Talk:Macedonian language

Archives 19 Sep 2001 - 24 Aug 2004 24 Aug 2004 - 9 Apr 2006 9 Apr 2006 - 25 May 2006 25 May 2006 - 3 Nov 2006 31 Oct 2006 - 5 Jul 2007 5 Jul 2007 - 15 June 2010 Arguments about the number of speakers of Macedonian should be directed at Talk:Macedonian language/Number of speakers.

Discussion page is here

Administrators should assume good faith before making POV comments about the edits of their fellow editors, especially when they forget to read how editors justify their edits. That comment should be withdrawn in good faith as a bit hasty :-). The removal of those 2 maps were made on the grounds that "name of countries are missing" and also because the map itself in [1] tags Greek Macedonia as Aegean Macedonia. Administrator FutPer commented that the edit was "both maps are linguistically correct, removal motivated by purely non-linguistic POV agenda". No one mentioned its linguistic correcteness. Therefore, I am sure we agree that the phonetic maps must include the country names and that the reference to Aegean Macedonia must be replaced with Greek Macedonia. Politis (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why would it need to include the country names? If you think they are necessary: WP:SOFIXIT. If you can fit in the country names without obliterating the contents, go and edit the files. But the lack of country names is, at most, such a marginal shortcoming that it cannot justify removal of the highly relevant linguistic information they convey. As for "Aegean Macedonia", what have you been smoking? It doesn't even say that anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To Future Perfect at Sunrise, Wikipedia:assume good faith This Talk:Ethnic_flag#Vergina is the example to follow. Once more, I demand that the POV remark be removed and the disrespectful comments above removed. This discussion can make steady progress and achieve results without such imputs.

You failed to follow the link provided re:Aegean Macedonia and continued making hasty personal remarks * Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Politis (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed the link. It goes to the image description page. Neither the image itself, nor the description page, nor the caption to the image in the article even mention the term "Aegean" (except in the citation of the title of one of the sources. By saying that the name must be "replaced", are you seriously suggesting we should falsify the citation?). I will treat you with more respect as soon as you begin to show some effort at making some sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken about the citation, we are making progress, but only when discussion in engaged and respect is expressed at all times, especially by administators(!) The new maps are direct adaptations of File:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png but... the country names have been removed and new place names have been added such as: Lower Vardar and Bogdanska Planina in Greece, and Bobostica in Albania; this is in contravention to an agreed convention that saw some editors admins blocked for a while, but in the end all agreed to follow. Those additions needs cleaning up by those who created the maps. And I request once more to remove the 'POV' remark since it is made in haste. Politis (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I find your tagging of a whole section, just becaues the maps contain a few barely visible toponyms that you don't like, utterly distasteful, and in a violation of WP:POINT. You can always change the map yourself. If you can not find a better justification for the tag than such odious politization, I'm removing it. No such user (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And those geographical names are names of dialect regions, named after natural geographic features such as mountain ranges and river valleys, used according to the conventions of the relevant field of linguistics, that of Slavic dialectology. If those works call the dialects of those parts after the Slavic version of the name of the local mountain range, then that's how we are going to treat them. What "agreed convention" Politis is thinking of is unfathomable to me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello 'No such user', I could not open your user page, you are always welcome with your comments on my talk page.

@FutPer: neither in the map Macedonian Dialects nor, to the best of my knowledge is thereanywhere a reliable souce marking out Slavic dialects of 'Lower Vardar, Bogdanska Planina, Bobostica', therefore they seem to me as place names and should be revomed from the maps. I do not have the knowhow to do it.Politis (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Fut, since you're discussing the maps and hmm, ok, you're not actually discussing sources, but whatever. I see the map has a reference to this book. Does this mean we're allowed once again to add info from books that are published on that particular site? --Laveol ^T 10:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The book as such is a reliable source and of course can be cited. Its (presumably illegal) online mirror is, of course, very convenient for easy lookup, but should strictly speaking not be linked to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Laveol, in wikipedia no one can 'give permission', even if they take it upon themselves to do so LOL; it is a question of discussion and agreement. Use what sources you think are the most appropriate. Politis (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, the decision not to publish from websites such as promacedonia.org was the right decision. Any link has to be removed. It is also on the record that the provenance is from a (presumably) copyright violation.

