![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You seem to dislike my wording, could you explain what's wrong with it? It clearly says that it represents a point of view (the dominant one, but still a point of view indeed), something that has not been done in the Macedonian dialects articles. Compare
to
The difference? My wording isn't binding, it clearly states it represents the Bulgarian view, while the Macedonian wording misleads the reader that the Macedonian view is the only one.
So, unless such detailed explanations are added to the Dialects of the Macedonian language and a consensus is reached, those will not be tolerated here, especially because they serve no reasonable purpose. Todor → Bozhinov 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
*shrug* Todor → Bozhinov 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Firefly322 ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a few short sentences below.
I started to write this section but later saw that most of this material already exists in the article History of the Bulgarian language. So I will try to move details there and leave here only things pertinent to dialects and their formation. -- Lantonov ( talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The most characteristic feature of Radojda-Vevcani dialect (Radojda, Vevcani, Mali Vlay and Lin (in Albania) is the substitution of OBg ѫ, ъ with the Yat vowel. After non-labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ʲæ/ (as is its probable pronunciation in OBg): г/ʲæ/жва, гн/ʲæ/с, гр/ʲæ/ди, вн/ʲæ/тре, д/ʲæ/га, й/ʲæ/же (въже), й/ʲæ/дица (въдица), к/ʲæ/тник, р/ʲæ/ка, ск/ʲæ/по, д/ʲæ/п, з/ʲæ/би, с/ʲæ/бота; с/ʲæ/нце (слънце), г/ʲæ/лтат; г/ʲæ/рне, к/ʲæ/рф, з/ʲæ/рно, с/ʲæ/рп, с/ʲæ/рце, т/ʲæ/рн etc. After labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ɶ/: м/ɶ/ш, п/ɶ/т, л/ɶ/ка, д/ɶ/п, з/ɶ/би, пр/ɶ/т, б/ɶ/рго, п/ɶ/рво, в/ɶ/рба, м/ɶ/ртоф, в/ɶ/лк, п/ɶ/лно, в/ɶ/лна, м/ɶ/лчит, ж/ɶ/лчка, г/ɶ/лтат etc. This feature is the same as in the Eastern Bulgarian dialects in Teteven and Pomorie regions. -- Lantonov ( talk) 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hahah, so we have agreed that Greater Serbia maps from 1918 which list the entire population of Kyustendil, Berkovitsa, Lom, Breznik, Radomir and Tran as Serbian are bullshit? :) Mate, this is a Serbian jingoist map not only in the respect it backs Macedonism but also in the way it underlines Serbian domination in Yugoslavia itself. Just look at the region of Kosovo and its "Serbian" population, half of Croatia is listed as Orthodox, the Bosniaks are isolated islands and the notation of the Greek population in Thrace is laughable, as is the overestimate of Turkish population in Bulgaria.
And what I kept for dessert: Cvijić has coloured southeastern Macedonia as ethnic "Slavic Macedonian", but Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo are Serbian-coloured. Are you Serbian, PMK1? :)
This is clearly a propaganda map promoting the idea of Greater Serbia as the dominant nation in the Balkans. It has no place anywhere in an encyclopedia, except for articles about Serbian propaganda itself. Todor → Bozhinov 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Lantonov ( talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As it turned out they did not win independence then. They belonged to Serbia for 80 years. The real independence for them happened in 1991 and they were (and are) willing to keep it by all means: fair and unfair. If needs be they will steal history, language, flags, symbols, names, whatever. It doesn't matter as long as they belong to an independent MACEDONIAN nation, speak MACEDONIAN language, have MACEDONIAN flag, have ancient MACEDONIAN history, and their state is called MACEDONIA with nothing taken and nothing added. All around them we perceive this false nationalism as malignant with a tendency to metastase in other countries. And when it was used by the Serbian Yugocommunism as a weapon against other nationalities the Macedonian nationalism reached the point of no return. Now even Serbs balk at the monster that they created and raised. -- Lantonov ( talk) 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It is nice to know what User: Todor Bozhinov really thinks. Anyway i would rather be these people over these any day!. LOL take a joke people. Anyway im not from these regions;Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo anyway! Who is to say i would rather be serb than bulgarian? Maybe i am actually a gypsy or vlach. Like it is completely relevant. PMK1 ( talk) 09:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors here, this page has turned into an article which has been written directly in Sofia. If anyone can actually be bothered to read it, it gives a very biased and offensive veiw of the Macedonian language. The numerous references to the Macedonian dialects as merely West Bulgarian dialects is derogatory. If the main contributors here (you know who you are) do not bring a NPOV here then some drastic changes will need to be made. PMK1 ( talk) 11:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed sources allegedly supporting the statement that "many non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis.":
Footnotes 57-60 have no quotation to back them up. Given the hit-and-miss rate among the other footnotes, I feel it's safer to remove these two, until substantiation is provided that they at least say what is claimed.
Also:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this was the next sentence I was asking for: "... but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence." – So, right. You have a source that explicitly states that "most scholars" accept it, and you use this source to support the claim that "many scholars" do the exact opposite. Not a good idea.
BTW, I haven't been able to find out much about this author, Henninger. He seems to be quoted almost exclusively by people (mis-)using his work for Bulgarian-Macedonian polemics on the web. And his name keeps getting misspelled in the process. I've seen "Henninger, T", "Henninger, J.", or "Henniger, J." Apparently though, "Thomas Henninger" is correct. Interestingly, in the second edition of the Encyclopedia, his article got replaced by two new ones, separate for the two languages, with the Macedonian entry written by the ubiquitous Friedman.
Have you got the original print edition? I'm curious if it really has those scare quotes in the title. It isn't cited like that in the official table of contents on the publisher's web site, and the text you posted here seems to have reproduced a couple of little errors of transmission also found in various mirrored versions (along with the erroeous rendering of the author's name) on various polemic nationalist websites, so I assume you may have copied it from one of them?
Also, assuming the guy is probably German, he seems to be victim to a typical little false-friend lapse in his English when he speaks of "from a purely linguistic perspective". As if the existence of a separate standard language was not also a "linguistic" fact. What he means to say is "from a purely structural perspective". But anyway.
As for the other guy being "partisan", well, of course he is. His text belongs in the well-established academic genre of the polemic. Which is fine, of course. Nothing wrong with writing a polemic from time to time. As for "All the sources that you deleted fully support the text": Well, I showed you how they didn't. You were claiming many authors "do not accept the codification". The codification happened in 1944, right? Several of the works you quoted were written before 1944, right? How can a work reject an event that hasn't even happened yet?
I doubt every source you give? Well, yeah, after what I've seen, I do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Henninger: "From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. Indeed, Bulgarian scholars reject Macedonian as an individual language, but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence."
This article (mine): "After the codification of Standard Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of two southwestern Bulgarian dialects (Prilep-Mariovo dialect and Bitola dialect) in 1944-45, the majority of linguists recognised the new standard as a separate language, although Bulgarian (including some members of the codification committee) and some non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis."
I will restore parts from the article, wich were not plagiarised, as tables, maps and others. Jingby ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring this paper (Petya Osenova, Wilbert Heeringa and John Nerbonne. 2006. A Quantitative Analysis of Bulgarian Dialect Pronunciation. Submitted to Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie) to your attention. Nerbonne is at the forefront of this kind of work (he and his co-authors have done amazing work on variation in Dutch). Their analysis supports some of the traditional isoglosses (the yat line among many others) but also show how gradient the traditional dialect divisions are (these truly are dialect continua). Mundart ( talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's just a reminder to any passing-by edit-warriors that the talk page is here and any issues regarding the article should be raised here. As for the deletion of sourced material, I have to regard it as pure vandalism since the issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page (the existence of which should be no secret for an experienced editor) and there was no reason to delete it. On the contrary - enough sources were provided, including third-party ones. Thank you and please, read the discussion page before you vandalize the page again. -- Laveol T 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect, I don't understand why dialects of Macedonian language are included in the Bulgarian language? There are a few transitional dialects between Macedonian and Bulgarian (Solun, Pirin, and one more), but that doesn't mean Macedonia states the Sofia dialect of Bulgaria is Macedonian (even though sources show there have been large population of Macedonians there in the past).
This is irredentism, because the dialects are not transitional, they are there for a purpose other then education. The dialects of the Macedonian language are recognized internationally, as are transitional dialects between Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. But, the non-transitional dialects are NOT recognized internationally, and are sourced using ONE source?! This is pure POV and will be removed. Mactruth ( talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the view of the Bulgarian schoolarship, not a POV. Jingby ( talk) 04:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope! It is not shure. Read here please: [2]; Jingby ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
such by all countries except Bulgaria — where it was an official minority language 1946-48 and subsequently officially viewed as a “regional norm” or "dialect" of Bulgarian — and Greece, where Macedonian is usually claimed not to exist — except in proclamations banning its use — or it is claimed that the term Macedonian can only be used to refer to the Greek dialects of Macedonia or to Ancient Macedonian (see Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 1994). In 1999, the Bulgarian government officially recognized the standard language of the Republic of Macedonia as an independent language, but did not recognize the dialects spoken outside the Republic as part of that language. Nonetheless, there are citizens of and emigrants from both Bulgaria and Greece who identify their native (Slavic) language as Macedonian"
Разполагам с Български диалектален атлас с над 350 цветни карти с изключително добро качество (картата на рефлекса на голямата носовка е правен по една от тях), вкл. карти на рефлексите на щ, жд, ятова гласна и пр. Ако някой има желание и може (понеже аз не мога) да преработи няколо карти, така че да могат да се ъплоуднат тук за свободно ползване, нека да даде някаква индикация тук - за да се свържем, да обменим координати и да му пратя. Най-важните карти ги имам сканирани, но мога допълнително да сканирам каквото си пожелаете:-) Освен за обща информация за българските диалекти, картите могат да се ползват и за да се докаже това, че дори и да се приеме съществуването на македонски език, то границите му са далеч на запад - повечето изоглоси минават през средата, а не по границите на географския регион Македония. Благодаря ви предварително. Tulll ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
I notice that the dialect table presents dialects of the Macedonian langauge as Bulgarian ones (the ones under the headings "Dialects from Vardar/Aegean Macedonia"). This is WP:FRINGEVIEW, therefore can someone please explain to me why they are necessary. Lunch for Two ( talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You seem to dislike my wording, could you explain what's wrong with it? It clearly says that it represents a point of view (the dominant one, but still a point of view indeed), something that has not been done in the Macedonian dialects articles. Compare
to
The difference? My wording isn't binding, it clearly states it represents the Bulgarian view, while the Macedonian wording misleads the reader that the Macedonian view is the only one.
So, unless such detailed explanations are added to the Dialects of the Macedonian language and a consensus is reached, those will not be tolerated here, especially because they serve no reasonable purpose. Todor → Bozhinov 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
*shrug* Todor → Bozhinov 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Firefly322 ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a few short sentences below.
I started to write this section but later saw that most of this material already exists in the article History of the Bulgarian language. So I will try to move details there and leave here only things pertinent to dialects and their formation. -- Lantonov ( talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The most characteristic feature of Radojda-Vevcani dialect (Radojda, Vevcani, Mali Vlay and Lin (in Albania) is the substitution of OBg ѫ, ъ with the Yat vowel. After non-labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ʲæ/ (as is its probable pronunciation in OBg): г/ʲæ/жва, гн/ʲæ/с, гр/ʲæ/ди, вн/ʲæ/тре, д/ʲæ/га, й/ʲæ/же (въже), й/ʲæ/дица (въдица), к/ʲæ/тник, р/ʲæ/ка, ск/ʲæ/по, д/ʲæ/п, з/ʲæ/би, с/ʲæ/бота; с/ʲæ/нце (слънце), г/ʲæ/лтат; г/ʲæ/рне, к/ʲæ/рф, з/ʲæ/рно, с/ʲæ/рп, с/ʲæ/рце, т/ʲæ/рн etc. After labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ɶ/: м/ɶ/ш, п/ɶ/т, л/ɶ/ка, д/ɶ/п, з/ɶ/би, пр/ɶ/т, б/ɶ/рго, п/ɶ/рво, в/ɶ/рба, м/ɶ/ртоф, в/ɶ/лк, п/ɶ/лно, в/ɶ/лна, м/ɶ/лчит, ж/ɶ/лчка, г/ɶ/лтат etc. This feature is the same as in the Eastern Bulgarian dialects in Teteven and Pomorie regions. -- Lantonov ( talk) 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hahah, so we have agreed that Greater Serbia maps from 1918 which list the entire population of Kyustendil, Berkovitsa, Lom, Breznik, Radomir and Tran as Serbian are bullshit? :) Mate, this is a Serbian jingoist map not only in the respect it backs Macedonism but also in the way it underlines Serbian domination in Yugoslavia itself. Just look at the region of Kosovo and its "Serbian" population, half of Croatia is listed as Orthodox, the Bosniaks are isolated islands and the notation of the Greek population in Thrace is laughable, as is the overestimate of Turkish population in Bulgaria.
And what I kept for dessert: Cvijić has coloured southeastern Macedonia as ethnic "Slavic Macedonian", but Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo are Serbian-coloured. Are you Serbian, PMK1? :)
This is clearly a propaganda map promoting the idea of Greater Serbia as the dominant nation in the Balkans. It has no place anywhere in an encyclopedia, except for articles about Serbian propaganda itself. Todor → Bozhinov 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Lantonov ( talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As it turned out they did not win independence then. They belonged to Serbia for 80 years. The real independence for them happened in 1991 and they were (and are) willing to keep it by all means: fair and unfair. If needs be they will steal history, language, flags, symbols, names, whatever. It doesn't matter as long as they belong to an independent MACEDONIAN nation, speak MACEDONIAN language, have MACEDONIAN flag, have ancient MACEDONIAN history, and their state is called MACEDONIA with nothing taken and nothing added. All around them we perceive this false nationalism as malignant with a tendency to metastase in other countries. And when it was used by the Serbian Yugocommunism as a weapon against other nationalities the Macedonian nationalism reached the point of no return. Now even Serbs balk at the monster that they created and raised. -- Lantonov ( talk) 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It is nice to know what User: Todor Bozhinov really thinks. Anyway i would rather be these people over these any day!. LOL take a joke people. Anyway im not from these regions;Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo anyway! Who is to say i would rather be serb than bulgarian? Maybe i am actually a gypsy or vlach. Like it is completely relevant. PMK1 ( talk) 09:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Editors here, this page has turned into an article which has been written directly in Sofia. If anyone can actually be bothered to read it, it gives a very biased and offensive veiw of the Macedonian language. The numerous references to the Macedonian dialects as merely West Bulgarian dialects is derogatory. If the main contributors here (you know who you are) do not bring a NPOV here then some drastic changes will need to be made. PMK1 ( talk) 11:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed sources allegedly supporting the statement that "many non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis.":
Footnotes 57-60 have no quotation to back them up. Given the hit-and-miss rate among the other footnotes, I feel it's safer to remove these two, until substantiation is provided that they at least say what is claimed.
Also:
Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so this was the next sentence I was asking for: "... but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence." – So, right. You have a source that explicitly states that "most scholars" accept it, and you use this source to support the claim that "many scholars" do the exact opposite. Not a good idea.
BTW, I haven't been able to find out much about this author, Henninger. He seems to be quoted almost exclusively by people (mis-)using his work for Bulgarian-Macedonian polemics on the web. And his name keeps getting misspelled in the process. I've seen "Henninger, T", "Henninger, J.", or "Henniger, J." Apparently though, "Thomas Henninger" is correct. Interestingly, in the second edition of the Encyclopedia, his article got replaced by two new ones, separate for the two languages, with the Macedonian entry written by the ubiquitous Friedman.
Have you got the original print edition? I'm curious if it really has those scare quotes in the title. It isn't cited like that in the official table of contents on the publisher's web site, and the text you posted here seems to have reproduced a couple of little errors of transmission also found in various mirrored versions (along with the erroeous rendering of the author's name) on various polemic nationalist websites, so I assume you may have copied it from one of them?
Also, assuming the guy is probably German, he seems to be victim to a typical little false-friend lapse in his English when he speaks of "from a purely linguistic perspective". As if the existence of a separate standard language was not also a "linguistic" fact. What he means to say is "from a purely structural perspective". But anyway.
As for the other guy being "partisan", well, of course he is. His text belongs in the well-established academic genre of the polemic. Which is fine, of course. Nothing wrong with writing a polemic from time to time. As for "All the sources that you deleted fully support the text": Well, I showed you how they didn't. You were claiming many authors "do not accept the codification". The codification happened in 1944, right? Several of the works you quoted were written before 1944, right? How can a work reject an event that hasn't even happened yet?
I doubt every source you give? Well, yeah, after what I've seen, I do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Henninger: "From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. Indeed, Bulgarian scholars reject Macedonian as an individual language, but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence."
This article (mine): "After the codification of Standard Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of two southwestern Bulgarian dialects (Prilep-Mariovo dialect and Bitola dialect) in 1944-45, the majority of linguists recognised the new standard as a separate language, although Bulgarian (including some members of the codification committee) and some non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis."
I will restore parts from the article, wich were not plagiarised, as tables, maps and others. Jingby ( talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to bring this paper (Petya Osenova, Wilbert Heeringa and John Nerbonne. 2006. A Quantitative Analysis of Bulgarian Dialect Pronunciation. Submitted to Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie) to your attention. Nerbonne is at the forefront of this kind of work (he and his co-authors have done amazing work on variation in Dutch). Their analysis supports some of the traditional isoglosses (the yat line among many others) but also show how gradient the traditional dialect divisions are (these truly are dialect continua). Mundart ( talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That's just a reminder to any passing-by edit-warriors that the talk page is here and any issues regarding the article should be raised here. As for the deletion of sourced material, I have to regard it as pure vandalism since the issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page (the existence of which should be no secret for an experienced editor) and there was no reason to delete it. On the contrary - enough sources were provided, including third-party ones. Thank you and please, read the discussion page before you vandalize the page again. -- Laveol T 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Future Perfect, I don't understand why dialects of Macedonian language are included in the Bulgarian language? There are a few transitional dialects between Macedonian and Bulgarian (Solun, Pirin, and one more), but that doesn't mean Macedonia states the Sofia dialect of Bulgaria is Macedonian (even though sources show there have been large population of Macedonians there in the past).
This is irredentism, because the dialects are not transitional, they are there for a purpose other then education. The dialects of the Macedonian language are recognized internationally, as are transitional dialects between Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. But, the non-transitional dialects are NOT recognized internationally, and are sourced using ONE source?! This is pure POV and will be removed. Mactruth ( talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the view of the Bulgarian schoolarship, not a POV. Jingby ( talk) 04:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope! It is not shure. Read here please: [2]; Jingby ( talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
such by all countries except Bulgaria — where it was an official minority language 1946-48 and subsequently officially viewed as a “regional norm” or "dialect" of Bulgarian — and Greece, where Macedonian is usually claimed not to exist — except in proclamations banning its use — or it is claimed that the term Macedonian can only be used to refer to the Greek dialects of Macedonia or to Ancient Macedonian (see Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 1994). In 1999, the Bulgarian government officially recognized the standard language of the Republic of Macedonia as an independent language, but did not recognize the dialects spoken outside the Republic as part of that language. Nonetheless, there are citizens of and emigrants from both Bulgaria and Greece who identify their native (Slavic) language as Macedonian"
Разполагам с Български диалектален атлас с над 350 цветни карти с изключително добро качество (картата на рефлекса на голямата носовка е правен по една от тях), вкл. карти на рефлексите на щ, жд, ятова гласна и пр. Ако някой има желание и може (понеже аз не мога) да преработи няколо карти, така че да могат да се ъплоуднат тук за свободно ползване, нека да даде някаква индикация тук - за да се свържем, да обменим координати и да му пратя. Най-важните карти ги имам сканирани, но мога допълнително да сканирам каквото си пожелаете:-) Освен за обща информация за българските диалекти, картите могат да се ползват и за да се докаже това, че дори и да се приеме съществуването на македонски език, то границите му са далеч на запад - повечето изоглоси минават през средата, а не по границите на географския регион Македония. Благодаря ви предварително. Tulll ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
I notice that the dialect table presents dialects of the Macedonian langauge as Bulgarian ones (the ones under the headings "Dialects from Vardar/Aegean Macedonia"). This is WP:FRINGEVIEW, therefore can someone please explain to me why they are necessary. Lunch for Two ( talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)