Talk:Solun-Voden dialect

Academic linguists about the Solun and Drama-Ser dialects

I found two of the most important books in Bulgarian dialectology by Prof. Stoyko Stoykov both published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Bulgarian Dialectology (6 editions between 1964 and 2006), and Atlas of Bulgarian Dialects (in 4 volumes). The most important isogloss in Bulgarian language, the 'Yat border', divides the whole Bulgarian speaking territory in two large dialect regions: East Bulgarian dialects, and West Bulgarian dialects. Most of the territory of Aegean Macedonia speaks Eastern Bulgarian dialects, and the Yat border passes to the east of Thessaloniki. The Slavic dialects spoken around Drama, Seres, Gyumurdzhina, Kavala, Thessaloniki (Solun) belong to the Bulgarian Rupian dialects which are spoken in the Rhodopes (Thrace) and the plains north and south of these mountains and also in the Razlog valey (also Bansko, Gotse Delchev). Regionally, these dialects belong to the region of Thrace, rather than to the region of Macedonia. For a map of Yat border, see [1]--Lantonov (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Bulgarian features are more characteristic for the Eastern and South Eastern part of the region of Macedonia and infrequently are found in its western territory. East Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia have primarily Rupian character (Rhodopean and Thracian) because the dialects in the South Eastern Macedonia are a natural continuum of the Rupian dialects in Rhodopes and Thrace. In some cases Eastern Bulgarian isoglosses border the southmost part of the region of Macedonia, and then they turn to the northwest so that they become typical for some of the westernmost dialects (Ohrid, Debar, and others). I can go on and on translating from the above academic books. It would have results only in comparison of sources, individual dialects, and isoglosses. Otherwise, it would be a waste of time. --Lantonov (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

'To the south of the Bulgarian-Greek border between the lower Struma and Mesta rivers [these are Bulgarian toponyms, no offence intended to Greeks, translate to Greek toponyms if necessary --Lantonov (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)] and to the south of the Yat border is formed the southwestern part of the large Rupian dialect masiff. In it one can delineate more limited dialect formations:

Solun dialect: This dialect is of the greatest interest. It is spoken in the Solun neighborhood, best represented in the villages of Visoka and Suho, near Lagadin, to the north of Solun. In addition to these, similar dialect is spoken in the villages of Negovan, Gradobor, Ayvatovo, Novo selo, Balevits, Kirechkyoy, Kliseli. It is universaly accepted that the Solun dialect has preserved best the features of the Cyril-Methodius language. ... (follows a linguistic description of various features and isoglosses and 17 primary sources in linguistic books). Features:

1. Numerous traces of the old nasalism of the nasal vowels: гъ̀мба, дъмп, ръмп, скъмп, съ̀мбута; въ̀нзил, въ̀нжи, кàнду, кънт, мънч (мъж), мъ̀ндру, мъ̀нка, съ мъ̀нчиш, прънт, пръ̀нчка, ръ̀нка; грèнда, клèнтфа, пент’, пèнтук, èндру, жèнтфа, чèнду.

2. Vowel ê replaces Old Bulgarian ѣ instead of vowel a after hissing consonant and in some cases replacing Old Bulgarian ѧ, which is an archaic feature of the dialect, cf. бр’êк, в*êк, д’ềду, д’ềта, зв’ềзда, л’êп, л’ềту, с’ềнка, чув’ềк; чềша, чềйут (чаят), шềрка, шềйка; куч’ềнта (кучета), м’ềсу, съ ус’ềкнувам.

3. Substitute ъ < Old Bg ы: бъл (бил), въм’а (виме), къ̀тка, мъ̀шка (мишка), пъ̀тъм, плъ̀тку, сън (син).

4. Soft consonants at the end of words: сол’, ден’, кàмен’, зент’, пент’, пънт’, дèсит’ .

5. Diphtongs шт, жд < *tj, *dj: къ̀шта, плàштъм, нуштà, в’èжди, миждỳ, сàжди.

6. Double accent: цàрицàта, кòшницàта, лòбудàта, нèгувъ̀йут, глàсувèту, бàран’èту, брѝчин’èту, кàжувàха.

7. Definite article -о (-у) in Suho dialect and -от (-ут) in Visoka dialect: м’ềсницу, кръ̀сту, чардàку, кòн’у, канàп’у, казàн’у, капàйк’у, т’ут’ун’у, дин’ò, курин’ò; врахòт, вит’арòт, казан’ут, òгнут, самàp’ут, л’ềбут, каѝшут.

