If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα
... In article "gogu" writes: But that is *not* my logic. What Greece is doing is stating that the language spoken in FYROM is a dialect of Bulgarian, and that they must state their documents in the proper language. The official Greece *never* said that, that would be outrageous! FYROM can state their documents in whatever language they want! Except in Macedonian. NO!!! That was NEVER the issue! The two issues we - the flag with the 12-ray sun (which FYROM has later changed) - the *NAME*! It would be absurd to want to imply to someone in ... what language he must write in his own country! You are wrong! I do not know whether that is the current state, but that was certainly the state when Yugoslavia dissolved. It may have changed under pressure from the EU. Language was *NEVER* an issue, please don't insist more! If you want to insist, please present your references! You have it all wrong! There were only two matters as I said above, ask anyone you want! If you don't believe me ask to any specialized ng, they'll tell you the same! As for EU pressures, don't make me laugh;-) Every linguist will tell you that the so called "macedonian" is an artificial language, derived directly from the Bulgarian in the last 100 years... Well, in Ruhlen's classification it is not marked as such. And I seriously doubt whether every linguist will indeed tell such. What is artificial about it? There were not clear rules on how to speak it and it was *never* written before 100-120 or so years ago! If you read Yugoslavia's history you'll see that the first to "make" it a written language, etc was Tito! It is the development of Bulgarian as it occurred in that region during a long time. And in 100 years two languages that derive from the same source can diverge quite a lot. But this is not the case of the two languages here! I wish I could find that passage in both languages so you could judge by yourself... It's what you've said: for political reasons the FYROM-ian leaders wanted to sustain they are talking a separate language, so they've called it "macedonian" to suit their *political* purposes... And for other political reasons other leaders want to sustain that they are *not* talking a separate language. Maybe, ask the Bulgarians for that... There was not such a language before the end of the 19th century! There was not such *written* language! Actually it was Tito (to help his Aegean dreams...) the first to compile it as a written language... Yes, so? Compare Frisian, which was barely written until the 19th century, and only in 1879 came a codification of written Frisian. It is only since 1937 that it is allowed in basic schools and since 1993 also in high schools. Dik, I give up;-) Thanks for the insight. rgrds -- E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane! F.d.A Coins, travels and mo http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
In article "gogu" writes:
Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα ... .... If you do not know the orthography of a language you always will have a problem with pronunciation. You wouldn't ask for 21 years old students from France, Spain, Germany, England and ... Tunisia to have that specific knowledge!!! I have made it a point in all my travels to have even basic knowledge about the orthography, just because I wanted to be understood. But I think most people would also laugh at Dutch orthography when they see words like "angstschreeuw" or "koeieuier" (alas, the last spelling reform makes "koeienuier" of the second, but the 'n' is not pronounced). Of course they are nuances but the sound is almost the same! To your ears. Not to mine. The combination "eu" is pronounced like a German long "φ". Of course I can hear that subtle difference (and I can reproduce it) but in both cases I understand what one wants to say when he says the word "Pegeaut" in either way. You would understand that, perhaps. I would certainly *not* understand it immediately, it would take quite some time before I understand it (although the suffix "geault" helps in understanding). And I think the same holds for a Frenchman. It would be much worse if you pronounced the French word "peut" as "pe". As a story, I once had a discussion with an Englishman (long, long ago). I used the word "bus", he did not understand me. So I explained. "Ah," he said, "you mean bus!" But I did not hear any difference with my pronunciation. Nevertheless there was a difference in the quality of the vowel to make my pronunciation not understandable for him. What I was trying to say that there are other language, too where you write one way and you pronounce another way, that's all! But pronouncing "eu" as "e" is mispronunciation. So that is not an example. It is similar to the mispronunciations made by people from Japan that make it very difficult to understand what they mean. And that only because the people from Japan do not hear the difference between "r" and "l", "f" and "h", and quite a few more, there native language does not have those distinctions. Suppose somebody would say to you that the second month is "Pebruary". What would you say? How would you explain that it is actually "February" when the person does not hear (or only feebly hears) the distinction between 'P' and 'F', because the native language does not have both? And if you think this is artificial, think again: Indonesian. (And in Bahasa Indonesia the month is indeed called Pebruari because the F does not exist in that language.) Every dictionary tries to tell a user how it sounds using his own language. Exactly, that's what I was trying to say! Indeed. And every dictionary will fail in this respect. Perhaps. What he wrote was perhaps valid 100 years ago (using the knowledge that was available at that time). But I wonder why you remain wishing to apply it to current times. Borders change in history. Nope, I don't want to say that *whatever* he wrote is correct/valid today, I was trying to give you an unbiased *testimony* of how the various people were perceived in *those* times and to show you that there was nothing "macedonian" in those times! But as you have not commented on the people and number from the censuses I gave you, I understand that you are not interested in any sources proving the non-existence of such nationality/ethnicity and/or language in those times! The sources you supplied were also biased. Where is the country "Walachy" (or whatever you would call it). What happened with the Walachians? But whatever, it may be that there was no separate language 100 years ago, that does *not* mean there is no separate language today. A 100 year ago there was also no talk about Serbian and Croatian as separate languages. Even some 20 years ago there was no talk about separate languages! But as I said before, linguisticially there is nothing that can say whether two tongues are separate languages or not, except in clear-cut cases. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
In article "gogu" writes:
Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα ... In article "gogu" writes: But that is *not* my logic. What Greece is doing is stating that the language spoken in FYROM is a dialect of Bulgarian, and that they must state their documents in the proper language. The official Greece *never* said that, that would be outrageous! FYROM can state their documents in whatever language they want! Except in Macedonian. .... It would be absurd to want to imply to someone in ... what language he must write in his own country! You are wrong! Greek customs would not accept documents written in their language. They did not state what they should write in their own country, but what they should write in official documents presented to Greek customs. But perhaps that only occurred in 1993. Every linguist will tell you that the so called "macedonian" is an artificial language, derived directly from the Bulgarian in the last 100 years... Well, in Ruhlen's classification it is not marked as such. And I seriously doubt whether every linguist will indeed tell such. What is artificial about it? There were not clear rules on how to speak it and it was *never* written before 100-120 or so years ago! Consider the approximately 4000 languages of New Guinea. None of them have been written 30 years ago. Most of them *never* will be written (except in scientific works). Almost all of them have no clear rules how to speak it. Do you dispute those languages? If you read Yugoslavia's history you'll see that the first to "make" it a written language, etc was Tito! Yes, so what? Until some 20 years ago Limburgian was never written. The vast majority of languages have never been written and will never been written. Being written does not make a language. It is the development of Bulgarian as it occurred in that region during a long time. And in 100 years two languages that derive from the same source can diverge quite a lot. But this is not the case of the two languages here! Well, as you even disputed that Afrikaans and Dutch have diverged quite a bit, it makes no sense to continue with this. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Dik, I am enjoying this long string on pronunciation. It the email below, you mention there are about fifteen pronunciations of the English "ough". I can think of four at the moment, and perhaps there are one or two more that I do not recollect. The four a bough as in German bau; trough as in ruff; through as in thru; though as in tho. Can you please supply some more? Concerning Dutch and Afrikaans, I think you mentioned that Afrikaans is not a dialect if Dutch, but a different language. This sounds strange to me. After all the Afrikaners came from The Netherlands, and I can understand that the separation produced different changes in each country through the years. Isn't that similar to England and the USA? There are minor spelling differences in spelling, pronunciation and names of things, but that is all. Also, the Afrikaner population was quite small in numbers, and could not sustain a large volume of literature, but relied on Dutch works from the Netherlands., which helps maintain the similarity. You may have other reasons; please let me know. Bye the way, I spent three years in the Netherlands, working on a project for BPM (Bataafse Petroleum Maatschappij). I got married to a Dutch woman, but we spoke Dutch only when we did not want the children to understand. I live in the USA. Tony "Dik T. Winter" wrote in message ... In article "gogu" writes: Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα ... In article "gogu" writes: S N I P You are still confusing how sounds are rendered with how they are actually pronounced. Rendering it as a number of what are considered consonants in the English language, does not make it so many consonants. The orthography of languages is quite distinctive from the pronunciation. Every language has its own idiosynchrasies with respect to ortography. Consider that in english the sequence of letters "ough" can be pronounced in about fifteen different ways, depending on the context. You should not be lead astray by orthography. S N I P ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
In article "A.E. Gelat" writes:
Dik, I am enjoying this long string on pronunciation. It the email below, you mention there are about fifteen pronunciations of the English "ough". I can think of four at the moment, and perhaps there are one or two more that I do not recollect. The four a bough as in German bau; trough as in ruff; through as in thru; though as in tho. Can you please supply some more? Seven are given at http://www.british-blc.com/academy2/activities/adv_l4_ough.htm In a Dutch newsgroup we came at: 1. thought 2. enough 3. through 4. though 5. cough 6. bough, plough 7. drought 8. Scarborough, thorough 9. hiccough 10. trough (as in moth, but apparently only dialectal) 11. lough (as lock) 12. lough (as in Loch Ness) 13. Gough 14. Coughlin Concerning Dutch and Afrikaans, I think you mentioned that Afrikaans is not a dialect if Dutch, but a different language. This sounds strange to me. After all the Afrikaners came from The Netherlands, and I can understand that the separation produced different changes in each country through the years. Isn't that similar to England and the USA? Although there are reasons to state that English and American are different languages, the case is dissimilar. The grammar in the US is the same as the grammar in Britain (but consider the differences in terminology!). Spelling differences and pronunciation differences are not a strong separation. Especially spelling differences do not count. But consider pronunciation differences, the short 'a' and 'o' have, in Dutch, in fact interchanged pronunciation when you compare Amsterdam and The Hague. The distinction between the two is not vital, and so it is not found to be distinctive. Also, the Afrikaner population was quite small in numbers, and could not sustain a large volume of literature, but relied on Dutch works from the Netherlands., which helps maintain the similarity. You may have other reasons; please let me know. The basic reason is the discrepancy in grammar. The Dutch infinitive of verbs is nearly lost in Afrikaans, while extremely common in Dutch. Also, Afrikaans uses double negatives to denote negations, that are unheard of in Dutch. There are many such differences where the grammar of Afrikaans has been influenced by the grammar of native languages. And indeed, the people speaking Afrikaans are able to read Dutch, the reverse is also true. They can even communicate (as a tour of a South African comedian through the Netherlands did show, and also a fairly recent fairly popular novel of a South African writer). But that in itself does not make them the same language, or one a "dialect" of the other. Think about it. You probably know Harry Potter. Do you know that there are serious differences between the US editions and the British editions? The number of differences have decreased in the course of time (for the first book it sometimes looked like a re-write), but also in the last book there are still differences. And not all are related to spelling. But *none* was related to grammar. Translating a book from Afrikaans to Dutch would possibly change every sentence to make it grammatically correct. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Thanks Dik. As to the "ough', I neglected the words ending in a "t".
