User talk:Abnormalcy333/sandbox 4

Some remarks

This text is nonsense:

According to Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Old Church Slavonic was originally based on a Macedonian dialect spoken in Thessaloniki despite linguistic features characteristic of Old Bulgarian.[20][21] The Macedonian recension of Old Church Slavonic (referred to as such due to works of the Ohrid Literary School, current-day North Macedonia) span between the 11th and 13th century and during this period, in addition to translation of canonical texts, religious passages were created including praising texts and sermons (слова/беседи) of saints such as Saint Clement of Ohrid.

Maybe it will sounds better as:

Old Church Slavonic was originally based on the Slavic dialect spoken around Byzantine Thessaloniki of what is now Greek Macedonia. The Macedonian recension of Old Church Slavonic was developed in the First Bulgarian Empire (referred to as such due to works of the Ohrid Literary School, current-day North Macedonia). It span between the 9th and 12th century and during this period, in addition to translation of canonical texts, religious passages were created including praising texts and sermons (слова/беседи) of saints such as Saint Clement of Ohrid. Jingiby (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is nonsense too:

The "canonical" Old Church Slavonic period started in the 9th century and lasted until the first half of the 10th century. During this period common to many Slavic languages...

At that time it was only Common Slavic language with several dialects. Correct the second sentence, please as it was common to all Slavic languages. Correct also the first sentence: OCS canonical period lasted until the first half of the 11th century.

This is also strange claim:

All South Slavic languages, including Macedonian, form a dialect continuum[11][12] that is a legacy of the linguistic developments during the height of the Preslav and Ohrid literary schools.

Both parts of this sentence are not related with each other. Preslav and Ohrid literary schools had influenced modern Macedonian, Bulgarian and Torlakian, not Slovenian, or Croatien etc. Jingiby (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

PS. Keep in mind it is generally reckoned that manuscripts written on the Balkans before 1100 are Old Church Slavonic (OCS), as opposed to the Church Slavonic afterwards. Also the Ohrid Literary School existed in the Bulgarian Empire 9-11 century, not afterwards, when the area of modern-day NM was under Byzantine rule included in a province under the same name: Byzantine Bulgaria. OCS has also been variously called "Old Bulgarian" since the 19th century and sometimes "Old Macedonian" since Macedonian was codified after WWII. Both terms Old Macedonian and Old Bulgarian are equal with OCS. Some researchers do not differentiate between manuscripts of the two medieval Bulgarian schools in Ohrid and Pliska and their dialects, preferring to group them together in a "Bulgaro-Macedonian" or simply "Bulgarian" recension. Check for example on p. 27 in Janácek: Glagolitic Mass, a Cambridge University Press publication from 1992. Also do not forget please, that modern Macedonian Slavic dialects in Greece are not the same with the Late Common Slavic spoken then (c. 800–1000). That was the last stage in which the whole Slavic-speaking area still functioned as a single language, with sound changes normally propagating throughout the entire area. Jingiby (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Jingiby here. In the first millennium literature asserts that we cannot speak of separate Slavic languages (I can leave citations), but instead one Common Slavic -- so how can we speak of specifically Macedonian dialects, unless we mean the term geographically? But if it is geographic, that is redundant, as Thessaloniki is in (geographic) Macedonia, and will lead readers to believe "Macedonian" was a separate Slavic language so early. Even if we could speak of some contiguous Slavic mass in what became geographic Macedonia today is dubious -- aside from the remaining Greeks left over in Khalkidhiki, we may have instead had a mosaic. After all, during this era Slavonization was not yet complete, and there was to be no language border between the East South Slavic and Central South Slavic (instead, Albanians and Vlachs in between, covering various mountainous regions and possibly the upper Morava, Shkup and Shtip, etc. -- plus maybe some Turkic speakers, joined by the later appearance of Cumans in Kumanovo). --Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: But if you check the 2 links I provided from Encyclopædia Britannica (and mind you this is not a high schooler's project but a project which includes contributions of over 4000 highly educated individuals and is deemed the most reputable existing encyclopedia in the world), you can see that "Macedonian" links to the Macedonian language in the first source and says "Macedonian (South Slavic)" in the second. Now, I assume that this was written by top-notch historians/scholars/academics etc. who did years of research before writing anything there and making the links, but I'm not sure as I'm neither a historian nor a linguist (and seeing this puts me off a bit). And I know these topics are highly contested so that's why I said "according to Encyclopedia Britanica ...". But in my head, how I interpret it is "Old Church Slavonic developed from the variant of Old Church Slavonic spoken by the Macedonian Slavs in the city of Thesalloniki (which is also somehow linguistically related to current-day Macedonian since it links to the Macedonian language)". And as a side-note: I really don't like connecting the dots myself and I always try to rely on what the sources provided primarily say. I suspect that otherwise it can feel a bit like original research or pushing a view that you personally believe in. DD1997DD (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit. Jingiby (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

