Talk:Old Church Slavonic

message: I see this has been discussed before although the article hasn't been edited. Modern linguistic terminology refers to Bulgarian, Macedonian and Moravian recensions. It seems as though a user has mistakenly "described" these recensions as Western and Eastern Bulgarian while specialists use "Bulgarian", "Macedonian" and "Moravian" to differentiate them. Please correct me if I'm mistaken regarding Wikipedia's policy for specialist terminology. --124.169.35.72 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And the biggest part of "specialists" regard them as they were prior to your edit. You're correct in one, though - this has been discussed and this is the version we got to. --Laveol T 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. From what I can see (and believe me, I've been digging all over the place), this article is the only one to every use those terms. --124.169.205.21 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recensions 

message: Are there any consonant clusters with more than three consonants in Old Church Slavonic? --84.61.151.145 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consonant clusters 

message: How does the term "Old Macedonian" apply to Old Church Slavonic?  If I am not mistaken, there was no language called Macedonian until the 1940s.  Further insight would be much appreciated.
Robercie (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Old Macedonian" is an alternative name (along with "Old Bulgarian") used in academic literature to refer to the Old Church Slavonic language. It's obviously taken from the name of the region in which the language originally developed. Whether or not you believe a Macedonian nation or language existed pre 1940 is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the term itself. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link, you'll see the sources which attest its use. I'd even go as far as to say "Old Macedonian" dominates over "Old Bulgarian" when discussing alternative names. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Macedonian 

message: I am removing the above terms from the article because:
* no references have been given to attest the academic use of "East Bulgarian recension" or "Moesian recension"
* the two references for "West Bulgarian recension" do not attest its use in academic literature:
:*the first states the Codex Marianus is from Western Bulgaria, the second states the Codex Zographensis is from Western Bulgaria/Macedonia. Also note the second source is in German. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  West/East Bulgarian 

message: I don't see why some registered editors feel like the earlier recensions need to be grouped together under a single heading. It also doesn't make much sense to have "Bulgarian recensions: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Moravian" or "Moravian recensions: Moravian, Bulgarian, Macedonian". They are not grouped as such in literature dealing with OCS. --124.150.58.207 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recensions 

message: I would like to inform the uninformed user Jingiby that this article is about the Old Church Slavonic language and its regional language variates, which there is not a small connection with 1940s or the modern languages, except the development of the languages themselves. So I would kindly ask him to stop writing things which are off topic. I added that the language variety started differentiating and shaping into new group of dialects that compromise the Macedonian language, and what did he do? He is writing about 1940s and similar things, unrelated sentences. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care what someone's bringing in the article as much as I care not to find lame expressions/sentences in it. Just go on and read what you wrote. --Laveol T 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had seen the article previously, you would notice that that same sentence has been written by someone else, probably by someone who wants to show something unrelated. I am glad to see that efforts to 'show the truth' are not in the focus. I have removed that sentence, returned the relevant and sources things ans removed the sentence that might be more appropriate for the highly POV and out of reality article Bulgarian dialects.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm and cause you didn't like some POV, you had to go on and add the: extreme opposite, just so we could have another grand edit war. Thanks. --Laveol T 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: And it's obviously nonsensical a recension to be named after a country that came into existence much later than the recension. I see what you're trying to imply, but it simply won't do. --Laveol T 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I see you really want to edit war. I'll just wait till you calm down and rethink some of it. But, please, stop writing nonsense. --Laveol T 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Laveol, I did not call you name nor asked opinion from you. You are vandalizing Wikipedia right now since you are deleting my relevant sources compared with that Bulgarian. I did not start edit war, your friend did. The statement about the dialects will be in the article, since it is sourced and if you do not like that I do not care about it. Also, let it be region Macedonia, but then we do not need about that name Ku... or how was it, but we need the modern country where the city is. Face the reality, Ohrid is in Macedonia, the country. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to see where and who spreads the absurdity here, take a look at this paragraph:
Now tell me who wanted to show that in Macedonia is spoken Bulgarian even though Bulgarian appeared much much later? Who started to write POV? I have just corrected the sentence, sourced and gave more details. If you do not have facts, please do not revert my references. BTW, which language expect Macedonian can be spoken in Macedonia and particularly in Ohrid? Isn't this stupid dialogue that we are having since even you know that what I write is true, no matter it is opposite BAN's views.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to stick with you, but I really fail. Where do you see anyone implying that present-day Bulgarian was spoken at the time? It doesn't say so in the abstract you just pasted. I agree that we might drop the whole this language is a direct descendant of that, but it should come from both sides. And what langauage was spoken in a given region at a given time period depends mostly on what political entity owned it at the time. As the case of Macedonia clearly shows this could be Greek, Bulgar, Slavic, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian and most presently Macedonian. That's not something easy to spot.--Laveol T 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Laveol, if you can read the sentence just beneath this comment you will see who is trying to show something here and who is blaming for things that do not exist. BTW, do yo really need that sentence that Macedonian language was considered as Bulgarian even though it is mentioned everywhere where Jingiby has opportunity to post something? It is just irrelevant for the passage. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text: PS: You misunderstood. In the article we are not speaking about the facts which languages were spoken in Macedonia, but which language the dialects make. It is well known that foreign languages were introduced in Macedonia, starting from Bulgarian and ending with Turkish.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated edits

