Talk:Slavic dialects of Greece/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bulgarian and Macedonian

Prior to 1912, there was no mention of a separate "Macedonian" language in the part of Macedonia currently in Greece (or for that matter, in any other place). With the Serb occupation of Vardar Macedonia in the Furst Balkan War, the authorities proclaimed the local majority ethnic "true Serbs," which lasted until the breakup of the first Yugoslavia in 1941. In Greek Macedonia after 1919, there were hardly any languages other than Greek. Again, there was no mention of a "Macedonian" language.

In 1945, on instructions from the Yugoslav communist party and the Comintern, a Macedonian language norm was coined (plus a Serbian alphabet and heavily Serbianized vocabulary) and imposed in SRM (Yugoslav Vardar Macedonia). It was since that time (actually, a bit later) that Greece (quietly) started differentiating between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects it its northern borderlands.

This distinction is still dependent on the longevity of Macedonian ethnicity and language norm in the FYROM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.71.25 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work

Well done to the author(s) of this article. With both Bulgaria and FYR Macedonia claiming the language as it is spoken in Greece for themselves, creating a distinct article allows for a more balanced appraisal of its history. I hope to see the article it expand over time.--Damac 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

it is the same old argument everywhere, for the Catholic Slavs in Hungary, there is no clear line where Croadhood ends and being Slovene begins. In Florina, people from my town (Bitola) will not hesitate to call the Slavophones Makedonci, but I ask where does it truely end. The Slavophone continuum is sparse but runs right accross Northern Greece, south of Bulgaria and beyond - into Turkey, hence names like Lozengrad, possibly even accross the Black Sea into Asian Istanbul. I doubt my own uncles can seriously claim that they in Lozengrad are Macedonians! --Evlekis 12:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Евлекис)

Further sources

Just came across this section of a bibliography on the web. Just in case somebody wants to research the topic further, there might be something interesting here:

• Voss 2000: Christian Voss, Das slavophone Griechenland. Bemerkungen zum Ende eines Tabus, Südosteuropa Mitteilungen 40/4, 351-363.

--124.178.44.136 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)*Voss 2003a: Christian Voss, Macedonian ethnic and linguistic identity in Western Aegean Macedonia, Die Welt der Slaven 48/1, 53-68.

• Voss 2003b: Christian Voss, Verschriftungsversuche des Ägäis-Makedonischen, Zeitschrift für Slawistik 48/3, 339-356.
• Voss 2003c: Christian Voss, Zweisprachigkeit in Griechisch-Makedonien. Ein Forschungszwischenbericht, gbs-Bulletin. Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Bedrohte Sprachen 9, 8-11.
• Voss 2003d: Christian Voss, Sprachdiskurse in minoritären Ethnisierungs- und Nationalisierungsprozessen: Die slavischsprachige Minderheit in Griechenland, Südosteuropa 52/1-3, 116-135.
• Voss forthcoming: Christian Voss, The situation of the Slavic-speaking minority in Greek Macedonia – ethnic revival, cross-border cohesion, or language death? – Sevasti Trubeta/Christian Voss (eds.), Minorities in Greece. Historical issues and new perspectives. (=Jahrbücher für Geschichte und Kultur Südosteuropas 5)

If anybody is interested but lacks access, I might try to locate some of the stuff in the local library. Source, and further essay by the same author: [1] -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some very interesting stuff. - FrancisTyers 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Diaspora

There is a substantial Diaspora of in Canada and Australia who self-identify as "Macedonians from Aegean Macedonia" and who identify their ancestral language as "Macedonian". See e.g. [2]]. I do not have solid sources for that but they should be easily found. I suppose that this issue is connected to events during WWII and the Greek Civil War. I do not feel qualified to elaborte on this but would suggest that something in these lines be included in the article.   Andreas   ^(T) 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Greeks

Recent ed. sum. no Greek is silly enough to deny ANY connection. they are all slavic languages

Actually there are, and I'd be happy to look up references if people are interested... - FrancisTyers 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling the language Slavic is itself admitting a connection. Claiming that Greeks deny "any" connection to Bulgarian is patently ridiculous. They may argue that the Slavic dialects spoken in Greece should not be named Bulgarian or "Macedonian", but that's a separate issue entirely. Even Greek is related to the Slavic languages via Indo-European.--203.206.205.125 13:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Connection" means that the languages spoken in northern Greece are dialects of Bulgarian or Macedonian. Trudgill argues that calling them Slavic instead of Bulgarian or Macedonian could imply that they are seperate languages, not mere dialects. --Telex 13:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Then that should be clearly stated. While it can be argued that the Slavic dialects spoken in Greece are mere dialects of Bulgarian or "Macedonian", it can also be argued that they are not, in light of many speakers' separate ethnic self-identification as Greeks. After all, "Macedonian" seceded from Bulgarian for purely political reasons; a similar secession of Greek Slavic from both Bulgarian and "Macedonian" is not entirely out of the question. The current wording suggests that the Greeks believe the Slavic spoken in Greece is completely unrelated to the languages spoken across the border. As this is clearly impossible, the Greek argument, which actually pertains to the identity of the language and its speakers and not its proximity to other languages, is invalidated by sheer misrepresentation.--58.170.206.198 14:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mutually Intelligible

Very few speakers can understand written Macedonian and Bulgarian, and according to Euromosaic, the dialects spoken in Greece are not readily mutually intelligible with either standard Macedonian or Bulgarian ...

This is just plain stupidity. I can accept them not being able to understand written Macedonian (or even spoken Bulgarian), but not being mutually intelligible with standard Macedonian is just a joke.

I am from the Republic of Macedonia, and currently live in Australia, and I've personally met dozens of families living in Australia (from Aegean Macedonia) who speak Macedonian as well as visiting my family in Lerin and Voden. The only difference between they way they speak and the way I speak, is the stress and, what I have assumed to be, Greek terms.

If it means anything, they consider themselves Macedonians, as do many of their Macedonian speaking friends and neighbours. --124.178.44.136 10:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The cited source says the opposite: "La compréhension mutuelle ne pose pas de problèmes particuliers" - "The mutual understanding does ot pose particular problems". (It is not clear from the source if this relates to standard Mac. or Bulg.)   Andreas   ^(T) 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this also on Talk:Macedonian language. The segment was removed. - FrancisTyers · 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Albania

DIe Albanian authorities promote assimilation of non-Albanian-speaking muslims? Are there sources for this?   Andreas   ^(T) 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New edition of the Abecedar

A new edition of the Abecedar has recently appeared at Batavia Editions in Thessaloniki[3]. It has an ISBN number (ISBN 960-89330-0-5) but does not appear in any major online catalogs under this number. Does anybody have any idea what is in this book?   Andreas   ^(T) 00:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There were protests against the Abecedar, both in Athens and Thessaloniki, by Greek nationalist organisations. [4] [5] This should be added to the article. Mitsos 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate title

I think the title "Slavic language (Greece)", suggests an inappropriate specificity, as if one could say "Slavic language" and anyone would have any idea that you might be referring to the various Slavic dialects spoken in Greece. I also note that the supposed Greek name, "Σλάβικα Slávika", has virtually no google hits outside of Wikipedia mirrors. So I suggest we move this to a more descriptive name, something like Slavic dialects of Greece.--Pharos 21:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I've made a very silly mistake about the google hits. Still, there are almost not English hits for "Slávika" under this definition.--Pharos 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

An even better title would be Slavomacedonian language in Greece" or "Macedonian language in Greece". The current title is a Greek POV. The reference to Trudgill is absolutely misleading. Trudgill just mentions that Greek use the term Slavika. He does not agree with the use of the term. --Michkalas 21:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But wouldn't that exclude the dialects that are closer to standard Bulgarian, which also seem to fall under the purview of this article?--Pharos 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In this article there no reference to Pomakika, the major Bulgarian dialect spoken in Greece. All the article is about (Slavo)Macedonian. --Michkalas 22:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So? Trudgill does say that the classification is uncertain because of the "rooflessness". If you want to discuss Pomak feel free to if you can find sources (I can't).--Domitius 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is this cool Pomak dictionary [6] though.--Domitius 22:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Trudgill says (in his paper mentioned in the article, p. 259): "It seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks as Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonia". So, Trudgill is clear about the classification and the name of the language, but the article here is misleading as to the view of Tridgill. Trudgill also estimates that the speakers of Macedonian in Greece are about 50,000. I believe we must include that in the article too. Note, by the way, that the votes of Rainbow are actually misleading as a hint of how many are the speakers as minorities can not be counted on the basis of voting for a particular, even minority based, party, and because speaking Macedonian doesn't mean that you are also ethnic Macedonian -many have Greek national consciousness beyond any doubt. Finally, apart from changing the title -and a few things in the article to avoid Greek POV- this article has a lot of valuable information and must be included to the Template:Macedonian language, as it is part of the series of articles on Macedonian language.--Michkalas 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at Trudgill's quote in context, shall we? Taking things out of context one can prove anything.

