The making of the fyroMacedonian language.

[morski]

Although Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, most of its academics, as well as the general public, regard the language spoken there as a form of Bulgarian.[3] However after years of diplomatic impasse caused by an academic dispute, in 1999 the government in Sofia solved the problem with the Macedonian Language under the formula: "the official language of the country (Republic of Macedonia) in accordance with its constitution".[1]

Most Bulgarian linguists consider the Slavic dialects spoken in the region of Macedonia as a part of the Bulgarian diasystem.[2][3] Numerous shared features of these dialects with Bulgarian are cited as proof.[4] Bulgarian scholars also claim that the overwhelming majority of the Macedonian population had no conscience of a Macedonian language separate from Bulgarian prior to 1945. Russian scholars cite the early references to the language in Slavic literature from the middle of 10th century to the end of 19th century as "bulgarski" or "bolgarski" as proof of that claim.[5] From that, the conclusion is drawn that modern standard Macedonian is not a language separate from Bulgarian either but just another written "norm" based on a set of Bulgarian dialects. See dialect and dialect continuum to assess the validity of these arguments. Moreover, Bulgarian linguists assert that the Macedonian and Yugoslav linguists who were involved in codifying the new language artificially introduced differences from literary Bulgarian to bring it closer to Serbian.[6]. They are also said to have resorted to falsifications and deliberate misinterpretations of history and documents in order to further the claim that there was a consciousness of a separate Macedonian ethnicity before 1944.[7] Part of Bulgarian scholars and people hold the view that Macedonian is one of three "norms" of the Bulgarian language, the other two being standard Bulgarian and the language of the Banat Bulgarians. This formulation was detailed in 1978 in a document of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences entitled "The Unity of the Bulgarian Language Today and in the Past".[4] Although Bulgaria was the first country to recognize the independence of the Republic of Macedonia, it has refused to recognise the existence of a separate Macedonian ethnicity and a separate Macedonian language. This was a major obstacle to the development of diplomatic relations between the two countries until a compromise solution was worked out in 1999.
Bulgarian ethnos in Macedonia existed long before the earliest articulations of the idea that Macedonian Slavs might form a separate ethnic group from the Bulgarians in Danubian Bulgaria and Thrace. Throughout the period of Ottoman rule, the Slav-speaking people of the geographic regions of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia referred to their language as Bulgarian and called themselves Bulgarians.[5][6] For instance, the Serbian researcher St. Verković who was a long term teacher in Macedonia, sent by the Serbian government with special assimilatory mission wrote in the preface of his collection of Bulgarian folk songs: "I named these songs Bulgarian, and not Slavic because today when you ask any Macedonian Slav: Who are you? he immediately answers: I am Bulgarian and call my language Bulgarian...."[7] The name "Bulgarian" for various Macedonian dialects can be seen from early vernacular texts such as the four-language dictionary of Daniil of Moschopole, the early works of Kiril Pejchinovich and Ioakim Kurchovski and some vernacular gospels written in the Greek alphabet. These written works influenced by or completely written in the Bulgarian vernacular were registered in Macedonia in the 18th and beginning of the 19th century and their authors referred to their language as Bulgarian.[8] The first samples of Bulgarian speech and the first grammar of modern Bulgarian language were written by the leading Serbian literator Vuk Karadjić on the basis of the Macedonian Razlog dialect.[9] In those early years the re-emerging Bulgarian written language was still heavily influenced by Church Slavonic forms so dialectical differences were not very prominent between the Eastern and Western regions. Indeed, in those early years many Bulgarian activists sometimes even communicated in Greek in their writing.

When the Bulgarian national movement got under way in the second quarter of the 19th century some cities in Macedonia were among the first to demand education in Bulgarian and Bulgarian-speaking clerics for their churches.[10] By the 1860s however, it was clear that the Central Balkan regions of Bulgaria were assuming leadership in linguistic and literary affairs. This was to a large extent due to the fact that the affluent towns on both sides of the Central Balkan range were able to produce more intellectuals educated in Europe than the relatively more backward other Bulgarian regions. Consequently, when the idea that the vernacular rather than Church Slavonic should be represented in the written language gained preponderance, it was the dialects of the Central Balkan region between Veliko Tarnovo and Plovdiv that were most represented.[8].

Some prominent Bulgarian educators from Macedonia like Parteniy Zografski and Kuzman Shapkarev called for a stronger representation of Macedonian dialects in the Bulgarian literary language but their advice was not heeded at the time and sometimes met with hostility.[11] In the article The Macedonian Question by Petko Rachev Slaveykov, published on 18 January 1871 in the Makedoniya newspaper in Constantinople, Macedonism was criticized, his adherents were named Macedonists, and this is the earliest surviving indirect reference to it, although Slaveykov never used the word Macedonism.The term's first recorded use is from 1887 by Stojan Novaković to describe Macedonism as a potential ally for the Serbian strategy to expand its territory toward Macedonia, whose population was regarded by almost all neutral sources as Bulgarian at the time. The consternation of certain Macedonians with what they saw as the domineering attitude of Northern Bulgarians towards their vernacular was later deftly exploited by the Serbian state, which had begun to fear the rise of Bulgarian nationalism in Macedonia.