8. Definite article -ту for masc. pl.: бр’ềгувèту, бỳтувèт̂у, глàсувèту, д’èвир’èту, кòжувèту, кòкалèту, òблац’èту, пòйасèту, сфàтувèту.

9. Personal pronoun for 3d person: той, т’а, тузѝ, тус, т’е.

10. Questional pronouns: кутрѝ, кутрà, кутрò, кутрè (Suho); кутръ̀й (Visoka).

11. Particle за forms future tense: за кàжа, за стàни, за ти дам òште парѝ; за йàм и йàс л’ềп.

12. Suffix -м for 1st person singular present tense for verbs of 1st and 2nd conjugation: бàйам, кфàс’ам, п’èрам, п’èчам и п’èкам, хòд’ам, хрàн’ам, ц’ềп’ам и др.Also used suffix -а: гòст’а, дèр’а, къ̀лн’а, кòс’а, крòйа, м’èт’а, пр’èнд’а, с’èча, хòд’а.

Primary sources:

Г о л о м б, Зб. Два македонски говора (на Cуxo и Висока во Солунско). Jазична обработка. — Мак. jазик, 1960—1961, № 1—2, 113—182; 1962—1963, № 1—2, 173—276;

К о ч е в, Ив. Старобългарските диалектни явления и понятието солунски говор. — Бълг. ез., 1987, № 3, 167—178;

М и л е т и ч, Л. Една особено забележителна форма в македонските говори около Солун. — Мак. преглед, 1936, № 1 и 2, 1—8;

М и л е т и ч, Л. Към речника на говора в селата Сухо и Висока (Солунско). — Мак. преглед, 1936, № 3 и 4, 133—140;

М и н ч е в а, Анг. Диалектът на Кирил и Методий и балканизмите в старобългарския език. — Бълг. ез., 1987, № 1—2, 23—30;

М л а д е н о в, Ст. Българската реч в Солун и Солунско. — B: Сборник Солун. С., 1934, 44—63;

П о п с т о и л о в, А. Село Зарово, Солунско. Историко-фолклорно и езиковедско изследване. С., 1979, 152 с.;

Р о м а н с к и, Ст. Две приказки от Солунско из неиздадената сбирка на Ст. Веркович. — Мак. преглед, 1928, № 1, 139—148;

С т о и л о в, А. П. Остатъци от назализъм в солунските села Зарово и Висока.— ПСп., 1901, № 61, 703—712;

С т о и л о в, А. П. Изговор на ѣ в Заровско-висошкия говор (Лъгадинско). — СпБАН, 1914, № 8, 159—164;

Т е о д о р о в, А. Един принос към висошкия говор. — ПСп., 1885, № 15, 401—410;

I v a n o v, J. Un parler bulgare archaique. — Revue des études slaves, 2, 1922, 86—103;

M a ł e c k i, M. Drobjazgi z Macedonji. — Lud Słowiański. 2, 1933, 106—109;

M a ł e c k i, M. Oroznicowaniu gwar Bogdanskia w pd.-wschodnijej Macedonji. — Пак там, 5, 1936, № 1, 90—106;

M a ł e c k i, M. Dwie gwary macedońskie. Sucho i Wysoka w Solùnskiem. Częśé I: Texty. Krakow. 1934, 90 p.; Część II. Słownik. Kraków, 1936, 135 p.;

O b l ak, V. Macedonische Studien. Die slavischen Dialekte des südlicnen und nordwestlichen Macedoniens. Wien, 1896, 156 p.;

U r b a ń c z y k, St. Uwagi o słowntstwie Suchego i Wysokiej. (Na podstawie Słownika M. Małeckiego). — Studia linguistica Polono-Jugoslavica (Скопjе), 2, 1982, 87—94.

Drama-Ser dialect: To the north of the Solun dialect are the dialects of Drama, Valovishta and Ser which are a transition to the Gotse Delchev (Nevrokop) dialect. (follows a linguistic description of various features and isoglosses and 8 primary sources in linguistic books, including 1 publication of Vidoeski).

1. The most important feature that relates them to the Rupian group is the vowel ъ < Old Bg. ъ, ѫ: бъ̀чва, дъш, мъх, сън, гъ̀ба, гъ̀ска, къ̀шта, пръ̀чка.