Removing the phonetic maps: the place names 'Lower Vardar, Bogdanska Planina, Bobostica' are included. There is nowhere to indicate that they are bonafide, that they are "named after natural geographic features such as mountain ranges and river valleys, used according to the conventions of the relevant field of linguistics, that of Slavic dialectology". Those who have the skill to remove those names and replace them by the names in current use should do so, as suggested by 'No such User' and by myself (Politis). Politis (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have an "approved list" of toponyms, and especially not within maps. Do we have maps in languages other than English? Certainly yes: apart from English, there are maps in German, French, and a variety of languages. It is all natural that a map depicting isoglosses of Macedonian language was drawn by a Macedonian and uses Macedonian placenames. Reading it as a "non-neutral point of view" is perverse, to put it mildly. Laveol's issue whether the map comes from a reliable source is legitimate indeed, but issues that you have with it your are a politization pure and simple. No such user (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The maps are in the English language, we cannot have a map of England, in the English language but with 'Londres' as its capital just because it was modifed by a Frenchman :-). There was a lengthy and successful aribration process addressing these Macedonian issues, consult it and get back to us. In any case the issue you present is different to that of FutPerf wich suggested they were the names of dialects; I have addressed that issue and await an answer. Thanks for your input.Politis (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The outcome of the arb case (at WP:NCMAC) only covers the naming of the various entities named "Macedonia", not every detail of how to refer to individual features within them. Yes, consult it and get back to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I take your word for it, even though you had your admin rights blocked at the time. Which still leaves us with the place names and the suggestion to change them on the grounds that they are not of linguistic value. How do we modify maps? Politis (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

biscriptal?

Macedonian is included in the Latin digraphs article with the argument that it is biscriptal like Serbian. However, the article lists only the Cyrillic alphabet. I realize that all official matter is printed in Cyrillic, but the Latin script is commonly used unofficially, correct? Should the standard Macedonian Latin alphabet be included? — kwami (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's biscriptal, officially or unofficially. Latin script is used only as last resort, when Cyrillic is not available for some reason (think SMS or Internet). Is there such thing as "standard Macedonian Latin alphabet"? I don't think that they even had standard transcription rules for Ќ and Ѓ, at least until recently. No such user (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll advise at Latin digraphs that we shouldn't use Macedonian as an example, at least unless it's ironed out here first. — kwami (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, there's some old talk relating to this at Talk:Macedonian Latin alphabet, which used to be a separate article but was then merged to Romanization of Macedonian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian's only official script is Cyrillic. The Latin script is used in unofficial talks or when the Cyrillic is not available. Example is the Macedonian Wikipedia that is only written in Cyrillic the official one. Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd heard that it was used for more populist things, like pop magazines, store signs, advertisements, and the like, though not to the extent that it's used for Serbian. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. All the magazines in Macedonia (Macedonian language ones) are written in Cyrillic script, the advertisements, well not so much, but you can see it sometimes, but together with the Cyrillic. However definetelly is unofficial. :) 1111tomica (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

At the discussion I linked to above, somebody brought an example of Latin spelling being used in a journal targetted at an emigre community (in Germany, apparently). Admins can still see the image here (it got deleted as non-free). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the government fully promoted the Cyrillic alphabet as the only one and legislated to fine shops that did not use the Macedonian language in its Cyrillic alphabet. Serb biscriptalism originates from the need to accomodate the Serbo-Croatian language of Yugoslavia, a link Skopje has no particular inclination to be associated with. Politis (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Politis is right. Some shops broke the law for using the Macedonian language, because they had their name written just in Latin, and it should be first in Cyrillic and than it's optional if u want to write it in Latin, but however the Cyrillic is a historical script of the Macedonian language and the only official. Tomica1111 (talk)

I understand that only Cyrillic is official. My question is whether Latin is used, not whether it's legal. If it's just the occasional irregular romanization, either because it's chic or to target non-Macedonians, as you'd see with Russian or Arabic or Thai, that's one thing. If there's a popular tradition of using the Latin alphabet, even if not recognized, that's another. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I can say as a citizen of Macedonia, yeah it's used, not so much as Serbian Latin, but it's used unofficialy .... Tomica1111 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Okay, follow-up question then: the M. romanization article describes several variants. Is that what's going on here, just informal transliteration according to the whim of the writer (as you might see for Russian or Arabic), or is there a standard Macedonian Latin alphabet that's recognized by Macedonians, even though not by the govt, the way there is for Belorusian? — kwami (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if you read the discussion that Future Perfect at Sunrise posted at second grade in primary school we have a book that is called Читам и пишувам латиница - Čitam i pišuvam latinica (I am reading and writing in Latin alphabet) and there is a Macedonian Latin alphabet that is a transliteration from the Macedonian Cyrillic. The biggest reason for studying the Latin alphabet by Macedonians in my opinion is so we can easily understand the Latin alphabets that dominate in most world languages. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

So you have Macedonian written in Latin as a way of teaching the Latin script? Neat! (I don't think that would work for English. Our spelling's too messy.) — kwami (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No actually for English, but with studying of the Latin Macedonian alphabet, studying English in some ways will be more easy for us ... The Cyrillic scripters :) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)1111tomica

Edit request from 212.54.199.208, 15 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This page reference does not exist.

Never in history existed such a language. If you read all the historical books from all the writers there is not such report. There is report only for a region called macedonia , ruled by greeks.

Please delete this page or we will proceed further by means of law.

Thank you in advance.

