Talk:Macedonian language

Map of dialects that also includes Bulgarian dialects

As the section about the dialects indicate, some of the Macedonian dialects are also considered Bulgarian. Why shouldn't the maps which have a significantly higher impact not indicate this as well? Kostja (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why shouldn't we let you plaster the articles with half a dozen references to your favourite petty POV idee fixe, rubbing everybody's nose into it in as many places as possible? It seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to do that, doesn't it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My favorite idea? Need I remind you that this map claims that a population that overwhelmingly identifies their language as Bulgarian actually speak Macedonian? One would think that such a bold claim should at least mention the alternate opinion, but apparently not. And of course, every other mention of these dialects already includes the disclaimer about the different interpretation of them, so why should a far more visible map not include them as well. And please, try to give some more concrete explanation, rather than mocking than me. Kostja (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Every single mention has had this kind of exclaimer pushed on it. For no other reason than placating the fixated POV anxieties of a small national faction of editors. Once is okay. Once per article is just acceptable. Anything more than that is obsession. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Schwa

In addition, the schwa [ə] appears in certain literary words in which it is always stressed.

This isn't correct. Only certain regionalisms have a schwa (and only when a text needs to make it clear that they are regionalisms); their literary counterparts invariably have /a/ (кана, касмет, комшилак, etc.) --101.112.160.25 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jingiby

"Similarly to Macedonian" is clumsy English in this case; here "similarly" means "in the same way". It's a common conjunctive in formal English. The ref does not source the widely in "Torlakian was also widely regarded". "Together with Bulgarian and Torlakian" is an overstatement: Bugarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Torlakian are all included in the Balkan sprachbund. This is an article about Macedonian, so the Balkan sprachbund itself isn't being defined, only Macedonian as a constituent of it. If you insist on such a formulation, then it would be more to the point to say "Macedonian and the other South Slavic languages...", avoiding those long-winded opening sentences. "Language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian during Yugoslav times, influenced the Macedonian so much, that even today the colloquial speech of the city" is unacceptable English. --101.112.166.177 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jingiby... again

After the forced serbianisation implemented during the interbellum,[38][39] the subsequent intensive language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian reached its height during Yugoslav times, so much so that the colloquial speech of the city of Skopje has been described as a "creolized form of Serbian"[40] (cf. also Surzhyk in Ukraine, Trasianka in Belarus).

You cannot splice two sources together to arrive at your conclusion. From the second source ("creolized form of Serbian") is isn't explicit if it arose from a forced serbianisation or otherwise. Given that the source speaks of "language contact", it is unlikely that it is referencing force of any type (linguists invariably consider language contact as it occurs naturally). The first source speaks of cultural assimilation in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. before the implementation of the standard) and does not explicitly mention language. The second source similarly speaks of cultural assimilation and discrimination in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --101.112.130.179 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The cultural assimilation included also forced linguistic serbianisation. The local dialects were regarded Serbian. More, the locals were regarded Serbs. The Serbian was the only language teached in the schools. I am going to modify my statement and to support it with reliable sources which point espesially the linguistic assimilation. Jingiby (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The new sources are still problematic, but much better nevertheless. Thank you. --101.112.138.110 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide excerpts from sources 20-26. Where do they state "Macedonian dialects were described by most linguists as being dialects of Bulgarian"? Or are *you* deciding who "most linguists" were based on the number of sources *you* find on Google Books? --101.112.153.165 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, all of this old books are describing Macedonian as part of Bulgarian. But more interesting is this citation: The south-Slavic linguistic area is generally regarded as as one of the most interesting in Europe... The number of languages into which this continuum is officially segmented has been subject to change, however. Up until World War II there were three: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Since 1944, when Macedonia was set up as a Yugoslav Republic and Macedonian was proclaimed as its literary language, the Macedonian dialects...has been subsumed under this new linguistic standard, which raised them to four... Although there is no clear dividing line between these two languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian) on level of dialect, the Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in a typical Ausbau move, by being based on western Macedonian dielects-those furthest from Bulgaria. Language, discourse and borders in the Yugoslav successor states - Current issues in language and society monographs, Birgitta Busch, Helen Kelly-Holmes, Multilingual Matters, 2004, ISBN 1853597325, pp. 24-25. [1]. That means in simple words: In the South - Slavic dialect continuum, the Macedonian language was delimited from Bulgarian after the Second World war. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No one denies any of that, but you're still avoiding my question. I am challenging the assertion that Macedonian dialects "were described by most linguists as being dialects of Bulgarian". Actually, I'm not challenging the assertion itself, I am challenging the way in which you have backed up the claim. None of the sources provided actually state anything to that effect. What you have done is found literature which uses the label 'Bulgarian'. So, the assertion "most linguists" is *your own* based on your own original research (cf. SYN). --101.112.153.122 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

