Talk:Ancient Macedonian language/Archive 1

message: I will be on watch against both Slavic Republic of Macedonia/FYROM nationalists and Greek nationalists who attempt to vandalize or slant this article to conform with their agendas. Decius 08:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not consider myself to be a shitfaced conceited fool, but I would prefer to see the following statement backed: From classical references, it is apparent that the Greeks viewed Macedonians as a rather separate ethnos, and recognized a marked difference between Macedonian and Greek (all dialects). This has been verified by modern linguists, who have identified a number of differences, including differences at the level of Indo-European sound-change. "From classical references..." and "This has been verified by modern linguists" isn't really convincing with any actual reference. BTW in what sense can one speak about the difference between Macedonian and Greek, as AFAIK there was no one Greek language or one Greek city state or country? User:212.53.118.141
Every thing in the article (right now as of my writing this) is backed by up references and consensus scholarly views, so don't worry about me pushing personal Point of Views. These references will be provided soon. As for your last question, Macedonian is known to have been more different than any Greek dialect, and I will get you a reference for that as well. Note that the article says Macedonian was very different compared to all Greek dialects, so in no way was there any suggestion that there was ever "one Greek language", so I don't know what you were looking at. As for "one Greek nation" or not, that is not a factor, and we are discussing language. Decius 10:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Watch

message: Mention of a possible relation to the Phrygian language can be added, though I personally don't see a close connection. I also find it suspicious that every other mysterious language in the general area has somehow been connected to Phrygian (i.e., Eteocretan, Thracian, Dacian, etc. etc.). Though since Phrygian seems to have been somewhat close to Greek, that can also extend to Macedonian. There were probably many things in common between Macedonian, Dacian, Thracian, Greek, and Phrygian. Decius 09:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's right, the less is known about a language, the wilder the speculations that are forwarded. The languages you list, however, do seem to have influenced each other on more than a superficial level, a phenomenon that is labelled balkanization since the Balkans are notorious as a historical linguist's nightmare. Armenian, btw, presents itself to me as layer upon layer upon layer of both Hellenic and Iranic influence, so that it is impossible to separate these from "Armenian proper". dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian and Phrygian 

message: I have seen the language as Old Macedonian several times, so may be the name should be added in brackets. VMORO 20:41, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)~
Alright. Decius 20:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Bogdan, Macedonian kombous does have a cognate in ancient Greek: 'gomphos' (tooth, peg, bolt), known to be from PIE *gembh. Decius 22:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek cognates 

message: As I have said in the Macedon talk page, there is not enough data to classify with accuracy what macedonian language was -Greek dialect of closely related to Greek.I disagree that most linguists consider macedonian as separate language and in the following days I will present a catalog of linguists.
According to this, it's againsts the NPOV policy of wikipedia to write that the upper classes adopted greek language, how do you claim this?
We should present all theories not showing which one we like or not.For example to speculate that macedonian are related to phrygian is extreme from linguistic point of view,since we do not have
enough data.
Claiming that macedonian surely were not a greek dialect cause of the differences and ingoring the fact that the vast majority of macedonian words was of greek origin is also extreme.
The supporters of that theory fail to explain why there is not even a single one incription foung in  
macedonia in this mystirious language and why all that archaeologists have found are Greek ones.
For example inscriptions in Illyrian and Thracian exist,where are those of this separate language?
And how do you explain the fact that if macedonians where a separate nation and had a different language and culture why the archaeologists haven't found something different in the area of macedonia but only findings of greek culture?Odysseas
Something else, using the term Greek to describe which language extinted the macedonian dialect or language (as I have said we can't be 100% certain what it was) is false. Since the Attic dialect was considered to be the most advanced at that time and since medieval and modern Greek dialects (apart the Tsakonian dialect in central Pelopponese which comes from Doric)came from her the correct is Attic dialect not Greek.Odysseas
: There are almost no inscriptions in other Paleo-Balkan languages either. There is a very short undeciphered inscription believed to be in Thracian, a 20-letter inscription ("Decebalus per Scorillo") believed to be in Dacian, none in Illyrian (AFAIK, if you know about an actual inscription in Illyrian, please contribute at Illyrian languages), none in Paionian. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NPOV]] 

message: I took a day off yesterday from Wikipedia, but I see that yesterday was a busy day. Okay Odysseus, first of all let me clear this issue: I'm not an "expert" on the ancient Macedonian language-material (I haven't surveyed all the known Macedonian words), and while it is correct (if I remember right) that most Macedonian names were Greek, the claim that "most known Macedonian words are Greek" sounds false, so please back up that claim with a reference (preferably one we can read on the internet). I'm not an expert myself on the language, but I have surveyed the topic enough to know what most of the experts believe. Your other arguments can all be countered easily: there are no Macedonian inscriptions in this separate language, and there are also no Illyrian inscriptions in the Illyrian language; there are no Paionian inscriptions in their language; there are only a few fragmentary Thracian inscriptions; the longest Dacian inscription is a short phrase. I saw you talking about Macedonian pottery earlier, and how you say that they are all in the Greek style: even if that is true, it can be explained by this: I read in one of my books (don't remember which one, I'll try to track it down) that Macedonians traded their raw products (lumber, honey, crops, etc.) in return for finished products from the Greeks (pottery, fine clothes, etc.), so that would explain why most Macedonian pottery & artifacts (etc.) appear to be Greek. It's hard to use material culture as evidence of language. Decius 20:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "A savage and barbaric European people called the Thracians moved into the region about 2000 B.C. After 1100 B.C., the Macedonians came under the cultural influence of the Greeks."
Now, my Encyclopedia is from 1967, but the same view I've seen in current Encycylopedias at the local libraries. Also note here that Greek influence on Macedonians goes back far into the past, long before King Philip, and we should expect this great Greek influence: because from the pattern of their conquests, it seems that the Macedonians expanded from the south (mainland Greece, Thessaly) into Macedonia: Thucydides and others make it clear that they conquered the land that would come to be called Macedonia and expelled the previous inhabitants (Thracians and Paionians, etc.): they conquered Emathia, Eordea, Mygdonia, Crestonia, etc., all of which were previously inhabited by other peoples. So the earlier Macedonian territory was basically in mainland Greece, and the Greek and Macedonian cultures mixed: so now it is difficult to tell whether Macedonian was a language or dialect, but most say it was a language. Decius 21:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most words allegedly Greek 

message: Macedonian Words 
Part One-Personal names
Agathon
Avraeas
Parmenion
Aeropos
Alexandros
Antipatros
Peukestas
Alketas
Orontis
Perdikkas
Alkimachos
Amyntas
Andromenis
Antiochos
Seleykos
Ptolemaeos
Amphoteros
Egelochos
Anaxippos
Antikles
Antipatros
Admitos
Etharos
Gaeteas
Kratennas
Stadmaeas
Antigonos
Antigenis
Heraklides
Iolaos
Arpalos
Arravvaeos
Arridaeos
Filippos
Aesaeas
Epimenis
Aryvvas
Archelaos
Asandros
Eynikos
Attalos
Kleopatra
Vereniki
Valakros
Nikanor
Derdas
Sirras
Eyridiki
Evrylochos
Eyfraeos
Ippostratos
Eromenis
Efaestion
Karanos
Karsis
Nikolaos
Kassandros
Kevalinos
Kleitos
Dropides
Koinos
Polemokaratis
Lagos
Laniki
Leonnatos
Lysimachos
Neoptolemos
Meleagros
Menelaos
Menidas
Metron
Orestis
Filotas
Paysanias
Peithon
Kratevas
Pedikkas
Peroidas
Menestheas
Peykolaos
Polemon
Polydamas
Polyperchon
Simmias
Tlepolemos
Those names are macedonian names which are present in Arrian,Plutarch,Herodotos,Thucidides,etc, next week when the univercity library opens
I will edit more personal names from incriptions,names of cities and common words.Odysseas
Alright, good luck. But I want you to realize that linguists & scholars must have already reviewed all of this, yet the predominant view in the West is still that they probably spoke a separate language. I'm just warning you ahead of time, so you won't be accusing me of ignoring your citations---I'm not ignoring what you say, just don't expect that you will single-handedly prove that Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. It will take new archaeological findings (texts) to prove that. Decius 20:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "...the Eurytanians, who are the largest tribe in Aetolia, and speak, as is said, a language difficult to understand, and eat their flesh raw." (Thucydides, Pelop. 3.94)
He actually says that one of the Aetolian tribes eat raw meat, not human beings. I will check the Greek text, which I do not own but is available on the net. In the beginning of his History, Thucydides also says that the Aetolians and Acarnanians are rather barbaric and that they still live in "the old fashion", and that they always carry a weapon on their person. Thucydides was most likely speaking the truth, and he wasn't just slandering people. Decius 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: the question is, when are these names attested. Most of the people in Western Europe have Hebrew names, but that doesn't make them Hebrews. If these names are Greek rather than Macedonian, they simply say nothing about the Macedonian language. It would be rather like saying that ancient Macedonian was Slavic, just look at the many Slavic names found in the area today... dab (ᛏ) 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most words Greek 

message: We will begin presenting some ancient sources which declare their connection with Greeks.First we have the persian 
inscription of 513 BC which talks about the nations which are under thei control, it speaks about Yauna Takabara
in Balkan area meaning Greeks with big hats.The only nation in the balkans that had a distinguish hat where the 
macedonians, whith the καυσία(kafsia) hut (Walser, Die Volkerschaften auf den Reliefs von Persepolis-1966 47 E)
Herodotus clearly declares that the dorians where created by the unification of the madeonians with other nations.
Hellanius presents the father of macedonians, Macedon, is son of Aiolos meaning that he considered them an aeolian
greek tride (Hellanius,FGrHist 4,74).Arrian (Arrian,Alexandrou Anavassis 2. 14. 4.) writes that Alexander on his letter 
to Dareius wrote Your ancestors came in Macedonia and rest of Greece and assaulted us.After i became leader of the Greeks 
i came to asia to willing to punish Persians.The phrase macedonia and rest of greece is also present in the 
treaty between Annibas and Philip V (Polybius, 7. 8. 9.).Also in Titus Livius (31. 29. 15.) where he places macedonians 
among aetolians as greek tribes.Also in Polybius (5. 103. 9.) where Agelaus from Nafpactos wishes to end wars among 
Aetolians and Macedonians  intergreek wars as he names them.The Efessians from an inscription in Efessos
(SIG 867, 38-40) ...in the macedonians and the rest Greek tribes...
Let's continue whith linguistics...
Evidences:
In a scene of the comedy Macedonians written by the poet Strattis of arount 400BC an athenaean asks a macedonian:
η σφυραινα δ'έστι τις;(=what is sfyraena?-kind of fish-) and the macedonian replay: κέστραν ύμμες ωττικοί κικλήσκετε
(=that thing that you Athenaeans call kestra-other kind of fish-).It needs to be pointed that Athenaean comedians presented
barbarians to speak bad Greek mived with foreign words but other greek tribes to speak in their own dialects.The macedonian in the passage
is speaking greek with dialecting elements ,ύμμες instead of υμείς ωττικοί instead αττικοί κικλήσκετε instead κεκλησκετε.
Alexander speaking to the 30000 persians he took to his army says to them: learn the greek language and macedonian
army doctrines (Plutarch Life of Alexander 47, 3).From this passage we understand that macedonian soldiers 'spoke
greek it's absurd for Alexander to force persians to learn greek if the macedonians weren't speaking greek since they would fight
together.
Words:
Macedonian words (apart from pesonal and city names)saved to us directly are 112.From them 63 come from ancient 
dictionaries and 47 from ancient sources.Those from ancient sources are all greek,those from dictionaries
50 are greek and 13 of unknown indoeuropean origin.
Personal names:
Apart from the names Μακεδονια,Μακεδονες of clear greek origin from μακος(=length), we have the names of
some macedonian tribes, hundreds of personal names(I've already given you),dozens of cities(also I've already given you),
rivers,names of gods(Ploutonas,Persephoni,Dionysos,Estia,Iraklis,asklipios,Okeanos,etc) 6 names of fests(Peritia,Telessias,
Xanthika,Arantides,etc)and 12 of months(Avdnaeos,Ippalkmos,Xandikos,Peritios,Yperaeretis,etc).
For the names of the macedonian tribes Elimiotae,Lyngestae and Orestae.The first is clearly of greek origin,the 
second has the prefix -st- which is present in Illyrian names and the third is also greek not only in the root
Ores-,but also in the ending -tae.As I proved to you before the nanes of cities and rivers (Aliakmon,etc) are 
greek, could you explain to me how it is possible for a non greek nation to give greek names to cities,rivers and 
mountains?Or how it is possible to have greek names for gods,fests and months?I'm really curious.From the personal
names the 95% has greek origin and the 5% of illyrian and thracian.All the names of months and fests are greek.There
is no reply for these facts from those who support that macedonians where 
not a greek tribe.
Connection of macedonian and other greek dialects
1)Macedonian and western Greek dialects
-dd- instead of -zz- 
example the common names between these dialects Drykalos and Pefkestas
2)macedonian and aeolic
-nn- instaed of -sn- or -n-
example the common word between these dialects Kranna(fountain) doric krana,attic krene
the common name Xennias
3)macedonian and thessalic
-ω- instaed of -ου-
4)macedonian and arcadic
-in- instead of -en-
example the common word between these dialects zerethron(=stair)
Examples of macedonian words from ancient sources and dictionaries
You can find the full catalog of macedonian words in this book:Hoffman, O. Pauly-Wissova, Real-Encyclopadie. d.kl.
Altertumswiss Makedonia col.681-97   
dramis(=type of bread) comes from the IE root *dera-/*deru-, dromis in achaic, dara-tos(<*dra-tos) in thessalian.
daryllos instead of doryllos in achaic and in attic drys comes from *dru- means oak
kammarae instead of kommorae meanig a kind of fish
kynopes common word with doric
akronoi common word with doric
doa common word with doric
akontion akontio in modern greek
aspilos same word in modern greek
Common creation of personal names and words with doric using endings -ator(Nikator),-asion(korasion)
Common convesion of -η- into -α- with doric doric Sparta attic Sparte, macedonian kefala attic kefale 
Common grammar phenomenon with doric maced./doric Pafsania attic Pafsaniou,macedonian Perdikka attic Perdikkou
Common creation of words ending in -an intead of -aon maced./doric peligan attic peligaon
Common conversion of -os into -as with doric doric emerodromas attic emerodramas,macedonian voukefalas attic voukefalos
(βους + κεφαλη =ox + head) it's Alexander's horse meaning the one with the head like an ox
Want more? 
Odysseas
Yes, I do want more, because everytime I turn around to look up your quotes, I find something else that calls them into question: in Plutarch's Life of Alexander, I found some interesting paragraphs, which I will quote. I also found more information about the way Greek dramatists portrayed non-Greek speakers as speaking vernacular or broken Greek. I will give the quotes in a few minutes. Decius 23:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonian language and it's connection with Greek

message: From Plutarch's Life of Alexander (section 51):
:"Alexander, in the meantime turning about to Xenodochus, the Pardian, and Artemius, the Colophonian, asked them if they were not of opinion that the Greeks, in comparison with the Macedonians, behaved themselves like so many demigods among wild beasts.
:But Clitus for all this would not give over, desiring Alexander to speak out if he had anything more to say, or else why did he invite men who were freeborn and accustomed to speak their minds openly without restraint to sup with him. He had better live and converse with barbarians and slaves who would not scruple to bow the knee to his Persian girdle and his white tunic.
:Which words so provoked Alexander that, not able to suppress his anger any longer, he threw one of the apples that lay upon the table at him, and hit him, and then looked about for his sword. But Aristophanes, one of his life-guard, had hid that out of the way, and others came about him and besought him, but in vain; for breaking from them, he called out aloud to his guards in the Macedonian language, which was a certain sign of some great disturbance in him, and commanded a trumpeter to sound, giving him a blow with his clenched fist for not instantly obeying him..."
These are three consecutive paragraphs from Plutarch, where we see Alexander the Great himself distinguishing between Macedonians and Greeks. We also see that Alexander was bilingual (if not more): he spoke Greek usually, but when in an emotional state he spoke the Macedonian language: my English translation uses the word language, and I suppose the Greek text would use "glossan" or something like that, but I don't own the Greek text, nor have I found it on the net. So, obviously there was a Macedonian tongue that was different at least from Attic Greek---there is no conclusive evidence that this Macedonian language was a Greek dialect, and like I keep repeating, Wikipedia has to give more support to the predominant view that the ancient Macedonians spoke a separate language from Greek.Decius 00:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Do not the Greeks appear to you to walk among Macedonians like demi-gods among wild beasts?"
If this translation is accurate, it further shows not only that Alexander distinguished between Macedonians and Greeks, but it shows that Greeks had a chauvinistic attitude towards Macedonians, according to Alexander the Great himself, as reported by Plutarch. Decius 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More from Plutarch 

message: A question of yours that I didn't address yet is the one about how it is possible for a non-Greek nation to have Greek names for its rivers, mountains, towns, et cetera. Before I address that, I'm going to discuss something that you probably won't like, but which is true: there are an enormous amount of words and names in ancient Greek that have not been traced to Proto-Indo-European roots, and that have not been explained conclusively within the context of Greek: such words are generally considered to be pre-Indo-European, in other words, that they entered the ancient Greek dialects long ago from autochthonic populations such as the Pelasgians, Leleges, and so on. Many of these words and names are common words and names, and they include some that you have mentioned as being in common to Greek and Macedonian, and include many more in addition to those: Okeanos (which you mentioned), Ge or Gaia, Thalassa, Nike, Basileus, Athos (mountain name), Larissa (a town in Thessaly, and another town in Aeolia), Corinth (a city in Peloponnesus), Athena (the goddess), Athenai (the city), Hera, and so many more which I will mention. Decius 22:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common words 

message: The thing is, Greek agathos is of unknown origin, and is probably from Pelasgian, and the Macedonians, for example, might have also picked up the word along with the names from Pelasgian: anyway, to be precise, these kinds of words and names of unknown origin are much less conclusive, and they should be differentiated from the Indo-European Greek words.
Decius what are you talking about? Let's get this clear, in ancient Greece there was NO Greek language, there were only dialects of Greek that were constructed by Indo-European Greek's admixture with the local proto-Greek BARBARIC Languages. That means that ALL Greek dialects have a variecty of distinct words that are NOT Indo-European Greek (but that doesn't mean that they're not part of the Greek language). This is how dialects are formed in any part of the world. One common root language (in this case Indo-European Greek) and elements of other FOREIGN languages. So it's normal to encounter different words and accents between dialects of one language, otherwise they'd be the same language. In the Attic dialect which is mixed with Pelasgian, the very word ATTICA is Pelasgian non-Indo-European Greek word! The thing is that ALL those words (including Attica) ARE now considered part of the Greek language, because the ancient GREEK language as we refer to it today is NOT the Indo-European Greek. In the case of "Agathos" for instance, it is biased and stupid to assume that it derives from Pelasgian and not from Greek, because it's a Greek world in definition, and structure and phonology! With your logic you could even prove that Doric is not Greek either, since many Greek words have common roots in other Indo-European languages. How would we know that they're Greek? And as for the list of Macedonian words that was mentioned in some link here, most of those words (like hetairos) that supposedly don't have any equivalence in other IE languages, it's because those words are 100% Greek, unlike some others that have similarities to Greek and other IE language. The word hetairos in particular is used very frequently in the Homeric language and it's probably of Ionic origin. 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lookup=e(tai%5C=ros&display=Latin+transliteration
What you can't understand is that we KNOW that Macedonia was since Homeric times inhabited by various Barbarian peoples, including known ones such as Thracian and Illyrian tribes. It is only NATURAL that its dialect had elements from those barbaric peoples, it's the same in the REST OF GREECE. The difference that Macedon was a Mycenaean-style Kingdom and not a city-state, it's because it was in the border of Greece and the barbarian tribal world. Same goes for Epirus. There are no serious linguists that characterise Macedonian as a non-Greek dialect, this assumption is a huge exaggeration. Every Macedonian text known to us was written in Greek, in total ALL Classic and post-Classic references (including the ones of Demosthenes who supposedly prove that Macedonians were not Greek), actually verify that Macedon WAS viewed as Greek. Classic references include even historians like Thucydides and post-Classic ones include even chapters of the BIBLE. On the other hand all Macedonian literary texts were in Greek, and we even have archaeological evidence of a Greek dialect that different from all others. Then we have a pan-Hellenic conquest of the Macedonian Kingdom that had assumed HEGEMONY over Greeks and takes REVENGE against the Persian Empire's aggressions to Greece. Philip says it HIMSELF that he is the Hegemon of the Greeks, meaning a GREEK ruler over the GREEKS. That was the difference between hegemony and conquest. All the Hegemonies in the Greek world were the Athenian, Spartan, Theban and finally the Macedonian. Then we have some lexicon with supposedly Macedonian words, out of which most are purely Greek, some are slightly changed from Greek, and a very small percentage that is NON-IE, something which is common in ALL the rest of Greek dialects. Then we have the Ancient Macedonian Empire, that conquers the entire world, spreads Greek culture, adopts a NEW Greek dialect as its official language, and suddenly people stupidly claim that in that generation the fictional "Macedonian language" was lost... It's just plainly ludicrous and what's most ironic is that you consider yourself a neutral person (despite the fact that you have literally QUOTED lines of FYROM propagandists). Just open your eyes and realize that the only one who is against the scientific truth is YOURSELF.
Miskin
:Agathos has no accepted Indo-European etymology. What I said is that it is a Greek word of unknown origin (fact), and probably from Pelasgian (theory). The English word garage is an English word, but it was borrowed from French. Decius 13:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said such words are "not part of the Greek language". Quote the line where I said that. Decius 13:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What I was saying is that when listing common words between Macedonian and Greek, the common Indo-European words are much more relevant to the issue (trying to prove that it's the same language) than the non-IE words. Because when you know the Indo-European root of a word, you can compare how it evolved from IE to Macedonian (language or dialect) and IE to Greek. Non-IE words are untraced, so they are not very useful for the purposes of showing that you are dealing with the same language. Decius 13:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: There was an attempt by I forgot-which-linguist to derive Agathos from PIE *magh, 'to have power, be able', but his theory didn't gain any acceptance. The root is given as unknown by references (see Beekes' Ancient Greek Etymological Dictionary; American Heritage Dictionary, etc etc.). Decius 14:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: As of 2005, Agathos is of unknown origin. If in the future it is traced to an IE root, proven to be of Greek origin from Proto-Indo-European, and the etymology is accepted by references, then the situation will change, and no one will be able to say "it is probably from Pelasgian". The same goes for the other cases. Till then, you will indeed see many linguists such as Beekes saying that Agathos is "probably of pre-Greek origin", as he says in his dictionary. Decius 14:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decius WAKE UP please 

