Jump to content

Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Cyril and Methodius

@Cyril and Methodij were realy Slavs in their souls. J don't believe that they were Greecs, they were citizens of Vizantia by passport and Slav by soul. Surely they fought for the education and the freedom of Slavs, freedom that will be achieved only by education in simple slavic language.

Slavs in their souls? Oh, dear. Passports are a metaphor, I hope - since they weren't invented yet. --MichaelTinkler

Dear Mister Michael Tinkler , Since J do not know your e-mail , J write you here, and you know who am J . J believe that your response after my so called as you say nationalistic point of view is also justificated. But J did not do that for achievement nationalistic propaganda, but only J said the truth. Yes , passport is methaphore and J used it for saying that they were in some way Grecs or Visant citizens, but they were realy Slavs. J don't have anything against the other languages . And it is not a propaganda. You know when you are weak nobody trusts you. Why don't you see the other side. And J didn't say thatr Macedonian is the oldest and purest but just that it is closest to the OLD SLAVIC LANGUAGE< that means it keeps lot of forms, that the old language had. J realy want to know if you are Englishman or something else , , J realy am sorry if gave you nationalistic impression, but probably my English is not so good., but J am just a student that studies Slavic languages and makes comparisons ,

First of all, don't worry about your English! There are Wikipedians who seem to specialize in editing entries into good and better English (some of them edit my entries all the time!).
My criticism is not of your linguistics. My comment was on the phrase "Slavs in their souls." Surely you do not claim to know the souls of Cyril and Methodius (wikipedia tends to use the Latin form of names, though not exclusively). They certainly were speakers of Old Slavonic, they developed the writing system, but the biographies that I have read (admittedly not many of them) claim that they were not ethnically Slavic. We have to address that point, even if to dismiss it. And commenting on the state of someone's soul is definitely not Neutral point of view. Discussions of the ethnicity of historical characters often degenerates into claims and counter-claims (for example, see the exchanges about Esperanto and L. L. Zamenhof). Instead why not continue with the Macedonian Language entry as a LANGUAGE -- and the other slavic languages, too! I am myself American and of Scottish descent - I am not invested in the situation of Macedonia at all; I don't want to see another fight start. --MichaelTinkler. (and I don't understand why sometimes my identity doesn't stick on this computer. damn cookies.)

Yes , you are right . Me too. It is better that we do not start new fight again. But J think still there is misunderstanding here and it is international. J do not know if you use that expression,but when J say methaphoricaly, they were Slavs in soul that means that they sucrifieced everything for the slav cause even their lives.. J would recomend you to read Panonic Legends from Climent Ohridski one of Cyril's students and then you will see what am J speaking about. J just used a methaphore and J am very sorry if it sounds so nationalistic, however probably you are right. And J know that one of the oldest languages is Lithuanian , correct me if J am wrong. Sorry again. And please if J add something non nationalistic do not rase it Thank you Bye

To whoever you are, would you mind not putting communications on the main page? Discussions belong on the /Talk pages. Thankyou -- Simon J Kissane

Hopefully from a neutral (who knows no Macedonian), it is commonly characterised (in sources with no apparent axe to grind) as being closest to Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic, so the claim of antiquity or even "purity" isn't outlandish.

But I don't see how "its development is bigger than that one of the Bulgarian Serbo-Croatian languages" - if it's stayed more faithful to the original, then surely it's developed less - not necessarily a bad thing in our world of contextising and downsizing. Which is closer to Old Slavonic - Macedonian or Bulgarian - not even the experts seem to want to speculate. User:David Parker

Standard Macedonian may be closest to Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic in that order, but Old Church Slavonic is NOT closest to either standar Macedonian or standard Bulgarian (I don't know about dialects, so I can't comment on that). Old Church Slavonic was recorded and standardized before linguistic changes like the loss of noun cases, addition of articles or regularization of verbs and adjectives occured in Macedonian and Bulgarian. And those changes are what makes the two languages different from other Slavic languages. Macedonian has lost many inflections and become the easiest of all Slavic languages to learn. Whether this is progress or regression is a totally meaningless question. Zocky 08:59 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I have deleted the following because even after my attempting to clean it up it still does not make sense, and it sounds like it is quite possibly Macedonian nationalist propaganda ('our language is the older and more pure than yours!'):

It is very important the fact that the Macedonian language is the old Slavonic language and its development is bigger than that one of the Bulgarian and Serbian languages. Cyril and Methodius were born in Solun. And now there are still Macedonian speakers there, and from their dialects it could be concluded that the Macedonian language is the oldest Slavonic language. This was confirmed also from Vatroslav Jagic, the great Croatian philologist. In fact in the Solun dialects of Macedonian language we still have the nasals that were characteristic sounds of Old Slavonic Language. This is an example of how some of the old phonetic characteristics of the old language of Slavs were kept.

