Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 29 April 2006

Languages Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Older discussion archived here:

• Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive01 (?? - ??)
• Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive02 (?? - 00:28, 9 April 2006)

• Arguments about the number of speakers of Macedonian should be directed at Talk:Macedonian language/Number of speakers.

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  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  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  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  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  09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing yet. Goodwill time has expired. Will someone do it for me please?  NikoSilver  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  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  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.

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. , (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. , (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  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? → 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  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  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  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  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  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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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. → 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. → 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...

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  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  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  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  00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we could add something similar to Macedonians (ethnic group)#The situation today*Greece. Opinions?  NikoSilver  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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: 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: ... 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 ]] до говорещото лице, -ън, -на, -но, -не^ с определително и показателно значение за предмети, които се намират в пространството ]] 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: 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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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  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  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  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  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  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)

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)

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)

• Unassessed language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics