User talk:BalkanFever/Archive1

All these discussions were back when I was User:202.10.89.28

Aromanians

Hello Alex, We believe that the Romanian and Aromanian people are both ethnically and linguistically different. The formation of both peoples, according to our research has gone in different regions, the Aromanians have always had their living places below the Danube river, around the Pindus mountains and in ancient Epirus, Thessaly and Macedonia, and we consider the ancient (pre-Roman) populations who lived there to be different from the ancient Dacians, the precedents of today's Romanians. After the coming of the Romans, they found peoples speaking different languages, which after the so-called process of Romanization or Latinization, participated in the different variants of Latina Vulgata (or Vulgar Latin). According to Eugeniu Coseriu, the Romanian language has had a period of the Proto-Romanian epoch in it's development. We believe that Aromanian was NOT a part of that epoch. It came out of Vulgar Latin and was definitely formed with the Greek influence on the basis of the speach of the ancient populations. That is why we have difference in dialects in Aromanian - because they were formed on the basis of different ancient populations. After the coming of the Ottoman Turks in the Balkans, the Aromanian language received some Turkish phrases which we today believe to have become either too old or have lost their meaning, but as they have been put into many Aromanian dictionaries (like the one by Ion Dalametra, Shtefan Mihaileanu or Tache Papahagi), be believe that they have to be a part of the Aromanian language, and we have tried to revive the use of some of them. Unfortunately we see that there has been a certain trend with modern Aromanian translators (like Dina Cuvata or Tiberius Cunia) to take words from Romanian and adapt them to the Aromanian language even though we have many words in Aromanian for those ones who come from Greek and they have avoided the use of Latin words put into the Aromanian grammar system, which is what we have been promoting by our sites. With regards to the ortography of Aromanian, we believe that Aromanian was first written with the Greek script, even though there have been trials of writing it into the Slavic script (after the coming of the Slavs) or in other types of script. For the latter we have proof - the writing of St Naum of Ohrid in ancient times or the book by Naum Tahov in newer times. But the basic original Aromanian script was definitely Greek. Greek was the most developed script in Antiquity and Middle Ages on the Balkans (with the coming of the Romans this did not change as there are more writings in Greek than Latin in the South of the Balkans) and during the Byzantine Era. So the Aromanian adapted it to their own language system and they managed to keep it up till the end of the Moscopolitan epoch - period. With the break of the Orthodox Church from Constantinople and the forming of the Bulgarian Exarchate in the Balkans, the Aromanians were split and some of them fled from the Patriarchate churches and tried to develop a new writing system, becoming aware of their ancient Roman (Latin) origin. Thus the script by Mihail Boiagi and his Grammar were developed. The language was clearly Moscopolitan and he avoided the use of any diacritics except for the silent Vocal in Aromanian (ã), as opposed to the difference in the silent vocals in Romanians (namely - â/ǎ/î). Our script is based on Mihail Boiagi's with the exceptions of the semi-vocals - i and u, which under the influence of modern Latin are either excluded from writing or are written as ǐ/ǔ, but we decided to simplify things and simply put them only when they might denote a difference in meaning. I hope Ihave explained our position on Romanians and Aromanians. All the best, Dumitrachi T. Fundu Eeamoscopolecrushuva 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You may be interested in this dispute [1]. It involves the deletion of the historic song "Makedonsko Devoiche" aswell as the deletion of the epic songs: Zajdi, Zajdi Jasno Sonce, Jovano Jovanke, Uči me majko, karaj me, More Sokol Pie

Ireland101 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I was planning to add something to that article but it seems if I do something now i'll be accused of not having sources and/or propaganda. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that know that the AfD is over we should add as much constructive changes and not worry about those accusations as the people that make those are usually the distributive ones that only add POV. This way Wikipedia will see who wants the articles to be accurate and who wants to hide the truth. Ireland101 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonsko Devojče

Thanks Alex -- I appreciate that :) AWN AWN2 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation Makedonsko Devojče

Yeah alex, that's cool, where should i put the translation? on the main page or the discussion page?Makedonia 15:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a polite reminder

I'd just like to caution you against comments like this one in the future; they are considered personal attacks, and create a hostile working environment for everyone on Wikipedia. Please remember to stay cool when editing gets hot, and always be civil to other editors. I know this can sometimes be difficult, but a calm demeanor makes everything run smoother. --Haemo 01:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I know man, but i can't sit all day on wikipedia controlling what some users have edited, i have a life outside internet too. And im tired of doing so too. It just doesnt make any sense. Whole wikipedia should be banned by the authorities. Take care man! Makedonia 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Personal attacks like this and continually edit warring to readd it is absolutely unacceptable. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated incivility and incitement to edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

ELIMINATORJR 21:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

I've named you as a party to an Arbitration committee case, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanians

Hi Alex. I don't think "Contributions to humanity" sounds POV. All nations have made contributions to humanity, and the article on Romanians shows their share. You could also say "Famous Romanians", but such wording suggests a wider scope, for example Ceauşescu is a famous Romanian, but his contribution to culture was far below zero... — AdiJapan ☎ 08:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent link! It's the only dictionary available online that I know for Aromanian. Of course I'd very prefer the opposite direction (Aromanian -> Romanian), since I usually need to understand Aromanian rather than speak it, but your link still helps, because most of the time I can guess the meaning, so I only need to check it. Thanks a lot! — AdiJapan ☎ 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Although WP:RFARB is never the right place to solve content disputes, I am inclined to attempt an answer at one of your questions there:

You asked: But my question is, why did Greece not have a problem with the Socialist Republic of Macedonia? They used the name Macedonia (not Currently Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) yet Greece and Greeks did not care.
- "Macedonia" (un-disambiguated) to the eyes of the hot-headed Greeks is only their province and nothing else. We don't care about those. To the eyes of the moderate and educated Greeks, it is a wider region that also encompasses their province, and your country (and Blagoevgrad and a few bits in Serbia and Albania). This should also be the case to the eyes of the rest of the world. When the republic was a subnational entity, the fact that it was a subset of Macedonia (region) was evident as it had equal status to that of the Greek Macedonia (et al). So, even in standard English toponym description, you would quote it as "Macedonia, Yugoslavia" (as in "Macedonia, Greece" etc). Therefore, moderate and educated Greeks had no problem calling it so. Now that it is an autonomous country, and it bears the exact same name of a wider region, it creates both confusion and a sense of "lost fatherlands" for the other parts. That's all there is to it. It's like calling Sweden alone Scandinavia. Like calling Portugal alone Iberia. Like calling Greece alone Balkania.

In any case, we needn't reflect in WP what we would want to happen, but only what actually happens now. And that goes for all sides, of course. Niko Silver 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a country called America. There is a country called Mongolia. But here's the thing: The name of the republic of Macedonia is referring to the people, not the region. If you substitute Scandinavian for Swede the country would be called Scandinavia. Macedonians identify on an ethnic and national level, and the name of the country should reflect that.

And I agree that we should reflect what is happening now in WP, but unfortunately what's going on in the real world is ridiculous nationalism on all sides. Examples:

"I'm Macedonian". Reply: "Macedonia is Greek you Slav"

"I'm Macedonian". Reply: "You're Bulgarian like me"

"I'm from Tetovo". Reply: "It's Tetovë you stupid Macedonian"

"I'm Greek". Reply: "I'm Macedonian so fuck you"

"I'm Bulgarian". Reply: "You're a Tatar"

"I'm Albanian". Reply: "Get the fuck out"