“ There is, of course, the very interesting Ausbau sociolinguistic question as to whether the language they speak is Macedonian or Bulgarian, given that both these languages have developed out of the South Slavonic dialect continuum that embraces also Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene. In former Yugoslav Macedonia and Bulgaria there is no problem, of course. Bulgarians are considered to speak Bulgarian and Macedonians Macedonian. The Slavonic dialects of Greece, however, are "rootless" dialects whose speakers have no access to education in the standard languages. Greek non-linguists, when they acknowledge the existence of these dialects at all, frequently refer to them by the label Slavika, which has the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries. It seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks a, Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. ”

In other words he's saying there it is unclear and is adding that in his opinion it's most sensible to call them Macedonian. As for the Rainbow's votes, they are not used to assess the number of speakers but the popularity of the party's line. If we are to say that this is Macedonian, include it in the relevant categories etc, then we must do the same for Bulgarian, an NPOV requirement.--Domitius 12:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can provide the whole article -and, in fact, Trudgill's whole work- as context. He doesn't say it is unclear. He says it is Macedonian and also, as you quote, "Greek non-linguists, when they acknowledge the existence of these dialects at all, frequently refer to them by the label Slavika, which has the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries. So in "Slavic language (Greece)" we have exactly this opinion of "Greek non-linguists".

BTW, "Slavic language (Greece)" has nothing to do with the Bulgarian dialect of Pomakika, so there is no need to include it somewhere in connection with the Bulgarian language.--Michkalas 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, the very interesting Ausbau sociolinguistic question as to whether the language they speak is Macedonian or Bulgarian. Is that tantamount to saying "they are Macedonian not Bulgarian" in your view? He just say that in his opinion it seems most sensible, in fact, to refer to the language of the Pomaks a, Bulgarian and to that of the Christian Slavonic-speakers in Greek Macedonia as Macedonian. Also, I've seen sources (of FYROM origin) calling Pomak "Macedonian" dialects, does that nullify the perception that they are Bulgarian.--Domitius 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That there is a question doesn't imply that there isn't a clear answer. I am sure there would be "sources" from FYROM/Macedonia claiming that Pomakika is Macedonian. There also "source" from Greece claiming that no Slavic language or dialect is spoken in Greek Macedonia. Trudgill is not, of course, a low-level source as these.--Michkalas 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem here is, probably, that the article currently relies too much on Trudgill alone. While Trudgill is certainly a highly authoritative voice, this one quote alone is a bit thin for a decision. So, he himself opts for regarding these varieties as varieties of MKD. Fine. He is cautious about it, hinting that this identification is not absolutely straightforward and could be called into question. Fine. However, he does not say that anybody in particular has in fact questioned it. The only persons to whom he ascribes such a view are anonymous "Greek non-linguists". We would still do well to check how other reliable sources treat the issue, and unless we come across one that actually proposes a conflicting identification, there's really no reason we should not present this one as a fact. By conflicting identification, I do not mean voices that deny the language status of MKD as a whole, but voices which, while affirming the existence of MKD, treat the Greek varieties as something substantially separate from it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't say it is a separate language. What it's basically saying is "we don't know if it's MKD or BUL", so we're going to treat it and its specific history here under the name "Slavic" so as to avoid answering the question, and this is exactly what Trudgill is doing.--Domitius 13:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is true that more sources are needed, but the only source the article cites as to the name and the linguistic classification of the Slavonic languages in Greece is Trudgill and he is cited misleadingly. Identification, as generally with all the ausbau languages and, in this case, with South Slavonic dialect continuum, is not easy, but, in the end, there is an identification. Let's face it: treating the Slavonic language of Greek Macedonia as "Slavic" is not avoid "answering the question", is the Greek majority public opinion and Greek Foreign Affairs Ministry answer to the question.--Michkalas 14:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it also the majority public opinion of the people who actually speak the language? Or do they not count? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't, and I can't stress that often enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have just written at "Macedonian langauge": When it comes to linguistic classification of a language I can't see how this can be decided by a majority vote or -even worse- by the a government. BTW, this majority was formed through suppression by the state. --Michkalas 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your "Macedonian" is the example par excellence of a language created by government decree, while the "Macedonian" majority of the "Republic of Macedonia" was formed through suppression of the Bulgarian identity by the Yugoslav state. What's your point? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But we in Wikipedia aren't calling it Macedonian because the government said so. We are calling it Macedonian because all the relevant literature has picked up that usage in the meantime. Kekrops, with all due respect, you really have an unfortunate tendency of deflecting discussions away from the only thing that matters on Wikipedia: reflecting what the literature says (although I admit, in this instance Michkalas did the same). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And with all due respect, Herr, the literature says nothing definite other than that there is a "question" regarding the classification of the "Slavonic dialects of Greece". Trudgill's preference for "Macedonian" is just that, a preference, at least by my reading of the text. He doesn't bother to explain why it is "most sensible", while his assertion that "Slavika" has "the implication of denying that they have any connection with the languages of the neighboring countries" is simply preposterous. It has nothing of the sort. If the Greeks wanted to deny "any connection", they might not have used the name of the language family to which the languages of the neighbouring countries belong. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Τί δέ με καλεῖτε, Κύριε Κύριε, καὶ οὐ ποιεῖτε ἃ λέγω; (Lk 6:46) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Τι ακριβώς θες να κάνω, δηλαδή; Να το βουλώσω; ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ξέρω'γω; Αφού εσύ άρχισες να με αποκαλείς αφέντη σου... Παρ' το απόφαση... ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Βρε δεν πάτε να γράφετε ό,τι θέλετε. Οι Μακεδόνες θα εξακολουθούν να σας γράφουν στα παπάρια τους. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe we should stick to the linguistic classification of the language, not how a nation came into being. Kekrops, with what you have just said [before your last comment] is like saying that in Greek Macedonia everyone who speaks a Slavonic language speaks Bulgarian. Unless, there is no one speaking any Slavonic language in Greek Macedonia. --Michkalas 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ηρέμησε, φίλε. No one on this talk page has claimed that there are no Slav-speakers in Macedonia, so don't even try that line of argument. I'm not calling it "Bulgarian" or "Macedonian"; I agree with Trudgill that there is a question regarding its classification but I don't agree with his preference for the latter. I would prefer to see a source that bothers to explain why it should be called "Macedonian" and nothing else. Other than sheer laziness, of course. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you don't agree with Trudgill. Please write in English only and be WP:CIVIL. --Michkalas 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where was I uncivil? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's called an ad hominem.--Domitius 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get why Pomak in Thrace is "Bulgarian" and Slavic in Macedonian is "Macedonian". What about Britannica which says that Bulgarian and Macedonian is spoken in Greek Macedonia or something like that?--Domitius 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd not rely on Britannica too much here. Go straight for the specialist literature. You need to check the works of Christian Voss and those of Alexandra Ioannidou (Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessaloniki). You might also want to check the other contribution in this conference volume: Jahrbücher für Geschichte und Kultur Südosteuropas vol 5 (2003) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Or Peter Hill. Not. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember the Euromosaic project saying that there are people declaring as Bulgarians in Greek Macedonia. Michkala, what language do they speak? Bulgarian or Macedonian?--Domitius 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should say again that language doesn't equal national conscience/identity. Otherwise, the speakers of Arvanitika would be ethnic Albanians and Vlachs Romanians.--Michkalas 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Domitius raises a valid point, nonetheless. What on earth separates Bulgarian from "Macedonian" other than national conscience/identity? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not our problem to solve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So what do the self-declared Bulgarians of Macedonia speak, then? Or does "Macedonian" have an absolute monopoly? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the literature. I don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the current agnostic name. Let those who wish to rename it do the work. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So we can quote correctly Trudgill's opinion, the only source of the article for the issue of classification, and mark it POV until is fixed? --Michkalas 16:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's little point in doing that. What exactly do you want to achieve? How can it be fixed?--Domitius 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written all these in the talk page to avoid an edit war. I could just change the article (without new sources) and then just say "I am happy with the current name. Let those who wish to rename it do the work." Michkalas 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Michkala, the article was created like this and has been like this for months until you decided to dispute something I still don't understand. You want to change the article, you'll have to make clear what you want to change and why.--Domitius 17:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have mada more than clear what I would like to change. At least, I have one source. Can i make the changes?Michkalas 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well for some reason, only you seem to know what it is. Feel free to make the change whatever it is, but if it's something weird and POV, don't be hurt if you get reverted. Re article names, controversial titles are usually changed with a rename poll.--Domitius 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple proposal: modify the article with a paragraph or two in such a way that it covers not just the "Macedonian" Slavic, but also the uncontroversially "Bulgarian" Pomak. That way, the title "Slavic language (Greece)" becomes uncontroversial, because there's no doubt "Slavic" can serve as an NPOV cover term for both - and that's the main usage people like Trudgill and Voss seem to be following too. Then, there should be no problem discussing the various identificatory options within the article, and also noting the fact (which should be easily sourcable) that most linguistic classifications treat the Greek varieties as MKD, as does Trudgill. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, a better title would be "Slavic languages in Greece".Michkalas 17:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Slavic languages of Greece includes Russian and Ukrainian as spoken by large numbers of Pontian Greek immigrants (Ρωσοπόντιοι).--Domitius 17:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So now we are playing hide and seek. Good. In Greek Wikipedia, without a single Macedonian participating, at least we have agreed to call the language Slavomakedonika. --Michkalas 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so?--Domitius 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Without a single Macedonian? How can you be so sure? There must have been at least a couple from Thessaloniki, surely. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding that, by "Macedonian" do you mean a person from FYROM? Where do you live, because I've lived in Greece for most of my life and I've never heard anyone anywhere ever call them "Macedonians". You're not one of those people who think that Greece should cede half the Aegean Islands to Turkey, stop pressuring Albania and Turkey to treat the Greek minorities well yet recognize non-existing minorities in Greece, and abolish the Greek Orthodox Church but let all other religions function, are you?--Domitius 18:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he's an antinationalist by his own admission, which presumably means he'd rather Greece didn't exist at all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, anti-nationalism does not exist. A Greek anti-nationalist is the same thing as a FYROM or Turkish nationalist, whereas a Turkish anti-nationalist (who demands that Turkey withdraws from Cyprus, recognizes the Armenian Genocide, compensates the victims of the Istanbul Pogrom etc) is the same thing as a Greek nationalist.--Domitius 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That's always been my problem with antinationalism in practice - replacing the nationalism of one's own country with that of others. I suppose one could argue for the abolition of nation-states altogether, but what would we have in their place? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Benedict Anderson, the nation state substitutes the religious organization of peoples which preceded (Ἀδελφοὶ ἐν Χριστῷ etc) or something like that. Do you think that's better?--Domitius 18:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this page is not for discussing my or your political views.--Michkalas 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I believe Greece should exist. You're free to disagree. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere is inappropriate to discuss political views. But back to the article. WHY do you remove what Trudgill says?! It's a direct quote.--Domitius 18:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Domitius, I have explained already, in the beginning of this discussion, why. Fragmenting somebody's discourse and summarising it without giving the general impression of what he says is not "direct quote". BTW, whatever your answer, I 'll be offline and I can't respond immediately. --Michkalas 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I respond below.--Domitius 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the two versions is particularly good. The reason is still simply that it doesn't look good for a whole paragraph of the article to be a paraphrase of a single paper, as if there was nothing else on the topic. By the way, if that was a direct quote, why wasn't it marked as such? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Maybe "direct quote" is not good because there are no quotation marks. It's a paraphrase of the original quote (see near the top of this section) for reasons I don't understand (other than Francis wanting to include Bosniak in the list of South Slav languages). I have no problem with a quotation marked direct quote.--Domitius 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

“ Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, which in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and in the Rhodope Mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to Macedonia diasystem. ”

from: Schmieger, R. 1998. "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis", International Journal of the Sociology of Language 131, 125-55. Abstract. Special issue on Macedonian.

It can be embedded in the article as it is, I believe.--Michkalas 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you want a map of where the border is, I think the "yat border" is the closest you can get to it. I guess this means the plan of making this article about "Macedonian" only is out of the window.--Domitius 20:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? --Michkalas 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't escape from you and your POV pushing on the English or the Greek Wikipedia! Isn't there a desert island Wikipedia anywhere? Regarding your question: because they clearly say that they don't consider all dialects of Macedonia as Macedonian, but some as Bulgarian (Drama Prefecture was in Macedonia last time I checked)! They disagree with Trudgill who says that in his opinion all dialects of Macedonia are Macedonian. Therefore there are two options: option A (all dialects are Macedonian) and option B (some are Macedonian and some are Bulgarian). What is your idea of neutrality - selecting A or B? In my opinion, none. You say "some people say A and some people say B", and you have to pick a title which doesn't exclude either of them. Let's try and put it in Greek, maybe you're confused: γιατί είμαστε τόσο υποχρεωμένοι να ακολουθούμε τη γραμμή του "Ουρανίου Τόξου" που είσαι διατεθειμένος να αγνοήσεις τις ίδιες σου τις πηγές; Ξεκάθαρα δε λένε ότι δε θεωρούν όλες τις διαλέκτους της (ελεύθερης) Μακεδονίας ως (σλαβο)μακεδονικές;--Domitius 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't write in Greek in English language Wikipedia. This is RUDE!

The quote confirms -in more detailed manner than Trudgill- that apart from the region mentioned Slavika in Greek Macedonia is Macedonian. Anyway, I 'll put in the article as it and let the readers decide. --Michkalas 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In the age of babelfish (OK, dubious translations as a rule, but still comprehensible), nothing is RUDE! If it's that RUDE why don't you tell off Future Perfect, he does it as well ;-) I have no objections to you adding that to the article - the more detailed and sourced, the better.--Domitius 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely Russian and Ukrainian can't count as "languages of Greece". They're certainly not in Category:Languages of Greece. I suppose they are languages used in Greece, but the South Slavic dialects are fundamentally different as they have been spoken by peoples of northern Greece for a long time.--Pharos 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I found something more. In 2001, the Minority Groups Research Center (KEMO) published the volume Language and "Otherness in Greece"(publisher Alexandreia), with the transcripts of four closed seminars KEMO organized in 1998, with EU funds, on minority languages in Greece. There is included a seminar/ chapter on “The Slavic dialects of [Greek] Macedonia” coordinated/edited by Alexandra Ioannidou. Peter Hill, asked to identify the linguistic differences between the western and eastern dialects of the eastern group of South Slavic languages, uses the yat isogloss as criterion and in the area of Greek Macedonia locates the isogloss west of Drama (p. 207-208). This is the same region identified by Schmieger in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language. According to these references, the Wikipedia map on yat is not exact, at least showing the isogloss in Greek Macedonia. So, according to Hill too, apart from the Drama region, a small part of Greek Macedonia (see map) in the eastern part of the region, while the majority of slavic speaking population, apart from Pomaks, lives in western Greek Macedonia (Florina etc.), the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia are western dialects of the eastern group of South Slavic languages. The standardised dialect of the eastern group of South Slavic languages is standard Macedonian, isn't it so?

Also, an indirect source, an abstract from Christian Voss's paper "Verschriftungsversuche des Ägäis-Makedonischen im 20. Jahrhundert (Attempt to write down the Aegean Macedonian dialects in the 20th century"). I mention this just for the name he uses to identify the dialects.

If their is a suggestion for some specific papers on the Slavic dialects in Greek Macedonia from Voss or Ioannidou, maybe I can find it in our University library. From Scholar Google I couldn't find anything more.

Pharos, I couldn't agree more with your point. --Michkalas 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So you, along with Peter Hill, who is vociferously pro-Skopje, accept then that not all the Slavic dialects spoken in Macedonia should be classified as "Macedonian". You cannot exclude the Drama region simply because it suits you; it is as much a part of Macedonia and Greece as "Lerin" or "Voden". If anything, your source demonstrates why this article should not be renamed, does it not? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Linguistic classification"

Does anyone think that the "linguistic classification" section is starting to look a bit ugly? Just two quotes and that's it. How about paraphrasing them?--Domitius 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems we can't have a consensus on what would be a good, acceptable paraphrasing. So, for the time at least, leave it as it is. And let reader draw a conclusion. I have moved a little bit to the top the photo. It looks better now.--Michkalas 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow talk about subtle 'biasism'. It seems some Greeks will do anything to make their beloved northern region seem entirely Greek, but the sad part is that northern Greece has been anything but Greek in the past.

And I suppose it's been slavic in the past? I highly doubt it... a few hundred disgruntled families of slavic-national consciousness booted out by Metaxas, no doubt propagate those defunct lies. Lies that are taught to young students in the FYROM. Yes there were slavic speakers... so what? Ohrid was basically entirely Hellenic in language, culture (oh dear it was once known as Lynchnidos), prior to the arrival of the slavic nations in the 7th C.AD (CE). Macedonia was absorbed into maintstream hellenism way before any slavic speakers saw the light of day in that region, so really it's a non sequitor argument. If anything Macedonia was anything but slavic, and the regions occupied by todays Macedonians (sic) - slavs, is the region of Paionia. Still they are culturally, linguistically and genetically slavic... unrelated to anything remotely Macedonian. WikiWatcher!

Image:Greek census 1920.gif I find this very interesting and it should remain in the article. User:NetProfit's edit summary "it's only fair use in the Macedonia name dispute article" is misled: Makedoniki refers to the language and not to the country. The Macedonia naming dispute article is about the name of the country.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is copyrighted. It has been uploaded for purported fair use usage only in the Macedonia naming dispute article.--NetProfit 14:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but it should then be removed there also, because it is not meant to illustrate the 1920 census per se, but the contents of the census, and this does not constitute fair use.  Andreas  ^(T) 15:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The image is used in two other articles, remove it if you want however I think you may encounter strong opposition from some of the more nationalist users.--NetProfit 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We really need a secondary source interpreting the context in which the term "Macedonian" was used. Considering there was no recognised or codified "Macedonian language" before 1944, it strikes me as surprising to say the least that Greece would be the first state to prophesy its existence. It is far more likely that the term was used to distance its speakers from Bulgaria and Serbia and, arguably, to project the identity of an ancient Hellenic kingdom onto them. In other words, it was Macedonian only insofar as its speakers were considered Slavophone Greeks. Non-Greeks would naturally have been identified solely with the Bulgarians or Serbs. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: Fair use is no problem as long as it is used as a historical source document required to illustrate what the census did. In fact, the page is very likely also public domain anyway, depending on how the original census results were published. The only thing is, we shouldn't normally offer our readers primary sources for their own interpretation, we should have reliable secondary sources doing that interpretation for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Makedonski" self-identifying term?

Kekrops, you edited Slavic (Greece) and added a citation needed tag to the reported self identifying name "Makedonski". The citation was this link: [7], which was placed directly after the Bulgarian self-identifying names (after all the self-identifying names in the intro). It's actually the name "Slavomakedonski" which doesn't have a source. Just trying to clear things up. Also, do you know if it is a written language? If it is, is the Greek alphabet used? That would be funny because the whole point of creating Glagolitic (and then Cyrillic) was because Greek didn't have enough letters for the Slavic sounds. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it; nowhere in the source cited does it say that that is the self-identifying name amongst Slavophones in Greece. It's more a case of the "Macedonian" label being attached to the Slavic varieties of Macedonia without regard to what the speakers themselves actually call their language. If linguists regard it as "Macedonian", then of course the self-identifying term of the standard language is indeed makedonski, but that says nothing of the nomenclature employed by the Greek Slavophones. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - but then that's why they're called reported self-identifying names. All the names need better citations. Although I'm pretty sure the Rainbow/Vinozhito party do call it "Makedonski" and the Bulgarian Human Rights party do call it "Balgarski". Their members are the Slavophones in Greece, so I think those terms can stay. "Bugarski" doesn't make sense as that is how the Red team says "Bulgarian language" (therefore paradox), and Slavomakedonski doesn't either as the red team don't like to use it. It is indeed likely that these terms are bestowed upon the Slavic speakers (regardless of what they think about it) by the passing tourists from the north who have communicated with them:

Red team to Florina local: Do you speak Makedonski? Florina local: Sure, why not. OR Yes, I am a Makedonec.

Bulgarian to Kilkis local: Do you speak Balgarski? Kilkis local: Sure, why not. OR Yes, I am a Balgar.

It is very hard to tell and it would have to differ greatly depending on where they are. It looks like Slavic speakers have three forms of conciousness - Some are Macedonians (red team), some are Slavophone Greeks, some are Bulgarians. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why slapping the "Macedonian" label on this article, as opposed to "Macedonian language", is inappropriate. The "Bulgarian" label is no less so. It is my understanding that the purpose of this article is to cater for the language of those Slavophones who identify with neither. Notwithstanding the political agendas of the parties you mention, I put it to you that, among ordinary folk, those who identify as "Macedonians" (in the ethnic Slav rather than the regional Greek sense) or Bulgarians are far outnumbered by those who don't. Besides, how seriously can one possibly take a source that proclaims that "use of the Macedonian language and religion has been banned"?! ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the source reports those self-identifying names. The article doesn't use it as a source to say "They are all Macedonians" or "They are all Bulgarians". The actual name of the language is "Slavika" or "Entopia" and the rest are reported names so they will obviously be used by the minority of the speakers. Also, some Slavophones might say that they speak Macedonian or Bulgarian (without ethnic or political connotations) because that is technically what they are speaking - a dialect of one or the other, depending where in the region they are. The problem lies in the fact that all the Slavophones call it "Slavika" in Greek as opposed to "Slavomakedoniki" or "Bulgariki" because they do not want to be wrapped up in politics and be accused of being "Skopianoi" or "Voulgaroi" which they may not believe they are. When they're not speaking Greek, however, they can call it whatever they want because the Greeks can't understand what they are talking about. You don't have to be ethnic Macedonian to speak "Makedonski" and you don't have to be Bulgarian to speak "Balgarski" as far as the Slavophones are concerned but all three countries concerned will equate language with ethnic conciousness. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Slavophone Greeks into this article?

Should we? BalkanFever 10:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it wouldn't hurt; most of the material is a repeat anyway. Basically we only need an anthropological section --157.228.98.121 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The two articles should not be merged as the article "Slavophone Greeks" deals with the people while "Slavic language/greek" deals with the extent to which the language is spopken. Slavophone Greeks, should therfore deals with information regarding the population who speaks the macedonian slavic language as opposed to article, Slavic Language Greece, which deals with the language spoken by the Slavophone greeks, whether it is called Macedonian or Dopia or Nashi. If any change should be made to the articles more information should be included about the state of the Slavic Language as present 2008. A census in 1951 is hardly relevant in a section Entitled "Present Situation" and neither are results of a Political Party which represents the veiw of the Slavic Minority in Greece. Many people outside of Macedonia voted for it and many people who speak Macedonian/Slavic/Dopia/"the idiom" did not vote for the party for various reasons. This information would be more appropriate under and Article title " Political Representation of the Slavic Minority in Greece" rather than the language as a whole.

