Talk:Bulgarian language/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Controversial section

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists including J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe, is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

I have removed this section per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for its controversial content. See arguments above.

I would support something along the lines of:

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

How can there be no international and two international linguists in the same time? Have you lost your mind? FunkyFly 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you aren't going to suggest an alternative:

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

And by the way, I don't see where Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is not used anymore... Yes I realise it is a guideline. But a good one. - FrancisTyers 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because it presents a biased view of the problem. You cannot source every single linguist in the world, you only can sample opinions, and it is not fair to claim there are only two in support. With the same success I can claim that 90 or 100 or whatever sources you have still do not constitute a majority. Btw, what's with your bias? FunkyFly 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By "it is not used anymore" I was refering to "some", now substituted with "certain", which according to my understaning of English expresses a smaller quantity. FunkyFly 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My "bias" as you put it is just good linguistics. I remain surprised that there are two people calling themselves linguists who would say "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language". I am truely astonished. It just is not done. It does not present a biased view of the problem at all. Really I am beginning to doubt you've ever studied linguistics or sociolinguistics at all. Ok, here's a suggestion, how about we take all the linguists I can find say "Macedonian is a separate language", and all the linguists you can find saying "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language" and we divide your number by my number and multiply it by 100 to get the percentage? I can guarantee it will be below 10%, if I wasted enough time finding names, probably below 1%. Perhaps I could do a survey and get it below 0.1%. The fraction would be miniscule.

On the other hand, provide sources or don't include it. How about this:

Appeal to motive here? FunkyFly 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists who have studied the language, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

With regard to "certain", "some", doesn't matter. We have sources for "two", so two it shall be. Unless you can find more sources instead of continuing this farce. Why don't you want to find sources? I am quite happy to provide a source for anything I add. - FrancisTyers 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you realise we can't do my suggestion because of WP:NOR ;) - FrancisTyers 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is you demand that all sources I find be added as an exception, except this linguist, except that one and so on, which is POV. Now the number is up to three, it can climb more in the future, so I stick to this - certain linguists, without naming. Sources in the reference section.

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

As for your comment about how a serious linguist can consider Macedonian to be Bulgarian dialect - well that just shows that you are full of yourself my dear. FunkyFly 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't demand all the sources you list be added as an exception. You have provided two linguists, which is a small enough number to add as an exception. They are an exception. For example, fifteen linguists could not reasonably be added as an exception. Three probably could. But as you have refused to present any sources we will not know. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you finally name your price :) The magic number of 15. We'll see if we can get there. FunkyFly 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't static, if you can find eleven I'll be impressed :) Don't worry, I'm not going to be unreasonable about this. And remember when you are looking for sources... "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language", they must present Macedonian as subordinate to Bulgarian. Doesn't have to be the precise wording, but words to that effect. "Macedonian and Bulgarian are the same language" will not do. - FrancisTyers 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. James F. Clarke
• Prof. Heinrich A.Stammler
• Prof Afanasii Matveevich Selishchev --Komitata 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Prof. Antony Giza, Poland.
• Prof. Otto Kronsteiner - THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE:

… Similarly to the case with Moldovan, when the Cyrillic script was introduced to distance it from Roumanian, the Macedonian glossotomists decided to adopt the Serbian alphabet (respectively, orthography) including letters having become more or less a myth , (instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД, as well as the Serbian , .) . The core of the Macedonian alphabet is actually lying in these two letters and their phonetic materialisation. Hence the joke: Macedonian is Bulgarian typed on a Serbian type-writer. Had the Bulgarian orthography been applied to the new language, everyone would take it for Bulgarian (despite the peripheral nature of the basic dialect chosen), just like the dialectally tinged texts by Ludwig Toma and Peter Poseger, which are taken for German ones. …

• K. Misirkov, - "On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903

… I speak bulgarian and I believe that our country is Bulgaria'…

note: K. Misirkov is a bulgarian, however in FYROM (Republic of Macedonia)he is considered to be macedonian, so he "counts", aint he?

• I.Kaliganov - РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯ О МАКЕДОНСКОМ "СРЕЗЕ" ПАЛЕОБОЛГАРИСТИКИ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, You realise those aren't citations right? A name is not sufficient, I need a reference for where they said it. - FrancisTyers 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Common expressions

The common expressions that are in here are so close to croatian is not funny.Is this really bulgarian.Or it should get a mention that this launguage is so closely related to other slavic launguages.--Chaos2501 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is really Bulgarian. Common expressions are very simmilar in related languages, so no special mentioning is required.

Kostja (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Bulgarian words translated section

This is English Wikipedia, so it makes sense to show some sample words and their English translations. From there, why is the article listing equivalents in other languages—even Indonesian? For example, we are told that дърво means tree. Fine. From there, telling us that the Spanish equivalent for tree is árbol and the Indonesian one is pohon is irrelevant, since this isn't an article on How to speak Spanish or Sample Indonesian words. WP:COATRACK applies. I'm planning to remove the extraneous columns, but any comments before I do so? (Yes, I realize they aren't hurting anyone but that isn't the point!) —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering pretty much the same thing when I saw a user adding the words in Indonesian earlier today. Well, I too, think it's quite unnecessary besides maybe the Macedonian and Serbian variants as Bulgarian is quite closely related to the former and to some extend to the latter. --Laveol ^T 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the non-slavic words are no longer there. But I still don't quite see the point of those tables.--Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Common expressions?

I'm Bulgarian and I'm not convinced that the first person usually says здравей and the second здрасти. You can start with здрасти just as well. The detailed explanation of "кое си ти" (an obscure expression that you hardly ever hear nowadays) does not belong in the "common phrases" section. The observation about agreement in коя сте вие doesn't either, it should be in the Pronouns section, if not in the main Bulgarian pronouns article. In any case, questions such as "who are you?" are not very "common phrases" at all and sound impolite, I would expect to hear them in the context of trespassing or when you suspect someone to be a thief: "Who are you (and what are you doing here)?" --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. Change "who are you" to "what is your name". —Stephen (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

offical status

offical status is not true...Turkey recognised only Turkish language and Bulgarian language isn't recognised Ukraine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.160.135 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Palatalization

In this article there is a lot about Palatalization, but the fact is that the palatalization is quite uncommon in Bulgarian. It is even rare unlike the Slavic languages. I consider to make this clear in the article. 84.179.21.187 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's uncommon. It's less common than in Russian, but it's more common than in Serbian. Arath (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if palatization was more common in Bulgarian than in Serbian; in the latter it occurs in many cases where it does not occur in the former, such as 'bjel', 'polje', 'konj' etc. Any sources? Apcbg (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I would also ask for sources. 92.195.249.22 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the person claiming that "the palitazation is quite uncommon in Bulgarian" have any sources? Yes, in Serbian palatalization occurs in many words, which don't contain palatalization in Bulgarian (although I don't think "bjel" and "konj" are good examples for that - "бял", "конят").

Some of the most frequently used words in Bulgarian have palatalization: тя, тях, тяхна, няма, трябва, някой, някакъв, всякакъв, свят, сляп, сняг, сядам, тяло, хляб, цвят, цял, бягам, бял, (в)-ляза, място, вярвам, вятър, голям, грях, дядо, дясна, желязо, звяр, клякам, коляно, ляв, лягам, лято, мляко, обядвам, пряк, прясна, пяна, мярка, пясък, рядък, Сряда, тясна and many others not so frequently used ones.

It occurs in the conjugation of some important verbs: бях, щях, видях, живях, пях, умрях, спрях, and many others not so important ones.

It occurs in the past imperfect tense of many first ans second conjugation verbs: четях, крадях, летях, вървях.

It occurs in the first and third person present tense forms of many verbs: говоря(т), летя(т), вървя(т), седя(т), къпя(т).

It occurs in the definite and count form of many nouns - краля, приятеля, рибаря.

The consonants г, к and х are always usually palatalized before е and и, as mentioned in the article.

Most of the above words do not contain palatalization in Ekavian Serbian.

We can compare some random texts in both languages and count how many times the letter j appears after a consonant and how many times the letters я, ю and ь appear after a consonant. This would be original research but it could settle our argument. Arath (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said that it does not exist, but that it's uncommon. And I think you are mixing up the diphtong [ja] and the actually palatalized combinations like [tʲ]. If you have learned russian, you would know that the palatalized consonants like [tʲ] sound different and do not occur in Bulgarian. 212.186.67.83 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"The consonants г, к and х are always palatalized before е and и, as mentioned in the article." Well the article does not say "always palatalized" but "tend to be palatalized", and that's 'citation needed' tagged. Apcbg (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims? Arath (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that the article tends to describe the bulgarian language as extremely palatalized, whereas palatalization does not occur more often than in German or Hungarian for example. There's just so much about palatalization in the article... as I already said, if you speak Russian or Polish, you should know how different theses languages in terms of palatalization sound. The "palatalization" section just does not correspond to the level of palatalization. And what's most disturbing - the consonant-table even includes "soft" and "hard" variants! And as you may know, palatalized "soft" speech is considered highly provincial in Bulgaria.

Ironically, the lack of palatalized consonants at syllable-final positions in Bulgarian is the reason why Russian-speaking-Bulgarians and Bulgarian-speaking-Russians have always such distinctive (foreign) accent.

And before you ask for sources: I don't have to look for sources; you should first look for sources if and where does the palatalization in Bulgarian appear.

And prove that рибаря for example, is to be pronounced as [ribarʲa] and not as [ribarja] as well. 84.179.44.163 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article say that Bulgarian is "extremely palatalized". It just contains extensive exhaustive information on the subject of palatalization in Bulgarian.

Palatalization of consonants before /i/ and /ɛ/ is considered provincial. The article says that this is not a feature of the standard language.

I don't have to prove anything. There are books on the topic of Bulgarian phonology, written by experts, saying that Bulgarian has palatal consonants, one of which is /rʲ/. Arath (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You said it: it contains "extensive information" on a subject, which is NOT extensively represented in the Bulgarian language! So I will reduce it.

Exactly, if there are such books, you would have to quote them, this is the main principle of Wikipedia as you may know. If not, I'd have to remove the unproven claims about palatalized consonants. 84.179.47.36 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Every book on Bulgarian phonology I have read confirms the existence of palatal consonants in the standard language. For example, I can quote "Граматика за всички" by Боримир Кръстев. Can you quote a source that denies this claim?

You can add or remove any content, as long as you can provide reliable sources that it is true or wrong. Arath (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No matter what the received view is within the Bulgarian community of non-phonologists, there does in fact seem to be little agreement among phonologists on the phonemic status of the "palatalised" consonants: whether they are truly palatalised single-phoneme consonants or sequences of consonant + glide. There's some info here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9hc6x8hp#page-24 Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Aorist

The article Aorist is in need of editors who can help develop it, both in general and particularly the Bulgarian section. If you watch this page and can spare some time, your input would be much appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why did you vandalize the page? There were no sources after a whole month! 84.179.14.136 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

/x/

Is there a native speaker who could upload a sound file pronouncing a word with the letter х, for example тихо? --JorisvS (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how I pronounce it. Arath (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a clear /x/, not a /h/. --JorisvS (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This pronunciation is also confirmed by Omniglot, though I'm not certain how reliable source this is. Kostja (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly that a sound file created by a wikipedian is not a source. Besides, this is not the standard pronounciation of the word, I presume that you have created the file to prove your statement.

Have you even listened to the sound files at Voiceless glottal fricative and Voiceless velar fricative?? 84.179.24.235 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is most certainly the standard pronunciation of the word. Do you have any sources that mention Bulgarian using h instead of x? Kostja (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this argument is about, but I can say that this is the way we pronounce the word. Exactly the way. --Laveol ^T 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you once again: have you even listened to the sound files? 84.179.24.235 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you answer me please? You pronounce it that way? The pronounciation is most certainly glottal, not velar. And I am not supposed to have sources that it is pronounced like h, you first will have to prove that it is pronounced like "x"84.179.34.211 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the sound file above it is most certainly velar. You're just hearing it wrong. --JorisvS (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is described as a velar [x] (though with "only slight friction", which may account for why some people might perceive it as relatively similar to a [h]), in E. Ternes' and T. Vladimirova-Buhtz' chapter on "Bulgarian" in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, Cambridge UP 1999, p.55f. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-war on the Republic of Macedonia

I suggest you stop it for now. A bit of discussion is more than welcome prior to any other reverts. I personally do not think reliable sources could be found to prove the Bulgarian cause (other than those that claim Macedonian is still a dialect of Bulgarian). And mind you, I do not think Ethnologue is actually a reliable source since it has tons of nonsense in it (yes, including the Macedonian claim). There is no clear distinction as to where Bulgarian dialects end and Bulgarian start, so it's best to stick to political boundaries (especially since that is how those languages formed in the first place). --Laveol ^T 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The building of a language takes a long time. In most of its time Republic of Macedonia (nowadays) was part of Bulgaria (we exclude the Ottoman rule on the Balkan peninsula, which also altered many of the Balkan languages). We also have to consider the Macedonian Bulgarians (to clear a possible misunderstanding - those are the Bulgarians, who live in the Macedonia region (same as Thracian Bulgarians and the Thracian region)), who lived mostly in the territory of Republic of Macedonia (however, small portions also lived in Greece and Albania)). Republic of Macedonia is a rather young country. Before the Yugoslavian period many of the ethnic Bulgarians considered themselves Bulgarians and not Macedonian (since there was no such country). The Macedonian language is mostly derived from the Bulgarian language (because of the explanations I gave above). I do recognize it as a separate language today but if we talk about its roots, than it's more correct to call it a dialect of the Bulgarian language. Consider the fact that an educated person can understand almost everything said in both languages without the need of translation. If I speak Bulgarian to a Macedonian, he/she will understand me. If a Macedonian speaks to me, I'll understand him/her. Now also take into consideration the fact that the Bulgarian language is much older than the Macedonian (hope you agree with me on this). So we have to languages one of which is older than the other and both have such similarity that no translation is needed (exceptions are present but that the thing with all dialects - there are word that you might not know :)) in order for two parties from both sides to communicate. If this isn't dialect-relationship, I really don't know what is. This doesn't apply for example for Bulgarian-Serbian or Macedonian-Serbian (have friends from Macedonia and we've discussed that quite a bit) although all those languages are from the same dialect continuum - South Slavic languages (along with Croatian, Montenegrin etc.). With this statement I don't want to start an argument. Although not a professional linguist I'm quite fond of reading about these things and would like to get in touch with the possible truth (if mine is a lie). Rbaleksandar (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So I understand why this has become a controversy, but with as many people who have come to this page, I'm surprised almost no one has suggested using neutral language, such as 'they are dialects of the same language' or 'they are mutually intelligible dialects (of each other)'. It's similar to people arguing about the Scandinavian languages and which is a dialect of the other (but not vice versa!), or Hindi/Urdu. Linguistics doesn't care about political/cultural momentum. So just because Bulgarian as a term existed before Macedonian, doesn't mean the linguistically correct thing to say is that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. What is accurate is that they are mutually intelligible languages. Anybody who has studied dialectology will know that there simply is no clear-cut definition of, or distinction between, the words 'language' and 'dialect'. Sitim.far (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Palatalized consonants

