents a successful puristic attempt at abolishing a lexicogenic tradition once common in written literature."

How do you know that those words weren't 'borrowed' (whatever that means in the context of languages which are similar and have similar or equal words) from Macedonian language by the Serbian language?! Any quotations, documents, facts...? Or just propaganda, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.39.127 (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an easy question. Look in Macedonian dialects = dialects spoken in the region of Macedonia and you will see everywhere Bulgarian/Old Church Slavonic words being replaced with Serbian words in "Standard Macedonian". --Lantonov (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The vocab section has been thoroughly raped. We may as well say the Marshal ordered its "creation". --Анонимец (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, Lantonov. If you look at the written language of educated people from the 19th century you'll find 'Bulgarian' words (because of the diglossic situation), while authentic Macedonian dialects are quite different. The modern standard is a codified form of these dialects, so nothing was replaced because a concrete standard didn't exist prior to the 1940s. Isn't it strange that distinctively Eastern words and spellings were being used in Macedonia? --203.221.86.49 (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov, I'll give you an example from the samples given. Продолжувач is more natural according to Macedonian grammar as it formed from the third person singular (продолжува) while продолжител would be irregular as продолжи is the imperative. --203.221.86.49 (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

-ач is a suffix for carrier of action, pertaining to the noun and has nothing to do with the actual verb and its form and tenses. -aч exists in both Serbian and Bulgarian, while -тел is more Eastern - Bulgarian/Russian. Cf. "ковач", "тъкач", "носач" which are typical Bulgarian words. "Продолжувач" is only indicative of the trend to avoid Bulgarian word-forming models in favor of Serbian, well, in this case Serbo/Bulgarian. You will see your false assumption with the similar verb "съществува" from which the noun "осъществител" is formed. If this verb existed in Serbian (it doesn't), the noun would be more natural in Serbian to be "осоштествувач". If you want to give examples for words typical for the Macedonian dialects, you are on a wrong track. Better try "барам" (bg: търся, sr: тражити), "иднина" (bg: бъдеще, sr: будућност), etc. --Lantonov (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way, trying to say Macedonian is a Serbianized Bulgarian dialect won't work. --203.221.86.49 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends by what you understand by "work". If this is in the sense that I will be outshouted by the Macedonian nationalists, well, maybe you are right. --Lantonov (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No, just that anti-Serbian propaganda wreaks from miles away. And, of course, there are exceptions to everything but this is the most common pattern; бранител/брани, дарувач/дарува, љубител/љуби, etc. Yes, there are many more such as бакнеж/целувка, збор/дума, лилјак/прилеп and глушец/миш to name a few off the top of my head. --203.221.86.49 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The last examples are good and perfectly valid, in my view. Describing obvious trends in a language will be viewed as propaganda only by people who use language to bolster their own propaganda. Serbianization of Macedonian dialects is a fact described even by many RM linguists. I can fill the talk page with examples but I do not see a point in this. I will only say that similar trends of Russification were evident in the formation of Modern Bulgarian in early 19th century. Bulgarian nationalists (Nayden Gerov) and purists (Ivan Bogorov) searched dialects to fill the gaps and remove Russian patterns. Ivan Bogorov reached the ultimate in purism by inventing his own words, most of which didn't take root. However, most of the words that came from Russian existed long before in Old Church Slavonic and came to Russia from Bulgaria in the early Middle Ages. --Lantonov (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But saying every deviation is because of forced Serbianization is something entirely different. --203.221.86.49 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Far from it. It will be wrong to say so. --Lantonov (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. Indeed, Bulgarian scholars reject Macedonian as an individual language, but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence. [11] --Lantonov (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Using the same logic, Bulgarian could be a Macedonian dialect. --203.221.86.4 (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agre with Greek view, but not with Bulgarian one, denideing language is a sin, didnt they blaim Kliment of Ohrid is an Bulgarian and now they denay the language that he spaeak, i can also upload source before 1945 to prove writen form of Macedonian language.Makedonij (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The list with numbers of speakers

There is discrepancy between some numbers of speakers in the list and the sources about them. Actually, there aren't sources about these numbers:

1. 5071 - Bulgaria. The previous "source", Bulgarian census from 2001 [12] is about the number of people who declared thenselves as ethnic Macedonians (Преброяване 2001 - Окончателни резултати - Население към 01.03.2001 г. по области и етническа група), not about the speakers.
2. 25 000 - Bulgaria. The "source" ([13]) is not related to speakers, too.
3. 30 000 - Serbia. There isn't such number in the "source", Serbian census
4. 37,050 - Canada. As we can see, the "source" is about ethic origin, not about the speakers [14]

I have nothing against this numbers, but we have to find some references about them.--Males (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names???

