Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Name of Macedonian in Greece

The so called "Bulgarian" name of the language in Greece is pure nonsense. How can we check the reference that Jingiby gave? I doubt Bulgarski is the name that people use. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So you suggest it's not bulgarian but the language ancient Macedonians spoke? Then how is it the same? Bulgars were actually enemies of ancient macedonians(greeks),slavic tribes that descended to the region in about the 6th cent. ad,described by the historians as barbaric. I reckon you're "macedonian"(gough). How do you make any sense of being macedonian? I mean,you speak slavic and until recently considered a slav related to bulgarians and serbs,so why would you think you're from the other side? Ok your politicians there in FYROM are doing a good propaganda job but it's seriously flawed and doesn't make sense from whatever side you see it.If you're macedonian,then what are the northern greeks?Aliens?I don't get how you believe it--94.70.121.106 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you read what you have written?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean?did i say something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.110.201 (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Map of dialects that also includes Bulgarian dialects

As the section about the dialects indicate, some of the Macedonian dialects are also considered Bulgarian. Why shouldn't the maps which have a significantly higher impact not indicate this as well? Kostja (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why shouldn't we let you plaster the articles with half a dozen references to your favourite petty POV idee fixe, rubbing everybody's nose into it in as many places as possible? It seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to do that, doesn't it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My favorite idea? Need I remind you that this map claims that a population that overwhelmingly identifies their language as Bulgarian actually speak Macedonian? One would think that such a bold claim should at least mention the alternate opinion, but apparently not. And of course, every other mention of these dialects already includes the disclaimer about the different interpretation of them, so why should a far more visible map not include them as well. And please, try to give some more concrete explanation, rather than mocking than me. Kostja (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Every single mention has had this kind of exclaimer pushed on it. For no other reason than placating the fixated POV anxieties of a small national faction of editors. Once is okay. Once per article is just acceptable. Anything more than that is obsession. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Schwa

In addition, the schwa [ə] appears in certain literary words in which it is always stressed.

This isn't correct. Only certain regionalisms have a schwa (and only when a text needs to make it clear that they are regionalisms); their literary counterparts invariably have /a/ (кана, касмет, комшилак, etc.) --101.112.160.25 (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jingiby

"Similarly to Macedonian" is clumsy English in this case; here "similarly" means "in the same way". It's a common conjunctive in formal English. The ref does not source the widely in "Torlakian was also widely regarded". "Together with Bulgarian and Torlakian" is an overstatement: Bugarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Torlakian are all included in the Balkan sprachbund. This is an article about Macedonian, so the Balkan sprachbund itself isn't being defined, only Macedonian as a constituent of it. If you insist on such a formulation, then it would be more to the point to say "Macedonian and the other South Slavic languages...", avoiding those long-winded opening sentences. "Language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian during Yugoslav times, influenced the Macedonian so much, that even today the colloquial speech of the city" is unacceptable English. --101.112.166.177 (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jingiby... again

After the forced serbianisation implemented during the interbellum,[38][39] the subsequent intensive language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian reached its height during Yugoslav times, so much so that the colloquial speech of the city of Skopje has been described as a "creolized form of Serbian"[40] (cf. also Surzhyk in Ukraine, Trasianka in Belarus).

You cannot splice two sources together to arrive at your conclusion. From the second source ("creolized form of Serbian") is isn't explicit if it arose from a forced serbianisation or otherwise. Given that the source speaks of "language contact", it is unlikely that it is referencing force of any type (linguists invariably consider language contact as it occurs naturally). The first source speaks of cultural assimilation in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (i.e. before the implementation of the standard) and does not explicitly mention language. The second source similarly speaks of cultural assimilation and discrimination in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --101.112.130.179 (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The cultural assimilation included also forced linguistic serbianisation. The local dialects were regarded Serbian. More, the locals were regarded Serbs. The Serbian was the only language teached in the schools. I am going to modify my statement and to support it with reliable sources which point espesially the linguistic assimilation. Jingiby (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The new sources are still problematic, but much better nevertheless. Thank you. --101.112.138.110 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide excerpts from sources 20-26. Where do they state "Macedonian dialects were described by most linguists as being dialects of Bulgarian"? Or are *you* deciding who "most linguists" were based on the number of sources *you* find on Google Books? --101.112.153.165 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem, all of this old books are describing Macedonian as part of Bulgarian. But more interesting is this citation: The south-Slavic linguistic area is generally regarded as as one of the most interesting in Europe... The number of languages into which this continuum is officially segmented has been subject to change, however. Up until World War II there were three: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Since 1944, when Macedonia was set up as a Yugoslav Republic and Macedonian was proclaimed as its literary language, the Macedonian dialects...has been subsumed under this new linguistic standard, which raised them to four... Although there is no clear dividing line between these two languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian) on level of dialect, the Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in a typical Ausbau move, by being based on western Macedonian dielects-those furthest from Bulgaria. Language, discourse and borders in the Yugoslav successor states - Current issues in language and society monographs, Birgitta Busch, Helen Kelly-Holmes, Multilingual Matters, 2004, ISBN 1853597325, pp. 24-25. [1]. That means in simple words: In the South - Slavic dialect continuum, the Macedonian language was delimited from Bulgarian after the Second World war. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No one denies any of that, but you're still avoiding my question. I am challenging the assertion that Macedonian dialects "were described by most linguists as being dialects of Bulgarian". Actually, I'm not challenging the assertion itself, I am challenging the way in which you have backed up the claim. None of the sources provided actually state anything to that effect. What you have done is found literature which uses the label 'Bulgarian'. So, the assertion "most linguists" is *your own* based on your own original research (cf. SYN). --101.112.153.122 (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

After 1991 the language question has become a tool used by political elites for the acquisition and maintenance of power. What on Earth do you mean by that? Why are you inserting ridiculously vague statements such as this one, and other completely irrelevant passages like those about the standardization? --101.112.153.122 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, undue weight is given to Serbian assimilation; perhaps you'd like to account for the assimilatory practices of the Bulgarian and Greek churches as well? --101.112.153.122 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

Sorry to brake the spell, but the latest edits turned what was already a POV-ridden section into a political pamphlet accusing the world of hating and trying to assimilate a certain population. While removing some sources tagged with "verification failed", the floating-IP-annon also removed large chunks of information and presented a version cherry-picked to suit his own POV. None of these were mentioned in the edit summary though. Would the annon be kind enough to explain a bit on the talkpage prior to performing such edits? I know he or she is well-familiar with Wiki policies and should know better than this. --Laveol ^T 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS

Before continuing an edit war over text that has been fairly stable over time, it's always a good idea to come here or to a sandbox, build a version that gains a consensus, and then inserting it into the article. Do not slap "verification" or "citation needed" tags all over the article to make your point. Verification tags are not to declare to the world that you don't actually own the book and can't look it up. --Taivo (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

This article does not reflect accurately and enough precisely the following facts and they need to be еxplained in its content:

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian).

2. The Macedonian language is part of the Balkan linguistic union along with the rest of the South Slavic languages ​​from the Eastern subbranch ​​- Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is not part of this union, without Serbian eastern most dialects - the Torlakian).

3. Today three mentioned above languages - Macedonian, Torlakian and today Bulgarian, differ significantly from other South Slavic languages.

4. In the past Macedonian, Torlakian and today Bulgarian dialects were widely described primarily as dialects of Bulgarian.

5. During the late 19th century Macedonian intellectuals suggested a codification of the Bulgarian language on the basis of the Macedonian dialects, but its codifiers rejected it and Bulgarian was based on its eastern dialects. This was the turning point of the split.

6. The 19th and early 20th cent. Macedonian elites, participated fully in the Bulgarian National revival and considered its language part of the Bulgarian diasystem.

7. Krste Misirkov, who for the first time called for distinct Macedonian language in 1903, classified Torlakian and Macedonian dialects in 1910 as Bulgarian.

8. The Vardar Macedonian dialect was forcibly serbianized between the two world wars and this fact undoubtedly influenced the local speach.

9. Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in 1945 with ausbau-move and was based on its western dialects-furthest most from Bulgaria.

10. After the World War II the serbianization was strengthened exclusively by political reasons from Yugoslav elites and even today Macedonian language-ausbau is deliberately differentiated from Bulgarian.

11. This language-policy effectively resulted in that: today standard Macedonian language is largely incomprehensible to the Slavic-speakers from other regions of Macedonia, wich were outside Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody disagree with this? Jingiby (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Some of your points are simply uncontested fact, some are POV pushing. Now if you actually want a constructive, consensus-building discussion, take each one of these points individually and patiently present your evidence. But if you want people to actually read what you are writing, I strongly suggest that you do not write paragraphs on each point, and that you don't try to argue the next point until you have finished the previous one. Wikipedia editors don't suffer lightly the person who wants to waste their bandwidth with overargumentation or too many issues at once. --Taivo (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What points exactly do you disagree with? I can prove them, point by point, with reliable, neutral, secondary, academic sources. Jingiby (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you can't prove them with the neutrality you claim or else your edits would not have been reverted by other editors. I reiterate my suggestion on how to proceed--start with the point that you think is most important and build a consensus for it with reliable sources. Once you've built a consensus (or not), then move to your second-most-important point. Talking about six or ten points at once is rarely productive in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

OK! I suggest to discuss them in their numeration. Do you agree with this, Taivio? Jingiby (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian). - Today Torlakian, Bulgarian and Macedonian form the eastern subbranch of the south Slavic languages, sharing a lot of substantial structural characteristics.

- Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity transformations in Post-Roman and early Medieval Dalmatia, Danijel Dzino, BRILL, 2010, ISBN 9004186468, p. 50.;

- The languages and linguistics of Europe, Bernd Kortmann, Johan van der Auwera, Walter de Gruyter, 2011, ISBN 3110220261, p. 515.;

- Balkan syntax and semantics, Olga Mišeska Tomić, Aida Martinovic-Zic, John Benjamins Publishing, 2004, ISBN 158811502X, p. 123.

- The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics, Ivo Banač, Cornell University Press, 1988, ISBN 0801494931, p. 47.

- Mood in the Languages of Europe, Björn Rothstein, Rolf Thieroff, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027205876, p. 409. Jingiby (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. You are distorting these citations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Lindstedt [2] and others say that Torlak is part of "Balkan Slavic" (i.e. the areal group of Slavic that is affected by the Balkan sprachbund), but not that it is genetically part of "Eastern South Slavic". In fact, since he clearly refers to it as part of Serbian, that would imply a grouping under Western S.S. (not that such dichotomic genetic classifications are of much importance when dealing with dialect continua, either way, but that's the way he refers to it.) Dzino [3] does not himself propose a classification, but merely reports a couple of other researchers' approaches, in a matter that is only tangentially related to the matter at hand. By the way, please at last learn that papers in collected volumes must be cited by the author and title of the individual chapter, not just the volume's editor(s). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If I see, Friedman definitely describes "Balkan Slavic", i.e. three mentioned above languages as belonging to the eastern subbranch here: p. 123.. Jingiby (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Jingiby, as I read the comments from Friedman, he definitely isn't saying that "Balkan Slavic" is a genetic unit, but a regional grouping as Future says. Indeed, he calls Torlakian "Serbian" in every instance. By labelling Torlakian as Serbian he is definitely including it as part of the Serbian dialect complex, not as part of the "East South Slavic" grouping which includes Macedonian and Bulgarian. Only the last comment in this Google Books search is about the genetic East South Slavic group, but the Google Books quote is so truncated as to be almost useless in determining exactly what Friedman means. If you are doing all your research with Google Books, then you will often find yourself the victim of massive misunderstanding. After expanding that single quote out to several pages, and reading the paragraphs before and after the "East South Slavic" comment, it is clear that he is not using that label as a genetic label, but is still talking about areal features, not genetic features. So even that last quote in the link you gave us is not about a genetic node that includes Torlakian, but about an areal grouping. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: black is white and vice a versa. Nobody rejects today that part of Torlakian dialect is in Serbian language, but the Torlakian as a whole (including Macedonian and Bulgrian parts) is more Eastern South Slavic. Recently, Future has deleted three or more times added by me information, confirmed by Friedman, p. 120, who admits that Macedonian and Torlakian in the 19th century were often described as Bulgarian. By the way this is confirmed also by such biased, pro-Macedonian author as Shea on the map on p. 99. This is ridiculous. Jingiby (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This isn't ridiculous since I get the impression that you don't completely understand what a genetic relationship is as opposed to an areal relationship. You seem to be mixing the two ways of categorizing the South Slavic languages and their constituent dialects. If I am wrong in that assumption, then please clarify your comments so that it's clear you understand the two things. If Torlakian is a Serbian dialect, then it's not East South Slavic. If it's East South Slavic, then it's not a Serbian dialect. --Taivo (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is totally wrong. The history of Torlakian and Macedonian is similar. Until 20th cenury they were part of Bulgarian diasystem. Then occured language shift, at first in Torlakia, then in Vardar Macedonia, i.e. strong politically motivated Serbianization. Look at the map of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition. Both areas are shown as part of Bulgarian diasystem: [4]. Jingiby (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Either Torlakian is a dialect of Serbian, which makes it West South Slavic, or it is not. Friedman clearly calls it "Serbian" and all the modern linguistic sources I'm aware of place it in the Serbo-Croatian system. --Taivo (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, Wayles Brown, "Serbo-Croat" The Slavonic Languages (1993, Routledge), pp. 306-387. "The Torlak (Prizren-Timok) group, sometimes termed transitional to Macedonian and Bulgarian, is generally, as here, included in Shtokavian." (pg. 382). --Taivo (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course, you are not wright again. Torlakian is today not dialect only of Serbian, but also of Macedonian and Bulgarian. As you can check according to Paul Cubberley in The Slavic Languages, Cambridge University Press,2006, p. 506 ... Torlakian is a distinct fourth dialect group (neither Stokavian, nor Kakavian or Chakavian), and shows strong transitional features with Bulgarian and Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

