Talk:Abecedar

message: The article represents only one view (guess which one). The first paragraph is full of statements which would be found appropriate by both Greeks and Bulgarians. Either point out that this is the view only in the Republic of Macedonia (cause let me remind you Bulgaria considers these people to be Bulgarians and Greece - considers them to be Greeks). So one might say it was printed to educate Slavophones or Bulgarians. And moreover at its current state the article is completely unsourced. I'll ask Niko to revise it and give his advice on this one. --Laveol T 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In your dreams only MacedonianBoy 15:37, 11.02.2008  —Preceding comment was added at 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, if you bothered to ask those people, which today live either in R.Macedonia or all over the world, they would have told you that they feel Macedonian (not Greek or Bulgarian). According to the census of 2006, there are no far less Greeks in Macedonia than the number of people born in Greece and living in Macedonia today. How do you figure that?Crnorizec (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Just a question, abecedar means alphabetary (in Greek αλφαβητάριο). How come in its modern edition it was named Буквар/Αναγνωστικό (reading book) and not Абеседар/Αλφαβητάριο?--   Avg    23:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Abecedar" refers to the Latin Alphabet whereas "Буквар" refers to the Cyrillic; or something along those lines. BalkanFever 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is actually called "Абецедар" but if you look at the front cover of the book, they call it "Буквар". Köbra 85 07:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there goes my theory :). BalkanFever 07:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: On standard Macedonian Language is Bukvar because it uses Cyrillic alphabet, but this Book is published in Latin so it is normally to be called Abecedar Абецедар. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abecedar = Alphabetary

message: Kobra85 reverts my edits of the first paragraph, about the language in which the Abecedar is written. He puts "south slavic" or "eastern south slavic" language all the time, but if you follow the link which he has referenced, you find that south slavic is a group of languages. The Abecedar is not written in a group of languages, but rather in one language, and this is Macedonian, as the example below in the article shows. I have deleted his latest revert. Kobra85, if you realy have some objections, please let's discuss it here. Crnorizec (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you look at the history, Kapnisma and Laveol reverted you. BalkanFever 11:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it was us - and I did it again. Would you care to provide a reason as to why you're doing it. --Laveol T 13:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason, as I explained above, is that you don't write books in group of languages, but rather in one language. In this case it is written in Macedonian. If you want to extend the list of languages in which Bukvar (Буквар) has the same meaning, you can add Serbian, Russian and probably some other languages which are not even south-slavic. Your actions only show that stubbornes and ignorance go hand-in-hand. Bless you, Crnorizec (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind it was not me who added the Bulgarian language. And I'm not really getting what's your idea in the Russian/Serbian thing. --Laveol T 23:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts by Kobra85 

message: Whoever included the citation from Danforth`s book on page 70, they took out certain words. Here`s what page 70 actually says: 
I already corrected it in the main article. --Polibiush (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danforth`s book falsely cited 

