This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Re. Ninio's edit of the family tree in the infobox:
This seems to imply that: "Proto-Greek" is a sub-unit of "Paleo-Balkan languages", and that "Paleo-Balkan languages" is in turn a sub-unit of "Greek dialects", and that "Greek dialects" is a sub-unit of "Ancient Greek".
This is pretty absurd and certainly not what Ninio meant.
Leaving out "P-B" really leaves us with "Indo-European" as the only secure family information; plus:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That "possibly Greek" in the Infobox doesn't make any sense. Why not just leave it as Indo-European (all further discussion will be in the body of the article)?-- Barbatus 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry this is my first discussion about edits on Wikipedia, I value all the contributions you have all done to this site. But where can I find this "Paleo-Balkan" branch of the Indo-European languages? Are we just inventing branches on Wikipedia to satisfy a minority or unfounded view? Hairamess 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairamess ( talk • contribs)
Hi all, I would just like to contribute that there is no ambiguity upon whether Ancient Macedonian Greek was a Greek Dialect. "possibly Greek" should be just "Greek" or "Greek Dialect", because that's the only truth.
The Pella Curse Tablet dating to the 4th or 3rd century BC was found at the Capital of Macedon, Pella. if that's not Ancient Macedonian, I don't know what is..
I am Greek and I can understand what the script of the Curse is telling. Any seven year old who can read Modern Greek, can read that and translate most of the words from it. it was an Ancient Greek dialect of the many Ancient Greek Dialects. there are other Dialects who are fully recognised as Greek, that are far more difficult for me to translate.
The whole subject is ridiculous for anyone knowing Greek. i can't believe the international community of linguistics doesn't bash un-scientific "theories of ambiguity" brought by enviers and thiefs of History. i guess because the "ambiguity" is so new. the VARDASCAns slavs have no right in history upon anything Greek. your cheap political agenda cannot and won't be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
78.151.173.120 ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)I suggest that Ancient Macedonian is the branch of Lithuanian language together with Phrygians. Macedonia can be derived from Lithuanian words for 'Manke Duona'=knead bread and Phrygians for 'Parugiai'=people cultivating a rye (from the same word comes and 'pyragai'=cakes). Moreover in Lithuanian language Aleksandras 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras'=born second and Pilypas 'Paliepias'=giving the orders 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly Greek? That's a joke right? This IS Greek. Correct this ASAP Iaberis ( talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Source http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaberis ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
..Family tree... we have this classification in the article:
"==Classification==
Due to the fragmentary attestation various interpretations are possible. [1] The discussion is closely related to the reconstruction of the Proto-Greek language. The suggested historical interpretations of Macedonian include: [2]
and from all these scenarios the sum-up is "Indo-European, possibly Greek" ? which can mean 1."IE, not Greek", 2."IE, related to Greek" and 3."IE, Greek". isn't that a wrong approach since the 1. scenario does not exist among any of the scholars' proposed classifications? as you can see none of the views excludes the relation to Greek. so the "possibly Greek" is OR. the only sourced family tree is the Linguist List one. and it's the one the international standard ISO 639-3 uses too. I know it's in the language codes sections already but that's a coincidence because sil.org uses it. (which again shows its validity amongst the wider linguist community). so i propose
Ancient Macedonian | |
---|---|
Region | Macedon (extinct language) |
Extinct | absorbed by Attic Greek in the 4th century BC |
Indo-European
| |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-2 |
ine |
ISO 639-3 |
xmk |
what do you propose? do you think "possibly Greek" is a right approach? when no linguist/scholar classifies it like that? 150.140.226.79 ( talk) 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |editor=
has generic name (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
Hi there, I'm a student of Ancient History at KCL and this article confuses me a little bit, it seems to put forward the proposition that there is currently a widescale scholarly debate occurring as to whether Macedonian was a Greek language or not, or even more absurdly, whether it was a Slavic language! As far as I am aware, there is no such debate, practically every primary and secondary source I have read refers to the Macedonians as speaking a dialect of Greek. I refer to secondary sources as well because if there was such as debate as so many users claim, then surely it would transcend the Republic of Skopje and encompass respected institutions such as Oxford and their professors as well, but it simply doesn't.
Take it from someone who studies Ancient History, call it disputed, but to claim there is an academic dispute other than from Skopjean 'Academia' is patently false, practically every scholar of note considers it to be a Greek dialect.
..and another one: " * Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Otto Hoffmann, German linguist, "Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum", Göttingen, 1906
and more: "The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all contending that it was a dialect of Greek." "Cambridge Ancient Histories", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.. 150.140.226.207 ( talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The Pella curse bit is phrased most misleadingly. The tablet is in Doric/NW Greek. This proves the presence of Greek speakers in Macedon in the 3rd c. BC. The tablet is ostensibly not in XMK, so what does it tell us about XMK, beyond the theoretical possibility that XMK was influenced by Doric/NW Greek from at least the 3rd c.? (We know that it was influenced most severely by Attic from at least the 4th c., so what is new?) The Pella tablet is a red herring. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong dab. The language of the tablet has been considered as the actual, uninfluenced "ancient Macedonian language" itself, and not just a Doric dialect that was spoken along with it. To quote from Olivier Masson:
“Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it [Macedonian] an Aeolic dialect, we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek. This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested..."
It all comes down to the fact that everything some people take for granted about a "Macedonian language" are nothing but assumptions. Miskin 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since everybody agrees that there's no consensus leaning towards the "separate language" view, then how come this article is still called "ancient Macedonian language" and not simply "ancient Macedonian" or something equivalent? Pseudo-neutral editors like Decius/Alexander 007 who had chosen to use Borza as their primary source (a scholar who admits his views are not mainstream) are not around anymore (except maybe ocasionally as anon vandals), so maybe we can reconsider a less contradictory name for the article. Miskin 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Part of the 'Paleobalkan' section reads:
"In 1999, A. Garrett has surmised that Macedonian may at an early stage have been part of a dialect continuum which spanned the ancestor dialects of all south-western Indo-European languages (including Greek), but that it then remained peripheral to later areal processes of convergence which produced Greek proper. He argues that under this perspective sound-change isoglosses such as the deaspiration of voiced stops may be of limited diagnostic value, while ultimately the question of whether Macedonian belongs or does not belong to a genetic union with Greek is moot."
Maybe you should consider to revise this bit. Garrett's paper is treating Macedonian as an outlier of Greek using also a Greek 'dialectological' approach. - Kim (26/3/07, 20:30) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.240.229.65 ( talk) 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-84137
I have added the Britannica video to the Links in view of the fact that Ancient remains that have been discovered inAiani (macedonia) prove that the ancient Macedonian society spoke and wrote in Greek Vladreal 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The new is the region of Upper Macedonia
Overturning,once and for all,the common accepted belief that Upper Macedonia was both socially and culturally isolated from the rest of ancient Greece.On the Contrary by the (6)Sixth Century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic,artistic and cultural level Inhabitants of this area lived in well-planned cities and not in nomadic groups depending on farming and animal husbandry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanos ( talk • contribs) 13:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
150.140.227.78 ( talk) 21:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
..And dab, you like many others confuse the term "Hellenism" with "Hellenistic era". Hellenism means the Hellenic culture as a whole. the Greek culture. Before and after the Hellenistic era. As you can see by this sentence in the [ Britannica video]: "On the contrary, by the 6th century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic, artistic and cultural level". When she says " Hellenism in 6th century BC" she obviously is not referring to the Hellenistic era that started in the 4th century BC. But the Hellenic culture and identity of the people in the region. 150.140.226.174 ( talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the "ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ Η ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΑΣ" fragment of Strattis (fr. 26-32):
In fr. 28 they are discussing the Macedonian word σφύραινα. The Macedonian answers in rural Greek. We are only positively told that sphuraina is a Macedonian (xmk) word for some fish called κέστρα "hammer" in Athens. The Macedonian speaks funny, but he speaks comprehensible Greek. Which is to be expected in an Athenian play (no subtitles -- even the Persians are forced to speak some comical but comprehensible form of Greek. Much like the stereotypical Nazis or Soviets of Hollywood, which speak funny but comprehensible English). dab (𒁳) 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Πω πω πω, τι βυζάκι είν' αυτό; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Athenian comedies used to make fun of the idioms and the dialects of other Greeks like those of Spartans, Boeoteans and of course Macedonians. Some time in the 5th century BC a comedy entitled "Pausanias or Macedonians" written by the Athenian Strattis was played in Athens. In various parts of this comedy a Macedonian explains how various words of the attic dialect are called in the Macedonian dialect. It can be inferred from these references that Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect. In a work of the ancient writer Athenaios, one can find samples of the work of Strattis. In an article written by A. Koerte quoting Athenaios VII,323b we can find in that comedy of Strattis the following conversation: "STRATTIS GOYN EN MAKEDOSIN EROMENOU TINOS ATTIKOY VS AGNOOYNTOS TO ONOMA KAI LEGONTOS: H SFYRAINA D' ESTI TIS;" FHSIN O ETEROS " KESTRAN MEN YMMES VTTIKOI KIKLHSKETE". In English (as it appeared in the article by M. Sakellariou) an Athenian asks "sledfish, what do you mean?" and a Macedonian replies "wha ye Attics ca' a hammer-fush, ma freen" i.e. in my own words, which I hope do not change the meaning of this phrase "what you Attics call a hammer-fush,(we call a) freen". One can appreciate the value of the Macedonian's reply for the object under discussion if he does not forget that as is clear from many passages in Aristophanes the attic comedians made their non-Greeks speak broken Greek with an a mixture of barbarian words (some of them imaginary) while Lacedaemonians, Boeotians, Macedonians and other Greeks spoke their own dialects. The Macedonian's reply is in good Greek with dialect (ymmes, sfyraina) and archaizing elements (kiklhskete). Both YMMES and SFYRAINA are not attic words but they are Greek. Therefore claims that Athenians "hellenized" Macedonians seem to be baseless. It is also noted that these words were used by the Macedonians some time in the 5th century BC that is at least 50 years before their alleged hellenization.
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"When the ATHENIANS attacked the HELLENES" Thukydides, 3.62;
"And this was the first naval victory that the city (ATHENS) had against the HELLENES, after the destruction." [Plutarch, Phokion 6]
"Even though the LACEDAEMONIANS had combated the HELLENES many times only one of their kings had ever died in action..." [Plutarch, Agis 21]
"The CRETANS, when the HELLENES sent to ask aid from them... acted as follows..." [Herodotos 7.169]
MORE EXAMPLES [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.64.240 ( talk) 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It might be added to the section on ancient references that Plutarch notes that when Alexander got angry, he would start yelling in Macedonian; implying that the two languages (Greek and M.) were different enough that the substitution of the one for the other seemed striking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.123 ( talk • contribs)
I removed some material here ( [6]) and was reverted without a comment. The passages I removed constituted "original research", as they were not attributed to reputable modern secondary sources making these arguments. To the anon who reverted: Please make yourself familiar with the policy about verifiability, and then come here to bring sources if you wish to keep these passages. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is secondary source about Strattis The Fragments of Attic Comedy After Meineke, Bergk, and Kock - Page 823 by John Maxwell Edmonds, and [7] [8] Dialect in Aristophanes: And the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing conclusive offcourse,just an evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
and the secondary source about Polybius is Marcus Alexander Templar [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Polybius suggests that nothing more What about "Attempts to link Macedonian with Thracian and/or Illyrian in various ways are quite incoclusive [12]
Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction - Page 405 by Benjamin W. Fortson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
WHY POLYBIUS QUOTE IS IMPORTANT?
DID THE MACEDONIANS NEED A GREEK TRANSLATOR TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER GREEKS?
IS THERE ANY SUCH SOURCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is already in the article.Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars like H. Ahrens and O. Hoffmann [15]
and we have also a primary source supporting that Macedonians did not speak the same language with Athenians but Aetolians and Acarnanians which are by definition NORTH-WEST,DORIC DIALECTS
and it's not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Secondary Source with the quote of Livy
A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity - Page 435 [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
another secondary source (non-greek) using the quote of Livy regarding the distinction Greeks VS Barbarians [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Athenians were also present in the event but not mentioned as having the same language
Thank you for all the pieces of advice 77.49.0.219 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WHAT IS MORE INTERESTING IS THAT BOTH ACARNANIANS AND AETOLIANS(like Macedonians) HAVE BEEN LABELLED AS BARBARIANS 77.49.0.219 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62
Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78
Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98
Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994
Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996
EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)
North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.
Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.
Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.
Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.
A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.
Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.
The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.
His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.
An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.
It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.
Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.
Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.
Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547
The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.
Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997
Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.
David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995
Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994
the Satyres by Juvenal
Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225
"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284
"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman
Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443
Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423
A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith
Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.
That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients
History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439
Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74
Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.
Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;
Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.
Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Macedonian in Classical sources section, it states:
The late (1st century AD) historian Quintus Curtius suggests that the Macedonian language may not be intelligble to the average speaking person (Hist. Alex. 6.11.4): "He (sc. Philotas) found the country people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia ridiculous, and he was not ashamed, though born in Macedonia, to have an interpreter with him when listening to people speaking his own language."[14]
This section should be removed as the people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia themselves spoke their own strange dialects that any Ancient Greek would have trouble with, let alone a Macedonian. The Phygians and paphlagonians were not as the paragraph suggests, the average speaking person. Here For example is the article on the Phrygian language. Any Greek would struggle to understand these dialects without help so this paragraph should not be here as it has no bearing on the Ancient Macedonian Language or any other. Reaper7 ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The ancient macedonian language has got nothing to do with the ongoing macedonia-Fyrom dispute. I suggest removing the part of the article suggesting it is of "some importance", unless someone can explain the link between the two...here on the talk page, don t edit this as spam because it s not!
why do you delete evidence? why is this article not including the fact that "All of the over 6000 inscriptions found in Macedonia until now are in Greek. [1]"
is there a reason? why you hide evidence like that? if there is not, can you see why we should not put this in there? is anyone here a historian or archaeologist? or anyone consulting one? and why is there not some ancient sources here like there are there: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia ? how can the reader know about ancient Macedonian inscriptions? it must be there. DefendEurope ( talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what period we are talking. Skopje was in ancient Dardanian land and there are no Greek inscriptions of 5th c.BC there. Catalographer ( talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(around Aigai) will discover the whole truth.
"... historic Lychnitis around Ohrid and in Dardania around Skopje in the upper Vardar basin. Among the many tumuli surviving in Pelagonia only Visoi has so far been fully investigated. ..."
"... the Pannonians the Scordisci have an Illyrian name perhaps connected with the mons Scordus or Scardus (Sar planina west of Skopje). ..."
"... Siscia and Sirmium at either end of the Sava valley, Aequum among the Delmatae in Dalmatia and Scupi (Skopje) among the Dardani in Moesia.33 Though its beginnings were marked by atrocity, ..."
"... was a potent symbol, especially among the southern Illyrians. Even in the Roman period altars were dedicated in Dardania (near Skopje) to the serpentine pair Dracon and Dracaena. ..."
"... whose varieties of Romance language are descended from Latin-speaking pastoralists. In Dard- ania the old Roman city of Scupi (Skopje), destroyed by an earthquake in AD 518, was abandoned as its Romanized population chose to remain in the surrounding hills, ... Megistias ( talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
References
I’m not sure what we can make of it but with regards those citations underlining real or perceived political connotations of this language with the (Slavic) Macedonian and the Macedonian (Slavs), here's something that you might find interesting.
Ilyov's invaluable contribution is listed as a "Selected Internet Resource" within the Library of Congress' - Portals of the World, Macedonia as an "Introduction to Macedonian Language", no less! To my knowledge it's being there for at least 3 to 4 years. Notice the complete state of confusion (or is it their attempt to NPOV?) within its "Selected Historical Resources" listing [21]. Have a look around the "portal", you might be surprised what kind of resources the "European Division, Collections and Services Directorate" of the Library of Congress (online) recommends. --05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. The Portal's links are advertised as "Resources Selected by the Library of Congress Subject Experts", while the European Division (European Reading Room) is listed as The Library of Congress >> Especially for Researchers >> Research Centers.
..Let him try Venetic language, Thracian, Phrygian inscriptions, Lemnian language Catalographer ( talk) 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Old European culture precedes Indoeuropeans and XMK is indoeuropean centum , Thracian is indoeuropean satem Catalographer ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) MKD Macedonian shares nearly all the same distinct characteristics which separate Bulgarian from other Slav languages lack of cases, the post-positive definite article, replacement of the infinitive form, and preservation of the simple verbal forms for the past and imperfect tenses-but whether it is truly a different language from Bulgarian or merely a dialect of it is a moot point. Hugh Poulton Page 116 Who Are the Macedonians? Catalographer ( talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Most names for numbers are derived from verbs like count,think,compose,compare,read,divide
1399, from M.Latin cifra, from Arabic sifr "zero," "empty, nothing," from safara "to be empty," loan-transl. of Sanskrit. sunya-s "empty." Came to Europe with Arabic numerals. [26]
According to the above (I quote) "the historical interpretation for Macedonian are:
Therefore I see no clear-cut, non-Greek, "external" attribution as to justify a sub-title as an "Indo-European language external to Greek". The use of "Abstracted" was an attempt to nullify terms as "Independent" or "Separate in order to avoid possible modern-day, political connotations. I admit I was being a tat inventive but went ahead since terms as "Independent", "Palaeo-Balkan" were being tolerated for years. I'm open to any sensible propositions. --07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Not only tolerated as part of the analysis but as a sub-title, as a category, even as a language family in its infobox/tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.118.212 ( talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(und) Spare me the nonsense about being impolite and pseudo-policy quoting, please. "Abstracted IE language close to Greek" then? -- 157.228.118.212 ( talk) 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
These are just scenarios. XMK has its own "agnostic" place. If you want to disagree on the districts where every dialect or language was spoken , you are welcome Catalographer ( talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
has created a monstrosity of a page having 'Macedonian Language' not a disambiguation page but a direct page to a Slavic language (as the article itself admits) but now the ancient Macedonian language is too treated as potentially slavic. This is wikipedia, not the soapbox of the nationalist extremist from F.Y.R.O.M. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This implies, that an alleged Macedonian language other than Greek existed, and that was "gradually replaced" implies that it was replaced by a foreign language in this case (Greek).This is certainly distortion. My edit, that "It evolved into the Koine", was deleted by the Perfect Sunrise, due to his remark, that Macedonian was certainly not an ancestor of the Koine.
