Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[Delodephius]

There has never been a place called Slav and there have never been "Slavs" from an ethnic and/or national sense.

Actually, in Slovak the very word Slovak means Slav and the country Slovakia - Slovensko - means Slav land. The same thing with the Slovenians, their country and language. We for instance had to invent a different pronunciation for the word Slav to distinguish it from our own ethnic name, so today we say Slovania for Slavs. Other names like the province of Slavonia in Croatia, or the Slovincian language in Pomerian, or the extinct people Sloveni in Novgorod all mean Slav. So the names Slovak, Slovenian, Slavonian all mean Slav as both a nation and place.

I don't deny your ethnicity, country or language as being anything but Macedonian, so don't deny me being a Slav, or my country and language being Slavic, because that is what we are. Now, if the language group to which both of our languages belong is also called Slavic, i.e. if we take Slav in a pan-linguistic sense, then I can see the confusion, but that is merely in terminology, not in facts. A member of a group having the same name as the group as well as the same name as some other members of the group, while the rest of the members don't have the same name as the group, that is a bit confusing.

[cultea]

I have registered about 10 variances of the term supposedly defining the "Slavs", as following:

1. Sclavania
2. ΣκλαβηνΙβι
3. Σκλαυινία
4. Sdavinian
5. ΣκλαβινΙας
6. Σχλαυηυο
7. Σκλανία
8. ΣχλαυηνΙα
9. Σκλαυινία
10. Σκλαβηνίαι

I do not know about 10 name versions in which the Macedonians have appeared or Macedonia, and frankly, taking into account just these 10 examples(I believe can be found more), I do wonder why this term is not unique if it's the name of same people or country?

Not all of these are correct:
SLA- has appeared as SLA, SKLA/SCLA and even STHLA. So SHLA (No 6, 8) may not be totally wrong.

By 6th Century and later B would sound as V in Greek, but the standard transliteration from Greek to Latin would turn Greek B(=V) to a Latin B(=MP)
No 3, 6, 8, 9 is an alternate Greek spelling where αυ sounds like AV. Both αυ and αβ sound as AV.
This means that you have it wrong in the previous page. They first met Greeks who would call them Slavs (with a V) and then Latin Romans turned this to Slabs (with a B) and so did Arabs later.

No 6 seems to be wrong. Probably wanted to write: Σχλαυηνο (Shlavino)
I don't believe No 4 either. It seems like someone misinterpreted cl for d.
I’ve no idea what No 2 is. Did they mean Σκλαβηνιοι (Sclavenioi)? (it refers to people: Sclavenians)
No 5 is probably Σκλαβινιάς-Sclavinias (genitive: Σκλαβινιάδος-Sclaviniados) a proper Hellenized name of a country/land, which is about the same as No 8 and 9. No 10 is a plural of the same term (Sclavenian Lands).
Alternatively, No 5 could be Σκλαβινίας, i.e. simply the genitive case of Sclavinia/Sclavenia.

No 7 also seems to be wrong. Probably meant Σκλαυία (Sclavia, not Sclania)

[Risto the Great]

RtG, can you elaborate on that point a little more? The peoples of Slovenia (Slovenija) and Slovakia (Slovensko), for example, took this identity based on linguistic commonality and, as compact Danubian groups, they developed it into an ethnicity at some point.

There is a place called "Macedonia" and there are "Macedonians".
There has never been a place called Slav and there have never been "Slavs" from an ethnic and/or national sense. I struggle with the "Slav" nomenclature as a consequence. At best IMO it represents a linguistic grouping in a similar vein to Latin.

Nobody has ever really tried to call Macedonians as Slovenians or Slovakians. This is a tired little Greek game that is boring the hell out of me. It is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the Macedonian identity by our antagonists.

The language commonality is unable to be refuted even though Macedonians (in isolation) would struggle to understand any other slavic language. The etymology of volumes of slavic words are undeniably related. I've met enough Russians or (insert supposed Slavic brother race here) to know being Macedonian has nothing ethnically to do with them other than varying degrees of slavic lingual connections. I can live with myself (as a Macedonian) in knowing this.

My Italian (Calabrian) friend used his knowledge of dialectal Italian to great advantage in Spain recently and was quite pleased that he could be understood. He does not feel the least bit Spanish. I fear some Macedonians are scared they might start feeling Slav if they are understood by other ethnicities. If they do feel Slav, can they please tell me how it feels.

[Delodephius]

The appearance of "K" in the term SLAV, comes as a consequence of the rule in Greek language that between "S" and "L" there must be placed "K" in order to read the "L".

As I mentioned before, the reason for the inclusion of K or C in the name Sclavi, Sklavenoi, Sklaveni, is due to the nature of the Dark L or Ł before a back vowel. In Old Church Slavonic this sound still existed. I posted about it before:

I wrote about this earlier somewhere, not sure. Anyhow, the reason why Romans wrote Sklavenoi or Sclavi, i.e. why include k or c, or even th as in Greek Sthlavenoi, is due to Slavic pronunciation of their name itself. The L in Sloväni is the velarized alveolar lateral approximant or "Dark L". In pronunciation it sounds like KL or THL, and that is how the Romans and Greeks heard it the first time. It changed to a regular L, alveolar lateral approximant, somewhere past the 9th century AD, since in OCS it is still velarized, which means it was so in the Macedonian dialect it was based upon. Only Slavic dialects that still have the Dark L are in eastern Poland and west Belarus, and they use the letter Łł to write it down. The Dark L is pronounced exclusively only in front of back vowels: o, u, a, just like in Sloväni.

In the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet] it would be written [sɫɔwæni]. I most modern pronunciations it is either [slɔveni] or in East Slavic [slɑvʲɑni]. This too is due to the evolution of sounds in Slavic phonology.

There is no logical linguistic reason for what you are stating. I do remember when this theory was first postulated, at least on the old Maknews forum, some 5 years ago. Come to think of it, it could have been me who came up with it; that is, in the days before I knew much about Slavic linguistics. For some reason, while I was making such bullshit theories back then people were more inclined to believe me.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Lavce, I have read this before. It does not really deal with the discussion. It deals with the consequences of a modern linguistic familiarity being used to re-badge the Macedonian people and their ethnicity.

I agree.

I am well aware of the danger that some Macedonians seek to avoid by avoiding the "S" word. The elephant in the room is the simple observation that some linguistic similarities exist between various languages described as Slavic languages today.

The elephant in the room shows us that many linguistic similarities exist, not just some. Furthermore, in the literature of those who spoke/speak the languages at least, they have been collectively regarded as Slavic languages from the 9th century. The 'danger' of the so-called "S" word today is a recent creation by the West (supported by sections of Greek, Romanian and Albanian societies, and by some Slavic-speaking societies such as those in Bulgaria and Russia) and unwittingly perpetuated by Macedonian ignorance. Rather than confronting this issue and defeating it with facts and logic, some of us are choosing to hide from it and throw up smoke, in the hope it will disappear into insignificance. It won't. Macedonians shouldn't be ignoring this issue, they should be trying to understand it and confront it, so that they are in a comfortable position to explain what it means to us and why it doesn't have a place in our ethnic identity.

I don't see Romanians questioning their identity when they are included in the Latin language list. I think some Macedonians must have an identity crisis if they are pre-occupied with the "elephant in the room".

I agree, completely.

If there were a nation called Slavs EVER in history ... I would understand the potential for confusion. Luckily, we are Macedonians.

RtG, can you elaborate on that point a little more? The peoples of Slovenia (Slovenija) and Slovakia (Slovensko), for example, took this identity based on linguistic commonality and, as compact Danubian groups, they developed it into an ethnicity at some point.

[Risto the Great]

Lavce, I have read this before. It does not really deal with the discussion. It deals with the consequences of a modern linguistic familiarity being used to re-badge the Macedonian people and their ethnicity.

I am well aware of the danger that some Macedonians seek to avoid by avoiding the "S" word. The elephant in the room is the simple observation that some linguistic similarities exist between various languages described as Slavic languages today. I don't see Romanians questioning their identity when they are included in the Latin language list. I think some Macedonians must have an identity crisis if they are pre-occupied with the "elephant in the room".

If there were a nation called Slavs EVER in history ... I would understand the potential for confusion. Luckily, we are Macedonians.

[lavce pelagonski]

[Soldier of Macedon]

Guided by these instructions we see that the original name had actually been pronounced/read - >> SLAB <<

That is not necessarily true, because the transitional period of the Greek letter β from /b/ to /v/ has not been sufficiently determined. The only thing that is certain is that it took place during the Roman Empire, and it is likely that this process was gradual. What supports the notion that the term 'sklavenoi' was indeed pronounced with a /v/ is the fact that in Latin the word is only ever rendered with a /v/ and not a /b/.

Because of this Romans as a consequence of the Greek written form, have adopted the term SCLAV but the Arabic countries adopted SAKLAB/SAKALABI.

Many languages interchange the /b/ and /v/, even dialects within a common language. Spanish is a good example, where one could hear 'vamos' or 'bamos' depending on the speaker. In Hebrew the name of their capital in Tel Aviv, yet in some other Semitic languages like Arabic the name is pronounced as Tel Abib. Another example can be seen with the devoiced /p/ and /f/ - if you've ever communicated with somebody that speaks an oriental language like Vietnamese, you will notice that quite often they can hear the name 'Frank' yet when they pronounce it, it sounds more like 'Prank'. The same also applies to the /r/ and /l/, which are also quite often interchanged in both European and Asian languages.

It seems to me, that every time, they(Romans, Greeks) have been told a different name.

It has more to do with the way (Latin or Greek-speaking) Romans interpreted the name rather than the person telling them the name.

What is "Common Slavic" language for you?

What does it mean to you? Do you think the Paleo-Balkan languages underwent a change after the 6th century invasions?

[Bratot]

Bratot, it`s because there was no standardized modern education techniques `till the 19th century, b4 that, the literate people was just a small minority, rich ones, aristocrats, clergy, that was all. And all of these people was learning from different people with different techniques and in different styles about how to write.

Today, we just copy the commonly agreed standards of writing foreign words in our own language. It`s something we learned from others, from their previous writings. But in the past, when there was no modern education, there was no such norms and everyone was spelling a foreign words however they hear and the way they prefer.

If you say some Chinese word to some people today and ask them to write it down in Macedonian, there will be small differences in spelling but the differences wont be as vast as the past Roman documents, because today, we are much more experienced in writing foreign words than them and we can figure it out about how to write it phoneme by phoneme, as much as suitable to our own language`s writing style.

Also, it`s possible that they have been told quite differently at that time, so they hear about 10+ different version of the pronunciation, because common spelling of the words is also something we learn with modern education. In the past, accent differences among people was much more than we have today. We tend to unify our accents with modern education and use common accent in the end.

Onur, that's fair enough, but nowadays using modern techniques and knowledge does allow us to understand and explain the misinterpretations from past and to provide detailed linguistic analysis.

[Bratot]

Common Slavic is the language that various Slavic tribes spoke in around the 6th century AD. It can be quite fairly reconstructed, but anything before that is speculation. Unless you know Slavic linguistics don't try to ask how they reconstructed a language that was not written. I can explain, but it is too long and somewhat boring and I suggest you read that yourself.

I posted in a previous post how the sounds in the word Sloväni or in IPA Słowæni was transcribed into Latin and Greek:
ł > kl (cl), thl
o > a, o
w > v, u
æ > e, i

Have you reconstructed the "common slavic" already or now it is your speculations only?

Have your Slavic linguistic skills went further then catching up on phrases from Polish or Slovak?

Unless you are one of these two, which will explain a lot to me regarding your view.

And I think that you should seriously think why the supposed (phonetic) transcription have not retained one form in Greek or Latin.


The appearance of "K" in the term SLAV, comes as a consequence of the rule in Greek language that between "S" and "L" there must be placed "K" in order to read the "L".

That's how you get >> SKL <<

We have to mention about the replacement of the archaic "B" with "V" which have occurred later during the Byzantine period.

Now, because "B" belongs to older stage of the language and is to be read "V" later which belongs to a more recent stage, indicate start and end points.

Guided by these instructions we see that the original name had actually been pronounced/read - >> SLAB <<


Because of this Romans as a consequence of the Greek written form, have adopted the term SCLAV but the Arabic countries adopted SAKLAB/SAKALABI.

[Onur]

It seems to me, that every time, they(Romans, Greeks) have been told a different name.

Bratot, it`s because there was no standardized modern education techniques `till the 19th century, b4 that, the literate people was just a small minority, rich ones, aristocrats, clergy, that was all. And all of these people was learning from different people with different techniques and in different styles about how to write.

Today, we just copy the commonly agreed standards of writing foreign words in our own language. It`s something we learned from others, from their previous writings. But in the past, when there was no modern education, there was no such norms and everyone was spelling a foreign words however they hear and the way they prefer.

If you say some Chinese word to some people today and ask them to write it down in Macedonian, there will be small differences in spelling but the differences wont be as vast as the past Roman documents, because today, we are much more experienced in writing foreign words than them and we can figure it out about how to write it phoneme by phoneme, as much as suitable to our own language`s writing style.

Also, it`s possible that they have been told quite differently at that time, so they hear about 10+ different version of the pronunciation, because common spelling of the words is also something we learn with modern education. In the past, accent differences among people was much more than we have today. We tend to unify our accents with modern education and use common accent in the end.

[Delodephius]

Common Slavic is the language that various Slavic tribes spoke in around the 6th century AD. It can be quite fairly reconstructed, but anything before that is speculation. Unless you know Slavic linguistics don't try to ask how they reconstructed a language that was not written. I can explain, but it is too long and somewhat boring and I suggest you read that yourself.

I posted in a previous post how the sounds in the word Sloväni or in IPA Słowæni was transcribed into Latin and Greek:
ł > kl (cl), thl
o > a, o
w > v, u
æ > e, i

[Bratot]

The name cannot be written or pronounced in Greek or Latin the way it was pronounced in the Common Slavic language: Słowæni. Four of the sounds in this name (ł, o, w, æ) don't have an equivalent in Latin or Greek and so the name was written the way each Roman heard it. Today we have transcription tables on how to transcribe names and words from one language to another and these are considered standard. Something like that did not exist more than a 100 years ago and even today there are more than one standards for transcribing some languages into other, like Chinese into English.

What is "Common Slavic" language for you?

Four of the sounds in this name (ł, o, w, æ) don't have an equivalent in Latin or Greek and so the name was written the way each Roman heard it.

I would like also to learn ancient Slavic pronunciation, guide me through it pls.

It seems to me, that every time, they(Romans, Greeks) have been told a different name.

[Delodephius]

The name cannot be written or pronounced in Greek or Latin the way it was pronounced in the Common Slavic language: Słowæni. Four of the sounds in this name (ł, o, w, æ) don't have an equivalent in Latin or Greek and so the name was written the way each Roman heard it. Today we have transcription tables on how to transcribe names and words from one language to another and these are considered standard. Something like that did not exist more than a 100 years ago and even today there are more than one standards for transcribing some languages into other, like Chinese into English.

[Bratot]

I have registered about 10 variances of the term supposedly defining the "Slavs", as following:

1. Sclavania
2. ΣκλαβηνΙβι
3. Σκλαυινία
4. Sdavinian
5. ΣκλαβινΙας
6. Σχλαυηυο
7. Σκλανία
8. ΣχλαυηνΙα
9. Σκλαυινία
10. Σκλαβηνίαι


I do not know about 10 name versions in which the Macedonians have appeared or Macedonia, and frankly, taking into account just these 10 examples(I believe can be found more), I do wonder why this term is not unique if it's the name of same people or country?