Talk:Kostur dialect

Languages Mid‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutral POV

The last edition of the page is absolutely not presenting the neutral WP:POV. Obviously there are two scientific points of view - Bulgarian and North Macedonian. The Bulgarian origin of the Kostur dialect is presented in most of the reference sources of the article. The Macedonian origin is presented in only one - Македонските дијалекти во Егејска Македонија: (Обид за класификација). Македонските дијалекти во Егејска Македонија: научен собир, Скопје 23-24 декември 1991. Why should North Macedonian theory have an advantage over Bulgarian in the English Wikipedia - against all the neutrality of POV principles? A truly neutral Wikipedian article should represent both theses in equal way - like in this edition. Constantly reverting the change and finally moving it on the bottom of the article's introduction is borderline WP:Vandalism and is not constructive in any way. - Jeta (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources claiming the Kostur dialect falling within the Macedonian dialect group are:

Z. Topolińska and B. Vidoeski (1984), Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna

V. Friedman, "Macedonian"

Comrie and G. Corbett (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, New York: Routledge

As you would notice these sources are neither from Bulgaria nor N Macedonia, therefore they can be classified as more NPOV sources. Consensus seems to support the dialect being a Macedonian dialect and per WP:FRINGE alternative views do not belong in the article lead. The POV tag is not necessary since alternative views are explicitly highlighted outside the lead. Kromid (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional sources. Please note that Bozhidar Vidoeski was a North-Macedonian linguist, therefore his Polsko-macedońska gramatyka konfrontatywna with Topolińska should not be classified as ″more NPOV source″. On the other hand, we have more non-Bulgarian and non-North Macedonian sources that classify the Kostur dialect within the Bulgarian dialect group. They are:

Imre Thoth (Hungary), Preface, in: Shklifov, Blagoy. Problems of the Bulgarian dialectal phonology from the point of view of the Macedonian dialects, Sofia 1995

Larry Labro Koroloff (Canada), Notes on the Dialect of Zhèrveni, Kostur Region, as Spoken by Their Descendants in Mustafapaşa and Cemilköy, Turkey. In: „Slověne“, №2. (In fact he is not quoted correctly in the article, so I'm adding the exact classification according to his research.)

Obviously there is no consensus, and the Bulgarian theses should not be classified as ″WP:FRINGE alternative view″. It must be included in the article's lead together with the Macedonian. - Jeta (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Labro Koroloff and Blagoy Shkilfov are/were Bulgarian. The fact of the matter is Bulgarian linguists generally view the entire Macedonian language to be dialects of Bulgarian, so these sources are unsurprising. The Kostur dialect is about as far west as you can go from where linguists begin to separate dialects between Macedonian and Bulgarian. --Local hero ^talk 18:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoy Shkilfov's ethnicity or citizenship is irrelevant here. Larry (Labro) Koroloff was born in Toronto, Canada, in the family of immigrants from the village of Drenoveni in the Kostur (Kastoria) region of Aegean Macedonia - then in the Ottoman Empire, now in Greece. Koroloff has never been a part of Bulgarian academic circles. (Unlike Vidoeski, who was a member of MANU - Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts.) Koroloff works in Canada. And if his parents, who were native speakers of Kostur dialect, considered themselves Bulgarian, this says a lot about the linguistic characteristics of the dialect itself.

Anyway, we are not getting any closer to consensus. I think it would be fair enough to include the Bulgarian theses in the article's lead, together with the Macedonian, and to end the talk. Поздрав - Jeta (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulgarian POV has always been in the lead, and was recently expanded by myself including sources you provided: Bulgarian linguist Stoyko Stoykov regarded the Nestram dialect as a subgroup of the Kostur dialect, part of Bulgarian dialects. Other Bulgarian linguists also regard the dialect as a Bulgarian dialect. --Local hero ^talk 18:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let's revert the article to this edition. If you agree with me, there is no need in removing my additions, especially the word Bulgarian, and then putting them in the bottom of the lead. - Jeta (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given your provided sources are not exactly NPOV, I am not for your proposed change. Clearly consensus amongst more NPOV sources is that the dialect is now apart of the Macedonian language based on linguistic criteria. You can have the Bulgarian translation in the leading sentence, however this will create inconsistencies with other articles on Macedonian dialects. Kromid (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why the sources by a Hungarian linguist, and by a Canadian linguist, a native speaker of the Kostur dialect, are presumably ″not exactly NPOV″? Could you specify which sources are ″more NPOV″ to you? Because most of the sources in the article are by Bulgarian linguists. There will be no inconsistency with other articles on Macedonian dialects, because I don't propose to remove the Macedonian POV, only to add the Bulgarian POV in a proper way. - Jeta (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming repetitive. The bottom line is this: the Kostur dialect is far west of where most linguists tend to divide Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects (see Trudgill P., 2000, "Greece and European Turkey: From Religious to Linguistic Identity" or Schmieger, R. 1998. "The Situation of the Macedonian Language in Greece: Sociolinguistic Analysis"). Any linguist that considers the Kostur dialect to be a Bulgarian dialect likely considers all Macedonian dialects to be Bulgarian. And again, Labro Koroloff and Blagoy Shkilfov are/were Bulgarian. --Local hero ^talk 18:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category

There are continually attempts to remove the category Bulgarian dialects I’ll try to summarize the arguments for this and please correct me if I miss something. They are 2 kinds:

1. “apparently just one (Bulgarian) guy thinks so” (Local Hero)
2. “one of the views is Macedonian is part of Bulgarian; and even that category is redundant when properly accounting for that” (JorisvS)