We cannot just assume that just because Slavs lived near Thessaloniki back then, the variant they spoke is the one ancestral to modern Macedonian. This is known to not be the case in many analogous scenarios. For example Catalan is likely descended from spoken Latin variants in Gaul, not in any part of modern day Catalonia. Actually most of Dalmatia historically spoke Chakavian, but now speaks Shtokavian. I do not know if we know for sure what Slavic varieties Macedonian descends from, but I suspect we don't.

Sussex (Slavic Languages) has this to say:

page 64: Old Church Slavonic was created in the ninth century as a religious language. It is based on the South Slavic of the Bulgarian-Macedonian area. -- i.e. no differentiation at this point mentioned between Bulgarian vs. Macedonian. (he goes on to mention there were five recensions: Czech-Moravian, Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Russian. I know some include a sixth, Macedonian...)

page 58: breakup of Proto-Slavic occurred between the sixth and tenth centuries. (on wiki we have History_of_Proto-Slavic#Common_Slavic_(c._600–1000))

The question is, do we really need to attribute OCS to a "Macedonian dialect"? Especially as "claiming" OCS for Macedonian... is not going to be accepted by Bulgarian editors. --Calthinus (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Britannica says : ...Slavic language based primarily on the Macedonian (South Slavic) dialects around Thessalonica (Thessaloníki). [[1]] -- Britannica doesn't link Macedonian here so we cannot assume we know it refers to the modern Macedonian language instead of the region of Macedonian (i.e. one can say "Albanian dialects of Slavic" and here it is clear the sense is geographic... but wouldn't be if Albanian was Slavic -- you could even say "Albanian (South Slavic) dialects of Slavic" because indeed all Slavic dialects in Albania are South Slavic). The other link does support the view -- Although the vocabulary and grammar of the early texts written in the Old Church Slavonic language include some Old Bulgarian features, the language was nevertheless based originally on a Macedonian [linked] dialect. Old Church Slavonic was the first Slavic language to be put down in written form. That was accomplished by Saints Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, who translated the Bible into what later became known as Old Church Slavonic and who invented a Slavic alphabet (Glagolitic).. But does that mean we should include it? --Calthinus (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know, I'm not a historian. I just went with the gut feeling that people in Encyclopedia Britanica know their theories better than any Macedonian or Bulgarian source as I assume they considered all available theories and wrote that. And I really don't think we should be caring about making any editor group happy as long as there is a reliable source supporting what is written. And the sentence currently does not "claim" Old Church Slavonic, it just says that one encyclopedia in the world wrote this and nothing more. Maybe another theory is the actual truth. DD1997DD (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I frankly don't know whether we should use Britannica. I know for certain that we should use people who are published scholars on the topic when the work is reviewed by other such individuals. If a sentence asserts there was anything distinctly Macedonian -- as opposed to Macedonian-Bulgarian or "Slavic" -- about OCS, it will be seen as "claiming" by Bulgarians, who will likely react angrily. And how much do we really know about Slavic dialectology at that stage? I'm not a Slavicist but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say "we don't know" and so we should not be asserting OCS was "Macedonian" in any way whatsoever that maps the modern Macedonian/Bulgarian divide 1200 years back in time. If you want to get your version accepted (I do, otherwise this will be for naught), there is a need to find a middle ground.--Calthinus (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You are right *sighs*. But can we maybe also take a look at this article before we decide what to do? I find it so confusing what "Macedonian" means here. I think it also suggests that it was based on what are actually considered Macedonian dialects today ("no schooling and therefore not exposed to theBulgarian language as taught in some areas of Macedonia; 2) not long in Saloniki and 3) previously resident only in their native areas [beforehand mentions cities in current-day N. Macedonia]"). And I think it pretty explicitly refers to Macedonian from the Republic of Macedonia. DD1997DD (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, Macedonische Studien was the first major work on the Macedonian dialects of Aegean Macedonia and has played a significant role in many of the subsequent works in the field of Macedonian dialectology. That seems to clearly identify the modern Solun dialect as Macedonian, which --yes-- the source asserts is separate from Bulgarian. --Calthinus (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

At the time of Old Church Slavonic, there was no Macedonian, there was no Bulgarian. There was a dialect chain of a single language across the Balkan peninsula just north of the Greek dialects, one dialect of which was used as the basis for translation. We could call it "Proto-Eastern South Slavic" or "Macedo-Bulgarian" or some such thing, but it was not Macedonian and it was not Bulgarian. It was the mother of those two languages. It is often called "Old Church Slavonic", but, technically, the written record of OCS only reflects one dialect of this nascent dialect chain. Over time the dialects of this chain became more and more distinct so that the linguistic center of the chain in the west became "the Macedonian dialects" and the linguistic center of the eastern dialects became "the Bulgarian dialects". While the label "Bulgarian" came into use in the Middle Ages while the region was under Turkish control and covered the entire chain, that doesn't mean that the chain itself wasn't differentiated already into eastern and western clusters. (Dialect chains always have regional "centers", they are never perfectly smooth.) "Bulgarian" was just a label for the chain as a whole, it wasn't a linguistic straightjacket. In the 19th century, labels for the two clusters--western and eastern--emerged as "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian". It's all about the level of distinctiveness, which was increasing, and the understanding of ethnic identity underneath that distinctiveness as Turkish control collapsed, to be replaced by Serbian control in the west and Bulgarian control in the east. Had Macedonia become independent at the same time as Bulgaria, the current thread of anti-Macedonianism in Bulgaria might not have emerged. So the determination of EB that OCS was a "Macedonian dialect of Thessaloniki" is anachronistic, at best. It was "the OCS dialect of Thessaloniki" (if we use "OCS" as a label for the dialect chain), or (much better) "the South Slavic dialect of Thessaloniki" or (better than OCS, but not as good as the former) "the Macedo-Bulgarian dialect of Thessaloniki". It was definitely not "the Bulgarian dialect of Thessaloniki" or "the Macedonian dialect of Thessaloniki" because neither of those two labels are appropriate for that time period. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Taivo: kind of linguistics fan cruft, but you missed the crux of my issue with this -- the diachronic continuity between the dialect of Solun in 800, and the dialect of Solun in 1900 ... is not to be taken for granted, especially as we have sources asserting the area was "re-Hellenized" before another wave of Slavs came. --Calthinus (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, I must apologize, but with all the mess at Macedonian language with StanProg still doing everything he can to push "Bulgarian" into places where it doesn't belong, I lost my train of thought here on this thread. I'm sure you are right, but could you briefly refresh my memory? Thanks. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It is more or less a moot point. Just that the Slavs of that part of what is now Greece were Hellenized, and we know about it. You can see it in Fine, Osswald, etc. On wiki: Apart from military expeditions against Slavs, the re-Hellenization process begun under Nicephorus I involved (often forcible) transfer of peoples.[56] Many Slavs were moved to other parts of the empire, such as Anatolia and made to serve in the military.[57] In return, many Greeks from Sicily and Asia Minor were brought to the interior of Greece, to increase the number of defenders at the Emperor's disposal and dilute the concentration of Slavs.[53] Even non-Greeks were transferred to the Balkans, such as Armenians.[51] As more of the peripheral territories of the Byzantine Empire were lost in the following centuries, e.g., Sicily, southern Italy and Asia Minor, their Greek-speakers made their own way back to Greece.... This all makes it rather doubtful that whatever was spoken as far south as Solun that became the original source of OCS... is the modern ancestor of the Slavic dialects found there in 1900. Later Slavic arrivals in the area, as with Albanians and Vlachs further West, came in the later Middle Ages after the Black Death decimated Greeks and the Byzantine Empire was in crisis. Solun itself became neither Greek nor Slavic, but primarily Jewish as Salonica and secondarily Turkish, under the Ottomans. --Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I get it now. Thank you for that clarification. I'm not a specialist in the Balkan languages, so sometimes linguistic tradition ("OCS is the ancestor of the modern East South Slavic languages") has replaced the facts ("OCS is the oldest recorded form of East South Slavic"). They are clearly different things in this case. Thanks again for clearing that up. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