From the Koine wiki article:
The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the Hellenistic age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main Ancient Greek dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by Austrian linguist P. Kretschmer in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while the German scholar Wilamowitz and the French linguist Antoine Meillet, based on the intense Attic elements of Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of Ionic.[1] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[1] In that respect, the idioms of Koine spoken in the Ionian colonies of Asia Minor and Cyprus would have more intense Ionic characteristics than others. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as Common Attic.[1]
Certain thing is that the language of the Macedonians during Alexanders Campaign participated in the evolution of the Koine, among the armies of Alexander.
And another fact is that, the current remarks such "gradually replaced" "marginalized", imply a foreign origin of the Macedonian language, which is not even the minority view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.55.180 ( talk • contribs)
"Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion.
Second, the citations, you mention further prove the unfeasability and fallacy of "replacement" by the Koine, because the Attic speakers and the KOine speakers are certainy divided by evolution and not replacement.
Third, if you are willing to argue that theorized XMK(or the Doric idiom found in Pella Curse tablet) was replaced by the Attic, then you will need to provide evidence that, the Attic replaced the XMK by political decree, on the vernacular of the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, since thi article is about the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, and not specific to their nobility.
Fourth, the term "replacement" applies only when there is replacement by political decree, and the replacement is forcible, evolution is more accurate and precise, and on par with majority view.
I have obviously read the literature, and what i say makes much sence. The "replacement" term applies only when there is replacement from X to Y, by agent M. The amjority view agrees that whatever this language might have been, is very related to Greek, and as all other Greek, speech evolves or gets replaced, by political decree.
It does not get replaced by the blening of time, it evolves in the blending of time.
Reagrding your citations, i repeat: The Attic and Koine speakers are certainly replaced by evolution.
The replacement of the X thing that anceint sources refered to as the language of Macedonians, apllies only to the nobility, and not to the Macedonian vernacular. And this article is about the language f the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, not stricty about their nobility.
For a term such "replacement" to be valid, then sources and citations are needed,which would verify that the language of Macedonia, was replaced from X to Y by political decree. Such sources are non-existant, therefore "replacement" is inaccurate and distortive.
You are mistaken dear Sir, "replacement" applies only when there is such a thing, and only when there is a source, verifying it.
Evolve applies when dialects through time evolve to the their common denominator, that being Koine.
This is the Linguist List, and Ancient Macedonian, is classified in the tree Hellenic:
http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG
Also: "Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion, that is bad POV.
This text : "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" is not original research but rather cited [here] [29]:
Someone aware of the wiki system adding citations, please add it, because i am uneducated, on the system.
In addition: "It was probably spoken inland and away from the coast" is also original research, and hence deleted, as well.
Also, see definition of "replace":
"replace implies a filling of a place once occupied by something lost, destroyed, or no longer usable or adequate" [30]
Since in the Linguist List, Ancient Macedonian, belongs to the Hellenic family tree, there can be no "replacement" of X with Y(ie Macedonian to Hellenic), since they are both the same. And if there is replacement, then that is not any different as the Ionic replacing the Doric, which oughts to be made clear. There can be only evolution, from X to X1. There are indsiputable in the same family tree. [31]
In addition, the Linguist List does not write "possibly" Greek, but classifies it as Greek, with the rest Greek languages. This oughts to be clear in the article.
It classifies it among the other dialects that being Attic and Doric, and clearly in the Hellenic family tree, do not delete citated material, and replace them with original research.-- Elampon ( talk) 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC) In addition the Linguist list does not present one opinion, but presents the accepted one. The Linguist List classifies the languages, and not wikipedia administrators. This oughts to be clear.
The original research you defend, present the minority opinion, more than the accepted fact of the Linguist list database. -- Elampon ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me here, why are you deleting citated material and replacing them with original research? -- Elampon ( talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And why are you threatening me with ban, when i have properly citated the edits conducted? -- Elampon ( talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who has violated the three-revert rule, for you have reverted into original reserach by deleting citated material.-- Elampon ( talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I really do not see any serious issue with the previous phrasing at all but I won't go into any length on this one. Anyway(s), the new 'dab text' is cited from the Linguist List, here and a paper by Professor B. Joseph, here. (It would be somewhat clumsy to use in-text citations in a dab note). -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Elampon before disappearing submitted a request for peer-review here. I am not sure if his aim was the improvement of the article's quality or some kind of third party opinion during an edit-warring. In any case, whatever he wanted, this section of WP:GREECE aims not at mediating but at suggesting proposals for the Greece-related articles' improvements. Under these conditions, a peer-review can be useful, and this article's peer-review is still there. I have no problem reviewing it, but I want to know if my review is going to be read by somebody intending to upgrage the article. So, I want to know if the article's editors are interested in this peer-review and in what me or/and other users wnat to suggest. If yes, I'll review it with great happiness. But if my review is not going to be read, there is no reason to do it; I'll just archive the peer-review. Cheers!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello YannisMarou, apologies for my lack of clarity on my request. My experience with wikipedia processes is next to nothing, so i wasnt aware of what would be the appropriate action. The article contains many discrepancies. First of all, the fact that the ISO-standards have recognized the XMK as a member of the Hellenic language family tree, oughts to be made clear in order to avoid the confusion that the article supports, indirectly. The Linguist List is clear on the matter [32] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List [33]
See Description at Linguist List
From this, the text "most likely" related added just recently by 3rdAlcove oughts to be deleted. In addition, the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" is original research, the actual quote is "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" [34] I will kindly wait for your approval before i submit these edits on the article.-- Elampon ( talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter FpAs is that the Academic community has reached a consensus, and this language is no loger debated on whether it was Greek or not, the debate is whether which dialect of Greek was more apparent in Macedonian speech and whether this language deserves a place of its own in the Greek family tree, or whether it is just another Greek dialect. Whatever the case may be, as i said already: The Linguist List is clear on the matter [35] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List [36]
See Description at Linguist List
In addition, since the particular quote that you have been defending constitutes Skopjian propaganda, due to the fact that it infers the existence of another language in juxtaposition to Greek, which even though such a theory has been pronounced by particular circles on the past which is also clear later on the article, the fact of the matter at this very moment is that this theory has been superseded, and since the iso-standards are content with the opposite theory, i do not see why wikipedia should not, and instead opt in its Preface article for a theory that is found in Skopjian nationalist websites [37]
To note, Ulrich Wilken is not a linguist, and his book Alexander the Great was written in 1967. The limited amount of words mentioned refer to the terms found in the Hesychius lexicon, and his words are refuted by a Linguist by the name Otto Hoffman in his book Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum(published 1974), which translates to Makedonians, their Language and their Ethnicity. [38] And i quote:
And now after supervising the ancient Makedonian linguistic thesaurus we are posting the decisive question,if what is adding to the Makedonian language its character,are the Hellenic or the barbarian elements of it,the response can not be of any doubts. From the 39 "languages" that according to Gustav Mayer their form was "completely alien", it has been proven after this research of mine, that 10 of them are clearly Hellenic,with 4 more possibly dialectical forms of common Hellenic words,so from the entire collection are remaining only 15 words appearing to be justifiable or at least suspected of a non-Hellenic origin. Adding to those 15, few others which with regards their vocals could be Hellenic,without till now being confirmed as such,then their number, in comparison to the number of pure Hellenic ones in the Makedonian language, is so small that the general Hellenic character of the Makedonian linguistic treasure cannot be doubted.
So, we have 2 options either opt for a quote in a wikipedia article about Linguistics found in a book about Alexander the Great and written by a Historian, a quote which is currently being used by nationalistic websites to support the existence of a frictional link between modern "Macedonians" and Ancient, or opt for a fact that is a) The mainstream theory accepted by the Iso-Standards, b) that is quoted by a Linguist(Otto Hoffman) and not a Historian, and c) by a Historian as well [39]
FPaS wrote:
"That is most emphatically not the correct conclusion"
That is most emphatically the conclusion adopted by the Iso-standards, and your own POV is used by Skopjian nationalists as seen, from the image above, and quoted in a book from a Historian and not a linguist dated (1967). A variety of Linguists and Historians agree with this conclusion, and whatever the case may be, the ISO-standards have adopted this conclusion. And despite what the uninformed reader should be informed according to your POV, the fact of the matter is that: "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek" is a factual statement. If you have any evidence whatsoever showing otherwise or refuting the sources already posted please do, be my guest and submit them. Until then, my edits, cannot be replaced by the pov of a user. -- Elampon ( talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In his talk page he has failed to illustrate his point and hence his silence(and hence his deleting of my post as well [40]) much like his silence in here. Second, the link from the ISO-Standards is explicitly clear: It accepts the Linguist List position.
See Description at Linguist List
Wikipedia is bound to do the same, whether it is of your liking or not. In addition, i never claimed that it classifies it among the other dialects, and hence the part of the article which goes like this:
"but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly a dialect of Greek; a sibling language to Greek; or a close cousin to Greek, and perhaps related to some extent, to Thracian and Phrygian languages."
Which covers, both FPaS position, my position, and the scholarly position. My edits do not contradict this fact and are not POV as they are clear citations, something that is not the case with FPaS POV-pushing. They simply illuminate the current consensus, as manifested by the Linguist List and the Iso-standards, and are mere quotes from those 2 websites.
