I just wanted to express my opinion that I consider this edit laudable and conducive to establishing neutrality, since FYROM is the way UN refers to the country. The IP comes according to WHOIS from Greece and that is a latent exhortation for all editors to show reverence for the UN as an international organisation and respect for the position of his country which is member of leading international organisations such as UN, EU unlike the country in quæstion. Last, but not least, FYROM is a succinct and unambiguous notion and does not involve obfuscations like country A, provisionally called B, sometimes referred to as C, whose irredentistic name is D.... Let us adhere to UN FYROM terminology, ok? Bogorm23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note here that "FYROM" is wrong. At the very least it should be "fYROM". It isn't a question of some arbitrary "neutrality", it is a question of usage. (and Bogorm, if I may be uncharitable for a moment, your pushing of "Former", capitalized, is just as much a dead giveaway of your position is when a Republican in the US says "Democrat" as an adjective, rather than "Democratic".) The provisional designation is just that: a designation. Which no party, including Greece thinks is the name of the country.
Of course you would consider that edit laudable because those of your position on the dispute love that 5-letter acronym because ethnic Macedonians cringe at the thought of it. The main arguement for editors of your side is that the UN says the name is FYROM, therefore it is neutral. Well, this is not the UN. "Republic of Macedonia" is not amiguous either; there is only one republic with the name "Macedonia". Local hero23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(to LH) I am not concerned about ambiguity, but about irredentism. It is the same, as if Bulgaria is named San-Stefanic Republic of Bulgaria, I hope you understand what that would mean. (to RU) I did not intend to edit the article on my own, I just expressed support for the Greek IP. I did not understand the capitalisation rule, though, why should the first letter be a minuscule? In w:Federal_Republic_of_Germany the official name is Federal R. of G., not federal R of G, where is the difference? Probably the reason is that FYROM does not designate itself as FYROM and thence no capitalisation? As for Greece, here it is clear-cut expounded: Στην Ελλάδα αναφέρεται ενίοτε ως Δημοκρατία των Σκοπίων, Σκόπια, κράτος των Σκοπίων, ΠΓΔΜ = In the Hellenic Republic it is sometimes referred to as Republic of Skopie, Skopie, the state of Skopie (bold in the source, not by me). It is evident that in none of these Greek variations do the Greeks associate the name of their geographical region and province with the state. Bogorm08:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, f should be decapitalised as it, unlike the Federal ..., is not a translation of an official name, but exogenous appellation produced by the pressure of the Republic of Athens. But, since English has no officially proscribed orthography on things like this, we should probably link to the most common spelling (I don't know which one of these is, is case-sensitive Google search possible at all?).
We all understand Bulgarian/Greek viewpoint on this naming issue, but we all also know that the Greeks are notoriously allergic to either any mention of historical presence of Slavic speakers on the territory of the Republic of Athens (in the 7th-9th century entire continental Greek was Slavicised, which can bee seen from thousands of toponyms in there, lots of which Greeks artificially erased in the 20th century), or the possibility of denying the "exclusiveness" of the term of Macedonia for the modern-day Greek province. Which is, when you think about, ridiculous as both Hellenes and Macedonia are substratum (non-Indo-European) loanwords in Greek (Greek itself also exogenous - of Latin/Illyrian origin). So the usage of "fYROM" would also be irredentistic thru modern Macedonian eyes, Greeks/Bulgarians trying to appropriate something that historically was never exclusively theirs (Ancient Macedonian of Alexander the Great being mutually unintelligible with Greek, and the dialect ancestral to modern standard Macedonian being polarised from the dialect ancestral to modern standard Bulgarian at the time of OCS writings in the 9th century when neither Macedonian or Bulgarian nation existed). So the whole fuss against the Macedonia is exaggerated and artificial IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk09:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Bulgarian nation exists since 479, when it was officially mentioned as allies of Emperor Zenon, or if you associate nation with state, since 632, i. e. approximately 14 centuries. There is also an anonymous Latin inscription from 354. Or do you imply that there were no Gothic nation under Theodorich, no Frankish nation under Chlodwig? On the other hand, the first written document or literary work of the language of the modern Republic of Skopie emerged in the 1920es first in the Comintern circles and after Tito gained power, in official Yugoslavia. Republic of Athens, thru - this must be some sort of slang English, please, do not complicate the conversation with such argot vocabulary. Bogorm10:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bulgarian nation in 479? :))) Perhaps I was mypioc or something reading those Old Bulg^H^H^H^H Church Slavonic MSS, but the language in there is always self-referred to as "Slavic" (slověnьskyi). I mean, in 479CE there was no Slavs at the stage of history, and Slavic nations got "reinvented" after the spread of Slavic speech with the rise of Avar qagante in the 6th-8th century, and for the next 1000 years (when modern Slavic