"During this period common to all Slavic languages, Greek religious texts were translated to Old Church Slavonic.[17]" -- what is the intended meaning here? What was common to all Slavic languages? Greek religious texts? Surely not, Pomeranians remained pagan as late as the twelfth century. --Calthinus (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It refers to the fact that during this period, authors of the Slavic language started translating Greek religious texts. Yeah, it sounds weird atm, I agree. DD1997DD (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Macedonian intellectuals

Many Macedonian intellectuals maintained that their language "was neither a dialect of Serbian nor of Bulgarian, but a language in its own right". Max K. Adler. Marxist Linguistic Theory and Communist Practice: A Sociolinguistic Study; Buske Verlag (1980), p.215.

That sentence above is a total mess. It is backed by political motivated source and is extremely dubious, while modern academic sources claim the opposite. In the early 20th century the ideas of a separate Macedonian nationality and language were popular among a limited circles of intellectuals. For more see: Dimitar Bechev, Historical Dictionary of North Macedonia; Historical Dictionaries of Europe, Second edition, Rowman & Littlefield, 2019; ISBN 1538119625, p. 192.; Vesna Lopičić, Biljana Mišić Ilić ed., Values Across Cultures and Times; Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014; ISBN 1443858005, p. 92.; Peter Mackridge, Eleni Yannakakis, Ourselves and others: the development of a Greek Macedonian cultural identity since 1912; Berg Publishers, 1997; ISBN 1859731333, p. 16. Please delete it because Wikipedia is not a place for fringe theories. Jingiby (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This sentence is incorrect: Standard Macedonian was declared the official language of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia within Yugoslavia on 2 August 1944. This declaration was made cladnestinely in the Bulgarian occupation zone of Yugoslavia. Neither Socialist Republic of Macedonia, nor Yugoslavia existed at that time. Jingiby (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

How about we dodge the issue entirely [[2]]? Giving Serbian equal weight with Bulgarian here was also FALSEBALANCE anyways.--Calthinus (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby I think DD may want you editing his sandbox directly but I could be wrong. --Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, he want not, you can see: [3].Jingiby (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of important clarification

