Talk:Macedonian alphabet

I have a question, raised by a discrepancy between the Macedonian alphabetical order reported in this article, and the canonical order used in articles about individual letters (e.g. the article for "Gje"). Specifically, in the order as shown, Gje and Kje do not appear directly following Ge (or Ge-with-upturn, if it were present in Macedonian) and Ka, as one might expect, and as is reported in the canonical order. I'm guessing this is just an idiosyncracy of the language, but perhaps an error has been made? Or perhaps the error is actually in the table used in the letter articles? It looks like the primary Cyrillic alphabet article has an order consistent with the Macedonian order listed here. Rmharman 22:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm advised by native Macedonian speaker Bjankuloski06en that indeed, the ordering of Gje and Kje in the Macedonian article is correct. This implies that the order shown in the sidebar tables for Cyrillic letters is incorrect. If it doesn't get taken care of before I have a chance to learn how to edit those, I'll fix it. But it might take me a while to find time to read up on how includes and sidebars work. Rmharman 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Letters Unique

The last section states that Karadžić's alphabet may have been based in some respect on distinctly Macedonian resources (eg. Krste Misirkov). Is this merely speculation on the part of an editor, or is this a documented opinion? If the latter, then it needs a source, and the language should be toned down a tad. I detected a little bit of a sneer in the way "Serbianization" was italicized. I dunno. Maybe I'm just reading more into than there is. I know South Slavic languages can be a sensitive subject. Anyway, I'm putting up the {{NPOV-section}} tag, and adding fact notes. --Yossarian 09:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the way I read it, it wasn't suggesting that Karadzic based his alphabet on Misirkovs (from a historical point of view I suspect this may be impossible, it was just trying to say that the Macedonian alphabet is not based on the Serbian alphabet, but more the writings of Misirkov. I've tightened up the wording and removed the tag, let me know what you think. - FrancisTyers · 10:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's much better, actually. Nice work. On a side note, we should probably provide online/textual sources, though, for Miroslav's book. Just to add a bit of context. Cheers --Yossarian 23:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How was the "Macedonian language" invented

Please read the reference by Stoyan Kiselinovski in the article to learn from a witness how under pressure from the Yugoslav minority and the Communist government of Yugoslavia, the "Macedonian language" was invented. In this process, many Bulgarians, like Venko Markovski, Stoyan Mikhailovski and others, participated, because such was the politics of the Comintern, and from above the Macedonisation of Bulgarian language and history in this part of Bulgaria was ordered. Those Committees for Macedonian alphabet had the venue Sofia, Bulgaria, which is not mentioned in the article but is a solid fact. Another fact is that "Macedonian language" came into existence only because the Bulgarian government at this time (1945) was composed mostly from traitors who were under direct orders from Soviet Union.

Also, read http://www.mak-truth.com/m4_marko.htm to see how one of the principal inventors of the "Macedonian" language, Venko Markovski, regards himself and the language he speaks as Bulgarian.

Venko Markovski's judgment on the legitimacy of Tito and Kolishevski's Macedonian People's Republic, is poignantly illustrated by the following passage from his text "Кръвта вода не става" 1981, p287

"The entirety of the serious scholars via different ways, have arrived at the conviction that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia and Dobrudzhia, towns and villages alike, are inhabited by Bulgarians; that the national awareness of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the language of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the literature of these Bulgarians is neither Macedonian, nor Thracian, nor Moesian, nor Dobrudzhian, but Bulgarian; that the history of these Bulgarians living in Macedonia, and in Thrace, and in Moesia, and in Dobrudzhia, is not a separate one such as - Macedonian, Thracian, Moesian, Dobrudzhian history, but a common, Bulgarian history; and that Macedonia, Thrace, Moesia, Dobrudzhia are the geographic expression of the Bulgarian territory"

--Lantonov 14:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

→The Macedonian language was "invented" in the same way all the other Slavic languages were. It may not be as old as the rest, but it is still a distinct language, which is why it is recognised by almost every country except for Bulgaria. Maybe we could all follow the Bulgarian approach and say that Portuguese is Spanish or Norwegian is Swedish. ––Alex 202.10.89.28 07:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The handwritten alphabet

Hi, I am translating the English article into Bulgarian. Could anyone please help me with the image of the handwritten version of the Macedonian alphabet? I would like the Bulgarian article to look as close as possible to the English one. Thanks in advance! Regards --StMt 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to upload the image onto the Bulgarian page, I think an administrator from the Bulgarian Wikipedia can help you get that done. Cheers BalkanFever 01:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, mate! I will do that. Cheers! --StMt 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoyan.stoyan (talk • contribs)

Article overhaul

I have overhauled the article on the Macedonian alphabet with some help from Macedonian and Bulgarian editors. I have tried to steer the article away from language or ethnicity controversies, so if making changes, make sure they reflect a neutral point of view and are properly sourced. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I should actually name the editors who helped me:

• BalkanFever
• Laveol ^T
• iNkubusse^?
• Capricornis

Thanks again guys! AWN2 (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Great work! BalkanFever 23:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The South Slavic nature of the language should be included in the lead, as there is no way for the casual reader to know from the outset that "Macedonian alphabet" doesn't refer to the writing system of another language. According to WP:MOSMAC, "Macedonian can be used where the context is limited to the country, and there is no need for disambiguation". That limited context is not immediately obvious in this case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you care to read, "In articles dealing only with the majority language of the Republic of Macedonia......Use "Macedonian language" ". So no. BalkanFever 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What a pathetic argument; "Macedonian" is already used undisambiguated throughout. By the same logic, we shouldn't classify it as a South Slavic language in the main article either. It isn't Slavic, after all; it's the same language Aleksandar the Great spoke to his generals Slavko and Zlatko. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So when you use MOSMAC it's fine. Ah I see. So sorry to interrupt. BalkanFever 09:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The guiding principle behind MOSMAC is the need for disambiguation. Unlike you, I have never used Macedonia or Macedonian in articles where it isn't absolutely clear that the context is Greece/Greek. The term "Macedonian alphabet" doesn't automatically imply a non-Greek context, especially considering both words are actually Greek. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The need for disambiguation does not exist everywhere the word "Macedonian" is used. "Macedonian language" is quite clear. Especially in an article where anything ancient or Greek is not mentioned. "Macedonian alphabet" is even clearer, as there is no "Ancient Macedonian alphabet" or variant of the Greek alphabet specifically for Greek Macedonians. If "the words are Greek" is the best you can up with, maybe you shouldn't continue this. BalkanFever 10:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "best" I "can come up with", it's a simple statement of fact. The "Greek alphabet" is not the only writing system ever used to write Greek; the Cypriot syllabary and Linear B casually spring to mind. For the casual reader, "Macedonian alphabet" may as well be referring to ancient Macedonian. After all, according to you it was a separate language, right? How are the masses to know that it didn't have its own alphabet too? That's why there is no harm in classifying the language as South Slavic in the lead rather than burying the information further down the article. Unless of course you're disputing the classification, in which case you can't be helped. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We covered that it's not for ancient Macedonian, it's the alphabet used for writing the Macedonian language. The fact that you can't imagine anything non-Greek being called "Macedonian" is your problem. Nobody cares. "Macedonian language" is clear, so stating in the lead that the "Macedonian alphabet" is the writing system for that language is more than enough explanation. Again, maybe not to you, but then again you also fail to see the difference between harm and need. BalkanFever 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How have we covered that it's not for ancient Macedonian? Because the word "ancient" is missing? Please. The fact that you can't imagine anything non-Slavic being called "Macedonian" is your problem. Nobody cares. Your attempt to whitewash the classification of the language says a lot. It's valuable information, and whether or not it causes you distress or offense is patently irrelevant. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not because the word "ancient" is missing, but because the article being linked to, without a pipe, is the one about the South Slavic language - the Macedonian language. So now you're saying the classification of the language needs whitewashing. Is there something wrong with South Slavic languages? Well bravo, that's racism at its best. BalkanFever 11:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So why do you keep removing it, then? It's your lot that's always trying to deny their "offensive" Slavic identity, so don't even bother trying that line on me. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the family of the language does not need to be reiterated everywhere the language is mentioned. If people care about classification, they can go to the article. "Macedonian language" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the South Slavic language, and not your Greek dialect or that ancient idiom of which the relation to Greek is unknown. Hence the location of the article. And I'll thank you not to spread your monopolisation malakia here. If you want to cry like a bitch, go somewhere else. BalkanFever 05:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike you, I have nothing to cry about, bitch. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bitching aside, there is, of course, no need for disambiguation. Out in the real world, except in the very limited specialist context of Indo-Europeanist/ancient Balkan linguistics, the phrase "the Macedonian language" always, 100% of the time, refers to the Macedonian language. Professional reference works don't waste a dot of ink for disambiguating that. Nobody except perhaps for a few Greek readers could be preoccupied with XMK enough to be in danger of misunderstanding it. And the Greek crowd doesn't need a disambiguator either; they understand perfectly well what's meant here – they want the allegedly "disambiguating" addition not for the purpose of real disambiguation, but as a badge of recognition of their rival usage. Which is not a thing we should take notice of in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not rule out the legitimacy of a Macedonian alphabet article. We're not going to include all this in the same article, are we? NikoSilver 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. If you can be bothered to bury a sample of the Macedonian alphabet somewhere in the ground in Pella, I could perhaps arrange for an archaeologist to discover it. Then we write the article on it. After that, we will contemplate the best article names. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, the assumption by the "uninformed reader" that such an alphabet exists should be a valid reason. We're not going to bury the glorious past's potential over a dab-no-dab concern for a minor language of today, are we? :-) NikoSilver 20:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The current text of this article's lead squarely places usage of the "Macedonian alphabet" in the present, which in and of itself makes the sense crystal clear, in the more than unlikely case that anybody might have doubts. There isn't a single reader in this whole wide world who knows that an ancient Macedonian languages existed but does not also know that a modern Macedonian language exists too. (Oh, and if you are going to bury that artifact, please make sure it contains something interesting. I propose a set of extra letters for those darned non-aspirated media please.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(How about I bury some cash too?) NikoSilver 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not something more direct, like "ελληνες εσμεν"? Just make sure you don't mix up your spirits or one might think that (ancient) Thessalian pranksters dumped it there. 3rdAlcove (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This monopolization issue is getting ridiculous. There is no single Macedonian Alphabet. There is a Slavic Macedonian Alphabet. However the majority of Macedonians use the Greek Alphabet. Hard to swallow for our Skopjan friends, but this is what the demographics say. And all these Macedonians can't even read this "Macedonian" Alphabet this page refers to. --   Avg    07:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)