![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I confess to publishing the entire article without any sources or references. I spoke from knowledge; it is difficult to find things sometimes. I did do a quick search on Alltheweb.com and Yahoo.com but found little of much use. I will endevour to seek refernces which I will later add. In the meantime, if anyone knows anything I don't, I hope that they add it; or if I am wrong about something, change it freely, I will not re-alter it without discussing it here first. My knowledge is based on material which I have read in books, not on websites, and much of it was learnt when I spent a good few years travelling backward and forward to Eastern Europe in the late 80's and early 90's. I have otherwise maintained strong links with people from Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia and I still visit these countries frequently on business. Celtmist 3-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
I am originally from Bulgarian city called Vidin. My grandparents still use old western Bulgarian dialect but our younger generation is slowly accepting the standard language from Veliko Turnovo oblast. In the time of Yugoslavia I know that the borders for republics did not mean very much, in same respect that our Bulgaria sector Macedonia is nothing special at its own borderpoint. It was once said that if you travel from Bulgaria to Serbia, to Macedonia, back to Bulgaria in the borderland corner, you can not really tell the linguistic difference. In Vidin, we use 'Ya' for the first person nominative. In Bulgarian, the word is 'Az'. We also pronounce the schwa more like 'a' and the Yakavitsa of Bulgaria, like Yekavitsa in Bosnia and Croatia is stuck on 'Ekavitsa'. We say 'Nema' not 'Nyama' for "there isn't". And it is true that we are accused of talking 'Srubski ezik!' (Serbian language) as they say to us in Varna and Bourgas. i don't care because everyone in Bulgaria likes Serbian folk pop music! Me include there! Brotadac
The Macedonian requires phonetical alterations: Wolf is 'Volk' and Hell is 'Pekol' so I am told...I don't have Cyrillic fonts sadly.
Celtmist 12-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
OK - I mended the Macedonian version of the table :) Makedon
To say here, too: great work. I started to make some changes, but all of you did a great job. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to note: Cases are not strictly related to flection. "of something" is genitive, too, even it doesn't have flection. (I can talk more about that...) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes... In general, case is gramatical category which can be realized in different ways: using prepositions, postpositions, and flection (which is in this case "morphological case") or some combination of them. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"More commonly" is just "what we was learning in school" ;) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Until midway through the first millenium A.D, Latin had a case system in some ways resembling hat of most Slavic languages. The yielding of Latin into modern European languages now leaves Romanian dialects as the only language to maintain something of a case system. As for Spanish, French, and Italian, well they have ended up on the same road as modern Macedonian and Bulgarian. But this has not stopped there. Take Serbo-Croat (all its forms): there was a time when each noun had a distinct marker but over the decades, they too have pushed towards losing their identity. The Locative and Dative cases have now merged 100% to the point that some language books no longer class them as different; masculine and neutral nouns take the same form in the accusative as the nominative. These things were originally different everywhere.
The point I wanted to make was about an edit: Kajkavian and Čakavian being exceptions - to Torlakian's difference from Standard Serbian -as more different from Croatian. Does everyone follow? :-)
So I hereby state that Standard Serbian is closer to Slovenian than it is Torlakian. If Torlakian had to be placed into a language category, I have to say it would be closer to Bulgarian and Macedonian though I can't say which (probably the former). The fact that Torlakian omits the inflections AND largely uses the definite article sets it far apart from Serbian, despite Serbian and Slovenian being reasonably different: the grammar says it all, it can change the entire structure of a language. And no form of language contained within Croatia is so different from Serbian that Slovenian is closer!
Anyhow, feel free to respond to me or make edits...
Celtmist 23-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
As for standard Serbian, it's a hard one. Maybe it's position is stuck halfway between Torlakian and Standard Slovenian (after removing the Balkanization where possible.
Hi. Let me start by saying how good of a job I think you all did with this page. I have a comment to make about the case system though. Again, I'm not a linguist and my knowledge of Torlakian is intuitive (I was born and mostly raised in the area--S. Serbia). In any case, at least in the central parts of the north-south line between Nis and Vranje, I think there are actually two cases in use, namely Nominative and Accusative. Other cases are formed by prepositions that are added to the Accusative form in most cases. For example, a speaker from Leskovac would say: nom. terasa acc. na terasU gen. od terasu dat. na terasu etc. Also, and this is only valid for Serbia I suppose, the local speakers, besides acknowledging various local variants (some people can actually guess a village or an area within a small region someone is coming only based on the way that person speaks) still talk of three distinct overarching groups of dialects: from north to south they are Nis (nislijski), Leskovac (leskovacki), and Vranje (vranjanski). Pirot is usually exluded from this autoclassification by dismissing the language people speak there as "bugarashki" or Bulgarian-like (no offense to the people or Pirot or Bulgarians meant). I just wanted to add my two cents worth of thought to the discussion. ZT
I wonder, was there any attempt to include Torlakian on some of the official EU minority langages lists?ZT -- dagobert 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Great work Duja, Makedon, Celtmist - keep it up!
Evlekis 25 December 2005 Blocked sock:
Evlekis.