nations were forged by ruling elites) in tens of thousands of attestations the autonym was always "Slavic". IMHO Macedonians don't have any less right to the term Macedonian just because their national consciousness rose a bit later (esp. if you consider that originally the term referred to neither Greeks nor Bulgars/Bulgarians). About the thru spelling - I grew addicted after reading it a couple of hundred times on this site the other day, sorry :) Seems much more "proper" to me when I think about it. --Ivan Štambuk12:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Slavs in 479 AD - that is the clue, I meant Protobulgarians who established their first state in 632 and were known in historical sources with their national name since 479/354. The Bulgarian nation exists since 632 as mainly Protobulgarian and since 679 as Slavic-Protobulgarian, which is the basis of our origin. As it is not my prærogative to narrate the history of my nation here nor it is the destination of the current talk page to discuss thereon, I suggest swerving from that topic. Bogorm12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, the ancient Macedonian dialect was a Greek dialect. There was not official Greek language, since there was not official Greek state that time. Ancient Macedonians were Greeks. They have the same Gods as the rest of Greeks, same name as the rest of Greeks, participating in Olympic Games as the rest of Greeks. The name Makedonia is Greek, just like Alexandros, Philippos, Thessaloniki, Voukefalas. Also during the first Christian Era, Apostle Paul wrote two letters to Thessalonians and one to Philippians (both cities in Ancient Macedonia and modern Greek Macedonia), all of them in Greek of course. Greeks have a continuity of language and culture and study ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotelis was from Stageira (Macedonia), was Plato's student and teacher of Alexandros. I think there is no need to proof what is obvious. The state of fYROM just keeps stealing Greek and Bulgarian history. This is why they forced to change their first flag (The Vergina Sun/Star) because it was something Macedonian and thus Greek. It is is irrational to called people of Bulgarian origin, who use serbian script and claim parts of Bulgarian history as Macedonians. Greece has no problem with Slavic population. There is only problem with those who disrespect Greek history. It is quite obvious that a nation without nationality and history tried to get any possible history available. Just tell me when is the first time that the word macedonia is being found in slavic script. There are about 2,500,000 Greeks in Macedonia, being proud for being both Macedonians and Greeks. They are culturally and geographically related with Ancient Macedonia, so any use of the name of Macedonia to refer any population other than the original Greek is anti-historic, anti-scientific and rude towards Macedonia's history.--HIZUMI17:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the question of what Macedonian was is by no means settled. Certainly the most common explanation is that it was related to Greek, but it's generally put as a sister group to Greek, not a subset (although there are certainly plenty of folks who call it a Greek dialect). Interestingly, some have recently noted some striking similarities to Slavic languages (wouldn't it be funny if it turned out to be a Slavic language after all? :-)). In short, it is certainly Indo-European, but the paucity of attested Macedonian records makes any more specific assertion necessarily tenuous. Also, Paul wrote all his letters in Greek, including his letter to the Romans, yet no one would take that as evidence that the Romans were originally Greek speakers, but rather as evidence that Greek was a lingua franca of the whole empire. Also, it is probably wise to recall that Macedon of Alexander's time took on a great deal of Greek culture (as opposed to inheriting it), such as religion and Attic speech. Let's not pretend that Macedon had been a big player in Greek life up to this point. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, do not remove the etymology, as both claims may cohabitate tranquilly. The Doric one is at least straightforward and mainstream, but for the second any source would not prove to be superfluous. Bogorm12:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Doric "etymology" is obsolete folk-etymologised rubbish which has no place on Wiktionary. Robert Beekes is by far the most renowned expert for Pre-Greek substratum words and we cannot compare him with some far-fetched Greek nationalist ideologically-motivated explanations in which the -dnos suffix (non-IE, non-Greek) is left as an unsolved mystery. --Ivan Štambuk12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this innovative person you quoted who is supportive of the non-Greek origin, but the next defamation of the explication of a Swedish professor in linguistics as folk etymology can be perceived as libelling. Bogorm13:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but Beekes actually discusses Frisk's analysis (and dismisses is). Frisk's dictionary is more than half a century old and completely obsolete. Here are the relevant quotes in case you missed them: An analysis μακε-δνος is impossible in an IE word and Not cognate with μακ-ρός, μῆκ-ος. Once again: Frisk's analysis is not some "traditional" and "classical" one, but obsolete one. --Ivan Štambuk13:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Ivan Stambuk You say makednos is not congate with mhkos. Why in my Cretan dialect that is also a Doric dialect we say a makrus antras instead of pshlos antras? The makrus is used to express the height of a man in my dialect which is Cretan and is derived from Doric.
OK, would you agree to use the formulation chosen by our standard Ancient Greek wizard? If he feels that the relationship with μῆκος or μακρός needs to be mentioned, I'll agree too (not that I have any problem with mentioning of the alternative theories, it's just that giving possible undue prominence to obsolete theories is what bothers me). --Ivan Štambuk13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is your interpretation. Please, do not belittle Frisk's profound and convincing research. The dictionary was issued in 1960, 2009-1960=49<50. The question is whether Professor Frisk feels that it must be mentioned and he did. Please, respect that. I would agree to switch the first and second place in either-or, but not to obliterate any of them. Bogorm13:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why this hostility towards Greece, has it inflicted something baleful on Croats? Why this zest to confute the Greek origin of the geographical region? It is true that Byzantium did not like those Slavs in its territory who refused to speak Greek and to permeate the rich Greek culture, but Byzantium was an empire and as such it cannot be associated with Greece, there were many other peoples - Armenians, Egyptians before the Arab conquest, Assyrians and many more. Bogorm13:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I left Jesse a note. He seems to be very buy in the last few weeks, so it might take some time before we receive an answer. I assure you that my involvement with the etymology of this particular word has nothing to do with "hostility towards Greeks" or Greek culture, whom I deeply respect. OK, I probably am a bit biased against the ideologically-motivated etymologies, or those that fuel some myths (plenty of those at the Balkans..), but in this particular case the traditional explanation is just silly. Indo-European historical linguistics has made some giant steps since the 1950s, especially with regard to what's today commonly dubbed as laryngeal theory (it has nothing to do with real laryngeals). Moreover, Robert Beekes is an expert on Pre-Greek substratum, and can spot such "anomalous" words (that cannot be derived from PIE, or formed with the usual Ancient Greek derivational morphology) on sight. Here you can find a paper of him on phonology and word structure of this Pre-Greek. I'll just quote two paragraphs from that PDF, that illustrate 2 important points IMHO (the bias against pre-Greek explanations in previous etymological dictionaries of Ancient Greek, and the obsoletness of pre-laryngeal-theory explanations).
But if we know which variations frequently occur, we are warned to consider Pre-Greek
origin if we find them. The existing etymological dictionaries often seem to "avoid" the conclusion that a word is a substratum element. It is remarkable that Chantraine was quite aware of he question in his Formation, but has very often withdrawn his - in my view correct - evaluation in his dictionary. It seems as if substratum elements were not welcome.
Our knowledge of Indo-European has grown so much, especially in the last thirty years with notably the growth of the laryngeal theory, that we can in some cases say that an Indo-European reconstruction is impossible. A good example is the word γνάθος To explain the -a- of this word we need to introduce a "second laryngeal" (h₂). However, a preform *gnh₂dʰ- would have given Gr. *γνᾱθ- with a long a. One might think that assuming *h₂e would remedy the problem, but *gnh₂edʰ- would give *γαναθ-, so we would have again a problem. The conclusion is that no Indo-European proto-form can be reconstructed, and that the word cannot be Indo-European. There is no problem in assuming a Pre-Greek word (though the word has no typical characteristics of Pre-Greek). - Another example is the word κρημνός "overhanging bank", for which a connection with κρέμαμαι "hang (up)" seemed evident. However, we now know that long vowels cannot be postulated at random, and here it is simply impossible: there is no formation type that would allow a long vowel. The objection is confirmed by the fact that there is no trace of the expected α < *h₂ (as in κρέμαμαι < *kremh₂-). Positively one can say that features of the landscape are often loanwords from a substratum. The inevitable conclusion is that the word is Pre-Greek.
The more we know about Indo-European, the less is possible. As our reconstructions become more and more precise, they have to conform to all the rules we have established by now. This holds for all etymological work: in a way, then, it becomes more difficult. This also regards Pre-Greek, as indicated: for some forms an Indo-European origin is no longer possible.