message: — Lunt, Horace G. Old Church Slavonic grammar. Walter de Gruyter (2001). p.4
--203.206.2.254 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of recension 

message: :Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic (abbreviated as OCS), also known as Old Bulgarian or Old Macedonian
Undue weight is given to the terms 'Old Bulgarian' and 'Old Macedonian'. It would be better to have "(see other names below)". A third insignificant name in this category is 'Old Slovenian' (see    ). The last source states, "(in this context, the more or less obsolete "Old Slovenian" and "Old Bulgarian" can be disregarded.) The relationship of the terms Church Slavic and Old Church Slavic is unambiguous: the former is the broader of the two, with Old Church Slavic representing its earliest phase. However, occasionally Church Slavic is contrasted with Old Church Slavic, and then the former is used to designate the modified or locally further colored recensions of Old Church Slavic".
:in the region of Macedonia (Note: during the time of the Byzantine Empire the Theme of Macedonia (administrative unit) was elsewhere - namely in the lands of South-Central/Eastern Bulgaria of today and parts of Turkey).
Why is the is note necessary?
:Eastern Bulgarian recension
Unattested outside of Wikipedia. This is the 'Bulgarian recension'.
:A number of prominent Bulgarian writers and scholars worked at the school
It already states the Preslav Literary School was within the Bulgarian Empire. Why is every noun prepended with the adjective 'Bulgarian' when referring to people? That is just redundant and poor style.
:The recension is named so by modern scientists because its literary centre, Ohrid, is located in what today is referred to as the geographical region of Macedonia,
All of the recensions are named after the regions they developed in. This needs to be mentioned under "Basis and local influences".
:At that period, administratively Ohrid was in the province of Kutmichevitsa in the First Bulgarian Empire until 1018.
Relevance?
:Even though nowadays the Macedonian dialects make the Macedonian language itself,[18][19] most sources before the Second World War referred to them as a Bulgarian dialects.[20][21][22][23][24][25]
Again, what relevance does this have in the Old Church Slavonic article?
:Nomenclature
We need to add 'Old Slovenian'.
Because some users have made this an issue of ethnicity-based POV, I'll wait for a response before making any amendments so as to avoid any possible disruptions (vandalism, edit wars, etc.). --203.206.2.254 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amendments 

message: How about a definition of recension?  (That article doesn't really help much.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  what are all these recensions anyway? 

message: Can someone please tell me why there's no mention of the West Bulgarian or East Macedonian recension? And where on Earth are my South and North Bulgarian recension, huh?! ;) --124.148.245.171 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perth is in Western Australia. Here's an idea: why not go see if you can get Ukrainian language renamed to 'Southwestern Russian language'. I'm curious to see if your bullshit would work in that article. --124.148.245.171 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recension 

