News in the Pomak language

[Risto the Great]

I wonder where you saw the Greece influence and accent. They only use some Greek words for modern terms (e.g. police, antenna, strike, identity card etc).

The way they pronounce their "sh" which is almost a struggle for them ... they say more of a pinched "s". This is a new phenomena with the younger Macedonians in Egej as well.

[Coolski]

It sounds very similar to aegean Macedonian dialects to me. I have much more trouble understanding Bulgarian than I do these videos.

As for the accents and the inability to pronounce "С" or "Ш", approximating both to "σ" is a speech retardation in our language introduced by heavy Greek influence.

The same happens between the sounds "З" and "Ж", being approximated to "ζ" in today's Greek (like a vague combination of з and ж).

Similarly "ѕ" and "џ" being approximated to "Τζ" in today's Greek. Again, a vague combination of ѕ and џ.

[George S.]

how many pomaks is there around??

[Mastika]

Pomaks don't have a tradition of... writing in their language using any alphabet. I believe a first dictionary of their supposed language appeared in the 90s. Of course Greeks don't want to admit this is basically a version of Bulgarian language (by the way, is it?) so it was often presented as a unique thing.

The Bulgarian language has been written in Cyrillic for centuries, the whole use of this 'Pomak' term is simply to deny these people of their identity and to distance them from their fellow Bulgarian (Muslims) who live just across the border (where have we seen this occur before?). And yes what they are speaking is Bulgarian, however heavily corrupted by Greek influences (words/accent).

The Greeks tried the same thing with the Aegean Macedonians by calling them 'Slavic speakers/Slavophones' in an attempt to make them seem less Macedonian. Good thing most are still aware of their Macedonian roots and have rejected the greek nonsense.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Mastika, care to explain what is 'Bulgarian' and not Macedonian about this language?

[Mastika]

Mastika, care to explain what is 'Bulgarian' and not Macedonian about this language?

For starters the language is not spoken in Macedonia, rather is spoken in Thrace (ie East of the Mesta river). Sure it may be closer to the Macedonian spoken in Kukush and Ser rather than the Bulgarian spoken in Varna and Dobrich, however this does not make it Macedonian. It is due to the dialect continuum, however I know that you know this already.

[Soldier of Macedon]

For starters the language is not spoken in Macedonia, rather is spoken in Thrace (ie East of the Mesta river). Sure it may be closer to the Macedonian spoken in Kukush and Ser rather than the Bulgarian spoken in Varna and Dobrich, however this does not make it Macedonian. It is due to the dialect continuum, however I know that you know this already.

It doesn't have to be spoken in Macedonia to be Macedonian. I would argue that the Macedonian identity has more historical validity in the south of 'greater' Thrace than the Bulgarian identity. By what logic do you classify it as 'Bulgarian', if it is closer to Macedonian dialects?

[Mastika]

It doesn't have to be spoken in Macedonia to be Macedonian.

Where does the Macedonian language end then?, if not at the geographic borders of Macedonia?

I would argue that the Macedonian identity has more historical validity in the south of 'greater' Thrace than the Bulgarian identity.

I've never heard the quote "Macedonia AND Thrace for the Macedonians". Please show me evidence that a Macedonian ethnic identity existed amongst the Thracians?!

By what logic do you classify it as 'Bulgarian', if it is closer to Macedonian dialects?

You are just being stubborn and you are perfectly aware that it is classified as Bulgarian, I am simply following linguistic convention. The logic being used is that it is one of the Rup dialects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rup_dialects) which forms part of the Bulgarian dialect group.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Where does the Macedonian language end then?, if not at the geographic borders of Macedonia?

The Macedonian language isn't contained by state borders, which are merely artificial boundaries that don't reflect reality. You said it yourself, Pomak is closer to eastern Macedonian dialects (both geographically and linguistically) than it is to the 'typical' Bulgarian dialects of the east.

I've never heard the quote "Macedonia AND Thrace for the Macedonians". Please show me evidence that a Macedonian ethnic identity existed amongst the Thracians?!

We have already discussed your inability to understand that Macedonia, Macedonians and the Macedonian identity have a history prior to the 19th century. During East Roman times, the south of Thrace was populated by 'Slavic' speaking peoples, and was a place where the Macedonian identity flourished along with the 'Macedonia Theme'. This theme was established (in adjacent territory to the east of historical Macedonia) well after the first invasions from the Danube during Justin and Justinian's days, and there are practical reasons why it was named 'Macedonia'.

You are just being stubborn and you are perfectly aware that it is classified as Bulgarian, I am simply following linguistic convention.

I am aware of its official classification, I was hoping you could provide some critical thought as to why it is and should be labelled 'Bulgarian', but all you gave me is borders drawn up in the 19th century.

[Vangelovski]

Where does the Macedonian language end then?, if not at the geographic borders of Macedonia?

Until now, I was under the impression that I spoke Macedonian. I guess I was really speaking Australian (plus English).

[Mastika]

The Macedonian language isn't contained by state borders, which are merely artificial boundaries that don't reflect reality.

Thats right, however the Mesta river is generally considered the Eastern most border of the Macedonian geographical region and of the ethnic Macedonian people.

You said it yourself, Pomak is closer to eastern Macedonian dialects (both geographically and linguistically) than it is to the 'typical' Bulgarian dialects of the east.

I'm sure that it is much closer to the Bulgarian spoken in Smolyan than the Macedonian spoken in Ser. However of course it has more in common with some Macedonian dialects than say some Bulgarian dialects from the North etc. This is the way the dialect continuum works.

Their language is not Macedonian and there is no purpose served by claiming that the Macedonian language is native to Thrace.

We have already discussed your inability to understand that Macedonia, Macedonians and the Macedonian identity have a history prior to the 19th century. During East Roman times, the south of Thrace was populated by 'Slavic' speaking peoples, and was a place where the Macedonian identity flourished along the 'Macedonia Theme'. This theme was established (in adjacent territory to the east of historical Macedonia) well after the first invasions from the Danube during Justin and Justinian's days, and there are practical reasons why it was named 'Macedonia'.

What is your point? Thracians are not ethnically Macedonian nor do they identify as such. Frankly It means very little to me what people from Thrace identify as, given that they are clearly not Macedonian.

I am aware of its official classification, I was hoping you could provide some critical thought as to why it is and should be labelled 'Bulgarian', but all you gave me is borders drawn up in the 19th century.

Ok, here are some features of the dialect which have more in common with standard bulgarian and not standard Macedonian.

- Use of YA and not E, byalo and not belo etc.
- Use of шт and not ќ
- use of жд and not ѓ
- use of a х in words such as (х)убаво

sure, some Macedonian dialects have similar features but that is the way the dialect continuum works, I am not discussing it further as it is clear to everyone what language this 'Pomak language' really is.

[Niko777]

I've never heard the quote "Macedonia AND Thrace for the Macedonians". Please show me evidence that a Macedonian ethnic identity existed amongst the Thracians?!

Another name for VMRO was the "Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization". Adrianople = Thrace. Many Macedonians went to fight for freedom in Thrace and many Thracians came to fight for the freedom of Macedonia. So obviously the Macedonian identity played a huge role in the struggle for freedom in Thrace if they had a joint effort with the Macedonians.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Thats right, however the Mesta river is generally considered the Eastern most border of the Macedonian geographical region and of the ethnic Macedonian people.

There is a reason why the borders of geographical Macedonia are "generally" considered where they are, and that is because they were defined as such in the 19th century. However, there has always been an area know as Macedonia within the geographical Macedonia we know today, but with varying peripheries. The Macedonian theme was a new entity established in Thrace, not an extension of Macedonia prior, but adjacent to it nevertheless.

I'm sure that it is much closer to the Bulgarian spoken in Smolyan than the Macedonian spoken in Ser. However of course it has more in common with some Macedonian dialects than say some Bulgarian dialects from the North etc. This is the way the dialect continuum works.

I am aware of how the continuum works, thanks. Do you think your assertion is based more on political circumstances or historical and linguistic evidence?

What is your point? Thracians are not ethnically Macedonian nor do they identify as such.

The point is, (aside from previous interaction during ancient Macedonian times, which set a precendent of Macedonian influence in the region) a new geographical entity bordering Macedonia was established and named 'Macedonia Theme', which suggests a strong Macedonian element in the south of Thrace. Given that the theme was established around 800AD, around 250 years or so after the first appearance of 'Sclavenes' from the Danube, it doesn't indicate a desperate migration to the east, but rather, a gradual move in preference to conditions within the realm of East Rome as opposed to the independent 'Sclavinae'. For centuries afterwards, the Macedonian identity was preserved in a region next to historical Macedonia, where people also spoke a 'Slavic' language. This population could have easily espoused the Macedonian identity in a 'greater' Macedonia had the VMORO (IMARO) succeeded in their revolutionary activities.

Frankly It means very little to me what people from Thrace identify as, given that they are clearly not Macedonian.

Your narrow definition of what constitutes a Macedonian is of little concern for me. Like you've shown countless times, the Macedonian identity prior to the 19th century is irrelevant to you. It is irrelevant to people like Branko Crvenkovski and Ljupco Georgievski also......just saying.

I am not discussing it further as it is clear to everyone what language this 'Pomak language' really is.

You're doing yourself no favours by avoiding further discussion and remaining ignorant.

[Mastika]

There is a reason why the borders of geographical Macedonia are "generally" considered where they are, and that is because they were defined as such in the 19th century. However, there has always been an area know as Macedonia within the geographical Macedonia we know today, but with varying peripheries. The Macedonian theme was a new entity established in Thrace, not an extension of Macedonia prior, but adjacent to it nevertheless.

True, however no ethnic consciousness is based solely on political borders from the Roman/Byzantine era. For the past couple of hundred years the Pomaks from Thrace have not identified as Macedonians nor have they been considered to even live in Macedonia. That is really the crux of the issue.

I am aware of how the continuum works, thanks. Do you think your assertion is based more on political circumstances or historical and linguistic evidence?

It is based on a combination of all factors, and so is the point at which a dialect can be considered a language, it is a variety of political, historic and linguistic circumstances.

The point is, (aside from previous interaction during ancient Macedonian times, which set a precendent of Macedonian influence in the region) a new geographical entity bordering Macedonia was established and named 'Macedonia Theme', which suggests a strong Macedonian element in the south of Thrace. Given that the theme was established around 800AD, around 250 years or so after the first appearance of 'Sclavenes' from the Danube, it doesn't indicate a desperate migration to the east, but rather, a gradual move in preference to conditions within the realm of East Rome as opposed to the independent 'Sclavinae'. For centuries afterwards, the Macedonian identity was preserved in a region next to historical Macedonia, where people also spoke a 'Slavic' language.

True, however I am sure that means very little to people who now identity as something other than Macedonians/whose ancestors may not have identified as Macedonians for more than a 1000 years. Should it seriuosly matter to them? Or are you just providing a counter argument to piss me off?

This population could have easily espoused the Macedonian identity in a 'greater' Macedonia had the VMORO (IMARO) succeeded in their revolutionary activities.

'Could have' are the key words here. They didn't identity as Macedonians, because they didn't feel Macedonian, which is due to the fact that they were from Thrace and not Macedonia.

You're doing yourself no favours by avoiding further discussion and remaining ignorant.

You are the ignorant one if you really think that people from Thrace should identify as Macedonians because where they live now was part of a Macedonia in the 8th century. Imho, you are embarassing yourself by asserting that a group of Grkoman-Turcophile Bulgarian Muslims from Thrace are in fact ethnically Macedonian, and speak Macedonian, despite the fact that most have probably never been to Macedonia and that they speak a language most Macedonians (including myself) have trouble understanding, even partially. Please tell me that you are not seriously dilluting the notion of what it means to be Macedonian to include people like this, who have never identified as Macedonian and who never will.

[Soldier of Macedon]

.........no ethnic consciousness is based solely on political borders from the Roman/Byzantine era.

Not in a strictly narrow and definitive sense, I agree.

For the past couple of hundred years the Pomaks from Thrace have not identified as Macedonians nor have they been considered to even live in Macedonia. That is really the crux of the issue.

It's not that simple. Again, I need to remind you that the world and its people did exist prior to the 19th century, I am not sure what benefit this discussion will bring until you finally come to terms with reality and accept this fact.

It is based on a combination of all factors..........

What combination? Elaborate and be specific.

True, however I am sure that means very little to people who now identity as something other than Macedonians/whose ancestors may not have identified as Macedonians for more than a 1000 years.

More than a 1000 years? Evliya Celebi refers to some parts of Thrace as 'Macedonia' well into the 1600's. The Macedonian name remained as a legacy in the south of Thrace for centuries after the establishment of the Macedonia Theme. Whether or not it means something to them today is probably as relevant as whether or not the Macedonian identity means something today to the average grkoman. The fact of its previously strong presence in the region cannot be denied - instead, it can be used as a credible basis for definition.

Or are you just providing a counter argument to piss me off?

My (specific) arguments (not the one's your conjuring on my behalf) are sound and logical. You're finding it difficult to grasp them because they go against the narrative you've built-up in your own mind, which is largely based on the information and perceptions of those who worked against Macedonia and the Macedonian people. I can assure you that the task of 'pissing you off' is below the bottom of my priority list.

They didn't identity as Macedonians, because they didn't feel Macedonian, which is due to the fact that they were from Thrace and not Macedonia.

You're in no position to make the call on how they 'felt'. The Pomaks (like the Torbeshi) were largely identified with the Turks in (late) Ottoman times due to the millet system; because of their Islamic faith, many may have lacked a coherent sense of belonging with each other, let alone with Macedonians and Bulgarians. That is why I look to justify my views in a historical context, and not a (recently constructed) political one, like yourself. The Christians of Thrace had no issue fighting for the IMARO (Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation), under the slogan - Macedonia for the Macedonians.

You are the ignorant one if you really think that people from Thrace should identify as Macedonians because where they live now was part of a Macedonia in the 8th century. Imho, you are embarassing yourself by asserting that a group of Grkoman-Turcophile Bulgarian Muslims from Thrace are in fact ethnically Macedonian.........

Mastika, the limit of my tolerance where it concerns your deliberate misinterpretation of my words is running thin. I am advising you to either read my posts properly before responding, or don't waste my time with your misguided tantrums.

Please tell me that you are not seriously dilluting the notion of what it means to be Macedonian to include people like this, who have never identified as Macedonian and who never will.

Of course I cannot consider them as ethnic Macedonians today, not in the narrow sense of the word. They are what they are today, whatever that may be. What I am saying, so we can be crystal clear and not allow that little mind of yours to wander into the realms of delusion again, is that there is a Macedonian heritage in the region, and that this heritage is more justified than the 'Bulgar' and/or 'Bulgarian' heritage. I simply don't feel that it is warranted for them to be labelled 'Bulgarians' - when such a definition is open to so much interpretation itself where it concerns Macedonia and Thrace.