Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Pelister]

Pelister, I have already shown you, but you don't seem to get it. I accept that this is due to your ignorance of historical linguistics and phonological development. If you have your own theory as to how the term 'Slav' came into the English language, I am happy to see it.

Like I have already mentioned several times on this thread and elsewhere, it is recorded in the 'Life of Methodius', which was written by his student Clement of Ohrid. Does this change your opinion on these Macedonian saints?

Slavic languages look similar because they are similar, and they are no more "radically diverse" than English is to Danish, both of which are Germanic languages. Speaking of which, I don't see any English or Danish people with an inferiority complex just because their languages are classified as Germanic. Nor do I see any Russians, Poles, Croats, etc with any knowledge of linguistics claiming that their native tongues aren't Slavic languages and aren't related more to each other than any other European languages. It seems that this problem only exists among some Macedonians and others who have allowed foreign propaganda to poison their minds and are now developing crackpot theories to counter an obvious fact.

There is no confusion on my part. In the context of what I have written, 'Slav' is a noun and 'Slavic' is an adjective, just like 'Arab' is a noun and 'Arabic' is an adjective. I trust you understand the difference. Nobody here is trying to say that we should self-identify as 'Slavs', but when it comes to linguistics, that is how we are classified.

In a collective linguistic sense which includes Russians, Poles, Croats, etc, that is the case. In an even broader context, the terms 'Balto-Slavic' and 'Balto-Slavs' are also used. But this is mainly in written form and relative to historical linguistics, because nobody (or hardly anybody) today refers to themselves by the English terms 'Balto-Slavs' or 'Slavs'.

No, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. I am not trying to say that we should self-identify as 'Slavs', I have already stated that the term is basically irrelevant in everyday Macedonian life. It is racist Greeks who want to brand every element about us with the term 'Slavs'. That doesn't mean we should be weak and hide from the term or pretend it has no relevance in some sections of our history. Nor does it mean we should avoid it where it concerns discussions relating to historical linguistics. The sooner people like you become more aware of where it is relevant and where it isn't, the better for all of us.

Exactly.

I have analysed them. You haven't. Yet, you keep responding like the world should wait for you to catch up. Seriously mate, if you're going to speak about the topic like some authority, then at least make the effort to research it properly.

It is only considered an error by people like yourself who are ignorant of historical linguistics. Macedonians did use it as a common linguistic identity in the past. Why do you keep ignoring the obvious? Should we take your word over that of the Macedonian saints?

Your opinion is based on ignorance, we both know this.

Of course not, because it is an English term that came into use relatively recently. But that term is a transliteration of the older terms 'Sklavenes' in Greek, 'Sclavenes' in Latin, and 'Slovjani' (and later Slavjani) in Slavic languages. What you keep failing to understand is that while Greek and Latin writers were using these terms in the 10th century, for example, the people it referred to were also using it but in their own languages. Therefore, when I read what you write with respect to the terms and your effort to try and throw up as much smoke and doubt as possible, it only confirm that you've allowed others to scare you into further ignorance.

SoM, we have enough people calling us 'Slavs', the last thing we need is another Macedonian doing it.

Please note that I asked for the original source, rather than a reference to it.

Here is what you provide:

899 AD: St Clement, Life of Methodius (Emperor Michael III to SS Cyril and Methodius.

Quote:
You are both Salonikans, and all Salonikans speak pure Slavonic.

I don't have an inferiority complex about the term 'Slav', but at the same time I think its foolish of you to ignore that our enemies have used it against us, as an ethnic, cultural and historical identifier against all evidence to the contrary, and in defiance of our wishes. I am saying that using 'Slav' as a marker of our identity is an error, in the first place, and that in the context of what we are battling right now, even foolish.

I know that you are trying to construct a narrative of linguistic continuity, but I am afraid that you are going to have find another word for it, because 'Slav' simply isn't it! I don't need to explain to you, I believe, why your use of it is anachronistic.

There is merit in comparing Macedonian today, to ancient Thracian, but I am afraid that it is a savage characterization on your behalf to refer to either in a ubiquitous fashion as "Slav" on the flimsiest of evidence, let alone what people have meant by the term, down the ages, and "who" it is in fact they are describing.

I also have a problem with the way you contend that the use of the term "Slav" is legitimate. A few references to it - usually many centuries apart, from different people, in different contexts also explains in part why the term is such a brilliant pseudonym that our enemies have adopted for the Macedonians. I think you need to think about this carefully before throwing it around.

It is a principle of all cases against the rights of Macedonians that references to the Macedonians are ipsofacto references to "Slavs"; they go to great pains to create such an impression, something that is fully accepted in the West, because body's of information have been built up around the classification. I mean an entire industry has been built up around it. That doesn't make it accurate, or legitimate.

You have a crop of vaguely similar words, various meanings, spaces of many centuries in between and no doubt in between the "empty" centuries a great amount of assumptions which have tried to fill in the vacuum. That is what you are doing, filling in the vacuum, but in your quest to establish continuity - you have needed a name. I don't think "Slav" is it, substantively, or plausibly. I think that your fixation on the apparent identity and apparent name given to a supposedly one time single language (i.e. IR) derives from a characteristic failure to believe what you want to believe. I find the appropriately named Danubian script interesting (circa 4500 BC), take a look at it.

This probably needs a closer response:

What you keep failing to understand is that while Greek and Latin writers were using these terms in the 10th century, for example, the people it referred to were also using it but in their own languages. Therefore, when I read what you write with respect to the terms and your effort to try and throw up as much smoke and doubt as possible, it only confirm that you've allowed others to scare you into further ignorance.

I can understand your quest for continuity, SoM really; but you really have to be specific about the term(S) people used, whether there is in fact any genuine connection between them, given so many centuries apart, who they were describing and what they meant. Second, when you say "the people" its a distortion to take a single quote, or possibly more than one, and apply it so generally. A single quote, or even several quotes is not really enough to establish the fact that "the people" used it in this way or that. I have met only one Macedonian who described themselves as 'a Slav' and their language, as 'Slav' as a primary identifier, and I know why.

Personally, I think that the "Slavicisation" of our historical and cultural identity has to stop. There is merit to what your doing, but the use of the term particularly by foriegners is probably very event specific, and I think that that needs to be sorted out, and our assocation with the term (because it comes with a huge bag of assumptions) has to be unravelled first.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I don't think it is SoM. You have to show me how you know this.

Pelister, I have already shown you, but you don't seem to get it. I accept that this is due to your ignorance of historical linguistics and phonological development. If you have your own theory as to how the term 'Slav' came into the English language, I am happy to see it.

Also, how do we know that Cyril and Metodi called their langauge 'Slovjanski' - where is the source for that?

Like I have already mentioned several times on this thread and elsewhere, it is recorded in the 'Life of Methodius', which was written by his student Clement of Ohrid. Does this change your opinion on these Macedonian saints?

It means going back to the original Western linguists who "grouped" a bunch of radically diverse, in many cases mutually unintelligible languages all together as "Slavic" because they 'looked' similar, sharing the language of the Bible, and the same alphabet for about a thousand years, things would start to look the same after a while. But I am just speculating.

Slavic languages look similar because they are similar, and they are no more "radically diverse" than English is to Danish, both of which are Germanic languages. Speaking of which, I don't see any English or Danish people with an inferiority complex just because their languages are classified as Germanic. Nor do I see any Russians, Poles, Croats, etc with any knowledge of linguistics claiming that their native tongues aren't Slavic languages and aren't related more to each other than any other European languages. It seems that this problem only exists among some Macedonians and others who have allowed foreign propaganda to poison their minds and are now developing crackpot theories to counter an obvious fact.

You have 'Slavic' and 'Slav' confused, here.

There is no confusion on my part. In the context of what I have written, 'Slav' is a noun and 'Slavic' is an adjective, just like 'Arab' is a noun and 'Arabic' is an adjective. I trust you understand the difference. Nobody here is trying to say that we should self-identify as 'Slavs', but when it comes to linguistics, that is how we are classified.

