Talk:Torlakian dialects

message: :It is a good observation but I now I realise that the Latin quo and the Slavic based kvo are not of common descent: firstly, they would be cognates rather than the Slavic languages borrowing from Latin. Latin words have made their way into Slavic speech, particularly South Slavic as the whole area was under Rome when Slavs arrived, hence the number of words we share with Romanian - not just the Romanian of the country - but Romanian as spoken in pockets accross the former Yugoslavia. A word for "what" is just too basic for one language to borrow it from another I guess. My point is that our word "kakvo" is related to "how?", and alone it actually means "what kind?" but it suffices for just "what/što" in pockets of Serbia and Bulgaria. As for Bulgaria, this habit travels accross their whole land, certainly far enough for it to be a part of Standard Bulgarian and not just Belogradchik-Tǔrn areas. Even so, most people generally know that Kakvo is not a variant translation of Što, I mean there is the vestige of even Bulgarian once having had Shto of some kind, as in their word "Zashto" (For what?) meaning Why. Not zakakvo as one might imagine...compared to Slovenian Zakaj along with areas of Croatia. That's why I'm sure that kvo and quo are unrelated. The other thing is, our words 'Ko' (think of Croatian, Polish Tko) as well as SHTO itself, are cognates with the English word What (earlier Hwat - compare to Norwegian Hvad). Jordovan february 23, 2006
About the last argument: quo has the same origin as 'shto/ko/hvad/what/who' (the difference between who and what is short i and short u in PIE), so we are talking about very related words between IE languages. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 11:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm Bulgarian too and can confirm that kvo is merely a colloquial shortening of kakvo here. shto is also used in this meaning, but it is more commonly a shortening of zashto (why?). I don't think Latin has anything to do, this is basic Slavic vocabulary.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 16:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal “confirmation” is just statement of one’s own (possibly biased) opinion: could you state some academic work on the topic? 164.82.84.22 (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Quo

message: Stop wich spleeten the Serbian language. This languege is the mix language wich it was spocet during the Ottoman E. The Ottomans say for this Languege "Prizrend dialect"--Hipi Zhdripi 17:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The English is atrocious, so FYI "Stop wich spleeten" probably means "Stop with splitting" and "spocet" probably should be "spoken". 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the date. That comment was a year ago. And don't feed the troll...--Hadžija 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  O please 

message: What does this sentence refer to?
 Macedonian, Torlakian and a number of Serbian and Bulgarian dialects, unlike all other Slavic languages,
 technically have no /h/.
Don't all Slavic languages lack /h/ as a separate phoneme? In Slavic languages written in Latin alphabet, "h" generally means /x/. Apparently, for loanwords in Slavic languages using Cyrillic, it usually turns to х (/x/) or г (/g/), so I might be wrong, but it seems to be considered a free variation on these sounds. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, apparently Czech, Slovak, Belarussian and Ukrainian uses /ɦ/, the voiced counterpart to /h/ whereas most other Slavic languages uses /g/. Granted, /ɦ/ and /h/ are quite similar, but it'd require some rewriting. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It means that those dialects don't have /h/, /x/, /ɦ/ or any variation thereof; in most cases, they're mute compared with neighboring Slavic dialects (particularly, Štokavian, with which they form the dialect continuum), in others, it is replaced by /j/ or /v/. Duja► 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoneme /h/?

message: I was bold and moved the page to "Torlak dialect" from Torlak. While the naming convention for languages calls for undisambiguated title where suitable, I don't think it's quite appropriate in this case:
* There is article Torlaks, about the speakers of this language; there are also Torlak hill in Belgrade (rather notable, but no article yet) and Torlak (dog).
* While the intent of said convention was to discourage "language vs. dialect" politization, Torlakian has never been aspiring to a "language" status and, like it or not, remains a low-prestige, non-standardized dialect group (rather than a unified dialect). The SC books refer to it as "Torlački govor" or "torlački dijalekt". Duja► 08:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you are doing is spreading Bulgarian propaganda, plain & simple. 164.82.84.22 (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to Torlak dialect 

message: I have replaced the chapter Cultural marginalization and ethnic affiliation to the article about the Torlaks as more appropriate. Jingby (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And who on Earth would the mentioned “Torlaks” be? 164.82.84.22 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to Torlaks  

message: "Some features of Torlakian clearly show how Macedonian changes to Bulgarian"
I'm not sure this sentence can even in theory mean anything. This article is about dialects; I don't see what literary languages have to do with this. The political border between Macedonia and Bulgaria does not coincide with any dialectological discontinuities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.33 (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To expand: it might be taken to refer to features charateristic to dialects spoken in Macedonia vs. ones spoken in Bulgaria, but there is again no such thing; the political boundary does not correspond to any divisions of Eastern South Slavic dialects; and it's not even a very smooth continuum, features are all over the place, Eastern South Slavic is more of a patchwork.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.72.33 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsensical phrasing 

message: Torlaks means a dog in Turkish, and that is how Shops call the converters to other nationality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.93 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog 

message: The French ethnographic map from 1860 is a complete joke. I am from Ioannina (Janina) a supposed albanian town according to the map. Unfortunately i never heard anyone mentioning such a thing, ever. I suppose the same reliability applies to the rest of the map, showing genuine Shtokavian areas as Bulgarians, etc...
:My grand-grand parents had been born in Yoanina. I am Bulgarian. The map is referenced document, not related with you or my relatives, etc... Do not vandalize the article, please!  Jingby (talk)
Dear Jingby, Gia sou file kai patrioti from Giannena.
Marking as ethnic-albanian an area which was never close to anything albanian (Giannena being an albanian town is the biggest joke) is not a sign of credibility. Notice the incompatibility of Greeks and Albanians in the first place. And the same holds for areas like Leskovac or Nish in Serbia, traditional Old Serbian lands, whose language is the most ancient form of Stokavian. I think you try to pass your own greater Bulgaria agenda here, a Bulgarian editing an article about a subclass of Stokavian Serbs (Prizren-Timok dialect as it is called by linguists), and posting maps of those places showing them to belong in Bulgaria is an oxymoron, don't you think?
I do not think you are the right person for the job.
Either a Serb should take over this page, or a neutral researcher.
(upd) Its ok now i suppose.
Also, why the first map (the clearly bulgarian one) is portrayed as a ... source, while the official one is mark
as the .... "serbian point of view"?
I think the Official map should be place first, and if the second (useless as it is in Bulgarian language) is to be placed
somewhere, then it should be second. The only info that the Bulgarian map gives, is that there is a Serbian population in Bulgaria, which apart from natural is not so important.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: POV-pushing, the "Torlaks" have no historical or ethnical basis for that matter, it is merely a Bulgarian nationalistic fabrication for dividing people of Serbian nationality according to dialectal features. The word itself only means what the Bulgarian nationalists refer to; speakers of dialects in the borderlands of Serbia and Bulgaria. -- Zoupan (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article exists on Serbian language Wikipedia, also stop pushing here your POV. Jingby (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So that is your answer? I'm afraid this is not enough for the fabrication of an article posing as an ethnic group, this is largerly an OR, and nationalistic POV view. The Serbian-wiki is a stub, without any sources or information, btw, it clearly states that it refers to speakers of "Torlakian". Stop your pushing, i will redirect the Serbian wiki aswell. --Zoupan (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Why are you then continuing to dismiss the redirection? "Torlaks" is no scientific term, in ethnical, national or cultural respect, it is only a term derived from the term coined by Bulgarian historians in the early 20th century amid the last years of the Principality of Bulgaria to denote those speaking transitional dialects (between standard Serbian and standard Bulgarian, including most if not all of Macedonian dialects), although the "Torlak dialect" is controversial, this is all-in-all nationalistic POV. The Torlak dialect is thus the groupname of the Prizren-Timok dialect (Serbian) and the Bulgarian Transitional dialects and most of the Macedonian language. I suggest you put you basis on such importance, as all that can be found is entries on Bulgarian forums. We can, if you want, have a disambiguation page with links to Demographics of Belogradchik, Chiprovtsi, etc, do you understand what i'm saying, it's misleading. Stop.  --Zoupan (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: It would be good to find some way to solve this dispute. I actually agree with Zoupan, because all evidence sugest that we are talking just about a group of people named this way because they speak Torlakian dialect. Since the article on linguistics exists, this one (Torlaks) in my view has no reason neither enough subject to exist. However, I´m not going to involve myself in the dispute by reverting or editing this article, but I would rather listen to proposals that the involved editors may sugest on how to solve this. I proposed on the ANI report a 3th opinion. Any other ideas? FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But should that be enough for a separate article? FkpCascais (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:3O then? I´ll just wait to see what Zoupan thinks. I´ll notify him about this discussion here. FkpCascais (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Jingby, I actually agree with Zoupan on this. Also, many historians "100 years ago" used ethnography for political purpouses, and if those studies haven´t had continuing support until nowadays, it may be well taken in consideration that it was abandondoned because it lacked substance and credibility... They are definitely a linguistical group, and they already have the corresponding article. All you want to have in this article can be added there obviosly. FkpCascais (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any possibility of solving this? 

message: ===Compromise===
OK, if Zoupan agrees we can move this to the Torlakian dialect article, and make this one a redirect. I haven´t checked the sources, but from what I read the text seems ok, and it could/should be placed under a new section, possibly named "History", or "Background", whetever you editors feel better :) FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But he moved your text to Torlakian dialect as agreed, what are the problems in your view? FkpCascais (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No problem :) FkpCascais (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the language infobox and dubious "disputed" adjective, which was introduced by Zoupan. We can agree that there hardly was an ethno-regional denomination of "Torlaks", and that it was mostly based on the dialect, if anything. But then, you cannot deny the existence of such dialect group, and validity of its linguistic classification. It is true that different linguists called it different names, but "Torlak(ian)" is the most common one, witnessed by the vast body of literature, and I don't see anything controversial about it. No such user (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I only interfered to stop the edit warring without involving myself much with content, however I agree with you. FkpCascais (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: OK, if Zoupan agrees we can move this to the Torlakian dialect article, and make this one a redirect. I haven´t checked the sources, but from what I read the text seems ok, and it could/should be placed under a new section, possibly named "History", or "Background", whetever you editors feel better :) FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But he moved your text to Torlakian dialect as agreed, what are the problems in your view? FkpCascais (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No problem :) FkpCascais (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored the language infobox and dubious "disputed" adjective, which was introduced by Zoupan. We can agree that there hardly was an ethno-regional denomination of "Torlaks", and that it was mostly based on the dialect, if anything. But then, you cannot deny the existence of such dialect group, and validity of its linguistic classification. It is true that different linguists called it different names, but "Torlak(ian)" is the most common one, witnessed by the vast body of literature, and I don't see anything controversial about it. No such user (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I only interfered to stop the edit warring without involving myself much with content, however I agree with you. FkpCascais (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: My revision, has, other than clarifying what sources really says;
*Removed the "language"-box, since Torlakian is not classified as such, nor as a dialect, although i respect the views of it as a transitional speech.
*Added source of extensive research regarding history of the "Torlak area" with circumstances (which will be further expanded).
*moved the Kiril Zhivkovich to "Science" as it is not regarded a true classification of the dialect, only that Kiril called his language Bulgarian.
I see no faults in expanding the article, mainting the view of Bulgarian scholars, however, posing Torlakian as a language (which it is not) is false, as per Wiki standards. Sincerely, --92.32.45.19 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posing as language and expanding 

message: I removed the following categories: Languages of Macedonia, Languages of Bulgaria, Languages of Serbia and Languages of Romania just because this is not a language. It is a coined term for group of Bulgarian and Serbian, and small number of Macedonian, dialects. Therefore, the categories Dialects of Macedonian language, Dialects of Bulgarian language and Serbian dialects are enough. Also, I removed the previous image and put new one. The old one was inaccurate because it shows Torlakian dialects are spoken till Stip in Macedonia, but in fact only in the border regions near Kumanovo and Palanla are spoken these dialects. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jingy, the map is wrong.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The old map needs to be corrected when Macedonia is concerned. Only Kumanovo and parts of Kratovo and Kriva Palanka are so called Torlak. The others aren't. I'll correct the map and translate in English. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

text: That's Northeastern group, not a particular dialect. Traditionally, only Kumanovo, Kratovo and Kriva Palanka are considered as Torlak. I am not sure about Kratovo though.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a problem what Misirkov said, the problem is he is mentioned as "old Bulgarian scientist", which in fact he is isn't Bulgarian.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Apart from the fact that this section is not very clearly written, there is the problem that it doesn't really describe the relationship with West Southslavic, but rather with Serbo-Croatian (or more precisely Shtokavian). Many of the characteristics which are described as differences from West Southslavic languages are actually present in Slovenian, Kajkavian and Čakavian. Zocky | picture popups 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is utter construction: Western South Slavic Group is characterized by reflex ć/đ of proto Slavic *tj/*dj, and Eastern South Slavic with reflexes št/žd, not to mention that what is here called “Torlakian” dialect shares all phonetic features with standard Serbo-Croatian. 164.82.84.22 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics shared with West and East Southslavic 

message: I didn't read all of the text here in the "talk" section but I haven't found anything about the name origin. If I missed it and am repeating something you already know, I'm sorry.
I am from Nish in Serbia, and I have at home three books called: "Istorija Niša I,II,III".(History of Nish) and I've read them all. They are separated by periods of time. The first is the time from paleolite to 1878(Berlin congress, liberation), the second is from 1878 to WW2(I think), and the third is WW2-1980. That's when the books were written.
Now, in the first book on one or two pages they talk about the sects of islam in the 16th or 17th sentury. The Dervishi, something like monks that mixed Cristianity and paganism with Islam, specifically ones that used paganism were called TORLAKs, and those monks were not from Balkan but from Turkmenistan from where they were moved to modern southeastern Serbia by the Ottoman rule. There is also a part in which they mention the Shopi and Torlak population being moved by the authorities to Turkmenistan for a couple of decades and then being moved back. That was a common practice in the empire to fill the empty lands.
There is one wierd custom(now dead) here called "Стрнџање" (Strndžanye) related to premarriage sex (or everything close to it except sex) and I've read on the internet more than once that this custom was brought from Turkmenistan. This is not so important and it's not proven to be from there, but it was worth mentioning..
I am not in Nish at the moment but when I come in 2 days, i'll find the books and quote/translate the pages regarding the Dervish and the migrations.
If you want to find them yourself, here is some help:
published by GRADINA-PROSVETA,
written by Danica Milić (with other people whose names I don't know)
in Niš, 1983.
-Radishalivac (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of the word "Torlak" 

message: *"Торлачки" (83)
*"Torlak dialect" (42)
*"Torlakian dialect" (10)
*"Торлачко наречје" (3)
*"Торлачки дијалект" (2)
*"Торлачки говор" (2)
Gbook hits. Gscholar has "Torlak dialect" (32) vs "Torlakian dialect" (7).--Zoupan 06:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Google, not Google Books or Scholar, there are ~32,000 hits for "Torlakian dialect" and merely ~1,150 for "Torlak dialect". I've moved it back. If you want it moved use the requested move channel and see what comes out of that. --JorisvS (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your Google hits are terribly wrong: "Torlak dialect" has 228 hits, while "Torlakian dialect" has 207 hits.  Also, Google is inessential in this case, most of the hits being spam-sites (wiki-copies at forums, blogs, etc) – never a basis of common name. Based on this, I am reverting you as your claim is outright faulty.--Zoupan 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now boldly moved it to Torlak dialect.--Zoupan 21:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And reverted.  Making an "uncontroversial" move in the middle of a debate is dishonest.  — kwami (talk) 22:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just that, it was already moved once by another editor who read Zoupan's message here. I contested this quick, undiscussed move, countering it with the normal Google's results. Such a second move, knowing it has already been contested, but claiming it is not, is very dishonest. --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

text: There is no debate. JorisvS had one claim – that Google hits favoured the other – this claim was faulty. Why did you revert it, and please tell me, what about it is controversial?--Zoupan 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

text: You made it controversial, and I do not see why. Requesting move.--Zoupan 22:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know which Google you're using. Re-Googling it gives me now even more extreme figures: 4,370 for "Torlak dialect" and 202,000 for "Torlakian dialect". --JorisvS (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: In standard (Shtokavian) Serbian the phonem "h" has been re-introduced, since in most (all?) Shtokavian dialects it had been replaced by either "v" or zero; there are however some words where "h" has not been re-introduced: suv, kuvati; kujna. There are other words where both versions are possible: gluv/gluh.
In both Bulgarian and Macedonian final "-st" is pronounced "-s", even though the spelling retains the final "-t". This seems to be the case also in some (all?) Torlak dialects, whereas standard Serbian pronunciation is [st]:
žal za mlados'
http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/1490358/vranje---zal-za-mlados-pogled-u-buducnost.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:91EF:FFFF:0:0:4F77:FA36 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence or absence of "h" and the pronunciation of final "-st" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Torlakian dialect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.srpskidespot.org.rs/Mape/dijalektiStokavskogNarecja.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041116220303/http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0401.nsf/AllWebDocs/torl to http://www.matica.hr/Kolo/kolo0401.nsf/AllWebDocs/torl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Torlakian dialects, together with Bulgarian and Macedonian, forming the East South Slavic languages subgroup, display many properties of the Balkan linguistic area. As a whole, Torlakian is closer to Macedonian than to Serbian, and falls into the Macedonian-Bulgarian diasystem. All these 3 languages were called Bulgarian till the 20th. century.  Jingiby (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is presumably an explanation for this edit. What you're quoting is from Torlakian_dialect#Balkan_sprachbund, but this is apparently one view, and its flat ascription to ESS is contradicted by the paragraph immediately above, which states that "The Torlakian dialects are intermediate between the Eastern and Western branches of South Slavic dialect continuum, and have been variously described, in whole or in parts, as belonging to either group". I don't know much about the subject and I don't have a strong opinion, but if the article's text makes it clear that the dialect isn't uncontroversially classified into one or another subgroup then the infobox shouldn't claim that it is. – Uanfala (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please read the article Eastern South Slavic. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Eastern South Slavic makes the following statement "This are [...] per some authors encompasses the south-eastern dialect of the Serbian language, the so-called Prizren-Timok dialect.[2] The last is part of the broader transitional Torlakian dialectal area.". It's unclear whether "this area" refers to Balkan Slavic or to Eastern South Slavic, but even in the latter case, this is clearly presented as one point of view. Also, I've had a look at the paragraph that you quoted above and as far as I could see, its sources do not make any assertion about the genetic classification of Torlakian (ESS or WSS). At this stage, what we do have sources for is the lack of consensus about such a classification. – Uanfala (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkan and Eastern South Slavic. 

message: Question. I know that identity is a tinderbox for Serbians and Croatians, but was Rešetar a Croat or a Serb? On brief inspection of his article, he is a Dubrovnik-born Serb yet here on Torlakian dialect he has been designated a Croatian linguist. I know there are some people who for one reason or another qualify as both, such as Nikola Tesla, but if someone could provide some consistency and clarification here, he will be very helpful. --46.233.77.16 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rešetar