Please, adding alternative names to the Macedonia language is rather unserious and the source for the alternative names is some faith-based organization. You can't also use Bulgarian sources on Macedonian language because they are heavily biased. The Macedonian language is not even recognized as language in Republic of Bulgaria. Think and edit with WP:NPOV. (Toci (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

I think that the heading Alternative names should be taken out of the article. They just reflect local Balkan politics. Those are lines not in food faith. For example to write that Bulgarian language or Slavic language is an alternative name for Macedonian language. Slavic is the language group. Slavic language is universal term for all the languages in the group. Please WP:AGF. (Toci (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Can't agree more. Nevertheless, I think that this part of the article was incorporated in the Macedonian language naming dispute some time ago, but apparently it was reintroduced. Bomac (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to who? Bulgarians and Greeks! That should not be the look of wikipedia. Macedonian language is recognised in whole world exepct in Republic of Bulgaria and Repubilc of Greece. That section should be corected as Greek and Bulgarian view, and not the alternative names.Makedonij (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have split the sections of Bulgaria views and Greece views as Makedonij suggested but I have kept an alternative names section since those are used by outside reliable linguistic sources. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Gentlemen!!! The alternative names are used by Ethnologue (you know the same one that says 180,000 of Slavic-speakers live in Greece, but all of you don't shout about that being wrong or POV) and the European Bureu of lesser used languages. Those are not Greek or Bulgarian sources!!! As for myself, I didn't even write any part of that text. Please edit the political views section as you like, but try to be NPOV, Ok? Thank you, sorry for the boldface. Please WP:AGF for me too! Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgaria view section might need some cleaning up or summarization, true. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agre with Greek view, but not with Bulgarian one, denideing language is a sin, didnt they blaim Kliment of Ohrid is an Bulgarian and now they denay the language that he spaeak, i can also upload source before 1945 to prove writen form of Macedonian language.Makedonij (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh i forgot something, Shadow, Greeks are named MADZIRI, CIGANI and Etiopioans by us Skopians, and Bulagrians are named Tatari,Bajgani,Turks and others,should that be mention to in their language article, or i will be BANED although i mention that here? That is called neutrality of ADMINISTRATORS! As i say in uper answer, i do share Greek view without SKOPIANS!!!Makedonij (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop. stop now. Racist comments are not welcome here.--Laveol ^T 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For me it is offended, when someone called me Skopian, what am i, animal, man it is written in article, and you take the wright to call me RACIST? Makedonij (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't know for you, but your comment sure was. Don't try it again, please. --Laveol ^T 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, is their a point to your edits? Or is it just more POV pushing? PMK1 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the issue of alternative names was already covered with the sentence "The Macedonian language is the object of controversy with its neighbours: Greeks challenge the legitimacy of its name, while many Bulgarians deny its separateness from Bulgarian." I suppose one could add the Bulgaria considers it a Bulgarian dialect. Just for the record, I am not denying it is an official language. Politis (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, Stop accusing me of POV pushing. What POV am I pushing? I didn't "challenge the legitimacy" of anything. I understand that the accepted name is "Macedonian" however there are also the names "Makedonski" and "Macedonian Slavic" and "Slavic" that are used to refer to the same language in different contexts. The first is a transliteration of the slavic name for the language, the single-world "slavic" is used by speakers in Greece. As for the "Macedonian Slavic" ,well that is just another name used to refer to the language. I am not the one saying that. I am not promoting anything. I didn't actually write any substantial part of the text, I found it already written here. Previously the sentence that mentions the Ethnologue source was included in the Greece section. That is wrong. That is more than wrong but WP:OR to say that Ethnologue is a Greek source (????). Therefore the article has to have a section about alternate names if not even better to include the alternate names in the lead, in boldface (with a source to Ethnologue). If respectable linguistic publications say there are alternate names used to refer to the language then we must include the alternate names - witch do not constitute any political view but only an international scientific view (not Greek). Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Basically what I am saying is that there are names used alternatively to refer to the language by linguists that do not represent any political view as they were wrongly included in Greece. For what is worth I do believe that the section of Bulgarian views needs to be summarized. So help a little here and do that instead of just reverting me. If you care to look at my edits before reverting them you would see that I didn't add anything that wasn't already in the article but under a different section. Is it soooo difficult for you to Assume my Good Faith? I am trying to make it helpful to the reader by seperating linguistic views on alternate names so that the Sections Greece and Bulgaria can be named Greece view and Bulgaria view following a suggestion that was actually proposed by Makedonij. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 16:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Shadowmorph, I had not accused you of anything but merely asked you a question. The first paragraph makes mention of the the dispute regarding the language, there is a section about that. If readers wish to read more they can easily click on the prompt. As for your additions it is already mentioned under the "Macedonian Slavic in Greece" section, alternative names for the Macedonian language in greece are given. Apart from in Greece and Bulgaria, the language is almost universally known as MACEDONIAN. PMK1 (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

