Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sovius
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    If we accept the Macedonian language is in a grouping of languages, surely one of the outcomes of this dialogue can be to choose a name for this grouping. What do you think better describes this grouping?
    Chronologically, 'sloveni' is the original term and all other terms are corruptions of this word form with the potential to distort perceived meaning. Using the English language 'Slovenian' word form allows us to create statements that provide for the separation of Macedonian separatists and Roman loyalists of Macedonian ethnicity, where the Sklavenes spoke a Slovenian language, as did loyalists, when they weren't busy formally communicating in Latin or Greek. The Macedonian Saints carried scriptures written in the tongue of the common people to Moravia. The modern Macedonian language is a Slovenian language that is classified as a Slavic language by Western European Anthropologists and historians, a term which often leads to confusing misinterpretations of early European history when used out of context. The Roman province of Achaea was invaded and occupied by a large number of Eastern Roman separatists and allied armies who are thought to have originated from North of the Danube river, who were referred to as Sklavenes by Eastern Roman loyalists. As you can see, I'm not really arguing for a drastic change in classification so much as an evolutionary step forward in the way we informally and formally communicate about the past and the present.

    Now, you don't have to have to take one step forward, but I do, as the 'Slavic' word form can no longer be adequately used to explain events in European prehistory. If our ancestors weren't hanging out in the Swamps of Central Asia during the formation of European civilization, then using a term that originated during the 6th Century AD only leads to confusion when stepping back further in time. Anthropology is a science that seeks out a greater understanding of the past, not just the present moment. Because the 'Slav' term exists as a modern period generalization with derogatory connotations, it can't be used for truly meaningful communication in objective scholarship conducted in a language that originated in Western Europe. It, unfortunately, has to be de-Slavicized in order to account for the prehistoric co-existence of our ancestors among other populations in Europe and the formation of those other populations for the purposes of progressive research.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Originally posted by Voltron View Post
    Thats what Im saying. If we didnt start it chances are this Slav subject wouldnt even be an issue.
    I agree with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    It is completely a product of the Greek insistence on using Slav as a way of negating Macedonian's historical claim to Macedonia. You know that.
    Thats what Im saying. If we didnt start it chances are this Slav subject wouldnt even be an issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Originally posted by Voltron View Post
    It cant be just a coincidence that this anti-Slav thesis started shortly after the name dispute started.
    It is completely a product of the Greek insistence on using Slav as a way of negating Macedonian's historical claim to Macedonia. You know that. It has been a silly approach because it has turned the spotlight back on Greece and the question marks about Greek continuity have never been so prominent as they have in the last 20 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    If it is Risto then its for the wrong reasons. I see it as a knee jerk reaction to us Greeks that use the Slav subject in the context of the name dispute. It cant be just a coincidence that this anti-Slav thesis started shortly after the name dispute started.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Voltron, a historical slav ethnicity is meaningless. It is even more so in the present.

    Leave a comment:


  • Voltron
    replied
    Associating Slavs with "Slaves" is just ridiculous. As if the Romans did not have other people in slavery. And isnt it amazing how a "Slave" group of people managed to spread their language through half of continental Europe, that must be a sign of their weakness.

    To try and outright deny and accuse a western conspiracy of certain historical facts is a sign of insecurity on your part. I have noticed that it is always a small group of Macedonians that feel this way about the Slav ethnicity and language grouping. You wont find any other South Slav country denying the obvious.