So, essentially, this has everything to do with the advancement of linguistic science, and the scholarly freedom from the confines of "politically incorrect" etymological explanations (Pelasgian vulgarisms in noble Greek), as often the case was with Pre-Greek words. --Ivan Štambuk14:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how two independent professors, one French and one Swedish can be influenced by the ideologically-motivated etymologies, or those that fuel some myths (plenty of those at the Balkans. If you seek political motivation at any cost, rememebr that the Republic of Skopie was not recognised by France (but the Dictionnaire Étymologique... was issued 23 years before the breakup of Yugoslavia), but was recognised by the USA, just to mention. Howbeit, I shall make myself familiar with this new US non-IE theory. I advocate the representation of both theories in the section and am against the removal of any of them - I did not dare to erase the non-IE claim, but only tagged it as unsourced, as I did to the established, mainstream, cogent one, until I find more sources. Let the reader make oneself familiar with both possibilities and decide on one's own which to embrace, please be tolerant to them, especially when the first originates from two independent sources. Bogorm14:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were influenced in a sense that they ignored "abject" and "ignoble" alternative explanations, even though these were very much known to them (well, not really to Frisk, at his time the Pre-Greek research was in its infancy). With the advancement of modern IE scholarship, obsolete theories must be discarded and replaced with new ones, much more likely. And please, this is not some "US theory" - FYI Beekes works at the University of Leiden (the last stronghold of the glottalic theory of PIE, but fortunately for us, unlike some of the other proponents of that school, Beekes completely ignores the glottalic framework for the etymological dictionary he is currently writing). It is up to us (in this case, Atelaes :) to decide which one of those theories is corroborated by the most substantiated evidence, and which one should be and how presented to the reader. 99.9% of Wiktionary users have no knowledge of pre-Gree or PIE, and wouldn't care less if we gave them the explanation of makednos being brought to Greeks by Martians. --Ivan Štambuk14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
must be discarded and replaced ... Beekes completely ignores the glottalic framework - the worse for this person. Please stop promoting some innovative new age theories which emerged after the inflammation of the Macedonia naming dispute. It is not very difficult to fathom that the impact of the recent political altercations around the Republic of Skopje can't have spared the theories or at least their authors can't have remained callous to that. Therefore do not disparage further Chantraine's and Frisk's explications who enlighten us about the ineptitude of some Macedonist far-fetched fabrications of any connection whatsoever between Vardar Bulgarians and Ancient Macedonians. I will tell you an analogous advancement of linguistic science - after Nikolaj Derzhavin, a leading Russian historian, exposed the Iranian origin of the Proto-Bulgarians in the 20es and 30es, a myriad of Stalinist aparatchiks began after his death to promote the tosh about their Turkic origin and even oppressed the linguist Georgy Turchaninov in his quest for the meaning of the acient Alanian and Proto-Bulgarian inscriptions (must be discarded! ). That overshadowed and crippled the Bulgarian historiography for 5 decades until our historians reached the same conclusion as Derzhavin and Turchaninov. So, please, show more respect to the venerable Swedish and French professors! There is a suffix donos, don, which added to the derivation of mekos, produces Macedonian, thereby corroborating the Hellenic origin of Macedon and their indissoluble connection with the Ancient Greek language and culture, all is IE and as clear-cut as possible. Bogorm15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, rejecting glottalic theory of PIE is Good Thing, as that theory is rubbish (it might hold for pre-PIE, definitely not for Late PIE, but pre-PIE glottalic theory is unfortunately unprovable as IE doesn't have any known genetically related families to compare to (though North-West Caucasian and Uralic are fairly good candidates)). I also assure you that laryngeal theory is not some "innovative new age theory" ;) and that mr. Beekes has absolutely zero personal or ideological take when explicating the etymology of makednos (the suffix is -dnos, not -donos). I have respect for Frisk and that French dude as much as I have for Isaac Newton and Archimedes - their theories were correct in their respective timeframes, but today need to be replaced by much more likely scenarios. --Ivan Štambuk15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't feel like scrolling the mouse up to copy/paste his name..with what he's done per Beekes (crime against intellectual honesty and freedom), he deserves nothing less IMHO ;) --Ivan Štambuk16:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is your Mr. Beekes, who has perpetrated all those misdeeds by persevering in this diehard non-IE hocus pocus (you did not even mention what substratum that was! - Thracian (IE though!), Sea peoples..., what kind of substratum???, Sea people №2, Highlands people №1?), there is one marvellous German word, hervorzaubern, here is the best description for that. (Too bad that we do not converse in German...) Bogorm16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My perseverance on non-IE focus is plainly due to it being by far the most probable explanation, and this word is problematic enough that it better had all the folk-etymologised and obsolete rubbish wiped away. Whether the Pre-Greek substratum is IE or not is doubtful..according too Beekes it prob. is not (-dnos suffix is non-IE). It was certainly not Thracian and has nothing to do with "Sea People (among which there were Greek tribes according to Egyptian records BTW), that's for sure. I wouldn't know that German word, maybe you should create it to illustrate its applicative convenience? --Ivan Štambuk21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hervorzaubern = conjure up, conjure into existence. I would have added the German translation, if one of those two had been created, but as you see, the meaning is specific. Expurgating the sourced theory supported by two venerable linguists by simply pushing a brand new version is one-sided, to put it mildly. What was the reason to exhort me to shew tolerance, when you are now eager to obliterate the sourced, established theory in favour of a substratum which you do not even know of which language family is?? (In mine opinion, one-directional tolerance is worse than intolerance) Well, you claim that mentioning substrata in etymologies of IE languages was discouraged, this is simply not true! V. I. Abaev mentions in his Etymology dictionary of Ossetian Caucasian substrata on every 3rd page, even though he is Ossetian. When they are inept and far-fetched, they are inept and far-fetched, or at least fail to provide a satisfactory, cogent or even a little bit more circumstantial informatian. Abaev at least knows that his substrata are Caucasian, but this here... Bogorm22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explication on semantics of that German tongue-twister (aren't they all). Once again I reiterate the essence of my arguments: this is not just about listing various theories: it is about questioning the relevance of the theories expounded when modern interpretative framework of comparative Indo-European linguistics, as well as that of pre-Greek substratum evidence, did not really exist, or was not deliberately taken into account by intellectually dishonest etymologists (like that French dude). We are now light years ahead. The way the etymology section currently lays out "competing" theories is not only degradeful towards the one incarnating the pinnacle of modern scholarship, propounded by Robert S. P. Beekes, but also peculiarly misleading to a reader where "fancy" explanations are listed first, with no mention of their untenability by modern scholarship, in a suggestive and apparently straightforward cogitation that μακεδνός can be scanned as μακε-δνός (non-existing derivational morpheme in either Greek or PIE), or the second part being a "zero-grade" derivative of underlying suffix -δόνos (only 1 match for the development similar to that, plus the problem that zero-grade cannot be postulated wherever one imagines it to be, only in roots where it regularly morphophonologicaly ablauts with other vowels, having etymologically-compatible matches in cognate words). Furthermore, any kind of relationship of the aforementioned with μῆκος, μακρός or μηκεδανός is strictly etymologically impossible (despite the apparent superficial semantic compatibility) and thus ad-hoc.
