Talk:Macedonian language/Archive 11

Thoughts on history and political views

 * At the lead section: "According to scholars of the Macedonian language..." sentence should be removed as there are just single scholars, not a widely accepted periodization. "Linguists distinguish 29 different..." these are the Macedonian linguists, not just linguists. Also regarding the "influences" - the Macedonian language is standardized (raised to language) at 1945 and there are no influences since then up until now from the Bulgarian language - there are only influences from the Serbian, as Socialist Republic of Macedonia was part of a federation, where the Serbian language was the dominant one. In one sentence you mention "Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian", while in another one "Bulgarian and Serbian" - if we accept Serbian and Serbo-Croatian as separate languages, we should include them both in the two cases, because if if the claim is valid for one, it is valid for the other as well. The rest of this section looks OK. --StanProg (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We should avoid weasel words like "Some authors..." --StanProg (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * History section: "According to Macedonian scholars..." again weasel words, as it's just one specific scholar that "proposed" that periodisation. This should not be even mentioned, as it's just a proposal published in the local University magazine. "The "canonical" Old Church Slavonic..." you are relying again on one proposed periodisation of Lyudmil Spasov. Later on "Macedonian recension" is actually "Ohrid recension", as you have clarified later "referred to as such due to works of the Ohrid Literary School". Furthermore "Ohrid Literary School, current-day North Macedonia" is anachronism. A better wording will be "Ohrid Literary School, First Bulgarian Empire". "this version can also be referred to as Old Macedonian Church Slavonic" is referred as such by the Member of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences member Victor Friedman and other Macedonian linguists. At the "Medieval" subsection you can' write about "Macedonian language" as such did not existed - you can write only of local (Slavic) dialects. In the "Modern era" you also can't write about "Macedonian language". In general this section is not so bad, but still there's a lot work to be done. --StanProg (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you have several valid points. However I mentioned in this thread: please, please, please, don't engage in this discussion if you're not willing to comment on the linguistic features (for the time being). As you mentioned, I still have to work on that section and provide an unbiased version. DD1997DD (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "being raised to language". That's just political nonsense.  A language becomes recognized as a language for many different reasons, but it becomes a language through natural linguistic processes of change.  Macedonian was standardized in 1945.  Period.  Standardization is a common linguistic event when a particular form of a language becomes the adopted formal variant.  Some languages are standardized by common practice (as English), other languages are standardized by official edict (as the languages of the former Yugoslavia).  Any further comments about that event are political commentary and should be removed.  What should we say about standardization?  The simple statement that Macedonian was standardized in 1945.  What should we say about the issue of whether it is linguistically recognized as a separate language or a regionally standardized variety of a single pluricentric Macedo-Bulgarian language?  Nothing political whatsoever.  Everything should be linguistically focused.  "While before 1945 Macedonian was most commonly described as a dialect of Bulgarian (refs), modern linguists are divided over whether Macedonian is a divergent dialect of a common Macedo-Bulgarian language (refs) or a separate language (refs)."  The references should, as much as possible, exclude Macedonian, Bulgarian, and Greek sources (there are enough such references in western published linguistic literature to suffice).  The whole point of this exercise is that there were, indeed, huge changes needed to remove the vast amounts of anti-Macedonian political bias that had been inserted into this article over the years since North Macedonia gained its independence.  We'll discuss them, but we must be careful with every word and phrase to scrub the bias (such as with "raised to language").  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Guys this talk page section is not for the political debate, this one is about linguistic properties. Stay on topic or post it elsewhere. --Calthinus (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Again
I have disputed two section from proposed article on the talk. However there is no consensus about the content of these sections. Afterwards I have indicated it as lack of neutrality with tags. However they were removed with a comment here: ...don't edit the article anymore. This is obviously biased edit. I am indicating here the lack of consensus and neutrality. Jingiby (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I addressed your comments on the talk page of the sandbox. What you wanted to add is related to the Bulgarian language or its use on the territory of North Macedonia. That belongs to other articles, not to the development of the Macedonian language. DD1997DD (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You try to manipulate the issue. That above is simply not true. For example this clarifying edit I have made, did not mention the term Bulgarian. Jingiby (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Basic comment on "consensus". You can take it as given that I will support any edits made by User:DD1997DD.  I agreed with his original edits here and at the Sandbox.  I will have to go through Jingiby's edits carefully because his Bulgarian bias tends to be excessive.  (Our university just switched from F2F to on-line because of COVID-19, so I've been busy there and haven't had a chance to interact here as much.)  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh, please refrain from those Taivo ("his Bulgarian bias tends to be excessive"). Having a Bulgarian personal POV is not a crime. The best articles are made by people of opposing POVs working together.--Calthinus (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I too agree with DD1997DD's edits/proposals. --Beat of the tapan (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In just the last couple of days, significant progress has been made toward improving the article at this page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can start up an RfC already? I think the most contended parts have been removed and if anything new is added it will be to the grammar section. DD1997DD (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. The worst thing is if the serious editors continue in the Sandbox and people start hashing through here in a different direction.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's hope that does not happen again. DD1997DD (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Vocabulary POV
The paragraph starting with "The language of the writers at the turn of the 19th century abounded with Russian..." is a an early (1968) communist propaganda (POV) if Todor Dimitrovski and an attempt to distance the newly codified language from the Bugarian. Example:

It's very surprising how exactly these carefully selected words that are pretty much the same between Bulgarian and Russian are given as an example of Russian words with which the new standard language is abounded with. The Institute for Bulgarian language at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is very clear on exactly this author, article & claims: "This fact, which, of course, is not isolated is aimed at artificially distancing the written norm in Socialist Republic of Macedonia from the Bulgarian literary language, is a rare attempt in linguistics to break with a word-forming tradition established in writing." --StanProg (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And we should trust the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences why? Because they are not trying to create propaganda about the language right and are super neutral of the language issue? — Tom (T2ME) 17:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * With any word in Macedonian there are several options:
 * It is inherited from Proto-Slavic through Proto-South Slavic through Proto-Eastern South Slavic (Macedo-Bulgarian, Old Church Slavonic)
 * It is inherited from a new word in one of the intermediate stages including Proto-Eastern South Slavic
 * It is borrowed from its closest relative, Bulgarian
 * It is borrowed from its Slavic neighbor, Serbian
 * It is borrowed from a more distant Slavic language, e.g., Russian
 * It is borrowed from an Indo-European, non-Slavic neighbor, Greek or Albanian
 * It is borrowed from a distant Indo-European language, e.g., English
 * It is borrowed from a non-Indo-European language, e.g., Turkish
 * It is a new creation within Macedonian using native word-forming processes (derivation, compounding, semantic shift, etc.)
 * The evidence isn't always obvious, but usually clear in a linguistic analysis. BUT one must always consider the political agenda of the published etymology.  In the (mostly) very scholarly Hungarian etymological dictionary produced in the 1960s it lists the origin of the words 'traktor' (tractor) and 'kombajn' (combine) as Russian, for example.  So in comments about the origin of these Macedonian words, neither source discussed above sounds above repute as far as the political agenda is concerned.  Unless there is a compelling reason that these words should be used in this article as examples of Russian loanwords, then they should be removed as from a questionable source.  They may be Russian loanwords, they may be Bulgarian loanwords, they may be Serbian loanwords, they may be legitimate Macedonian constructions that Bulgarian nationalists claim for political reasons, they may be from Old Church Slavonic.  They can be easily removed from the article since they don't really add significant content.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's ok as a solution, as specific POV is not pushed. Regarding the the "Bulgarian folk poetry" in the same section I will not insist "Bulgarian" to be added, but just for information the Miladinov brothers did not worked in Macedonia - this state was not yet established (that happened 90+ years after that). They worked in the Ottoman Empire, released their work in the Austrian Empire and named it "Bulgarian folk songs" (having in mind that "songs" means "poetry" in the present meaning). In a letter Dimitar Miladinov wrote - "In fulfilling your recommendations, I spare no effort to encourage the development of the Bulgarian language and Bulgarian folk songs ... Meanwhile, my efforts for our Bulgarian language and Bulgarian folk songs according to your order are very great. I continue to keep my promises to your mercy, because we Bulgarians, spontaneously strive for the truth". --StanProg (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You know exactly what I meant by Macedonia. They worked in the region of Macedonia, whatever it was called at the time.  Read the Wikipedia article on the brothers (Miladinov brothers) and the very first sentence says "in the region of Macedonia".  They were working with the Macedonian dialects of Macedo-Bulgarian exclusively, not Bulgarian ones.  That's why they were honored by Macedonian nationalists.  Remember that the label "Bulgarian" during the 19th century often was just a label for the entire Macedo-Bulgarian dialect chain, not a scientific statement that Bulgarian = Macedonian.  They may have called them "Bulgarian tales", but the language that they collected them in was Macedonian.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Dimitar Miladiov claims he's Bulgarian, he wrote in Bulgarian language and collected Bulgarian folk songs (all according to himself) and yet, it's a problem to call this "Bulgarian folk poetry", only becase he and his brother worked in the geographical region of Macedonia? --StanProg (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are not capable of understanding the difference between scientific reality and political claims, then please refrain from posting here. It doesn't matter what those brothers said they were doing.  Period.  They were admittedly part of a Bulgarian nationalist movement and made no apologies for it.  They were using the labels that supported their agenda.  But the scientific reality is that they were in Macedonia collecting folk tales from the local people in the local dialect.  Today we recognize that those dialects in Macedonia are distinct from the dialects of Bulgaria and we call them "Macedonian" now.  To revert to the political POV of the brothers and to push 19th century labeling that supports a modern Bulgarian agenda, is violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  We are trying to keep this article NPOV and to scrub the major Bulgarian POV that has infected this article over the years.  Unlike other editors who are supporting the removal of the heavy-handed Bulgarian POV, you are trying to preserve the Bulgarian-heavy-handedness of the past.  If that's the direction you want to go, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it in the most possible neutral way, by adding directly the name of the work Bulgarian Folk Songs and you reverted it claiming it's a POV. How could a name be POV? The reality is that their work is called Bulgarian Folk Songs which is not a political claim - it's a fact. "They were using the labels that supported their agenda." - who said that? The folk songs they collected were not only from the region of Macedonia, but from Shopluk, Srednogorie and other regions. That's why they named them Bulgarian Folk Songs. The dialects has nothing to do with the songs as well, as I can write Bulgarian folk songs in any dialect or language I want - this will not change them to British or German folk songs. Violation of NPOV is removing the name of the work Bulgarian Folk Songs and replacing it with "folk poetry", avoiding the word Bulgarian, which may be according to the teachings of the Macedonism, but is not neutral at all. You are trying to force a specific POV, while I'm adding directly the name of the collection of songs they did - Bulgarian Folk Songs. Again, how could the name of the work (Bulgarian Folk Songs) be a POV?