The political relevance is illustrated by the nationalist Skopjian websites linked above, which aptly prove that the quotes defended by FPas are used for nationalist purposes, and are POV-pushing. In addition if you were not aware that Skopjian scholars claim it as their own language then you should better be informed: [41], read "Professor" -- Elampon ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The translation of the Rosseta Stone by Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov is proclaimed as fringe theory in Wikipedia. But is it?
Their theory is geting publicity in Russia these days. The authors were invited in
Saint Petersburg to present their work on a conference that among other things dealed with pre-Cyrilic Slavonic literacy. They were also ivited in Slovenia.
To explain, the Rosseta Stone shows three scripts:
Egyptian hieroglyphs,
Demotic and
Ancient Greek. In 2005 the Academy of Macedonian Sciences and Arts published a study "
Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" by the authors Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov. This is a study where they were trying to decipher the
Demotic script with a help of
Macedonian language. The ispiration to connect these languages was by the last line of the deciphered text in Greek that
says: "And this Decree shall be inscribed upon stelae of hard stone, in holy, and in native, and in Greek letters,” and shall be set up in the temples, alongside statues of Ptolemy V." Boševski & Tentov assumed that the native letters were used to write in
Ancient Macedonian language, and they made a deciphering theory in regard to the
Macedonian language.
The authors were having an interview yesterday on the private TV Channel 5 in Republic of Macedonia and I decided to investigate and test their theory as a native speaker of
Macedonian language. I took a Ptolemaic Demotic text from
schillerinstitute.org and I applied their deciphering rules on a word that is
Demotic parallel to the name
Ptolemy in
Egyptian hieroglyphs. I got a translation (ZeCeNeIBeBog₳??? or in Cyrilic:ЗеЦеНеИБоБог????) (the unknown ???? are 4 lines that are not included as letters in the rules, but by the
rules after the three straigt lines that mean God there comes some specific discription of the God even as symbolized hieroglyphs). The most intriguing thing is that ЗеЦеНеИБeБог is very close to СеЦеНет И ПоБог ???? that is translated in English as all respected (praised) and (next to, by, following, preposition for comparative -er) God ????(unknown name)). The text from the
schillerinstitute.org is not included or connected with the study, I found it on a Google Image search, but by Boševski & Tentov rules it gives translation in
Macedonian language on my big surprise. Maybe their theory should not be dissmissed so lightly. It is getting publicity in scientific conferences and it worked on a random
Demotic text, again I will say on my big surprise. (
Toci (
talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
Toci, please give us a break. That "theory" is of the same order as those "decipherments" where some amateur cranks took a perfectly straightforward ancient Greek pottery inscription or floor mosaic and "proved" it was Albanian, or the writings of that lunatic who claims all languages of the world were in reality invented by medieval monks by means of shuffling Basque words around. They are obvious nonsense. The proof of their idiocy is typically that they don't even go to the trouble of assuming some historically plausible ancient form of their desired target language – they happily decipher straight into modern Macedonian/Albanian/Basque/whatever. Have you any idea what the linguistic ancestor of modern Macedonian would have been like, a thousand years before Old Church Slavonic? Do you think Boshevski and Tentov know? I don't, but I'd bet some sum that СеЦеНет И ПоБог would not have been a phrase in it. Now come back when you've found Boshevski and Tentov got their ideas published in a peer-reviewed international journal. That conference in Moscow they attended was apparently hosted by somebody who isn't much better than they. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I love this stuff. Wikipedia truly taught me that you will find some people that will give anything the benefit of doubt, no matter how surreal. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is just one more proof that anything goes on the internet.
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
The truth can only be covered up for so long. Kiki678 ( talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
ok, I changed it from the ambiguous "possibly Greek" to the more solid "related to Greek; degree of affiliation discussed below" that allows all positions to be seen analytically plus it includes the common denominator of all theories no matter how fringe: relation to Greek. Now tell me which one sux less of the 2 and why. CuteHappyBrute ( talk) 07:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the introduction of the article without any significant change in its content, as the previous version had some inaccuracies and I thought it could be rephrased as well. I don't understand why 3rdAlcove has started an edit war without any obvious reason.. Could anyone give his own opinion about the rewording? - Sthenel ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how long this has been in the "varieties of Greek" category, but we've been going in circles here long enough to know that there is no consensus on the question. Yes, there are some scholars that tentatively assume it might have been. They don't claim to be convinced, and they by no means form a majority or mainstream position. There is, in fact, a mainstream position: "unknown". "Paleo-Balkans language" is an undisputed fact. Anything else isn't, and I will oppose this sort of pov-pushing by categorization. -- dab (𒁳) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an excerpt from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages, the most relevant reference work for the issue you could imagine. He has a 1.5-pages section on Ancient Macedonian, in his introduction about sparsely attested languages, in a row with Thracian and Illyrian (no mention of XMK in the chapter on Greek proper). The section starts with the sentence, "North of the Greeks, bracketed by Illyrians and Thracians, lived the Macedonians. Much uncertainty surrounds the linguistic status [...] it remains unlcear if Greek was the native language of the Macedonians". It then reviews some of the primary historical sources mentioning Macedonian (Demosthenes, Plutarch ...), cites Brixhe/Panayotou and Katičić as the relevant state of the art surveys, and finally has a short discussion of the attested lexical material, suggesting that a large number of Macedonian words that look similar to Greek might actually be loanwords from Greek, and that those words that look like genuine cognates that "evolved historically from words occurring in a common parent language, either Proto-Indo-European or, alternatively, some later, intermediate Balkan Indo-European language", point to a status where XMK "departs conspicuously from Greek". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
hey Dbach. you changed the Classification of the
ancient Macedonian language with the argument(?) that as much as xmk is related to ancient Greek, this much is
Tocharian "related to Greek"..
do you believe that? based on what?
(and btw of course
they know about the hypothesis that xmk could be a lang originally not related to Greek or that the Pella tab could be written in the NW Doric Greek dialect-slash-supposed-lingua franca of..that area..)
(outdent): tl;dr. Look, you don't need the OED. There are enough real sources that give enough validity to the Greek hypothesis, so what's your beef? This is merely a matter of what source to use. You want to use a dictionary as a source for a statement of fact. It's unsuitable for that. Dictionaries are not about facts, they are about words. Its editors were chosen for their expertise on English lexicography, not for their understanding of other academic fields. Why use an inferior source when so many better ones are around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A quick summary. OED and Webster conclude to "usually regarded as Greek", OCD -eventhough it examines other views- clearly sides with the Greek dialect school (e.g. Aeolic) but tentatively (see the duck?) concludes to North-West Greek. The Linguist List (LL) groups the tongues together, under a Hellenic name (not accidentally). Facts about the world's major languages: an encyclopaedia of the world's major languages, past and present: if not a Greek dialect then properly seen as a Hellenic tongue. (FYI, B. Joseph noted that "deviant Greek dialect", use in modern literature. I spotted it in an academic mailing list, he used to frequent, when I was lurking around some years back. Deviant but Greek nevertheless). EIEC provides us with JP Mallory's interpretations , all of which are Greek, or related to Greek in one way or another. -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Is this an article for here? http://a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=102393 Could this silence the Greeks proving demagogy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 ( talk) 18:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my God!!!! Yes, yes!! Kάπνισμα 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes what??? Isn't this even older than the Greek language itself? Isn't it worth mentioning? I don't see anything funny, perhaps you can share the joke with us... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 ( talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is too often ignored that Wikipedia can and does in fact cover this sort of thing, at the appropriate locations. In this case, you want Macedonism. Please refer further discussion there. If you review the history of this talkpage, it is clear that 90% of its content isn't in fact linguistic discussion, but nationalistic pov-pushing, as such off topic to this article, which covers a marginal Trümmersprache of the Balkans. We should be more strict in redirecting nationalist prancing around to the relevant articles ( Macedonian nationalism, Greek nationalism etc.) -- dab (𒁳) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are sources and data stating Illyrian or Thracian origin ignored in Wikipedia? Look at the article: "dialect of Greek", "related to Greek" "Hellenic"... they only show the Greek view and this is frankly too often observed. Mactruth ( talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Re. Ninio's edit of the family tree in the infobox:
This seems to imply that: "Proto-Greek" is a sub-unit of "Paleo-Balkan languages", and that "Paleo-Balkan languages" is in turn a sub-unit of "Greek dialects", and that "Greek dialects" is a sub-unit of "Ancient Greek".
This is pretty absurd and certainly not what Ninio meant.
Leaving out "P-B" really leaves us with "Indo-European" as the only secure family information; plus:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That "possibly Greek" in the Infobox doesn't make any sense. Why not just leave it as Indo-European (all further discussion will be in the body of the article)?-- Barbatus 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry this is my first discussion about edits on Wikipedia, I value all the contributions you have all done to this site. But where can I find this "Paleo-Balkan" branch of the Indo-European languages? Are we just inventing branches on Wikipedia to satisfy a minority or unfounded view? Hairamess 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairamess ( talk • contribs)
Hi all, I would just like to contribute that there is no ambiguity upon whether Ancient Macedonian Greek was a Greek Dialect. "possibly Greek" should be just "Greek" or "Greek Dialect", because that's the only truth.