Up until 1912/18 it was the standard Bulgarian language that most Macedonians learned (and taught) in the Exarchate schools. All activists and leaders of the Macedonian movement, including those of the left, used standard Bulgarian in documents, press publications, correspondence and memoirs and nothing indicates they viewed it as a foreign language.[12] This is characteristic even of the members of IMRO (United) well into the 1920s and 1930s, when the idea of a distinct Macedonian nation was taking shape.[13]

From the 1930s onwards the Bulgarian Communist Party and the Comintern sought to foster a separate Macedonian nationality as a means of achieving autonomy for Macedonia within a Balkan federation. Consequently it was Bulgarian-educated Macedonians who were the first to develop a distinct Macedonian language, culture and literature.[14][15] When Socialist Macedonia was formed as part of Federal Yugoslavia, these Bulgarian-trained cadres got into a conflict over the language with the more Serbian-leaning activists, who had been working within the Yugoslav Communist Party. Since the latter held most of the political power, they managed to impose their views on the direction the new language was to follow, much to the dismay of the former group.[16]

After 1944 the communist-dominated government sought to create a Bulgarian-Yugoslav federation (see Balkan Communist Federation) and part of this entailed giving "cultural autonomy" to the Pirin region. Consequently, Bulgarian communists recognised the Macedonian language as distinct from Bulgarian.[17] After the Tito-Stalin split in 1948, those plans were abandoned. This date also coincided with the first claims of Bulgarian linguists as to the Serbianisation of the Macedonian language.[18] Officially Bulgaria continued to support the idea of a Macedonian unification and a Macedonian nation but within the framework of a Balkan Federation and not within Yugoslavia.[19] However, a reversal in the Macedonisation policy was already announced in the secret April plenum of the BCP in 1956 and openly proclaimed in the plenum of 1963. 1958 was the first time that a "serious challenge" to the Macedonian position was launched by Bulgaria.[20] These developments led to violent polemics between Yugoslav and Bulgarian scholars and sometimes reflected on the bilateral relations of the two countries.[21]
[edit] Claims of Serbianisation

Although the original aim of the codifiers of Macedonian was to distance it from both Bulgarian and Serbian[citation needed], Bulgarians today view the standard Macedonian language as heavily Serbianised, especially with regards to its vocabulary.[22] Bulgarian scholars such as Kosta Tsrnushanov claim there are several ways in which standard Macedonian was influenced by Serbian.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...External_links

[morski]

HE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
(A LATE CASE OF GLOSSOTOMY?)
Otto Kronsteiner (Austria)


"The split of a language into two is something which the greatest fantasts in the world have not dared do. Our scholars, however, did it for political, rather than linguistic considerations." Leonida Lari, Rumanian writer from Moldova, (Literatura si arta am 18.8.1988)

There are quite a few European languages spoken outside their "own" country: for instance German in Germany, but also in Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg,: Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Russia; Spanish in Spain, but also in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia etc. But nowhere a necessity has come to being, neither an attempt has been made to father a new (official) language (Austrian, Liechtensteinian, Argentinian, Chilien etc.) despite apparent differences emerging in the usage of the languages.

Many minority languages have never had their own state, others have had - though for a short time. Nevertheless, they have kept their integrity in the course of centuries, and have patiently waited for their recognition. This holds good of Ladinian, Basque, Sardian, Catalan and others. Quite to the contrary, there has never been a necessity for the creation of a spedal literary language to serve the Bulgarian-speaking Slavs residing outside Bulgaria (for example, in Vardar or Aegean Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Rumania, Ukraine). Similarly, there had never been a Macedonian linguistic community dreaming for centuries on end to be recognised for its linguistic uniqueness.

As late as the XXth c. the method of linguistic partition (glossotomy) [1] would be repeatendly applied, motivated politically, rather than linguistically. In the West (as was the case of SlovenianNindian) those attempts crashed and burned. In the East however, forcefully conceived languages under communism (socialism) (Rumanian/Moldovan [2]; Finnish/Karelian; Tatar/Bashkir; Turkish/Gagaouz) did survive to live a longer "life" thanks to political coercion. Those who refused to accept language partition would be proclaimed nationalists and treated in the respective way. In politics, language partition was counted upon as a way to reinforce the new political borders, thus eliminating the feeling of one-time belonging to a certain community. [3] The strategies behind the fathering of such new languages in the communist regions would follow one and the same principles.

One scholar (or a handful united in a group) would publish an orthography, grammar, dictionary, bilingual dictionaries (but, note, never from the old to the new language, that is, never Rumanian- Moldovan, but Moldovan-Russian for example, or others). Shortly, they would publish a historical grammar, a history of the language, as well as a history of the new nation. Further, as "flank" initiatives, an Academy of Sciences, a National Theatre and a National Folk Ensemble would be established. In the meantime, a national literature was bound to shape up, and the first writer to venture in any genre, would be proclaimed a great playwright, novelist or Iyrist on the new language. [4] All that in its turn, called to life a literary history. The political accompaniment to the whole affair would be a most characteristic sentence in the communist countries: notably, that the (new) language was "a remarkable achievement serving the entire cultural complex". And, the direction to follow derived from the (unvoiced) formulation: "the worse the old language is treated, the better for the new one", that is, the worse Roumanian is being spoken/spelled, the better for Moldovan, which would be more correctly spoken/spelled. And, this entailed a deepening of the artificial gulf between the old and the new tongue (even by the use of force). All that holds good of the Macedonian literary language (македонскиот jазик).

Date of creation: 1944

Place of creation: The Socialist Republic of Macedonia (within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) - the "Prohor Pcinski" monastery.

Used by: some 1 000 000 Bulgarians (in Macedonia).

Oldest literary monument: "New Macedonia" newspaper.

Fabrications:


H. Lunt, A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje, 1952.

Блаже Конески, Историjа на македонскиот jазик. Дел I. Увод, За гласовите, За акцентот, Скопjе, 1952; Дел Il: 3a формите и нивната употреба, Cкоnje, 1957.

Блаже Конески, Исторjа на македонскиот jазик, Скопjе - Белград, 1965, 1981, 1982.

Правопис на македонскиот литературен jазик со правописен речник, Скопjе, 1970, 1979.

Речник на македонскиот jазик со српско-хрватски толкуваниjа (II-III), Скопjе, 1961, 1966, 1979, 1986.

в. Милики , Обратен речник на македонскиот jазик, Скопje, 1967.

Двуезични речници и учебници по немски, английски, френски, полски, румънски, руски и словенски.

Научно списание "Македонски jазик" от 1954 г.

М. Георгиевски, Македонско книжевно наследство од XI до XVIII век, Скопjе, 1979.

Д. Митрев. Повоени македонски поети. Антологиjа, Скопjе, 1960.

М. Друговац, Современи македонски писатели, Скопjе, 1979.

М. Ташковски, Кон етногенезата на македонскиот народ, Скопjе, 1974.

Историjа на македонскиот народ (Институт за национална историjа, Скопjе, 1969. I. Од предисториското време до краjот на ХVIII век. II Од почетокот на ХХ век до краjот на првата светска воjна. III Периодот меу двете светски воjни и народната револуциjа (1918-1945).

While T. Stamatoski (also Stamatov, Stamatovski) wrote back in 1986 on the struggle for Macedonian literary language, looking back and ahead in future at the same time (?) (Борба за македонски литературен jазик, Скопjе), Blaze Koneski had already (3 years before) told the "Communist" (1376, from July 29, 1983) the story of the endorsement and the introduction of this literary language (Афирмациjа на македонскиот jазик. Сосем оформен современен литературен jазик, Скопjе).

A most ridiculous text is the historical phonology of the new language fathered in 1944 (B. Koneski, A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language, Heidelberg, 1983).

A major departure was effected, not only from the Bulgarian language, but also from its rich literary heritage, as well as from the world literature in translation. However, something had to be saved, and it was done by encroaching upon the miscellany of songs by the Miladinov brothers, born in Macedonia, and which had been originally entitled "Bulgarian Folk Songs", (1861) containing songs from Struga, Okhrida, Prilep, Kukus, Kostur and from other parts of Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. In 1962 it came out in Skopie under the forged title of "Miscellany", with a forged "Macedonian" text, and on top of everything else, labelled "the most outstanding work ever published, of the Macedonian literature.

On the name (glossonym) Macedonian
The adjective Macedonian (in Bulgarian: македонски; in Greek: , in Albanian: maqedonas) was out ot use as a glossonym prior to 1944. Until then, Macedonian used to be an adjective (designating the region (toponym) of Macedonia).[5] So-ever since 1944 it has scarcely been clear whether the toponym or the glossonym is actually meant under the word Macedonian, which caused a confusion of notions (deliberately provoked, too), that worked in favour of the reinforcement of the myths of the Macedonian nation. The impression was created as if this same language since time immemorial, has been the language of the "country" Macedonia. Alexander the Great was Macedonian. Cyril and Methodius were Macedonians, and Kemal Ataturk too, was Macedonian (a fact which is often suppressed). Neither of those however, had anything in common with the Macedonian literary language of Mr. Blaze Koneski (i.e. Blagoj Konev). And for the delusion to be complete, the textbooks in history and geography read: "In the Socialist Republic of Macedonia there live Macedonians, Albanians, Turks etc." This downright usurpation of ethnic names seems the right tool of forcible differentiation (compare: the French, Bretons, Basques - all of them nationals of France) etc., instead of the French French, the Breton French, the Basque French or (given the common territory of a nation), the French Bretons, the French Basques etc. It would be right to say: the Bulgarian Macedonians, the Albanian Macedonians, the Turkish Macedonians etc. (in this case, the residents of the republic of Macedonia), or, as it had been generally accepted to say by 1944 (e.g. Veigand) - the Macedonian Bulgarians, Macedonian Albanians, Macedonian Turks, etc. (given the common territory of a nation). And, since through the new Macedonian language, erstwhile Bulgarian ceased to exist officially (!), that is, it became a (strongly estranged) foreign language, the glossonym and the ethnonym Bulgarian disappeared too.

On the orthographyof the Macedonian literary language
Similarly to the case with Moldovan, when the Cyrillic script was introduced to distance it from Roumanian, the Macedonian glossotomists decided to adopt the Serbian alphabet (respectively, orthography) including letters having become more or less a myth , (instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД, as well as the Serbian , .) . The core of the Macedonian alphabet is actually lying in these two letters and their phonetic materialisation. Hence the joke: Macedonian is Bulgarian typed on a Serbian type-writer. Had the Bulgarian orthography been applied to the new language, everyone would take it for Bulgarian (despite the peripheral nature of the basic dialect chosen), just like the dialectally tinged texts by Ludwig Toma and Peter Poseger, which are taken for German ones.

On the dialectal basis of the Macedonian literary language
A very special trick of the Macedonian glossotomists was the choice of the peripheral dialectal area as the dialectal basis of the new language. It lies precisely on the Serbian-Bulgarian language boundary, hence, it represents a transitional dialect to Serbian. Another town could have been chosen instead ot Skopie as capital (in the linguistic aspect too), such as Okhrida, but it would have made the difference with Bulgarian hardly discernable. The inner structure of the new language follows lexically and morphologically [6] the Serbian model enforced through the Belgrade Radio and TV, received everywhere. The new language served the rule: the more non-Bulgarian, the more Macedonian! The strengthening of the Serbian influence meant Macedonia's estrangement from Bulgaria politically and culturally as well [7] (something passed unnoticed by Europe). Bulgarian studies were not taught in Yugoslavia's universities, as they were replaced by Macedonian studies (and that, needless to say, held good of Skopje). Bulgarian was converted into an anti-language.

In the lingual-geographic aspect, the "Macedonian" dialects were declared all too unique, having nothing in common with Bulgarian. This explains why a Macedonian dialectal atlas was never released. Every dialectologist is well aware that there is no dialectical boundary to separate Bulgaria from Macedonia (see the maps at the end of this article), and that intrinsic Macedonian peculiarities (such as the triple article, instead of Щ, etc.) are common in Bulgaria too. Hence, the whole thing smells of Stalin-styled misinformation which was successful in misleading even some representatives of "critical" Slavonic studies in the West. [8]

Who was in need ot linguistic partition (glossotomy)?
Since in all the cases (in the communist region) of linguistic partition the underlying strategy would be quite the same, the question arises whether it is also valid for the functioning of that mechanism. The method of "spliting" would be applied not only to languages, but also to the history of nations, and to entire nations. And as in neither of those cases people's will had been consulted, it is thus far unclear where the centralstage players had actually seen the sense, for themselves, their country and their policy. It is surprising that together with the states (The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) the purpose would be lost behind these language partitions, given it was related to a centralised state policy. The latter would unite on the one hand, and divide, on the other. Within the framework of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Byelorussia had to be russified, whereas, the Turkish- speaking peoples would be partitioned in the smallest possible portions. For its part, Yugoslavia had been pursuing a language and cultural assimilation with a Serbian emphasis (see: "Directive" by Garasanin). All this attests to the moral (!) integrity of science which has never been short of people for such tasks. As to the Serbian policy, it did not resort to similar language partition against the Yugoslav Albanians and Turks - they were actually deprived of all their rights; they were not considered nations at all, but rather a "minority" in its worst connotation, although they were prevalent in some areas. The assimilation effort against linguistically closer Bulgarian Macedonians, however, was much more apparent. For the salce of historical truth we should note that those assimilation efforts do not date back to socialist Yugoslavia, but even earlier, to the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yet they could score success only under socialism with its methods - in the post-1944 period. No wonder then that the Albanians do not tend to associate with the new Republic of Macedonia, while as far the "macedonized" Bulgarian Macedonians are concerned, it seems at least, they. do. l do not subscribe to any annexations (Anschlusse), something I feel alien to, being Austrian; I believe that the Slav Macedonians are bound to re-think the roots of their identity which as of 1944, has been resting on a diffusse feeling of being Yugoslav. Any single piece of criticism against the new, Macedonian language is by rule interpreted as a blow against Yugoslavia. Thus, the whole thing has boiled to overcoming the past since historical falsehood and forgery could not but influence younger generations who now suffer the copse-i quences of national nihilism. The generation of today indentifies itself with neither Serbia, nor Bulgaria. We can hardly deny the emergence of initial symptoms of a new identity. Here is one example from among many: the complete separation back in 1967, of the Macedonian from the Serbian-Orthodox church (though the former has never been recognized by the latter). [9] The degree of serbization however is considerable, which is indicative of the power of the Serbo-phile nomenclature in Macedonia.

Linguistic chaos
For the constructors of a language, and of the Macedonian literary language too, it is no problem at all to invent linguistic norms. The actual difficulty is whether these norms are applicable. The ways to say something on the one hand, and to spell it on the other, have always differed, yet the question is: Whospeaks this language? Macedonians themselves can be heard to say quite often: we have no command of this language, we have not studied it. The immediate impression is how very uncertain such Macedonians feel linguistically. It transpires in every single piece of conversation, how tough it is for them to "stick" to this language. [10] Soon one is in trouble guessing whether what is spoken is bad Bulgarian, or bad Serbian. Anyway, no impression is left of a linguistic identity (unlike the case with Ladinian or Catalan). Talking with Macedonians, one is overwhelmed by compassion over their linguistic confusion. Such a language can be defined negatively: by stating what it is not. The drive to replace the nationality of the Macedonians, making them Serbian, has actually called to life a kind of a creole tongue, which for its part might be helpful to the Serbians some generations later to "recommend" to the Macedonians Serbian as a literary language. And, in its current capacity of a literary Ianguage, Macedonian is open to Serbian, with the latter supplying the former. As to Bulgarian, it has fallen in total isolation.

With the political situation of today pregnant with options for new orientation, this destructive process needs to be contained, despite the deep traces it has left in the course of its 50-year-long development. I will refrain from forecasts as to the future direction linguistic development is likely to take. However, one thing is certain: the present shuation is quite unsatisfactory. Moreover, fears remain that there are quite a few people in Skopje, who might try to accomplish what has already been started. If so, a precedent for Europe might emerge when political glossotomy being a preliminary stage leading up to linguistic, respectively ethnic, changes, has turned out to be successful.

In view of the common, older than a millenium Bulgarian history, we can hope that political objectives resting upon numerous lies, will ultimately fail. Otherwise, the televised statement of a Serbian tchetnik on the Austrian Tv' might become a sad truth, notably, that Macedonians were not using a normal tongue, but a hotchpotch of Serbian plus Bulgarian words, hence, the Macedonians belonged to Serbia.

The fact that an American, Horace Lunt is the author of the Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language (Skopje, 1952), the first grammar-book of Macedonian (!) paving the way for a literary language tailored by the communists, attests to the profound "insight" Americans show in European problems.

Ways to tackle the "Macedonian problem":
1) Leaving behind the bilingual theory.

2) Wider access for Bulgarian so that it can be used parallel to the current form of the Macedonian literary language.

3) Optional teaching of Bulgarian in primary and secondary schools.

4) Establishment of an Institute of Bulgarian Language and Literature a1 the University of Skopje.