About the last argument: quo has the same origin as 'shto/ko/hvad/what/who' (the difference between who and what is short i and short u in PIE), so we are talking about very related words between IE languages. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) This is not the only word which can be treated as 'basic'. Words for family and talk (familija and oratiti) are words with clear Latin origin. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Latin culture made influence in Bulgaria, too. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Your theory is supported by Serbian linguists (maybe Bulgarian, too) and it is relevant. However, article should contain all relevant theories. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) As I think, both facts (Latin 'quo' and Slavic 'kakvo') had influence in Torlakian 'kvo'. Slavic origin is supported by similar word (kakvo), but Latin origin is supported by the same word and the same function (note that 'kakvo' is related, but not so close with the meaining of 'ko/kvo/who'). Also, there is a possibility that 'kakvo' is younger form then 'kvo' (which should be researched). -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for interfering. I'm Bulgarian, and my Bulgarian etymological dictionary supports what Jordovan said, namely that kakvo comes from kak (how) (apparently + adjectival suffix -v- ?) and not from kvo. So kakvo doesn't come from kvo, it's the other way round. Only if somebody finds an etymological dictionary or any scientific source that claims the opposite should an alternative theory be mentioned. Besides that, Latin quo is not the same word with the same function, because, contrary to what I myself used to believe before looking more closely at Latin, it doesn't mean "shto", it means "where(to)", "why" and such, as in "quo vadis" (where are you going). "What" is "quid". "Quod" also means a lot of things, but not exactly "what". Again, that's my Latin dictionary speaking (apart from my own limited experience with the language). -- 85.187.203.123 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something or does that have anything at all to do with the subject of the article? I think it should be deleted. -- 85.187.203.123 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The article was moved from
Torlakian dialect to
Torlakian without notice by
User:Peter Isotalo. I already asked him why he did that; the article ought to have went through
WP:RM. I'm going to put it there.. It turned out it was possible to move it back, so I did it. If anyone disagrees, please follow the process and use
WP:RM.
Duja
16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop wich spleeten the Serbian language. This languege is the mix language wich it was spocet during the Ottoman E. The Ottomans say for this Languege "Prizrend dialect"-- Hipi Zhdripi 17:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, why do you insist on previous version of the artical Torlakian, which is far more incorrect and full of notorious lies? Wikipedia is a place for trueth lovers, not blind nationalists.
-- Luzzifer 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point. The map of Pavle Ivić does not say that what you wrote at all. As I said, everybody can publish something. Here, you, and everybody should use reviable sources -- Luzzifer 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What does this sentence refer to?
Macedonian, Torlakian and a number of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects, unlike all other Slavic languages, technically have no /h/.
Don't all Slavic languages lack /h/ as a separate phoneme? In Slavic languages written in Latin alphabet, "h" generally means /x/. Apparently, for loanwords in Slavic languages using Cyrillic, it usually turns to х (/x/) or г (/g/), so I might be wrong, but it seems to be considered a free variation on these sounds. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and moved the page to "Torlak dialect" from Torlak. While the naming convention for languages calls for undisambiguated title where suitable, I don't think it's quite appropriate in this case:
I am going to remove Serbian propaganda map, not related with Torlakian dialects. Jingby ( talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the chapter Cultural marginalization and ethnic affiliation to the article about the Torlaks as more appropriate. Jingby ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This section as it stands now actually describes the difference between Western and Eastern forms of South Slavic languages, not which forms are typical for Torlak dialects. Some of these occur there, other, however, don't. Still others occur in some dialects, but not in others. The section should be split in two: features shared with Western South Slavic, and Western South Slavic features shared by some dialects. I'm familiar only with those Torlak dialects regarded as Bulgarian so I would ask someone with more knowledge of Serbian to check whether those features actually occur there. Kostja ( talk) 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"Some features of Torlakian clearly show how Macedonian changes to Bulgarian"
I'm not sure this sentence can even in theory mean anything. This article is about dialects; I don't see what literary languages have to do with this. The political border between Macedonia and Bulgaria does not coincide with any dialectological discontinuities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.33 ( talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that one language literally changes to the other, which is just silly as both have a very recent common ancestor.It means East South Slavic varieties show a clinal change with Torlakian being between "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" in a dialect continuum.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Torlaks means a dog in Turkish, and that is how Shops call the converters to other nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.93 ( talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The French ethnographic map from 1860 is a complete joke. I am from Ioannina (Janina) a supposed albanian town according to the map. Unfortunately i never heard anyone mentioning such a thing, ever. I suppose the same reliability applies to the rest of the map, showing genuine Shtokavian areas as Bulgarians, etc...
Dear Jingby, Gia sou file kai patrioti from Giannena. Marking as ethnic-albanian an area which was never close to anything albanian (Giannena being an albanian town is the biggest joke) is not a sign of credibility. Notice the incompatibility of Greeks and Albanians in the first place. And the same holds for areas like Leskovac or Nish in Serbia, traditional Old Serbian lands, whose language is the most ancient form of Stokavian. I think you try to pass your own greater Bulgaria agenda here, a Bulgarian editing an article about a subclass of Stokavian Serbs (Prizren-Timok dialect as it is called by linguists), and posting maps of those places showing them to belong in Bulgaria is an oxymoron, don't you think? I do not think you are the right person for the job. Either a Serb should take over this page, or a neutral researcher.
