The Codex Zographensis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Coolski
    Member
    • Sep 2008
    • 747

    #16
    I would say that the dark vowel is required for existing Macedonian dialects within the Republic of Macedonia. One side of my family uses the dark vowel all the time.

    I'll also add that the characters with which our Alphabet varies compared with the Serb alphabet, is almost 1:1. This is evident by investigating the logical order of the Serbian letters in their alphabet, when compared with the illogical replacement of the sounds in the order of the Macedonian alphabet.

    SR: абвгдђежз_ијклљмнњопрстћуфхцчџш.

    MK: абвгдѓежзѕијклљмнњопрстќуфхцчџш.

    Why does ѓ appear after д and not г in the Macedonian alphabet? Because it is placed after the д in the Serbian alphabet, and it is the Macedonian equivalent of the Serbian palatised д (ђ). Logic would imply that our alphabet would read абвгѓд... but it doesn't.

    The same story goes with ќ, which was another swapped character in the Macedonian alphabet. It appears after т in the Macedonian alphabet, rather than к. When we realise that what comes after т in the Serbian alphabet is in fact palatised т (Ћћ) it somehow makes sense in Serbian but not in Macedonian.

    They didn't even bother swapping the order to reflect logic!

    Other than our extra character ѕ (dz) and ѐ ѝ, our current script is very much a slight tweak from the modern Serbian alphabet.

    We have every legitimacy to use whatever original cyrillic characters we like I say, and why not write in an alphabet that not only belongs to us, but more logically and flexibly represents what all of our dialects sound like?
    - Секој чоек и нација има можност да успеат колку шо си дозволуваат. Нема изговор.
    - Every human and nation has the ability to be as great or as weak as they allow themselves to be. No excuses.

    Comment

    • Po-drum
      Junior Member
      • Mar 2009
      • 66

      #17
      Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post

      If you read 19th century Macedonian literature you will see the use of нь, ль, гь and кьe (or even кѥ) used where they essentially represent the same sound as њ, љ, ѓ and ќ. The j was never necessary, we could have used an existing Cyrillic i or й or in other cases я and ѥ. I am in two minds about the letter џ, I suppose it could have been given a pass to avoid using two letters for the sake of forming a single sound, but it seems to be used only for foreign loanwords. The letter ъ was an absolute necessity in words like късмет, it never should have been excluded given that it is distinctly Cyrillic and could also have been used in words like църква, първа, търка, ъргьa. If we did this, it would not have marginalised any dialects, and would still make sense (phonetically) to speakers of the dialects in the republic because in most cases it is practically silent.

      In the end, our current version of the Cyrillic alphabet - despite the fact that original Cyrillic was based on one of our own dialects - is probably the most simplistic and bastardised of all along with Serbian. We should have stayed true to our literary tradition.
      I don't think it's bastardised but rather I would say it's very easy for learning and practical use (on the contrary you have english where you don't know how to write what you have heard). That was one of the basic principles when it'was codified.
      I don't see substantial difference between "нь, ль" and "њ, љ", the second forms are just ligatures and they are very useful invention of Vuk Karadzich. The same principle was proposed about ѓ, ќ but the second commission have accepted with little modification the way Krste P. Misirkov have written them: г', к'. Same way is used by Selishchev in his book about macedonian dialects.
      џ is used for first time in Romanian Cyrillic alphabet by 15-16 century, there is no need of two signs. It's easier.
      About "j" the arguments were:
      -it goes very often with "и" and use of "i" would make confusion in macedonian post WW2 citizens and students.
      -there was already established practice for use of this sign in Vardar Macedonia under serbian occupation.
      I agree there was politicaly motivated removal of already present sign for the dark vowel in macedonian alphabet from november 1944.
      Originally posted by Coolski View Post
      I would say that the dark vowel is required for existing Macedonian dialects within the Republic of Macedonia. One side of my family uses the dark vowel all the time.

      We have every legitimacy to use whatever original cyrillic characters we like I say, and why not write in an alphabet that not only belongs to us, but more logically and flexibly represents what all of our dialects sound like?
      First of all our language is very different from the language from 10,11,12,13 century..
      Dark vowel or "призвук" as it's described in macedonian grammar is object of discussions in all languages where it's present.
      In our dialects with little exceptions it is secondary developed on places (of yus) where it was not found in the old texts because old ъ<o(сон) and ь<e(ден) in allmost all macedonian dialects (with exception of the most northern ones). As we all know according to the formulations by Misirkov, central dialects are taken as basis for the formation of macedonian alphabet and grammatic. In those dialects this sound or semi-vocal plays "marginal function" and is found in very little number of words (ф рла, г рло) and some turkish words where it's defined as vocal "r" or marked with apostrophe. This are the arguments given by Blaze Koneski.
      Macedonian dialects have different characteristics and all versions can't be incorporated in the literary language.
      Last edited by Po-drum; 12-30-2011, 04:21 PM.
      Macedonia - my shoulders from ruins and skies

