Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured article :-) ?

I wonder why this didn't become a Featured article or at least a candidate... because every f***ing word of it is subject to so much scrutiny by a zillion of editors.
(No, this is not meant as a useful comment... just letting some frustration out). Duja 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Balkan mentality :( I share your frustration --Realek 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is impossible to continue with never-ending debates about details. However, this is a general issue of all related articles and all related affairs of the country in general. This naming issue is holding everything back (including WP). We are not authorized to solve that politically, though. I hope the implicated governments find a satisfying solution soon...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article a year ago to fix IPA pronunciations so it remained on my watchlist... I had better unwatched it... sigh. OK, let's play a mediator... Where we stopped? At Ethnologue? Duja 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I was about to kindly ask Realek to revert himself out of courtesy. Will you please, Realek?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
But I gave my reasons for my edit. You surely red it, you posted a reply. But you didn't give any reason why you think my edit is not good. If you post your reasons and I find that you are right, I won't mind even reverting myself. So what do you think is wrong with my edit? --Realek 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will repeat:

  1. No article about a language includes this information
  2. for the precise reason that it is not verifiable.
  3. (check it out) Yours says 2-3M, while the ethnic group article says 1.7-2M. In e.g. Greek language:15M vs Greeks:14.5M. (hence the "sadly not" comment).

 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, (where) does Britannica mention 2-3 million? It's not in the short version of the article, mentioning only 1.3 in the country, and I'm lazy to sign up to see the entire article.
As for the diaspora, it's always very tricky to count. On one hand, many are entirely or partially assimilated (being 2nd or 3rd generation). For that reason, foreign (Western) censa tend to underestimate the number of persons of the origin, as many don't feel and declare that origin of their parents matter. Some of those may have forgotten the language. On the other hand, there are likely many who speak the language (as second or equal) but don't declare the origin at censa.
Having said that, and comparing the Ethnologue's numbers with ones in Macedonians (ethnic group), the fair estimate seems to be in vicinity of 1.7-1.9 mil, with 3 mil. being a loooong shot. (That's only my conclusion based on presented data). Duja 18:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, "around 2 million" is the general academic consensus. I can provide a list of citations for this if requested. 3 million definately long shot. - FrancisTyers 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Yawn... agree too. (got the yawn thing from someone close here)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Still, I am not gonna rv the change myself. I've politely asked Realek to show goodwill and do it himself. Otherwise, someone else will.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing yet. Goodwill time has expired. Will someone do it for me please?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how the arguments you make are connected to the chande I made. I just added a note that the source (ethnologue) doesn't account for the diaspora - (they probably avoided it because it's a tricky to give an estimate on that, but that is not important right now). I'm not claiming anything about the number of speakers or the reliability of the source. Purely explaining the source's data. Why exactly is the note added a problem for you? --Realek 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is excessive. The reasons are right above (1,2,3), along with Francis and Duja's comments agreeing with me. How can you fail to see it?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've changed it and added a footnote. I hope this satisfies all reasonable sides. Unreasonable sides can continue to discuss the numbers on an appropriate sub page. - FrancisTyers 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied but I fail to understand why I must be considered reasonable. I'll paste a message in that sub-page so that everybody can continue thinking I am generally unreasonable!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha :) - FrancisTyers 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

References

This article does not give any references. I have quite a few papers (PDF and hardcopy) here on the subject (I'm currently writing an essay on it) and so I will attempt to find some references from those. I have added the {{verify}} tag until it has been appropriately referenced. - FrancisTyers 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Autonomy

Autonomous is a specific linguistic term, please do not change it. I will add a link though to autonomous language. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out - You're right. But please add the link. This way is very misleading for uninformed people in linguistic (such as me) --Realek 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed pending citation

The Bulgarian linguists use to emphasise that a lexicological comparison between Macedonian and Bulgarian reveals that roughly 15% of the whole vocabulary of both languages is different, although most words usually exist in the other language with a different or slightly modified meaning. 65% of the words are only differently accented, and 20% are identical. Lexical differences are owing to a great extent to loanwords borrowed by Bulgarian from Russian and by Macedonian from Serbian in the middle and the end of the 20th century. According to them, compared to other languages the statistical differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian are similar to those between Afrikaans and Dutch. [citation needed]

These are very precise numbers, a citation would be good. Not to say that it doesn't sound fairly accurate... - FrancisTyers 03:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian and at least one non-Bulgarian linguist views Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian. [1], (Malherbe, M. (1995). Les langages de l'Humanité. Paris: Robert Laffont)

The linked page is a page by an economist, and a Greek economist at that. I suppose this could be changed to, "Bulgarian linguists and one Greek economist view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian", but that seems pretty stupid. So for now we'll keep it out. - FrancisTyers 03:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian and some international linguists view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian. [2], (Henniger J., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (1994), vol.1, p.429) (Malherbe, M. (1995). Les langages de l'Humanité. Paris: Robert Laffont).

Hi, first of all, thanks for the references. I presume you are talking about the following reference: Henniger, J. 1994. "Bulgarian and Macedonian." In R. E. Asher, ed. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1:429-430. Oxford: Pergamon Press.. Please try and include as much information as possible in future. I will check this up tommorow, but if you could provide the extract where he "views Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian" I would be much obliged. Thanks. I'm looking up the French ref. now... - FrancisTyers 04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am unable to find the second reference in the university library. Could you provide the excerpt that supports your claim here. Please note that I will happily provide any excerpt for information I have included. I have copies of all of my references. - FrancisTyers 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Aha, the Greek economist has a copy of Henniger's article on his personal space. Perhaps someone should contact UCC, that sounds like a definate case of {{copyvio}} to me :) Regardless, I will re-include the piece. - FrancisTyers 04:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made the following adjustment to avoid weasel words.

Bulgarian linguists and the non-Bulgarian linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe view Macedonian as another literary form of Bulgarian

Would still be good to have a excerpt from the Malherbe text, and the full names of both of them of Henniger :) - FrancisTyers 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's "Brewery".  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Put this way, it sounds like these are the only non-Bulgarian linguists that view Macedonian this way, which is wrong. I know "some linguists" is a weasel word, but a "such as" might be the solution, or at least partially. What do you think? Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Todor, unless someone has a better way to put it. And I also would like to discuss including the Ausbausprache terminology in the article.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Find some more linguists then. I'm very surprised you've been able to find two that state this, it is a very minority point of view among non-nationalist linguists. You might get linguists saying that standard Macedonian and standard Bulgarian are both autonomous forms of the same language, or that they constitute a pluricentric language, but I would be very surprised if you can find any more quotes which say Macedonian is another literary form of Bulgarian, I mean they might as well say that Bulgarian is another literary form of Macedonian. It just isn't done. Regarding Ausbausprache, sure, what do you want to say, I have a copy of Kloss' 1967 paper here with me, and a couple of other papers relating to the subject. I guess you've read the one on glocalisation by Trudgill? - FrancisTyers 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean linguists. There are other non-nationalistic scientific studies for the closeness of the two people that also contain the language/dialect positions and the beliefs of the two people about that. One was provided before by User:Komitata (I think). I'll fetch the link for you in a while. And to exclude possibly allegged nationalistic bias from my side, please think if it would be favorable for Greeks if FYROM and Bulgaria became one. Finally, no, I have no idea what you are talking about, since I am not a linguist (not even an amateur). I am just reproducing a quote from the Talk:Republic of Macedonia by user Latinus, in order for you to discuss it, since apart from reading the wikilink, I've absolutely no idea about the rest of it. I hope you don't see bias in that too. After all I didn't put it in the article. Now please leave me alone and don't overemphasize my ignorance because you deprive me time from my trolling activity! :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be interesting, I'd be grateful if you could find that reference for me :) I don't think I'll be surprised by the results. - FrancisTyers 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you didn't answer to my previous edit summary comment question. Here goes:

This says:

Macedonian and the Bulgarian languages. The Macedonian text-books are closely integrated with this move. We have already had the opportunity to see how K. Sapkarev, one of the most prominent text-book writers, had come close to the Macedonists position, though he had not decided to make the decisive transfer. The question of writing a Macedonian grammar did not mean for the Macedonists uncovering such characteristics of the “Macedonian dialects” as could be used for the construction of a "common language".

and

In the sixties of the last century two answers were proposed to the question what was to be the medium of instruction in Macedonian schools and what, accordingly, were to be the text-books used.

1) The introduction of a language common to the Macedonians and Bulgars, a common language but such as would represent a compromise, a mean of Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects.

2) The introduction of a purely Macedonian language because the Macedonians are not Bulgars, but separate people.

This says:

For example, Macedonian writer Partenij was striving for common language of the Bulgarians and the Macedonians that would have incorporated features of both languages.

This says that the language was created in 5 days(!?) although I don't really know if it is verifiable, but I am sure you'll figure it out.

Ethnologue states the dialect alternative clearly. It also states that "The standard dialect was recognized in 1944."

Krste Misirkov statement in 1925

Joint Sociological study (ftp) by Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje and St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia (read the results and the methodology).

I think it's the last one that we were talking about, but I found it useful to re-paste everything here, coz it took me all this time searching 8 lengthy talk archives per article.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look through those. - FrancisTyers 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The last study is interesting, largely deals with the discrimination against Roma by both Bulgarians and Macedonians. There is a small section on language which pretty much describes the situation of a dialect continuum, that is that people on two sides of a national border will be able to communicate freely. There isn't anything in the study which hasn't been dealt with elsewhere, still, an interesting read. - FrancisTyers 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and with regard to your question, I'm afraid that glocalisation comes in full-fat brand only... You can probably ask them to mix it half/half with water though ;) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! Glocalisation causes obesity!! What about the rest of the links? Anything useful?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Macedonian one was fairly predictable, stuff I've read before. I'm going to read the Koneski one when I have some more time. If the Bulgrian link was more than a selection of out-of-context quotes it might be useful. Any chance of finding the original sources? I'll read the Misirkov one when I have more time (probably later tonight). The Ethnologue one is fairly irrelevant to the current discussion. They tend to be rather quirky and "unlinguistic" when it comes to issues of language/dialect. Tonight I'm going to try and get started on the section of my essay entitled "Ausbau and Abstand in standard Macedonian" which might give me some more stuff to add to the article. - FrancisTyers 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the "language created in 5 days"... I'm reading a paper by Friedman "Implementation of standard Macedonian", and he states that "The stability of the norm was achieved through codification in approximately five years (from the publication of the alphabet in 1945 to the orthographic handbook of 1950)." Now if this is referring to, one he got days confused with years, and number two this does not mean the "language was created" in that time, it means that the standard was implemented and normalised in that time. There is a subtle difference which I can explain if you have some time :) - FrancisTyers 06:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. No need to explain further. 5 years is a fair timeframe to normalise any reasonable existing bunch of similar dialects anyway. The standardizer, was he potentially politically motivated to do so in that direction? Were there any other options, like e.g. standardising it into Bulgarian, that were achievable, yet rejected? Is all this worth analysing and mentioning, given the extremely short official life of the language?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I intend to write an article on the standardisation process. The paper by Friedman is very comprehensive. Yes, the standardisers were politically motivated (I think that it is safe to say that all language standardisation is — being generally linked to nationalism). The reason that there wasn't a Bulgaro-Macedonian unified standard language was, at least from my reading of it mostly due to intransigence on the side of the Bulgarians. Basically they standardised on the Eastern variety and refused to make any concessions to the Western varieties. There are languages which are much newer than Macedonian, and you have to think, Bulgarian was only codified in its modern form in 1899 (I'm not sure if this is the exact date as quoted in the article, but definately between 1850-1900). What a difference 45-50 years makes :) - FrancisTyers 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The -l form is a mood for expression of the metaphoric category. According to the French linguist Claude Hagège[citation needed], an indigenous North American language, central Pomo, possesses this category.

Can be added back in when we have a citation. - FrancisTyers 10:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names

I'm afraid that "Macedonian Slavic", "Slavomacedonian", "Skopjan" or whatever you chaps want to call it is an extreme minority point of view on a global scale and should not appear in the lead. Please do not continue to add it. There is already a section dealing with this "naming dispute". - FrancisTyers 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is notable enough for Ethnologue to mention as an alternative name (not to mention that due to Greco-Bulgaro-Cypriot objections it is highly unlikely that the country that will be admitted to the EU inder the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will not have its official language recognised as "Macedonian" by EU institutions). --LionKing 19:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Ethnologue has a bad record when it comes to alternative names, from the Wikipedia article, Ethnologue: Conversely, the neutrality of Ethnologue as a scientific institution is sometimes lauded: in addition to choosing a primary name for the language, it also gives some of the names by which a language is called by its speakers, by the government, by foreigners, and by neighbors, as well as how it has been named and referenced historically, regardless of which designation is considered official, politically correct, or offensive, or by whom. Please offer some non-Greek scholarly, reliable, sources which use these names. So far in my research I have not come accross any. PS. This talk page is for the article in question, not crystal ball gazing — please feel free to contribute to the sub talk page dealing with related disputes. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Phonology

Francis, which sound is supposed to be /ł/? Can't find it in IPA tables. Shouldn't it be Palatal lateral approximant /ʎ/? Duja 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its supposed to be velarized dental voiced lateral. I'm taking this out of Lunt 1952, so it might not be IPA/might be the wrong symbol.
"/ł/ is a velarized dental voiced lateral. It does not occur before /e/, /i/, or /j/. /l/ corresponds almost exactly to the l in American English leap while /ł/ is nearly identical with the final sound in AE all." (Lunt 1952)
I'll have a look to see if I can find a more recent reference on the web. - FrancisTyers 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks as if you want Velarized alveolar lateral approximant /ɫ/? But where is it phonemic in Macedonian? At most, it could be an allophone of /l/? Duja 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess it will occur as the reflex of vocallic l (солза, волк), but even there it's allophone of /l/. AFAIK ommission of the vocal in those position is non-standard (see Torlakian)? Duja 15:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought it was that too, the whole "light el, dark el" thing. - FrancisTyers 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the consonants table, as in most other language articles. I hope I got it right. Regards, Duja 18:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, don't take my word for the accuracy though! :) Phonetics/Phonology isn't my area of expertise at all. Perhaps we could get one to look over it? - FrancisTyers 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Specific features

Another feature that sets Macedonian apart from other Slavic languages is the possibility to form the perfect tense with the verb има "to have" and a neuter past passive participle, as is common in Germanic and Romance languages. In Slavic languages that have perfect tenses, these are almost universally built with the verb "to be" and a past active participle; that is also an option in Macedonian. The older common Slavic form with сум "to be" is predominant in the east of the country, while the form with "to have" is more widespread in the west, but has spread in the younger gernerations due to the influence of the standard language. Example: имам галено (new perfect) - сум галил/галел (old perfect) - I have caressed.

I've removed this as it isn't a specific feature of Macedonian but is a feature of Greek, Aromanian and Albanian (Balkan Sprachbund languages) too. - FrancisTyers 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "a specific feature among Slavic languages" is meant. Look at the very beginning. By the way, I should thank you for the good work on neutralizing the article and tirelessly working on licking it into shape. I know it's very hard to discuss with Balkan nationalists and always be ready to revert, but I believe this is the right way. Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words :) I should be able to work on the article much more solidly in a week or so when my essay on the subject has been handed in. Regarding the removed section I will take another look when I get home tonight... - FrancisTyers 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "a specific feature" is a relative concept.. Each time, you have to indicate - specific in comparison with what? Of course no feature is absolutely specific, there is no feature that can't be found in any other language on Earth.

The section arose as some people tried to supply "unique features" of Macedonian as some kind of additional proof that Macedonian is an independent language. Of course, none of these features were really unique, so the title had to be changed to "specific" and the section turned into a place to mention anything that is interesting and makes Macedonian different from A."familiar" (Western) languages; B.related languages such as Bulgarian and Slavic genereally. I think this is useful, and the current absence of a proper overview of Macedonian phonology and grammar makes it even more useful. 85.187.44.130 11:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dialects section

I believe it's about time to neutralize that one. The obvious problems are the way dialects outside the borders of the Republic of Macedonia are regarded as being part of the Macedonian language (despite some notes on other positions). In my opinion, the section should focus on the dialects in the Republic of Macedonia and express all influential positions on dialects outside the borders of the RoM. In Albania, the Slavic vernacular of Golo Brdo is officially regarded as Macedonia. And while I'm not sure what's the position in Greece for the dialects there, although I don't think they are directly regarded as belonging to the Macedonian language and many people regard them as Bulgarian.

In my country, the dialects in Pirin Macedonia are described as Western Bulgarian ones and the census of 2001 states only 3,117 people declared themselves to be Macedonians in the province, Bulgarian being spoken by 306,000. As a conclusion, there are no reasons to consider the dialects of Pirin Macedonia to be part of the Macedonian language, but rather Bulgarian dialects of Macedonia and therefore excluded from here.

