Macedonian Language - 16th Century

[зорт]

воа је голема работа!

[Bratot]

"Македонска нација" have noticed our findings but sadly we are not credited for the work.

See here:
Македонски Лексикон од 16 век
http://mn.mk/aktuelno/1593-Makedonsk...ikon-od-16-vek

I have contacted them and I took the freedom to send this text after I translated it in Macedonian to be understanable for more Macedonians, I wrote an email 5 min. ago to the editor to attach our MTO website on every article they get from me.

[Risto the Great]

Thanks Bratot, I was very sure this article would capture a great deal of attention hence my desire to ensure everyone learns more about what the MTO can offer. Translating it into Macedonian was an awesome initiative.

[Risto the Great]

воа је голема работа!

Spolaj Ti Zort i dobrodoijde.
Spread the message!

[Pelister]

I found this. It might be of interest here.

Written by a Greek professor of linguistics in 1966.

Chapter IV: Some conclusions on the relationship of the Skopje dialect with the Serb and Bulgarian languages

This so called 'Macedonian dialect' is, according to A.Vaillant, a dialect whose genealogy makes it part of the Bulgaro-Macedonian group... p.16

A.Vaillant and H.Lunt in support of the view that this idiom should rather be classed with the Bulgarian language, p.17

The Slavo-Greek glossary to which reference has been made above is of major interest for the history of this dialect. Written by a Greek of Macedonia, in Greek characters, it contained 301 Slav words and phrases that were current in the region of Kastoria. It was first published from a Vatican Code by C. Giannelli and A. Vaillant under the title 'Un Lexique Macedonien du XVIe Siecle' in the series of the 'Institut d' Etudes Slaves de l'Universite de Paris' (1958). This glossary has made it possible to estimate the dates of the different grammatical features of the Slavic dialects, on which the so called 'Macedonian language' is based. p.46

Source:
Andriotis, Nicholas, P., The Federative Republic of Skopje and its Language, 2nd Edition (Athens, 1966) NB: Andriotis was professor of linguistics at Solun University at that time.

[Bratot]

Maybe of some interest too



Translation from Slovakian:

Konstantin before he went to Moravia has translated the Gospel in old-macedonian dialect and in his mission in the great-moravian land with the help of Metodious also all of the other liturgical texts.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Excellent work fellas, Bratot, a special thanks to yourself, there was no doubt that this source would attract alot of attention, how could it not, it clearly demonstrates that our language has very old roots and has remained virtually unchanged for centuries on end.

[Bratot]

"Македонска нација" have noticed our findings but sadly we are not credited for the work.

See here:
Македонски Лексикон од 16 век
http://mn.mk/aktuelno/1593-Makedonsk...ikon-od-16-vek

I have contacted them and I took the freedom to send this text after I translated it in Macedonian to be understanable for more Macedonians, I wrote an email 5 min. ago to the editor to attach our MTO website on every article they get from me.

They've corrected the source leaving a link to MTO:

http://www.mn.mk/aktuelno/1593-Makedonski-Leksikon-od-16-vek

[Pelister]

Because the text uses the term 'Bulgarian' our enemies can use it against us. I'm not sure the average Macedonian will understand the subtle differences in the use of this term and the misunderstanding that follows.

This Greek professor used this 16th century text as "evidence" (back in the 1960's) of the Bulgarian language of the "Slavs" of this region.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=44458&postcount=35

[Soldier of Macedon]

Pelister, I disagree completely. Our enemies can use this against us if our people are not smart enough on how to combat against such a weak argument. Apart from the 'Bulgarian' label for which there are reasons that can be easily explained, there is nothing 'Bulgarian' about the text.

Surely you would know that this implication would have been considered prior to its presentation here, so I am a little puzzled as to why you would even accept that it "can" be used against us. I have no problem in explaining this to anybody, neither should you. In the case that you do, perhaps you should go through some of the other threads we have in relation to the insignificance of the 'Bulgarian' label on such occasions.

[Pelister]

I know its Macedonian (and not Bulgarian), and its an important historical document that testifies to the continuity of our language. I am not disputing that.

I brought in the comments made by the Greek professor to show the effects of having a "Bulgarian label" on such an important document. The Bulgarian label, may well be a remnant of the "Bulgarian Empire" or the author may have meant something else entirely by it. The "label" will continue to be used by Bulgarian (and Greek) historians to show the Bulgarian "character" of our language and people. There is a strong colonial discourse out there, and we are so overburdened by it that the label 'Bulgar' on anything like this is not an insignificant thing.

I see through it, and we all do here, but how do we reason our way through the propoganda that such a label attracts?

In any case, these are just some thoughts I have on the subject. I think its very positive to have produced this old document, and to show what it means to Macedonian history and culture.

[Bratot]

Because the text uses the term 'Bulgarian' our enemies can use it against us. I'm not sure the average Macedonian will understand the subtle differences in the use of this term and the misunderstanding that follows.

This Greek professor used this 16th century text as "evidence" (back in the 1960's) of the Bulgarian language of the "Slavs" of this region.

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...8&postcount=35

Since both Macedonian and Bulgarian are direct descendants of the oldsclavonian language or the later church literary language the similarities are inevitable.

After the 12 century this slavonian language became popular under the name "Bulgarian" mostly because the Greek biased terminology.

"Whilst, during Symeon's reign, the Droungovits, Strymonits and in general all Sclavinians were distinguished from the Bulgarians, during Samuel's reign and thereafter the name of Sclavinians vanished altogether, the Macedonian Slavs are designated by the Byzantines under the general name of Bulgarians, and the country conquered by them from Samuel, ie the west and north Macedonia, was from now on called Bulgaria. Thus the Greeks themselves gave the name of Bulgarians to all Slav-speaking populations and named Bulgaria not only the Bulgarian territory but Greek provinces as well. We, then ourselves gave to the Bulgarians the rights to lay claim over regions and populations with which they had nothing in common....."

(S. Kyriakides, "The Northern Ethnological Boundaries of Hellenism", p. 37, Thessaloniki, 1955)



Actually the French Slavicist André Vaillant (quoted by the Grk in your link) one of the authors of this lexicon,
in 1938 wrote that:

"...The term 'Slavonic Macedonian' is unclear only for
those who want it to be unclear. The Slavonic Macedonian represents reality to such an extent that in the 19th century there existed a Macedonian literary language, the language of a very small among of learned literature but of a rather abundant folk literature.

It is not a question of documents and folklore as can be collected anywhere: the lyric Macedonian poem, highly esteemed in Serbia and Bulgaria, represents an authentic literary genre of real value. This literary language, based on dialects which naturally differ somewhat from each other, did not have sufficient time unify. But its centers were Skopje, Tetovo, Ohrid, Bitola (Manastir), Voden (Edessa), etc."

A. Vaillant, Le probleme du slave macedonian-Bulletin de la societe de lingustique de Paris, t. 39, 2 (Numero 116 ), Paris 1938


As you are able to notice the year, it's 20 years before the actual publication of this lexicon.

[Bratot]

To go more in providing valuable sources I will do some quoting:

THE MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE
the language of the South SIavs living in the territory of present-day Macedonia.

Regardless of the significant dialectal diversity, the Macedonian dialects are a unit and are noticeably distinct from the national dialects of Thrace, the Rhodope Mts., Mysia and the Balkan Mts. . . . . All of Macedonia can be divided into two dialect groups: the region to the west of the Vardar River and the southeast region of Macedonia. The second group includes also the dialects of Kostur (Castoria).

The western group is characterized by the following dialectal features: 1) three forms of the article, -ot (masc.), -ta (fem.), -to (neut.);

-ov, -va, -vo, -on, -na, -no; 2) third person singular present ending -t; 3) stress on the third syllable from the end; 4) the phraseological character of stress. The western Macedonian dialects are furhter divided into several dialect groups: Debar, Ohrid, central, Tikvesh-Mariovo, Veles-Skopje, Upper Polog and Lower Polog. Characteristic of the southeast dialects are: the pronouns on, ona, ono, oni; the preposition 505, etc.

The trying historical conditions experienced by the Macedonians have left their imprint on their culture. After the first imperialistic war (1914-1918) the greater part of Macedonia was joined to Yugoslavia. National oppression by the ruling Serbian bourgeoisie is exceptionally heavy. Serbian linguistic science, in the person of Belic, denies any right of self-determination to the Macedonian Slavs, claiming that the Macedonian Slavs are Serbs. On the other hand, Bulgarian linguistic science, which serves the purposes of Bulgarian imperialism, does not recognize the right of the Macedonians to independent national development. Southern Macedonia belongs to Greece, where there is also strong national oppression.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol.37, Moscow, 1938, pp.743-744

[Bratot]

..However, it should be added that in addition to the Macedonian paculiarities which go along the developing line of either the Bulgarian language or Serbo-Croation, there are also completely specific feature which do not appear in either of these two languages.
Among the more important phonetic features of this category is the developement of *b, *b > Q, e; *a i.e, o, even kj, gj < *tj, dj, which are undoubtedly very close to the Serbian Ch and Dj, but still different from them. Therefore, to the question whether the Macedonian dialects are Serbian or Bulgarian, I would answer that they are neither exclusively Serbian or Bulgarian,but rather the majority of them represent and individual type of dialect (which could also be called a Macedonian language) related closely to the two mentioned languages. The Macedonian language is between Serbian and Bulgarian, and its inclusion in only one of these languages is, from the linguistic point of view, unfounded.

M. Malecki, Z zagadnien dialaktologii macedonskiej, Rocznik Slawistyczny (Krakow), XIV (1938), p.142

[Bratot]

The dialects of Macedonia are a part of the South Slavic group; those who speak them may, according to the circumstances, take as their common language Serbian or Bulgarian. Their dialects, differing among themselves, are not truly Serbian nor truly Bulgarian, especially if one is thinking of written Bulgarian, which is based on dialects quite far removed from the Macedonian dialects. Without doubt the simplification of the nouns is the same in Macedonia as in Bulgaria, but this is the effect of a tendency which is manifested also in the Serb ian dialects of the Balkan region. Headmasters in the Bulgarian or Bulgarized schools have, in the last third of the 19th century, taken strong action in Macedonia; and it is this which has given the Bulgarians cause to claim the country for their common language; but there was no continuous action in a language of civilization: in the middle ages influences varied depending on the political situation; and, since the Turkish conquest, the literary tradition has ceased to play an appreciable role.
Thus, while the politicians have claimed the dialects of Macedonia for such or such a group, disinterested linguists cannot but reserve their opinions.

In reality these dialects do not properly belong to either the one or the other of the two groups under dispute. And, even if the linguistic data had a neatness which they do not have, any particular resemblance to another group would not be at all decisive. It is puerile to call in linguistics in questions of borders of this sort. It is politics which will decide the linguistic future of Macedonia.

A. Meillet, Les langues dans l'Europe nouvelle (Paris, 1928), pp. 132-133