    If you dont like the term Slavic as a linguistic identifier then you might as well start learning Greek Sovius, you dont really have other options on the table.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Not a problem Sovius, my thick skin matches my thick head!
    If we accept the Macedonian language is in a grouping of languages, surely one of the outcomes of this dialogue can be to choose a name for this grouping. What do you think better describes this grouping?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    Risto,
    My apologies, that wasn't directed towards you, but to the chorus, per protagonistes, pardon my Latin, but not my ancient Greek theater class. I have no doubt you possess the ability to distinguish between a language classification and an ethnic identity, whether it be authentic or artificial. Itís those who chair the current political arena that either cannot or simply will not distinguish between the two and that in turn forms the foundation for the same phenomena in the social arena. My argument is not about how we see ourselves, but how others have been engineered to see us. Again, its not about what "we" think, its about what "they" think. Not what "we" see, but what "they" believe they see or would like others to believe they see. If the best thing going for Greece right now is ignorance, what then would be Macedonia's, if it was actually given a platform and not simply the Slav chair in the back? And by Greece I, of course, mean the Western European family of nations. Sadly, impressions outweigh reality. When connotations supersede denotations, the voice of meaning is lost. The word is on their leash.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius
    When we go back and erroneously associate this assumed ethnic identity with historical accounts of the 'Sklavenes', we lose sight of what was really happening during that period in time and that causes us to lose sight of who we truly are as people living in uniquely different cultures .
    You are putting words in my mouth Sovius.
    I am talking about nothing more than a language grouping which seems to offend you. Yet you freely use the term "Germanic". Even though if we delve into it, many Germanic tribes did not speak what is presently understood as a Germanic language.

    I also referred to English as a mongrel language not Germanic. Comprehend my dear protagonist? (apologies for the Latin, Greek & Olde English in that last sentence)

    Feel free to create a new language grouping for what is presently called the slavic language family. I will support you.

    I've been slav free all my life. What took you so long?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovius
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    Why is it so bad to think of Macedonian as within the slavic language group?

    I believe it was Rene Descarteski who wrote, "I Slav, therefore I am." And it was all downhill after that.


    If we were to reclassify the Germanic languages as the 'Mongrel' language family, we would essentially be doing the same thing to them that Western Europeans did for our benefit and our ancestors' well over a century ago. The Western Slav term as it exists in Western European languages was and continues to be a derogatory generalization for people who took a stand against Roman tyranny and sometimes paid for it with their freedom, often, with their very lives.

    'Slav' is based on a slang word for slave (Slaven), which appears to have been based on a word our ancestors used to describe themselves in relation to speakers of other languages in their own languages, not on the 'sloveni' term, itself. These terms are not cognates, because their meanings are different. Proper nouns are not the same things as complex adjectivals being used as either nouns or relational terms. Sloveni did not originally express an assumed singular ethnic identity until the Pan-Slavic Period, which makes it useless in terms of anthropological and historical interpretation. The Western Slav Term not only implies an imagined ethnicity, but demands it, because of it's contemporary treatment as a proper noun by Western Europeans. When we go back and erroneously associate this assumed ethnic identity with historical accounts of the 'Sklavenes', we lose sight of what was really happening during that period in time and that causes us to lose sight of who we truly are as people living in uniquely different cultures . When we use the term to express ideas concerning language in a Western European language, we wind up promoting the same destructive convolutions as the term's use in the study of European history, because Western European Irrationalists do not appear to know how to separate ethnicity from language or a slang word from a formal ethnic or linguistic designation, or they do, but are politically unwilling to do so, at least for us.

    In my opinion, if there never was a mass migration of a people or groups of people who were only occasionally referred to as 'Sklabenoi' over other terms that were also in use for them by the Romans in historical documents during the 6th Century AD, then there couldn't have been any changes to the languages spoken in the area due to population replacement; therefore, linguistic theory based on this assumed event was never relevant to begin with. This includes the Modern Period re-classification, itself. Science demands that we prove things before we change things. Modern anthropological associations based on this theory no longer carry any weight, because contemporary genetic evidence continues to routinely demonstrate entirely different evolutionary paths for our various cultures. We can dig up broaches at archeological sites and classify them as Slavic or whatever else we'd like, but, as has been demonstrated by Eastern Roman chroniclers, themselves, during the era in question, researchers basing their work on the Western European Tradition are simply calling Dacian (Getic/Gothic) artifacts 'Slavic', rather than Dacian or some other classification that is truly meaningful in terms of objective scholarship. This may sound a bit out there but, as the Slavic languages have never been sufficiently proven to be Slavic, they should not be classified or informally regarded as Slavic, especially by Slavs. I can't believe I just typed that!

    You know. I've been Slav free for a number of years now and I've got to tell you, it feels great. People say I look younger and the whole getting crucified from out of nowhere for not paying taxes to the Romans phobia has completely gone away. I must admit bathing in water was a little trying at first compared to flailing around in the mud like a pig, but everyday is a new opportunity for personal growth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soldier of Macedon
    replied
    Originally posted by Risto the Great View Post
    No, because English is a mongrel language with just as much Germanic in it as well. Italian, French and Spanish etc. are definitely within a language grouping that not unreasonably can be called Latin languages.
    See below from another thread:

    The purpose of this thread will be to explore the possibility of a common linguistic branch that split from Proto Indo-European around the time of the satem sound change, which came after the commencement of the centum sound change. This branch would include the (Paleo-)Balkan and Balto-Slavic language families, and for the

    Even the affinity of German and English arouses no doubts, though English has lost most endings and borrowed thousands of French and Latin words at the expense of native vocabulary........The Germanic group of languages, which is at the center of our interest, because English belongs to it, has several features that characterize it uniquely. If English had lost them, it would have stopped being Germanic, but both its basic vocabulary and some peculiarities of grammar survived the Norman Conquest. In phonetics, it is the shift from p, t, k to f, th, h and from b, d, g to p, t, k (the third move has not been discussed here) that gives away a Germanic language......the shift is old. The recorded texts in Germanic have all the "new" consonants in place.
    Irrespective of how many Latin loanwords and features have shaped the English language, its basic vocabulary and other core characteristics have remained in place, which means it is beyond doubt a Germanic language.
    Originally posted by Risto the Great
    Why is it so bad to think of Macedonian as within the slavic language group?

    Back to square one I suppose.
    One minute he is confusing the origin and subsequent meanings of the term 'Slav', next he is making some bizzare linguistic comparison. Square one? Good luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Originally posted by Pelister View Post
    Half of the words in the English language have LATIN origins, the English alphabet is a LATIN alphabet - does that make English part of the 'family' of Latin languages? I mean the Romans invaded England, does that make the English 'Latins'?
    No, because English is a mongrel language with just as much Germanic in it as well. Italian, French and Spanish etc. are definitely within a language grouping that not unreasonably can be called Latin languages.

    Why is it so bad to think of Macedonian as within the slavic language group?

    Back to square one I suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pelister
    replied
    Originally posted by Sovius
    I wouldn't argue otherwise, but, I believe, it's imperative that we also take into account the circumstances and the changes in the associated connotations and denotations of the two different terms throughout each different period in history and the reality that the Sklavene word forms were not previously used for the same people who still largely existed where they did for numerous centuries of prior written history, people who were never referred to using any of these secondary appellations that we know of, but by their proper/traditional ethno-linguistic classifications.
    Could we be getting somewhere?

    A scientific approach to this foriegn nomenclature might unravel the fog of lies surrounding it.

    When was the term 'Slav' (exact spelling) first used, who said it and what did they mean by it?

    Because calling everything 'Slav' (culture, language, architecture ...etc) is an act of denial. If every day Macedonians never used it the way an 18th century German intellectual might have, or a 19th century Russian propagandist might have, then we have no business tarring the Macedonians (historically and culturally) with that black colonial brush.

    Half of the words in the English language have LATIN origins, the English alphabet is a LATIN alphabet - does that make English part of the 'family' of Latin languages? I mean the Romans invaded England, does that make the English 'Latins'?

    Using the term 'Slav' with the Macedonians is not doing the Macedonian people any favours. It is not helping the Macedonian struggle, because so little is known about our history and our origins. Grafting the term 'Slav' to all things Macedonian is what ignorant people do, when pursuing their own selfish agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • Risto the Great
    replied
    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Sovius. An interesting dialogue!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X