Of course, I'd first like to here external opinions before acting. I also believe the section has to be heavily referenced. Flag of Bulgaria.svg → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"only 3,117 people declared themselves to be Macedonians in the province" - because of repressions. Like all Macedonians I'll stay silent now... [passivist]

You would not have any sources to back that up, or would you? FunkyFly 02:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There are mountains (figuratively not literally) of sources that state that Slavs self-identifying as Macedonian have been repressed in both Bulgaria and Greece. Anyone who tries to deny it is living in a dreamworld. Look, theres one source below --v I could come up with 10 more in as many minutes. - FrancisTyers 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be an excellent thing to look at. Go ahead, please! FunkyFly 03:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. Trudgill, P. (1992) "Ausbau sociolinguistics and the perception of minority languages in contemporary Europe" in International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  2. Friedman, V. (1998) "The implementation of standard Macedonian: problems and results" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language. pp. 31-57
  3. Topolinjska, Z. (1998) "In place of a foreword: facts about the Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonian language" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language pp. 1-11
  4. Lunt, H. (1959) "The Creation of Standard Macedonian: Some Facts and Attitudes" in Anthropological Linguistics. pp. 19-26
  5. Lunt, H. (1986) "On Macedonian Nationality" in Slavic Review. vol. 45 pp. 729-734
  6. Mahon, M. (1998) "The Macedonian question in Bulgaria" in Nations and Nationalism Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 389-407
  7. Tomić, O. M. (1991) "Macedonian as an Ausbau language" in Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. pp. 437-454 (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter)
  8. De Bray, R. (1963) Guide to the Slavonic Languages (London: Dent)
  9. Vidoeski, B. (1998) "Five decades since the codification of the Macedonian language" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language. pp. 13-29
  10. Schmeiger, R. (1998) "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language. pp. 125-135

Enjoy! :) - FrancisTyers 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try Nations and nationalism for starters. Thanks. FunkyFly 14:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Trudgill (1992):

An interesting consequence of this dispute is that it is not clear how to refer to the South Slavic dialects of northern Greece (which have in any case been mostly repressed or simply ignored by most Greek governments). One does not know whether to refer to the Slavic dialects of Greece as dialects of Bulgarian or dialects of Macedonian, although, of course, the western varieties are more like Standard Macedonian, the eastern varieties more like Standard Bulgarian. (Trudgill 1992)

I suggest we make a note referring to the South Slavic dialects of northern Greece and that they have been described as both Bulgarian and Macedonian, and that the westerly varieties have more in common with standard Macedonian and the more easterly varieties have more in common with standard Bulgarian. - FrancisTyers 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me. --Aldux 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. No problem with me too. I would only propose we make two things clear on that note: The population of the speakers according to various sources, and the strong feeling of the speakers about their Greek nationality. Please check the userpage of User:Makedonas and his answer to user Ανδρέας (non-Greek) about their "ntopia" (='local') to understand what I mean...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a common position among minority populations in Greece, viz. Arvanites, Aromanians etc. There are varying explanations of this, the Greek governments persistent policy of hellenisation being one, strong transferred national identity being another. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand the first point about hellenization. It's in the second about transferred that I lost you, I think. Do you mean:

Motivated(...) hellenization —vs— Self Inquired hellenization?

 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, basically something along those lines — I basically just made that part up :) I would need to do more research into it in order to form an educated opinion, but basically I just wanted to ensure that it didn't seem like I was under the impression that all "hellenisation" was enforced. - FrancisTyers 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to include both in proportion to the citations that will be provided by both sides. But then again, we can't be sure, since the Greek government has probably used all special equipment mentioned in Epsilon Team to make all evidence vanish. Pitty that we can't prescribe, huh?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Shhh... Keep those guys on the down-low. You wouldn't want the Macedonians to start developing a Ye Team! - FrancisTyers 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Not too linguistic of a joke for me! So what do you propose?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we could add something similar to Macedonians (ethnic group)#The situation today*Greece. Opinions?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Something similar, but shorter would be good. Do we have a Slavs in Northern Greece or Ethnic minorities in Northern Greece article yet? I think the subject is large enough to have one. - FrancisTyers 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge no such articles exist. The subject is indeed large. After all there are some astronomical votes (2.900) for the Rainbow party sorry Rainbow Party to back it up!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha, what are you? French?... Turkish? Also everytime you do the Rainbow party thing I laugh! Why didn't they look on the internet before choosing their name???? On the other hand, if Ethnic minorities in Northern Greece is such a small article, maybe Ethnic minorities in Greece would be better. - FrancisTyers 11:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reading the article by Schmeiger (1998) and it seems that the typical way that the Slavic dialects of northern Greece are split into "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" is on the pronunciation of the Old Slavic 'jers'. The majority of them appear to fit into the Macedonian side.

Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian.

- FrancisTyers 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok give it a shot for Ethnic minorities in Greece if you want. (important remark: I don't do the Rainbow party thing. I'm just mentioning it. (burp)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 12:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I was otherwise occupied and delayed to post an answer to this, but please see my comment at Talk:Ethnic_minorities_in_Greece. Thanks.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Map is a copyvio

Hi. Whatever else may be an issue with the map, it is a copyright infringement. It should be removed from the article. If it is important for this article to have a map, it should be simple to make one ourselves. Jkelly 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

For the other issues with the map, please consult two of my last edit summary comments: hereand here.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
1 - That's not true 'caus the map has yin-yang (50-50) lines which clearly shows that Macedonian is not spoken 100% in Solun;
2 - These regions are important, 'caus there are many people born and living in Aegean and Pirin Macedonia who speak the Macedonian language, that is Macedonians. Bomac 22:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. - Same shading is in Skopje. You are not suggesting that half the population there speaks Greek I presume...
  2. - Please provide a source for "many". Then, divide "many" by entire population of the region and get a proportion. Then, apply the proportion to the shade. (Then revert yourself because the shade will be close to... transparent and you won't be able to push your POV!)
  3. - From the Ethnologue article here in WP: "Ethnologue's estimates about the number of the speakers of the languages is inconsistent with other sources."
  4. - Even so, the map at Ethnologue is totally different from yours. See it and compare here.
  5. - CIA World Factbook: (here)
    • "Macedonia"= 66.5% "Macedonian" speaking.
    • Greece= 99% Greek speaking
    So, your country should be shaded like  this (66.5% grey background)  and...
    in Greece, even if there were areas with 5%(!) they should be like  this (yes, there's a 5% grey background here!) .
    I am sure you can grasp the difference between the two colors (WP:NPOV#Undue weight), and the only reason I don't see that in your map, is your constant need for POV pushing that there's a supposedly suppressed ethnic minority of Slavomacedonians in Greece.
Wow! What a rainbow party that is...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 16:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Very idiomatic and... simple. Bomac 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a map which shows where Macedonian language is spoken. It is relevantly sourced, from an reliable institution (which BTW says that it is supposed to give a clue where Macedonian is spoken). I don't see any reason why it should be removed - Silver, what you say is simply your opinion - analyse the map however you want, but don't revert the article. Bomac 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Bomac, if this map is, as seems, a copyright infringement, the question of its reliability is utterly irrelevant; right or wrong that the map may be, it has to be removed.--Aldux 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind that, it's OK, but I was replying to Silver. Bomac 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Aldux, unfortunately this map was created by the POV pushers themselves and it is not a copyvio (to my knowledge and according to a message by Jkelly to user "Macedonia"). Bomac, the map is quite unsourced and you know it is biased (see my comments above). The uninformed reader, will presume that Slavomacedonian is spoken with the same intensity both in FYROM and in Greek Macedonia. This is not my opinion, it is common sense. I suggest, until you come with a descent map, you do not revert this poor excuse of your POV push back in the article.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything POV-ish there. Are there some special rules (Language cartography?!?) to indicate where Macedonian is spoken? Or you will be the first man that will anounce the new branch of science? Bomac 20:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! Actually yes. There are the rules of:
  1. WP:NPOV#Undue weight (I am really bored of using that all the time with you)
  2. WP:POINT There were some serious editors here, writing a descent article about your language. As you see they are gone. That is disruption of WP.
  3. WP:AGF I offered you the alternative to create a descent map. You didn't even bother to discuss that.
  4. WP:V Your map was created by user "Macedonia", so you cannot claim it is "sourced". Especially since the map is different, even from the highly disputed Ethnologue.
  5. And eventually WP:3RR. I am sure you know this rule very well.
You want some more rules?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The map is bad because if it intends to illustrate where Macedonian is spoken; it excludes the diaspora. It is also bad because it doesnt take into account the percentage of speakers -- i suggest a colour coded map with a different colour for where the information is not available -- e.g. Greece. Perhaps change the label too... areas where Macedonian is traditionally spoken? I will remove it for now. - 81.57.55.19 23:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I procured a new map. It shows the spread and distinguishes between recognised and unrecognised. The caption also notes that this is not indicative of frequency. Feel free to edit the caption. - FrancisTyers 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This map would not be ok without your further explanation in the caption. Thank you.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I second User:NikoSilver's thanks. Jkelly 16:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Stop agreeing with me Jkelly or people may think that you're a brainless nationalist too...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Providing sources to remove some "citation needed" tags

The source I'm providing is Стойко Стойков, Българска диалектология, 2002 (4th edition). I think most people contributing to an article on the Macedonian language should be able to understand the Bulgarian quotes without an English translation. Those who can't but doubt that the claims are made can ask the others - I don't feel like translating all this into English.

  • Claim: "Bulgarian only has the basic (unspecified) form, although three definite article forms also exist in certain Bulgarian dialects, notably the vernaculars of Tran and parts of the Rhodopes [citation needed]."

Citation: p.167: Трънски говор. Той се отличава със следните особености: ... 3. Троен член, т.е. покрай членната форма -ът, -та, -те, -то, -та, с която се изразява обща определеност, има още две други членни форми: -ъв, -ва, -ве, -во, -ва за близка определеност, за означаване на определени предмети, които са близко до говорещото лице, и -ът, -на, -но, -не, -на за далечна определеност, за означаване на неща, които далеч от говорещото лице: [examples] ... мужът ... мужъв ... мужън. p.127: Родопски говори: най-важните характерни особености на родопските говори са следните: ... Тройна членна форма: -ът, -та, -то, -те^ с общо определително значение, за обща определеност; -ъс, -са, -со, се^ с определително и показателно значение за предмети, които се намират в пространството [[[близо]]] до говорещото лице, -ън, -на, -но, -не^ с определително и показателно значение за предмети, които се намират в пространството [[[далеч]]] от говорещото лице. Тройна членна форма обаче не се среща в някои родопски говори, като чепинския и павликенския.

  • Claim: "It must be noted that the Seres-Nevrokop group is in fact located mostly outside of the republic of Macedonia (in Greece and Bulgaria, respectively) and hence its identification as a group of Macedonian dialects is a controversial issue. Bulgarian linguists regard both as dialects of Bulgarian [citation needed]."

Citation: while enumerating and describing Bulgarian dialects, on p. 143, the author describes гоцеделчевски (неврокопски) говор. On p.186, in the section Българските диалекти във Вардарска и Егейска Македония, the author discusses the Seres dialect(серски говор): драмско-серски говор - на север от солунския говор са разположени говорите в Драмско, Валовицко и Сярско, които са преход към гоцеделчевския (неврокопски) говор.

  • Claim: "Interestingly, the reduction of unstressed vowels is characterisic of East Bulgarian as opposed to West Bulgarian dialects, so Bulgarian linguists regard these dialects are regarded as transitional between East and West Bulgarian [citation needed]."

Citation: on p.143, the гоцеделчевски говор is listed in the Eastern group, западни рупски subgroup. On p.140, it is said about the западни рупски говори: "по своите особености тия говори представят преход към западните и македонските говори. Някои диалектолози отделят разложкия и гоцеделчевския говор от останалите български говори и заедно с благоевградския и петричкия ги причисляват към македонските говори или пък ги обособяват в особена група 'македонски говори в пределите на България'. Трябва обаче да се вземе под внимание, че разложкият и особено гоцеделчевският говор са типични източни говори и затова няма никакви лингвистични основания те да се отделят в самостойна група и да се откъсват от рупските говори. Трябва също така да се изтъкне, че всички български диалектолози отнасят разложкия и гоцеделчевския говор към източните говори и ги включват в западните рупски". --85.187.44.131 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to cite this. - FrancisTyers 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, I'm not very experienced here - must I incorporate the citation into the text and the references section - like "(Stoykov 2002,p.167)", or can I just remove the tags? --85.187.44.131 16:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, replace the {{fact}} tags with {{ref|stoykov2002}}, then add the references to the "notes" section like {{note|stoykov2002}}. If you need to note different page numbers, use stoykov2002a, stoykov2002b, etc. - FrancisTyers 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regulation

Does the Macedonian Language Institute or Institute for the Macedonian Language regulate the language? - 81.57.55.19 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

History section

The Macedonian standard language can be said to have been born in August 1944, when a provisional government run by the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) declared the Macedonian republic.

Ok, do not change this to something with poor English grammar without even reading the paper. I am happy to see it altered, but discuss it here first -- and back up your suggested changes with sources. - FrancisTyers 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi guys, as you probably know I've been doing an essay on this subject, which you can find here. Now I've been thinking about it and I would like to revert the page back to before I started working on it. I have informed my professor, but work at my university is also anonymously double marked and there is no way of informing the other marker. If he were to come and look at the Wikipedia page he would find it very similar in places to my essay -- because I've been working on it with the same sources.

I would appreciate it if no-one reverts back to the version with my content in. You can edit the page, and I will merge back the changes after my essay has been marked. I realise that I have no way of enforcing this as my work was released under the GFDL, but I would appreciate it if you would understand.

If anyone has any questions/complaints it would be great if you could make them here first...

For the record this version (23rd April) is the one before I reverted. And this version (5th April) is the version I reverted to.

Many thanks. - FrancisTyers 12:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Duh? What if the other marker just sees history (or just follows your link above)? Too late I'd think, but then again "cazzi tuoi", as the Italians would say...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with them following the history, as my name is plastered all over the diffs :) What I was concerned about is them just seeing the page without realising that the parts that look like my essay actually are my work ;) - FrancisTyers 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I am sure the Italians have a saying for that too. I'll go look it up!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
To Francis and other valuable contributors: I agree with Telex's image caption tweaking. What do you think? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Valuable contributor? I feel touched! (no not like that). Yeah, his changes are adequate for now. I mean "alleged" and "claimed" could do with more neutral wording, but he pretty much captures the deal. - FrancisTyers 08:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you mean like that or that? :-) NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh my god! Who on earth showed you that??? I thought it was dead and buried... :( - FrancisTyers 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I was really looking for the second one, but it's one of the links you can find when you simply type "Touch me". Maybe I should have preferred that one!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

To the map reverters

Can you please just leave the map alone. It is sourced and it does not unequivocally claim that Macedonian is spoken in the areas in Greece and Bulgaria. It claims that it is alleged to be spoken (ie there are no official statistics, so it's possible that the claim is moot). I think it's well known that Macedonian is not spoken anywhere outside the Republic of Macedonia and the only reason Albania recognized the Macedonian language and ethnicity on its part of Macedonia, was in order to safeguard the interests of the Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia (and a lot of good it did them :-/). You can't seriously believe that there are Macedonian speakers in Pogradec? Telex 21:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Telex, as I already had agreed with Francis before. I moved the map to (almost) the agreed position ("Political views" section instead of "Demographics" —which was removed by Francis for now pending settlement of his essay grade). I also changed the caption to something in between Telex's and Francis' proposals.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Great work Niko, as always :-) And BTW, I've awnsered to your message regards Francis points. Ciao!--Aldux 20:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Aldux, and for the other thing, I wish some people didn't have deaf ears... NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not happy with what you said about Albania and the Republic of Macedonia, it implies that it is a solid Macedonian speaking area. The most generous (Ethnologue) estimates for Albania are only 15,000 speakers, not to mention that 25% of the Republic of Macedonia self declared as Albanians in the latest census (so presumably they all speak Albanian) and Ethnologue's generous estimates again, give us 600,000 warm bodies (ie 29,3%). Therefore, I have tweaked the caption once more, but have also removed that "much lower frequency", as some Macedonian nationalists seem to be of the opinion that Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia (especially Bulgarian Macedonia - ie LOL) are almost 100% Macedonian speaking. Telex 20:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I 'll agree too with the explanations of Niko and Telex about the map. I don't agree with the map itself, because I am totally sure that the blue border inside Greece, it is northern that it seems to be in the map. I should said also that the main language of the slavophone Greeks is the Greek language, and that the Slavic (Bulgarian) dialect in the - so called - dopia villages in Florina and Pella, it is spoken only by older people.--makedonas 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ...And something else: The slavic/Bulgarian dialect in Florina/Edessa has some differences with the dialect, that the people in FYROM speak. The slavophone people in Greece - at least these people I know in Florina - they have told me that they unterstand better the people in Sofija than the people in Skopje.--makedonas 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are both right Telex and Makedonas. Telex, I had thought about it, but it slipped my mind, as I was interested more in the hot issue of Greece. I think we should ask the creator of the map to change it to tricolor: One color for the parts of M(fYRo) parts where MacSlav language is both recognized and frequent; one for Albania/Bulgaria where it's only recognized; and one for Greece where it is neither of the two. Would that cover it? Oh, and for the "much lower frequency" sentence you removed, I don't really care what any hothead from the other side of the world will come to tell us. After all, it doesn't say "minuscule" or "microscopic" or "nano-frequency"... I'm re-adding it. Makedonas, I think your point is mentioned in Francis' complete version which is now off the air until Francis gets his grade. If not, we'll discuss it then. Ok?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. If you claim that only older people speak MACEDONIAN then you are at least admitting to asimilation by the greek authorities in the past. It doesn't matter anyway because your claim is false - not only old people speak the language.
  2. Another false claim - that they unterstand better the people in Bulgaria than the people in Macedonia. Why should anybody belive you??? Just because you say so??? Shouldn't people take into account your obvious bias??? --Realek 21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whereas you are the spitting image of neutrality :-) Telex 21:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to which I and a lot of other editors of this article, would again agree, I suppose...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, Realek, are you aware that the "dopii" Makedonas was referring to want to have nothing to do with the Republic of Macedonia. Yes, that's right, I quote [they] seem to reject any national identity (Greek or Macedonian) but have distinct ethnic identity, which they may call “indigenous” - dopia -. My, my, this Macedonian minority in Greece, seems to be shrinking by the day ;-) I further quote (same document) those with a Macedonian national identity can be estimated to between 10,000-30,000. So, out of the approximately 2,400,000 of Greek Macedonia, at the most, 30,000 identify themselves with the Republic of Macedonia. This seems to be a really really small minority. This gives us, at the most, 0,25% in Greece as a whole and 1,25% in Greek Macedonia. Need I say any more, compare that to the 29,3% of us you have. Telex 21:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This 10-30,000 estimate is again exaggerated, since Helsinki is a negative document. It is based on the estimate of the... 7,000 votes for Rainbow party (sorry) Rainbow Party. Of those 7,000, only 2,000 or so were in Macedonia (Greece). The rest are presumed either as unintentional/silly votes or as votes for support of certain gay rights and other of the like that the party (sorry) Party seemed to support...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If I want to lie I would say very easy that there are no slavophone Greeks! I just say what I saw the 1,5 year I worked in many dopia villages in Florina.
1. I agree that before 20 years the Greek authorities didn't allow to these people to speak dopia. They have told it to me.
2. I didn't met anybody under 30 to speak dopia. The youngs know only words.
3. Dopia isn't what you say Macedonian but another bulgarian dialeck. I speak Bulgarian and Macedonian so I can understand it by myself.
4. Many people who went in skopje and in sofia told me that they understand better the Bulgarians. If you don't believe me just go and ask them in Florina.--makedonas 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont know how this fits in the discussion but republican Macedonians claim half of the population of Sofia is theirs. FunkyFly 22:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Funky, my personal experience from the people I cooperate with, both in Macedonia (Greece) and... "Macedonia" come to confirm the same.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
They claim the same thing about Korçë and Pogradec. Telex 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I dont know either how this fits in the discussion: What it remains when a FYROMian is washing himself? Dirty water, and a clear Bulgarian. (bulgarian anektode)--makedonas 23:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