--- Simon J Kissane

Status

STATUS Macedonian language :*=language's status discussed

see http://www.eurominority.org/index-gb.asp

-- 62.47.22.182 26.04.2003

Where on this site is the language's status discussed? It's not discussed if you follow the link for languages. The best that you can do, as far as I can find, is to look up the Macedonian people, giving three separate pages that include no language information other than the number of speakers -- information that's on a single page given directly by the Ethnologue link. If there's a page on the OEM site that actually does discuss the language, then by all means, please link to it. But the link to the OEM homepage is of no use. -- Toby 10:59 19 May 2003 (UTC)

Relation with Bulgarian

Is there a close relation between Macedonian and Bulgarian? So close that sometimes Macedonian has been seen as a Bulgarian dialect? If so, it should be mentioned. -- Error

Greek term

Justification for my "many" instead of "some" Greeks: almost no Greeks refer to the language as Macedonian, due to the stated reasons. The generally accepted term for it in Greece is just Slavika ("Slavic"). Sometimes something along the lines of "Skopjian" (from Skopje) is used if context isn't clear. In any case, this is common usage by even liberal, non-nationalistic Greeks. The term Macedonian would be universally understood to refer exclusively to things relating to Alexander the Great and his empire, and so would confuse people if used to refer to this language. --Delirium 21:03, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian language and Thessaloniki

What language did Philip and Alexander speak in the fourth centry B.C.? It certainly wasn't a Slavic dialect!

Before the Slavs called it Solun and the Turks called it Salonica, the now second-largest city in modern Greece was known as Thessaloniki, named after the sister of Alexander the Great. Once this city was liberated from Ottoman oppression in the 1920s, the name reverted to Thessaloniki.

Bulgarian opinion

I saw the opinion of pretty much everyone here, including the Greek one (what does the argument with FYROM about its name have to do with the Macedonian language??!) but I never saw the Bulgarian opinion. And it is the one best supported by historical evidence - by documents, not by propaganda. The Macedonian language was standardised in 1945, why is it even hinted that there was a Macedonian language before that time considering that almost anything written by Macedonian-born Slavs before that was written in standard Bulgarian? Including the Statute and the deicisons of IMARO and IMRO. --VMORO

Position of Bulgaria

This seems logically contradictory: "Although being the first country to recognise the independence of the Republic of Macedonia as early as January 1992, Bulgaria has refused to recognise the existence of a separate Macedonian nation..." Could somebody with more knowledge of the situation clarify this? Livajo

Bulgaria regards Macedonians as ethnic Bulgarians which have been "Macedonised" in the 1940's in an attempt to create a new nation, just as the Romanians in Sovjet Moldavia were "Moldavified" to form SSR of Moldaviya and the Finns in the Finnish territory occupied by the Sovjet Union after WW2 were "Karelified" to form ASR of Karelia. Macedonia was recognised by Bulgaria as an independent country in January 2002 along with Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia. Ask more if that's insufficient/unclear.

deleted paragraph, Shopski, Miladinov, Misirkov, propaganda, ...

User:Makedon just deleted this paragraph. I was wondering whether the facts deleted were true or false. Bogdan | Talk

It is further argued that whereas the Macedonian language was standardised as late as 1945, all historical figures regarded by the Republic of Macedonia as representatives of the Macedonian Revival in the 19th century wrote in standard Bulgarian, as well as that allegations that the Macedonian language existed as early as the 10th century find no corroboration in documents and are fictional. It is claimed that Macedonian historians resort to systematic distortions and falsifications of history and documents so as to adjust them to their official version. A typical example given is the collection of folk songs written in the vernacular and published in 1861 by the Miladinov Brothers, regarded by the Republic of Macedonia as pioneers of the Macedonian language. The collection was initially published under the title "Bulgarian Folk Songs" but has later been re-printed in the Republic of Macedonia under the name "Collection" with careful editions of the numerous references to "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" in the text.