After 1991 the language question has become a tool used by political elites for the acquisition and maintenance of power. What on Earth do you mean by that? Why are you inserting ridiculously vague statements such as this one, and other completely irrelevant passages like those about the standardization? --101.112.153.122 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, undue weight is given to Serbian assimilation; perhaps you'd like to account for the assimilatory practices of the Bulgarian and Greek churches as well? --101.112.153.122 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

Sorry to brake the spell, but the latest edits turned what was already a POV-ridden section into a political pamphlet accusing the world of hating and trying to assimilate a certain population. While removing some sources tagged with "verification failed", the floating-IP-annon also removed large chunks of information and presented a version cherry-picked to suit his own POV. None of these were mentioned in the edit summary though. Would the annon be kind enough to explain a bit on the talkpage prior to performing such edits? I know he or she is well-familiar with Wiki policies and should know better than this. --Laveol ^T 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

Before continuing an edit war over text that has been fairly stable over time, it's always a good idea to come here or to a sandbox, build a version that gains a consensus, and then inserting it into the article. Do not slap "verification" or "citation needed" tags all over the article to make your point. Verification tags are not to declare to the world that you don't actually own the book and can't look it up. --Taivo (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This article does not reflect accurately and enough precisely the following facts and they need to be еxplained in its content:

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian).

2. The Macedonian language is part of the Balkan linguistic union along with the rest of the South Slavic languages ​​from the Eastern subbranch ​​- Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is not part of this union, without Serbian eastern most dialects - the Torlakian).

3. Today three mentioned above languages - Macedonian, Torlakian and today Bulgarian, differ significantly from other South Slavic languages.

4. In the past Macedonian, Torlakian and today Bulgarian dialects were widely described primarily as dialects of Bulgarian.

5. During the late 19th century Macedonian intellectuals suggested a codification of the Bulgarian language on the basis of the Macedonian dialects, but its codifiers rejected it and Bulgarian was based on its eastern dialects. This was the turning point of the split.

6. The 19th and early 20th cent. Macedonian elites, participated fully in the Bulgarian National revival and considered its language part of the Bulgarian diasystem.

7. Krste Misirkov, who for the first time called for distinct Macedonian language in 1903, classified Torlakian and Macedonian dialects in 1910 as Bulgarian.

8. The Vardar Macedonian dialect was forcibly serbianized between the two world wars and this fact undoubtedly influenced the local speach.

9. Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in 1945 with ausbau-move and was based on its western dialects-furthest most from Bulgaria.

10. After the World War II the serbianization was strengthened exclusively by political reasons from Yugoslav elites and even today Macedonian language-ausbau is deliberately differentiated from Bulgarian.

11. This language-policy effectively resulted in that: today standard Macedonian language is largely incomprehensible to the Slavic-speakers from other regions of Macedonia, wich were outside Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody disagree with this? Jingiby (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Some of your points are simply uncontested fact, some are POV pushing. Now if you actually want a constructive, consensus-building discussion, take each one of these points individually and patiently present your evidence. But if you want people to actually read what you are writing, I strongly suggest that you do not write paragraphs on each point, and that you don't try to argue the next point until you have finished the previous one. Wikipedia editors don't suffer lightly the person who wants to waste their bandwidth with overargumentation or too many issues at once. --Taivo (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What points exactly do you disagree with? I can prove them, point by point, with reliable, neutral, secondary, academic sources. Jingiby (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you can't prove them with the neutrality you claim or else your edits would not have been reverted by other editors. I reiterate my suggestion on how to proceed--start with the point that you think is most important and build a consensus for it with reliable sources. Once you've built a consensus (or not), then move to your second-most-important point. Talking about six or ten points at once is rarely productive in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

OK! I suggest to discuss them in their numeration. Do you agree with this, Taivio? Jingiby (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian). - Today Torlakian, Bulgarian and Macedonian form the eastern subbranch of the south Slavic languages, sharing a lot of substantial structural characteristics.

- Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity transformations in Post-Roman and early Medieval Dalmatia, Danijel Dzino, BRILL, 2010, ISBN 9004186468, p. 50.;

- The languages and linguistics of Europe, Bernd Kortmann, Johan van der Auwera, Walter de Gruyter, 2011, ISBN 3110220261, p. 515.;

- Balkan syntax and semantics, Olga Mišeska Tomić, Aida Martinovic-Zic, John Benjamins Publishing, 2004, ISBN 158811502X, p. 123.

- The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ivo Banač, Cornell University Press, 1988, ISBN 0801494931, p. 47.

- Mood in the Languages of Europe, Björn Rothstein, Rolf Thieroff, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027205876, p. 409. Jingiby (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. You are distorting these citations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lindstedt [2] and others say that Torlak is part of "Balkan Slavic" (i.e. the areal group of Slavic that is affected by the Balkan sprachbund), but not that it is genetically part of "Eastern South Slavic". In fact, since he clearly refers to it as part of Serbian, that would imply a grouping under Western S.S. (not that such dichotomic genetic classifications are of much importance when dealing with dialect continua, either way, but that's the way he refers to it.) Dzino [3] does not himself propose a classification, but merely reports a couple of other researchers' approaches, in a matter that is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. By the way, please at last learn that papers in collected volumes must be cited by the author and title of the individual chapter, not just the volume's editor(s). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I see, Friedman definitely describes "Balkan Slavic", i.e. three mentioned above languages as belonging to the eastern subbranch here: p. 123.. Jingiby (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Jingiby, as I read the comments from Friedman, he definitely isn't saying that "Balkan Slavic" is a genetic unit, but a regional grouping as Future says. Indeed, he calls Torlakian "Serbian" in every instance. By labelling Torlakian as Serbian he is definitely including it as part of the Serbian dialect complex, not as part of the "East South Slavic" grouping which includes Macedonian and Bulgarian. Only the last comment in this Google Books search is about the genetic East South Slavic group, but the Google Books quote is so truncated as to be almost useless in determining exactly what Friedman means. If you are doing all your research with Google Books, then you will often find yourself the victim of massive misunderstanding. After expanding that single quote out to several pages, and reading the paragraphs before and after the "East South Slavic" comment, it is clear that he is not using that label as a genetic label, but is still talking about areal features, not genetic features. So even that last quote in the link you gave us is not about a genetic node that includes Torlakian, but about an areal grouping. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: black is white and vice a versa. Nobody rejects today that part of Torlakian dialect is in Serbian language, but the Torlakian as a whole (including Macedonian and Bulgrian parts) is more Eastern South Slavic. Recently, Future has deleted three or more times added by me information, confirmed by Friedman, p. 120, who admits that Macedonian and Torlakian in the 19th century were often described as Bulgarian. By the way this is confirmed also by such biased, pro-Macedonian author as Shea on the map on p. 99. This is ridiculous. Jingiby (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't ridiculous since I get the impression that you don't completely understand what a genetic relationship is as opposed to an areal relationship. You seem to be mixing the two ways of categorizing the South Slavic languages and their constituent dialects. If I am wrong in that assumption, then please clarify your comments so that it's clear you understand the two things. If Torlakian is a Serbian dialect, then it's not East South Slavic. If it's East South Slavic, then it's not a Serbian dialect. --Taivo (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. The history of Torlakian and Macedonian is similar. Until 20th cenury they were part of Bulgarian diasystem. Then occured language shift, at first in Torlakia, then in Vardar Macedonia, i.e. strong politically motivated Serbianization. Look at the map of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition. Both areas are shown as part of Bulgarian diasystem: [4]. Jingiby (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Either Torlakian is a dialect of Serbian, which makes it West South Slavic, or it is not. Friedman clearly calls it "Serbian" and all the modern linguistic sources I'm aware of place it in the Serbo-Croatian system. --Taivo (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, Wayles Brown, "Serbo-Croat" The Slavonic Languages (1993, Routledge), pp. 306-387. "The Torlak (Prizren-Timok) group, sometimes termed transitional to Macedonian and Bulgarian, is generally, as here, included in Shtokavian." (pg. 382). --Taivo (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you are not wright again. Torlakian is today not dialect only of Serbian, but also of Macedonian and Bulgarian. As you can check according to Paul Cubberley in The Slavic Languages, Cambridge University Press,2006, p. 506 ... Torlakian is a distinct fourth dialect group (neither Stokavian, nor Kakavian or Chakavian), and shows strong transitional features with Bulgarian and Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