More, what about Krste Misirkov's opinion? In several publications Misirkov attempted to determine the border-line between the Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian languages. He included in the Bulgarian dialects all of Torlak dialects and Macedonian too: Мисирков, Кръстьо (1898). Значението на моравското или ресавското наречие за съвременната и историческа етнография на Балканския полуостров. Български преглед, година V, книга І, стр. 121–127; Мисирков, Кръстьо (1910, 1911). Бележки по южно-славянска филология и история (Към въпроса за пограничната линия между българския и сръбско-хърватски езици и народи), Одеса, 30.XII.1909 г. Българска сбирка. Jingiby (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jingiby, a speech form cannot be a dialect of two different languages. And I looked at those quotes from "The Slavic Languages" and not a single solitary one of them says that Torlakian is a "Bulgarian" or a "Macedonian" dialect. Not one. In each and every one of those quotes, Torlakian is called a Serbian dialect with some Bulgarian and/or Macedonian features. Cubberley consistently and without exception calls Torlakian a Serbian dialect. And trying to call an 1898 source as evidence to refute modern sources is not going to convince anyone here. Dialects do not somehow switch from being a dialect of one language to being a dialect of another. Doesn't happen. Torlakian is a dialect of the Serbo-Croatian complex with influences from the Bulgarian/Macedonian complex. Also, Jingiby, this is the English Wikipedia and it's requisite that you translate quotes you pull from other languages. --Taivo (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Torlakian is the name of this dialects especially in Serbia, but it is used in Wikipedia as common name for a broader group. The Bulgarian name of the same dialect is Shopski dialect. This dialect is spoken by the Bulgarians in Serbia also. In Macedonia it is called Kumanovo-Kratovo dialect. Jingiby (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You can see Torlakiain in far west, marked with dark broun (№ 3) on the map below:

Map of the Big Yus (*ǫ) isoglosses in Bulgarian language in early 20th century: Български диалектен атлас (Bulgarian dialect atlas), Кочев Иван, 2001 София Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Bulgarian.

Jingiby (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you've presented changes the simple fact that Torlakian is a dialect of Serbian/Serbo-Croatian and not Bulgarian or Macedonian. The overwhelming testimony of linguists agrees with this. --Taivo (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Тhe Macedonian language is part of the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic languages together with Bulgarian and Torlakian (Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian)?!? Jingiby (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, I am sure, you ever did not understand my thesis! Jingiby (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So you have one Macedonian source compared to a dozen linguists who say otherwise. We don't give a potentially nationalist source more weight than neutral, scientific linguistic sources which overwhelmingly state that Torlakian is a West South Slavic dialect, part of the Serbo-Croatian complex. --Taivo (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This was probably a joke. Jingiby (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

My statement about Torlakian is readable above: ...Serbo-Croatian is located in the western subgroup, without Serbian most eastern dialects - the Torlakian... What is your problem? I have described Serbian most eastern dialects as Torlakian. The fact that Torlakian is spoken in Bulgaria is also undisputable: ... Linguistically the Torlakian dialekt is found on both sides on modern political bondary.Thus Serbs and Bulgarians along the modern political bordery speak the same dialect: Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe, George W. White, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, ISBN 0847698092, pp. 232-233.; The Torlakian (or Torlak) is the collective name of several Slavic dialects spoken in southeast Serbia, southeast Kosovo, northern Macedonia, and western Bulgaria— particularly, in the Belogradchik-Godech-Tran-Breznik area in Bulgaria...: Bulgaria (Other Places Travel Guide), Leslie Strnadel, Patrick Erdley, Other Places Publishing, 2012, p. 118.; ...Border dialects is the term used for the dialects spoken on both sides of today's Bulgarian-Yugoslavian border. The area of these dialects includes in the east the dialects of Belogradchik, Berkovica, Trän, Breznik, Caribrod and Bosilegrad ... in the west of state-border the border dialects transform into the so-called dialect of Timok-Moravia or Prizren-Timok which, besides bears the features of the border Bulgarian dialects...: Sŭpostavitelno ezikoznanie, Volume 6, Sofiĭski universitet Kliment Okhridski, 1981, p. 223.; Bulgarian linguistics describes this dialects as Transitional western Bulgarian dialects or Transitional U-dialects. You can see them on the map in far west: Language Contact: New Perspectives, Cornelius Hasselblatt, Bob De Jonge, Muriel Norde, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027218676, p. 134.; ...U-dialects (Western Bulgarian areas near the Bulgarian-Serbian border)...: Language Contact: New Perspectives, Cornelius Hasselblatt, Bob De Jonge, Muriel Norde, John Benjamins Publishing, 2010, ISBN 9027218676, p. 133.Jingiby (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

And that is supposed to prove what? And it is important for an article about Macedonian in what way? Jingiby, you have no idea what you are talking about; give it up. By the way, you are again misquoting sources. How often do I have to tell you to cite papers in collected volumes by their individual authors, not their editors? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to ask, why here is neglected the firm opinion of Friedman, who is an expert on the topic, that Torlakian is part of eastern subgroup of the South Slavic, together with Macedonian and Bulgarian. It makes no sense one and the same Torlakian dialect, spoken in the border area of this three countries to be part of one language subroup in two of them, but of another language subgroup in the third one. This is not serious. Jingiby (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because Friedman doesn't do what you claim he does. You still haven't even begun to grasp the very basics of what these people are saying. You fail to understand the difference between genetic units and areal units. You still seem to be confusing the concepts of "Eastern South Slavic" (which is a supposed genetic unit) and "Balkan Slavic" (which is a supposed areal/contact phenomenon). All these people are talking about contact linguistics, and delimitations between genetic groupings are simply not what they're interested in. In fact, in a situation of dialect continuum, the genetic (family-tree) classification model doesn't really work anyway, which is the reason why today (as opposed to the nationally motivated research of the 19th century, and its local remnants) nobody in scholarship asks the question of where exactly the one genetic unit ends and the other begins. The question "is Torlakian part of ESS or WSS" is not just uninteresting; it is meaningless.

Besides, it is of course also off-topic for this article anyway. Why the sudden obsession to include coatrack discussion of the genetic status of Torlakian in this article about Macedonian? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Future that the status of Torlakian is unrelated to the topic of this article. But I also demonstrated above that Friedman does not support your claim, Jingiby, that Torlakian is genetically a part of East South Slavic. Don't you read our comments? --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What Friedman states is as follows: Taken as supralinguistic set of diasystems, East South-Slavic, i.e. Southern Serbian (Torlak), Macedonian and Bulgarian, display a series of isoglosses that are morphologigcal, semantic and pragmatic, in which the development of evidentially and arguably reflects the differentiation of Macedonian and Bulgarian. No doubt? Jingiby (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

So what. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That and that. Jingiby (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those were two edits of mine; they were correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? I did not uderstand why was this sentence deleted: Today Torlakian, Bulgarian and Macedonian form the eastern subbranch of the south Slavic languages, sharing a lot of substantial structural characteristics? Jingiby (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's not the predominant view. The predominant view is that ESS is Bg + Mk, and WSS is SCr+Slo. Now, that is a simplified view, and it's legitimately simplified and supposed to be so. Because the precise dialectological delimitation between the two is simply a non-issue. The detail of whether you count Torlakian as being on the one side of the boundary or on the other, or indeed whether you draw a line right through Torlakian, is not a matter that people disagree about; it's simply irrelevant. It's like trying to determine at what precise point in a rainbow "green" ends and "blue" begins. Even asking the question is meaningless. It just makes no sense. Anybody who thinks it is significant whether you describe it this way or the other is misinformed, and anybody who thinks it is important is an idiot. Wikipedia is not supposed to written either for idiots or by idiots, so it is not important for Wikipedia.

Friedman at one point feels free to use "ESS" as a loose synonym of the "Balkan Slavic" he has defined elsewhere. He can do so, exactly because the delimitation is otherwise so irrelevant. So what? Friedman himself doesn't care about it either, certainly not as a matter of classification. His paper is about the typology of language contact and nothing else. Do you know about language contact? Do you care? If not, why do you even bother citing his paper? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Torlak dialect is a very specific and often classified separately. That part of it which falls geographically in modern Serbia is described as Serbian language. However, it is grouped together with Torlak dialects in Bulgaria and Macedonia, which are not Serbian. Interestingly this dialect is part of the Balkan linguistic union, where Serbian as a whole does not fit. Another specificitiy is that this dialect is part of the Eastern subgroup of the southern Slavic languages​​, along with Macedonian and Bulgarian. For me that is quite interesting and I do not understand why to delete this facts from the section "classification of Macedonian". It seems biased and unreasonable. Jingiby (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

My point above about "anybody who thinks it is important..." stands. This discussion is now over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But you have deleted this classification even from the section "classification" in the article about Torlakian dialects. This was really ridiculous. Jingiby (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You simply don't know what you're talking about, Jingiby. Torlakian is not an East South Slavic dialect. The linguistic evidence is conclusive--it is a dialect of the West South Slavic Serbo-Croatian language complex. As Future said, "This discussion is now over." --Taivo (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Taivio, honestly, stop with platitudes. Jingiby (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Source provided is not providing prove for this sentence

"""Nowadays, only a minority of linguists still deny the distinctiveness of Macedonian; however, such views are politically motivated.[14][28][29]""

According to the UCLA - Macedonian Language is distinct South Slavic language. The is no information provided that "only a minority of linguists still deny the distinctivness of the Macedonian and that hose views are politically motivated.

I will remove this sentence ,if my edit it is considered inappropriate and the one who wrote this sentence has sources that prove this i will put the information back.

--Daci92 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, check carefully, the three sources and do not delete them. As for example UCLA - Macedonian Language: Some consider Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian, but this is a highly charged issue hotly disputed by others. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the sentence "however, such views are politically motivated" is extremely clumsy. Which views does it refer to: those that deny the separateness, or also those on the other side? Are all disagreements supposed to be purely political, or only in part? What does the "however" mean? (i.e. in what way does it constitute a logical contradiction to the preceding statements?) This needs to be rephrased. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence was transformed in this way by the Australian IPs, who you oppenly support. Its old version, which is more realistic was: Prior to their codification in 1945, Macedonian dialects were for the most part classified as Bulgarian[16][17][18] and some linguists consider them still as such, but this view is politically controversial.[14][19][20] Jingiby (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the older version was better. Linguasphere, at least, links Macedonian and Bulgarian and it's hardly "political". --Taivo (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

There is something missing and I am going to clarify it. Jingiby (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

OK then i wont change it ,but still source number 29 should be checked since it is not open for viewing if u r not premium user or you dont buy the book.--Daci92 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Linguists outside of Bulgaria and Greece do not deny the distinctiveness of Macedonian. That handful that do, do so because they subscribe to a 'conspiracy theory' (we've all heard it before). Any normal person (linguist or otherwise) would immediately dismiss their works on account of their unprofessionalism and the hate speech within them. I'm not just talking about political incorrectness—everyone's entitled to an opinion—but these guys make heavy use of ethnic slurs. And yes, Fut.Perf., all such disagreements hitherto have been politically motivated. A Greek "linguist", for example, has described Macedonian as "a bastardized idiolect consisting of equal amounts of Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian". All linguists from BAN don't even seem to know what a standard language is, much less understand the concept of diasystem. If it's something you're personally interested in, take a look at this article by an Austrian linguist:

• This downright usurpation of ethnic names

Implying that nations exist outside of the societal construct, and that the Macedonians are the only people who have engaged in nation building...

• including letters having become more or less a myth ќ ѓ (instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД [...]

Which Cyrillic alphabet hasn't modified the original civil script? Even the Russians themselves altered it. And there just isn't any sense in representing /ɟ/ with <жд>: are we supposed to read <дожд> [doʒd] as *[doc], <ждребе> [ʒdrebe] as *[ɟrebe]?

• A very special trick of the Macedonian glossotomists

Does that sound like the kind of unbiased language excepted of an academic?

Also, where's the linguistic evidence? The whole article is an emotional attack on the Yugoslav state and the Macedonian nation. --101.112.148.25 (talk) 04:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You obviously don't know all the linguistic literature, anon IP. There are purely linguistic, non-political sources from outside Bulgaria and Greece that link Macedonian and Bulgarian. They are in the minority, of course, but they are not the political propaganda that you so wrongly claim. --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Academics in the Republic of Macedonia also "link Macedonian and Bulgarian". It's quite obvious and there's no denying they're closely related languages. But, every denial of Macedonian's distinctiveness is politically motivated. There are no clear-cut boundaries between the South Slavic languages. Hence, there are only standard registers based on various points in that continuum, so every claim of "x doesn't exist" or "y is a dialect of a" is subjective. --101.112.130.70 (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, anon IP, there are linguists outside this region, without any political motivation, who still link Macedonian and Bulgarian for linguistic reasons, not political ones. Linguasphere, for example. They are a minority, to be sure, but they are not politically motivated and that accusation on your part simply shows your POV. --Taivo (talk) 10:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I never knew that many Macedonian intellectuals claimed their dialects were a distinct language. On a contrary, many accepted standard Bulgarian and only single claimed that - Misirkov in 1903, who however, later rejected this idea. It gained limited popularity only in the 1930s. Jingiby (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Future, the fact, you are an administrator here, does not give you a rights to abuse other editors, to delete Encyclopedia Britannica's view, and to demonstrate irresponsible behaviour. Jingiby (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The following text was deleted by an administrator: According to 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, the Macedonian dialects, although resembling Serbian in some aspects, presented most of the characteristic features of Bulgarian. His\her motives to delete it were: Take your obsessions elsewhere. If no reliable reason for this action will be provided, I am going to add this properly sourced and realistic text again. Jingiby (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Future, rv. no is not a serious position, but а stubborn obstinacy. Please, provide a reliable motivation for deletion of Britannica's view. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Article has been submitted for deletion

discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Macedonian_language Experienced editors please fix any probable mistakes ,i'm inexperienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellhn2012 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your filing was indeed technically deficient. I could fix it, if it wasn't for the fact that it is also a frivolous proposal without a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, being as it is based purely on your personal political dislike of the topic. If you continue trying to get this page deleted for frivolous reasons like these, you will likely end up blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You are being scientifically defecient future perfect. How don't i have a snowball's chance? I have all chances with me. Now if you'll excuse me and are willing to stop edit-warring on me,i'm back on submitting it for deletion. Your objections,place them on the appropriate deletion page.This here article lacks any neutrality and historical responsibility. Thus,the one with political motives seems to be you.--Ellhn2012 (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Any deletion request is made out of plain POV motives, including yours. 'It offends me' is not a valid reason. Anyone will recognize that and it will simply result in another speedy keep. Stop wasting people's time with this nonsense. --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Future and JorisvS are correct. This request has no legitimate encyclopedic basis and is just your personal desire to poke a stick in the eye of Macedonians. --Taivo (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The motives are not POV. The request has all the encyclopedic basis,you can't steal another group's characteristics and change history by yourself. Did you even see what i wrote in the deletion submission before you removed it? The article is offensive but that's just one of the arguments i wrote. And i have many more to show there. Of course you guys won't believe this truth because you are stuck to your macedonistic POV supporting the fyrom nationalists.You seem to be pretty subjective. Taivo just called fyromians plain "macedonians".What are the northern greeks,taivo? Are you objective? You shouldn't be editors here. Do you have something else to call me before i continue the job? I'm a student and out of time. Don't delay me more--Ellhn2012 (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Before continuing on your rant, be sure to read WP:MOSMAC. That is Wikipedia's policy concerning naming here. You're clearly working under a POV that is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Source about Balgratzki

There are some serious problems regarding this source:

Шклифов, Благой and Екатерина Шклифова, Български диалектни текстове от Егейска Македония, София 2003, с. 28-36, 172

Can we check it? How can we know whether nowadays they call the language as bulgartzki or it was in the past, in Ottoman period when the Bulgarian propaganda was active? On one place in the book, the adjective does not refer to the language, for example, here it says [probably a story]: Lazar Poptrajkoff was a Bulgarian teacher, not "we call our language Bulgartzki". This book is a collection of texts, probably stories that cannot be checked. Either give new sources, or redo the wording. If you have online version of the book give a link and that'd be fine. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This book was published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Bulgarian Language, Academic Publishing House "Prof. Marin Drinov", in 2003. It is reliable and you can check it here. Jingiby (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Should I say now, "you need to give non-Bulgarian sources" as you always do with the Macedonian? However, only one of those bulgarian names is enough. Now it gives impression that you insist on something, which I do not want to believe, right?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Proper citation

In "Classification" you can read the following sentence: Language contact between Macedonian and Serbo-Croatian reached its height during Yugoslav times, so much so that the colloquial speech of the city of Skopje has been described as a creolized form of Serbian. However, if you open the cited book, you can read this most Macedonians were pleased to speak Serbian (or "pseudo Serbian", i.e. a mixture of Serbian and Macedonian"). Someone blindly reverted me thinking my edits are POV. Also, you reverted corrected transliteration of the phrase Дали зборувате…? One user from Southern Balkans really needs to see what he/ she reverts. Regarding the removal of the clause from the introduction: it is not necessary since the same thing is repeated just under the intro. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Pleased to speak X" is not written in encyclopedic English. --Taivo (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, you reverted all my edits just for one word. That's why you are here. You as a native speaker of English should correct us (non-native speakers) and together we can improve the article. Instead, now the transliteration is removed, the correct (not manipulated) sentence is missing and the introduction is overload. The Greek guy that blindly reverted me still thinks that my edits are POV. Balkan issues... However, I would like you to restore my edits. In the original it says "happy to speak". How people came up with "Skopje" and "creolized" in fact?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I reverted all your edits because besides the awkward English, there was also POV pushing that tried to minimize Macedonian's Bulgarian connection and present a non-existent Serbian connection. --Taivo (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Taivo, the section is about late 19 century and early 20. It is not about today. Those theses existed at that time. Undoubtedly Macedonian is closely related to Bulgarian first and to Serbian second. Where did you see my "minimization of Macedonian's Bulgarian connection and present a non-existent Serbian connection." You as a linguist know that Serbian is quite related to Macedonian, and Bulgarian as well. My edits were not about today's political connections with Serbian, but before the codification. Today only, out of political reasons Bulgarians claim MK is a dialect (which is mentioned in the article) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FP, what do you mean "not an improvement"? How come the phrase "as is its distinctiveness in Bulgaria" could possibly make sense? The actual mention on "distinctiveness" in the source (Roudometof, p. 41) is: "Scandinavians respect the distinctiveness and autonomy of each other's respective languages..." How could possibly "as is its distinctiveness in Bulgaria" makes any sense at all? What the source actually says is "...the implication here is that the Macedonian is really Bulgarian..." p.41. Also, the Macedonian naming dispute article is the right wikilink on the controversy with Greece. Macedonian (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. When you check a source, don't just mechanically search for the occurrence of an individual word; read for meaning. I didn't claim the source was using the exact expression "distinctiveness", did I? This was a paraphrase. The sentence as it stood was perfectly correct: the distinctiveness of Macedonian is disputed in Bulgarian, just as the name of Macedonian is disputed in Greece. This is understandable to any competent speaker of English. Your version, on the other hand, is extremely poor writing and forms a near-ungrammatical garden path sentence. As for what link to use, I find the article-internal link to the section on "views" quite pertinent, and I really don't see how you could invoke "MOS" as dictating something else, but I guess that's a matter of taste. Now stop edit-warring; you're being tendentious again and it's annoying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the section "Classification and related languages" is a followng claim: ..."while the Bulgarians had elsewhere been described as speaking a dialect of Serbian." This statement seems rather exaggerated and one-sided. Moreover, when I tried to check the veracity of the references, I found a problem with this. I could not find online any opportunity to verify the cited pages. The first source: James Franklin Clark. The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History; Columbia University Press (New York, 1988), p. 36 seems reliable, but my attemts to find such claim here failed. The second source is translated Serbian nationalistic book called: The Macedonian question: the struggle for southern Serbia; Đoko M. Slijepčević, 1958, p.42. It is biased source and its reliability is absolutely questionable. I suggest somebody to add a source that meets the good practices of Wikipedia and which may be really checked or, if it will be not granted within a reasonable time, this info to be removed as bised and unreliable. Jingiby (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has added a reliable source, that meets the good practices of Wikipedia and which can be really checked and if this continues, this info will be removed as bised and unreliable. Jingiby (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

History of the Macedonian

I call all editors interested in linguistics to read the section about the history of the Macedonian. What's your opinion? Is there a bit history of the language in it? Or is it a piece of text that mostly argues how Macedonian is Bulgarian. Most of the section needs to be moved to the section Bulgarian political view of the Macedonian. The history section should be concerned how linguistically the language developed (which we have a lot of sources about it), smaller paragraph about the political developments and circumstances which the language developed in and we should not be concerned to tell "how Bulgarian the language is" because that's for the section Bulgarian political view of the language. We should rewrite the history section.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If Macedonian was developed in the early 20th century from western Bulgarian dialect continuum, and it was codified in the middle of the same century, there is no separate history of Macedonian as a distinct language before the 20th century:

The south-Slavic linguistic area is generally regarded as as one of the most interesting in Europe... The number of languages into which this continuum is officially segmented has been subject to change, however. Up until World War II there were three: Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. Since 1944, when Macedonia was set up as a Yugoslav Republic and Macedonian was proclaimed as its literary language, the Macedonian dialects...has been subsumed under this new linguistic standard, which raised them to four... Although there is no clear dividing line between these two languages (Bulgarian and Macedonian) on level of dialect, the Macedonian literary standard was delimited from Bulgarian in a typical Ausbau move, by being based on western Macedonian dielects-those furthest from Bulgaria. "Language, discourse and borders in the Yugoslav successor states - Current issues in language and society monographs, Birgitta Busch, Helen Kelly-Holmes, Multilingual Matters, 2004, ISBN 1853597325, pp. 24-25." [5]. That was discussed to death and means in simple words: In the South - Slavic dialect continuum, the Macedonian language was delimited from Bulgarian after the Second World war. Jingiby (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Give me a break with those theses. There are whole books about the development of the language on morphological, lexical, phonological, syntactic and semantic levels. The view you mentioned above is political, and it needs to be included in appropriate section. The only division that occurred is the division of Macedonian and Bulgarian from Old Church Slavonic, and this is partially mentioned in the article. I am not arguing here, or trying to remove the Bulgarian POV toward the language, but improving the history section. It's your own problem what you think about Macedonian. Just to be clear, forget that WW II thesis, Pulevski, for instance, was not publishing in the period of 1940-1944. And finally, you should make a distinction between language and language standardization. Standardization of a language does not mean the language did not exist previously. There is a reason why the author says "literary", i.e. standard language.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at this book and take a look at Tomic's description and how he rejects the thesis that "Bulgarian is a pluricentric language", a thesis that Bulgariand and pro-Bulgarians enjoy to emphasize. But, this is off topic, my reaction is from linguistic and literary point of view, your POV is political.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph from the history section since it has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the language. It's about the history of the Macedonian State:

During the second World War, a part of Yugoslav Macedonia was occupied by the Bulgarian army, who were allied with the Axis. The standard Bulgarian language was reintroduced in schools and liturgies. The Bulgarians were initially welcomed as liberators from Serbian domination until connections were made between the imposition of the Bulgarian language and unpopular Serbian assimilationpolicies; the Bulgarians were quickly seen as conquerors by communist movement.

I would like to improve the history section a bit more.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This was not at all an improvement. I oppose to many of your edits. Please, gain a consensus and stop the biased edits, stick to the stable version or this is going to become an edit war. Jingiby (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there something you do not like? Each sentence is in Friedman's and Lunt's publications. Just to remind you, the stable version was before you wrote the so called into to the history. Calling Macedonians as Bulgarians and avoiding the facts that Zografsky is the person who called for Macedonian-Bulgarian common language, is not NPOV. Also, you say that Bulgarian and Macedonian did not have standards, and in the next sentence you say Macedonian split from Bulgarian. How could one language split from another when there is not a standard norm? Who splits from whom? Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian developed from the Macedonian, Bulgarian and Serbian recension. Read more please and then write about Slavistics. Either the so called you intro is removed or it needs to be neutralized.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There a lot of neutral linguists who sharply oppose both Macedonists above. Their opinion is to some degree biased. I disagree with your edits. Call for a third opinion, please. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion and it's not relevant. I oppose 90% of your edits, so what? You think Friedman and Lunt are unreliable? If you think so, my talk with you stops here, since you are not well informed. For the record, each pro-Bulgarian claim that was in the article regarding the language is still there. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You fail to understand, MacedonianBoy, that Jingiby's opinion, based on equally valid sources, is absolutely relevant in Wikipedia. Make your case simply and clearly based on sources and then build a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Taivo, do you ever read what the edits are? Do you ever care to read the talk pages? Did you take a look at my edits at all? Have you read what I wrote above? My case is not clear, and Jingi's is because Friedman and Lunt are worthless authors that write fringe theories just because that's not in accordance to the official Bulgarian policy. Also, there was not edit war at all, Jingi was editing the article as well and I accepted his edits. Just because he does not know how reshape the things I wrote according to his doctrine, doesn't mean we do an edit war. The problem was about this paragraph (compare which one is linguistically correct and NPOV):

The history of Standard Macedonian language began at the end of the 19th century. Initially, during the 19th century Bulgarians and the Macedonian Slavs (called then Bulgarians), worked together in creating a common modern literary standard called "Macedonian-Bulgarian", or simply Bulgarian. At that time, every subgroup wrote in his own local dialects. The idea of common Macedonian-Bulgarian language was rejected by Bulgarian codification at the end of the 19th. century. With the rise of Macedonian nationalism, the need for separate Macedonian national standard language appeared in the early 20th. century. This led to a subsequent split from the common Macedono-Bulgarian diasystem, and the following codification of a separate Macedonian language after the Second World War. Attempts to standardize the Macedonian language prior to 1944 were unsuccessful, however some linguists as Victor Friedman states it was only a symbolic act which marked the beginning of a period when the standard language was able to be implemented. Nevertheless, according to the Macedonists, such as Blaze Koneski and others, the history of the Macedonian language began in the Middle ages.

(his version)

Old Church Slavonic had several recensions, depending on the center where the documents were produced. Each recension continued to develop independently and they were basis for the modern Slavic languages. The Macedonian recension developed in Ohrid and Lesnovo Literary Schools. The history of Standard Macedonian language began at the end of the 19th century. Initially, during the 19th century Bulgarians and some of the Macedonians worked together in creating a common modern literary standard called "Macedonian-Bulgarian", as it was called by some authors, such as Zographsky. At that time, every nation wrote in his own local dialects, like all South Slavs. With the rise of nationalism and national awakening, the need for separate national standard language rose among all Slavs. The idea of common Macedonian-Bulgarian language did not gain wide support, and the nations started standardizing their languages. Attempts to standardize the Macedonian language prior to 1944 were unsuccessful, however some linguists as Victor Friedman states it was only a symbolic act which marked the beginning of a period when the standard language was able to be implemented. Nevertheless, according to the Macedonists, such as Blaze Koneski and others, the history of the Macedonian language began in the Middle ages.

(my version)

I did not even start with this paragraph issue, he wrote it, it was not in the article previously just to start this s.... and to persuade us how Macedonian was Bulgarian. But again this paragraph is controversial because Jingi says neither Macedonian nor Bulgarian had standards, and again somehow Macedonian managed to split from Bulgarian. How can language split from non-existing standard language?

I would like you to take a look at my edits and see what is wrong. In one word, nothing. I just reordered the paragraphs, not a single pro-Bulgarian sentence was removed nor I tried to propose contra-arguments of the Bulgarian ones (which the Bulgarians do). I just added the historical periods and removed a bunch of crap which is not related to the history of the language, but to the history of the country. Tell me how important is to the history of the language that Bulgarians occupied Macedonia, than Serbians came and crap like that. At least you are a linguist and know how it should be. I am editing this article for two days and I was planning to give historical perspective of the development of the morphology, syntax and phonology of the language, but it's obvious it is not possible here on EN WIKI. Claiming that Macedonian developed on the basis of the Macedonian recension of the OCS is nonsense is acceptable? Any well educated linguist knows that it is true. I want my edits back. There is nothing wrong with them. If Friedman, Lunt, Koneski, Kramer and whole bunch of Polish and Russian linguists are not reliable, then what am I doing here?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Subpar English

Essentially, modern questions of classification are largely shaped by political and social factors, whilst structurally, Macedonian, Bulgarian and southeastern forms of Serbian (Torlakian) form a dialectical continuum,[35] which developed as a legacy of the linguistic developments during the apogee of the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools.[36]

Given that articles relating to Macedonia are the playpen for Balkan nationalists, some non-standard English is to be expected. The paragraph quoted above, however, is barely comprehensible. Can the editor who added that paragraph please elaborate on what s/he wanted to say? --203.59.155.116 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to say to you: Please, stop writing from differnt dinamic IPs from Perth, Western Australia. You still have registration on English Wikipedia. Jingiby (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'll say to you: instead of attempting to derail this section, post that comment on my talk page. I'm not contributing from an IP with malicious intent. Perhaps you'd like to decode that paragraph quoted above? --203.59.155.116 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Reliance on Google

It's obvious that editors are relying solely on information they find on the net. The 'Classification' section magnifies this language's historical treatment as either "Bulgarian" or "Serbian" without mentioning the works of Oblak, Bernstein and many others who treated it as a separate language in their studies. The article as a whole neglects to describe the supradialectal norm (as used in Ilindenski pat, for example) which was the basis for the codified variety of today. Similarly, Bulgarian editors have gone to great lengths to point out Macedonian-Serbian language contact, yet they haven't done the obvious thing (for them) of describing Macedonian-Bulgarian language contact for which there are a few freely available articles online. --203.59.155.116 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

I have reverted the text back to the last stable version before Macedonian Boy began making massive changes that were disputable. Get consensus before editing. Some of the changes that were reverted might have been noncontroversial, but they were too interwoven with controversial changes to dig them out. Get consensus on individual changes and then make them again if there is a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

All of my edits are noncontroversial, because they were in the article even before (except the periods). Everything is sourced. I should make a consensus? Have you seen that I was speaking to myself on this talk page, up until now? See the comment above.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you failed to note that your edits were being reverted and comments being posted by Jingiby. Build a consensus. I find your anti-Bulgarian POV to be rather extreme anyway. The disputed tag is appropriate as it occurs on about half of all articles on Balkan topics. High nationalistic emotions seem to come with the territory in that part of the world. --Taivo (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I do not see the anti-BG anyway. Thank you again and I am not planning to waste my time here any more. I will make one last change that will server your needs.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any mention of the term Bulgarian, causes an angry reaction in Macedonian editors. But they are not to blame for this. Jingiby (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

They're angry because you seem to think that your identity is less imagined than theirs. --58.7.49.95 (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Manipulative edits

Two from the added to the article non-Bulgarian sources claim Macedonian is Bulgarian dialect (variery). I do not understand why this text was transformed in sense that it is a Bulgarian perspective. This is simply manipulation of the sources. Jingiby (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

They do not. Neither Colin & Jones (1998) nor Asher & Simpson (1994) state that they consider it as such. They do, however, say that a minority (specifically, in Bulgaria) consider it as such. --203.59.155.116 (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Linguasphere combines Macedonian and Bulgarian and Darby is not Bulgarian, so to say that the view is exclusively Bulgarian is not correct. It may be primarily Bulgarian, but it is not exclusively Bulgarian. --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Did I say the view was exclusively Bulgarian? --203.59.155.116 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see.... You took 'linguists' out making it sound like this is public opinion; and you reworded 'Macedonian is also regarded ... as' to 'A minority view held ... in Bulgaria is that the Macedonian language is' making it sound like this is a minority view inside Bulgaria, and, implicitly, only in Bulgaria. — Lfdder (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, I did make an error in haste. Hardly comparable to the misrepresentation of the source prior to my edit. --203.59.155.116 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

More, as UCLA is cited in that article: "It (Macedonian) is most closely related to Bulgarian. Some consider Macedonian a dialect of Bulgarian, but this is a highly charged issue hotly disputed by others. For example, Henniger (1992) discusses the matter from a Bulgarian point of view; Friedman (1987) from a Macedonian perspective." I.e. Heninger is not Bulgarian but he is pro-Bulgarian and claims that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, while Friedman, who is pro-Macedonian does not agree. Jingiby (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Have any of you actually taken the time to read the sources? Both elaborate on the "minority view" with references to Bulgaria. --203.59.155.116 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We say that this is an opinion held only by "some" linguists. Do we really need to elaborate on something as dull as this? — Lfdder (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the one that introduced that into the article. If it's going be included, it best reflect what the sources actually say, don't you think? --203.59.155.116 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It does. — Lfdder (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The article says "some linguists" when both Colin & Jones (1998) and Asher & Simpson (1994) specifically mention Bulgaria. A little skewed, no? --203.59.155.116 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dalby (1999/2000) is one of the "some linguists" who are not Bulgarian, but list Macedonian and Bulgarian as dialects of "Bulgarski-Makedonski". What's your point, anon IP? The article already says that this is a a minority view. End of story. All your complaining will not make it a minority view, because it already is a minority view, and is already described as such in the article. "I don't like the article because it already says what I want it to say." Kind of ridiculous, don't you think? --Taivo (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a second to look at my edits. I never edited anything cited with Dalby (1999/2000). --203.59.155.116 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comments here are clearly pointed at restricting the issue to Bulgarian linguists only. The current text in the article says "some linguists" without calling them Bulgarians. That's accurate, but your point here seems to be to push the "a minority of Bulgarian linguists" point of view. If that's not your point, it sure sounds like that's your point. And if that's not your point, what's the problem with the text as it stands? --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Before accusing me of "pushing a POV", take a look at Colin & Jones (1998) and Asher & Simpson (1994). The editors that added them did so with only quoting the one or two sentences that suited their POV. You'll notice that the same editors simply search for "Macedonians are Bulgarians" (or some other nonsense) in Google Books (and often without even removing the search terms from the URL!) and then cite those results haphazardly in a number of articles. I've read what those two sources say, and I've added the supporting sentences where both Colin & Jones (1998) and Asher & Simpson (1994) specifically reference Bulgaria. Just to be clear: I don't have any agenda, and I don't want any particular POV to be represented; I just want the cited sections to properly reflect what the sources say. If they said, "the Macedonian language is a Chinese dialect", then I'd argue for that as well. --124.169.105.24 (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please, provide your version to discuss it here. Jingiby (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of "pushing a POV", I was simply stating the position that you seemed to be taking and offered a counterexample to the statement that all linguists who want to combine Macedonian and Bulgarian into a single language are Bulgarians. Neither Dalby nor his classification (1999/2000) are Bulgarian. So am I correct in assuming that you are fine with the statement "some linguists", leaving out the inference that they are all Bulgarians, as long as the references that offend you are removed? --Taivo (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of this sentence is that not only Bulgarian linguists still consider Macedonian language as part of Bulgarian diasystem. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bulgarian linguists in what sense? — Lfdder (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Especially, but not only Bulgarian linguists still...Jingiby (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what it says. I suppose you could rephrase "especially in Bulgaria" to "especially—but not only—in Bulgaria", but I don't think it's necessary. — Lfdder (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

Essentially, modern questions of classification are largely shaped by political and social factors, whilst structurally, Macedonian, Bulgarian and southeastern forms of Serbian (Torlakian) form a dialectical continuum,[24] which developed as a legacy of the linguistic developments during the apogee of the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools.[25]

What is this even supposed to mean? --58.7.49.95 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic literature

Be careful not to wear nationalistic glasses when reading linguistic literature: "ausbau language" does not mean Macedonian was artificially separated from Bulgarian. They are both ausbau languages with respect to one another, and other South Slavic languages. --58.7.49.95 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the added souurce, you obviously didn't read (The Slavic Languages, Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 1139457284, p. 71.): ...Macedonian remains very much an Ausbau language, rebuilt recently on a dialect base and consciously differentiated especially from Bulgarian...Jingiby (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And you obviously don't understand what that means because, by the same logic, Bulgarian would be a variety of Serbian. It does not mean Macedonian was artificially separated from Bulgarian (i.e. it does not imply former unity). What it means is that Macedonian doesn't abstract over the dialectal base over which Bulgarian abstracts (i.e. they are not varieties of a pluricentric language). Instead of searching for "Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian", try reading a book or two. Or at least remove your search query; you're only shooting yourself in the foot. --58.7.49.95 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to Bulgarian

Because, it is evident that between Bulgarian and Macedonian languages ​​exists a special relationship, I suggest a separate short section to be created under the name: Relationship to Bulgarian. It may be placed in the segment: Geographical distribution. For a start, I suggest the following text:

With the rise of nationalism under the Ottoman empire its specific social system, and especially the so called Rum millet, began to degrade with the continuous identification of the religious creed with ethnicity. The national awakening of each ethnic group inside it was too complex and most of the groups interacted with each other. With the emergence of the Bulgarian national revival during the first half of the 19th. century, the Bulgarian and Macedonian Slavs, who were under the supremacy of the Greek Orthodox clergy, wanted to create their own Church and schools in a common modern "Macedono-Bulgarian" literary standard, called simply Bulgarian. Their originating national elites used mainly ethno-linguistic principles to differentiation between "Slavic-Bulgarian" and "Greek" groups. At that time, every ethnographic subgroup in the Macedonian-Bulgarian linguistic area, wrote in his own local dialect and the issue of a "base dialect" for the new standard was not an issue. However, after the establishment of a distinct Bulgarian state in 1878, Macedonia remained outside its borders, in the frame of the Ottoman Empire and that fact became crucial for the development of a separate Macedonian language. As a consequence, the idea of common standard language was rejected finally by the Bulgarian codificators during 1880-s, when eastern Bulgarian dialects were chosen as a basis for the standard Bulgarian. With the following rise of the Macedonian nationalism, the need for separate Macedonian national standard language appeared firstly in the early 20th. century. In the Interwar period, the territory of today's Republic of Macedonia became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Bulgarian was banned for use and the local vernicular fell under a heavy influence by the official Serbo-Croatian language. During the world wars Bulgaria's short annexations over Macedonia saw two attempts to bring the Macedonian dialects back towards Bulgarian. This political situation stimulated the necessity of a separate Macedonian language and led gradually to its codification after the Second World War. It followed the establishment of SR Macedonia, as part of Communist Yugoslavia and finalized the progressive split in the common Macedonian-Bulgarian diasystem. Although, there was no clear separating line between these two languages on level of dialect then, the Macedonian standard was based on its western most dialects. Afterwards, the existent political borders, the influence of both standard languages during the time, but also the strong Serbo-Croanian linguistic influence in Yugoslav era, led to a horizontal cross-border dialectal divergence. Today, Macedonian language is still an ausbau-language, that is intentionally diverged, particularly from Bulgarian. Although, some researchers describe yet Macedonian-Bulgarian dialect continuum as pluricentric area, the prevailing academic consensus is that Macedonian and Bulgarian are two autonomous languages within the eastern subbranch of the South Slavic linguistic area.

The English needs a little minor adjustment, but overall this sounds like a very appropriate and informative paragraph to add. Clears up the situation very nicely. --Taivo (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made some additional redactions to clarify the historical, social and political development, paralel to the progress of the linguistic situation. Everybody is welcome now to make suggestions for corrections, shortenings etc. Thanks in advance. Jingiby (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Does somebody suggest some improvements? Jingiby (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there some objections against the inclusion of the text in this variant into the article? Jingiby (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not realized objections and have added the suggested text. Jingiby (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please IP, do not rewrite totally properly sourced info, as you did twice here without any objective reason or discussion. What the source "The Slavic Languages", Roland Sussex, Paul Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 1139457284, p. 71, says: ...Macedonian remains very much an Ausbau language, rebuilt recently on a dialect base and consciously differentiated especially from Bulgarian.. In the second one "The Changing Scene in World Languages: Issues and Challenges", Marian B. Labrum, John Benjamins Publishing, 1997, ISBN 9027231842, p. 66: Heinz Kloss, who was an expert of the Ausbau issue, considered Macedonian as an Ausbau language towards Bulgarian. Nothing is mentioned in the sources about Bulgarian language policy of deliberate divergence from Macedonian, continuing and considerable process of present ausbau etc. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Distribution map

The only map I could find that seems good is File:Idioma macedonio.PNG, since the current one is apparently unacceptable. Not saying a map is absolutely needed, but it can be helpful. --Local hero ^talk 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is the dialects map which illustrates its bit of the topic. A problem with a distribution one is that it is hard to find neutral and reliable sources. The map with the questionable sources had some pretty odd things in it. The Bulgarian census, for example, puts Macedonian speakers at a mere thousand or something. And most of them live in Sofia, not in Blagoevgrad Province as the map indicated. --Laveol ^T 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea the dialects map does show the spread in addition to its main purpose of showing the dialectal divisions, but, like I said, the only one good for the geographical distribution section seems to be File:Idioma macedonio.PNG. Although, there is File:MapOfMacedonianSpeakers.png, which I'm not huge fan of since Macedonia is relatively hard to see compared to Australia and North America, which does depend a bit on the size we make the image. --Local hero ^talk 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem with any such map is that it does not represent the actual spread, but one POV of it. It is hard to incorporate claims and census data into one image. Hence, the dialects map is sufficient since it only points out to the variety of a language spoken in a particular region (and saves time on debates on the actual number of speakers).--Laveol ^T 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I see what you mean. Like I said, I don't think we absolutely need a map in the section especially since, as you pointed out, the dialect map is just below. Maybe one day we can conjure a universally accepted map when all the area's countries release honest census data. --Local hero ^talk 16:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)