# Macedonian: natural language or not?



## Orlin

Здравейте! Според мен македонският език притежава характеристики на изкуствен език, съдейки по:
1. Начина на възникването му и регулацията му (смятам това за общоизвестни факти, но при нужда мога да ги спомена) - разбира се, всички книжовни (стандартни) езици имат елементи на "изкуственост" - създават се целенасочено, често имат регулиращи органи и пр., но при македонския език тези характеристики са може би изразени значително по-силно.
2. Особеностите - за мен македонският език до голяма степен прилича на български език, но с немалко изкуствено прибавени сръбски думи (особено в терминологията от областта на науката, изкуството, спорта и др.), както и с помощта на някои други според мен изкуствени похвати се е целяло (?) да се отдалечи от стандарта, използван в България - лично аз виждам в това политически мотиви на управлявалите бившата СФРЮ.
3. Доколкото ми е известно, македонският език продължава да се "твори" от Института за македонски език - това е в значителна степен обяснимо, имайки предвид сравнително скорошното възникване на книжовния стандарт.
4. Доколкото знам, официалният македонски македонски е (бил) доста отдалечен от говоримия език и затова не толкова лесен за обикновените жители да се разбира и говори. Някои дори са склонни да му приписват "казионен" статус в тогавашната СР Македония.
Аз нямам много голям опит с македонския език, но бих споделил, че нерядко ми звучи дори смешно (понякога до степен да не мога да си представя, че мога да го науча). Моля по-добре запознатите да споделят мненията си и да поправят грешките, които допускам в представите си (най-вече от тези с роден език македонски, български или сръбски). Извинявам се предварително за неизбежното си пристрастие по патриотични причини, както и за нещо обидно за някого (несъзнателно е).
Благодаря ви!


----------



## iobyo

Orlin said:
			
		

> Здравейте!



Здраво, Orlin!



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> 1. Начина на възникването му и регулацията му (смятам това за общоизвестни факти, но при нужда мога да ги спомена) - разбира се, всички книжовни (стандартни) езици имат елементи на "изкуственост" - създават се целенасочено, често имат регулиращи органи и пр., но при македонския език тези характеристики са може би изразени значително по-силно.



I don't think that there's anything particularly unique about the regulation of the standard Macedonian language. There's nothing like the _Academie francaise_ here. I disagree with this point especially. In my opinion, the regulatory body isn't doing enough!

Na example, many IT and internet terms, and modern concepts haven't been prescribed in dictionaries and as a result there's great variation in their use. In fact, a complete _tolkoven rečnik_ has yet to be published.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> 2. Особеностите - за мен македонският език до голяма степен прилича на български език, но с немалко изкуствено прибавени сръбски думи (особено в терминологията от областта на науката, изкуството, спорта и др.), както и с помощта на някои други според мен изкуствени похвати се е целяло (?) да се отдалечи от стандарта, използван в България - лично аз виждам в това политически мотиви на управлявалите бившата СФРЮ.



At the risk of sounding rude, I'd like to say that you probably don't understand the diglossic situation of Macedonia before the formation of the Federal Yugoslav Republics. Macedonian had always been a spoken language, while Bulgarian and Serbian were the languages of education. Many concepts for which "Serbian" terms are used (to use your words) simply didn't exist back then. In many ways this is similar to the huge amount of Russian loanwords in Bulgarian. Using the same reasoning, does this make the Bulgarian language any less Bulgarian (or "foreign")?



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> 3. Доколкото ми е известно, македонският език продължава да се "твори" от Института за македонски език - това е в значителна степен обяснимо, имайки предвид сравнително скорошното възникване на книжовния стандарт.



I don't see any evidence to suggest that. The Macedonian language is evolving naturally just like most other living languages. If you've lived in Macedonia, you'll know how little influence these organizations have in terms of linguistic recommendations. They're essentially research institutes.

The Macedonian language has a vast literary corpus (taking into account it was only officially standardized after WW2). Modern Macedonian speakers are the ones who are augmenting their language.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> 4. Доколкото знам, официалният македонски македонски е (бил) доста отдалечен от говоримия език и затова не толкова лесен за обикновените жители да се разбира и говори. Някои дори са склонни да му приписват "казионен" статус в тогавашната СР Македония.



The differences between the standard and spoken languages are mostly superficial. Drop a few intervocalic consonants here, use a different word there. This is quite a complex point however which can't be discussed in one forum post. Our cherish linguists of years past have written tomes about it.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> Извинявам се предварително за неизбежното си пристрастие по патриотични причини, както и за нещо обидно за някого (несъзнателно е).
> Благодаря ви!



It's inevitable when discussing anything relating to the Balkans. But after all this is a linguistic forum.


----------



## iobyo

Orlin said:
			
		

> *Re: Macedonian: natural language or not?*


No standard language is "natural" whichever way you look at it.


----------



## Orlin

Благодаря, iobyo, но не разбирам идеята да се използва английски език тук - очаквате ли другите заинтересовани страни да не разбират (според мен в дискусията могат да се включат най-вече владеещите македонски, български и сръбски език)? Очаквах тук да се води дискусия на посочените 3 езика и така да стане по-очевидно как 3-те езика се съотнасят.
Освен това, ако действително приемем, че всички стандартни езици са "неестествени", не знам как би трябва да се тълкува това, което е посочено в стартовата тема с правилата на форума - че е посветен на естествените езици. Нали тук обсъждаме почти изключително стандартни езици.
Извинявам се, ако прозвучи грубо, не ми е известно да е употребяван терминът "македонски език" преди 1944 г. - може би греша, но също така е възможно този термин да се употребява и ретроактивно по отношение на езика, говорен на територията на днешна Република Македония преди Втората световна война.


----------



## sokol

Hello Orlin,

before 1944 the dialects spoken in the region of the modern Republic of Macedonia*) were referred to as "Southern Serbian" and they were neither considered to be Macedonian nor Bulgarian: this is the climate where the national movement for a Macedonian language evolved.
_*) Or FYROM, "Former Yougoslav Republic of Macedonia", by UN naming convention due to political reasons (as I'm sure you know).
_
Since then Macedonian has evolved into a separate language with a standard language in its own right, and I don't think we should dispute this here: it is a fact, a _fait accompli._ Of course Macedonian is one of the youngest European standard languages - but it certainly isn't the youngest one.  (The youngest European standard language might be Montenegrin if one is willing to accept it as one such already; similar in age as Macedonian - as far as standard languages are concerned of course, dialects always are ancient - are Luxembourgish and Faroese, and some others. - I'm mentioning them only for illustrative reasons, we shouldn't disuss those languages here as this of course is the _Slavic _forum. ;-)

Also I am sure you don't intend to dispute that Macedonian dialects are natural and ancient dialects (which were conceived as being either "Bulgarian" or "Serbian" before ~1850 while after that, very slowly and gradually, a shift to thinking of them being "Macedonian" took place, which only became official in 1944 with Tito and AVNOJ gaining power in what then was Yougoslavia - and which still isn't accepted fully by some Bulgarian linguists, or at least was in the 1990ies, I'm not sure if a significant change took place recently).

Obviously your question thus is whether Macedonian *standard *language is a "natural language" or not.
I am with ioboyo here - each standard language, in a way, is an "artificial" language, and there are legions of nations where almost a 100 % of the population never actually speaks standard language (well - a close approximation of it anyway) in colloquial situations.
This is called diglossia, and we have it in Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland, in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia, in Greece, in wide parts of Italy and Germany (where however there are also regions where people speak standard language), almost everywhere (far as I know) in the Arabic speaking nations, in China, in Scotland and Ireland, in Norway, and so on.

Bulgarian as a standard language of course has much an older tradition than Macedonian standard language, but take a look at Serbian and Croatian - both go back to a re-codification of standard language in the 19th century (which too is considered by some as "highly artificial"), and some minor re-definitions since the break-up of former Yougoslavia.

I don't see how Macedonian standard language should be "more" or "less" artificial than some other languages. 
There are of course degrees of purism, and Macedonian may be more purist than e. g. Bulgarian - but I am confident that there are plenty of languages more purist than Macedonian (probably Slovenian could be one such, or Icelandic, or even French possibly).

As far as codification of Macedonian is concerned it was based on western and central dialects (Skopje dialect also has some influence) while Bulgarian standard language is based on eastern Bulgarian ones (or so claims Wiki), thus the difference between both Macedonian and Bulgarian appears to be bigger if you compare standard languages while on dialect level there exists still a dialect continuum - a gradual change of features which allows speakers on both sides of the border to communicate with each other easily.
But this dialect continuum is continued on Serbian soil, Torlakian dialects are transitional between Šumadija Serbian, Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects; so this isn't something out of the ordinary either.

What makes the situation of Macedonian so peculiar is that it is still a very young language, and a very young nation; but we better should not discuss political implications here. 

Now to the points you made in particular:



Orlin said:


> 1. Начина на възникването му и регулацията му


Compared to Bulgarian Macedonian might be more regulated, but as said - there exist standard languages which are even more regulated. 



Orlin said:


> 2. Особеностите - за мен македонският език до голяма степен прилича на български език, но с немалко изкуствено прибавени сръбски думи


ioboyo answered that one already - it is only natural that the young Macedonian standard language adopted Serbian loans for terms which did not exist in Macedonian dialects: Macedonian is a so-called Ausbausprache (Wiki link in English), a language which previously only was used in colloquial speech and lacks those domains occupied by standard languages (education, technical terms, medicine, etc.).
There exist basically two techniques to adopt new vocabulary: loans, or calques. A loan would be "Ausbausprache" in English (it is a term proposed by German linguists which never has been translated to English), a calque would be "extending language" (which is _not _used in English).
I am sure Macedonian used both - and obviously, Serbian was one of the languages from which loans were taken.

(I'm leaving out points 3 and 4 as I couldn't possibly add anything to ioboyo's answer.)



Orlin said:


> Извинявам се, ако прозвучи грубо, не ми е известно да е употребяван терминът "македонски език" преди 1944 г.


The national identity began to form with anti-Greek movements in the 19th century when Slavic Macedonia (then part of the Osman Empire) was under the rule of Greek Patriarchs (so, Greek instead of Old Church Slavonic liturgy).
I don't know if the term "Macedonian" already was used to refer to Slavic dialects spoken in the region in the 19th century: probably not, it might have been used meaning the region only - but probably this was the case already: that I don't know. We can however safely assume that a Macedonian nation didn't exist then already, nor was there a codified Macedonian standard language, and for a short period of time Macedonia was even part of the newly independent Bulgaria.
The movement for an independent Macedonian language only kicked off later - during the first Yougoslav Republic; and its language was institutionalised, as we all know, in 1944.

However, this is not the point here really - probably Macedonian language should have been considered highly "artificial" in 1944 as then not even Macedonians knew their (newly codified) standard language; this however is no more the case: Macedonian standard language is institutionalised, it is a natural language as much as are the standard languages of Slovenia or Finland (to name but two where there's also a diglossic situation).



I hope this makes sense to you all (and that I've sorted the historical facts correctly - if not please accept my excuses ), and again the reminder to leave out politics here (also a reminder to myself  of course language and politics always are closely entwined on the Balkans, but the more important it is to keep them separate).


----------



## Orlin

Здравей, sokol! 
Интерпретацията Ви на истореческите факти се различава от приетото в България (това е най-вече политика и не е за обсъждане тук). Според мен причината македонският език да изглежда малко "изкуствено" е, че е стандартизиран само преди 65 години - каквито да са били мотивите при стандартизацията му в средата на XX век, след известно време македонският език няма да изглежда по-малко "естествен" от който и да е друг стандартен език, защото при достатъчно голям брой говорещи и широка употреба би се развивал напълно естествено и на това не би могло да попречи никаква изкуствена регулация, защото няма как да се въздейства насила върху толкова много хора, говорещи езика. iobyo е абсолютно прав по отношение на това, че родният му език се развива абсолютно естествено днес - при това бързо развитие на всички обществени области новите явления в езика възникват напълно спонтанно и всички опити за регулация и кодифициране не "могат да смогнат на темпото".
Живот и здраве, в най-скоро време македонският ще бъде толкова "квазиестествен" като всеки друг стандартен език. Може би влиянието на регулиращите органи е било силно през "югославския период", но впоследствие значително е отслабнало по различни причини.


----------



## Orlin

По отношение "сърбизацията" на македонския език вижте следните линкове (не забравяйте, че авторът е българин): 

http://www.promacedonia.org/statii/mp_1991_1_tsyrnushanov.html
http://www.promacedonia.org/statii/mp_1991_2_tsyrnushanov.html

Оценката ми на влиянието на сръбския език върху македонския не е внушена само от тази статия, а и от собствената ми преценка на съвременни македонски текстове - съгласно усета ми на човек с роден език български и познанията ми по сръбски език; за последните можете да съдите и от моите постове на този език (75+% от всички).


----------



## iobyo

Orlin said:
			
		

> Благодаря, iobyo, но не разбирам идеята да се използва английски език тук - очаквате ли другите заинтересовани страни да не разбират (според мен в дискусията могат да се включат най-вече владеещите македонски, български и сръбски език)?



I've used English because some prominent users (such as sokol) may not speak one of our languages fluently enough to engage in the discussion completely.

I'm actually using Google Translator for your posts.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, sokol.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> Очаквах тук да се води дискусия на посочените 3 езика и така да стане по-очевидно как 3-те езика се съотнасят.



That would be interesting. But again, another user may want to contribute to the discussion who falls outside the borders of South Slavic languages.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> Освен това, ако действително приемем, че всички стандартни езици са "неестествени", не знам как би трябва да се тълкува това, което е посочено в стартовата тема с правилата на форума - че е посветен на естествените езици. Нали тук обсъждаме почти изключително стандартни езици.



These links may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language

VS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language

I was using the word "natural" in a slightly different context.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> Извинявам се, ако прозвучи грубо, не ми е известно да е употребяван терминът "македонски език" преди 1944 г. - може би греша, но също така е възможно този термин да се употребява и ретроактивно по отношение на езика, говорен на територията на днешна Република Македония преди Втората световна война.



You're forgetting one of the most (in)famous pre-WW2 writers from Macedonia - Misirkov. And what about Pulevski? 

I don't see what that means linguistically. We could all call the English language by another name, but it will still be the same language. 

Similarly, the Ukrainian and Belorussian languages have both been called by different names. This nomenclature only reflects the political context in which the terms were used. The Bulgarian church claimed the dialects as Bulgarian and the Yugoslav Kingdom referred to them as "South Serbian". 

Perhaps I don't understand your point.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> before 1944 the dialects spoken in the region of the modern Republic of Macedonia*) were referred to as "Southern Serbian"



Or "Bulgarian", or "Macedonian", or "Slavomacedonian", etc, depending on the political orientation of the writer.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> and they were neither considered to be Macedonian nor Bulgarian



Not true. There has never been a point where Bulgaria hasn't considered the Macedonian dialects to belong to Bulgarian dialectography.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Since then Macedonian has evolved into a separate language



You think it didn't exist separately prior to codification of the standard?



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> There are of course degrees of purism, and Macedonian may be more purist than e. g. Bulgarian



That's right. Many archaic words were revitalized, new words coined, etc.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> However, this is not the point here really - probably Macedonian language should have been considered highly "artificial" in 1944 as then not even Macedonians knew their (newly codified) standard language



I think you may be, innocently, exagerating the gap between the dialects and the literary language.

Actually we can see the majority of errors in newspapers and official documents in the early 50s were mostly orthographic (because of several small but noticeable changes). 



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> Интерпретацията Ви на истореческите факти се различава от приетото в България (това е най-вече политика и не е за обсъждане тук). Според мен причината македонският език да изглежда малко "изкуствено" е, че е стандартизиран само преди 65 години



I'm assuming you weren't alive prior to the standardization and that you've been exposed to Macedonian in some form. So why should it sound less natural to you than, say, Serbian?

You haven't really pointed out any linguistic features which make it 'sound' one way or another. So that's why my ethnic bias tells me this is disguised politics.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> http://www.promacedonia.org/statii/m...rnushanov.html
> http://www.promacedonia.org/statii/m...rnushanov.html



Very very little of this is true. Some passages should be ringing alarm bells for you:

*джин* (гигант, великан)

So how is a probable Russian loanword more likely to have been used by a Macedonian speaker pre-40s compared to a Turkish loanword?

*гърб* (герб)

This is an orthographic Russianism in Bulgarian.

*кружи* (кръжи)

So now native reflexes of proto-Slavic phonemes are also Serbisms?

*лав* (лъв

Need I even comment on this one?

*озбилно* (сериозно)

This word has never been considered literary. You'll mostly hear it among youth in slang.

*учество* (участие)

A modern morphological pattern VS a Church Slavonic one.

*херой* (герой)

When did this Eastern Slavic phonological change occur in Bulgarian?


Kosta Cărnušanov has just made a list of words which differ between the two languages and labeled them Serbisms.


----------



## sokol

iobyo said:


> I'm actually using Google Translator for your posts.


Me too.
I can read both Bulgarian and Macedonian but with difficulties; to use Google translation makes it easier, and quicker, to read the original text (even though Google translations usually are atrocious ...).



iobyo said:


> Similarly, the Ukrainian and Belorussian languages have both been called by different names. This nomenclature only reflects the political context in which the terms were used. The Bulgarian church claimed the dialects as Bulgarian and the Yugoslav Kingdom referred to them as "South Serbian".


I second that.
The name a language is given is arbitrary - it does not _per se_ change the nature of a language (or more precisely, it only will do so if there's an ideology behind, and a political will to change it).

To give another example: In German translations of American books usually you find a note "übersetzt aus dem Amerikanischen = translated from American": so in German, American English many times is referred to by the name "Amerikanisch"; US citizens themselves however still like to call their language English. 



iobyo said:


> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> before 1944 the dialects spoken in the region of the modern Republic of Macedonia*) were referred to as "Southern Serbian"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or "Bulgarian", or "Macedonian", or "Slavomacedonian", etc, depending on the political orientation of the writer.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, I knew that - I was referring to the official name of the then ruling power, which was the first Yougoslav Republic where Macedonian was not recognised as a language but referred to as "South Serbian".
I know that there was already a Macedonian movement then (though I don't know much about this period between the two World Wars, as far as Macedonian is concerned).



iobyo said:


> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they were neither considered to be Macedonian nor Bulgarian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. There has never been a point where Bulgaria hasn't considered the Macedonian dialects to belong to Bulgarian dialectography.
Click to expand...

Again, here I referred to the official point of view of the Yougoslav state, and again I should have said so, my bad. 
But you say that in Bulgaria it is still mainstream linguistics to consider Macedonian dialects as "Bulgarian"? If so then that's news to me, I thought it was only a minority of linguist who still stick to this (which one may consider either "traditional" or "nationalistic" depending on one's point of view).



iobyo said:


> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then Macedonian has evolved into a separate language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think it didn't exist separately prior to codification of the standard?
Click to expand...

Not at all, quite the contrary. 
Macedonian dialects - no matter by which name they went - certainly existed since the Middle Ages, they're not younger than any of the other South Slavic dialects; and by rights each dialect - linguistically speaking - is a language in its own right.

I was talking about standard language here which evolved only recently; and about nations in general: nations defined through language are a relatively new development, in Central and South-Eastern Europe they only evolved in the 19th century (so by all means Bulgarian too is a young nation of course).
Prior to the 19th century the modern concept of "language-nations" which now prevails in (Eastern) Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe didn't exist yet.

Prior to codification of Macedonian standard language there was a Macedonian national movement which however was suppresed by Yougoslavia and questioned by Bulgaria; it wasn't clear yet if Macedonian language will survive (or probably in the 1930ies Macedonian was already strong enough to survive on its own: as said, I am not very well informed about the 1920ies and 1930ies as far as Macedonian is concerned).

Prior to the First World War there was sort of a "Vilayet patriotism" in the Vilayet of Üsküb = Skopje (late 19th and early 20th century); there has been some discussion between historians wether this could be counted as the first rise of a Macedonian nation or not and the answer to this question (it seems) depended mostly on ones political viewpoint.

