Talk:Bulgarian dialects

BalkanFever's edits

You seem to dislike my wording, could you explain what's wrong with it? It clearly says that it represents a point of view (the dominant one, but still a point of view indeed), something that has not been done in the Macedonian dialects articles. Compare

Map of the Bulgarian dialects in and around the region of Macedonia (Bulgarian view) + Bulgarian source

to

Dialect divisions of Macedonian + Macedonian source

The difference? My wording isn't binding, it clearly states it represents the Bulgarian view, while the Macedonian wording misleads the reader that the Macedonian view is the only one.

So, unless such detailed explanations are added to the Dialects of the Macedonian language and a consensus is reached, those will not be tolerated here, especially because they serve no reasonable purpose. Todor→Bozhinov 11:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the dominant view is that the dialects in Macedonia are Macedonian. This is stated by, among others, Victor Friedman, who is the leading authority on Balkan linguistics. You can also talk to user:Future Perfect at Sunrise, our resident linguist. And mind WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - there's no need to refer to other articles. The point is that the Bulgarian Academy calls them Bulgarian when almost nobody else does. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 11:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I put a tag just after "dominant", "leading authority" and "nobody"? Your original research is irrelevant to me. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions has to do with this, would you like to have this article deleted? :) Maybe it doesn't suit your agenda? Just joking! :) Todor→Bozhinov 11:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples of international researchers accepting the Macedonian dialects as Bulgarian

• Stefan Verković, Описание быта македонских болгар; Топографическо-этнографический очерк Македонии (Петербург, 1889)
• Vatroslav Jagić, „Ja sam mislim, već tim dovoljno označio položaj makedonskih govora, što sam ih smestio pod glavu „bugarski jezik”. Letter to Lyubomir Miletich, 1904.
• Iv. Popović, Geschichte der serbokroatischen Sprache, Wiesbaden, 1960, p. 262. "[Mazedonisch ist] mehr oder weniger mit dem Altkirchenslawischen und Bulgarischen identisch".
• Konstantin Josef Jireček, Die Balkanvölker und ihre kulturellen und politischen Bestrebungen, Urania, II, Jg. 13, 27. März 1909, p. 195. "[the western Bulgarian dialect] is spoken between Sofia and Ohrid."
• Andre Mazon, Contes slaves de la Macédoine sud-occidentale. Étude linguistique, textes et traduction; notes de folklore, Travaux publiés par l’Institut d’études slaves I, Paris, 1923. "The dialects of the regions of Lerin and Kostur form together with the known dialects of the Korçë area … the southwesternmost extreme point of the Bulgarian dialects."
• Gustav Weigand, Ethnographie von Makedonien (Geschichtlich-nationaler, sprachlich-statistischer Teil, Leipzig, 1924. "Das makedonische Bulgarisch".
• K. Sandfeld, Balkanfilologien (København, 1926, MCMXXVI). " … sproget i Makedonien er bulgarsk tiltrods for, at dele deraf er lagt ind under Jugoslavien."

*shrug* Todor→Bozhinov 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a few short sentences below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Firefly322

....

History of Bulgarian language

I started to write this section but later saw that most of this material already exists in the article History of the Bulgarian language. So I will try to move details there and leave here only things pertinent to dialects and their formation. --Lantonov (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Radojda-Vevcani