POV and Verification

The section "Macedonian Slavic in Greece" contains misquotes about the numbers cited. It also cites dubious personal websites, hosted at geocities(!), that do not qualify for the criteria Wikipedia has for reliable sources. Furthermore the other citations do not contain a quote or page number and need verification since at least one of the sources was misquoted. For example the Shea John source gives 3 different ranges (not any single numbers) as estimates from three sources without picking one of them as more correct. 250,000 wasn't a number either in the low or in the high range of Shea John. It seems like it was an amateurish copy past job from somewhere else.

All of those errors were included in one edit[15] that was done by this user. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have to see that user about that. And yes, it is a copy and paste job from Slavic dialects of Greece. I dont agree with the additions either. PMK1 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

John Shea, book preview at page 125. He doesn't "put" the number anywhere. He provides several ranges from several sources. Some might not like the low ranges but he doesn't assert anythning about what is the "correct" number. Some other sources need verification and the Brittanica is a broken link. Readers Digest cannot be invoked without sourcing it properly too. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

IF Shea John suggests anything it is that the large numbers are old and anachronistic while the "recent observations" are for a much smaller bumber. If we want to have veracity then the most recent sources must be used since it has been 25 years since 1984. Shadowmorph ^{^"^}

Let me also note that the 180,000 number is always quoted from ethnologue and ethnologue says its about a 1986 census (no such census ever occurred in Greece at that year, maybe means a Yugoslav census?). That is also old now. Wikipedia must update its sources or better state explicitely which ones are old and which ones are new Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnologue 1986 number of 180,180 again

The 1986 number refers to a census in socialist Yugoslavia, not in Greece. The Greek census were in 1981 and 1991 and none of them had any question on mother tongue. We need additional more recent and more neutral sources.

Here is Ethnologue for Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been challenged before. However it is one of a myriad of sources. There is consensus that the Macedonian speaking population of Greece ranges from 50,000 - 200,000. This is reflected in the table via the minimum vs. maximum. PMK1 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition

Macedonian language dasn't have dialects! All of thouse are Narečja translated word in english is not dialect but Slang or thouse with more knowlege could say another word, bu shurely not dialects.Makedonij (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; дијалект, говор or наречје can all be translated as dialect, although "speech" might be more appropriate for the latter two in some contexts. However, Blaže Koneski's A historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language (translated by Victor Friedman) and the survey of dialects by Božidar Vidoeski refer to Macedonian dialects throughout. BalkanFever 09:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That is history Blakan, tray real life!Makedonij (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, "dialect" is the only common word for such units in English academic discourse. "Slang" is completely out. Perhaps the Macedonian word you quote translates to something like the French patois, but that's never used in English either. All such terms are heavily burdened with ideological connotations regarding the value of such nonstandard varieties, and we really don't want those here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, i just asked if there is another word for narečja, becouse google translated to me the word Slang.Makedonij (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)