P.S. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable

212.54.199.208 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Please do not make legal threats; if you would like the page to be changed in some way, please go through one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Email Campaign

Please be aware that there's an email campaign to get this article deleted. OTRS are aware of this and are directing people to involve themselves in discussions. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No such language

The information you distribute to people through this site is wrong.There is no such language.In Skopje the language that is used is Slavic.There is no Macedonia or Macedonian language.The only known Macedonia is part of Greece.The country you are wrongfully referring to as "Republic of Macedonia" was also known as Vardaska up to 1945.At which time they "decided" to claim a name that belonged to a completely different from theirs country.Usually people would be flattered that they chose a greek name but in addition to trying to steal the culture of Greece people are becoming disgust.An encyclopedia must be objective and display true facts. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.145.210 (talk • contribs)

Ignorance is a bleesing..isn't it..

It's almost 2011 and people still think like this?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.79.79 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think differently but the historical facts say otherwise. Since you haven't done any research why post a comment like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamantia.primpas (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ethnologue

There are no references for Albania and Bulgaria. As for Greece, they mention someone called Boskov and that's about it. Can you provide a source? (Ethnologue's mkd page) Wurstinger (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody? Wurstinger (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a joke. We should start deleting unreliable and unreferenced links. Bg3000 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's not a joke, but a high priority language source. Tomica1111 (talk)

Actually it has tons of inaccuracies. And not only the BG-Mac joke. --Laveol ^T 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually your "joke" source it's used in the List of languages by number of native speakers. Want it or not, that's the true. Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

1. I didn't say it was a joke, but simply that it had tons of inaccuraces.
2. Do you see anywhere in the article a claim that these are the actual numbers? There is a reason they've cited more than one source. --Laveol ^T 12:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro edits

Recently the sentence "...accumulated a thriving literary tradition" was removed for the nonsensical reason that it is a superlative (and superlatives should not be used in encyclopedic texts). My response:

• the word thriving is not a superlative;
• it's complete nonsense to say that superlatives should not be used;
  • go to any large article and I guarantee you'll find several examples;
• the phrase "thriving literary x" is almost idiomatic;
  • in the case of Macedonian it is used to describe the transition from spoken dialect to fully fledged literary language with a very active base of writers, etc.

I've noticed that the user who removed the text speaks less than perfect English, so I'll assume it wasn't vandalism. --203.59.11.27 (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but I too find that "thriving" etc. has something of an unnecessary peacock term. If it can be toned down to something less evaluative, that'll be fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly would Macedonian be promoted over with the inclusion of "thriving"? There really is no better alternative than the set phrase common in linguistic literature. "Thriving" does not give Macedonian importance over another language, as a peacock term would. Let's not look at this from a Balkan perspective of petty competition. --203.59.11.27 (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dialect continuum

About [2]: 1111tomica, Jingiby is clearly right about this one. Indeed, all Slavic languages are part of a two large sets of dialect continuum. And it's not often I agree with Jingiby on something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you are both right. I misunderstood something. Sorry. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 1111tomica

Changes in the lead of the article on the Macedonian language

I disagree with the adjustments made in the introduction of this article for the following reasons:

According to the source there is attached (Studies in contact linguistics, G. Gilbert, Glenn G. Gilbert, Janet M. Fuller, Linda L. Thornburg, Peter Lang, 2006, ISBN 0820479349, 9780820479347,p. 213.) Macedonian language was standardized in 1945 and was codified in the period between 1945 and 1950. Now this is not described by that way in the article and some readers will be misled. Furthermore, other attached source (UCLA) indicates some Western linguists maintain that the Macedonian language is a Bulgarian dialect. The article now says that the recognizing of the Macedonian language is not supported by all the neighbors of the state. In the case, this issue is not about the neighbors, but about linguists. Please, correct these factual inaccuracies. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jingiby is right about what the source states to be the codification period, just access the source. --JorisvS (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Does somebody disagree with JorisvS' conclusion about the source's contents on th codification period and it's deletion? Jingby (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe undue weight is given to the codification; such a thing is absent from the lead of almost every other language article, but I won't object to its inclusion. I do object to Kwamikagami's edits for the following reasons: a certain language variety is not codified to be distinct from another language, but from every other language. The Prilep-Bitola dialect, or more precisely an idealized variant of it, was given literary status for the purpose of being an official language in Socialist Macedonia. So yes, it was intended to be distinct from Bulgarian, but also from French, English, Japanese and Arabic. To suggest a separation from Bulgarian would assume a prior unification which is anachronistic: how can two standard languages be united if one of them wasn't standardized until later? As far as the continuum is concerned, there can only be one entity at each extreme otherwise we're not speaking of extremes. Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian are central within the continuum — don't confuse their classification into the abstract terms "Eastern branch" and "Western branch" with their position in a physical continuum. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That makes no sense. No-one claimed the Macedonians spoke French; they did claim they spoke Bulgarian. Before Macedonian was established as a separate language through codification and literature, it was a dialect of Bulgarian. It was never a dialect of French, English, or Japanese.