 * You clearly have no understanding of the nature of POV. Calling these Macedonian folk songs "Bulgarian" just because the Bulgarian nationalists who recorded them in the 19th century called them "Bulgarian" is the epitome of POV.  The majority of what they recorded were Macedonian without any doubt in the scientific world (except for in the Bulgarian world, of course).  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TaivoLinguist (Taivo), when the collection was recorded there were neither ethnic Macedonians, nor Macedonian language, and the very name Macedonia was still unpopular. Moreover this collection encompasses also songs collected without the borders of the modern region called Macedonia, and without North Macedonia itself. In some of the collected folk songs the characters are called Bulgarian, but there are no Macedonian characters in them. The collectors identified their language, ethnicity and country of origin as Bulgarian. They called the collection Bulgarian Folk Songs. Just putting modern ethnic, linguistic ans geographic distinctions into the past is also biased POV. Jingiby (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Jingiby, you don't understand my point. My point is that the dialects that later coalesced into modern Macedonian were already distinct from the dialects that coalesced into modern Bulgarian in the 19th century.  There was already dialect diversity within Macedo-Bulgarian so to call all of them "Bulgarian" is POV and misleading to readers who then assume that modern Bulgarian is intended and that Macedonian is somehow a fictional construct of the 20th century.  It is not.  Labelling these Macedonian dialects "Bulgarian" and making a purposeful edit to force the word "Bulgarian" into the sentence when it is completely unnecessary in the context of the paragraph is POV in the extreme and quintessential WP:POINTy editing.  Had I replaced the word "Bulgarian" with "Macedonian", that would also be POV and WP:POINTy.  I did not.  The NPOV version of the sentence is to simply say that there was a movement within the Macedonian language to replace borrowed Russian words with older forms that were found in the Macedonian poems recorded by the brothers in the 19th century.  They were, indeed, Macedonian forms because they were recorded from the Macedonian dialects, whether the brothers used the word "Macedonian" or not or whether they used the word "Bulgarian" or not.  The brothers were from Macedonia and they recorded Macedonian dialects (obviously it wasn't modern Macedonian, but one of the dialects that later coalesced into modern Macedonian).  It doesn't matter if they also recorded 19th Bulgarian dialects as well.  The point of the paragraph is that modern Macedonian replaced Russian loanwords with archaic forms from the Macedonian dialects recorded in the 19th century by the brothers.  So to draw irrelevant attention to the title of the brothers' book for no other reason than to put the word "Bulgarian" into the sentence is POV pushing and misleading to our readers.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I obviously haven't read the poems in the original language, but from what I've read about the brothers, they even recognized the difference in the dialects by referring to the Macedonian dialects as "Western Bulgarian". These are just labels, of course.  Our modern label for their "Western Bulgarian" is "Macedonian".  So they already recognized that the Macedonian dialects were different than the Bulgarian dialects within the Macedo-Bulgarian dialect chain.  That makes it even more inappropriate POV-pushing to shoehorn the word "Bulgarian" artificially into the sentence.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling these Macedonian folk songs "Bulgarian"... As you can see, with my last contribution that you reverted, I added the name of the work since this is the most NPOV way. With this contribution I'm not calling this songs with any name. --StanProg (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What you're doing with your disruptive behaviour (reverting every contribution that you do not like) is not different than the communist revisionism that was implemented in the Socialist Republic of Macedonia and that they continue to do on a smaller extend in North Macedonia - trying to remove every word "Bulgarian" or to replace it with something else, just to illustrate your Macedonistic POV. --StanProg (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And honestly, is not any different from what you are doing. Trying to remove every 'Macedonian' adjective and replace it with 'Bulgarian'. So please, StanProg, instead of pretending to be a victim here, stop with your POV Bulgarian agenda. Taivo is actually someone who is not from the Balkans and is not connected to the region (except his linguistical expertise ofc). But, it's not hard for him to realize your "Bulgarization" of every single article related to Macedonia. Please take your frustrations elsewhere and try to be more neutral towards the outside world as we are all trying here on Wikipedia. — Tom (T2ME) 11:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:StanProg, the only reason you added the name of the work was to call the language "Bulgarian". Period.  Don't play stupid or innocent.  You are neither in this case.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TaivoLinguist is pro-Macedonian/anti-Bulgarian. You can see our discussions from 2008 at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia where I had to step back, because he didn't wanted to move even an inch from his opinion. This is what he's doing at the moment as well - not a single attempt toward a consensus. I added Bulgarian, he reverted, I started a discussion and added the NPOV name of the work, he again reverted it. He usually counts on a Macedonian editors like you, DD1997DD & Beat of the tapan to support him and that's how the communist-era Macedonistic POV is being pushed. The fact is that the work is called Bulgarian Folk Songs and this can't be POV. --StanProg (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop addressing Macedonian editors as we are some brainwashed "communist" idiots who forgot "that they are Bulgarian"? If you blindly believe in that, continue, but don't try to teach me history here. Honestly, if you again mention us in that context, I am going to report you. No one here is pushing anything, except maybe you and your friend Jingiby, and that's not hard to see (people should just check out your contribution history). As per Taivo, why would he be a pro-Macedonian? He just has his opinions and believes which supports. And wow, imagine you had to step back, how unusual of you and your POV pro-Bulgarian agenda. — Tom (T2ME) 15:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The only reason I added it, because I work toward a consensus (something that you're avoiding to do and trying to force your anti-Bulgarian POV by constant reverting of all my contributions) by using the neutral name of the mentioned work. I will ask you for 3rd time, how could a name of a literary work that is mentioned in the article be POV and isn't removing of the name of the work just because it contains the word "Bulgarian" in it a POV? Please, take your time, look into the discussion and see who is working toward a consensus and who is constantly reverting, at some points in violation of the Wikipedia principles. --StanProg (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . There is so much nonsense in your post it's hard to know where to start.  Why is your edit a massive case of POV-pushing?  Because the title of this 19th-century work is completely and totally irrelevant to the content being discussed.
 * Fact: The brothers did the majority of their work in the region of Macedonia and collected the material in the local dialect of Macedo-Bulgarian
 * Fact: The brothers recognized that the dialects of the region where they worked were already distinct from eastern dialects so they called them "Western Bulgarian"
 * Fact: Since these dialects are today called "Macedonian" and not "Bulgarian" we do not rely on 19th-century labels for things, so calling them "Bulgarian" is unscientific
 * Fact: The paragraph cites the brothers' work, not because of the value of the title of their work, but because they collected archaic forms in the Macedonian dialects
 * Fact: Macedonian linguists wanted to replace Russian loanwords with archaic forms and they used the brothers' work with 19th-century Macedonian dialects as a source
 * Given these incontrovertible facts, adding the word "Bulgarian" either in terms of labeling the Macedonian dialects or in terms of "innocently" citing the title of the brothers' book is a violation of WP:NPOV and a serious case of WP:POINTy editing to make your point that you are a Bulgarian nationalist and will always push a Bulgarian political agenda. I have not added the word "Macedonian" a single time.  Your protestations that "I'm just trying to compromise and adding the title of the work" rings utterly hollow and is a thinly-veiled conceit that you are somehow editing within Wikipedia NPOV standards.  You have not compromised one single, solitary inch.  You simply added the word "Bulgarian" in a different format.  The brothers' use of 19th century Bulgarian linguistic labels is irrelevant in this context.  The facts are clear that most of their work was among Macedonian dialects (no matter what they called them) and to push the 19th-century label "Bulgarian" on those dialects is a linguistic lie and Bulgarian nationalist propaganda.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I simply cannot let this stupid statement stand without comment: "The fact is that the work is called Bulgarian Folk Songs and this can't be POV."  Facts cannot be POV or NPOV.  What is POV in this case is using the fact in a place where it is not relevant to the context.  By using that fact in that particular place, you are simply pushing the word "Bulgarian" into a place where it does not belong.  That is POV, your use of the fact in a particular place where you want to say "Bulgarian" outright, but have been blocked from doing so.  It is a propaganda trick that might fool inexperienced editors, but not me.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's how I know the truth of my comment about your POV editing: If the title of the brothers' work had been "Folk Songs from the Balkans" you would never have suggested adding it.  The thought would never have crossed your mind.  You only want to add it because it says "Bulgarian".  That is the essence of POV editing.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The book that is object of the sentence is Bulgarian Folk Songs, but we can't indicate that, because it contains the word Bulgarian? So we will strip the reader of the ability to just go to the article about the book, just because it is named Bulgarian Folk Songs? Would you added the book name and link if it was named "Macedonian Folk Songs"? I think we both know the answer of that question. I choose not to use the term "Bulgarian folk poetry", because it's POV according to you (although that the Bulgarian brothers, writing in Bulgarian language collected Bulgarian folk song - all according to themselvs), but you can't accept the fact that using the book name with the link is NPOV. I'm not taking any side, but simply adding the full name of the book and link to the article, while you have a problem with the first word of the book. So we will write about the book, but we'll not mention it's name and we'll not put a link to the article, because you think this is POV? I'm not "blocked from doing so", but I will not go edit warring, just because my POV is different, unlike you. At at last, I'm far from Bulgarian nationalist and this is an insult to me. --StanProg (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this last sentence a joke or something? I mean, it doesn't take a lot; just a quick glance through your comments and edits to realize that you are indeed a POV pushing nationalist. If you weren't, a situation like this wouldn't matter that much and you would not create a big fuss over something that's bizarre and irrelevant in the context of the article. But, unfortunately, here we are, fighting nationalism in the 21st century. — Tom (T2ME) 21:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 'That is the essence of POV editing.': I understand. My thoughts/intentions are POV, but the name of the book that I added is NPOV, because this is just the name of the book that the text is related to? We're discussing the specific text, not my thoughts/intentions, because you just can't know what they are. If it was named "Folk Songs from the Balkans" I would have added it as well. I have no problem for example adding the play name Macedonian Blood Wedding, if it's subject of a paragraph - point me an article that talks about it and I will gladly add it. That's the difference between my contributions and yours - I would like the readers to have all the information and link to the work in subject, while you would like this only if does not have something "Bulgarian" in it. --StanProg (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your notion that adding the name of a book that's not actually under discussion isn't POV? LOL.  Your notion of what is and is not POV is bizarre to say the least.  The paragraph in which you want to push your Bulgarian nationalism isn't about books or even that particular book, it's about replacing Russian loanwords with archaic Macedonian vocabulary.  Pushing that book name, even though it isn't the subject of the paragraph or even the sentence, is POV pushing.  And I don't believe you when you claim that you would put the name of the book in there even if it weren't named "Bulgarian".  How do I know this?  Because you never inserted the name in the past until we removed the word "Bulgarian" from the text.  Then, all of a sudden, it becomes extremely important to you to add the name of the book.  That's simply pushing your Bulgarian POV in another form.  You're trying to tell us that you aren't pushing a Bulgarian POV when every single edit you make to this article inserts or preserves the word "Bulgarian" in each of the hundred or more places where it occurs in an article on Macedonian.  Your crocodile tears over not being able to include the word "Bulgarian" via the name of the book aren't fooling anyone about your underlying aim.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "...which was found in certain examples of folk poetry collected by the Miladinov Brothers...". Miladinov Brothers have released only one book with collection of folk poetry - Bulgarian Folk Songs, so these "certain examples" are from exactly this book. This book is the primary subject of the sentence, but since it has "Bulgarian" his it's name, you're removing it. After you did that huge edit, I reviewed the contribution and added Bulgarian, which seemed pretty normal since the collection of the folk poetry is actually called "Bulgarian Folk Songs", then you claimed it's POV, so I decided (instead of reverting the change, like you usually do), to make it even more NPOV and added the actual name of the book. There's no POV to mention the name of the book with a link to existing article. As you can see, since then we're discussing the NPOV of the section and I have not done even a single revert of any content (unlike you). "Every single edit" - I've done 2, adding Bulgarian so it will be more concrete and when you reverted me, I added the name of the book - "Bulgarian Folk Songs", which you also reverted. So who is pushing what? What is the problem of adding the name of the book that is the primary subject of the sentence? --StanProg (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, every single edit that you have made is to add the word "Bulgarian". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

[od] You are also working under an entirely unscientific worldview because of your insistence that since the brothers called the language of their folk tales "Bulgarian", even though they are primarily from Macedonian dialects, that we must preserve that usage uncritically. No scientist does that--using 19th century terminology for things. No one calls sodium "natrium" anymore, no one calls potassium "kalium", etc. No one calls Ukrainian "Little Russian" and Belarusian "White Russian". Indeed, no one even uses the term "Byelorussian" for Belarusian and that change is even more recent. So your insistence that we call the Macedonian dialects that the brothers recorded in the 19th century "Bulgarian" just because they did is utterly ridiculous and completely unscientific. There's simply no reason for your insistence other than rabid Bulgarian POV-pushing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable Compromise
Here is the current text in question:
 * Serbianisms and Bulgarianisms, which had become common due to the influence of these languages in the region were rejected in favor of words from native dialects and archaisms. One example was the word for "event", настан, which was found in certain examples of folk poetry collected by the Miladinov Brothers in the 19th century,...

If you're going to insist on inserting the book title, then it must be contextualized in the following way:
 * Serbianisms and Bulgarianisms, which had become common due to the influence of these languages in the region were rejected in favor of words from native dialects and archaisms. One example was the word for "event", настан, which was found in certain examples from folk poetry in Macedonian dialects collected by the Miladinov Brothers in the 19th century (who called the Macedonian dialects "Western Bulgarian") and included in their book Bulgarian Folk Songs,...

Just throwing the title of the book in there without contextualizing that the dialects they were recording as "Western Bulgarian" were Macedonian dialects of Macedo-Bulgarian is POV of the grossest order. This contextualization preserves the precious title of the book (in your POV) while letting the readers know without any confusion that there were also Macedonian folk tales in that book despite its title. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With all my good faith that have left, and willingness to find a compromise solution, the only thing that could be removed from the proposal is the duplication of "Macedonian" regarding the dialects in the 2nd sentence. It could be who called the dialects "Western Bulgarian", as it's clear that it's about the Macedonian dialects that are mentioned before in the same sentence. --StanProg (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I still find that addition cumbersome. What those dialects were called by the collectors of those folksongs is completely extraneous to the topic of the passage. Of course the language of the folk songs was the language that the standardization movement was all about, and of course that language, before the standardization, was referred to as whatever it had been referred to at the time – We are aleady stating that that was "Bulgarian", so why the obsession with cramming that info in here once more? The only important thing about those folksongs in this context is that they were local. But there's another issue about the passage that strikes me as potentially POV-ish, and where I would find objections from the Bulgarian editors more understandable. Talking about "Serbianisms and Bulgarianisms, which had become common due to the influence of these languages" seems to imply these were alien, foreign influences. To make sense of these statements, we might want to clarify that these were "alien" not insofar as they were Bulgarian as such, but (if anything) insofar as they were associated with the Bulgarian standard rather than the local dialects. So, I'd suggest replacing "Serbianisms and Bulgarianisms" with "words that were associated with the Serbian or Bulgarian standard languages". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call. I'll make the change.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Article content replaced again
After all these discussions and improvements User:DD1997DD has overriden all the work since the blocking of the article, the improvement, the consensus information, etc with his own sandbox. Could you please check the talk page before doing massive changes? --StanProg (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the consensus for now is option 2. DD1997DD (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The question was "which version of the article is better", not should I replace the whole article and with my sandbox. We already worked on the article and as you can see above we had e consensus on specific section and you override them all with your sandbox. These should be done section by section, with a discussion and consensus, just like Taivo started to apply the changes. Now you've just reverted all our work, efforts and consensus content. --StanProg (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume "better article" implies that it is more presentable and should go to the main page. I did not see a relevant discussion - I only saw you being disruptive and trying to distract others from all the problems that were present in the article. DD1997DD (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You had a consensus on a specific sentence. Don't make a drama out of it. Just copy it in the article per the consensus. — Tom (T2ME) 13:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a whole section. The first sentence was changed (based on User:Future Perfect at Sunrise comments). The second was changed and some text was removed before that based on my discussion with User:TaivoLinguist. All this was overrden. Still I don't see a voting on replacing the whole content, but one on "which is better". --StanProg (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then re-do it. I am pretty sure you know how to navigate a history section on a Wikipedia article. — Tom (T2ME) 13:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming is one thing, a consensus and voting on replacing a whole article is another thing. After all the article was blocked after your previous attempt to replace the content with your own without a consensus on that replacement. Your actions are disrupting the progress. We already had a consensus on specific content, (look the section above) and you've overriden it based on a voting with misleading purpose (as we can see clearly from the question and the actions). --StanProg (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not reverting anything as I am completely convinced that the sandbox version of the article is at least ten times better than how it was before. Four other users completely agreed with me. You are the only one protesting. The changes are there to stay until I see that more people vote for Option 1. DD1997DD (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is not if it's better or not. You can't just override the works of other editors, including ones that said that your sandbox version is better, based on misleading RfC question. More people vote that your version is better, not that your version should override the current article completely. That's two different things. Here's what was improved since the article was unblocked: . All these efforts and improvements are blindly overriden by your sandbox version. --StanProg (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then re-do it. The problem is not of redoing few changes. The problem is not even mostly in in the text that overrides the article. The problem is that based on misleading question in RfC, the whole article content was replaced. The problem is that the work of multiple editors since the unblocking of the article is erased: . The problem is that although this could have been done section by section with discussion and consensus (if such are raised), this was done again by brute-forcing the article content. Such behaviour is unproductive and is disrupting the progress that we've gained since the protection of the article. This all could have been done step by step, so it's more stable in time. I'm too many years Wikimedian to know that such behaviour usually leads to more problems in future and this is what I'm trying to prevent. --StanProg (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * you're the only person panicking. I'll just replace the miniscule changes that we had made.  "All our work" was almost entirely you trying to force your POV into the article and we changed one sentence.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not panicking, just when we finally started to have a productive discussion and contributing, again the same person based on misleading RfC questions brute-forces the article. "All our work" are these changes that are being done for a week, from the unprotection until the article replacement: . I can count about 10 different persons contributing during that time which work was overriden. It's not the content, it the behaviour. --StanProg (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cut the drama, please. We don't need this in our lives right now. We are dealing with enough drama in the outside world with corona. There you go, the consensus is back in the article. I don't know why are you creating this fake panic fuss when it only took 2 edits for everything to come back to its place (last point where we discussed it). — Tom (T2ME) 14:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why users even started the discussion about the use of a Russian word by 1 author when 1. the source provided is unreliable (misirkov.org) 2. it never mentions the word собитие 3. it is a SINGLE WORD that doesn't prove anything. Mentioning collections, novels and literary work in that section is also something that should not have been done in the first place - that section should focus on the lexicon of the language not the language used by individual cherry-picked authors. DD1997DD (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User:StanProg, "finally started to have a productive discussion and contributing" makes me laugh. That "productive discussion" consisted entirely of you complaining about not getting to put the word "Bulgarian" into play in a single sentence, trying to justify why it wasn't POV, including your misuse of a POV template.  The result was something which Future and I agree is a nightmare sentence that repeats information that has already been stated, but at least avoids your out-of-context insertion of the word "Bulgarian" in the resulting sentence.  If that's your idea of "productive discussion and contributing", then I applaud what DD1997DD did to short-circuit months of listening to you "productively discussing" every sentence.  Now if there is something that you want to discuss "section by section" to improve on the new text, then we can listen and consider.  In the end, DD1997DD pointed out (above) that the example isn't even accurate so I removed the whole sentence.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Take your time and read carefully how and why the template POV section is being used, also check when it can be removed and you could see that you're the one that you had no reason to remove it. Yet, trying to hide the POV issues, you removed it several times. At the end, the only consensus that we come up to (proposed by you) was after that removed by yourself, obviously by "rethinking" your compromise in style "when there's no sentence, there's no problem". And by "productive discussion" I meant your only attempt on a compromise solution at "Acceptable Compromise"- the rest was mostly "the book name is POV and period". --StanProg (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your use of the POV template was inappropriate because you wanted to insert one word that had nothing to do with the paragraph as a whole. The POV template is for a paragraph that is rife with POV problems, not because you weren't getting your way about inserting a POV word.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * TaivoLinguist, I would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Consonants section
I am currently more or less satisfied with the length of all sections in this article except for the consonants section. I feel like that section is a bit disordered and does not present a lot of phonological properties of Macedonian. I would like it to look more like the respective section in the English language article but I personally don't have the knowledge to do that. There is a lot of information on pages 11 and 12 here but I just don't see how to present it. I remember told me that this section in language articles is usually messy on Wiki and tries to present too much info so I really don't know how to approach it. Any help is more than welcome. DD1997DD (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * imo "too much" info is not bad. If it gets too long, we just move it into Macedonian phonology and congrats you will have just helped expand that article, whose consonants section is too small. --Calthinus (talk)

RfC

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As you all probably already know, there has been a lot of contrasting views on how this article should look like in the past few weeks. I have decided to work on it and give more weight to linguistic rather than historical and political sections in my sandbox. Therefore, I am inviting you to vote on which version of the article is better: Thank you in advance for participating! DD1997DD (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: the current version as of 30 March 2020
 * Option 2: this one.
 * Option 2. This version has been conscientiously worked on by editors on both sides of the above discussion that triggered the article lockdown in the first place.  It is a solid linguistics article now with just enough of the politico-historical controversy to give context, but not so much as to overwhelm the description of the language.  User:DD1997DD has done an excellent job of expanding the grammar sections of the article to actually make it useful as an overview of the language itself.  There is still some grammar and referencing cleanup to be done, but that should not detract from the very good work that has been done to improve this article.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2. Without any doubt, I vote for option 2. Option 1 is just a mess and unorganized. DD1997DD did an amazing job with the grammar part and condensed the history section, as well, within the standards of a language article on Wikipedia. I am glad I had the chance to give minimal input into shaping it :). — Tom (T2ME) 15:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 and then working on the different aspects, discussing them and working towards a consensus. Completely replacing an article with another one is very bad idea. First, you can't track the progress and the authors. I'm not sure that such vote for replacing an article with another is even according to the principles of Wikipedia. In fact, the article will have 1 single author, an editor registered few months ago, already blocked for edit warring who barely knows the basic principles of Wikipedia. Highly unacceptable. Second, because this usually does not solves the problems the article, while creating a new ones and fueling new conflicts. Strongly oppose Option 2. --StanProg (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your fears are easily addressed. Rather than replacing the article wholesale with the fixes that have been made by editors from both sides of the issue in DD1997DD's sandbox, they can be inserted here section by section.  Your problem is then solved.  This is done all the time on Wikipedia and is encouraged--lengthy edits, especially new content, should be made in a Sandbox, crafted, and perfected, and then inserted as a block in existing articles.  That's all that happened here.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at and read the edited version? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I read it. I even commented part of the content. Voting on "which article is better" is not a common practice at all, in fact as it makes no sense, as we can't just replace an article developed a doesen of years with a one, written mostly by a single editor. That's why I proposed this to be discussed section by section and changes done one by one. In the leading text we have 4 paragraphs, and the only information confirmed by source is a trivial one, such that none objects "Standard Macedonian was codified in 1945 and has developed modern literature since.". --StanProg (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my previous comment. I'm not surprised since you have done little to improve the article, just fought to preserve the massive Bulgarian POV intact.  The Sandbox version was created through discussions by several editors on the Talk Page there.  Perhaps you need to read the Talk Page as well.  While User:DD1997DD may have done the writing on the Sandbox version, much of it was the result of discussions and suggestions made by others.  So do you object to the Grammar enhancement?  Nouns?  Verbs?  Do you object to the superior lead and the reduction of redundancy in the classification section?  Perhaps it's the fact that the endless detail of the History and Recognition sections that overtly pushed the Bulgarian agenda was reduced to an appropriate level and made the sections conform to NPOV?  As I suggested above, we can move that content here section by section so that you are not offended by others working to improve this article.  I don't see that you have done anything whatsoever in that regard other than reverting honest attempts to improve it and make it conform to NPOV.  And your comment about "dozens of years" means nothing whatsoever.  Some of the worst-written articles, most loaded with POV, nonsense, outdated references, and conflicting sections, are those that have accumulated bits and pieces over "dozens of years".  Just because the POV-pushing has been accumulating over time doesn't make it any more acceptable.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're also probably not aware that leads don't need extensive sourcing if it is found in the appropriate sections of the text. Extensive sourcing, if needed at all (which it usually isn't) should be in the appropriate section of the article, not in the lead.  And the minute discussion and sourcing of every word of the history and politics sections (which need to be reduced in size by 90%) is a ridiculous level of sourcing.  So sourcing does not need to be replicated in the lead.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2 looks great, thanks to everyone who contributed to it. -- Local hero talk 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 This is a vast improvement in my perspective. Beautifully concise, good job. Beat of the tapan (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I perceive it to be an excellent improvement. Idealigic (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationalism among the South Slavic people?
With this passage is made an attempt to change the idea of the author whose article is quoted. Raymond Detrez does not mention the Southern Slavs anywhere in the cited article “Between the Ottoman Legacy and the Temptation of the West: Bulgarians Coming to Terms with the Greeks.” In the source are mentioned explicitly Bulgarians, neither Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, nor Macedonians or other South Slavs. The national revival among them was quite different. The topic there is the Bulgarian-Greek rivalry in the field of religious and culture based on the growing Bulgarian nationalism. Moreover, Detrez has other articles on the subject, where he argues that at least until the middle of the 19th century the Macedonian Slavs were full participants in the Bulgarian National Revival, without any differences between both communities. He claims these groups had common revival and Macedonian Slavs were part from Bulgarian National Revival. For more see: The Bulgarian-Macedonian Divergence: An Attempted Elucidation (pp. 165–193). In: Raymond Detrez and Pieter Plas, eds. Developing Cultural Identity in the Balkans. Also see Historical dictionary of Bulgaria by Detrez and especially the article Macedonians on p. 275: Until the 1860s, all Slavs in Macedonia used to call themselves Bulgarians, referring rather to a vague ethnic group than to a national community with a developed awareness of its national identity, etc. Please stop illogical edit-war. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kramer (1999) writes: At the close of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, the rise of South Slavic nationalism led to the codification of the modern South Slavic literary languages. The first half of the nineteenth century saw Macedonian and Bulgarian Slavs united in a fight against Hellenism and joined in a common cause for a literary language.

DD1997DD (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Postalveolar lateral approximants l allophone
When /ɫ/ comes before front vowels it is pronounced as /l/. This should be included in the footnote 1 in the consonants section. Also what about the voiced palatal lateral approximant /ʎ/? Gerazov (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
word for "day" in polish is incorrect, it should be 'dzień' instead of 'dzien' Szmomsz (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for pointing that out. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Small edit request
The Slovene word for 'day' is 'dan' instead of 'den'. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zziga (talk • contribs) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, corrected the table. Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental issue
Why "Macedonian" but not "North Macedonian" language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.157.176.194 (talk • contribs)


 * Because that's its name. Simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The country's name is North Macedonia, so how the language's name should be? --37.157.176.194 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to determine what its name should be. We simply observe what its name is. We do that by looking at what reliable sources call it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate map
I have literally been to those regions of Greece where "Macedonian" is supposedly Majority language and not one person speaks it. Maybe there are some minority speakers but even then I am not entirely sure. All in all the map is highly inaccurate, in par with more and more articles that evidently promote one or another form of North Macedonian revisionism. Lmagoutas (talk) 11:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which map are you talking about, and where does it say anything about "majority" languages? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've been in Lerin and they speak it there. I've been in Solun and they speak it there also. Do you know how I know this? Because they are my relatives. 77.28.130.54 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bulgarians can understand and discuss with North Makedonias in their native language, how does it make it a different language then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.247.177 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
"Macedonian language" is actually Bulgarian language. It's literally the same language. 86.49.247.177 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Word order
The word order in Macedonian is SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) and not SOV (Subject-Object-Verb) as listed in the article. Цили (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. No such user (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Why again?
Dear ; I just have a simple question - why after all the long, arduous and heated discussions of the past two years are you trying to reverse all the progress that was made in clearing this article of political connotations? Are you being paid and supported by a government official for the "work" you are doing on Wikipedia? The lengthy quotations that you are adding to not serve to support the term used between quotations, they only serve to push a certain view. Abnormalcy333 (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding an academic source and citing it, where requested, does not meet the above description. Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It does, because it goes off-topic. Abnormalcy333 (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. It is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I assumed bad faith with my last point so there is no need to defend. I just pointed out that you are again adding content that is impertinent to this linguistic article. Best. Abnormalcy333 (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I reported Jingiby's recent disruptive editing at WP:ANI and requested a ban from the topic "Macedonia". That should solve the problem for good even without blocking the user.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Lexicon
Since it states it in the article that Macedonian is part of a dialect continuum with Bulgarian, it is hard to understand what it means that due to its proximity Macedonian language "borrowed" a lot of words from Bulgarian. Does it mean it borrowed from standard/Eastern Bulgarian? This is rather misleading. The article as it is now is a mixture of scientific facts and arbitrary statements, and it is quite useless in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.246 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023
I'd like to change the writing of the first paragraph of the «Dialects» section, specifically the following passage "During the standardization process of the Macedonian language, the dialectal base selected was primarily based on the West-Central dialects, which spans the triangle of the communities Makedonski Brod, Kičevo, Demir Hisar, Bitola, Prilep, and Veles. These were considered the most widespread and most likely to be adopted by speakers from other regions.The initial idea to select this region as a base was first proposed in Krste Petkov Misirkov's works as he believed the Macedonian language should abstract on those dialects that are distinct from neighboring Slavic languages, such as Bulgarian and Serbian. Likewise, this view does not take into account the fact that a Macedonian koiné language was already in existence."

The very last sentence leads to think a Macedonian koiné, though already existing by the time of codification, was replaced or not taken into account by the standardizing team. By that indication, the writing is ambiguous. However, that's not the impression that is shown on the source provided (Comrie & Corbett 2002). It says:

"During the Second World War, Tito's Communists won jurisdiction over Macedonia, and on 2 August 1944, Macedonian was formally declared the official language of the Republic of Macedonia. The standardization of Literary Macedonian proceeded rapidly after its official recognition, in part because an inter-dialectal koine was already functioning. The West Central region [...], which was the largest in both area and population, supplied a dialectal base to which speakers from other areas could adjust their speech most easily. In many respects these dialects are also maximally differentiated from both Serbo-Croat and Bulgarian, but differentiation was not an absolute principle in codification. [...]"

The source states that the West-Central dialect codification of Macedonian was facilitated by the fact that a koiné was already in place. However, it gives the impression that it was either not based off these dialects or was just ignored. 190.237.37.156 (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for flagging this. The sentence you highlighted indeed makes no sense in this context – not least because there is no antecedent to the "likewise", and it is not clear what the "this view" refers to. The sentence was first inserted together with a version of the preceding text that was much more argumentative than it is now . I'd say it will be best to simply remove the sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

✅ closed because Fut.Perf. deleted the bolded sentence. Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Macedonian personal pronouns
I'm curious as to why the lower case Latin "m" appears in this table, when it seems like it should be a Cyrillic т. For example, there is a sentence above the table that indicates таа = she and тој = he, but the table shows "maa" and "moj", respectively. As far as I can tell, "m" doesn't occur in their alphabet at all. It shows up in several entries for both 2nd and 3rd person, where it seems like т is the correct letter. (I didn't want to add a correction since I don't really know the language and perhaps there is some other reason it is there?) If it is incorrect, could someone with more knowledge of the language correct it? Благодарам 100.15.197.43 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Check out Macedonian alphabet. It's not a Latin "m". Putting т in italics makes it т. -- Local hero talk 03:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)