I would really like somebody to provide references about the doubtful cialms, that bulgarian consonants (for example р - [r]) followed by й, ю or я represent the palatalized version (for example [rʲ]) and not just the cluster (for example [rj]). If such sources aren't available, I will remove all that claims. Unsourced information does not have a place here, as you may know. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that р followed by й???, ю or я (you probably mean ь, not й) represents the cluster /rj/? Arath (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To remove that claim, you will have to provide evidence that such a cluster is actually possible and occurs in Bulgarian. As far as I'm aware, such a combination is not possible, because the effect is a merger into a palatalized consonant. Kostja (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First: the sequence of a consonant and a /j/ is perfectly possible, you might look at the articles Palatal consonant or Palatal approximant for example.

Second: I could provide this profound analysis [1], which proves that "the traditionally-called 'weak (palatal)' consonants are combinations of /j/ + a non-palatal consonant" and that the palatalized consonants aren't phonemes of the Bulgarian language.

Third: because of the fact that the cluster of consonant and /j/ (rj for example) is possible, I didn't even had to provide sources, that such cluster exist in Bulgarian, because this is the standard situation. In other words: those who claim that the cluster "ря" for example represents /rʲa/ and not /rja/ would have to prove that.

Though, I just did provide a raliable source proving the opposite, so I'll remove the "palatalized phonemes" soon. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis is discussed in the article, citing 'your' source (alongside the traditional analysis of separate palatalized consonants more prominently). Unless you can provide reasons to believe that the Bulgarian phonological system was never analyzed as having separate palatalized consonants, the information on this should not be removed. The prominence of it is, of course, debatable. --JorisvS (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I failed to observe any sources in the article stating that palatalized consonants exist as separate bulgarian phonemes, would you be so kind as to point out these sources for me, please? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you have provided does not question the existence of palatal consonants in the standard language, it merely raises doubts about their phonemicity. It tries to prove that that the palatal consonants are allophones of their non-palatal counterparts:

"Но можем да твърдим, че в съвременния книжовен български език меките съгласни фонеми са изгубили фонологичната си стойност и сега те се срещат само като алофони на съответните твърди съгласни фонеми."

"But we can claim that in the contemporary standard Bulgarian language the soft consonant phonemes have lost their phonological value and now they only occur as allophones of the respective hard consonant phonemes."

and that they are the result of assimilation:

"Според втората интерпретация наличието на мекост (палателност) в произношението на посочените думи е резултат от асимилация, т.е. пред палаталната полусъгласна /й/ съгласните се палатализират."

"According to the second interpretation the presence of softness (palatalization) in the pronunciation of the specified words is the result of assimilation, that is, in front of the palatal semivowel (j) the consonants are palatalized."

Consequently, according to your source, р + я, ю or ь is not realized as /rj/, but as /rʲj/.

The sources you demand are listed in the beginning of the paper:

Традиционно се приема, че консонантната система на съвременния книжовен български език се състои от 39 съгласни фонеми /п, п’, б, б’, ф, ф’, в, в’, т, т’, д, д’, с, с’, з, з’, ц, ц’, дз, дз’, ш, ж, ч, дж, к, к’, г, г’, х, х’, м, м’, н, н’, р, р’, л, л’, й/ (Граматика 1982; Тилков, Бояджиев 1977). Преобладаващото мнение е, че тя е организирана в две корелативни противопоставяния по признаците звучност - беззвучност и твърдост (непалателност) - мекост (палателност).

It is traditionally accepted that the consonant system of the contemporary standard Bulgarian language contains 39 consonant phonemes /p, pʲ, b, bʲ, f, fʲ, v, vʲ, t, tʲ, d, dʲ, s, sʲ, z, zʲ, t͡sʼ, t͡sʼʲ, d͡z, d͡zʲ, ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ, k, kʲ, g, gʲ, x, xʲ, m, mʲ, n, nʲ, r, rʲ, l, lʲ, j/ (Grammar 1982; Tilkov, Boyadzhiev 1977). The prevalent opinion is that it [the consonant system] is organized into two correlative oppositions by the features voiced - voiceless and hard (non-palatal) - soft (palatal).

Even the author himself confirms that there are people who disagree with him:

Повечето български езиковеди, макар че познават споровете за наличето (или липсата) на меките съгласни като самостоятелни фонеми, традиционно приемат становището, че меките съгласни са самостоятелни фонеми.

Most Bulgarian linguists, despite being aware of the disagreement over the presence (or lack thereof) of soft consonants as independent phonemes, traditionally accept the view that the soft consonants are independent phonemes. Arath (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you really understand the meaning of that study. It states most clearly:

"Приемам, че в консонантизма на съвременния книжовен български език признакът твърдост-мекост няма фонологична стойност, и че той се състои само от твърди съгласни фонеми /п, б, ф, в, т, д, с, з, ц, дз, ш, ж, ч, дж, к, г, х, м, н, р, л, й/"

"I accept that in the consonant inventory of the contemporary standard Bulgarian language the feature hardness-softness does not have phonological value, and that it [the consonant inventory] contains only hard consonant phonemes /p, b, f, v, t, d, s, z, t͡sʼ, d͡z, ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ, k, g, x, m, n, r, l, j/"

There are also additional references to this conclusion at the end of the study:

"К. Хоралек изразява интересната идея, че в българския книжовен език палаталността (мекостта) изчезва и то по пътя на декомпозиция чрез развиване на особен j (й) елемент, свързан със следващата гласна. Например, "тйало, бйах" вместо "т’ало, б’ах" и пр. (Първев, Радева 1980).

"K. Horalek expresses the interesting idea, that in the standard Bulgarian language the palatalness (softness) disappears by way of decomposition, where a special j (й) element appears and connects with the following vowel. For example /tjalɔ, bjax/ instead of /tʲalɔ, bʲax/ and so on. (Parvev, Radeva 1980).

Б. Николов (1971) твърди, че непалаталните (твърдите) и палаталните съгласни са варианти на едни и същи фонеми: меките срички [тя, тьо, тю] се състоят от "непалатална съгласна + й (глайд) + задна гласна".

B. Nikolov (1971) claims that the non-palatal (hard) and the palatal consonants are variants of the same phonemes: the soft syllables [тя, тьо, тю] consist of "a non-palatal consonant + j (glide) + back vowel".

Покойният професор А, Данчев (1988, 1990) също смяташе, че книжовният български език разполага само с твърди съгласни фонеми."

The late professor A. Danchev (1988, 1990) was also of the opinion that the standard Bulgarian language has only hard consonant phonemes." Kreuzkümmel (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the difference between phonemes and phones, and you fail to realize that even the source you have provided acknowledges that there are people who agree that the palatal consonants are separate phonemes and people who disagree, and that the general consensus is that they are. Arath (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone please translate, this is after all still the English WP. --JorisvS (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added translations. Arath (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)#

I am most certainly able to understand the difference between phonemes and phones, please avoid any personal attacks. That's even the point of the study, the palatalised consonants are not separate phonemes, /morjak/ and /morʲak/ would be allophonic for a bulgarian speaker, so listing them as different phonemes is nonsense. And yes the author acknowledges that most bulgarian phoneticians recognise the palatalized consonants are separate phonemes, but he explains that this opinion isn't supported by much evidence, but on some phonetic experiments without dealing with the phonological aspects. He also assumes that the classification of the palatalized consonants as separate phonemes could be nothing more than an attempt to "redesign" the bulgarian consonant system to be more russian-alike. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You started it first. You said "I don't think that you really understand the meaning of that study". "The palatalized consonants are not separate phonemes" according to the author of the study. That's not enough to justify removing the section. Arath (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that this alternate theory is already mentioned in the article, so the question is which theory should be described as the leading one. As even Kreuzkümmel's source describes the palatal theory as the most widely accepted, unless some other evidence is presented, the current situation shouldn't be changed. Kostja (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to the source that Kostja provided regarding the dispute a-ɑ (see bottom of the discussion) "Handbook of the International Phonetic Association Bulgarian has only unpalatalized consonants and the theory, which assumes that Bulgarian has the existence of palatalized consonants as well, is "an alternative analysis". The IPA-Handobook even states further "...palatalization does not go further beyond the degree that is conditioned by the inevitable play of coarticulation.". Neither the IPA-consonant table, nor the IPA-transcription of the Bulgarian text passage uses palatalized consonants - for example /tjax/ and not /tʲax/. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Number

Here is the citation from the article: "However, a recently developed language norm requires that count forms should only be used with masculine nouns that do not denote persons. Thus, двама/трима ученици is perceived as more correct than двама/трима ученика, while the distinction is retained in cases such as два/три молива ('two/three pencils') versus тези моливи ('these pencils')."

Here is the issue: I, as a native speaker of that language, am not aware of such a norm, so please mark this at least as "reference needed".

Example follows, which should shed some light: In the language you'd never use "двама хора" / "тези хора" instead of the proper form "двама човека", even though "човек" is masculine and animate. Actually "човек" is the embodiment of the English word "person" ... so it seems rather wrong to clam it's the norm. It may be that some people use that construct, but as far as I know, although I'm not a philologist, the correct use is "двама/трима ученика". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.43.45 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not many non-philologists seem to be aware of that norm. But it's a norm nevertheless, see for example R. Nitsolova, Balgarska gramatika. Morfologia, 2008, p. 67. And you're right, in the language you'd never use dvama hora ("two people"), the norm would have it as dvama dushi. But dvama choveka (with the count form) is so frequent that it's listed as an exception. The other exception is dvama sina ("two sons", with the count form) instead of dvama sinove.--Uanfala (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Most linguists frown upon constructions like dvama lekarya (2 doctors) and dvama priyatelya (2 friends), with "2-ma lekari/priyateli" being the "correct" forms. Despite this, most people do use the former construction, and it is even used in media (not that Bulgarian media is any sort of an authority!). So the argument really is between prescriptive and descriptive... BigSteve (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns/Cases

Case remnants in personal pronouns are 4 corresponding to the respective - Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genetive. That's excluding the locative forms, which are mostly archaic, and rarely used in formal context (with few exceptions).

Nominative	Accusative	Dative	Genetive
кой (who)	кого (whom)	кому (to whom)	чий (whose)
някой (someone)	някого (-)	някому (-)	нечий (-)

Also note that you have genitive roots for all family names, like "Иванов" (of Ivan). In general all -ов/-ова and all -ски/ска suffixes are genitive derived. I'm not sure about this, but I think most noun-noun phrases, without a preposition in-between, like "паркинг пациенти" - lit. "parking patients" is also a remnant from the genitive case. So, Please fix this!

A a back vowel?

While Bulgarian linguists often treat "а" as a back vowel, that doesn't mean that it's actually ɑ or ɒ, merely that it's a back vowel in comparison with е and и. I doubt, in any case that the two sources given, by Kreuzkümmel state that Bulgarian uses either of the two vowels. See the "Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, where the sound is marked as "a" - open front unrounded vowel. So unless an actual citation is given to prove the existence of those vowels in Bulgarian, I'm reverting back to the established version. Kostja (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the "Граматика на съвременния български книжовен език в три тома; Том първи, фонетика." ISBN 954-584-235-0, the three volume grammar on Bulgarian syntax, phonology and morphology, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, it is a back vowel, more precisely an open back unrounded vowel: „Артикулационните характеристики определят гласната "a" по следния начин: по учленително място тя е задна, по степен на издигане на езика — ниска, а по проход между гърба на езика и небцето — широка” - "The articulatory characteristics define the vowel "a" in the following way: according to its place of articulation as back, by the vertical position of the tongue — low, and by the opening between the blade of the tongue and the palate — wide". Also according to "Звуковете в българския език", ISBN 954-8021-40-4 by Vladimir Zhobov its IPA representation should be /ɑ/. Even if it is not absolutely back, it is a back vowel and definetely not /a/. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So there seems to be a dispute between sources. At least according to my personal opinion, the Bulgarian vowel, sounds exactly like /a/ and nothing like /ɑ/. Of course this is no evidence at all, though I would be interested in what users think.

I also note that the IPA template for Bulgarian claims that the vowel is /a/ and the source for that is "Звуковете в българския език" Kostja (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the vowel triangle of the IPA Handbook Bulgarian /a/ is actually shown as slightly closer to a central vowel than to front. And Bulgarian [a] doesn't normally sound like a front vowel; it also behaves as a non-front vowel as regards its effects on preceding /l/, /k/ and /x/ (and, in Eastern dialects, on all consonants). The problem is that IPA doesn't have a special sign for a central vowel (see Open central unrounded vowel), so [a] can stand for either front or central, hence the transcription symbol used in the IPA handbook. BTW, it's kind of weird to have stuff like [druk] "other" in phonemic brackets (/druk/).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial У

Does У have, or acquire, a 'W' quality?
If it is used to transliterate an English word using 'W', how does it sound in Bulgarian? Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that'd be the case with words beginning with w and a vowel like wolf (уълф) and wool (уул). I am no linguist, though, and input from such editors would be more helpful, I guess. --Laveol ^T 06:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. English 'w' in initial position is transcribed (not transliterated) by Bulgarian 'у' pronounced like the English vowel in 'book'. Ordinance No. 6 for the transcription of English gives the following examples: Waterford - Уотърфорд, Wellington - Уелингтън, Whitehaven - Уайтхейвън, Wimbledon - Уимбълдън, and Wolverhampton - Улвърхамптън (the variant form Вулвърхамптон is obsolete). English-like pronunciation with a 'w' quality 'у' might be heard from some English speaking Bulgarians but that is neither standard nor common. Apcbg (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian people attempting to pronounce "W" is pretty hilarious, especially in cases such as Tiger Woods (Тайгър Уудс), because it ends up sounding something like "Tiger Oooods". Similar with Wolverhampton (Уулвърхамптън, Уулверхемптън or even Уулвърхямптън!?). The solution usually is to simply write them as "Удс" and "Улвър...", with the pronunciation transforming into "Uds" and "Ulverhyamptan" (seriously).

Equally weird are words like William, which do get pronounced more or less correctly, but get transliterated as "Уилям" (="Uilyam") or even "Уйлям" (="Uylyam"...seriously).

The best thing would be for Bulgarian to simply adopt the Ў that exists in Belarusian, and we'd be sweet. I mean, we have Й, so what'd be the problem? BigSteve (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Martinkunev (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

3,000 verb forms?

The article states that "the Bulgarian verb can take up to 3,000 distinct forms, as it varies in person, number, voice, aspect, mood, tense and even gender." The ultimate source of that much repeated statement seems to be a 1976 article by Pashov; yet there this number is just mentioned, we don't see how it has been derived. I think that it is just some fancy arithmetic that doesn't take into account all of the overlaps and asymmetries in the paradigm.--Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the conjugation of the verb "чета". I've done it according to the Bulgarian grammar book, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (it's in Bulgarian). The verb "чета", has 278 active voice forms (pages 290-350 for the indicative forms and pages 352-360 for the renarrative) + 425 passive voice forms with the past passive participle (pages 245-246). Additionaly, to every active voice form one can add the reflexive pronoun "се" to form the other passive construction (page 245), so we have 981 distinct finite forms for "чета". It also has 220 additional forms, which don't differ in meaning, they are just variations (in the grammar book, they are given on the same pages 290-350, 352-360). So, in total, we have 1201 finite forms + 38 non-finite forms (pages 374-384) = 1239 form for the imperfective verb "чета". We can also include the perfective "прочета" and secondary-imperfective "прочитам". "Прочета" also has 1201 finite forms + 22 non-finite forms = 1223 forms. "Прочитам" has 246 active voice forms + 246 "се"-passive forms + 425 passive forms with the past passive participle + 220 additional forms + 34 non-finite forms = 1171 forms. For all three we have 3633 forms.

I've taken into account "the overlaps and asymmetries in the pardigm", for example for the conclusive mood I count only third person forms, because the others are identical to the renarrative forms.

The number varies greatly, depending on whether the verb is imperfective or perfective, transitive or intransitive.

Most of these forms exist only theoretically, and it would be very difficult to find any practical use for them (I'm not saying it's impossible). I don't think they occur in literature of any epoch or genre, nevertheless they are given in the grammar book. They are like the English construction "I will have been being taken". I've never seen any usage of it, but it's theoretically possible. Arath (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Arath! Still, I would object to including се forms in the count. Yes, they do express a traditional verbal category, among other things; but form-wise, do they appear any more morphological than the combinations with the rest of the pronoun clitics? And don't derivations like чета -> прочитам (even in the cases when a prefix isn't involved) more properly belong to lexical level?--Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying what should be included and what shouldn't. I'm just explaining how to get the number 3000. Morphologically, the "се" forms don't differ from the other pronoun clitics, but they do have a very different meaning. Morphologically, "искам да чета" is no different from "щях да чета", but only one is considered a tense. "чета", "прочета" and "прочитам" are considered three different verbs (the last one is even from a different conjugation category). The original statement allows variation in aspect. If you want to reach 3000, you have to count all three verbs with the "се" forms.

Personally, I don't really know if the aspect of Bulgarian verbs is a semantic or a grammatical category. The difference between "чета" and "прочета" is both semantic and grammatical: "чета" has the generic sense of "to read", "прочета" means "to read read til the end", as in "to read a whole book", "чета" can be used in independent clauses in the present and imperfect tense, "прочета" cannot. "Прочета" and "прочитам" have the same semantic meaning, but "прочитам" can be used in independent clauses in the present and imperfect tense. Arath (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Bulgarian language name

Bulgar is Turkic and the language is Slavic, what is the original Slavic name of this language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.18.6 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no original Slavic name for any modern concept. As time went by with each development as two nations merged, various words will have described relevant features. So the name is balgarski ezik (бълграски език). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian was the first "Slavic" language attested in writing. As Slavic linguistic unity lasted into late antiquity, in the oldest manuscripts this language was initially referred to as языкъ словяньскъ, "the Slavic language". In the Middle Bulgarian period this name was gradually replaced by the name языкъ блъгарьскъ, the "Bulgarian language". In some cases, the name языкъ блъгарьскъ was used not only with regard to the contemporary Middle Bulgarian language of the copyist but also to the period of Old Bulgarian. A most notable example of anachronism is the Service of St. Cyril from Skopje (Скопски миней), a 13th-century Middle Bulgarian manuscript from northern Macedonia according to which St. Cyril preached with "Bulgarian" books among the Moravian Slavs. The first mention of the language as the "Bulgarian language" instead of the "Slavonic language" comes in the work of the Greek clergy of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid in the 11th century, for example in the Greek hagiography of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th century). Jingiby (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a similar discussion in the past months. Do I take it Bulgarian nominally once existed alongside another language which continued to be called Slavic that was spoken by the rest of the Slavic communities throughout Europe? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No - Bulgarian is a slavic language. "Old Bolgar" was the semi-turkic/related language spoken on the upper Volga and was the native tongue of the invaders into the Balkan peninsula - that language was abandoned/fused with the native slavic tongue to form the Bulgarian slavic language.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is no proof of any of this Central Asian BS, which has been parroted over&over ever since the Bulgarian Liberation, if not earlier. There is no evidence of Old Bulgarian ever having been related to any Turkic language. In fact, there is evidence (albeit scant) that it was the same language as Thracian ('Thracian' being well-known to be a Greek exonym). The "fact" that the Bulgarians "invaded" the Balkans in the 7th century is only one theory, and infinitely more valid (albeit politically suppressed) research shows that the ancient Thracians were the Bulgarians. Just so y'all know ;-) BigSteve (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

uh, no - the majority view of historians firmly support what you refer to as "Central Asian BS" - leave this matter to the professionals HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

codification

there is no mention that the Bulgarian language was codified by the american missionaries of the methodistical church in 1858 year. they used Macedonian and Thracian Cyrillic Slavic dialects. (THE MISSIONARY HERALD, Vol. LIL № 10. – October, 1858),(Haskell, Edward B., American Influence in Bulgaria, New York: The Missionary Review of the World 1919, 3), the missionary Dr. Riggs (Elias Riggs) was in charge.79.126.230.109 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide us with an exact citation by the way? Or points to a full version of the text? This sounds interesting. --Laveol ^T 22:41, 30 August 2012

The College is best known in Europe for the influence that it had in building up a free state in the Balkan Peninsula.

no

Fifty years ago, except to a few students of history, the Bulgarians were a forgotten race in America and western Europe. We did not exactly discover them, but we played an important part in making them known to the Western world at a time when they most needed help. Years' before this they had discovered us, and through the young men who studied in the College they had come to have faith in our wisdom and goodwill. The most important thing that we ever did for them was the educating of their young men to become leaders of their people, at a time when there were very few Bulgarians who knew anything of civil government in a free state.