And *before that,* that is in the early 19th century and before, Macedonians (by whatever name they went, then) didn't worry at all about nation but identified themselves as _Slavic _(as opposed to Greek and Turk), and as _Christian _(with Old Church Slavonic - in slightly regional varieties - as ritual language), and most likely they also identified with their region, as is usually the case. But this does not mean that a Macedonian nation in the modern sense existed. (And neither existed a Serbian or Bulgarian nation in the modern sense, not in 1800 at least even though the first national movements rose shortly after in then Serbia and Bulgaria).



iobyo said:


> sokol said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, this is not the point here really - probably Macedonian language should have been considered highly "artificial" in 1944 as then not even Macedonians knew their (newly codified) standard language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may be, innocently, exagerating the gap between the dialects and the literary language.
Click to expand...

That may be the case. I don't know how big the gap is in Macedonia. It is considerable in Slovenia, that much I know; I only wanted to emphasise the point that a standard language is a vastly different thing compared to an artificial language - as you know of course, and as I'm sure Orlin knows.


----------



## Orlin

Zdravo svima! Krenuo sam na srpskom, pošto sam siguran da ćete lakše razumeti (iobyo definitivno - pročitao sam nekoliko njegovih postova u ovom forumu i lako sam saznao da on govori fantastično srpski! sokol, Vi takođe razumete srpski mnogo lakše nego bugarski, zar ne?). Ja ne volim da koristim engleski, ali ovo nije predmet diskusije ovde.
Kako je vidno od mog javnog profila, ja imam 30 godina, moj maternji jezik je bugarski i živim u Sofiji (tako je bilo u većini mog života - jedino drugo mesto gde sam živio bilo je Kjustendil u 1981.-1998. god.). Ja ocenjivam makedonski jezik iz ove pozicije, koristeći se mojim iskustvom s ovim jezikom (nažalost veoma limitiranom). Hoću da kažem kakav dojam mi je ostavio makedonski jezik u mojim retkim kontaktima s njim:
1. Razgovarivao sam s Makedoncima u julu ove godine u Velingradu (čini mi se da je Velingrad relativno popularan kod vas u Makedoniji) - oni su imali 55-65 godina i najverovatnije su imali visoko obrazovanje, pomenujem to da bismo lakše razumeli njihove lingvističke karakteristike. Ja sam govorio na bugarskom i onu su me lako razumeli. Međutim, u jeziku ovih Makedonaca je imalo relativno 
često "neki srpski elementi" (najčešće u leksici - po mom osećaju), zato sam i ponekad u razgovoru nehotično prelazio na srpski - moji sugovornici su me čak pohvalili da znam srpski dobro, a ja sam osećao da je sve jedno da li upotrebljavaš bugarski ili sprski u razgovoru s Makedoncima (ili je korišćenje srpskog još bolje?) - ja sam imao takav izbor. Naravno je moja ocena subjektivna, ali moj utisak je da ako neki je želeo da "spoji" bugarski i srpski u takozvani "makedonski jezik", on je gotovo to ostvario. (Možda sam tako ekstreman - izvinite me; očigledno je da može da se do takve situacije dođe bez nikakvog "neprirodnog delovanja" - ukrajinski i belaruski jezici često ostavljaju dojam da su u sredini između ruskog i poljskog, i sam siguran da niko nije takav rezultat namereno tražio). Verovatno sam imao osećaj da su sve "kvazisrpske reči" po mom mišljenju stojali "ne na svom mestu" u "generalno bugarskom" tekstu da bih zaključio o njihovom "neprirodnom prisustvu" u makedonskom jeziku. 
2. Pre nekoliko dana pročitao sam katalog umetničke izložbe Makedonskog kulturnog centra u Sofiji (sa 20+ stranica makedonskog teksta) - taj savremeni makedonski tekst je meni izgledao "mnogo prirodnije", bez takvog iritirajućeg prisustva "srbizama" - sve to verovatno dokazuje značajan razvoj makedonskog jezika - sudeći po nekim istočnicima, u makedonskom jeziku ima tendenciju zamene "(kvazi)sprskih" reči takvim drugog porekla posle 1991. god., dok jezik mojih sugovornika u Velingradu verovatno pokaziva neko prethodno stanje makedonskog jezika (u 1960- i '70-im, kad je srpsko vlijanje bilo silnije), kao i se u članku koji sam linkovao govori o makedonskom jeziku u novinama 1980-ih godina.
Pokušao sam da se izrazim u mom najboljem mogućem srpskom da biste mogli da ocenite kakav kredibilitet imam u tvrdnjama da je makedonski jezik pun "srpskih elemenata" koji ga stvaraju "neprirodnim". Naravno razumem da ne svaka reč prisutna u makedonskom i srpskom ali ne u bugarskom "srbizam". Mislim da je sokol u pravu da je srpski jezik bio istočnik termina neophodnih za "mladi standardni makedonski jezik" i zato "srpska terminologija" nije argumenat za "neprirodnost" makedonskog jezika. Ali još osećam da nemalo "neterminologičnih" reči srpskog porekla stoje "ne na svom mestu" u principno bugarskom supstratu makedonskog jezika.


----------



## iobyo

sokol said:
			
		

> Yes of course, I knew that - I was referring to the official name of the then ruling power, which was the first Yougoslav Republic where Macedonian was not recognised as a language but referred to as "South Serbian".





			
				sokol said:
			
		

> Again, here I referred to the official point of view of the Yougoslav state, and again I should have said so, my bad.



No, no, my fault. I just misread your post. 