My clarification and tweak of the sentence in accordance with cited source here were deleted without reasonable explaination. Why? The cited source does not confirm the first part of the sentence. The story is about the 19th century codifications attempts, not about шге 20th century Macedonian codification. In fact the first grammatical treatise of Modern Bulgarian published by Serbian scholar Vuk Karadzic in 1822 was based on the grammatical and morphological characteristics of the Macedonian Ralog dialect. The first full grammar of Modern Bulgarian published by Neofit Rilski in 1835 was also based on the grammatical and morphological characteristics of the Ralog dialect. Jingiby (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It was probably too long imo. Too much "Bulgarian" stuff -- maybe one sentence The first treatise of Modern Bulgarian published by Serbian scholar Karadzic in 1822 is based on the Razlog dialect, as was the the first full grammar of Bulgarian as published by the Bulgarian scholar Rilski in 1835.? --Calthinus (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The first part od the sentence should not be Prior to the codification of the standard language (Standard Macedonian), the boundaries between the South Slavic languages had yet to be "conceptualized in modern terms, but: Prior to the codification of the standard languages on the Balkans the boundaries between the South Slavic languages had yet to be "conceptualized in modern terms". The second part of the story was remark under line. The very interesting paradoxes are that Karadzic gave as an example for Bulgarian language Macedonian dialect and the first full modern Bulgarian grammar was based on it.Jingiby (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Historical section and proposed sources

I disagree with proposed sources based on the instructions in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): In many historical topics, scholarship is divided, so several scholarly positions should be relied upon. To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order:

• Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic.
• "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area.
• Similarly conference papers that were peer reviewed in full before publication that are field reviews or have as their central argument the historiography.

Proposed as sources articles are at least biased at some extend, while their authors are presenting only the pro-Macedonian point of view, and are not recent scholarship:

• The Creation of Standard Macedonian: Some Facts and Attitudes by Horace Lunt is from 1959, i.e. more then 60 years old.
• Macedonian Language and Nationalism in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth century by Victor A. Friedman. This article originally appeared in Balcanistica, Vol. 2. 1975 and is 45 years old.
• History of the Macedonian language by Blaze Koneski was issued firstly in 1965, i.e. it is 50 years old.

The only partial exception is Usikova, Rina Pavlovna (1994), About the language situation in the Republic of Macedonia, (in Russian), that is recent scholarship, however Usikova has supported only the Macedonian point of view, too. Jingiby (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby I'm fine with Friedman (yes he is on balance pro-Mac, but he is a relevant voice on the matter). I however agree with you on Blazhe Koneski, on different grounds though. Koneski is not independent of the subject, we are dealing with a conflict of interest in his case. --Calthinus (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, please check the second provided by DD1997DD source, i.e Friedman. In every second sentence he is citing Koneski. This is nonsensic. Jingiby (talk)

Friedman is cited some 36 times. Imo -- I have never completely read one of his books, just used Google Books to read excerpts though @Resnjari: if he is around is much more familiar -- citing Koneski or not, he is in good standing as a researcher. You may have a point though in that 36 times may be a bit over-reliant. I guess I'd need to examine the issue in more detail (I'll be back). --Calthinus (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

That claims are not political views and are indisputable. Are there any objections to be added into the text? Jingiby (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• The Macedonian Slavic intelligentsia adopted en mass the Bulgarian standard language till the early 20th century and beyond.
• Standard Bulgarian was still the preferred written language of the Macedonian intelligentsia until 1945.
• The official documents by the Macedonian political organisations and the diaspora before the Second World War were in standard Bulgarian.

They have nothing to do with the development of the Macedonian language and are more relevant to other articles. DD1997DD (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

On a contrary. Jingiby (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two things right now:

• That "nine periods" is rather ridiculous when it comes to defining the historical periods of any language. English, for example, is divided only into Old, Middle, Early Modern, and Modern over the course of 1500 years. That hyper-detailed, and minority, view can be mentioned in the History of the Macedonian language article, but not here. The broad outline is all that should be here.
• The History section is 90% too long. The vast, detailed, year-by-year, person-by-person, document-by-document is totally inappropriate in this article. Move it. A one-paragraph summary of the history is appropriate, but not this. It reads like a novel. Move it to another article (if it's not already there). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Jingiby's bulleted list above is inappropriate for this article. Move it. This is an overview of the Macedonian language as a language, not a point-by-point illustration of how Macedonian has been marginalized by Bulgarian scholars and pushed on an unwitting population by the Communists. That needs to be in another article, not this one. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist: "nine periods" is just how you could divide it. Not sure why this one issue is getting so much attention. For French, MK Pope had Gallian Popular Latin > Early Gallo-Roman > Middle Gallo-Roman > Late Gallo-Roman > Early Old French > Later Old French > Middle French (> Late Middle French) > Early Modern French > Modern French. Each with assigned dates. 9-10 periods. --Calthinus (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess my question is whether or not that "nine periods" is common among Macedonian historical linguists or if it is a minority view. If it's a minority view, then it's not appropriate in this article IMHO, but would definitely be appropriate to mention in History of the Macedonian language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic inaccuracies