The Pella Curse Tablet dating to the 4th or 3rd century BC was found at the Capital of Macedon, Pella. if that's not Ancient Macedonian, I don't know what is..
I am Greek and I can understand what the script of the Curse is telling. Any seven year old who can read Modern Greek, can read that and translate most of the words from it. it was an Ancient Greek dialect of the many Ancient Greek Dialects. there are other Dialects who are fully recognised as Greek, that are far more difficult for me to translate.
The whole subject is ridiculous for anyone knowing Greek. i can't believe the international community of linguistics doesn't bash un-scientific "theories of ambiguity" brought by enviers and thiefs of History. i guess because the "ambiguity" is so new. the VARDASCAns slavs have no right in history upon anything Greek. your cheap political agenda cannot and won't be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefendEurope ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
78.151.173.120 ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)I suggest that Ancient Macedonian is the branch of Lithuanian language together with Phrygians. Macedonia can be derived from Lithuanian words for 'Manke Duona'=knead bread and Phrygians for 'Parugiai'=people cultivating a rye (from the same word comes and 'pyragai'=cakes). Moreover in Lithuanian language Aleksandras 'A(t)lek(e)s Antras'=born second and Pilypas 'Paliepias'=giving the orders 78.151.173.120 ( talk) 09:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly Greek? That's a joke right? This IS Greek. Correct this ASAP Iaberis ( talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Source http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaberis ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
..Family tree... we have this classification in the article:
"==Classification==
Due to the fragmentary attestation various interpretations are possible. [1] The discussion is closely related to the reconstruction of the Proto-Greek language. The suggested historical interpretations of Macedonian include: [2]
and from all these scenarios the sum-up is "Indo-European, possibly Greek" ? which can mean 1."IE, not Greek", 2."IE, related to Greek" and 3."IE, Greek". isn't that a wrong approach since the 1. scenario does not exist among any of the scholars' proposed classifications? as you can see none of the views excludes the relation to Greek. so the "possibly Greek" is OR. the only sourced family tree is the Linguist List one. and it's the one the international standard ISO 639-3 uses too. I know it's in the language codes sections already but that's a coincidence because sil.org uses it. (which again shows its validity amongst the wider linguist community). so i propose
Ancient Macedonian | |
---|---|
Region | Macedon (extinct language) |
Extinct | absorbed by Attic Greek in the 4th century BC |
Indo-European
| |
Language codes | |
ISO 639-2 |
ine |
ISO 639-3 |
xmk |
what do you propose? do you think "possibly Greek" is a right approach? when no linguist/scholar classifies it like that? 150.140.226.79 ( talk) 01:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |editor=
has generic name (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |editor=
has generic name (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
Hi there, I'm a student of Ancient History at KCL and this article confuses me a little bit, it seems to put forward the proposition that there is currently a widescale scholarly debate occurring as to whether Macedonian was a Greek language or not, or even more absurdly, whether it was a Slavic language! As far as I am aware, there is no such debate, practically every primary and secondary source I have read refers to the Macedonians as speaking a dialect of Greek. I refer to secondary sources as well because if there was such as debate as so many users claim, then surely it would transcend the Republic of Skopje and encompass respected institutions such as Oxford and their professors as well, but it simply doesn't.
Take it from someone who studies Ancient History, call it disputed, but to claim there is an academic dispute other than from Skopjean 'Academia' is patently false, practically every scholar of note considers it to be a Greek dialect.
..and another one: " * Whoever does not consider the Macedonians as Greeks must also conclude that by the 6th and 5th centuries BC the Macedonians had completely given up the original names of their nation - without any need to do so - and taken Greek names in order to demonstrate their admiration for Greek civilization. I think it not worth the trouble to demolish such a notion; for any hypothesis of historical linguists which is put forward without taking into account the actual life of a people, is condemned as it were out of its own mouth." Otto Hoffmann, German linguist, "Die Makedonen, Ihre Sprache und Ihr Volkstum", Göttingen, 1906
and more: "The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all contending that it was a dialect of Greek." "Cambridge Ancient Histories", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.. 150.140.226.207 ( talk) 11:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The Pella curse bit is phrased most misleadingly. The tablet is in Doric/NW Greek. This proves the presence of Greek speakers in Macedon in the 3rd c. BC. The tablet is ostensibly not in XMK, so what does it tell us about XMK, beyond the theoretical possibility that XMK was influenced by Doric/NW Greek from at least the 3rd c.? (We know that it was influenced most severely by Attic from at least the 4th c., so what is new?) The Pella tablet is a red herring. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong dab. The language of the tablet has been considered as the actual, uninfluenced "ancient Macedonian language" itself, and not just a Doric dialect that was spoken along with it. To quote from Olivier Masson:
“Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it [Macedonian] an Aeolic dialect, we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek. This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet which may well be the first ‘Macedonian’ text attested..."
It all comes down to the fact that everything some people take for granted about a "Macedonian language" are nothing but assumptions. Miskin 09:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since everybody agrees that there's no consensus leaning towards the "separate language" view, then how come this article is still called "ancient Macedonian language" and not simply "ancient Macedonian" or something equivalent? Pseudo-neutral editors like Decius/Alexander 007 who had chosen to use Borza as their primary source (a scholar who admits his views are not mainstream) are not around anymore (except maybe ocasionally as anon vandals), so maybe we can reconsider a less contradictory name for the article. Miskin 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Part of the 'Paleobalkan' section reads:
"In 1999, A. Garrett has surmised that Macedonian may at an early stage have been part of a dialect continuum which spanned the ancestor dialects of all south-western Indo-European languages (including Greek), but that it then remained peripheral to later areal processes of convergence which produced Greek proper. He argues that under this perspective sound-change isoglosses such as the deaspiration of voiced stops may be of limited diagnostic value, while ultimately the question of whether Macedonian belongs or does not belong to a genetic union with Greek is moot."
Maybe you should consider to revise this bit. Garrett's paper is treating Macedonian as an outlier of Greek using also a Greek 'dialectological' approach. - Kim (26/3/07, 20:30) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.240.229.65 ( talk) 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-84137
I have added the Britannica video to the Links in view of the fact that Ancient remains that have been discovered inAiani (macedonia) prove that the ancient Macedonian society spoke and wrote in Greek Vladreal 11:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The new is the region of Upper Macedonia
Overturning,once and for all,the common accepted belief that Upper Macedonia was both socially and culturally isolated from the rest of ancient Greece.On the Contrary by the (6)Sixth Century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic,artistic and cultural level Inhabitants of this area lived in well-planned cities and not in nomadic groups depending on farming and animal husbandry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dardanos ( talk • contribs) 13:37, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
150.140.227.78 ( talk) 21:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
..And dab, you like many others confuse the term "Hellenism" with "Hellenistic era". Hellenism means the Hellenic culture as a whole. the Greek culture. Before and after the Hellenistic era. As you can see by this sentence in the [ Britannica video]: "On the contrary, by the 6th century BC Hellenism in Upper Macedonia was already at a high economic, artistic and cultural level". When she says " Hellenism in 6th century BC" she obviously is not referring to the Hellenistic era that started in the 4th century BC. But the Hellenic culture and identity of the people in the region. 150.140.226.174 ( talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the "ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΕΣ Η ΠΑΥΣΑΝΙΑΣ" fragment of Strattis (fr. 26-32):
In fr. 28 they are discussing the Macedonian word σφύραινα. The Macedonian answers in rural Greek. We are only positively told that sphuraina is a Macedonian (xmk) word for some fish called κέστρα "hammer" in Athens. The Macedonian speaks funny, but he speaks comprehensible Greek. Which is to be expected in an Athenian play (no subtitles -- even the Persians are forced to speak some comical but comprehensible form of Greek. Much like the stereotypical Nazis or Soviets of Hollywood, which speak funny but comprehensible English). dab (𒁳) 14:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Πω πω πω, τι βυζάκι είν' αυτό; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Athenian comedies used to make fun of the idioms and the dialects of other Greeks like those of Spartans, Boeoteans and of course Macedonians. Some time in the 5th century BC a comedy entitled "Pausanias or Macedonians" written by the Athenian Strattis was played in Athens. In various parts of this comedy a Macedonian explains how various words of the attic dialect are called in the Macedonian dialect. It can be inferred from these references that Macedonians spoke a Doric Greek dialect. In a work of the ancient writer Athenaios, one can find samples of the work of Strattis. In an article written by A. Koerte quoting Athenaios VII,323b we can find in that comedy of Strattis the following conversation: "STRATTIS GOYN EN MAKEDOSIN EROMENOU TINOS ATTIKOY VS AGNOOYNTOS TO ONOMA KAI LEGONTOS: H SFYRAINA D' ESTI TIS;" FHSIN O ETEROS " KESTRAN MEN YMMES VTTIKOI KIKLHSKETE". In English (as it appeared in the article by M. Sakellariou) an Athenian asks "sledfish, what do you mean?" and a Macedonian replies "wha ye Attics ca' a hammer-fush, ma freen" i.e. in my own words, which I hope do not change the meaning of this phrase "what you Attics call a hammer-fush,(we call a) freen". One can appreciate the value of the Macedonian's reply for the object under discussion if he does not forget that as is clear from many passages in Aristophanes the attic comedians made their non-Greeks speak broken Greek with an a mixture of barbarian words (some of them imaginary) while Lacedaemonians, Boeotians, Macedonians and other Greeks spoke their own dialects. The Macedonian's reply is in good Greek with dialect (ymmes, sfyraina) and archaizing elements (kiklhskete). Both YMMES and SFYRAINA are not attic words but they are Greek. Therefore claims that Athenians "hellenized" Macedonians seem to be baseless. It is also noted that these words were used by the Macedonians some time in the 5th century BC that is at least 50 years before their alleged hellenization.
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"When the ATHENIANS attacked the HELLENES" Thukydides, 3.62;
"And this was the first naval victory that the city (ATHENS) had against the HELLENES, after the destruction." [Plutarch, Phokion 6]
"Even though the LACEDAEMONIANS had combated the HELLENES many times only one of their kings had ever died in action..." [Plutarch, Agis 21]
"The CRETANS, when the HELLENES sent to ask aid from them... acted as follows..." [Herodotos 7.169]
MORE EXAMPLES [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.64.240 ( talk) 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It might be added to the section on ancient references that Plutarch notes that when Alexander got angry, he would start yelling in Macedonian; implying that the two languages (Greek and M.) were different enough that the substitution of the one for the other seemed striking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.123 ( talk • contribs)
I removed some material here ( [6]) and was reverted without a comment. The passages I removed constituted "original research", as they were not attributed to reputable modern secondary sources making these arguments. To the anon who reverted: Please make yourself familiar with the policy about verifiability, and then come here to bring sources if you wish to keep these passages. Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is secondary source about Strattis The Fragments of Attic Comedy After Meineke, Bergk, and Kock - Page 823 by John Maxwell Edmonds, and [7] [8] Dialect in Aristophanes: And the Politics of Language in Ancient Greek [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Nothing conclusive offcourse,just an evidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
and the secondary source about Polybius is Marcus Alexander Templar [10] [11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Polybius suggests that nothing more What about "Attempts to link Macedonian with Thracian and/or Illyrian in various ways are quite incoclusive [12]
Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction - Page 405 by Benjamin W. Fortson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 12:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
WHY POLYBIUS QUOTE IS IMPORTANT?
DID THE MACEDONIANS NEED A GREEK TRANSLATOR TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER GREEKS?
IS THERE ANY SUCH SOURCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 13:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It is already in the article.Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars like H. Ahrens and O. Hoffmann [15]
and we have also a primary source supporting that Macedonians did not speak the same language with Athenians but Aetolians and Acarnanians which are by definition NORTH-WEST,DORIC DIALECTS
and it's not the only one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 09:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Secondary Source with the quote of Livy
A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity - Page 435 [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 09:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
another secondary source (non-greek) using the quote of Livy regarding the distinction Greeks VS Barbarians [18] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.0.219 ( talk) 10:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Athenians were also present in the event but not mentioned as having the same language
Thank you for all the pieces of advice 77.49.0.219 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
WHAT IS MORE INTERESTING IS THAT BOTH ACARNANIANS AND AETOLIANS(like Macedonians) HAVE BEEN LABELLED AS BARBARIANS 77.49.0.219 15:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62
Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78
Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98
Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994
Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996
EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)
North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.
Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.
Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.
Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.
A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.
Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.
The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.
His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.
An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.
It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.
Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.
Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.
Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547
The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.
Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997
Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.
David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995
Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994
the Satyres by Juvenal
Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225
"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284
"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman
Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443
Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423
A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith
Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.
That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients
History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439
Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74
Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.
Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus
Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;
Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.
Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megistias ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the Macedonian in Classical sources section, it states:
The late (1st century AD) historian Quintus Curtius suggests that the Macedonian language may not be intelligble to the average speaking person (Hist. Alex. 6.11.4): "He (sc. Philotas) found the country people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia ridiculous, and he was not ashamed, though born in Macedonia, to have an interpreter with him when listening to people speaking his own language."[14]
This section should be removed as the people of Phrygia and Paphlagonia themselves spoke their own strange dialects that any Ancient Greek would have trouble with, let alone a Macedonian. The Phygians and paphlagonians were not as the paragraph suggests, the average speaking person. Here For example is the article on the Phrygian language. Any Greek would struggle to understand these dialects without help so this paragraph should not be here as it has no bearing on the Ancient Macedonian Language or any other. Reaper7 ( talk) 16:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The ancient macedonian language has got nothing to do with the ongoing macedonia-Fyrom dispute. I suggest removing the part of the article suggesting it is of "some importance", unless someone can explain the link between the two...here on the talk page, don t edit this as spam because it s not!
why do you delete evidence? why is this article not including the fact that "All of the over 6000 inscriptions found in Macedonia until now are in Greek. [1]"
is there a reason? why you hide evidence like that? if there is not, can you see why we should not put this in there? is anyone here a historian or archaeologist? or anyone consulting one? and why is there not some ancient sources here like there are there: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Macedonia ? how can the reader know about ancient Macedonian inscriptions? it must be there. DefendEurope ( talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It depends on what period we are talking. Skopje was in ancient Dardanian land and there are no Greek inscriptions of 5th c.BC there. Catalographer ( talk) 06:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(around Aigai) will discover the whole truth.
"... historic Lychnitis around Ohrid and in Dardania around Skopje in the upper Vardar basin. Among the many tumuli surviving in Pelagonia only Visoi has so far been fully investigated. ..."
"... the Pannonians the Scordisci have an Illyrian name perhaps connected with the mons Scordus or Scardus (Sar planina west of Skopje). ..."
"... Siscia and Sirmium at either end of the Sava valley, Aequum among the Delmatae in Dalmatia and Scupi (Skopje) among the Dardani in Moesia.33 Though its beginnings were marked by atrocity, ..."
"... was a potent symbol, especially among the southern Illyrians. Even in the Roman period altars were dedicated in Dardania (near Skopje) to the serpentine pair Dracon and Dracaena. ..."
"... whose varieties of Romance language are descended from Latin-speaking pastoralists. In Dard- ania the old Roman city of Scupi (Skopje), destroyed by an earthquake in AD 518, was abandoned as its Romanized population chose to remain in the surrounding hills, ... Megistias ( talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
References
I’m not sure what we can make of it but with regards those citations underlining real or perceived political connotations of this language with the (Slavic) Macedonian and the Macedonian (Slavs), here's something that you might find interesting.
Ilyov's invaluable contribution is listed as a "Selected Internet Resource" within the Library of Congress' - Portals of the World, Macedonia as an "Introduction to Macedonian Language", no less! To my knowledge it's being there for at least 3 to 4 years. Notice the complete state of confusion (or is it their attempt to NPOV?) within its "Selected Historical Resources" listing [21]. Have a look around the "portal", you might be surprised what kind of resources the "European Division, Collections and Services Directorate" of the Library of Congress (online) recommends. --05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. The Portal's links are advertised as "Resources Selected by the Library of Congress Subject Experts", while the European Division (European Reading Room) is listed as The Library of Congress >> Especially for Researchers >> Research Centers.
..Let him try Venetic language, Thracian, Phrygian inscriptions, Lemnian language Catalographer ( talk) 12:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Old European culture precedes Indoeuropeans and XMK is indoeuropean centum , Thracian is indoeuropean satem Catalographer ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) MKD Macedonian shares nearly all the same distinct characteristics which separate Bulgarian from other Slav languages lack of cases, the post-positive definite article, replacement of the infinitive form, and preservation of the simple verbal forms for the past and imperfect tenses-but whether it is truly a different language from Bulgarian or merely a dialect of it is a moot point. Hugh Poulton Page 116 Who Are the Macedonians? Catalographer ( talk) 21:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Most names for numbers are derived from verbs like count,think,compose,compare,read,divide
1399, from M.Latin cifra, from Arabic sifr "zero," "empty, nothing," from safara "to be empty," loan-transl. of Sanskrit. sunya-s "empty." Came to Europe with Arabic numerals. [26]
According to the above (I quote) "the historical interpretation for Macedonian are:
Therefore I see no clear-cut, non-Greek, "external" attribution as to justify a sub-title as an "Indo-European language external to Greek". The use of "Abstracted" was an attempt to nullify terms as "Independent" or "Separate in order to avoid possible modern-day, political connotations. I admit I was being a tat inventive but went ahead since terms as "Independent", "Palaeo-Balkan" were being tolerated for years. I'm open to any sensible propositions. --07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Not only tolerated as part of the analysis but as a sub-title, as a category, even as a language family in its infobox/tree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.228.118.212 ( talk) 07:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(und) Spare me the nonsense about being impolite and pseudo-policy quoting, please. "Abstracted IE language close to Greek" then? -- 157.228.118.212 ( talk) 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
These are just scenarios. XMK has its own "agnostic" place. If you want to disagree on the districts where every dialect or language was spoken , you are welcome Catalographer ( talk) 06:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
has created a monstrosity of a page having 'Macedonian Language' not a disambiguation page but a direct page to a Slavic language (as the article itself admits) but now the ancient Macedonian language is too treated as potentially slavic. This is wikipedia, not the soapbox of the nationalist extremist from F.Y.R.O.M. -- Leladax ( talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This implies, that an alleged Macedonian language other than Greek existed, and that was "gradually replaced" implies that it was replaced by a foreign language in this case (Greek).This is certainly distortion. My edit, that "It evolved into the Koine", was deleted by the Perfect Sunrise, due to his remark, that Macedonian was certainly not an ancestor of the Koine.
From the Koine wiki article:
The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the Hellenistic age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main Ancient Greek dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by Austrian linguist P. Kretschmer in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while the German scholar Wilamowitz and the French linguist Antoine Meillet, based on the intense Attic elements of Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of Ionic.[1] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[1] In that respect, the idioms of Koine spoken in the Ionian colonies of Asia Minor and Cyprus would have more intense Ionic characteristics than others. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as Common Attic.[1]
Certain thing is that the language of the Macedonians during Alexanders Campaign participated in the evolution of the Koine, among the armies of Alexander.
And another fact is that, the current remarks such "gradually replaced" "marginalized", imply a foreign origin of the Macedonian language, which is not even the minority view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.55.180 ( talk • contribs)
"Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion.
Second, the citations, you mention further prove the unfeasability and fallacy of "replacement" by the Koine, because the Attic speakers and the KOine speakers are certainy divided by evolution and not replacement.
Third, if you are willing to argue that theorized XMK(or the Doric idiom found in Pella Curse tablet) was replaced by the Attic, then you will need to provide evidence that, the Attic replaced the XMK by political decree, on the vernacular of the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, since thi article is about the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, and not specific to their nobility.
Fourth, the term "replacement" applies only when there is replacement by political decree, and the replacement is forcible, evolution is more accurate and precise, and on par with majority view.
I have obviously read the literature, and what i say makes much sence. The "replacement" term applies only when there is replacement from X to Y, by agent M. The amjority view agrees that whatever this language might have been, is very related to Greek, and as all other Greek, speech evolves or gets replaced, by political decree.
It does not get replaced by the blening of time, it evolves in the blending of time.
Reagrding your citations, i repeat: The Attic and Koine speakers are certainly replaced by evolution.
The replacement of the X thing that anceint sources refered to as the language of Macedonians, apllies only to the nobility, and not to the Macedonian vernacular. And this article is about the language f the Ancient Macedonians as a whole, not stricty about their nobility.
For a term such "replacement" to be valid, then sources and citations are needed,which would verify that the language of Macedonia, was replaced from X to Y by political decree. Such sources are non-existant, therefore "replacement" is inaccurate and distortive.
You are mistaken dear Sir, "replacement" applies only when there is such a thing, and only when there is a source, verifying it.
Evolve applies when dialects through time evolve to the their common denominator, that being Koine.
This is the Linguist List, and Ancient Macedonian, is classified in the tree Hellenic:
http://linguistlist.org/forms/langs/get-familyid.cfm?CFTREEITEMKEY=IEG
Also: "Knowledge of the language being limited", implies that there is another language and that knowldge of it exists be it limited. Obviously a major distortion, that is bad POV.
This text : "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" is not original research but rather cited [here] [29]:
Someone aware of the wiki system adding citations, please add it, because i am uneducated, on the system.
In addition: "It was probably spoken inland and away from the coast" is also original research, and hence deleted, as well.
Also, see definition of "replace":
"replace implies a filling of a place once occupied by something lost, destroyed, or no longer usable or adequate" [30]
Since in the Linguist List, Ancient Macedonian, belongs to the Hellenic family tree, there can be no "replacement" of X with Y(ie Macedonian to Hellenic), since they are both the same. And if there is replacement, then that is not any different as the Ionic replacing the Doric, which oughts to be made clear. There can be only evolution, from X to X1. There are indsiputable in the same family tree. [31]
In addition, the Linguist List does not write "possibly" Greek, but classifies it as Greek, with the rest Greek languages. This oughts to be clear in the article.
It classifies it among the other dialects that being Attic and Doric, and clearly in the Hellenic family tree, do not delete citated material, and replace them with original research.-- Elampon ( talk) 12:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC) In addition the Linguist list does not present one opinion, but presents the accepted one. The Linguist List classifies the languages, and not wikipedia administrators. This oughts to be clear.
The original research you defend, present the minority opinion, more than the accepted fact of the Linguist list database. -- Elampon ( talk) 12:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me here, why are you deleting citated material and replacing them with original research? -- Elampon ( talk) 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
And why are you threatening me with ban, when i have properly citated the edits conducted? -- Elampon ( talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who has violated the three-revert rule, for you have reverted into original reserach by deleting citated material.-- Elampon ( talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I really do not see any serious issue with the previous phrasing at all but I won't go into any length on this one. Anyway(s), the new 'dab text' is cited from the Linguist List, here and a paper by Professor B. Joseph, here. (It would be somewhat clumsy to use in-text citations in a dab note). -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Elampon before disappearing submitted a request for peer-review here. I am not sure if his aim was the improvement of the article's quality or some kind of third party opinion during an edit-warring. In any case, whatever he wanted, this section of WP:GREECE aims not at mediating but at suggesting proposals for the Greece-related articles' improvements. Under these conditions, a peer-review can be useful, and this article's peer-review is still there. I have no problem reviewing it, but I want to know if my review is going to be read by somebody intending to upgrage the article. So, I want to know if the article's editors are interested in this peer-review and in what me or/and other users wnat to suggest. If yes, I'll review it with great happiness. But if my review is not going to be read, there is no reason to do it; I'll just archive the peer-review. Cheers!-- Yannismarou ( talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello YannisMarou, apologies for my lack of clarity on my request. My experience with wikipedia processes is next to nothing, so i wasnt aware of what would be the appropriate action. The article contains many discrepancies. First of all, the fact that the ISO-standards have recognized the XMK as a member of the Hellenic language family tree, oughts to be made clear in order to avoid the confusion that the article supports, indirectly. The Linguist List is clear on the matter [32] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List [33]
See Description at Linguist List
From this, the text "most likely" related added just recently by 3rdAlcove oughts to be deleted. In addition, the text "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language" is original research, the actual quote is "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author, in a language other than Greek" [34] I will kindly wait for your approval before i submit these edits on the article.-- Elampon ( talk) 15:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact of the matter FpAs is that the Academic community has reached a consensus, and this language is no loger debated on whether it was Greek or not, the debate is whether which dialect of Greek was more apparent in Macedonian speech and whether this language deserves a place of its own in the Greek family tree, or whether it is just another Greek dialect. Whatever the case may be, as i said already: The Linguist List is clear on the matter [35] and the Iso-Standards are clear on the Linguist List [36]
See Description at Linguist List
In addition, since the particular quote that you have been defending constitutes Skopjian propaganda, due to the fact that it infers the existence of another language in juxtaposition to Greek, which even though such a theory has been pronounced by particular circles on the past which is also clear later on the article, the fact of the matter at this very moment is that this theory has been superseded, and since the iso-standards are content with the opposite theory, i do not see why wikipedia should not, and instead opt in its Preface article for a theory that is found in Skopjian nationalist websites [37]
To note, Ulrich Wilken is not a linguist, and his book Alexander the Great was written in 1967. The limited amount of words mentioned refer to the terms found in the Hesychius lexicon, and his words are refuted by a Linguist by the name Otto Hoffman in his book Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihr Volkstum(published 1974), which translates to Makedonians, their Language and their Ethnicity. [38] And i quote:
And now after supervising the ancient Makedonian linguistic thesaurus we are posting the decisive question,if what is adding to the Makedonian language its character,are the Hellenic or the barbarian elements of it,the response can not be of any doubts. From the 39 "languages" that according to Gustav Mayer their form was "completely alien", it has been proven after this research of mine, that 10 of them are clearly Hellenic,with 4 more possibly dialectical forms of common Hellenic words,so from the entire collection are remaining only 15 words appearing to be justifiable or at least suspected of a non-Hellenic origin. Adding to those 15, few others which with regards their vocals could be Hellenic,without till now being confirmed as such,then their number, in comparison to the number of pure Hellenic ones in the Makedonian language, is so small that the general Hellenic character of the Makedonian linguistic treasure cannot be doubted.
So, we have 2 options either opt for a quote in a wikipedia article about Linguistics found in a book about Alexander the Great and written by a Historian, a quote which is currently being used by nationalistic websites to support the existence of a frictional link between modern "Macedonians" and Ancient, or opt for a fact that is a) The mainstream theory accepted by the Iso-Standards, b) that is quoted by a Linguist(Otto Hoffman) and not a Historian, and c) by a Historian as well [39]
FPaS wrote:
"That is most emphatically not the correct conclusion"
That is most emphatically the conclusion adopted by the Iso-standards, and your own POV is used by Skopjian nationalists as seen, from the image above, and quoted in a book from a Historian and not a linguist dated (1967). A variety of Linguists and Historians agree with this conclusion, and whatever the case may be, the ISO-standards have adopted this conclusion. And despite what the uninformed reader should be informed according to your POV, the fact of the matter is that: "There is no text from Macedonia or by a Macedonian author in a language other than Greek" is a factual statement. If you have any evidence whatsoever showing otherwise or refuting the sources already posted please do, be my guest and submit them. Until then, my edits, cannot be replaced by the pov of a user. -- Elampon ( talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In his talk page he has failed to illustrate his point and hence his silence(and hence his deleting of my post as well [40]) much like his silence in here. Second, the link from the ISO-Standards is explicitly clear: It accepts the Linguist List position.
