Talk:Aetos, Florina

Form in the tefteri (defter)

in response to User: Aramgar comment: "the defter does in fact preserve this form."

Are you saying that a 1481 Ottoman defter "preserves" verbatim the form "Ajtos" using this exact notation? In what language is this defter written? The way it is worded implies something of the short. I am not questioning that it might had been recorded there by a Slavic sounding form but I highly doubt that we can see it "preserved" as you are suggesting. It all comes down to the treatment of the secondary source you are trying to cite. What exactly is being claimed there? --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. The question applies to every other community and village treated by your suggested source/s.

I've tweaked the spelling to Aytos to make it more credible. One assumes the defter was written in Turkish, after all. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. --157.228.x.x (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in this source. The book collates information about places in Macedonia taken from Greek, Slavic, and Ottoman documents written prior to 1500. The book is organized something like a dictionary, with alphabetical entries for individual places. The index, as well as the entries themselves, contain all the variant names recorded in the documents. Vassiliki Kravari is a reputable scholar: her previous work has included the editing and publication of documents from Mount Athos. As for the defters, they are of course written in Ottoman script, an orthographical system fully capable of representing a j sound. The citation to the published edition of these is included in each entry.

In the interest of full disclosure I will include the Ajtos entry in its entirety. As I indicated in the edit summary, it is quite dull. I have scanned the extensive entry on Bitola from the same book should anyone wish to see it. I would be happy to email it:

Kravari, Vassiliki (1989). Ville et villages de Macédoine occidentale. Realites byzantines (in French). Vol. 2. Paris: Editions P. Lethielleux. p. 231. ISBN 2283604524.

AJTOS (1481-->), village, auj. Aétos, carte n° 9.

Histoire. 1481: A. a 59 feux (TD II, p. 320-321).

Localisation: À 18 km environ au Sud-Est de Phlôrina, au piémont Est du Bernon, entre 640 et 700 m d'altitude (carte d'État-major).

Description: Vignes, arbres fruitiers (noyers), jardins, lentilles, vesces, lin, porcs, sériciculture, moulins.

Perhaps we should render it in the original Ottoman script, then. The j of course can't obscure the fact that the name is the demotic Greek form of the word for "eagle". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to represent what this reliable secondary source actually says. I have no opinion on the etymology of the name but know that even obvious derivations can frequently be incorrect. I would prefer not to quote the Ottoman documents. While I have access to the published editions, quoting these primary sources would be tantamount to original research (and honestly it would be a pain).

Would you agree to the following: First mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1481, the village, rendered Ajtos in the document, had fifty-nine households and produced vines and walnuts. Aramgar (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the source/s, quotes and your offer. I'm sorry but that "rendered Ajtos in the document" (pointing to the primary source) is simply not possible. The secondary source i.e. V. Kravari's book is using the appellation "Ajtos", in this exact notation, not the 1481 (or any other for that matter) Ottoman defter. Your newly suggested wording, again, implies something of the short. --157.228.x.x (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

What Kravari is doing is rendering into a Latin script the name of the village she found in the defter. I do not see why my solution is unacceptable. Could you please explain once again wherein your objection lies? Kravari is the expert; her volume is reliable. Why can we not say what she says? Aramgar (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The book per se was not an issue for me to begin with. The issue was and still remains as how to quote this source and avoid being linguistically/historically/X-cally anachronistic and way off the mark. Strictly speaking what we have is this: "First mentioned in an Ottoman defter of 1481, the village, Ajtos as named in a 1989 book by A. Kravari, had fifty-nine households and produced vines and walnuts." Ugly, to say the least, I know, but just to get the point across. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kravari's methodology is to render the names as they appear in the primary sources. By objecting to the compromise wording above, you essentially impugn her credibility as a scholar. Aramgar (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's a load of nonsense. I do not attack V. Kravari, her book or anyone else. Do you understand that your quotation or even the treatment of the primary source/s by your cited secondary source in no way what-so-ever is rendering that this village was recorded as "AJTOS" by an 1481 Ottoman defter? --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Then suggest a solution which preserves the integrity of the information included in this reliable source, including the transliteration "Ajtos". Aramgar (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(und)(e/c) And please stop pointing out to WP:RS. I have never suggested or even remotely implied that this is not a reliable source, even though I had not checked/verified it. I took your word for it and asked for clarifications for the issue explained above. Don't start gaming about please. As already mentioned in my edit summary I, too, am open to suggestions, mind you that we need to take into account what we have discussed so far. --157.228.x.x (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have used exactly what we have then. The settlements mentioned in the Ottoman defter as transliterated by this particular 1989 study (noting also that all these are based in a single secondary source). I would also appreciate if you could stop parading around and claiming absence of good faith and other brouhaha, when in fact I have instigated this discussion from minute one. Plus, asked for clarifications, shared my concerns, established that both sources do not explicitly claim that "village X was recorded as Y in the 1481 defter" , tried to make good sense of the source/s and establish a consensus. Please be cooperative and avoid tediousness and unhelpful remarks.--157.228.x.x (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aetos, Florina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)