Any such examples that would be valid would include a census asking Language or Ethnicity rather than citizenship, as all Speakers of Macedonian Slavic [as opposed to the language spoken in the Republic of Macedonia, known as straight Macedonian (with no slavic affixed)& and the macedonian used to denote that these speakers are from the region known as macedonia as opposed to other regions eg. Thrace, Athens] born in greece are Greek citizens and would thus register themselves as Greek Citizens. Until a comprehensive survey regarding , Ancestry , Language spoken at home and/or Ethnicity [like the Australian Census which discards Ethnicity] is done in Greece the true numbers of this Minority will never be known. PMK1 (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If we can't have a separate Macedonians (Greek) article any more, I don't see why we need to keep an article about a subset of the same. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is important to Keep the two articles seperate as they are based on two different ideas, one on the idea that the Slavophone Greeks are a distinct group of people ( a bilingual people who speak both Macedonian/Slavic/Dopia and Greek) while Slavic Language/Greece is based on the language with a minority speak in the Greek Macedonia. Not all these people identify as Greek or Macedonian or Dopii(local slavs). The point that User:Kékrōps raised about Greek Macedonians not having a page is really invalid as Greeks do have a page, whereas the Greeks who have just a regional identity with Macedonia do not. A Greek Macedonian is essentially a greek who may lay claim to a different Dialect than standard Greek and an article for this should be created eg. Greek Language- Macedonian Dialect, as oppose to the page Greek Macedonians the page should be more appropirately titled ie. Greeks from Macedonia. Implying that the Greek is in fact Greek by genus (unlike the Slavophone Greeks who are not greek by genus,although they might be in national identity) and from the Region of Macedonia. These Greek Macedonians are Greek by genus not Macedonian (ethnic), the Slavophone Greeks who are descended from Slavic peoples ( whether they are Macedonian or Bulgarian) should have the articles opened one about their Ethnic Ancestry ( Slavophone Greeks) and one about the Language they Speak ( Slavic Language Greeks). The "Greek Macedonians" really are greeks who have a Regional Affiliation with Macedonia as opposed to the Greeks found in the Republic of Macedonia where they are known as "Greek Macedonians" not as "Greeks who have a regional identity with Macedonia- greeks from Greece in Macedonia". this is confusing but an example would be the Bulgarian Macedonians, they are bulgarian but have a regional affiliation with macedonia and call themsleves Pirin Balgari, and it is thus assumed that the term "Bulgarian Macedonian" is someone from the Republic of Macedonia who is either Bulgarian by ancestry or genus. It is important that the two pages be kept seperate. PMK1 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to follow the logic that we ought to have separate articles for every separate concept or group. But we shouldn't. We should carve up our articles in such a way that information is packaged most efficiently for the reader. There's no problem in treating two slightly different concepts in the same article, if the coverage of the two concepts overlaps and most of the necessary background information is common to both. There is also no need to have separate articles for the language as opposed to its speakers, at least as long as nobody is willing to write an actual linguistic article with technical information about the dialects, linguistic structure etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have the linguistic article(s), so there's no point in that. BalkanFever 12:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to merge for the reasons Future Perfect mentioned. Not only would it be more efficient for readers who will no longer need to go from article to article, but it makes sense to describe the language and the speakers in one article, as is the case with all other language articles. --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree You cannot just merge two artcles for the sake of it. It would wiser to update BOTH of the articles, (Slavophones and Slavic Language), to the standard which many othe language group have. If you are going to combine the Language and it's speakers than many other Lanaguage pages should be merged for example; Pennsylvania Dutch - it's language and its speakers. Like Macedonian/Slavic/Dopia its speakers identify with the county they are in (greece/america), and are both of different Ethnic genus compared to many americans/greeks, (Macedonian/Slavic & German). Many speakers have assimilated and many if not most, will call themselves Greeks/Americans yet they still retain their native language. If proper analysis of both the Slavic Speakers in Greece (slavophone greeks/macedonians) and the language itself (slavic/macedonian/dopia) then wikipedia would be a far greater source of information. Just because a group of people have their adopted countries national conciousness does not mean that they automatically become part of the ethno-homogenous population of that country, eg. There are thousands of Germans in south australia and these people are some of the most patriotic australians you will find but they still identify by German (or barossa german) by genus( eg. ancestry or ethnicity however you wish to interpret it.) and some still speak german at home but they in essence Australians. A seperate wikipedia article should be allowed for the description of a language and it's speakers, many greek people will take this to mean that the slavic speakers are a different ethnic group but Linguistic and Ethnic groups are two different terms that are not very well distinguished in many peoples minds. PMK1 (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says the Slavophone Greeks necessarily have a different ancestry from the non-Slavophone ones? If you ask them, they'll most likely tell you their ancestors were always Greek but happened to learn Slavic somewhere along the way due to their proximity to the actual Slavs. That might be why they identify as Greeks in the first place, rather than "ethnic Macedonians" or whatever else. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or they're just hellenised Slavs.....We could debate it, but we'll only go around in circles. BalkanFever 09:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe a bit of both. As long as they're not called "Hellenized Macedonians" (contradiction in terms), we'll be fine. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahahahaha, you really have a sense of humor. Stop leading people to assume Macedonians are Hellenic. Many nations and people mixed on the Balkans, you cannot find the origin or the end of the genetic lines, so you cannot separate Macedonians (as they claim and feel they are) from Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, or anyone else on this region. We are all a bit of Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians etc.

HRW spam

This article is about the Slavic language. The HRW stuff belongs entirely elsewhere. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating the Slavic language page

Does anyone else believe that the Slavic lanaguage page should be thoroughly updated. the information about the 1950's censi should be put under a head POST WAR SITUATION???. New and current information (as opposed to 55 year old) should be posted on the page. Possibly a list of Recognition of the Lanaguage ie; Name recognised under government of Greece, under Government of Macedonia etc. Followed by a list of Intra-Government Organizations eg. NATO, EU< UN etc. and then the position of linguistic and ethnic organization (Neither MAcedonian nor Greek) such as EBLUL, or HRW, eurominority etc.?? Is it possible for another map to be put up there from modern times eg. last 20-30 years ( the big gap as not many maps have been made in that time frame, which have NOT been disputed etc.) for example the language map on website http://www.makedonija.info/language.html {which was conveniently deleted just a day after it was posted} drawn up by the Harvard encyclopaedia of American Ethnic groups. This would possibly go under a section of NATIONAL veiws, ie Greek veiw on the minority, Macedonian veiw on the minority, Bulgarian and so on using only government veiws in detail as opposed to the table which i have already discussed which categorises the language.

ie; Slavic - Greece, etc. and in the column for Macedonian - Macedonia, EBLUL etc. Also some professional advice on how the Language differs for example from Standard Macedonian ( the closest related language), morphology, verb and sentence structure etc.

I think that the page needs an urgent update and i hope that some other people are also interested in my ideas. A table of veiws (recognition of the language) and more information about the technicality of the lanaguage is very important. thank you and add your comment PMK1 (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only place I can think to find such linguistic information would be publications in the Republic of Macedonia, describing the subtle differences between (what they would consider to be) dialects of the language. Having sections on political views would be good, so I think you should go for it. BalkanFever 13:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a question will people be prepared to accept a definitive term on the Slavic/Macedonian language or will all efforts to improve the page be in vain as someone who believes it is "Macedonian" or "greek" will delete it? PMK1 (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean will people accept its being called "Macedonian", then the answer is no. That's what the "Macedonian language" article is for. This article is about the Slavic varieties spoken by people in Greece, most of whom do not identify themselves as "ethnic Macedonians" or their language as "Macedonian". ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should be WP:BOLD and go ahead and improve the article. If you're using sources that call it "Macedonian" just replace it with "Slavic", I guess. BalkanFever 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No (to kekrops) i should have worded it better. WIll a table for example similar to this one

Macedonian	Slavic Idiom or	Notes
1. Republic Of Macedonia			Recognises the language as the as dialect of the Macecdonian language
2.	Greece		eg. Recognises speakers as slavophone greeks
3.	EBLUL		Recognised the Language as Macedonian in 2006.

