Talk:Macedonian Latin alphabet

Abecedar

I have again removed the paragraph about the Abecedar until a reliable source is provided for the claim that the "Macedonian" Latin alphabet was influenced by it, rather than by the existing Slavic orthographies. You can't seriously be claiming that those letters, used in Slavic languages from Czech and Slovak to Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, were a Greek invention? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, you still don't get it, do you? We are not debating whether or not the same letters were used to write a Slavic language in Greece in the 1920s, but the relevance of that fact to the development of the "Macedonian" Latin alphabet in Yugoslavia in the 1940s. The letters had long been used in the Slovene, Serbo-Croatian, Czech and Slovak orthographies which came before, so why not mention them too? The current version takes for granted that the language of the Greek Abecedar was "Macedonian", when in fact no evidence has been provided to support that claim. Unless a direct link between the orthography of the Abecedar and the "makedonska latinica" is irrefutably established, the paragraph will remain nothing but original research. And even then, the language of the 1925 Abecedar cannot be called "Macedonian", the Rainbow Party's remonstrations notwithstanding, as that would be an anachronism. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have provided sources and you can read. There are articles on Greek, Macedonian and English and both books are included. Read it and stop talking stupid things.It is published in your country not in Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It was published in Macedonia, and specifically its capital, Thessaloniki. Only the 2006 Буквар, published by a political party with a specific agenda, is in "Macedonian", not the 1925 Abecedar, commissioned by the Greek government of the time for the children of the Slavophone community. I have repeatedly asked for sources to support the claim that the name of the language of the Abecedar was "Macedonian", rather than "Slavic" or "Bulgarian", for example, but these have not so far been forthcoming. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK we finaly got one conclusion. You have just said that aegean Macedonia along with Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia were one country with one capital - SOLUN. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious Kekrops meant Greek Macedonia. Are you familiar with the term Irredentism by the way? --Laveol ^T 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Zborevme za Bugarija ili Grcija, ne mi e jasno? Shto se meshahsh. pozdrav --MacedonianBoy (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not meddling. And I'm not sure what "Zborevme" means. --Laveol ^T 16:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How you ask that kind of question? You say that Macedonian is :Bulgarian" and you are supposed to know that. Or it is different, you cannot understand Macedonian? Do not worry, Macedonian is different language than Bulgarian and because of that it is foreign language to you and if take some classes you will learn it as I did with English. :) regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thessaloniki is the capital of both the Greek and the wider region of Macedonia, which was never a country. By the way, I'm still waiting on those sources, Obedineta. ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what "Zboruvam" means since it comes from Old Church Bulgarian, but I suppose "Zborevme" is closer to "Sporehme" (Спорехме). So if you thought Macedonian and Bulgarian weren't close enough why did you write me in Macedonian?--Laveol ^T 08:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Zborevme is closer to Sporehme than to Zboruvam. Right. BalkanFever 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote to you on Macedonian because you are telling everywhere that Macedonian is "same" as Bulgarian. Nonsenses --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I, really? Show me where. --Laveol ^T 09:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When I am saying YOU I mean as whole nation- Bilgarians, not particularly you as a person.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Мили мои селани, можеби зборувавте? =))) Hegumen (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Тетовчанецот збореше ;) BalkanFever 01:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Should this really be a separate article from Romanization of Macedonian? ·ΚέκρωΨ· (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. One deals with the Macedonian Latin alphabet, whilst the other discusses varying ways of rendering Macedonian in the Latin alphabet. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Having further reviewed both articles and the discussion below, I vote for merging. This is just one among several systems of Macedonian transliteration. Whatever is special about it (including any status as officially endorsed, in whatever context) can most easily be treated in the context of the others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review my edit here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ḱ and Ǵ

Since when are the letters Ḱ and Ǵ taught in schools or even used in the country? I've only ever seen them used in academic literature (like Friedman for example). --Hegumen (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I always assumed it was Kj and Gj being used. BalkanFever 09:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right, at least that's what I have always used and how I was taught. You do occasionally see street signs using Ć and Đ, but I was always under the impression that Kj and Gj were correct. From what I can see Friedman is the only one to have used Ḱ and Ǵ when transliterating Macedonian. --Hegumen (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this "Macedonian Latin alphabet" even exist? I note that you're questioning its authenticity -- and I don't want to needlessly question the authenticity of this article or the bona fides of the author, but I have done some Google'ing of "Македонска латиница" and for "Nikolče Stojanoski/Николче Стојаноски/Никола Стојаноски" (the purported developer of this alphabet) and came up with nothing. The only references to this alphabet I can find are this article, and the Omniglot article, which mentions the developer, but not much else. I note that the author of this article is Nikolče (MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs)) from Radiovce, and that one of Radiovce's "famous residents" is... Nikolče Stojanoski, the linguist (added: [1], by 79.125.223.218 (talk · contribs), whose only contributions are for Radiovice (an article created by Nikolče/MacedonianBoy) and to add the Macedonian Latin alphabet to the Macedonian alphabet article [2])... Is anyone else thinking what I am thinking? I am not Macedonian, and I don't speak Macedonian, so I'll be guided by your views on the Macedonian Latin alphabet, but I can't help but feel that this might be the author's own work... :o Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ḱ and Ǵ are official letters. They are taught in schools, but since you are not Macedonian you do not know it.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ć and Đ are Serbian and they are not used on signs. Gj is Albanian and Kj is used only by the mobile operators in Macedonia.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to be rude, famous linguist Nikolče. Ć and Đ do appear on older street signs (I'll show you a picture once I find it). You'll need to provide a source for your statement regarding those letters (Ḱ and Ǵ) being taught in schools. Perhaps you could scan a few pages from a schoolbook or something? --Hegumen (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see now how much you know your own language. Keep speaking on your stupid Bitola dialect. I suggest you to take a look and to study the book Čitame i pišuvame latinica for second grade it is for beginners such as you. The letters and everything I have written there can be found in Pravopis and in many books (you have probably never met such books and you are not familiar). Go and write different article if you do not know your own language..--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody calm down. Seriously. BalkanFever 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Кажи му го тоа на демек македонецот Хегумен.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ej Никола ти претера жими се. Ај смири се.--Raso mk (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy -- assuming that the "Macedonian Latin alphabet" is an officially sanctioned/taught alphabet in the Republic of Macedonia, this article does not provide verifiable sources. Please read the Wikipedia policies on Verifiability and on Citing sources, so that this article can be properly referenced. If there are no verifiable sources on the Macedonian Latin alphabet (Hegumen's idea of scanning the relevant page from a Macedonian text book is a good one), this article will need to be appropriately tagged.

If other editors, especially editors in the Republic of Macedonia and/or Macedonian speakers, can come up with any information on the "Macedonian Latin alphabet"/"Македонска латиница азбука", that would be good too!

Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The only unrelated reference to a "Macedonian Latin alphabet" that I can find is on one website (here and here). Both versions differ from the version provided by MacedonianBoy (talk · contribs). If there is no standard "Macedonian Latin alphabet", then the Macedonian Latin alphabet article comes under the Romanization of Macedonian article, if -- and only if -- it can be properly verified that it is not original research. Has anyone else found anything about the "Macedonian Latin alphabet"? If no other information can be found, the article should be appropriately tagged, and if still no evidence can be found that it is an official orthography AND not original research, the article should be deleted. Any thoughts? Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The site says, "Unofficial! This is our suggestion from experience". On second thought, it's probably a good idea to scrap this article and merge it with the romanization article. There really is no standard Macedonian Latin alphabet, although we all refer to a latinica, probably why the original writer was so confident in writing this article. Problem is, there is no standard, universally accepted form much less any sources for it. --Hegumen (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly -- why would this site use an unofficial ("Не е официјална") script if there was an official one?! If the orthography in this article is an 'official' one (whatever that means), then it should be one of the options in the Romanization article. But if it's original research, it should be deleted. I think the first step though is to tag it, so that other editors can weigh in with any information they may have... Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, speaking from the perspective of an outsider with absolutely zero prior knowledge here. Do I understand correctly that we are dealing with the transliteration of two Macedonian sounds IPA: [ɟ] and IPA: [c], that the possible variants would be <gj, kj> (using simple Latin letters), <đ, ć> (using letters also used in Serbo-Croat), and <ǵ, ḱ> (most closely resembling the native Cyrillic usage); that there is some level of official endorsement for the latter version through school teaching and through that book by Vidoeski et al (1970) currently cited as a source in the article; but that apart from that actual usage in practice is variable? This sounds, to me, at first sight, as if merging might be a good option. This "official" version can still be described, as such, in the other article. Question: In what domains of practical life would official Latinisation be used? Official documents? Passports? Street signs? Incidentally, if that system is "official", it's interesting that very little or no notice seems to be taken of it internationally. For instance the US GeoNames server at geonames.nga.mil, which does make an effort at using official local orthography where known, lists the name of a single place as "Đavato, Džavato, Djavato, Gavato, Gjavato" - but not "Ǵavato". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the name of that alleged inventor, "N. S.", was that ever used here in this article, or only in the omniglot site? If the latter, I'd guess the benevolent explanation is "N. S." sent it in to omniglot for them to list, told them his name, and then they got something wrong and thought he created it. No need to assume COI editing or self-aggrandising on his part. (But I guess I'll take that names list out of the village article, if nobody minds... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The letter Ǵ and Ḱ are official (I am telling this because someone here does not know his own alphabet) it is used ob road signs, in text books and in documents it is not used since the documentation is changed according to the EU standards. Now the names are written with the English variant of the Latin alphabet. That guy that saying the opposite are supported by blogs and similar staffs. Take that book Da čitame i pišuvbame Latinica (which is supported by the Ministry of the Education in Macedonia) and you will see who is here linguist and who is telling the truth. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And I have a picture of the road sign for Ḱafasan (Qafa e Than) and I will upload that these days.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

