Talk:Political views on the Macedonian language

Verify

This article is not nearly well sourced enough. - FrancisTyers 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't this article just be summed up by saying: Once upon a time when neither Bulgaria or Macedonia existed people spoke a south slavic language they called bulgarian in large parts of Macedonia. After territorial disputes the decision fell upon creating a Macedonian state and therefore the they created a separate identity. ? Just tell it like it was without the speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.8.204 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice, but some people don't like hearing or reading about stuff they deem propaganda. They would push any such notions out of the article, sorry. As much as they are concerned there was no such period when these were equal to these and there's no way you'll ever get that into their heads. --Laveol ^T 01:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Many = Most?

"Many/most whatever"....very illuminating reason to change it back. What you refer as

"The name of the language is considered offensive by many Greeks"

does not reflect reality.

"The name of the language is considered offensive by most Greeks"

is more correct, actually "most" could also be replaced by "almost all". There have been numerous polls on this, general opinion and common sense (if one lives in Greece) says people who do not find the name of the language offensive are not more than 1%. "Many Greeks" means a vague number which maybe 20% of the population, or 80% of the population. Both these numbers are very far away from the truth. --Ravenous75 11:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite your sources then. - FrancisTyers · 11:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should I cite my sources since you don't cite yours? --Ravenous75 14:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I completely agree. In accordance with WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY I have removed the section to the talk page pending citation. - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice violation of WP:POINT. I hope it's only temporal. We got your point, but it would be really nice of you to revert it back before the things got real bad. Now, is User:f-m-t your real legitimate account or is it a hoax? Duja 15:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:F-m-t is a redirect account, so that I could have my name and my talk page in my sig without having it offensively long. Both the userpage and the talk page redirect to my real pages, and I have made no other edits, and intend to make no other edits from that account. F. M. T. are my initials in case you were wondering :)

I'm not going to revert back, the whole lot was uncited and I we are obliged to remove uncited information per the police and guideline above. The verify template had been there for nigh on 2 months. To be honest with you I think we are better starting over from scratch with this article, I'm happy to work with you on this if you like, but I don't have much time. - FrancisTyers · 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I own it or feel particularly tied to it, but I was the one who started with this article "from scratch" (actually, copying and somewhat filtering contents), in order to remove clutter and PoV targets from Macedonian language. I did not watch it very carefully, but you can't get much better than that; this is Balkans. I still feel that your action was not very thoughtful and that you were annoyed by the many/most thing (for which, btw, I trust Ravenous75's statement). Are you going to start a crusade and clear up all uncited contents from the Wikipedia? Yes, the article was uncited, but I do think that it depicts the situation. Blanking it selectively up was not appropriate (and I do think it will find resistance). Duja 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I admit that I may have been a little rash. As you can see I am going to add back the sections (notably the Bulgarian one, I have already done the Greek) with sources. But I don't plan to add back the whole lot, you can do it if you like, but I would prefer if you didn't add back uncited information. - FrancisTyers · 15:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Fran here. The most controversial statements should not be restored; and I sincerly refuse to believe that Balkan standards are lower than those of the rest of wikipedia. We can't remove all uncited material in wikipedia, but we should refuse everything that is not sourced. And especially WP:AGF shouldn't become an alibi to circumvent WP:V.--Aldux 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lemma is now much more concise, cited and much better than before. I also apologize if my tone was a bit harsh in the first place.--Ravenous75 11:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncited

Greek view

The name of the language is considered offensive by many Greeks, who assert that the ancient Macedonian language is the only "Macedonian language" and that it was a northern dialect of ancient Greek . They further argue that, since Slavic immigration to the region did not begin until around 900 years after the decline of the Macedonian Empire, it is historically inaccurate to refer to a Slavic language as Macedonian . In some respects, the arguments correspond to the Bulgarian view, namely that the name 'Macedonian' was created for political reasons after the end of WWII by Tito, in order to consolidate a separate identity for the southernmost Yugoslav Republic and to lay claim over areas of Greek Macedonia and Bulgaria. Most Greeks in Greek Macedonia tend to refer to the language either as ντόπια (dopia = local tongue in Greek) or as "Slavomacedonian" in order to highlight the Slavic nature of the language .

There are hardly any references to a 'Macedonian' language before the 20th century ; the Slavic idiom spoken in northern Greece and in geographical Macedonia was referred to as merely "Slavic", from the Slavic settlement until the rise of the Bulgarian Empire, then Bulgarian. The Greek authors described the Slavic language in Macedonia like "Slavic" or "Bulgarian" until the 19th Century, when two groups of linguists appeared, using terms "Bulgarian" or "Serbian" to describe their political ambitions (according to the historian Krste Misirkov, in 1903 and his book Za Makedonckite Raboti). The name of the language depended on its speakers and their political attitude, but the formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 and its popularity in these regions definitely led some foreign travellers and Greeks to consider all the Macedonian Slavs (and a good portion of present Eastern Serbs) as Bulgarians .

Outside of Greece, most international news organizations and language scholars refer to the language as "Macedonian". See Republic of Macedonia for more on the related naming dispute.

Bulgarian view

The Bulgarian insistence on the non-existence of a separate 'Macedonian' language is based on arguments derived from history, from daily experiences and from linguistic considerations.

