Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 3

message: I wonder why this didn't become a Featured article or at least a candidate... because every f***ing word of it is subject to so much scrutiny by a zillion of editors.
(No, this is not meant as a useful comment... just letting some frustration out). Duja 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Balkan mentality :( I share your frustration --Realek 21:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It is impossible to continue with never-ending debates about details. However, this is a general issue of all related articles and all related affairs of the country in general. This naming issue is holding everything back (including WP). We are not authorized to solve that politically, though. I hope the implicated governments find a satisfying solution soon...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this article a year ago to fix IPA pronunciations so it remained on my watchlist... I had better unwatched it... sigh. OK, let's play a mediator... Where we stopped? At Ethnologue? Duja 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was about to kindly ask Realek to revert himself out of courtesy. Will you please, Realek?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I gave my reasons for my edit. You surely red it, you posted a reply. But you didn't give any reason why you think my edit is not good. If you post your reasons and I find that you are right, I won't mind even reverting myself. So what do you think is wrong with my edit? --Realek 22:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, "around 2 million" is the general academic consensus. I can provide a list of citations for this if requested. 3 million definately long shot. - FrancisTyers 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn... agree too. (got the yawn thing from someone close here)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I am not gonna rv the change myself. I've politely asked Realek to show goodwill and do it himself. Otherwise, someone else will.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing yet. Goodwill time has expired. Will someone do it for me please?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how the arguments you make are connected to the chande I made. I just added a note that the source (ethnologue) doesn't account for the diaspora - (they probably avoided it because it's a tricky to give an estimate on that, but that is not important right now). I'm not claiming anything about the number of speakers or the reliability of the source. Purely explaining the source's data. Why exactly is the note added a problem for you? --Realek 15:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is excessive. The reasons are right above (1,2,3), along with Francis and Duja's comments agreeing with me. How can you fail to see it?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 17:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am satisfied but I fail to understand why I must be considered reasonable. I'll paste a message in that sub-page so that everybody can continue thinking I am generally unreasonable!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha :) - FrancisTyers 18:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article :-) ? 

message: This article does not give any references. I have quite a few papers (PDF and hardcopy) here on the subject (I'm currently writing an essay on it) and so I will attempt to find some references from those. I have added the  tag until it has been appropriately referenced. - FrancisTyers 19:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Autonomous is a specific linguistic term, please do not change it. I will add a link though to autonomous language.  - FrancisTyers 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked it out - You're right. But please add the link. This way is very misleading for uninformed people in linguistic (such as me) --Realek 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autonomy

message: The Bulgarian linguists use to emphasise that a lexicological comparison between Macedonian and Bulgarian reveals that roughly 15% of the whole vocabulary of both languages is different, although most words usually exist in the other language with a different or slightly modified meaning. 65% of the words are only differently accented, and 20% are identical. Lexical differences are owing to a great extent to loanwords borrowed by Bulgarian from Russian and by Macedonian from Serbian in the middle and the end of the 20th century. According to them, compared to other languages the statistical differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian are similar to those between Afrikaans and Dutch. 
These are very precise numbers, a citation would be good. Not to say that it doesn't sound fairly accurate... - FrancisTyers 03:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I am unable to find the second reference in the university library. Could you provide the excerpt that supports your claim here. Please note that I will happily provide any excerpt for information I have included. I have copies of all of my references. - FrancisTyers 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, the Greek economist has a copy of Henniger's article on his personal space. Perhaps someone should contact UCC, that sounds like a definate case of  to me :) Regardless, I will re-include the piece. - FrancisTyers 04:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's "Brewery".  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put this way, it sounds like these are the only non-Bulgarian linguists that view Macedonian this way, which is wrong. I know "some linguists" is a weasel word, but a "such as" might be the solution, or at least partially. What do you think?  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Todor, unless someone has a better way to put it. And I also would like to discuss including the Ausbausprache terminology in the article.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 11:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some more linguists then. I'm very surprised you've been able to find two that state this, it is a very minority point of view among non-nationalist linguists. You might get linguists saying that standard Macedonian and standard Bulgarian are both autonomous forms of the same language, or that they constitute a pluricentric language, but I would be very surprised if you can find any more quotes which say Macedonian is another literary form of Bulgarian, I mean they might as well say that Bulgarian is another literary form of Macedonian. It just isn't done. Regarding Ausbausprache, sure, what do you want to say, I have a copy of Kloss' 1967 paper here with me, and a couple of other papers relating to the subject. I guess you've read the one on glocalisation by Trudgill? - FrancisTyers 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean linguists. There are other non-nationalistic scientific studies for the closeness of the two people that also contain the language/dialect positions and the beliefs of the two people about that. One was provided before by User:Komitata (I think). I'll fetch the link for you in a while. And to exclude possibly allegged nationalistic bias from my side, please think if it would be favorable for Greeks if FYROM and Bulgaria became one. Finally, no, I have no idea what you are talking about, since I am not a linguist (not even an amateur). I am just reproducing a quote from the Talk:Republic of Macedonia by user Latinus, in order for you to discuss it, since apart from reading the wikilink, I've absolutely no idea about the rest of it. I hope you don't see bias in that too. After all I didn't put it in the article. Now please leave me alone and don't overemphasize my ignorance because you deprive me time from my trolling activity! :-)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be interesting, I'd be grateful if you could find that reference for me :) I don't think I'll be surprised by the results.  - FrancisTyers 13:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll take a look through those. - FrancisTyers 17:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last study is interesting, largely deals with the discrimination against Roma by both Bulgarians and Macedonians. There is a small section on language which pretty much describes the situation of a dialect continuum, that is that people on two sides of a national border will be able to communicate freely. There isn't anything in the study which hasn't been dealt with elsewhere, still, an interesting read. - FrancisTyers 17:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and with regard to your question, I'm afraid that glocalisation comes in full-fat brand only... You can probably ask them to mix it half/half with water though ;) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha! Glocalisation causes obesity!! What about the rest of the links? Anything useful?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Macedonian one was fairly predictable, stuff I've read before. I'm going to read the Koneski one when I have some more time. If the Bulgrian link was more than a selection of out-of-context quotes it might be useful. Any chance of finding the original sources? I'll read the Misirkov one when I have more time (probably later tonight). The Ethnologue one is fairly irrelevant to the current discussion. They tend to be rather quirky and "unlinguistic" when it comes to issues of language/dialect. Tonight I'm going to try and get started on the section of my essay entitled "Ausbau and Abstand in standard Macedonian" which might give me some more stuff to add to the article. - FrancisTyers 18:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see. No need to explain further. 5 years is a fair timeframe to normalise any reasonable existing bunch of similar dialects anyway. The standardizer, was he potentially politically motivated to do so in that direction? Were there any other options, like e.g. standardising it into Bulgarian, that were achievable, yet rejected? Is all this worth analysing and mentioning, given the extremely short official life of the language?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to write an article on the standardisation process. The paper by Friedman is very comprehensive. Yes, the standardisers were politically motivated (I think that it is safe to say that all language standardisation is — being generally linked to nationalism). The reason that there wasn't a Bulgaro-Macedonian unified standard language was, at least from my reading of it mostly due to intransigence on the side of the Bulgarians. Basically they standardised on the Eastern variety and refused to make any concessions to the Western varieties. There are languages which are much newer than Macedonian, and you have to think, Bulgarian was only codified in its modern form in 1899 (I'm not sure if this is the exact date as quoted in the article, but definately between 1850-1900). What a difference 45-50 years makes :) - FrancisTyers 10:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed pending citation

message: I'm afraid that "Macedonian Slavic", "Slavomacedonian", "Skopjan" or whatever you chaps want to call it is an extreme minority point of view on a global scale and should not appear in the lead. Please do not continue to add it. There is already a section dealing with this "naming dispute". - FrancisTyers 19:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is notable enough for Ethnologue to mention as an alternative name (not to mention that due to Greco-Bulgaro-Cypriot objections it is highly unlikely that the country that will be admitted to the EU inder the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will not have its official language recognised as "Macedonian" by EU institutions). --LionKing 19:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnologue has a bad record when it comes to alternative names, from the Wikipedia article, Ethnologue: Conversely, the neutrality of Ethnologue as a scientific institution is sometimes lauded: in addition to choosing a primary name for the language, it also gives some of the names by which a language is called by its speakers, by the government, by foreigners, and by neighbors, as well as how it has been named and referenced historically, regardless of which designation is considered official, politically correct, or offensive, or by whom. Please offer some non-Greek scholarly, reliable, sources which use these names. So far in my research I have not come accross any. PS. This talk page is for the article in question, not crystal ball gazing — please feel free to contribute to the sub talk page dealing with related disputes. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative names

message: Another feature that sets Macedonian apart from other Slavic languages is the possibility to form the perfect tense with the verb има "to have" and a neuter past passive participle, as is common in Germanic and Romance languages. In Slavic languages that have perfect tenses, these are almost universally built with the verb "to be" and a past active participle; that is also an option in Macedonian. The older common Slavic form with сум "to be" is predominant in the east of the country, while the form with "to have" is more widespread in the west, but has spread in the younger gernerations due to the influence of the standard language. Example: имам галено (new perfect) - сум галил/галел (old perfect) - I have caressed. 
I've removed this as it isn't a specific feature of Macedonian but is a feature of Greek, Aromanian and Albanian (Balkan Sprachbund languages) too. - FrancisTyers 02:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "a specific feature among Slavic languages" is meant. Look at the very beginning. By the way, I should thank you for the good work on neutralizing the article and tirelessly working on licking it into shape. I know it's very hard to discuss with Balkan nationalists and always be ready to revert, but I believe this is the right way.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the kind words :) I should be able to work on the article much more solidly in a week or so when my essay on the subject has been handed in. Regarding the removed section I will take another look when I get home tonight... - FrancisTyers 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific features

message: I believe it's about time to neutralize that one. The obvious problems are the way dialects outside the borders of the Republic of Macedonia are regarded as being part of the Macedonian language (despite some notes on other positions). In my opinion, the section should focus on the dialects in the Republic of Macedonia and express all influential positions on dialects outside the borders of the RoM. In Albania, the Slavic vernacular of Golo Brdo is officially regarded as Macedonia. And while I'm not sure what's the position in Greece for the dialects there, although I don't think they are directly regarded as belonging to the Macedonian language and many people regard them as Bulgarian. 
In my country, the dialects in Pirin Macedonia are described as Western Bulgarian ones and the census of 2001 states only 3,117 people declared themselves to be Macedonians in the province, Bulgarian being spoken by 306,000. As a conclusion, there are no reasons to consider the dialects of Pirin Macedonia to be part of the Macedonian language, but rather Bulgarian dialects of Macedonia and therefore excluded from here.
Of course, I'd first like to here external opinions before acting. I also believe the section has to be heavily referenced.  → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You would not have any sources to back that up, or would you? FunkyFly 02:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are mountains (figuratively not literally) of sources that state that Slavs self-identifying as Macedonian have been repressed in both Bulgaria and Greece. Anyone who tries to deny it is living in a dreamworld. Look, theres one source below --v I could come up with 10 more in as many minutes. - FrancisTyers 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an excellent thing to look at. Go ahead, please! FunkyFly 03:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll try Nations and nationalism for starters. Thanks. FunkyFly 14:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting consequence of this dispute is that it is not clear how to refer to the South Slavic dialects of northern Greece (which have in any case been mostly repressed or simply ignored by most Greek governments). One does not know whether to refer to the Slavic dialects of Greece as dialects of Bulgarian or dialects of Macedonian, although, of course, the western varieties are more like Standard Macedonian, the eastern varieties more like Standard Bulgarian. (Trudgill 1992)
I suggest we make a note referring to the South Slavic dialects of northern Greece and that they have been described as both Bulgarian and Macedonian, and that the westerly varieties have more in common with standard Macedonian and the more easterly varieties have more in common with standard Bulgarian. - FrancisTyers 17:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a good idea to me. --Aldux 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. No problem with me too. I would only propose we make two things clear on that note: The population of the speakers according to various sources, and the strong feeling of the speakers about their Greek nationality. Please check the userpage of User:Makedonas and his answer to user Ανδρέας (non-Greek) about their "ntopia" (='local') to understand what I mean...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a common position among minority populations in Greece, viz. Arvanites, Aromanians etc. There are varying explanations of this, the Greek governments persistent policy of hellenisation being one, strong transferred national identity being another. - FrancisTyers 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Motivated(...) hellenization —vs— Self Inquired hellenization?
 NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 20:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, basically something along those lines — I basically just made that part up :) I would need to do more research into it in order to form an educated opinion, but basically I just wanted to ensure that it didn't seem like I was under the impression that all "hellenisation" was enforced. - FrancisTyers 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to include both in proportion to the citations that will be provided by both sides. But then again, we can't be sure, since the Greek government has probably used all special equipment mentioned in Epsilon Team to make all evidence vanish. Pitty that we can't prescribe, huh?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shhh... Keep those guys on the down-low. You wouldn't want the Macedonians to start developing a Ye Team! - FrancisTyers 23:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha! Not too linguistic of a joke for me! So what do you propose?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 00:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could add something similar to Macedonians (ethnic group)#The situation today*Greece. Opinions?  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar, but shorter would be good. Do we have a Slavs in Northern Greece or Ethnic minorities in Northern Greece article yet? I think the subject is large enough to have one. - FrancisTyers 10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge no such articles exist. The subject is indeed large. After all there are some astronomical votes (2.900) for the Rainbow party sorry Rainbow Party to back it up!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, what are you? French?... Turkish? Also everytime you do the Rainbow party thing I laugh! Why didn't they look on the internet before choosing their name???? On the other hand, if Ethnic minorities in Northern Greece is such a small article, maybe Ethnic minorities in Greece would be better. - FrancisTyers 11:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian.
- FrancisTyers 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok give it a shot for Ethnic minorities in Greece if you want. (important remark: I don't do the Rainbow party thing. I'm just mentioning it. (burp)  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 12:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha :)) - FrancisTyers 12:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was otherwise occupied and delayed to post an answer to this, but please see my comment at Talk:Ethnic_minorities_in_Greece. Thanks.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 14:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialects section 