File:2h3pg6e.jpg

Even official signs can't be used as proof of much. It doesn't take a "linguist" to see the error in this sign. -Hegumen (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For the non-Macedonian speakers: It says "Возите" (Vozite) instead of the correct "Возете" (Vozete). BalkanFever 08:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So if official government signs don't adhere to even the simplest of grammatical rules, they can't be relied upon for the purpose of proving/disproving either argument. --Hegumen (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Anyway, I guess that point is moot now, since we've effectively established the k/g-with-acute norm does exist (Vidoeski, Friedman and the Library of Congress). I still think the two articles could be easily merged; in fact, everything about this system is already covered in the other page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) By the way, does this image serve any other purpose? otherwise I'll delete it soon if nobody objects. You didn't bother to put in a license either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could be used as an example in dialects of the Macedonian language. Maybe BalkanFever 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the i/e thing in vozite a characteristic dialect feature? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be, but I'm not sure. MacedonianBoy and/or Hegumen will probably know. BalkanFever 13:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you may delete the image now. Vozite is not so much a dialect feature as it is a colloquialism (and quite possibly a grammatical Serbism too). I should probably make it clear that I don't dispute the use of Ḱ and Ǵ — they're used by all Western linguists when transliterating Macedonian. My problem is with them being regarded as "official" or "standard" as opposed to "scholarly" and "academic". Though I would like to see what MacedonianBoy's sources say. --Hegumen (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection between this road sighn and with the letters? You started some kind of connversation about road signs not me. I support my thoughts with highly respested lingusts of the Macedonian language. I write Macedonian on Latin alphabet for everyday use and I know how is right. This arguing is useless.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) And they are official. Come on man where do you live? If you have lived abroad I will understand your confusion about these letters, but you live here in Macedonia and you are supposed to know these things. Official is official and punto. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define what the exact status of that "officialness" is? Like, is it legislated by some state law somewhere? Or is it issued by the Academy that regulates the language, or some other body? Is that book from 1970 you cited supposed to have some normative power of this sort? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a tendency to treat anything published by Prosvetno Delo as "official" (i.e. binding). The problem with this is that grammar books and orthographies by different authors vary in many respects as to what they prescribe. Everyone has their own idea of what should be official, while the government doesn't designate any organization to regulate such things. The "Krste Misirkov" Institute is mostly a research-oriented organization and isn't much like the Académie française, for example. So when speaking of the Macedonian language, there isn't a whole lot that can be considered official. Again, the image above is an example of this ("добродојдовте" vs "добредојдовте" vs "добро дојдовте", etc.). But... I'd still like to see what Vidoeski et al (1970) says. A brief overview of the book Čitame i pišuvame latinica would be nice too. --Hegumen (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all there is an istitute in Macedonia called Institute for Macedonian Language Krste Petkov Misirkov and this alphabet is regulated by them since it is the only Institute in the country that regulates the Macedonian Language and its problems. And thats all, I have no further comments on this topic because I do not actually what is the problem with the article. And Hegumen, have you find that book čitame i pišuvame latinica? Since that book is used in the schools, it must first of all be allowed from the Ministry of Education and from the Institute. Find that book! For second grade primary school.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you are interested of that how Macedonian language is written correctly, there is neweer Pravopis and if you like you can find a lot of that in Blaže koneski"s books such as Za Makedonskiot Literaturen Jazik.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion has shifted away from the central argument to some extent: is the "Macedonian Latin alphabet", as described in this article, the official Latin transliteration/transcription of Macedonian?

There are two elements to this argument (i) is this a recognized orthography, promulgated by notable sources (Friedman et al seem to fit the bill); and (ii) is it an "official" orthography (and by official, we mean that it is supported by the Macedonian Government/Education Ministry and/or the Macedonian language's regulatory body)? (No evidence has yet been provided to support argument (ii).)

The central thesis of this article's argument is that both (i) and (ii) are true. The way to prove this would be for someone -- anyone -- to scan the relevant pages of a Macedonian school text book in current use, and prove once-and-for-all whether there is an "official" Macedonian Latin alphabet.

If we cannot prove that it is the official Macedonian Latin alphabet, this article is essentially about the Romanization of Macedonian, and this is already covered in the main Romanization article.

