Talk:Bible translations into Church Slavonic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

Macedonian is one of the seven South-Slavic languages. It is not acceptable to refer to it otherwise. Please consult the Macedonian language wikipedia article for further info. --Filip M 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I separated the section after 1944 into Macedonian language. Prior to that it was Macedonian dialect.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonian language is not a dialect of the Bulgarian langauge. This is a Bulgarian POV, and it is not accepted outside of Bulgaria. Macedonian language is one of the South Slavic languages. Please do not push that biased POV. --Filip M 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FunkyFly, I don't think this is a good idea. All slavic languages were dialects of the Slavic dialectal continuum before they became standard national languages. Bulgarian was standardized as late as 1880. If we follow your logic, we should have two sections for all Slavic languages. But the translation of the Bible in most cases was the single biggest contributor to the differentiation between the languages, and the biggest factor in the standardization of the languages. So I think we better stay with the format that was already established. --Filip M 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funky, can u, please, stop this childish behaviour? Prior to 1880 Bulgarian was a dialect too (a set of dialects, to be more precize). It was the same with the Macedonian, and all other languages. Slovenian language was codified in 1922. Does it mean that it didn't exist before? No. All the earlier translations were listed under Slovenian. Do not change my contribution to this article without a valid reason. --Filip M 04:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was a dialect :)... There was NO mention of Macedonian language prior to the beginning of the 20th century, so to use it in this context is an anachronism.   /FunkyFly.talk_  04:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake. The language is Bulgarian. All books that were written or published during that period by the first publishing houses in now Greek Macedonia by people born in the area of what now is the Republic of Macedonia clearly claim that it is Bulgarian language.

The decision to name the language "Macedonian" is definitely political. Finns should now that if one starts considering Savo or Rauma dialects as distinctive languages, different than Finnish, suggesting different ethnic groups that option would only be political and not "scientific".

Konikovo Gospel[edit]

Please don't question its Bulgarian character when you have no arguments or grounds. The title page of the Bulgarian part clearly says:


See for yourself (original in Greek characters): [1].

Now, Pavel Bozhigrobski (or as our brothers in the Republic of Macedonia say, Božigropski), was called a "pious father... a Macedonian Bulgarian by birth" by Jan Šafarik during his visit to Prague. He presided the Bulgarian parish in Voden (Edessa) and the Bulgarian parish in Bitola, part of the Bulgarian Exarchate. So don't even try to call him a Slav or Macedonian. His translation is an example of Southern Macedonian dialects, but it is anachronsitic to speak of a Macedonian language before the end of WWII — until then it was generally considered a variety of southwestern Bulgarian dialects, as evidenced by the way the speakers called their language (this Bible is a nice example) and many other factors. Todor→Bozhinov 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend Bozinov, I did not cited anything apart from the publication issued by the Finnish Slavistic catedra, the very ones that found the manuscript: Konikovo Gospel. It is their assment that: "Konikovo gospel is the oldest known Gospel translation in Modern Macedonian." Not mine. I, of course, agree with it. The spelling of the name Bozigrpski is also from their publication, although you can add the alternative bulgarian spelling as well, preferably in cyrilics. And not, this paragraph is not about the the printed version, which, as far as I know is lost, but about the manuscript from which the printed version (probably) was created. --Filip M 14:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Pavel Bozhigrobski printed a manuscript". You understand that's an oxymoron? Not sure what these Finnish guys have found and what was lost, but the print I'm referring to was done in 1852 in Kiryak Darzhilov's printing house, in Solun (Thessaloniki), so it's apparently the same thing. That Finnish Slavist is most likely trying to evade any dispute between RoM and Bulgaria regarding the language of the publication, but he's gone too far. It's written clearly on the title page — "in the Bulgarian language", and so it is, apparently. Also, please don't refer to Bozhigrobski as an alternative name, this means you consider the Macedonian script invented in 1945 the original, and I seriously doubt that.
I, of course, am going to counter any attempt to revise and usurp my nation's history, specifically regarding the region of Macedonia. Since finally the Macedonist fabrications and propaganda have met the official resistance of the Bulgarian authorities (particularly the Foreign Minister, Ivaylo Kalfin), this kind of misappropriation has to stop. Todor→Bozhinov 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Greek I fully agree with you. The first Bulgarian printing houses were founded in Thessaloniki by slavic speaking people from what now is R.o. Macedonia but they all and clearly spoke about Bulgarian language. None of them mentioned "Macedonian". This is pure propaganda of the University of Skopje and of a Jewish professor from Chicago.

Authenticity of the front page[edit]

The Independent source claims that the printed version of the book has been lost. How did you came up with this front page? Is it authentic? If so, can u provide a proof for its authenticity?

Please do not revert without addressing the issue. --Filip M 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oh, so now it is fake. Prove that the Helsinki one is authentic then.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Btw check your source again. It does not say much about a manuscript being lost. It says 77 pages out of 100+ survived.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An excerpt from the Independent source:

"The beginning of the Slavic text, with corrections by Pavel Božigropski, was printed in Thessaloniki in 1852, and it has been known in Slavic studies as the “Konikovo Gospel” after Pavel’s home village (nowadays known as Ditikó). The newly found manuscript shows, however, that the translation came into being earlier and in a fashion other than has been assumed. The manuscript also reflects the sound structure of the local dialect better than the printed text did. Moreover, after the Second World War the short printed portion of the Konikovo Gospel has not been at the disposal of the scholarly community – it seems that not a single copy has survived, and no scholarly edition was ever prepared."

If Jouko Lindstedt a Slavic scholar, expert in both Macedonian an Bulgarian languages and their histories, the very one who found the manuscript and repored its existence, claims that not a single copy of the book has survived, you need to give us a solid proof that what you uploaded is really the front page of the book, and not a hoax.

You have twice reverted my request to clarify your expression: Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian.

You are about to break Wikipedia:3RR on Slavic Translations of the Bible. You have twice reverted my request to clarify your expression: Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian. Refrain from further edits. --Filip M 16:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said Neofit Rilski is a well known figure in the Bulgarian National Revival.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) What is disputed is the authenticity of the front page. You also need to clarify the expression: Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian. What does it mean?! Of Bulgarian what? Is it:

  1. Macedonian dialect spoken on the teritory that is now in R. Bulgaria
  2. Macedonian dialect that belongs to the Bulgarian language (contadictory statement, and bulgarian POV)
  3. Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian origin (also bulgarian POV).

I suggest you omit the "of Bulgarian" portion, and just leave the geographic location. This way, we will not introduce any POV's. --Filip M 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the Konikovo gospel, you changed all references where the language was named as Slavic (a statement made by the Finnish Slavist Jouko Lindstedt who is obviously the only expert available online on this subject), and you changed it into Bulgarian. Do you have any valid backing for this change? Apart from the front page whose authenticity is also disputed, of course. --Filip M 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Finn is the only one or not is silly to claim. It is the Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian, whatever that means to you.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) FunkyFly, we have an opinion of the expert, versus a jpg file that you submitted. Please either back your opinion with something more solid, or revert it back.

"Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian" is an ambiguous statement at best. Can you re-phrase or clarify that? I still believe it is better if we only determine the location of the dialect, since we are refering here to a period when neither Bulgarian nor Macedonian language were defined and standardized. And this dialect clearly belongs to the South-Slavic dialectal continuum. So, to avoid POV (either Macedonian or Bulgarian) it is better to avoid qualifications like this.--Filip M 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is simply not true. Bulgarian was widely acknowledged as a language, and the Macedonian dialects which you refer to Macedonian language at the time were considered its dialects. Not to mention Neofit Rilski in 1835 had already begain working out the grammar.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the front page of the typeset version. It was published in the book "Български старини от Македония", Йордан Иванов, С. 1931, с. 182. The picture was taken prior to 1931.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip, prior to the 20th century the Macedonians referred to their language as Bulgarian, just as their nationality and everything else (this Bible translation is a nice example); thus, a "Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian" refers to the dialect being spoken by people self-identifying as Bulgarian (linguistically and ethnically) and inhabiting the region of Macedonia. Also note that Bozhigrobski is from Greek Macedonia, so I don't see what he has to do with the modern Republic of Macedonia — he worked in a different part of the region, he called his language Bulgarian, contributed to the Bulgarian culture, etc. He's as much ethnic Macedonian as Neofit Rilski and Paisius of Hilendar (not sure, do you claim those two too?). Todor→Bozhinov 21:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Well Todor, I'm not so sure about that. There was a strong Macedonain sentiment. Even Slaveikov writes about that:123. My personal opinion is there was a possibility to build a one nation between Bulgarians and Macedonians. But you moved the center of the literacy from Macedonia to Bulgaria, and the standard language became too distant for the Macedonians. The separation happened somewhere between 1840-1860. If you stayed with the language that Neofit Rilski was proposing, and with the translation that he prepared, this language could have worked perfectly well as a compromise standard langauge for both Macedonians and Bulgarians. But you picked the Trnovo dialect instead. And here the "romance" ends. --Filip M 03:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the intense Serbianization after 1913 ended it.   /FunkyFly.talk_  03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intense Serbization started in 1919. And although it was enforced with 12000 gendarms, it was unsucessful. --Filip M 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really well, the Serbian alphabet was adopted then, as well as a ton of Serbisms were included to replace Bulgarian words. Bulgarian books were burned, artifacts destroyed, people prosecuted and murdered. That's when the Bulgarian consciousness of the population started to decline. Not quite so my friend.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip, you may also see a good explanation of the photo I gave as an example's history here. It was confirmed through a number of sources that the cover photo is authentic, and so is the part of the text referring to the Bulgarian language. Also, it became clear that the authenticity of this cover is not questioned in the Republic of Macedonia. Todor→Bozhinov 13:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Todor, the link doesn't work for me. As you can see, I don't object that you published the front page at all. It is just strange that an expert of this area claims that no copies of this book survived, or are available. Something is fishy here. Anyway, many think that Macedonian and Bulgarian existed as a diasystem between 1840-1860, when the Trnovo dialect definitely broke off, and ultimately prevailed, while the Macedonian continued its development, amid serious opposition and obstructions. --Filip M 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its development is really due to Blazhe Koneski, who very much would like to see it as close to Serbian as possible and as distant from Bulgarian as possible. After all he did Serbian studies in college, not to disappoint his serbophile family circle.   /FunkyFly.talk_  19:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip, I really don't think the linguistic theories you're suggesting have much value. You can hardly talk about a diasystem when it was in fact a single language regarded by all its speakers as Bulgarian and clearly a dialect continuum. A diasystem suggests two or more standard forms, and we did not have even one. Such a vast continuum (stretching from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid and from the Danube to the Bistritsa and the Aegean Sea) had to be largely based on one dialect (while it could integrate features of others), and due to the better economic development of the eastern regions at the time the eastern Bulgarian dialect was selected, to the disappointment of the western Bulgarian intelligentsia. However, features unique to the region of Macedonia, most notably the -ejki verbal adverb (deeprichastie), did make it to standard modern Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but don't forget that the dialectal contiuum is not limited to Bulgaria and Macedonia. It continues in Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia. All South Slavic languages are in one dialectal continuum. The borders are political, and they mainly depend on the shoice of the dialect that represents the standard language. If Serbs have chosen the Torlakian dialect, for example, as it has been proposed by several Serbs of the time, it could have served as a good compromise language for Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians, since it is spoken in all three states (North East Macedonia, Eastern Serbia and Western Bulgaria). Serbs have chosen the Hercegovina dialect instead, in order to crate one nation with the Croats. --Filip M 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for the diasystem, I'm sure you know that the schooling in Macedonia practically never switched to Trnovo dialect. Even the schoolbooks were printed separately, inspite of the oposition of the Exarchate. So we CAN speak about the diasystem, because we Macedonians continued to use our dialect even after it was rejected by Buglarians. --Filip M 01:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is, a dialect spiced up with Serbisms.   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Funky! Give me some examples. Words from the standard Macedonian for which you believe are serbisms. --Filip M 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dialect continuum I'm referring to is the Bulgarian one, which to the west is connected to the Serbo-Croatian continuum. The Serbo-Croatian one, in its turn, is connected to Slovenian to the northwest. Not sure about the terminology, but we could call this a "macrocontinuum" which consists of three defined yet connected languages (themselves "microcontinuums"). If you don't like referring to Macedonian as Bulgarian, today you can say that Macedonian and Bulgarian form the Eastern South Slavic continuum (and argualby diasystem).
As for the gospel, I'll summarize the link you couldn't open: apparently, Yordan Ivanov, who had a copy of the gospel, photographed the cover and published it in a book in 1917, and the guy who uploaded it to the Bulgarian Wikipedia has scanned it from there. Indeed, after WWII all copies of the printed edition were lost, but the manuscript was found (which doesn't have a title page, of course). The text on the title page was first recorded as early as 1872 by Konstantin Jireček.
Serbisms: a whole lot of the terminology, e.g. odbor, dopis, bezbednost, proizvod, etc. There's a tendency to replace those with "own" words from the dialects, but it's still in its infancy. Todor→Bozhinov 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Todor, as you go north from Macedonia into Serbia, every next dialect is mutually understandable and close to the previous one. There is no dialectal border between Macedonia and Serbia, as much as there is no dialectal border between Macedonia and Bulgaria (althouth some argue that Rodopi is a natural border), and even less between Bulgaria and Serbia. All South Slavic languages form one dialectal continuum. I have traveled all over Yugoslavia, and I can attest this from my personal experience.

As far as the gospel, it is a shame that we don't have any copies from the printed book left. I can clearly read the text from the manustript. Even some very peculiar phonetic characteristics of the South Macedonian dialects are well marked and preserved. I'll try make a special article for it, with some exceprts of the text.

As far as the words: odbor, dopis, bezbednost, proizvod being serbian, you are wrong. They may sound like Serian words for you, but they are all rooted in our dialects: An examples from a folk songe: Pa si sobra odbor druzina. Dopis, zapis, napis, potpis, they all derive from the verb: pisuva. Beda is a common macedonian word for unfortune, or misery. Prlicev used exactly this word when translating his poem Serdarot. Bez beda is a natural word for security, safety. Izvede is also a common word: Kokoshkata izvede mnogu pilinja. Proizvede is just a generalization of the term. Bulgarian has far more borrowings, predominantly from russian. I was suprized to see that you use the word: Ucherda (ucherditelno sobranie) to describe a foundation. Isn't Osnova (osnovacko sobranie) more close to the spoken language? Isn't osnova what our grandmothers put on their looms, and than weave on it? --Filip M 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you go west from Bulgaria to Serbia and southwest to the Republic of Macedonia, the same thing happens. The difference is, all dialects of Bulgarian share key features defining them as a single language (definite article, simplified or no case system, etc.), and only the transitional dialects of Serbian (a.k.a. Torlakian) share these, just as transitional dialects of Bulgarian may share features with Serbian (final palatalization, cases, word forms, vocabulary, phonetic changes).
A significant majority of all roots in the South Slavic languages are common (and they don't sound Serbian to me), because they're such a basic part of the vocabulary. Thus Serbisms are easy to understand by the Macedonians. These words are borrowings in specific areas where Macedonian lacked a word (e.g. odbor for "committee"; we've got otbor for "team" and "choice", but not for "committee"), and are largely terminology. That you understand their meaning because the roots are common to you doesn't mean they're not loanwords.
Bulgarian has as many borrowings as Macedonian, if not less. Many of the borrowings from Russian are actually earlier Old Russian borrowings from Old Bulgarian, and others are Church Slavonic. Bulgarian has less borrowings from Turkish and Greek, and no borrowings from Serbian which Macedonian has (and which are roughly as many as the Russian loanwords in Bulgarian, as well as roughly in the same areas). Also, Macedonian uses many words of Latin and Ancient Greek origin that are uncommon and funny-sounding in Bulgarian and even Serbian (which has more of these than Bulgarian), in order not to use a word close to Bulgarian or Serbian.
As for the verb "uchredyavam" ("found", "establish"; there's no such word as "ucherda") and its derivatives, it is a somewhat more formal-sounding and less common synonym to "osnovavam". Yes, it is indeed a "Russism". Todor→Bozhinov 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filip, why dont you allow Bulgarian since the author himself specified it was written in this language? Are you being a little too Macedonistic?   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Neofit Rilski, it is Rigs himself who reports about the events, and he named this dialect as Macedonian. Since this is our primary source, you should not change it. In the case of Konikovo Gospel, we have only a title page versus an opinion of a Slavist that is an authority in this area. I don't say that we should disregard what the title page states (unless we can prove that the title page is a fake), but we need to put it in harmony with what the expert say too. They may not necessarily be contradictory, since Macedonian language, although clearly different and distinct than Bulgarian, went under an appelation Bulgarian as late as 1876. --67.22.200.67 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you disregard the opinion of the author who named it Bulgarian to another person.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you also disregard the opinion of the Bulgarian-identifying and Bulgarian-speaking Slavic population of Macedonia in the period. The dialect of Neofit Rilski is Macedonian in the sense of being a dialect of the region of Macedonia, not anything else... you can't question exactly his ethnic and linguistic self-identification. Don't know about this Slavist and what authority he is, but the title page, the only primary source, is as clear as possible — "in the Bulgarian language". This also means it is undeniably Bulgarian. Todor→Bozhinov 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) We are going in cricles and we are getting nowhere. I think tha FunkyFly will manage to frustrate me to give up editing this article. This will be your second article. The first one was the Macedonism. --Filip M 19:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then too bad. I guess you could not quite source your edits to suit your agenda.   /FunkyFly.talk_  20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where precisely would you expect to get to? Deny the Bulgarian character of the Gospel? By the way, if you'd like to write an article about it, you may also like the similar Kulakiya Gospel from 1863, its another gospel from Southern Macedonia written in Bulgarian using the Greek script, and used by the local Bulgarian Garkoman population. Todor→Bozhinov 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If you have some info about the Kulakiya Gospel, I'm interested. --Filip M 01:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might be also interested about Serbisms in your language. Here: [2]. Theres enough material even for Serbianization of the Macedonian language   /FunkyFly.talk_  01:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) FunkyFly, this is not the best place to talk this subject over, but I read your souce, and I can tell you that the writer have never been in Macedonia. Our common greeting is "Zdravo zhivo", and not "Zdravej zhivej". Macedonian language is deeply rooted in its dialects. I can find you many examples in our folk songs and stories for all of these words that sound "Serbian" to you. Your souce, by the way, confirms that Nefoit Rilski was a Macedonian revivalist. And you are battling this with mee tooth and nail. --Filip M 13:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of explaining "Macedonian" is "Macedonian in the regional sense" — in the same sentence their lanuage is called "the Bulgarian literary language". Also, it only discusses "Zdravo" and "Zdravej", not the forms you mentioned. The list of purely Serbian words in Macedonian is imposing enough (you seem to deny that?), and the additional Serbian influence is overwhelming. Todor→Bozhinov 15:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Filip, you see confirmations everywhere but in their own words, right?   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not all Slavic translations mentioned?[edit]

I see no mention of the Ukrainian translation of the Bible, or some of the other Slavic languages. Does anyone have any info on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages

Dbaryl 08:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Loucas Foundation?[edit]

A Google search did not turn up any evidence for the Loucas Foundation. I therefore tagged this sentence with a citation needed template. DFH (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break out into individual articles?[edit]

See Bible translations by language. Though personally I don't see the need to break out this umbrella article since it is so well written.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately after a closer look, I was moved to be bold and U-turn and moved Bible translations into Polish (the longest) and Czech and Bulgarian. For 4 reasons
(1) the Talk:Bible translations by language already had a consensus for 1-article per language
(2) it makes categorizing with eg Category:Polish literature possible.
(3) it makes interwiki linking withe eg Czech Wikipedia article on Czech translations possible.
(4) duplication was starting to build up between Bible translations by language and Slavic translations of the Bible
These may not be perfect reasons. A umbrella summary para for each one may now be needed.In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be nearly three years ago that we began the re-structuring of Bible translations by language. On its 'Talk' page I had suggested it became "...more-or-less a table-of-contents (list of languages) section...". In this 'Slavic' article your idea of an "umbrella summary para" (I guess perhaps using the 'main' template') sounds fine. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible_translations_into_Church_Slavonic&oldid=1206287968"