with a title "Recognition of the Language" as opposed to "Recognition of the Macedonian/Pomak/Bulgarian (Slavic)Language" as this is Unambiguous and will further complicate the topic? agreed?. I would have to agree with you that many do not identify as ethnic macedonians, but their is more identification on the language part. Another question is the macedonian/slavic/dopia language to be regarded as a dialect or a seperate language. I think if it is to be posted up as a seperate language, i think that their needs to be a section on the differences between standard macedonian and slavic/dopia/macedonian, which (agreeing with balkan fever) will probably be found from macedonian sources. Is this acceptable from both Macedonian and Greek parties? Also should the language information be written in Macedonian Cyrillic, Greek or English. I am aware that it has not yet been officially adapted to a written yet, i am 100% sure it has been Unnoficially written down. Are the users of wikipedia willing to use a half greek/half macedonian cyrillic script for information on the language? Or should an adapted english version be used? Also please provide comments on a table and please (possibly) provide some reliable sources by Local Governments (ie. Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Albania), possibly MAJOR powers eg. America, Russia, GB, China etc. Also NGO's eg. Amnesty, HRW, and then other linguistic groups withing europe European Free Alliance, Eurominority, Ethnologue. for example. [bulgarian could possibly be ommited from the list] PMK1 (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Those two linguists we quote in the article both say that the speech is Macedonian in Greek Macedonia, and Bulgarian in Thrace (and the far east of Greek Macedonia). Also, for your table, standard Macedonian is Bitola-Prilep-Veles. Lerin falls (just) outside this group so it would be "Recognises the language as the Lerin dialect of the Macedonian language", not "standard". But also, they also talk about a Kostur-Nestram dialect, separate from Lerin. With the script, could you clarify what you mean? I am a bit confused. BalkanFever 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian	Slavic Idiom or No Official Classification as a Language.	Notes
1. Republic Of Macedonia		Recognises the language as the as a dialect of the Macedonian language
2.	Greece	eg. Recognises speakers as slavophone greeks
3. European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages		Recognised the Language as Macedonian in 2006
4. Ethnologue		The most comprehensive guide to the world's languages

there you go for more clarification. Altough we all know the stance of the various Governments does anyone have current sources for this. if so please add them. I hope that this table is clearer?? but their still needs to be more NGO's + Albania + EU? etc. please add constructive comments. I would also like to ask the users should this table JUST be about the lanaguage spoken in the lerin/florina, kostur/kastoria, salonica/solun area? as opposed to the language of the pomaks in East macedonia and thrace, who speak bulgarian.PMK1 (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is disputed and I suggest to be put a template for neutrality for the article.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Slavophone Greeks

I disagree with the proposed merge. A language is not the same as its language community.--Pharos (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but currently both articles are in fact about the language community more than about the language itself. Can you point to any particular bit in either of the articles that wouldn't just as well fit in within the scope of the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is overlap, which should be fixed, but they are on different topics. Slavic dialects of Greece#Linguistic classification is the section of the article most directly covering the dialects themselves. Also, the discussion of Abecedar is of clear linguistic siginificance, because it is written in an attempted standardized form of local dialects.--Pharos (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I still do agree that much of this article could be profitably moved over to Slavophone Greeks--Pharos (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One question

I am now confused! How can be Macedonian named as dialect in Greece? A Macedonian can be named as dialect in Greece only when if the Macedonian language will be officially recognized by the Greek government as a distinct language, and only than we can talk about dialects. With the current policy of the Greek government, you cannot put dialects because you have not even recognized any language and not to speak even for dialects. Put Macedonian language or stop writing nonsenses. We are now speaking about dialect of which language in Greece? Of Greek? Come on --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not in recognition of the macedonian or any other dialect. The problem is that if you name as macedonian, you are name and the minority in greece as macedonians. All of us know which is the greek policy about the terms Macedonia, macedonians, ect. - Rašo  ^(Yes?) 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are confused about the meaning of the term dialect among linguists. Every language is a dialect; a "language" is just a dialect that has been standardized. There are a variety of different Slavic dialects that are spoken in Greece; some are closer to standard Macedonian, and some are closer to standard Bulgarian. We're talking about what linguists recognize here, not what the Greek government (or any other government) "officially" recognizes.--Pharos (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What your government recognizes is just same as your linguists recognize. A dialect is a form of standardized language and because of that you cannot speak of dialects unleas you make an article about Macedonian language in Greece and than we can write about dialect and similar staffs.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, it's not "my" government (I'm fortunate enough to live in a country without an official language). But the issue is, your view of dialects and languages is backwards to the views of linguists, who see dialects as the basic building blocks. Dialects don't "descend" from standardized languages; on the contrary, standardized languages are built up by people speaking closely related dialects, when they choose to engage together as a national community.--Pharos (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

would it be possible to direct the search term slavic dialect greece to this page automatically?

would it be possible to direct the search term slavic dialect greece to this page automatically? PMK1 (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a search term, "Slavic dialect greece" in fact already picks out this article as a first hit in the Wikipedia search engine [8], followed by Macedonian language and Minorities in Greece, which is just about right, I'd say. If you think of a redirect, no, I don't think we usually do redirects consisting just of a collection of search terms; redirect titles should be proper phrases such that they could actually serve as a grammatically correct title. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

good point PMK1 (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

proposal to split the article

would it be acceptable to split this artcile into two seperate entities? 1.Slavic dialects of greek macedonia 2.Slavic dialects of greek thrace

the first one could focus on the slav speakers in macedonia (greek) and the second would be focused on the pomak/bulgarian speakers in thrace(greek) because the page has been very poor and their is very little LINGUISTIC information on it, rather all ethno-political information. PMK1 (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's such a good idea, I'm afraid. I totally agree the present state of affairs with its total lack of actual linguistic information is a shame. Probably most of why this article exists in the first place is so that Greek editors have a link target other than Macedonian language to link to when they want to mention the language elsewhere but wish to avoid the M word. But I don't see how splitting the article would help. If somebody wants to include actual linguistic facts such as isoglosses and phonology and stuff, there's no reason they couldn't do it for the whole area in one go, is there? Especially since the linguistic boundary between Macedonian and Bulgarian is so ill defined (and the administrative boundary between Macedonia and Thrace is hardly helping). In general, I believe we have far too many articles dealing with Greek/Macedonian issues already; splitting them into yet more is really not a good thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added some technical information about the macedonian, transitional and bulgarian dialects/languages, I have tried to make it as NPOV as possible. I have also included the greek perspective. tell me what you think. I also put the info on one page as requested. PMK1 (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

here is my proposal to move the page to Macedonian Language in Greece and a seperate article for the Bulgarian Language.

re; macedonian language (not about bulgarian language)

1. The language is classified by most linguists as either Macedonian or belonging part of the Macedonian diasystem. It is only Bulgarian's (who consider the macedonian language merely a dialect of bulgarian) and Greek's (who claim that the language is part of no diasystem) who put cases forwards which are contrary to the rest of the world.

2. The title slavic dialects of greece is innapropriate as they are not merely just dialects but form a part of two other langauges (macedonian and bulgarian).

3.Although the speakers of the language may not identify as macedonians or bulgarians this should be no excuse for the language to not be given a name! They ethno-political identification of the speakers should be irrelevant as to the name of the language. Many people speak a language but do not identify with the correspoding language's main ethnic groups, yet they are still speaking the same language.