The historical argument has its source in the claim that Macedonian was a Bulgarian dialect in the past, the assumed implication being that it has no right to be acknowledged as a standard language at present either. That argument goes as follows. According to Bulgarian academics, the contemporary literary language of Macedonia was created after 1945 by Yugoslav linguists who wanted to create a separate Macedonian nationality within the federal republic and thus divide Macedonian Bulgarians from those in Bulgaria. After almost a century of futile attempts to eradicate its perceived Bulgarian character and to Serbianize Macedonia, Yugoslavia had apparently decided to apply the tried Roman maxim "divide and conquer" instead. In codifying the new language, the Yugoslav communists introduced a slight variation of the Cyrillic alphabet and a large number of Serbian lexis; they also did everything possible to create grammatical differences from literary Bulgarian. Bulgaria also considers that contemporary Macedonian linguists resort to falsifications and deliberate misinterpretations of history and documents in order to further the opinion that there was a consciousness of a separate Macedonian language before that time. The publication in the Republic of Macedonia of the folk song collections Bulgarian Folk Songs by the Miladinov Brothers and Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarians by Serbian archaeologist Verkovic under the "politically correct" titles Collection and Macedonian Folk Songs are some of the examples quoted by the Bulgarians. They also argue over about half a million refugees from the region of Macedonia that emigrated to free Bulgaria in the period 1879 to 1944 integrated with minimum effort in Bulgarian society and are indistinguishable from other Bulgarians; in fact, many of them found themselves at the helm of the Bulgarian state - for example, Andrey Liapchev (Prime Minister, 1926-1931, born in Resen) or Todor Pavlov (a communist intellectual born in Shtip who was a Regent in 1944-1946). Natives of Macedonia were heavily represented in the Bulgarian elites: officers, parliamentarians, business people, writers, lawyers, doctors etc. Bulgarians take pride in having a Macedonian ancestor, the number of people with Macedonian lineage is especially great in the capital (Sofia) as well as in Plovdiv and Varna. See also history of Bulgaria.

The argument derived from daily experience is that there is no language barrier or room for linguistic misunderstanding when citizens and politicians of the two countries speak to each other - be it colloquially or at academic level. On the scientific side, Bulgarian linguists claim that, objectively, the differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian are insufficient to justify the recognition of the latter as a separate language.

For these reasons, the most common Bulgarian view is that Macedonian is a Bulgarian dialect rather than a language in its own right. To assess the validity of these arguments, especially of the latter, in a broader perspective, see the definition of dialect as opposed to standard language.

Although Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, it has refused to recognize the existence of a separate Macedonian nation and a separate Macedonian language.

Serbian view

The Serbian view on the Macedonian language changed over time, according to political climate. In the past, it was essentially the same as the Bulgarian view, just with the terms "Bulgarian" and "Serbian" interchanged. However, with the recognition of Macedonian nation and the breakup of Yugoslavia, the majority of Serbs accepted Macedonian language and national identity as separate from Serbian, and two peoples maintain generally good relations (with the exception of church conflict).

A considerable number of linguists see the Macedonian language as a continuation of Timok-Prizren Serbian dialects (Torlakian dialect) which stretch from the Romanian-Serbian border to the Albanian-Serbian border. By a nationalist extension to this point of view, Macedonian is the southernmost dialect of Serbian. It is indeed very similar to the Serbian dialects of Kosovo and Metohija, Niš, Vranje or Leskovac, and those dialects share the basic features with Macedonian – the lack of cases, the same vocal system, and are mutually comprehensible. The general point of view in Serbia found among the common people is that "Macedonian is merely Serbian with no cases used" (although the majority recognizes the Macedonian separate identity, which is an apparent paradox), and the expression is used sometimes as a joke (as a "quick model" for learning Macedonian"), and sometimes as a factoid. Again, the validity of this argument is crucially dependent on the very definition of dialect as opposed to standard language.

To the Bulgarian argument of half a million refugees from Macedonia easily incorporated into Bulgaria, the Serbs usually say that the Great Migration of Serbs from 1690 (led by Patriarch Arsenije Čarnojević) from Kosovo and Macedonia to present-day Vojvodina was in fact the migration of (mostly) Macedonians, who with no effort have been incorporated into the Serbian nation. The number of Serbs in Vojvodina and Northern Serbia (Belgrade, Smederevo, Šabac and Šumadija regions) with Macedonian lineage is, according to the Serbian Orthodox Church birth notes from the 17th century, about 50%.

Macedonian view

During the Serbian Empire, the Macedonians embraced the Slavic rule and did not oppose the fact that they were called Serbs, and even started using the name "Serb" among themselves. The Serbian aristocracy was given land in Macedonia, so even the greatest Serbian epic hero, Prince Marko (in Serbian: Kraljević Marko, in Macedonian: Krale Marko), became king of an independent Macedonia, known as Krale Marko, the greatest epic hero of Macedonians, too. The Turkish rule led to the ban and later dropping of the Serbian name, so the Macedonians once again started to call themselves "Christians" ("Risjani") or "Macedonian Slavs". The Ohrid Archbishops, controlled by the Phanariotic Greek movement, put much efforts to hellenize all the Macedonian Slavs, which almost completely succeeded in Aegean Macedonia, where the assimilated Slavs after 1912 became fierce Greek nationalists.

The formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 spread the Bulgarian propaganda in Eastern Serbia and the whole of Macedonia, and the Bulgarian schools and libraries ("chitalishtes") were open all across Macedonia, forcing the idea of Bulgarian ethnicity of Macedonians and Eastern Serbians. Before the Balkan wars, the situation changed, and Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian propaganda started to prepare the Macedonians to the Partition of Macedonia in 1912-13. After that, thousands of Macedonians fled from Greece to Serbia and Bulgaria, in an attempt not to be hellenized.

The Macedonian point of view also emphasises that assimilated Macedonians live in Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria) and Aegean Macedonia (Greece) where they have no rights to use their own language. Also, some of the Macedonian nationalists think that the inhabitants of Gora and Kačanik (Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija) and Vranje (Central Serbia) should be called Macedonians too. The everyday Macedonian life is full of reminiscences to the painful partition of Macedonia in 1912, and a big portion of the population frequently keeps repeating that "Macedonians are Slavs, and Bulgarians are Tataro-Asiatic by origin, so that they have no ethnic connections", which is not entirely correct, having in mind that the relatively small number of Proto-Bulgarians had been assimilated by more numerous Slavs.

Quoting the so-called Macedonian view: "The assimilation of Macedonians was almost finished in Bulgaria, and the Greek government expelled hundreds of thousands of Slavs from Macedonia, who settled finally in Vardar Macedonia under Yugoslav control" -- I feel compelled to say that my grandmother's family was one of the hundreds of thousands expelled by the Greek government, except they moved to Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and no, she didn't feel she was "assimilated" by Bulgarians -- after all, she never thought that she isn't Bulgarian, despite being Macedonian, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.31.1 (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

IMO, VMRO's edits violate the NPOV policy by giving undue weight to the Bulgarian view, which is being allotted more space than anything else in the article, and as it is expanded into a short treatise of polemical nature. Surely all the details mentioned could be summed up in a few sentences, especially as they tend to obscure the main faulty presumptions that the so-called "Bulgarian" view(s) rest(s) upon. If all of these details are to stay, that would require the creation of a separate article. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't think that such controversial edits should be made before being sourced properly. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what is so polemical about the article section itself. It reports on someone else's views. I would encourage you to expand the other sections to make them of equal weight. Space is not being alotted on Wikipedia - we have no space constraints. I don't think it violates NPOV since nowhere is the claim made that the Bulgarian view is correct. It says - this is what the Bulgarian view is and this is what it is based on. Also, not sure why you need to qualify Bulgarian with quotation marks and "so-called". This is what most Bulgarian scholars think and also the prevailing opinion among the public.(VMRO 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm not overly happy too about the final proportion of the sections, but there's little or nothing to hold against VMRO. Like he said, the section is properly sourced and it's not his fault that other sections are of unequal detailness. "Serbian" section is outright silly, as some of the old contents were removed (IMO for overt analness over sourcing). Duja 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A solution may be to split off an article about the Bulgarian political view on the Macedonian language or something like that and leave only a summary here. This has nothing to do with undue weight, since the Bulgarian view is well-sourced and historically credible (I may be Bulgarian, but the other views sound funny [except the Greek one], for instance). You can compare it with the international view at History of the Macedonian language and see for yourself. Undue weight is "leaving bullshit dominate over credibility" (in multiple POV articles) and that's no the case. Todor→Bozhinov 13:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As Duja said, it's not VMRO's fault if he's done a lot of serious work on the issue, while the others are brief and mediocre. Probably Todor proposed the right solution: creating Bulgarian political view on the Macedonian language, and leaving here a summary.--Aldux 14:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as there is a link from this article to the new one. (VMRO 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Done. I hope you guys are happy and will now write the other sections with proper referencing. (VMRO 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm surprised that I have to explain to all the experienced Wikipedians here what undue weight is, especially as it is explained clearly in the policy page section that I gave a link to. Quote: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each (my bolding)". Now, the prominence of the Bulgarian view doesn't match the proportion of space that it is alotted here. The Bulgarian view is shared nearly only by Bulgarian linguists (not surprisingly, since it is nonsence from a linguistic point of view). As for my calling it "so-called", there are reasons for that. First, it's obviously wrong to ascribe any view to an entire nation, even if the overwhelming majority currently shares that view (personally, I'm Bulgarian and yet I am totally opposed to what is called "the Bulgarian view"). Second, it is quite inaccurate to say that most of the Bulgarian public view Macedonian as "another literary form"/ "a part of the Bulgarian diasystem" or anything like that. They will variously call it "a Bulgarian dialect", "just Bulgarian" and the like.

Now that VMRO has moved his text to a separate article, I will try to fill the section by using the original version and a summary of VMRO's text as it is now.--Pseudonymus Bosh 15:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mate, this text you are quoting applies to the views expressed by an article itself. This article does not claim to espouse any views, it merely retells a few conflicting viewpoints. I am sorry if you cannot see the distinction. You come off as a partisan of the Macedonistic cause so I think you are not very well qualified to write the section on something you view as "nonsence". I don't think you will do it credit.

You're wrong. Any article is supposed to express all major views without espousing any of them, except in cases of tiny minority views such as the Flat Earth hypothesis. Quote: "Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." Represent, not espouse. How could the article espouse several views at once?

You have a point there. But I still do not think the article was trying to put undue weight on one view simply because the other sections were poorly written. Clearly, the modern Macedonian view was put there first and the MK, BG, SR and GR sections were hierarchically equal. If all the sections had not been broken out like that but were part of a monolithic text, where most space is devoted to the Bulgarian viewpoint, then I would have agreed with you.(VMRO 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

By the way, this nonsence view was the dominant everywhere except for Serbia until the creation of the Macedonian standard. Look at deBray's original edition. For the most part modern linguists accept the current political situation without making a judgement on who is right or wrong. Whether you view the Macedonian dialects as Bulgarian or separate is a purely political issue. Some linguists like Lunt and his student Friedman are political partisans of the separateness of Macedonian but why are they more important than Kronsteiner for example?

Until the creation of the Macedonian standard? Yes, but that's the point, isn't it? There is no objective linguistic basis for denying a literary standard the name of a standard language, unless it calls itself something else. The same applies to dialects. Hence, denying standard Macedonian that name now on "historical grounds" is nonsence. Kronsteiner is another member of an insignificant minority. Check Encyclopedia Britannica or any other mainstream source. --Pseudonymus Bosh 16:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, most Bulgarian linguists until that creation (of whom the most prominent Miletich and Balabanov happened to be Macedonian) could not have foreseen the creation of the Macedonian standard when writing their works. Same goes for foreign writers like Mazon, Oblak, Weigand, etc. Should we dismiss their views as nonsense because something happened later? Plus, you are missing the point. The Bulgarian stance is not about the name of the language - it can be called Martian for all I care. It is about whether the native dialects of Macedonia are Bulgarian or not, it is about the nature of the language. Ultimately, this is a political issue. There are Bulgarian dialects (and "written norms"!) that are farther from Bulgarian than are the Macedonian dialects but nobody disputes their "Bulgarianness". And while the recent views of Bulgarian linguists are nationalistically motivated, I do not find them "wrong" on linguistic grounds, only on poilitical grounds, just because they happen to repeat something that was not nonsense before 1945.(VMRO 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Just as it is wrong to deny Macedonians the right to have separate literary language and call it whatever they want to, it is also wrong to exercise this backdated nationalism and make the past conform to the present. I don't think that one should dismiss some views as nonsense just because they do not square well with the current political situation. (VMRO 16:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Given that Macedonians called their language Bulgarian to start with and that most of them had no problem learning or teaching the Eastern standard in Bulgarian schools, I do not see how they saw it as foreign. (VMRO 16:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, they did, but they don't now. So leave them alone. It's that simple. --Pseudonymus Bosh 16:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So how am I bothering them? I have left them completely alone and am not trying to tell them what they should call their language. I am writing about what the Bulgarian view is regarding the origin of their language. Plus, these are the views of probably a million Macedonians in Bulgaria, including linguists and historians.(VMRO 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