      Comment

      • Soldier of Macedon
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 13670

        #18
        Originally posted by Po-drum
        I don't think it's bastardised but rather I would say it's very easy for learning and practical use (on the contrary you have english where you don't know how to write what you have heard).
        Po-drum, we can try and explain it however we like, at the end of the day, our alphabet has been bastardised.
        I don't see substantial difference between "нь, ль" and "њ, љ", the second forms are just ligatures and they are very useful invention of Vuk Karadzich.
        If our people had no problem learning the alphabet as it was for a 1000 years, I don't see why certain elements should have been 'simplified' based on the invention of a Serb. Cyrillic alphabets were never meant to be "write as you speak", and I am pretty sure if some peasant in Bulgaria can handle this, then so could the descendants of the people who created Cyrillic. Aside from the Serbs (and now Macedonians), no other Slavic-speaking peoples use the Cyrillic alphabet in this manner.
        The same principle was proposed about ѓ, ќ but the second commission have accepted with little modification the way Krste P. Misirkov have written them: г', к'. Same way is used by Selishchev in his book about macedonian dialects.
        If you want to compare, then there are much more Macedonian literary figures who used the original letters like Pejcinovik, Miladinovci, Shapkarev, Cepenkov, etc.
        џ is used for first time in Romanian Cyrillic alphabet by 15-16 century, there is no need of two signs. It's easier.
        That has little to do with Macedonian. How many native Macedonian words are there which use that letter? I can't think of any. It seems that it is only used for foreign loanwords or suffixes. Even Misirkov doesn't use it.
        About "j" the arguments were:
        -it goes very often with "и" and use of "i" would make confusion in macedonian post WW2 citizens and students.
        That is a poor excuse and an insult towards Macedonians, like they are that stupid that they wouldn't be able to work out an alphabet their own ancestors created.
        -there was already established practice for use of this sign in Vardar Macedonia under serbian occupation.
        Whoever put forth that argument is an idiot.
        Macedonian dialects have different characteristics and all versions can't be incorporated in the literary language.
        That may be so, but that doesn't mean the alphabet should contribute to the limitation. Koneski and co. did not do enough when codifying the literary language, they did not take enough consideration of the obvious fact that Macedonian is spoken in a much greater area than the confines of the Macedonian republic.
        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

        Comment

        • Po-drum
          Junior Member
          • Mar 2009
          • 66

          #19
          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          Po-drum, we can try and explain it however we like, at the end of the day, our alphabet has been bastardised.

          If our people had no problem learning the alphabet as it was for a 1000 years, I don't see why certain elements should have been 'simplified' based on the invention of a Serb. Cyrillic alphabets were never meant to be "write as you speak", and I am pretty sure if some peasant in Bulgaria can handle this, then so could the descendants of the people who created Cyrillic. Aside from the Serbs (and now Macedonians), no other Slavic-speaking peoples use the Cyrillic alphabet in this manner.
          I think it would be fair, if we would be more realistic (as you are allways trying to be).
          In the first days of Macedonian Republic there was need of alphabet which would be easy for the people to use it.
          We should not forget that the rate of illiteracy among the Macedonians was very high in those times. There was not even enough teachers about the new macedonian schools, and the first teachers were with just 5-6 years of education.
          So those people had tried to make some connection with the educational results achieved in serbian schools between first and second world wars, and from that point of view it was OK. But maybe there was need of reconstruction after some 2-3 decades. Even today, it should not be taboo for no one. But we are still insecure as a nation, having on mind how we are still attacked from all sides by our neighbours. We have to get rid of all national complexes which don't give us opportunity to make future progress for unification as a people (one of them is your problem with Vuk Karadzich. I am quite sure you hate his very useful inventions just because he is Serb )
          On the other side I agree that local patriotism and servitude towards serbian-communists of Blaze Koneski and co. have played negative role in this context.
          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          If you want to compare, then there are much more Macedonian literary figures who used the original letters like Pejcinovik, Miladinovci, Shapkarev, Cepenkov, etc.
          The place of Krste Petkov Misirkov in macedonian linguistic and national history can't be same with the others. All those you have numbered were without clear national consciousness.
          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          That has little to do with Macedonian. How many native Macedonian words are there which use that letter? I can't think of any. It seems that it is only used for foreign loanwords or suffixes. Even Misirkov doesn't use it.
          OK. But as in the case of "s" it was taken as an unofficial principle not to use digraphs for a single voice. The fact that it was not serbian I guess was the reason not even to discus about it.
          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          That is a poor excuse and an insult towards Macedonians, like they are that stupid that they wouldn't be able to work out an alphabet their own ancestors created.