4. The word "slavic" means a group of related language and is used innapropriately in the wording. PMK1 (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No chance. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are hardly a figure of authority, even if you do shout your name out. BalkanFever 11:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it would be controversial but kekrops please tell me what language the slavophone greeks in florina/kastoria speak? They speak the macedonian (or slavomacedonian) language, whether or not they identify as such can go into slavophone greeks or somewhere else? And in thrace the language they speak there is bulgarian, whether or not it is the pomak dialect is irrelevant. If you are going to write just no chance dont bother, explain your point of veiw. and why you disagree with my proposal. PMK1 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FP has already said it a couple of times before; we simply can't have a separate article for every possible permutation of ethnic group, language or whatever else. This article is meant to serve as an overview of all the different points of view regarding the dialects spoken by Greece's Slavophones. Besides, the point of view that "Macedonian" is spoken in Greece is already treated in the relevant article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I remain of the opinion that it's a good idea to have this one, single, article, which can describe the historical context (common to both the Macedonian and the Bulgarian end of the spectrum), the social context (common to both), the linguistic delimitation problem (common to both), without having to take a stance of its own with respect to the latter. That entails having a neutral term in the title. Apart from this, I do agree that the article should be less shy in its wording about identifying these dialects as what they are. Dialect continuum aside, that the variety around Florina is an instance of the Macedonian language is completely uncontroversial (nationalist fringe views aside). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that a language is bieng called by another name than what it is generally classified as. It is not having a seperate article for every single matter, it is removing the disambiguation from the page. The language page has stats on electoral results, and uses a 57 year old census, which is extremely questionable.( we all know regardless of ethnic identity the speakers of the slavic languages in greece runs into the hundreds of thousands). Well Slavic Dialects of Greece is an innapropriate term, as it is no official language, the fact that it is 2 seperate languages is not very well conveyed in the text.I must agree with your point though, we cant have an article for every single language in every country, well then this data should be incorporated into Macedonian Language and Bulgarian Language as this article describes a nonexistent language, rather a collection of dialects from the same language family. PMK1 (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically this "dialect" article is set up as a "language" article when it shouldnt be. These dialects do not form a language but rather are a part of one,(actually 2). Thats why if the page isnt retitled then it should be deleted and the appropriate information be put upon the Macedonian and Bulgarian pages, any comments?PMK1 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why should it be retitled to the exclusion of Bulgarian? Despite the transfer of population, there should still be Bulgarian speakers in Greek Thrace, as indeed the article says? Bulgarian and Macedonian as spoken in Greece would be acceptable to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i agree there are bulgarian speakers in thrace, the pomaks. But this page mainly focuses on the Macedonian language speakers. Another page would be made for the bulgarian speakers, eg.Bulgarian language in Greece or something similar. The point of the move was to split the article to distinguish the macedonian vs. bulgarian speakers and the languages and dialects that they spoke. That way the pages are less confusing and are more informative. Macedonianlanguageingreece would focus on the speakers in West,Central and East macedonia-(transitional zone) and bulgarianlanguageingreece would focus on the Thrace region and East macedonia-(transitional zone). That is very appropriate. I have adjusted the proposal accordinglyPMK1 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there is NO "Macedonian" language in Greece apart from the Greek dialect. Try Dopia and you might have a better chance.--   Avg    02:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is, but in greece it is called 'dopia' to make it sound unrelated to the language spoken in ROM. Most linguists agree that the language/dialect is part of the macedonian language/diasystem (and in the east bulgarian). It is only greek and bulgarian linguists who disagree. Thus it would be incorrect to list it otherwise. The title macedonian language in greece and bulgarian language in greece would be quite appropriate.PMK1 (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

population numbers

i have tried to add numbers of the the population without using macedonian, bulgarian and greek sources which would be obviously pro-/mac/bul/grk. Also i will add further referencing and tidy it up. I have tried to add bulgarian perspective, and when i find definitive sources about the greek position i will include them. (as opposed to just writing them unreferenced). If you have any could you please list them? Also i have added notes which help to disambiguate the informationPMK1 (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Ethnologue population estimate. As somebody pointed out on some other discussion page, Ethnolgue seems to have goofed up in this instance. It claims the figure is based on a "1986 census"; however, there haven't been any census in Greece that have asked for language information since 1951, and I doubt there was any census at all in 1986. Ethnologue is otherwise a decent enough source for most stuff, but the do have occasional gaffes, and unfortunately the web edition doesn't even cite the literature they are based on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we arent using ethnologue as a source than why are we using a map based on an ethnologue map as one? It seems a bit hyprocritical.PMK1 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Humh. Because we had nothing better? As I said, it's generally a decent enough source, but that shouldn't stop us from making our own corrections in those cases where we can identify an obvious error in it. Same with every other source really, especially tertiary sources based on the compilation of multiple other works of (necessarily) varying quality. We corrected a few mistakes in the map too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ABECEDAR

Are the users of wikipedia aware that the EU and EBLUL refer to the language spoken and the main language primer (Abecedar) as Macedonian. Not as Slavic or Slavomacedonian?.[9].

The EU clearly refers to the "Slavic language" textbook as , "Macedonian language textbook entitled 'Abecedar'". [10].

Just a thought of how bizarre this article's name actually is. PMK1 (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Maps

This map is a map made from by a user and has no or little evidence to back it up and should be removed if the standard of the page is to be of high quality.

According to the United States Department of State's <country reports on human rights practices for 1990,there are between 20.000-50.000 <Macedonian>- speaking people in all of Greek Macedonia.In a report to the European Commision entitled <Minority languages in Northern Greece> from 1993 Van Boeshoten estimates that in the district of Florina and in the neighboring region of Arridhea alone are approximately 18.000 <Macedonian>-speaking inhabitants.These informations are from Loring.M.Danforth's <The Macedonian conflict,ethnic nationalism in a transnational world> page 78. [[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/macconf78.gif[/IMG]] How come that no more than 50.000 people are shown in this map to occupy almost the 70% of Greek Macedonia?--ΦΔ (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the map. It doesn't show that 50,000 people are "occupying" the whole territory. The small number of Macedonian-speakers in Greece suggests that there are only a few such people in any particular district - perhaps a few villages or communities spread thinly over a wide area. A population of 50,000 Macedonian speakers in an area of 25,000 square km implies only two Macedonian-speakers people per square km (as against a population density of 77/km²). The map just shows the area in which the language is spoken, not the density of the speakers. As for evidence, the image page attributes it to "data after a map in Z. Topolińska and B. Vidoeski (1984), Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna, z.1, PAN. cf. Similar maps Macedonian", SEELRC 2001 [1]; and V. Friedman, "Macedonian", in: B. Comrie and G. Corbett (eds.),The Slavonic Languages, New York: Routledge, p. 247; citing in turn K. Koneski Pravopisen rečnik na makedonskiot literaturen jazik. Skopje: Prosvetno delo 1999." Those are indisputably reliable academic sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No,i'm not misreading the map.This map is trying deliberately to mislead the ignorant readers,creating the impression that almost the 70% of Greek Macedonia is inhabited by Slavic-speakers.Not to note also that it shows that Slavic is(or was) spoken in territories where it was never spoken,like the cities of Serres,Drama,Verroia,Kozani as the whole area southern of these cities.You can ascertain the reliability of my claims,if you compare all these maps: [[11]] [[12]] http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Volker_und_Sprachenkarte_der_Balkan.jpg[/IMG]] - [[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Macedonia_-_Point_of_View_of_the_Se.jpg[/IMG]] - [[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Ethnographic_Map_of_Turkey_in_Europ.jpg[/IMG]] - [[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Balkans-ethnic1877.jpg with the current map of this article: [[13]] You can also read what Loring M. Danforth wrote in page 60 of <The Macedonian conflict,ethnic nationalism in a transnational world>. [[URL=http://img367.imageshack.us/my.php?image=macconfldansf60gr9.gif][IMG]http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/7185/macconfldansf60gr9.th.gif[/IMG][/URL] ] According to many authors like Danforth,Dakin,Wilkinson and Perry,the boundaries between the Greek-speaking and Slavic-speaking inhabitants of what is today Greek Macedonia was in early 20th century a line linking Kastoria and Serres.As for the sources of this map i have these remarks:The only source is a map in Z. Topolińska and B. Vidoeski (1984), Polski-macedonski gramatyka konfrontatiwna, z.1,How reliable and impartial could be considered an author from FYROM?Who could be more unbiased,him,or all the other aforementioned by me authors?V.Friedman,whose work is also mentioned as source by the phrase <Similar maps in V. Friedman, "Macedonian", SEELRC 2001 [1]; and V. Friedman, "Macedonian", in: B. Comrie and G. Corbett (eds.),> hasn't any similar map in his work.The only map that exist in his work: [14] is this one,in page 77: [[IMG]http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Scan0001.gif[/IMG]] As you can see,this map hasn't nothing to do with the map of this article.

