User talk:Laveol

This is the most stupid mistake that you can do since: (1) it is not Bulgarian, but Macedonian, (2) the Macedonian language uses phonetic orthography, not etymological, (3) the book uses Macedonian alphabet, instead of Russian and Bulgarian, (4) and finally, the most important, read the book and see what language it is used. Some time ago I asked you to read the book just to inform yourself, but obviously you did not look at it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book uses the Bulgarian alphabet at the time. Does the Macedonian one have a Iota? Don't think so. Thank you. --Laveol ^T 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The script and spelling are irrelevant. Many non-Slavic languages have used and some continue to use Cyrillic, many non-Semitic languages have used and continue to use Arabic script and it is also fairly easy to transcribe non-Slavic languages into Cyrillic. Any Macedonian or Bulgarian variant could be written with either phonemic or morpho-phonemic spelling conventions and they would be understood equally as well as each other. The opinion of contemporaries as to the classification and naming of the language is also largely irrelevant - Ukrainian texts from before the 20th century are not labeled Russian (even though they were considered as such at the time). What's more, the language of Misirkov is his own attempt at codifying a Standard Macedonian language on the basis of Western Macedonian dialects. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so we should take your OR on a book that was written in the Bulgarian script, published by a Bulgarian publishing house in the Bulgarian capital Sofia. And nowhere does it say it is in a language different of Bulgarian. I know what it says in the book, but the author did write it in Bulgarian. He could have used some of the letters, which he uses elsewhere and which were not part of the Bulgarian alphabet, but he did not.--Laveol ^T 07:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about 'За македонцките работи'? Regardless, the book was written with a variant of the Cyrillic alphabet unique to Misirkov's works. But let me simplify this for you: if he had written the book in hiragana, it still wouldn't be Japanese. The country in which a book was published is 100% irrelevant (and I'm not going to insult my own intelligence by explaining why). The name a writer uses for the language he writes in is also irrelevant to its classification (we should certainly mention their opinion if it has some significance to the context in which it is being referenced) but linguists do not classify languages based on the opinion of its speakers... ever). --124.148.192.108 (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're about to enter a deadlock, as has often being the case with conversations with past incarnations of yours. I am trying to explain that he author wrote the book, using the Bulgarian alphabet, despite the fact that he intended one or two other letters to be used when writing in the Macedonian norm. In order the book to be published, it had to be in Bulgarian. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant since its a plain fact. The attitude of facing facts head on is not getting you anywhere. Do you have any prove refuting the fact that the letters are Bulgarian? Does it say anywhere that the book is written in a language other than Bulgarian? If the answer is no, I do not see what your case is. --Laveol ^T 08:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who speaks Bulgarian (and would therefor be familiar with the Bulgarian alphabet), is <i> part of the Bulgarian alphabet? Are the digraphs <н, л> part of the Bulgarian alphabet? Let's also compare two sections of the book: София, Печатница на „Либералний Клубъ“ vs. any of the body text (Секоi чоек како член на некоiа). Considering you are so knowledgeable, please tell me how these differ. Actually, I'll save you the trouble.. the former is written in the Bulgarian alphabet (я, й, ъ) in accordance with the orthographic conventions at the time (-ий, -ъ), while the latter is written in something other than Standard Bulgarian. Secondly, the opinion of the publishing house is also irrelevant. Linguists also do not base their classifications on the opinions of non-linguistic organizations. My opinion is relevant because Wikipedia, by its own definition, is a collaborative project. Facing facts is the only thing I'm doing. You, on the other hand, wish to label Misirkov's language 'Bulgarian' because you consider him to be an ethnic Bulgarian - and in the absence of any real reason why it should be labeled so, you are scrambling to list completely irrelevant points. Again, you are not using a logical argument: does Beyond Freedom and Dignity state the language it's written in? Probably not. Does that mean we can call it Bulgarian (or anything other than English)? No, of course not. --124.148.192.108 (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]