User:VMORO Yes, they are, and he'll try anything to shut this up. Original documents at http://www.aloofhosting.com/makedonija/

"Shop" or "Shopsky" is a group of dialects in western Bulgaria and eastern Macedonia, what you claim is bizarre

User:Makedon That is the stance of the Bulgarian Nationalists.

The Macedonians in the 19th century had no high education in their mother tongue (Macedonia was not independant like Bulgaria or Serbia), and they attended the universities in Sofia, Belgrade, Moscow, St.Petersburg etc. That is why some of them wrote Bulgarian, Serbian or Russian, but they considered themselves Macedonians.. But there were also pepole like Georgija Pulevski, Dimitrija Chupovski, and Krste Misirkov for example who wrote in pure Macedonian. Misirkov's book "On Macedonian Matters" publshed in 1903 gave the principles of the literary language which was affirmed in 1944 (on the date of creation of the free Macedonian state)

The Miladinov Brothers' collection is available in Macedonia too as "Bulgarian Folk Songs" and there is no "conspiracy" to cover things up..


Shopski is the Bulgarian dialect that comes in contact with Macedonian...That is why to Macedonians, it sounded funny.. Even now, it is not strange to hear someone being called a "Shop"- meaning "dumb, funny"

User:VMORO

  • Yes, they did not have any education as their mother tongue was considered Bulgarian. Consult Lejean, Boue, Sax, Kiepert, Verkovic, Weigand, Selishev, etc.
  • Even authors like Brailsford who speak about "Macedonian Slavs" talk only about a "Macedonian dialect", which is different from Serbian and Bulgarian (as Serbia and Bulgaria claimed the population of the region as Serbian/Bulgarian) but is closer to Bulgarian.
  • By the way, the title of the part of the book in which Brailsford talks about the "Macedonian Slavs" is titled "the Bulgarian movement". The same author speaks about IMRO as "bulgarophil Macedonians".
  • Your favourite author (Krste Misirkov) writes in his book (which I have read in Macedonian very unfortunately for you) that your forefathers before 1878 used to call themselves only Bulgarian, now (1904) some of them have called themselves Bulgarians, some Serbs and some in "another way" (evidently meaning Macedonian). The reason he gives for the division of Macedonians and Bulgarians is the political situation on the Balkans and the position of Russia which would not allow Bulgaria to rule over the whole of Macedonia. He literally says that it will be better for Macedonia to be whole and populated by Macedonians than be split between Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia and be populated by Bulgarians. Have you even read this book???
  • Do you have any idea of the biography of Misirkov?? Are you aware that he was a Bulgarian teacher for 20 years (this is after 1904) in Bulgaria and the Bulgarian colonies in Bessarabia?
  • The Miladinov Brothers' collection "Bulgarian folk songs" was not available in Macedonia under its original title until recently. Why did you erase the paragraph about it then (if it is available)?
  • Your remark about "shopsky" clearly shows your attitude. Certainly I believe you that the "Macedonians" who were so culturally developed that they did not have even one Macedonian school in Macedonia (at a point where there were Bulgarian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Albanian, Jewish and Turkish schools) and did not publish even one periodical in this mythical language that you are talking about regarded the Bulgarian language which most of their children studied in school as "uncivilized" and "funny".
  • The article about Goce Delchev had "Bulgarian/Macedonian" (for the sake of NPOV) before the name. Although all beginning of the 20th century sources speak about IMRO as a Bulgarian organization (Bulgarian comitadjii), although Goce clearly says that he is Builgarian in the letter a scanned copy of I attached (and whose authenticity can be ascertained very easily), you decided to rewrite the opinion of historyofmacedonia.org.
  • I appeal to all unbiased readers to consult original sources (Henry Brailsford's book, newspapers, magazines and encyclopedias from the beginning of the 20th century, any other books about Macedonia published before 1940 and their later editions if they haven't been "edited" by Skopjan historians) before making any opinion on the matter. This is not a propaganda war, this is the truth against the falsification.
  • Henry Brailford is in no way prejudiced for the Bulgarians. He is used abundantly in histories and anthologies published by Macedonian historians and linguists (though only certain sentences and statements).