message: What did the original edition call the language? If it was "described by contemporary Greek writers as a primer for the children of Slav speakers in Greece ... printed in the Latin script and compiled in the Macedonian dialect," then the proper name is still Slavic. It could not have been "Macedonian", which was only recognized as a separate language two decades later and only in Yugoslavia. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly doubt that every Slavic language (this includes; Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Ukranian, Polish etc.) will refer to it as 'Буквар', especially using the Cyrillic alphabet. The article is primarily focusing on the Second Edition of the Abecedar and, as you can see on the front cover, 'Буквар' is the title given to the book in respect of the Macedonian language the Second Edition was published in, as well as the Greek and English languages. The whole "Slavic" ordeal should be contained within the section about the First Edition. Köbra 85 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To avert the "strong doubts" I have included the references for Russian and Serbian "Bukvar"s in cyrillic here. Bukvar means book of letters, and it is universal with all slavic languages which use the word bukva for letter. The Abecedar is so called because it does not use bukvi (cyrillic) but rather latin letters. And the language IS Macedonian, as you can see from the given examples. Furthermore, Greece recognized the Macedonian language in the census of 1920. Crnorizec (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, bukva is used only in Macedonian and in other slavic languages is SLOVO so the name is for sure on Macedonian. And also in other Slavic languages the name BUKVAR is known as SLOVAR. Just additional information for your "knowledge". That book is written on Bitola dialect and considering the fact that standard Macedonian is based on Bitola Prilep dialect, there is no doubt that it is Macedonian. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ihaaaa, and how about if I tell you it is actually Bukvar in Bulgarian. I could show you a bunch of if you like. --Laveol T 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry but bulgarian is not slavic--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2008 
(UTC)
You intentionally confuse Bulgar language with Bulgarian language just like you want to confuse Ancient Macedonian with Slavic Macedonian MacedonianX (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: You want to say that it is different language???!!!! So we should consider that Bulgar language as part of Maya language hahahahahhaha. please stop. It refers to same people and culture. Ans please read more about Venti culture and theory and stop using Slavic as different from the Old Macedonian. visit the site www.veneti.info--MacedonianBoy (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a different language. I always say - better not to say anything - that way you won't reveal how much you don't know on the subject. --Laveol T 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: MacedonianBoy, read the links that I have provided here. Slovo and Bukva are used in parallel in many slavic languages and so are Bukvar and Slovar. Thera are also Slovars from Macedonian authors (prerodbenici) in the 19th century. Cheers, Crnorizec (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Please take into consideration the whole sentence, rather than just the date. It says "is a book first published in 1925", not "is a book published in 1925". Köbra 85 05:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you probably miss the point (or rather want to miss the point). This book was made at a specific era for a specific reason. The fact that it was republished for purely propaganda reasons and sold to a different audience is irrelevant. Was the "second" edition published in ... Perth directed to the Slavic speaking population of Greece? Or was it simply a propaganda tool? Same with the "third", published from Rainbow. These two "editions" did not help anybody except the interests of extreme nationalists.--Avg (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the article could mention that the Abecedar was recently re-published to remind the public about it's existance, (personaly, I had never heard about it before some 10 years, thank you for steering up the nationalists :) ) but this was done mainly for propaganda reasons. The article should focus on the original edition. Crnorizec (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Macedonian" or Bulgarian? How about neither? 

message: OK, let me make this clear to everyone. The Macedonian and Greek languages are only there (at the beginning) because they are seen on the front cover of the 2nd edition and the translation is written as such. The "Slavic" language does not even need to be there as the 1st edition used the Latin alphabet and was titled "Abecedar" (the name of the article). This point was made very clear numerous times. Therefore, Macedonian (Буквар) and Greek (Ἀναγνωστικόν) are only there because they are seen on the front cover of the 2nd edition. If it wasn't for this 2nd edition there would be no other languages listed as the 1st edition was titled Abecedar and this is also the title in English for the 2nd edition. Anyone who wants to say otherwise can do so at their own expense. Köbra 85 08:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A good compromise would be to add a note next to the title indicating what I just said. Köbra 85 08:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps then the "Macedonian" and Greek versions need not be in the introduction at all, especially considering that the 2006 edition is only mentioned later on in the article. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me, we can include these languages in the section about the 2nd edition which, may I add, needs to be greatly expanded *hint*. Köbra 85 09:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead, if you can be bothered. I've already adjusted the infobox accordingly. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: In regards to the sourced sentence of "The Republic of Macedonia argues it demonstrated a separate Macedonian language and people existed in northern Greece in 1925, and the Greek government recognized it as such" - how can this be when ROM wasn't even a country at the time? Their is major POV and I hope somebody does a fact check on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why does the sentence say "The Republic of Macedonia"? Chaldean (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little thing I like to call "present tense". Köbra Könverse 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the government of The Republic Of Macedonia existed in 1925, in that it argued its positition to anybody? Chaldean (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: Why was it necessary to represent /ʏ/? --Hegumen (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone has confused it with the Turkish Ü. Seems as though it palatalizes the preceding consonant, for example: küti/ќути and lüt/љут (i.e. doesn't use the kj or lj digraphs). --ДушкоДолгоушко (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of reading, I see that /y/ has been attested in Aegean dialects. --ДушкоДолгоушко (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The letter Ü 

message: It does not mean that Macedonian did not exist if it was codified in 1945. The language existed many years before and the codification is standardization. Many languages in Asia and Africa today are not standardized but that does not mean they do not exist, right? If you take a look at the words and the sentences in the Abecedar you will easily guess it is Macedonian, more precisely Lerin/Voden dialect. And you know that Lerin Voden dialect are one of the Central Macedonian dialects, and you do know that Standard Macedonian is based on the Central dialects. Therefore, stop deleting the language. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abecedar. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211140515/http://www.florina.org:80/index.html to http://www.florina.org/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified