Talk:Gora dialect

RE:Bulgarian Dialects in North-west macedonia

Some Goranian intellectuals and researchers define their language as Bulgarian, similar to the Bulgarian dialects spoken in Northwest Macedonia [1].

Could someone please find me these "Northwest Macedonian dialects of Bulgaria"? If anything they would be more closely related to Macedonian to Bulgarian!PMK1 (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is:"Some Goranian intellectuals and researchers define their language as Bulgarian, similar to the Bulgarian dialects spoken in Northwest Macedonia". These are the right words, published in the dictionary of Nazif Dokle. This oppinion is in conformity with the thesis about Macedonian dialects as a part of Bulgarian diasystem.--AKeckarov (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, said intellectuals must be quoted. Their thesis cannot simply be presented as fact. BalkanFever 04:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am agree with your suggestion. I am wondering only whether it is necessry "what they call". Maybe the quotation marks are suffucient.--AKeckarov (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Torlakian language is a myth

There is no such thing as a *Torlakian language, or nation, for that matter. --Vladko (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a Belgrade ruse, very much like the *Macedonian nation. --Vladko (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no need for this. Some self-identify as Bulgarians and that is enough. No need to add more nationalistic claims. You might get a block this way. I agree that the language is certainly just a dialect, but there's no need to get into lame disputes. --Laveol ^T 14:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialect of anything

Look, both {{Bulgarian dialects}} and {{Macedonian dialects}} are POV here, obviously. There are people among the Gorani who consider themselves Bulgarians or Macedonians, but the majority have an independent consciousness about their national identity and language. Saying that "nashinski is transitional between macedonian and serbian. Bulgarian is a foreign language comparable to montenegrin or croatian" is, pardon my language, pure male cow excrement. It just highlights that somebody is here to push an agenda. Not to mention it's just funny because I really don't think there's a difference between "Montenegrin" and Serbian or Croatian.

I don't see why we can have {{Macedonian dialects}} here and not {{Bulgarian dialects}}. We can impose a Macedonian dialect on that population, but not a Bulgarian dialect? And that contrary to what the source we have cited say? We don't have even one reference here to back up the statement that Našinski is considered a Macedonian dialect and yet we have the template. Bulgarian has a reference, and one by the community itself at that, and has been removed by Macedonian nationalists.

Do you guys ever make any sense? Todor→Bozhinov 12:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The community? It's one guy financed to write a bilingual dictionary by the Bulgarian Academy (sic). He says it's similar to the dialects in northwestern Macedonia (i.e. Macedonian dialects) which he is payed to say are Bulgarian... If you want we'll say referring to Našinski itself as Bulgarian is like calling it Slovenian, so you can get it through your head. Happy? BalkanFever 12:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't work with original research here. If you think Dokle has been bribed by anybody or if you think Bulgarian is like Slovenian to Našinski, then back this up with sources. Till then, however, we have a serious reference (actually the first Gorani dictionary) published by a significant institution to back our position, and there's a nice big right after the Macedonian claims. And yet, you don't see me removing {{Macedonian dialects}}. Just face it: your POV is not the only one, learn to tolerate other people's views because NPOV doesn't work by imposing your own position. Just like I accept that this community is regarded as Macedonian in the Republic of Macedonia, you'll get to accept that it's regarded as Bulgarian in Bulgaria. Oh, and learn to spell paid. I'd excuse that if you were a native speaker of Macedonian, but it's your damn mother tongue. Todor→Bozhinov 12:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, even a native speaker is allowed to make a mistake. I don't really care if you excuse me or not, since you're not really in a position to correct me, are you? Especially with your misguided notion of mother tongue ;) Anyway, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. In Bulgaria they regard Macedonian dialects in their entirety as Bulgarian, not just Našinski by itself. Even Dokle does this, he calls Macedonian dialects Bulgarian. But it's been explained to you that it's a fringe view already. I can easily tolerate other people's views, unless they're fringe. And you know as well as I do that the "significant" institution wouldn't have published the dictionary if Dokle had called it a Macedonian dialect or a Serbian dialect. Even if he didn't bother to attempt to classify the language at all (it is a dictionary, remember) it wouldn't have been published. Našinski is connected to Macedonian dialects, which are connected to Bulgarian dialects. You cant go from Našinski to Bulgarian dialects (unless you call the Macedonian dialects Bulgarian). Našinski is (was) connected to Serbian dialects, which are connected to Croatian dialects which are connected to Slovenian dialects. Since you think Croatian and Serbian are the same, the Slovenian comparison works as a comprehension aide for you, not something I suggest should go in the article. You can't directly connect Našinski to Slovenian. That is what we call WP:COMMON SENSE. BalkanFever 13:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, back off from those ideological obsessions of yours. The world is not interested if this variety "really is" part of this or that national language. That very question is nonsensical, and our article would become nonsensical if it spent time arguing for or against either of these "POV"s. We can say that the variety is "treated within the context of Macedonian and/or Bulgarian dialectology". That's just sufficiently vague so as not to sound idiotic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any point in debating any further, I was just here to protect the article from vandalism-like editing, and I see it has been prevented. Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, could you be bothered to discuss at least once before you do mindless reverts? You're on the losing side here, I believe we agreed yesterday that the removal of {{Bulgarian dialects}} is unjustifiable. And if someone doesn't do it before me, you're getting reverted as soon as possible by me (I messed up my counting, that doesn't mean I like your edit :)) I'm not sure I need anything more to prove that I'm right, but here's a Focus News article in broken Macedonian, to enlighten you. There are local Bulgarian organizations in Gora, some Gorani are in contact with the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, they celebrate our national holiday 3 March and donate costumes to our national ethnographic museum. And to prove the language point, here's an ordinary Gorani guy who says his language is "more Bulgarian than Serbian" and doesn't even mention Macedonian as a possibility; the TV show is The Other Bulgaria on bTV. He must be on a Bulgarian payroll, right? Like everyone else who exercises their right to self-determination? Todor→Bozhinov 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., would it be OK to go back to the version we agreed on yesterday? I've reached my 24-hour revert limit (I think, I had lost count and accidentally reverted myself thinking I'd 3RR-ed this morning) and PMK1's last intervention removed {{Bulgarian dialects}} yet again. I'm going to wait a few hours until my limit is over, but I do intend to reintroduce the template, it makes no sense to remove it and retain {{Macedonian dialects}}. Todor→Bozhinov 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not aware I (or anybody else) "agreed" on anything in particular with respect to the templates. I only commented on the body text. As far as the templates are concerned, I can very well live with Kekrops' tie-breaking proposal, of throwing them all out. The moment a template is being used more as a marker of territory-claiming by our editors, than as a navigation aid for our readers, something has gone wrong. People have an unfortunate tendency of exhibiting the same attitude towards templates as dogs towards lamp posts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we all know lamp posts are very cool and very comfortable for pissing over :) I'm fine with the current solution. Todor→Bozhinov 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea Todor, it must be similar to the "Bulgarian dialects of North West Macedonia". If these people were "spoke Bulgarian" as the man claims, then subtitles would not be necessary. Todor y'all are like drowning men clutching at straws. Here's a document relating to them, [1], you may have seen their newpapers Гороцвет [2], a bit over the top but here is an interesting performance: [3], and Ismail Bojda leader of Macedonians in Gora [4]. Not to mention the 2 Gorani villages located in ROM, they too must be Bulgarians. Not that anyone here actually cares, but you might think twice.? PMK1 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but this is retarded. Subtitles are regularly applied when people are not speaking common Bulgarian: dialects from the Rhodopes or western Bulgaria are regularly transcribed because they're pretty distant from the official language. Do I really have to explain that? Can't you realize that claiming these people as one or the other is retarded? In their majority, they're self-identifying not as Bulgarians, Macedonians or Serbs, but as Gorani, so leave them be. What we're disputing here is not what they are, but whether there actually are any substantial claims by one side or the other. And since I believe I've proven my point that there are substantial Bulgarian claims, this dispute is over and I dare say you've lost. Todor→Bozhinov 09:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. West Bulgarian is known as MACEDONIAN, by the rest of the world.

2. No the majority identify as ethnic macedonian muslims or "goranci". They are not ehtnic Serbs, not since the kosovo war anyway. and bulgaria is related to them only through fiction and myth.

3. No it was your people that "lost"

go for it i "dare" you. PMK1 (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be paranoid, mate. Under "western Bulgaria" non-paranoid people mean the region of Sofia, Pernik, Dupnitsa, Tran, Kyustendil, etc. Not southwestern Bulgaria, which is Blagoevgrad Province, and not northwestern Bulgaria, which is Vidin, Montana, Vratsa, etc. People in Bulgaria's extreme west speak transitional dialects which are pretty incomprehensible for people from more remote regions. Do you seriously believe the Gorani majority are "ethnic Macedonian Muslims"? I've never ever heard that nonsense before, somehow the Kosovo officials have missed that "fact".

And yes, it was our people that lost. Long live the Vardar Banovina inhabited by true Serbs! Now cut the paranoid nationalist crap and get busy with something else. Whatever you're discussing at the moment has no relation to the article. I'm out of here. Todor→Bozhinov 10:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You know im just joking. Good advice. PMK1 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please forget about ethnic disputes and so on for a moment, and try to treat this dialect as something separate from those disputes. Your recent edits to the article are trying to make it look as if Gorani is Macedonian and as if the Bulgarian view has no base. My advice would be to just forget about Bulgarian, Macedonian and Serbian and describe the characteristics of Gorani independently, without giving precedence to any of those national views. Todor→Bozhinov 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Its funny you persist in present the Bulgarian POV. They have no rational basis here. The dialect is a transitional one between Macedonian and Serbian. It is closer to Macedonian than serbian and is traditionally spoken on the territory of ROM, as well as Albania and Kosovo. Come one todor, even serbians believe that Goranski is closer to Macedonian than Serbian. It is linguistically adjoined the to Polog dialect which continues on to the rest of Macedonian. The only ones who dont agree are Bulgarians and co(as usual).

. PMK1 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Article title?

By the way, why is the article at Našinski? All the sources that are currently quoted seem to be using "Goranian" or "Gora dialects" (or its SR/BG/MK equivalents) as the primary term, don't they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Gora dialect is Agreeable.PMK1 (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not universally perceived as a dialect, so that would be misleading I think. Todor→Bozhinov 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, although the separate-language view is currently the least well sourced of all views we have. Basically it seems to be not much more than one of those vague lay attributions, motivated by political rather than linguistic facts, and probably not shared by any reliable linguistic source. We might find a source confirming that laypeople claim to think it's independent; I very much doubt if we'll ever find an academic source actually sharing that view. Vague prejudice among laypeople is something we may of course report on, but not something that ought to have any influence on our editorial naming practices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what about this move suggestion? Is there any source now that uses "Našinski" as the primary name of this variety? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? I'm fine with "Goranian", but I fear "Gora dialect" may be ambiguous because "The other usage refers to a language socially subordinate to a regional or national standard language", which it is not. Also, there might be a minority view that it's a language, as we have discussed above several months ago. Todor→Bozhinov 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"There might be"? As long as such a "minority view" isn't actually proposed by a reliable source (rather than just described as somebody else's lay perception), it doesn't exist for the purposes of our naming practices. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't the title Goranski language? Modern linguists generally prefer to avoid the term Dialect in favour of language variety. If it isn't possible to establish which language Goranski is a dialect of, then why is it called Gora dialect? I live in London and all the Goranci people that live here refer to their language as Gorani, coming from the Albanian term. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHasanDiMaggio (talk • contribs)

"Leading" linguists and SFRY

This is exactly why it's relevant: the only people who classify Gorani as Macedonian belong to the communist past of a war-torn country that has since imploded into pieces. are the other leading linguists, if I may ask? You're using weasel wording to push a POV, and you're deleting info that is just as relevant and well-sourced.

Neither PMK1's nor BalkanFever's edits are aimed at improving the article: I've had to fix formatting messes after you guys and in the current version we have a sentence hanging out of nowhere ("The claims that Gorani belongs to the Bulgarian dialects..." is still there even though you have unexplainably deleted any mention of the claims).

