Montenegro Independent?!

Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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/

In article "gogu" writes:
Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
....
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 "ö".

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/

In article "gogu" writes:
Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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/

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:
Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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 =----

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/

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 =----

Ï "A.E. Gelat" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

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

Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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/

Ï "Dik T. Winter" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
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