Nationalism has no place in WP - but you can't get rid of it. You're not a nationalist, I'm not a nationalist but most of the others are. Anybody can edit WP, the problem with the Macedonia issue is that there are too many "anybodies". Alex 202.10.89.28 04:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely citing the Greek response to what you said, without necessarily adopting it. However, I must note that wherever a name of a wider region is used officially for a country, that generally implies claims for the whole region and, as such, is unstable (unless you are ruling the whole world, so you can do whatever you want or unless your people live in the whole region regardless of borders and in substantial numbers and you still then disambiguate the wider X region to "Outer X"). Anyway, in my view, I think it's (finally and at last) very good that Greece officially stopped its yelling that "THERE IS NO OTHER MACEDONIA THAN THE GREEK MACEDONIA SO CHANGE YOUR NAME COMPLETELY YOU SLAVS", and now adopts a more moderate position, as in, "yes, you are Macedonians, but you're not the only Macedonians, so let's use a composite name". You know, many Greeks will call me a "traitor" for telling you this, but I don't give a dime for those hotheads. Niko Silver 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that the dispute is (or at least looks like) moving towards resolution. However, while Greece is suggesting a composite name for the republic, it is not suggesting a composite name for the state. It's not officially called "Greek Macedonia". It has to be either both use different names or they both use their own names. Also, I could be viewed as a "traitor" as well for having this conversation. And wasn't Constantine Mitsotakis viewed as a traitor by the hot-headed Greeks as well? Could the dispute not have been solved almost 15 years ago? Alex 202.10.89.28 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all above. With the [not necessarily agreeable also but quite mitigating] detail that the Greek province is a subnational entity, and therefore will always be called Macedonia, Greece if disambiguation is needed, while the country has nothing to put after that comma. Glad we are both "traitors" BTW. I think the entire world needs more of us. Niko Silver 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Konstantinos Mitsotakis, might I add, it is said he had agreed to "Slavomacedonia" with Kiro Gligorov before he was overthrown by Antonis Samaras and never ratified it. His son, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, now an MP, made his thesis in Harvard about how internal micro-politics can affect the exterior affairs. His daughter, Dora Bakoyannis, is the current MFA of Greece that had the initiative for the shift in policy. I'm wondering, do you think the Slav- prefix would have helped the Macedonians (Slav) in their internal problems with the Albanian-Macedonians, or would it have made it worse? And, also, do you share my view that Greeks and Macedonians (Slav) have actually much more to gain from becoming close friends, (given that they share the same religion, the same Balkan mentality, and have "common traditional enemies"), than from bitching about mere semantics? Niko Silver 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do have more to gain. They would be able to cooperate in international organisations and there would be one less ethnic "disagreement" in the Balkans - like the one's I highlighted before. It would have given Greece some form of ally and Macedonia would have been way better off. When Yugoslavia broke apart, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia got into a genocide, Macedonia got into a dispute with Greece, and Slovenia just pissed off. Macedonia has roughly the same area and same population as Slovenia but there is no doubt which one is better. All Macedonians would have been richer and better off and the Greeks would have one less "traditional enemy" to worry about. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I buy you a beer sometime? Niko Silver 08:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Slav- prefix, if only it were that simple. The problem is the terms Slav and Greek do not "balance out". "Greek" refers only to one ethnicity and one language - you have your own branch from Indo-European. "Slav", however, encompasses everyone from the Russians to the Sorbs to the Macedonians - it is generic in a sense. It doesn't give the Macedonians a separate identity - and then the Bulgarian problem starts. I don't know too much about the Albanian problem, except that they have an idea of Greater Albania or "Ethnic Albania" and that they want/wanted a confederation like Switzerland - so I can't really answer your question. I don't know of that many (hot-headed) Albanians that identify as Macedonians except in terms of citizenship (to facilitate their ideas). I guess it wouldn't have made a difference since the Albanians know the ethnic Macedonians are Slavs - maybe I misinterpreted what you asked. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It would have probably created other problems, with the east and the north, and it wouldn't be as effective with the west. But, still, the help from the south would be valuable, for both. I'm sure there's another prefix/suffix or separate word that can do the job. The Greater Albania concept includes (Southern) Epirus/"Chameria" BTW, which is crazy because it is their own south that has a majority in Greeks, and not the other way round. Niko Silver 08:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there was an Epirus dispute - it's weird to see a non-Macedonia related dispute in the southern Balkans. And along with the Greek minority in Northern Epirus, there's an ethnic Macedonian minority in Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo. Oh, the hilarity. Maybe in around 20-30 years when all of Europe is the one Union, all minority disputes will be over forever and we can worry about more important things. Alex 202.10.89.28 09:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so optimistic. History, unfortunately, suggests otherwise. Read this metaphor of mine here, fourth paragraph from the end of that section and on, starting from "Well, that was the initial purpose of the page"). It seems that we are in a historical "mixing phase" now, and what follows will probably be the "conflict for un-mixing" phase, as usual. Cross your fingers, of course. Niko Silver 13:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in the end we're looking at the world being full of minorities who want more and more support just because they're minorities. If only it were as simple as designating each ethnicity a country - no minorities anywhere. Obviously that wont happen - it's just a form of segregation.