message: A 'recension' is a language variety represented by its texts. None of the sources are relevant (they only speak of political climates in the west and east of the Bulgarian kingdom). The reference for "Macedo-Bulgarian" uses it as an alternative name for OCS, not talking about any manuscripts. --124.148.247.197 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing manipulated references. Best you read what it says in those books before blindly reverting. --124.168.244.58 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Per prof. Oliver M. Traxel's  article 'Languages', in Handbook of Medieval Culture: Fundamental Aspects and Conditions of the European Middle Ages Vol. 2, ed. A. Classen (Berlin and New York, 2015), pp. 794-835 (available here, check pp. 820-821:) Old Bulgarian variant of Old Church Slavic had two branches Eastern developed in Preslav and Western developed in Ohrid, the later called also Old Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic (OCS).(словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first literary Slavic language, first developed by the 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius who were credited with standardizing the language and using it for translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianization of the Slavic peoples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
Ten sources for a well documented fact? Let's cut it down to one or two? 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  oversourcing 

message: Out of curiosity, has Old Church Slavonic had an infinitive form? -- Zz (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinitives 

message: Undue weight is given to the terms 'East Bulgarian' and 'West Bulgarian'. The overwhelming majority of scholars use the terms 'Bulgarian' and 'Macedonian'. Some users seem to think these terms are ethnic designations (they are not, they are used for convenience) and have consequently attempted to suppress their use in this article. --123.3.240.230 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also replacing 'dialect' with 'recension'. In OCS textual criticism, the usual term is 'recension'. It goes beyond the definition of dialect because this term also encompasses script and other minor features. --123.3.240.230 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Are you fucking retarded, man?! What relevance does that have at all?!  --123.3.229.10 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing via a floating IP does not give you the right to insult editors. You are going to ANI for this. --Laveol T 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I would also like to apologize for my incivility. I have now amended the question. --101.112.170.122 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is no apology. Not only did you write it, not only did you just strike it, levaing it there in effect, but you still call editors retards. Great way forward. How do you expect to work with people when you call them things like that. Yes, I know you are unblockable, but you could at least give it a try. --Laveol T 15:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have thought you would. This is an article about Old Church Slavonic. The sentences about modern Bulgarian and modern Macedonian were added so that readers did not confuse them with the Bulgarian and Macedonian recensions. The information about their codification, their political statuses and relationship to other languages is completely out of the scope of this article. If you think it's so important that Wikipedia readers know these little tidbits, you could add them to the articles Bulgarian language and Macedonian language where they belong. --101.112.158.76 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: No, you're adding irrelevant information because you need to quantify every mention of the Macedonian language with a history lesson. You do this because you want to perpetuate the fringe view and conspiracy taught exclusively in your country. Anyway, it doesn't matter if no one noticed it until now -- I now have. It's irrelevant and doesn't belong in this article. This article is about an extinct language which was once used in the 9th-11th centuries, not about the the codification, political statuses and genetic relationships of two modern, vital languages. --101.112.158.76 (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Later I got it: the phrase initiated in the early 20th century is meant to function as an adjective; evidently written by someone whose first language is not English (German?). —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Content disputes are content disputes. Calling editors "bunch of chauvinistic nationalists and vandals" is not ok. Do not expect anyone here to take any notice of your comments until you stop insulting people in every single comment. On a side, note, you say some interesting things about schoolbooks. Do you have one or two near you and share with us what exactly they have to say on the topic? I am not calling you a liar, but would really like to see if it this is true. --Laveol T 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It's about time a nonaligned admin took notice of this. --101.112.183.106 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight 

message: By the way —
what does this mean? —Tamfang (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Later I got it: the phrase initiated in the early 20th century is meant to function as an adjective; evidently written by someone whose first language is not English (German?). —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Content disputes are content disputes. Calling editors "bunch of chauvinistic nationalists and vandals" is not ok. Do not expect anyone here to take any notice of your comments until you stop insulting people in every single comment. On a side, note, you say some interesting things about schoolbooks. Do you have one or two near you and share with us what exactly they have to say on the topic? I am not calling you a liar, but would really like to see if it this is true. --Laveol T 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

text: It's about time a nonaligned admin took notice of this. --101.112.183.106 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: After the initiated

message: I am unable to leave a message on the above-named user's talk page, so I'll leave it here:
:There are a few issues which you may have overlooked during your recent cleanup (who can blame you!). The point about which is the "oldest dialect" (or more accurately, 'recension') is valid. A recension in OCS scholarship is those manuscripts which have common features—linguistic and otherwise (script, interpolations, etc.)—and which are therefore of the same presumed provenance. Thus, a particular recension is older than the others if its manuscripts have been dated so. The term 'dialect' has been misused; there are no dialects of OCS, only recensions of manuscripts which exhibit features of the Slavic dialects developing parallel to it. So, a scribe from Serbia would have unthinkingly incorporated elements from his spoken language into his OCS text. Also, OCS does not have any modern descendents despite what Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists would have us believe. Only the liturgical Church Slavonic language is derived from OCS, while all modern Slavic languages developed parallel to OCS. --101.112.189.93 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. No objection if you think you can reword it in a way that makes sense. What matters to me is that I would like to avoid conceptual confusion between writing varieties (which can be "created", and hence be "older" and "younger"), and actual – spoken – dialects, which cannot, so if you could put in something along the lines of your explanation here, that would certainly be useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, it is more precise to change the expression "one of the oldest dialects..." with the next phrase: "one of the earliest, recorded in written form, dialects of OCS". Jingiby (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proper expression for that would be "earliest attested dialects". But first take into account what 101.* was saying above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I think, the specific provenance reflects a concrete local speach, i.e. dialect. The differences between the local dialects if they existed, were minimal. Some authors do not distinguish such local dialects of that time, another do it. Who knows? Jingiby (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, they do not distinguish different dialects. They distinguish recensions, sometimes also called 'redactions'. Reread my (the IP's) comment again. Nowhere are they refereed to as dialects, because they weren't dialects. First it was the West/East thing and now dialects... --101.112.188.233 (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  @Fut.Perf. 

message: On Wiktionary we have come across a few Old Church Slavonic entries that use Я in their names. I noticed that a few words in this article also use it. But if the article about Я is correct in stating that Я is a later form of Ѧ, then presumably the use of the newer form in these entries is anachronistic. Nonetheless, it seems that other online sources also use this letter in those words. So is this common practice among Old Church Slavonic studies, or is it really an error brought on by modern writing, and was Ꙗ actually the intended letter? Or does Я actually stand for Ѧ in these words? CodeCat (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ‹Я› is indeed a later form of ‹Ѧ›; more specifically, from Peter the Great's "civil script". Academic works consistently transliterate OCS because of the obvious need for a single scheme (as opposed to alternating between Glagolitic and Cyrillic) and because Glagolitic and Cyrillic can sometimes be ambiguous. I've only quickly glanced over them, but it seems as though ‹Ꙗ› should be used in each case (недѣля → недѣлꙗ). I'll replicate my comment on Wiktionary. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. It seems Church Slavonic (not Old) spelling has confused things; in it, ‹Ѧ› and ‹Ꙗ› are simply positional variants of one another, and they were dropped to ‹Я› in the civil script. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Я? 

message: Hah, i cant believe that people that dont know anything about Macedonia nor Bulgaria are arguing right now and making up history.... You talk of specialist that have never been to this lands, that havent probably seen the language, the chronicals and so on... you twist the history in your own way and I signalized the problem to BTV - a television in Bulgaria that haves a campaign agaist this kind of offensive, lying and manupulating acts!!!
I am just going to point the true facts - Macedonia was always a region  in Bulgaria, sense 1945 part of the region became a country named the same - Macedonia. It is an official country sense 1991 and the language they are speaking - bulgarian dialect, (or macedonian language - there are problems with this part) but still - ots considered Macedonian language sense 1999!!! So if you are speking of Old Macedonian - thats the Macedonian from 1999!!!
Bulgarians are not only the bulgars people - you must read history very well before claiming that - bulgarians where all the people living in the BULGARIAN EMPIRE - Slavs, Tharcinians, Bulgaris, Goths etc. All of them where rulled by a bulgar king - sense in the 1 Bulgarian Empire all of the kings where from the klan Dulo, and where with bulgar blood!!! 
I dont know how could someone say that the people living in the BULGARIAN EMPIRE where not Bulgarians, but say that the people living IN THE REGION MACEDONIA where "real" macedonians!!!
It is written in history that after the idea of separating Macedonia there have been many untruthful facts that Macedonians made, and their their highly agrresive nationalistic behavior is been documented!!! You dont know how many times i have watched this on the NEWS. If i have to i am going to find this videos - some of them life from the place where the offense has happened!!!
You have no right to still something sooo big from the history of Bulgaria by making up stories or realing on improvenet sources!!!
I asked milions times - why are you so detemrment to re-wright history like this, why are you believing some unreal "specialist" from somewhere!!! 
How come all the bulgarian references you have in wikipedia are not reliable enought for you but the few made up Macedonian are?
How many times should I tell you THERE WAS NO MACEDONIAN COUNTRY - AT THIS TIME THE ONLY THING WAS THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE RULLED BY BORIS I. Only the fact that this alphabet was made in the Bulgarian Empire for the Bulgarian poeple (wich where considored all the tribes living in the teritory of Bulgaris) means that this is OLD BULGARIAN LANGUAGE!!! Poeple living (for more than some years) and BORN in Italy are what - Italians!!! People living (for more than some years) in America and BORN in America are considored what - Americans!!! And even when you marry an American - you became American (its the same with the other countries in the world).
How come you dont see how offensive all the argues against Bulgaria are!!!
THE FIRST SLAVIC LANGUAGE - Old Bulgarian, i dont know why you dont want to except it and why are you so determent to proove its not true when it is!
THIS NON SENSE MAKES ME WONDER - I already asked in a nother place and i am going to ask again - I AM NOT MAIKING ANY ACCUSATINS - i am asking, this is a question that "poped up" in my mind, this is not documented, or enything. It's just a person trying to defens himself starting to think this: did somehow someone "payd" so that you say this and now i am askind if you are doing this becouse you are macedonian??? (this quenstions may sound horrible and they are - i am wondering and i am asking, not accusing) I dont have any proof nor anything becouse I AM NOT accusing - i am asking!!!
I hope from the TV they see soon enought whats happening here in Wikipedia and help, but I am not going to weight only on them - I am starting groups, writing messages, searching all over the internet, I will send here every source I find until this offensive non sense stops!!!
The only problem with your sourses is going to be that its all in Greek or Bulgarian sense there was NO MACEDONIA they dont have any history from that period!!!
And one more thing - when Bulgaria wanted to free itself from the Ottoman rule they where always fighting for Macedona as part of the country - couse it always had been a part of the country and in Bulgaria the region Macedonia still exist and they spek Bulgarian dialect called Macedonian!!! 
ONE MORE THING: WHY ONLY IN ENGLISH, RUSSIAN AND MACEDONIAN THE FACT THAT ITS OLD BULGARIAN ARE LEFT OUT, CHANGED TO OLD MACEDONIAN OR WRITTEN NEXT TO OLD MACEDONIAN WHEN
1.) OLD MACEDONIAN DOESN'T EXIST
2.) ALL THE OTHER LANGUAGES - FRENCH, SPANISH, ITALIAN, UKRAINIAN SAY ITS OLD BULGARIAN AND HAVE REFERENCES!!! But not you offcourse!
YOU have been offensive to ALL BULGARIANS by defending unreliable sourses, It like you people are saying that The Pope is from Tokyo becouse someone actually wrote that down and now you believe him!!! Read all the facts all the articles all the documents and come here again and tell me i am not right - this will never happen couse there is proof, and you can't offend a country like this!!! 
I start to think that who ever wrote the article about macedonia must be part of the macedonism groups, why? Becouse he is so agressivly MAKING UP STORIES and if you must know this Macedonian stealing history problem is a problem for years - but you people are not the right editors to judge this nor wtite - OLD MACEDONIAN enywhere at all!
My sources: The Bulgarian country, hah i guess you have to contact them, you can come to Bulgaria, go to the History Museum, the Library - wherever you want and see yourself the old documents and papers! Its normal that they are IN BULGARIA sense we are talking abpout THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMIPRE.
One more thing - how can you argue with the fact that the Old Church Slavonic was developed in THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE that automaticly makes it OLD BULGARIAN. And you can check and see articles about the Cyrilic - Made in Bulgaria - Bulgarian, now used by all Slavic countries!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum where you can vent. More importantly, you should avoid mixing history and linguistics with politics. Wikipedia isn't written from a nationalist perspective but rather from a neutral point of view. --WavesSaid (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG 