(upd) Its ok now i suppose.
Also, why the first map (the clearly bulgarian one) is portrayed as a ... source, while the official one is mark as the .... "serbian point of view"? I think the Official map should be place first, and if the second (useless as it is in Bulgarian language) is to be placed somewhere, then it should be second. The only info that the Bulgarian map gives, is that there is a Serbian population in Bulgaria, which apart from natural is not so important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 ( talk) 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
POV-pushing, the "Torlaks" have no historical or ethnical basis for that matter, it is merely a Bulgarian nationalistic fabrication for dividing people of Serbian nationality according to dialectal features. The word itself only means what the Bulgarian nationalists refer to; speakers of dialects in the borderlands of Serbia and Bulgaria. --
Zoupan (talk)
01:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
I did not claimed the Torlaks are a distinct ethnic group. This is your POV. Jingby ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The term Torlaks was used by Serbian and international researchers as Jovan Cvijić, Vuk Karadžić, Felix Philipp Kanitz, Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui and others, during the 19th century. Even today, the term is used in Serbia, see: Владимир Живковиh. "Торлак". Пирот, 1994. Check Google books and revise your wrong biased opinion. Jingby ( talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to find some way to solve this dispute. I actually agree with Zoupan, because all evidence sugest that we are talking just about a group of people named this way because they speak Torlakian dialect. Since the article on linguistics exists, this one (Torlaks) in my view has no reason neither enough subject to exist. However, I´m not going to involve myself in the dispute by reverting or editing this article, but I would rather listen to proposals that the involved editors may sugest on how to solve this. I proposed on the ANI report a 3th opinion. Any other ideas? FkpCascais ( talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Some scientists during the second half from the 19th and the early 20th century, described the Torlaks as a distinct ethnographic group, i.e. most of them had preserved certain distinguishing characteristics, such as a particular dialect and specific features of material and nonmaterial culture. Jingby ( talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the personal opinion and the historical perspective. Now it is a linguistic group, but 100 years ago it was only an ethnographic group. Jingby ( talk) 08:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Give me examples of Torlaks being spoken of as an ethnographic group versus speakers of certain dialects, with specific features, etc, the word "Torlak" means vulgar, referring to the dialect, if as you say some Bulgarian nationalists postulate that Torlaks are an ethnographic group (similar to
Shopi) - this still has no historical basis. "Torlaks" has only been used as a synonym to "Torlakian(dialect)-speaking people", and more appropriate is "Torlak Serbs" or "Torlak Bulgarians", but, as you understand, we can't start articles without any basis, the views of this articles is totally POV. The current article is giving the impression of a recognized nation, I sence a Bulgarian tone much alike the Torlakian dialect article. I suggest we make the correct move, redirecting it to
Torlakian dialect. --
Zoupan (
talk)
20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
OK! I would propose the next text to be transfered to Torlakian:
The Torlak-speakers were called also Torlaks. According to one theory, the name Torlak derived from the South Slavic word "tor" (" sheepfold" in English), referring to the fact that Torlaks in the past were mainly shepherds by occupation. Some scientists describe the Torlaks as a distinct ethnographic group. [1] [2] The Torlaks are also sometimes classified to be a part of the Shopi population and vice versa. In the 19th century, there were no exact border between Torlak and Shopi settlements. According to some authors during the Ottoman rule, the majority of native Torlakian Slavic population did not have national consciousness in ethnic sense. Therefore, both, Serbs and Bulgarians, considered local Slavs as part of their own people, while local population was also divided between sympathy for Bulgarians and Serbs. Other authors from the epoch, take a different view and maintain that the inhabitants of Torlakian area had begun to develop predominantly Bulgarian national consciousness. [3] [4] With Ottoman influence ever weakening, the increase of nationalist sentiment in the Balkans in late 19th and early 20th century, and the redrawing of national boundaries after the Treaty of Berlin (1878), the Balkan wars and World War I, the traditional Torlakian-speaking region was split several times between Serbia and Bulgaria. After World War II, a Macedonian national affiliation arose in the new Socialist Republic of Macedonia.