                                                  --ΦΔ (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

hey guys, i think you've lost the bigger picture in this article. all the controversy is lost if you think for a second on this argument: the dialect is called macedonian in bulgaria too,but not meaning that it has something to do with standard macedonian (codified reltively late in the 1940s). the dialect is called so because of the region that it is spoken in.the same is with shopski (dialect ot the shope region). as much as macedonians or should i say fyromians like to say that the slavic dialect in greece is a dialect of standard macedonian, i don't see how something that is created later could be the origin of something that existed for such long time before.clearly the latter must have had its origins in something older-namely the bulgarian language with all of its variety of dilaects. i think you should pay attention to my comment because i live in petrich,bulgaria (part of the geografical region macedonia) and my grandparents are form the other side ot the mountain belasitsa ot kerkini as its called in greece- from goren i dolen poroi or ano and kato poroia. and i think that i know what i am talking about because i've been to greece and republic of macedonia/fyrom many times and people from this area can judge the best!

I also think giving the numerous issues involved with the Macedonian naming dispute... hostility by FYRoM nationals towards Greeks... that care and sensitivity should be given before assigning the term "Macedonian" to anything non-Greek... on Greece's own territory.... with 2.5 million existing Greek Macedonians living there. --Crossthets (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The map includes the city of Kozani in the slavic speaking area, this is incorrect. It should end just under or at Ptolemaida/Kaljar. Kozani is not included in the slavic speaking area in the source given - http://www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=3 (see map at bottom pg77). I request for the map to be edited to match the map of the given source otherwise it is a false map and should be deleted. Nikator 12 December 2008

Is the false map going to be edited to match its source(http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn17/kostas68/Scan0001.gif) or not? If not then it should be deleted.....still waiting. Nikator 13 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Missing legends

The new maps about the Distribution of the Macedonian language in the Florina and Aridaia pref. lack a legend to explain the colors.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

As you can see from the top of article page this page is now up for deletion. Please see the relevant discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic dialects of Greece. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

article scope

if the article is to gain justification as standing separate from Slavophone Greeks, it needs to focus exclusively on linguistic description of the actual dialects. All the demographic, poltical and historical stuff belongs merged to the Slavophone Greeks article. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Definately yes. But the problem is that the "slavic dialects of greece" are so widespread and many are not as closely related to each other as they are to the dialects of macedonian and bulgarian spoken in the republics of macedonia and bulgaria. If you then add on the language of the Pomak people in Eastern Thrace, which is Bulgarian the "linguistic" closeness and definitivity is actually very unorthodox and divisive.

As you may or may not know their are many linguistic article's which have been created to deal with the "dialects of macedonian", "dialects of bulgarian" and "slavic dialects of greece". They include the Prilep-Bitola dialect, Lower Prespa dialect, Solun-Voden dialect, Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect, Nestram-Kostenar dialect, Kostur dialect and Thracian dialect which are all the "Slavic dialects of Greece". It has been claimed by some that all these dialects are similar despite that they are linguistically diverse, despite that they are spoken by two or three different "ethnic" and religious groups, etc. only because they are found on the territory of Greece. PMK1 (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

• Strongly oppose. No rationale has been given for it here. Parts of it are contrary to various discussions above. If you want something like that, explain it first--and I'll probably still oppose. Explain what existing articles cover various aspects of the proposal, etc. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, maybe if it were split, a deletion nomination would probably succeed for some of them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dolna Prespa

If you check Blagoy Shklifov's book Долнопреспанскят говор, p 26, you will see that for the "big yus", ə (Ъ) is used in the villages of Grazhdeno, Orovo, Tarnovo, Drenovo, Drobitishcha, Lək, Orovnik, Bukovik, and Pəpli, while German, Rudari, Nivitsi, Medovo and Strkovo - as well as Dolno Dupeni across the border in Macedonia - have a strongly labialized ô. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostolata (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Macedonians

There is a reference to this page about "Ethnic Macedonians" of Greece. As the inhabitants of the Greek administrative district of Macedonia are mostly Greeks, and the inhabitants have been mainly or to a large degree Greeks throughout history and most historical records from within Macedonia (Hellenic Macedonia) have been written in Greek, most inscriptions found are Greek or Latin and most place names are originally Greek, to refer to the Slavic Macedonians as the "Ethnic Macedonians" of Greece is misleading. They may be considered ethnic by some in relation to the Republic of Macedonia, which actually lies mainly outside historic Macedonia but they cannot be ethnic in Hellenic Macedonia. The wikipedia definition includes: "Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups". In the case of the Slavs of Hellenic Macedonia, the other group are the Greeks of Macedonia. So perhaps this could read the ethnic Slavs of Macedonia, or something like that. Greeks are also ethnic Macedonians, as much if not much more so. Your feedback?Skamnelis (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

We follow common English usage, period. "Ethnic Macedonian", in English, refers to people identifying with the "Macedonian" ethnicity dominant in the Republic of Macedonia, whether you like it or not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one reference to "ethnic Macedonians" in this article (that deals with language and not with ethincity). This is an a passage quoting Encyclopedia Britannica and Reader's Digest Word Fact Book. No volume or page references are given in either case, so the information is not verifyable. It can be put back as soon as the information is verified. In any case, these citations presumably refer to the language spoken, so "ethnic Macedonians" would be indeed inappropriate.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:PMK1 reverted my edit without explanation. Can somebody please verify the citations and tell us whether they refer to language or to ethnicity?  Andreas  ^(T) 14:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed part of the info until PMK decides to give some explanations on this. --Laveol ^T 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is important to give the year of each estimate because probably the number of speakers is dwindling.  Andreas  ^(T) 01:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., it is not correct that in English usage “ethnic Macedonians” corresponds to FYROMacedonian Slavs. First of all the "English" term occurs primarily in FYROM-associated sources and their foreign organizations. If these are excluded along with the Greek sources and only neutral sources are considered then there are the following cases: (a) In reference to FYROM, “ethnic Macedonians” is used by third parties rarely, mainly to denote the two sides “ethnic Albanians” vs “ethnic Macedonians” in the 2001 ethnic conflict within FYROM. (b) The term “ethnic Macedonians” is applied by primary FYROM sources or secondarily when quoting FYROM sources and less commonly by genuine third parties to indicate the supposed FYROM minority following the Vinozito party in Greece (about 1600 votes (sic) in Hellenic Macedonia in the 2009 EU Parliamentary elections). This minority is almost always considered a much larger minority in these sources, which displays a bias. Confusedly the term is used as in this article also to generally denote the Nashi speaking Macedonian Slavs of Greece. This particular idiom had a lexicon written in 1907. The lexicon (posted in a FYROM campaigning site) shows that many of the words are Greek (a non expert can check this, as the words in Greek and Nashi Macedonian Slavic are similar). These Macedonians, considered by FYROM officially as "ethnic Macedonians" and treated as such in this article are commonly and paradoxically considered as Grecomans because they have supported the Greek view regarding the hellenicity of Macedonians and have fought alongside the Greek Macedonians as Macedonomachoi [15] against the IMRO Bulgarians (today’s FYROMacedonians). The Nashi speaking Macedonian Slavs often consider themselves Greek http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf2S8lXmvrk and indeed they consider themselves Macedonians inasmuch as their language is based to some extent on Greek and they live in the historic region of Macedonia (in Greece). There are therefore two diametrically opposed views of who the "ethnic Macedonians" are in Greece. For the Greeks and many/most Nashi Macedonian Slavs it is the inhabitants of Hellenic Macedonia not aligning themselves with former Bulgaria and today’s FYROM. For FYROM it is almost the reverse: “ethnic Macedonians” of Hellenic Macedonia are those who align with FYROM (Vinozito supporters) plus those who they think they ought to align or should be believed to align with FYROM (the other Nashi Slavic Macedonians). However, there is a neutral view of who are not ethnic Macedonians. This view is quite clear in that 340 university professors have recently supported a letter sent to the current US President http://macedonia-evidence.org/obama-letter.html to denounce claims that FYROM can be considered to have descended historically from the Macedonians, who the undersigned unequivocally state to have been Greeks. The undersigned go beyond ancient history in dismissing the claim of FYROM on the term “Macedonia” by stating that the modern “Republic of Macedonia” is the result of geopolitical overtures over Hellenic Macedonia during the Cold War. Insofar as FYROMacedonians are Macedonians they cannot be considered ethnic ones. That is an independent view in the English usage. If you disagree with that view, you should discuss it with these academics. Their names are published. With apologies for my long answer to your short statement.Skamnelis (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)