Who are the Slavs? - Citations and Sources

[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?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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

[Onur]

Originally Posted by Bratot

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.

[Bratot]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[Bratot]

Originally Posted by Onur

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.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Bratot

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?

[lavce pelagonski]

[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.