Open Encyclopedia

Article Search:

Talk: Old Church Slavonic

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

It should be noted, however that the Old Church Slavonic language is in fact Old Bulgarian.

Yes, the language was closely related to Old Bulgarian, but there is still a controversy about the fact that it was actually Old Bulgarian. Probably the differences were just like between Classical Latin and Vulgar Latin. Bogdan 12:23, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I just looked once again on the page and it actually writes this: Bogdan 12:25, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius hailed from Thessaloniki and based the Old Church Slavonic on the Slavic (Macedonian) dialect used by intellectuals of the Thessaloniki region of the Byzantine Empire.

What is that awful sentence about St. Cyril and St. Methodius hailing from Thessaloniki? Did they besides the two alphabets that they created also produced a new language called Old Church Slavonic? Then this would be the first sinthetic language in the history.

The students of the saints actually produced the first texts in Old Church Slavonic and that was done in the borders of the Bulgarian Kingdom. This is the reason to consider that the Old Church Slavonic and the Old Bulgarian language are the same.

My guess is that it is a typo and that it should be "sailed". This is probably incorrect anyway.

As for Old Bulgarian, it is actually controversial whether Old Bulgarian existed at all. Nikola 22:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

About the changes:

1. Macedonia was part of Bulgaria then. 2. They didn't just come and started teaching the language because they wanted to - just look at what happened in Great Moravia. It is quite obvious that without the sanction and support of the state, the academy in Ohrid would never have been created. The disciples were invited by the Bulgarian king as the state was threatened by Hellenification and incorporation into Byzantium (all teaching and religious ceremonies were in Greek). 3. The academies were two - Climent worked in Ohrid, whereas Naum worked in Preslav - which was the capital of Bulgaria then. The phrase "the apostles went to to Macedonia and from there they spread the language to Bulgaria" is therefore completely incorrect and misleading.

______

1. Macedonia was part of Bulgaria then.

see above - it was in text

2. They didn't just come and started teaching the language because they wanted to - just look at what happened in Great Moravia. It is quite obvious that without the sanction and support of the state, the academy in Ohrid would never have been created. The disciples were invited by the Bulgarian king as the state was threatened by Hellenification and incorporation into Byzantium (all teaching and religious ceremonies were in Greek).

I do not see any contradiction with my text.

3. The academies were two - Climent worked in Ohrid, whereas Naum worked in Preslav - which was the capital of Bulgaria then. The phrase "the apostles went to to Macedonia and from there they spread the language to Bulgaria" is therefore completely incorrect and misleading.

I meant PRESENT-DAY Bulgaria, of course. The text recquires much more changes, but I did not and do not have the time right now.

It is used in Bulgarian literature only. That's the point. And this is not the Bulgarian Wikipedia, but the English wikipedia, where the term Old Bulgarian is not used. In other words Old Bulgarian is not an English expression. Therefore it should not be right in the title in the first place.

And now my points. 1. Every serious linguistics text (German, English, Czech, Slovak etc. ) says that the language was a Macedonian dialect (or at worse, a South Slavic dialect, but never Bulgarian). I have nothing against Bulgaria, nor against Macedonia, or vice versa, but that is simply a fact. But I can imagine that the Bulgarians call it Old Bulgarian (very scientific)- there have been attempts to make such changes in other Wikis as well.

2. Bulgaria was NOT the first country, in which the language was used as a literary language. The first country in which the Bible translation was finished, the first Slavic Code was written, the first Slavic poems etc. were written and were the language was used even in the church and in the state administration was Great Moravia - the country for which the language was "standardized". So that is definitely not the correct reason (just as any other reason) to call it Old Bulgarian.

3. You have left out the part on Great Moravia without giving any reason. I will restore it. If you do not like the language used, you are free to correct the language, but not the content, because the content is correct.

4. In general, it is very suspicious that you have problems with any fact bringing the language in connection with territories outside present-day Bulgaria (present-day Macedonia, Great Moravia, you left out Croatia, Bohemia etc. ). That is inacceptable in the Wikipedia.

5. I hope I-or someone else- will find the time for a detailed article one day. It makes no sense to discuss at this superficial level.


Juro 00:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---VMORO:

1. Every serious linguistics text (German, English, Czech, Slovak etc. ) says that the language was a Macedonian dialect (or at worse, a South Slavic dialect, but never Bulgarian). I have nothing against Bulgaria, nor against Macedonia, or vice versa, but that is simply a fact. But I can imagine that the Bulgarians call it Old Bulgarian (very scientific)- there have been attempts to make such changes in other Wikis as well

- I would like you to point me one serious Slavist, who sees a distinction between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects in the 9th century, especially if we bear in mind that Macedonian as a literary language exists from 1945. And that dialects are a form of the oral, not of the written language (and this is certainly not folklore we are talking about here). There is a difference between texts written in Ohrid and Pliska (afterwards Preslav) showing minor differences between the vernacular in then-western and then-eastern Bulgaria. This, however, is no ground for declaring that Old Slavonic is based on a Macedonian dialect. No linguist has ever spoken about the Macedonian language until the beginning of the 20th century but you find a dialect of that language as early as the 9th century - that's really bizarre?? Old Slavonic is based on A SLAVIC DIALECT SPOKEN IN THE REGION OF THESSALONIKI, and that is EXACTLY what I wrote. I have never claimed that it was a BULGARIAN dialect as the BULGAR language still existed at that time and there is possibility for confusion.

(1) I hope you are not even trying to suggest that there was no Macedonian dialect at that time. I do not know whether the term is related to the present-day Macedonian language or not, but it exists.
(2) These are the facts generally accepted by the Slavists outside Bulgaria (although I am sure there are other views): The Slavic language used in Solun was a Macedonian dialect (according some texts even the Macedonian language). Then the texts written in Great Moravia (the so-called Great Moravian redaction) and/or by Great Moravian disciples contain elements of the (great)moravian dialect . Then the texts written in Ohrid, Preslav etc contain elements of the Bulgarian and of the Macedonian dialect (the so-called Bulgarian-Macedonian redaction). I do not speak those two languages, so I assume what you call a West Bulgarian dialect here is what others call the Macedonian dialect. If the Bulgarian linguists deny this we can write "MAcedonian dialect, but the Bulgarians call it West Bulgarian " or so. Analogously, there is a Russian redaction, a Bohemian redaction, a Croatian redaction etc.
(3)"a SLAVIC DIALECT SPOKEN IN THE REGION OF THESSALONIKI, and that is EXACTLY what I wrote": you left out the word Macedonian.