message: 1. Herodotus
Afterwards he (Croesus) turned his thoughts to the alliance which he had been recommended to contract, and sought to ascertain by inquiry which was the most powerful of the Grecian states. His inquiries pointed out to him two states as pre-eminent above the rest. These were the Lacedaemonians and the Athenians, the former of Doric, the latter of Ionic blood. And indeed these two nations had held from very, early times the most distinguished place in Greece, the being a Pelasgic, the other a Hellenic people, and the one having never quitted its original seats, while the other had been excessively migratory; for during the reign of Deucalion, Phthiotis was the country in which the Hellenes dwelt, but under Dorus, the son of Hellen, they moved to the tract at the base of Ossa and Olympus, which is called Histiaeotis; forced to retire from that region by the Cadmeians, they settled, under the name of Macedonians, in the chain of Pindus. Hence they once more removed and came to Dryopis; and from Dryopis having entered the Peloponnese in this way, they became known as Dorians.
[Book I]
Amyntas, when he had thus besought his son, went out; and Alexander said to the Persians, "Look on these ladies as your own, dear strangers, all or any of them- only tell us your wishes. But now, as the evening wears, and I see you have all had wine enough, let them, if you please, retire, and when they have bathed they shall come back again." To this the Persians agreed, and Alexander, having got the women away, sent them off to the harem, and made ready in their room an equal number of beardless youths, whom he dressed in the garments of the women, and then, arming them with daggers, brought them in to the Persians, saying as he introduced them, "Methinks, dear Persians, that your entertainment has fallen short in nothing. We have set before you all that we had ourselves in store, and all that we could anywhere find to give you- and now, to crown the whole, we make over to you our sisters and our mothers, that you may perceive yourselves to be entirely honoured by us, even as you deserve to be- and also that you may take back word to the king who sent you here, that there was one man, a Greek, the satrap of Macedonia, by whom you were both feasted and lodged handsomely." So speaking, Alexander set by the side of each Persian one of those whom he had called Macedonian women, but who were in truth men. And these men, when the Persians began to be rude, despatched them with their daggers.
[Book V]
Now that the men of this family (Alexander I) are Greeks, sprung from Perdiccas, as they themselves affirm, is a thing which I can declare of my own knowledge, and which I will hereafter make plainly evident. That they are so has been already adjudged by those who manage the Pan-Hellenic contest at Olympia. For when Alexander wished to contend in the games, and had come to Olympia with no other view, the Greeks who were about to run against him would have excluded him from the contest- saying that Greeks only were allowed to contend, and not barbarians. But Alexander proved himself to be an Argive, and was distinctly adjudged a Greek; after which he entered the lists for the foot-race, and was drawn to run in the first pair. Thus was this matter settled.
[Book V]
At least these towns served as a pretext for the expedition, the real purpose of which was to subjugate as great a number as possible of the Grecian cities; and this became plain when the Thasians, who did not even lift a hand in their defence, were reduced by the sea force, while the land army added the Macedonians to the former slaves of the king. All the tribes on the hither side of Macedonia had been reduced previously. From Thasos the fleet stood across to the mainland, and sailed along shore to Acanthus, whence an attempt was made to double Mount Athos. But here a violent north wind sprang up, against which nothing could contend, and handled a large number of the ships with much rudeness, shattering them and driving them aground upon Athos.
[Book VI]
It were indeed a monstrous thing if, after conquering and enslaving the Sacae, the Indians, the Ethiopians, the Assyrians, and many other mighty nations, not for any wrong that they had done us, but only to increase our empire, we should then allow the Greeks, who have done us such wanton injury, to escape our vengeance. What is it that we fear in them?- not surely their numbers?- not the greatness of their wealth? We know the manner of their battle- we know how weak their power is; already have we subdued their children who dwell in our country, the Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians. I myself have had experience of these men when I marched against them by the orders of thy father; and though I went as far as Macedonia, and came but a little short of reaching Athens itself, yet not a soul ventured to come out against me to battle.
[Book VII]
But, notwithstanding that they have so foolish a manner of warfare, yet these Greeks, when I led my army against them to the very borders of Macedonia, did not so much as think of offering me battle. (SS 3.) Who then will dare, O king! to meet thee in arms, when thou comest with all Asia's warriors at thy back, and with all her ships? For my part I do not believe the Greek people will be so foolhardy.
[Book VII]
Now these were the nations who composed the Grecian fleet. From the Peloponnese, the following- the Lacedaemonians with six, teen ships; the Corinthians with the same number as at Artemisium; the Sicyonians with fifteen; the Epidaurians with ten; the Troezenians with five; and the Hermionians with three. These were Dorians and Macedonians all of them (except those from Hermione), and had emigrated last from Erineus, Pindus, and Dryopis. The Hermionians were Dryopians, of the race which Hercules and the Malians drove out of the land now called Doris. Such were the Peloponnesian nations.
[Book VIII]
This Alexander was seventh in descent from Perdiccas, who got for himself the tyranny of Macedonia in the way that I will show. Three brothers of the lineage of Temenus came as banished men from Argos to Illyria, Gauanes and Aeropus and Perdiccas; and from Illyria they crossed over into the highlands of Macedonia till they came to the town Lebaea.
[Book VIII]
The whole nation of the Phocians had not joined the Medes; on the contrary, there were some who had gathered themselves into bands about Parnassus, and made expeditions from thence, whereby they distressed Mardonius and the Greeks who sided with him, and so did good service to the Grecian cause. Besides those mentioned above, Mardonius likewise arrayed against the Athenians the Macedonians and the tribes dwelling about Thessaly.
[Book IX]
After Mardonius had put his question about the prophecies, and spoken the above words of encouragement, night drew on apace, and on both sides the watches were set. As soon then as there was silence throughout the camp,- the night being now well advanced, and the men seeming to be in their deepest sleep,- Alexander, the son of Amyntas, king and leader of the Macedonians, rode up on horseback to the Athenian outposts, and desired to speak with the generals. Hereupon, while the greater part continued on guard, some of the watch ran to the chiefs, and told them, "There had come a horseman from the Median camp who would not say a word, except that he wished to speak with the generals, of whom he mentioned the names."
They at once, hearing this, made haste to the outpost, where they found Alexander, who addressed them as follows:-
"Men of Athens, that which I am about to say I trust to your honour; and I charge you to keep it secret from all excepting Pausanias, if you would not bring me to destruction. Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Greece, I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself a Greek by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. Know then that Mardonius and his army cannot obtain favourable omens; had it not been for this, they would have fought with you long ago. Now, however, they have determined to let the victims pass unheeded, and, as soon as day dawns, to engage in battle. Mardonius, I imagine, is afraid that, if he delays, you will increase in number. Make ready then to receive him. Should he however still defer the combat, do you abide where you are; for his provisions will not hold out many more days. If ye prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the Greek cause, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am Alexander of Macedon."
As soon as he had said this, Alexander rode back to the camp, and returned to the station assigned him.
[Book IX]
2. Diodorus of Sicily
On his father's side Alexander was a descendant of Heracles and on his mother's he could claim the blood of the Aeacids (Achilles), so that from his ancestors on both sides he inherited the physical and moral qualities of greatness.
[17.1.5]
"After this Alexander left Dareius's mother, his daughters, and his son in Susa, providing them with persons to teach them the Greek language, and marching on with his army on the fourth day reached the Tigris River. "
[17.67.1]
"Alexandros observed that his soldiers were exhausted with their constant campaigns. ... The hooves of the horses had been worn thin by steady marching. The arms and armour were wearing out, and the Hellenic clothing was quite gone. They had to clothe themselves in materials of the barbarians,..."
[17.94.1]
"Every seat in the theater was taken when Philip appeared wearing a white cloak and by his express orders his bodyguard held away from him and followed only at a distance, since he wanted to show publicly that he was protected by the goodwill of all the Hellenes, and had no need of a guard of spearmen."
[16.93.1]
"Such was the end of Philip, who had made himself the greatest of the kings in Europe in his time, and because of the extent of his kingdom had made himself a throned companion of the twelve gods. He had ruled twenty-four years. He is known to fame as one who with but the slenderest resources to support his claim to a throne won for himself the greatest empire in the Greek world, while the growth of his position was not due so much to his prowess in arms as to his adroitness and cordiality in diplomacy.
[Historical Library 16.95.1-2]
3. Thucydides
The country on the sea coast, now called Macedonia, was first acquired by Alexander, the father of Perdiccas, and his ancestors, originally Temenids from Argos.
[Book 2]
4. Aristotle
Of the rivers in the Greek world, the Achelous flows from Pindus, the Inachus from the same mountain; the Strymon, the Nestus, and the Hebrus all three from Scombrus; many rivers, too, flow from Rhodope.
[Meteorology, Book 1]
"The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes..."
[Meteorology, Book 1, Par. 13]
5. Isocrates
Argos is the land of your fathers, and is entitled to as much consideration at your hands as are your own ancestors.
[To Philip]
"Therefore, since the others are so lacking in spirit, I think it is opportune for you to head the war against the King; and, while it is only natural for the other descendants of Heracles, and for men who are under the bonds of their polities and laws, to cleave fondly to that state in which they happen to dwell, it is your privilege, as one who has been blessed with untrammeled freedom, to consider all Greece your fatherland, as did the founder of your race, and to be as ready to brave perils for her sake as for the things about which you are personally most concerned."
6. Titus Livius
"The Aitolians, the Akarnanians, the Macedonians, men of the same language, are united or disunited by trivial causes that arise from time to time; with aliens, with barbarians, all Greeks wage and will wage eternal war; for they are enemies by the will of nature, which is eternal, and not from reasons that change from day to day."
[The foundation of the city, par. 31]
7. Plutarch
"Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honour, above all other gods, to Zeus;"
"He [Alexander he Great] erected altars, also, to the gods, which the kings of the Praesians even in our time do honour to when they pass the river, and offer sacrifice upon them after the Greek manner."
[Alexander]
8. Arrian
"He [Alexander the Great] sent to Athens three hundred Persian panoplies to be set up to Athena in the acropolis; he ordered this inscription to be attached: Alexander son of Philip and the Hellenes, except the Lacedaemonians, set up these spoils from the barbarians dwelling in Asia"
[Alexander the Great 1,16,7]
9. Flavius Josephus
"And when the book of Daniel was showed to him (Alexander the Great) wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended"
[11.8.5]
10. Pausanias
"The Phocians were deprived of their share in the Delphic sanctuary and in the Greek assembly, and their votes were given by the Amphictyons to the Macedonians."
[Description of Greece -10.3.3]
"They say that these were the tribes collected by Amphiktyon himself in the Hellenic Assembly: [...] the Macedonians joined and the entire Phocian race [...] In my day there were thirty members: six from each of Nikopolis, Macedonia and Thessaly [...] "
[Phokis - 8,2]
11. Aeschines
"For at a congress of the Lacedaemonian allies and the other Greeks, in which Amyntas, the father of Philip, being entitled to a seat, was represented by a delegate whose vote was absolutely under his control, he joined the other Greeks in voting to help Athens to recover possession of Amphipolis. As proof of this I presented from the public records the resolution of the Greek congress and the names of those who voted".
[On the Embassy 2.32]
Alexander the Great's letter to Darius:
'Your ancestors invaded Macedon [3] and the rest of Greece [4] and did us harm although we had not done you any previous injury. I have been appointed commander-in-chief of the Greeks and it is with the aim of punishing the Persians that I have crossed into Asia, since you are the aggressors. You gave support to the people of Perinthus, who had done my father harm, and Ochus [5] sent a force to Thrace, which was under our rule. My father died at the hand of conspirators instigated by you [6], as you yourself boasted to everybody in your letters, you killed Arses [2] with the help of Bagoas [7] and gained your throne through unjust means, in defiance of Persian custom and doing wrong to the Persians. You sent unfriendly letters to the Greeks about me, to push them to war against me, and sent money to the Spartans and some other Greeks, which none of the other cities would accept apart from the Spartans. Your envoys corrupted my friends and sought to destroy the peace which I established among the Greeks [8].
I therefore led an expedition against you, and you started the quarrel. But now I have defeated in battle first your generals and satraps, and now you in person and your army, and by the grace of the gods I control the country. All those who fought on your side and did not die in battle but came over to me, I hold myself responsible for them; they are not on my side under duress but are taking part in the expedition of their own free will. Approach me therefore as the lord of all Asia. If you are afraid of suffering harm at my hands by coming in person, send some of your friends to receive proper assurances. Come to me to ask and receive your mother, your wife, your children and anything else you wish. Whatever you can persuade me to give shall be yours.
In future whenever you communicate with me, send to me as king of Asia; do not write to me as an equal, but state your demands to the master of all your possessions. If not, I shall deal with you as a wrongdoer. If you wish to lay claim to the title of king, then stand your ground and fight for it; do not take to flight, as I shall pursue you wherever you may be.'
[Arrian, Alexander's Anabasis - 2.14]
Alexander the Great's Oath at Opis, 324 BC:
"I wish all of you, now that the wars are coming to an end, to live happily, in peace. All mortals from now on will live like one people, united, and peacefully working towards a common prosperity. 
You should regard the whole world as your own country with common laws, a country where the best and the brightest rule, regardless of race. 
I do not separate people, as do the narrow-minded, into Greeks and barbarians. I am not interested in the origin or race of citizens. I only distinguish them on the basis of their virtue. For me each good foreigner is a Greek and each bad Greek is worse than a barbarian. 
If ever differences arose, never resort to arms, but resolve them peacefully. If need be, I will serve as your arbitrator. Do not consider God as a dictatorial Ruler, but as Father of all, so that your conduct would resemble the cohabitation of siblings within one family.
On my part, I consider all of you equal, white or dark, and I would like you not to be only plain subjects of my Commonwealth, but all shareholders, all partners.
To the extent it is in my power, I shall try to accomplish all that I promise. Keep the oath we are taking with the libation tonight like a Contract of Love"
[Callisthenes]
Coingage:
http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/macedonia.html
PS: As for the example you gave in the coinage of an Paeonian King, you should be aware that this coin is dated well into the Hellenistic Era (started by Macedonians), where almost all Kingdoms in the world were absorbing elements of the Greek culture. The point of the Macedonian coins and inscriptions in Greek, is that they're dated BEFORE the Hellenistic Age.
And as for the word "agathos", as explained above the root word is of proto-Greek non-IE origin, but the structure of the word (such as the -os) ending is its Greek version. For that reason when we examine the Macedonian tongue, this is seen as a Greek word.
Miskin
I read a number of these quotes before: in fact, that first Herodotus quote that you posted I was reading last night. Like I said before: you can assemble the entire library of quotes, and the situation will still be inconclusive. If you want to change things, go poke around an archaeological site and find some evidence that will settle the question. Decius 15:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's compare Classic quotes 

message: "I will be on watch against both Slavic FYROM nationalists"
The fact that you refer to Macedonians as "Slavic FYROM" is greatly insulting and proves that you are biased and violate the POV rules.. User:207.188.67.232
The question of whether the Republic of Macedonia (or Former Yugoslav, etc.) should be called the Republic of Macedonia is not a factor in this language/dialect debate. The name of the country could be the Republic of Atlantis and it wouldn't impact the language/dialect debate. The reason I refer to the republic as FYROM is because I disagree with the 'Republic of Macedonia' name: the modern country contains only part of Macedonia: it does not contain the core parts of Macedonia (which were further south). Most of the modern nation was once the Kingdom of Paionia: and when Paionia was conquered by Macedon, this land would be more accurately "the Paionian province of Macedon" (remember, the Macedonians when they conquered Paionia didn't slaughter the inhabitants, so the population of the Paionian province of Macedon was more Paionian than Macedonian). POV rules are not violated because 1) it's on a Talk Page; 2) it's not an issue in the debate/article. Decius 02:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether any Slav nationalists have discovered the probably coincidental similarity between Bylazora and Belozero.--Wiglaf 11:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I am also biased against the Macedonian-Quechua hypothesis. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you be Unbiased! 

message: 'Thanatos' was the common Attic ancient Greek word for 'death', but 'thanos' was posted because that internet site gave the form "Greek 'thanos'" as opposed to Macedonian 'danos' (see the first link provided in the External Link section), so I used that form. I suppose it is dialectical form, though I haven't found it in my dictionary, which lists 'thanatos' and some kindred forms, etc. The point is the 'th' opposed to 'd' sound, either example exhibits that. Decius 02:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanatos is a relatively modern form form for death- kathareuousa & dhimotoki- if you dont know what you are talking about then try to research - th to d can also be explained by the dialect theory
I say, you should try get a username. Then you should try to discuss politely. And then you can maybe still invest some time into finding out what we are talking about here. "thanatos" is "relatively modern"? Such as Homeric?? Don't make me laugh. You can 'hypothetize' about a dialectal thanos, no problem. But if you think that "th to d can also be explained by the dialect theory" you are quite brave. Because then I can also explain the "Hellenic is really Russian" hypothesis by the dialect theory. dab (ᛏ) 02:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Dab is quite knowledgeable in this field of research and I have full confidence in his additions. The limit between dialect and language is very hard to define, and I believe that there is too little left of Macedonian to make a definite statement other than it is held to be a language related to Greek by most linguists.--Wiglaf 11:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Miskin, your questions are discussed and partly answered in the pertinent literature. This talk page is not a free course in historical linguistics. Yes, the possibility that Mac. may be considered a Hellenic dialect is entertained by a minority of linguists, just as we said in the bloody article from the very beginning. We are looking at the result of balkanization, and that, combined with the fragmentary attestation makes it really impossible to say much more than that.  dab (ᛏ) 11:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Thanatos' 

message: You're still contradicting yourselves. First you tell me to site scholars (which I already have) and now you performing your personal criticism on the scholars that you don't agree with. All I want to prove to you in that you're not neutral on your judgement and you're using bad logic to draw your conclusions. All we have here is 700 words, the vast majority of which, lead us to a Greek dialect. Then we have some words of non-Greek origin, which as I have so many times stated, it is something common for EVERY Greek dialect. All the rest of evidence (such as inscriptions, coinage, names, and toponyms) which ARE in fact examined by linguists, are also leading to a Greek-speaking people. The pronunciation differences you're stating (assuming full validity of sources) are just ridiculous. I can site you examples of much greater differences between other Greek dialects. You also have to understand that the term 'dialect' refers to a group of speeches with SIGNIFICANT differencess (and even difficulty in intelligibility) that are yet categorised under the same language (with no official dialect representing the actual language). I started this discussion without citing contemporary scholars for the following reasons: 
*There are some millions of unbiased scholars who have cited opinions on this matters, each of which has a DIFFERENT status of academic importance (that we do not consider). 
*Only a tiny part of those scholars has been translated into to English (and the languages we speak) and therefore be familiar of the majority's opinion. 
*Out of the best scholars, the ones who of Greek origin (which is many) are automatically ignored.
*Out of the best ones who are not (e.g. Masson, Hammond), you have already a take-away theory to ignore their opinions.
I tried to quote some ancient sources and analyse their context, cite archaeological evidence dating before Philip II and the fictional Hellenisation of Macedon, but you two never paid any attention nor replied. 
Last but not least, the typical sample of your faulty logic is the naive examples you keep coming up with e.g. comparing the contemporary Germanic family of languages with the ancient Greek language (family of dialects). Dab came up with another genial example which would involve choosing at random 700 words of the French language and expect to find a Celtic root. Mr Dab never took into account that the fundamental probability formula applies only for events of equal possibility factor, Id est: we do NOT know whether Hesychius gathered those words at random or not.
Eventhough I disagree wholeheartedly with both of you, all I'm asking for is neutrality and an agnostic character to this article (as opposed to a contradictory biased one). The reader should read the evidence and draw his own conclusions. Miskin
:This is how it went down for me personally: when I started the initial article, I was not familiar with Olivier Masson and I did not find any counter-argument from the linguistic side of the debate that was worth mentioning (in my opinion, of course), so I went ahead and presented the majority linguistic view (Macedonian a separate language from Greek) as I gathered it (and it is indeed the more prevalent linguistic view, as reference after reference substantiated for me and others). Every thing I saw from the other side was mere mumblings, grumblings, & evasive arguments. Hammond has some arguments, but they are vague and he does not address the linguistic problems in any work of his that I've seen. Masson is also very vague, though I haven't read enough from him: what I've seen from him so far is not enough to impact the more prevalent linguistic view. Decius 02:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And there was nothing "contradictory" in the initial short article: "our knowledge of" Macedonian is "very limited", I wrote, yet I proceeded to present the prevalent (<key word) linguistic view that Ancient Macedonian was a separate language: that's not a contradiction. Our knowledge of Thracian is also very limited (maybe even more than Macedonian, since not nearly as many Thracian words are known) but enough remains for linguists to say it was separate from Greek (as it was), and virtually all now say that Thracian was also separate from Illyrian (though we know nothing of what an Illyrian or Thracian sentence looks like). Enough remains of ancient Macedonian for a prevalent number of linguists to say it was a separate language from Greek. Decius 03:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And what is very strange about your comments is that you continue to be under the delusion that the "greatest and best" scholars view ancient Macedonian as a Greek dialect. Decius 03:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I criticized Masson here, on the talk page. I didn't remove him from the article, or ridicule his view there. Cite linguistic arguments from his abroutes article, and we'll work them into the article. Be specific. Which scholar (argument, quote, article, page) is underrepresented? Make a suggestion how to include him. Masson was very cautious to formulate his view as extremely hypothetical, he was not a linguist, and from what we know, his argumentation was not linguistic. Cite his linguistic arguments. Does he discover any peculiarities of North-Western Greek in Macedonian? What peculiarity? Which dialect do the others "Greek dialect" proponents favour? North-Western? Dorian? Attic-Ionic? Do you even know how they differ? An independent dialect? With what characteristics? Author, title, page, example words? Don't wave your hands at "millions of scholars", be precise, cite relevant ones. I'll be happy to include Masson's theory, if he has one. Cite it, maybe I'll be even convinced, but we'll include it anyway. You want to include arguments in favour of "Macedonian is Greek". Interestingly, you don't seem to have them ready. Why should you, you know they must be correct before you have even seen them. We won't do your work for you. Go to the library, find the literature, and cite the relevant arguments here. If you cannot do this, leave it to others to work things out. We continue to say that things are uncertain, and that most linguists tend to assume balkanization, an independent branch, or a Graeco-Macedonian branch. This does include your position, but it doesn't favour it. You have failed to point out why this approach should be incorrect. Except for complaining that we ignore "millions of Greeks". That's just not helpful. Give one author, Greek or not, who argues based on an understanding of Greek historical Grammar, and some knowledge of Greek dialectal differences. We are really stooping low to quote Masson's "dialectal variant" as a linguistic argument. This is so imprecise, we could as well argue that German or Russian are "dialectal variants" of Greek (which they are, too, from a Hellenocentric view). dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  700 words of disputed reliability are no evidence to draw conclusions 

message: said Ninio:
:So for future reference: I won’t tolerate any kind of provocative, spurious or tedious remarks. I won’t tolerate any misleading or mischievous editing techniques as: overly-emphasizing on the differences, comparison of different things by the deliberate (or not) infuse of misspellings , syntax fallacies or mistakes, slandering of highly authoritative references without any academic proof etc.
hell, Ninio, we are desperate for "highly authoritative references". Why don't you provide one instead of all this bickering. "TIED" and the "linguistlist" are not "highly authoritative", but we quote them for lack of better references. At the moment, the best reference we quote is Mallory and Adams (quoted by me), both respected and well known scholars (though maybe not "top notch", I'll agree). So there, you are more than welcome to bring up others. What did Brugmann say on the question? Anything by Meillet, Saussure, Szemerenyi, Schweizer? Care to quote from  Brixhe andPanayotou? Or even Masson? Please do, we'll treat your quotations with all due respect. The ball is in your court, really. dab (ᛏ) 10:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, if IE bh became ph in various Greek dialects (aspirated p) and in the Macedonian idiom bh became 'b', then it could equally work to say that Macedonian followed the shift from bh to ph (as in many Ancient Greek dialects) and then progress it even further to 'b'.
That has in fact occurred to me, and I would be happy to include that possibility. Just find explicit mention of that possibility somewhere, and we'll be certain to include the quote (i.e. do your work, don't blame us for not doing it for you). Including that idea just because it occurred to you and me would be original research. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "for future reference" / bh > ph > b

message: I included the quote from www.macedonian-heritage.gr. Now we know he favours North-Western over Aeolic. I am curious how he argues (and what's in the lacunae omitted by macedonian-heritage.gr). So Ninio and Miskin, if you're serious about wanting to see more "pro-Greek" arguments, here is something very straightforward for you to do. Get hold of Masson's OCD article and quote the part where he argues in favour of North-West vs. Aeolic. That way you'll have a whole section discussing Macedonian as a Greek dialect. Does the OCD even have an entry on the Macedonian language? It would seem that Masson is the author of the article on Ancient Macedon as a whole, historically, not linguistically, and includes a brief paragraph about the language. (That would make sense, since he's a historian). My question is is there a separate article on the language, and if not, what linguistic evidence is discussed in the Macedon article (I do have an OCD, but it's pre-1996). dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Miskin. Your point of view is already represented in the article, and you will never ever succeed in having *only* your point of view in the article, if that is what you want. What I wonder about is why you insist on the Greek ethnicity of the Macedonians. Would you have cared about it if it weren't for Alexander the Great?.--Wiglaf 19:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely the main factor here. If the Macedonians had not achieved anything glorious and remarkable, modern Greeks in general wouldn't of course care much about "those barbarous Macedonians". There is so much emotion and Hellenism tied up in this issue that it has indeed slowed down the science (and I'm not talking about this Wikipedia article, I'm talking about the state of the scientific debate). Decius 23:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Miskin, your comparison is not accurate: The common scientific view does not in any way support aliens on the dark side of the moon; on the other hand, ancient Macedonian as a separate language is a very common scientific view that (at least as of 2005) is leading the race among linguists. The article right now presents both (and more) views, and the dialect view will be further represented if more good references surface. I agree to be fully neutral in the article, and so should everybody else (including you). The article aside, I have my own opinion (which happens to coincide with the opinion of a large number of linguists). Decius 23:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And by the way, Masson has already been seriously criticized, and I don't see the general linguistic community running over to his camp (even the Classical Department of Oxford Univ., if you can somehow consider it as a single entity, doesn't necessarily totally agree with what he wrote, though they published his essay in their 1996 third edition and include it in their newer revised  editions). I found a website some weeks ago which has excerpts of Borza refuting Hammond and also Masson if I remember right, and he did a good job. I'll "google" for them again. Better would be to find his book/essay. Decius 01:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: An interesting comparison would be to see how the current Oxford English Dictionary (comparing to what Masson wrote in his essay in Oxford-Classical-Dictionary 1996) defines the Ancient Macedonian language (remember how current American Heritage Dictionary and current Merriam-Webster do not even mention the Greek dialect view, though they were published well after Masson). This would give us a more realistic view of what "Oxford sponsors". It is naive to believe that Oxford is a single entity that unanimously agrees with a Frenchman named Olivier Masson, whose specialty seems to have been epigraphy as I gather from his works on Cypriot & Anatolian inscriptions, et cetera. I don't know if he was a linguist. And if he was, he represents his own view, which is shared by some others. Decius 01:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, I support the separate language school. That's as biased as I get. You support the dialect view, so that would also make you biased. I've agreed to be neutral in the article, so it doesn't matter. Now, as for would I be interested in the affinity of the ancient Macedonian language if not for Alexander: yes, I would be, just as I'm very interested in the affinity of such obscure ancient and extinct Balkan languages as Paeonian. There is no famous Paeonian figure, but that doesn't detract from my interest. Decius 09:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Miskin, Dab, is writing and editing articles on a wide range of dead languages. You are only one in a long line of people who discuss linguistic matters with him, and that Alexander the Great would be part of his motivation in this particular case is extremely unlikely. The fact that Dab is willing to take on discussions like this one is a great asset to Wikipedia. Moreover, this argument is not about the Greek ethnicity of Alexander, it is about the Ancient Macedonian language, which existed long before Alexander the Great.--Wiglaf 10:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And Miskin, you should realize by now that the linguistic debate predates the political dimension that you keep emphasizing. Look at the year that Antoine Meillet passed away on: "the Republic of Macedonia" was in no way a factor in Meillet's time. It's time for you to stop milking the political aspect of this, which you constantly do to deflect the issue. Decius 10:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What Wiglaf said, for the purposes of this article, I don't care a fig for Alexander. Yes he spoke Greek. But he lived 150 years too late to matter here. "Your" work is to provide evidence for the position you care so much about, and which is very thinly supported by evidence. Your job is to back up your claims, or to be silent. I am confident that our present article is fair, and if you disagree, it will not be me who spends days in the library to come up with shreds of evidence that you may have a point. See also Antifinnugor. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Masson

message: I support the separate language school. That's as biased as I get. You support the dialect view, so that would also make you biased.
Yes I supposed it would. But what makes the difference is that the article is written by you and according to your position, not mine (and therefore supports the separate language view). If I could have my way on this article I would change it in a neutral position, citing all evidence, and let the reader make his own conclusions - now that's something unbiased. I'm not asking you to ephasise my opinion over yours (yet), what I'm asking you is to treat them in equal terms.
You said that you're not influenced by modern politics, but by citing Borza and Demosthenes' isolated quotes as arguments against the Greekness of Macedon reveals the opposite. For the 88th time already, there are NO classic texts that regard Macedonians as non-Greeks. It's only isolated quotes (that you have obviously came across on the internet) that are cited by nationalists in order to aid in their propaganda, and this is something I can prove anytime you want. Your article says that "many classical sources regard Macedonians as a separate 'ethnos'", this is a lie you never backed up despite the numerous times I pointed it out. I provoke you to back this up otherwise I'll remove it, and if you revert again, you'll verify once again my suspicions.
For one more time, on the Macedonian dialect vs language: I consider all of your conclusions naive and usupported assumptions. First of all let's bring up the historical evidence, notably the quote of Livy. Your ridiculous answer to his writings "aetolians, macedonians, people of the same language, all greeks waged in an eternal war between each other", you naively responded (and added under his quote in Macedon) that this statement took place at a time that Macedonians were already Hellenised. For your information Livy is quoting a Macedonian embassador from the 3rd century BC, and is not citing his personal opinion neither the opinion of his time. You have completely IGNORED such important historical evidence, alongside Herodotus specific references on the origins of Macedon and how they began participating on the Olympic Games after the 6 century BC (which you interpreted as 'they never participated') Then it's the Persian reference "greeks wearing hats", and many many others. The list can go on forever, but in the meanwhile, you'd better try and find a good and valid explanation to those, otherwise the articles will change. Miskin
we have all these points on Macedon. just the references to the scholars supporting your conclusions, please. dab (ᛏ) 18:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not at my computer for a couple hours, else I would've responded hours ago. You bring up the Livy quote again. If you look through the history of the Macedon article, you will see that my initial response to the Livy quote was that "it needs to be analyzed" (and it does); better yet, we need to find what current scholars say about this quote. Dbachmann responded to that quote and wrote that Livy wrote at a time when the hellenization was complete. Later, I agreed with that position. But if what you say is true that Livy was quoting a 3rd century source (indirectly, obviously), then the quote takes on a different dimension. About those classical quotes: again, the discussion among scholars about what they seem to imply (the non-Hellenic nature of the ancient Macedonians) predates the political dimension. And I don't rely on internet quotes: before I ever heard of Wikipedia, I bought a book Greek Orations 4th Century B.C. by W.Robert Connor , Waveland Press Inc. that has the full Demosthenes & Isocrates quotes. This book was lost in my stack of books for awhile, but I found it once again about a month ago. Reading the quotes in this book some years ago is where I initially came across those quotes, not on the internet. Decius 23:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you style the more prevalent view among references as "naive", well then impress us by citing another "unnaive" scholar who demonstrates more than just "as a tentative hypothesis" that the ancient Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. In face of the evidence so far, it is the dialect-view that strikes more people as naive. Decius 23:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: This new revised article can no longer be called "my article" presenting the view that I support (which is the very common view that ancient Macedonian was a separate language pertaining to the Greco-Macedonian branch). It is a group article, revised/rewritten by many people. It now presents Olivier Masson (who so far is the most relevant modern proponent of the dialect view), and also presents the theory supported by Borza & some others that anc. Mak. was on a different Indo-European branch from Greek. Like I said before, the fact that the dialect-view is not mainstream makes it policy to be given less prominence, so if you rewrite the text presenting the dialect view as the foremost idea, it will lead to an edit war in which you will be on the defensive. Decius 23:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You should realize by now that the dialect-view does not have prominence in the mainstream. Leave aside for a moment the as-yet-unanswerable question whether the dialect-view is "true"---we can't verify, we can't even know conclusively, whether it is "true" or not. If, let's say, the current American Heritage Dictionary or the current Merriam-Webster Dictionary said that "ancient Macedonian was a Greek dialect", then it would be ridiculous to emphasize the separate language view. On the other hand, we see that they don't even mention the Greek dialect view. Then, when we review other references, again we see that the dialect-view is not mainstream. The article as it is right now reflects the mainstream much more closely than a version emphasizing the dialect-view would. I suggest for you to create your own website if you want to emphasize the dialect-view above all others. Decius 00:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And I've just reread the article, and I cannot say that it gives the view that I support special prominence: it is listed first under classification: Hellenic (Greco-Macedonian) Group; then the Greek dialect-view; then the independent Balkan language view; the view that I support is listed first, but it is not presented as the only possible correct view. Decius 00:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Now let's get down to business: the initial phrase was: From classical references, it is apparent that the Greeks viewed Macedonians as a rather separate ethnos---analyzing this, I see that it does not say "from all classical references"; it says "from classical references", what I should have written explicitly, was: a number of classical references indicate that the Greeks seem to have viewed Macedonians as a separate ethnos---(removing "it is apparent", because what is apparent to some may not be apparent to others, for whatever reason; "apparent" can be challenged, though in a number of cases the challenge is very weak; so I should not have written "apparent"). Now for this sentence: a number of classical references indicate that Greeks seem to have viewed Macedonians as a separate ethnos. There are in fact a number of classical references that indicate that Greeks (or at least some Greeks) seem to have viewed Macedonians as a separate, non-Hellenic people. The present article in any case now says: There are some classical references that indicate that Greeks may have viewed Macedonians as a rather separate ethnos. <Please show me exactly what is untrue about this sentence. I will find those quotes again to show that the sentence is accurate. Decius 01:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are many scholars who have pointed out those classical sources and have pointed out what they imply or seem to imply, long before "the Republic of Macedonia" issue came on the scene. I will find explicit quotes from modern scholars discussing these references. I have Demosthenes and Isocrates here at hand, and I'll quote them. Decius 01:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you still think the current phrasing is not accurate, propose here how you want to deal with it. Trust me that you are not going to just magically make those classical references disappear. And it is ridiculous (indeed, delusional) for you to allege that no such classical quotes exist. Decius 01:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And I know that some of these quotes are disputed. People have called attention to  Demosthenes' politics, his blatantly anti-Phillipic views, etc., but Isocrates didn't have those motives. I know of no scheme that explains away all of those classic references. Decius 01:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want, we can remove all discussion of Classic quotes from this language article---but that will cut both ways, and Strattis will also be removed, because despite what you believe, a scene from an Attic comedy (>an entertaining performance) is not viewed as earth-shaking evidence that Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect. Decius 01:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Two more things: how is the present article preventing the reader from making his own judgment? And as for the 'evidence', we all realize that we haven't assembled all the evidence in the article yet, because of the problems of finding all the evidence in the references. Decius 04:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I've now decided to go out of my way and amass an arsenal of references on this subject, just to silence all these wild accusations once and for all & to reveal just how many scholarly sources are against your view. Decius 11:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: nice one Decius. Again (as on Finno-Ugric), the trolls ultimately lead to  improvement of the article (sure, via the pains of the reasonable editors, but what the hell :) dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: this wasn't even addressed at you. Miskin, I'm not even reading your diatribes anymore, you repeat the same arguments over and over. Just bring up the citations, please? You know, like, from a library? (I'm asking for about the fifth time myself, I know) dab (ᛏ) 17:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputes 

message: sure, Decius. This has gone on long enough. This is the language article, and classical authors are only of interest if they are pertinent to the linguistic classification. Edits off this topic have no place here, and if they are not argued and compromised upon, we'll just revert them. The topic of this article is a language Miskin, not bloody "Hellenic blood", why is this so difficult to understand? dab (ᛏ) 21:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to remind you Miskin, that you do not own these articles either. What you suggest sounds like a working compromise. It is a good idea to keep language and ethnicity apart, even if they usually correlate. I am quite certain that Irishmen consider themselves to be "Irish" whether they are speaking Irish or English, and that the same goes for Scotsmen (whether they speak Scots English, standard English or Gaelic) and Welshmen (whether they speak Welsh or English). There are many ethnicities where the members speak different languages, and we should not try to categorize the ancient Macedonian language as Greek or not depending on various quotes about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, which AFAIK, was not uncontroversial.--Wiglaf 13:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You really have no idea do you. I have here two recent (one current, one from late 1990's) University history text books used in American universities that once again show that the prevalent view is to describe Macedon as a Macedonian state, not Greek. I'll quote them later today or tomorrow. I know the term Macedo-Greek doesn't exist, I wasn't saying it should be used in Wikipedia. What I meant is that to call Macedon a Greek state is unacceptable given the state of the evidence; to call it Macedo-Greek in the classical period can be argued for, but this term is not in usage. The majority of scholarly works at present refer to it as the Macedonian state. I don't know what you were thinking of, but you were off. Decius 19:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And you're wrong about phenotypes, smart guy. They are not used in anthropology to define race or racial characteristics. Anthropologists currently do not categorize race according to a set of phenotypes, and in fact anthropologists steer clear from defining race among human beings. A phenotype is basically any outwardly noticeable physical feature that distinguishes one organism from another, or one group of organisms from another. For example, according to Xenophon, there was a difference between Greek and Thracian phenotypes when taken together (though he didn't state it in these terms, that's what he implies). There were differences in pheonotype proportions even among those Balkanic groups that I mentioned, but we can both agree here (I assume) that language defined ethnicity more than anything else in the ancient Balkans, which is the time & place that concerns us here. Nevertheless, it is incorrect to say that phenotypes are an irrelevant issue, because we don't know exactly the differences among phenotypes in those ancient groups. But language, as I said, was the bigger issue.  Decius 20:07, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: You keep talking about "academic institutions", but the majority of academic institutions do not support your view. Unless you refer only to those in Greece. Decius 20:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Do most academic institutions refer to ancient Macedon as a Greek state?---Most definitely do not. This is true in the United States and elsewhere, where they refer to it as Macedonian. I was thinking about those lesser number of scholars (who are the majority in Greece) who refer to it as "Greek"---judging from current references (which is what we should judge from in an internet encyclopedia/reference work) most scholars would agree it is not to be referred to as Greek. "Macedo-Greek" though could be applied to the state of the Argive Macedonian Kings; but that's an issue that's not in Wikipedia's jurisdiction. Most references refer to it as a Macedonian state, and that is how this public internet reference will refer to it. Let's take this discussion to Talk:Macedon. Better yet, it's time to just quote references exactly and end all this back & forth arguing. That's what I recommend for all sides of this debate, and I'm collecting more references to further back up what is said in the articles . Decius 00:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: reverts

message: If the Macedonian language was recognized as Greek, and understood by Greeks, you would expect that this was the language used by the great Macedonian kings in a formal or legal context. But it was not.
We know with some certainty that Attic Greek, which came from much farther suth (around the Athens area) and was being used in other parts of the world as a trade language, was used more and more as the language of state and was used also in Alexander's multi-cultural army. No linguist accepts that this language was the original Macedonia.
Many scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect and that it was more or less related to the languages of Macedonian's northern neighbors, the Illyrians and the Thracians.
Philologists have studied words which have been cited as "Macedonian" in ancient lexica and glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples who spoke Greek, Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors of lexica and glossaries.
--Albanau 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Albanau, what book are you quoting again? :) Decius 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: yes, what is your point, Albanau? You are more or less summarizing the article here. dab (ᛏ) 17:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Albanau, your arguments are specious.  Attic's prestige was immense by the time Philip II entered "world politics", and the fun Athenians made of regional accents (Ionic excepted, of course!) was withering.  As a matter of fact we still do  :)  To this day, it takes a rather tough person to dare speak regionally in Athenian company, or a complete simpleton for that matter!  My best bet as to the degree of Hellenicity of Macedonian would be first personal names.  We Greeks have (from time immemorial, and to this day) an extremely rigid tradition of naming sons after their grandfathers and daughters after their grandmothers.  I will not go into whether paternal or maternal grandparents get first pick though, or my sister will kill me!   :)))))    A list of primary Macedonian names would be invaluable.  I know some exist, but where are they?  dab , you fool, work for me!  :PPPP  Chronographos 17:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Albanau, you are verklempt.  Xerxes' name was Greek?  Why, everybody knows it was Italian!  His real name was "Serse" and Haendel wrote a whole opera about it!  So was Figaro, and both Rossini and Mozart placed their operas in Spain just to confuse you.  Sneaky devils ...   Chronographos 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: A conspiracy indeed!  And you know who's behind all this, don't you?  Ping, Pang and Pong, the devious Italians who passed as mandarins and subdued all of China.  Not to mention that they invented ping pong   Chronographos 21:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: you two seem to be in the same boat then :) Compared to some of the stuff that went down on the Pelasgian page, you are actually a very reasonable person, Miskin  dab (ᛏ)
I'm glad you finally noticed. What I don't understand is why on earth would someone want to claim heritage from the Pelasgians?? Miskin 09:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm, separation anxiety? Chronographos 10:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It is simple, many nationalists want to claim as ancient a heritage as possible, and don't hesitate to appropriate the history of lost nations (e.g. Hungary and Sumer, Hindutva and Indus Valley Civilisation). By appropriating the Pelasgians they can claim to have been in the Balkans before the Greeks (I am sorry if I am stating the obvious).--Wiglaf 10:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ohhhh, I see, you mean like Decius Maximus and his illusions of Roman grandeur?  ;)   Chronographos 10:51, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Chronographos, try to bury the hatchet.--Wiglaf 10:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes :P Chronographos 11:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Albanau, you don't know what you 're talking about.  First of all, Skanderberg is a Swedish truck manufacturer.  Miskin is a Croat and his brother is basketball player Stojan Vrancovic.  Now for the good news.  Your own personal ancestry is indeed extremely ancient and glorious: it goes back to the dawn of time, and it's right here on Wikipedia!  Congratulations!  Chronographos 21:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Macedonian- Greek language