OK, if Zoupan agrees we can move this to the Torlakian dialect article, and make this one a redirect. I haven´t checked the sources, but from what I read the text seems ok, and it could/should be placed under a new section, possibly named "History", or "Background", whetever you editors feel better :) FkpCascais ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No compromise was reached. Zoupan did not answer to you FkpCascais, and insists in his blind reverts, deliting the whole article as you can see here: [2] Jingby ( talk) 05:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK! I did not look this. Excuse me! Jingby ( talk) 07:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My revision, has, other than clarifying what sources really says;
I see no faults in expanding the article, mainting the view of Bulgarian scholars, however, posing Torlakian as a language (which it is not) is false, as per Wiki standards. Sincerely, -- 92.32.45.19 ( talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following categories: Languages of Macedonia, Languages of Bulgaria, Languages of Serbia and Languages of Romania just because this is not a language. It is a coined term for group of Bulgarian and Serbian, and small number of Macedonian, dialects. Therefore, the categories Dialects of Macedonian language, Dialects of Bulgarian language and Serbian dialects are enough. Also, I removed the previous image and put new one. The old one was inaccurate because it shows Torlakian dialects are spoken till Stip in Macedonia, but in fact only in the border regions near Kumanovo and Palanla are spoken these dialects. Best-- MacedonianBoy ( talk) 14:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
...На основу изложеног можемо се обазрети на северномакедонске говоре, коjи су, као што jе познато, генетски сродни са призренско-тимочкима...Iz srpskohrvatske dijalektologije, Том 2 от Selections, Издател Prosveta, 1991 г. стр. 212. Jingiby ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
See also: ...Врз основа на презентираните диjалектни факти во последниот труд, Степановик значително jа поместил границата на призренско-тимочките говори... Literaturen zbor, Том 43, Društvo za makedonski jazik i literatura, 1996, 119. Jingiby ( talk) 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | |
Dialect divisions of Macedonian. |
If I see, there is not a big difference between this map as showing Kumanovo-Kratovo dialect and its position on the Torlakian map. Jingiby ( talk) 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that this section is not very clearly written, there is the problem that it doesn't really describe the relationship with West Southslavic, but rather with Serbo-Croatian (or more precisely Shtokavian). Many of the characteristics which are described as differences from West Southslavic languages are actually present in Slovenian, Kajkavian and Čakavian. Zocky | picture popups 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't read all of the text here in the "talk" section but I haven't found anything about the name origin. If I missed it and am repeating something you already know, I'm sorry.
I am from Nish in Serbia, and I have at home three books called: "Istorija Niša I,II,III".(History of Nish) and I've read them all. They are separated by periods of time. The first is the time from paleolite to 1878(Berlin congress, liberation), the second is from 1878 to WW2(I think), and the third is WW2-1980. That's when the books were written.
Now, in the first book on one or two pages they talk about the sects of islam in the 16th or 17th sentury. The Dervishi, something like monks that mixed Cristianity and paganism with Islam, specifically ones that used paganism were called TORLAKs, and those monks were not from Balkan but from Turkmenistan from where they were moved to modern southeastern Serbia by the Ottoman rule. There is also a part in which they mention the Shopi and Torlak population being moved by the authorities to Turkmenistan for a couple of decades and then being moved back. That was a common practice in the empire to fill the empty lands.
There is one wierd custom(now dead) here called "Стрнџање" (Strndžanye) related to premarriage sex (or everything close to it except sex) and I've read on the internet more than once that this custom was brought from Turkmenistan. This is not so important and it's not proven to be from there, but it was worth mentioning..
I am not in Nish at the moment but when I come in 2 days, i'll find the books and quote/translate the pages regarding the Dervish and the migrations.
If you want to find them yourself, here is some help:
published by GRADINA-PROSVETA, written by Danica Milić (with other people whose names I don't know) in Niš, 1983.
- Radishalivac ( talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Gbook hits. Gscholar has "Torlak dialect" (32) vs "Torlakian dialect" (7).--
Zoupan
06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move ( non-admin closure) Mdann52 ( talk) 11:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Torlakian dialect →
Torlak dialect –
WP:COMMONNAME. See previous section. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Zoupan
22:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
In standard (Shtokavian) Serbian the phonem "h" has been re-introduced, since in most (all?) Shtokavian dialects it had been replaced by either "v" or zero; there are however some words where "h" has not been re-introduced: suv, kuvati; kujna. There are other words where both versions are possible: gluv/gluh. In both Bulgarian and Macedonian final "-st" is pronounced "-s", even though the spelling retains the final "-t". This seems to be the case also in some (all?) Torlak dialects, whereas standard Serbian pronunciation is [st]:
žal za mlados'
http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/1490358/vranje---zal-za-mlados-pogled-u-buducnost.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:91EF:FFFF:0:0:4F77:FA36 ( talk) 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Torlakian dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.srpskidespot.org.rs/Mape/dijalektiStokavskogNarecja.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The Torlakian dialects, together with Bulgarian and Macedonian, forming the East South Slavic languages subgroup, display many properties of the Balkan linguistic area. As a whole, Torlakian is closer to Macedonian than to Serbian, and falls into the Macedonian-Bulgarian diasystem. All these 3 languages were called Bulgarian till the 20th. century. Jingiby ( talk) 17:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Question. I know that identity is a tinderbox for Serbians and Croatians, but was Rešetar a Croat or a Serb? On brief inspection of his article, he is a Dubrovnik-born Serb yet here on Torlakian dialect he has been designated a Croatian linguist. I know there are some people who for one reason or another qualify as both, such as Nikola Tesla, but if someone could provide some consistency and clarification here, he will be very helpful. -- 46.233.77.16 ( talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Daily page views
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I confess to publishing the entire article without any sources or references. I spoke from knowledge; it is difficult to find things sometimes. I did do a quick search on Alltheweb.com and Yahoo.com but found little of much use. I will endevour to seek refernces which I will later add. In the meantime, if anyone knows anything I don't, I hope that they add it; or if I am wrong about something, change it freely, I will not re-alter it without discussing it here first. My knowledge is based on material which I have read in books, not on websites, and much of it was learnt when I spent a good few years travelling backward and forward to Eastern Europe in the late 80's and early 90's. I have otherwise maintained strong links with people from Bulgaria and the former Yugoslavia and I still visit these countries frequently on business. Celtmist 3-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
I am originally from Bulgarian city called Vidin. My grandparents still use old western Bulgarian dialect but our younger generation is slowly accepting the standard language from Veliko Turnovo oblast. In the time of Yugoslavia I know that the borders for republics did not mean very much, in same respect that our Bulgaria sector Macedonia is nothing special at its own borderpoint. It was once said that if you travel from Bulgaria to Serbia, to Macedonia, back to Bulgaria in the borderland corner, you can not really tell the linguistic difference. In Vidin, we use 'Ya' for the first person nominative. In Bulgarian, the word is 'Az'. We also pronounce the schwa more like 'a' and the Yakavitsa of Bulgaria, like Yekavitsa in Bosnia and Croatia is stuck on 'Ekavitsa'. We say 'Nema' not 'Nyama' for "there isn't". And it is true that we are accused of talking 'Srubski ezik!' (Serbian language) as they say to us in Varna and Bourgas. i don't care because everyone in Bulgaria likes Serbian folk pop music! Me include there! Brotadac
The Macedonian requires phonetical alterations: Wolf is 'Volk' and Hell is 'Pekol' so I am told...I don't have Cyrillic fonts sadly.
Celtmist 12-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
OK - I mended the Macedonian version of the table :) Makedon
To say here, too: great work. I started to make some changes, but all of you did a great job. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 06:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to note: Cases are not strictly related to flection. "of something" is genitive, too, even it doesn't have flection. (I can talk more about that...) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 12:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes... In general, case is gramatical category which can be realized in different ways: using prepositions, postpositions, and flection (which is in this case "morphological case") or some combination of them. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
"More commonly" is just "what we was learning in school" ;) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 13:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Until midway through the first millenium A.D, Latin had a case system in some ways resembling hat of most Slavic languages. The yielding of Latin into modern European languages now leaves Romanian dialects as the only language to maintain something of a case system. As for Spanish, French, and Italian, well they have ended up on the same road as modern Macedonian and Bulgarian. But this has not stopped there. Take Serbo-Croat (all its forms): there was a time when each noun had a distinct marker but over the decades, they too have pushed towards losing their identity. The Locative and Dative cases have now merged 100% to the point that some language books no longer class them as different; masculine and neutral nouns take the same form in the accusative as the nominative. These things were originally different everywhere.
The point I wanted to make was about an edit: Kajkavian and Čakavian being exceptions - to Torlakian's difference from Standard Serbian -as more different from Croatian. Does everyone follow? :-)
So I hereby state that Standard Serbian is closer to Slovenian than it is Torlakian. If Torlakian had to be placed into a language category, I have to say it would be closer to Bulgarian and Macedonian though I can't say which (probably the former). The fact that Torlakian omits the inflections AND largely uses the definite article sets it far apart from Serbian, despite Serbian and Slovenian being reasonably different: the grammar says it all, it can change the entire structure of a language. And no form of language contained within Croatia is so different from Serbian that Slovenian is closer!
Anyhow, feel free to respond to me or make edits...
Celtmist 23-11-05 Blocked sock:
Moroccan Spaniard.
As for standard Serbian, it's a hard one. Maybe it's position is stuck halfway between Torlakian and Standard Slovenian (after removing the Balkanization where possible.
Hi. Let me start by saying how good of a job I think you all did with this page. I have a comment to make about the case system though. Again, I'm not a linguist and my knowledge of Torlakian is intuitive (I was born and mostly raised in the area--S. Serbia). In any case, at least in the central parts of the north-south line between Nis and Vranje, I think there are actually two cases in use, namely Nominative and Accusative. Other cases are formed by prepositions that are added to the Accusative form in most cases. For example, a speaker from Leskovac would say: nom. terasa acc. na terasU gen. od terasu dat. na terasu etc. Also, and this is only valid for Serbia I suppose, the local speakers, besides acknowledging various local variants (some people can actually guess a village or an area within a small region someone is coming only based on the way that person speaks) still talk of three distinct overarching groups of dialects: from north to south they are Nis (nislijski), Leskovac (leskovacki), and Vranje (vranjanski). Pirot is usually exluded from this autoclassification by dismissing the language people speak there as "bugarashki" or Bulgarian-like (no offense to the people or Pirot or Bulgarians meant). I just wanted to add my two cents worth of thought to the discussion. ZT
I wonder, was there any attempt to include Torlakian on some of the official EU minority langages lists?ZT -- dagobert 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Great work Duja, Makedon, Celtmist - keep it up!
Evlekis 25 December 2005 Blocked sock:
Evlekis.