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> But you say that in Bulgaria it is still mainstream linguistics to consider Macedonian dialects as "Bulgarian"? If so then that's news to me, I thought it was only a minority of linguist who still stick to this (which one may consider either "traditional" or "nationalistic" depending on one's point of view).



Most definitely. The way I see it is reversed. A minority of linguists in Bulgaria will write about the Macedonian dialects as belonging to a separate group of dialectology. I'd even go as far as saying it would be academic suicide to do so.

They will also avoid using the usual term "Macedonian language" and prefer something long-winded like "the official norm used in the Republic of Macedonia" (I think the Bulgarian government uses something similar in official documents). 

It seems as though most of their claims are in line with the anti-Macedonistic sentiment present in all the sectors of their society. Very much tied in with their national myth. In a way, just as it is in the Republic of Macedonia or even Croatia but perhaps not quite as unconventional.



			
				sokol said:
			
		

> That may be the case. I don't know how big the gap is in Macedonia. It is considerable in Slovenia, that much I know



In comparison to that in Slovenia: tiny. 

However I think it may also be due to a certain amount of dialect leveling as a result of the mass education in Yugoslav times.


----------



## lavverats

iobyo said:


> Kosta Cărnušanov has just made a list of words which differ between the two languages and labeled them Serbisms.


 
Hi, just for the records: Kosta Cărnušanov was born in 1903 (Prilep, nowadays in the R of Macedonia) and I think, he could not be that far for the difference between his own dialect, the norm standardised in 1945 and the Serbisms that have influenced the standard norm since that time.
http://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/Коста_Църнушанов


----------



## iobyo

Orlin said:
			
		

> ali moj utisak je da ako neki je želeo da "spoji" bugarski i srpski u takozvani "makedonski jezik", on je gotovo to ostvario.



Можда ћеш се онда изненадити да се Македонија налази баш између Бугарске и Србије! 

За нестручњак (који можда загрља неких политичких уверења што су у сукобу са конвенционалном науком) може изгледати као „вештачки спој“ једног језика са другим. Срећом, нисмо више у средњем веку и зато сувремена лингвистика говори о дијасистемима итд.

Ево ти непроцењив линк: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect_continuum

Надам се да ће ти помоћи.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> ukrajinski i belaruski jezici često ostavljaju dojam da su u sredini između ruskog i poljskog, i sam siguran da niko nije takav rezultat namereno tražio).



Занимљиво је што у руском царству сматрало се да је језик што данас називамо украјинским настао као резултат полонизације руског језика.

Дијалектни континуум, човече.



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> 2. Pre nekoliko dana pročitao sam katalog umetničke izložbe Makedonskog kulturnog centra u Sofiji (sa 20+ stranica makedonskog teksta) - taj savremeni makedonski tekst je meni izgledao "mnogo prirodnije", bez takvog iritirajućeg prisustva "srbizama" - sve to verovatno dokazuje značajan razvoj makedonskog jezika - sudeći po nekim istočnicima, u makedonskom jeziku ima tendenciju zamene "(kvazi)sprskih" reči takvim drugog porekla posle 1991. god., dok jezik mojih sugovornika u Velingradu verovatno pokaziva neko prethodno stanje makedonskog jezika (u 1960- i '70-im, kad je srpsko vlijanje bilo silnije), kao i se u članku koji sam linkovao govori o makedonskom jeziku u novinama 1980-ih godina.



Молим те, наведи неке од тих речи. Радознао сам. 

[САРКАЗАМ]Желим да знам у којој мери су ти зли Срби (чекај, зар није Тито био Хрват?) покварили мој твој језик.[/САРКАЗАМ]

Стварно не могу да замислим зашто ти уопште сметају ове „небугарске/српске“ речи.

А, управо сам видео последњу реченицу твог поста. 



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> da biste mogli da ocenite kakav kredibilitet imam u tvrdnjama da je makedonski jezik pun "srpskih elemenata" koji ga stvaraju "neprirodnim"



Ма дај, бре. 

Према истој логици: да ли још већи број руских елемената у бугарскоме значи да је мање „природан“?



			
				Orlin said:
			
		

> bugarskom supstratu makedonskog jezika.



Даме и господо, вук је скинуо своју маску. 



			
				lavverats said:
			
		

> he could not be that far for the difference between his own dialect, the norm standardised in 1945 and the Serbisms that have influenced the standard norm since that time.



Obviously not. 

Are you even sure it's the same guy?


----------



## Orlin

Zdravo svima!
Nažalost sad nemam dostupa do kataloga izložbe makedonskih umetnika, i zato bih hteo da koristim makedonsku verziju pravila našeg foruma za analizu (pretpostavljam da je ovaj tekst na savremenom standardnom makedonskom)

Помогнете му на словенскиот форум да проработи со поставување на прашања!

Како да постапите:

- Регистирајте се
- Кликнете на "New Thread" за да поставите прашање 

Правила на однесување:

1. Помогнете им на другите. Доколку некој не го познава јазикот совршено, не навредувајте.

2. Бидете учтиви. Изрази како "здравo", "благодарам" се секогаш добредојдени.

3. Одговорите прво побарајте ги во речниците.

4. Кога поставувате прашање ставете го клучниот збор или фраза во наслов. (Избегнувајте изрази како "превод ве молам", "како да го кажам ова?", "постои ли тој збор?", "нов сум" и така натаму).

5. Приложувајте реченица за пример за да се разбере контекстот.

6. Уптребете ја можноста "report a post" и пријавете доколку читате пост кој што содржи сомнителен јазик/слики или ако сметате дека не припаѓа на овој форум.Тоа ќе придонесе за добро функционирање на форумот.

7. Не испраќајте линкови кон комерцијални сајтови. Ова е сајт без реклами и би сакале таков и да остане.

8. Не користете го форумот за чат (не е оспособен за тоа). Доколку сакате, можете да испратите лична прака (PM) до некој член на форумот (десен клик на името на членот).

9. Ако имате дополнителни прашања или предлози, ве молиме испратете ги на "Comments and Suggestions" форумот или пак испратете лична порака (PM) до вашиот омилен модератор.

10. Ве молиме, повремено проверувајте ги правилата на форумот, затоа што се надоградуваат секогаш кога ќе има потреба.

За подетален список ве молиме проверете на "comprehensive WR Rules" 

Po mom mišljenju:
1. Reči crvene boje su (gotovo) identične standartnim srpskim rečima, ali verujem da nisu poznate bilo kom monolingvalnom izvornom govorniku bugarskog jezika (čak i od zapadnog bugarskog dijalektnog područja - ja imam neko iskustvo sa zapadnim bugarskim dijalektima - ja sam živeo u Sofiji i Kjustendilu ceo život). Isto se verovatno odnosi na reči narandžaste boje, ali nisam potpuno siguran. Mislim da prisustvo reči ove grupe u standardnom makedonskom možda može da se objasni dijalektnim kontinuumom, možda ne - mislim da je ovde bitno *kada *su bile reči ovog tipa po prvi put upotrebljene na teritoriji sadašnjoj Republike Makedoniji - pre standardizacije ili posle standardizacije makedonskog jezika. Možemo da proverimo eksperimentom da li su takve reči poznate govornicima zapadnih bugarskih dijalekata (npr. može da koristimo reči spiska Koste Cărnušanova - pretpostavljam da većina takve leksike nije poznata bilo kom Bugarinu bez kompetencije u srpskom). Mislim da je to samo za specijaliste.
2. Reči plave boje nemaju ekvivalenta u približno sličnom obliku ni u srpskom, ni u bugarskom. Oni su verovatno samo dijalektne u srpskom i/ ili  bugarskom.
3. Sve ostale reči su gotovo iste kao svoj bugarski ekvivalent. Oni su najčešće karakterne i za srpski i za bugarski - npr. zato što su opštoslovenske ili pripadaju internacionalne kulturne leksike. Evo zbog čega sam sklon da mislim da je makedonski tako sličan bugarskom - zato što su reči ove 3. grupe 80+% svih. Prisustvo reči 1. grupe nije lako da se objasni - ovo je možda problem za specijaliste u lingvistici.
Molim za mnjenja!


----------



## lavverats

iobyo said:


> Obviously not.
> 
> Are you even sure it's the same guy?


 
I can't be prety sure, of course. There are thousands of Kosta Crnushanovs born in 1903 in Prilep, philosophers and historians graduated at Belgrade University. 
A bit off topic, but some more information about the guy in question:
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...2378+коста+црнушанов&cd=6&hl=bg&ct=clnk&gl=bg


----------



## sokol

Orlin said:


> sokol, Vi takođe razumete srpski mnogo lakše nego bugarski, zar ne?).



Da. 
And you _should _answer with a language you feel comfortable with (as do I, when writing in English), be this Bulgarian or Serbian. 



Orlin said:


> Ja sam govorio na bugarskom i onu su me lako razumeli.



I don't think that anybody disputed a relatively high grade of mutual intelligibility between Macedonian and Bulgarian  - as is the case with many Slavic languages, as you know. Even Serbian and Bulgarian are to a degree mutually intelligible (a lesser degree for sure, but nevertheless, and for Serbian-Torlakian dialect speakers and Western Bulgarian speakers the degree of intelligibility is of course higher than with their respective standard languages).




Orlin said:


> Međutim, u jeziku ovih Makedonaca je imalo relativno često "neki srpski elementi"




I guess this point has been answered already: indeed there are some Serbian loans in Macedonian; but there are also plenty of words it seems where Serbian and Macedonian just share the same root but Bulgarian has another one - or even Bulgarian has replaced its native root (which had been the same as in Serbian and Macedonian) by a Russian loan.

I can assure you that Macedonian has enough words "of its own" to make it quite difficult for me to read (and I can read Serbian rather easily).




Orlin said:


> ukrajinski i belaruski jezici često ostavljaju dojam da su u sredini između ruskog i poljskog



As ioboyo already said, the Slavic dialect continuum still exists to a degree; it is very gradual in some regions and somewhat sharper in others; also thankfully ioboyo mentioned that Macedonian wasn't (isn't) the only Slavic language which status as *a* language has been disputed.
I don't see how one could still in all earnest dispute the existence of Macedonian as an independent language, as argued by me above already, but obviously this is still disputed in Bulgaria, as I have learned in this thread.