More, what about Krste Misirkov's opinion? In several publications Misirkov attempted to determine the border-line between the Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian languages. He included in the Bulgarian dialects all of Torlak dialects and Macedonian too: Мисирков, Кръстьо (1898). Значението на моравското или ресавското наречие за съвременната и историческа етнография на Балканския полуостров. Български преглед, година V, книга І, стр. 121–127; Мисирков, Кръстьо (1910, 1911). Бележки по южно-славянска филология и история (Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сръбско-хърватски езици и народи), Одеса, 30.XII.1909 г. Българска сбирка. Jingiby (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jingiby, a speech form cannot be a dialect of two different languages. And I looked at those quotes from "The Slavic Languages" and not a single solitary one of them says that Torlakian is a "Bulgarian" or a "Macedonian" dialect. Not one. In each and every one of those quotes, Torlakian is called a Serbian dialect with some Bulgarian and/or Macedonian features. Cubberley consistently and without exception calls Torlakian a Serbian dialect. And trying to call an 1898 source as evidence to refute modern sources is not going to convince anyone here. Dialects do not somehow switch from being a dialect of one language to being a dialect of another. Doesn't happen. Torlakian is a dialect of the Serbo-Croatian complex with influences from the Bulgarian/Macedonian complex. Also, Jingiby, this is the English Wikipedia and it's requisite that you translate quotes you pull from other languages. --Taivo (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Torlakian is the name of this dialects especially in Serbia, but it is used in Wikipedia as common name for a broader group. The Bulgarian name of the same dialect is Shopski dialect. This dialect is spoken by the Bulgarians in Serbia also. In Macedonia it is called Kumanovo-Kratovo dialect. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can see Torlakiain in far west, marked with dark broun (№ 3) on the map below:

Map of the Big Yus (*ǫ) isoglosses in Bulgarian language in early 20th century: Български диалектен атлас (Bulgarian dialect atlas), Кочев Иван, 2001 София Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Bulgarian.

Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you've presented changes the simple fact that Torlakian is a dialect of Serbian/Serbo-Croatian and not Bulgarian or Macedonian. The overwhelming testimony of linguists agrees with this. --Taivo (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian)?!? Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, I am sure, you ever did not understand my thesis! Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So you have one Macedonian source compared to a dozen linguists who say otherwise. We don't give a potentially nationalist source more weight than neutral, scientific linguistic sources which overwhelmingly state that Torlakian is a West South Slavic dialect, part of the Serbo-Croatian complex. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This was probably a joke. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My statement about Torlakian is readable above: ...Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian... What is your problem? I have described Serbian most eastern dialects as Torlakian. The fact that Torlakian is spoken in Bulgaria is also undisputable: ... Linguistically the Torlakian dialekt is found on both sides on modern political bondary.Thus Serbs and Bulgarians along the modern political bordery speak the same dialect: Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, pp. 232-233.; The Torlakian (or Torlak) is the collective name of several Slavic dialects spoken in southeast Serbia, southeast Kosovo, northern Macedonia, and western Bulgaria— particularly, in the Belogradchik-Godech-Tran-Breznik area in Bulgaria...: Bulgaria (Other Places Travel Guide), Leslie Strnadel, Patrick Erdley, Other Places Publishing, 2012, p. 118.; ...Border dialects is the term used for the dialects spoken on both sides of today's Bulgarian-Yugoslavian border. The area of these dialects includes in the east the dialects of Belogradchik, Berkovica, Trän, Breznik, Caribrod and Bosilegrad ... in the west of state-border the border dialects transform into the so-called dialect of Timok-Moravia or Prizren-Timok which, besides bears the features of the border Bulgarian dialects...: Sŭpostavitelno ezikoznanie, Volume 6, Sofiĭski universitet Kliment Okhridski, 1981, p. 223.; Bulgarian linguistics describes this dialects as Transitional western Bulgarian dialects or Transitional U-dialects. You can see them on the map in far west: Language Contact: New Perspectives, Cornelius Hasselblatt, Bob De Jonge, Muriel Norde, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027218676, p. 134.; ...U-dialects (Western Bulgarian areas near the Bulgarian-Serbian border)...: Language Contact: New Perspectives, Cornelius Hasselblatt, Bob De Jonge, Muriel Norde, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027218676, p. 133.Jingiby (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is supposed to prove what? And it is important for an article about Macedonian in what way? Jingiby, you have no idea what you are talking about; give it up. By the way, you are again misquoting sources. How often do I have to tell you to cite papers in collected volumes by their individual authors, not their editors? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to ask, why here is neglected the firm opinion of Friedman, who is an expert on the topic, that Torlakian is part of eastern subgroup of the South Slavic, together with Macedonian and Bulgarian. It makes no sense one and the same Torlakian dialect, spoken in the border area of this three countries to be part of one language subroup in two of them, but of another language subgroup in the third one. This is not serious. Jingiby (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because Friedman doesn't do what you claim he does. You still haven't even begun to grasp the very basics of what these people are saying. You fail to understand the difference between genetic units and areal units. You still seem to be confusing the concepts of "Eastern South Slavic" (which is a supposed genetic unit) and "Balkan Slavic" (which is a supposed areal/contact phenomenon). All these people are talking about contact linguistics, and delimitations between genetic groupings are simply not what they're interested in. In fact, in a situation of dialect continuum, the genetic (family-tree) classification model doesn't really work anyway, which is the reason why today (as opposed to the nationally motivated research of the 19th century, and its local remnants) nobody in scholarship asks the question of where exactly the one genetic unit ends and the other begins. The question "is Torlakian part of ESS or WSS" is not just uninteresting; it is meaningless.