You are of course the final resort to me re Afrikaans, and I stand educated. Tony "Dik T. Winter" wrote in message ... In article "A.E. Gelat" writes: Dik, I am enjoying this long string on pronunciation. It the email below, you mention there are about fifteen pronunciations of the English "ough". I can think of four at the moment, and perhaps there are one or two more that I do not recollect. The four a bough as in German bau; trough as in ruff; through as in thru; though as in tho. Can you please supply some more? Seven are given at http://www.british-blc.com/academy2/activities/adv_l4_ough.htm In a Dutch newsgroup we came at: 1. thought 2. enough 3. through 4. though 5. cough 6. bough, plough 7. drought 8. Scarborough, thorough 9. hiccough 10. trough (as in moth, but apparently only dialectal) 11. lough (as lock) 12. lough (as in Loch Ness) 13. Gough 14. Coughlin Concerning Dutch and Afrikaans, I think you mentioned that Afrikaans is not a dialect if Dutch, but a different language. This sounds strange to me. After all the Afrikaners came from The Netherlands, and I can understand that the separation produced different changes in each country through the years. Isn't that similar to England and the USA? Although there are reasons to state that English and American are different languages, the case is dissimilar. The grammar in the US is the same as the grammar in Britain (but consider the differences in terminology!). Spelling differences and pronunciation differences are not a strong separation. Especially spelling differences do not count. But consider pronunciation differences, the short 'a' and 'o' have, in Dutch, in fact interchanged pronunciation when you compare Amsterdam and The Hague. The distinction between the two is not vital, and so it is not found to be distinctive. Also, the Afrikaner population was quite small in numbers, and could not sustain a large volume of literature, but relied on Dutch works from the Netherlands., which helps maintain the similarity. You may have other reasons; please let me know. The basic reason is the discrepancy in grammar. The Dutch infinitive of verbs is nearly lost in Afrikaans, while extremely common in Dutch. Also, Afrikaans uses double negatives to denote negations, that are unheard of in Dutch. There are many such differences where the grammar of Afrikaans has been influenced by the grammar of native languages. And indeed, the people speaking Afrikaans are able to read Dutch, the reverse is also true. They can even communicate (as a tour of a South African comedian through the Netherlands did show, and also a fairly recent fairly popular novel of a South African writer). But that in itself does not make them the same language, or one a "dialect" of the other. Think about it. You probably know Harry Potter. Do you know that there are serious differences between the US editions and the British editions? The number of differences have decreased in the course of time (for the first book it sometimes looked like a re-write), but also in the last book there are still differences. And not all are related to spelling. But *none* was related to grammar. Translating a book from Afrikaans to Dutch would possibly change every sentence to make it grammatically correct. -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Ο "A.E. Gelat" έγραψε στο μήνυμα
... Concerning Dutch and Afrikaans, I think you mentioned that Afrikaans is not a dialect of Dutch, but a different language. This sounds strange to me. That sounds strange to me, too, but Dik disagrees and as he is a Dutch he must know better than us. After all the Afrikaners came from The Netherlands, and I can understand that the separation produced different changes in each country through the years. Isn't that similar to England and the USA? There are minor spelling differences in spelling, pronunciation and names of things, but that is all. Tony, my S.African relatives told me that the differences are greater but nevertheless they have no problems of communication when they are visiting Holland. -- E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane! F.d.A Coins, travels and mo http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html Also, the Afrikaner population was quite small in numbers, and could not sustain a large volume of literature, but relied on Dutch works from the Netherlands., which helps maintain the similarity. You may have other reasons; please let me know. Bye the way, I spent three years in the Netherlands, working on a project for BPM (Bataafse Petroleum Maatschappij). I got married to a Dutch woman, but we spoke Dutch only when we did not want the children to understand. I live in the USA. Tony |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα
... In article "gogu" writes: Perhaps. What he wrote was perhaps valid 100 years ago (using the knowledge that was available at that time). But I wonder why you remain wishing to apply it to current times. Borders change in history. Nope, I don't want to say that *whatever* he wrote is correct/valid today, I was trying to give you an unbiased *testimony* of how the various people were perceived in *those* times and to show you that there was nothing "macedonian" in those times! But as you have not commented on the people and number from the censuses I gave you, I understand that you are not interested in any sources proving the non-existence of such nationality/ethnicity and/or language in those times! The sources you supplied were also biased. ??? Biased you say?! Hilmi Pasha is a ... biased source?! In that time (1904 and 1906) the Turks had no interest to misrepresent any people in the region, more, ethnicity problems were not an issue in anyone's mind! And Italian ethnologist Amadori Virgili is also a ... "biased" source?! And FYROM's Ambassador to Canada is also a ... biased source?! Well, if you think so.... Where is the country "Walachy" (or whatever you would call it). What happened with the Walachians? I understand that you know quite a little about Balkans... Who said that there was a country called "Walachia" in those days?! Actually there was a *people* called this way in those days and that was the then general name for the today's ... Romanians! And the territory of today's Romania was called in those days due a gross generalization "Walachia" or to write it correctly in their language "Valahia". If you want more info: in those days there were two "principalities" in the area: Moldova and Tara Romaneasca, but due a generalization the whole territory was called "Moldo-Valahia" or to be more precise "Moldovalahia". The inhabitants of those 2 Principalities were called "Valahians" (not a completely correct term as there was also the name "Moldoveni" for the inhabitants of the Moldova but...) and even today a local name for *all* Romanians is "Olah" or "Valah", coming from the "Valahian". When Romania was formed in 24 January - 5 February 1862 as a unitary state during the Union (Unirea Principatelor/Principatele Unite), it was formed from: Moldova and Muntenia/Tara Romaneasca. Later in 1918 took place the Great Union (Marea Unire) when Transilvania, Banat, Crisan, Maramures, Basarabia and Bucovina were united with the motherland. So the answer to your question is that they went back to Romania after the Balkan countries were liberated from the Turks, the national states became more and more powerful, borders were set and Valahians had a brand new, free country! Something similar happened with Israel when it was formed as a free state, Jews from all around the world started coming home... I hope this answers your question. But whatever, it may be that there was no separate language 100 years ago, that does *not* mean there is no separate language today. ??? Who sustained that?! Today there is such an idiom/language/dialect/whatever and it's spoken in the territory of FYROM, who can deny that?! -- E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane! F.d.A Coins, travels and mo http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html -- dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/ |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Montenegro Independent?!
Ο "Dik T. Winter" έγραψε στο μήνυμα
... In article "gogu" writes: It would be absurd to want to imply to someone in ... what language he must write in his own country! You are wrong! Greek customs would not accept documents written in their language. NOT TRUE! Greek customs would not accept documents with the *NAME* "Macedonia" on them! Please understand it once for all, this has nothing to do with language but with the *NAME*! If you think I am wrong, please present your sources! They did not state what they should write in their own country, but what they should write in official documents presented to Greek customs. But perhaps that only occurred in 1993. *NEVER OCCURRED*! You know something but you know it distorted! The customs would not accept commercial documents with the name "Macedonia" on them (although they accept passports with that name!!!) or cars with the insignia "MK"! That's all, nothing else! But if you are so convinced, pray tell what language the Greek customs would accept for the FYROM-ians?! Martian maybe? It is absurd Dik to sustain that, language was never an issue and that's easy to understand because Greece disputes only the "Macedonian" heritage (that's the *NAME* of the country) and the language is clearly a slavic one, so Greece does not care! The only issue was the name of the country (and the flag as I said) and nothing else! Please do not insist, you are wrong on this! rgrds -- E' mai possibile, oh porco di un cane, che le avventure in codesto reame debban risolversi tutte con grandi puttane! F.d.A Coins, travels and mo http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/golanule/my_photos http://gogu.enosi.org/index.html |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Serbia and Montenegro: New postal stamps "Museum exhibits" (art stamps) | Dag T. Hoelseth | General Discussion | 1 | December 11th 05 10:12 PM |
Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Yugoslavia and Montenegro banknote | Posao | Coins | 0 | December 3rd 05 01:28 PM |
Banknote from Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Montenegro | Banknote and coins | Coins | 1 | July 11th 05 08:06 AM |
Independent Corroboration: Pelan Lied | The People's Poet | Books | 2 | April 20th 05 08:34 PM |
Independent League Collectors | Kevin Glew | Baseball | 0 | November 30th 03 06:02 PM |