Alex 202.10.89.28 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But at least we can look forward to most of Europe joining the union - in the probable order of:

Croatia; Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein; San Marino, Andorra, Monaco; Turkey; Montenegro, Macedonia (naming dispute resolved); then probably Serbia and Belarus then Albania. Unless there's a war between two already EU countries, of course - at which point the union may or may not dissolve. Alex 202.10.89.28 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 00:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOB

Hello Alex, you may be interested in helping to improve the quality and resolve POV on the "controversial" article People's Liberation War of Macedonia. Please consider it. Thank you for you time. Лилјак 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Alphabet

Hi Alex -- thanks for the feedback on the Macedonian alphabet article! I was going to let you know about it, given your contributions to some of the other Macedonian articles around.

Regarding the potential for the article to become a battleground, I agree... it certainly does have the potential :( I have tried to keep the article strictly on the alphabet and be completely neutral. I have given a brief background to the controversy because I think it is needed in order to understand the committee controversies and pressures. The other thing I will do before posting the article is get a Bulgarian editor to take a look at it. I am thinking Laveol (talk · contribs), because I think his contributions are quite useful, even if Macedonians don't always agree with him!

I did notice that you have already moved the cursive article to the alphabet article, which I agree is a good idea!

The idea about written Т and П is a good one, and I will try and work it in.

Anyway, feel free to make any other suggestions/changes -- I'll keep you informed about how it goes.

Thanks again, cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't think the length of the article is an issue -- if we have the information, why not include it? I wish the Russian alphabet article was longer -- there is some fascinating stuff that should be included, especially about the alphabet reforms... AWN

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the feedback. A few thoughts:

But I just don't want 5 paragraphs of claims of Serbianisation like in Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language. With regards to this, I'd try and keep all the Serbianisation stuff in the "Views on the Macedonian language article", however, there may be some interesting stuff from editors about the Committee controversies. Only time will tell.

This is technically incorrect as most linguists consider them two languages of the same diasystem. Cool -- I didn't know that~~, but will amend that in the article, unless you want to do it~~!

PS I see you've already done that! ;-)

Schwa: I agree that most languages, Macedonian included, have a schwa. I think the controversy was that some people wanted to include a schwa letter (who were accused of Bulgarianization), and those who wanted to exclude the letter (who were accused of Serbianization).

I will try and help as much as I can with differences compared to Standard Cyrillic (especially with handwriting and italics - the information in the Cyrillic alphabet page is not completely correct) once you are finished with the cursive script. Cool, you don't have to wait for me -- I am happy for you to edit it.

Happy editing to you too! Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, I have made some changes after your and Capricornis' changes to the Macedonian alphabet sandbox article. I think the stuff about Johann Christoph Adelung may be a bit too far removed from the Macedonian article... It should really by in the Serbian Cyrillic Alphabet article... Anyway, take a look, let me know what you think. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian views on the Macedonian language. Thank you.

italic script

I think the article you point out talks about Cyrillic cursive in general. there are national differences though. the style shown in the article is used in Bulgarian and Russian, but Serbian and Macedonian have a different style. I am not sure if that is relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. Capricornis (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the letter 'be' cursive as presented in the article as it was a macedonian/serbian version is not the most commonly used one. the most common version is similar to the standard cyrillic cursive. however, i have seen that version as well. the problem here is that macedonian cursive fonts have taken quite a liberty with the script and there are quite a few different versions, some not following the standard one (if there is a standard, i don't know of any).