5) Usage of the Bulgarian alphabet (orthography) for the current form of the Macedonian literary language.

6) Lifting all restrictions over the free exchange of newspapers, magazines and literature between Macedonia and Bulgaria.

7) Linguistic integration by way of joint radio and TV broadcasts, as well as theatre shows and recitals in the two countries.

8) Creation of a joint institution on the Macedonian-Bulgarian linguistic matters. (The linguistic convergence could intensify in this way).

9) Avoidance of further serbization of the language.

10) Exchange of works of history between the two

11) The right of free choice of a surname.

12) Joint effort on behalf of Macedonia and Bulgaria for the recognition of the Slav-Bulgarian ethnic group in Aegean Macedonia (Greece) in compliance with the principles of the European minority rights (see: the linguistic map in "Die slawischen Sprachen" 15/1988).

13) Recognition of minorities based on uniform principles.

14) Observance of accurate terminology with regard to residents of Macedonia (Bulgarian Macedonians, Albanian Macedonians, Turkish Macedonians etc.) and of Bulgaria (Bulgarian Bulgarians, Turkish Bulgarians, Macedonian Bulgarians etc.) .

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/krons.../ik_3_eng.html

[morski]

Macedonia from S. S. Cyril and Methodius to Horace Lunt and Blazhe Koneski:
Language and Nationality
(Prof. James F. Clarke, The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs ; New York: Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1988.)


Among Americans increasing interest in Macedonian subjects is to be noted in academic circles. Few society meetings occur without Macedonia appearing on the program, usually in a linguistic form, but lacking historical perspective. Occasionally an article appears in a scholary journal such as one by Prof. Stephen Fisher - Galati on "IMRO" in the East European Quarterly, edited by him, but without first-hand knowledge of the subject. Perhaps more interesting is a book published in 1977 by the University of Pittsburgh Press, Reading the Ashes, An Anthology of the Poetry of Modern Macedonia. Basically a product of Skopje, the Introduction by the American editor is riddled with errors. It required 32 "translators" to translate the 26 poets. As is to be expected, it ignores, or is ignorant of, Bulgarian Macedonian history and literature, substituting instead myth and misinformation. It is my purpose here to describe how the myth of a Macedonian literary language got started.
There have been two so-called Macedonian literary languages separated by 1081 years. That of Cyril and Methodius was the first Slavic literary language, with the first Slavic alphabet - the Glagolitic, later transformed into the Cyrillic. This was adopted by all the Slavs and became a world language, the first language and alphabet in Europe with a religious basis. The other, as now practiced in Yugoslav Macedonia, is the latest, the smallest (exept for Lusatian Serbian) and we may presume, the last Slavic literary language. Cyril's Old Bulgarian, or Old Church Slavonic, was originally spoken by the Slav inhabitants of what is now Greek (or Aegean) Macedonia (Lunt, Old Church Slavonic, p. 2). New Macedonian is made up of dialects from the Centre of Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia.
My title would seem to put Horace Lunt in the position of isapostolos, or a latter-day Saint; "disciple" would be more appropriate. Like St. Cyril, he is a distinguished multilinguist. Since 1959 professor of Slavic at Harvard, he has worked both ends of the longMacedonian street. His first major work, written at the Biblical age 33, was a Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language (Skopje, 1952), the first languistic description and analysis in any language. Lunt's is the only grammar listed in Koneski's Istorija na Makedonskiot Jazik (History of the Macedonian Language, Skopje 1965), aside from his own. Only three years later (1974) came his Old Church Slavonic Grammar (6th ediction, rev.), described as "the first to be written in English" and for many years a standard work (J. O. Ferrell, Language, vol. 33, p. 450 - 453). A thousand years of spoken Macedonian separate these two grammars.
By-product of Lunt's work on the Macedonian language was his "Survey of Macedonian Literature" in the first volume of Harvard Slavic Studies (1954) of which he was editor. This also was a pioneer work (and remains the only English source - other than an English translation of one of Koneski's works. Towards the Macedonian Renaissance, Skopje, 1961). He has also published a few shorter pieces. Of special interest is an article, "The creation of Standard Macedonian" (Anthropological Linguistics, May, 1959).
Lunt himself tells us how he discovered Macedonia in the Preface to Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, p. 1. While in the U. S. Army in 1944, he stumbled on some partizan underground publications in a Macedonian dialect. After the war he attended lectures on Macedonian in Prague, and in 1950 at Bled, given by the leading Skopje authority, Blazhe Koneski, and sponsored by the Yugoslav Council for Science and Culture. In 1951, fresh from a Columbia Ph. D. (1950), he spent three months in Skopje with financial aid from the Yugoslav Council and the Macedonian Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. There he had the guidance and assistance of Prof. Koneski and associates at the University of Skopje. Thus, Koneski's Slavic Seminar acted as judge and jury in determining what was to be standard. Lunt's Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language was printed in Belgrade and published by the Macedonian State Press in Skopje in August 1952. It might, therefore, be considered official.

INSTANT STANDARD LITERARY MACEDONIAN
On August 2, 1944, one of the first acts of the 122 delegates from Macedonia to the Anti-Fascist National Liberation Council, meeting clandestinely at the St. Prohor Pchinski Monastery in Serbia, was the following decree:
1. In the Macedonian state as official language is adopted the People's Macedonian language.
2. This decision enters into force immediately.
(Dokumenti od sozdavanjeto i razvitokot na N. R. Makedonija, Documents on the Creation and Development of the P. R. of Macedonia, Skopje, 1949, p. 22)
This must be the quickest creation of a literary language in history. A Commission, including Blazhe Koneski, was appointed in December to spell out the new literary language. It came up with a new alphabet and orthography on May 3 and June 7, 1945.
After two centuries of Slavic scholarship, very little is known about the origins and nature of Old Bulgaria in Macedonia. Many questions remain and some probably always will. Although the locale of the language seems established, the ethnic origin of the sainted brothers is still disputed. It is hard for Slavs to accept them as anything but Slavs. Prof. Lunt calls them "Greeks" (Slavic Review, June, 1964, p. 216), but also refers to Macedonian as "St. Cyril's native Salonika dialect" (Lunt, Old Church Slavonic, p. 3). Many questions would be answered should we discover that their mother, or at least their wet-nurse, was a "native" (I'm told by Konstantin Mechev, a Cyrillo-Methodian scholar of Sofia, that after 5 month's research in Moscow, he has conclusive evidence that they were Slavs; e. g. Bulgarians). Even the traditional date for the language, 863, is disputed, especially by Russian and Bulgarian scholars, not all of whom are Marxists. Aside from such assertions that there must have been a couple of centuries of prior literary development (P. Dinekov, Deloto, 1100 godini, p. 5) we find such statements as "the brothers finished their epoch-making work in 855" (N. Todorov, et al, Bulgaria, Historical and Geographic Outline, Sofia, 1965, p. 28).
Considering the times and circumstances, it is inevitable that the great achievement of the two "Apostles to the Slavs" should still be shrouded in myths and legends. On the other hand, the second contemporary Macedonian literary language was created in the full light of our day. Yet this too is obscured by a growing Macedonian Myth. To it Horace Lunt has contributed his share and set the pace for subsequent American linguistics.
I am not here to quarrel with the current Macedonian literary language. No less an authority than Roman Jakobson years ago declared it the thirteenth Slavic literary language. Every man has the right to invent and write in his own language. Nor is the upgrading of a dialect into a literary language a heresy, though only in a totalitarian police state can this become standard overnight by decree.
To the 19th century the literary language used by Bulgarians in Macedonia was some form of Serb or Bulgarian variation of the Russianized Church Slavic with degrees of spoken admixtures, as in the so-called Damaskini. In the first part of the 19th century Greek (or Slavic with Greek letters) was also used but increasingly the literary language was the same as that used elsewhere in Bulgaria with occasional use of Macedonian dialects. Between the two wars in Yugoslavia, it was Serbian by compulsion, with Bulgarian proscribed. Now it is the new Macedonian, with Bulgarian proscribed, and with Serbo-Croatian as a second official language.
According to Prof. Lunt, Macedonian "came of age" with the 1951 publication of Koneski and Toshev's little Macedonian Orthography. He rather prematurely declared at the time he compiled his Grammar that Macedonian "had achieved a degree of homogenity comparable to that of the other Balkan languages" - this in the space of six precotions years (Grammar, p. 6). The chief architect of the language has been Prof. Koneski, President of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences, whom Lunt considers one of the best Macedonian authors. The first part of the Grammar came on the heels of Lunt's; the second, in 1954. His Dictionary, in three volumes, was published in 1961, 1965, and 1966, with definitions in Serbian. The last two volumes were delayed by the great Skopje earthquake. A major work is his History of the Macedonian Language (1965).
I too am prepared to stipulate that a kind of Macedonian literary language is in use in Skopje, although its growing pains are still showing. But to claim as Koneski does (The Macedonian Language in the Development of the Slavic Literary Language, 1968), that Macedonian is comparable to the other Slavic languages is nonsense. What interests me here are the ideological and the political rationalizations and the problems and myths thus created.

TITO'S MACEDONIA
Literary Macedonian owes its existence largely to Tito and the inclusion of Macedonia in his six-room federal house. The new federal idea was laid in 1942 and publicly hatched at Jajce in 1943. The new "co-equal" Macedonian republic was launched in 1944 at the St. Prohor Pchinski Monastery. The motives behind its existence help explain much of its subsequent character: Macedonian's relations with Belgrade had been a running, bloody sore in the interbellum period; to head off Stalin opting for the Bulgarian Communist Party's claims, Macedonia and the partizan movement there had to be forcibly tied to the new Yugoslavia; and there was the possibility of using Vardar Macedonia as a magnet or springboard for the acquisition of Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia and a restoration of partitioned Macedonia.
The elevation of Macedonia into the ranks of the historically and ethnically based Yugoslav federal republics had to be rationalized; ideologically, politically, historically, and culturally. A separate Macedonia had to have a separate and different official literary language - different both from Bulgarian and Serbian. The obvious necessity to use an existing spoken language meant deciding which of the many dialects to use. The Western Macedonian was chosen, which in Vardar Macedonia - meant the central dialect group, was removed as much as possible from both Bulgarian and Serbian contamination.*
At the same time, a separate Macedonian alphabet was devised, made unnecessarily different from the Bulgarian, including a few peculiarly Serbian letters, and containing some letters not found in any other Cyrillic alphabet** , but it is still closer to Bulgarian than anything else.
In other ways, the makers of Modem Macedonian have tried to be different. A folk-based language of a relatively primitive people finds it both necessary and difficult suddenly to adapt to mid twentieth century conditions. In addition to finding or coining local folk substitutes for Bulgarian literary expressions, the Macedonian language legislators avoid taking ready-to-hand Bulgarian (or Russian or Serbian) technical and other ultra-modern expressions in favor of Western, including American, terms. The purpose is to make Macedonian as different as possible. The result is barbarous jargon, literally a Macedonian Salad.
In contrast to the arbitrary severing of the Bulgarian literary umbilical cord, there is daily contact with Serbian via the school, press, radio, business, politics, and the army. For Macedonians, Serbian has to be a second, official language.