The article used to say that according to Britannica there are 2-3 million speakers of Macedonian (and then linked to this article). Where does it say that? THe only numbers in that article are: Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, where it is spoken by more than 1.3 million people. Telex 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculus map

Where did you find that map that presented the slavic macedonian language to be spoken so widely in north greece???? Yes, there are some villages where it must be still spoken, but the people who speak it must be very few (no more than 10,000). So, please, check the citation of the map and don't post it again if you find it to be from a propaganda-website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.185.69 (talkcontribs) 06:13, 7 May 2006.

Thanks for that, but the map was made from research in non-partisan third-party peer-reviewed publications. Please feel free to point out some more non-partisan third-party peer-reviewed publications that contradict the map. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavomakedonski?!? Slavomakedonci?!?

Why the part Slavomakedonski and Slavomakedonci is being constantly added after Macedonian Slavic or Slavs? Macedonians never call them like that. I think that this is "putting on" other's POV. I shall erase this unreal data. Bomac 07:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, how do you translate "Macedonian Slavs" and "Macedonian Slavic" into Macedonian? Are the other words? Telex 11:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

We translate them: Македонци and Македонски. Bomac 13:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And there's no way I can sneak the other terms in? Telex 14:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Those terms are not used by anyone in the republic, so - no. Bomac 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that Krste Misirkov used them. Telex 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave Misirkov aside - he told what he had to - we are living here and now. ;-) Bomac 14:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Albanian Macedonians in Tetova use it. Telex 14:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not - maybe Arben Xhaferi sometimes, but the Albanians I know - they never heard of Slavomakedonci. Bomac 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, then why does the Albanian Wikipedia have an article on sq:Sllavo-Maqedonët? Telex 14:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because you did that, cosmy :-) Bomac 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

...and guess who created that article there:))) MatriX 14:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence. Telex 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:-), :-), :-) Bomac 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

... what about the German Wikipedia: de:Slawische Mazedonier? Telex 14:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the German, (but still, smells on Greeks ;-)), but you did it on the Albanian. Bomac 14:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

... you have no evidence to implicate me. Telex 14:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Is the history page no evidence for you?:[3]
It says that the mentioned page was created by user Telex:[4] who says on his user page the following: Përshëndetje, jam Telex nga Wikipedia Anglisht. (Hello, I’m Telex on English Wikipedia) :-) MatriX 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't do it on the Lithuanian Wikipedia though: lt:Slavų makedonai, not to mention that the person at sqwiki could be someone impersonating me (you perhaps). Telex 14:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha, ha, funny person... Bomac 14:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What about the Greek Wikipedia, which speaks of 64,2% being "Σλάβομακεδόνες" at el:Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας? Telex 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you've got me... Bomac 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So the terms stay - I had to cite a reliable and neutral source like the Greek Wikipedia to convince you. Telex 14:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope ;-) Bomac 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Telex 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is false information, it may lead to misunderstanding. Bomac 14:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it false, I've just proved it isn't (Misirkov didn't seem to think so at least). Telex 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's how Misirkov sees Macedonian. ;-) Bomac 14:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave it there, in 10 days it will be removed. Let them have their fun while it lasts. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What? Telex 15:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, what? Bomac 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a break from editing the page while my essay is marked. - FrancisTyers 15:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with the designation "Slavomakedonci"? Telex 15:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss it in a few days, its pointless edit warring about it in the mean time though. - FrancisTyers 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Fran, care to comment on this post?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the frequency? Sure, I go with what I had before, subject to possible modification based on new sources. - FrancisTyers 22:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Isn't "much lower frequency" what your sources include (10-30.000 or 100.000 over 2.6 million = 0,38461538461538461538461538461538% to 3,8461538461538461538461538461538% versus 64% in the country)? Actually I wanted you to comment on the tri-color thingy:

I think we should ask the creator of the map to change it to tricolor:
  1. One color for the M(fYRo) parts where MacSlav language is both recognized and frequent
  2. One for Albania/Bulgaria where it's only recognized; and
  3. One for Greece where it is neither of the two.
Would that cover it?

(I hate quoting myself)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds eminently reasonable, although I thought it wasn't recognised in Bulgaria. Not since like '48. - FrancisTyers 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
"reasonable" and precise I must add... :-).  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand, why it should cover such a large portion of Greece? Who says that? Except some villages in Florina and Kastoria prefecture, where else do you find these guys?--   Avg    23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
We can discuss this below. - FrancisTyers 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not recognized in Bulgaria. Just 3,000 people self declared as "Macedonians" in the census, that doesn't mean that the Macedonian language is recognised (in fact they view is as a Bulgarian dialect - which is what it is of course). Telex 23:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Be quiet, either you are extremely ill read, or you're trolling, I'm not interested in either. - FrancisTyers 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You are agreeing, it's not recognised in Bulgaria. Telex 23:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Bulgarian dialect ... which is what it is of course — as I said this is either extremely ill read, or you're trolling. Although I think you are right about the Bulgarian recognition, iirc. they recognise the Republic of Macedonia (under that name) and the Macedonian nationality, but not the language. At least they only recognised it between '44 and '48. - FrancisTyers 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Correction 1948-1956, under orders from Stalin. FunkyFly 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure he really had to twist Dmitrovs arm. - FrancisTyers 23:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Map

Put your opinions on the map here. Preferably sourced with peer-reviewed non-partisan publications. Don't bother to post anything from .bg, .mk or .gr unless you are going to do a "Bulgarians claim", "Macedonians claim" or "Greeks claim". - FrancisTyers 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to add nano-frequency, but I guess you'll agree to much lower frequency. Will you?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats fine by me, we could go with "significantly lower" or "markedly lower" or "substantially lower", all would be accurate. - FrancisTyers 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I still think that allege is the word to use here. Telex 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Allege smacks of POV language, we could go with "reported" and then say who is doing the reporting. - FrancisTyers 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Whiny human rights organizations, Macedonian Slav nationalists (and the FYROM government), the Rainbow Party which is a known anti Greek organization, as it claims Hectorian and I are not ethnic Greeks. The Greek government on the other hand officially denies it, this should be made clear, and the existing Slavophones fall into the following categories:
  • Self identifying Macedonians
  • Self identifying Bulgarians
  • Slavophone Greeks
  • None of the above (dopii)
Most articles seem to imply that in Greece Slavophones = Macedonians, when clearly that is false. The vast majority of them are Greek identifying and want to have nothing to do with FYROM. Telex 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)]

Ok, I've moved that conversation to the subpage, because we're supposed to be talking about the map here and the map does not detail anything regarding the number of speakers. Does anyone have any sources for spread of Macedonian speaking population? - FrancisTyers 01:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is one source that I've quoted above. R. Schmieger "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" (1998)

Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian.

- FrancisTyers 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another one, I've quoted it on the subpage. From Hill, P. (1999) "Macedonians in Albania and Greece: A comparative study" in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 1. — this particular quote is from the "Athens sociological journal Scholiastis (Vol. 72, 1988, p. 22)":

The name of Florina is only one of the districts of Northern Greece where the Macedonian language is spoken, but there are Slavophones also in the districts of Kastoria, Edessa, Verria, Drama and Serres. How many Slavophones there are is impossible to ascertain, since each side manipulates the statistical data according to what it wants to prove: the figures vary from 50,000 up to 300,000.