Perhaps we could put an announcement on the Macedonia WikiProject page asking Macedonian-based editors to scan a school textbook page on the "official" Latinization of Macedonian... I think this article should be tagged for improvement, and if no further information can be sourced after a "reasonable" time, the article should be deleted.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Two further issues about this: I believe MacedonianBoy has already cited a school textbook, and I have no reasons to doubt he did so truthfully. But usage in a school book would still not establish "officialness" in the sense of (ii). "Whatever happens to have been used by the authors of a school book" does not necessarily equal "being officially regulated by the state". – Second, even if it turns out this is in fact regulated/legislated, we'd still not need a separate article on it; it's still "essentially about the Romanization of Macedonian" (what else would it be?), and merging it would still be an obvious option. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the picture where ḱ is used. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. It should be used in this article (or the romanization article if we decide on a merge). We've established that it is used by some authorities (at least local ones), so now how do we decide upon what is and what isn't "official"? --Hegumen (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Since that alphabet is taught in schools around Macedonia, it has some kind of status, hasnt it?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, if we can find a few učebnici issued by the Ministry of Education and Science. It would also suggest that this scheme (the scholarly one) is relatively new in terms of being official. --Hegumen (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, call me the Devil's advocate, but how do we know that this isn't a typographical error? The Возите/Возете issue in the previous roadsign doesn't inspire confidence in local municipal signmakers! I think for verifiability, the textbook page would be the best source... Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The road sigh is for Hegumen. I do not have a scaner to scan pages for you, you can find everywhere in Macedonia school books written in Latin alphabet. Regards--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced. As far as I'm concerned, the Cyrillic alphabet is the only alphabet used to write Macedonian (unlike Serbian which has two equal variants) and that there are several schemes for romanizing it. This is the first time I've heard of an "official" Latin alphabet. Though, I'd be more than satisfied if you cited a few current schoolbooks published by the ministry and their suggested use of the alphabet. What does Čitame i pišuvame latinica say and who published it? --Hegumen (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hegumen -- I am still not convinced either. As far as I know, there is only one official Macedonian alphabet, and that is the (Macedonian) Cyrillic alphabet. There are a few orthographies for transcribing Macedonian (covered in the Romanization article), but there is still no evidence of an official Macedonian Latin alphabet or orthography. The other factor which makes an official Macedonian Latin alphabet implausible is that the Macedonian Government has recently supported a "preservation of Cyrillic campaign" (Мојата Кирилица, supported by the Macedonian Information Agency). Why would a Government committed to the preservation of one official alphabet simultaneously promulgate a rival alphabet? I think this article deals with a Romanization of Macedonian, rather than an actual alphabet. Unless information on its official use as a Macedonian Latin alphabet can be cited, there is a strong case for this article to be either merged with the main Romanization article or deleted. Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what's happened is that the government has attempted to standardize one romanization scheme for the sake of consistency and not trying to establish an equal variant or rival alphabet as AWN2 put it. I have to add that it's a great campaign, being backed by the church and a few celebrities. It's interesting that the TV commercial for the campaign uses the mottoes, "додека пишувам кирилица, постојам" (as long as I am witting in Cyrillic, I exist) and "македонски се пишува со кирилица, го чувам своето" (Macedonian is written in Cyrillic, I'm keeping what's mine). --Hegumen (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, although it is not even clear that this is the standardization model which the Macedonian Government has chosen. So is this article redundant? Should we put it up for deletion? I think that given that (i) it most probably is a Romanization, rather than an alphabet, and (ii) that it cannot be verified as "official", and (iii) that it is now covered in the Romanization article, this article should be deleted, as it seems to be redundant. Any thoughts? Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all points. EDIT: I would also prefer a merge/redirect over a deletion. --Hegumen (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for deletion - as if it is the same as romanization it should be a redirect. Deletion unnecessarily removes all the contributions that have gone into this article. Besides, there are enough Macedonia-related deletion discussions going on right now. BalkanFever 08:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with BalkanFever: the correct procedure for a merge is to turn this page into a redirect, preserving the history. As for the rest, Hegumen and AWN2: I must admit you've lost me here. What is this alternative you seem to be discussing? "Romanization" or "Latin alphabet"? I don't get it. A Latin alphabet for Macedonian is a Romanization scheme. Independently of how "official" it is, aren't those two notions the same anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that (redirect) :-) AWN2 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So who wants to flick the switch and do the re-direct? :-) AWN2 (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Mak latin

File:Scan macedonian latin.jpg

Macedonian newspaper published in Germany. Klick for high resolution. regards --Raso mk (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but it is merely an example of Macedonian Romanization, it's not "official", and it's not from the Republic of Macedonia! It is no more or less authoritative than the Romanization example I gave earlier (here), so I don't think it adds to the argument. Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting, but we cannot use it as an image, it's obviously non-free, so I deleted it. But why not put in a sentence into Romanization of Macedonian: "In the Macedonian diaspora, some print publications such as newspapers appear in Macedonian written in the Latin script.<ref>ref ref ref source source source blah blah blah....</ref>". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, pursuant to the above discussion, if no-one has any objections, I guess I'll flick the switch and do the REDIRECT? Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Hegumen (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)