A STATE IN SEARCH OF ITS HISTORY: THE MACEDONIAN MYTH
Professor Lunt reminds us that a "language can be described and learned without the slightest knowledge of history" unfortunately true of some of American linguists, but also that the "elements of history are always present" (Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 2nd ed. 1959, p. x.). The new Macedonian state and language in particular required historical rationalization to justify their separatism. But the discouraging fact was that there was virtually no Macedonian "state" history, as such. Consequently the Skopje scholars have found it necessary to rewrite Balkan history at least as far back as Cyril and Methodius to make room for Macedonia. As Lunt says, "except for a brief period under Samuil at the end of the ninth (sic) century, Macedonia never had its own government" (Grammar, p. 3). Because the history of Macedonia has hitherto inevitably been written mostly in terms of Bulgaria, Macedonian historians are finding it necessary to deprive Bulgarians of some of their history, for example, St. Clement, chief disciple of Cyril and Methodius, whose anniversary on Ohrid in 1966 (with Professor Lunt as honored guest) was celebrated as a Macedonian affair. Another example is the Bogomils, whom the Macedonians have adopted as their very own national movement. On some of these points Macedonians have trouble convincing even their fellow Yugoslavs. But it is not my purpose here to retread Macedonian historiography and its catharsis of Bulgarian elements.

CONCLUSION
For Macedonians to deny their Bulgarian heritage is like Peter denying Christ. But Peter repented! You are familiar, I am sure, with all the distortions and denials of Bulgarian history, literature, and culture, as related to Macedonia eminating from Skopje. But we here too have scholars seemingly ignorant of Bulgarian Macedonian history. Take Prof. Golab of Chicago who cites a work by Russian scholar Selishchev on Polog and Its Bulgarian Inhabitants as Polog and Its Slav Inhabitants. It was at Chicago that Koneski got an honorary doctorate as "father of the Macedonian Language". Actually Tito was the "father" and Koneski the "mother" with Horace Lunt as "mid-wife". The kind of historical gymnastics and dialectical Macedonianism indulged in at Skopje puts the ideological cart before the historical horse: suddenly we had ultra-Macedonian Nationalism, a gift from Marx; then came the establishment of a "state", then the official language, then back-up "history" and finally what? A Macedonian Consciousness?
I see no quick or easy solution for today's version of the age-old Macedonian Questions, invented at the Congress of Berlin (1878). My conviction, however, is that historical truth will prevail and our task is to see that these truths must not be forgotten. This is the least we should do.
Prof. James F. Clarke



APPENDIX
Repercussion of the Macedonian emigration in USA about creation of the so-called Macedonian language (Macedonian Tribune, Volume 43, Number 2177, Indianapolis, March 27, 1969).

BULGARIAN... BULGARIAN DICTIONARY
The wild assimilatory campaign in the enslaved Macedonian land near Vardar often seems pitiful and funny. The Skopian janissaries not only are embroiled to death with the elementary historic truths but also they're trying to do the same with the truth about the alphabet. For them it is a rule to call black white, they are used to maintain, that the sun does not rise from the east, but from the west, that the satellite of the Earth is not the Moon, but ... Yugoslavia.
In this preculiar way, the decision was made in Skopje to issue Bulgarian - Macedonian dictionary. It is necessary for them to prove to their own people and, if it is possible, to some foreigners, that the population near Vardar has no relationship to the Bulgarian nation and Bulgaria. The above mentioned dictionary is already a fact and let's say at the beginning - one more fact of the failure of Tito's assimilatory mission.Its' authors M. Miadenov, D. Tsarvenkovski and B. Blagoevski are Bulgarians by origin - in all their documents till 1945 they have ascertained themselves their Bulgarian origin, they have graduated Bulgarian schools. They speak Bulgarian and Serbian fluently. In the last 20 years they are trying to distort their conscience and play the role of creators of literary "Macedonian" language. We must confess that they are very determined in the creation of the dictionary, to alienate their language from the Bulgarian and to make it look like Serbian. Fortunately they have not succeeded.
On the first page for the explanations of the abbreviations we see:

abrev.
Macedonian

Bulgarian

transl.
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
ав. авиациja aviatsiya авиация aviatsiya aviation
адми. администрациja administratsiya администрация administratsiya administration
анат. анатомиja anatomiya анатомия anatomiya anatomy
археол. археологиja arheologiya археология arheologiya archaeology
архит. архитектура arhitektura архитектура arhitektura architecture
Afterwards is published the "Macedonian" alphabet and we notice with admiration and anger at the same time because of the impudence that this is the holy Bulgarian alphabet (Cyrillic). There are only two changes - the Bulgarian Щ (sht) is written as ШТ (sht) and second - they have suppressed the Bulgarian Ъ*** The first change is hardly noticeable but the second leads to jokes. For example:

Bulgarian

Macedonian

translation
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
щръклица shtraklitsa штръклица shtraklitsa species of fly
върба varba врба varba willow
изтръпвам iztrapvam изтрпвам iztrapvam numb

Sometimes the Bulgarian Ъ and **** are changed with the Bulgarian A. For example:

Bulgarian

Macedonian

translation
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
път pat пат pat way
зъзна zazna зазна zazna have a cold

Here start the words. As in all dictionaries the beggining is for the words starting with A. Let's have a look at the first page:

Bulgarian

Macedonian

translation
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
абаджия abadziya абаџиja abadziya weaver
абдикация abdikatsiya абдикациja abdikatsiya abdication
абстрактен abstrakten апстрактен apstrakten abstract
абстрахирам abstrahiram апстрахирам abstrahiram to abstract
абсурд absurd апсурд aзsurd nonsense
август avgust август avgust August
автор avtor автор avtor autor
aкo ako ako аkо if
адрес adres адрес adres address
астма astma астма astma asthma
атака ataka атака ataka assault
афион afion афион afion poppy
ax ah ax ah oh

