100% Agree.
Printable View
In this 1914 map you can clearly see the Serbs dominate Northern Vardarska with ethnic Slavic Macedonians in the south. :coffee:
http://teachers.ausd.net/socialsci/map-Europe-1914.jpg
Bullshit
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/7158/fyroman.jpg
http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/003
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/5177/fyroman2.jpg
http://books.google.com/books?id=_kn...donian&f=false
Its simple, they were called Bulgarians prior 40's by their neighbors and rest of the world. In Albania there lived a minority of Slavs that was called Bulgarians by the Albanians, but in recent times it have been changed to Macedonians? identity crises? It its commonly known that slavo-macedonian is an Bulgarian dialect.
Another from 1914.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%281914%29.jpg
And a pearl from Eupedia. :D
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8590/...icoeuropeo.png
Hm... I think that map is too much post-Reconquest centered, don't you agree? there's a much more complicated substractum.
I would say that Castela is a point of convergence between the East and West. I'd say that Castillians have their own reality distinct from the West, centered in the hinterland.
It's curious to assess that in terms of linguistics, we Portuguese are not so acquainted with Catalan because of centuries of isolationm, but if you put someone who had never had contact with castillian or catalan, catalan will be phonetically easier to discern, you know?
1. After Serbia retook Vardarska in the liberation wars; the inhabitants of Vardarska were so happy because they considered themselves to be no different to Serbs. Unlike Bulgaria when it illegally annexed Vardarska in WW1 and WW2, there were revolutionary groups that tried to throw off the Bulgarian yoke.
2. It's true that Slavic Macedonians (Macedonian purely in a geographic sense dating back to Ottoman times when the region was called Macedonia by the Ottomans) never identified overwhelmingly as Serb or Bulgarian because ethnogenesis of Slavs in Macedonia never happened. They were just Slavs from the Carpathians living in Macedonia as peasants.
3. Macedonian language, of course, was never offered the distinction because it was the language of peasants in Vardarska and Macedonia. Of course, they're going to consider it a dialect of Serb/Bulgarian, whatever because there was no Macedonian nobility since ethnogenesis never took place.
4. If no Macedonian consciousness existed before the Communist period then do explain the existence of men like Chento who tried to fight for a free Macedonia long before Communism ever took place?
5. Vardarska has always been important part of Serbia since time immemorial. It was where Tsar Dusan (unarguably the greatest Serbian leader) was crowned Caesar and Skoplje was the capital of the Serbian Empire. Northern Vardarska should be annexed to Serbia whereas Southern portions can go to either Bulgaria or Greece for all I care.
You mean in Iberia? Well, the current situation of distinct ethnicities goes back indeed to the formation of different Neolatin groups that got expanded thanks to the Reconquest.
Today, yes. But the original Kingdom of Asturias hosted Asturians proper, Gallaecians and Proto-Castilians. Hence why Portuguese, Asturian and Castilian/Spanish are so close linguistically and in other aspects.
Phonetically, Catalan and Portuguese are richer than Castilian because they preserved much of the medieval phonology, while Castilian simplified it in the Middle Ages, adopting sounds that are alien to the rest of Romance languages, like their j and z.
Völkerkarte von Sudosteuropa, L. Ravenstein.
Tell that to Eupedia! :p