Your logic is that they spoke 'Slavic' and were therefore 'Slavs'.

In a collective linguistic sense which includes Russians, Poles, Croats, etc, that is the case. In an even broader context, the terms 'Balto-Slavic' and 'Balto-Slavs' are also used. But this is mainly in written form and relative to historical linguistics, because nobody (or hardly anybody) today refers to themselves by the English terms 'Balto-Slavs' or 'Slavs'.

And thus begins the discursive disappearance of the Macedonians from our own kind. This is the same logic used by the New Greeks against us.

No, you're deliberately misinterpreting what I wrote. I am not trying to say that we should self-identify as 'Slavs', I have already stated that the term is basically irrelevant in everyday Macedonian life. It is racist Greeks who want to brand every element about us with the term 'Slavs'. That doesn't mean we should be weak and hide from the term or pretend it has no relevance in some sections of our history. Nor does it mean we should avoid it where it concerns discussions relating to historical linguistics. The sooner people like you become more aware of where it is relevant and where it isn't, the better for all of us.

I don't agree with your definition of 'Slavic' in part because I havn't analysed the Western author who coined it.........

Exactly.

The first historical records of people assuming we share a linguistic cultural trait, are foriegn ones I believe. These need to be analysied first of all.

I have analysed them. You haven't. Yet, you keep responding like the world should wait for you to catch up. Seriously mate, if you're going to speak about the topic like some authority, then at least make the effort to research it properly.

It is an error to use it in any way as a marker of identity, be it cultural, ethnic or even linguistic if the Macedonians did not use it themselves.

It is only considered an error by people like yourself who are ignorant of historical linguistics. Macedonians did use it as a common linguistic identity in the past. Why do you keep ignoring the obvious? Should we take your word over that of the Macedonian saints?

Furthermore, connecting it to 6th century invader is entirely erroneous in my opinion.......

Your opinion is based on ignorance, we both know this.

There is no written record of any "Slav" from their own documents.

Of course not, because it is an English term that came into use relatively recently. But that term is a transliteration of the older terms 'Sklavenes' in Greek, 'Sclavenes' in Latin, and 'Slovjani' (and later Slavjani) in Slavic languages. What you keep failing to understand is that while Greek and Latin writers were using these terms in the 10th century, for example, the people it referred to were also using it but in their own languages. Therefore, when I read what you write with respect to the terms and your effort to try and throw up as much smoke and doubt as possible, it only confirm that you've allowed others to scare you into further ignorance.

[Pelister]

The english term 'Slavic' is a translation of the term which Cyril and Methodius pronounced as 'Slovjanski'.

I don't think it is SoM. You have to show me how you know this. Also, how do we know that Cyril and Metodi called their langauge 'Slovjanski' - where is the source for that?

Of course they spoke a language which is clearly ancestral to the modern Macedonian language, but in terms of larger Indo-European linguistic families the Macedonians are 'Slavic' in the same way that the English are 'Germanic'. This is not an identity that either of them use unless in a historical linguistic context.

That is really a matter of definition. I think that if you accept this definition, and the methods used to determine it (which really needs to be analysed, before we go any further), fair enough; but we really need to discover 'how' they came to the conclusion they came to rather than assume. It means going back to the original Western linguists who "grouped" a bunch of radically diverse, in many cases mutually unintelligible languages all together as "Slavic" because they 'looked' similar, sharing the language of the Bible, and the same alphabet for about a thousand years, things would start to look the same after a while. But I am just speculating.

The question, therefore, of whether Cyril and Methodius were Slavs or Macedonians was meant to have an obvious answer. In some contextual reference they are correctly called 'Slavs'. That doesn't take anything away from the fact that they were Macedonians and descended from the same people who are primarliy the ancestors of Macedonians today.

You have 'Slavic' and 'Slav' confused, here.