- FrancisTyers 02:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, u repetendly (and only) bring here sources titled "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" or "Macedonians in Albania and Greece: A comparative study". can't u see that such sources show the FYROM POV? bring a source that talks about 'Slavophones' as well... (present both POVs, to reach NPOV). --Hectorian 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw, has it occurred to you that perhaps the people writing in these journals don't have an "FYROM" POV? Or is anyone who uses "Macedonians" to mean Macedonians (ethnic group) automatically assigned "FYROM" POV? Personally I don't think that these people have any connection with Macedonia or the Macedonian government, they seem to me to be non-partisan outsiders writing about the subject. Of course I'm open to hearing a scathing character assassination of Messrs. Hill and Schmieger or the sources they have used, perhaps they are in the pay of the Macedonian Ministry of the Exterior or something... or perhaps they have Macedonian significant others. I really don't know, but really making that assumption is definately moving in the direction of conspiracy theory territory. - FrancisTyers 03:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm presenting sources I've found in non-Greek-Bulgarian-Macedonian peer-reviewed journals. That one I just quoted discusses Slavophones. Although as we know, a proportion of Slavophones are probably speaking dialects heteronomous with Bulgarian. Do you have any sources from non-Greek-Bulgarian-Macedonian peer-reviewed journals? - FrancisTyers 03:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, not at the moment. but i will try to find some , when i'll have plenty of time. i am sure that some other editors will hear your call as well...:)--Hectorian 03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope so too :) - FrancisTyers 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Remember, we are not reporting the truth, we are reporting what people say about the situation. If you fear the map, feel free to say suggest that we have no map. But rest assured it will be for explanatory purposes only. The demographics section will be precise in outlining the situation with respect to the Macedonian language in all the countries where it is spoken and will of course outline all points of view on this, viz. Macedonian, Bulgarian, Greek, International. - FrancisTyers 03:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever wants to include a map, they should first look at the peripheries of Greece and include only the area of Florina Prefecture and Kastoria Prefecture. Slavic is also partially spoken in Drama Prefecture and Serres Prefecture, but it is full-fledged Bulgarian, not "Macedonian", so it cannot be included here.--   Avg    18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree on the Drama part, although my source puts it as "Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos)", do you have a source non-Greek-Bulgarian-Macedonian peer-reviewed journal source that states that the dialects of all of Drama nomos are "Bulgarian"? The reason I ask for non-GBM is because I think we can safely assume that G = "no Slavophone or Greek slavophone in Drama", B = "Bulgarian speakers in Drama" and M = "Macedonian speakers in Drama". I would however be open to seeing articles in GBM peer-reviewed journals, just to see if my assumptions are correct. - FrancisTyers 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't we just use the word allege, ie some people have claimed it is spoken there, but haven't proved it, or we don't know if it's true. Telex 19:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And by the way when I say "partially" I think I have shown what I mean. 0.1% is still a "part" :-) --   Avg    19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I prefer "reported" to "alleged". As in, it has been reported by some scholars, but not confirmed by a census. Any objections ? - FrancisTyers 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
How about "reported, but not confirmed by census"? Telex 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats fine, but can we have: "reported, but not surveyed or confirmed by census"? - FrancisTyers 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
OK - I'll wait a few minutes for my WP:POINT tantrum to subside after having half the edits I've made today been reverted by Aldux because he prefers other wordings. Telex 20:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... This makes me thinking... If you're angry with me already, Bomac, Macedonia and Miskin, with whom I've been editing Macedonians (ethnic group) since November, must really hate me! ;-)--Aldux 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Church Slavonic

Based on dialects of Thessaloniki. [5] [6]

Removed

This following section is uncited and disputed. Can people let me know what is disputed about it ? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialects and regional varieties

{{POV-section}}

A major bundle of isoglosses running roughly from Skopje and Crna Gora along the rivers Vardar and Crna divides Macedonian territory into Eastern and Western regions shows the main dialect regions. The vocalic inventories of the West Central dialects are characterized by a five-vowel system, /a, e, i, o, u/. With the exception of Mala Reka, Reka, Drimkol-Golobrdo, Radožda-Vevčani, Nestram, Korca and parts of Lower Prespa, all the remaining dialects also have phonemic /ə/. Phonemic /å/ is found in all of these latter schwa-less dialects except Mala Reka and Korca. Phonemic /ä/ occurs in Radožda-Vevčani, Suho and Visoka and Korca. Vocalic /l/ occurs in Mala Reka. Vocalic /r/ is absent from those dialects that decompose original r, except Radožda-Vevčani. Korca also has phonemic /ü/.

The dialects of the Western region all tend to fixed stress, antepenultimate in the Republic of Macedonia, penultimate in Greece and Albania. The Eastern region, along with the neighboring Bulgarian dialects, has various non-fixed stress systems. In Lower Vardar and Seres-Nevrokop unstressed /a, e, o/ are reduced (raised) to /ə, i, u/. It must be noted that the Seres-Nevrokop group is in fact located mostly outside of the republic of Macedonia (in Greece and Bulgaria, respectively) and hence its identification as a group of Macedonian dialects is a controversial issue. Bulgarian linguists regard both as dialects of Bulgarian [7]. Interestingly, the reduction of unstressed vowels is characterisic of East Bulgarian as opposed to West Bulgarian dialects, so Bulgarian linguists regard these dialects as transitional between East and West Bulgarian [8].

Most dialects have /e/ from original ě, but the Eastern region is characterized by the development of ě to /a/ after /c/: Eastern cal, Western cel (whole). In easternmost Greek Macedonia and the Blagoevgrad Province of Bulgaria ě gives /a/ or /ä/ under stress, in the dialects of Greek Macedonia regardless of the environment, in the dialects of the Blagoevgrad province /a/ if there is a back vowel in the following syllable, /e/ if there is a front vowel, as can be seen in 'white', Seres-Drama: b'ala - b'ali, Suho and Visoka: b'äla - b'äli, Nevrokop: b'ala - bell. In Korca, ě gives /iä/ under stress.

The modern reflexes of the Proto-Slavonic reduced vowels (jers), vocalic sonorants and the back nasal (o) can be used to separate the dialects into six groups: (1) North (Tetovo, Skopje Crna Gora, Kumanovo-Kriva Palanka), (2) Peripheral (Gostivar, Ohrid-Prespa, Kostur-Korca, Lower Vardar), (3) West Central (Prilep, Kicevo, Bitola, Lerin), (4) East Central (Tikves-Mariovo, Stip-Strumica, Malesevo-Pirin), (5) Debar and (6) Seres-Nevrokop.

For consonantal features, the entire Western region is distinguished from the East by loss of /x/ (except Tetovo, Gora and Korca) and the loss of /v/ in intervocalic position (except Mala Reka and parts of Kostur-Korca): glava (head) = gla, glavi (heads) = glaj. The Eastern region preserves /x/ (except Tikves-Mariovo and Kumanovo-Kriva Palanka) and intervocalic /v/. The East is also characterized by the development of prothetic /v/ before original o where the West has prothetic /j/: Eastern vaglen (coal) but Western jaglen. The diphonemic reflexes are most characteristic of the dialects of Greek Macedonia and Blagoevgrad province, Kostur-Korca and Ohrid-Prespa. The Seres-Nevrokop dialects have a series of phonemically palatalized consonants.