They did and that should be known... I'd have personally long left them alone with that if they acknowledged their Bulgarian history, but that's not the case. I know perfectly well what Undue weight is, and the Bulgarian view is quite prominent, in many respects it coincides with the internationally-accepted view and is different in that it is not particularly diplomatic. I'm referring to the view on the history of the language, of course claims like "Macedonian is Bulgarian" (today) are plain nationalist/irredentist/dumbist bullshit with respect to self-determination. Todor→Bozhinov 16:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the chief characteristic the Bulgarian view is not the description of the historical origin of the Macedonian language (in that respect, I fully subscribe to the "Bulgarian" view, and I believe that most informed international linguists would), but to the conclusion drawn from it. Why would anyone care about the origin of the language if one didn't draw pleasant conclusions from it? And the specifically Bulgarian conclusion is that Macedonian still is somehow part of Bulgarian, and not a real language. That's what I called and still call nonsense. That line of reasoning says basically that Macedonian is a fake, a bastard language because it appeared more recently and was created by people, while Bulgarian is a real language because God personally created it in the Beginning of Things. --Pseudonymus Bosh 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, the official view is that the basis of Macedonian, the dialects, share the same core traits as the rest of the Bulgarian dialects and were referred to as Bulgarian by their speakers (and everybody else) in the past. Hence for these two reasons they are Bulgarian dialects just like the dialects of the Shop region or Dobrudja. Standard Macedonian is viewed as a codification of some Bulgarian dialects (chiefly the Prilep-Bitola-Veles ones). It is called the "Macedonian litearary norm" rather than the "Macedonian literary language" for nationalistically-political reasons, so that people do not get the idea that Bulgarians have accepted the Macedonist view of the past as well.

No, there are no objecitive "core traits" that help us determine what is Bulgarian. All "languages" flow into each other, or rather, the natural/pre-codification state of Language as a phenomenon is a dialect continuum and not a number of distinct entities. There is no objective reason to group dialects in one way and not in a different way, to determine in which village German ends and Dutch begins - it's just a matter of politics and ethnic/national consciousness. Hence it is incorrect to say that Macedonian dialects are Bulgarian now, when the majority of their speakers don't identify their language as such. And hence it is incorrect to say that Macedonian is (based on) Bulgarian, (a form of) Bulgarian, in the same way as it is incorrect to say that Afrikaans is a form of Dutch or that Ukrainian and Belarusian are forms of Russian. --Pseudonymus Bosh 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. It is a political issue where to define language boundaries within dialect continuums and it is also a matter of self-identification. This self-identification, where it existed and when it was manifested, was overwhelmingly Bulgarian until as late as 1944. In which case the notion of a Macedonian language and dialects should be confined to the Republic of Macedonia and only when describing the period after that date. As for the dialects of people who identify as Greek, I think it is equally wrong to call them Macedonian in the ethnic Macedonian sense. (VMRO 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

The idea that Macedonian is a "fake" is only shared by fringe nationalists who are ill-informed. They either view it as a completely new Serbian concoction very much divorced from the native speech or some terrible mix of Serbian and Bulgarian. It is paradoxical that many Bulgarians who are not nationalistic and are apolitical witth regard to the Macedonian issues came to view the Macedonians as Yugoslavs or something very close to Serbs anyway. I have seen many instances when some Bulgarians start talking to Macedonians in Serbian or a Serbo-Bulgarian mix, hoping they would be better understood this way.

Regarding what is constructed and what is God-given - I doubt Bulgarian or Macedonian linguists have yet matured enough to operate within such a fine theoretical framework. Certainly, Bulgarian liguists are well aware that standard Bulgarian is a codified "norm", i.e. it was described in a series of grammars in a prescriptive manner, etc. But these came about as the product of the development of Bulgarian nationalism, much like what had happened in other nations in Europe. There was no centralised political body directing this work until 1878. The final changes to literary Bulgarian were done after 1878 but they were mostly orthographic and not fundamental in nature.

Whereas the codification of standard Macedonian was a political act, dictated from above. Also, it was done in a way that the stances of pro-Belgrade linguists prevailed over those of more autonomist linguists. Bulgarians choose to ignore the earlier manifestations of Macedonian linguistic separateness (Pulevski, Misirkov) but in any case those remained very marginal. Koneski reportedly did not know about Misirkov until 1944 or 1945. (VMRO 17:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't see how the existence of centralized body and the speed with which it has worked changes anything as to the nature and "reality" of the product, once it has become a standard. This reminds me of the Vazroditelen proces - "you were forced to become Turks/Pomaks once, ergo you are no real Turks/Pomaks now, no matter what you feel about it". --Pseudonymus Bosh 18:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

First, nobody is telling Macedonians what to be. Only extreme fringe nationalists attack them and tell them: you are Bulgarian. Most Bulgarians do not really care about all those people but do care about their own history and heritage. If (some of) my ancestors came from Macedonia and called their language/dialect Bulgarian, should I call it Macedonian now because somebody else decided so much later? (VMRO 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Well, since I am Bulgarian and not Francis Tyers and since I have communicated a lot with other Bulgarians, I must say that IMO, normal Bulgarians do attack Macedonians (maybe not in direct conversation, of course) and do say "you/they are Bulgarian", "your/their language is Bulgarian", "Cut the bullshit and admit that you are Bulgarian", "you're pathetic" etc. And when they say "you were/your language was invented in 1945", they do mean "your separate existence is one big misunderstanding, Macedonia is Bulgarian". --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, your view (if I read it correctly) will classify the dialects of Pirin and Aegean Macedonia as Macedonian based on the current political situation in Vardar Macedonia. This implicitly assumes that they share some traits that make them Macedonian and not Bulgarian.(VMRO 18:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Finally, if we term the incorrect Bulgarian designation of the modern Macedonian language to be nonsense, how should we term the claims that the dialects spoken in Blagoevgrad, Petrich and Razlog are Macedonian and not Bulgarian? By the same token, they should be nonsense as well, right? Since there are no objective criteria, etc. (VMRO 19:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I fully agree that dialects outside of the Republic of Macedonia shouldn't be called dialects of the Macedonian language (a term such as Macedonian dialects could be acceptable if someone uses the term typologically, to denote certain common traits), unless the majority of the speakers identify as Macedonians - which they don't, AFAIK. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