Your logic is that they spoke 'Slavic' and were therefore 'Slavs'. And thus begins the discursive disappearance of the Macedonians from our own kind. This is the same logic used by the New Greeks against us.

I don't agree with your definition of 'Slavic' in part because I havn't analysed the Western author who coined it, as well as the fact that it is associated with too much historical mischief. The first historical records of people assuming we share a linguistic cultural trait, are foriegn ones I believe. These need to be analysied first of all.
It is an error to use it in any way as a marker of identity, be it cultural, ethnic or even linguistic if the Macedonians did not use it themselves. Furthermore, connecting it to 6th century invader is entirely erroneous in my opinion, if the original records ever get a chance to have their say. It really depends what you mean by "Slav". There is no written record of any "Slav" from their own documents. There were no people called "Slavs" that can be positively identified except what people chose to selectively define in the modern age and apply retrospectively, which is what you are doing here.

We were never ethnically, nationally or politically 'Slavs' and our language, was never 'Slav' dispite what some people try to push.

If Cyril and Metodi did not call themselves "Slavs", then how can anyone else? Can you ignore other definitions, meanings and varations of the term 'Slav'?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here is something from Mario Alinei's PCT:

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showthread.php?t=73&highlight=Mario+alinei

As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value – from a geolinguistic point of view – of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a single unit, but each of its two branchings – the Western and the Eastern – shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison d’etre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense. Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of the Slavic migration in traditional terms, as well as all of its corollaries. But let us check the other two points, before developing it further within the framework of the PCT.

I don't necessarily disagree with the above, but I do think that the south to north linguistic movement was before the 6th century 'invasions'. The pool of languages from which Slavic arose were originally the northern fringe dialects of Thracian and Illyrian which were spoken around and north of the Danube during antiquity.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Here are some linguistic changes that Paleo-Balkan speakers underwent after being homogenised by Slavic influences. I will use the word for gold in Thracian (salta) and Old Macedonian (zlato) for comparison:

- Loss of '-s' ending in cases: saltas -> zlato
- Consistency of voiced/devoiced consonants - salta or zalda -> zlato
- Metathesis of 'al' to 'la': salta -> zlato


In addition to the above examples, there are others, such as the seemingly widespread palatalisation in words where there are changes from 'k' to 'č' as in Thracian kentha to Slavic čenda, and 'k' to 'c' as in Illyrian olkin to Slavic ulcin, and 'č' to 'c' in other words that further developed as in černo to crno.

A different type of change also came through the adoption of Slavic vocabulary and terminology that was developed in the Danube region and exhibited influences from interaction with peoples that weren't in close or consistent touch with the Balkan region. This can be seen from the Iranian, Germanic, etc words in Slavic languages that are absent from Thracian, Illyrian, anc. Macedonian, etc.

[Stojacanec]

As I understand it Cyril and Methodius took the language of the people that was spoken in the market place and developed a written alphabet and language. Old church slavonic was the most approprate to use but was deemed too complicated as a basis instead opting to form their own borrowing letters from Latin and Greek which was in existance at the time.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The Slavic language of the 6th century invaders, which came from a pool of related languages spoken around and north of the Danube, may have started to gain prevalence among the peoples in those regions as early as the 3rd century, and continued to grow as a lingua franca throughout the Gothic, Hunnic and Gepid periods. It was definetly related to the ancient languages of the Balkans, and although it had underwent different changes as a result of varying influences, it was adopted by the majority of people.

The language of Cyril and Methodius is based on a Balkan substratum and the Macedonian version of this Slavic language, with Macedonian characteristics developed in Macedonia from the 6th to 9th centuries. The only evidence of Slavic languages prior to the 9th century comes from the names of places and individuals. In addition to the Old Macedonian of Cyril and Methodius, there is the Freising Manuscript in Old Slovenian (which was written around the same time but without their influence), and together they are the earliest recorded Slavic languages. Try the below to get a better idea of how the Macedonian language has evolved:

1. Compare Old Macedonian to Paleo-Balkan

2. Compare Old Macedonian to Old Slovenian

3. Compare Old Slovenian to Paleo-Balkan

[George S.]

That's fine makedonche.I can't wait i'm looking forward to it.

[makedonche]

Som thanks for ansewring the questions.Can i ask one more that is that there are theories that the slav("language") existed prior to the 6or 7 century way back into the prehistoric times.This could mean that macedonia has had allways it's link with the slavs.What's your view on this.?

George S
My information is that the Macedonian language existed before Glagolitic and subsequent "Slav" languages, when I have the appropriate evidence I will present it, by my calculations Macedonians existed prior to "Slavs", in due time all will be revealed!

[George S.]

Som thanks for ansewring the questions.Can i ask one more that is that there are theories that the slav("language") existed prior to the 6or 7 century way back into the prehistoric times.This could mean that macedonia has had allways it's link with the slavs.What's your view on this.?

[Soldier of Macedon]

unless its of historical significance do you think it's wise not to mention anything about us being slavs .

It's not about being wise or hiding from the term 'Slav', it just isn't relevant in life as a Macedonian 99% of the time. We must always maintain the distinction between what it means to us and what our enemies want it to mean.

If we dwell in the past then the past will catch up with us & people will label us nothing but slavs not knowing the full story.

Nobody is dwelling in the past, but more Macedonians need to be informed about it. That way, we won't have people getting defensive when the term 'Slav' is mentioned, but instead they will be able to confidently explain its significance in terms of language and its insignificance for just about everything else where it concerns being a Macedonian.

Also i would like to say the slavs went through,albania,greece(hellarse) bulgaria,& turkey,would they not have been in the same situation as macedonia or not.How would you consider them ?or were they immune from the effects from the slav invasion.??Would you not consider them as slavs?Why?

Bulgarians are Slavic in a larger linguistic sense like Macedonians. On the other hand, while varying parts of the territory where Greece, Albania and Turkey are currently located were under the sway of invaders, they can't be Slavic today because Slavic languages haven't been spoken there for centuries - aside from the Macedonian parts in Greece and Albania, and the Thracian parts in Greece and Turkey.

[George S.]

unless its of historical significance do you think it's wise to mention anything about us being slavs .I wpuld mention we are only macedonians & our language is macedonian.I wouldn't even bother mentioning that we are related to the slavs.This is 2011 we have to move on as macedonians.If we dwell in the past then the past will catch up with us & people will label us nothing but slavs not knowing the full story.
Also i would like to say the slavs went through,albania,greece(hellarse) bulgaria,& turkey,would they not have been in the same situation as macedonia or not.How would you consider them ?or were they immune from the effects from the slav invasion.??Would you not consider them as slavs?Why?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slovak, I don't need that condescending history lesson thank YOU very much, professor

Julie, all of the content in his post is historically correct. Don't let others mislead you into thinking that the purpose and intent of this discussion is anything but valid.

Would you please critically corroborate the following question for clarification - Are Cyril and Methodius then Slavs or Macedonians ?

It was in response to the following from Pelister:

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).

The english term 'Slavic' is a translation of the term which Cyril and Methodius pronounced as 'Slovjanski'. Of course they spoke a language which is clearly ancestral to the modern Macedonian language, but in terms of larger Indo-European linguistic families the Macedonians are 'Slavic' in the same way that the English are 'Germanic'. This is not an identity that either of them use unless in a historical linguistic context. The question, therefore, of whether Cyril and Methodius were Slavs or Macedonians was meant to have an obvious answer. In some contextual reference they are correctly called 'Slavs'. That doesn't take anything away from the fact that they were Macedonians and descended from the same people who are primarliy the ancestors of Macedonians today.

[George S.]

i'll have a go,there is no slav language.The slav comes from a slav group of languages. C&M They would be macedonian.
From what i can see that link is about architects whats the relevance of it??NO explanation at all.

[julie]

SOM, in one of your posts you stated -
Cyril and Methodius called their language 'Slovjanski
Would you please critically corroborate the following question for clarification - Are Cyril and Methodius then Slavs or Macedonians ?