This was our legitimate work and naturally and inevitably led to our doing what we could for them after they left the College, to give them the advice which they sought in their new work, and to defend their interests where we had influence in Europe. That, in this way, we had an important part in the building up of this new state is a fact known to all the world and best of all by the Bulgarians themselves, who have never failed to recognize their obligation to the College and to manifest their affection for us as individuals. (P. 298.) .212.13.86.194 (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To correct your assumption above, if Bulgaria/Bulgarians were not on the tongues of common westerners, it was hardly "forgotten" - embassies, part of the Warsaw bloc, etc. 50 years ago the Balkan wars were much within the living memory of many people, also. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

it is not an assumption, it is a "quote" from the american missionary herald in 1858, like this one:

THE CHRISTIAN RACES. By far the greater part of these profess the Greek religion,

though, as has been seen, only about one million, out of eleven

millions, are true and proper Greeks. Most of them are of Slavonian or Tartar origin, and they cherish the most perfect »dislike to the, Greek bishops, whose policy always has been, and is, to extinguish, if possible, every remnant of national feeling, and obliterate all traces of their real origin.

The people desire to have their children taught through the language of their own homes and firesides, while the bish- ops insist that only Greek should be taught in their schools. They desire that their bishops, and other ecclesiastics, shall be chosen from among their own people ; but the Patriarch forces upon them Greek bishops, men of a foreign tongue, and of .foreign habits and sympathies; whose whole aim is to keep the people under the galling yoke of ecclesiastical tyranny, and to squeeze the last farthing from their pockets.

I have put down 7,500,000 of the inhabitants of Euro- pean Turkey as belonging to the Slavonian race. This is per- haps not strictly true. The Bulgarians, who are supposed to number at least four millions, are supposed by some to have ^had a Tartar origin ....212.13.86.194 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

i posted another quote from the "missionary herald" published by the American methodistical church in 1909 for the issues that happened in 1858 and some guy deleted it as irrelevant. on the other hand, the guy who commented last, User:HammerFilmFan, clearly doesn't understand what is the subject of this topic, but yet, his reply is relevant. i am also worried about "closely related to Macedonian" in the article. it sounds very much irredentistic. Bulgarian is closely related to macedonian, serbian, croatian, bosnian, slovenian, slovak, chech, polish, belorussian, ukrainian, russian and every other slavic language, but yet, is not closely at all with bulgar language from where the name comes.212.13.86.194 (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My remarks were completely accurate. Are you in any way a professional historian? You certainly don't sound like one at all. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

i don't see your historian degree as well. i am exploring all the time, and i found a pretty much accurate missionary newspaper with accurate dates and so on. the missionaries were mentioned as well,in the book of petar draganov, a bulgarian linguist that lived in russia. so, if you don't find arguments to oppose me, please don't delete my quotes and be useful in this community.212.13.86.194 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the contribution of Elias Riggs to the Bulgarian Revival, see G. Genov's article “Американският принос за възраждането на българщината, с особен оглед към личността на Илайъс Ригс”, Исторически архив, кн. 9-10, ноември 2000 - май 2001, с. 2-121; available online here. For that, Riggs was honoured by naming Riggs Peak in Antarctica for him. Apcbg (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

so someone should make a section in the article where that will be mentioned. there is a brief introduction under Neofit Rilski article about that, and the codification of the modern bulgarian language.89.205.2.29 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Answering about two words in common with Portuguese

Considering that what I wrote was in the miscellany section, that English Wikipedia, for obvious reasons, allows comparison with English all the time, that two non-related European languages (despite the fact that I don't know if the Portuguese use ê-ê at all, because they absorve most of the lexicon that was originally ours by telenovela and it is sorta substandard in Brazil) share exactly the same word – maybe the etymology of the latter word came to us by Bulgarian or Macedonian immigrants (we don't have schwa, which is randomly approximated to the closer Brazilian vowels, but [e ~ e̞] is particularly more common), who would know?! – and it is also a kinda cultural trait, I thought it would be worth mentioning here. Lguipontes (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Such OR reasoning is actually a good reason why it should not be mentioned here, especially considering that these two language aren't the only ones with such an interjection. --JorisvS (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pre-reform Collation Order

This article needs to have the collation order for ѣ and ѫ shown. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Torlakian dialects

I've just inserted the dialects of Bulgarian, including the Torlakian dialects, in the infobox to balance the views that the dialects are not only classified as Serbo-Croatian (see the infobox in this article). My intent was to completely remove this disputed claim since there is no agreement among the linguists of whether to classify these dialects as Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian or Macedonian, but got objected on the talk page by some users who rely only on the sources that it's part of Serbo-Croatian and don't even know the history of the problem about this issue. Then, I decided to insert this claim in the articles about Macedonian and Bulgarian in order to counterbalance the views.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to link to Dialects of Bulgarian, then the possible mention of Torlakian belongs there, not here. Build a consensus there. --Taivo (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my proposal here which could be a nice solution of the problem.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposals made on other Wikipedia pages are not relevant here. WP:OTHERSTUFF is pretty clear. If you want to add Torlakian to the Dialects of Bulgarian, then this is neither the correct page to be discussing the issue on, nor is a proposal made in another article relevant to the editors who work here. You must build an individual consensus on every Wikipedia page where you want to add (or subtract) information. --Taivo (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

My proposal is to mention in parentheses in the infobox that some of the Torlakian dialects are included. This view is already presented in the article on Dialects of Bulgarian, which can be simply translated in the article on Bulgarian language to give the readers more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Here are some sources that provide evidence that some Torlakian dialects are classified as Bulgarian:

• Sussex, Roland and Cubberley, Paul: The Slavic Languages, Cambridge, 2006.
• K. Sandfeld, Balkanfilologien (København, 1926, MCMXXVI).
• Sprachatlas Ostserbiens und Westbulgariens, Andrej N. Sobolev. Vol. I-III. Biblion Verlag, Marburg, 1998.

Note also that some Torlakian dialects are also referred to as transitional dialects of Bulgarian. Hereby, it would be nice to mention it in the article and give the readers more information.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong article, then, for that information. I have told you this half a dozen times already. This information belongs at Dialects of Bulgarian, not here. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Number of vowels Bulgarian has

At Bulgarian phonology there is the claim that Bulgarian has eight vowels, which needs more precise wording or, at the very least, more adequate sourcing, especially as the prevalent theory is that Bulgarian has six vowels in phonemic terms. I can't do that myself.--MoinsDeHaine (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

About Latin translation of Bulgarian alphabet

Everyone please do not confuse about the Latin translation of Bulgarian alphabet any more. The Latin translation of letter "Х х", "Ъ ъ", and "Ь ь" should be "KH kh", "Ŭ ŭ", and " ’ ". NOT "H h", "A a", and "Y y". Please do not confuse any more. See [2]

--弱客人 (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alphabets are not translated, they may be transliterated or transcribed. For the Latin transliteration of the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet you may see the relevant article Romanization of Bulgarian. Apcbg (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right. But I think basically, you still need to follow the Google translate. Even Google translate is not 100% correct, it still can be a reference material. No matter what, Google website and Google translate are the official sites too. It still has the value to refer. 弱客人 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Relationship to Macedonian

The section Macedonian related to Bulgarian should be deleted. All Slav languages are related to each other, have the same vocabulary, they share same words, so that is not Bulgarian dialects on the territory of Macedonia, but Slav dialects, i.e. Macedonian Slav dialects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.33.94 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC) (moved this from top of page Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, we go by what the Reliable Sources say both scientifically about the language, and historically about the people who speak it, not nonsense as you posted. 98.67.15.48 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Question about the original meaning of this sentence, which isn't grammatical at the very end: "Nowadays, Bulgarian and Greek linguists as well as some linguists from other countries still consider Macedonian dialects as Bulgarian". English doesn't make use of 'as' after the word 'dialect(s)', so here are some options I think might have been intended: "...still consider Macedonian as a dialect of Bulgarian" or "...still consider Macedonian and Bulgarian as dialects (of each other/ of one another/of the same language continuum)" and lastly, but I'm not sure we can actually say this in English, "...still consider Macedonian as dialects with Bulgarian" in the same vein as "I am friends with Joe", where the noun is invariably in plural-form, including when describing a singular subject. Anyone else have an opinion on how this phrase should be constructed? I'd like to be as neutral as possible, which leads me to want to support: 'still consider Macedonian and Bulgarian to be dialects of each other." or something that puts both languages on par with each other. Just because one might have more prestige, or political power behind, it doesn't make it linguistically superior, as that doesn't actually mean anything in linguistics. Sitim.far (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sitim.far, please read the sentence upon your comment: we go by what the Reliable sources say, etc. Personal opinion esposed by individual editors is not important about the content of Wikipedia articles. Please provide reliable sources supporting your opinion. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Jingiby Maybe you didn't understand what I meant since I was not giving an opinion. To say "X considers Y dialects as Z" is ungrammatical in English. You cannot use the word 'as' after the word 'dialect' in English - maybe in other languages that is the case, but not in the language of text in question. X can be a dialect OF Z, or X and Y can be dialects OF each other or OF Z. Does that make more sense? Perhaps it's best to just correct the 'as' to 'of' for now, but that may not have been what the OP meant since that's not what they wrote. Sitim.far (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

On a contrarry Sitim.far, this from example is scientific opinion: "The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". For more see: Dennis P. Hupchick, Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, 1995, ISBN 0312121164, p. 143.

Reliable sources for number of speakers

@Kwamikagami:, since you're doing this on more than one article, let me understand your stance: is Ethnologue the only reliable source for number of language speakers in your book? I think that might be a tad restrictive. LjL (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. But the European Commission estimate of 2012 is more reliable than a number from some business group in 2008.

We have a perpetual problem with population-inflation in our language articles, with people who feel a connection to a language cherry-picking sources to give the language the largest population possible. — kwami (talk)

I see. Well, I hope you aren't too overzealous with this, when reasonably reliable sources disagree, we can cite a range. LjL (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnologue seems to add up two numbers: the number of speakers in Bulgaria (this is the the European commission one and it's from 2012 so it's pretty accurate) and what I understand to be an unsourced estimate of the speakers abroad. This second number isn't dated but it seems like it's from quite some time before the recent wave of emigration. I think that if we had a more recent number for the diaspora we would probably get closer to the total number of the previous revision. Anyone got any sources? Uanfala (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the popular Bulgarian expat websites puts the total number of Bulgarians abroad at c. 2 000 000 in 2011, citing information received from the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

According to National Statistics Institute data, 7.2 million people lived in Bulgaria at the end of 2014, which more or less agrees with the figure of the European Commission. Tropcho (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnologue seems to be an unreliable source because the sum of all figures does not include population figures from any immigrant destinations in Western Europe, the Americas and Australia.--149.62.201.244 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be wrong. I quote: "7,020,000 in Bulgaria (European Commission 2012). Population total all countries: 7,799,970.". So the two figures are distinguished just fine, whether they're right or wrong is a different matter, but you can't it an unreliable source for not including them, because it does. LjL (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think their point was that Ethnologue probably includes numbersf or the older diaspora (like Bessarabian Bulgarians or the Bulgarian-speaking Turkish after the exodus from the 80's), but not the more recent diaspora, which is mostly in the Western world. Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It has both: Pomaks in Turkey, Greece etc. and more recent immigrants to the US and Canada:

• 300k Turkey 2001
• 234k Ukraine (no date, but found in E14 ©2000)
• 60k Serbia 2006
• 37k Moldova 2004 census
• 30k Greece 1998
• 7k Romania 2002 census
• 3k Hungary 2011 census
• 57k immigrant USA
• 23k immigrant Russia
• 20k immigrant Canada
• 3k immigrant Libya
• 1k immigrant Slovakia

It's extremely dubious that the number of Bulgarian migrants is over half the population of Bulgaria, actually 65% of the number of Bulgarians in Bulgaria. I'd want a good source for that. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The source is the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. They say there are 4M Bulgarians in the diaspora. That doesn't mean 4M speakers, which they've been spuriously cited for. Many recent migrants are presumably speakers, as are their children, but how many of the 4M are recent? How many are 3rd generation and have assimilated to the language of their host country? And "Bulgarian" doesn't necessarily mean ethnic Bulgarian: how many of the 4M are Bulgarian ethnic minorities? It's not uncommon for minorities to have greater representation in a diaspora than in their home country -- think of all the migrants from Turkey in Germany who are Kurds. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Very true. That's why trying to deduce the number of actual speakers based on what we have would, in my opinion, be original research. On a side note, the detailed ethnologue numbers don't seem to take into account the considerable number of those who emigrated to Western Europe after Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007.Uanfala (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: what's the source for data you posted? Could you provide links?

Regarding your question, how many of these supposed 4M are recent: the historic communities that have existed for centuries (e.g. in Ukraine, Moldova, Northern Greece, Pomaks in Turkey, etc.) were the only sizeable Bulgarian-speaking communities abroad until the collapse of the communist regime in 1989. Since 1989 about 2M people have emigrated, mostly to western countries. Thus the bulk of the Bulgarian diaspora in the West is made up of relatively recent arrivals.

Side note: the table that I linked to above (Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs data) refers to Bulgarian nationals abroad, i.e. it does not distinguish between ethnicities, and it does not include ethnic Bulgarians that are not Bulgarian nationals (such as e.g. many members of the historic communities in Ukraine, Moldova, Macedonia, and elsewhere). Tropcho (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ethnologue figures are found on Ethnologue. The ones marked 'immigrant' are in the summaries of immigrant populations in various countries. You can find them by entering "Bulgarian" in the search engine. Yes, it does appear that Ethn. does not count recent immigrants to Western Europe.

Our source for the 4M abroad refs the State Agency for Bulgarians Abroad. I checked with them and the number is correct, it's just not the number of Bulgarian speakers. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-introduction of non-consensual figures by Special:Contributions/87.227.208.89

1. The infobox's entry is for "Native speakers", so I don't see why "L2" figures have been added to it, whether or not they're accurate and appropriately sourced.
2. The WP:CALC that was cited as a rationale for re-introducing dubious calculations states "provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". I see no consensus here, and the calculation is far from obvious since it involves synthesizing sources from a given year with sources referring to a different year.
3. What the source in quest states is "Not only the mother tongue of 85 percent of the Bulgarian population, Bulgarian is also spoken by about 4 million Bulgarians living outside the country.". Now how are we to know that "Bulgarian population" and "Bulgarians living outside the country" don't overlap, given that the former might include all those with citizenship?

Please undo these changes until there is consensus.

LjL (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Omniglot is not conceivably a reliable source for this.

• They are an encyclopedia (by their own admission) and thus a tertiary source. As such it might be usable for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources", but not necessarily a specific debatable figure.
• They do not themselves cite a source for that figure, and, being a tertiary source, they cannot have done the research themselves (and we would have no reason to trust such research from a tertiary source anyway). They actually WP:CIRCULARcite Wikipedia as the first go-to link about Bulgarian. That is not really okay.
• Their figures would add up to more than the total population of Bulgaria plus the reported Bulgarians abroad, which seems suspect.
• They are also a one-man self-published website, thus generally considered unreliable.
• Finally, have a look at a lovely Wikipedia debate about it, where it's verging on being considered spam, nevermind a reliable source.

LjL (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@87.227.208.89: I like how you have "cited new encyclopedias" ignoring the entire part where I basically said that encyclopedias aren't suitable as sources for this. How about you take part in this discussion instead of edit warring? LjL (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Please use a different source, not Ethnologue, it obviously publishes incomplete and incorrect figures, so it is nether reliable nor suitable. Britannica, academic journals, university-level textbooks, for example, I guess, are more reputable sources. Ethnologue is just a joke, full of errors. --87.227.208.89 (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Redundant material about Proto-Slavic

This material was added to the article's lead section. I removed it but the editor introducing it stood by it. I think it should go (out of the lede, at least; it may belong elsewhere) because:

• it is simply stating a tautology involving the fact that any Slavic language is, by definition, descended from Proto-Slavic (that's what being a Slavic language means)
• it says something about how Proto-Slavic itself spread, where and when, which is irrelevant to Bulgarian, but only relevant to Proto-Slavic (so, it belongs in that article)
• the previous statement does mention that Bulgarian is a Southern Slavic language, which makes the division between Southern and Northern implicit

So all in all, the new additions are simply repeating what the previous sentence already says, except it says it more concisely, more pertinently to Bulgarian, and thus in a way that's more appropriate to the lead section of an article. Things can be elaborated on, if necessary, within the article body. LjL (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The added ref has a map in there which shows that Bulgarian language might be the original descendant of Proto-Slavic and it's neither northerly nor southerly. Other northerly and southerly languages are just the branches of Proto-Slavic but Bulgarian is the focal point and i think it needs to be highlighted. Sheriff (report) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not really what your addition says, though, or at least it's far from obvious based on reading it. Besides, if it said that (i.e. it said Bulgarian is neither Northern nor Southern Slavic), then it would be contradicting the statement immediatly preceeding (which says it's Southern), and that would be an obvious article problem which would need fixing. LjL (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the material is redundant. Besides, the referenced article and map are about the genetics of populations, not the phylogeny of languages. (and on a side note, every population you select on the map will appear as a "focal point" and it's not the root of an ancestry tree, but the outcome of populations mixing.) Uanfala (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bulgarian language. 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/20090202112407/http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc135_en.htm to http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/languages-of-europe/doc135_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Major rewrite?

@Uanfala: Regarding [3], what parts of the article do you think need major rewriting? I would expect them to be tagged with something like {{cleanup rewrite}} but I don't see that? -- Beland (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The rather big grammar section is the one with the most need of a rewrite. I wouldn't use {{cleanup rewrite}} as it suggests there are problems with the prose (there aren't, this section is well written if anything), the issues have to do with the content itself: it doesn't represent the existing linguistics literature, it's incomplete and often misleading. – Uanfala (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the history the content in question has been hanging around for a long time. If it's well-written it seems unlikely to change radically; the only parts that would be affected are the chosen examples. And it seems like not a bad thing if someone is rewriting for them so see how to use {{lang}} correctly. Were you planning on doing a major rewrite in the next 2-4 weeks? If this content remains mostly as-is for another 1-2 years, it's going to have accessibility problems for people who use screen readers, and it's also preventing the English part of this article from being spell-checked. -- Beland (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The text is well-written only to the extent that the prose flows well. What needs to be done is for someone to dig up some portion of the enormous literature on the subject and use it to write the section from scratch, ignoring all the existing text. That's why I don't see much point in either trying to make minor improvements upon it, or in suggesting that other people should. If you however believe this is a worthwhile use of editor's time, then you're absolutely free to add the lang tags yourself, no-one is going to object to that. – Uanfala (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and if you take up the task, you should easily be able to whip up a regexp to tag the lang template onto any string of Cyrillic letters: this isn't likely to come up with too many false positives. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So I can make the change, but you don't want me add a tag saying the change needs to be made, because we're waiting for some changes you don't plan to make anytime soon? Not sure why it would be a waste of time for someone else to do it but not for me to do it. -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Placing this prominent tag at the top of the article takes up prime real state while doing absolutely nothing for our readers. An editor might see it and decide to tag everything by hand, but that would be a waste of time. If you can add the tags in an easy semi-automated way, then by all means go ahead: I think it will take you less time to do it yourself than to persuade everyone that this is something that somebody else should do. – Uanfala (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

It's true that it's feasible for me to fix this one article, but it's not feasible for me to fix the hundreds of articles that have the same problem. Having done a few of the articles with the most non-English words already, I don't think I have any special magic; each instance of a non-English word needs to be inspected to make sure the formatting is handled properly. There are thousands of articles with tags for similar problems, and this type of tag has been in use for over a decade. I don't argue the process is good because it is old, but I do think it's old because it has support among a fair number of editors. These tags are the most effective way to recruit editors - and readers who otherwise wouldn't become editors - to help implement fixes, considerably more so than notices on talk pages or lists of articles to fix (though I'm using the latter extensively to fix articles that only have one or two spelling errors). This should help readers, albeit indirectly, by more quickly making articles like this one accessible to people who are using audio output. -- Beland (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Given there was no response to the above, and that there is now a big "additional citatons needed" banner at the top of the article, I changed the banner to a multiple-issue banner and included the need for language tag cleanup. Uanfala reverted with the edit summary "rv: didn't we already have this discussion?". To answer your question, it does not seem that the discussion resulted in a consensus one way or the other, and you seem to have stopped participating. This article is at the top of the "needs lang tag fix" report yet again, and the only one that has objected to the tag so far. To avoid this stalemate from continuing and the accessibility problems from persisting, I'm just going to go ahead and fix the article by hand myself. -- Beland (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You might try saving a bit of time by first seeing if tagging every occurrence of /[-А-я ]+/ might not do the trick. – Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear that all instances of Cyrillic on this page are Bulgarian, and in many cases the surrounding formatting needs to be fixed as well. The alphabet section also has linking problems. -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, there are transliterations of Bulgarian into the Latin alphabet. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This work is now complete. I may have missed some instances; feel free to fix them if you spot them, but they should be picked up on future spell check runs if there are any. -- Beland (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Bbnrapckn listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bbnrapckn. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)