The most characteristic feature of Radojda-Vevcani dialect (Radojda, Vevcani, Mali Vlay and Lin (in Albania) is the substitution of OBg ѫ, ъ with the Yat vowel. After non-labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ʲæ/ (as is its probable pronunciation in OBg): г/ʲæ/жва, гн/ʲæ/с, гр/ʲæ/ди, вн/ʲæ/тре, д/ʲæ/га, й/ʲæ/же (въже), й/ʲæ/дица (въдица), к/ʲæ/тник, р/ʲæ/ка, ск/ʲæ/по, д/ʲæ/п, з/ʲæ/би, с/ʲæ/бота; с/ʲæ/нце (слънце), г/ʲæ/лтат; г/ʲæ/рне, к/ʲæ/рф, з/ʲæ/рно, с/ʲæ/рп, с/ʲæ/рце, т/ʲæ/рн etc. After labial consonant Yat is pronounced /ɶ/: м/ɶ/ш, п/ɶ/т, л/ɶ/ка, д/ɶ/п, з/ɶ/би, пр/ɶ/т, б/ɶ/рго, п/ɶ/рво, в/ɶ/рба, м/ɶ/ртоф, в/ɶ/лк, п/ɶ/лно, в/ɶ/лна, м/ɶ/лчит, ж/ɶ/лчка, г/ɶ/лтат etc. This feature is the same as in the Eastern Bulgarian dialects in Teteven and Pomorie regions. --Lantonov (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Balkan map policy"

Hahah, so we have agreed that Greater Serbia maps from 1918 which list the entire population of Kyustendil, Berkovitsa, Lom, Breznik, Radomir and Tran as Serbian are bullshit? :) Mate, this is a Serbian jingoist map not only in the respect it backs Macedonism but also in the way it underlines Serbian domination in Yugoslavia itself. Just look at the region of Kosovo and its "Serbian" population, half of Croatia is listed as Orthodox, the Bosniaks are isolated islands and the notation of the Greek population in Thrace is laughable, as is the overestimate of Turkish population in Bulgaria.

And what I kept for dessert: Cvijić has coloured southeastern Macedonia as ethnic "Slavic Macedonian", but Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo are Serbian-coloured. Are you Serbian, PMK1? :)

This is clearly a propaganda map promoting the idea of Greater Serbia as the dominant nation in the Balkans. It has no place anywhere in an encyclopedia, except for articles about Serbian propaganda itself. Todor→Bozhinov 10:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of books about the geologist Jovan with his faulty maps and faulty theories in service of "Old Serbia" propaganda at the turn of 20 century. I don't think that here is the place to discuss them but since just an hour ago read an interesting book by Madame Edith Durham, the British iron lady, my fingers are itching to paste here a quote from her book (Gutenberg Project e-text # 19669 Twenty Years of the Balkan Tangle):

"THE Macedonian rising of 1903 was a purely Bulgar movement. As is invariably the case with such risings, it was ill-planned; and untrained peasants and irregular forces never in the long run have a chance against regulars. Its history has been told more than once in detail. I need only say that, instead of revolting simultaneously, one village rose after another, and the Turkish forces rode round, burning and pillaging in the usual fashion of punitive expeditions. Thousands of refugees fled into Bulgaria--thus emphasizing their nationality--and within the Bulgarian frontier organized komitadji bands, which carried on a desultory guerrilla war with the Turkish forces for some time. But it was soon obvious that, unless strongly aided by some outside Power, the rising must fail.

The most important point to notice now is that not a single one of these many revolutionaries fled to Serbia, or claimed that they were Serbs. They received arms, munitions and other help from Bulgaria, from Serbia nothing. They were rising to make Big Bulgaria, not Great Serbia. Serbia now claims these people as Serbs. She did not then extend one finger to assist them."

--Lantonov (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice find, although, anywhere you look in that period, you'll find the same thing. It's ironic that many of those same people today would rather be Serbs than Bulgarians (as PMK1's actions prove). As an ordinary Bulgarian, I'd never want to be anything else than what I am: not a Serb, not a Romanian, not a Turk, not a Greek, not a Russian, not a Hungarian, not a German; it's not like I don't like those people, I just wouldn't be anything else than what I am. I wouldn't rather be this than that. Unlike some Macedonians, who would rather be Serbs than Bulgarians.

And then go explain there was no Yugo brainwashing. Todor→Bozhinov 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand them to a certain degree. At the turn of 20 century most countries around them were liberated from the Ottomans and became independent, even Muslim Albania. And all became clamoring that they have interests in Macedonia. People in Macedonia became overnight Greeks, Serbs, Vlachs, whatever they said to them from outside. Hearing so much that they are everything but Bulgarians, persons with dignity said: "I was born in Macedonia, therefore I am Macedonian". They didn't care about history, science, maps, etc. Belonging to an independent nation was a question of life or death. Probably I would act the same way in such circumstances. This was expedient and the right thing to do at the time (turn of 20 century). In the same vein and with the same tone they say: "As an ordinary Macedonian, I'd never want to be anything else than what I am: not a Bulgarian, not a Serb, not a Romanian, not a Turk, not a Greek, not a Russian, not a Hungarian, not a German; it's not like I don't like those people, I just wouldn't be anything else than what I am. I wouldn't rather be this than that."

As it turned out they did not win independence then. They belonged to Serbia for 80 years. The real independence for them happened in 1991 and they were (and are) willing to keep it by all means: fair and unfair. If needs be they will steal history, language, flags, symbols, names, whatever. It doesn't matter as long as they belong to an independent MACEDONIAN nation, speak MACEDONIAN language, have MACEDONIAN flag, have ancient MACEDONIAN history, and their state is called MACEDONIA with nothing taken and nothing added. All around them we perceive this false nationalism as malignant with a tendency to metastase in other countries. And when it was used by the Serbian Yugocommunism as a weapon against other nationalities the Macedonian nationalism reached the point of no return. Now even Serbs balk at the monster that they created and raised. --Lantonov (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never said it's not understandable, it's just pitiful. Also, as PMK1's actions proved, at least he isn't quite like me: he'd rather be a Serb than a Bulgarian, he's willing to give up his ethnic consciousness for the sake of denying the Bulgarian history of the region. Anyway, Serbs have other more serious problems now, their own state fell apart because of the way it was created. And the Macedonians are facing serious issues themselves: honestly, I don't think we should let them in the EU unless they quit the historical falsifications and misappropriations thing. And even if they do that, if they don't give in to Greece they're going nowhere. It's difficult to live with such issues at hand, turbonationalism is understandable. Todor→Bozhinov 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed about history falsifications and misappropriations, EU entry, etc. About PMK1, he showed in deed on several occasions that he strives to reach the objective truth and if needed goes against the dogmas, the official Macedonistic thinking, and the fight to Macedonize the whole world. Not the typical turbonationalist at all. On my side, I am also trying to write objectively, looking at myself from the outside, so to speak. Sometimes Bulgarian authors are not the final authority on Bulgarian language. Let's not forget Krste Misirkov who Bulgarized half of Serbia. There are other points of view that may be closer to the truth and as long as those are not false theses obviously dictated by politics, I am willing to accept and compare them. --Lantonov (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to have a dialect map of Bulgarian language on the whole Bulgarian territory in addition/instead of the demographic map. There are several very good maps in the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas. I don't have access to a scanner in the library and even if I had these maps are still under copyright. I hope to find some free time someday to draw them myself. --Lantonov (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that would be the best way to go. I drew a map of Bulgaria only because I was asked to make a map for the page by User:VMORO and the only source I could find online was Stoykov's map. As good as it is, it only includes dialects in Bulgaria. If you can obtain the Bulgarian Dialect Atlas maps and draw a free map yourself, that would be great. I have some limited experience with SVG maps, but of course, I don't have access to the atlas. If you can scan or photograph the relevant few pages and e-mail them to me, I don't think the copyright holders will be too mad at you ;) Todor→Bozhinov 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is nice to know what User: Todor Bozhinov really thinks. Anyway i would rather be these people over these any day!. LOL take a joke people. Anyway im not from these regions;Skopje, Prilep, Kumanovo, Kratovo, Kicevo and Tetovo anyway! Who is to say i would rather be serb than bulgarian? Maybe i am actually a gypsy or vlach. Like it is completely relevant. PMK1 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I approve and appreciate your light attitude with nationality, PMK1. Come to think about it, nobody knows what nationality he really is. But tell me the truth, would you be rather Turk than Bulgarian. Not joking? --Lantonov (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That all depends on whether i am a Makedonec or a Torbeš. PMK1 (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words: Christian or Muslim. And also Makedonski Balgarin, Makedonski Turchin, Makedonski Grak, Makedonski Vlah, Makedonski Albanec, Makedonski Sarb, Tsintsarin (Pogarchen Makedonski Vlah). Just listing the nationalities in Makedonia. May have missed some. In other regions (Thrace, Moesia, Dobrudja) we have similarly complicated mixtures of ethnicities. --Lantonov (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

True, though I don't think it got so complicated anywhere else in the Bulgarian lands :P There was more in Macedonia: Jews were the main population of Thessaloniki, there were some Gagauz around Bozdag, a few Muslim Greeks and very few Muslim Vlachs (one village I think), Roma (Gypsies) of all kinds, some Circassians near Demir Hisar and Serres, some Black Africans (Araps) in Thessaloniki and Giannitsa (Enidzhe Vardar), a few Armenians in Thessaloniki and Drama, Russians and Georgians on Mount Athos (that's still the region of Macedonia), some French and Germans in Thessaloniki's Frengı mahle (like Tarnovo's Frenkhisar), and a few Serbian emigrants in Skopje (the Serbian ethnicity has no historical base in the region otherwise: all the Serbs are migrants or Serbomans). That's all Kanchov [1] :) Todor→Bozhinov 15:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian ≠ Bulgarian

Editors here, this page has turned into an article which has been written directly in Sofia. If anyone can actually be bothered to read it, it gives a very biased and offensive veiw of the Macedonian language. The numerous references to the Macedonian dialects as merely West Bulgarian dialects is derogatory. If the main contributors here (you know who you are) do not bring a NPOV here then some drastic changes will need to be made. PMK1 (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is your POV that reference to various Slavic dialects in Macedonia (region) as "Bulgarian" is derogatory. Serious linguistic literature, written before the invention of Macedonian standard (and after that, too) referred to these dialect as "Bulgarian" without any intention to ridicule the dialects. The fact that some standard was invented for the territory of the Republic of Macedonia does not mean that all academic references to "Bulgaria", "Bulgarian" should be changed into "Macedonia", "Macedonian". The lead of the article says enough about the various POVs to make the reader realize that the issue is contentious. Instead of giving a warning for your intention to edit-war here it would be better if you put reliable academic sources that (possibly) support your POV. --Lantonov (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There are the Macedonian dialects, the transitional ones and the Bulgarian dialects. This article claims all three to be Bulgarian; they are not. The standard was "invented" in the same way that your mother language was also "invented". Ethnic Macedonians ≠ Politically Disorientated Bulgarians. Lantonov your propaganda is wearing thin. PMK1 (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mother language (Bulgarian) was not invented by a "codification committee". Please stop your ravings and contribute constructively. I know that you can do it because you have a good knowledge on the dialects (whatever they are said to be). --Lantonov (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to help as soon as all of the dialects of the Macedonian are represented as such and not as Bulgarian ones. This article focuses on the "SOUTH EAST SLAVIC languages" and not on the Bulgarian one. You have just incorporated all aspects of the Macedonian language in this one. Can you see the problem? PMK1 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is called "Bulgarian dialects". It is not called "South East Slavic dialects", nor "Macedonian dialects". Bulgarian dialects are studied by a branch of linguistics called "Bulgarian dialectology". The most authoritative compendium of this branch is the book "Bulgarian dialectology", published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, which summarized all work on Bulgarian dialects done over several centuries. "Bulgarian dialectology" is a standard textbook for all students that study Bulgarian Philology in Universities throughout the world. This article is written according to this book. So what is the problem? --Lantonov (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will re-add the dialects that you just deleted but this time I will write after each dialect a reference with the respective pages of "Bulgarian dialectology" that describe it. --Lantonov (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lantonov, the Bulgarian language is not spoken in ROM. The MACEDONIAN language exists. We all know that the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is the most propaganda filled of all of the bulgarian "academies". No matter how many sources you have, preach them in Sofia not the rest of the world. You ask what i wrong with your people? Respect my language as i respect yours. The article i full of anti-Macedonian, anti-Serbian propaganda claiming all dialects spoken in "old bulgaria" to be bulgaria. The is WP:FRINGEVIEW, and WP:POV. PMK1 (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How many Bulgarian "academies" are there? Do you even know what Old Bulgaria is? How are we expected to treat a language that has been in existence since 1944 within the field of traditional dialectology? Just like "Macedonian dialects" treats the issue as treated by scholars in Skopje, "Bulgarian dialects" represents the traditional view and treats those dialects in their integrity before post-WWII political events that are of peripheral importance to dialectology itself, like ethnogenesis and codification.

And by the way, no, I don't live on my computer: I work on a computer and it's a working day. Do you go out with your friends for breakfast on a working day in your country? Take it easy, mate. Todor→Bozhinov 10:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As for WP:FRINGEVIEW and WP:POV, I can't imagine a person who would call a "fringe view" the prevailing view held by the Oxford University linguists that English language should not be called "American language". --Lantonov (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. But our language has been in existence since much longer than 1944. Your "traditional veiw" is the same rubbish that has been spewing out of Sofia since the day Modenr bulgaria was founded. It is like claiming that claiming that the Slovak language does not exist and is merely a Czech dialect. This is the 21st century Todor, we need 21st century opinions and veiws. The year is not 1941, also dont forget when for 10 years our people were able to coexist peacefully, based on mutual respect. PMK1 (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

So what do you propose, Kocovski. Strike and delete all dialectology work on Bulgarian dialects done over several centuries and put everything in the chapter "Macedonian language" just because ASNOM in 1944 decided for political reasons to separate part of Bulgarian dialects as a different language. Do you propose also to reject every work (thousands of them) that writes about the origin of Bulgarian dialects and the many traits that unite them in a language continuum? Do you share the common view in RoM that the relationship and closeness of Bulgarian and Macedonian is the same as that between Chinese and Suahili? Do you call this a "respect" for a language? --Lantonov (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious "sources", again

Removed sources allegedly supporting the statement that "many non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis.":

• "James Hastings. 2003. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics": A publication from the early 20th century, before Macedonian codification; can't possibly be a source about it.
• James F. Clarke ("I am not here to quarrel with the current Macedonian literary language [...] Nor is the upgrading of a dialect into a literary language a heresy") – This quote proves the opposite of what the text claims it supports. Clarke is explicitly saying that he does accept the codification (even if stressing its political motivations)
• Keith Brown. 2003: Nothing in the quoted passage supports the claim that Brown "does not accept the codification".
• Vladimir Sis, Czech Balkanologist.1918. Again, a source from before the Macedonian codification. Deals with the opposition between Bulgarian and Serbian, not that between Bulgarian and Macedonian.
• Robert D. Kaplan. Balkan Ghosts: nothing to support the claim in the text. This only states that MK is closer to BG than to Serbian, and mentions the political motivations between the separation. It is not saying that the separate codification is inherently invalid.
• Poulton ("whether it is truly a different language from Bulgarian or merely a dialect of it is a moot point") - explicitly contradicts the claim made in the text.
• Yasamee: Similar to Kaplan: stresses the political motivation behind the split, but says nothing about whether the split ultimately resulted in something that can today be legitimately called a seprate language.

Footnotes 57-60 have no quotation to back them up. Given the hit-and-miss rate among the other footnotes, I feel it's safer to remove these two, until substantiation is provided that they at least say what is claimed.

Also:

• Otto Kronsteiner: this one is a relevant source (Kronsteiner is known to be a strong partisan of the Bulgarian view), but I've reduced the over-long literal quote, for copyright reasons. We don't do literal quotes like that.
• "Henninger, T. [...]. In: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1: 429-430, ISBN 0080359434; Henninger, T. Slavic Languages 7: 3964-3966. Quote for verification: "From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian." – The qualifier "from a strictly linguistic point of view" implies that there is another view too. What is the next sentence?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the whole article by Henninger in 'Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistic':

long copyrighted text snipped

I give here the full text because you obviously doubt every source that I give and think that you can safely reject it simply putting the word "source" in quotes. The quotes around 'Macedonian' above are Henninger's. I leave to you to conjecture what may be the "other view". However, I have to remind that this is an article about language, and only the linguistic point of view matters. This article by Henninger has some small errors in the details but on the whole it reflects truly the linguistic situation. Expressions like a University professor being a "partisan of a language" do not go anywhere. All the sources that you deleted fully support the text in the article. --Lantonov (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just one more thing. I am not sure if by including this text I infringe copyright. So when you read this, please delete it. --Lantonov (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so this was the next sentence I was asking for: "... but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence." – So, right. You have a source that explicitly states that "most scholars" accept it, and you use this source to support the claim that "many scholars" do the exact opposite. Not a good idea.

BTW, I haven't been able to find out much about this author, Henninger. He seems to be quoted almost exclusively by people (mis-)using his work for Bulgarian-Macedonian polemics on the web. And his name keeps getting misspelled in the process. I've seen "Henninger, T", "Henninger, J.", or "Henniger, J." Apparently though, "Thomas Henninger" is correct. Interestingly, in the second edition of the Encyclopedia, his article got replaced by two new ones, separate for the two languages, with the Macedonian entry written by the ubiquitous Friedman.

Have you got the original print edition? I'm curious if it really has those scare quotes in the title. It isn't cited like that in the official table of contents on the publisher's web site, and the text you posted here seems to have reproduced a couple of little errors of transmission also found in various mirrored versions (along with the erroeous rendering of the author's name) on various polemic nationalist websites, so I assume you may have copied it from one of them?

Also, assuming the guy is probably German, he seems to be victim to a typical little false-friend lapse in his English when he speaks of "from a purely linguistic perspective". As if the existence of a separate standard language was not also a "linguistic" fact. What he means to say is "from a purely structural perspective". But anyway.

As for the other guy being "partisan", well, of course he is. His text belongs in the well-established academic genre of the polemic. Which is fine, of course. Nothing wrong with writing a polemic from time to time. As for "All the sources that you deleted fully support the text": Well, I showed you how they didn't. You were claiming many authors "do not accept the codification". The codification happened in 1944, right? Several of the works you quoted were written before 1944, right? How can a work reject an event that hasn't even happened yet?

I doubt every source you give? Well, yeah, after what I've seen, I do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just compare the texts:

Henninger: "From a strictly linguistic point of view Macedonian can be called a Bulgarian dialect, as structurally it is most similar to Bulgarian. Indeed, Bulgarian scholars reject Macedonian as an individual language, but since it now has the status of a literary language most other scholars accept its independent existence."

This article (mine): "After the codification of Standard Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia on the basis of two southwestern Bulgarian dialects (Prilep-Mariovo dialect and Bitola dialect) in 1944-45, the majority of linguists recognised the new standard as a separate language, although Bulgarian (including some members of the codification committee) and some non-Bulgarian linguists do not accept the codification, describing it as a political decision without a solid linguistic basis."

And then you say that the citation does not support the statement. If this is not sophistic, I do not what is. I lost enough time arguing with you. Do what you want, even deleting the whole article, as you did with Vasil Zlatarski. If you think that with this you are "contributing", you are dead wrong. --Lantonov (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm as dead wrong now as I was dead wrong with the Zlatarski article, I'm quite happy, thank you. And by the way, your text did claim "many non-Bulgarian linguists", not just some. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you want me to give a list of names next ? How much is many? Is 200 enough? --Lantonov (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be such a list? If the hit rate of the next list is of the same quality, I'd rather not. In any case, the issue is not whether you can list "many". The point is that Henninger doesn't say they are "many". He says they are the opposite of "most". (Which is "few".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Restoration

I will restore parts from the article, wich were not plagiarised, as tables, maps and others. Jingby (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quantitative dialectometry

I just wanted to bring this paper (Petya Osenova, Wilbert Heeringa and John Nerbonne. 2006. A Quantitative Analysis of Bulgarian Dialect Pronunciation. Submitted to Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie) to your attention. Nerbonne is at the forefront of this kind of work (he and his co-authors have done amazing work on variation in Dutch). Their analysis supports some of the traditional isoglosses (the yat line among many others) but also show how gradient the traditional dialect divisions are (these truly are dialect continua). Mundart (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

That's just a reminder to any passing-by edit-warriors that the talk page is here and any issues regarding the article should be raised here. As for the deletion of sourced material, I have to regard it as pure vandalism since the issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page (the existence of which should be no secret for an experienced editor) and there was no reason to delete it. On the contrary - enough sources were provided, including third-party ones. Thank you and please, read the discussion page before you vandalize the page again. --Laveol ^T 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I ask the editor removing the info to participate in the discussion. If he fails to adhere to wiki rules it might as well lead to a new block for him. --Laveol ^T 11:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the list of Macedonian dialects should stay in. Just as I would support a treatment of some dialects of the NE Netherlands to appear both in a Low German and in a Dutch language article. And just as, conversely, the dialects of Pirin Macedonia should also be covered in the Macedonian article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As they are. I noticed you had discussed the issue with Lantonov and came to a similar conclusion earlier. The notice was a way to get MacBoy involved in the discussion, which he's apparently not willing to do. I guess he's just fooling around, trying to pick on some editors (me included)--Laveol ^T 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make some things clear. It is acceptable to include Pirin dialects in this article since they are spoken on the territory of Bulgaria, but including all dialects of another language that is nationalism and irredentism. How do you accept that fringe theory here?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, and how do you like Pirin dialects being included in the article about dialects of the Macedonian language? I told you this has been discussed. Now, you can stop. --Laveol ^T 11:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect, I don't understand why dialects of Macedonian language are included in the Bulgarian language? There are a few transitional dialects between Macedonian and Bulgarian (Solun, Pirin, and one more), but that doesn't mean Macedonia states the Sofia dialect of Bulgaria is Macedonian (even though sources show there have been large population of Macedonians there in the past).

This is irredentism, because the dialects are not transitional, they are there for a purpose other then education. The dialects of the Macedonian language are recognized internationally, as are transitional dialects between Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. But, the non-transitional dialects are NOT recognized internationally, and are sourced using ONE source?! This is pure POV and will be removed. Mactruth (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the view of the Bulgarian schoolarship, not a POV. Jingby (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is POV because international organizations recognized the dialects of the Macedonian language as separate. I understand posting the transitional languages btw Serb/Mak/BG, but this is POV. If Bulgarian scholarship is you excuse, then I should goto Cyril and Methodius page and put that they are Bulgarian, because they are according to Bulgarian scholarship Mactruth (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope! It is not shure. Read here please: [2]; Jingby (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually is is Jingiby. International organizations do not consider dialects of Macedonian language as being dialects of the Bulgarian language. Show me sources from UN, EU, Nato, or any language organization that considers this. Mactruth (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's high time you stopped the silly revert war. It was already discussed a couple of times that the text is relevant and sourced. There is no reason for removing it, besides some nationalistic sentiments, in fact. (Btw: How is NATO even relevant on the subject, sorry for the off-topic, but it really sounded silly).--Laveol ^T 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I was simply using the NATO as an international organization. All you need to prove is that an international organization for languages stated that dialects of the Macedonian language, are dialects of the Bulgarian language also. There is one source for all the dialects, and it is not an international organization for languages. Mactruth (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All I need to do? Excuse me, but aren't you the one trying to disrupt the consensus on the page? How is NATO exactly an "international organization for languages"? --Laveol ^T 00:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nato = example of an international organization, I never said it was an international language organization. If the consensus on the page were true, it would be easy wouldn't it? Why continue to argue? Mactruth (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did this silly meme about "international organizations" spring up? Forget it. Linguistics isn't determined by international organizations, it's determined by scholars, linguists. Scholarship is made by individuals. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Future Perfect you are stating that one Bulgarian source can be used to state the Macedonian language is Bulgarian. So you are also stating I can write a book, publish it, then use it as a source, even if it is inaccurate? Mactruth (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On one instance it is stated the international organizations/committees are needed to prove the Macedonian identity (instead of individuals proclaiming their Macedonian ethnicity), while here you state individual sources are allowable to turn a whole language into another ethnicity dialect? Welp, that's why you were punished during the Macedonia cases occurring this year, your biased. Mactruth (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, no, I am not going to waste my time explaining WP:RS to you again, thank you very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read that article, your allowing sources from MacedoniaOntheWed (nationalistic Greek forum) and Macedoniainfo.com (nationalistic Bulgarian forum).

On this article, one Bulgarian book is used to justify having all of a separate language turning into another's dialect? How is that reliable? I can understand if they want to replace it with a RELIABLE SOURCE, but they don't even do that. Like I said, your biased, you have a pre-planned agenda, and it was no surprise you were punished during the Macedonia case over the summer. Mactruth (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess news articles, books, and government records I posted here weren't reliable. Maybe you should scroll down (to see more links) and click the links to see their sourced Mactruth (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to use neutral/more sources to support your claim that the Macedonian language (and its dialects) are considered a part of the Bulgarian language by international organizations. Have a look at Macedonian by Victor Friedman pg 6 which indicates, "Literary Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia. It was recognized as

such by all countries except Bulgaria — where it was an official minority language 1946-48 and subsequently officially viewed as a “regional norm” or "dialect" of Bulgarian — and Greece, where Macedonian is usually claimed not to exist — except in proclamations banning its use — or it is claimed that the term Macedonian can only be used to refer to the Greek dialects of Macedonia or to Ancient Macedonian (see Human Rights Watch/Helsinki 1994). In 1999, the Bulgarian government officially recognized the standard language of the Republic of Macedonia as an independent language, but did not recognize the dialects spoken outside the Republic as part of that language. Nonetheless, there are citizens of and emigrants from both Bulgaria and Greece who identify their native (Slavic) language as Macedonian"

Bulgaria recognized Macedonian as an idenpendent language in 1946, and again in 1999, according to the source. The source also shows that only Bulgaria and Greece did not recognize the language as independent. Mactruth (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Диалектални карти

Разполагам с Български диалектален атлас с над 350 цветни карти с изключително добро качество (картата на рефлекса на голямата носовка е правен по една от тях), вкл. карти на рефлексите на щ, жд, ятова гласна и пр. Ако някой има желание и може (понеже аз не мога) да преработи няколо карти, така че да могат да се ъплоуднат тук за свободно ползване, нека да даде някаква индикация тук - за да се свържем, да обменим координати и да му пратя. Най-важните карти ги имам сканирани, но мога допълнително да сканирам каквото си пожелаете:-) Освен за обща информация за българските диалекти, картите могат да се ползват и за да се докаже това, че дори и да се приеме съществуването на македонски език, то границите му са далеч на запад - повечето изоглоси минават през средата, а не по границите на географския регион Македония. Благодаря ви предварително. Tulll (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Dialect table

I notice that the dialect table presents dialects of the Macedonian langauge as Bulgarian ones (the ones under the headings "Dialects from Vardar/Aegean Macedonia"). This is WP:FRINGEVIEW, therefore can someone please explain to me why they are necessary. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)