Well, User:TodorBozhinov added the tag. I think he's getting at the fact that certain dialects (I'm thinking of the ones spoken in Greece) are dialects of Bulgarian, not "Macedonian". I would justify this claim on the basis that the Slavic dialects spoken in Greece were always Bulgarian until the "Macedonian" language was created in Yugoslavia. I don't see how this changes the status of the Bulgarian dialects spoken in Greece, so they are suddenly dialects of Macedonian rather then Bulgarian. It would be like claiming that Montenegrin is a dialect of Bosnian rather than Serbian. --Telex 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Things change. As I've given sources above for, some dialects are considered "Bulgarian", and some "Macedonian". It really depends on what the people themselves say, but as we don't know, because Greece doesn't include the information in the census, linguists categorise them on a linguistic basis. Remember, once all the dialects were "Bulgarian", or "Serbian", depending on who you believe. In fact, once all the dialects were "Slavic" or "Slavonic" if you go back far enough. - FrancisTyers 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I guess you havent asked any Republicans. God first created Macedonian.  /FunkyFly.talk_   14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with User:TodorBozhinov and FrancisTyers tentative evaluation above. The language of ROM/FYROM is, indeed, Makedonski; it is official and UN recognised. But to impose that label outside the republic, and especially in the Serres region, seems like Skopje's wishfull thinking; one might as well have Belgrade call it 'Serbian'. Indeed, I have met members of the older generation (farmers) on both sides of the border who remeber it as 'Serbian'. In fact, just about everyone, including the speakers used to refer to it as 'Bulgarian' (until the population exchanges). It can certainly be considered a dialect of Bulgarian. Politis 15:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The people themselves call the language "Slavic" and they call themselves "Slavophone Greeks", with a few minor exceptions, e.g. Stoidis and his Bulgarian minority and Voskopoulos and his "Macedonian" Rainbow party (choose wisely at the dab page). Did you know that there was no "Macedonian" minority in Greece until Voskopoulos came back from university? And guess where he went to university - Skopje. You see what I'm getting at? --Telex 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont know, where are you getting at? It is profitable to start a Macedonian party in Greece? Like UMO Ilinden-Pirin in Bulgaria?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Deja vu. We already went through this Telex, we can't say how many "Macedonian speakers" or "Slavic speakers" or whatever — "Bulgarian speakers" — or Cats are in Greece, because they aren't counted in the census. - FrancisTyers 15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not in Greece, but in other countries. You can most certainly make an estimate.  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL! :)) - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The objective is linguistic. We have a Balkan Slavic continuum that has been standardised into specific languages: Bulgarian, Makedonski, Serbian, etc... We also have, or had, some people in the Greek province of Macedonia bordering with Bulgaria who spoke a Slavic idiom. Today their numbers are few and they learnt is a part of the bi-lingual nature of the region before WWII. But how do we classify that regional idiom? I think that it comes under, 'Bulgarian dialect' because that is what it used to be called. Just as the language of Nevrokop (today, Goce Delcev) used to be a 'Greek dialect' (before the population exchanges). Politis 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will tend to go with what is written in the various literature. We know that standard versions of language have various features, and that dialects have various features. The way we categorise them is on which features are in common. This is of course the second way to classify them, the first (and best) way is to ask the people themselves, but as I mentioned we don't have numbers for that, and guessing will get us nowhere. I will paste again below the sources I have for which dialects are considered heteronomous with which standard. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I rarely comment outside the subject of the article. I happen to live in a neighborhood where the majority of the inhabitants are refugees of the Greek Civil War - it seems that their "slavophonity" was not suitable for the authorities in Athens back then. They are quite sure that they are Macedonians and speak the "constructed" [9] language fluently. It is quite surprising for you Telex, to claim that, given the fact that that you claim to be a "cosmopolitan". Even from an Albanian point of view, it's kind of dumb to actually align with the position of the Greek authorities... did you know that, according to them, there is no "Albanian" minority there? Just some random Albanophone Greeks... --FlavrSavr 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like FlavrSavr is "bringing it on". How would you comment this edit or this picture for example?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That picture is ridiculous. There was never a kingdom of Macedonia to have a "Royal" "Coat of Arms" (heraldry did not exist in ancient times, but came into existence in the middle ages). The Vergina Sun was discovered in Greece, on an archaeological finding (believed to have been associated with ancient Macedonian royalty) looking like this back in 1977, that is how Greece was able to copyright it. --Telex 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I would gladly correct some of FlavrSavr comments, but the debate is linguistic. Politis 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the affiliation of the dialects is disputed is already mentioned in the section here "the Seres-Nevrokop group is in fact located mostly outside of the republic of Macedonia (in Greece and Bulgaria, respectively) and hence its identification as a group of Macedonian dialects is a controversial issue. Bulgarian linguists regard both as dialects of Bulgarian", etc.. I guess the NPOV tag was left out of negligence. That's not a reason to move the whole thing to the talk page, especially as the present version also lists the dialects in question as Macedonian! By the way, I spent a hell of a time finding references proving that Bulgarian linguists do regard the dialects as Bulgarian, for whatever reason, so I'm really pretty frustrated about that whole part going to the dustbin! --85.187.44.131 17:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as there seems to be no dispute, I'll move it back in. I appreciate your effort in finding references. Btw, the talk page isn't a dustbin, more like a sewer! :) - FrancisTyers 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. :) However - nothing personal, but now I really have problems with the separation into "Eastern" and "Western" subsections that you just made. Both sections treat both groups. It's quite confusing. I hope somebody fixes that in some way. --85.187.44.131 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, feel free to split it up however you want :) be bold! - FrancisTyers 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll do something about it at some point, if no one else does. --85.187.44.131 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll get you for this blatant copy-vio!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Greece

Here they are:

Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian.

From R. Schmieger "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" (1998)

The name of Florina is only one of the districts of Northern Greece where the Macedonian language is spoken, but there are Slavophones also in the districts of Kastoria, Edessa, Verria, Drama and Serres. How many Slavophones there are is impossible to ascertain, since each side manipulates the statistical data according to what it wants to prove: the figures vary from 50,000 up to 300,000.

From Hill, P. (1999) "Macedonians in Albania and Greece: A comparative study" in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 1. — this particular quote is from the "Athens sociological journal Scholiastis (Vol. 72, 1988, p. 22)"

It would be interesting to get a copy of that 1988 Scholiastis article/study. Know if there is an Englishs translation anywhere? - FrancisTyers 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Macedonians

Do any of you live in Skopje? There is a memorial plaque on a hydroelectric power station (Matka Gorge), a picture of which would make a great addition to the article. The plaque was created after 1947 (according to Friedman). A barnstar to the first person to get me a series of photographs of it. If you have a digital camera, make it at least 10-15 photographs from various angles — and if possible on a sunny day for good lighting. The plaque, and the reasons for it being interesting are mentioned in Friedman (1998). Thanks! - FrancisTyers 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think User:Bomac does. --Telex 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese WP

I think this edit [10] was great! I have no idea who this wikipedian is, nor which language is exactly, but if my Latin helps me enough, eslavo means slavic? and the article talks about the whole region in the beginning and about RoM later on, and about the V e IV a.C. centuries that its speakers came in the region? i know i am not wrong. my point is, why this language is titled 'Macedonian', and not 'Slavic Macedonian' in the English Wikipedia? --Hectorian 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, i found that out: it is portuguese. but the question remains: shouldn't we rename the article here as well? --Hectorian 04:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
No. - FrancisTyers 17:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Portuguese WP, the entry pt:Língua eslavo macedônia redirects to pt:Língua macedônia, so tough luck ! (Well, FrancisTyers just moved it)   Andreas   (T) 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Impressive. Well, there are the following articles if he's interested:
He can have some fun with them ;-) --Telex 18:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If by "fun" you mean a comparable experience to a barbed wire catheter then yes. But I think I'll give it a miss. - FrancisTyers 18:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like i shouldn't had mentioned the article in the Portuguese Wikipedia... Some users think that by ommitting the word 'eslavo' they could possibly alter the origins of this language or the way Portuguese refer to them. or perhaps, they got afraid that such articles in other languages could one day be used as a well based reason in renaming this article as well... then, all i need is a lecture about me editting my POV! (at least i am not having 'fun' with respective articles in other languages to push my POV....) --Hectorian 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because I'm really trying to push the Macedonian view of history on everyone, and definately not adjusting the name that doesn't even exist in the language that you guys are messing about with. And no, this article will not be renamed, because that isn't the name that the English speaking world uses. Guess what, I just got back from LREC2006, there were a number of papers on you know which language and I'm not giving out prizes for guessing what it was referred to as. - FrancisTyers 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Many people know whose view and on what subject u are trying to push... Ommitte the parenthesis and the " " and try again... [11]

Miraculo! it exists! --Hectorian 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the pope on hold. - FrancisTyers 21:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem [12]. --Telex 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, truely it is the most frequently used term in portuguese. - FrancisTyers 21:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking about Portuguese and frequency, check these out (from Google-UK, and not from the "biased" Google-Greece): [13] and [14]. Frequently, in portuguese Macedonians/Macedonia/etc are linked with the slavs not the greeks, right?...LOL --Hectorian 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that just shows that they know their history. - FrancisTyers 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Portuguese Wiki is a small ,,step for man" ;-). The next step of the Greeks here are all other Wikipedias (Telex changed the name in the Albanian Wiki already, why wouldn't he do it in the others). Bomac 21:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And the next step of the people of RoM here will be what? an attempt to alter history in this wikipedia? or maybe in others as well? --Hectorian 21:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The people of RoM haven't got a ,,campaign" here on Wikipedia. You are wrong about altering in en and other Wikis. Bomac 21:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Many of their edits indicate an attempt to alter history, if not a scheduled campaign... Pls, do not make me show u examples, u know very well what i am talking about... --Hectorian 21:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Just try and stop it spilling over into linguistics please. - FrancisTyers 21:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But that would mean that Macedonians dont really exist. We have right to defend ourselves!  /FunkyFly.talk_   21:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Funky, do you want another quote from Misirkov or what?!? ;-) Bomac 22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah go ahead. Make sure it's not from a novel this time.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm just doing it (I only renamed articles on sqwiki - Asteraki has been the active one) for the sake of it and for disambiguation purposes (per WP:NCON). I've said this before - as far as I'm concerned, the Greek side has already lost the naming game, as whatever the outcome of the negotiations will be, the final name will contain the word "Macedonia" in some form or other. When Greece blocked Gligorov's state's access to the port of Thessaloniki and prevented any goods entering of exiting the state via the border, in order to starve them into giving up the name, the idea was that the name "Macedonia" would no longer be used (and that it'd be Republic of Vardar or something). I think we all know that's not going to happen. Let's just be wise and disambiguate properly. --Telex 22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me... disambiguate properly. if they admit they are Slavs and do not claim history, they may keep a sort of the name, cause of its regional usage (and not cause of historic, territorial, etc claims) --Hectorian 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, Hectorian. I don't care about history (you'd have to be really thick to actually believe what they claim - that Czar Samuel was an ethnic Macedonian and bla... bla... bla...). What I don't like are a) land claims, and b) false claims about the ethnic composition of other countries (see the discussion here (near the end of the section) - the lesson is that mkwiki is not a reliable source). --Telex 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, i agree with NikoSilver: ...when impartial thirds read this garbage.... that's all i mean when i am talking about their historic (u may do not care, but i do...), territorial and 'minority' claims... --Hectorian 22:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, they really do suck. As you said Telex, its like to each his own feifdom, and en for the battleground. - FrancisTyers 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
As the saying goes, wikipedia cant be more objective than its administrators, among which is our friend FlavrSavr.  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Numbers again

Duja has been reverting me to a version which claims:

  • That Britannica claims that there are 3,000,000 speakers of MKD (and then links to this article which says nothing of the sort)
  • That general academic consensus is that there are approximately 2 million speakers of the Macedonian language. HO - I'd love to see a source for this.
  • That Ethnologue, which says that there are 1,598,247 speakers in *all* countries excludes the diaspora.

I'm confused now - perhaps I (or you) haven't understood WP:V. --Telex 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will give you an extensive list shortly. - FrancisTyers 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, now I remember, we have a specific page for this, if you still want to argue about it, I'll see you there. - FrancisTyers 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No conclusions were made. The issue is hardly addressed. Will you please cite some sources, or start slapping fact templates over the figures. Thanks. --Telex 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Future tense

Umm... Francis. To form the future tense in standard Bulgarian, you use the particle "ще" and this does not inflect. In Serbian, it does, but in Standard Bulgarian, as far as I know, it doesn't. Are you sure that you copied the source correctly, or perhaps got carried away with your desire to present Macedonian as different from Bulgarian as possible ;-) It doesn't take a genius to notice that "ќе" is a corrupted version of "ще". To be on the safe side however, I think we should ask someone who actually knows the language (I may be wrong). --Telex 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am desperately trying to make Macedonian seem less like Bulgarian and more like Albanian. You noticed my evil plot :( — I think we should hear from a Bulgarian (or better linguist than me) on this matter. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this one, I read Tomić's "Syntax of Balkan Slavic Future Tenses", and I have to confess it was pretty hard going (I didn't understand it fully). - FrancisTyers 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We know Tomić makes mistakes (I'm not really sure if that "I've read the book" translation of hers is correct). And if you really do have an agenda to make Macedonian seem more like Albanian and Greek, we know why - all linguists seem to agree that Ancient Macedonian was either a Greek or an Illyrian language, the result of this being that the closest surviving modern relative is either Greek or Albanian. Therefore, if Macedonian Slavic has a feature present in Greek and Albanian (and therefore probably in Ancient Macedonian), but not in Bulgarian, this seems to confirm their theory of Macedonian Slavs = Slavs + Ancient Macedonians, and that Bulgarians = Slavs + Proto Bulgars (and Tatars and God knows what else), the linguistic feature in question being proof of that (we all know what their circular arguments are like). --Telex 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh shit! I had no idea! :)) - FrancisTyers 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the deal here?  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Is the Bulgarian "ще" used in exactly the same way as the Macedonian "ќе"? Francis maintains that "ще" changes according to grammatical person (I, you, he) and number (singular, plural) - I say it doesn't. --Telex 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Аз ще тръгвам - I'll be going. Той ще тръгва - He'll be going. Te ще тръгват - They'll be going Like that? Btw, I think Fran is unintentionally, or purely out of scientific interest, overemphasizing the difference between the two languages. From a scientist's perspective, variety is good, more variety means more work, right Fran?  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, like that - anyway, the problem is solved, see Balkan linguistic union#Future tense formation. The future tense in Macedonian is formed in exactly the same way as in Bulgarian, with the exception of the speakers having a different regional accent. I think this should be in the article. --Telex 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That's right, "ќе" basically the same as "ще", there's only the regional /kʲ/ reflex and not the standard Bulgarian /ʃt/ for Proto-Slavic *tʲ. You can see the table of these reflexes in the "Old Church Slavonic" article. Todor Bozhinov  21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And the same in Serbian:ђе and Croatian:če and more forms of Slafic, is the same as Macedonian:ќе and Bulgarian:ще. So where is the basis here, whats the intention of prooveing something so amorphic. The future form is made on the same way as in bulgarian and macedonian in serbian and croatian.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Vlatko, if my linguistic knowledge is good enough, except for Torlak, Serbo-Croatian će/ће is not a fixed clitic. E.g. a proper usage would be: radiću, radićeš, radiće, or ja ću raditi, ti ćeš raditi. In first form, the verb is conjugted with ću ćeš će ćemo ćete će, in the second one, infliction of ću corresponds to the verb. Torlak, however, often uses only će, but conjugated. E.g. you are as likely to hear: "ću da radim" as "će da radim" (in my experience of course, torlak is not standardized). --dcabrilo 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are riight, gramaticaly it is so.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Of course, I'm happy for it to be in the article, make the necessary changes. As I mentioned, I'm not particularly interested in exaggerating the differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian, merely pointing them out where they exist. I believe it is made clear in the article (or if not let me know and I will make it more clear) that these differences in the standard were deliberately made in order to distance it from Bulgarian and Serbian. In fact, Tomić has an article which verifies this. I should have searched for it sooner. See here. I will add those examples, if they are wrong feel free to change them. - FrancisTyers 22:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the languages are similar as Portugese and Spanish, I hope you've noticed the differences between these languages. But to say that a language is intensiosly developed just for "so", it is wrong. every language developes spontaniously by its speakers, as the way of thinking changes so and the voice form, here are some examples: the word inMacedonian:вреден' (vreden) in macedonian means a person who is working hard in the positive sence, or something which we can make some use of, but inBulgarian:вреден (vreden) it hase the opposite meaning than the macedonian, literaly it means ofending.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly, you forget about the other 85% of the words with identical meaning. By the way the word does have a secondary meaning, which is also positive. Maybe bg-3 is a little too high for you? (As is en-3 quite obviously)  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I forgot and the 80% of the words with identical meaning with serbian, croatian and slovenian, and some 70% with all other slavic branches. You are right.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 12:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Right, right. Did you learn that in the Bulgarian profficiency exam in Plovdiv?  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And much more than that, obviously you can't understand it.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, tough luck here. Maybe you should have considered going to a country where you'd had less linguistic difficulties. Oops, I forgot the unemployment there was 40%. Maybe go back to your country? Ahh, there it is also 40%. Well tough luck afterall.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well seems you are the smarter one, I agree. Tell me , you resolve all of your problems this way. 10 year before Bulgaria was one of the poorest remember?.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A lot of countries were the poorest at some point. After the Great Depression the US was pretty bad, after WW2 Germany and Japan were messed up as well.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Than why do you implicate with relativic things, it is silly?--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm making an observation, that's all.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Pointhing such thing on capricious way, realy mature.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Does it bother you? You have to admit though, you came to the country for a better prospect, and maybe there is some disappointment? Linguistic? Cultural? Care to share it?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, why are you on wikipedia?--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Answered like a true soldier, with a question.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
You are an interestin person, realy. you give all the answers I want.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Glad we agree on 1 thing. Ok, good night.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Good night to you to.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Stop bitching at each other. - FrancisTyers 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir yes sir!  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me... I'm curious - what positive secondary meaning does "вреден" have in Bulgarian? --85.187.44.131 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the dialect that I speak, it is something of the sort of ordered, orderly.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And whats the commoon between wortly and orderly?--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Both are positive, which was one of your major points above, remember?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not true, I pointed something other, distinguishing positive and negative is philosophic, not so much linguistic, I think you have not understood the written above, but thanx for proveing mine POV ;-).--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, still it is not the complete opposite.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, realy smart of your's.--->>>Vlatko sun.png<<< 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


This is a hell of an answer... Bomac 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, "vreden" might mean something like "orderly" (standard Bulgarian "ureden") in certain exotic dialects, but it certainly doesn't have such a secondary meaning in standard Bulgarian. Being Bulgarian, I should know... :) --85.187.44.131 01:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

To clear things out — Macedonian "vreden" and Bulgarian "vreden" are not the same word with different meanings, they are two different words written the same way. The Macedonian "vreden" is from "v" ("in") + "red" ("order") and corresponds to Bulgarian "ureden" ("u" is a lot similar to "v" and sometimes interchangable). The Bulgarian one is from "vreda" ("harm"). Todor Bozhinov  08:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)