message: The source I'm providing is Стойко Стойков, Българска диалектология, 2002 (4th edition). I think most people contributing to an article on the Macedonian language should be able to understand the Bulgarian quotes without an English translation. Those who can't but doubt that the claims are made can ask the others - I don't feel like translating all this into English.
* Claim: "Bulgarian only has the basic (unspecified) form, although three definite article forms also exist in certain Bulgarian dialects, notably the vernaculars of Tran and parts of the Rhodopes [citation needed]."
Citation: p.167: Трънски говор. Той се отличава със следните особености: ... 3. Троен член, т.е. покрай членната форма -ът, -та, -те, -то, -та, с която се изразява обща определеност, има още две други членни форми: -ъв, -ва, -ве, -во, -ва за близка определеност, за означаване на определени предмети, които са близко до говорещото лице, и -ът, -на, -но, -не, -на за далечна определеност, за означаване на неща, които далеч от говорещото лице: [examples] ... мужът ... мужъв ... мужън.
p.127: Родопски говори: най-важните характерни особености на родопските говори са следните: ... Тройна членна форма: -ът, -та, -то, -те^ с общо определително значение, за обща определеност; -ъс, -са, -со, се^ с определително и показателно значение за предмети, които се намират в пространството [[[близо]]] до говорещото лице, -ън, -на, -но, -не^ с определително и показателно значение за предмети, които се намират в пространството [[[далеч]]] от говорещото лице. Тройна членна форма обаче не се среща в някои родопски говори, като чепинския и павликенския.
* Claim: "It must be noted that the Seres-Nevrokop group is in fact located mostly outside of the republic of Macedonia (in Greece and Bulgaria, respectively) and hence its identification as a group of Macedonian dialects is a controversial issue. Bulgarian linguists regard both as dialects of Bulgarian [citation needed]." 
Citation: while enumerating and describing Bulgarian dialects, on p. 143, the author describes гоцеделчевски (неврокопски) говор. On p.186, in the section Българските диалекти във Вардарска и Егейска Македония, the author discusses the Seres dialect(серски говор): драмско-серски говор - на север от солунския говор са разположени говорите в Драмско, Валовицко и Сярско, които са преход към гоцеделчевския (неврокопски) говор.
* Claim: "Interestingly, the reduction of unstressed vowels is characterisic of East Bulgarian as opposed to West Bulgarian dialects, so Bulgarian linguists regard these dialects are regarded as transitional between East and West Bulgarian [citation needed]."
Citation: on p.143, the гоцеделчевски говор is listed in the Eastern group, западни рупски subgroup. On p.140, it is said about the западни рупски говори: "по своите особености тия говори представят преход към западните и македонските говори. Някои диалектолози отделят разложкия и гоцеделчевския говор от останалите български говори и заедно с благоевградския и петричкия ги причисляват към македонските говори или пък ги обособяват в особена група 'македонски говори в пределите на България'. Трябва обаче да се вземе под внимание, че разложкият и особено гоцеделчевският говор са типични източни говори и затова няма никакви лингвистични основания те да се отделят в самостойна група и да се откъсват от рупските говори. Трябва също така да се изтъкне, че всички български диалектолози отнасят разложкия и гоцеделчевския говор към източните говори и ги включват в западните рупски".
--85.187.44.131 19:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to cite this. - FrancisTyers 15:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, replace the  tags with , then add the references to the "notes" section like . If you need to note different page numbers, use stoykov2002a, stoykov2002b, etc. - FrancisTyers 17:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing sources to remove some "citation needed" tags 

message: Does the Macedonian Language Institute or Institute for the Macedonian Language regulate the language? - 81.57.55.19 23:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regulation

message: The Macedonian standard language can be said to have been born in August 1944, when a provisional government run by the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) declared the Macedonian republic.
Ok, do not change this to something with poor English grammar without even reading the paper. I am happy to see it altered, but discuss it here first -- and back up your suggested changes with sources. - FrancisTyers 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: Hi guys, as you probably know I've been doing an essay on this subject, which you can find here. Now I've been thinking about it and I would like to revert the page back to before I started working on it. I have informed my professor, but work at my university is also anonymously double marked and there is no way of informing the other marker. If he were to come and look at the Wikipedia page he would find it very similar in places to my essay -- because I've been working on it with the same sources.
I would appreciate it if no-one reverts back to the version with my content in. You can edit the page, and I will merge back the changes after my essay has been marked. I realise that I have no way of enforcing this as my work was released under the GFDL, but I would appreciate it if you would understand.
If anyone has any questions/complaints it would be great if you could make them here first...
For the record this version (23rd April) is the one before I reverted. And this version (5th April) is the version I reverted to. 
Many thanks. - FrancisTyers 12:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh? What if the other marker just sees history (or just follows your link above)? Too late I'd think, but then again "cazzi tuoi", as the Italians would say...  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 21:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy with them following the history, as my name is plastered all over the diffs :) What I was concerned about is them just seeing the page without realising that the parts that look like my essay actually are my work ;) - FrancisTyers 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I am sure the Italians have a saying for that too. I'll go look it up!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 22:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Francis and other valuable contributors: I agree with Telex's image caption tweaking. What do you think? NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Valuable contributor? I feel touched! (no not like that). Yeah, his changes are adequate for now. I mean "alleged" and "claimed" could do with more neutral wording, but he pretty much captures the deal. - FrancisTyers 08:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you mean like that or that? :-) NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 09:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my god! Who on earth showed you that??? I thought it was dead and buried... :( - FrancisTyers 09:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was really looking for the second one, but it's one of the links you can find when you simply type "Touch me". Maybe I should have preferred that one!!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 10:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent revert

message: The article used to say that according to Britannica there are 2-3 million speakers of Macedonian (and then linked to this article). Where does it say that? THe only numbers in that article are: Macedonian is the official language of the Republic of Macedonia, where it is spoken by more than 1.3 million people. Telex 13:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Where did you find that map that presented the slavic macedonian language to be spoken so widely in north greece???? Yes, there are some villages where it must be still spoken, but the people who speak it must be very few (no more than 10,000). So, please, check the citation of the map and don't post it again if you find it to be from a propaganda-website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.247.185.69 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 May 2006.
:Thanks for that, but the map was made from research in non-partisan third-party peer-reviewed publications. Please feel free to point out some more non-partisan third-party peer-reviewed publications that contradict the map. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculus map

message: This following section is uncited and disputed. Can people let me know what is disputed about it ? - FrancisTyers 14:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, User:TodorBozhinov added the tag. I think he's getting at the fact that certain dialects (I'm thinking of the ones spoken in Greece) are dialects of Bulgarian, not "Macedonian". I would justify this claim on the basis that the Slavic dialects spoken in Greece were always Bulgarian until the "Macedonian" language was created in Yugoslavia. I don't see how this changes the status of the Bulgarian dialects spoken in Greece, so they are suddenly dialects of Macedonian rather then Bulgarian. It would be like claiming that Montenegrin is a dialect of Bosnian rather than Serbian. --Telex 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things change. As I've given sources above for, some dialects are considered "Bulgarian", and some "Macedonian". It really depends on what the people themselves say, but as we don't know, because Greece doesn't include the information in the census, linguists categorise them on a linguistic basis. Remember, once all the dialects were "Bulgarian", or "Serbian", depending on who you believe. In fact, once all the dialects were "Slavic" or "Slavonic" if you go back far enough. - FrancisTyers 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, I guess you havent asked any Republicans. God first created Macedonian.  /FunkyFly.talk_   14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The people themselves call the language "Slavic" and they call themselves "Slavophone Greeks", with a few minor exceptions, e.g. Stoidis and his Bulgarian minority and Voskopoulos and his "Macedonian" Rainbow party (choose wisely at the dab page). Did you know that there was no "Macedonian" minority in Greece until Voskopoulos came back from university? And guess where he went to university - Skopje. You see what I'm getting at? --Telex 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know, where are you getting at? It is profitable to start a Macedonian party in Greece? Like UMO Ilinden-Pirin in Bulgaria?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe not in Greece, but in other countries. You can most certainly make an estimate.  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :)) - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective is linguistic. We have a Balkan Slavic continuum that has been standardised into specific languages: Bulgarian, Makedonski, Serbian, etc... We also have, or had, some people in the Greek province of Macedonia bordering with Bulgaria who spoke a Slavic idiom. Today their numbers are few and they learnt is a part of the bi-lingual nature of the region before WWII. But how do we classify that regional idiom? I think that it comes under, 'Bulgarian dialect' because that is what it used to be called. Just as the language of Nevrokop (today, Goce Delcev) used to be a 'Greek dialect' (before the population exchanges). Politis 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will tend to go with what is written in the various literature. We know that standard versions of language have various features, and that dialects have various features. The way we categorise them is on which features are in common. This is of course the second way to classify them, the first (and best) way is to ask the people themselves, but as I mentioned we don't have numbers for that, and guessing will get us nowhere. I will paste again below the sources I have for which dialects are considered heteronomous with which standard. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like FlavrSavr is "bringing it on". How would you comment this edit or this picture for example?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is ridiculous. There was never a kingdom of Macedonia to have a "Royal" "Coat of Arms" (heraldry did not exist in ancient times, but came into existence in the middle ages). The Vergina Sun was discovered in Greece, on an archaeological finding (believed to have been associated with ancient Macedonian royalty) looking like this back in 1977, that is how Greece was able to copyright it. --Telex 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would gladly correct some of FlavrSavr comments, but the debate is linguistic. Politis 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, seeing as there seems to be no dispute, I'll move it back in. I appreciate your effort in finding references. Btw, the talk page isn't a dustbin, more like a sewer! :)  - FrancisTyers 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, feel free to split it up however you want :) be bold! - FrancisTyers 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll do something about it at some point, if no one else does. --85.187.44.131 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll get you for this blatant copy-vio!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: 
A major bundle of isoglosses running roughly from Skopje and Crna Gora along the rivers Vardar and Crna divides Macedonian territory into Eastern and Western regions shows the main dialect regions. The vocalic inventories of the West Central dialects are characterized by a five-vowel system, /a, e, i, o, u/. With the exception of Mala Reka, Reka, Drimkol-Golobrdo, Radožda-Vevčani, Nestram, Korca and parts of Lower Prespa, all the remaining dialects also have phonemic /ə/. Phonemic /å/ is found in all of these latter schwa-less dialects except Mala Reka and Korca. Phonemic /ä/ occurs in Radožda-Vevčani, Suho and Visoka and Korca. Vocalic /l/ occurs in Mala Reka. Vocalic /r/ is absent from those dialects that decompose original r, except Radožda-Vevčani. Korca also has phonemic /ü/.
The dialects of the Western region all tend to fixed stress, antepenultimate in the Republic of Macedonia, penultimate in Greece and Albania. The Eastern region, along with the neighboring Bulgarian dialects, has various non-fixed stress systems. In Lower Vardar and Seres-Nevrokop unstressed /a, e, o/ are reduced (raised) to /ə, i, u/. It must be noted that the Seres-Nevrokop group is in fact located mostly outside of the republic of Macedonia (in Greece and Bulgaria, respectively) and hence its identification as a group of Macedonian dialects is a controversial issue. Bulgarian linguists regard both as dialects of Bulgarian . Interestingly, the reduction of unstressed vowels is characterisic of East Bulgarian as opposed to West Bulgarian dialects, so Bulgarian linguists regard these dialects as transitional between East and West Bulgarian . 
Most dialects have /e/ from original ě, but the Eastern region is characterized by the development of ě to /a/ after /c/: Eastern cal, Western cel (whole). In easternmost Greek Macedonia and the Blagoevgrad Province of Bulgaria ě gives /a/ or /ä/ under stress, in the dialects of Greek Macedonia regardless of the environment, in the   dialects of the Blagoevgrad province /a/ if there is a back vowel in the following syllable, /e/ if there is a front vowel, as can be seen in 'white', Seres-Drama: b'ala - b'ali, Suho and Visoka: b'äla - b'äli, Nevrokop: b'ala - bell. In Korca, ě gives /iä/ under stress.
The modern reflexes of the Proto-Slavonic reduced vowels (jers), vocalic sonorants and the back nasal (o) can be used to separate the dialects into six groups: (1) North (Tetovo, Skopje Crna Gora, Kumanovo-Kriva Palanka), (2) Peripheral (Gostivar, Ohrid-Prespa, Kostur-Korca, Lower Vardar), (3) West Central (Prilep, Kicevo, Bitola, Lerin), (4) East Central (Tikves-Mariovo, Stip-Strumica, Malesevo-Pirin), (5) Debar and (6) Seres-Nevrokop.
For consonantal features, the entire Western region is distinguished from the East by loss of /x/ (except Tetovo, Gora and Korca) and the loss of /v/ in intervocalic position (except Mala Reka and parts of Kostur-Korca): glava (head) = gla, glavi (heads) = glaj. The Eastern region preserves /x/ (except Tikves-Mariovo and Kumanovo-Kriva Palanka) and intervocalic /v/. The East is also characterized by the development of prothetic /v/ before original o where the West has prothetic /j/: Eastern vaglen (coal) but Western jaglen. The diphonemic reflexes are most characteristic of the dialects of Greek Macedonia and Blagoevgrad province, Kostur-Korca and Ohrid-Prespa. The Seres-Nevrokop dialects have a series of phonemically palatalized consonants.
-----
:Well, User:TodorBozhinov added the tag. I think he's getting at the fact that certain dialects (I'm thinking of the ones spoken in Greece) are dialects of Bulgarian, not "Macedonian". I would justify this claim on the basis that the Slavic dialects spoken in Greece were always Bulgarian until the "Macedonian" language was created in Yugoslavia. I don't see how this changes the status of the Bulgarian dialects spoken in Greece, so they are suddenly dialects of Macedonian rather then Bulgarian. It would be like claiming that Montenegrin is a dialect of Bosnian rather than Serbian. --Telex 14:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things change. As I've given sources above for, some dialects are considered "Bulgarian", and some "Macedonian". It really depends on what the people themselves say, but as we don't know, because Greece doesn't include the information in the census, linguists categorise them on a linguistic basis. Remember, once all the dialects were "Bulgarian", or "Serbian", depending on who you believe. In fact, once all the dialects were "Slavic" or "Slavonic" if you go back far enough. - FrancisTyers 14:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geez, I guess you havent asked any Republicans. God first created Macedonian.  /FunkyFly.talk_   14:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The people themselves call the language "Slavic" and they call themselves "Slavophone Greeks", with a few minor exceptions, e.g. Stoidis and his Bulgarian minority and Voskopoulos and his "Macedonian" Rainbow party (choose wisely at the dab page). Did you know that there was no "Macedonian" minority in Greece until Voskopoulos came back from university? And guess where he went to university - Skopje. You see what I'm getting at? --Telex 15:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know, where are you getting at? It is profitable to start a Macedonian party in Greece? Like UMO Ilinden-Pirin in Bulgaria?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe not in Greece, but in other countries. You can most certainly make an estimate.  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! :)) - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The objective is linguistic. We have a Balkan Slavic continuum that has been standardised into specific languages: Bulgarian, Makedonski, Serbian, etc... We also have, or had, some people in the Greek province of Macedonia bordering with Bulgaria who spoke a Slavic idiom. Today their numbers are few and they learnt is a part of the bi-lingual nature of the region before WWII. But how do we classify that regional idiom? I think that it comes under, 'Bulgarian dialect' because that is what it used to be called. Just as the language of Nevrokop (today, Goce Delcev) used to be a 'Greek dialect' (before the population exchanges). Politis 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I will tend to go with what is written in the various literature. We know that standard versions of language have various features, and that dialects have various features. The way we categorise them is on which features are in common. This is of course the second way to classify them, the first (and best) way is to ask the people themselves, but as I mentioned we don't have numbers for that, and guessing will get us nowhere. I will paste again below the sources I have for which dialects are considered heteronomous with which standard. - FrancisTyers 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like FlavrSavr is "bringing it on". How would you comment this edit or this picture for example?  /FunkyFly.talk_   15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture is ridiculous. There was never a kingdom of Macedonia to have a "Royal" "Coat of Arms" (heraldry did not exist in ancient times, but came into existence in the middle ages). The Vergina Sun was discovered in Greece, on an archaeological finding (believed to have been associated with ancient Macedonian royalty) looking like this back in 1977, that is how Greece was able to copyright it. --Telex 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I would gladly correct some of FlavrSavr comments, but the debate is linguistic. Politis 15:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, seeing as there seems to be no dispute, I'll move it back in. I appreciate your effort in finding references. Btw, the talk page isn't a dustbin, more like a sewer! :)  - FrancisTyers 17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh, feel free to split it up however you want :) be bold! - FrancisTyers 22:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks for the encouragement. I'll do something about it at some point, if no one else does. --85.187.44.131 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll get you for this blatant copy-vio!  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 18:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialects and regional varieties

message: Here they are:
Apart from certain peripheral areas in the far east of Greek Macedonia, where in our opinion must be considered as part of the Bulgarian linguistic area (the region around Kavala and the Rhodope mountains, as well as the eastern part of Drama nomos), the dialects of the Slav minority in Greece belong to the Macedonian diasystem (reflex o instead of Proto-Slavic *b in strong position, rebuilding of the accent system). Within the Macedonian linguistic area the dialects spoken in the eastern part of Greek Macedonia are undoubtedly part of the East Macedonian subgroup, whereas the dialects of Voden, Kostur, and Lerin areas constitute a transition between East and West Macedonian.
From R. Schmieger "The situation of the Macedonian language in Greece: sociolinguistic analysis" (1998)
The name of Florina is only one of the districts of Northern Greece where the Macedonian language is spoken, but there are Slavophones also in the districts of Kastoria, Edessa, Verria, Drama and Serres. How many Slavophones there are is impossible to ascertain, since each side manipulates the statistical data according to what it wants to prove: the figures vary from 50,000 up to 300,000.
From Hill, P. (1999) "Macedonians in Albania and Greece: A comparative study" in Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 1. — this particular quote is from the "Athens sociological journal Scholiastis (Vol. 72, 1988, p. 22)"
It would be interesting to get a copy of that 1988 Scholiastis article/study. Know if there is an Englishs translation anywhere? - FrancisTyers 15:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greece

message: Do any of you live in Skopje? There is a memorial plaque on a hydroelectric power station (Matka Gorge), a picture of which would make a great addition to the article. The plaque was created after 1947 (according to Friedman). A barnstar to the first person to get me a series of photographs of it. If you have a digital camera, make it at least 10-15 photographs from various angles — and if possible on a sunny day for good lighting. The plaque, and the reasons for it being interesting are mentioned in Friedman (1998).  Thanks! - FrancisTyers 16:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think User:Bomac does. --Telex 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dear Macedonians

message: Duja has been reverting me to a version which claims:
*That Britannica claims that there are 3,000,000 speakers of MKD (and then links to this article which says nothing of the sort)
*That general academic consensus is that there are approximately 2 million speakers of the Macedonian language. HO - I'd love to see a source for this.
*That Ethnologue, which says that there are 1,598,247 speakers in *all* countries excludes the diaspora.
I'm confused now - perhaps I (or you) haven't understood WP:V. --Telex 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, now I remember, we have a specific page for this, if you still want to argue about it, I'll see you there. - FrancisTyers 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No conclusions were made. The issue is hardly addressed. Will you please cite some sources, or start slapping fact templates over the figures. Thanks. --Telex 20:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers again 

message: Umm... Francis. To form the future tense in standard Bulgarian, you use the particle "ще" and this does not inflect. In Serbian, it does, but in Standard Bulgarian, as far as I know, it doesn't. Are you sure that you copied the source correctly, or perhaps got carried away with your desire to present Macedonian as different from Bulgarian as possible ;-) It doesn't take a genius to notice that "ќе" is a corrupted version of "ще". To be on the safe side however, I think we should ask someone who actually knows the language (I may be wrong). --Telex 18:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am desperately trying to make Macedonian seem less like Bulgarian and more like Albanian. You noticed my evil plot :( — I think we should hear from a Bulgarian (or better linguist than me) on this matter. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on this one, I read Tomić's "Syntax of Balkan Slavic Future Tenses", and I have to confess it was pretty hard going (I didn't understand it fully). - FrancisTyers 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know Tomić makes mistakes (I'm not really sure if that "I've read the book" translation of hers is correct). And if you really do have an agenda to make Macedonian seem more like Albanian and Greek, we know why - all linguists seem to agree that Ancient Macedonian was either a Greek or an Illyrian language, the result of this being that the closest surviving modern relative is either Greek or Albanian. Therefore, if Macedonian Slavic has a feature present in Greek and Albanian (and therefore probably in Ancient Macedonian), but not in Bulgarian, this seems to confirm their theory of Macedonian Slavs = Slavs + Ancient Macedonians, and that Bulgarians = Slavs + Proto Bulgars (and Tatars and God knows what else), the linguistic feature in question being proof of that (we all know what their circular arguments are like). --Telex 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh shit! I had no idea! :)) - FrancisTyers 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the deal here?  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the Bulgarian "ще" used in exactly the same way as the Macedonian "ќе"? Francis maintains that "ще" changes according to grammatical person (I, you, he) and number (singular, plural) - I say it doesn't. --Telex 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Аз ще тръгвам - I'll be going. Той ще тръгва - He'll be going. Te ще тръгват - They'll be going Like that? Btw, I think Fran is unintentionally, or purely out of scientific interest, overemphasizing the difference between the two languages. From a scientist's perspective, variety is good, more variety means more work, right Fran?  /FunkyFly.talk_   18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, like that - anyway, the problem is solved, see Balkan linguistic union#Future tense formation. The future tense in Macedonian is formed in exactly the same way as in Bulgarian, with the exception of the speakers having a different regional accent. I think this should be in the article. --Telex 18:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right, "ќе" basically the same as "ще", there's only the regional /kʲ/ reflex and not the standard Bulgarian /ʃt/ for Proto-Slavic *tʲ. You can see the table of these reflexes in the "Old Church Slavonic" article. Todor Bozhinov  → 21:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the same in Serbian:ђе and Croatian:če and more forms of Slafic, is the same as Macedonian:ќе and Bulgarian:ще. So where is the basis here, whats the intention of prooveing something so amorphic. The future form is made on the same way as in bulgarian and macedonian in serbian and croatian.--->>><<< 12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vlatko, if my linguistic knowledge is good enough, except for Torlak, Serbo-Croatian će/ће is not a fixed clitic. E.g. a proper usage would be: radiću, radićeš, radiće, or ja ću raditi, ti ćeš raditi. In first form, the verb is conjugted with ću ćeš će ćemo ćete će, in the second one, infliction of ću corresponds to the verb. Torlak, however, often uses only će, but conjugated. E.g. you are as likely to hear: "ću da radim" as "će da radim" (in my experience of course, torlak is not standardized).  --dcabrilo 22:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are riight, gramaticaly it is so.--->>><<< 01:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the languages are similar as Portugese and Spanish, I hope you've noticed the differences between these languages. But to say that a language is intensiosly developed just for "so", it is wrong. every language developes spontaniously by its speakers, as the way of thinking changes so and the voice form, here are some examples: the word inMacedonian:вреден' (vreden) in macedonian means a person who is working hard in the positive sence, or something which we can make some use of, but inBulgarian:вреден (vreden) it hase the opposite meaning than the macedonian, literaly it means ofending.--->>><<< 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Amazingly, you forget about the other 85% of the words with identical meaning. By the way the word does have a secondary meaning, which is also positive. Maybe bg-3 is a little too high for you? (As is en-3 quite obviously)  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I forgot and the 80% of the words with identical meaning with serbian, croatian and slovenian, and some 70% with all other slavic branches. You are right.--->>><<< 12:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, right. Did you learn that in the Bulgarian profficiency exam in Plovdiv?  /FunkyFly.talk_   22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And much more than that, obviously you can't understand it.--->>><<< 01:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, tough luck here. Maybe you should have considered going to a country where you'd had less linguistic difficulties. Oops, I forgot the unemployment there was 40%. Maybe go back to your country? Ahh, there it is also 40%. Well tough luck afterall.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well seems you are the smarter one, I agree. Tell me , you resolve all of your problems this way. 10 year before Bulgaria was one of the poorest remember?.--->>><<< 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of countries were the poorest at some point. After the Great Depression the US was pretty bad, after WW2 Germany and Japan were messed up as well.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Than why do you implicate with relativic things, it is silly?--->>><<< 01:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making an observation, that's all.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pointhing such thing on capricious way, realy mature.--->>><<< 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it bother you? You have to admit though, you came to the country for a better prospect, and maybe there is some disappointment? Linguistic? Cultural? Care to share it?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, why are you on wikipedia?--->>><<< 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered like a true soldier, with a question.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are an interestin person, realy. you give all the answers I want.--->>><<< 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad we agree on 1 thing. Ok, good night.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good night to you to.--->>><<< 01:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sir yes sir!  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the dialect that I speak, it is something of the sort of ordered, orderly.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And whats the commoon between wortly and orderly?--->>><<< 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are positive, which was one of your major points above, remember?  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true, I pointed something other, distinguishing positive and negative is philosophic, not so much linguistic, I think you have not understood the written above, but thanx for proveing mine POV ;-).--->>><<< 01:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, still it is not the complete opposite.  /FunkyFly.talk_   23:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, realy smart of your's.--->>><<< 01:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a hell of an answer... Bomac 23:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To clear things out — Macedonian "vreden" and Bulgarian "vreden" are not the same word with different meanings, they are two different words written the same way. The Macedonian "vreden" is from "v" ("in") + "red" ("order") and corresponds to Bulgarian "ureden" ("u" is a lot similar to "v" and sometimes interchangable). The Bulgarian one is from "vreda" ("harm"). Todor Bozhinov  → 08:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future tense