Talk:Macedonian language

Older discussion archived here:

• Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive01 (?? - ??)
• Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive02 (?? - 00:28, 9 April 2006)

• Arguments about the number of speakers of Macedonian should be directed at Talk:Macedonian language/Number of speakers.

---

Macedonian vs Bulgarian, Serbian vs Croatian

I'm a Serb, and I like Wikipedia cause it's trying to present things objectivly. I agree with (I guess it was a moderator...?) who said that it's not a goal of this website to emphasise some differences or go into details about questions such as this one...it's more important to present things in a way that ANYONE could understand, (you got it right, this is not some Great Balkan Encyclopedia but a basic and useful info-gainer);) It's important for a, let's say, Chinese who reads this article to understand its components in the simplest way....and that is what wikipedia is trying to do (doesn't always manage but in this case I think it's ok)

1)Macedonian is closely related to Bulgarian, scientificly- those are 2 languages from South-East-Slavic group of Indo-European family, while the rest of the languages of former Yugoslavia form the West-South-Slavic group. This is the ground for everything else-the closeness between the two languages. But they are still 2 different languages, not 1! 2)Now that we've established this, it's important to mention also the Torlakian dialect...It's the dialect which is spoken in East and South Serbia, West Bulgaria and Macedonia. That's the bridge between Serbian and Macedonian languages. It's considered by scientists to be among the 4 main dialects of the so called "Serbo-Croatian" language (kajkavian, chokavian, shtokavian and torlakian), which means that Serbia is split between 2 main dialects (shtokavian and torlakian). Torlakian dialect is unfortunatelly very neglected due to centralism of Belgrade and its former policy... The movies books that were written by Serbs living in those areas a century ago sound to the northern and western Serbs almost like a foreign language, but is very well understood by Macedonians. So there's a linguistic union in that way between the two languages (at least literary!, but the spoken variant also). 3)Macedonians feel less resentment towards Serbs than to Bulgarians, historically speaking of course. They were both conquerers, but they simply had a better experience with the Serbs, who were ready to ackgnowledge their nationality while Bulgarians considered them part of their national corpus until just a while ago. So even though it's linguistically closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian, many Macedonians had no problems in reading Serbian books and studying in Belgrade or elsewhere in Serbia- it was simply a political question that Tito had advantaged. Even today most citizens of Macedonia, especially older generations understand or speak Serbian with no major difficulties, but it's true that Serbs have more trouble understanding Macedonians than Bulgarians do...which I guess proves that politics in the Balkans is the main governing passion rather than logics or common sense... You cannot call Macedonian a Bulgarian, or Montenegrin a Serb unless that's how they really feel...unless they speak up their minds you cannot force someone to be something else if he feels differently...there are countless proofs that Croats and Serbs are in fact one nation- but most Croats and Serbs reject it. If someone wants to take a separate way, you cannot stop him, it never works. You can only try to be friends with him. So Macedonian is indeed a separate language, close to Bulgarian, less closer with Serbian but sometimes intelgible and lagrely influenced by it (slang f.e.)

MACEDONIAN vs BULGARIAN CANNOT be compared to SERBIAN vs CROATIAN, because SERBIAN and CROATIAN are just 2 dialects of a SAME language. MACEDONIAN and BULGARIAN are more distant and can be compared to SWEDISH vs NORVEGAN language;

Oh yeah? Then 1.How was it created in 5 days? 2.How come there are so many studies that prove the contrary? 3.How come everybody I know who speaks Bulgarian understands Slavomacedonian and vice versa? When exactly are you going to admit the truth? YOUR LANGUAGE WAS FABRICATED AND INVENTED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT YOUR NEW NATIONAL IDENTITY. Cyprus has a much more different dialect to standard Greek, and yet, it is a separate nation from Greece without mentioning the "different language" BS. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Answers: 1. Does it make any difference? BTW, what about the attempts of Macedonians of Voden (Aegean Macedonia) to establish a short Macedonian grammar in the period of Turkish rule, or the attempts of Gjorgi Pulevski? 2. Actually, the scientific codification of the Macedonian language is a proof that there are more studies which confirm the opposite. 3. Everybody who speaks Bulgarian can understand any other South Slavic language, too. Even a non-Bulgarian person who speaks Bulgarian can understand Serbian or Macedonian - pure source of this is your friend Latinus, who speaks Bulgarian with a Serb (User:HolyRomanEmperor) and understands the Serbian language.

Conclusion: Learn already that all Slavic languages are similar - that's why they are classified in the same language group. Bomac 22:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, why don't you go troll the Macedonians (ethnic group) article? Your answers are moot. 1.No other language in the world has been invented that fast. 2.There is no independent study though. 3.The closeness of Bulgarian to Slavomacedonian is 95%. Serbian is at 30%-40%. That is why, the South Slavic languages are divided to eastern and western. I have Skopian friends, I travel a lot in your country, in Bulgaria and in Serbia for work and I speak with people. They all tell me the same: Bulgarian and Slavomacedonian are the same language with few artificially added modifications. Only your country's editors of Wikipedia support such propaganda. Get real: It is a language because we DEFINE it is a language (and I have no objection in that). Ask a linguist. It has much less modifications from Bulgarian than ANY dialect of ANY other language. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You know well that this statement of yours doesn't holds ground. And - do you know Macedonian so you made this conclusions? I mean why would anybody bother about the similarity of Bulgarian and Macedonian, if not about the denying of the Macedonian nation.

Get real - Macedonian language and Macedonians do exist and stop with your propaganda. Bomac 09:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The only thing about my statement that may not hold ground, is that I said that Slavomacedonian is a language. You are soooooooo blind from extreme nationalism, that whatever I write, you JUST DON'T READ it. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL... :-))) Look who's talking... Bomac 11:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I can tell you that Macedonian (Slavic) and Bulgarian are not that similar and certainly cannot be compared to Serbian and Croatian, or Dutch and Afrikaans, or Romanian and Moldovan etc. The differences between both languages are not negligible and IMO it is immaterial whether they were artificially induced or not. The point is that the languge-dialect distinction is a very gray area and it almost wholly depends on politics. I think that the most appropriate distinciton is the one drawn time and time again. That Between Norwegian (Bokmal) and Danish. In the case of North Germanic (Scandinavian) languages, their status as independent languages is only due to the separate self-identification of the speakers and the willingness of the government in question to recogniose their existance as separate language. The problem in this case however, is that there is evidence of separate Norwegian and Danish languages in the past (go back 500 years or more). Originally, Norwegian, differed even more with Danish and that is still the case with the (artificially constructed Nynorsk - I think of it as the Norwegian equivalent of Katharevusa even though it is not exactly the same thing). Their similarities are due to prolonged contact (I think it was as part of the same state). On the other hand, I see no evidence to support the existance of Macedonian (Slavic) as a separate language from Bulgarian prior to the creation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and the promotion of the Macedonian ethnicity (whether it was a national awakening or blatant brainwashing). In my opinion, Macedonian (Slavic) is probably an Ausbausprache. --Latinus 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Latinus, thanks for the intervention, I just added wiki-brackets in your text for the rest of us illiterate and uneducated people to be able to read what Ausbausprache is. (So much difference from what I was trying to explain with plain English above...) :-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Misirkov-ZaMakedonskiteRaboti.jpg

Greatest proof that Tito did not create Macedonian language - Za Makedonckite Raboti - it's last chapter is "Nekolku zboroi za makedonckiot literaturen jazik" (Few words on the Macedonian literary language). He also states that Serbia and Bulgaria spread propaganda in Macedonia. Did you red it? :-)

Latinus, have on mind that Skagerrak and Kattegat separate Denmark from Norway. Macedonia is in the Balkans, where it borders Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia etc.

Read about Gjorgi Pulevski for example - he was certainly not brainwashed. And do you forget the "ABECEDAR" which was confiscated by Bulgaria and Serbia caus of the Macedonian dialects in it? Bomac 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, I think you should know that the alleged (like the Rainbow party's minority) Bulgarian minority in Greece claims that ABECEDAR was originally for them (they also claim that a seperate Macedonian nation does not exist) [1] and that the Serbia objected to it because they didn't want similar obligations and Bulgaria objected because the Greek authorities were trying to seperate the Bulgarian minority and to transform (brainwash) them into a seperate nation. Why should I believe your propaganda and not theirs? --Latinus 12:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sensing double standards here. Did I heard: Greek authorities were trying to separate the Bulgarian minority and to transform (brainwash) them into a separate nation? LOL... Why would Greeks do such thing as creating a separate nation in Macedonia? Isn't that the worst Greek nightmare? Bomac 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Greece was trying to create a Slavic minority in order to sever the minorities relations with Bulgaria. They do it all the time: eg declare Aromanian a seperate language and not a Romanian dialect and delcare Pomak a seperate language and not a Bulgarian dialect etc. This way a Bulgarian, Romanian minorty ceases to exist and an independent minority exist which does not give the corresponding country (Bulgaria, Romania etc) a right to interfere in Greek internal policies. It probably is double standards - but note the Greek authorities never encouraged the existance of a Macedonian ethinc group. It was merely a device to seperate them from the Bulgarians so thet they would be easier to assimilate. Devious tactics I know, but look at the article Pomaks, where the Greek authorities published a Greek-Pomak dictionary for that purpose. --Latinus 12:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, this simply makes me LOL. Latinus, the critics were given to Greece about the mistreatment of (I quote): Slavomacedonians. There weren't any Bulgarians mentioned. The ABECEDAR is a result of this. And BTW, see the image on the left. LOL... :-)) Bomac 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this website may give a few answers to that question. They seem to have a different interpretation of the word "Macedonian" :-) --Latinus 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

-)) This is funny... The "Macedonian scientific institute" in Sofia has it's mission to deny everything that's Macedonian. What else could you expect? LOL. Bomac 13:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So you think it's impossible that they are right. --Latinus 13:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't said that, but I think is not right NOT to accept even the obvious prooves which clearly state that there was Macedonian conscience before Tito and Yugoslavia. Bomac 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, what I wanted to say about this institution is this Census 1946-1950 Bomac 14:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Just so we don't leave any open subjects here, kindly give a look at these: The term Bulgaromacedonian exists even in the most hardcore defenders of the "completely different Bulgarian-Macedonian (Slav) language". Even the creator of the language itself - Blazhe Koneski, talked about it. I will cite it with pleasure:

"Macedonian and the Bulgarian languages. The Macedonian text-books are closely integrated with this move. We have already had the opportunity to see how K. Sapkarev, one of the most prominent text-book writers, had come close to the Macedonists position, though he had not decided to make the decisive transfer. The question of writing a Macedonian grammar did not mean for the Macedonists uncovering such characteristics of the "Macedonian dialects" as could be used for the construction of a "common language" but the laying a foundation for the new Macedonian literary language. It is clear how important effecting this purpose was for our further national development.", taken from here

"For example, Macedonian (i.e. Slavomacedonian) writer Partenij was striving for common language of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians that would have incorporated features of both languages." taken from here

"In the sixties of the last century two answers were proposed to the question what was to be the medium of instruction in Macedonian schools and what, accordingly, were to be the text-books used.

1. The introduction of a language common to the Macedonians and Bulgars, a common language but such as would represent a compromise, a mean of Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects.
2. The introduction of a purely Macedonian language because the Macedonians are not Bulgars, but separate people." from the Father of Slavoakedonski himself.

As you can see even the creator admits "some writers from the Renaissance" wanted a common language. I think it is the perfect beginning of a new article Bulgaromacedonian or Macedobulgarian (I don't mind the order). Can you tell us Bomac what exactly the Father of the language had in mind when he wrote the above? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I can say that north of Greece, the Macedonian language is spoken :-) Bomac 13:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, keep repeating that - it might (just might) become true :-) --Latinus 13:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Every single literary language is artificial, it's partly an arbitrarily chosen minority dialect that was artificially imposed on everybody in a country, partly constructed as compromise between different dialects, and partly a result of literary fashion or inertia. This whole argument is as if somebody who thinks he was brought by the stork ridicules somebody who has quite obviously been begotten by way of sexual intercourse and accuses the other guy's mother of not being a virgin. --85.187.44.128 13:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Impressive position I must admit. I agree. The discussion is totally unimportant, because a "language" is what you define as a "language". ...Mine, however, is still a virgin (common Greek's delusion)!! :-) NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Misirkov-ZaMakedonskiteRaboti.jpg

Greatest proof that Tito did not create "Macedonian language" - Za Makedonckite Raboti (written in Bulgarian by Kriste Misirkov, who has declared himself Bulgarian on many occasions) - it's last chapter is "Nekolku zboroi za makedonckiot literaturen jazik" (Few words on the local dialects of Bulgarian spoken in Macedonia, which Misirkov refers to as Macedonian)

After all said I'll just add that pretty much everyone I know, who comes from Macedonia and now lives in Bulgaria considers himself Macedonian for sure, but with the difference that he or she also considers himself/herself Bulgarian. Gee wiz, even some hothead extremists with territorial apsirations toward Macedonia in Bulgaria were born in Macedonia. FunkyFly 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were a Macedonian living in Bulgaria, I wouldn't really feel like declaring I wasn't Bulgarian. If I did it, I'd meet a lot of hostility. I study at the university together with Macedonians coming from Macedonia, and I remember two occasions when they had to endure professors saying the usual stuff to the effect that "your nation doesn't exist, Tito f.ked your mothers and that's how you arose, your language isn't a real language" (of course, not with such rough words). Personally, this attitude makes me angry and ashamed of being Bulgarian. And yes, as they haven't permanently settled in Bulgaria, they do feel Macedonian and they speak their own language with each other - and I must say that I don't understand much, although I have almost no problems reading it.

As for Misirkov, it's an impressive reading. Basically he says "OK, it's true that we've called ourselves Bulgarians for at least five hundred years now, but all nations arise at different times in history by splitting off from other populations, and since the Great Powers won't allow us to unite with Bulgaria, I reckon now is the right time for our nation to arise." I think it's a very reasonable position. Of course, inventing another language and ethnicity isn't always a must (compare Switzerland, USA vs Canada etc.) but on the Balkans, ethnic nationalism is too powerful, so I guess there was no other option.

Wow, I guess this was the right post to REALLY irritate BOTH sides in the conflict!

--85.187.44.128 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

References for the "specific feautres" section

"A fellow editor requested that someone provide references or sources for the information in this section."

Some of the info there can be found in any Macedonian grammar, such as the one by Victor Friedman listed in the main References. Other parts of it are present in any book on Bulgarian and Serbian. However, if somebody did add these ones, that would give the appearance that every single statement in the section is found in the sources in question, and that would be false. I've got no idea about the Torlak thing, for example. It's impossible to provide a separate reference for every single statement. Why doesn't the fellow-editor just specify which piece of information he/she wants a reference for and add a "citation needed" tag there? --85.187.203.123 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My main concern here is the work of Claude Hagège: only his name is given, and no citation is given. Is Hegège's work mainstream and generally accepted among linguist? Also, if the mediative mood is equivalent (morphologically and semanitically) with the Bulgarian renarrative, it is not a specific feature. See also my post above about this. This is why I gave the Bulgarian example above. Ye Macedonian speakers, can't you tell us if there is a similar wording in Bulgarian? I have no doubt that most of the features described in the specific featured can be found in any grammar. However, if they are to be labeled as specific, they must differ from other Slavic languages, in particular from Bulgarian. This seems to be the case for some of these features, see also above. Andreas 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the change you've made. I don't know anything about Hagege and the "metaphoric" category, I'm not the one who wrote that bit. But I'd be surprised if a vast number of "exotic" languages in Asia, Africa and America don't possess something like a renarrartive, although the exact linguistic description seems to be a subject of debate. Actually the Swedish "han ska ha gjort det" (lit. "He shall have done it" - "He is said to have done it") can have a very similar dubitative meaning (despite its very different stylistic value), although I have never heard of a Swedish "renarrative". I believe the rise of the renarrative on the Balkans was ascribed to Turkish influence, but I don't feel like looking after references for that right now.:) And yes, the Macedonian mediative is the same as the Bulgarian renarrative (Friedman, 2.5.2.10): Friedman gives the example - Macedonian (and Bulgarian) "Ti si bil Rom" -"so you are a Rom (I didn't know that)".

As for your objection to the "specific" label: it's true that some of the features are shared with Bulgarian, but that's why I changed the title from "unique features" to "specific features", when I discovered that. The idea is that the features are "characteristic" or "of cross-linguistic interest". "Miscellaneous linguistic information" would be the best label, I suppose. :) --85.187.203.123 19:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

German: Er soll das getan haben (lit. "He shall have done it" - "He is said to have done it") Andreas 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Latinus's step

Can I hear the reasons why you, Latinus, insert smt. like Slov-Macedonian in the article? Bomac 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you denying that Славомакедонски is ever used - I suspect your deleting it is backed by POV reasons (i.e. to censor information). --Latinus 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? Ethnologue clearly states that this name is only used in Greece (I would say - for the obvious reasons - nationalism). I think that you're the one that POV-pushes the dot in a pile of boulders. Bomac 21:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with using all the names used for the language? Chinese and Aromanian do. Anyway, Славомакедонски fits in with Kiro Gligorov's approach ;-) --Latinus 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't fits with the Greek leftists ;-) And leave the old man alone, he was young in politics then :-) Bomac 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I see...u mean he was young and naive,but now he is old and wise?!in any case,just a few greek leftists u presented.and since your language is by no doubt a slavic one,and since the term 'slavomacedonian' is used,and since it also contains the work ('macedonia') that u insist so much to be used in other articles,why are u so strongly opposed in its usage here?--Hectorian 21:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Young in politics"? I thought he was the oldest president on Earth (when in office). --Latinus 21:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

1 - I don't know, maybe Kiro "matured" and he is wise... (not "young", but "young" in experience of leading a country)

2 - I insist "Macedonia" to be used caus that's my country's constitutional name

3 - Read the statement of the Greek leftists - it represents the pure truth

4 - If we go from the principle few Greek leftists presented, Kiro was much "below" those few

5 - Irish language, too contains the word Ireland, and noone uprises

6 - That's all for now. Bomac 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah so he was not mature then when he was in ASNOM? Maybe ASNOM was bunch of immature people inventing history?? Makes sense my friend. FunkyFly 21:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Leading a country", FunkyFly. Bomac 21:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomac,in your 4th sentence u 'forgot' to say that these few greek leftists are just greeks,but Kiro Gligorov was the president of your country(not to mention that he was the first,whatever this may mean;-)...)--Hectorian 21:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Greek leftists means nothing - what you need are some Greek "rightists" ;-) --Latinus 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should have known. Gosh! Bomac 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Common,Bomac,u can handle a joke,i guess;-)--Hectorian 21:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm thinking that since a substantial minority of "Macedonians" decided they were Bulgarians and that the "Macedonian" they spoke is in fact Bulgarian (and adopted Bulgarian citizenship), would you object if I added Бугарски to the names list? --Latinus 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would object... if they declared a Bulgarian nationality, then we'd have to add them to the total number of speakers in the Bulgarian language article, since they wouldn't state they spoke Macedonian any more. Now here's my point about the issue of Slavomacedonian — the name's not used in Macedonian and is practically unknown in English (406 Google hits, many discussing the Greek policy of calling the language this way itself), so I would strongly suggest not to include it in the intro with the clear POV-pushing intention to make it look almost as important as the actual name. I wouldn't be against mentioning it somewhere, but you certainly have to label it as a name that Greece favours and is otherwise not common. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Now, Macedonian Slavic is a different matter. I've seen it quite frequently and, although a bit cranky as a formulation, is common usage. Including it in the intro'd be OK, but I don't find sense in also adding the form in Macedonian, it implies that it's also common in this language, when it's not... at all. It'd be better if we removed the part in brackets, that's what I think. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but the part that follows: it's a south Slavic language... and after a while Slavic language... How many times does it have to be mentioned that the language is Slavic? I think this is not really crucial. Bomac 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added it mainly for historical interest and because it appears in .mk websites. We could say rarely, if it really was the case - in English, it is often called "Slavic Macedonian" or "Macedonian Slavic" (see Britannica and Ethnologue). We could say "often in English, rarely in Macedonian" or something like that. --Latinus 16:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeap, sure. Hey, BTW, I'm still not blocked. :-) Bomac 16:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the admins sure have slowed down. Tell you what, are you agreeing? I'll remove the report (so that we're sure what happens). --Latinus 16:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No comment. Hey, shall we ask the admins do they usually use "Mac. Slavic" and write it in the article? ;-) Bomac 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to declare him/herself whatever he/she likes. And what list? Bomac 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

Look, can't we compromise. For example, leave the "Slavomakedonski" out of the infobox and have it only in the first para? It's silly for you to say that only Greeks use it, as it appears in .mk domains both in English and in (Slavo) Macedonian. It's POV to leave it out altogether! --Latinus 16:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we can! I'm always pro compromises and I'm happy when people prefer discussion to edit warring. I've expressed my opinion a couple of rows above and I believe the current article version is quite balanced. My only concern was mentioning the name in Macedonian, so as the whole thing to look like Macedonian Slavic (Славомакедонски, Slavomakedonski). I just don't find it necessary to include the part in brackets because this very name is not common usage in Macedonian. Yes, it does appear in Macedonian sites, but only in a limited number of cases, many connected to the Greek policy of using it. Otherwise, as I said already, I like the current revision. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely WP:POV. The term is not in use by the ethnic group in question, and therefore we do not need a self-identifying term. And what .mk sites are you reffering to Latinus? Type "Славомакедонски" [2] in the Google search bar, and you'll see that not only this is not used as a self-identifying term, but ethnic Macedonians also consider it a stereotype, a chauvinist label, etc. Or should I mention that Council of Europe "Macedonian (Slav) language" fiasco, which not only caused immediate reaction from the Macedonian government, but also resulted in sending thousands of "Call me by my name" postcards in CoE's mailbox? --FlavrSavr 22:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's exactly what Todor said:

(Славомакедонски, Slavomakedonski). I just don't find it necessary to include the part in brackets because this very name is not common usage in Macedonian.

and I agree with both of you -- I'm OK with mentioning "Slavic Macedonian" in the text, but I find "Славомакедонски" offensive, and its constant re-inclusion in the article borders with vandalism. Duja 22:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That’s totally beside the point. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. According to your beloved Wikipedia:Naming conflict the self-identifying name is used to refer to the language and for article titles. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive - we say these are the names; this name is used more than this one by native speakers and Kiro Gligorov uses that one :-) We list all the names used currently or in the past, but refer to the language using its most popular name (in this case Makedonski). The test for excluding it is not whether it is the majority self-identifying name, but whether it is or has been used to refer to the language, therefore the only reasonable threshold for excluding it is if I had fabricated the name - clearly not the case. BTW as the self identifying name is the only name used, why does your Wikipedia have an article at mk:Егејска Македонија. That is not the self-identifying name for that region. That is your name for the region, the self-identifying name being "Macedonia" plain. I suspect (within reasonable limits of course) that you are POV pushing. --Latinus 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what if it wasn't SELFidentifying but just identifying. Shouldn't it be included then? Why is it OK to call Hellenes (self identifying term) as Greek (English identifying term) and it is not OK to EVEN INCLUDE THE NAME IN THE ARTICLE? What is this? Globalisation of local beliefs and terms? ALL terms should be included in the article. Vandalism is to remove them based on some subjective and unverifiable excuse like "it is offensive(?)". NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And what about the Greek Wikipedia refering the Republic of Macedonia as el:Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας? That is not the self-identifying name for that country. However, you're right - Wikipedia is descriptive: maybe we shoud stick to your version and add that that is not the common self-identifying term, and it is widely considered as insulting by the native speakers? --FlavrSavr 23:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case yes - if you can find a source for the Council of Europe incident, we can mention that as well, so as to give the reader the full picture. As for the article at :el, don't get me started. I think the country name is fine (and is the least of the problems there), as your country calls itself that in the EU and UN (selective self-identification) and will probably be known more that way if they join the EU under that name. Not to mention that the Greek government have hinted at objecting to the recognition of your language as Macedonian when/if you join the EU. If that does happen then alternative names will be sought - it may bring Slavomakedonski back on the cards. Of course, I don't know if the government meant this - they have also hinted lowering taxes. This has yet to happen ;-) --Latinus 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Should we also add:

African Americans (also Niggers, Negroids... )

Italians (also Ginzoes, Frogeaters, Wops... )

Yes, I know that "Slavomacedonian" is not that offensive, but it is offensive to a point. And I don't see the point of including "slavomakedonski" as self-reference. There is already Political views on the Macedonian language where that certainly should be mentioned, but Greek views are not universal. Duja 23:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said Greek views, is Kiro Gligorov a Greek? Also, we need evidence that this name is offensive like "Nigger" and not offensive like "FYROM", there’s a difference. Perhaps we should omit "FYROM" and the Cyrillic transliteration because some people find it offensive. --Latinus 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links about the CoE incident - [3], [4] - is this enough to convince you that it is considered offensive? And how's Frogeaters in Italian? I think of adding it in the Italian people article. --FlavrSavr 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, anything can be offensive. Turkey has proved that they view discussing the Armenian genocide as something very offensive (the Orhan Pamuk incident). Oddly enough, we still have an encyclopaedia article on the topic and don't forget that the CoE did officially use that name and that name has been used by your people. You can add Frogeaters to the Italian people article when the CoE (or some other body) has referred to it that way and when the Italian president referrers to his countrymen and himself as such. Come on! We're not prescribing its use, we're describing the current circumstances. This name exists, it is rarely used. There was a mass protest when the CoE used it etc. State the facts, don't pretend that that name doesn't exist (or hasn't existed). --Latinus 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait.. where did Kiro Gligorov refer to the Macedonian language as Slavic Macedonian language? --FlavrSavr 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, my source may not be a reliable one, but do Greek POV websites count? --Latinus 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm... :-) Bring them on, we'll see if they are reliable. --FlavrSavr 00:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

UN, IMF [5], EU [6], EBRD, [7] and NATO [8] ...Those insulting bastards! I have an idea: We include "Славомакедонски" in the article and you send us a postcard!!! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)}

Nice try, but we are not talking about the FYROM/ROM issue - please refer to [9]: we would like to suggest that as BBC we should seek to avoid wherever possible referring to ethnic Macedonians in Macedonia as "Slav Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" or e.g. "the majority Slav population of Macedonia." Not to mention that they don't use "Macedonian Slavic language", either.--FlavrSavr 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I know. But you must admit it was funny! NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK...But I'm still willing to send you a postcard if you like them...:-) --FlavrSavr 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news agency. Wikipedia follows the example of Britannica [10] who has no problem in using the term "Macedonian Slavs" nor does Ethnologue have a problem about mentioning "Slavic Macedonian" as an alternative name. We don't censor information to make people happy - Slavic Macedonian was used by the CoE, I think that alone merits mentioning it. I am not proposing referring to the language as Slavic Macedonian but to describe the alternative names and the status of each. About the Gligorov source, you'll have to wait. Miskin (I think) mentionied it in the archives of the Macednians ethnic group talk pages. I'll have to go through them... --Latinus 00:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If we follow Britannica's example, can you explain to me how come they don't use Macedonian Slavic in the Macedonian language article? Also, Britannica has no problem in calling our country plain Macedonia, so if we're following its example... --FlavrSavr 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All sources (about Gligorov) mention: Foreign Information Service Daily Report, Eastern Europe, February 26, 1992, p. 35 NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The text they quote is:

"We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That's who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD)." NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, Niko, let's not get excited. --Latinus 00:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, what Gligorov said is beside the point. He might have said the above, but that doesn't change things. The native speakers of this language do not call it "Славомакедонски", and if you noticed - I didn't remove the info that the language is also called Macedonian Slavic, although it would require additional info that Macedonians, in general, find the term derogatory. So what's the problem, really? --FlavrSavr 01:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is alright now (though the "offensive" aspect should be mentioned), but I'd just like to point out for the record that, judging from this citation, Gligorov didn't advocate this as a name, he simply described the historical facts by a noun phrase (or maybe a compound word). An English head of state might say, on some occasion, "we are British, but we are Anglo-Saxon British, and we have nothing to do with the Celtic Britons". That wouldn't amount to advocating a new name and wouldn't have anything to do with a hypothetical bunch of enlightened, liberal-minded Bretons yelling "You stole our name, call yourselves Anglosaxowelshscottishandnorthernirelandbritish from now on!". --85.187.203.123 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You speak Macedonian Slav? You speak at least Bulgarian 4

Sorry my friends, but I cannot believe users who indicate 'Macedonian' as their native tongue and then claim to have a level 1 or 2 in Bulgarian, or even fail to include Bulgarian on their list! Bulgarian friends have very little problem in understanding 'Macedonian'. Imagine a French Canadia speaker from Montreal, claiming to only have a level 2 command of Franco-French!

Dont you know that it is not whether you can, but whether you WANT to speak the language :) FunkyFly 14:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The official language in Quebec (taught in schools, used in newspapaers etc) is identical to that in France apart from very few regionalisms. Notably, spelling anad grammar are identical. No such differences as лев - хляв. The spoken language has more differences depending on the level of speech. A better comparison would be Afrikaans vs Dutch. Of 24 users with User Category:User af-N boxes, only 7 have also User-nl-1 or User-nl-2, one has User nl-0. Andreas 15:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I base my querry on the fact that Bulgarian friends find no real difficulty in translating into English 'Makedonski' texts and vice versa. Therefore the Afrikaans/Dutch example is weak, especially due to the distance factor. Bulgaria (including the Pirin region) and ROM/FYROM consist of distinct but neighbouring geographic units. As for лев - хляв, what about the London pronounciation of 'House' and the Scotting 'Husse' or the London 'Thank you' and the Buckinghamshire (England) 'Thenk you'. Different pronounciations, but easily understood variations of the same language. Politis 15:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

French and Quebeckers use the 'same' literary language, so do Englishmen and Scots. A Scot is perfectly capable of writing a Wikipedia article in standard English. So, if you wish to find an analogy, look for two related standard languages, as listed in the diasystem article, and see how many of the users list both languages. In my opinion, this whole discussion is completely useless. Andreas 15:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The botom line is that the lingistic skills of Makedonski speakers equip them with a level 4 in Bulgarian. Makedonski students, as far as I understand, face far fewer linguistic challenges than a Serb, a Pole or a Russian speaker, when entering a Bulgarian university. Therefore, to indicate a level 2 in Bulgarian seems to me (with my limited knowledge and without wishing in any way to offend the undoubed knowledge of User Andreas) - as indicative of a certain state of mind in some of our Makedonski friends (whose contribution I find so valuable and am usually greatful to read). Politis 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? Isn't it good to know more languages nowadays? ;-)

Other thing - there are Macedonians which really don't know the Bulgarian sentence construction. It's simply unnetural for them.

P.S. That's even Serbian 4, Croatioan 4, Bosnian 4, and even Slovenian 4. ;-) (We know more languages than you, tra, la, la... just kidding ;-)) Bomac 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at this site to see how Afrikaans and Dutch speakers try to cooperate. Andreas 19:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Afrikaans became an official language in 1925, so it is not that much older than Makedonski. Andreas 20:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Torlakian dialect

I have some mistrust about the definition in the article about Torlakian dialect as old Serbian (?!). If you see the article Torlakian dialect you'll see that the oppinion that this dialect are old Serbian is one of the oppinions among scientists. Even the Serbian linguists have deifferences - is this dialect old Serbian or it is most develoреd Serbian dialect (lack the cases etc). Not to mention the linguists from the other countries (including some from Republic of Macedonia), who did not agrre that the people in Kratovo (for example) Belogradchik etc. speak (was spoken) old Serbian. We can not present one theory as a scientific fact. --GrigorG 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I admit that my knowledge in this field is not that good. So I dont object to that change. But the other change you made is just false. Nowhere else than in Bulgaria, the Macedonian language is considered a dialect. So please leave that as it is. --Realek 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are dialects of the Macedonian language, not of the Bulgarian. Nor is the Macedonian Language a dialect of the Bulgarian. And this is an article about the Macedonian language anyway. --Realek 20:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a small correction: this language is considered a bulgarian language in Greece too.and i guess it is right,since they are mutually inteligible... --Hectorian 20:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of wierd things in greece. I'm so used to greek negating my nationality, that it doesn't bother me a bit. I just want to tell you Hectorian, that your attempts to plant the seeds of hate between Macedonians and Bulgarians are transparent. Fortunately a lot of people in Macedonia and Bulgaria can see right trough such attempts. --Realek 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes,there are many weird things in Greece,but in the good way:).and i am not trying to create hate between u and the bulgarians...as a matter of fact,it is like trying to create hate between greeks and greek cypriots...it's never gonna succeed. Regards --Hectorian 21:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Mostly bad. But to be honest there are some good things too. Like when a group of prominent greeks bash their country about its attitude towards Macedonia. And you wont succed in creating hate between Macedonians and Bulgarians not because of the ridiculous reason you give but because you're so transparent! Anyway, your comparison of the macedonians with the greeks from Cyprus is just a clear irational nationalistic statemant. --Realek 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As described in Torlakian dialect, many Serbo-Croatian linguists of 19th and 20th century categorized it into "old-štokavian" group rather than accepting it as a dialect of its own. Later opinions shifted into accepting it as a dialect of its own. As for "olderness", I can't comment but, judging from that distinction, it's older than "neo-štokavian" dialects that were the basis for modern Serbian and Croatian standard languages (and dialects which are still categorized as "old štokavian" neighbor the Torlakian area).
OTOH, if you're offended by "Serbian" qualification for Torlakian, I don't see the real reason. It's not said that Torlakian is exclusively Serbian, but the majority of speakers are in Serbia, while the rest are western Bulgarians, northern Macedonians, Gorani and Krashovani. However, the "old Serbian" qualifier was given in the context of presenting the linguistic continuum in the neighborhood; do we have to be politically correct in every damn sentence? By deleting it altogether, you also removed the context necessary for further explanation in the article. Duja 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Who consider that Bulgarian dialects in Nevrokop are not Bulgarian? According to division of BG language they are Eastern Bulgarian, not Western. The so cold Macedonian language is created on the basis of the Western dialects. If you state that these dialects are not Bulgarian what is Bulgarian? In this case the Macedonian dialects are exented to Black sea. :)--AleksandarH 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Realek! One of the source is the Bulgarian linguist Stefan Mladenov bg:Стефан Младенов. In his Geshichte der Bulgarische Schprache (Berlin, 1929) he defined the dialects from Nevrokop, Seres etc. as Easrern Bulgarian. The same is valid about the texbook on the Dialektology of the famous BG linguist Stoyko Stoykov. If you want, in the next day I can point the other sources from other scientists or specify this. Regards, --AleksandarH 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

---

This article changes so quickly that I cannot cope up. Again, re Torlakian, I'm not satisfied with your version:

There are many similarities between Macedonian and Torlakian dialect which some Serbian linguists consider as old Serbian, but some Bulgarian scientists - as old Bulgarian dialect.

which you substituted for:

Macedonian also has some similarities with Serbian, particularly old Serbian (Torlakian dialect).

So, you erased all linguistic links to Serbian and placed Torlakian as a language of its own. The damn sentence is meant to place Macedonian in a geographic and linguistic context. It has already been said that it is closest to Bulgarian. I don't insist that Torlakian has to be defined as old Serbian but do you have to put Bulgaria in every sentence? OK, I'll rephrase this, but please stop removing the context in the article's intro. Duja 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the problem in this case is not the relation Bulgarian-Macedonian, but Torlakian-Serbian; you were correct in the article Torlakian dialect, why you are trying here to present these dialects only as Serbian. I am sure that you know that there are more scientific theories about Torlakian. So, my proposal is:

Macedonian also has some similarities with Serbian.--217.30.215.25 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry! I did not met the last change of Duja. Actually, I am agree with it. Regards, --217.30.215.25 22:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

However the Torlakian dialect still is presented only as Serbian. I'll remind that these dialects are spoken not only in Serbia. Therefore my suggestion is: Macedonian also has some similarities with dialects from Serbia, particularly Torlakian dialect spoken mostly in southern Serbia.--AleksandarH 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're looking for POV where there's none, and remove the info for the sake of political overcorrectness. The aim of the sentence was to tell:

• Macedonian has some similarities with (standard) Serbian language
• however, it has far more similarities with Torlakian dialect (which is not standard though)
• The Torlakian dialect is spoken mostly in southern Serbia and it presents a transition between Bulgarian/Macedonian and modern Serbian, based on neo-štokavian.

Now, I tried to phrase it in a single sentence (which is called for) but you keep on removing the link to Serbian. If you can phrase it better than me, go ahead, but don't remove the link. Duja 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the fact that Nevrokop is close to East Bulgarian, that doesn't mean that it's a Bulgarian dialect any more than the fact that Skopje is close to West Bulgarian means it's a Bulgarian dialect. In Scandinavia, you have identical phenomena (vowel balance, apocope, so-called thick "l") in both Swedish and Norwegian dialects that form coherent regions together, as opposed to both the Swedish and the Norwegian standard languages. The thing that determines which language a dialect belongs to is political, not linguistic. --85.187.44.131 13:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The dialect of Nevrokop is transitional between western and eastern Bulgarian dialects. It is more closet to literary Bulgarian than many other dialects which some Macedonian scientists do not claim "Macedonian". The macedonian characteristic (in language sence) in this dialect is ... the only fact that this dialect is spoken in Pirin Macedonia, i.e. in Bularian part of the region Macedonia.

As for Torlakian, maybe it is better to express in two sentences:

• Macedonian has some similarities with (standard) Serbian language
• Macedonian is very close to Torlakian dialect spoken mostly in southern Serbia--GrigorG 15:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to apologize, as I had misunderstood the Nevrokop issue. Originally, you had labeled the whole Eastern group as "Bulgarian", and I reverted that. But as the dialect of Nevrokop (Gotse Delchev) is located in Bulgaria, its identification as Macedonian is completely arbitrary (I'd say imperialistic :)) and the other position should at least be mentioned. I have tried to express that in my edit. --85.187.44.131 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of latin alphabet in yugoslavian times

I removed the part of a paragraph that said that macedonian was written in the latin alphabet in yugoslavian times. That is just plain nonsence. Macedonian was NEVER written in any alphabet other than macedonian cyrillic apart from e-mails, SMS messages and some shop signs. In my two decades there I have never seen a book or anything else written in that alphabet. The only possible exception is one serbian magazine that has its macedonian version which, for some inexplicable reason, is written in the latin alphabet. All the people I know found it very, very strange.

• The transliteration exists for other puroposes and is extremely rarely, if ever used, let alone being the standard system of writing. That is unheard of.--Bjankuloski06en 13:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that whoever wrote it meant that the Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet was used for Latin translitteration of the Macedonian language, not for standard writing. That's the way I've always understood that sentence. Yes, it did say "was typically written", but I never figured it could be misleading. --85.187.44.131 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again...

User:LionKing, would you please cite prominent non-Bulgarian linguists who consider Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian? I consider inserting "some linguists consider it..." a Weasel word. The entire stuff is already explained in detail in Political views on the Macedonian language.
As for Bitola's subsequent edits, let's be honest, not muddy things up, and admit that Macedonian is far more similar with Bulgarian than with Serbian; all Slavic languages in the area include, erm, two. This intro has been here for a long time, and I think it's fairly NPOV. Duja 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But what is wrong with the mentioning that the Macedonian language is closely related to all languages in the group of south slavic languages? After that sentence, I left the part where the Bulgarian and Serbian are mentioned separately. And also I removed the mentioning of ancient Macedonian language because that is already mentioned in the disambiguation link at the very beggining of the article. Bitola 18:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong, just not specific enough; the same can be said for any language in any selected group. In general, I prefer a status quo for any article, especially introduction paragraphs, unless compelling reasons for a change are presented... I've seen to much edit war on Macedonia-related articles that I'm inclined to stick to the current (fragile) balance maybe even too strongly. As for removal of ancient Macedonian from the intro, I'm not opposed. Duja 19:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be confusing since the constitutional name of the modern country (and language?), which has been adopted in WP, is same with the irrelevant ancient. You can't expect uninformed readers to understand that "Tom" and "old Tom" are not the same person in different age...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article :-) ?

I wonder why this didn't become a Featured article or at least a candidate... because every f***ing word of it is subject to so much scrutiny by a zillion of editors.
(No, this is not meant as a useful comment... just letting some frustration out). Duja 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Balkan mentality :( I share your frustration --Realek 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is impossible to continue with never-ending debates about details. However, this is a general issue of all related articles and all related affairs of the country in general. This naming issue is holding everything back (including WP). We are not authorized to solve that politically, though. I hope the implicated governments find a satisfying solution soon...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article a year ago to fix IPA pronunciations so it remained on my watchlist... I had better unwatched it... sigh. OK, let's play a mediator... Where we stopped? At Ethnologue? Duja 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I was about to kindly ask Realek to revert himself out of courtesy. Will you please, Realek?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But I gave my reasons for my edit. You surely red it, you posted a reply. But you didn't give any reason why you think my edit is not good. If you post your reasons and I find that you are right, I won't mind even reverting myself. So what do you think is wrong with my edit? --Realek 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will repeat:

1. No article about a language includes this information
2. for the precise reason that it is not verifiable.
3. (check it out) Yours says 2-3M, while the ethnic group article says 1.7-2M. In e.g. Greek language:15M vs Greeks:14.5M. (hence the "sadly not" comment).

 NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, (where) does Britannica mention 2-3 million? It's not in the short version of the article, mentioning only 1.3 in the country, and I'm lazy to sign up to see the entire article.
As for the diaspora, it's always very tricky to count. On one hand, many are entirely or partially assimilated (being 2nd or 3rd generation). For that reason, foreign (Western) censa tend to underestimate the number of persons of the origin, as many don't feel and declare that origin of their parents matter. Some of those may have forgotten the language. On the other hand, there are likely many who speak the language (as second or equal) but don't declare the origin at censa.
Having said that, and comparing the Ethnologue's numbers with ones in Macedonians (ethnic group), the fair estimate seems to be in vicinity of 1.7-1.9 mil, with 3 mil. being a loooong shot. (That's only my conclusion based on presented data). Duja 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, "around 2 million" is the general academic consensus. I can provide a list of citations for this if requested. 3 million definately long shot. - FrancisTyers 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yawn... agree too. (got the yawn thing from someone close here)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, I am not gonna rv the change myself. I've politely asked Realek to show goodwill and do it himself. Otherwise, someone else will.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing yet. Goodwill time has expired. Will someone do it for me please?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the arguments you make are connected to the chande I made. I just added a note that the source (ethnologue) doesn't account for the diaspora - (they probably avoided it because it's a tricky to give an estimate on that, but that is not important right now). I'm not claiming anything about the number of speakers or the reliability of the source. Purely explaining the source's data. Why exactly is the note added a problem for you? --Realek 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is excessive. The reasons are right above (1,2,3), along with Francis and Duja's comments agreeing with me. How can you fail to see it?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've changed it and added a footnote. I hope this satisfies all reasonable sides. Unreasonable sides can continue to discuss the numbers on an appropriate sub page. - FrancisTyers 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied but I fail to understand why I must be considered reasonable. I'll paste a message in that sub-page so that everybody can continue thinking I am generally unreasonable!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha :) - FrancisTyers 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

References

This article does not give any references. I have quite a few papers (PDF and hardcopy) here on the subject (I'm currently writing an essay on it) and so I will attempt to find some references from those. I have added the {{verify}} tag until it has been appropriately referenced. - FrancisTyers 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Autonomy

Autonomous is a specific linguistic term, please do not change it. I will add a link though to autonomous language. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out - You're right. But please add the link. This way is very misleading for uninformed people in linguistic (such as me) --Realek 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

The Bulgarian linguists use to emphasise that a lexicological comparison between Macedonian and Bulgarian reveals that roughly 15% of the whole vocabulary of both languages is different, although most words usually exist in the other language with a different or slightly modified meaning. 65% of the words are only differently accented, and 20% are identical. Lexical differences are owing to a great extent to loanwords borrowed by Bulgarian from Russian and by Macedonian from Serbian in the middle and the end of the 20th century. According to them, compared to other languages the statistical differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian are similar to those between Afrikaans and Dutch.

These are very precise numbers, a citation would be good. Not to say that it doesn't sound fairly accurate... - FrancisTyers 03:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian and at least one non-Bulgarian linguist views Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian. [11], (Malherbe, M. (1995). Les langages de l'Humanité. Paris: Robert Laffont)

The linked page is a page by an economist, and a Greek economist at that. I suppose this could be changed to, "Bulgarian linguists and one Greek economist view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian", but that seems pretty stupid. So for now we'll keep it out. - FrancisTyers 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian and some international linguists view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian. [12], (Henniger J., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (1994), vol.1, p.429) (Malherbe, M. (1995). Les langages de l'Humanité. Paris: Robert Laffont).

Hi, first of all, thanks for the references. I presume you are talking about the following reference: Henniger, J. 1994. "Bulgarian and Macedonian." In R. E. Asher, ed. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1:429-430. Oxford: Pergamon Press.. Please try and include as much information as possible in future. I will check this up tommorow, but if you could provide the extract where he "views Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian" I would be much obliged. Thanks. I'm looking up the French ref. now... - FrancisTyers 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am unable to find the second reference in the university library. Could you provide the excerpt that supports your claim here. Please note that I will happily provide any excerpt for information I have included. I have copies of all of my references. - FrancisTyers 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, the Greek economist has a copy of Henniger's article on his personal space. Perhaps someone should contact UCC, that sounds like a definate case of {{copyvio}} to me :) Regardless, I will re-include the piece. - FrancisTyers 04:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made the following adjustment to avoid weasel words.

Bulgarian linguists and the non-Bulgarian linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian

Would still be good to have a excerpt from the Malherbe text, and the full names of both of them of Henniger :) - FrancisTyers 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Brewery".  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Put this way, it sounds like these are the only non-Bulgarian linguists that view Macedonian this way, which is wrong. I know "some linguists" is a weasel word, but a "such as" might be the solution, or at least partially. What do you think? → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Todor, unless someone has a better way to put it. And I also would like to discuss including the Ausbausprache terminology in the article.  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Find some more linguists then. I'm very surprised you've been able to find two that state this, it is a very minority point of view among non-nationalist linguists. You might get linguists saying that standard Macedonian and standard Bulgarian are both autonomous forms of the same language, or that they constitute a pluricentric language, but I would be very surprised if you can find any more quotes which say Macedonian is another literary form of Bulgarian, I mean they might as well say that Bulgarian is another literary form of Macedonian. It just isn't done. Regarding Ausbausprache, sure, what do you want to say, I have a copy of Kloss' 1967 paper here with me, and a couple of other papers relating to the subject. I guess you've read the one on glocalisation by Trudgill? - FrancisTyers 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean linguists. There are other non-nationalistic scientific studies for the closeness of the two people that also contain the language/dialect positions and the beliefs of the two people about that. One was provided before by User:Komitata (I think). I'll fetch the link for you in a while. And to exclude possibly allegged nationalistic bias from my side, please think if it would be favorable for Greeks if FYROM and Bulgaria became one. Finally, no, I have no idea what you are talking about, since I am not a linguist (not even an amateur). I am just reproducing a quote from the Talk:Republic of Macedonia by user Latinus, in order for you to discuss it, since apart from reading the wikilink, I've absolutely no idea about the rest of it. I hope you don't see bias in that too. After all I didn't put it in the article. Now please leave me alone and don't overemphasize my ignorance because you deprive me time from my trolling activity! :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)