2. Semivowel Yat pronounciation: р’àка, п’àсък, зв’àзда, м’àсто, с’àно, пл’àва; излèзе, слèзе, рекàта, песъклѝва. In some villages vowel ê is also found in front of soft syllable: бềше, врềме, мрềжа, срềштам.

3. Reduction: гул’àм, д’àду, дèнуви, зилèн, житвàр, ѝзвур, сèлу, пундèлник.

4. Soft consonants at end of words: зет’, пет’, път’, цар’, ден’, кàмен’, рèмен’, изѝк’, сол’ .

5. Diphtongs шт, жд < *tj, *dj: къ̀шта, плèшти, в’àжда, мèжда, грàждъне.

6. Article suffix -ъ (in some regions also -ът) for masculine: брегъ̀, градъ̀, синъ̀; брегъ̀т, градъ̀т, синъ̀т. After soft consonant -е, -ет: кòн’е, пъ̀т’е, кòн’ет, пъ̀т’ет.

7. Personal pronoun for 3rd person: той, т’а.

8. Short forms of personal pronoun dative case 3rd person: хми, хни, хим.

9. Verb suffix -а for 1st pers. sing. present tense 1st and 2nd conj.: бèра, сèд’а, мèта, пèра, нòс’а.

10. Repetitive verbs of the type испѝцам, насѝцам.

11. Repetitive verbs of the type купòвам, пладнòвам.

12. Reflective animalistic adjectives with suffix -шти: кỳчешти, кòзешти, йàгнешти.

Primary sources:

А н т о н о в а, Л. Някои поправки на данните за говора на с. Волак, Драмско. Според т. I на Български диалектен атлас. Български говори от Егейска Македония. — Бълг. ез., 1982, № 5, 436—439;

А н т о н о в а, Л. Форми за минало несвършено време в говора на с. Волак, Драмско — Бълг.ез., 1985, № 5, 485—490;

А н т о н о в а, Л. Форми за 1 лице сегашно време в говора на с. Волак, Драмско. — Бълг. ез., 1985, № 2, 110—114;

В и д о е с к и, Б. Фонолошки опис на говорот на селото Плевна (Серско). — Годишен зборник. Филолошки факултет на Универзитетот — Скопjе, 4, 1978, 37—46;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Български диалектен атлас. Български говори от Егейска Македония. Т. 1. Сярско, Драмско, Валовишко и Зиляховско. С., 1972;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Едно интересно явление в българския диалектен вокализъм. (Редукция на гласна е в ạ в говора на с. Лехоно, Димирхисарско). — Бълг. ез., 1969, № 2, 138—142;

И в а н о в, Й. Н. Български преселнически говори. Говорите от Драмско и Сярско. Част първа. Типологическа характеристика и описание на говорите. (Трудове по българска диалектология. Т. 9). С., 1977, 253 с.;

Ф р е н г о в, А. Речникови материали от с. Плевня, Драмско. — Ез. и лит., 1957, № 4, 297—298.

-------------------------------------------------------

In bringing all this here, I do not intend to say anything for the present demographic situation in these regions. As FutPerf says, today there may be none of these speakers in the said villages and towns. Historically, the carriers of the above two dialects are progeny of Rhodopean population that in the summer herded their livestock in the Rhodopa mountains, and in winter herded them back in the Aegean plains for the milder Mediterranean climate. Some of these people throughout the centuries became more or less settled there. During all time, however, the predominant population in these regions was Greek. Thessaloniki (Solun), for instance, has never been a Bulgarian town (always Greek, or Byzantine). After the Balkan wars, most of the Bulgarian population in the region was driven to Bulgaria as refugees.

--Lantonov (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Archive 13

The following exchage took place in April and is archived at 'User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise /Archive 11']; can you link me to the "fake" map and/or the relevant conversation? Thanks. Politis (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, MacedonianBoy lives in Macedonia and I live in Germany and I do not get it how can we be as one person. MacedonianBoy is a linguist and uses prooved sources and I am "just" economist that makes articles about geography and loves his own mother tongue. regards --Raso mk (talk)

I know they work together; I've had dealings with them before. So, what is the source of that map, can somebody please tell me now? It's evidently not the one you were discussing as a "fake" earlier elsewhere; it shows entirely different things than either version of that one. That fake issue seems to be a red herring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so what happened was this.