          Whoever put forth that argument is an idiot.
          I agree with you, but only from today point of view.
          Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
          That may be so, but that doesn't mean the alphabet should contribute to the limitation. Koneski and co. did not do enough when codifying the literary language, they did not take enough consideration of the obvious fact that Macedonian is spoken in a much greater area than the confines of the Macedonian republic.
          Agree.
          B. Koneski and company have had enough time to improve the mistakes they have done in 44-45. Very often big peoples are making begginers mistakes just because of their vanity.
          Last edited by Po-drum; 12-30-2011, 04:20 PM.
          Macedonia - my shoulders from ruins and skies

          Comment

          • Soldier of Macedon
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2008
            • 13670

            #20
            Originally posted by Po-drum
            In the first days of Macedonian Republic there was need of alphabet which would be easy for the people to use it.
            I don't agree. Generally speaking, a Bulgarian peasant was no more literate or able in the 1870's than their Macedonian equivalent in the 1940's. I think the matter of Macedonians learning the proper alphabet was an entirely realistic expectation. There was no need to dumb it down.
            We have to get rid of all national complexes which don't give us opportunity to make future progress for unification as a people (one of them is your problem with Vuk Karadzich. I am quite sure you hate his very useful inventions just because he is Serb )
            You're creating excuses for the mistakes of Koneski and co. I couldn't care if Karadzic was a Bulgarian or a Russian, there is no good reason why we should have strayed from something perfectly useful - our own existing alphabet.
            The place of Krste Petkov Misirkov in macedonian linguistic and national history can't be same with the others. All those you have numbered were without clear national consciousness.
            That doesn't mean his example should have been given preference over the proper alphabet (not that the current alphabet is exactly the same as his anyway). We lost a long and traditional precedent unnnecessarily.
            OK. But as in the case of "s" it was taken as an unofficial principle not to use digraphs for a single voice.
            The case with 's' is different. It has a history in early Cyrillic and is a sound that is present in native Macedonian words like ѕвезда, ѕид, ѕвер, ѕвони and ноѕе.
            The fact that it was not serbian I guess was the reason not even to discus about it.
            The fact that it was not an unnecessary foreign element. You don't seem to place much concern on preservation and appear to be indirectly showing some sort of apologetic disposition towards Serbian influence. I see that as more of a problem that my moderate preservationist tendencies.
            In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

            Comment

            • Po-drum
              Junior Member
              • Mar 2009
              • 66

              #21
              Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
              I don't agree. Generally speaking, a Bulgarian peasant was no more literate or able in the 1870's than their Macedonian equivalent in the 1940's. I think the matter of Macedonians learning the proper alphabet was an entirely realistic expectation. There was no need to dumb it down.

              You're creating excuses for the mistakes of Koneski and co. I couldn't care if Karadzic was a Bulgarian or a Russian, there is no good reason why we should have strayed from something perfectly useful - our own existing alphabet.

              That doesn't mean his example should have been given preference over the proper alphabet (not that the current alphabet is exactly the same as his anyway). We lost a long and traditional precedent unnnecessarily.

              The case with 's' is different. It has a history in early Cyrillic and is a sound that is present in native Macedonian words like ѕвезда, ѕид, ѕвер, ѕвони and ноѕе.

              The fact that it was not an unnecessary foreign element. You don't seem to place much concern on preservation and appear to be indirectly showing some sort of apologetic disposition towards Serbian influence. I see that as more of a problem that my moderate preservationist tendencies.
              In fact only a few words have preserved old "s": ѕвезда, јанѕа. Sвер, ѕид, ноѕе, ѕвони have developed secondary "s" around XIII century on the place of "з".
              In cyrillic alphabet we have "ф", but it's not originally slavic sound. Sign for "ф" is introduced for expression of greek words. But both this sounds (ф, џ) are functionaly present in macedonian language and throughout dialects so I don't see problem of expressing them.

              You have strange criterias of what necessery is. First of all you have to understand that standard language is "necessary evil" as someones are saying.
              My apologetic attitude is not directed towards serbian influence as such, but more for the peoples who had been in situation to implement it. In that context I'm trying to unerstand not only victims of serbian but also those of bulgarian and greek influence (Prlichev, Miladinovci, Zinzifov). They are part of our history, and if we don't agree with their views and works that doesn't meen it didn't happened.