In the current version, the only point of this article is to promote the fringe idea that Našinski is a Macedonian dialect, a view that neither a significant number of the Gorani people nor any non-Yugoslav linguists support. Don't get me wrong, the Bulgarian view is just as fringe today, it's just that both deserve the same treatment. Todor→Bozhinov 13:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the fact that they are all from SFR Yugoslavia have to do with it? Are seriously suggesting that the official policy of the SFR was to call the language Macedonian? Goranski as a Macedonian dialect is not a fringe view. Do you have any other linguists claiming that Goranski is a seperate language or even Serbian or something else?

You claim that they are both fringe views, however apart from the Bulgarian strong POV/Fringe view, you have not provided any evidence to suggest that Goranski is not a Macedonian dialect. Until you can provide sources that linguistically Goranski is not a Macedonian dialect, we will have to accept the veiw of the information given to us. From leading Croatian, Macedonian and Serbian linguists.

Your search begins now, good luck :). PMK1 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have again changed the wording to accurately reflect the veiw of Ivic and Brozovic alongside those of Friedman and Videoski. Friedman agrees that Gorani is infact Macedonian and includes it in his dialect map. So far we have 4 leading linguists against the veiw of a "local scholar". Todor, can you find the actual sentence where Dokle claims that gorani is Bulgarian? PMK1 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm guys, everybody seems to agree that this is a Macedonian dialect, even Dokle. The only disagreement is whether, being a Macedonian dialect, it is a dialect of Bulgarian. And we know which view is fringe there. BalkanFever 10:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PMK1, can you find the actual sentence where Friedman actually says that in his opinion, Gorani is Macedonian? The map is not titled "Dialects of the Macedonian language" but rather "The Republic of Macedonia and adjacent territory"; it most certainly includes dialects that are *not* considered part of the Macedonian language even by him, like the dialects of eastern Greek Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia. As such, it cannot be used as any kind of proof that Friedman actually agrees with the former Yugoslav scholarly nomenklatura.

It is quite clear that, just like the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the former Yugoslav linguists should be taken together and represent a POV. By no means can the claims of one scholar supported by two related scholars from a single country (as of 1988, time of publication of their cited works) be regarded as the opinion of "everybody" or as internationally "leading linguists" whose opinion is neutral.

Now that this has been cleared up, there's also the matter of politics which is very important when we determine whether a language variety is a dialect of one language, of another language or a wholly separate language. Do you believe the majority of Našinski speakers have a Macedonian national consciousness? Do you believe the majority of Našinski speakers regard their mother tongue as a dialect of the Macedonian language?

From what I have read and seen about the Gorani, a large majority of these people have neither an Albanian nor a Bosniak nor a Bulgarian nor an ethnic Macedonian nor a Serbian national identity. They're just Gorani or "Muslims by nationality" and they simply speak in their "own tongue".

So why don't you guys just quit trying to urine-mark these people with a national and linguistic identity (not sure if the term exists, but you know what I mean) that is foreign to the large majority of them? Todor→Bozhinov 11:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy with the attacks there; I don't make any 'toilet of Europe' remarks about you... BalkanFever 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thats all nice and well Todor. Next time I see Victor Freidman, I will personally ask him to write about the Gora dialect. It is clear from his papers that and map that he considers Gora to be a Macedonian dialect, comparable to dialects from Ohrid and Bitola. This is also present in the list underneath the map. From the provided linguistic sources, one can deduce that the majority veiw is that it is a Macedonian dialect. Do you have anything to counteract this? except for the opinion of one "local scholar" (who is a non-linguist).

The current wording is appropriate as it takes into account of a four reknowned linguists, and the POV of a "local scholar". You are just using the SFRY as an excuse because at the moment it is the last thing that you can argue. Do you have substantial evidence to revoke these claims?

As Fut. Perf. claims above, the opinions of certain "lay people" may also be mentioned. You don't think that they are Macedonian? good for you. I for one have grown indifferent to your opinion. PMK1 (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To Todor: Friedman, in the introductory paper cited [5], most definitely does treat Gora as part of Macedonian (p. 77 and p.4 fn. 1.) Note that the extra footnote, where he attributes the identification to other scholars, is only used because Gora forms an exception to the simpler definition he has given in the main text, where he practically equates the scope of the Macedonian language with "geographical Macedonia" (Gora being just outside its conventional boundaries). This, of course, also implies that he includes the varieties in Bulgaria and Greece. On p. 77 all these varieties are unambiguously listed as parts of the same language. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Merely based on (p. 77 and p.4 fn. 1.) you're concluding that Friedman "most definitely" regards Našinski as Macedonian?! I see absolutely no evidence to support this. The extra footnote is there exactly because Friedman's intention is to mention the claims by Yugoslav linguists, but to avoid to classify Našinski himself. In no way does he express an opinion, which, given his otherwise harsh and unjustified treatment of dialects in the entire region as part of the Macedonian language, says enough.

If you expect me to accept that Friedman expresses the opinion that Našinski is a Macedonian dialect based on no evidence for this at all, then I fear I'm not that gullible. Todor→Bozhinov 15:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

p.77 alone is unambiguously clear. No debate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain why? I myself do not find it clear, what's left for "unambiguously". Friedman does not explicitly express an opinion. I reckon that if he wanted to express an opinion that Našinski is a Macedonian dialect, he'd devote at least a sentence or two to do this and to support his opinion. He doesn't, which means he's including Gora in that untitled list of only-God-probably-knows-what merely based on the Vidoeski claim.

P.S. Seeing how this is irrelevant here, I won't be discussing why Friedman is not a good source and why so many of his claims are ridiculous.

P.P.S. PMK1 and BalkanFever, you're yet to answer: Do you believe the majority of Našinski speakers have a Macedonian national consciousness? Do you believe the majority of Našinski speakers regard their mother tongue as a dialect of the Macedonian language? Todor→Bozhinov 15:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What those people think about either their national affiliation or about the nature of their dialect is entirely immaterial for our question here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because apparently, we're not arguing exactly about that. Todor→Bozhinov 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as we can't agree whether Friedman actually says anything, I've asked for a WP:Third opinion. By the way, BalkanFever, you can't just readd something "per talk" when there's no consensus on talk. Todor→Bozhinov 16:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Who can't agree? It seems like everyone else is seeing something which you can't? Todor, this is not about the ethnic identification of the Gorani people. We are talking about the linguistic nature of a dialect, not the ethnic affiliation of its speakers.PMK1 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Torlak

In what sense is "Torlakian" actually claimed to be a valid dialectological unit? According to our article, it seems to be primarily an ethnic categorisation rather than a linguistic one. Are there specific linguistic features that set apart Torlakian, as a group, from the neighbouring areas?

Also, could somebody please translate the Bulgarian legends in the Torlakian dialect map that Jingiby added? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the today ethnic affiliations of the Torlakian speaking populations, i.e. Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian, Krashovani (Croatians in Romania) and Gorani (Pomaks in Kosovo). Jingby (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

RMK1, I am going to readd Bulgarian diasystem with source. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is all well and good.

The sourcing for your map seems very dubious

However, what makes you believe that Gorani has anything to do with the Bulgarian diasystem? Considering that the most Western point of the Bulgarian diasystem is 200 kilometres from Gora? Unless you have some serious linguistic evidence which suggests that it is closer to Bulgarian than it is to Macedonian or Serbian, one cannot help but assume what you are really trying to prove?

Has anyone noticed that the Source for the map Torlak dialect on the Balkans acc. to Dialectological Atlas of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, part 3 - 1974, part 4 - 1974. Reworked Пламен Цветков. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/bg/8/82/%D0%A2orlak_dialects_map.png, is at odds with the actual image itself. If created in 1974 why would the map write "Serbs in Kosovo pre-1999"? It seems like this self work has just copied the Serbian map above, which would make the sourcing inadequte. Jingby, given you are the uploader, can you please provide correct citation of the sources used?

Fut, although the fact that it 'may be' a Torlak dialect is possibly relevant it is not an appropriate measure of dialectial distinction. Given that the fact that the Gora dialect is a frontier dialect, not linked to any of the other Torlak dialects, it does not participate in an dialectial continuum as is the case of the Kumanovo or Kriva Palanka dialect's. It can hardly be considered apart of the dialectial continuum but rather is the end of it. PMK1 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Torlakian dialects are transitional group between East South Slavic languages and West South Slavic languages. They are on the border and this is their remarkable specific character, which unify them in this group. It does not mean, they are not related with the neighboring dialects, which are not part of Torlakian group. Jingby (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true for the Main group of "Torlak" dialects, The Kumanovo and Kriva Palanka dialects would share similarities between the group. However, the Gora dialect has is different from the Eastern dialect continuum. It is located at the other side of Macedonia and is at the end of a dialect chain, it is a frontier dialect. Whereas the bulk of the Torlak dialects are between Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian; the Gora dialect is located only between Macedonian and Serbian. In this respect Gora is a unique Torlak dialect. PMK1 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What linguistic features are we talking about here? Is there any particular linguistic property which

1. connects Gora with the other "Torlakian" varieties further northeast; and
2. distinguishes Gora from the neighbouring non-"Torlakian" varieties both on the Macedonian and the Serbian side?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Torlacian is a Serbian term. The Bulgarian term is Преходни У-говори or Transitional U-dialects. Their main connection ans specific character is the transition from О and Ъ to У as for example: вълк, волк - вук /wolf/. Jingby (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, but the data here suggests it's really more a range of differences that conceptually keeps these together in a group, rather than anything that actually unites them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you are: The area of Torlak dialects and especially here: The sub-area of Kosovo-Resava dialects Jingby (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In 19th century the border between Torlakian and Stokavian was the border between Bulgarians and Serbs:

French ethnographic map of the Balkans (1861), showing the Serbo-Bulgarian frontier on the Torlakian border.

Area where Torlakian dialect is now spoken on the Balkans with areas of different ethnicities.

Not sure what you mean to show with those book quotes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That Kosovo (i.e. Gora) is in the transitional (i.e. Torlakian) area. Jingby (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that book isn't even treating "Kosovo-Resava" as part of "Torlak". They are two separate chapters on the same heading level, "Torlak" is "3.1.1.2" and "Kosovo-Resava" is "3.1.1.3". No indication the author is considering the one as part of the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the mistake was mine. Excuse me. Read the subdivision in The area of Torlak dialects, pleace. The first subdivision is Prizren-South Morava one, which encompasses Kosovo. Jingby (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In Britannica Torlakian is described as Prizren-Timok language. Jingby (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources need verification

The following sources, added by Jingiby in support of the "Torlakian" identification, need checked. The first seems to be mentioning neither "Torlakian" nor "Goranian"; the other two have no indication of what they actually say. Jingiby, could you please cite and translate for us what those sources are actually saying?

