Alexander the Great and questions on Macedonian Language
2.7182818284590...
that he is Macedonian and not Greek. However, him and his mostly non-
Greek army invaded and Hellenized areas as far East as Afghanistan.
Moreover, Alexander and/or his father, Philip, was affiliated with
Plato, a great Greek thinker. What language did Alexander speak and
how did he "Greekify" far away landss if he weren't Greek?
2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language. About
25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
Brian M. Scott
"2.7182818284590..." <tange...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:4cc6e4a7-dd50-41c5...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
in soc.history,sci.lang:
[...]
> 2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language. About
> 25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
> Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
> considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
You're talking about two different languages. The modern
Macedonian language is a South Slavic language very closely
related to Bulgarian; it does not derive from the ancient
Macedonian language, which was closely related to Ancient
Greek.
Brian
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:22:33 -0700 (PDT),
: [...]
: Brian
OK. ancient macedonian was not slavic, but I remembered a post saying it
was divergent from ancient greek as well. BTW I have no particular opinion
on this politicaly sensitive topic.
here is the post:
=====================================
From: Miguel Carrasquer <m...@wxs.nl>
Newsgroups: alt.macedonia.is.greece,alt.news.fyrom,alt.news.macedonia,alt.skopjea.is.not.macedonia,sci.lang
Subject: Re: dialects vs separate languages (was: The most Latin of Romance languages?)
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:59:59 +0200
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <u196i05aadl7iirqq...@4ax.com>
References: <B2ZRc.2269$Y94....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
<4118B9...@worldnet.att.net> <411e84ca$1...@news.sch.gr>
<411EDF...@worldnet.att.net> <411f...@news.sch.gr>
<411FDA...@worldnet.att.net> <4120...@news.sch.gr>
<4120E2...@worldnet.att.net> <4121...@news.sch.gr>
<412121...@worldnet.att.net> <412124dd$1...@news.sch.gr>
<41213D...@worldnet.att.net> <4122...@news.sch.gr>
<412285...@worldnet.att.net>
<4f2b5361.04081...@posting.google.com>
On 17 Aug 2004 19:53:28 -0700, adretz...@home.com
(Anastassios Retzios) wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<412285...@worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>> ?? I have always understood that Macedonians were not Greeks, either
>> culturally or linguistically.
>
>How did you get to understand this? Listen I am not combative, I just
>want to know. It seems very interesting to me because this statement
>is can only be found in the revisionist booklets of the Macedonists,
>not in legitimate and academic historical texts either modern or
>ancient?
>
>I will be eager to know what were the cultural characteristics of
>Macedonians that set them apart from other Greeks and what evidence do
>you have that the Macedonians did not speak a Greek dialect. This
>would be interesting because the totality of archaelogical and
>literary evidence reveals only the presence of Greek. Ancient
>Macedonian cities had Greek names, toponyms had Greek names and all
>Macedonians that we know also had Greek names; all the coins are in
>Greek and so are all the inscriptions throughout the region. So, I
>would be eager to know on what facts did you base your understanding.
The ancient Greek sources are pretty clear on the fact that
the Macedonians were not originally Greeks, even though the
Macedonian state and royal house were completely Hellenized
(cf. the case of Epirus).
Not much is known about the ancient Macedonian language, but
what is known through Hesychius and through other glosses
leaves no doubt that ancient Macedonian was not Greek. PIE
*@3bhruHes "eyebrows" gives Greek ophr�es, Macedonian
abruwes (abro�Fes, abro�tes in the Greek sources). This
word shows that Macedonian, like all other IE languages
except Greek, merged the reflexes of vocalic @1, @2 and @3
(> /a/), while Greek uniquely maintains them separate (@1 >
/e/, @2 > /a/, @3 > /o/). PIE *bh gives Greek /ph/, but
Macedonian /b/ (as in e.g. Slavic, Baltic, Armenian and
Germanic).
There is a linguistic affinity (shared vocabulary items,
etc.) between Macedonian and Greek, especially with
Doric/North-West Greek (cf. Herodotus), which may indicate
that the Dorians and Macedonians were in close contact to
the North of Greece before the Doric invasion.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
m...@wxs.nl
Brian M. Scott
<y...@TheWorld.com> wrote in
<news:h7t3jn$4bc$1...@pcls6.std.com> in soc.history,sci.lang:
> In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
> <11tuyzaikoupe$.kozuc51uzlqx$.d...@40tude.net>:
>: On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:22:33 -0700 (PDT),
>: "2.7182818284590..." <tange...@gmail.com> wrote in
>: <news:4cc6e4a7-dd50-41c5...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
>: in soc.history,sci.lang:
>: [...]
>:> 2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language. About
>:> 25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
>:> Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
>:> considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
>: You're talking about two different languages. The modern
>: Macedonian language is a South Slavic language very closely
>: related to Bulgarian; it does not derive from the ancient
>: Macedonian language, which was closely related to Ancient
>: Greek.
> OK. ancient macedonian was not slavic, but I remembered a
> post saying it was divergent from ancient greek as well.
It definitely was divergent (and I certainly wouldn't argue
with Miguel on a basic question of fact like that!). But it
is widely considered to have had some special affinity with
Greek. For what it's worth, the language tree at Linguist
List looks like this, making Macedonian a sister to the
Greek family within a larger Hellenic family.
Hellenic
Greek
Ancient Greek
Mycenaean Greek
Attic
Cappadocian Greek
Greek
Middle Greek
Pontic
Romano-Greek
Yevanic
Doric
Tsakonian
Macedonian
Ancient Macedonian
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Macedonian_language#Classification>
lists, with solid references, a number of other possible
relationships as suggested by various linguists.
[...]
Brian
Dušan Vukotić
Until the end of WWII there has never been any Slavic tribe/ethnicity
with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former
Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
DV
Per Rønne
> 1. Whenever people speak of Alexander the Great, they always mention
> that he is Macedonian and not Greek. However, him and his mostly non-
> Greek army invaded and Hellenized areas as far East as Afghanistan.
> Moreover, Alexander and/or his father, Philip, was affiliated with
> Plato, a great Greek thinker.
Actually, he was a Macedonian ... and consequently a Greek.
> What language did Alexander speak
The Macedonian court in Pella used Attic Greek like the dialect spoken
in Athens.
> and how did he "Greekify" far away landss if he weren't Greek?
He was Greek.
> 2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language.
I do think the Greeks would call Macedonian a Greek dialect, and the
Slavic language called Mecedonian a Serbian or Bulgarian dialect.
> About 25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
> Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
> considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
Yes, and Macedonia was considered a semi-Barbarian state.
But the Slavic Macedonian state north of the Greek province of Macedonia
was not part of ancient Macedonia. BTW, the Slavs of the Balkans didn't
come to the Balkans before after the fall of the Roman Empire in the
West 476.
The Turks had established a province named Macedonia. It encompassed the
present Greek province of Macedonia, and after the 1912 Balkan war the
rest in the north was divided between Serbia and Bulgaria.
The seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII in an attempt to
interfere in the Greek Civil War. If he could not conquer Greece for
Communism, at least he might try to conquer Greek Macedonia with the
modern capital of Thessaloniki and the ancient capital of Pella.
--
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est
Panu
> In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>
> : You're talking about two different languages. The modern
> : Macedonian language is a South Slavic language very closely
> : related to Bulgarian; it does not derive from the ancient
> : Macedonian language, which was closely related to Ancient
> : Greek.
>
> : Brian
>
> OK. ancient macedonian was not slavic, but I remembered a post saying it
> was divergent from ancient greek as well.
There seem to be several scenarios about this, but the most mainstream
one is AFAIK that Ancient Macedonian was a close relative to Greek,
albeit not quite close enough to be called a dialect. However, there
are other opinions. There is some recent archeological evidence
suggesting that Macedonian was simply a somewhat rustic form of one of
the well-known ancient Greek dialects. On the other hand, there are
suggestions that it was an Indo-European language heavily influenced
by, but not necessarily closely related to, Greek. All expert opinion
seems to me to agree that it was an Indo-European language and not
particularly different from the languages of its vicinity.
BTW I have no particular opinion
> on this politicaly sensitive topic.
>
You are indeed not just a learned, but also a very wise man, as we all
have come to know and appreciate.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 5, 10:22 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>
> > : You're talking about two different languages. The modern
> > : Macedonian language is a South Slavic language very closely
> > : related to Bulgarian; it does not derive from the ancient
> > : Macedonian language, which was closely related to Ancient
> > : Greek.
>
> > : Brian
>
> > OK. ancient macedonian was not slavic, but I remembered a post saying it
> > was divergent from ancient greek as well.
>
> There seem to be several scenarios about this, but the most mainstream
> one is AFAIK that Ancient Macedonian was a close relative to Greek,
> albeit not quite close enough to be called a dialect. However, there
> are other opinions. There is some recent archeological evidence
> suggesting that Macedonian was simply a somewhat rustic form of one of
> the well-known ancient Greek dialects. On the other hand, there are
What is "archeological evidence" for a dialect, unless some
inscriptions have been unearthed?
Panu
> On Sep 5, 1:05 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 10:22 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > > In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>
> > > : You're talking about two different languages. The modern
> > > : Macedonian language is a South Slavic language very closely
> > > : related to Bulgarian; it does not derive from the ancient
> > > : Macedonian language, which was closely related to Ancient
> > > : Greek.
>
> > > : Brian
>
> > > OK. ancient macedonian was not slavic, but I remembered a post saying it
> > > was divergent from ancient greek as well.
>
> > There seem to be several scenarios about this, but the most mainstream
> > one is AFAIK that Ancient Macedonian was a close relative to Greek,
> > albeit not quite close enough to be called a dialect. However, there
> > are other opinions. There is some recent archeological evidence
> > suggesting that Macedonian was simply a somewhat rustic form of one of
> > the well-known ancient Greek dialects. On the other hand, there are
>
> What is "archeological evidence" for a dialect, unless some
> inscriptions have been unearthed?
I checked the Necronomicon, i.e. Wikipedia, and the evidence I seemed
to recall is indeed an inscription, called the Pella Curse. It was
found back in the eighties and publicized in the nineties. It is a
magic spell found among the remains of Pella, the ancient capital of
Macedon, and the language is a kind of Doric dialect, but different
enough from other extant Doric materials to allow the conclusion that
there was an indigenous Doric dialect spoken in Macedon.
Peter T. Daniels
That account didn't seem to comport with the rest of the wiki article.
I'm inclined to the not-so-much-like-Greek view, because of the sound
changes involved.
Christopher Ingham
>
> - Show quoted text -
The following addresse some points that you and other in this thread
have brought up.
The ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians is undetermined. G. Shipley
(_The Greek World after Alexander, 323-30 BC_New York, 2000, 111),
says that with the rise of the Macedonian state in the fourth century
BCE the question among Athenians and other Greeks as to whether the
Macedonians were of Greek or non-Greek origin was highly politicized.
It appears that the ruling Argeadai were highly hellenized from the
early fourth century or earlier; although ancient sources tended to
see ordinary Macedonians as less Greek than their kings (Herodotus
5.20).
Following O. Masson (in_OCD_, 3rd rev. ed., New York, 2003, s.v.
"Macedonian language"), scholarly opinion has been divided for the
last century over whether the language was a Greek dialect or an IE
language of the Balkans, located geographically and linguistically
between Illyrian and Thracian. Primarily because of the overwhelmingly
Greek character of Macedonian names in the sources, most experts
incline to the former opinion, the latter which moreover is supported
by the recent discovery at Pella of fourth-century BCE curse tablets,
possibly the first attested "Macedonian" text (C. Brixhe and A.
Panayotou, "Le macédonien," in F. Bader, ed., _Langues indo-
européennes_, Paris, 1994, 206-22). Pending new discoveries, then,
Macedonian can be provisionally accepted as a dialect of North-West
Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, or Epirote), albeit a highly
aberrant form of Greek showing a relatively divergent development from
the main dialects of Greek and with loan words from Phrygian and other
languages spoken in the Macedonian region. Apparently most Greeks had
difficulty understanding Macedonian, but we can't be certain whether
sources in this regard (e.g., Plutarch_Alex._51.4) are describing
Macedonian subjects who spoke Illyrian, Epirote, and Paeonian (G.
Horrocks,_Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers_, London,
1997, 31).
As to the claim by Carrasquer Vidal cited by Yusuf that Macedonian
based on the Macedonian glosses cannot be Greek, most of the
"Macedonian" glosses, especially in Hesychius, are disputed, and some
are corrupted through transmission.
Christopher Ingham
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sep 5, 6:22 am, "2.7182818284590..." <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Whenever people speak of Alexander the Great, they always mention
> > that he is Macedonian and not Greek. However, him and his mostly non-
> > Greek army invaded and Hellenized areas as far East as Afghanistan.
> > Moreover, Alexander and/or his father, Philip, was affiliated with
> > Plato, a great Greek thinker. What language did Alexander speak and
> > how did he "Greekify" far away landss if he weren't Greek?
> > 2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language. About
> > 25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
> > Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
> > considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
>
> Until the end of WWII there has never been any Slavic tribe/ethnicity
> with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former
modern linguistics does not fuss too much about the distinction between
between language and dialect. when a people start calling their idiom a
language, linguists normally go along with it. I understand that
Macedonian (slavic) is part of the speech continuum that bridges
Bulgarian with Serbian (formerly called Serbo-Croatian).
a similar atitude is taken by liberal political thinkers who accept
ethnicity / nationality as a matter of self-definition for the
current time.
OTOH ottoman turkish did call the slavic speaking inhabitants of
Macedonia "bulgarians" IIRC as can be seen from news reports of the
slavic rebels in Macedonia.
> Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
> Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
> West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
I seem to remember that attested Old Bulgarian (slavic) was more of the
southern dialect, perhaps that's why.
>
> DV
Dennis
> On Sep 5, 10:22�am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>> In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>>
>> BTW I have no particular opinion
>> on this politicaly sensitive topic.
>>
>
> You are indeed not just a learned, but also a very wise man, as we all
> have come to know and appreciate.
Monitor alt.news.macedonia for a while, and you'll learn just how
wise...
Dennis
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 5, 10:22?am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
: BTW I have no particular opinion
:> on this politicaly sensitive topic.
:>
: You are indeed not just a learned, but also a very wise man, as we all
: have come to know and appreciate.
thank you.
Dušan Vukotić
Old Bulgarian was a Turkic not Slavic language. In fact, Bulgars
hadn't existed as Slavs and their language hadn't been Slavic/Slavonic
before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum's Bulgars (a
Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/
Serbian tribes, were slavicized.
On the other hand, Old Slavonic became the official language of
Bulgarian church and state in the end of the 893, at the Preslav
council; and, as we can clearly see, it happened 30 years after the
Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (863)!
Historically, it is indisputable that the region of of the Greek
Macedonia was populated by the Serbs (the first half of the 7th
century when the emperor Heraclius of Byzantium invited the Serbs to
settle in the provinces of Salonica; later on, the town of Servia near
Thessaloniki was known as the capital of the Otoman sanjak of Serfije
[Servia/Serbia]).
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former
:>
:> modern linguistics does not fuss too much about the distinction between
:> between language and dialect. when a people start calling their idiom a
:> language, linguists normally go along with it. I understand that
:> Macedonian (slavic) is part of the speech continuum that bridges
:> Bulgarian with Serbian (formerly called Serbo-Croatian).
:>
:> a similar atitude is taken by liberal political thinkers who accept
:> ethnicity / nationality as a matter of self-definition for the
:> current time.
:>
:> OTOH ottoman turkish did call the slavic speaking inhabitants of
:> Macedonia "bulgarians" IIRC as can be seen from news reports of the
:> slavic rebels in Macedonia.
:>
:> > Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
:> > Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
:> > West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
:>
:> I seem to remember that attested Old Bulgarian (slavic) was more of the
:> southern dialect, perhaps that's why.
: Old Bulgarian was a Turkic not Slavic language. In fact, Bulgars
well, I purposely put "(slavic)" so there would not be any confusion. by
Old Bulgarian (rather than "Old Bulghar" or "Danube Bulghar" -the turkic
language) I meant the early attestation of the present Bulgarian slavic
language.
: hadn't existed as Slavs and their language hadn't been Slavic/Slavonic
: before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum's Bulgars (a
: Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/
: Serbian tribes, were slavicized.
the turkic element seems to have been a relatively small population,
judging from the relatively few bulgharic (the branch of turkic in
question) words in Bulgarian, relative to the number of bulgharic turkic
words in Hungarian. later, the slavic hte slavic population retained the
name of the former conquerers.
: On the other hand, Old Slavonic became the official language of
: Bulgarian church and state in the end of the 893, at the Preslav
: council; and, as we can clearly see, it happened 30 years after the
: Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (863)!
IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
a written language. I may have remembered wrong, I'll try to get in touch
with him again.
: Historically, it is indisputable that the region of of the Greek
: Macedonia was populated by the Serbs (the first half of the 7th
: century when the emperor Heraclius of Byzantium invited the Serbs to
that's a long time ago. they may have later adopted Bulgarian or their
language evolved into Bulgarian. is the present language of the slavs of
Greek Macedonia closer to Bulgarian or not?
: settle in the provinces of Salonica; later on, the town of Servia near
: Thessaloniki was known as the capital of the Otoman sanjak of Serfije
: [Servia/Serbia]).
interesting, I'll look that up.
: DV
Christopher Culver
> IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
> concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
> it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
> a written language.
Macedonian is a standardized western dialect of Bulgarian, not too
different from the dialects spoken across the border, but noticeably
different from the dialects spoken in the eastern half of
Bulgaria. One notices that the reflex of yat' (the Common Slavonic
vowel ě) is uniformly /e/, while in eastern Bulgarian dialects it
became /ja/ (and Standard Bulgarian mixes the two), and also the 1
sg. pres. of i-stem verbs is -im, while eastern Bulgarian dialects
have -ja.
The situation is more complicated by the large influx of Serbian words
during Macedonia's membership in Yugoslavia, especially colloquial
stock phrases. When I travel in Macedonia, my knowledge of Serbian
proves just as vital to understanding people there completely as my
experience with Bulgarian.
Dušan Vukotić
The Torlak dialect of Serbian is almost the same as the Slavic
"Macedonian".
For instance:
Serbian and "Macedonian" - crn/црн 'black'; Bulgarian черен/cheren
Serbian/"Macedonian" crno na belo/црно на бело 'black and white';
Bulgarian черно на бяло/cherno na bjalo 'black and white'.
Nevertheless, we could say that the Slavic "Macedonian" is somewhere
on the half way between the Serbian and Bulgarian.
DV
PaulJK
Of course you are quite correct, Yusuf. Dushan likes to make these
categorical statements without any regards to different existing usages.
Even if you did not put "(slavic)" in your sentence it would still be quite
clear from the context that you speak of an old Slavic language
called by many linguists "Old Bulgarian".
I, for example, have a book by Boryana Velcheva called "Proto-Slavic
and Old Bulgarian Sound Changes" published by Slavica Publishers, Inc.