2. Bulgaria was NOT the first country, in which the language was used as a literary language. The first country in which the Bible translation was finished, the first Slavic Code was written, the first Slavic poems etc. were written and were the language was used even in the church and in the state administration was Great Moravia - the country for which the language was "standardized". So that is definitely not the correct reason (just as any other reason) to call it Old Bulgarian.

- My mistake

3. You have left out the part on Great Moravia without giving any reason. I will restore it. If you do not like the language used, you are free to correct the language, but not the content, because the content is correct.

- I have not done that, you are mistaken here, please check. The Great Moravian period is as important as the Bulgarian one, this was what I meant.

You left out the part that the textsa there had elements of the local dialects

4. In general, it is very suspicious that you have problems with any fact bringing the language in connection with territories outside present-day Bulgaria (present-day Macedonia, Great Moravia, you left out Croatia, Bohemia etc. ). That is inacceptable in the Wikipedia.

- You are wrong. If you talk about history, please include your comments about present-day or then- or whatever. Because if you don't, it is understated that you talk about then and not about present day- . With regard to the statement that from Macedonia the language spread to Bulgaria, etc., etc. I have had the absolute right to correct your article as it literally claimed that "from the state of Macedonia, the language spread to the state of Bulgaria, etc. etc. I think it is very suspicious of you to make such "accidental" mistakes.

(1) That was simply a mistake. And I did not write "the state of", that is your invention. But for your information, for example, if you open the German huge encyclopeadia of medieval times they distinguish there Macedonia and Bulgaria for that time, without any attributes - i.e. they mean it as geographical terms. This is quite frequent.
(2) Of course you have the right to correct - why did not you add "present-day" instead of deleting whole sentences then?

Besides, I think spread is very out of place here as the language was spoken in all countries it "spread". "started to use" or "adopted" would be much better here.

You do not have to ask to make such minor corrections... The correct expression is "the use of the language spred".

5. I repeat you miss the point of why the academies in Ohrid and Pliska/Preslav were created. The way you had put it, it sounds that they were some sort of refugees who "fled" to the "ohrid's lake" and started teaching. Why did they teach? Who allowed them? Who did they teach it to? These are all questions you have not even hinted the answer of and that's not the way an article should be written/edited, either in Wikipedia or anywhere else. As for the order of the academies: the one in Ohrid was the first one followed immediately by another one in Pliska, which was later moved to Preslav in 893/894. However, that is inconsequential as: In Bulgaria at that time the clergy was Byzantine and it preached in Greek, the academies were created to prepare a Slavic clergy, which was to replace the Greek one. That's what matters, buddy, take care.

By the way, I checked: the biography of St. Kliment of Ohrid by St. Teophylact of Ohrid clearly says that the disciples were called to meet Boris I upon their arrival and he commissioned them to teach Old Slavonic. ---VMORO:

(1)The details of the expulsion of the disciple from Great Moravia are disputed, because the Old Church Slavonic texts contradict each other in details. Even the exact year 885/886 is disputed and especially the fact whether some of them were sold as Slaves or not etc. According to some texts they spread from Great Moravia directly to Croatia, Bulgaria, Wislania etc, acording to other texts they went to Ohrid first and from there to Preslav, Coratia etc. And there are other versions as well. The Ohrid version, however, seems to be the generally accepted one. You, of course, prefer the view that they all went to Bulgaria and from there spread to other territories. If we want to go into details, I do not know how to solve this problem(,buddy) ...
(2)This artile is too short now go into details on who invited them etc. (because we would have to add the details on other countiers as well then) and those thinks are treated below Glagolitic, where you have added your comments already.

Juro 12:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VMORO:

1. Some scholars are of the opinion that the language was at least to some extent first adopted in Croatia, before Great Moravia and Bulgaria, probably 1. brought by Cyril and Methodius themselves on their way to Panonia 2. under influence from Panonia 3. (this is after Great Moravia) brought by Gorazd after the dissolution of the Moravian academy. I think if you want to be exact, you have to include that, as well, in the article.

(A) Maybe you wrote this paragraph too quickly, because I can only guess what you are trying to say.
(B) If I wanted to be exact the article would be 10 pages long.
(C)If you can name the linguists and they are serious linguists, you can add what you write about Croatia. I have never heard that, and must admit that I can hardly believe you that.
(D)As for Pannonia, I am an expert on that, and you seem to be completely confusing the territories of Great Moravia, the Balaton principality and the whole political structure there, which however is not rare in the world. Basically,Pannonia was part of Great Moravia. But as I already mentionned, these things would reyquire a much longer article and preparation.

2. The influence and importance of Bulgaria for the development and spread of the Slavonic language is crucial and indisputable and under no circumstances should be left with that short note of "... fled to the Ohrid's lake...".

It is not there anymore, so what?

3. Old Slavonic is referred to as "Old Bulgarian" (Altbulgarisch) as early as the mid-19th century by scholars like A.Schleicher, M.Hatala and L.Geitler as the earliest Slavic manuscripts bear the phonetic characteristics of Bulgarian and include loanwords from vulgar Greek. Outdated or not, this 1. deserves mentioning 2. completely clashes with your statement that Old Bulgarian is an appelation used solely by Bulgarian linguists.

It is an appelation used only by Bulgarian linguists TODAY. There is progress even in the field of slavistics. As for "as the earliest Slavic manuscripts bear the phonetic characteristics of Bulgarian" - see my explanations about waht can be GENERALLY found in present-day expert texts on Old Slavic

4. Contraty to what you might think, I don't really care about the way the article is constructed (I think Croatia should be included) as long as the Bulgarian contribution is recognised. Evident distortions of historical evidence such as that Old Slavonic is based on Macedonian are, however, fully out of place here.

I really do not know if this is a general problem in Bulgaria or only yours, but outside Bulgaria the Macedonian dialect is mentioned everywhere. I cannot say whether it is wrong or not, but it must be mentioned in the article, because there is something like NPOV in the wikipedia. It is really not enough, if YOU say, that something is wrong, if most sources state the opposite. I suggest the problem is that the Bulgarian and Macedonian languages are too close to each other, so that the Bulgarians consider them both as Bulgarian language?? - If it is so, you should add a comment on that. There is enough space to mention all points of view, but just saying "..Macedonian is out of place" is not a sufficient argument.

5. The details about the purpose of teaching Old Slavonic in Great Moravia are properly explained. However, you deem a similar explanation about Bulgaria superfluous and unnecessary. Can you explain to me why?

You are confusing this short article with the long article on Glagolithic alphabet. Maybe you should copy the whole history part from there to this article and add the present few sentences in this article.
VMORO

Whatever. I am gonna provide you with the details about Croatia as soon as I have the time.

Linguistics until the middle of the 20th century NEVER speaks about Macedonian dialects (meaning dialects of the Macedonian language), it speaks most often about Bulgarian dialects in Macedonia, though some scholars find them Serbian. Check old sources or if you want - or don't check if you don't want, in the second case I'll just erase that sentence again. Because: therewith you imply that there was a linguistic difference at the time indicating 1. that there were two languages: Macedonian and Bulgarian or 2. that these dialects were to soon take form of two languages: Macedonian and Bulgarian.

This is wrong as the Macedonian language was standardised as late as 1945 on the basis of dialects previously defined as Bulgarian (or sometimes as Serbian)(by Selishev, Weigand, Boue, Lejean, Zarenko, Verkovic, Safarik, Hahn and MANY others). As far as the dialectal differences between texts from the two academies are concerned, they represent the general division between dialects in eastern Bulgaria and dialects in western Bulgaria and persent day - FYR of Macedonia, differences, which exist nowadays, as well.

The boldest politically unbiased modern texts about the Macedonian language state that texts written in the vernacular in Macedonia appeared as early as the 18th century - and afterwards they leap to the standartisation of the Macedonian language in 1945. Evidently you choose politically biased texts to influence your judgement, which is fine with me, but is totally unacceptable here.

So Selishev, Weigand, Boue, Lejean, Zarenko, Verkovic, Safarik, Hahn and the many others giving ethnographic and linguistic information about Macedonia in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century are untrustworthy

And no, I am not confusing this article with the article about the Glagolitic alphabet, you tried to expunge everything about Bulgaria during your editions. Why you have a problem with Bulgaria and why you want the articles to contain information only about Great Moravia is of no concern for me but that's unacceptable here.

---VMORO

So this is what www.infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0812207.html) has to say about Old Church Slavonic:

Church Slavonic, language belonging to the South Slavic group of the Slavic subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages (see Slavic languages). Although it is still the liturgical language of most branches of the Orthodox Eastern Church, Church Slavonic is extinct today as a spoken tongue. In its earliest period, from the 9th to 11th cent. A.D., this language is variously termed Old Church Slavonic, Old Church Slavic, or Old Bulgarian. The year 1100 is the conventional dividing line between the ancestor, Old Church Slavonic, and its descendant, the later Church Slavonic, which flourished as the literary language of a number of Slavic peoples before the 18th cent. Old Church Slavonic was created in the 9th cent. by St. Cyril and St. Methodius for their translation of the Gospels and other religious texts. Scholars disagree as to which spoken Slavic dialect was chosen by the two saints as the basis for the language of their translations. In any case, because this dialect was inadequate for their purpose, they had to enrich and transform it, drawing on the vocabulary and syntax of Greek. Old Church Slavonic is the first Slavic language known to have been recorded in writing. Two alphabets were devised for it, the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic. Tradition makes St. Cyril the inventor of both, although this view has been questioned; and both alphabets are said to have been derived in part from the Greek. The earliest suriving documents in Old Church Slavonic date from the 10th and 11th cent. In time, as the South and East Slavic tongues influenced this literary language in their respective regions, three major forms of the later Church Slavonic arose: Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian. For various historical reasons, Russian Church Slavonic eventually became the dominant form. The Western Slavs were not caught up in this development, since they came under the domination of the Roman Catholic Church after the 11th cent. At first employed for religious writings, Church Slavonic later came to be used in secular compositions as well. Today it is written in the Cyrillic alphabet.


This is the opinion of www.omniglot.com (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ocslavonic.htm)

Old Church Slavonic Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavonic is a literary language which developed from the language used by St Cyril and St Methodius, 9th century missionaries from Byzantium, to translate the bible and other religious works. Cyril and Methodius based their translations on a Slavonic dialect of the Thessalonika area and invented a new alphabet, Glagolitic, in order to write them.

Sometime during the 10th century AD a new alphabet appeared which was known as Cyrillic and named after St Cyril. It was possibly invented by St Kliment of Ohrid, a missionary in Bulgaria. The Cyrillic alphabet was used to write the Old Church Slavonic language and was later adapated to write many other languages.

Old Church Slavonic was used as the liturgical language of the Russian Orthodox church between the 9th and 12th centuries. A more modern form of the language, known as Church Slavonic, appeared during the 14th century and is still used in the Russian Orthodox church.

this is the opinion of NationMaster (wherefrom this article was taken in the first place) (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Old-Slavonic-language):

Old Church Slavonic (or Old Slavonic, or Old Slavic, Russian старославя́нский язы́к, Slovene starocerkvenoslovan

čina) is the first literary and liturgical Slavic language taken over (or developed, depending on the point of view) by the 9th century missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius. It was used by them for translation of the Bible and other church books from Greek. It is important in Eastern Orthodoxy and in most countries of the Slavic peoples. (See also liturgical language.) Cyril and Methodius hailed from Solun (modern Thessaloniki) and based the Old Church Slavonic on the Slavic dialect used by intellectuals of the Solun (Thessaloniki) region of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgarian scholars consider Old Church Slavonic an Old Bulgarian dialect and call it Old Bulgarian. It has many South Slavic word forms.

A redaction of Old Church Slavonic, made much later, is known Church Slavonic (ru: церковнославя́нский язы́к), but these terms are often confused.

Church Slavonic maintained a prestige status, particularly in Russia, for many centuries — among Slavs in the East it had a status analogous to that of the Latin language in western Europe, but had the advantage of being less divergent from the vernacular tongues of average parishioners.

Some Eastern Orthodox churches, such as the Russian and Serbian churches, still use Church Slavonic in their services and chants.

Additionally, several Eastern Rite Catholic churches use Church Slavonic.

Initially Old Church Slavonic language was written with the Glagolitic alphabet, but later it was superseded by the Cyrillic alphabet.


These are the first three encyclopedia articles about Old Church Slavonic that I found when i made a search with "Old Church Slavonic" in Google. Macedonia and macedonian vernacular is nowhere to be found, the same with Great Moravia. Old Bulgarian is given as an alternate name of the language in two of them. I don't care whether you are a Slovak who desperately has to include every single fact about Great Moravia in all articles bearing reference to Old Slavonic but if you keep on with this narrow and partisan attitude with regard to Great Moravia and Macedonia, I'll just erase this article and will place the original one.

What I have presented to you are informations from professional linguistic and medieval encyclopaedias. The text that you present here are so ridiculous that I even hesitate to answer. The last encyclopeadia that you present is a mirror of the wikipedia (not vice versa) and the central part of the text was largely written by ME (some of us are here for a much longer time). And as you can see, it did not contain anything about Great Moravia. The remaining two sources do not contradict what I am saying, they simply do not go into details. In addition, the infolpease page is a ridiculous internet encyclopaedia as well. I did not plan to deal with this topic, but I see that I will have to do this, since no serious linguist seems to react here. In addition, if you do not believe me, I will ask a professor of slavistics to write to you in September or so - I hope he speaks English. I will not let you turn the old language of all Slavs into Bulgarian language as you did it in the Bulgarian language page, which I will not correct, so that everybody can see what the aim of your edits is. And ... do you really think that I have nothing better to do than to invent a Macedonian dialect in order to quarrel with a Wikipedia editor? Why should I do that? Juro 14:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, the mention about Bulgarian being the oldest Slavic language in the article about Bulgarian language has not been made by me. If you really wanted to make any sensible comment about my edits, you would have checked - but evidently you prefer to throw around accusations?! The last text is indeed the worst of the three - including some unintelligible English and some incorrect claims like "Bulgarian scholars consider Old Church Slavonic an Old Bulgarian dialect and call it Old Bulgarian". Where did you read that??? What I said and what the truth is that "Bulgarian scholars call Old Church Slavonic Old Bulgarian". Whether you wrote that text or not is no concern of mine - the fact is that third text does not contain the claims about "the students of Cyril and Methodius fleeing to the Ohrid's lake" and "Old Church Slavonic is based on the Macedonian vernacular", which makes it, though not brilliant, acceptable. If you are indeed a linguist, you should at least know that the present Macedonian language is based on the western Bitola dialect. The dialect in eastern FYROM is identical to the dialect in Pirin Macedonia and the one around Sofia. The Salonica dialect (this is all beginning of the 20th century dialectology) differs from both of them with its archaisms + some traits typical for the eastern Bulgarian dialects. And on top of it you talk about a language standardised in the 9th century on the basis of the Macedonian vernacular??! Which vernacular exactly? The vernacular in FYROM? The "Macedonian" vernacular in the 9th century? When the Slavs were still divided in tribes? A language standardised in the 9th century is based on a language standardised in the 20th? Whatever...

Maybe you did not know that the term Macedonia was widely used for (approximately) present-day Macedonia and present-day northern Greece at that time, even if the territory was part of other states, and that the term did not arise in the 20th century. I see that you simply deny the existence of term "Macedonian" for that time for nationalist reasons, although all texts that I have call, what you would call the "Bulgarian language", the "Macedo-Bulgarian" version/redaction etc. - in other words the term Bulgarian vernacular is not even used for the period after 885. In addition, I have even found the name "Old Macedonian" for Old Slavic. This is not my invention, but a quote. You are not even willing to admit that linguists ouside Bulgaria use the term. But actually, if I consider what you have done in the Bulgarian language article, then I think that any serious discussion makes no sense for the time being.

But, as I already mentioned, I will come back to this.Juro 21:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Implying that I do not know the borders of historical Macedonia (considering that my mother is from Greek Macedonia) is ridiculous and rather insolent. Even more the implication that I "deny" the existence of the term "Macedonian". No, buddy, I don't deny it, I know how to use it - something which cannot be said about you. Before 1944, the name has had a purely geographical conotation, i.e. of the region of Macedonia. After the establishment of the Republic of Macedonia within Yugoslavia, "Macedonian" is used as a name defining a people and a language.

This is a fact you can easily check by looking at the online edition of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 (www.1911encyclopedia.org) and any other linguistic or ethnographic text published before the 1940's. As I can clearly see (as things start to take a rather personal turn for you), you won't do it - what you really want to do is try dig any bollocks whatsoever on the net, including the name "Macedonian". As I can easily find someone delivering an opinion about that Slovak is a dialect of Czech and vice versa. If that's the professional way a linguist works - well, way to go, buddy!-:))

By the way, I still haven't heard from you the name of even one linguist speaking about dialects of the Macedonian language or about a Macedonian language before 1944. I can help you out with one name: Jovan Cviic regarding Slavs in northern Macedonia as Serbs and the ones in southern Macedonia as an amorphous Slavic mass (whatever that means). Please find me significant evidence about other linguists or ethnographs talking about dialects of the Macedonian language or about a Macedonian language before 1944. And after you explain to me how (because you won't find) a group of dialects referred to for centuries as Serbian or Bulgarian can give rise to a written language in the 9th century, then try to scare me with some "respectable" linguist who is supposed to scold me and box my ears.

And tell me what I have done in the section about Bulgarian language because apart from adding sections about grammar and alphabet, my memory eludes me to have done anything else.


VMORO

By the way, I forgot to tell you that "Old Macedonian" is a term usually used to define the language of the ancient (not Slav) Macedonians. I suggest that you start searching for another title to your "linguistic" experiments. And smth else: considering the contents of your edits the claim that you use "professional linguistic and medieval encyclopaedias" rings quite hollow. Cheers, man

(1)Look, I know that I am right because I simply did not invent what I am claiming here and I have absolutely no reason to do so. I can only repeat that I do not claim that the term Macedonian is correct, but it is used, so it must be mentioned here, if the article is supposed to be longer one day (because presently it is only "OK", because it does not contain much information, so that everybody is satisfied). An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect several views and not only one (namely Yours).

- This opinion is shared by an isolated minority of scholars from FYROM (and several others from former Yugoslavia). An encyclopedia should generally reflect FACTS, not CLAIMS. But if you decide to include all CLAIMS like this one, go ahead and do it. Some Bulgarian linguists CLAIM that Cyrill and Methodius went to Great Moravia by commission from Boris and that they were Bulgarian, according to your logic, you have to include THAT CLAIM, as well. Serious linguists generally are reluctant to write too much about Macedonian as factual evidence is scanty and rather dubious but since you are so bold, go ahead and make a revolution.

(2)Now you are even denying that the term XY vernacular can refer to a geographical territory XY (like Macedonia) rather than to a political entity (e.g. a country). Very "interesting", because the opposite is true. Otherwise the number of languages/dialects would be as high as the number of countries.

- Looks like you haven't read at all what I wrote. The name can be referred to a geographical region but the name Macedonian refers to both and there is a danger of confusing the ethnic and the geographical appelation. BUT Macedonia until the 12th century was the name of the region of WESTERN THRACE AND THE EASTERN RHODOPES, UNDER THIS NAME MACEDONIA WAS A PROVINCE IN BYZANTIUM FOR MORE THAN THREE CENTURIES, WHEREAS MODERN MACEDONIA (at least the western part) WAS CALLED KUTMICHEVICA BY THE SLAVS AND BULGARIA BY BYZANTIUM. Looks like you didn't wrote your homework again as you make the usual hotchpotch of historical facts and pure fiction. By the way, you haven't quoted yet your sources about Kliment, Naum and Angelarius, different from St. Teophylact, I am waiting for them.

(3) And finally, everybody who reads this lenghty discussion can see who is the one for whom things are turning personal. I have been constantly ignoring your repeated personal attacks (starting with "take care, buddy", "decent English" etc.), because I know this "game", since I have been with the Wikipedia for a quit long time. I will not fall to this level,"buddy".\

- Yes, the article is available for everyone and they can see who's personal and who's not. Threatening to dig up anything about Macedonian (just as long as it is about Macedonian) is certainly very "professional" and "impersonal".

(4) As I alredy mentioned, I will come back to this after having collected more evidence - certainly not from the internet (like you). That can take one month or more, because there are other articles I have promised to deal with.

- Do whatever you feel like. I know how to defend my views. Who was personal with that (like you), you or me?

(5): Finally, your problem with the Macedonians is excellently explained below Macedonian language. I wonder why I did not look into the article earlier. And I was right, the problem here is pure nationalism.

- Nope, my problem is historical evidence and its abuse by certain people. As you don't seem to be able to quote any reliable source to defend your position, the easiest thing is to blame me for being nationalistic. By the way, can you tell me when you don't speak Macedonian or Bulgarian, how will you be able to conduct any decent research into the matter?


I haven't heard an appology yet for the accusation that I wrote that Bulgarian was the oldest written Slavic language. (Not that this claim doesn't make sense when Old Bulgarian is used as a synonym for Old Church Slavonic). When I make mistakes here, I appologise, you don't seem to be in that habit.


It makes no sense to continue this discussion now that I plan to go into details in one month or so, because othewise we would have to repeat it then. I just repeat: Everybody (not even a minority) outside Bulgaria calls the language a Macedonian dialect. And there are other Slavic countries outside Bulgaria. And since the language was no Bulgarian language, they are as able to analyze it as you. Welcome to the world outside Bulgaria! See the Talk page Bulgarian language. I have offered you (several times) the opportunity to present the Bulgarian point of view as an alternative. Since you are not even able to accept this, you will get the international point of view. And don't be afraid, quotes will follow as I promised. This is my last statement on this topic for the time being.Juro 19:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, as for the apology - you were editing the text around the sentence and you just happened not to change it (if you claim that you do not agree with it.)...

In a month or so or whenever, I'll be prepared. As to what I am gonna "get", I'll remind you that this website is free to edit by anyone, i.e. anyone can write pretty much anything here (both solid scientific evidence and just crap) and anyone can make edits to those edits. And I'll make sure that this encyclopedia gets a truly international content and doesn't limit to your one-sided treatment of the problem.

Recent edits

I don't see the point of including Cyril and Methodius in the authors' section, since none of the manuscripts that have come down are in their hand. In fact, I don't see the point of an authors' section in general, since the vast majority of texts are translations of existing Greek works and anonymously-penned.

No, this is not really true, the ones quoted have produced original texts, as well VMORO

Also, Juro, if you are not a native English speaker as is suggested by the grammar of your posts, please do not debate the meaning of English-language terminology, just like I wouldn't go to a foreign Wikipedia and complain about their editing. Non-native speakers have long created unnecessary annoyance in English-language Slavonic studies, like when Russians et al., inspired by their own word "staroslavjanskij jazyk" or similar, rail against the word "Church" in the English term. Crculver 02:02, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, mistaked you for another editor. My apologies. Crculver 02:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If there is an authors' section (which was not added by me), I will re-include Cyril and Methodius. For a list of Cyril's works see e.g. the article on Konstantin in the German Wikipedia. It is not true that the "vast majority" is translated from Greek. And by the way, the translation of the Bible, the first Slavic poem and the first Slavic Civil Code written by them would be enough to include them as the most important authors...And as for the Bulgarian dialect (which was the original version of this article months ago), as far as I remember, VMORO himself was wondering here saying something like "where did you hear that?". Also, given the historical cicrumstances, it is simply impossible that the dialect of Thessaloniki before 860 was a Bulgarian dialect, but I really do not have the time to save the whole Wikipedia - write what you want...Juro 16:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, so let's see...
Old Slavic combinations tj and dj are transformed into sht and jd in Old Church Slavonic. I followed your lengthy (and a bit meaningless) debate with VMORO, so I guess you're of the opinion that it was a Macedonian dialect. But Old Slavic tj and dj have turned into soft (palatal) k and g in Macedonian, whereas in Bulgarian they are again sht and jd (as in Old Church Slavonic). That's my reasoning and no, you are not right to say that "I can write what I want", we should all try to make edits which are based on evidence, at least that's what I am led by when I make contributions here. Birkemaal
I want to get an explanation from Juro as to why it is impossible for the dialect of Thessaloniki to be a Bulgarian dialect. Because that was exactly what it was: the dialect of the Bulgarian Slavs living in the area. Juro thinks that if he disparages everything Bulgarian, Great Moravia will shine even brighter in the sky of Slavistics. The sentence about Cyril and Methodius is there only so that we can here (yet again) the word Great Moravia. ~~VMORO
VMORO, the vast majority of scholarship on OCS in English refers to it as based on a Macedonian dialect (with considerable Moravian innovations absorbed into it). See the grammars of Comrie, Lunt, Schlamstieg, Nandris, etc. Therefore, I will continue to support its mention here, because that is what reputable linguists write. Please stop trying to go against 99% of scholars and just accept that what you are pushing is nationalist claptrap that has no place in a scholarly article. Crculver 21:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't try to qualify my edits, Crculver, it doesn't really suit your claims of "elevated professional English and scholarliness". And don't attempt to tell me what I should do or not do, keep that for your wife.
It is very interesting to me how these grammars explain what Birkemaal pointed out earlier. I also want to know how they distinguish between Bulgarian and Macedonian dialects in the 9th century, especially since the Slavs of Macedonia referred to themselves as Bugari and their language as bugarski until the beginning of the 20th century. So if one part of them has chosen to refer to themselves as Macedonians, this goes retroactively to the 9th century or what? If that is the case, your "respectable scholars" are neither respectable, nor scholars. And why do you always refer to a grammar, can't you ever produce an original argument? ~~VMORO


Because Wikipedia is not a place for original arguments. We are here to present scholarship to laymen, not produce it outselves. Furthermore, I would like a citation to show that the Slavs of 9th century Thessaloniki (any other epoch is not pertinent to the article) actually called themselves Bulghars. Crculver 02:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Don't you feel a bit inadequate explaining to me what Wikipedia IS a place for, and what it is NOT? Are you trying to be paternalizing or what??! I want a citation myself to show that the Slavs of 9th century Thessaloniki are Macedonian. And, Crculver, neither I, nor Birkemaal has received an answer yet as to the transformation of Old Slavic "tj" and "dj" in Old Church Slavonic, Bulgarian and Macedonian. ~~VMORO

While I want to distance myself from the last statement by VMORO, which I would classify as rude, I can't help pointing out to you, Crculver, that you seem to have misunderstood what grammars and books have to say (or they themselves are inexact). That dialect is certainly Macedonian in the geographical sense of the word. However, if we take modern Bulgarian and Macedonian as a starting-point, the dialect has many more traits of Bulgarian than of Macedonian.

You seem also to forget that it is politics that defines what is a language and what is a dialect and which dialects belong to a certain language, not vice versa. As regards the Slavic dialects of Macedonia, we have an almost universal acceptance of them as Bulgarian until 1918, then they become viewed as Serbian by most scholars, and we have actually started regarding the name "Macedonian" as a linguistic and not only geographical term since 1945. Quoting the synchronical aspects of a question is of not much of a use when you lack any knowledge about its diachronical development. Birkemaal

While this is getting to have very little to do with the article, I am rather tired of seeing people complain that the question of Macedonian is entirely political and a "Macedonian language" a rather recent invention. See The Slavonic Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie, for a defence of the idea of Macedonian as a separate language in its own right for several centuries already. Crculver 02:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See Maps and Politics. Review of the ethnographic cartography of the Balkans by Wilkinson. It describes in detail but quite impartially the history of the concept of "Macedonian Slavs" and hence "the Macedonian language". But I'll look up the book you quoted on Monday and I'll come back to you. Because the author does not know what he's talking about - he has just taken what the Macedonians themselves write about their language without checking it. And since I cannot send my objections to him, I'll send them to you here. I am getting increasingly tired of people who have just read a couple of articles but otherwise have no experience whatsoever in the field. And since you continue claiming this is not a political question, you are nothing more than that ~~VMORO
I am a student of comparative Indo-European linguistics working towards specialisation in the Slavonic branch. I have read more than "a couple of articles", and have studied with the several key handbooks of Old Church Slavonic written in English (as well as two in Russian). I want their respected and accepted viewpoint represented here, not yours, unless you somehow manage to sway the entire world of English-language Slavonic studies to your side. Crculver 21:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am a third generation Macedonian Bulgarian, my grandparents come from Kukush (Kilkis) 50 km north of Thessaloniki and were ethnically cleansed (along with pretty much all exarchist Bulgarians from the Thessaloniki and Serres region) in 1913 by the Greek army. Take no offence but neither I, nor my parents or grandparents, need to take any guiding from you as to what they are: Bulgarians or Macedonians. The dialect of Kukush and Thessaloniki has sht and zhd (instead of soft k and g), it has the schwa vowel (instead of a), it does not have a fixed accent (as in modern Bulgarian and unlike modern Macedonian), it has only one definite article (and not three as in Macedonian). What is in parenthesis is pretty much the only thing that is different between modern Macedonian and Bulgarian (apart from the Serbian loanwords in the former). This much about the "Macedonian" dialect of Thessaloniki - at least beginning of the 20th century one. Yeah, and if I have to turn upside down the whole Slavonic studies, I'll do it - it was already done in 1945. ~~VMORO

Crculver, the Macedonian question was one of the most poliiticised issues until WWI. Serbian cartographer Jovan Cvijic claimed in 1907 (and not several centuries ago), in an attempt to justify Serbian claims to the region, that when the Slavic population of Macedonia calls itself Bulgar, this means for them only that they are peasant Christians, "rayah", and not an affiliation with the "Bulgarian" ethnicity. The same approach was used by the Greeks who claimed "Bulgarian" in Macedonia means a "peasant" whereas "Greek" means "an urban dweller".

As for that grammar - if it indeed follows the development of a Macedonian language for several centuries, it is only a manifestation of gross incompetence. I am absolutely sure that the author alludes to 19 century authors like the Miladinov Brothers, Joachim Karchovski, Grigor Prlichev and Kiril Peicinovik with regard to the Macedonian language. However, these authors referred to themselves as Bulgarians, to their language as Bulgarian and even to Macedonia as to lower Moesia and western Bulgaria. The Yugoslav authorities before invested a lot of money into the translation of their works (with convenient editions and substitutions of "Bulgaria" with "Macedonia") into all major European languages and into their representation as Macedonian literature. However, original editions are absolutely unavailable in Skopje (as such actually do not exist) and the ones which are to be found in Sofia or western European libraries reveal something completely different than what is claimed in Skopje. It is appalling that the author has not even tried to check his sources. This serves only to testify as to how grammars and books are written today - at home, with a couple of books from the library, without any effort to achieve objectivity and neutrality. And I really wonder how you venture to make claims and statements without knowing anything first-hand about the matter in discussion. Birkemaal

Birkemaal, you show serious disrespect to Slavonic scholarship in the West. All comparative Slavic linguists are aware of the political feuds concerning Macedonian, and they are frankly tired of them. They reach their conclusions based on readings of the data as far removed from politics as possible. In the aforementioned work, the writer has traced signs of significant differences in Macedonian back several centuries, believing that it can fairly be called a separate language even though its speakers thought it was a mere dialect of Bulgarian (like, for example, Scots is generally categorised as distinct though mutually intelligible with English and its speakers often believing they are speaking English). Crculver 21:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Birkemaal: CrCulver, you seem to regard the postulates of modern science as something holy and unbreakable, but if everyone thought like you, we'd still regard the earth as flat. I don't think that either you, or the authors of those grammars can refute the arguments which have been put forward here, so if something is wrong, it is not at my end of the line.
I am answering here, as well, though the response is not to me. Here you actually confess to what Birkemaal and I were arguing about in the last couple of days: that what is considered a language or a dialect DEPENDS DIRECTLY on politics. You condradict yourself, Crculver: you say that there is no way the dialect of Thessaloniki was Bulgarian in the 9th century but you admit that the people who spoke it regarded as a dialect of Bulgarian (=a Bulgarian dialect) until a century ago???! And as a matter of fact, they still do as most of their descendents live in Bulgaria. On top of it, since your textbooks have taken their stuff directly from my Macedonian colleagues, they make the striking mistake of defining the border of the so called "Macedonian dialects" along the borders of the geographical region of Macedonia. Which is total crap as the dialect of Serres was in fact a Bulgarian Thracian dialect, the dialect in eastern FYROM is identical to the dialect of the Kyustendil and Dupnitza region (in Bulgaria proper, not in Pirin Macedonia) and the dialect of Thessaloniki is a transitional between the two. All of these have more to do with Bulgarian than with the the western Macedonian dialect of Bitola-Prilep which has been used for the codification of the modern Macedonian language. The western Macedonian dialect in its turn is similar to the Bulgarian dialect of the Central Rhodopes, at least as regards the three definite articles and the lack of the schwa vowel.
As for the separate development of the western Macedonian dialect - Bulgaria did not have any formal language for ca. 500 years and the differences between the separate dialects were quite wide(this does not regard only the Macedonian ones). Would that Macedonian dialect turn into a separate language if Macedonia had not been incorporated by Serbia in 1918 and if Tito had not decided on a separate Macedonian identity in 1945? NO. But that's not what I am arguing about:
If one part of the Macedonian Bulgarians decided in the 1940s that they should be called Macedonians and that their language should be called Macedonian, this neither goes retroactively 13 centuries back, nor does it apply to all people from the wider Macedonian region. Because there are 700,000 to 800,000 people with Macedonian descent in Bulgaria and some 100,000 more in North America and every single of your claims here is IMMENSELY OFFENSIVE to ALL OF THEM. Slavonic scholarship in the West (as you define it) nowadays is seriously prejudiced in favour of the Macedonians for one simple reason: until recently Bulgaria was just a Sovjet satellite, whereas Yugoslavia was "unattached" and represented a powerful force in international politics. This MUST and WILL change. Either "Slavonic scholarship in the West" will begin to view this issue in a neutral light and their will be some compromise between the two viewpoints or we'll continue to contest its "scholarliness" - 'cause I can't really see any with regard to the case in question.
If you don't have any remarks to the current edit of Old Church Slavonic, I would like to close the discussion. ~~VMORO
This is too much now. The problem of your "arguments" is that at least Czech, Slovak and German scholars are and have been for decades of the same opinion as what you call "Western scholars". The dialect of Thessaloniki is called Macedonian exclusively (without any mention that this would be disputed), and the texts written on the then territory of Bulgaria after 885 are called Bulgarian-Macedonian redaction, in older German sources sometimes alternatively Old Bulgarian and I have found one single text calling it Bulgarian "circle" (okruh). And I am sure I would find similar names in Russian and other modern texts. It is impossible that all Slavists in the world do not understand old Slavic - people in any West-Slavic country could basically understand them without having studied OCS if someone would read them - and that all of them have "overseen" the consonant "shifts" mentioned above. Also, all linguists know the problems about Bulgaria / Serbia / Macedonia - we are not talking about some exotic countries here. This is just in case some interested person reads this discussion. Juro 03:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are you gonna entertain me again with what you have read, Juro? The dialect is Macedonian in the geographical sense of the word (I don't know how many times I have repeated it on this discussion page) and it is Bulgarian as regards PHONETICS. There is something called comparative linguistics, whether you know it or not.
Scholars have talked about the dialect of Thessaloniki as a Macedono-Bulgarian dialect long before there was any talk of a Macedonian language (i.e. before 1945), the meaning being that it is a Slavic dialect from the geographical region of Macedonia and NOT that it is connected in any way to modern Macedonian (as there was no such language back then and the Macedonian dialects were considered Bulgarian or Serbian). Crculver admitted last time that the speakers of that Macedonian dialect (evidently meaning the Bitola-Prilep one, as the Thessaloniki one is on the divide of eastern and western Bulgarian dialects) thought until, say, a century ago that their dialect was Bulgarian. But I guess you see the long hand of Tito stretching from 1945 back to the 9th century, haha... Get a grip, leave the world of fairy tales. ~~VMORO
You are not quarrelling with me but with 90% of the current linguist of the world and sentences like fairy tales will not change that. And if Macedonian is only a geographical designation (which I neither confirm nor deny, I am only saying that the language was not a Bulgarina dialect in the mid 9th century), then it is interesting that you have deleted my edit months ago, which only said that "some" (although in reality virtually all) linguists call it Macedonian, which is a correct statement. The problem is that you get a "heart attack" the moment you see the word Macedonian in connection with Bulgarian history ...Juro 19:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I'll continue to do that. Neither you, nor these 90% of the linguists (according to you) can give an adequate explanation as to why they call the dialect Macedonian. I exclude herefrom the geographical sense of the word, as there is nothing incorrect or wrong about that. Whether I have a problem with something or not is my own personal business, here we talk about facts, against which you have not managed to produce one single argument. And these 90% of the linguists (according to you) haven't managed either. Trying to attack me personally because you have nothing else but a superficial, second-hand knowledge of the issue doesn't really do any good. Should I remind you your "Great Moravian" complex, Juro (from Slovakia)?
I don't have the time now but around Christmas I'll find a text in Old Church Slavonic and I'll have a table ready with the consonant shifts in all Slavic languages, which I'll place here. Until then I regard the discussion as closed, pls don't bother me with information as to what new you have read in German, Czech and Slovakian, or with yet other attempt at an attack below the waist. ~~VMORO
(1) This has absolutely nothing to do with Great Moravia and you know that. This has been discussed already. The fact that you have complitely "omitted" Great Moravia several times when editing this text is only one of indications that there is a seriuos Bulgaro-centric bias with you. (2) It is interesting that it's YOU who is talking about attacks below the waist, given that you have repeatedly used explicit insults, of a type I have never seen in the Wikipedia yet, several times on this page thereby making any discussion and edits impossible. (3)That you have a problem with everything outside Bulgaria is a fact. (4)The problem here is that we do not have one of the 90% supporters of the opposite view here to discuss with you the details. But it would still make no sense since you do not even accept that the article just mentions that there are opposite views, it can only contain yours - imagine where this Wikipedia would end if everybody would behave like you. But actually, this has been discussed already, too... Juro 20:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This has everything to do with Great Moravia - and your last edit in the article is very symptomatic for your "style" of editing. Don't you feel a bit ridiculous blaming me for Bulgaro-centric bias when you yourself edit from a Moravian point of view?
The claims you make that "I have omitted Great Moravia several times" are laughable - the articles were already full of your "Moravianism" when I started editing here and I have not erased anything in them. What exactly do you want, Juro from Slovakia? That we all mention Great Moravia at least twice in every sentence?
As a matter of fact, I enjoy quite a good reputation elsewhere in Wikipedia. Your opinion doesn't bother me too much.
You were the one who barged against me last. And this is what you do every time you run short of arguments (you actually haven't had even one since the beginning of our "discussion").
The discussion pages of the articles are meant for discussions about articles, not for petty complaints that "I have omitted Great Moravia several times" or for accusations that "I have a Bulgarian-centric bias" when you have nothing else meaningful to say. I'll remind you to stick to the topic of discussion, not to get personal. Either produce some arguments at last or stop complaining like a little child.
As I said earlier, I'll prepare something well-substantiated over Christmas and I'll get back to the article afterwards. You can continue on your own with the personal attacks, complaints and everything else that is irrelevant to this article or to our discussion, I have neither the time, nor the desire to deal with it.

~~VMORO

You are a hopeless case... Ignoring you emotional explosion again, I must repeat three points once again (1) before YOU started editing the article months ago, there was no single mention about Great Moravia or Moravia in the article, (2) the article contains almost nothing about moravianisms (although it actually should contain information that Climent of Ohrid actually wrote most of his most important works in Great Moravia and similar "details") and we are talking here about whether the language of Thessaloniki was a Bulgarian dialect - what does that to do with Great Moravia??? (3) I repeat for readers of this dicussion, because nobody will be able to mention this in the article - no serious linguist or historian of the world outside Bulgaria condiders the South Slavic language of Thessaloniki a Bulgarian dialect. Juro 02:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Juro I will utterly disagree. I dare to call myself a “serious linguist”, and I am teaching this science in Canada (outside Bulgaria). In most of the the literature that I cite to my students it says that OCS (Old Church Slavonic) is also called Old Bulgarian. Well one thing is for sure all “serious linguists” in Canada have studied this. And if you need a reference to a more serious encyclopedia try Britannica or Webster in order to realize that not only Canadians are taught that.

Kevin

You are confusing two things: (1) the language spoken in Thessaloniki in 862 which could not be Bulgarian (actually it was what is called "cultivated Macedonian") because there were no Bulgarians in the town [the fact that the language is similar to Bulgarian does not make it a Bulgarian language], (2) the title Old Bulgarian for the literary language used after 885 in Bulgaria, which is sometimes used. If you use the term Old Bulgarian and think that it is correct (that is you do not use it for traditional reasons) than you are not a "serious" linguist in this field. In addition your last changes are more than debatable, actually they are wrong... Juro 01:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, the literature that you cite to your students may very well use the term "Old Bulgarian". No one is disputing that some older works use this term. However, recent literature has eschewed the term, considering it anachronistic and not sufficiently precise. I'll point you to Routledge's The Slavonic Languages, ed. Bernard Comrie, the most substantial overview of the Slavonic branch of the last decade. Nowhere does it use the term "Old Bulgarian" in its coverage of Old Church Slavonic. The OCS grammars of Schlamstieg and Lunt likewise do not use the term. Nandris' fine grammar, dating from the 1950's, states that the term "Old Bulgarian was improperly used for OCS," showing that already in his time the term seemed dated. The overview of OCS provided by the A. Richard Diebold Center for Indo-European Language and Culture at the Linguistics Research Center of the University of Texas at Austin says, "OCS is at times termed Old Bulgarian, though this nomenclature has fallen out of fashion." The term is certainly not very popular in the current literature, and worth avoiding except to mention as ananchronism. Crculver 02:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All I can say about this, is that I have nicely explained all of that but was of course reverted by VMORO. I'm returning this edit. Nikola 20:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Display of Cyrillic text

Are people un-italicizing Cyrillic text because it doesn't display italicized, or doesn't display at all? If it's just a matter of italic text degrading to "roman" on some systems, that would be seem acceptable to me.

On my machine italics work fine, but combining diacritics (e.g., acute accents) on Cyrillic text show up as little squares after the letter.

Perhaps it would be better to use non-combining accents, like some dictionaries do?

acute accents: старославя´нский язы´к
primes: старославя′нский язы′к

Hm. No, they look like apostrophes.

I'm using Safari/Mac. With 'lucida grande' or 'arial unicode ms' specified in my style sheet, the accents work on Cyrillic text, but nothing gets italicized or bolded. With 'verdana', bold and italic works, but no combining accents. Anyone know of a good Unicode sans-serif family with italic, bold, and bold-italic fonts, and combining accents that work?

—Michael Z.

Some people complain that italics are difficult to read; so it is better not to use italics for Cyrillic text. — Monedula 07:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contribute

Found an omission? You can freely contribute to this Wikipedia article. Edit 'Talk: Old Church Slavonic' article.

Last Contributor: Monedula - Article Talk Page: Discussion - GNU FDL: Verbatim Source

About Open Encyclopedia

Open Encyclopedia is an free extensive encyclopedia service provided by the New Frontier Information Network, a newly launched private company which offers easy access to thousands of online articles, e-books and documentation covering a wide variety of broad topics.

This is a minimal rendered version of a open-encyclopedia.com Web page. Our Web site is best viewed using an up-to-date Web browser, such as Mozilla Firefox, Opera or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Copyright © 2003-2004 Zeeshan Muhammad. All rights reserved. Legal notices. Part of the New Frontier Information Network.