• User:PMK1 was looking for maps of Macedonian speakers and came across this thing: [2], from [3]. He asked various people on wiki for advice on if and how he could upload it.
• Somebody then found that the original of that image was here: [4], and that it was significantly different in just the detail he would have been interested in. The version on the Macedonian website was apparently manipulated. I have no indication that PMK1 himself acted in anything but good faith here, by the way, he was just an innocent victim of that forgery.
• Some days later MacedonianBoy created the Dialects of the Macedonian language page with the first version of that dialect map. He was a bit slow in identifying the source for his graphics at first. So, Laveol, in a knee-jerk reaction, jumped to the conclusion that he must have based it on the fake demographic map. Which was nonsense, because that map and the dialect areas map had no similarity whatsoever, they were totally different maps with different topics and different scope. It was plain obvious that MacedonianBoy had worked from a different model. That model turned out to be the (legitimate) Koneski map I also used for my later versions.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense and I suspected as much since I was familiar with that forgery, but could not trace the development in Wikipedia. There are many forgeries - including documents - that have been coming out of Yugoslav Macedonia and then FYR Makedonija and they are now edging into the wider European mainstream. I consider your linguistic map to be a product of those irregularities (this is not an accusation, just an interesting though disappointing realisation). The map by Koneski, I am 99% certain, is a political decision part of the post-WWII irredentist policies in Skopje when they re-baptised everything they could 'Macedonia/n'. The map was then picked up by a handful of people (by the way, can you link me to it? I think I have it [5], but you never know). I also notice with interest that Greece lags way behind in locating, let alone making sense of the nation building/forging porcess in R.Makedonija. This means that, sadly, those acamdemics and historians in Skopje who have a sound appreciation of their country's and the region's history are not heard - because it differs from the all pervasive political hardline. If anyone else reads this posting and agrees or disagrees with it, I am open to discussion. Politis (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one am surprised that no sources from Western European academia (particularly from those great Balkan ethnographers, the Germans) exist on the distribution Slavic Macedonian in Greek Macedonia and that we have to rely on Koneski. Linguistics is not my field, and I certainly do not mean to offend anyone, but I did a search for him on both Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar and found nothing published in international scientific journals besides this "personal viewpoint" [6].

Google Scholar [7] revealed two books, "Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik" and "Istorija na makedonskiot jazik", both in Slavic Macedonian, but nothing in English. Are there no scholars that publish in international journals that have studied this question? Where are all the German ethnographers and Balkan experts? I know for a fact that linguists and ethnographers spend a lot of time studying far more obscure languages and ethnic groups, so I find this a bit surprising. Anyway, like I said, I don't mean to offend anyone or gainsay their scholarship, but just to give my perspective as an academic from a different field. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, there are very serious German academic sources on the ethnography of the region of Macedonia. The most important of these is the fundamental monograph of Prof. Gustav Weigand from Duisburg, who was a prominent scholar in linguistics at the University of Leipzig:

• ETHNOGRAPHIE VON MAKEDONIEN, Geschichtlich-nationaler, spraechlich-statistischer Teil von Prof. Dr. Gustav Weigand, Leipzig, Friedrich Brandstetter, 1924, ASIN: B0018H0Y82,LCCN: 25024383, LC: DR701.M4 W4, OCLC:6692519, Open Library [8]

As all German scientists, Prof. Weigand is precise and meticulous throughout. A must read. --Lantonov (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another German book, somewhat more recent, and even more to the point:

• Die Slaven in Griechenland von Max Vasmer, Mit eine Karte, Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 1941 (Zentral Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Leipzig 1970)

--Lantonov (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tsourkpk that was great. Do you have access to the article? There has been some work on the issue by a handful of Greek linguists and historians, on the Slavophones of Greece but in the Greek language. There is currently a more detailed linguistic work being written in Paris by a pertinent academic from the region. I will continue this discussion if appropriate, on your talk page so as not to burden someone else's talk page. Politis (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be nice if there was more scholarship about the distribution of minority speakers. The main reason there isn't is probably the hugely difficult surroundings created by the decades-old political paranoia cultivated by the Greek society about that topic. (Just imagine you're a foreign researcher trying to get local cooperation partners and you tell them you are going to find out about Macedonian Slavic speakers in Greece...) But anyway, why are we racking our brains over this? We use the scholarship that exists.

And, I repeat, the actual number and quantitative distribution of speakers is pretty irrelevant for the present map, a fact that you both still don't seem to appreciate. Difficult as this may be for you to comprehend, but the map is really, really intended to be exclusively about where those stupid isoglosses run. Slavic speakers in Florina speak more or less like those in Bitola, while those in Kastoria speak slightly differently, and those in Edessa speak like those in Veria. That's what it says, not more and not less. Whether there are 50 or 5000 or 500000 of them plays no role. And whether they identify as Greeks or Macedonians or Bulgarians or whatever plays no role either.

On this purely linguistic level, I don't see any reason to doubt what Koneski and Friedman tell us. How these speakers related to nationalities or national languages or whatever is totally irrelevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you flatter Greek scholarship. Sure political insecurity has something to do with it, but also the astonishing Greek lack of sholarly curiosity about the region, including the varieties of Greek culture and experiences. Have you seen anything recent on Corfiot or Chian or south Albanian Greek? Or even on the Helleno-Vlach and Sarakatsani Greek of FYR Makedonija and Bulgaria? The, presumably, Greek contributions we get here are from private researchers who are giving their 2 cents worth in a manner that reminds me of our great-grandfathers' solitary pursuite of regional history (obviously, I say this with affection). Politis (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I thought we were talking about the minority languages map in the Greece article. Never mind. But on a purely academic level, you don't see a reason to doubt an academic that has exactly 0 publications in the international literature? It's a question of credentials. Or is this a case of "he might be crappy, but he's the only one we got"? On a side note, I've been hearing plenty of Señor Gruevski's statements of late to understand where this "Greek political paranoia" comes from (not to mention all that United Macedonia crap all over their diaspora). --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Links that wow... 'Folk songs in Kilkis, Macedonia, Greece' [9]; 'Slavophone Greeks speak about themselves' [10] Politis (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I interfere in this discussion because the topic is of interest to me. I notice that both sides strive for objectivity, and therefore they gain my respect. The problem is that particularly in the Macedonian case, one cannot easily separate linguistic from political aspect. The position of Future Perfect that the question is only about where some isogloss runs is a position that must be adhered to in any general lingustic mapping. In this case, however, one must be careful about historical and political issues. Thus, the map doesn't specify the period for which it is applied, nor whether it takes into account spoken, or written language, the extent of use of the language, and many such details. It may turn out, for instance, than 20 years ago in Drama there were 50 people speaking the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian language but today they either left the region or use exclusively Greek language. In such case, stating that today this language is spoken in Drama, is misleading. To this one must add the propensity of FYROM scholars to push the border marking into the neighbour's territory as far as possible. Because there is a scholarly literature with such (or similar) map, it must not be hidden from the public but it has to be specified that it is the view of scholars from FYROM, in the absence of Greek sources, so that it must be taken with a pinch of salt. --Lantonov (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of accuracy, I am under the impression that the author of the original map is not Blaže Koneski, but Božidar Vidoeski. The map (if I am not mistaken) was first published in Blaže Koneski, A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language With a survey of the Macedonian dialects and a map by Bozidar Vidoeski, Tr. Victor Friedman, (Historical Phonology of the Slavic Languages, 12) Heidelberg Carl Winter, 1983. This publication was a revised edition and translation of Istorija na makedonskiot jazik (1965), which included neither the Map, nor the dialect survey. Unfortunately, I have not managed to trace the book here in Athens, but it would be nice if somebody could find it (Future Perfect?) and provide any additional information (particularly on the time span of the map and the sources used for its drafting). As for Blaže Koneski, I should add that his work in codifying the Macedonian Literary language in 1944 is considered a major turning point. Lunt, Friedman, Christina Cramer considered him a mentor and have relied heavily on his work. It goes without saying that he is seen as a controversial figure in Greece and Bulgaria --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

K. Koneski, not B. ;) I think the K is for Kiril, but not sure. BalkanFever 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

But yes, Vidoeski apparently has a map in Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna with Z. Topolińska. I think all the info is in the image description BalkanFever 10:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about Kiril (sic) Koneski? I think that this whole discussion was about this Koneski here. The map is indeed based on Vidoeski, but it was attributed to Koneski in this discussion so I thought that it would be better to clarify things a bit. I think though that the map first appeared in the publication I cited and not in the one mentioned in the image description. Be that as it may, some more background on this whole map issue would be welcome. I for one would be quite interested to learn more about it. Unfortunately, there's not much here in Athens and Friedman's book on your language is extremely concise in certain aspects--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, your assumption is not unreasonable, since the more famous Koneski is Blaže, but FP can clarify who he meant. What exactly would you like to know more about in regards to the map by the way? BalkanFever 11:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Well well well.... look what I've found. More fucking conspiring between BF and FuPe... WHEN WILL THIS END? You guys have threatened the integrity of the encyclopedia for TOO LONG, and i FOR ONE will NOT stand FOR this, AT ALL!!! 11:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, somebody is yanking their chains to earn themselves yet another Very Clever Dog Award, it seems. You know what a temptation it is to see the word "block", in nice blue, right next to you guys' user names in every line where they are listed in a page history? It says to me: BalkanFever - block! Beamathan - block! Giorgos Tzimas - block! Makes my mouse finger twitch each time I read it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was all him dammit! I'm innocent! BalkanFever 11:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something?--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, BalkanFever and FuPe have been conspiring against you and me for several years now. Seeing as I've found the balls to proclaim these factual factful facts, they will do anything to silence me. He even threatened my clever dog. Be weary from now on Giorgos. Be weary... Beam 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew it all along... But now on a more serious note: Yes, it would be very interesting to find the Vidoeski publication I mentioned earlier. It must be very informative judging from its title--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually seems to be a recent English translation, of what is very likely essentially the same work: [11]. Thanks for pointing out the difference between Koneski and Vidoeski. With all those -skis, I must have been mixing them up all the time. By the way, don't mind Beam, he's just raving mad. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL... it's been in my order list since last week and I just realized what I ordered... --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now all we need to do is find out which Koneski you were confusing with Vidoeski. ;) Blaže or Kiril? BalkanFever 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I found another map in a Macedonian (FYROM) web site [12]. It shows where "Macedonian" language is spoken, and looks quite different from the map discussed here. In the legend it writes: "A map of Macedonia published in 1980 in the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups indicating the areas where the Macedonian language is spoken". The site is openly nationalistic, it starts with "Macedonia for the Macedonians", etc. but it would be interesting to look in this Harvard Encyclopedia if one can find it. --Lantonov (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That map is patently unuseable for our purposes. It could serve for the map in Minorities in Greece, perhaps (where we have an even more restricted area currently shown). It has a totally different scope from the dialect map. It obviously intends only to give a very rough overview of where most of the Macedonian speakers come from. It doesn't tell us anything about dialects. So, Lagadin, Veria and Nestram aren't included in it? Too bad. And yet, the dialectological literature does describe Slavic dialects of those places. Friedman not only claims that there are (or were) speakers there, he actually describes how they speak. Maybe there are only a dozen of them left, who knows? A demographic map won't show them. A dialect map has to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says "where Macedonian language is spoken", not "where most Macedonian speakers come from". That's why it would be interesting to find the original to see what is it about. It might have some data about number of speakers, time spans, etc. Too old though, 1980. --Lantonov (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I found it with Google search but unfortunately not the page with the map. On Macedonia, only p. 691 with some interesting materials there like:

There is no way to determine the exact number of Macedonian Americans. ... However, this figure (120-150,000) includes all Slavic speaking immigrants and their descendants from the historical region [Macedonia] and does not allow for the fact that the majority of immigrants from Macedonia and their descendants identify with the Bulgarian-American community while many from Greece identify with the Greek-American community. --Lantonov (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember to have seen an academic book with maps of Bulgarian dialects. Almost certainly it covers most of the territory of the "Macedonian" language and gives details about each dialect. I will go to the library to search it and will put the info. Probably your user page is not the right place for this discussion so I can move all of this to another page of your choice. --Lantonov (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FYRoM nationalist names for Greek cities

The prior version of this article listed FYRoM nationalist names first for current Greek cities. I removed them completely and put the correct Greek ones. FP then added them back in but at least put the Greek names first. (using the justification they they are required under the context of the article).