See Description at Linguist List
Wikipedia is bound to do the same, whether it is of your liking or not. In addition, i never claimed that it classifies it among the other dialects, and hence the part of the article which goes like this:
"but its exact relationship is unclear: possibly a dialect of Greek; a sibling language to Greek; or a close cousin to Greek, and perhaps related to some extent, to Thracian and Phrygian languages."
Which covers, both FPaS position, my position, and the scholarly position. My edits do not contradict this fact and are not POV as they are clear citations, something that is not the case with FPaS POV-pushing. They simply illuminate the current consensus, as manifested by the Linguist List and the Iso-standards, and are mere quotes from those 2 websites.
The political relevance is illustrated by the nationalist Skopjian websites linked above, which aptly prove that the quotes defended by FPas are used for nationalist purposes, and are POV-pushing. In addition if you were not aware that Skopjian scholars claim it as their own language then you should better be informed: [41], read "Professor" -- Elampon ( talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The translation of the Rosseta Stone by Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov is proclaimed as fringe theory in Wikipedia. But is it?
Their theory is geting publicity in Russia these days. The authors were invited in
Saint Petersburg to present their work on a conference that among other things dealed with pre-Cyrilic Slavonic literacy. They were also ivited in Slovenia.
To explain, the Rosseta Stone shows three scripts:
Egyptian hieroglyphs,
Demotic and
Ancient Greek. In 2005 the Academy of Macedonian Sciences and Arts published a study "
Tracing the Script and the Language of the Ancient Macedonians" by the authors Tome Boševski & Aristotel Tentov. This is a study where they were trying to decipher the
Demotic script with a help of
Macedonian language. The ispiration to connect these languages was by the last line of the deciphered text in Greek that
says: "And this Decree shall be inscribed upon stelae of hard stone, in holy, and in native, and in Greek letters,” and shall be set up in the temples, alongside statues of Ptolemy V." Boševski & Tentov assumed that the native letters were used to write in
Ancient Macedonian language, and they made a deciphering theory in regard to the
Macedonian language.
The authors were having an interview yesterday on the private TV Channel 5 in Republic of Macedonia and I decided to investigate and test their theory as a native speaker of
Macedonian language. I took a Ptolemaic Demotic text from
schillerinstitute.org and I applied their deciphering rules on a word that is
Demotic parallel to the name
Ptolemy in
Egyptian hieroglyphs. I got a translation (ZeCeNeIBeBog₳??? or in Cyrilic:ЗеЦеНеИБоБог????) (the unknown ???? are 4 lines that are not included as letters in the rules, but by the
rules after the three straigt lines that mean God there comes some specific discription of the God even as symbolized hieroglyphs). The most intriguing thing is that ЗеЦеНеИБeБог is very close to СеЦеНет И ПоБог ???? that is translated in English as all respected (praised) and (next to, by, following, preposition for comparative -er) God ????(unknown name)). The text from the
schillerinstitute.org is not included or connected with the study, I found it on a Google Image search, but by Boševski & Tentov rules it gives translation in
Macedonian language on my big surprise. Maybe their theory should not be dissmissed so lightly. It is getting publicity in scientific conferences and it worked on a random
Demotic text, again I will say on my big surprise. (
Toci (
talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC))
Toci, please give us a break. That "theory" is of the same order as those "decipherments" where some amateur cranks took a perfectly straightforward ancient Greek pottery inscription or floor mosaic and "proved" it was Albanian, or the writings of that lunatic who claims all languages of the world were in reality invented by medieval monks by means of shuffling Basque words around. They are obvious nonsense. The proof of their idiocy is typically that they don't even go to the trouble of assuming some historically plausible ancient form of their desired target language – they happily decipher straight into modern Macedonian/Albanian/Basque/whatever. Have you any idea what the linguistic ancestor of modern Macedonian would have been like, a thousand years before Old Church Slavonic? Do you think Boshevski and Tentov know? I don't, but I'd bet some sum that СеЦеНет И ПоБог would not have been a phrase in it. Now come back when you've found Boshevski and Tentov got their ideas published in a peer-reviewed international journal. That conference in Moscow they attended was apparently hosted by somebody who isn't much better than they. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I love this stuff. Wikipedia truly taught me that you will find some people that will give anything the benefit of doubt, no matter how surreal. dab (𒁳) 20:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is just one more proof that anything goes on the internet.
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
The truth can only be covered up for so long. Kiki678 ( talk) 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The Macedonian language has nothing to do with the Greek language let alone to be called a Greek dialect. Any intellectual will tell you who Greeks are. They are the masters at erasing historical facts and adapting foreign customs/culture to claim as their own. That was and is their only way to survive because they never did nor will have a culture that is worthy of the Macedonian culture. Macedonia the land, the language, the culture and its people do not have anything to do with these philistinian barbarian bandits. The facts lie in the countless history books, statues, emblems, and ruins in various places of the world.
ok, I changed it from the ambiguous "possibly Greek" to the more solid "related to Greek; degree of affiliation discussed below" that allows all positions to be seen analytically plus it includes the common denominator of all theories no matter how fringe: relation to Greek. Now tell me which one sux less of the 2 and why. CuteHappyBrute ( talk) 07:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I reworded the introduction of the article without any significant change in its content, as the previous version had some inaccuracies and I thought it could be rephrased as well. I don't understand why 3rdAlcove has started an edit war without any obvious reason.. Could anyone give his own opinion about the rewording? - Sthenel ( talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how long this has been in the "varieties of Greek" category, but we've been going in circles here long enough to know that there is no consensus on the question. Yes, there are some scholars that tentatively assume it might have been. They don't claim to be convinced, and they by no means form a majority or mainstream position. There is, in fact, a mainstream position: "unknown". "Paleo-Balkans language" is an undisputed fact. Anything else isn't, and I will oppose this sort of pov-pushing by categorization. -- dab (𒁳) 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's an excerpt from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Ancient Languages, the most relevant reference work for the issue you could imagine. He has a 1.5-pages section on Ancient Macedonian, in his introduction about sparsely attested languages, in a row with Thracian and Illyrian (no mention of XMK in the chapter on Greek proper). The section starts with the sentence, "North of the Greeks, bracketed by Illyrians and Thracians, lived the Macedonians. Much uncertainty surrounds the linguistic status [...] it remains unlcear if Greek was the native language of the Macedonians". It then reviews some of the primary historical sources mentioning Macedonian (Demosthenes, Plutarch ...), cites Brixhe/Panayotou and Katičić as the relevant state of the art surveys, and finally has a short discussion of the attested lexical material, suggesting that a large number of Macedonian words that look similar to Greek might actually be loanwords from Greek, and that those words that look like genuine cognates that "evolved historically from words occurring in a common parent language, either Proto-Indo-European or, alternatively, some later, intermediate Balkan Indo-European language", point to a status where XMK "departs conspicuously from Greek". Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
hey Dbach. you changed the Classification of the
ancient Macedonian language with the argument(?) that as much as xmk is related to ancient Greek, this much is
Tocharian "related to Greek"..
do you believe that? based on what?
(and btw of course
they know about the hypothesis that xmk could be a lang originally not related to Greek or that the Pella tab could be written in the NW Doric Greek dialect-slash-supposed-lingua franca of..that area..)
(outdent): tl;dr. Look, you don't need the OED. There are enough real sources that give enough validity to the Greek hypothesis, so what's your beef? This is merely a matter of what source to use. You want to use a dictionary as a source for a statement of fact. It's unsuitable for that. Dictionaries are not about facts, they are about words. Its editors were chosen for their expertise on English lexicography, not for their understanding of other academic fields. Why use an inferior source when so many better ones are around? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A quick summary. OED and Webster conclude to "usually regarded as Greek", OCD -eventhough it examines other views- clearly sides with the Greek dialect school (e.g. Aeolic) but tentatively (see the duck?) concludes to North-West Greek. The Linguist List (LL) groups the tongues together, under a Hellenic name (not accidentally). Facts about the world's major languages: an encyclopaedia of the world's major languages, past and present: if not a Greek dialect then properly seen as a Hellenic tongue. (FYI, B. Joseph noted that "deviant Greek dialect", use in modern literature. I spotted it in an academic mailing list, he used to frequent, when I was lurking around some years back. Deviant but Greek nevertheless). EIEC provides us with JP Mallory's interpretations , all of which are Greek, or related to Greek in one way or another. -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Is this an article for here? http://a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx?VestID=102393 Could this silence the Greeks proving demagogy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 ( talk) 18:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, my God!!!! Yes, yes!! Kάπνισμα 09:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes what??? Isn't this even older than the Greek language itself? Isn't it worth mentioning? I don't see anything funny, perhaps you can share the joke with us... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.7.4 ( talk) 17:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is too often ignored that Wikipedia can and does in fact cover this sort of thing, at the appropriate locations. In this case, you want Macedonism. Please refer further discussion there. If you review the history of this talkpage, it is clear that 90% of its content isn't in fact linguistic discussion, but nationalistic pov-pushing, as such off topic to this article, which covers a marginal Trümmersprache of the Balkans. We should be more strict in redirecting nationalist prancing around to the relevant articles ( Macedonian nationalism, Greek nationalism etc.) -- dab (𒁳) 10:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Why are sources and data stating Illyrian or Thracian origin ignored in Wikipedia? Look at the article: "dialect of Greek", "related to Greek" "Hellenic"... they only show the Greek view and this is frankly too often observed. Mactruth ( talk) 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)