The Codex Zographensis

[Po-drum]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

I don't agree. Generally speaking, a Bulgarian peasant was no more literate or able in the 1870's than their Macedonian equivalent in the 1940's. I think the matter of Macedonians learning the proper alphabet was an entirely realistic expectation. There was no need to dumb it down.

You're creating excuses for the mistakes of Koneski and co. I couldn't care if Karadzic was a Bulgarian or a Russian, there is no good reason why we should have strayed from something perfectly useful - our own existing alphabet.

That doesn't mean his example should have been given preference over the proper alphabet (not that the current alphabet is exactly the same as his anyway). We lost a long and traditional precedent unnnecessarily.

The case with 's' is different. It has a history in early Cyrillic and is a sound that is present in native Macedonian words like ѕвезда, ѕид, ѕвер, ѕвони and ноѕе.

The fact that it was not an unnecessary foreign element. You don't seem to place much concern on preservation and appear to be indirectly showing some sort of apologetic disposition towards Serbian influence. I see that as more of a problem that my moderate preservationist tendencies.

In fact only a few words have preserved old "s": ѕвезда, јанѕа. Sвер, ѕид, ноѕе, ѕвони have developed secondary "s" around XIII century on the place of "з".
In cyrillic alphabet we have "ф", but it's not originally slavic sound. Sign for "ф" is introduced for expression of greek words. But both this sounds (ф, џ) are functionaly present in macedonian language and throughout dialects so I don't see problem of expressing them.

You have strange criterias of what necessery is. First of all you have to understand that standard language is "necessary evil" as someones are saying.
My apologetic attitude is not directed towards serbian influence as such, but more for the peoples who had been in situation to implement it. In that context I'm trying to unerstand not only victims of serbian but also those of bulgarian and greek influence (Prlichev, Miladinovci, Zinzifov). They are part of our history, and if we don't agree with their views and works that doesn't meen it didn't happened.

It's ridiculous to concern about something wich is not alive.
How many people were using that "proper" alphabet in Macedonia (with je, tita, , psi,..)? They were understanding church slavonic in the same extent they understood greek liturgies. It is unneccesery to write complicated forms when you have more simplistic and useful variants. We don't live in X century. I understood that the major difference between us is in the defining what is ours. I think ours is everything we posses together with our negative attributes. From the aspect of linguistic you think ours are just the slavic texts that have been written in IX and X centuries.
But how do you know they (Cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets) were not elitistic one (those who don't care about preservation of originality)??
Why do you perceive our language history from the position of XIX century panslavistic view of what is ours and what is not?

Are you against the concept of Misirkov for construction of standard language on the basis of selection of one dialect who would be enough distant from bulgarian, serbian, greek and albanian influenced periferial dialects?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Po-drum

In fact only a few words have preserved old "s": ѕвезда, јанѕа. Sвер, ѕид, ноѕе, ѕвони have developed secondary "s" around XIII century on the place of "з".

Do you have any further information regarding the above? How and why did 'з' develop into 's' in the 13th century? Can it be ruled out that the sound already existed in spoken Macedonian vernacular and began to influence old (church) Macedonian literature?

In cyrillic alphabet we have "ф", but it's not originally slavic sound. Sign for "ф" is introduced for expression of greek words.

You're right, but the 'ф' was introduced when Cyrillic was originally created. Not after it had been in existence for over 1000 years. Furthermore, in modern Macedonian 'ф' is now a sound (deriving from 'хв') for some native words.

But both this sounds (ф, џ) are functionaly present in macedonian language and throughout dialects so I don't see problem of expressing them.

There was no need for the 'џ'. It is only required for foreign words and Macedonians would have done just fine without it. But like I said before, it doesn't bother me as much as some of the other inclusions.

You have strange criterias of what necessery is. First of all you have to understand that standard language is "necessary evil" as someones are saying.

You find it strange because you don't understand that preservation need not suffer as a result of supposed 'practicality'. Like many other Macedonians, you underestimate the capability of your own people.

My apologetic attitude is not directed towards serbian influence as such, but more for the peoples who had been in situation to implement it. In that context I'm trying to unerstand not only victims of serbian but also those of bulgarian and greek influence (Prlichev, Miladinovci, Zinzifov). They are part of our history, and if we don't agree with their views and works that doesn't meen it didn't happened.

The people who introduced these new changes and/or innovations during standardisation weren't forced to do so. They chose to do so, some for illogical reasons which you now appear to be making excuses for.

How many people were using that "proper" alphabet in Macedonia (with je, tita, , psi,..)? They were understanding church slavonic in the same extent they understood greek liturgies.

I don't see a need for older letters that represent sounds no longer in use. But I am talking about new letters that didn't need to be introduced.

It is unneccesery to write complicated forms when you have more simplistic and useful variants.

Russians, Belorussians, Ukranians and Bulgarians don't have a problem using so-called 'complicated forms' of OUR alphabet. Again, this comes down to our differing views where it concerns preservation. You seem happy to accept the manipulation of our alphabet, I don't.

I think ours is everything we posses together with our negative attributes. From the aspect of linguistic you think ours are just the slavic texts that have been written in IX and X centuries.

You seem to be confusing the language with the alphabet. What negative attributes are you talking about, and how are they ours?

But how do you know they (Cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets) were not elitistic one (those who don't care about preservation of originality)??

What are you talking about?

Why do you perceive our language history from the position of XIX century panslavistic view of what is ours and what is not?

It is rather obvious what is ours and what isn't. I understand how foreign influences in our language have come about and why they have a place today. But I don't agree that foreign influences or unnecessary manipulations have a place in our alphabet.

Are you against the concept of Misirkov for construction of standard language on the basis of selection of one dialect who would be enough distant from bulgarian, serbian, greek and albanian influenced periferial dialects?

No, because the central dialect would be more readily understood by most other Macedonian dialects. But what does that have to do with the alphabet?