1. Istorija na bŭlgarskija ezik: Obshta chast, Beno Tsonev, Pridvorna pechatnitsa, 1940, str. 277, 296.
2. Кр. Мисирков, Бележки по южнославянската филология и история (Към въпроса за пограничната лииия между българския и сърбохърватския езици и народи), Българска сбирка, год. 1910/11, кн. 2, стр. 100.
3. Съвременният български книжовен език и народните ни говори. С, 1943. 67 с. (Библ. Бълг. кн. №5); К вопросу о границе между болгарским и сербским языком. Руский филологический вестник. 1914 г.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the three sources do not mention nor Gorani or Torlaks. All sources describe the frontier between the Bulgarian and the Serbian languages. As I have sad Torlakian is only one of the names of the transitional dialects between Serbian and Bulgarian. The sources dates before the codification of the Macedonian languaue and the frontier is described as it have lead approximately through the one and the same area - Gora. I am going to cite Kraste Misirkov. In his work “Бележки по южнославянска филология и история. Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сърбохърватския език и народи” (1907 - 1911 г.) и др. (Notes about South Slavonic philology and history. To the question about the border between Bulgarian and Sebo-Croatian languages and peoples; 1907 - 1911) he wrote: ....пограничната черта между българската и сърбо-хърватската народност върви по водораздела на Морава и Колубара, Cръбска Морава и Ибар към Скадър... the Border-line between Bulgarians and Serbo-Croats passes through the watershed between Great Morava and Kolubara, then to West Morava and later through the Ibar River to the Shkodër lake. Jingby (talk) 09:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your point Jingby? The Gora dialect is an intermediary dialect between Serbian and Macedonian, it does not border nor has any specific relationship to Bulgarian. PMK1 (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is the border-area between West and East South-Slavic languages groups. Jingby (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you got my point. I have no doubt that both Goranian and the Torlakian varieties further NE are somehow intermediate between WSS and ESS, but how solid is the consensus that they together form a coherent group within this spectrum? I would like to see (a) a source that clearly defines what "Torlakian" means linguistically (in the sense of: all Torlakian varieties have features A, B, C), and (b) the same source explicitly mentioning Goranian as part of it. If the map above is correctly sourced to the Dialectological Atlas of Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, then that source should contain the relevant information. Has anybody access? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, Future, please look at this map # 7 where the Gora area is clear visible in a Dialect zone described as follows: Prizren - S. Morava (Torlak): The Slavonic languages, Bernard Comrie, Greville G. Corbett, Taylor & Francis, 2002, ISBN 0415280788. Jingby (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that map makes sense. Good source, thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Future, look at another map # 1, please. The situation is nearly the same: Grammars in contact: a cross-linguistic typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0199207836, Jingby (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The song

The song is terribly similar to a poem called Hasanaginica. Does anyone know anything about the song ("Što se beli, gore Šar planina?")used in this article? When was it written/collected...? Natasagajic (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Gorani dictionary vs Macedonian-language press and education

Let's make it clear: the dictionary issued by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is the first dictionary of the Gora dialect, which makes it extremely relevant to the context of the article.

Education and press in the Macedonian literary standard are relevant inasmuch as they aim to imspose a nonexistent ethnic Macedonian national consciousness over the Gorani population of Kosovo. They have little relation to the actual Gora dialect.

So think twice before insisting that any details of those activities of the Republic of Macedonia should be included in the article. Todor→Bozhinov 08:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the source about the acquisition of such textbooks is not very reliable. Which is this Focus news agency/media source? I meen this source - Focus News (4th of July, 2003) Kosovo Government Acquires Macedonian language and grammar books for Gorani Minority Schools. How can we verify this information, since we don't even know which is this news agency? There are many agencies with this name. I tried to find this information, but without success.

However, it is clear that even if there are similar books (which at this stage is not very presumedly), they are not put into use.--JSimin (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Influences

It's a lack of information that the Turkish influence on Gora dialect is not mentioned.

I looked at the word list on the main article, lots of the words' origin is Turkish.

   * Abdes - Abdest
   * Aber - Haber
   * Adet - Adet
   * Akraba - Akraba
   * Akšam - Akşam
   * Amidža - Amca
   * Apsanu - Hapishane
   * Arka - Arka
   * Aslanka - Aslan
   * Babo, babajko, bavajko - Baba
   * Belezije - Bilezik
   * Bečar - Bekar
   * Bešbijerde - Beşibiryerde
   * Gurbet - Gurbet
   * đul - Gül
   * Đuzel - Güzel
   * Eksik - Eksik
   * Esap - Hesap
   * Ibrik - İbrik
   * Iljač - İlaç
   * Jemenije - Yemeni
   * Kurban - Kurban
   * Ksmet - Kısmet
   * Laf - Laf
   * Muabet - Muhabbet
   * Musafiri - Misafir
   * Saba - Sabah
   * Sabajle - Sabahleyin
   * Sabur - Sabır

88.240.84.165 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Balkan language, of course its vocabulary is influenced by Ottoman Turkish. Even more so because its users are Muslim. It shouldn't really come as a surprise :) Todor→Bozhinov 07:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact all the words in the list are Turkish Hittit (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a list of Turkish and Arabic loanwords. Please, if you wont to restore the wordlist, add specific Dialect native words. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gora dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222052737/http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-gora/zbornici/gora2000/rmladenovic.pdf to http://www.rastko.org.rs/rastko-gora/zbornici/gora2000/rmladenovic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)