User:Makedon

  • Yes, it was considered Bulgarian - by the Bulgarians, and Serbian by the Serbs etc.. but the fact stays that there were no higher education schools in Macedonian
  • User:VMORO Not only by the Bulgarians and not only by the Serbs, that's the point.
  • You base all your claims on Brailford - I think that is very symptomatic.
  • User:VMORO: Nope. I pointed Brailsford because he talks a lot about IMRO (he was a British journalist who stayed for five months in Macedonia after the Ilinden Uprising) and because he also talks about "Macedonian Slavs" (not meaning a nationality though).

It is gonna be much easier for me to base my claims on Ami Boue, Lejean, Safarik, Griesebach, Sax, Verkovic (who was a famous Serbian archaelogist and who published "Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians" beside his ethnographic research), Gustav Weigand, Russian linguist Selishev and MANY others who proclaim them Bulgarians.

To say nothing of the International commission of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which studied the causes and conduct of the Balkan wars. Some of these ethnographers and linguists defined the Slavs in Macedonia as Bulgarian when even the Bulgarians themselves thought they were Greek (1830s and 1840s).

  • I am glad you read Misirkov but I guess you couldnt' understand Macedonian all that well. You missed the part where he says "we were called Bulgarians, but that name was not our choice, but it was given to us by others" (the Greeks). And what is so strange in him being a teacher in Bulgaria? Aside from Macedonian, he spoke Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Russian, Czech etc..
  • User:VMORO:

I am perfectly sure I understood Misirkov very well. What you say here is a logical oximoron as the Greeks claimed all Slavs in Macedonia were Bulgarophone Greeks. Besides, you Macedonians should learn once and for all that taking a sentence out of the context does not prove anything as it may bear reference to smth completely different. Read the excerpts below

  • User:Makedon Ok, let me get this right - We, the Macedonians take sentences out of context and you -whatever you are - prove things by.......... taking sentences out of context??

Here's a quote from Misirkov in 1903:

"Ниiе се велеме бугари, како шчо iеден чоек се велит со iедно име, да речиме Петр. Се прашат, коi ни го клал името, шчо сакал да означит тоi со него, кога не крстил и шчо разбираме ниiе под името бугарин, кога се велиме со него? На тиiе прашаiн'а ке ни одгоорит крстуаiн'ето на чоека и значеiн'ето на негоото име за друзите и за самиiот него.


Со името бугари не крстиiа грците и нас македонците. Но тоа прекрстуаiн'е не iет iединствено. От србите ниiе бефме прекрстени во срби. "

  • The Macedonians did have schools in Macedonian but not higher education, you missunderstood that.
  • User:VMORO: That is wrong and is a lie.

And there were books published in Macedonian. Find Gorgija Pulevski for example..

There were three Slav Macedonian propagandists: Pulevski, Misirkov and Machukovski. There were three Slav Macedonian propagandists: Pulevski, Misirkov and Machukovski. What you don't mention is that they got no attention before the 1940's and were supported neither by the population, nor by the IMRO leaders. I think it is perfectly normal for a region where half the population thought it was Bulgarian and many people thought they were Serbian, Greek and even Romanian(!!!),

  • User:Makedon Slav Macedonian propagandist?? How about Macedonian Patriots? And are you sure they were just three?

What you don't mention is that they got no attention before the 1940's

  • User:Makedon Perhaps they didnt get attention in Bulgaria...

and were supported neither by the population, nor by the IMRO leaders. I think it is perfectly normal for a region where half the population thought it was Bulgarian and many people thought they were Serbian, Greek and even Romanian(!!!),

No need for the exclamation marks. The Romanians of Macedonia are the Vlachs. See [1] Bogdan | Talk 20:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


where people changed their nationality for money and where sometimes there were Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians and Romanians within one single family (such cases are recorded) to have people like Pulevski, Misirkov and Machukovski.

