Chentovist the Slav

[Risto the Great]

Its all in the Bible

Well, only part of it. Then we had Kiril and Metodi and others. And the direction of their influence is without doubt.

[Risto the Great]

exactly what did they "give" us other then the language?

We don't even know this. Really. Until we definitively know the language of the ancient Macedonians and Thracians, we cannot even say the "Slavs" gave us a large component of our language.

Notwithstanding this, I have no need to feel an immediate connection with antiquity. I think it gets weirder and weirder the more you think about it.

[Pelagon]

Pelagon, copying manuscripts is not about odds. The fact that we have 50 copies in existence means that any discrepancies between them would be picked up immediately. Further, you're now making the claim that all the copies, including the 1469 copy have been politicised and falsified in expectation of the problems that the Greeks/Serbs/Bulgarians would have in the 19th and 20th centuries. This is ridiculous.

Where and how am I making any such claims, Mr Vangelovski?

Either provide evidence that the copies have been falsified or accept it.

I made the claim that we don't have the original copy and copies of copies are not exactly the same as having an original manuscript.

Without any evidence, you are working against thousands of years of experience, methodical literary preservation and logic itself.

What I quoted above is written by Florin Curta and I take it he knows more about this sunject than you or I ever could.

Your time and effort would better be used in understanding the text and explaining its meaning.

Well, I had no interest in "Slavs" previously (nor even now) and also never ran across relevant publications when I was buying and reading history books but I have come across some online info about English translations and may look into it in the future.

Pretending that it never existed in the form that it does without any evidence to support your claim is verging on lunacy.

Given what I quoted above, the lunacy is to claim that "our forefathers" called the language this or that, IMHO.

Further, we all know you're Indigen.

Good for you. This Indgen fellow must have been something for "ALL" of you to be thinking of him.

While it may be irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to hide the fact either.

It is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT and a diversion from sensible discussion.

Its an insult to the intelligence of everyone here to pretend that you're not and to pop in and out like a troll.

IMO, it is an insult to me (and to others who have no clue what your on about) to bring up irrelevant nonsense into a discussion topic.

Pelagon

[Vangelovski]

I made the claim that we don't have the original copy and copies of copies are not exactly the same as having an original manuscript.

In addition to all of the other instances, this is where you make the claim that the copies have been distorted and are not the same as the original. If you are not making the claim, then WTF does it matter whether you have the original or a copy of the original if they are exactly the same?

Curta says nothing about the copies being distorted and implicitly accepts them as true and accurate copies of the original. Further, he's not even talking about copies of copies.

Manuscript preservation (transcription or copying) has been a highly refined and methodical field for thousands of years and other than a few extremely limited examples (mostly from the 20th century) there are no instances of purposeful distortion and relatively few instances of accidental material distortion. IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THE THAT COPIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL, THEN PROVIDE IT. YOU WILL BE ONE OF A SELECT FEW TO HAVE MADE SUCH A DISCOVERY.

You've waded in too far over your head and are trying to lecture us on manuscript accuracy from a position of complete ignorance.

Anyone with half a brain removed from their heads know that you're Indigen. You're use of acronyms (IMO), large coloured (especially red) and bolded text, the specific ideological nuances, the phrases used, the historical references (Macedonian flags from Eftim) and the unique writing style among other markers makes it more than obvious.

[Bill77]

Either provide evidence that the copies have been falsified or accept it.

I wouldn't use the word 'falsified' as it suggests something sinister and deliberate (thats if what Pelagon is suggesting).

But I wouldn't doubt the strong possibility even back then, of unintentional 'mistranslation' of a word, it's meaning and the context of it. Especially as time goes by it gets worse as it gets manipulated inparticular, in modern times.

Clear evidence is from the initial true meaning of the word 'Slavic' and what it might mean (linguisticle term) to what we have now as some type of race, nationality. And as recently, we have had a westerner (discussed somewhere in this forum) using this word 'Slav' not to confuse us with Albanians......wtf. Before we know it, this mistranslation and careless journalism could snowball and it ends up one day, Albanians being the true Macedonians.

[Vangelovski]

I wouldn't use the word 'falsified' as it suggests something sinister and deliberate (thats if what Pelagon is suggesting).

But I wouldn't doubt the strong possibility even back then, of unintentional 'mistranslation' of a word, it's meaning and the context of it. Especially as time goes by it gets worse as it gets manipulated inparticular, in modern times.

Clear evidence is from the initial true meaning of the word 'Slavic' and what it might mean (linguisticle term) to what we have now as some type of race, nationality. And as recently, we have had a westerner (discussed somewhere in this forum) using this word 'Slav' not to confuse us with Albanians......wtf. Before we know it, this mistranslation and careless journalism could snowball and it ends up one day, Albanians being the true Macedonians.

That's what Indigen was suggesting in his earlier posts - deliberate falsification.

There is nothing to translate from the sentence in question. Its simply referring to the language used by Kiril as 'slavonic/slavic'.

Trying to understand what that means is one thing, trying to claim that the word 'slavonic' or 'slavic' was added there at a later date in one of the copies is a completely different thing and Indigen was trying to do the latter. He was questioning not only the original at one stage, but then the integrity/accuracy of the copies without providing any evidence.

[Pelagon]

In addition to all of the other instances, this is where you make the claim that the copies have been distorted and are not the same as the original. If you are not making the claim, then WTF does it matter whether you have the original or a copy of the original if they are exactly the same?

Curta says nothing about the copies being distorted and implicitly accepts them as true and accurate copies of the original. Further, he's not even talking about copies of copies.

Do you really think so? Why would he say the following if he did not have a point to make?:
"...The text survives in more than fifty copies, but none of them is earlier than the fifteenth century (the earliest extant copy is from 1469)...."

According to Curta, we do NOT know who the author was as well and claims that it was "our forefathers" who called the language this or that are invalid.

"...The biography was composed some time between Constantine's death in 862 and December 885 (when we know that the text was in use in Rome), perhaps in 879 or 880 by someone in the entourage of Methodius...."

".... the Life of Constantine was written as a conventional Byzantine saint's life: there is no concern with an accurate, or even comprehensive description of the events narrated, and the unknown author's political agenda was not necessarily coincident with the original goals of the Moravian mission, despite the fact that the work was most likely composed during or not long after the Moravian mission..."

Point of interest: "...there is no concern with an accurate, or even comprehensive description of the events narrated.."

The Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini) is the earliest text known to have been written in Old Church Slavonic. The biography was composed some time between Constantine's death in 862 and December 885 (when we know that the text was in use in Rome), perhaps in 879 or 880 by someone in the entourage of Methodius. The text survives in more than fifty copies, but none of them is earlier than the fifteenth century (the earliest extant copy is from 1469). It has long been noted that although written in Old Church Slavonic, a "new" language in the ninth century, the Life of Constantine was written as a conventional Byzantine saint's life: there is no concern with an accurate, or even comprehensive description of the events narrated, and the unknown author's political agenda was not necessarily coincident with the original goals of the Moravian mission, despite the fact that the work was most likely composed during or not long after the Moravian mission. The purpose of this text was to justify the canonization of its hero, the would-be Saint Cyril. This explains why the author spends a lot more time on miracles than on facts. Translation by Marvin Kantor, Medieval Slavic Lives of Saints and Princes (Ann Arbor, 1983), pp. 25-33 and 65-81.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/fcurta/Cyril.html

Manuscript preservation (transcription or copying) has been a highly refined and methodical field for thousands of years and other than a few extremely limited examples (mostly from the 20th century) there are no instances of purposeful distortion and relatively few instances of accidental material distortion. IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THE THAT COPIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL, THEN PROVIDE IT. YOU WILL BE ONE OF A SELECT FEW TO HAVE MADE SUCH A DISCOVERY.

If you say so but you are deluding yourself if you believe that. I can not at this moment gather up "evidence" to please you but there is plenty of it around and you can chase some up yourself. FYI, "The Alexander Romance" is but one example of what happens when an original manuscript is translated into various languages and becomes almost unrecognisable in many parts.

You've waded in too far over your head and are trying to lecture us e on manuscript accuracy from a position of complete ignorance.

I have read enough to know that there are serious problems in source material as well as compilation, translations and interpretation of same and politics and ideology of a given period often come into play. Have you read Martin Bernal's "Black Athena"?

Anyone with half a brain removed from their heads know that you're Indigen.

Who but you and the Soldier gives a fark about who "Indigen" was/is and how I compare to him? Give it a break, mate!

[Bill77]

He was questioning not only the original at one stage, but then the integrity/accuracy of the copies without providing any evidence.

Well it's how it is. When ever something is widely accepted, it's up to the contestor to produce evidence to the contrary.

But it must be admitted, we (well I anyway) have not seen the original and are only going according to what others say. That is just going with the flow. I would love to see the original for confirmation, which is probably not possible.

Then working out the meaning....... Like you said, it's another thing.
It's not unusual translating a word or sentence from one language, (or a period of time and what it might have meant then), to another down the track, and then this word or sentence having a different meaning.

[Vangelovski]

Do you really think so? Why would he say the following if he did not have a point to make?:
"...The text survives in more than fifty copies, but none of them is earlier than the fifteenth century (the earliest extant copy is from 1469)...."

According to Curta, we do NOT know who the author was as well and claims that it was "our forefathers" who called the language this or that are invalid.

"...The biography was composed some time between Constantine's death in 862 and December 885 (when we know that the text was in use in Rome), perhaps in 879 or 880 by someone in the entourage of Methodius...."

".... the Life of Constantine was written as a conventional Byzantine saint's life: there is no concern with an accurate, or even comprehensive description of the events narrated, and the unknown author's political agenda was not necessarily coincident with the original goals of the Moravian mission, despite the fact that the work was most likely composed during or not long after the Moravian mission..."

Point of interest: "...there is no concern with an accurate, or even comprehensive description of the events narrated.."





