Talk:History of the Macedonian language

Old version

The Macedonian standard language can be said to have been born in August 1944, when a provisional government run by the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) declared the Macedonian republic. This date is not precise as prior work had been done, however as Friedman states, "it nonetheless functions as the symbolic act demarcating the beginning of the period in which efforts received the official sanction that enabled standardization to reach the stage of implementation" ^[1].

It should be noted however that work had been done on standardising the Macedonian language prior to 1944.

Some of the varieties of Old Church Slavonic, the one of the Ohrid Literary School (one of the literary schools of the First Bulgarian Empire) from the 10th century on and written primarily in Glagolitic, as well as the language used by Saints Cyril and Methodius to translate the Bible from Greek in the 9th century AD (which was primarily based on the Slavic dialect of Thessaloniki/Solun) ^[2], are sometimes regarded as based on Macedonian local dialects due to the variety reflecting the local Slavic vernacular of the region.

There were three schools of Macedonian linguists in the recent history of Slavic Macedonia. The first one had Bulgarian consciousness and was called from some authors the "Bulgarophiles". It tried to reach the linguistic and political unity with Bulgaria. This group tried, in the 19th century, accompanied by pan-Slavic nationalism, to make the first attempt to resolve the question of linguistic norms in what they considered the Bulgarian-Macedonian diasystem. Bulgarophile writers from Macedonia (Kuzman Šapkarev, Miladinov Brothers, Grigor Prlichev) advocated a common Bulgarian language based on the Slavic dialects in Macedonia or on a compromise between the upper-Bulgarian (northeastern Bulgarian) and the western Macedonian dialects, which they considered as Bulgarian. Writers from northern Bulgaria, however, insisted on the adoption of the northeastern Bulgarian dialect only. The establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian principality north of the Stara Planina led eventually to the adoption of the Eastern literary variant; still, even after the codification of the Bulgarian language in 1899 ^[3], the preservation of the letters ѣ and ѫ with dialect-dependant double reading allowed some differences between eastern Bulgarian and western Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects within the codified norm.

At the same time, the Serbian scholars and a part of intellectuals from Macedonia, called the "Serbophiles", considered the Macedonian language merely a southernmost dialect of Serbian language, thus forcing this idea that become official in Vardar Macedonia after the Balkan Wars and World War I. Between the world wars in Serbia Macedonian dialects was treated as a Serbian dialects. Literary Serbo-Croatian was the language of education, media, and public life; even so Macedonian literature was tolerated as a local dialectal folkloristic form. The "Serbophile" idea was later abandoned in favour of the formation of separate Macedonian language in 1944, when the third group of linguists, led by Blaže Koneski, codified the Macedonian literary language.

The idea of the separate Macedonian language, which is neither Bulgarian nor Serbian in essence, is called "Macedonism", and it has been official. Nowadays, Macedonian shares similar features both with Serbian (lexical fund, slang, script, present tense forms, accentuation position - through unrelated processes, stress in both languages has generally come to be placed closer to the beginning of the word than in their eastern neighbour - etc.) and Bulgarian (virtually complete lack of cases, definite article, formation of future tense, non-melodical accent etc.), but also possesses some unique features.

**Summary of the history of Macedonian language** according to Victor Friedman ^[4]
Period	Summary
1794-1840	The period of the first published texts employing Macedonian dialects. Main figures: Hadzi Daniil of Moskopole, Joakim Krckovski, and Kiril Pejcinovic. Main event: the awakening of a Macedonian Slavic national consciousness.The opposition Turk/giaour is superceded by Greek/Slav, and Slavs struggle for a literary language of their own.
1840-1870	The period of the first textbooks. Main figures: Dimitar and Konstantin Miladinov,Jordan Hadzi Konstantinov-Dzinot, Kuzman Šapkarev. Main event: the anti-Phanariot struggle. Most intellectuals favor a common Macedo-Bulgarian literary language based to a large extent on Macedonian.
1870-1913	The period of the first grammars and nationalist publications. Main figures: Gjorgi Pulevski, Krste Misirkov, Dimitrija Čupovski, Petar Pop Arsov, and other members of the VMRO. Main events: the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate, the Ilinden rebellion, and the partition of Macedonia. Macedonian nationalism is opposed to Bulgarian and Serbian interests.
1913-1944	The recognition of Macedonian literature in Serbia and Yugoslavia leading to the crystallization and ultimate establishment of the Macedonian literary language.

Rewrite

I replaced this with something I'd written as I think mine has more structure, although in a slightly more academic and less encyclopaedic style. I suspect that there are neutrality problems so have left the tag there for now. Feel free to merge in stuff from the removed into my version. - FrancisTyers 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misirkov

a) it might be more precise to write that misirkov was from Ayii Apostoli, near Salonica b) it think "On macedonian affairs" is a better translation of the title of Misirkovs book. best--Greece666 23:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language

There was no appelation 'Macedonian language' before the 1940s. The history of that language starts in the 1940s, prior to that we have reference of Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic. The way it is handled in this article, it would be like stating that old Germanic is English, or that French is Latin. (Presumably the author initiating this article is fluent in Bulgarian and Makedonski ;-). Politis 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, English Language, we have "English is a West Germanic language". Likewise, Makedonski is a West Bulgarian language (coming up on your screen, soon). Politis 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "Bulgarian" was a language group you'd be right, it isn't. Macedonian (Makedonski if you prefer) is a South Slavic language of the Eastern group. - Francis Tyers · 09:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you then merged in your good edits. - Francis Tyers · 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word re:language group. However, here we are dealing with a time line. Until well into the 20th century, the Slavic dialects south of Skopje were referred to as, Bulgarian or Slavic and South Slavic. It is only linguistics that subsequently introduced the term 'language group' on a 'scientific' basis. The term Macedonian for a language came in the 1940s. That is when the history of that languge starts. Any usage of that term prior to that date is strictly misleading (and often originates from the 'nationalistic propaganda' of a country's efforts to gain status). Of course we can say that the South Slavic tree branched off into Serbian, Bulgarian and, in 1946(?) Macedonian/Makedonski. Politis 09:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or Serbian, to many people the "dialects" were not dialects of Bulgarian, but dialects of Serbian. I've carefully written this article using various papers and books. In fact, in the first sentence it puts the "date of birth" of 1944. This was opposed by certain ethnic Macedonians. It is proper to speak of the various Slavic dialects of the region before this time, as these were the basis of the standard language. You will note that no-where does it describe these as the "Macedonian language" prior to the 1940s. - Francis Tyers · 10:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian vs. southern Slavonic

Regarding "Macedonian" versus "southern Slavonic", I am merely reporting what I read in the sources. The features of the texts are examined by modern linguists and these labels are applied. This has nothing to do with the dispute. They obviously have "southern Slavonic" features, hell "south-eastern Slavonic" features, because they are south-eastern Slavonic dialects. Before you make any further edits it would be good if you could read the sources on which the article is based, and where appropriate furnish your own reliable sources (journal articles, books from real publishers etc.) - Francis Tyers · 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Friedman source is selectively quoted. This, arguably, introduces the concept of a Macedonian language in the middle ages. Politis 14:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other quotes from Friedman (emphasis is my own Politis 14:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

Please give the full citation. - Francis Tyers · 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...for geographic reasons, some of the most salient features of Skopje Macedonian are shared with Serbian, During the earliest years of codification, the Pirin dialects, which are spoken for the most part in Bulgaria (but also the extreme east of the Republic of Macedonia) , also competed to some extent with the standard (Koneski 1945a).

Skopje Macedonian refers to the dialects of Macedonian spoken in and around Skopje. - Francis Tyers · 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a paper on this that I will see if I can find. - Francis Tyers · 14:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrovska, E. (1998) "The Cultural Dialect of the Younger Generation in Skopje" International Journal of the Sociology of Language, Z.Topolinjska (ed.). Mouton de Guyter (1998), 59-73.

Well, something about it anyway. - Francis Tyers · 15:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavic environment can be understood as subdivided into three parts: Serbo–Bulgarian, Russian, and Church Slavonic.

Please give the full quote. - Francis Tyers · 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.

Your quote doesn't mean much outside of the context in which it was written (the preceding pages). - Francis Tyers · 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Slavic environment can be understood as subdivided into three parts: Serbo–Bulgarian, Russian, and Church Slavonic. Serbian and Bulgarian are the two standard languages closest to Macedonian as well as the two ends of that section of the South Slavic dialectal continuum between which the Macedonian dialects are located.8 At the same time, they are official languages that have served at various times as instruments of cultural and political domination in Macedonia and also at times as the vehicles of the denial of Macedonian identity (see Friedman 1975). Even Friedeman/IJSL-Macedonian 6 when they functioned at their most negative, however, Serbian and Bulgarian were the languages of education for most Macedonians who were able to go to school, including those initially responsible for the implementation of the Macedonian standard (cf. Koneski 1950b)."

The three main chronological stages of the implementation of the Macedonian standard language can be defined as follows: 1) the overlap of implementation and codification/elaboration: 1945–50, 2) the primary phase of pure implementation (acceptance): 1950–53, and 3) the phase of established implementation (expansion): 1954 onward. The first and third of these stages can also be subdivided. "

Agree. He applies some typology to discuss the implementation which I'm not sure is widely accepted. - Francis Tyers · 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, not 'widely accepted'; that can be the problem with sources and an understandable wikipedia weakness. The selection of sources can lead to the construction of invented facts, i.e. 'Macedonian phonetics' (and what not) in the middle ages. This, in turn, generates an unscholarly fait accompli whose compound effect can be to back date the existence of a language by a thousand years and more. No pasaran amigo ;-) Politis 15:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't backdate the existence of the language. Read the first paragraph. I would agree if it was based on one source, but there are several, all reliable. - Francis Tyers · 15:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article to discuss the standardisation within the typology laid out by Haugen (1966), Neustupny (1970) and Radovanovic (1986, 1992), I would be quite happy to do it, but I'm not sure it would be of benefit to our readers. - Francis Tyers · 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "Macedonian features" in sentences like the ones Politis objected to ("The earliest texts showing specifically Macedonian phonetic features are Old Church Slavonic classical texts"): There's nothing wrong with that, as far as I can see. I'm not familiar with the literature, but if I read that as a linguist somewhere, I'd find it easily understandable. It means: The earliest texts that display such phonological phenomena as are today characteristic of Macedonian, as opposed to other neighbouring varieties; marking the variety represented in these texts as the earliest distinctive unique ancestors of today's Macedonian. It's just like if a German linguist might talk of the earliest distinctive Bavarian dialectal features showing up in such-and-such a period. It says absolutely nothing about a Macedonian ethnicity at that stage, or about the name "Macedonian" being in use as a language name at that period, or about Macedonian being a "separate language" at that period. The only thing implied by the statement is that it was a distinct variety, i.e. a dialect with certain recognisable features that distinguished it from others and that were demonstrably ancestral to those of today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above interpretation by FPS makes sense - even though no one concerned mentioned ethnicity. However, the slavomacedonian (or western Bulgarian / southern Slavic) phonetics that one finds in some villages around Florina are quite different from those around Kumanovo, aso. Ergo, we cannot speak of 'specifically [Slav] Macedonian phonetics'; it seems more appropriate to refer to the language group (southern Slavonic), and if necessary, a current geographical location. Overall, the usage of the term 'Macedonian' in the article can be seen as contributing to establishing grounds for a 'Macedonian language' in the middle ages. No doubt 'Skopje Macedonian' (as Friedman says) is rooted in Slavic dialect of the region, but it needs to be unabmiguously clear (think how CBS 60 Minutes would say it) and that is probably best achieved by leaving out that term when talking before the 1940s. Politis 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, all the literature uses this term. The article is to my mind clear and unambiguous. If you feel a sentence is ambiguous, please paste it here so we can discuss it and possibly see about altering it. - Francis Tyers · 15:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]