Let's go to the words of the second Bulgarian letter Б:

Bulgarian

Macedonian

translation
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
баба baba баба baba gammer
бавене bavene бавене bavene slow-coach
бавно bavno бавно bavno slow
багаж bagazh багаж bagazh baggage
багра bagra багра bagra bloom
баджанак badzhanak бацанак badzhanak brother in law
байряк bayryak баjpak bayryak banner
балама balama балама balama stupid
белег beleg белег beleg blaze

Or with the letter E:

Bulgarian

Macedonian

translation
writen

pronun.

writen

pronun.
евнух evnuh евнух evnuh eunuch
еволюирам evolyuiram еволуирам evoluiram evolve
евреин evrein евреин evrein jew
европеец evropeets европеец evropeets european
евтиния evtiniya евтиниja evtiniya cheapness
егейски egeyski егеjски egeyski Aegean
егоист egoist егоист egoist egoist
еделвайс edelvays еделваjс edelvays edelweiss
единайсет edinayset единаесет edinaeset eleven
ерес eres ерес eres heresy
езеро ezero езеро ezero lake

...
This can be seen in the whole dictionary. Only when the existence of Serbian words in the "Macedonian" language must be justified, then they resort to translation. Or when they get to the archaisms from the Bulgarian language that have remained in the "Macedonian". For example:

не ме е еня, B. - не ми е гаjле, M.
бръснарница, B. - берберница, M.
обущарница, B. - кондурџиjница, M.

The Bulgarian word мелничар (melnichar) is "translated" in "Macedonian" as воденичар (vodenichar) and the Bulgarian воденичар (vodenichar) is "translated" as мелничар (melnichar). But both words are Bulgarian and mean a miller.This dictionary can be well called Bulgarian - Bulgarian and then one can't justify its creation. The Skopian linguists tried to justify this booklet by writing series of notices in different newspapers. They wrote: "This dictionary will be helpful mainly to Bulgarian guests that visit our restaurants, hotels, cinemas, and other public places, in their conversations with Macedonian citizens". But the Bulgarians that visit the unfortunate Vardar area felt proud that their brothers and sisters speak just like them. So they have no need of this dictionary. This was proved by its creators who "translated" over 5 thousand Bulgarian words into ... pure Bulgarian language.

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/other/clarke.html

[Europa]

Woo you are going to get in dip shit for this thread

[lepa]

Yeah, yeah, and what you will achieve with this?

[poiuytrewq0987]

... or maybe it's the other way around? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia and the Former Soviet Republic of Bulgaria speak a dialect of Macedonian?

[morski]

... or maybe it's the other way around? The Former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia and the Former Soviet Republic of Bulgaria speak a dialect of Macedonian?

[morski]

IV. Пътища на cърбизиране на македонския казионен “език”

Посърбяването на езика на македонските българи бе задача номер едно на Новакович при организирания от него поход на сръбската пропаганда в Македония, защото езикът е душата на един народ. Когато тая душа бъде поразена, победата ще бъде пълна.

И ето на какво сме свидетели днес в СР Македония; посърбяването на езика там носи следните форми:

1. В областта на азбуката и фонетиката (звуковете).

2. В областта на морфологията и лексиката:

а) Вмъкване в речника на безброй сръбски думи.
б) Създаване на сърбизми („помакедончени” сръбски думи) чрез прибавяне на българско окончание или с промяна на основни гласни.
в) Избягване на български окончания, характерни за книжовния български език (останали от старобългарски), и приемане на сръбски окончания.
г) Употреба на чужди, предимно на френски думи в сръбски облик.
д) Сръбски форми на познати названия от чужд или домашен произход.
е) Сръбски научни и технически термини.
ж) Пренебрегване на съществуващи народни думи и приемане на съответни сръбски думи и изрази.

3. В областта на синтаксиса (строежа на изречението):

а) Сръбски строеж на изречението чрез съответни съюзи.
б) Сръбски строеж на изречението чрез употреба на съответни предлози и др.

Няма съмнение, че с всичко това македонският казионен „език” става все по-чужд за народа. Той трябва да бъде изучаван от самите македонски българи със същите усилия, с които се изучава един чужд славянски език. Върху това красноречиво говори и следният анекдот. В Гевгели имало родителско-учителска среща. Учителят е говорил върху възпитанието на децата, докладвал за мерките на училището и подчертал дълга на родителите във връзка с това. Обаче неговият македонистки. т.е. сърбомакедонски „език” не е бил разбран и родителите стоели


81

в недоумение какво им е говорено. Тогава учителят казал: „Я да ви го кажа на гевгелийски, та да се разбереме по човечки”.

http://www.promacedonia.org/statii/m...hanov.html#4_2

[poiuytrewq0987]

Macedonian ethnicity evolved from a regional identity that was often considered either Serbian or Bulgarian. It's like Luxembourg or Switzerland where they don't feel German but Luxemburger and Swiss.

Our regional identity has always been there but obviously with some Bulgarian/Serbian overtones because of the dominating roles both countries had in the Balkans.

The only mistake we made was the adoption of antiquity. But in reality, we were driven to claim antiquity because of extremist Greek and Bulgarian attitudes. The Bulgarian claim of Macedonians being simply Bulgarian and the Greek obstruction during the 90s drove us to a claim a history that wasn't exclusively ours and too far back in history to feel any connection with.

[morski]

Maps of the Bulgarian dialect-continuum: