Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Soldier of Macedon]

The correct terminology is Latin for the linguistic grouping of these people. It means nothing more than that. How Mexican people who once were akin to American Indians (now speaking Spanish) can be thought of as "Latins" in an ethnic or national sense is beyond me.

And to add to that, all of the South Americans collectively are often referred to and refer to themselves as "Latino". Clearly they don't all consider themselves as one ethnicity or nationality, or even a single cultural group. The only thing that consistently bounds them is their languages. Yet, no Mexican is confused into thinking he is Roman, or Italian, or Spanish, or Peruvian, etc.

It is a sad display of plastic patriotism by those who tremble at the knees every time the ‘S’ word is mentioned or any attempt to study Macedonian history spanning a certain 1,200 year period is made. It is a show of political immaturity and a gross misunderstanding of what ethnic identity actually is as opposed to what they imagine that it is.

I couldn't agree more. I wrote this earlier:

The Balkan, Danubian and Baltic languages all stem from a common ancestor. The Danubian (Slavic) languages absorbed the Balkan languages from the 6th century onwards.

People need to start looking at this from a logical perspective. It could have been a situation where the Danubian (Slavic) languages weren't related to the Balkan languages at all, in which case our language today would have absolutely nothing to do with the language(s) which our ancestors spoke in Macedonia and elsewhere in the Balkans during antiquity.

[Pelister]

Pelister, surely they use more than just a simple percentage of common words when aruging that languages have a common origin? Peter Hill, a distinguised linguist at the ANU, and a specialist in Macedonian has explained to me that there are a whole range of factors that demonstrate similarity between Macedonian and other East European languages. I didn't quite understand much of it, but it appeared to me that it was much more complex than just word similarities. If it were just a matter of word similarities, then Macedonian could be considered a Germanic language becuase of its thorough bastardisation with English words?

I am sure your right, and I am sure the similarities are many and varied. Is Macedonian closer to Russian today than it was 1,000 years ago? If it is, how? There is no one, single definition of the term 'Slav'. It seems to me that it has meant many different things to different people over the many centuries, which is why its broad application produces historical errors, and distortions. I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

[Soldier of Macedon]

A percentage of common words in various languages does not necessarily mean they have a common origin.

A percentage? Mate, open a Russian dictionary. There is no doubt that they stem from a common ancestral tongue.

There were invaders during the 6th century, definitely; but there is not a shred of evidence to even suggest they were 'Slavs'.

That's interesting. You can't define a 'Slav' nor will you even attempt to, yet you are positive that there is not a shred of evidence that the invaders were 'Slavs'.

1) The term 'Sklav' or 'Sclav' was used in foreign sources for the first time in the 6th century.

2) In the 9th century the term 'Sloveni' appears in the literature of those who the foreign sources were still referring to as 'Sklav' or 'Sclav'.

3) For centuries later, the foreigners continued to call these people 'Sklav' or 'Sclav'.

The POV that the 6th century 'Sklavenoi' or 'Sclavenoi' weren't largely speakers of a Slavic (Sloveni) language has absolutely no credibility. You've basically become selective by taking a section of what Florin Curta has written and have ran with it, meanwhile ignoring the abundance of linguistic evidence with respect to placenames, etymologies, grammatical changes, etc. Your argument can't be taken seriously until you start expanding your knowledge on the topic.

[Soldier of Macedon]

IIs Macedonian closer to Russian today than it was 1,000 years ago? If it is, how?

Old Macedonian from 1,000 years ago would have been closer to Old Russian than modern Macedonian is to modern Russian. But that is due to the spread of Slavic from the Danube towards the south and east, and because of the influence that Old Macedonian had on Old Russian as a result of religious and literary activities. Prior to the 6th century, the languages in Macedonia and (what became) Russia were more different, because the Balkan languages were not yet influenced by the Danubian languages which came to be known as Slavic. Although Balkan and Danubian langauges were related, that doesn't mean they were exactly the same. They may have stemmed from a common ancestral tongue, but they underwent different influences prior to the 6th century. However, they were similar enough to allow for Slavic to be adopted by large swathes of the Balkan populations.

I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

Cyril and Methodius called their language 'Slovjanski'. Are they Slavs or Macedonians?

[Risto the Great]

I don't think the term 'Slav' should be used in relation to the Macedonians in any way, with perhaps one exception and that is in terms of how the Macedonians used it and defined it (if at all).

How have Macedonians used it and defined it (excluding Gligorov)?

[Risto the Great]

There are many problems associated with using the term. The use of the term 'Slav' as any kind of identifier is a distortion.

Is "Slavic" as a language identifier or grouping a distortion in your mind?

This gradual 'Slavicisation' of the Macedonians has to stop.

Can you give any examples of this? When do you think it commenced?

[George S.]

Isn't it really pointless to argue why don't we just call our language Macedonian & call ourselves mMcedonian.Why because look at what all those scholars & linguists have found that all those languages veneti ,eneti,brygian,pghrygian etc point to the preexistence of a slav language from the begining.THe words are virtually the same to the macedonian language so in reality we can stop arguing as to slavs.We speak macedonian & we are macedonian.THe slav language & macedonian language are similar.

[George S.]

i think the reason for this slavicisation is that people confuse the contribution the slavs have made merely linguistic & not in an ethnic sense.I think people are confusing the two & meaning in an ethnic sense & assume that the slavs absorbed or destroyed the macedonians.The macedonians assimilated the slavs.I suppose there have beeen different people through the balkans throughout the millenias & the y left their mark eg romans ,celts,huns;goths etcnot just slavs.
As i have said previously it is unfortunate that our enemies have chosen to pick on our idetity & twist it to their advantage.Also certain people within macedonia have focused only on the slavs & not on the bigger picture the outcome is an obscure picture of being slav only.

[makedonche]

[QUOTE=George S.;111895]i think the reason for this slavicisation is that people confuse the contribution the slavs have made merely linguistic & not in an ethnic sense.I think people are confusing the two & meaning in an ethnic sense & assume that the slavs absorbed or destroyed the macedonians.The macedonians assimilated the slavs.I suppose there have beeen different people through the balkans throughout the millenias & the y left their mark eg romans ,celts,huns;goths etcnot just slavs.
As i have said previously it is unfortunate that our enemies have chosen to pick on our idetity & twist it to their advantage.Also certain people within macedonia have focused only on the slavs & not on the bigger picture the outcome is an obscure picture of being slav only.[/QUOTE]

George S
One only needs to look at the motivation for people/groups/countries doing something - the "why" of a particular action or series of actions, it gives you an insight into what they have to gain or retain from their actions, in the case of our southern neighbours it stands out very prominently to me that one of their motivations is holding onto territory that doesn't belong to them, another of their motivations is the saying "possesion is 9/10ths of the law", whereby items such as the Gold casket of the Macedonian monarchy is in their possesion therefore it must be Greek! It is in the Greeks best interests to refer to us as "Slavs", "SlavoMacedonian", "Skopians" - anything but Macedonians, because as soon as they concede that, then it opens a can of worms for them and puts their claims at high risk and challenges their assertions and throws doubt on thier identity/history and usurps their credibility(if they have any). In short - we are Macedonians, not "Slavs", our language is part of a larger group of languages known as "slavonic", anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is delusional, don't forget we are still writing our history, we are still digging it up as we type, there are older archaeological sites near Ohrid than there are in Greece, these will be rvealed in good time - they are still discovering layers of civilisations below other layers around Ohrid (I'll post some photos and info when I get a chance). George don't forget that "the truth shall set you free" it is not to be feared, but revered, hence "The Macedonian Truth Organisation"!

[Risto the Great]

THe slav language & macedonian language are similar.

The Macedonian language is in the Slavic language group or family. There is no Slav language.

[George S.]

RTG isn't it confusing in one sense there is no slaV language THEN THERE IS A GROUP of family of languages.No wonder there is confusion.Of course there is no country like slav.
When i speak of a slav language i mean that it is only in the linguistic contribution sense.Also there is no slav ethnic sense.No wonder it's all confusing people through the ages was smearing macedonia with a tainted brush to say we aren't macedonian.

[Delodephius]

The more geographically two Slavic languages are, the higher the percentage of common words they have. Two neighbouring dialects, even if classified as belonging to a different language, are almost the same. Hence the so-called Dialectical Continuum of the Slavic languages.

As for the percentage, if two most geographically distant Slavic languages like Russian and Slovenian, which have no common history beyond their common origin, have a 80% common vocabulary (excluding foreign words and personal names) then how high is the percentage between two more geographically closer languages like Macedonian and Russian, who also share a common religion and a common liturgical language, which influenced both of them interchangeably (Macedonian influenced Russian via the Old Church Slavonic/Old Macedonian, and then Russian influenced Macedonian via Church Slavonic i.e. Russian Church Slavonic). Plus to that, language is only half its vocabulary. The other half is its grammar. And even though Macedonian and Bulgarian have evolved a different nominal declension in the last 1000 years and less (Old Macedonian had a full nominal declension), they have preserved most of the verbal conjugation, more than some other Slavic languages have. In short, Macedonian grammar is in the large part (the other part being its own unique inventions), and I don't know the exact statistics for it, a typical Slavic grammar, with its phonology, morphology and syntax (three key components of grammar) being not only just similar but in many cases quite the same as in other Slavic languages. Before you make rash conclusions without any knowledge of grammar or any other branch of linguistics, keep in mind that one language cannot simply be similar to another by the way of influence of the other language on it or vice versa. The root and trunk of Macedonian grammar, just like the grammars of all other Slavic languages, is of the same composition, i.e. they are the same from "down to up", not "up to down" like Albanian having over half of its vocabulary and grammar of Eastern Romance origin.

[Soldier of Macedon]

RTG isn't it confusing in one sense there is no slaV language THEN THERE IS A GROUP of family of languages.

There is no Latin language of the Romans today either, but there are still Romance languages which derive from Latin. Ever heard a Spaniard or Frenchman spit the dummy because their languages were referred to as Latin, Romance, or, in an even broader context, Italic? Of course not.

[julie]

My past readings it was Macedonian influenced Russian via the Old Church Slavonic/Old Macedonian, St Clement in his missionary work as a student of Cyril and Methodius (it was not the Russians influencing the Macedonians there Delodephius.
St Clement set out to do this as the Apostle Paul came to Ohrid in 1AD to spread the gospel

There is also something else I would like to point out about these "migrations", to support my theory Macedonians, are part of the oldest "slav"ic language speaking group, and support my personal theory on Macedonians being from antiquity, including the language


"It is now generally agreed that the people who lived in the Balkans after the Slavic "invasions" were probably for the most part the same as those who had lived there earlier, although the creation of new political groups and arrival of small immigrants caused people to look at themselves as distinct from their neighbours, including the Byzantines".
Timothy E Gregory, A History of Byzantium. Wiley- Blackwell, 2010. Pg 169

[George S.]

Thanks Som so really slav is not really a language.To avoid confusion why don't we just call it Macedonian (macedonise the Slav)Then there won't be any confusion.But left like that
simply because we had some influence of slav. Some more than others Come to think of it we had a lot of different invaders visit us roman.celts,goths,huns, etc