About the last argument: quo has the same origin as 'shto/ko/hvad/what/who' (the difference between who and what is short i and short u in PIE), so we are talking about very related words between IE languages. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) This is not the only word which can be treated as 'basic'. Words for family and talk (familija and oratiti) are words with clear Latin origin. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Latin culture made influence in Bulgaria, too. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Your theory is supported by Serbian linguists (maybe Bulgarian, too) and it is relevant. However, article should contain all relevant theories. -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC) As I think, both facts (Latin 'quo' and Slavic 'kakvo') had influence in Torlakian 'kvo'. Slavic origin is supported by similar word (kakvo), but Latin origin is supported by the same word and the same function (note that 'kakvo' is related, but not so close with the meaining of 'ko/kvo/who'). Also, there is a possibility that 'kakvo' is younger form then 'kvo' (which should be researched). -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for interfering. I'm Bulgarian, and my Bulgarian etymological dictionary supports what Jordovan said, namely that kakvo comes from kak (how) (apparently + adjectival suffix -v- ?) and not from kvo. So kakvo doesn't come from kvo, it's the other way round. Only if somebody finds an etymological dictionary or any scientific source that claims the opposite should an alternative theory be mentioned. Besides that, Latin quo is not the same word with the same function, because, contrary to what I myself used to believe before looking more closely at Latin, it doesn't mean "shto", it means "where(to)", "why" and such, as in "quo vadis" (where are you going). "What" is "quid". "Quod" also means a lot of things, but not exactly "what". Again, that's my Latin dictionary speaking (apart from my own limited experience with the language). -- 85.187.203.123 17:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I missing something or does that have anything at all to do with the subject of the article? I think it should be deleted. -- 85.187.203.123 10:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The article was moved from
Torlakian dialect to
Torlakian without notice by
User:Peter Isotalo. I already asked him why he did that; the article ought to have went through
WP:RM. I'm going to put it there.. It turned out it was possible to move it back, so I did it. If anyone disagrees, please follow the process and use
WP:RM.
Duja
16:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop wich spleeten the Serbian language. This languege is the mix language wich it was spocet during the Ottoman E. The Ottomans say for this Languege "Prizrend dialect"-- Hipi Zhdripi 17:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, why do you insist on previous version of the artical Torlakian, which is far more incorrect and full of notorious lies? Wikipedia is a place for trueth lovers, not blind nationalists.
-- Luzzifer 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point. The map of Pavle Ivić does not say that what you wrote at all. As I said, everybody can publish something. Here, you, and everybody should use reviable sources -- Luzzifer 14:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What does this sentence refer to?
Macedonian, Torlakian and a number of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects, unlike all other Slavic languages, technically have no /h/.
Don't all Slavic languages lack /h/ as a separate phoneme? In Slavic languages written in Latin alphabet, "h" generally means /x/. Apparently, for loanwords in Slavic languages using Cyrillic, it usually turns to х (/x/) or г (/g/), so I might be wrong, but it seems to be considered a free variation on these sounds. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was bold and moved the page to "Torlak dialect" from Torlak. While the naming convention for languages calls for undisambiguated title where suitable, I don't think it's quite appropriate in this case:
I am going to remove Serbian propaganda map, not related with Torlakian dialects. Jingby ( talk) 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have replaced the chapter Cultural marginalization and ethnic affiliation to the article about the Torlaks as more appropriate. Jingby ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This section as it stands now actually describes the difference between Western and Eastern forms of South Slavic languages, not which forms are typical for Torlak dialects. Some of these occur there, other, however, don't. Still others occur in some dialects, but not in others. The section should be split in two: features shared with Western South Slavic, and Western South Slavic features shared by some dialects. I'm familiar only with those Torlak dialects regarded as Bulgarian so I would ask someone with more knowledge of Serbian to check whether those features actually occur there. Kostja ( talk) 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
"Some features of Torlakian clearly show how Macedonian changes to Bulgarian"
I'm not sure this sentence can even in theory mean anything. This article is about dialects; I don't see what literary languages have to do with this. The political border between Macedonia and Bulgaria does not coincide with any dialectological discontinuities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.33 ( talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that one language literally changes to the other, which is just silly as both have a very recent common ancestor.It means East South Slavic varieties show a clinal change with Torlakian being between "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" in a dialect continuum.-- Monochrome_ Monitor 00:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Torlaks means a dog in Turkish, and that is how Shops call the converters to other nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.93 ( talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The French ethnographic map from 1860 is a complete joke. I am from Ioannina (Janina) a supposed albanian town according to the map. Unfortunately i never heard anyone mentioning such a thing, ever. I suppose the same reliability applies to the rest of the map, showing genuine Shtokavian areas as Bulgarians, etc...
Dear Jingby, Gia sou file kai patrioti from Giannena. Marking as ethnic-albanian an area which was never close to anything albanian (Giannena being an albanian town is the biggest joke) is not a sign of credibility. Notice the incompatibility of Greeks and Albanians in the first place. And the same holds for areas like Leskovac or Nish in Serbia, traditional Old Serbian lands, whose language is the most ancient form of Stokavian. I think you try to pass your own greater Bulgaria agenda here, a Bulgarian editing an article about a subclass of Stokavian Serbs (Prizren-Timok dialect as it is called by linguists), and posting maps of those places showing them to belong in Bulgaria is an oxymoron, don't you think? I do not think you are the right person for the job. Either a Serb should take over this page, or a neutral researcher.
(upd) Its ok now i suppose.
Also, why the first map (the clearly bulgarian one) is portrayed as a ... source, while the official one is mark as the .... "serbian point of view"? I think the Official map should be place first, and if the second (useless as it is in Bulgarian language) is to be placed somewhere, then it should be second. The only info that the Bulgarian map gives, is that there is a Serbian population in Bulgaria, which apart from natural is not so important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 ( talk) 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
POV-pushing, the "Torlaks" have no historical or ethnical basis for that matter, it is merely a Bulgarian nationalistic fabrication for dividing people of Serbian nationality according to dialectal features. The word itself only means what the Bulgarian nationalists refer to; speakers of dialects in the borderlands of Serbia and Bulgaria. --
Zoupan (talk)
01:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
I did not claimed the Torlaks are a distinct ethnic group. This is your POV. Jingby ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The term Torlaks was used by Serbian and international researchers as Jovan Cvijić, Vuk Karadžić, Felix Philipp Kanitz, Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui and others, during the 19th century. Even today, the term is used in Serbia, see: Владимир Живковиh. "Торлак". Пирот, 1994. Check Google books and revise your wrong biased opinion. Jingby ( talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to find some way to solve this dispute. I actually agree with Zoupan, because all evidence sugest that we are talking just about a group of people named this way because they speak Torlakian dialect. Since the article on linguistics exists, this one (Torlaks) in my view has no reason neither enough subject to exist. However, I´m not going to involve myself in the dispute by reverting or editing this article, but I would rather listen to proposals that the involved editors may sugest on how to solve this. I proposed on the ANI report a 3th opinion. Any other ideas? FkpCascais ( talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Some scientists during the second half from the 19th and the early 20th century, described the Torlaks as a distinct ethnographic group, i.e. most of them had preserved certain distinguishing characteristics, such as a particular dialect and specific features of material and nonmaterial culture. Jingby ( talk) 05:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the personal opinion and the historical perspective. Now it is a linguistic group, but 100 years ago it was only an ethnographic group. Jingby ( talk) 08:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Give me examples of Torlaks being spoken of as an ethnographic group versus speakers of certain dialects, with specific features, etc, the word "Torlak" means vulgar, referring to the dialect, if as you say some Bulgarian nationalists postulate that Torlaks are an ethnographic group (similar to
Shopi) - this still has no historical basis. "Torlaks" has only been used as a synonym to "Torlakian(dialect)-speaking people", and more appropriate is "Torlak Serbs" or "Torlak Bulgarians", but, as you understand, we can't start articles without any basis, the views of this articles is totally POV. The current article is giving the impression of a recognized nation, I sence a Bulgarian tone much alike the Torlakian dialect article. I suggest we make the correct move, redirecting it to
Torlakian dialect. --
Zoupan (
talk)
20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
OK! I would propose the next text to be transfered to Torlakian:
The Torlak-speakers were called also Torlaks. According to one theory, the name Torlak derived from the South Slavic word "tor" (" sheepfold" in English), referring to the fact that Torlaks in the past were mainly shepherds by occupation. Some scientists describe the Torlaks as a distinct ethnographic group. [1] [2] The Torlaks are also sometimes classified to be a part of the Shopi population and vice versa. In the 19th century, there were no exact border between Torlak and Shopi settlements. According to some authors during the Ottoman rule, the majority of native Torlakian Slavic population did not have national consciousness in ethnic sense. Therefore, both, Serbs and Bulgarians, considered local Slavs as part of their own people, while local population was also divided between sympathy for Bulgarians and Serbs. Other authors from the epoch, take a different view and maintain that the inhabitants of Torlakian area had begun to develop predominantly Bulgarian national consciousness. [3] [4] With Ottoman influence ever weakening, the increase of nationalist sentiment in the Balkans in late 19th and early 20th century, and the redrawing of national boundaries after the Treaty of Berlin (1878), the Balkan wars and World War I, the traditional Torlakian-speaking region was split several times between Serbia and Bulgaria. After World War II, a Macedonian national affiliation arose in the new Socialist Republic of Macedonia.