Orlin said:


> Ali još osećam da nemalo "neterminologičnih" reči srpskog porekla stoje "ne na svom mestu" u principno bugarskom supstratu makedonskog jezika.


Well, to speak of "Bulgarian substrate" in the territory of modern Macedonia doesn't make sense at all.
Since its independence from the Osman Empire Bulgaria tried several times to conquer what now is Macedonia, and to claim their Slavic speakers as "Bulgarians". But Macedonia never was part of the Bulgarian kingdom of modern times for a relevant period of time*) - it was never part of Bulgaria as a nation in the sense of the 19th century.
(And as said above, in the Middle ages there were no "nations" as we use the term now; so those periods where the Bulgarian Empire of the Middle Ages included Macedonia are of no relevance in this context.)

*) From 1877 till 1878, and from 1941 till 1944.

To speak of "Bulgarian substrate" really is just another way of claiming that Macedonian "by rights" were Bulgarian. I suggest we do not go down that path, for a simple reason: which insights do you think would or could come of that?
If one begins with the supposition that "Macedonian were Bulgarian" and that we would have to "prove" the contrary we would be arguing politics; I suggest we talk about *real *life - which definitely shows us a small but thriving linguistic community in the southwestern corner of the Balkans who call themselves Macedonians: I can't see the problem.

Also I don't see what you want to prove with an analysis of a Macedonian text (any text; it needn't be the WR rules). Slovak and Czech also are very similar - and still neither Slovaks nor Czechs are disputing that their neighbour is only speaking sort of a dialect of their own language.
Some Slovenian dialects (eastern Slovenian Prleško dialects) are very close and mutually intelligible with the neighbouring Kajkavian dialects in Croatia, and both those Slovenian and Croatian dialects differ greatly from the respective standard languages; still, neither Slovenian Prleško nor Croatian Kajkavian speakers claim that their neighbours were only Slovenians respectively Croatians.
(Well, some probably still do but if so it is a tiny minority nowadays.)

Interestingly, putting so much importance on linguistics for defining ones nation is very much typical for the Balkans while this never really has been a problem in Scandinavia where the situation is similar.
Norwegian, Swedish and Danish are mutually intelligible to a very high degree, Scandinavians often claim that they can perfectly understand each other when speaking their own dialect.

Orlin, could you please re-formulate once again what it is exactly which still is unclear to you, from a _linguistic _point of view? This might be helpful.


----------



## iobyo

lavverats said:
			
		

> I can't be prety sure, of course. There are thousands of Kosta Crnushanovs born in 1903 in Prilep, philosophers and historians graduated at Belgrade University.
> A bit off topic, but some more information about the guy in question:
> http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...2378+коста+црнушанов&cd=6&hl=bg&ct=clnk&gl=bg



You're right. I failed to notice his biography here from the same website.

It looks like Orlin has taken the same approach with his "analysis".


----------



## lavverats

iobyo said:


> You're right. I failed to notice his biography here from the same website.
> 
> It looks like Orlin has taken the same approach with his "analysis".


So, could we accept Kosta Crnushanov's observations as reliable ones?


----------



## iobyo

lavverats said:


> So, could we accept Kosta Crnushanov's observations as reliable ones?



Unfortunately not. 

Ironically, he could have done a lot to help his political agenda by presenting an unbiased analysis but the text is laughable at best.


----------



## lavverats

iobyo said:


> Unfortunately not.
> 
> Ironically, he could have done a lot to help his political agenda by presenting an unbiased analysis but the text is laughable at best.


I'm just wondering what an unbiased analysis means. Maybe the definition is: Everything that is not in compliance with the official policy of any country is biased. Who knows
What do you know about these guys here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venko_Markovski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitar_Talev
One more question: Why the interpretors in our official delegations usually "lose consciousness" during the meetings? 
Answer: Probably, they have not Google translator


----------



## iobyo

lavverats said:
			
		

> I'm just wondering what an unbiased analysis means.



Sorry, I wasn't very precise. I wanted to say that the text has a clear political motive. You can tell right off what he's getting at. I've already picked out a few of his "observations" and shown that they are totally misleading and not based on anything else but that they differ from Standard Bulgarian. That text is an instrument to deny the existence of the Macedonian nation. It's politics — something I care very little for. It has no linguistic merit whatsoever.



			
				lavverats said:
			
		

> What do you know about these guys here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venko_Markovski
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitar_Talev



I know that Venko was arrested on political grounds more than once and given pretty harsh sentences.

Hmm. I wonder why he wasn't singing _Българийо мила, земя на герои_ before they locked him up? 



			
				lavverats said:
			
		

> One more question: Why the interpretors in our official delegations usually "lose consciousness" during the meetings?
> Answer: Probably, they have not Google translator



That one went right over my head I'm afraid.


----------



## sokol

Moderator note:

This is a linguistic forum, political rants will not be tolerated here.

We will leave this thread closed for now; we're considering to re-open it (in the hope that the discussion will continue in a serious, academic way) but probably we will leave it closed.

Note that the original topic of this thread is perfectly acceptable by our rules - but only so long as discussion is focussing on the *linguistic *side of it.


*PS added on monday, 16th of november:
*This thread will remain closed for now. If anybody would like to add something please contact a moderator of your choice and we will re-open the thread.


----------