Capricornis (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian version

Hy brother,i wrote you a Slovenian translattion of Makedonsko devojce in your article. Pozdrav Makedonij Makedonij 21:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed just a lidle corection.If you need anythig,i'm here!! Makedonij 10:00,30 November 2007 (UTC)

ť vs ć

Hi, czech ť, and serbian ć is (sound) similar, but not the same. first77.105.30.191 18:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia closed

The above arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be found here. Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on Balkans-related articles if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

As I don't want to get into childish fights, could you explain this bearing in mind the song was based on a work by a Bulgarian revolutionary (so that any stuff like: the song is macedonian etc are not valid) --Laveol ^T 21:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I got from the article was that it is a Macedonian song (Sarievski) based on a Bulgarian song (Karavelov). Considering there was no Bulgarian music/song category it seemed normal to put Macedonian first. Maybe you should make an article on Karavelov's song. That way one will be Macedonian and one will be Bulgarian. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Arabic alphabet

I didn't even know it existed until I read your comment!! I will take a look at the article and see if I can help out :) Cheers, AWN AWN2 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Macedonians" nowhere near a majority in Macedonia

The "Македонци" would be nowhere near a majority. The Μακεδόνες outnumber them in the wider region of Macedonia almost 2 to 1. Even if all Greek Slavophones were seduced by the pleasures of Macedonism, that would only add another 200,000 max to the red camp. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa and various other countries were controlled by the minority. And what's to say there wouldn't be any "Hellenophone Slavs"? Nevertheless it doesn't matter because we are talking about a hypothetical situation. Alex 202.10.89.28 10:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old "Greeks are sub-Saharan savages" slur again, eh? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Alex 202.10.89.28 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe#The Arnaiz-Villena controversy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that research. But either you don't understand English or you are deliberately twisting my words. I was using South Africa as an example of a country where the minority (White people in that case) has ruled over the majority (Black people in that case). Another example would be Haiti, where the minority French ruled over the others. I never mentioned the genetic makeup of Greeks. If you're going to accuse me of Macedonism and other things I'd rather not have this discussion. Alex 202.10.89.28 10:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you were actually serious about using the former South African régime as a model for a future United Macedonia? Now that's scary. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I don't support a United Macedonia. Alex 202.10.89.28 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you did, it would be a very messy way of going about it. It would be far easier just to get rid of the Greeks altogether. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but we now live in a world where it would not be possible to violate human rights on that scale without every other country noticing. Then America would probably invade in the name of freedom or some crap like that. And NATO and the EU wouldn't be a possibility. I'm sure that the red team would rather live in a peaceful, EU and NATO member nation than a "complete" (like it really matters anyway) nation hated by the West. Alex 202.10.89.28 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I guess it's hard enough holding onto what you've already got, what with the restive Albanian population and all. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a possibility that that could happen (in the not so near future). Especially if Kosovo gets liberated or becomes more autonomous, Albania (and Kosovo) might invade, or the ones in the Republic will revolt. This could also happen to Southern Epirus, but it's less likely. The Albanians have a higher birth rate than both the red team and Greeks, so it seems this minority problem will just get worse. Alex 202.10.89.28 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that, contrary to the claims of Albanian irredentists, the concentration of Albanians in southern Epirus is no higher than in any other part of Greece. Indeed, there are substantial communities of Albanians throughout Greece, especially in the major cities, but they are recent economic immigrants and not an indigenous minority as is the case north of the border. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if Albania were to invade the Republic, it would be on the basis of irredentism, not on whether there is or is not a substantial minority. So what would stop it invading Greece? Alex 202.10.89.28 11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more worried about the hotheads in Kosovo than Albania itself. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if they were to do anything really threatening, like attack, then the Macedonians, as well as the Serbians, full of hatred, would fight back to the point where the Kosovo forces will be severely weakened. And who do you think will be the bad guys? Both groups of Slavs would be portrayed as war criminals even though they would just be protecting their land. Alex 202.10.89.28 12:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greece would also probably be an ally to this crazy scenario. And she'd probably be the strongest help around. Question is, what do politicians in the country north of Greek Macedonia have in their brains just pissing off the only ones around who could seriously help them? And for no (serious) reason too? Niko Silver 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian pronouns

