Talk:Eastern South Slavic

Scope

Isn't this redundant to South Slavic languages#Eastern group? At the very least, the use of the term "linguistics area" is misleading as it implies that the languages forming part of it are genealogically not closely related. But Macedonian, Bulgarian and possibly Torlakian are more closely related to each other than they are to to anything outside the supposed linguistic area (to the extent that it's meaningful to talk about groups at all). – Uanfala (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Torlakian is exactly East South Slavic, but this article's title can be changed if it doesn't fit the topic. Maybe Balkan Slavic languages fits better? Jingiby (talk) 10:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

"Balkan Slavic" isn't a felicitous choice either, as it can be taken to encompass all the Slavic languages of the Balkans (here for example it also includes the whole of Serbo-Croatian). – Uanfala (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hm, researchers use exactly that terms- Balkan Slavic and Balkan Slavic languages, but maybe to avoid misinterpretation we can use something like Slavic lunguistic area (Balkan sprachbund) or Balkan Slavic (Sprachbund area), or Balkan Slavic {Balkan Sprachbund) or the like? Jingiby (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest East South Slavic linguistic area (Balkan sprachbund). Any objections? Jingiby (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not merge into the section that Eastern South Slavic redirects to? I really don't see the point of maintaining a distinction between Eastern South Slavic as a the genetic grouping of Bulgarian, Macedonian and possibly Torlakian vs. Eastern South Slavic (or Balkan Slavic) as the areal grouping of Bulgarian, Macedonian and maybe Torlakian. Given the ambiguity of Balkan Slavic, it's probably best to retarget it to South Slavic languages and add a sentence to the lede there explaining the two meanings of the term. – Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Why not creating a separate article about the Eastern South Slavic linguistic sub-group, then? Maybe this article can serve as its sub-section? Jingiby (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a viable option too: there's definitely scope for an article on this topic. I didn't propose it as we don't really have a lot of material at present (between the two articles that's about three paragraphs in total?), but if you would like to split it off, go ahead. – Uanfala (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not a linguist, but I hope that other editors will help. Jingiby (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It the same as South Slavic languages#Eastern group, yea, and best name option seems to be East South Slavic languages. (MiltenR (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC))

History

The mythical homeland of the Serbs and Croats lies in the area of today Bohemia, in the present-day Czech Republic and in Lesser Poland. In this way, the Balkans were settled by different groups of Slavs from different dialect areas. This is evidenced by some isoglosses of ancient origin, dividing the western and eastern parts of the South Slavic range. There are no sources for these and it seems contradictory to the preceding sentence Komunjist (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

In view of has just happened on the South Slavic Languages page, I am removing the map until certain issues are properly addressed. As per international sources, the Maleshevo-Pirin dialect should either be classified as transitional or the Bulgarian portion as Bulgarian and the Macedonian one as Macedonian. The eastern part of Pirin Macedonia and the eastern part of Greek Macedonia should be clasified as Bulgarian only. The central part of Greek Macedonia as transitional. See Trudgill, Lindstdet, Riki van Boeschoten in the article. Thanks. VMORO

Is it now OK? Sorry, Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects are my biggest weakness regarding the continuum. The source I used had a bit different names than what you mentioned and what is written on Wikipedia, so I am not sure if I corrected it well… correctly. Garygo golob (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I just now saw the talk page on South Slavic languages. I will continue there. 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Garygo golob (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it is not really your fault, man. It's just the same dialects extends into another country... and then perhaps another one. And if you put it in a certain colour — here the Torlaks were drawn in a Serbianish coloir (cause the were most numerous probably, I don't suspect the poor map-maker. However, this implies that the entire group of dialects is Serbian — or at least, most people will interpret it this way. And then the scandal is a given.

I think possibly the best solution would be to pick an intermediate shade (colour) for Torlak (between Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian). And then apply another shade on top of the Bulgrian chunk -> which kind of connects to Western Bulgarian. And a different shade on the Macedonian chunk that kind of connects to the Western macedonian dialects. And a third shade for the Prizren-Timok that kind of connects with the Kosovo-Resava dilect. And the Timok Luznica can stay as is and connect all three other chunks to itself?

I sound like an asshole, do I? But I'm really not that much high-maintenance! I just want to have a map, a beuatifully drawn map like your, which can stay here until the Romani kick us out of the country or a comet hits us, and we can feel nice, without something throwing a fit on a weekly basis! Is that so much to ask? (As a good expert on Balkan matters, yeah, it fucking is😪.) But if no one tries to send antrax to their "neighbour" after seeing the map. you will have achieved something remarkble. It's like drawing and disarming mines at the same time🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. Have you started by the way?

Br

P VMORO 06:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)