As I am not acquainted enough with how Wikipedia handles minority dialect language naming rules by neighbouring countries on another country's territory... I will abstain from reverting for now. As long as the rules are being applied consistently with Greece... then I'm kosher. If not... given all the well known issues between Greece/FYRoM at the moment... the way the article is/was written seems like just another United_Macedonia ploy intended to wildly inflate the appearance of FYRoM nationals in Greece for uninformed casual readers (and that the use of "Solun" and "Lerin" are valid names for Greek cities). Using a foreign language geographic qualifiers for a dialect in a neighbors property (rather than the actual name for the cities) is definitely suspicious. (i.e. Does Mexico give old Mexican geographic names for Spanish dialects in Texas? And if such an article doesn't exist for Mexico (p.110M with millions more in the US)... how is it quite a few articles of the sort now seem to exist for FYRoM? (pop 2M with seemingly only a few thousand of their nationals being Greek citizens)

FP has also created a map (helped by the FYROM government) that includes those names that I object to and believe should be removed or at the least cleaned up to more accurately represent actual estimated numbers. (especially because such references appear to promote irredentist behavior by FYRoM nationals (photo from June of this year). And in case anyone else needs further convincing my beef may have teeth.--Crossthets (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I sympathise with the Greek cause in the conflict with FYROM, and think that the Greeks have every right for their position. I will support having Greek names for these cities everywhere but here. Here we talk about dialects of Bulgarian language which have been spoken historically in this region. The names of these dialects have of course Bulgarian names because the dialects are part of the Bulgarian language. So we say Solun dialect of Bulgarian but Thessaloniki dialect of Greek. In the same way we do not say, for instance, Melnik dialect of Greek, we will say Meleniko dialect of Greek. So stop this silly reverting, it will only harm the Greek cause which I respect, as I already said. Learn well from your example with Texas, for instance. In Texas, we have today cities like San Antonoio, Amarillo, Alamo. In USA state of California, we have Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and much much more Spanish names. We have a state New Mexico. If you look in the map of USA you will see that more than half of the toponyms are not English. You do not need to look as far as the USA. Look in Bulgaria. Today's names are Sozopol, Ahtopol, Nesebar, Nikopol, derived from old Greek names. We do not have problems in acknowledging Greek presence on our land. I understand your problems with Macedonians and Macedonism because we have our share of similar problems with those. These should be solved by some more civilized methods, not such blind-thrash reverting. --Lantonov (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lantonov, my edit was not "silly" nor "blind thrash reverting". I made a single revision and FP made a revision that at least partially dealt with my concerns (reversing the names at least). I then stated although I am skeptical...I am still open to further arguments and compromise provided evidence of some Wikipedia conventions is provided (which I am doing).

Your patronizing response hardly strikes me as civil much less sympathetic (especially considering we've never talked before). Someone truly sympathetic to the issues Greeks are experiencing would not ADD to the problems by continuing to dilute the existence of 2.5 Million Macedonian Greeks. (and at the very least would work extremely sensitively toward compromise when dealing with someone else's homeland.)

Thus far all you've provided me is a priori arguments why I shouldn't object to foreign names (by a hostile country) for Greek cities that already have official names. If you want me to buy into that then you'll need to provide similar themed English WP pages that show current dialect maps of one country's cities... listed by what their next door neighbour calls them in another language. As I said, if this common on Wikipedia and the frequency of articles related to the issue is in the same ballpark...then I'm kosher with it. And if not... then we'll need to find some sort of compromise.

I'm not trying to squash references of a Bulgarian dialect in Greece (that lets not forget FYRoM nationals call a "Macedonian" dialect and a FYRoM national created this page to begin with). I just want to make sure the frequency of speakers is accurately reflected (i.e not wildly bloated like it is now). It is mapped by dialect name... not a non-official city name dictated by FYRoM nationals. You don't see me making wildly exaggerated maps of Greek dialects in FYRoM cities do you? You don't see me making current day maps of cities in FYRoM with Slavic names by their ancient Greek names?

My other issue is when countless third-parties play dumb around the issue of their misbehavior... recognize it as Republic of Macedonia... call them Macedonians...miss a zillion distortions of history... ignore the constant open vitriol of their media towards Greeks.... have nothing to say about their PM laying a wreath where a map of Macedonia Greece is annexed to FYRoM?