The first kind is contrary to the sources in the article.
The second one overlooks the fact that the pointed scientific sources do not talk at all about the Macedonian language, but about this particular dialect. Best regards, Anton

The Shklifov guy seems to consider all Macedonian dialects as part of the Macedonian language. Therefore, if we go by his logic, then every dialect of Macedonian should be in the Bulgarian dialects category. --Local hero ^talk 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schklifov? Is he "just one (Bulgarian) guy"? What about Stoykov? His work (very representative) is in the article from the beginning. Additionally have been added Hristova, Nichev. Best regards, Anton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.253.66 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was Stoykov. Now there is more than one Bulgarian guy, but still no reason for this category. And you failed to address my comment, only pointing out that there are now more than one Bulgarian sources. --Local hero ^talk 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only Bulgarian sources. See the quoted in the article Hungarian linguist professor Imre Toth.--Aegmac (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kostur dialect clearly is on the (south)western part of the dialect continuum of Eastern South Slavic. This is on the far side of the Macedonian side of the continuum, so it cannot be a question of it being a choice between Bulgarian and Macedonian (i.e. being a question of where to draw the line between them). To account for the POV that says that Macedonian is part of Bulgarian, the category Dialects of the Macedonian language could be placed in the category Bulgarian language or Dialects of the Bulgarian language, which would make placing this article in the latter category simply redundant. --JorisvS (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your logic. The thing is that not all sources talking about "a choice between Bulgarian and Macedonian" or for some line between Macedonian and Bulgarian. According to some scientific POVs (for example Аustrian linguist Otto Kronsteiner, Hungarian Peter Yuhas, Bulgarian Ivan Kochev etc) so-called Macedonian literary language is a result of glosotomy caused by political reasons. Maybe you are familiar that they consider Macedonian as a third Bulgarian linguistic norm/standard based on the dialects which belongs to the Bulgarian language. Еveryone can think everything, but this scientific POV can right to exist. Therefore if we accept the logic: the dialect is Macedonian (not as a region) and if somebody thinks otherwise, he/she can add some categories in other articles, means to accept in the category level HERE only one, the Macedonistic POV. Do you thing that only one POV has right to be presented here? Regards, --Aegmac (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that we can try in the way proposed by JorisvS. I mean to place Dialects of the Macedonian language Dialects of the Macedonian language in the Dialects of the Bulgarian language or Bulgarian language. It would be quite interesting and a test for tolerance. Best regards, Anton

(edit conflict)What is it you're really saying here, Aegmac? --JorisvS (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid confusion - is the latest question by JorisvS for me, Anton (91.216.253.66) or for Aegmac? :) Best, Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.253.66 (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just read it and you'll know the answer. --JorisvS (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should I use the same style: Just read and you'll understand? Seriously, what exactly do not understand? I can try to explain it in another way.--Aegmac (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the anon would read the entire sentence it would've been clear I meant you (", Aegmac"), not him. But I can't make much out of your post. What is your main point? If you'd kindly (re)state it in one or two clear sentences, we could discuss it. --JorisvS (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Let's try. Briefly. I mean that the scheme Kostur dialect - Category: Dialects of Macedonian language reflects one of the POVs. If it is the only category, there is a certain one-sidedness and I am not sure that it is enough to say that elsewhere, in some other categories the problem could be presented fuller. According to the other POV we have just Kostur dialect - Category: Dialects of Bulgarian language. (Of course, the term Macedonian dialects is widely used in Bulgarian dialectology, but is has only regional signification) Regards, --Aegmac (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have two questions for you: Are there source that claim that the Kostur dialect is Bulgarian, but do not claim that Macedonian is Bulgarian? Which dialects are referred to as "Macedonian dialects" in Bulgarian dialectology? --JorisvS (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the late reply. Yes, in general you are right that the most of the sources that consider Macedonian standard as other Bulgarian standard also consider Kostur dialect as one of the Bulgarian dialects. However there are sources here that do not comment whole Macedonian standard or other Slavic dialects from the different parts of Macedonia, but claim that Kostur dialect is Bulgarian. Maybe Labro Koroloff is such example.

Regarding the term "Macedonian dialects" in Bulgarian dialectology, more widely is used just "Macedonian" as a geographical signification. The dialects in the geographical region of Macedonia are relatively well studied in Bulgarian dialectology and there is no need for generalizations. The talk is about particular dialects in Macedonia. Some of them are even East Bulgarian, east of yat border. Regards, --Aegmac (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

There is an ask for clarification here: "Afterwards, Shklifov based mainly on his native Kostur dialect, considering it in comparative plan with Old Church Slavonic, explained the development of many sounds in Bulgarian language, for example ѫ." I didn't notice some explanation in the edit summaries and therefore would be grateful to learn the reason for the ask. What needs to be clarified? Best regards, Anton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.253.66 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is that sentence really supposed to mean? What is that, really, "in comparative plan with"? --JorisvS (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That means that Shklivov compared the development of the literary language and the preserved features of the Kostur dialect. It is believed that dialect from the region of Kostur is one of the most archaic among Bulgarian dialects. Аt least when it comes to some sounds.--Aegmac (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying it means that he compared Kostur and Standard Bulgarian with Old Church Slavonic? --JorisvS (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he compared the Bulgarian dialect from Kostur and the historical development of the Bulgarian language in respect of certain phonetic peculiarities.--Aegmac (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've changed it to simply say that in the article. --JorisvS (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I intend to look for the book by Nichev (see the section Literature) and to check whether the first written materials are from 19 century. I mean the beginning of the section Research. Regards, --Aegmac (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]