  • User:Makedon Ok, you are trying to diminish their significance by making up stories about them. That speaks about yourself.
  • I appeal to all unbiased readers to consult original sources too. This discussion is made with the same goals form a century ago - to give the impression that Macedonia belongs not to the Macedonians but to others - Bulgarians this time.
  • User:VMORO: This is ridiculous. This is 2004, not 1913, terms like "belong" and "has the right to" are totally out of place here. What worries me is that in the 21st century there is still a country which - since it doesn't have the glorious history it would like to have - just steals the history of other countries.
  • User:Makedon Ridiculous? I think people writing propaganda about other people's language and history are ridiculous. Get a life!
  • And now: some Misirkov. I am sure you'll understand the original text, for those who do not understand Macedonian or Bulgarian I'll make a short abstract below each text. I am sorry but it's too much work translating the whole of it:
  • User:Makedon m-m-m..Bulgarian nationalist quoting Misirkov ...I love this
  • This is part of the preface:

"Мнозина од македонцките читачи ке бидат удивени от поiавуан'ето на таiа книга. За удивуаiн'е ке им бидит во неiа много. Некоiи ке речат: зошто отцепуаiн'е от бугарите, кога ниiе до сега сме се велеле бугари и соединеiн'ето, а не расцепуаiн'ето праит силата? Друзи ке расудуат, оти со полното отцепуаiн'е, от iедна страна, ке восторжествуваат нашите неприiатели, коiи шчо направуат сите своiи сили да ослабат балканцките словени, за да си подготват почва за раздел'уаiн'е на балканцките земiи помеѓу ниф, а од друга страна, оти оно ке не натерат нас македонците да се откажеме от нашиiот прв долг, да се бориме за политична слободиiа, да разрушиме се, до сега напраено и да се зафатиме се одноо, така да се речит, од азбука"

"Many of the Macedonian readers will be amazed at the ideas in this book. Some will say: why to split from teh Bulgarians when we have ALWAYS called ourselves Bulgarians and it is not the cleaveage but the union which makes us powerful? Others will reason that the complete cleavage will lead to the victory of our adversaries, which after weakening the Balkan Slavs will clear the way for the division of the Balkans between them..."

User:Makedon some will say

  • Here he talks about the Great powers:

"Ако се постаифме во положеiн'ето на руското праителство, и ниiе не ке можефме да постапиме инак . . До 1878 год. сите, па и руското праителство, велеа, оти Македонците сет бугари. После Берлинцкиiо догоор истапиiа со своите претенциiи на Македониiа србите. Србите во течеiн'е на 25 години, особено последните 20 години успеа, ако не да напраат македонците срби, то барем да создадат во европеiцкото обшчествено мнеiн'е убедеiн'е, оти во Македониiа имат и срби. Праи ли сет они, или не, не iет важно за дипломатите. Ако селцкото населеiн'е и сега си зборуат, како шчо си зборуало и по прег'е, и зборуат одред низ цела Македониiа само на iеден словенцки iазик, - во градоите, редом со бугарцките машки и женцки гимназиiи и основни сколиiи, на секаде ке наiме и србцки. Iедни села имаат србцки, друзи бугарцки сколиiи. Едни сел'ани со нивните учители и попои признаваат патриархiата и сет под покроителството на србцки или грцки консули, а друзи признаваат бугарцкиiо екзарх и слушаат бугарцкиiо трговцки агент. Се тоа сет факти за дипломатиiата, коiа шчо имат да се броiит со деiствителноста, а не со теориiата за народноста на македонците. Политиката немат работа со науката. Па и да имат работа, зар iет докажано, како два и два 4, оти сет македонците бугари? До рускотурцката воiна имаше само iедна теориiа за народноста ни. Сега сет две. Кон ниф се прибауат и трек'а, оти македонците сет нешчо стредно мег'у србите и бугарите. Привржениците на таiа теориiа пак се подраздел'уат: 1, на коiи шчо кажуваат, оти тоа стредно iет iеднакво далеко и от србите и од бугарите; 2. оти оно iет по блиско до србите; 3, отиiет по блиско до бугарите; оти част iет по блиска до србите, част - до бугарите. Не iет важно за дипломатите, каде iет истината. Важен iет факто, оти во Македонцкото прашаiн'е сет заинтересуани етнографцки, редом со бугарите и грците, ушче и србите. Осем тоа и политично Србиiа iет не по малку заинтересуана во судбите на Македониiа. Последната за Србиiа имат по големо значеiн'е, от колку за Бугариiа, оти Бугариiа можит да излезит на Егеiцкото море и преко Кавала и Деде-Агач"

Misirkov: Before 1878 they all (the western powers) and Russia claimed that the Macedonians were Bulgarians. After the Congress of Berlin, the Serbs claimed Macedonia. If teh Serbs did not manage to make the Macedonians Serbs, they made Europeans believe that there were Serbs in Macedonia. The peasant population of Macedonia speaks the same Slavonic dialect but some have Bulgarian schools, some Serbian. Before 1878 there was one theory of our origins. Now there are two. And there is one third - that the Macedonians are something in between Bulgarians and Serbs. This (third) theory is divided into three: 1. The Macedonians are far from both Serbs and Bulgarians 2. The Macedonians are closer to the Serbs 3. The Macedonians are closer to the Bulgarians


  • Here Misirkov talks about IMRO:

?...Некоi од нас, можит наивно ке забележит: ?Комитетот не сакат да напраит Македониiа бугарцка; тоi сакат праина за сите македонци без разлика на вера и народност..".


Some of us may be naive enough to say: The Comittee (IMRO) does not want to make Macedonia Bulgarian, they want justice for all Macedonians without regard to religion and nationality.


?...Нишчо подобно немат. Организациiата iет тесно врзана со Бугариiа. Шумот од организационото движеiн'е отпрво се дигна во самата Бугариiа. Тоа покажа, коi наi много iет заинтересуан во Македонцкото движеiн'е, за тоа пренесоа центрот негов во Македониiа, и напраиiа ушче iеден цел ред фокуси, за да се покажит, оти брканицата iет од натре и iет самородно iавуаiн'е. Но кого излажаа со тоiа маневр? Не iет ли iасно, како бел ден, оти брканицата iет тесно врзана со Бугариiа, со бугарцкото име и со бугарцките пари...?

"Nothing like that. The organization is closely connected with Bulgaria.... It is absolutely clear that the commotion (may be Ilinden?) is closely connected with the Bulgarian name and the Bulgarian money..."

?И така револ'уциониiо комитет беше чисто македонцка организациiа по произлез и по состаот му, но тоа беше само работа на iедна част од iедна од македонцките нацiоналности, врзана по име и ло црковно-сколиiцките работи со бугарцкиiо народ и држаа и нивните интереси. Тоiа комитет, во сашност македонцки, за надворешниiо свет и за рисiаните во Македониiа не екзархисти, беше комитет бугарцки.??

"So, the revolutionary committee was a purely macedonian organization by origin and members but this was only one part of the Macedonian nationalities connected by name, by the church and by the school to the Bulgarian people and state, and its interests. This committee, in fact Macedonian, for the outside world and the Macedonian christians who were not Exharchists, was a Bulgarian committee." (Exharchists=Christians owing allegiance to the Bulgarian Exrachate)


  • Here Misirkov tries to explain why the Serbs and the Greeks will never agree to an autonomus Macedonia predominated by Bulgarians:

?Не се запитуваат по тамо: како ке узнаiат, коiе iет болшинството. Да си предстаиме ниiе сега, оти iа каде Митровден идит мег'ународен отред и окупират страната. Од мег'у другото, ке требит да решит и прашаiн'ето за официiалниiо iазик, а пак да остаиме официiалниiо, прашаiн'ето за iазико во сколиiите. "Let's imagine that international troops come and occupy Macedonia. They'll have to decide beside other things the issue of the official language and the language of the schools, etc."


За некоiи тоа прашаiн'е iет многу лесно: нека се признаiат неколку официални iазици т. е. и турцки, и бугарцки, и србцки, и грцки, и влашки, и албанцки, според населеiн'ето на областа. Зборуваат при тоа: како шчо беше во Источна Румелиiа (Южна Бугариiа) а тамо ке се видит, каде имат грци, каде - срби, бугари, турци, власи и арнаути. Некоiи ушче прибавуат: и за Источна Румелиiа кажуваа, оти имало грци во неiа, но после ослободуаiн'ето се покажа колку грци имат тамо. Со друзи зобори даiте виiе властта во раците на македонците, тоа требит да се разбират, на тиiе од ниф, шчо се викаат бугари, да од неколку години после виiе ке видите, оти и во Македониiа од друзите народности ке останит тоа, шчо остана од грците во Источна Румелиiа, по ослободуаiн'ето на последната. Со друзи зборои цела Македониiа ке станит бугарцка.

"Some think this is a very easy issue: let's recognize several official languages, i.e. Turkish, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Vlach, and Albanian, in accordance with the population of the region. They also say: like it was in Eastern Rumelia (1) (Southern Bulgaria), it will be evident where there are Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks, Vlachs and Alabanians. Some others will add: they used to say that they were Greeks in Eastern Roumelia, too but just look at how many Greeks the region turned out to be inhabited by (2). With other words: give the power to the Macedonians and within a matter of several years the other nationalities in Macedonia will be as many as the Greeks in Eastern Roumelia after its liberation. With other words, the whole of Macedonia will remain Bulgarian"

(1) Eastern Roumelia was an autonomous Ottoman province (1878-1885), initially not given to Bulgaria as there were supposed to be many Greeks there. (2) The first census showed there were 50,000 Greeks and 700,000 Bulgarians. In 1885, after a coup, the province joined Bulgaria.


To anyone who might read this: keep in mind that this was written by a Serbophile Bulgarophobe who preached that a Macedonian nation with a separate language should be created. Please note that throughout the quotes Misirkov used Macedonian not as a national but as a regional name.

User:Makedon 'Serbophile Bulgarophobe'?? How come he is a Bulgarophobe if you just dropped 50kb of quotes where he supposedly proves your point?? I guess some will never admit that there were and still are people who just felt to be 'Macedonians' and not "phobes" or "philles" of any nation

Not to all who might read this - the whole book is avalable in English

I hope that after this the discussion is closed.

User:VMORO: You misunderstood me, Bogdan, I talked about Slavs, not about the Aromanians, pls check

User:VMORO: Did you actually try to say something? If you did, you haven't succeeded. Because opinions are based on facts, not on claims. You have only claims and not a single fact. You are just being loud. Do you think that if you repeat the same thing, I'll eventually start to believe it?

You are trying to leave only your position in Macedonian language, that is unacceptable, there is NPOV here.

User:Makedon, Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, which means that if an issue is disputed, all opinions MUST be included in the article about it so that readers can make up their mind on their own. This is the Bulgarian position and you don't have the right to erase it just because you don't like it.

User:VMORO, the paragraph was far too long and far too biting to give a neutral representations of the facts. Pls keep in mind that this is an INTERNATIONAL, not a Bulgarian site.

User:Makedon, you have removed Bulgaria's view on the Macedonian language completely, instead of giving both opinions. Would be more fair to give both opinions. Also, the list of cities where there are universities where Macedonian is studied does not add much in my opinion.

User:Guusbosman, User:Birkemaal: I have only tried to leave things that are not disputed (the Univerities that teach Macedonian can be easily checked). The whole article was written like a comparison between Macedonian and Bulgarian and I think that is not fair. If there must be a place for the bulgarian view in the article, it should be under a title "Bulgarian view regarding the Macedonian Language" I am sorry if I give the impression of being a natioanalist, I am just a patriot. Please understand how you would feel if someone started to write insulting things about your language and history.

User:Makedon, the present edit is fine, I just wanna make sure that no other misunderstandings happen. You seem to have a problem with the sheer mention of Bulgarian in this article (which is unnecessary and bizarre). I don't think that anyone else (unless he's a Macedonian or may be Bulgarian) will see it as a comparison between Bulgarian and Macedonian. You should understand that many of the people who read this article don't even know where Macedonia is and which language is spoken there. So the article should do its best to educate those people about it. The references to Bulgarian and the Balkan Language League only define the position of Macedonian with reference to its neighbouring and affiliate languages. If you want to make a distinction btn the two languages, you can point out that Macedonian has three definite articles and Bulgarian only one. It is, however, wrong to claim that the postposed definite article is a characteristic only of Macedonian - both languages have it. As for the problems btn your countries - Bulgaria claims in its turn that you steal its history and blaspheme its historical figures. This is a very complicated issue which needs to be solved by you two, I'd rather refrain from taking a position.

The current edit is indeed much better, thanks. One small thing -- I'm still not sure if it is worth mentioning all the cities with universities where the Macedonian language is studied. I understand you want to mention that Macedonian is studied (and thus recognized) as a separate language, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to just put sth like this: "The Macedonian language is studied in many universities around the world"?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonian_language/Archive_1&oldid=96009870"