You're right, nouns don't decline for case but pronouns do. I've removed the part which says that nouns decline. Pozdrav. --AimLook (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-croatian vs Macedonian and Bulgarian

Than you for trying Alex, but I can't agree with you. Standard Serbian and standard Croatian are indeed mutually intelligible and are structurally almost identical. But, may I remind you that, there are several dialects of those languages that are mutually intelligible with other languages as well, like Kajkavian Croatian and Slovenian or Torlakian Serbian and Bulgarian. They are not considered to be the same language. Also native speakers of one dialect in Croatia often have trouble understanding other dialects, for example if a person from northern Croatia goes to the island of Hvar he has about the same chances of understanding the locals (if they speak in their local dialect) as he would have with understanding Macedonian. Furthermore most Macedonians I know have no problem understanding Bulgarian and also in diplomatic relations with Macedonia the Bulgarian side prefers not to use interpreters, must be something similar to the dialect situation in Croatia, what is exactly the point I am trying to make. As I said earlier standard Serbian and standard Croatian are mutually intelligible, but aren't the same (also Serbian being written in Cyrillic script), also I wouldn't rely on programmers to be the source of my linguistical expertise. You could use a Norwegian Bokmål locale in a program and expect a Danish user to understand (although I doubt someone would say it's the same language that the Danes are calling Danish and Norwegians Norwegian). Mrcina (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the standards are what matter. That is what is being taught in schools in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia. That is what the writers write in. Dialects will always continue to drift apart, but it doesn't make a different to the language itself. If someone says "I can speak Croatian" they mean the standard language, not an insular variety. Serbian and Croatian have been one language (I really don't know what to call it) since it split off from Proto-Slavic or Old Church Slavonic but with the advent of Croatian nationalism were starting to split apart. This was obviously canceled out by Yugoslavism and the standardization of the language. The problem is that Serbs and Croats are not the same people - something that Yugoslavism emphasised, but they do speak the same language. For Croatian to truly be a different language, the standard must be based on a different dialect so that it is less similar to Serbian. Politics manipulates linguistics - which I hate, but compare the Norwegians and the Danes to the Serbs and Croats. Who has a history of hatred towards each other to the point of genocide? No-one is disputing that the Croats and Serbs are different (that is why they hate each other), but they are learning the same language in school and calling it a different name - so the name "Serbo-croatian" will continually be used by people to refer to this language. The fact that there was a war solely for the purpose of proving these two peoples were different doesn't help. Norwegians, Danes and Swedes were never forced to be the same people - the countries split apart relatively peacefully and there was never a backing of Dano-Norwegian or Swedo-Norwegian. And those countries have been split for way longer than Serbia and Croatia. In 100 years maybe Croatian and Serbian will be different languages - who knows. But for now they are still one language. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to tell me that if a person speaks only a vernacular dialect of Croatian, and not the standard language, that he doesn't speak Croatian at all? "Serbian and Croatian have been one language since it split off from Proto-Slavic or Old Church Slavonic" - now I would really love to see proof of that. The Croatian language of today is its third standard (novostokavian). The two standards before were Ozalj Croatian (a mix of all three dialects) and kajkavian. I would love to see Serbian kajkavian or Ozalj Serbian. The third standardization and what followed is described here. Choosing a different standard doesn't change the dialects and it would be silly to do just to prove it's a different language. But your principle could be applied to Macedonian and Bulgarian as well. If Bulgarians were to choose western dialects as their standard would that make Macedonian and Bulgarian the same language? According to you - yes. What I am questioning are the criteria that make, according to some, Croatian and Serbian one language. If those criteria would be applied elsewhere we would have only 3 South Slavic languages. Now for the historical/political topics: much blood has been spilled in Scandinavia, the fact that it happened long ago doesn't mean that Scandinavia has always been peaceful. Btw. Bokmål is a Norwegianized variety of Danish. The Homeland war in Croatia wasn't fought to prove the differences between the two nations. Nationalistic chauvinism is the same, everywhere in the world, so please don't say Serbs and Croats hate each other. It's rather: immature, ignorant and misled individuals hate other people solely for being a member of a different nation, religion, race or culture. Other genocides: the Holocaust, Rwanda, Armenia, Darfur... Mrcina (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they just don't speak the standard. An American tourist who learned Croatian in school would expect to be able to communicate with a person in Croatia (wherever they are) and then be surprised to find out they have trouble understanding them. I said that choosing a different dialect as the standard changes the language. If Bulgarians were to choose the dialects of Prilep, Bitola and Veles as the standard, then that would indeed make them the same language - Macedonian. But why would someone in Varna be learning the language of another country? That is why the Bulgarian standard is based in Bulgaria, on dialects not spoken in Macedonia, because that makes the language different. Yet the Croatian and Serbian standards are based on dialects shared by speakers of both countries - instead of at least one of those standards being based on a dialect solely within the country. And since Bokmål is a Norwegianized form of Danish, why isn't there Danish irredentism and why aren't there Danes calling the Norwegians Danes? Because there is peace now and there will always be peace between Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Because they know they are different peoples. And they don't care what they call their language - they don't try to prove a point that it's different. You can emphasize the differences between dialects of Croatian and dialects of Serbian, but the Serbian "language" and Croatian "language" are still considered the same - which is why people use the term Serbo-Croatian for this. Only over time will the changes become different enough for people to stop using Serbo-Croatian. That is why Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are called different languages - because over time those three standard languages have drifted apart.

Why could Bulgarians choose the dialects of Prilep, Bitola and Veles as the standard for the Bulgarian language and not the dialects of the Croatian language? By saying, I quote: "If Bulgarians were to choose the dialects of Prilep, Bitola and Veles as the standard, then that would indeed make them the same language - Macedonian.", you are implying that Macedonian/Bulgarian is one language with two standards. What exactly are the differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian? They are very small, just like between Croatian and Serbian. My point is that the amount of differences between dialects, used as a criterion (inter alia) to consider them different languages, is arbitrary and isn't applied consistently. Mrcina (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. Bulgarians can't choose those dialects (i.e. idioms) because they are what is spoken in another country by another people - the Macedonian language. If the Portuguese were to choose dialects (idioms) spoken in Castille as their standard, Portuguese and Spanish would be the same language - Spanish. There are more differences between Macedonian and Bulgarian than between Serbian and Croatian. This is a wide known fact. Which is why linguists use Serbo-Croatian more than they use Macedo-Bulgarian or Bulgaro-Macedonian (if ever). Only chauvinist Bulgarians think Macedonian is a dialect. The main difference is the lexicon - Bulgarian borrows words from Russian, whereas Macedonian borrows from Serbian (and slightly more distantly Croatian) and English. Also Macedonian has three definite articles. And it is has more features in common with the rest of the Balkan Sprachbund. We can say whatever we want, but linguists say Serbian and Croatian are one language. And most observers (non-linguists) say it all depends on your religion. They will probably start to move away from this in the future. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they couldn't choose dialects from Japanese, but they could from Macedonian. Until 1944 they were considered to be the same language. What linguistical difference did come into existence in 1944? This is what I am trying to tell you. It is not the difference that counts, but the political situation. Btw. what do you think, are there more linguists studying Croatian and Serbian in Croatia and Serbia (who think they are separate languages) or in the rest of the world? Mrcina (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1944 was when the Macedonian literary language was formed - not the Macedonian language. And there are more neutral linguists studying Croatian and Serbian in the rest of the world. Personally, I don't care what you call your language. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what, Croatian and Serbian were literary languages before 1850. What gorunds did a Bulgarian dialect have to declare itself a language? The languages were the same ten years before and after 1944, why did Macedonian become a language? In linguistics, like in any science, you have primary, secondary and tertiary sources. In order for a secondary source to be valid it has to have its primary sources validated, tertiary the secondary and so on. Explain to me how exactly does someone neutral, who doesn't understand a language, validate his primary sources that are in the language he doesn't speak. He can't. He relies on the secondary sources published by a non-neutral linguist. If those sources are deliberately flawed, due to political interests, then the neutral linguist will be misinformed. And what would you personal criteria be, to consider two languages separate? Mrcina (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal criteria is Whatever floats your boat. And Croatian or Serbian was a literary language before 1850. On what grounds did one language have the right to declare itself as 3? You can argue with me all you want - but most people consider Serbian and Croatian one language - Serbo-Croatian. And most people consider Bulgarian and Macedonian separate languages. Until people stop you will have one "Serbo-Croatian language" article. Like I said, wait a few decades. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that in those few decades nothing (linguistically significant) will change, only attitudes and the political climate. Then those neutral linguists will consider them different languages. How can someone be a scientist if his opinion is dictated by politics rather then reason? Mrcina (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But in a few decades the current linguists will be very old or dead, and new linguists will come in with fresh ideas of what is a language and what isn't. But linguists do have criteria - and using their criteria (whatever it may be) they have found that Macedonian is not a dialect of Bulgarian, and that Serbo-Croatian is one language. The political situation isn't helping, because it is being seen as a charade - "Bosnian" especially and in the near future "Montenegrin". Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is impossible. If there were such criteria, there would be a consensus, no one would be arguing and they would be very widely used as a reference. Whomever I’ve confronted with this issue has avoided an answer and had no arguments to back up his theory. I feel like I'm stuck in the 12th century trying to explain that the Earth is round while everybody else knows it's flat. Mrcina (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not avoiding an answer, I just don't care as much as you do. You need to talk to a linguist who says that Serbian and Croatian are one language. Tell me what happens. I know this: most linguists consider Macedonian and Bulgarian two distinct languages. As far as I know: most linguists consider Serbo-croatian one language with three standards. I don't know if anyone has compared Serbian vs Croatian to Macedonian vs Bulgarian in terms of which are closer - aside from the programmers lol, but I would expect them to find that Macedonian and Bulgarian are less similar than Serbian and Croatian. My point is: If Serbian and Croatian are two languages - then there is no way that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. But if Macedonian and Bulgarian are two languages - Serbian and Croatian may or may not be one language. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already spoken to two linguists. One from Serbia (he considers them separate) and one from England (he considers them the same). The English one was avoiding the answers, you can read about it in the talk page of the Serbo-Croatian language article. I personally consider Macedonian, Bulgarian, Croatian and Serbian separate languages and I can't understand that the difference isn't obvious to everyone. But I can tell you that more and more universities in Europe and USA have two separate courses instead of previously having one (Serbo-Croatian). Mrcina (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard enough of Croatian and Serbian to be able to tell a difference. And in writing (Latin alphabet) I can't pick one from the other. I can tell Macedonian and Bulgarian apart because I speak Macedonian - and Bulgarian doesn't sound like Macedonian to me. With Croatia becoming an EU member before Serbia, two languages will be recognised: Croatian first, and then later Serbian. But if Bosnia wants to join the EU there might be problems at first with language recognition, and I don't want to start on Montenegrin. But if you can assure me that Croatian and Serbian are separate languages (linguistically, not politically) then I have to believe you. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Štip, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kingpomba (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Macedonians in NYC

There are Macedonians scattered in amongst other emigrants from the former Yugoslavia. I worked with a draftsman (woman) at my last job... (she had a Bosnian husband, met here). The super of my building is an ethnic Albanian, from Macedonia. But that's not what you meant. I googled up this church, but out in the suburbs.

Thanks for the help with the words. I know some (lousy foreigner) Russian, which allows me to guess a little, but that's dangerous. It was, though, the only thing I had available on my (long slow) train ride through Macedonia this summer (Berlin to Thessaloniki, I thought it would be fun, not too smart). Jd2718 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side is trains do not usually stop to ask farmers for instructions to Macedonia... :-) --Niko Silver 22:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see a pitchfork through a train :D. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]