Talk:Macedonian language/Number of speakers

Number of speakers in Greece

The 2 million Greeks who live in Macedonia (the Greek province) are know as Macedonians and they speak Greek and not some offshoot dialect of Bulgarian. Thus this article is full of falsehoods. Furthermore, there is no officially recognized "Republic" of Macedonia; there is only the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Mnemics (talk • contribs)

Total number of speakers

The current number (2-3 million) is dubious and badly sourced (an article about Bulgaria??). Ethnologue reports 1,598,247 (of whom 1,386,000 in the Republic of Macedonia; data as of 1986), and I don't see how the population growth rate could've made them 2-3 million in 2006, as it's only barely positive due to the Macedonian Albanians (correct me if I'm wrong). → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 10:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess they count the approximate number of Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria, the way they see it - some 800.000 in Greece and 200.000 in Bulgaria, although the majority of them do not have the Macedonian national feeling now. Zikicam

Todor, Ethnologue does not appear to count members of the Macedonian diaspora, which according to a paper I have here number approximately 580,000. The reference is:

Topolinjska, Z. (1998) "In place of a foreword: facts about the Republic of Macedonia and the Macedonian Language" in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 131, pp. 1-11

The citation she gives for the figure is:

Kostantinov, D. (1964) Pecalbartvo [Migrant Workers] Bitola: Kiro Dimitrovski-Dandaro

I will change the infobox to note that the Ethnologue number does not include diaspora. - FrancisTyers 15:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your edit. Ethnologue reports all the countries on its list, which are; Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and Macedonia.

1,386,000 in Macedonia (1986)

15,000 in Albania (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk).

? in Bulgaria

180,180 in Greece (1986 census).

= 1,581,180

Ethnologue gives Population total all countries: 1,598,247. (which presumably includes Bulgaria), this does not include the diaspora which as I have mentioned number significantly more than 17,067 according to any numbers you care to cite. - FrancisTyers 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? All countries is all countries and that includes every conceivable country that might have emigrants. FunkyFly 16:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it includes a total for all countries listed. For example, see Bulgarian, it lists Canada, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey (Europe), Ukraine, USA. and includes these in the total for all countries listed. Of course this is not worth arguing over — nationalism is puerile and seems to cause problems with basic arithmetic. Enjoy :) - FrancisTyers 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to paste a message here, so that I too can become a member of The Unreasonables (nice new term, I already feel like Kevin Costner in The Untouchables).  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Census results officially published by the Bulgarian National Statistical Institute there was in Bulgaria in 2001 5 071 Bulgarian people who consider them as Macedonian. They are 0,108% of the population of Pirin Macedonia.(The source NATIONAL STATISTICAL INSTITUTE : http://www.nsi.bg/SiteMap/SiteMap.htm - Преброяване 2001 - Окончателни резултати - Население към 01.03.2001 г. по области и етническа група). Not everybody of them declare their language as Macedonian. In the book of this Census (vol.1) is noticed the number of speakers 3518.--AleksandarH 13:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Map

Put your opinions on the map here. Preferably sourced with peer-reviewed non-partisan publications. Don't bother to post anything from .bg, .mk or .gr unless you are going to do a "Bulgarians claim", "Macedonians claim" or "Greeks claim". - FrancisTyers 23:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to add nano-frequency, but I guess you'll agree to much lower frequency. Will you?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine by me, we could go with "significantly lower" or "markedly lower" or "substantially lower", all would be accurate. - FrancisTyers 23:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think that allege is the word to use here. Telex 23:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Allege smacks of POV language, we could go with "reported" and then say who is doing the reporting. - FrancisTyers 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Whiny human rights organizations, Macedonian Slav nationalists (and the FYROM government), the Rainbow Party which is a known anti Greek organization, as it claims Hectorian and I are not ethnic Greeks. The Greek government on the other hand officially denies it, this should be made clear, and the existing Slavophones fall into the following categories:

• Self identifying Macedonians
• Self identifying Bulgarians
• Slavophone Greeks
• None of the above (dopii)

Most articles seem to imply that in Greece Slavophones = Macedonians, when clearly that is false. The vast majority of them are Greek identifying and want to have nothing to do with FYROM. Telex 00:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is truly the most objective categorisation of Slavophones. My rough estimate would be:

• Self identifying Macedonians ~ 3,000
• Self identifying Bulgarians ~ 3,000
• Slavophone Greeks ~20,000
• None of the above (dopii) ~ 5,000

--   Avg    00:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Far from us to claim that such numbers are too ridiculous to earn a comment.--Aldux 00:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh... sure... and that would be because you have been there and you know better? I was in West Macedonia last summer for two weeks, mind you, and I didn't find a single person claiming to be "Macedonian". I've been to Florina, Kastoria, Edessa, Kozani, Grevena and also gone to the borders. As I said, these are my estimates according to the villages that as far as I know speak Slavic. Check the population of each prefecture first and tell me in which prefecture the huge numbers of "Macedonians" are located. --   Avg    00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Allegedly Florina Prefecture. Telex 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Total population: 55,210. How many of them are "Macedonians"? 5%? 10%? It really can't be more. Simply go to Florina and try to locate them, this is all I ask. If they are so many, supposedly you will hear "Macedonian" in the streets...--   Avg    00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could be a Home language situation, go to Wales and you'll rarely hear Welsh on the streets, in the shops, anywhere really. I lived in Aberystwyth (Welsh nationalist stronghold) and in the 3-4 years I was there I very rarely heard Welsh spoken. You have to look to find. - FrancisTyers 01:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was in Cardiff a couple of months ago for the weekend and you're right, I haven't heard any Welsh. But, all signs were bilingual, I saw a lot of stores with Welsh names, some restaurant menus in Welsh etc. I might not have heard it, but it was there. Nothing like it in Florina. And moreover, how many Welsh people have Welsh as their primary language? Most of them, especially the young, speak English and are learning Welsh to honour tradition (which is fantastic). --   Avg    01:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Avg, you know that under Greek law, non-ethnic Greeks can have their citizenship withdrawn, it has happened to ethnic Turks before (and it was all oevr foreign news, but no one's ever heard of it in Greece). If there were people in northern Greece claiming they are Macedonians, they'd probably have their citizenship withdrawn and be deported from the richest country in the Balkans to one of the poorest (FYROM). What do you think the results of this are for the children of the members of this alleged minority? Telex 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they prefer to remain Greeks because of the privileges of being Greeks, they are still Greeks right? I mean in Great Britain how many people are British and do not speak English? --   Avg    00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the ethnic Bulgarians are more known in Greece. The Rainbow Party and it's supporters have been banned from the media, so no one in Athens for example has ever heard of them before. OTOH, the Bulgarian organizations came on to Greek and Bulgarian news with a bang for making explosive claims [1] [2]. Telex 00:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had no idea about that. I think Macedonia is only second to Albania (and possibly Bosnia due to the war) in terms of Balkan poverty... - FrancisTyers 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the banning thing is not correct. Rainbow Party has got air-time in state TV just before euro-elections 2004 . All political parties that participate in elections are by law given free time to express their views.--   Avg    00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for those claims? Although I would agree on the categorisation, unfortunately iirc the Greek government does not publish figures. Ethnologue puts the number of Slavophones at 180,180, although I am willing to accept that this is inflated, but do you have any sources (of the kind I previously mentioned) to counter this? Note when distinguishing Bulgarian/Macedonian speakers, as we do not have the precise numbers, I think it is reasonable to go with what Schmieger reports. - FrancisTyers 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, going back to the original point. The map is not supposed to indicate relative frequency, only the spread of Macedonian speakers reported in the literature. The numbers are largely irrelevant as will be made very clear in the accompanying text. Now, lets talk about spread. I will move comments related to the number of speakers to the subpage. - FrancisTyers 00:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, that categorization is common knowledge ([3], [4]). Are you asking for sources for my breakdown of the Slavophones, or Avg's wild guessestimates. Telex 00:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The numbers, your categorisation is down (meaning just right). - FrancisTyers 00:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I said myself that these numbers are guesstimates (therefore of course I do not claim I am correct), according to the population of each prefecture and the portion of villages that are slavophone. For me, these numbers are realistic and definitely much closer to the truth than the crazy 200,000. In fact they are similar to the 1951 census that counted 41,017 Slavic speaking people in Greece, considering that it was conducted 55 years ago. It is certain that this population has declined due to emigration to FYROM or Bulgaria. --   Avg    00:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Fran, off the record, what would you think the numbers are, with the sources we already have?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 00:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

0 Telex 00:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I really couldn't give you an exact number, for Slavophone speakers, I would probably approximate and definately do not quote me on this, I am seriously pretty much pulling it out of my arse... Hell, you can quote me, so long as its something like "According to the bowel movements of Mr. Tyers..." :)) Somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000. For "Macedonian" speakers (not necessarily of Macedonian national consciousness) probably between 15,000 and 80,000. The whole issue is so fucking cloudy though that its kind of ridiculous to discuss :) When is the next Greek census btw? - FrancisTyers 01:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

2011 Telex 01:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll find out then :) - FrancisTyers 01:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Only if they decide to revert to a 1951 type census. They currently don't report language, religion and lots more other data. I totally disagree with the way the census is performed. The official reasoning is for protection of personal data. There was a huge talk back in 2001 about it, especially for religion. Although you might think otherwise, it was the majority, the Greek Orthodox Church, that wanted the question of religion to be included because it wanted people to "be able to say out loud that they are Greek Orthodox". If this sounds weird, you haven't heard what happened with the ID dispute...--   Avg    01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if the result will be less than 2,000 :) --Hectorian 01:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be, I don't think any result would "surprise" me per se. ;) - FrancisTyers 01:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Confused about your anal numbers above. Which is it? 15-80.000 or 30-100.000? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Not anal like that or that certainly, but the former for "Macedonian" speakers. - FrancisTyers 01:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So the latter would be for...?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Slavophone speakers, e.g. Bulgarian+Macedonian. - FrancisTyers 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(some people think you should use = instead of + above...) NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And we all know what I think of those people. ;) - FrancisTyers 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The countdown is on the way, Francis...Of course, many will be those who will see the results as fake (and these will not be the Greeks:)...) --Hectorian 01:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That may be, don't you think it would have saved a shit load of time if they'd just have admitted and taken the census before? It kind of smacks of "so if you're so confident why don't you do it?" - FrancisTyers 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody oppose? Was there any proposal to do it earlier than the standard 10 years period prescribed by the UN?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 01:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant like the numerous times the census has been done before. Not changing the date of the next one. - FrancisTyers 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why they do not, but i am sure that it is not any sort of 'fear' on behalf of Greece/Greeks. perhaps, it would be a waste of time and money, to search for a minority that has such a low numerical strength...Maybe the UK, France and Germany do not want to give us more money to spend from the EU budget for such reasons. on the other hand, maybe Greece is waiting for a Fyromian step towards the ethnic affiliation of the people (aromanians or greek-speaking) in Bitola, etc. every coin has two sides...and some knifes are double-sharp, don't u think?:) --Hectorian 01:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its hardly more expensive to add a field to a census, well, I guess it might cost a fraction of a cent more per copy, but really I don't think it is the money that is holding you back. The French hate minorities anyway :)) - FrancisTyers 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I also do not think that is so expensive, anyway...But i do think that we already know the number of slavophones in greece: they print 2 regional magazines (with c. 2,000 copies sold), there is the Rainbow Party (for those who would like to express a non-greek identity-c.6,000 votes in last elections), they could operate tv or radio stations if they would like (but there is no interest for that, for the speakers are very few). so their number is probably less than 20,000 (at tops).--Hectorian 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. At least I had the good decency to say when I was talking out of my arse :P - FrancisTyers 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Another source

From Hill, P. (1999) "Macedonians in Albania and Greece: A comparative study" in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 1.

The number of Slavs in Aegean Macedonia (Northern Greece) is not known. Estimates vary between 10,000 and 300,000 (see Human Rights Watch, 1994, pp. 12-13). The U.S. Department of State (Department of State, 1995: Greece 12) refers to "an indeterminate number" with estimates ranging from under 10,000 to 50,000 or more [my emphasis - PMH]." The Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1987 puts the number of Macedonians in Greece at c. 180,000; the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year 1992 at c. 150,000. Poulton (1993, p. 180) accepts a figure of about 200,000.

Apart from deliberate falsifications, there is also a problem of definition. Speaking a Slavonic dialect does not necessarily entail any Macedonian national consciousness. Karakasidou (1993), for instance, notes that these people "display ethnic [i.e. Slavo-Macedonian] consciousness despite their national Greek identity," adding that what they seek "is simply recognition of their status as an ethnic minority within the greater nation-state" (p. 5). The question could be solved only by a completely free and fair census, which is unlikely in Greece in the foreseeable future.

According to the 1913 Carnegie Commission, there were 329,371 Slavs in Aegean Macedonia. Greek Communist sources such as the newspaper Ethnikos Kiriks (21 January 1946) put the number at 120,000; the newspaper Rizospastis of 26 August 1946 recognizes the existence of 250,000 Macedonians in Greece. Rundle (1944) quotes a figure of 150,000 speakers of Bulgarian (i.e., Macedonian). The Greek Macedonians live in three regions [dhiameismes]: Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, with a total population of 570,261 [1991], Western Macedonia (292,751) and Central Macedonia (1,737,623). Karakasidou (1993, p. 22) estimates 80% of the population in the Florina/Lerin district "to be either Slavic speakers or descendants of Slavic-speaking families" (i.e., 80% of c. 125,000 5 c. 100,000). In the Athens sociological journal Scholiastõ Â (Vol. 72, 1988, p. 22), we read the following:

The name of Florina is only one of the districts of Northern Greece where the Macedonian language is spoken, but there are Slavophones also in the districts of Kastoria, Edessa, Verria, Drama and Serres. How many Slavophones there are is impossible to ascertain, since each side manipulates the statistical data according to what it wants to prove: the figures vary from 50,000 up to 300,000. The advocates of the Greek position, if they recognize the existence of the Slavophones, claim however that "they have Greek consciousness". History has shown that this "consciousness" is very fluid, especially when it is applied to ethnic groups, (¼ ) There is no doubt that the Slav-Macedonians that live within the Greek borders regard Greece as their homeland and link their fate with that of the Greek state. At the same time however they feel different, because their language, their traditions, their songs, and to a certain extent their history are different. It is the denial of the "right to be different" that creates further problems in relation to the community and the Greek state.

• Karakasidou, A., ª Politicizing Culture: Negating Ethnic Identity in Greek Macedonia,º Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1993, pp. 1±28.
• Poulton, H., The Balkans. Minorities and States in Conflict (London: Minority Rights Group, 1993 [1991]).

Please feel free to spell check that within reason (for the Greek names) — the copy/paste from the PDF didn't work very well. - FrancisTyers 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Drama? hmmm...look where this city is on the map. do u think that the slavophones there are macedonians or bulgarians? (have in mind intillegibility) --Hectorian 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

See comments on Talk:Macedonian language — at the bottom. (simple answer they are probably speaking a dialect heteronomous with Bulgarian). - FrancisTyers 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just one scholar's theories, do not represent the widely believed ideas. maybe u accept his POV. i am sorry, but i do not:) --Hectorian 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean you think they are speaking Macedonian? - FrancisTyers 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, again the dreaded 1993 to 1995 era. As I have said before but I'll say once more, this was the era of the nationalist upsurge in FYROM, just right after its independence, which led to injecting many publications (mainly through Dimitras) with extreme POV. After that this kind of reporting subsided. When I see 1993 or 1994 in an article about Macedonia (and also if I see Dimitras or Karakasidou in it), I take it with a grain of salt. How come such publications don't exist after 1995, when the governments of Greece and FYROM found a compromise? --   Avg    02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The paper was from 1999. I'd be interested in learning more about this Karakasidou fellow, I'm trying to find a copy of his paper now actually. Note, it also quotes a sociological journal published in 1988. Remember guys, I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm just quoting what non-involved (i.e. not Greek, not Macedonian, not Bulgarian) published authors have written. - FrancisTyers 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I take that back, Karakasidou is a woman, I now lose liberal points for assuming a published author is a man :( - FrancisTyers 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a she... her name is Anastasia. She's a Professor and I had the chance to talk to her back then in an electronic forum. She gave me the impression of a very well rounded person, but somehow she became very influenced by Dimitras views. I don't know if she still believes the same things she did back then. Check this --   Avg    02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I just this moment found out :) - FrancisTyers 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, i think that they are speaking a slavic dialect. all the people in southern balkans who speak slavic, are speaking various bulgarian dialects... no matter if they are pomaks, 'macedonians', bulgarians, slavophone greeks. there is no such thing as 'macedonian language'. it is like talking about the Austrian or Cypriot language (we all know we are talking about german and greek respectively). maybe FYROM is still on an nation-building period, and that's why they try to show that they are distinct in all (even in religion, although their Church is unrecognised by all the others...) --Hectorian 02:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

We already discussed this. There is no reason for there not to be an Austrian or Cypriot language. Hell, you should check out Languages of Spain sometime... Maybe you didn't get the memo, well, here it is: "there is no linguistic criteria to distinguish a language from a dialect". - FrancisTyers 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about the church, well, I hate the pope anyway. - FrancisTyers 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

we are saying the same thing: "there is no linguistic criteria to distinguish a language from a dialect". thus, some may say that they speak bulgarian, and others 'macedonian'. so, u cannot say that they speak 'macedonian', since this is disputed. I do not hate the Pope, but he has to do nothing with that. the skopjians are Orthodox, and their church is unrecognised by all the other Orthodox churches. this fact also has its importance in their nation-building process... --Hectorian 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't get the Catholic joke... nevermind :/ What I'm saying is that you can't say that Macedonian is a "dialect" of Bulgarian or vice-versa, well you can say it but you'd be wrong. What we can say is that Macedonian and Bulgarian are two standard languages of the Eastern South Slavic dialect continuum and that there is really know way of saying if a person speaks one or the other, it depends on the speaker. There are various linguistic criteria which distinguish between the two standard languages and so it can in dialectological terms (like Schmieger has done) provide an approximate grouping of dialects into those heteronomous with Macedonian or those heteronomous with Bulgarian. For example, slavic dialects spoken in Northern Greece without the schwa would generally be considered heteronomous with Macedonian, likewise those with spacial distinction in determiners. You catch the drift? What we are trying to do here (if you would take part) is to provide publications which discuss this issue. For example, all the papers I have read put the Slavic dialect spoken in Florina as Macedonian and not Bulgarian. I seriously welcome more sources though as I have repeatedly said. - FrancisTyers 02:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The FYROM story is a sad story in every way and very sad for the Slavomacedonians themselves, but I'm sorry to say they inflicted it upon them. It's them who denied their Bulgarian ancestry and created a whole artificial frame of history, culture and language. Now they have to fight everyday to prove something that cannot be proven and the case in this article is that their language is not Bulgarian. --   Avg    02:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its even sadder for the people who try to deny it. I suppose if all nationalities came from god (like the Greeks) the world would be a much better place, but until then we've got the Macedonians, the Belarusians, the Bosniaks, the Czechs and Slovaks, the Norwegians, the Icelanders, the Americans and the Canadians, the Australians, Indians, a mountain of nationalities in Africa which I will not even begin to list to deal with. C'est triste, n'est pas? - FrancisTyers 02:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In this wiki-article [5] someone can find many publications and censa. strangely, there is no mention of 'ethnic macedonians' or 'macedonian language'. what else can be brought up here to convince people that these terms are new creations for political reasons? History speaks on her own...listen to her...--Hectorian 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit about having a finite set of nationalities. - FrancisTyers 03:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot about all those Central Asian nationalities, Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Tajiks etc. - FrancisTyers 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For all I know, a language is a language because its people say so. I think this is the case here (also) and nobody can dispute that. The same could apply to Cypriot dialect, but its people chose not to say so. Even educated people don't seem to know that (folk linguistics) and such articles are addressed to them as well. That is why, I think, Hectorian and Avg above try to illustrate the dialect alternative (for Slavomacedonian being Bulgarian dialect), which is wrong, but which would be true if the speakers said so. Correct?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course! thats the whole point, if the speakers wish to refer to their idiolect as a dialect of Bulgarian then cool or perhaps they want to call it just Bulgarian, or if they want to say they are speaking "Slavic" great, or Macedonian, wonderful. Hectorian is trying to prescribe that they are speaking "a dialect of Bulgarian", which is wrong. Linguists don't prescribe. And yeah, the same could apply to Cypriot dialect. Basically, we go with what the people who are speaking it say. If we don't know what they are saying (for whatever reason — in this case lack of census information) then we try and use what other knowledge we have to make an educated judgement. I'm not the one trying to paint all of the Slavic speakers as one nationality or another. - FrancisTyers 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Fran, neither is Hector for trying to illustrate his personal experience with them. Now, back to the point: Is there a specific scientific way of distinguishing:

• Languages that are to a great extent different from others (like all Slavic are from Greek)
• Languages that possibly under other political/social/whatever circumstances they could have been easily regarded as dialects? (like Slavomacedonian with Bulgarian)

Is there a term, or a paper, or a phrase or something that describes this apparent (yet subjective) difference? NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not particularly interested in personal experience ;) Thats the whole Ausbau (Bulgarian,Macedonian,Bosnian) and Abstand (Greek,Basque,Welsh) thing. But you have to realise that all the South Slavic languages are Ausbau, the whole list. It just happened in a particular order. If we were in a parallel universe, there is no reason why Bulgarian could not be considered a dialect of Macedonian, or Croatian a dialect of Serbian. The standard languages of the South Slavic dialect continuum were created deliberately to emphasise differences from the other standards at the time. Macedonian followed this same pattern. - FrancisTyers 13:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please realise that this article is talking about the Macedonian language, so we should be concentrating on those regions with dialects that are believed to be heteronomous with respect to Macedonian. I'm trying to find sources for this. What I am not trying to do (and please point out if you think it seems like I'm trying to do this) is say "All slavophone speakers in Northern Greece are speaking Macedonian". Certainly not, as Telex pointed out, there is a good four way taxonomy we can use, although for this article, being as it is a linguistics article, it makes sense to go with what is written in the linguistics literature, and concentrate on what are described there as "Macedonian speakers" with a very careful note saying that "Macedonian speaker does not necessarily entail Macedonian national consciousness" (and we have plenty of sources to show this). There are other articles like Minority groups in Greece for the other stuff. - FrancisTyers 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just asking if there are terms like Ausbauer or Ausbauest [sic], which I am sure you would agree would be appropriate between Slavomacedonian and Bulgarian, rather than Slavomacedonian and eg Serbian... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 13:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, depends on which group of dialects within the continuum. Some dialects that are heteronomous with respect to Serbian have very much in common with dialects that are heteronomous to Macedonian, moreso than certain dialects which are heteronomous to Bulgarian. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with "Ausbauer" and "Ausbauest", are you trying to say that Macedonian is more Ausbau than Bulgarian? If so, no you definately can't say that, we can define the characteristics of the standard that separate it from the Bulgarian standard, but we can't say it is "less of a language", sorry. - FrancisTyers 14:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking about the standardised languages, not some dialects. I am sure you can understand that since the distinction between language/dialect is political choice, then the standardised Slavomacedonian would have more reasons to be ausbauer to eg. Serbian than to be ausbauer to Bulgarian. However, despite (evidently) possible efforts, Slavomacedonian remains ausbauer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. Lesser languages and stuff are irrelevant and order of names above is only in regard of chronological events. If you want, I could say: "Bulgarian is ausbauer to Slavomacedonian, than Serbian is to Slavomacedonian", but I'd have to repeat Slavomacedonian twice, plus the language was standardised later than the other two. Correct?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard languages of Bulgarian and Macedonian are closer to each other than the standard languages of Macedonian and Serbian. During the standardisation process, the language was made Ausbau from both Serbian and Bulgarian. They didn't want it to be like either. The standard language as a whole is more like Bulgarian than Serbian yes, and the language was standardised later than both Serbian and Bulgarian. If you wanted you could say that, "the standard Macedonian language is more similar to the standard Bulgarian language than it is to the standard Serbian language", which would be entirely correct. You can't say "Ausbauer". - FrancisTyers 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And I am not sure how this new folk-terminology is used either, maybe I should say: "Slavomacedonian and Bulgarian are ausbauer to Slavomacedonian and Serbian"... NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just making stuff up. Why don't you just drop the linguistic pretenses and go with "the standard Macedonian language is more similar to the standard Bulgarian language than it is to the standard Serbian language", simple accurate and you won't be making a fool of yourself ;) - FrancisTyers 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here goes:

"The standard Macedonian language is more similar to the standard Bulgarian language than it is to the standard Serbian language"

Now can we include that simple, accurate and non-folk linguistic/foolish sentence in the darn article? :-)  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 14:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problem with that, subject to possible re-wording at a later date. The fact is sound though. And yes, when calling someone a fool it is better not to make foolish mistakes ;) Although, better to be a fool by mistake than a fool by deliberate action :P - FrancisTyers 14:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! You mean it's better to do mistakes like this? You male chauvinist pig!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Man, I'm still trying to work out a way to get those points back. I'm going to have to be really patronising to someone religious or something. After all, I wouldn't want someone thinking, even for a second, that i wasn't a limp wristed, bleeding heart, sandal wearing, muesli crunching, clove cigarette smoking liberal. :)) - FrancisTyers 15:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:HsSidgONu5QJ:www.us-english.org/foundation/research/lia/languages/macedonian.pdf+macedonian+%22number+of+speakers%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6

Sources

Redux.

Around 2 million

Here are some urls, if you want further "academic" confirmation then I will be happy to provide journal references. - FrancisTyers 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Sometimes i find references amusing:)...especially when some of them contradict each other, and alltogether the article they are supposed to help. e.g. from the references u listed above, the one says 2 mil speakers, but has a link that leads to Ethnologue (that believes that their number is shorter). in another one an alternative name for the language is 'Slavic Macedonian' (i guess most of us remember how difficult was to overcome some people's POV in order this name to be added in the article). lastly, another one (encarta, to be specific) says it is spoken in FYROM and Albania (so, is it or it isn't spoken in Greece, as some users say?:/...). wow...i am confused now (or maybe not...) --Hectorian 20:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The naming dispute is mentioned. I'm not saying these are good sources, in fact it is better that they are diverse in their other interpretations of the facts. All of them say 2 million or around 2 million, even when they don't agree on where or by who or in which name it is spoken. So, they disagree on many things, but they agree on the approximate number of speakers. Great, thats what I'm looking for. OLOLOLOLOL!!!!!11! - FrancisTyers 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

U prefer to see the glass half-full, although it may be half-empty... the references may agree on the number, but they disagree in many other things... once more, u accept only what suits your POV... LOL --Hectorian 21:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. If you want to make a list of the things they disagree on, then I can go and find a similar swathe of references to support what is in the article [if I've put it there] on those particular facts. - FrancisTyers 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure! but i do not have any sort of allergy in references... as i said, i consider some of them funny... if u want to amuse me (again), go ahead --Hectorian 21:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Ok, if we want to include a detailed breakdown of population speaking Macedonian, I would be happy to go for it. We can give sources and ranges. - FrancisTyers 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Republic of Macedonia (1,344,815 [census], )
• Bulgaria (indeterminate [ethnologue], 3,518 [census], )
• Greece (180,180 [ethnologue], 0 [‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ] )
• Albania (15,000 [ethnologue], )

Ahhemmm, how about:

• Greece (180,180 [ethnologue], 30,000 [helsinki])

Btw did u check my metric nationalist comment?  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 16:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah yeah, see my response :) I'm not particularly keen on including numbers because the ranges are so large as to have a huge margin of error. It would probably be 1 million either way! I was merely suggesting it if people were really keen. - FrancisTyers 17:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not keen, but just mentioning the countries, gives a little sense of exclusivity...  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's (Albania: 5,000 [latest census on the issue - 1989]) --Telex 18:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)