Ossetian abounds with substratum words as Ossetians migrated to Caucasus in historical period (Tatar incursions it was, IIRC) and have merged with native cultures. This is particularly pertinent to Hellenic civilisation which itself rose to prominence after the two-wave invasion of Hellenic speakers obliterated native cultures, as it implies rather recent ethnocultural discontinuity, which is disturbing to Greek nationalists and indoctrinated Hellenophiles which would rather postulate Greek being spoken in Upper Paleolithic on the entire Balkans. We must not succumb to nationalist-driven mythomania and history-fabricating propaganda machinery, at least not under the silly arguments of "NPOV" and "political correctness" of presenting badly outdated linguistic research on a par with cutting-edge one. --Ivan Štambuk23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First thing's first, let's contain the controversy. If the origin is in dispute, then the dispute needs to be localized. So, I've trimmed the etymology for this entry down to the fairly straightforward bits, and will also do so for Μακεδονία(Makedonía). I suggest we move our discussion to Talk:μακεδνός, the talk page for an entry which I will shortly create. While that does little to solve the issue at hand, it does take Macedonia, and any nationalist nonsense which we don't need in our discussion out of it. Beekes does not seem to have a terribly strong case to make, and so I think it would be imprudent to simply dismiss other theories. On the other hand, Beekes' opponents don't have an incredibly strong case either, and Beekes has rather more modern research on his side. I suggest the etymology show the traditional etymology, but give it less credence. Since I will be the one writing it, that is what we'll start with. :-) -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί00:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the current formulation though I still hold that way too much prominence is given to obsolete theories that we know today are 100% wrong. This amounts to mentioning flat-Earth theory on the Wikipedia article on Solar cycles just because it used to be general communis opinio of scholars for centuries before the advent of scientific methods dispelled Biblical myths. However, I cheerfully acclaim the advancement of linguistic science, looking forward to the day when mr. Beekes' research will penetrate all the standard handbooks and manuals, obsoleting the "politically correct" 20th century scholarship in the dustbin of history, thus making it inappropriate to make even mention of it existing. --Ivan Štambuk10:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quæstion is closed, please do not incandesce it afresh. flyax and Atelaes (Beekes does not seem to have a terribly strong case to make) consider that it is worth mentioning both theories. Just because something is new, it does not mean it is a step in the right direction. By changing, science can either approach the truth or divert itself from it and in this particular case we both defend each one of these two possibilities, respectively. Lysenko's ideas were also innovative and brand-new but I hope you (and Mr. Beekes) know how all this ended. These were not scholars, they were clergymen and theologians. Which means that the mediæval opinio could not have been of scientists, before the science emerged in the 16th century. Bogorm10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They were scientist by their contemporary criteria, using their faulty methods to deduce truth on natural phenomena. They also intentionally inhibited the advancement of modern scientific methods (based on experimental verification of hypotheses, postulated on the basis of infallible self-supportive mathematical structure), by throwing to jail anyone who disagreed on their "proofs". In both cases, of mediaeval orthodox monk-scientists and 20th century etymologists turning a blind eye on "unwelcome" theories, the net result is ultimately the same - hindering the one and only truth from the masses, ultimately leading to superstition, mythomania and general degradation of collective intellect of humanity.
OK, now that we've done with this, perhaps we can relocate our confabulations on other amusing etymons, like the etymology of Hellene - the decomposition to el- and relation to electron and Helios is most entertaining. You can prob. assume how mr. Beekes etymologises this obscure ethnicon. --Ivan Štambuk10:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not again. It took me one whole morning yesterday to disprove the claims of that Leiden chap by finding out Pierre Chantraine and Hjalmar Frisk, I do not want to sacrifice another one. Please, spare the etymology of Hellenic, may it stay as it is, ok? Anyway, it is in my watchlist, so that I can defend the sound theory again against the encroachments of Lysenko-like innovations, if necessary. This words dude, jail... it took me a while to understand that in standard (not slang) English their correspondence is chap, gaol... You almost infected me with the first, but I rectified myself... Bogorm10:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English language has no institutional body regulating its "properness"! (unlike most of the other languages), so there are no "standard" and "non-standard" words. There is nothing less english in d00d than in chap, if you ask me. Anyhow, I've expanded the etymology of exogenous non-Indo-European Hellenic ethnicon Ἕλλην with the research of world's foremost expert on Greek substratum, in order to provide Wiktionary readers insight into the cutting-edge of modern Indo-European studies. But I promise not to touch it (or any other (topo)nomastics lexeme) further. --Ivan Štambuk14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By standard I meant non-slang, otherwise the vocabulary except the unrefined vocabulary. chap is at least marked as informal and although I struggle to evade informal words, this time I was provoked by your too familiar reference to Prof. Pierre Chantraine. As for Ἕλλην, I am deeply aggrieved by your edit and by the fact that both Chantraine and Frisk do not go beyond Σελλοί in their explications, i. e. in that case I cannot write a sourced and sound counterbalance to the obfuscting substratum-claim. Professor Chantraine explains notwithstanding that Commes bien des termes géographiques ces mots sont sans étymologie which you and the Leiden chap are evidently disregarding. Bogorm16:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you two sure like to bicker. A couple things the you might want to keep in mind: First, Bogorm, a lot of the sources you're working with are outdated. You've been told this time and again, and yet you seem to keep forgetting or refusing to listen. Now, just because a scientist is from the past does not mean that everything they say is wrong, but it would be silly to ignore modern research and the previous claims which it has repudiated. However, historical linguistics is a bit more reliant on older work than other disciplines (a fact which Ivan would do well to remember), simply because no one cares where Ancient Greek words came from (and why should they? Such knowledge does not feed hungry people, cure diseases, or stimulate the world economy.). Thus, we have a great deal less research to draw upon than, say, physics. If someone were to cite sources as old as yours, Bogorm, within a discussion of physics or cell biology, they would be immediately dismissed and laughed off the stage, so to speak. As people working in an area with such a paucity of good research, we need to do what we can with the few modern researchers in existence, and also take older researchers a bit more seriously than we'd like, simply because we have less to go on. Finally, as a native English speaker (the only one involved in this convo, as far as I can tell), I'd like to note about dude and jail. To begin with, jail is not slang, not at all. It is simply American. American English is every bit as valid as British English. If you'd like to limit your learning of English to stodgy/archaic British English, that is certainly your right. I will admit that I tend to temper my own English with archaisms such as "whom" and "shall." The difference is that I know that such things are largely obsolete, and have the good sense not to tell other people that their language is "wrong." Any worthwhile linguist knows that the only measure of valid language is comprehension. So, as much as a sentence which uses the word "like" a dozen times in a single sentence irks me, it is completely correct English (incidentally, I helped my roommate write a paper on the many uses of the word "like" in modern English. It's, like, a totally robust word). Also, you may want to note that modern American English is the more influential of the English dialects, and such a course of education may leave you as the odd one out in the future, just so you're aware. Dude is indeed slang, but no more so than chap. Chap is older, and so perhaps carries with it a slightly greater degree of formality, but not much. Again, the difference is largely one of regions. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that jail is not slang, just regional, I never wanted to imply that. Chap is tagged in its entry here as informal and I only used it after Ivan made use of dude, id est I did not initiate the usage. I would certainly not have shewed causticity if Ivan had called dude anyone but Pierre Chantraine, that was the main reason for me to object. I do not intend to conceal my prædilection for archaic/obsolete English words as well and did not mean any harm with referring to his source as chap, it served only as a retort. Bogorm23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur on the influenciality part: in Croatia (and mesuspects also in lots of European countries) schools officially (in theory) teach British English, but nevertheless I never saw the spelling gaol for jail in my lifetime before Bogorm mentioned it (in fact I had to look it up), and the last time I heard chap spoken on TV was on Monty Python shows. Bogorm's strong predilection for "proper" and "improper" English comes from his background with languages in which the properness is dictated by certain academic institution which prescribes which spellings and words are more "proper" than the others. Since such institution lacks for English, the nearest equivalent would be the most proper British English (as a place of the "origin" of the language). However, since linguistic development of modern-day English has for the last 5 centuries been taking place outside its historic "homeland", it's pointless to apply the same argument as the resulting divergent dialects are all historically equivalent with respect to the Middle English speech they originated from. IMHO, no person in the world one can tell you that your mother tongue is not "proper" enough, as opposed to some imaginary literary standard that has been bestowed prestigious by some fancy suits on the basis of some imaginary criteria (being used by some great writes, or spoken by most of the population). Same is valid for both "slang" and "archaic/obsolete" words - both categories are IMHO imaginary. I mean, words are not computer protocols that they can grow "obsolete". Literary lexis can never become obsolete, it can only just hibernate until it regains usage by people freed from the confines of "properness". Bogorm himself uses some of the "obsolete" spellings (naïve, quæstion..) not to mention the obscure words one can never encounter in spoken languages, as opposed to dude which is spoken daily prob. more times than all of those obscure words B used combined in the last 100 years. So the "properness" of words, pronunciations and meanings is just another face of modern-day intellectual hypocrisy IMHO. --Ivan Štambuk23:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
naïve is not obsolete, it is not even dated, it is the standard. As is façade. Check their entries out, if you have any doubts. Bogorm23:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I have to agree with Bogorm. "naïve" is actually in use, as is "façade." They may well be two of perhaps five words in English which are commonly spelled with nonstandard characters (nonstandard for English orthography, that is). "quæstion," on the other hand, is most certainly not in use. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί23:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I would like to ask what is the original Macedonia in you opinion? Is there such a thing? Can there be an original China, or an original Italy? That definition was very illogical so I removed it, but my edits were reverted later. Also, the article states that Vardar Macedonia is a term used in Bulgarian to describe the Republic of Macedonia, as a statehood, as a republic, which of course isn't true, so I removed that too, but it was later also reverted. Any opinions on this subject? My edits were regarded as a non-NPOV, while I was trying to make the article be a NPoV. And to elaborate on that-the original Macedonia being Greek, implies that the "other Macedonias" are fake, a fraud, copycats... And I ask you, how is this NPoV? As a matter of fact, there can't be an original Macedonia, as there can't be an original Denmark. And about the Bulgarian definition, just ask any Bulgarian about the official stance of the Rep. of Bulgaria on the matter, is this country ever called Vardar Macedonia? They'll say no, that's a name used for that region-so we can thus concur that it should not be listed in the country translation entries. Please do reply, because if I edit any further, I feel a block coming my way, as admins these days first revert, and then ask questions. Guitardemon66619:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the def, as it was redundant with the adjacent one, and, as you note, was poorly worded. Quick reverts are a necessity on a project with such a low admin/page ratio. It has its drawbacks, to be sure, but we wouldn't be able to keep this site maintained if we were much more polite. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wasn't exactly expecting politeness. Being considerate is what I would prefer calling it. I understand the low admin/page ratio problem, as I myself am an admin on the Macedonian Wikipedia (which has a great deficit of admins), but regarding sensitive subjects one must be considerate and pay more attention to detail, because you never know what kind of an argument actions of such sort might spark off. I'm not saying I was offended or anything, because we both well know that this article is likely to be vandalized, or politicized at least, but anyway greater attention is needed (and not just reversion of any changes by a user whose username doesn't sound familiar). Anyway I'm glad you removed it from the article, because it really made no sense whatsoever. I'm (or consider myself at least) as neutral as they get, so I don't like being labeled a nationalist or anything of the like. Cheerio! Guitardemon66620:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am incensed that you removed it based on some claims of a native user (defending NPOV ?! ) for some arguable politicising, when we are talking about history here and not about the præsent meaning of the noun. The erased definition must be restored with or without the Template:historical, with or without the replacement of original with Ancient and an additional definition with or without historical: the region of modern East Thrace during the Middle Ages be added. References from Byzantine chronicles will be provided, if it need be. There are three geographical meanings of this word through the centuries and not one, as Guitardemon666 tries to præsent it. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am original Bulgarian and I can confirm that Vardar Macedonia is not used to refer to the country, but is used to refer to the geographical region where it stretches. Guitardemon666, I am not sure what your knowledge in history is, but yes, in ancient times Macedonia was the region around Thessaloniki, which never stretched to modern FYROM and during Byzantine times all Byzantine chronicles mean the region between Adrianopolis and Constantinople when they mention Macedonia (which again had no single common square kilometre with present-day FYROM), so mine opinion is that we need not only one definition for the ancient region of Macedonia (which is the Easternmost part of what is now the geographical region of Macedonia) and another one for the Byzantine meaning. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Macedonia was a part of Greek world. As far I know, mostly for political reasons, a group of Bulgarians started call themselves Macedonias, around the end of 19th century. It is obvious that there is no relationship between the former Yugoslave Republic of Macedonia with ancient Macedonia, so there must be a definition to clarify things.--HIZUMI06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to judge your eyesight (or it's not your eyesight, it's just that you εθελοτυφλείτε... you Greeks will understand this), but does this tell you something Bœgœrm, æh?
Translations country in the Balkan Peninsula
Just why did you restore the term Vardarska Makedoniya in that section? Is Vardarska Makedoniya a translation of what is written above? Well, you said it yourself (being an original Bulgarian, as you put it) - it's not. As far as the ancient kingdom goes, no one ever disputed that. It's just that there is no such thing as an Original Macedonia. This is not Nike or Adidas to be original. One more thing, Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας (Republic of Macedonia, in Greek) is a term used in Greece, want it or not, and I can show you quite a few examples of it too, here's one. So it also needs to be listed. FYROM or not, the article's name is Macedonia, and the translations of the country with that name (which is only one, at the moment at least) also have to be listed as such, not as some made up names that Bœgœrm uses. BTW Bœgœrm, being a native speaker of a language doesn't make me not have a NPOV, nor does it make me a resident of the country in question. Ever thought of that? --Guitardemon66623:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guitardemon, you obviously do not (or do not want to) understand when the term is used in Bulgarian, although I exprest myself unambiguously. It is used to designate the geographical region of the country in quæstion and I clarified that with a remark! I am not the only Bulgarian here interested in this issue, so if the other ones had considered the term inappropriate, they would have changed it. Additionally, compare how German (Als Vardar-Mazedonien wurde der nördliche Teil ... bezeichnet - which explains why it cannot be added under German) and Bulgarian Wikipedia (Вардарска Македония е названието на частта от географската област Македония - which explains why it can and should be added under Bulgarian) treat the notion: The uſerhight Bogormconverſation07:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guitardemon, please do not distort my nickname with French œ, because it does not originate from French. You are obviously unfamiliar with the orthography of archaic English (in order to be familiar, one must have some knowledge of Latin orthography) which used æ and œ, so your essays to write Wœlcœme on my talk page on mk wiki are maladroit. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since we're talking in a language that no longer uses æ, œ or ſ (or at least the entire world seems to think so, except you), one would probably assume that you write them just for fun. If not, then you should assume that I write those letters just for fun. You still do understanding me, don't you? Just as æ, œ or ſ don't prevent me from understanding your version of the English language, so my æ, œ and ſ don't prevent you from understanding mine. Back on our subject there is another article for the term Vardar Macedonia, so that's where your Vardarska Makedoniya should go, not here, because this one is for everything known as Macedonia, be it the country, the region, or the salad. Guitardemon66613:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Greece, only some communists (not all) call FYROM "Republic of Macedonia". The overwhelming majority uses just "Skopia". Of course I do not believe that you may think that a name referred by some communists for political reasons is correct. Politics often go against history, as it is obvoius in many cases. By the way, ironically, the link you show me opposes FYROM's NATO entrance, (the reason FYROM calls Greece a fascist state...).Macedonia is one, the Greek one. FYROM is not Macedonia, as it has no relationship with Ancient Macedonia, while Greek do. (Both geographically and culturally).--HIZUMI20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is one whole article explaining what Macedonia meant in the Middle Ages, take a look at the article on Wikipedia and on the above map and then if someone still thinks that there is only one Macedonia, then he has problems with either eye-sight or geography. If someone has doubts about the neutrality of the above map, may he look at Freeman's map from his Atlas to Historical Geography here and if anyone finds overlapping points with præsent fYROM, may he apprise me thereof. The uſerhight Bogormconverſation08:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I see we've had quite the mess in some of the previous threads, and so I'm beginning anew. I think that the defs have progressed somewhat since I last viewed them, which is encouraging. There aren't any that say "the original", which seems like progress to me. So, let me begin by saying that I want none of this talk about "correct" vs "incorrect" nor whether someone is truly "Macedonian" or not (as if that means anything). Wikipedia might care about such things, but Wiktionary does not (and quite frankly, neither do I). We do not care if whether a word is incorrect, or if it is used by communists, but only if it is used (and can be proved to have been used). We do not care whether someone is "actually" from Macedonia or not, but rather whether someone has used the word Macedonia in describing them. Additionally, while the foreign terms have merit in translations sections, they don't really have bearing on the English defs. So, I believe that one thing we could do to make the various senses and their interrelationships more clear is to order them in historical order, which I will shortly attempt to do. Please feel free to much with my ordering and defend your mucking on this thread. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since the trans tables all have glosses, we can leave them in the order they are currently in until we get the def order more solidified. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that Robert's protected the page, so for most of those involved, you'll have to simply argue for a position, and see if you can convince an admin to execute it (which is probably for the best, actually). -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm a bit late but...) It's OK, no need to argue, I just wanted to make a point what is and what isn't the correct usage of the word, not who's a commie and who is stealing history and who's been having a national awakening. Leave those things to Wikipedia, I'm here just to let users know how a certain thing is called in all the other languages I know, no difference whether the term is something I like or not (I don't like fYROM and I don't like pork, but I shouldn't enter a distorted definition of those terms). So I think the article looks just fine now, if there are any other PoV's I'll be on my toes :) guitardemon (user talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to be sure there is consensus before I move any pages. The name has changed, and major English-langauge sources have already started using it. So should we reflect this change? Antondimak (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the translations for the country of North Macedonia are a bit confusing. Should we make a clear distinction between the terms "Macedonia", "North Macedonia" and "former Yugoslav Republic of North Macedonia" and their translations in each language? Antondimak (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
guitardemon 
(user talk) 
23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)