Besides, it is of course also off-topic for this article anyway. Why the sudden obsession to include coatrack discussion of the genetic status of Torlakian in this article about Macedonian? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Future that the status of Torlakian is unrelated to the topic of this article. But I also demonstrated above that Friedman does not support your claim, Jingiby, that Torlakian is genetically a part of East South Slavic. Don't you read our comments? --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What Friedman states is as follows: Taken as supralinguistic set of diasystems, East South-Slavic, i.e. Southern Serbian (Torlak), Macedonian and Bulgarian, display a series of isoglosses that are morphologigcal, semantic and pragmatic, in which the development of evidentially and arguably reflects the differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian. No doubt? Jingiby (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That and that. Jingiby (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those were two edits of mine; they were correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? I did not uderstand why was this sentence deleted: Today Torlakian, Bulgarian and Macedonian form the eastern subbranch of the south Slavic languages, sharing a lot of substantial structural characteristics? Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not the predominant view. The predominant view is that ESS is Bg + Mk, and WSS is SCr+Slo. Now, that is a simplified view, and it's legitimately simplified and supposed to be so. Because the precise dialectological delimitation between the two is simply a non-issue. The detail of whether you count Torlakian as being on the one side of the boundary or on the other, or indeed whether you draw a line right through Torlakian, is not a matter that people disagree about; it's simply irrelevant. It's like trying to determine at what precise point in a rainbow "green" ends and "blue" begins. Even asking the question is meaningless. It just makes no sense. Anybody who thinks it is significant whether you describe it this way or the other is misinformed, and anybody who thinks it is important is an idiot. Wikipedia is not supposed to written either for idiots or by idiots, so it is not important for Wikipedia.

Friedman at one point feels free to use "ESS" as a loose synonym of the "Balkan Slavic" he has defined elsewhere. He can do so, exactly because the delimitation is otherwise so irrelevant. So what? Friedman himself doesn't care about it either, certainly not as a matter of classification. His paper is about the typology of language contact and nothing else. Do you know about language contact? Do you care? If not, why do you even bother citing his paper? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Torlak dialect is a very specific and often classified separately. That part of it which falls geographically in modern Serbia is described as Serbian language. However, it is grouped together with Torlak dialects in Bulgaria and Macedonia, which are not Serbian. Interestingly this dialect is part of the Balkan linguistic union, where Serbian as a whole does not fit. Another specificitiy is that this dialect is part of the Eastern subgroup of the southern Slavic languages​​, along with Macedonian and Bulgarian. For me that is quite interesting and I do not understand why to delete this facts from the section "classification of Macedonian". It seems biased and unreasonable. Jingiby (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My point above about "anybody who thinks it is important..." stands. This discussion is now over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But you have deleted this classification even from the section "classification" in the article about Torlakian dialects. This was really ridiculous. Jingiby (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Jingiby. Torlakian is not an East South Slavic dialect. The linguistic evidence is conclusive--it is a dialect of the West South Slavic Serbo-Croatian language complex. As Future said, "This discussion is now over." --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Taivio, honestly, stop with platitudes. Jingiby (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Source provided is not providing prove for this sentence

"""Nowadays, only a minority of linguists still deny the distinctiveness of Macedonian; however, such views are politically motivated.[14][28][29]""

According to the UCLA - Macedonian Language is distinct South Slavic language. The is no information provided that "only a minority of linguists still deny the distinctivness of the Macedonian and that hose views are politically motivated.

I will remove this sentence ,if my edit it is considered inappropriate and the one who wrote this sentence has sources that prove this i will put the information back.

--Daci92 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, check carefully, the three sources and do not delete them. As for example UCLA - Macedonian Language: Some consider Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian, but this is a highly charged issue hotly disputed by others. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the sentence "however, such views are politically motivated" is extremely clumsy. Which views does it refer to: those that deny the separateness, or also those on the other side? Are all disagreements supposed to be purely political, or only in part? What does the "however" mean? (i.e. in what way does it constitute a logical contradiction to the preceding statements?) This needs to be rephrased. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was transformed in this way by the Australian IPs, who you oppenly support. Its old version, which is more realistic was: Prior to their codification in 1945, Macedonian dialects were for the most part classified as Bulgarian[16][17][18] and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.[14][19][20] Jingiby (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the older version was better. Linguasphere, at least, links Macedonian and Bulgarian and it's hardly "political". --Taivo (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There is something missing and I am going to clarify it. Jingiby (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK then i wont change it ,but still source number 29 should be checked since it is not open for viewing if u r not premium user or you dont buy the book.--Daci92 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Linguists outside of Bulgaria and Greece do not deny the distinctiveness of Macedonian. That handful that do, do so because they subscribe to a 'conspiracy theory' (we've all heard it before). Any normal person (linguist or otherwise) would immediately dismiss their works on account of their unprofessionalism and the hate speech within them. I'm not just talking about political incorrectness—everyone's entitled to an opinion—but these guys make heavy use of ethnic slurs. And yes, Fut.Perf., all such disagreements hitherto have been politically motivated. A Greek "linguist", for example, has described Macedonian as "a bastardized idiolect consisting of equal amounts of Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian". All linguists from BAN don't even seem to know what a standard language is, much less understand the concept of diasystem. If it's something you're personally interested in, take a look at this article by an Austrian linguist:

• This downright usurpation of ethnic names

Implying that nations exist outside of the societal construct, and that the Macedonians are the only people who have engaged in nation building...

• including letters having become more or less a myth ќ ѓ (instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД [...]

Which Cyrillic alphabet hasn't modified the original civil script? Even the Russians themselves altered it. And there just isn't any sense in representing /ɟ/ with <жд>: are we supposed to read <дожд> [doʒd] as *[doc], <ждребе> [ʒdrebe] as *[ɟrebe]?

• A very special trick of the Macedonian glossotomists

Does that sound like the kind of unbiased language excepted of an academic?

Also, where's the linguistic evidence? The whole article is an emotional attack on the Yugoslav state and the Macedonian nation. --101.112.148.25 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't know all the linguistic literature, anon IP. There are purely linguistic, non-political sources from outside Bulgaria and Greece that link Macedonian and Bulgarian. They are in the minority, of course, but they are not the political propaganda that you so wrongly claim. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Academics in the Republic of Macedonia also "link Macedonian and Bulgarian". It's quite obvious and there's no denying they're closely related languages. But, every denial of Macedonian's distinctiveness is politically motivated. There are no clear-cut boundaries between the South Slavic languages. Hence, there are only standard registers based on various points in that continuum, so every claim of "x doesn't exist" or "y is a dialect of a" is subjective. --101.112.130.70 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, anon IP, there are linguists outside this region, without any political motivation, who still link Macedonian and Bulgarian for linguistic reasons, not political ones. Linguasphere, for example. They are a minority, to be sure, but they are not politically motivated and that accusation on your part simply shows your POV. --Taivo (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I never knew that many Macedonian intellectuals claimed their dialects were a distinct language. On a contrary, many accepted standard Bulgarian and only single claimed that - Misirkov in 1903, who however, later rejected this idea. It gained limited popularity only in the 1930s. Jingiby (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Future, the fact, you are an administrator here, does not give you a rights to abuse other editors, to delete Encyclopedia Britannica's view, and to demonstrate irresponsible behaviour. Jingiby (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The following text was deleted by an administrator: According to 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, the Macedonian dialects, although resembling Serbian in some aspects, presented most of the characteristic features of Bulgarian. His\her motives to delete it were: Take your obsessions elsewhere. If no reliable reason for this action will be provided, I am going to add this properly sourced and realistic text again. Jingiby (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Future, rv. no is not a serious position, but а stubborn obstinacy. Please, provide a reliable motivation for deletion of Britannica's view. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

ADMINS

Is there any way to disagree with the administrators here without being deleted? You tend to find everyone who disagrees with you a tresspasser of rules. When i said my opinion you said i'm poV-pushing. When i called you to tell us if you're professional propagandists you say i'm making personal attacks. Yet you do anything you want without answering to anybody. I dare you ,bring my statement above back and answer to a SINGLE one question. You can't keep evading forever! We get your trick but it doesn't seem to work for your goverment apart from misinforming people!--194.177.198.13 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)