message: That articles starts with: "The 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with standardizing the language and using it in translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianisation of the Slavic peoples."
First of all in 9th century no Byzantine has existed and it never has. That empire was the Eastern Roman Empire and it's citizents considered themselves as Romans and not all of them were Greeks. Then Byzantine Greek... now that's totally rediculous claim as there is no proof that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. Their father was an Eastern Roman official living in an area surounded by Slavic speaking people. What would be the odds that they were of Slavic origin? 
Also these brothers didn't just tranlate the Greek literature into the language of the Slavs. They have translated lots literature from Hebrew.
It appears to me that the article was writen by Greek nationalists and it is full of pro-Greek propaganda not based on any real facts but on pro-Greek mythology and rumors.
Why would Greeks would devote their life to defending the right of the Slavic people to pray and preach in Slavic if at that time only Hebrew, Latin and Greek were the officially recognised languages?
Another ridiculous fact about this articles is it basically claims that Cyril and Methodius created the Old Church Slavonic language!!! Seriously???? They didn't just create an alphabeth and translated some books but they have created a Church language for the Slavs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.174.229 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 January 2013‎
: "The Slavonic languages" by Comrie and Gorbett discussed the question on whether Cyril and Methodius were native Greek speakers or native Slavic speakers. One of the points it raised is that if they were Greek speakers, they would not have had such a vested interest in designing a whole alphabet for Slavic. So it is kind of what you said except there is a reliable source for it (which is kind of what you should have provided in the first place). But it is true that the brothers and their disciples created a standard language, but only in the literary sense that they established two alphabets and rules for which to use them, so that other Slavs could start writing too. Old Church Slavonic was never truly a spoken language, although it closely reflected various spoken languages. As for the Greek/Roman question, that is really kind of arbitrary. The Byzantine Empire is normally understood to be the same as the Eastern Roman Empire so it is just a matter of naming. The fact is that the administrative language of the Empire was Greek, no matter if they were "Romans" or not. CodeCat (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politically and historically incorrect article 

message: Recently added to the lead section:
: It is also extremely important in the historical study of the Slavic languages, because it is quite similar to their unattested common parent language (Proto-Slavic).
How do we know anything about the similarity of an unattested language to OCS? Why, we've reconstructed it, using (among other evidence) OCS!  Hm.  I'd prefer a wording that avoids this suggestion of circularity; for example
: As the oldest attested Slavic language, OCS provides important evidence for the features of Proto-Slavic, the unattested common ancestor of all Slavic languages.
—Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your reasoning, but it is scientific fact that reconstructed Common Slavic is almost the same as OCS. So the statement isn't false, really. CodeCat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not saying it's false.  I'm saying that, if I were a reader stumbling into the matter of Slavic hist-ling for the first time, I'd read this sentence and find it fishy, at least in the absence of supporting context.  That whiff of fish could easily be avoided, unless it is important to preserve the claim (seemingly irrelevant here) that PS is very similar to OCS.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  reconstruction in circles? 

message: Hello. Some time ago, we moved all alternative names from the beginning of the article into new section "Nomenclature" just to avoid nationalistic behaviour and edit war. We would like to keep it that way. At the beginning only Old Church Slavonic and Old Church Slavic are enough. Old Macedonian and Old Bulgarian are in the nomenclature. And to be honest, at that time no one called the language BG or MK, but just Slavic (slavjanski). best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason they are no longer included in the opening paragraph is because they are rarely used in English-language works, and doing so would be giving them undue weight. The 'nomenclature' section explains it nicely anyway. --203.59.21.104 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative names

message: " Old Church Slavic[1] (often abbreviated to OCS; self-name словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first Slavic literary language.  "
Slavic language was not invented by the Greeks, Goths or Romans or by any "holy" Church.
Church Slavic language was language which was artificially created (manipulated Slavic) language. 
Here is one example of the pre Christian Slavic (written) language which pre existed before Judaical/Christian aggressors. 
Sitovo inscription
Here is another version of Alpine Slovene language; 
Freising manuscripts
(language of Freising was of course not an invented language; like Church Slavic, which was artificial).
: The Sitovo inscription article says that it's not even clear what language it is, let alone what it means. Old Church Slavonic was a literary language, like the introduction says. It was as much a real language as classical Latin was. The people didn't speak quite the same as they wrote, yes, but that is not unique in any way. The same happens to almost any language with a written tradition, including English. Finnish is also a particularly noteworthy example. And what about Russian before the spelling reforms of 1917? CodeCat (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occult nonsense  

message: Many language pages have an example text somewhere in them I suggest we add one here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.70.190 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example text. 

message: Countless articles link back here instead of to Church Slavonic simply because this is where features of Church Slavonic recensions are described. I suggest we either relocate and significantly trim the section ==Later recensions== to the article Church Slavonic, or create stubs from its subsections since each of these recensions has its own literature, history, grammar books, dictionaries and so on and is article-worthy. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church Slavonic recensions 

message: What does a tilde mean when used as a diacritic in Old Church Slavonic? For example, from the article Tsar: ц︢рь. Or is that a tilde? ZFT (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not properly a tilde but rather a titlo; it generally marks abbreviations. So, in your example, ц︢рь is the abbreviated form of царь. It can also mark that a letter is being used as a numeral, so, for example, ꙁ is just a letter but ꙁ҃ means the number 7. Vorziblix (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of tilde as diacritic in OCS 

message: In the first section of this article з is used for the name of OCS in OCS; but on the OCS wikipedia (cu:) ꙁ is used. Should we change to use the latter? I know pretty much nothing about this subject, so some expert opinion would be nice. Wyverald (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both ꙁ and з are largely interchangeable variants of the same letter. ꙁ is the earlier variant, and was the only one in use for most early Cyrillic ustav (uncial) manuscripts. з started to appear later, in poluustav (half-uncial) texts in the 1400s, and became the dominant form only after Nikon’s reforms in 1654. The only reason these glyphs are encoded separately in Unicode is to make it possible to accurately transcribe poluustav texts, which sometimes use ꙁ and з haphazardly, but they are for all practical purposes the same letter.In sum, the variant ꙁ was used in OCS, and з only appeared after OCS was already dead, but since they are just variant forms of the same letter, it’s not all that important; it’s like the question of whether to transcribe early English texts with long s or just regular s. Vorziblix (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ꙁ instead of з? 

message: In the article it states that the u-stem has disappeared in all attested languages. However, this is clearly not the case as the old u-stem nominative plural ending -ове has been preserved in modern Bulgarian such as for the word cited in the article domъ. Of course it has spread to many other monosyllabic masculine words, but it definitely has not disappeared. This should either be changed or clarified. Terinuva (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''u''-stem has not disappeared in all attested languages 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Old Church Slavonic. 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/20110719123753/http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf to http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf
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) 04:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here are some basic data regarding the terminological frequency:
* Google Books Search hits for Old Slavonic language and Old Church Slavonic language
* Google Books Search hits for Old Slavic language and Old Church Slavic language
Similar data can be found on Google Scholar:
* Google Scholar hits for Old Slavonic language and Old Church Slavonic language
* Google Scholar hits for Old Slavic language and Old Church Slavic language
Data shows that terms Old Slavonic language and Old Slavic language are sufficient as primary designations for this language, and therefore the other (wider) versions, with the word "Church", should be considered as secondary variants. Sorabino (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard scholarly sources use Old Church Slav(on)ic as the language name. Try this instead for (overly) simple comparison. Doremo (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That chart does not include the basic term "language", and this one does: Google Books Viewer. Search Results on Google Scholar are clearly showing that there is no preference for the use of wider terms, with the word "Church". Sorabino (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages are not generally called "X language" in English. Doremo (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: So I significantly expanded the Church Slavonic subsection over the last couple of months and as usual, I went over the top (I tend to write too much). I would suggest moving most of the info there to Church Slavonic, which currently has numerous issues of its own and is inaccurate, and leaving here only a couple of sentences per each individual Church Slavonic recension. 
There is also the issue of the Bohemian recension, whose place is probably not in Old Church Slavonic, given that it reflects manuscripts that are not part of Old Church Slavonic canon. It should perhaps be moved to the Church Slavonic, as well. 
Can any interested parties please give an opinion on this, especially on the Bohemian recension? Thanks in advance! VMORO 10:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving individual Church Slavonic recensions to Church Slavonic, Bohemian recension, etc.