If you say so but you are deluding yourself if you believe that. I can not at this moment gather up "evidence" to please you but there is plenty of it around and you can chase some up yourself. FYI, "The Alexander Romance" is but one example of what happens when an original manuscript is translated into various languages and becomes almost unrecognisable in many parts.


I have read enough to know that there are serious problems in source material as well as compilation, translations and interpretation of same and politics and ideology of a given period often come into play. Have you read Martin Bernal's "Black Athena"?


Who but you and the Soldier gives a fark about who "Indigen" was/is and how I compare to him? Give it a break, mate!

Indigen, reading something into Curta's notes that is not there is not evidence. Nowhere does Curta suggest that the copies are not an accurate copy of the original. He merely states the number of copies in existence and the earliest one - this is quite common and does not reflect a "maybe he knows something" statement. As I've already stated, if there are 50 copies, then it would be easy to determine any copyist mistakes/additions/changes, particularly if the copies are from different sources and multiple copies were made from the original itself. Curta does not claim there are any discrepencies nor that it is an issue.

YOU are the one suggesting that the copies are inaccurate. In reasoned debate, the onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence, not vice-versa. Until you can demonstrate that the copies are not accurate copies of the original, then we need to assume that they are - innocent until proven guilty.

On Curta's statement on the accuracy of facts, you have read so far into his arsehole that he himself would be uncomfortable with your conclusion. Curta clarified that statement by noting the inaccurasies are in relation to the miracles discussed in the manuscript. Nowhere does Curta even remotely suggest that his claims about accuracy relate to the issue of whether a slavonic/slavic language(s) existed and whether it was called slavonic/slavic.

Finally, you are essentially trying to suggest that the idea of 'slavism' (i.e., that slavs constitute an "ethnic" group or a "pan-ethnic" group) was inserted into a manuscript produced during the 15th century, when 'slavism' was not even thought up until the 19th century - four hundred years later.

Rather than pretending that someone has invented a time machine and gone back to insert the term "slovenski" into a 15th century manuscript in order to use against us in the 21st century, you would be much better off trying to understand the meaning of the word, its linguistic context and providing a plausible explanation of how the Macedonian language developed in those dark years that you would rather pretend never existed. I don't think the answer is as scary as you make out.

[Vangelovski]

Well it's how it is. When ever something is widely accepted, it's up to the contestor to produce evidence to the contrary.

But it must be admitted, we (well I anyway) have not seen the original and are only going according to what others say. That is just going with the flow. I would love to see the original for confirmation, which is probably not possible.

Then working out the meaning....... Like you said, it's another thing.
It's not unusual translating a word or sentence from one language, (or a period of time and what it might have meant then), to another down the track, and then this word or sentence having a different meaning.

Do you also want to see the original sources from antiquity that demonstrate Macedonians are not Greek? Or are the copies adequate? I hope that you'll settle for the copies, because the originals are long gone and we would be foreever wondering if the ancient Macedonians were Greek or not.

There is no need to question the accuracy of copies unless evidence arises that they are materially different. This is relatively very rare.

[Bill77]

Do you also want to see the original sources from antiquity that demonstrate Macedonians are not Greek? Or are the copies adequate? .

No no....there is a huge amount of sources that demonstrate Macedonians are not Greeks, surley they all can't be off the mark. But if it was just one, then I wouldn't be as convinced.

[Vangelovski]

No no....there is a huge amount of sources that demonstrate Macedonians are not Greeks, surley they all can't be off the mark. But if it was just one, then I wouldn't be as convinced.

I'm not saying they're off the mark, just that the originals no longer exist. Time has destroyed them. That's the whole point of making copies - to preserve those texts.

I think you'll find more than one reference to the Macedonian language as slavonic/slavic. Its no use pretending they don't exist - that won't get us anywhere. We need to provide a plausible explanation to challenge the existing explanation provided by our enemies.

[makedonche]

Vangelovski

This:-

I think you'll find more than one reference to the Macedonian language as slavonic/slavic. Its no use pretending they don't exist - that won't get us anywhere. We need to provide a plausible explanation to challenge the existing explanation provided by our enemies.

....hits the nail right on the head!

[Risto the Great]

Didn't the Greeks invent the photocopier?

[Bill77]

I'm not saying they're off the mark, just that the originals no longer exist. Time has destroyed them. That's the whole point of making copies - to preserve those texts.

I know mate.
I did say "if" it was possible to see the original that Pelagon was referring to, but I had a feeling I had bucklies chance in it appearing. Though I also thought you just never know what is possible here on MTO.

I think you'll find more than one reference to the Macedonian language as slavonic/slavic. Its no use pretending they don't exist - that won't get us anywhere. We need to provide a plausible explanation to challenge the existing explanation provided by our enemies.

I'm not pretending they don't exist, on the contray i think it appears very often (well more recently anyway) which is a problem and i am anoyed how it appears unnecessarily, which I'm sure everyone agrees and can't be denied.

However, I did think this passage from Clement re Slavonic/Slavic was the first time it appeared that associates Macedonians with it. How many documents are worthy of mentioning after that.....I'm not aware.

Just curious, if anyone knows, would these copies been written word for word?