              It's ridiculous to concern about something wich is not alive.
              How many people were using that "proper" alphabet in Macedonia (with je, tita, , psi,..)? They were understanding church slavonic in the same extent they understood greek liturgies. It is unneccesery to write complicated forms when you have more simplistic and useful variants. We don't live in X century. I understood that the major difference between us is in the defining what is ours. I think ours is everything we posses together with our negative attributes. From the aspect of linguistic you think ours are just the slavic texts that have been written in IX and X centuries.
              But how do you know they (Cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets) were not elitistic one (those who don't care about preservation of originality)??
              Why do you perceive our language history from the position of XIX century panslavistic view of what is ours and what is not?

              Are you against the concept of Misirkov for construction of standard language on the basis of selection of one dialect who would be enough distant from bulgarian, serbian, greek and albanian influenced periferial dialects?
              Last edited by Po-drum; 12-31-2011, 09:40 AM.
              Macedonia - my shoulders from ruins and skies

              Comment

              • Soldier of Macedon
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 13670

                #22
                Originally posted by Po-drum View Post
                In fact only a few words have preserved old "s": ѕвезда, јанѕа. Sвер, ѕид, ноѕе, ѕвони have developed secondary "s" around XIII century on the place of "з".
                Do you have any further information regarding the above? How and why did 'з' develop into 's' in the 13th century? Can it be ruled out that the sound already existed in spoken Macedonian vernacular and began to influence old (church) Macedonian literature?
                In cyrillic alphabet we have "ф", but it's not originally slavic sound. Sign for "ф" is introduced for expression of greek words.
                You're right, but the 'ф' was introduced when Cyrillic was originally created. Not after it had been in existence for over 1000 years. Furthermore, in modern Macedonian 'ф' is now a sound (deriving from 'хв') for some native words.
                But both this sounds (ф, џ) are functionaly present in macedonian language and throughout dialects so I don't see problem of expressing them.
                There was no need for the 'џ'. It is only required for foreign words and Macedonians would have done just fine without it. But like I said before, it doesn't bother me as much as some of the other inclusions.
                You have strange criterias of what necessery is. First of all you have to understand that standard language is "necessary evil" as someones are saying.
                You find it strange because you don't understand that preservation need not suffer as a result of supposed 'practicality'. Like many other Macedonians, you underestimate the capability of your own people.
                My apologetic attitude is not directed towards serbian influence as such, but more for the peoples who had been in situation to implement it. In that context I'm trying to unerstand not only victims of serbian but also those of bulgarian and greek influence (Prlichev, Miladinovci, Zinzifov). They are part of our history, and if we don't agree with their views and works that doesn't meen it didn't happened.
                The people who introduced these new changes and/or innovations during standardisation weren't forced to do so. They chose to do so, some for illogical reasons which you now appear to be making excuses for.
                How many people were using that "proper" alphabet in Macedonia (with je, tita, , psi,..)? They were understanding church slavonic in the same extent they understood greek liturgies.
                I don't see a need for older letters that represent sounds no longer in use. But I am talking about new letters that didn't need to be introduced.
                It is unneccesery to write complicated forms when you have more simplistic and useful variants.
                Russians, Belorussians, Ukranians and Bulgarians don't have a problem using so-called 'complicated forms' of OUR alphabet. Again, this comes down to our differing views where it concerns preservation. You seem happy to accept the manipulation of our alphabet, I don't.
                I think ours is everything we posses together with our negative attributes. From the aspect of linguistic you think ours are just the slavic texts that have been written in IX and X centuries.
                You seem to be confusing the language with the alphabet. What negative attributes are you talking about, and how are they ours?
                But how do you know they (Cyrillic and glagolitic alphabets) were not elitistic one (those who don't care about preservation of originality)??
                What are you talking about?
                Why do you perceive our language history from the position of XIX century panslavistic view of what is ours and what is not?
                It is rather obvious what is ours and what isn't. I understand how foreign influences in our language have come about and why they have a place today. But I don't agree that foreign influences or unnecessary manipulations have a place in our alphabet.
                Are you against the concept of Misirkov for construction of standard language on the basis of selection of one dialect who would be enough distant from bulgarian, serbian, greek and albanian influenced periferial dialects?
                No, because the central dialect would be more readily understood by most other Macedonian dialects. But what does that have to do with the alphabet?
                In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

                Comment

                Working...
                X