Title of the original book was: Praslavjanski i starob'lgarski fonologicheski
izmenenija. (my own transcription to Latin script).
>> hadn't existed as Slavs and their language hadn't been Slavic/Slavonic
>> before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum's Bulgars (a
>> Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/
>> Serbian tribes, were slavicized.
>
> the turkic element seems to have been a relatively small population,
> judging from the relatively few bulgharic (the branch of turkic in
> question) words in Bulgarian, relative to the number of bulgharic turkic
> words in Hungarian. later, the slavic hte slavic population retained the
> name of the former conquerers.
>
>> On the other hand, Old Slavonic became the official language of
>> Bulgarian church and state in the end of the 893, at the Preslav
>> council; and, as we can clearly see, it happened 30 years after the
>> Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (863)!
>
> IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
> concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
> it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
> a written language. I may have remembered wrong, I'll try to get in touch
> with him again.
It seems that most (if not all) Bulgarians refer to it as Old Bulgarian. :-)
In my school we were taught it was a Slavic dialect spoken in Solun^
(Thessaloniki) and generally referred to as Staroslavjans^tina
(Old Slavonic). During that time it wasn't much different from
dialects farther in the north, and people in Moravia and Bohemia
could reasonably well understand teachings of Cyrill and Method.
pjk
Panu
Basically, Slavic Macedonian is more like Bulgarian. It has lost its
nominal inflections, but it has developed a plethora of new verbal
tenses - these are Bulgarian features too. However, the Cyrillic
alphabet used for writing it is vastly different from the one used for
writing Bulgarian - unsurprisingly it is more similar to the Serbian
one, but has also a couple of letters of its own. Macedonian also
relies more on vernacularisms than Bulgarian, which prefers Church-
Slavonic words and derivational suffixes for abstract or learned
concepts.
There is a dialect of Serbian called Timok-Torlakian or Torlakian
which is basically a transition zone between Serbian and Macedonian/
Bulgarian.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
:> <a8f0f67a-5868-495a...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
:>> On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:>>> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>>>> Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
:>>>> Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
:>>>> West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
:>>>
:> IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
:> concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
:> it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
:> a written language. I may have remembered wrong, I'll try to get in touch
:> with him again.
: It seems that most (if not all) Bulgarians refer to it as Old Bulgarian. :-)
: In my school we were taught it was a Slavic dialect spoken in Solun^
: (Thessaloniki) and generally referred to as Staroslavjans^tina
that's what must be what my friend refered to when he said that it was the
southern dialect that was made into Bulgarian.
: (Old Slavonic). During that time it wasn't much different from
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 6, 10:11??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in <a8f0f67a-5868-495a-8e4c-1742b27d4...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
:> : On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> :> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> that's a long time ago. they may have later adopted Bulgarian or their
:> language evolved into Bulgarian. is the present language of the slavs of
:> Greek Macedonia closer to Bulgarian or not?
: The Torlak dialect of Serbian is almost the same as the Slavic
: "Macedonian".
: Nevertheless, we could say that the Slavic "Macedonian" is somewhere
: on the half way between the Serbian and Bulgarian.
OK. that is consistent with what I have read.
: DV
Peter T. Daniels
Assessments of language relationships are not based primarily on
shared vocabulary (which is so easily borrowed), but on phonological
and morphological features like those mentioned by Christopher Culver.
What you say here is simply that Macedonian is spoken in Torlak,
Serbia.
Dušan Vukotić
Panu
<crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> writes:
>
> > IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
> > concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
> > it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
> > a written language.
>
> Macedonian is a standardized western dialect of Bulgarian,
This is probably the most succinct way to put it. Above all,
Macedonian is an example of elevated vernacular.
Structurally, Macedonian is quite similar to Bulgarian, because it is
so rich in compound tenses while having no cases left - which sets the
two languages apart among all Slavic languages. In fact, it can be
plausibly argued that Macedonian and Bulgarian should be seen as a
fourth constituent group among Slavic languages, distinct from other
South Slavic.
It is well known that Torlakian is a transition zone between Serbian
and Macedonian/Bulgarian, but if it shares as many features with the
latter as the Wikipedia article suggests, the question arises, whether
it is fair to see Torlakian as a Serbian dialect at all.
Dušan Vukotić
> Of course you are quite correct, Yusuf. Dushan likes to make these
> categorical statements without any regards to different existing usages.
What "usage" has to do with the fact that the Old Bulgarian (Slavic)
has never existed? Thirty years after the Cyril and Methodius finished
their job on O.Ch.-Slavonic, Bulgarians proclaimed the Old Slavonic!!!
(not Old Bulgarian) as the official language of the church and the
state (Preslav council 893.).
Once again; 30 years passed after the codification of the Slavonic
language (SLAVONIC not Bulgarian!) by Cyril and Methodius, until the
Bulgarians adopted the Slavonic language (once more, SLAVONIC not
Bulgarian). Imagine that someone decide to name the Classical Latin as
"Classical Italian". Of course, nobody would ever accept a similar
foolishness; but the same "yardstick" should be applied in case of the
Old Church Slavonic, should it not?
> Even if you did not put "(slavic)" in your sentence it would still be quite
> clear from the context that you speak of an old Slavic language
> called by many linguists "Old Bulgarian".
Again, what if the Classical Latin was called by "many linguists" -
Classical Italian? Who would authorize such a stupidity?
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: In sci.lang PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <h800fd$ta$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
OK. so I gather it hadn't yet developed the features of later Bulgarian
that sets it apart from other South Slavic languages (hence what Dusan is
refering to)?
: : could reasonably well understand teachings of Cyrill and Method.
: : pjk
Yusuf B Gursey
: In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in <a8f0f67a-5868-495a...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
: : On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
: :> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
: :>
: :> > Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
: :> > Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
: :> > West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
: :>
: :> I seem to remember that attested Old Bulgarian (slavic) was more of the
: :> southern dialect, perhaps that's why.
: : Old Bulgarian was a Turkic not Slavic language. In fact, Bulgars
: well, I purposely put "(slavic)" so there would not be any confusion. by
: Old Bulgarian (rather than "Old Bulghar" or "Danube Bulghar" -the turkic
: language) I meant the early attestation of the present Bulgarian slavic
: language.
: : hadn't existed as Slavs and their language hadn't been Slavic/Slavonic
: : before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum's Bulgars (a
: : Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/
: : Serbian tribes, were slavicized.
: the turkic element seems to have been a relatively small population,
the turkic element was further diluted by Alans (Iranian), who seem to
have come along with them. nevertheless the language ofthe rulers was
turkic (of the bulgharic or some say hunnic branch,represented today by
Chuvash).
: judging from the relatively few bulgharic (the branch of turkic in
Dušan Vukotić
Maybe this will help you to understand what has happened:
-The Serbian name Torlak means "one who speaks neither Serbian nor
Bulgarian".
It is the reason why I said in my earlier post that the "Macedonian"
is on the half way between Serbian and Bulgarian.
There is still a large population of Serbs (Central Serbia for
instance, Niš) who talk without using the case inflection: "od Niš"
'from Niš' instead of "od Niša"; u Niš 'in Niš' instead of "u Nišu";
"pred Niš" 'in front of Niš' instead "pred Nišom" etc.
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in
<h7v2ei$fq3$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
: On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du�an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> Until the end of WWII there has never been any Slavic tribe/ethnicity
:> with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former
: modern linguistics does not fuss too much about the distinction between
: between language and dialect. when a people start calling their idiom a
: language, linguists normally go along with it. I understand that
: Macedonian (slavic) is part of the speech continuum that bridges
: Bulgarian with Serbian (formerly called Serbo-Croatian).
: a similar atitude is taken by liberal political thinkers who accept
: ethnicity / nationality as a matter of self-definition for the
: current time.
: OTOH ottoman turkish did call the slavic speaking inhabitants of
: Macedonia "bulgarians" IIRC as can be seen from news reports of the
: slavic rebels in Macedonia.
though I remember from my oral family history that my grandfather
left Skopje (�sk�p in Turkish) because of the *Serbian* revolt.
this only shows that the Turks were more concerned with political
alliances than the finer points of slavic languages. the only
turkish source I know of that dwelt a little bit on the point
was Evliya �elebi the 17th cent. travelogue writer. he gives
"phrase book" type information on the local languages and
dialects (in perso-arabic based ottoman script) he encountered.
IIRC he enumerates Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian but also
comments on the high degree of mutual intelligibilty among them.
:> Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
Dušan Vukotić
> In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in
> : On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Dušan Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :> Until the end of WWII there has never been any Slavic tribe/ethnicity
> :> with the name Macedonians. The modern Macedonian are either former
>
> : modern linguistics does not fuss too much about the distinction between
> : between language and dialect. when a people start calling their idiom a
> : language, linguists normally go along with it. I understand that
> : Macedonian (slavic) is part of the speech continuum that bridges
> : Bulgarian with Serbian (formerly called Serbo-Croatian).
>
> : a similar atitude is taken by liberal political thinkers who accept
> : ethnicity / nationality as a matter of self-definition for the
> : current time.
>
> : OTOH ottoman turkish did call the slavic speaking inhabitants of
> : Macedonia "bulgarians" IIRC as can be seen from news reports of the
> : slavic rebels in Macedonia.
>
> though I remember from my oral family history that my grandfather
> this only shows that the Turks were more concerned with political
> alliances than the finer points of slavic languages. the only
> turkish source I know of that dwelt a little bit on the point
> "phrase book" type information on the local languages and
> dialects (in perso-arabic based ottoman script) he encountered.
> IIRC he enumerates Bulgarian, Serbian, Bosnian but also
> comments on the high degree of mutual intelligibilty among them.
Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
lineage in Turkey than the number of the Serbs living in Serbia? :-)
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
: lineage in Turkey than the number of the Serbs living in Serbia? :-)
there are probably many, dunno what the latest genetic studies
indicate, though IIRC it points to the direction of western Iran.
: DV
Peter T. Daniels
> On Sep 6, 11:47 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > Of course you are quite correct, Yusuf. Dushan likes to make these
> > categorical statements without any regards to different existing usages.
>
> What "usage" has to do with the fact that the Old Bulgarian (Slavic)
> has never existed? Thirty years after the Cyril and Methodius finished
> their job on O.Ch.-Slavonic, Bulgarians proclaimed the Old Slavonic!!!
> (not Old Bulgarian) as the official language of the church and the
> state (Preslav council 893.).
>
> Once again; 30 years passed after the codification of the Slavonic
> language (SLAVONIC not Bulgarian!) by Cyril and Methodius, until the
> Bulgarians adopted the Slavonic language (once more, SLAVONIC not
> Bulgarian). Imagine that someone decide to name the Classical Latin as
> "Classical Italian". Of course, nobody would ever accept a similar
> foolishness; but the same "yardstick" should be applied in case of the
> Old Church Slavonic, should it not?
In English, "Old Bulgarian" is another name for Old Church Slavonic,
and it is preferred by Slavicists because it does not give the
impression that the language is ancestral to all the extant Slavonic
languages.
Panu
> On Sep 6, 3:26 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 12:29 pm, Christopher Culver
>
> > <crcul...@christopherculver.com> wrote:
> > > Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> writes:
>
> > > > IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
> > > > concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
> > > > it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
> > > > a written language.
>
> > > Macedonian is a standardized western dialect of Bulgarian,
>
> > This is probably the most succinct way to put it. Above all,
> > Macedonian is an example of elevated vernacular.
>
> > Structurally, Macedonian is quite similar to Bulgarian, because it is
> > so rich in compound tenses while having no cases left - which sets the
> > two languages apart among all Slavic languages. In fact, it can be
> > plausibly argued that Macedonian and Bulgarian should be seen as a
> > fourth constituent group among Slavic languages, distinct from other
> > South Slavic.
>
> > It is well known that Torlakian is a transition zone between Serbian
> > and Macedonian/Bulgarian, but if it shares as many features with the
> > latter as the Wikipedia article suggests, the question arises, whether
> > it is fair to see Torlakian as a Serbian dialect at all.
>
> Maybe this will help you to understand what has happened:
Your tedious nationalist propaganda interests me fuck-all. Please get
your sorry ass out of this newsgroup. Move in with your friend Franz
Gnaedinger.
Dušan Vukotić
You forget that the Old Church Slavonic was originally codified for
the West Slavs (Great Moravia, nowadays Czechs and Slovaks). Old
Church Slavonic was an "artificial" language, compiled in such a
manner that it was equally distant and equally close to any existing
Slavic vernacular in those days.
DV
DV
Christopher Culver
> In English, "Old Bulgarian" is another name for Old Church Slavonic,
> and it is preferred by Slavicists because it does not give the
> impression that the language is ancestral to all the extant Slavonic
> languages.
Not at all. Look at English-language specialist publishing over the
last half-century, and you'll find almost exclusively Old Church
Slavonic or Old Church Slavic as the names of the language. While Old
Bulgarian hung on for a while when the main sources were German (which
does like "Old Bulgarian"), it is now very much passé.
Old Bulgarian is a poor name for the language because it was based on
the vernacular of the Slavs of Solun, well outside the Kingdom of
Bulgaria or modern Bulgaria. Ss Cyril and Methodius had no connection
to Bulgaria at all.
Christopher Culver
> You forget that the Old Church Slavonic was originally codified for
> the West Slavs (Great Moravia, nowadays Czechs and Slovaks). Old
> Church Slavonic was an "artificial" language, compiled in such a
> manner that it was equally distant and equally close to any existing
> Slavic vernacular in those days.
Then why does Old Church Slavonic show clearly South Slavic phonology
and vocabulary? There have been some suggestion by historians that St
Methodius prepared much of his translations before even leaving Solun,
when he didn't yet have contact with the speech of Great Moravia.
Furthermore, the exact location of Great Moravia is uncertain, so it's
not as easy as saying "nowadays Czechs and Slovaks".
Dušan Vukotić
> In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
>
> the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
My apology Yusuf.
I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Hog Loony, you haven't found enough food again! Why don't you try the
outdoor fecal basin to satiate your piggish gluttony?
DV
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
See, e.g., V. V. Ivanov in the 15th Britannica, or the Routledge
Slavonic volume, p. 188 -- Old Bulgarian, reflected in the OCS
manuscripts.
Christopher Culver
> Slavonic volume, p. 188 -- Old Bulgarian, reflected in the OCS
> manuscripts.
Notice that the title of the chapter of the language concerned in the
Routledge survey is "Old Church Slavonic". This is clearly now the
standard. The titles of all the major handbooks in English use "Old
Church Slavonic" (Nandris, Lunt, Gardiner) or "Old Church Slavic"
(Schmalstieg).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> 2.7182818284590... <tangent1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1. Whenever people speak of Alexander the Great, they always mention
> > that he is Macedonian and not Greek. However, him and his mostly non-
> > Greek army invaded and Hellenized areas as far East as Afghanistan.
> > Moreover, Alexander and/or his father, Philip, was affiliated with
> > Plato, a great Greek thinker.
>
>
> > What language did Alexander speak
>
> in Athens.
>
> > and how did he "Greekify" far away landss if he weren't Greek?
>
>
> > 2. Today, Macedonian language is regarded as a Slavic language.
>
> Slavic language called Mecedonian a Serbian or Bulgarian dialect.
>
> > About 25% of Greeks are actually Slavic, since their native language is
> > Macedonian, which today is a Slavic language. Was Macedonian language
> > considered a Greek dialect back then in 300 BC?
>
>
> But the Slavic Macedonian state north of the Greek province of Macedonia
> was not part of ancient Macedonia. BTW, the Slavs of the Balkans didn't
> come to the Balkans before after the fall of the Roman Empire in the
> West 476.
>
> The Turks had established a province named Macedonia. It encompassed the
> present Greek province of Macedonia, and after the 1912 Balkan war the
> rest in the north was divided between Serbia and Bulgaria.
>
> The seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
> Yugoslavian dictatorTitoinvented it after WWII in an attempt to
> interfere in the Greek Civil War. If he could not conquer Greece for
> Communism, at least he might try to conquer Greek Macedonia with the
> modern capital of Thessaloniki and the ancient capital of Pella.
> --
> Per Erik Rønnehttp://www.RQNNE.dk
> Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est
"The Macedonians, a magnificent people, had prepared the way for the
Balkan wars by a perpetual revolt, sometimes open, sometimes covert,
against the Turk. This was organized by the Internal Macedonian
Revolutionary Organization -- known as I.M.R.O. -- which was formed in
1893 by Bulgarian Macedonians, bloodthirsty men who were nevertheless
great heroes and pitiable victims."
- Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon (1942), p.595
These people were Slavs who considered themselves Macedonians. How
does this square with your claim about Tito?
Ross Clark
Per Rønne
> "The Macedonians, a magnificent people, had prepared the way for the
> Balkan wars by a perpetual revolt, sometimes open, sometimes covert,
> against the Turk. This was organized by the Internal Macedonian
> Revolutionary Organization -- known as I.M.R.O. -- which was formed in
> 1893 by Bulgarian Macedonians, bloodthirsty men who were nevertheless
> great heroes and pitiable victims."
> - Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon (1942), p.595
>
> These people were Slavs who considered themselves Macedonians. How
> does this square with your claim about Tito?
They lived in the Turkish province of Macedonia with Thessaloniki as its
province capital. A province inhabited by Slavs [Serbs and Bulgarians]
in the north and Greeks in the middle and south.
The Slavs came to the Balkans after the fall of the Roman Empire in the
West 476 and the present border within the old Turkish province follow
the between Slavs and Greeks with the Slavs divided between Bulgaria and
Serbia [after WWII Tito created a Macedonian Republic from the
Macodonian part of Serbia].
There are no border problems in the area. The only problems seem to be
linked with the "Serb Macedonians" demand that their state should have
the name "Macedonia" rather than "North Mathedonia" og "New Macedonia"
and their attempt to steal Greek history with Philip II, Alexander III
the Great and the Vergina star - which was put into the Slav Macedonian
flag.
--
Per Erik R�nne
Per Rønne
Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
English respectively.
John Atkinson
This certainly seems to be the case.
I get the impression that the authors of the chapters on the various
languages in the Routledge volume do seem to partake to some small
extent of the prejudices (or at least the terminologies) of specialists
who are speakers of those languages and live in the countries concerned.
Hardly surprising!
In the Bulgarian chapter (the one Peter quotes), Scatton does define
"Old Bulgarian" and describes it as "reflected in the Old Church
Slavonic manuscripts". (Note that it doesn't actually use the terms OB
and OCS to denote the same thing.)
In the Macedonian and Old Church Slavonic chapters (and elsewhere), the
term OB isn't used at all. In the latter, Huntley simply says (p 125):
"These Slavonic texts, containing mainly Balkan dialectal features, have
an admixture of Moravianisms." On p 126, he lists phonological
differences between the "Eastern (Bulgarian)" dialects and the "Western
(Macedonian)" dialects of OCS, as reflected in the orthography of the
various texts.
In the chapter on Proto-Slavonic, Schenker says (p 117):"Practically all
extant texts of canonical Old Church Slavonic may be considered examples
of literary Eastern South Slavonic." (Which, in the tenth century,
consisted of the dialects of Slavonic spoken in the territories of
modern Bulgaria, Macedonia, and northern Greece -- see the map).
John.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> benli...@ihug.co.nz <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > "The Macedonians, a magnificent people, had prepared the way for the
> > Balkan wars by a perpetual revolt, sometimes open, sometimes covert,
> > against the Turk. This was organized by the Internal Macedonian
> > Revolutionary Organization -- known as I.M.R.O. -- which was formed in
> > 1893 by Bulgarian Macedonians, bloodthirsty men who were nevertheless
> > great heroes and pitiable victims."
> > - Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon (1942), p.595
>
> > These people were Slavs who considered themselves Macedonians. How
> > does this square with your claim about Tito?
>
> They lived in the Turkish province of Macedonia with Thessaloniki as its
> province capital. A province inhabited by Slavs [Serbs and Bulgarians]
> in the north and Greeks in the middle and south.
But you wrote:
"The[re] seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII...[followed by your
imputation of motives]"
The fact that there were Slavs in the 1890s who considered themselves
Macedonians shows that this is false.
Ross Clark
>
> The Slavs came to the Balkans after the fall of the Roman Empire in the
> West 476 and the present border within the old Turkish province follow
> the between Slavs and Greeks with the Slavs divided between Bulgaria and
> Serbia [after WWII Tito created a Macedonian Republic from the
> Macodonian part of Serbia].
>
> There are no border problems in the area. The only problems seem to be
> linked with the "Serb Macedonians" demand that their state should have
> the name "Macedonia" rather than "North Mathedonia" og "New Macedonia"
> and their attempt to steal Greek history with Philip II, Alexander III
> the Great and the Vergina star - which was put into the Slav Macedonian
> flag.
> --
> Per Erik Rønnehttp://www.RQNNE.dk
Dušan Vukotić
You've got it wrong. I.M.R.O. was an organization of the Macedonian
Bulgars which in the late 19th and in the beginning of 20th century
tried to create autonomous Macedonia with the final goal of
unification with Bulgaria.
At that time and all the way to the end of WWII nobody in Macedonia
considered himself to be an ethnic Macedonian; the Slavs there were
either Serbs or Bulgarian.
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: benl...@ihug.co.nz <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
after some diplomacy "the flag problem" was solved. Macedonia changed teh
design and relations with Greece thawed a bit.
: --
Dušan Vukotić
[...known as I.M.R.O. -- which was formed in 1893 by Bulgarian
Macedonians...]
I think you should read more carefully. The Bulgarian Macedonians are
in fact Bulgars in the Greek province of Macedonia under Ottoman
rule. Rebecca West was obviously thinking about the Macedonian
Bulgars, because Macedonia in those times was a part of Turkish
Empire.
DV
PaulJK
> On Sep 6, 11:47 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Of course you are quite correct, Yusuf. Dushan likes to make these
>> categorical statements without any regards to different existing usages.
>
> What "usage" has to do with the fact that the Old Bulgarian (Slavic)
> has never existed? Thirty years after the Cyril and Methodius finished
> their job on O.Ch.-Slavonic, Bulgarians proclaimed the Old Slavonic!!!
> (not Old Bulgarian) as the official language of the church and the
> state (Preslav council 893.).
>
> Once again; 30 years passed after the codification of the Slavonic
> language (SLAVONIC not Bulgarian!) by Cyril and Methodius, until the
> Bulgarians adopted the Slavonic language (once more, SLAVONIC not
> Bulgarian). Imagine that someone decide to name the Classical Latin as
> "Classical Italian". Of course, nobody would ever accept a similar
> foolishness; but the same "yardstick" should be applied in case of the
> Old Church Slavonic, should it not?
No matter what you say and how much I would like to agree
with you, the fact is that the well accepted professional terminology
(i.e. prof. usage) includes language names like "Praslavjanski"
(Proto-Slavic), "Starob'lgarski" (Old Bulgarian), as well as Middle
Bulgarian. We have to deal with that.
>> Even if you did not put "(slavic)" in your sentence it would still be quite
>> clear from the context that you speak of an old Slavic language
>> called by many linguists "Old Bulgarian".
>
> Again, what if the Classical Latin was called by "many linguists" -
> Classical Italian? Who would authorize such a stupidity?
If that were the accepted name by the majority of linguists
it would probably never occured to me to call it anything
else but CI. Sell a wee. :-)
> DV
PaulJK
Oh no, thanks God, it certainly hadn't. :-)))
The Bulgarian (and AFAIK Macedonian) stand alone. The book by Boryana
Velcheva I quoted earlier traces phonological changes from Proto-Slavic
to Old Bulgarian to Middle and New Bulgarian. Unfortunately, that's all
I have on Bulgarian, so I don't know at what stage the went through the
vast changes in morphology.
Velcheva mentions extensive studies of history of B. and its dialects
by Miletic' 1886 1896, Conev 1905, 1906, 1914, 1919, S^c^epkin 1899,
Kul'bakim 1907, von Arnim 1930, Il'inskij 1912, Berns^tejn 1948,
Mirc^ev and Kodov 1965. I guess any of these books may provide an
informed and detailed answer to your question.
Bulgarians and other Slavic nations living in the countries of the
Eastern Roman Empire have a great advantage in being in much
better position to trace well their language developments in the
last 1200 years. The Western Slavs ended up in the Holy Roman
Empire dominated by Rome with large volumes of the monumental,
theological and scholarly works but written almost exclusively in Latin.
pjk
PaulJK
Googling for "Torlak means" gives the impression that the name
is not originally a Slavic word.
<quotes>
Torlak means an unbroken colt and hence, figuratively, a wild youth.
In Turkish the word Torlak means young and incapable, prodigal,
vulgar and unscrupulous, vagabund and esoteric...
But they know what they are, Torlak means DOG (PAS) and
thats how Serbs and Shops call these people south of Nish.
<unquote>
:-(
pjk
PaulJK
> On Sep 6, 2:28 pm, Christopher Culver <crcul...@christopherculver.com>
> wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> In English, "Old Bulgarian" is another name for Old Church Slavonic,
>>> and it is preferred by Slavicists because it does not give the
>>> impression that the language is ancestral to all the extant Slavonic
>>> languages.
>>
>> Not at all. Look at English-language specialist publishing over the
>> last half-century, and you'll find almost exclusively Old Church
>> Slavonic or Old Church Slavic as the names of the language. While Old
>> Bulgarian hung on for a while when the main sources were German (which
>>
>> Old Bulgarian is a poor name for the language because it was based on
>> the vernacular of the Slavs of Solun, well outside the Kingdom of
>> Bulgaria or modern Bulgaria. Ss Cyril and Methodius had no connection
>> to Bulgaria at all.
I agree.
> See, e.g., V. V. Ivanov in the 15th Britannica, or the Routledge
> Slavonic volume, p. 188 -- Old Bulgarian, reflected in the OCS
> manuscripts.
You are quoting examples of "Bulgarian terminology". :-)
(Note, Statton in Routledge's chapter on Bulgarian never
says "is" or "was" but only "reflected".)
If you read the works of linguists from other Slavic language
groups you'll find that while they deal with Old Church Slavic
and Old Slavic languages, they'll hardly ever use a term like
"Old Bulgarian" unless they specifically deal with developments
of OCS into OB or influences of OCS on OB.
pjk
Per Rønne
> "The[re] seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
> Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII...[followed by your
> imputation of motives]"
>
> The fact that there were Slavs in the 1890s who considered themselves
> Macedonians shows that this is false.
Not necessarily. The lived in the Turkish province Macedonia and could
thus consider themselves Macedonians - but did they consider themselves
part of a Slav Macedonian /people/?
--
Per Erik R�nne
Per Rønne
> The Western Slavs ended up in the Holy Roman Empire
Except Poland.
> dominated by Rome with large volumes of the monumental,
> theological and scholarly works but written almost exclusively in Latin.
But of course, Polish medieval works were also almost exclusively
written in Latin.
As was the works in Scandinavia, north of the Holy Roman Empire. And in
Iberia, Gaul and Britannia.
Dušan Vukotić
There are only two meanings of Torlak in Serbian:
1) torlak: ''ein Grosssprecher, gloriosus, braggart''.
2) Torlak: ''čovjek koji niti govori čisto Srpski ni Bugarski'' (the
person who doesn't speak clearly both Serbian and Bulgarian).
In Bulgaria and Turkey there are meanings of Torlak like simpleton,
boor, yokel. And, AFAIK no one calls the Torlaks dogs; I wonder where
did you find that?
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
that's the original meaning in turkish. it's a turkic word, looking up my
etymological dictionary. the Old Turkic meaning (reconstructed with /u/
rather than /o/) means "weak, emaciated"
: In Turkish the word Torlak means young and incapable, prodigal,
Yusuf B Gursey
soc.history restored.
In sci.lang Yusuf B Gursey <y...@theworld.com> wrote in <h827pr$m8j$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
: In sci.lang PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in <h823ke$uo3$3...@news.eternal-september.org>:
PaulJK
I said exactly where I got those quotations from, didn't I.
See 6 paragraphs back.
pjk
PaulJK
> PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> The Western Slavs ended up in the Holy Roman Empire
>
> Except Poland.
Well, I didn't really mean HRE, did I. What I meant to say was
that some 1200 years ago they ended up in Western Roman /
Roman Catholic sphere of influence.
>> dominated by Rome with large volumes of the monumental,
>> theological and scholarly works but written almost exclusively in Latin.
>
> But of course, Polish medieval works were also almost exclusively
> written in Latin.
Yes, and that makes the life significantly more difficult for the
modern linguists to trace the native W.Slavic language and
dialectal developments over the last millennium.
> As was the works in Scandinavia, north of the Holy Roman Empire. And in
> Iberia, Gaul and Britannia.
Forget I said HRE. :-)
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
Can you make a difference between "many" and "majority"?
> it would probably never occured to me to call it anything
> else but CI.
What a silly preconception!
DV
garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
> There are only two meanings of Torlak in Serbian:
> 1) torlak: ''ein Grosssprecher, gloriosus, braggart''.
> 2) Torlak: ''čovjek koji niti govori čisto Srpski ni Bugarski'' (the
> person who doesn't speak clearly both Serbian and Bulgarian).
>
Wow, I did not know I am Torlak
(clearly, I speak neither Bulgarian nor Serbian :-))
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Dušan Vukotić
wrote:
> Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There are only two meanings of Torlak in Serbian:
> > 1) torlak: ''ein Grosssprecher, gloriosus, braggart''.
> > 2) Torlak: ''čovjek koji niti govori čisto Srpski ni Bugarski'' (the
> > person who doesn't speak clearly both Serbian and Bulgarian).
>
> Wow, I did not know I am Torlak
> (clearly, I speak neither Bulgarian nor Serbian :-))
Then, move to Serbia as quick as you can; what are you waiting
for? :-)
DV
Dušan Vukotić
Rubbish!
DV
Per Rønne
> > If that were the accepted name by the majority of linguists
>
> Can you make a difference between "many" and "majority"?
If 1% of the population die from the new H1N1 variant A flue I'd call it
"many" but not a "majority" ...
Panu
> On Sep 6, 5:43 am, Dušan Vukotić <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 10:11 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in <a8f0f67a-5868-495a-8e4c-1742b27d4...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
> > > : On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > > :> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > :>
> > > :> modern linguistics does not fuss too much about the distinction between
> > > :> between language and dialect. when a people start calling their idiom a
> > > :> language, linguists normally go along with it. I understand that
> > > :> Macedonian (slavic) is part of the speech continuum that bridges
> > > :> Bulgarian with Serbian (formerly called Serbo-Croatian).
> > > :>
> > > :> a similar atitude is taken by liberal political thinkers who accept
> > > :> ethnicity / nationality as a matter of self-definition for the
> > > :> current time.
> > > :>
> > > :> OTOH ottoman turkish did call the slavic speaking inhabitants of
> > > :> Macedonia "bulgarians" IIRC as can be seen from news reports of the
> > > :> slavic rebels in Macedonia.
> > > :>
> > > :> > Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
> > > :> > Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
> > > :> > West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
> > > :> I seem to remember that attested Old Bulgarian (slavic) was more of the
> > > :> southern dialect, perhaps that's why.
>
> > > : Old Bulgarian was a Turkic not Slavic language. In fact, Bulgars
>
> > > well, I purposely put "(slavic)" so there would not be any confusion. by
> > > Old Bulgarian (rather than "Old Bulghar" or "Danube Bulghar" -the turkic
> > > language) I meant the early attestation of the present Bulgarian slavic
> > > language.
>
> > > : hadn't existed as Slavs and their language hadn't been Slavic/Slavonic
> > > : before the end of the 9th century when the ruling Krum's Bulgars (a
> > > : Turkic tribe), who imposed their power and their name over the Slavic/
> > > : Serbian tribes, were slavicized.
>
> > > the turkic element seems to have been a relatively small population,
> > > judging from the relatively few bulgharic (the branch of turkic in
> > > question) words in Bulgarian, relative to the number of bulgharic turkic
> > > words in Hungarian. later, the slavic hte slavic population retained the
> > > name of the former conquerers.
>
> > > : On the other hand, Old Slavonic became the official language of
> > > : Bulgarian church and state in the end of the 893, at the Preslav
> > > : council; and, as we can clearly see, it happened 30 years after the
> > > : Moravian mission of Cyril and Methodius (863)!
>
> > > IIRC what I was told by a Bulgarian who used to post in sci.lang
> > > concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
> > > it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
> > > with him again.
>
> > > : Macedonia was populated by the Serbs (the first half of the 7th
> > > : century when the emperor Heraclius of Byzantium invited the Serbs to
>
> > > that's a long time ago. they may have later adopted Bulgarian or their
> > > language evolved into Bulgarian. is the present language of the slavs of
> > > Greek Macedonia closer to Bulgarian or not?
>
> > The Torlak dialect of Serbian is almost the same as the Slavic
> > "Macedonian".
>
> > For instance:
> > Serbian and "Macedonian" - crn/црн 'black'; Bulgarian черен/cheren
>
> > Serbian/"Macedonian" crno na belo/црно на бело 'black and white';
> > Bulgarian черно на бяло/cherno na bjalo 'black and white'.
>
> > Nevertheless, we could say that the Slavic "Macedonian" is somewhere
> > on the half way between the Serbian and Bulgarian.
>
> Assessments of language relationships are not based primarily on
> shared vocabulary (which is so easily borrowed), but on phonological
> and morphological features like those mentioned by Christopher Culver.
Well, there is one thing which does suggest phonological affinity
between Serbian and Macedonian: c (ts) instead of ch (tS) in the word
for "black".
John Atkinson
> benl...@ihug.co.nz <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "The[re] seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
>> Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII...[followed by your
>> imputation of motives]"
>>
>> The fact that there were Slavs in the 1890s who considered themselves
>> Macedonians shows that this is false.
>
> Not necessarily. The lived in the Turkish province Macedonia and could
> thus consider themselves Macedonians - but did they consider themselves
> part of a Slav Macedonian /people/?
Yes. the first publications in the local dialect date from 1794,
although the use of the term "Macedonian" for this was considerably later.
The first published statements advocating what they called
"Macedonianism" (a Macedonian literary language and nationality) were in
1870, although the idea was widely discussed privately among
intellectuals in the region from around 1840. Krste Misirkov's book, "Za
makedonckite raboti" (1903) was extremely influential, though most
copies were destroyed by the authorities.
John.
Panu
> Panu wrote:
> > On Sep 5, 10:22 am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> >> In sci.lang Brian M. Scott <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
>
> >> BTW I have no particular opinion
> >> on this politicaly sensitive topic.
>
> > You are indeed not just a learned, but also a very wise man, as we all
> > have come to know and appreciate.
>
> Monitor alt.news.macedonia for a while, and you'll learn just how
> wise...
>
> Dennis
Oh, this was indeed my point. :D However, the emotions expressed are
genuine. Yusuf has excellent manners, and his postings are usually
interesting and well-informed.
António Marques
> The seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
> Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII in an attempt to
> interfere in the Greek Civil War. If he could not conquer Greece for
> Communism, at least he might try to conquer Greek Macedonia with the
> modern capital of Thessaloniki and the ancient capital of Pella.
If anything, yugoslav Macedonia was established to estrange the local
population from a bulgarian identity.
That greeks are even more paranoid than turks when it comes to
terriorial ethnic minorities is a fact, but the worlds doesn't revolve
around it.
Dušan Vukotić
Loony, you are very sagacious Hog, but, nevertheless, you forget
"white" (belo bjalo).
DV
John Atkinson
No doubt, but there's considerable information on this here and there in
the Bulgarian chapter in the Routledge book.
It seems that the most significant changes began in the Middle Bulgarian
(pre 1400) and early Modern Bulgarian (post 1400) periods. There is
abundant literature from Middle Bulgarian, but much less from 1400 to
1600, due to the Turkish conquest; which is unfortunate since this is
when the major changes took place, in particular the dissolution of the
case system (which is incomplete on in some regional varieties).
As usual, there are dating problems, since the literary language and
orthography often tended to lag considerably behind the spoken language
(cf Classical vs "Vulgar" Latin)
[...]
John.
Harlan Messinger
> benl...@ihug.co.nz <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> "The[re] seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
>> Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII...[followed by your
>> imputation of motives]"
>>
>> The fact that there were Slavs in the 1890s who considered themselves
>> Macedonians shows that this is false.
>
> Not necessarily. The lived in the Turkish province Macedonia and could
> thus consider themselves Macedonians - but did they consider themselves
> part of a Slav Macedonian /people/?
That's been the pertinent question throughout. Neither I nor anyone else
will deny that I am a Virginian resident, and that people have resided
in a political entity named Virginia for centuries, but none of us will
claim to be part of a Virginian people.
Panu
> Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
>
> > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
>
> > My apology Yusuf.
> > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
>
> Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
> English respectively.
That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
Then it is another story entirely that as a Serb, Dushan obviously
tends to adapt foreign names to the spelling of his native language.
This is actually one of the most conspicuous differences between
Croatian and Serbian (in Latin characters): in (Latin) Serbian we
would write Yusuf's name as Jusuf, while in Croatian we would keep the
original spelling.
Panu
Reflexes of yat' can vary so much among the dialects of one language
that they don't prove anything. As you of all people should know, even
in your native language, which I will call Shtokavian, the yat' vowel
can be reflected by i, e or ije, and I would not be surprised at all
if there were a Shtokavian subdialect in some God-forgotten nook or
corner of ex-Yugoslavia where they would use ja.
António Marques
I'd say there's little in that example to tell, because there seems to
be a 1:1 phonemical correspondence:
c ch
r er
n n
o o
n n
a a
b b
e ja
l l
o o
'Significant' phonological divergence usually involves differences in
word structure - whereas differences in phoneme realisation and even
mergers may be of very little singifcance - e.g., having a fricative
turn into another fricative, or two stops merging, or two open vowels
shifting are usually even below the orthographic radar.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 7, 5:11 am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R?nne) wrote:
:> Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
:> > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
:>
:> > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
:>
:> > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
:>
:> > My apology Yusuf.
:> > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
:>
:> Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
:> English respectively.
: That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
I don't know about the turkish communities in former Yugoslavia or
Bulgaria (though I presume they use latin script, if turkish has any
written status at all), but nowadays Turkish is written in the
perso-arabic based ottoman script for religious reasons in Greece only
(use of turkish is protected by treaty, as is greek in Turkey), otherwise
the turkish latin script is used. in Iraq the turkish of Turkey is used
by the Iraqi Turkmen community (who speak a dialect of Azeri,and should
not be confused with the Turkmen proper of Turkmenistan and adjoining
regions). until the formation of the Kurdish autonomous enclave in the
1990's they were using ottoman script. after the fall of Saddam, it has
some official status.
: characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
Yusuf B Gursey
PS. my grandfather was only in Skopje on business, so there is no excuse
to serbify me.
: : Then it is another story entirely that as a Serb, Dushan obviously
benl...@ihug.co.nz
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Per Rønne wrote:
But surely you are referred to individually and collectively as "(a)
Virginian" or "Virginians"?
I admit that because of the Greek context that Per appended, I took
his original statement as echoing the Greek line that the whole idea
of Slavs as "Macedonians" was a Titoist fiction. If we are arguing as
to whether certain people thought of themselves as a "nation" or
"people" or "ethnic group", the question becomes much murkier. But
given facts such as I cited (and see John's post), I doubt very much
that Tito made it up out of thin air. He may have formalized and
institutionalized it in dealing, like the Soviets, with the "national
question", but he did not create it.
Ross Clark
Harlan Messinger
> On Sep 8, 2:01 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> benli...@ihug.co.nz <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> "The[re] seem to be no notion of a Slav Macedonian people before the
>>>> Yugoslavian dictator Tito invented it after WWII...[followed by your
>>>> imputation of motives]"
>>>> The fact that there were Slavs in the 1890s who considered themselves
>>>> Macedonians shows that this is false.
>>> Not necessarily. The lived in the Turkish province Macedonia and could
>>> thus consider themselves Macedonians - but did they consider themselves
>>> part of a Slav Macedonian /people/?
>> That's been the pertinent question throughout. Neither I nor anyone else
>> will deny that I am a Virginian resident, and that people have resided
>> in a political entity named Virginia for centuries, but none of us will
>> claim to be part of a Virginian people.
>
> But surely you are referred to individually and collectively as "(a)
> Virginian" or "Virginians"?
Solely to indicate residency and votership. If I moved oversees, I would
see myself as an overseas American, not as an overseas Virginian. My
nationality is American (or USA, for those who prefer it). I could say
that that's my ethnicity, except that I tend to think of my ethnicity as
Central/Eastern European Jewish.
> I admit that because of the Greek context that Per appended, I took
> his original statement as echoing the Greek line that the whole idea
> of Slavs as "Macedonians" was a Titoist fiction. If we are arguing as
> to whether certain people thought of themselves as a "nation" or
> "people" or "ethnic group", the question becomes much murkier.
I don't think anyone was arguing (other than Aggie some months back, and
that was absurd) that there wasn't a politically demarcated territory
with the name Macedonia, and naturally the adjective that would have
pertained to it would have been "Macedonian". Before Tito, before WWII,
there was definitely something called "Macedonia" there (and I quoted
chapter and verse from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica to Aggie to
prove it). Therefore there were people who could be classified as
"Macedonian" in the same way I can be classified as "Virginian", for
purposes of identifying place of residence. (For that matter, I can be
called an "Arlingtonian" and someone from Skopje can be called--well, I
don't know what the demonym for someone from Skopje is.) If that's what
was meant, then there is nothing to argue about (except when Aggie is
involved). Therefore, I believe the argument all along was about
"Macedonian" as a nationhood and/or ethnicity.
> But
> given facts such as I cited (and see John's post), I doubt very much
> that Tito made it up out of thin air. He may have formalized and
> institutionalized it in dealing, like the Soviets, with the "national
> question", but he did not create it.
Right, he did not create the political entity (though he may have
altered its boundaries). The question is whether he turned it into an
artificial nationality where none existed before.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
<hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > On Sep 8, 2:01 am, Harlan Messinger
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
I meant more than that -- he did not create the idea of a Macedonian
nationality or people (or language). See my quote from Rebecca West,
who was travelling in the area in the 1930s, and in 1942 refers to
"the Macedonian people". (Unless you think she was taking orders from
Tito.) And see John's post for much earlier indications of linguistic
and national self-awareness.
Ross Clark
PaulJK
> Dušan Vukotić <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are only two meanings of Torlak in Serbian:
>> 1) torlak: ''ein Grosssprecher, gloriosus, braggart''.
>> 2) Torlak: ''čovjek koji niti govori čisto Srpski ni Bugarski'' (the
>> person who doesn't speak clearly both Serbian and Bulgarian).
>>
>
> Wow, I did not know I am Torlak
> (clearly, I speak neither Bulgarian nor Serbian :-))
Oh, that's what all braggarts and Grosssprecher say! :-)
pjk
Dušan Vukotić
Jusuf is a common name among the Muslim Serbs/Bosniaks. Even in
Croatia that name would be often spelled as Jusuf.
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 7, 4:35?pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
But I am neither a Bosniak nor a Croatian. And Yusuf is my official mae
spelling in a country that uses the Latin alphabet.
: DV
Dušan Vukotić
> : : characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
>
> PS. my grandfather was only in Skopje on business, so there is no excuse
> to serbify me.
I do not know what else you want, you fucking idiot. I apologized and
told you that it was just a typo. You are making a great fuss about
nothing, because no one wants to "serbify" you; although, according to
your stubborn and pettish nature it is not impossible that you are a
descendant of some Janissary warrior.
DV
Per Rønne
> On Sep 8, 2:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Right, he did not create the political entity
Well, he did change the status of the Serbian part of Macedonia from a
Serbian province into a republic in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
> > (though he may have altered its boundaries). The question is whether he
> > turned it into an artificial nationality where none existed before.
>
> I meant more than that -- he did not create the idea of a Macedonian
> nationality or people (or language). See my quote from Rebecca West,
> who was travelling in the area in the 1930s, and in 1942 refers to
> "the Macedonian people".
Including the people living in the 60% of the old Turkish province that
is now the Greek province of Macedonia - with inhabitants speaking the
Macedonian dialect of Greek?
Including the people living in the 15% or so of the old Turkish province
that is now part of Bulgaria - with inhabitants speaking a dialect close
to the dialects spoken in the old Serbian Macedonia?
> (Unless you think she was taking orders from Tito.)
Per Rønne
> On Sep 7, 5:11 am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R�nne) wrote:
> > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> > > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
> >
> > > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
> >
> > > My apology Yusuf.
> > > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
> >
> > Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
> > English respectively.
>
> That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
> characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
As far as I know, Turkish written with Latin letters was defined by
German scholars. Why would they choose English standards rather than
German?
Remember the use of '�' in Turkish.
PaulJK
> Du?an Vukoti? <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> If that were the accepted name by the majority of linguists
>>
>> Can you make a difference between "many" and "majority"?
>
> If 1% of the population die from the new H1N1 variant A flue I'd call it
> "many" but not a "majority" ...
The newspaper headlines would scream:
"THE WORLD POPULATION DECIMATED!" :-)
pjk
Yusuf B Gursey
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 5:11 am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> > > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > > > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
>
> > > > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
>
> > > > My apology Yusuf.
> > > > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
>
> > > Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
> > > English respectively.
>
> > That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
> > characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
>
> As far as I know, Turkish written with Latin letters was defined by
> German scholars. Why would they choose English standards rather than
no, it was done by local turks.
> German?
french was popular so, <J> was chosen for /*zh*/
>
> Remember the use of 'ö' in Turkish.
that was probably inspired from german, <Ş> (S, S with a cedilla) from
Romanian.
> --
> Per Erik Rønnehttp://www.RQNNE.dk
> Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Panu
> Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 5:11 am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:
> > > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > > > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > > > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
>
> > > > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
>
> > > > My apology Yusuf.
> > > > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
>
> > > Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
> > > English respectively.
>
> > That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
> > characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
>
> As far as I know, Turkish written with Latin letters was defined by
> German scholars. Why would they choose English standards rather than
> German?
Turkish as it is written today uses the letter y for [j]. Why this is
so, I don't know. The fact is, that this is how it is.
Yusuf B Gursey
because <j> was used for [*zh*] very likely due to the popularity of
french among turkish intellectuals at the time.
Panu
Yusuf stubborn and "pettish", whatever that means? About everybody
else in this newsgroup knows Yusuf as the paragon of humble modesty,
but Dushan is able to call him the "descendant of a Janissary
warrior".
As regards the serbification, Dushan has been playing pranks with
other people's names (mine very much included) for so long that it
would not surprise anyone if he had serbified Yusuf's name with some
sort of malicious intent, although I tend to think that he did it only
due to influence from his native language.
However, people's names are usually spelt the way they themselves want
to spell them. Myself, I would not be too happy with some monolingual
English-speaker calling me "Punnoo".
Panu
I guess you are right - it has not escaped my attention that Turkish
is heavily infested with French loanwords, too.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 7, 10:34?pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> : : characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
:>
:> PS. my grandfather was only in Skopje on business, so there is no excuse
:> to serbify me.
: I do not know what else you want, you fucking idiot. I apologized and
you did it twice that's why. I'll forget about the above lien and accpet
your apology.
: told you that it was just a typo. You are making a great fuss about
: nothing, because no one wants to "serbify" you; although, according to
: your stubborn and pettish nature it is not impossible that you are a
: descendant of some Janissary warrior.
at least frommy father's side they were landed gentry, not Janissaries.
: DV
Dušan Vukotić
> Per Rønne wrote:
> > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> If that were the accepted name by the majority of linguists
>
> >> Can you make a difference between "many" and "majority"?
>
> > If 1% of the population die from the new H1N1 variant A flue I'd call it
> > "many" but not a "majority" ...
>
> The newspaper headlines would scream:
> "THE WORLD POPULATION DECIMATED!" :-)
> pjk
Decimated originally meant 10% (to reduce by 10 percent, a punishment
used in the Roman army) :-)
DV
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sep 8, 8:56?am, Yusuf B Gursey <ybgur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> On Sep 8, 1:45?am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> > On Sep 8, 7:37?am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R?nne) wrote:
:>
:> > > Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > > > > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
:> > > > > > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
:> > > > > > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
:> > > > > > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
:>
:> > > > > > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
:>
:> > > > > > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
:>
:> > > > > > My apology Yusuf.
:> > > > > > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
:>
:> > > > > Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
:> > > > > English respectively.
:>
:> > > > That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
:> > > > characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
:>
:> > > As far as I know, Turkish written with Latin letters was defined by
:> > > German scholars. Why would they choose English standards rather than
:> > > German?
:>
:> > Turkish as it is written today uses the letter y for [j]. Why this is
:> > so, I don't know. The fact is, that this is how it is.
:>
:> because <j> was used for [*zh*] very likely due to the popularity of
:> french among turkish intellectuals at the time.
: I guess you are right - it has not escaped my attention that Turkish
: is heavily infested with French loanwords, too.
yes. "pan-european words" are generally from french, at least after the
18th cent. . before that they came mostly from the venetian dialect of
italian, due to maritime trade, warfare and piracy (privateering).
there are a few 19th cent. maritime jargon english loanwords,due to
British advisors in the ottoman navy. otherwise inserting english words
into turkish has only become a fad after around 1990.
BTW /*zh*/ is found only in loanwords from persian and french. some
anatolian dialects don't have it, but it is established in urban speech.
Balkan turkish has intervocalic voicing of /*sh*/ to [*zh*] but that is
low register and perhaps non-existent within the borders of Turkey.
Dušan Vukotić
> In soc.history Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in <c8cbe540-d99e-4a55-a6c6-3c44ba689...@q7g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>:
> : On Sep 7, 4:35?pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> On Sep 7, 5:11 am, p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per R?nne) wrote:
> :>
> :> > Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> > > On Sep 6, 7:07 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> :> > > > In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote in
> :> > > > <1b8ebd47-ff00-44c5-a247-a32560e37...@r9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
> :>
> :> > > > : Do you know Jusuf that nowadays there is more people of the Serbian
> :>
> :> > > > the correct spelling of my name is Yusuf
> :>
> :> > > My apology Yusuf.
> :> > > I wrote your name with Serbian spelling.
> :>
> :> > Like the difference between 'Jugoslawien' and 'Yugoslavia'. German and
> :> > English respectively.
> :>
> :> That is as may be, but Turkish is nowadays normally written in Latin
> :> characters, and there is no reason to write Yusuf as Jusuf.
> :>
> :> Then it is another story entirely that as a Serb, Dushan obviously
> :> tends to adapt foreign names to the spelling of his native language.
> :> This is actually one of the most conspicuous differences between
> :> Croatian and Serbian (in Latin characters): in (Latin) Serbian we
> :> would write Yusuf's name as Jusuf, while in Croatian we would keep the
> :> original spelling.
>
> : Jusuf is a common name among the Muslim Serbs/Bosniaks. Even in
> : Croatia that name would be often spelled as Jusuf.
Do you understand English? Are you deaf or hard of hearing? Why did I
apologize to you?
Are you trying to make a martyr of yourself on such a trivial matter?
> But I am neither a Bosniak nor a Croatian.
Neither Serb nor Macedonian, I suppose?
What benefits do you hope to achieve with these stupid remarks?
DV
John Atkinson
> benl...@ihug.co.nz <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 8, 2:41 pm, Harlan Messinger
>> <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Right, he did not create the political entity
>
> Well, he did change the status of the Serbian part of Macedonia from a
> Serbian province into a republic in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
>
>>> (though he may have altered its boundaries). The question is whether he
>>> turned it into an artificial nationality where none existed before.
>> I meant more than that -- he did not create the idea of a Macedonian
>> nationality or people (or language). See my quote from Rebecca West,
>> who was travelling in the area in the 1930s, and in 1942 refers to
>> "the Macedonian people".
>
> Including the people living in the 60% of the old Turkish province that
> is now the Greek province of Macedonia - with inhabitants speaking the
> Macedonian dialect of Greek?
Yes, that's the one: the Greek province of Macedonia, whose traditional
inhabitants' native languages include the Arvanitika and Tosk dialects
of Albanian, the Aromanian and Meglano dialects of Romanian, the Balkan
and Vlax dialects of Romani, and dialects of Turkish, Slavic, and Greek.
Northern Greece, like every other region in southern Europe, is
multilingual and multiethnic, and always has been.
[...]
John.
Yusuf B Gursey
and I accepted your apology. now let usw move on.
: Are you trying to make a martyr of yourself on such a trivial matter?
:> But I am neither a Bosniak nor a Croatian.
: Neither Serb nor Macedonian, I suppose?
I am not.
: What benefits do you hope to achieve with these stupid remarks?
: DV
PaulJK
> PaulJK wrote:>>> <h807kd$k0d$1...@pcls6.std.com>:
>>>> In sci.lang PaulJK <paul....@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>>>> <h800fd$ta$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>>>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.lang Du??an Vukoti?? <dusan....@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <a8f0f67a-5868-495a...@t13g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>>>> On Sep 6, 3:14??am, Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sep 5, 12:54 pm, Du??an Vukotic <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Serbs or Bulgarians. Old Macedonian was in fact one of the dialects of
>>>>>>>>> Greek (ancient Macedonian) and that name is often wrongly used in the
>>>>>>>>> West as an alternative name for the Old Church Slavonic.
>>>>>> concerning the debate of the status of Macedonian (slavic) was that
>>>>>> it was the southern dialect of Bulgarian that was initially made into
>>>>>> a written language. I may have remembered wrong, I'll try to get in touch
>>>>>> with him again.
>>>>> :-) In my school we were taught it was a Slavic dialect spoken in Solun^
>>>>> (Thessaloniki) and generally referred to as Staroslavjans^tina
>>>> that's what must be what my friend refered to when he said that it was the
>>>> southern dialect that was made into Bulgarian.
>>>>> (Old Slavonic). During that time it wasn't much different from
>>>>> dialects farther in the north, and people in Moravia and Bohemia
>>> OK. so I gather it hadn't yet developed the features of later Bulgarian
>>> that sets it apart from other South Slavic languages (hence what Dusan is
>>> refering to)?
>>
>> Oh no, thanks God, it certainly hadn't. :-)))
>>
>> The Bulgarian (and AFAIK Macedonian) stand alone. The book by Boryana
>> Velcheva I quoted earlier traces phonological changes from Proto-Slavic
>> to Old Bulgarian to Middle and New Bulgarian. Unfortunately, that's all
>> I have on Bulgarian, so I don't know at what stage the went through the
>> vast changes in morphology.
>>
>> Velcheva mentions extensive studies of history of B. and its dialects
>> by Miletic' 1886 1896, Conev 1905, 1906, 1914, 1919, S^c^epkin 1899,
>> Kul'bakim 1907, von Arnim 1930, Il'inskij 1912, Berns^tejn 1948,
>> Mirc^ev and Kodov 1965. I guess any of these books may provide an
>> informed and detailed answer to your question.
>
> No doubt, but there's considerable information on this here and there in
> the Bulgarian chapter in the Routledge book.
One of these days, I should read that chapter.
> It seems that the most significant changes began in the Middle Bulgarian
> (pre 1400) and early Modern Bulgarian (post 1400) periods. There is
> abundant literature from Middle Bulgarian, but much less from 1400 to
> 1600, due to the Turkish conquest;
So it happened many centuries after OCS was codified.
In fact the major changes only started as late as half way between OCS
and today and carried on even later.
> which is unfortunate since this is
> when the major changes took place, in particular the dissolution of the
> case system (which is incomplete on in some regional varieties).
>
> As usual, there are dating problems, since the literary language and
> orthography often tended to lag considerably behind the spoken language
> (cf Classical vs "Vulgar" Latin)
>
> [...]
>
> John.
PaulJK
>>> Du?an Vukoti? <dusan.vuko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> If that were the accepted name by the majority of linguists
>>
>>>> Can you make a difference between "many" and "majority"?
>>
>>> If 1% of the population die from the new H1N1 variant A flue I'd call it
>>> "many" but not a "majority" ...
>>
>> The newspaper headlines would scream:
>> "THE WORLD POPULATION DECIMATED!" :-)
>> pjk
>
> Decimated originally meant 10% (to reduce by 10 percent, a punishment
> used in the Roman army) :-)
Oh, for God's sake, why DO YOU think I made that sarcastic
remark trying to take mickey out of journos?
Don't the journalists in your country misuse words equivalent to
the E. "decimated", "holocaust", "total mayhem", "wiped out"?
pjk