There are some places where the description is not linguistically accurate. The sentence in the lead: "The historical development and differentiation of Macedonian lasted several centuries, spanning from the use of Old Church Slavonic in medieval times to the appearance of written texts in Macedonian dialects in the 19th and 20th century" is one of those. "The use of Old Church Slavonic" is not a linguistic development. All languages have taken "several centuries" to evolve. A better formulation is, "Macedonian developed out of the western dialects of the East South Slavic dialect continuum, whose earliest recorded form is "Old Church Slavonic". During much of its history, this dialect continuum was called "Bulgarian" although in the 19th century the western dialects came to be known separately as "Macedonian". Standard Macedonian was codified in 1945." That formulation succinctly captures 1) the linguistic origin of Macedonian in the East South Slavic dialect continuum, known as OCS; 2) the commonly used name of "Bulgarian" for the entire dialect continuum without equating it with Standard Bulgarian or claiming that Macedonian is "just a Bulgarian dialect" (with all the hubris that implies); 3) correctly dates the rise of "Macedonian" as a label for the western dialects of the continuum; and 4) dates the official codification of Standard Macedonian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what has happened to the "Classification and Related Languages" section, but there are three paragraphs that say exactly the same thing with minor variations. The whole thing can be collapsed to a single, non-repetitive paragraph. There isn't anything controversial in there so it's just an editorial fix. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Political views on the language section

This section, like the History section, is 90% too long. Most of these details belong in the separate article, not here. No more than a one-paragraph summary is appropriate here and it should be combined with the History section since most of the content ("Is it Bulgarian or not?") is repeated there (also in unnecessary detail). Get all those details out of this article, which is an overview and a grammar summary only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. These are important aspects of the language. They have likely implications for the historical linguistics of Macedonian, as well as the synchronic sociolinguistics of Macedonian. Languages do not exist in vacuums. For example, we could expect more nationalistic right-wing politicians to be incentivized to speak with characteristics drawn from those dialects most distant from Bulgarian (and perhaps Serbian -- though this would imply the dialects most influenced by... Albanian and Greek).--Calthinus (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be most happy if most, if not all of the political content of the History section were combined with this and the whole thing condensed more than it is (90% might have been the best case for me, but not realistic). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing

I trust that I have not overstepped the bounds by editing directly in the sandbox in two circumstances:

• There is a typo or grammar error
• There is a more accurate and/or correct linguistic term

I have not made edits of content. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I 100% completely trust you to edit/cut/delete any part of the article you'd like to. As a matter of fact, I would really appreciate that as I'm getting kind of lost into what is important and not at this stage. Also I just decided to implement all your comments @TaivoLinguist:. Let me know what you think. DD1997DD (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made small tweaks on your text. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 11:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

After just a quick scan (before I go to work) I can see a huge improvement in the article. I'll read it in more detail later when I have time. Thank you User:DD1997DD for making these edits and User:Jingiby for tweaking them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Popocatépetl

This is used as an example for syllabic dark L. Somehow I don't think most Macedonians -- or most anyone -- knows where this volcano is except Mexicans and amateur/professional geologists. A better example is called for. --Calthinus (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Especially since it's only a dark syllabic /l/ in the American English pronunciation of the Nahuatl, where the /tl/ is an affricate and not syllabic at all. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)