But a term such as Bulgarian dialects (for all Slavic dialects of Macedonia) can not be acceptable if someone uses the term typologically, to denote certain common traits? (VMRO 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Hmm..Dunno. Of course, this is just nomenclature, and a purely hypothetical issue, but I think that it is more natural to derive the name of a supposed dialect group from the name of Macedonia as a region (and not as a nation) than to do so with Bulgaria. The reason for that is exactly that the "regional" connotation of Macedonia is still alive, as both Bulgaria and Greece still have regions called Macedonia. In contrast, few people outside of Bulgaria know of a greater Bulgarian "region" including Macedonia nowadays, so a term like "South-East Slavic dialects/languages" would be more appropriate. But all of this is quite a digression. --Pseudonymus Bosh 21:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, even in Bulgaria, the name Bulgaria was not extended to all of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia. Initially, only Moesia and parts of Northern Thrace were called Bulgaria in the 19th century. Levski spoke of Bulgaria, Thrace and Macedonia and called all of these "Bulgarsko" (Българско). But even later the whole region always was referred to using prefixes: San Stefano Bulgaria, United (Обединена) Bulgaria, Whole (Целокупна) Bulgaria. Much more rarely "Greater Bulgaria" (Велика България), this was more of a term used by foreigners to designate Bulgarian nationalistic aspirations. In any case, the Bulgarian classification of the Macedonian dialects was always based on typological grounds and on "self-designation" grounds rather than on regional grounds. Nobody reasoned that since this is really part of Bulgaria, these should be called Bulgarian dialects. I think the reasoning was quite the opposite: since these are really Bulgarian dialects, this region should become part of Bulgaria. (VMRO 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Pre-1944 Slavists (Jagic, Oblak, Mazon, Vasmer, Selishchev) freely operate with the term "Macedonian dialects", using "Macedonian" in a regional sense. On many occasions they assert the connection of these Slavic dialects with the Bulgarian language. In any case, I have not read anything from the interwar Macedonian Scientific Institute (or earlier) accusing them of "Macedonism". Seems to me that the Macedonistic idea was too marginal to be taken seriously and anything that denied the Serbian character of Slavic Macedonians was good enough. (VMRO 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

I think pre-1944 Bulgarian linguists also use the term "Macedonian dialects" or "Macedonian speeches" (Македонски говори) but not very sure on their exact definition. After the 1950's when the Macedonian issue is still not to be talked about much, they first extended the term "Southwest Bulgarian dialects" to the dialects within the borders of Bulgaria. But for example, on typological grounds they include many "Shop" dialects into this category, even outside of "Geographic Macedonia". Also they exclude the Nevrokop dialect. As they got "bolder" in the 1960's and 1970's so that they started discussing the dialects of Yugoslav Macedonia and Greece, I think this distinction remained - most are considered Southwest Bulgarian dialects and Seres-Drama are considered Rupski (Southeast Bulgarian). Even Solun, Kukush and perhaps Voden are somewhat transitional between the two groups. Macedonian may have been used but it is not equivalent to Southwest Bulgarian as these are geographically overlapping but not identical. In any case the Pijanec and Maleshevo regions are probably much closer linguistically to Kjustendil, Dupnica and Pernik than to Prilep and Bitola. (VMRO 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Finally, the eastern and northeastern borders of "Geographic Macedonia" are often claimed to be natural physical, economic, ethnographic and what not borders of the region. Especially by the interwar IMRO as a proponent of independent Macedonia. But after 1944, especially since the 1960's when Macedonian nationalism really took off, they are claimed to be linguistic and ethnic boundaries as well. I really don't see how an arbitrary border fixed by the Berlin congress and an internal Ottoman administrative border (between the Adrianople and Salonica vilayets) got to be drawn with so shrewdly in order to coincide with the natural borders of the Macedonian ethnic group. (VMRO 18:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Another point I want to make: the designation of "Old Church Slavonic" as "Old Macedonian" or "Old Bulgarian" is often and correctly criticised as wrong. Clearly that language was everywhere in its time referred to as simply "Slavonic" even though it was based on the Southeastern Slavonic dialects and more specifically those of the Salonica region. Although it was not the Bulgarians who first called the language "Old Bulgarian", this designation is now mostly used by Bulgarian linguists and perhaps some Russian and German ones. The logic behind this being that this language eventually developed into what is now called Bulgarian. I think the situation with calling the Macedonian dialects "Macedonian" is analogous. Because now the the language of the Republic of Macedonia is called Macedonian, we have to carry this designation back in time to something that was not called this way. (VMRO 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

Sources

If we are going to use Kronsteiner (lol), then we should make clear what kind of weight his opinions carry. - FrancisTyers · 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is your own personal view. I personally don't think Friedman or Lunt are any better. And I do not think you are qualified to assess any of them since you do not even speak Macedonian or Bulgarian. (VMRO 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I don't see why he should need to speak the languages in order to understand the nature of the situation. IMO, Friedman is a generally decent linguist describing both the Macedonian standard and the deviations from it in great detail, while Kronsteiner is just trying to exploit politically sensitive issues by taking extravagant sensationalist views on them. But I must say that Francis' "citation needed" obstructionism is quite irritating and could explain VMRO's remarks. --Pseudonymus Bosh 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Kronsteiner is not "mainstream" but look at Christian Voss for example. Also all the Russian linguists I have read (e.g. here) have pretty balanced and nuanced views. Friedman is a pupul of Lunt's and is very partisan. I spoke to him once and he proceeded to explain to me that Bulgarian really did not mean Bulgarian and other crap like that. Which would be fine if he did not claim that Bulgarian does mean Bulgarian in Bulgaria, only not in Macedonia.