You didn't say that Macedonian lies geographically between Bulgarian and SC, you claimed it was linguistically transitional. SC isn't really central either (that politically motivated position has already been debunked), and in any case Torlakian links Bulgarian with SC just as surely as it links Macedonian. Historically there was an east SS and a west SS, which (assuming SS was a coherent node, which is dubious) met as they displaced Balkan Romance and started to fuse as Torlakian. So the central lects are Torlakian, not Macedonian. — kwami (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You 124.148.227.163 are wrong. The South Slavic languages are divided in two subgroups. In the eastern one are the Bulgarian and the Macedonian. I think you have made a big confusion in the lead without discussing. Please, stop your disruptive editing and respect the opinion of others! Check below:

1. The Slavic languages Cambridge language surveys, Roland Sussex, Paul V. Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521223156, p. 43.

2. Denying ethnic identity: the Macedonians of Greece, Human Rights Watch/Helsinki (Organization : U.S.) 1994, ISBN 1564321320, p. 36

3. Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, Harry van der Hulst, Typology of Languages in Europe, Walter de Gruyter, 1999, ISBN 3110157500, p. 436. Jingby (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make any sense — that's precisely my point. How a language was classified historically doesn't mean it becomes something else when classification is revised. We do not say the Belorussian language suddenly came into existence as soon as the term "Little Russia" was done away with. You're overanalyzing my comment regarding the continuum: Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian are central with respect to their position in a continuum with Bulgarian and Slovene at both extremes. I admit, the wording isn't the best.

Thanks for the spam, Jingby, but I'm not disputing that (already explained above). --124.148.227.163 (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually, we do. There was no Byelorussian language before it was established as a language. Before that it was a "dialect" of Russian. The language itself didn't change much, of course, but conceptions of whether it was a "language" or a "dialect" did change. As long as Macedo-Bulgarian had one literary form, the various dialects were all "dialects" of Bulgarian. And this includes the dialect that was later standardized as Macedonian. We're not talking about languages which are objectively independent, but of dialects in a continuum, some of which are arbitrarily promoted to "languages", and others of which remain "dialects". If southern Macedonians were to decide tomorrow that their dialect is not Macedonian but another language, they might argue that it never was Macedonian. But as far as people today are concerned, it is.

An example closer to WP-en is Scots. It's often seen as a separate language from English, and some people are promoting it as such, but historically it was (socially) a dialect of English.

Intentionally or not, your edits have the effect of denying or at least obscuring the period of Macedo-Bulgarian unity. — kwami (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding condescending, I'm going to ask you to read Codification (linguistics). Standard Macedonian is an idealized variant of a Macedonian dialect whose norms were agreed upon in the 1940s. Standard Bulgarian is an idealized variant of a Bulgarian dialect whose norms were agreed upon in the 1890s. If there was once a unity, that would mean we have a pluricentric language. That is a fringe view largely contained to Bulgaria and therefore doesn't belong in the lead. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

An admin here supports a fringe view pusher. Deletion of added reliable sources as "ungramatical" and the distortion of other sources here shows only lack of respect on the reached consensus. Jingby (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is horribly frustrating. Standard Macedonian being codified "as a language distinct from Bulgarian" is a misnomer and nonsensical. Yes, Macedonian replaced Bulgarian as the administrative language, but codification is the formal development of a standard language in opposition to all other standard languages in the world, not just those to which it is related. According to your logic, Standard Macedonian would have had to have been already codified prior to its own codification! --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Jingiby, the fringe view is the one only subscribed to in one country and rejected by mainstream experts. Also, a consensus has not yet been reached. We're still having a discussion, are we not? --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A consensus was reached on the period of the codification as per sources. Look above. You yourself wrote: I believe undue weight is given to the codification; such a thing is absent from the lead of almost every other language article, but I won't object to its inclusion. However, Future Perfect has deleted the added clarification, wich contradicts even the sources. Jingby (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to that. I'm objecting to the inclusion of "as a language distinct from Bulgarian". --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the source. It states, "...drawing on the west-central dialects around Prilep and Veles and incorporating a strong Turkish legacy, all differentiating the language maximally from both Bulgarian and Serbian". This means that the characteristics of the standard had the effect of making it unique with respect to Serbian and Bulgarian, not that it was derived from either of those two languages. This also begs the questions, why did you forget to add 'Serbian'? --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm not sure I understand why you object to Slovene being included in the description of the continuum. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The Belorussian and Ukrainian languages did exist prior to the codification of their standard varieties. Linguists determine the boundaries between languages on the basis of isoglosses, not the political climate of the day. The English language would be the same one we're writing in now even if it was renamed (the name of a language can be political, not its classification). The Earth would still be a sphere if we could time-travel back into prehistoric times. The 'conception' of language (Macedonian) vs. dialect (dialects of a larger Bulgarian group) is irrelevant, as scientific methods have proven it to be so. If southern Macedonians, as you say, were to elevate their dialect to that of a standard language, then we would have a pluricentric language. Actually, there was never any "Macedo-Bulgarian unity", but there was an attempt at it. It didn't succeed and that's why today, among other reasons, we have a Standard Macedonian language. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Linguists determine the boundaries between languages on the basis of isoglosses, not the political climate of the day." Serbia and Croatian? Hindi and Urdu? Malaysian and Indonesian? Tagalog and Filipino? Spanish and Portuguese? Or later, Portuguese and Galician? Scots and English? Whether Scots is a separate Germanic language from English is as much a sociopolitical decision as anything.

There are also many many "languages" with greater internal diversity than Macedonian–Bulgarian. German, for example. Sure, linguists can delineate isoglosses, but in the case of a dialect continuum, there will be few clear-cut results. If the people who call themselves Macedonians and Bulgarians today were to go by the same name, and say that they speak the same language, then we would say it's one language. If they had divided themselves in three instead of two, we'd say there are three East SS languages instead of two. Language can be defined in terms of isoglosses, but when two languages blend into each other, the definition will generally be social and political. Sociolinguistics is just as much linguistics as dialectology is. Classifications are political.

You're also contradicting yourself. You say that if S Mac were to split off, Mac would become a pluricentric language. Yet E Bulg did split off (to Mac), yet you deny that Bulg is a pluricentric language. Basically, it seems that your 'facts' are filtered through the conclusions you wish to draw, rather than the conclusions being drawn from the facts.

Let's say that in the year 2150, (are you Macedonian?) speakers of your dialect decide that they speak a different language. They don't elevate it to a distinct language; rather, they argue that it always has been a separate language, and that this fact has been scientifically proven. By your logic, what you speak today is therefore not Macedonian, because in 2150 it won't be Macedonian, and such things cannot be a political decision. — kwami (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Serbian and Croatian are national standards of what's termed Serbo-Croatian. Hindi and Urdu are independent standards of Hindustani. Malaysian and Indonesian are independent standards of the Malay language. Filipino is, to quote the article, a "prestige register" of the Tagalog language. Spanish and Portuguese are independent languages. Portuguese is in fact a pluricentric language. There will indeed be fewer clear-cut results, which is why we can speak of transitional dialects. I never said a language ends at national borders. In such a case (no Macedonian ethnicity) we would not necessarily be speaking of only a Bulgarian language: there's a Piedmontese language, but no Piedmontese ethnicity. There's no Hindi ethnicity either. You're claiming east Bulgarian dialects split off and magically became Macedonian simply because of the change in conception (mind you, not one popular with the speakers themselves — why else would this article exist?) which is a notion, to be frank, so backward that I will not entertain it. I don't mean to offend you, but it seems your conclusions are based on the belief that the Macedonian dialects are a part of Bulgarian dialectology (a belief rarely held outside of Bulgaria itself). No, I'm not an ethnic Macedonian but I do speak one of the dialects natively, and such a case is impossible. I could theoretically make the same claim about my dialect and possibly even win over a few followers, but we'd be grouped with UFO cultists and the like. --124.148.227.163 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So your argument is simply, "I'm right and you're wrong". Not terribly convincing. — kwami (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't dismiss an entire paragraph of response with a cute catchphrase. By your own admission, you are basing your argument on ethnicity and politics. --124.169.185.41 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add something. I have rewritten one of the sentences at the beginning, but I do not why it shows that I have edited it three times. However, the ref that is provided does not state that Macedonian was codified just to be different from Bulgarian (and Serbian), but it says that by choosing the central dialects the language is different from both neighboring languages. In fact no where in serious, reliable and academic papers you can find that the language was codified just to be different from the other. That is ridiculous. Best, --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits seem fine. It appears that Bulgarian was a pluricentric language: Back when the shift was made from OCS to vernacular, two self-styled "Bulgarian" standards arose, one in the east and one in the west. When the eastern form was made the sole official language, advocates of the western resented this and started to agitate for theirs to be recognized as a separate language, which they called Macedonian. So Macedonian was Bulgarian once upon a time. But at the same time, Bulgarian is only one half of the original literary tradition; it's simply the half which inherited the original name. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The next candidate for the Price "I'm right and you're wrong" is editing the article without any discussion. Jingby (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Any problems Mr. Lawyer? --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately for my argument, MacedonianBoy is right. The source does not state such a thing. --124.169.185.41 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, don't you think you just breeched WP:3RR with the latest edit. While not entirely the same as your previous reverts, it does constitute one, doesn't it? And this after you were specifically warned. --Laveol ^T 06:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I removed an unsourced statement I identified as vandalism. --58.7.226.38 (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Then, stop avoiding 3RR on different articles related to the Macedonian language and register you, please. Such a conduct is not welcomed here and is far from fairplay. Jingby (talk)

I would like to warn you about the vague language that you are using, especially the User Kwami, it's ok everybody has it's opinion, but without bulls*its and stuff. Tomica1111 (talk)

Macedoniaan is not transitional between Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian, but Torlakian. Bulgarian and Macedonian sharply divergent from the rest South Slavic languages. The added source is not verifiable. This is POV or manipulation. Jingby (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Torlakian dialects are transitional to all three languages. I agree that the wording is problematic and I've tried to rectify this. --58.7.226.38 (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, does the elaboration of on the situation in Bulgaria seem a little too lengthy? Would anyone else rather do away with it? It is, after all, explained in a little more detail in the linked article. --58.7.226.38 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your latest changes (several edits) have not been an improvement. "[[Dialects of Macedonian|Macedonian]] is a terrible easter-egg link at that point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't think it read well with several instances of 'dialect' and, considering it's about a continuum of dialects, I thought it obvious. --58.7.226.38 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we are already on a page that is about Macedonian, so if the reader sees a link that is also titled "Macedonian" but ostensibly goes to a different page, they will naturally be confused about what that is going to be. It is in fact not immediately obvious to a reader that there is going to be a second, separate article dedicated to the dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, I can understand that. --58.7.226.38 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this any more today, but I plan to delete everything you've done, because AFAICT it's nonsense. You appear to have a propaganda point to push, and that's not what we're here for. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, the lead is biased, and reminds an Yugoslav linguistic lecture from the times of Communism. Jingby (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The commissions you refer to were (1) proclaiming Macedonian as the official language and (2) choosing which letterforms would constitute the Macedonian alphabet. The lexis, grammar, orthoepy and syntax were already consistent. You don't find it odd that Misirkov's language is 99% identical even though his works didn't become known until much after these commissions? I know you'd like to think the Macedonian language and ethnicity were invented by the Comintern as part of an anti-Bulgarian conspiracy, but that's simply not true. --124.169.218.177 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

All the fluff wording about codification is totally unnecessary in the lead. Whether codification is easy or hard is totally secondary to the fact that it was codified at a certain point in time. Interested readers can look at the references, but I removed all the totally unnecessary and controversial fluff (although retaining the references for the truly interested reader). --Taivo (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the elabortaion on the nomenclature used in Bulgaria also belong in the lead? --165.187.10.16 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, the commissions were 3. Jingby (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

POV/misleading captions on maps

I believe captioning the whole southeast Slavic dialect continuum in the region of Macedonia as 'Dialect divisions of Macedonian' (in the thumbnail of File:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png), then further down as 'Map of the use of the intervocalic phoneme kj in the Macedonian language' and 'Map of the use of the intervocalic phoneme gj in the Macedonian language (1962)', is rather misleading.

The source supposedly used to support the first caption is one co-authored by a Macedonian linguist from the Yugoslav period, Božidar Vidoeski (Z. Topolińska and B. Vidoeski (1984), Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna, z.1, PAN.). I believe this makes the source unreliable for such an assumption. I find the map File:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png misleading itself: the captions 'Macedonian' and 'Bulgarian' are so positioned that one might easily think Blagoevgrad Province is a Macedonian-speaking area which is only transitional to Bulgarian in its northeastern part.

Even worse, the two other maps, File:LinguisticdivideinMacedonian1.png and File:LinguisticdivideinMacedonian2.png, label all Slavic dialects in the region of Macedonia as 'Macedonian' without making any distinction whatsoever: everything is clearly part of a 'Map showing the distribution of the Macedonian language'. There are no third-party sources used to support this claim: the Macedonian authors Božidar Vidoeski and Blaže Koneski are cited in addition to Bulgarian author Stoyko Stoykov, who, of course, is of the opinion that all these are dialects of Bulgarian. His work is conveniently mislabeled as The dialects in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, suspiciously leaving the 'Bulgarian' out from the original name of the chapter and failing to mention the entire name of the book, Bulgarian Dialectology.

My suggestion is to caption the map File:Macedonian Slavic dialects.png as something along the lines of '[Distribution of] [Southeast] Slavic dialects in the region of Macedonia' or '[Distribution of] Macedonian and/or Bulgarian dialects in the region of Macedonia'. File:LinguisticdivideinMacedonian1.png and File:LinguisticdivideinMacedonian2.png should be captioned 'Map of the use of ... in the [Southeast] Slavic dialects of the region of Macedonia'.

Yes, the wording may be more cumbersome, but the current situation is like making a map of Dutch and northwestern German dialects and labeling them all Dutch just because they form a continuum. It may be shorter, but it's incorrect. — Toдor Boжinov — 11:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares where in that dialect continuum the one language ends and the other begins. Take your boring old ideological fixations elsewhere. On this page, the only purpose of these maps is to show where those isoglosses are, and it shows them in the terminological framework of the reliable sources that were were used for producing them. If you can create a better map that shows the isoglosses with a bit more context to the north and east, be my guest. These maps are precisely as legitimate here as the map File:Bulgarian dialect map-yus.png is the way it is used at Bulgarian dialects. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, before you go on pontificating about how to treat Dutch and German, have you actually studied File:Niederländische Dialekte.png? It's pretty decently done, actually. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you please remain civil? Your response only consists of unnecessary qualifications and generalizations. The sources used are not suitable for the purpose of labeling all of these dialects as Macedonian because they are not third-party sources. The map on Bulgarian dialects you're referring to is clearly labeled as 'early 20th century', when a second Southeast Slavic literary standard did not yet exist.

I have no problem with the maps remaining in this article, but I'd like them to be captioned neutrally and clearly. At the moment, my opinion is that they are misleading.

I had not reviewed tbe Dutch dialectal map you're referring to, but I took a look at it and I do like it, it does a good job of representing the continuum. Strangely, I did not see any huge captions going from one country to the other assigning various dialects to Dutch or German :) The map is also sufficiently well captioned as 'Dutch dialects and their peripheries...'. Gives context and makes it clear that not everything on the map is to be considered a Dutch dialect. — Toдor Boжinov — 12:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If by "be more civil" you mean you want me to hide my profound disdain for the whole POV agenda you show in your editing: no, I won't. I consider the whole motivation you display deeply inimical to this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to 'hide your profound disdain' and to actually respond to my points on this issue, I have no other option but to request a neutral opinion. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect. The maps are, indeed, neutrally captioned based on reliable sources and standard linguistic practice. Your analogy to Dutch and German is imperfect. Linguistic maps, do, indeed, make a line between Dutch and German, whether that line is "accurate" or not. At Wikipedia, we reflect the practice of the field and follow reliable sources. The captions are accurate in that regard. --Taivo (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Can you please elaborate on why you consider the sources reliable for the purpose? And from the map captions, were you really able to understand that not all of these dialects are universally considered to be dialects of Macedonian? Also, can you please show me the line between Dutch and German on File:Niederländische Dialekte.png? Thanks again! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's crystal clear, Todor. Read the legend on that Low Countries map--it clearly differentiates between Dutch dialects (Niederlandische) and Low Saxon dialects (Niedersachsische). Take out your crayon and trace the boundary between the dialects and you have your line. Just because the map doesn't draw that line more boldly than the others doesn't mean that the line isn't clearly delineated by reading the legend. --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it may be my fault, but I'm not getting it. We are talking about File:Niederländische Dialekte.png and the only legend you're referring to are the colour codes and groupings in the same image, right? Niedersächsisch (West Low German/Low Saxon) is a group which includes both German (e.g. Westphalian) and Dutch (e.g. Tweants) dialects. More importantly, can you please answer my other questions? Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 23:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Todor, you're just POV pushing and nit-picking at this time. I agree with Future Perfect, and his assessment follows the sources and pretty standard linguistic practice. That's all I'm going to say about it. You asked for another opinion and you got one. It's not my problem that you don't like it. --Taivo (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Todor has a valid point (and despite references that say otherwise). The Slavic language that is spoken in northern Greece is both a dialect of Bulgarian as well as a dialect of the language of the "Republic of Macedonia". The ethnicity of the Slavic-speakers of Greece underlines that. I also agree that Fut Perf's style is customarily poison-pen (and that is not a personal attack) that is just Fut Perf's style. Todor should be allowed to make his point without being harrassed. One only has to look at articles like Lofoi to see that this issue is disputed across many articles.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Todor: Also, can you please show me the line between Dutch and German on File:Niederländische Dialekte.png?
There's the point: there is NO line between "Dutch" and "German". That "line" is an entirely wrong way at looking at a situation in a dialectal continuum. Similarly, there is NO line between Macedonian, Bulgarian and Slavic dialects in Greece, and NO line between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Such "lines" are artificial, and can be only drawn by political means: "Dutch", "German", "Macedonian", "Bulgarian" etc. are just convenient names for entities whose borders are blurred, and whose speakers identify as such largery by their political POV. For a person not prejudiced by such viewpoints, both File:LinguisticdivideinMacedonian1.png and File:Bulgarian_dialect_map-yus.png represent a sensible presentation of linguistic features, with nomenclature naturally influenced by the country of origin.
I understand (but do not justify) Fut. Perf's cynism: insistence on drawing of such lines by all means is a red flag of nationalism, and he's had too many nationalists, particularly in this part of the world. No such user (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanohmata's comment points up the failure of Todor's entire argument: "despite references that say otherwise". Wikipedia is not driven by nationalistic POVs, it is driven by reliable sources. If our reliable sources and scientific consensus do X, then we cannot do Y just because X offends some editors on the other side of a border. And all linguists recognize that there are dialect continua between languages such as Dutch and German, Macedonian and Bulgarian, etc. No one disputes that fact on the ground. But linguistic practice is to choose a place to draw a line on maps. We do not just place a flag at Amsterdam and label it "Dutch" and a flag at Berlin and label it "German" and leave the middle undefined. We decide where to draw the line and then draw it. That's standard linguistic practice. It doesn't mean we don't understand the facts of the continuum, but it means that for purposes of a map we make a decision. That's what linguists do, so that's what Wikipedia must do--follow the practice of the sources and the field. --Taivo (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

However, Todor has also noted references that are WP:RS that oppose your argument. Moreover, the actual history of villages such as Lofoi make it absolutely clear that the language taught in certain villages at certain times in history was Bulgarian and not "Macedonian"/"Macedonian Slavic". Yet the nationalistic POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" prevails and the historic Bulgarian name for the village continues to be excluded from the article.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@No such user, my point is precisely that there is no line, whether between Dutch and German or Bulgarian and Macedonian. Yet, in this case, instead of going with a neutral caption which does not attempt to describe all of these dialects as one or the other, we have a caption which describes them as one, and not the other. Note that the Dutch dialects map is labeled as 'Dutch dialects and their peripheries' in the thumbnail, while the maps we have here are only labeled 'Macedonian'. Neutral and unamibigious captions which do not appropriate dialects to one standard because the article happens to be about it is all I'm asking for. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Any who actually reads the article about the 2 disputed dialects (Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect and Maleševo-Pirin dialect) will realise that they are transitional. Having Macedonian language and its peripheries doesn't really establish much either. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

On a different note, the map is overambitious. The areas bordering the Aegean Sea in Greek Macedonia belong to the swampy regions of the Axios delta which have been gradually claimed as agricultural land since the 1930s. They were and remain uninhabited. Politis (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never used or ever heard the term "Greek Macedonia". It's called Macedonia. Nobody calls it "Greek Macedonia" except the propagandists outside the northern borders of Greece.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. [3]. Of course, the "Greek" in "Greek Macedonia" is not part of a name. It's a descriptive disambiguator, and it's quite routinely used in just the way we are using it here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You're a highly educated individual. I though that you knew how to use Google. Why not have a look at what it says on page 38 of those results. Only 375 results. Indeed "Oh dear!". [4] I had no idea it was such an obscure term. In fact, if you exclude Wikipedia [5] there are only 369 results. Which begs the questions. "Why are the propagandists allowed to use this name on Wikipedia?" And "Is Wikipedia intentionally promoting non-historically-used terminology?". "Do Editors on Wikipedia have an agenda biased towards the use of this little used and little known terminology?" "And why do articles with "Greek Macedonia" in the title exist on Wikipedia?"  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata, you are acting willfully blind. We use "Greek Macedonia" in Wikipedia to distinguish it from "Macedonia", which is the republic, and you know that very well. If you're going to ignore the point that Politis is making (that there is an uninhabited area that the map marks as inhabited) and focus on your own silly and needless exceptionalism, then please practice your art elsewhere. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I do not know that very well. If you are doing that then you need to adopt mainstream terminology. Macedonia in Greece is not called "Greek Macedonia". Wikipedia is about the mainstream, at least that is what you and Fut Perf tell everybody else, and not a place to repeat non-mainstream propaganda. Trying to pull a fast one by linking to a Google page with misinformation on the number of hits that "Greek Macedonia" has does not inspire confidence.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, "Greek Macedonia" = "Greek" + "Macedonia". That should be obvious. We also have two arbcom decisions on this.

What I would like to see is a consensus on what to call Greek Slavic, or if we call it Greek Slavic, where to link it, as that seems to be the focus of the latest idiot wars. If there is an old agreement somewhere, please let me know (on my talk page, maybe) so I can start enforcing it rather than reverting and protecting articles, which becomes disruptive after a while. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Then the arbcom decision has adopted a non-mainstream method of naming Macedonia, Greece. In Greece, the language is called Slavic and the people who speak it are Slavic-speakers of Macedonia (also referred to as Slavomacedonians) or Slavic-speakers of Greece (also referred to as Slavophones). However, in the "Republic of Macedonia" "Slavomacedonian" and "Macedonian" are the terms that they use to describe the language of the "Republic of Macedonia". The overlap is a problem. Since when somebody from the "Republic of Macedonia" says "Slavomacedonian" or "Macedonian" they know what they mean and it doesn't mean the same thing that it means in Greece. In Greece, Macedonian is what they call people from the Macedonian region of Greece. Therefore you will always have fallout and edit wars concerning the meanings of these words. I think that the best solution would be to link to a page like Slavic-speakers of Greece or Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of northern Greece whenever referring to the language. It is a dialect of the languages of Bulgaria as well as the "Republic of Macedonia". It is not fair to exclude Bulgaria. There are currently articles at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (a POV title) and Slavic speaking minority in northern Greece (which redirects to a paragraph within Minorities in Greece). Another name for the language is "South Slavic" as per South Slavic languages or Old Church Slavonic (which is closest geographically). Both are general terms that should not offend any country. It would be an honest way of getting around the problem.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The more I think about it. The more I like Old Church Slavonic aka Old Church Slavic. Geographically it is a bullseye.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)