To be frank... I sincerely believe there is widespread hatred of Greeks today (even outside of FYRoM). My best guess for this is some people are sick of listening to ancient Greeks did-this did-that and appear to get some sort of perverse pleasure at being condescending and bashing to Greeks of today as a result. --Crossthets (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend to be patronising and am sorry if I have offended you with "blind-thrash reverting" and "silly". I do not hate Greeks and agree that Bulgaria should not have recognised the Republic of Macedonia in the first place. This is the work of misled politicians who thought that our compatriots will be thankful to Bulgaria for helping them become independent from Serbs. It didn't turn out this way. About distortions of history, you are more than right but do not forget that before these distortions there were Serbian, Bulgarian, and Greek distortions and misinterpretations. As for the language in these towns, which you call Slavic, I feel as angry as you when it is called Macedonian because it is Bulgarian (and Slavic too, the language of Bulgarian Slavs, not of the Serbian (and much less "Macedonian") Slavs). If you look in my contributions in Wiki you will see my opposition to FYROM symbols of statehood. I stress everywhere that Macedonia is a region, not a nation or ethnicity which is the official position of Bulgaria weakened, however, by recognising a "Republic of Macedonia". Maps of Greek language dialects in Bulgaria (FYROM)? Why not? I would be very interested to see these and even contribute to them if I can, even with Greek names of cities and dialects. There have been Greeks in Bulgaria (and there are some even now) and they spoke and speak Greek. I doubt that their language is literary standard Greek. Most probably it is some dialect of Greek which if studied will only help to enrich the Greek language. "Macedonian national" created this page? No. This page was created by a Macedonian Bulgarian (Bulgarian who was born and lives in the region of Macedonia). I had my own disputes and disagreements with him as well as with other Macedonian Bulgarians and reached some compromise, one result of which is abandoning Cyrillic for the International Phonetic Alphabet and believe me, the dialect looks very strange written like this, much stranger than the Slavic names of Greek cities. You want me to provide examples of maps of dialects in a neighboring country. Ok, look in the article Varieties of Modern Greek where you will see maps of Turkey and Italy where Greek dialects are (or have been) spoken. True, cities do not have the Greek names but the dialects themselves are not named by the cities. Turkey is not exactly a country historically friendly to Greece. This said, I am not a particular fan of maps, especially when they can be used to further nationalist claims. If you read facts about Bulgarian history you can easily explain the hostility of some Bulgarians to Greeks (which, to repeat, I do not share). What will you say, for instance, if Bulgaria opens schools in Greece, in which they teach the young Greek kids in Bulgarian that Greeks are barbarians and kids must learn Bulgarian and call themselves Bulgarians in order to be looked on as civilized people? --Lantonov (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you both stop this long-winded exchange of personal opinions about what Macedonia is? Nobody is interested in it. The Slavic names are included here for a much simpler reason: because that's what the literature does. For better or worse, a substantial part of the English-speaking academic specialist literature on Slavic dialectology uses the Slavic toponyms in these contexts, and for our readers to understand the relation of our articles to its sources we need to have them included. On the other hand, I fully agree we should have the Greek names first. Not because they are "official", but simply because they are the ones our readers will be more familiar with. Please stop ideologising these usage issues. This is not about stating national claims to territory, but simply about how to provide information most accessible to our readers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are not personal opinions but opinions of states and peoples. And for better or worse there are quite a few people interested in it. But your are right that this is loss of time. --Lantonov (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually editors are interested in it. And by "a substantial part of the English-speaking academic specialist literature on Slavic dialectology uses the Slavic toponyms in these contexts" do you by any chance mean that one specialist uses them? --Laveol ^T 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to love this statement from the supposedly "neutral" admin above.

Can you both stop this long-winded exchange of personal opinions about what Macedonia is? Nobody is interested in it.

FP always tries to trivialize this fundamental issue when others talk about it... but seems to develop amnesia every time some FYRoM nationals come to talk about it.

FP I know I'm supposed to assume edits are in good faith but when I see comments like you make above... and look for your edits distancing yourself from the outrageous historical claims of FYRoM nationals...they are nowhere to be found. Despite that you block the occasional FYRoM troll for obvious defacement... your edit history makes it clear you are not neutral on the issues... not even close. Perhaps Kapnisma who has tried much harder than I to be diplomatic with you can be convinced to come to your side here. As for me unless you have some constructive comments on coming to some sort of compromise on the problematic map.... we really have nothing to say to each other that won't result us sniping at one another. (which isn't constructive for either of us or the article)

Laveol, I very much appreciate the apology (which few people seem capable of doing these days). I'm sure we'll figure something out that deals with both our concerns. I will respond back to your points when I have an opportunity. --Crossthets (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)