Francis is irritating because he applies his obstructionism is one sided. Some Bulgarian claims are well known, there is no need to reference every word. Nobody attributes the Macedonian or Greek view just to the author of the given reference and make it seem the view of one person. (VMRO 22:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

Shall we form a gang or a cabal then, and return those ostensibly uncited sections above back into the article :-)? Greek and Serbian sections now look outright silly, and I really don't feel like searching for whatever sources (it's more or less common knowledge, and I'm not really an expert on the subject), and I don't think they're particularly controversial?

Btw, excellent discussion above guys. It was an enjoying read. Duja 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep stuff sourced. My original text was meant to be all sourced but just lacked some citations at the time because it was still work in progress. Then I moved it to a separate page and 194.145.161.227 wrote an unsourced summary. And then Francis vandalised both texts. I tried to fix things by sourcing everything so hopefully they will be left alone.

It would be nice to write some stuff about the Serbian position. First it was exactly the same as the Bulgarian, then it changed in the 1860's, etc. I know of some sources. We could work on it together. (VMRO 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC))

Alas - as far as I understand, wiki rules entitle an editor to delete any unsourced information, and don't entitle other editors to restore it unless they provide a source. It's up to the editor's own conscience not to demand citations for things that s/he has no reason to doubt; but if s/he does demand them, the only thing to do is source the stuff. It's almost like the infamous Polish sejm, but I can't think of a better arrangement of things. --Pseudonymus Bosh 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Serbian and Macedonian views

All for including larger sections as long as they are well sourced. The ones that I just reverted were not. (VMRO 16:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

Noted below:

Macedonian view

According to the Macedonian view, now prevalent and official in the books in Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian was the first official language of the Slavs, thanks to the St. Cyril and St. Methodius's introduction of Slavic literacy language through the Glagolitic script, that was based on Southern Macedonian dialect from the neighbourhood of Thessaloniki, the home of the two saints.^[1] Later on, Macedonia fell under the rule of Bulgarians, and the Byzantines regarded all Slavic Macedonians as Bulgarians. Samuil's realm in the early Middle Ages was the first Macedonian Slavic state.

During the Serbian Empire, the Macedonians embraced the Slavic rule and did not oppose the fact that they were called Serbs, and even started using the name "Serb" among themselves. The Serbian aristocracy was given land in Macedonia, so even the greatest Serbian epic hero, Prince Marko (in Serbian: Kraljević Marko, in Macedonian: Krale Marko), became king of an independent Macedonia, known as Krale Marko, the greatest epic hero of Macedonians, too. The Turkish rule led to the ban and later dropping of the Serbian name, so the Macedonians once again started to call themselves "Christians" ("Risjani") or "Macedonian Slavs". The Ohrid Archbishops, controlled by the Phanariotic Greek movement, put much efforts to hellenize all the Macedonian Slavs, which almost completely succeeded in Aegean Macedonia, where the assimilated Slavs after 1912 became fierce Greek nationalists. The assimilation of Macedonians was almost finished in Bulgaria, and the Greek government expelled hundreds of thousands of Slavs from Macedonia, who settled finally in Vardar Macedonia under Yugoslav control, where in 1945, the local language became official, according to the decision made in 1944. Approximately 1/3 of the present inhabitants of Macedonia are the descendants of the Aegean Macedonian refugees. ^[2] The formation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870 spread the Bulgarian propaganda in Eastern Serbia and the whole of Macedonia, and the Bulgarian schools and libraries ("chitalishtes") were open all across Macedonia, forcing the idea of Bulgarian ethnicity of Macedonians and Eastern Serbians. Before the Balkan wars, the situation changed, and Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian propaganda started to prepare the Macedonians to the Partition of Macedonia in 1912-13. After that, thousands of Macedonians fled from Greece to Serbia and Bulgaria, in an attempt not to be hellenized. The assimilation of Macedonians was almost finished in Bulgaria, and the Greek government expelled hundreds of thousands of Slavs from Macedonia, who settled finally in Vardar Macedonia under Yugoslav control, where in 1945, the local language became official, according to the decision made in 1944. Approximately 1/3 of the present inhabitants of Macedonia are the descendants of the Aegean Macedonian refugees. ^[3]

The Macedonian point of view also emphasises that assimilated Macedonians live in Pirin Macedonia (Bulgaria) and Aegean Macedonia (Greece) where they have no rights to use their own language. Also, some of the Macedonian nationalists think that the inhabitants of Gora and Kačanik (Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohija) and Vranje (Central Serbia) should be called Macedonians too. The everyday Macedonian life is full of reminiscences to the painful partition of Macedonia in 1912, and a big portion of the population frequently keeps repeating that "Macedonians are Slavs, and Bulgarians are Tataro-Asiatic by origin, so that they have no ethnic connections", which is not entirely correct, having in mind that the relatively small number of Proto-Bulgarians had been assimilated by more numerous Slavs.

Serbian view

The Serbian view on the Macedonian language changed over time, according to political climate. In the past, it was essentially the same as the Bulgarian view, just with the terms "Bulgarian" and "Serbian" interchanged. However, with the recognition of Macedonian nation and the breakup of Yugoslavia, the majority of Serbs accepted Macedonian language and national identity as separate from Serbian, and two peoples maintain generally good relations (with the exception of church conflict). There's a region in northern Banat called Banatska Crna Gora, that was inhabited exclusively by the Macedonians from Skopska Crna Gora. Austrian Emperor Leopold even proclaimed Jovan Monastirlija from Bitola (then Monastir) a vojvoda (duke) of the Serbian nation in Austria in 1691: "1667 Emperor Leopold gave some privileges to the Greeks (Graeci) and Serbs (Rasciani) who emigrated toward Northern Hungary and most of them arrived from Macedonia (Praesertim autem ex Macedonia adventum)."^[4]

A considerable number of linguists see the Macedonian language as a continuation of Timok-Prizren Serbian dialects (Torlakian dialect) which stretch from the Romanian-Serbian border to the Albanian-Serbian border. By a nationalist extension to this point of view, Macedonian is the southernmost dialect of Serbian. It is indeed very similar to the Serbian dialects of Kosovo and Metohija, Niš, Vranje or Leskovac, and those dialects share the basic features with Macedonian – the lack of cases, the same vocal system, and are mutually comprehensible. The general point of view in Serbia found among the common people is that "Macedonian is merely Serbian with no cases used" (although the majority recognizes the Macedonian separate identity, which is an apparent paradox), and the expression is used sometimes as a joke (as a "quick model" for learning Macedonian"), and sometimes as a factoid. Again, the validity of this argument is crucially dependent on the very definition of dialect as opposed to standard language.

To the Bulgarian argument of half a million refugees from Macedonia easily incorporated into Bulgaria, the Serbs usually say that the Great Migration of Serbs from 1690 (led by Patriarch Arsenije Čarnojević) from Kosovo and Macedonia to present-day Vojvodina was in fact the migration of (mostly) Macedonians, who with no effort have been incorporated into the Serbian nation. The number of Serbs in Vojvodina and Northern Serbia (Belgrade, Smederevo, Šabac and Šumadija regions) with Macedonian lineage is, according to the Serbian Orthodox Church birth notes from the 17th century, about 50%.

(VMRO 19:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

---

An excellent overview article concerning Serbo-Macedonian relationships (wider than just the language question, though) appeared in the meantime (http://www.helsinki.org.yu/doc/pubs/charter/srp/povelja-97-98.pdf (in Serbian)). I don't have much time at the moment to deal with it, but I'll put the link here for future reference. Duja► 11:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Duja, let's take a crack at writing a decent Serbian section, shall we? I will have more time on my hands come Christmas. We could even write a separate larger article and then summarise it only for this one. (VMRO 15:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

This whole article is a joke and now this new addition of a 'neutral point of view'?? Yeah right. Come on wikipedia, i thought the racist comments were already banned? This ones edited out ofr more than obvious reasons; it's purpose is clear, or maybe we should add a 'Italian point of view', what a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.56.76 (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I agree to the merging of "Macedonian language naming dispute" to here. The reasons are obvious enough. BalkanFever 09:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge Alex Makedon (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Other views

Since a merge of the three articles is on the way this is not so important. Anyway, i removed the focused views and kept only Kunt who criticizes both the Greek and Bulgarian positions based on linguistic evidence and Danforth who presents a spherical view, acknowledging the political parameters and defining their importance. I guess Oschlies can be readded too with an extended quotation, made clear that it's meant as an answer to Bulgarian scholars. The others are just too far away from the article's perspective. Just two of the first scholars expressing an opinion close to the modern mainstream linguistic approach. That's the reason afterall this material is not included in the main article. --Zakronian (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Bulgaria didin't recognise the Macedonian language

It is written in the article that in 1998 Bulgaria recognised the Macedonian language, but that's not correct. In fact it was achieved a compromise by which both sides were satisfied. I mean that the Macedonian language since then is referred as 'the language according to the constitution of Republic of Macedonia' and the Bulgarian as 'the language according to the constitution of Republic of Bulgaria'. Thus direct definition of the language spoken and written in the ex-Jugoslav republic as "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian" is avoided. If nobody objects I am going to remove the statement that Bulgaria recognised the Macedonian language.Scheludko (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Delete or improve the vocabulary part at once, мора and треба are completely different verbs, мора is must, and треба is should. Nobody says пороѓај, plus раѓање is роѓење in Serbian, and the Serbian пороѓај is породување in Macedonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.24.111 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Serbianisation

This section is very misleading and even though it is the view of one person, it should be removed because it is obviously incorrect:

1. Alphabet – no letters were "thrown out" or others "introduced" because there never existed a codified Macedonian alphabet prior to the one used today (previously, writers from that area created their own alphabets or used a combination of different existing alphabets).
2. Vocabulary – this section is just atrocious. The only Serbian loan I can see is чамец (which is actually a Turkish loan).
3. Morphology – using suffixes more common of vernacular speech instead of OCS patterns is "Macedonianization" if anything...
4. Syntax – both constructions are equal in the standard language. --124.169.185.195 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My deletion was reverted so perhaps I should elaborate a little more. The verbs мора and треба are two different words. Постои (which has two meanings, one disputed; see here) and суштествува are not synonymous and should not be confused. Пороѓaj and намештаj are not found in any Macedonian dictionary! Просечен and среден are not synonymous either. All of the other words are Common Slavic and follow natural Macedonian morphological patterns (заклучува → заклучок, поредува → поредок).

The only Serbian loan here is чамец which Macedonian linguists incorrectly calqued from the Serbian чамац and is actually a Turkish loan in their language ("çamac"). The native word кајче is also preferred by most. Can a registered user please delete this section as I believe all my edits will be reverted because I'm contributing from an IP. Thank you. --124.169.185.195 (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm not a linguist I can address only your first claim. You are aware that there were two meetings aiming at codifying what was going to be the Macedonian language. If you know this then you should know that the first version of the alphabet did actually contain quite different letters and was closer to the Bulgarian alphabet. Since this did not along with the Yugoslav Commies wishes, it was changed. And this is the reason for Venko Markovski "turning his back on Macedonia" (lol for that). The second version looked more like the Serbian alphabet. Any more explanations needed on that? --Laveol ^T 15:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the wording "throwing out" and "introducing". Saying the alphabet was modeled on the Serbian one is a fair observation (though, original research). One could just as easily say it was based on Misirkov's alphabet. --124.169.38.170 (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And to think that I did not understand the issue. What part of "new letters were introduced" and others were "thrown out" is not clear. They were in the first variant and were thrown out at the next. Misirkov based his version more on the Bulgarian alphabet. Are you really willing to discuss this? And why did you call out for help from BalkanFever?--Laveol ^T 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Misirkov's alphabet! Misirkov used Ъ, Й, Я. Is this a joke? Jingby (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Calm down and stop image-spamming. BalkanFever 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked BalkanFever for assistance because he is a registered user in good standing who understands the Macedonia issue. --124.169.38.170 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the only reason? Cause the last (ethnic) Macedonian user to comment here was Zakronian and you didn't turn to him. How did you know BF was one of the few active editors? --Laveol ^T 13:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Zakronian was ethnic Macedonian? BalkanFever 15:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous

From the linguistic point of view, this article is as superfluous as a goiter. Macedonian is - or is not - a language because the Macedonians consider it a language and wish it - or not. Full stop.

Indeed, however, the article and the talk excellently demonstrate why so much has gone wrong on the Balkans ... --Hellsepp (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Article for Deletion?

This article seems irrelevant and says nothing that has not been covered in other articles that contain chapters on the Macedonian issue. A special article on the political views on the Macedonian language IMO has no relevance in wikipedia. Even the term 'political' is open to interpretation. If an admin wishes to take this up... Politis (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy in the Bulgarian view section

There is a lot of repetition and redundancy in the Bulgarian section. I will let User:Jingiby continue to edit it and after she/he is satisfied I will look and see what I can do. I would delete the second paragraph, since the first paragraph completely covers the content of the second paragraph. GStojanov (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You are free to do it. Jingiby (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources

Note: Moved from my Talk page. GStojanov (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Hi, Stojanov. We have had a discussion about this issue and you agreed. But now I see the old story again. Please, stop using outdated primary sources as reliable and replacing secondary sources with primary ones. This is against the rules of Wikipedia. Do not change info backed by secondary sources in favour of primary. This lead to mistakes as now. Keep in mind that in 1944 BCP was not the ruling party. More, it has recognized Macedonian language for the first time in 1934. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I like how you used the sources I provided with the one you found. I think we are slowly improving this article Political_views_on_the_Macedonian_language. I will continue the discussion on the Talk page of the article. GStojanov (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Bulgarian Academy of Sciences does not recognize Macedonian language. The political situation is also very complicated. Check also this news from 2018: Ekaterina Zaharieva: Bulgaria is not about to recognize either the Macedonian language or the Macedonian nation. Jingiby (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have heard many times that the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences does not recognize Macedonian language, but I can't find any reliable information that they, as an institution, have ever discussed this issue and published any decision about it. Can you, please, help me locate an information is you have it? (BTW I will move this conversation to the talk page of the article, where it belongs). GStojanov (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Here you are: Ana Kocheva, Ivan Kochev, "On the recodifications of the Bulgarian literary language in Vardar Macedonia and Aegean Macedonia". "Bulgarian Language"; journal of the Institute for Bulgarian Language by Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, № 65 (2018), issue № 1, pp. 99–116. Abstract: The Bulgarian literary language has a record number of regional written norms. Out of the six codifications, three were based on dialects and three − on the Bulgarian literary language (in the Aegean part of Greece, in the Republic of Macedonia and in Ukraine). In the latter cases, this is actually not a primary codification but a secondary one, а (re) codification of the already established (during the Bulgarian National Revival) and long-used literary Bulgarian language. Jingiby (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I read the article but I still don't know in what way they don't recognize the Macedonian language. The word "recognize"(признава) is mentioned twice but in different contexts. GStojanov (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The text is clear: Of the six recodifications of the Bulgarian language here were discussed the Vardar Macedonian and Aegean Macedonian. But the six are together a clear testimony of the pluricentrism of the Bulgarian language, which is the result from the extremely complex historical destiny of the Bulgarian people. Nowere Macedonian is mentioned as a separate language, but only as a regional variety of pluricentric Bulgarian. More, there are 2 Macedonian varieties of Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The term "to recognize" has two basic meanings: 1. Identify (препознае) 2. acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of. I'm guessing the two authors don't have problem with the first meaning. They surely can identify a Macedonian language either spoken or written. If google translate, being a dumb robot can, they surely can too. So it must be the second meaning: Acknowledge (accept or admit) a) existence b) validity d) legality. What of the three they don't accept? The existence, the validity or the legality? GStojanov (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the official opinion of the Institute for Bulgarian Language at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences to the so-called Macedonian language published in Bulgarian language jhournal, 1996-7, vol. 1, p. 1-3. The conclusion reads as follows: Институтът за български език потвърждава отдавна заявеното си становище: В историческо, диалектно и структурно отношение „македонски език“, различен от българския, не съществува. „Македонският литературен език“, наложен като официален език в Република Македония, е книжовна форма на българския език. Rough translation: The Institute for Bulgarian Language confirms its long-standing opinion: In historical, dialectical and structural terms, "Macedonian language", different from Bulgarian, does not exist. The "Macedonian literary language", imposed as an official language in the Republic of Macedonia, is a literary form of the Bulgarian language. Jingiby (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your link points to a blog discussing this issue. Can we find a link to the actual Journal where this statement was published? GStojanov (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Here you are:Становище на Института за български език при БАН за т. нар. македонски език. Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess they did take a stance and they don't recognize it?! That is strange since 1. To object its existence is silly, as silly as the simple man who seeing a giraffe exclaimed: "Such animal DOES NOT exist." (A Bulgarian joke by the way). Macedonian is a large language with 2 million native speakers. 2. To object its validity is also silly. Only the native speakers are entitled to validate and reform their standard language. Macedonian language is surprisingly stable. The last reform happened in 1951. 3. To object its legality is impossible. There isn't any legal framework defining legal vs illegal languages. All languages are equally legal. GStojanov (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Literary language? Is there a substantial difference between the use of so-called "Macedonian" in literature and the vernacular form of this dialect/language? Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The standard (literary) Macedonian language is very close to the vernacular. It is not a "so-called", it is one of the top 100 languages. Google translate supports it too. GStojanov (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a map of Bulgarian dialects on the site of the Institute for Bulgarian Language by BAS. Jingiby (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about the Bulgarian side of the map, but the Macedonian side has multiple errors: Strumica is in the same dialectal region with Radovish, Lerin is in the same region with Bitola, etc... Here is the correct Map of Macedonian dialects. And here is a site of digital resources[5] of the Macedonain Academy of Sciences. GStojanov (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Greek term for referring to the language

Why did you revert my edit? There is a word σλαβομακεδονικά for the South Slavic language, but few people ever use it because it contains the name of Macedonia. Why would we want to include the name that we claim as ours? The source that you provide doe not represent the point of view of the majority of Greeks.

Melaneas (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)