OK, if Zoupan agrees we can move this to the Torlakian dialect article, and make this one a redirect. I haven´t checked the sources, but from what I read the text seems ok, and it could/should be placed under a new section, possibly named "History", or "Background", whetever you editors feel better :) FkpCascais ( talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
No compromise was reached. Zoupan did not answer to you FkpCascais, and insists in his blind reverts, deliting the whole article as you can see here: [2] Jingby ( talk) 05:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK! I did not look this. Excuse me! Jingby ( talk) 07:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My revision, has, other than clarifying what sources really says;
I see no faults in expanding the article, mainting the view of Bulgarian scholars, however, posing Torlakian as a language (which it is not) is false, as per Wiki standards. Sincerely, -- 92.32.45.19 ( talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following categories: Languages of Macedonia, Languages of Bulgaria, Languages of Serbia and Languages of Romania just because this is not a language. It is a coined term for group of Bulgarian and Serbian, and small number of Macedonian, dialects. Therefore, the categories Dialects of Macedonian language, Dialects of Bulgarian language and Serbian dialects are enough. Also, I removed the previous image and put new one. The old one was inaccurate because it shows Torlakian dialects are spoken till Stip in Macedonia, but in fact only in the border regions near Kumanovo and Palanla are spoken these dialects. Best-- MacedonianBoy ( talk) 14:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
...На основу изложеног можемо се обазрети на северномакедонске говоре, коjи су, као што jе познато, генетски сродни са призренско-тимочкима...Iz srpskohrvatske dijalektologije, Том 2 от Selections, Издател Prosveta, 1991 г. стр. 212. Jingiby ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
See also: ...Врз основа на презентираните диjалектни факти во последниот труд, Степановик значително jа поместил границата на призренско-тимочките говори... Literaturen zbor, Том 43, Društvo za makedonski jazik i literatura, 1996, 119. Jingiby ( talk) 14:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | |
Dialect divisions of Macedonian. |
If I see, there is not a big difference between this map as showing Kumanovo-Kratovo dialect and its position on the Torlakian map. Jingiby ( talk) 14:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that this section is not very clearly written, there is the problem that it doesn't really describe the relationship with West Southslavic, but rather with Serbo-Croatian (or more precisely Shtokavian). Many of the characteristics which are described as differences from West Southslavic languages are actually present in Slovenian, Kajkavian and Čakavian. Zocky | picture popups 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't read all of the text here in the "talk" section but I haven't found anything about the name origin. If I missed it and am repeating something you already know, I'm sorry.
I am from Nish in Serbia, and I have at home three books called: "Istorija Niša I,II,III".(History of Nish) and I've read them all. They are separated by periods of time. The first is the time from paleolite to 1878(Berlin congress, liberation), the second is from 1878 to WW2(I think), and the third is WW2-1980. That's when the books were written.
Now, in the first book on one or two pages they talk about the sects of islam in the 16th or 17th sentury. The Dervishi, something like monks that mixed Cristianity and paganism with Islam, specifically ones that used paganism were called TORLAKs, and those monks were not from Balkan but from Turkmenistan from where they were moved to modern southeastern Serbia by the Ottoman rule. There is also a part in which they mention the Shopi and Torlak population being moved by the authorities to Turkmenistan for a couple of decades and then being moved back. That was a common practice in the empire to fill the empty lands.
There is one wierd custom(now dead) here called "Стрнџање" (Strndžanye) related to premarriage sex (or everything close to it except sex) and I've read on the internet more than once that this custom was brought from Turkmenistan. This is not so important and it's not proven to be from there, but it was worth mentioning..
I am not in Nish at the moment but when I come in 2 days, i'll find the books and quote/translate the pages regarding the Dervish and the migrations.
If you want to find them yourself, here is some help:
published by GRADINA-PROSVETA, written by Danica Milić (with other people whose names I don't know) in Niš, 1983.
- Radishalivac ( talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Gbook hits. Gscholar has "Torlak dialect" (32) vs "Torlakian dialect" (7).--
Zoupan
06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
The result of the move request was: No consensus for move ( non-admin closure) Mdann52 ( talk) 11:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Torlakian dialect →
Torlak dialect –
WP:COMMONNAME. See previous section. --Relisted.
George Ho (
talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Zoupan
22:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
In standard (Shtokavian) Serbian the phonem "h" has been re-introduced, since in most (all?) Shtokavian dialects it had been replaced by either "v" or zero; there are however some words where "h" has not been re-introduced: suv, kuvati; kujna. There are other words where both versions are possible: gluv/gluh. In both Bulgarian and Macedonian final "-st" is pronounced "-s", even though the spelling retains the final "-t". This seems to be the case also in some (all?) Torlak dialects, whereas standard Serbian pronunciation is [st]:
žal za mlados'
http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/1490358/vranje---zal-za-mlados-pogled-u-buducnost.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:91EF:FFFF:0:0:4F77:FA36 ( talk) 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Torlakian dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.srpskidespot.org.rs/Mape/dijalektiStokavskogNarecja.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The Torlakian dialects, together with Bulgarian and Macedonian, forming the East South Slavic languages subgroup, display many properties of the Balkan linguistic area. As a whole, Torlakian is closer to Macedonian than to Serbian, and falls into the Macedonian-Bulgarian diasystem. All these 3 languages were called Bulgarian till the 20th. century. Jingiby ( talk) 17:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Question. I know that identity is a tinderbox for Serbians and Croatians, but was Rešetar a Croat or a Serb? On brief inspection of his article, he is a Dubrovnik-born Serb yet here on Torlakian dialect he has been designated a Croatian linguist. I know there are some people who for one reason or another qualify as both, such as Nikola Tesla, but if someone could provide some consistency and clarification here, he will be very helpful. -- 46.233.77.16 ( talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)