CONTENTS

THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE

MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE (A LATE CASE OF GLOSSOTOMY?)......2
On the name (glossonym) Macedonian..................................................................................4
On the orthography of the Macedonian literary language......................................................5
On the dialectal basis of the Macedonian literary language...................................................5
Who was in need of linguistic partition (glossotomy)?..........................................................6
Linguistic chaos......................................................................................................................7
Footnotes:................................................................................................................................8
MACEDONIA FROM S. S. CYRIL AND METHODIUS TO HORACE LUNT AND
BLAZHE KONESKI: LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY..............................................10
Instant Standard Literary Macedonian..................................................................................11
Tito's Macedonia...................................................................................................................13
A State In Search Of Its History: The Macedonian Myth.....................................................13
Conclusion............................................................................................................................14
Bulgarian ... Bulgarian Dictionary........................................................................................14
Footnotes:..............................................................................................................................17
ADVENT OF MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE (DOCUMENTS)........................................19
NATURE OF STANDARD MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE...............................................22
Part I......................................................................................................................................22
Part II.....................................................................................................................................23
Part III...................................................................................................................................24
IS IT A DIALECT OR IS IT A LANGUAGE?.....................................................................26
What is the difference?..........................................................................................................26
My background.....................................................................................................................28
The Past.................................................................................................................................28
Some “linguistic” examples from my life.............................................................................30
Politics is Perception.............................................................................................................31
Misirkov and Today’s Reality...............................................................................................33
Conclusion I found the explanations of Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje surrogates in
Greece very political, perhaps somewhat philological, but not at all linguistic. As far as
linguistics is concerned, what the Skopje surrogates in Greece wrote was,.........................37
Biographical Note.................................................................................................................38

THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE

MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE (A LATE CASE OF GLOSSOTOMY?)

Otto Kronsteiner (Austria)

(translated by Daniela Konstantinova)

"The split of a language into two is something which the greatest fantasts in the world have
not dared do. Our scholars, however, did it for political, rather than linguistic considerations."
Leonida Lari, Romanian writer from Moldova, (Literatura si arta am 18.8.1988)
page 1 of 38
There are quite a few European languages spoken outside their "own" country: for instance
German in Germany, but also in Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg,: Denmark,
Belgium, Poland, Russia; Spanish in Spain, but also in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia etc. But
nowhere a necessity has come to being, neither an attempt has been made to father a new
(official) language (Austrian, Liechtensteinian, Argentinian, Chilien etc.) despite apparent
differences emerging in the usage of the languages.

Many minority languages have never had their own state, others have had - though for a short
time. Nevertheless, they have kept their integrity in the course of centuries, and have
patiently waited for their recognition. This holds good of Ladinian, Basque, Sardian, Catalan
and others. Quite to the contrary, there has never been a necessity for the creation of a special
literary language to serve the Bulgarian-speaking Slavs residing outside Bulgaria (for
example, in Vardar or Aegean Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine). Similarly,
there had never been a Macedonian linguistic community dreaming for centuries on end to be
recognized for its linguistic uniqueness.

As late as the 20th c. the method of linguistic partition (glossotomy) [1] would be repeatedly
applied, motivated politically, rather than linguistically. In the West (as was the case of
Slovenian Nindian) those attempts crashed and burned. In the East however, forcefully
conceived languages under communism (socialism) (Romanian/Moldovan [2];
Finnish/Karelian; Tatar/Bashkir; Turkish/Gagaouz) did survive to live a longer "life" thanks
to political coercion. Those who refused to accept language partition would be proclaimed
nationalists and treated in the respective way. In politics, language partition was counted
upon as a way to reinforce the new political borders, thus eliminating the feeling of one-time
belonging to a certain community. [3] The strategies behind the fathering of such new
languages in the communist regions would follow one and the same principles.

One scholar (or a handful united in a group) would publish an orthography, grammar,
dictionary, bilingual dictionaries (but, note, never from the old to the new language, that is,
never RomanianMoldovan, but Moldovan-Russian for example, or others). Shortly, they
would publish a historical grammar, a history of the language, as well as a history of the new
nation. Further, as "flank" initiatives, an Academy of Sciences, a National Theater and a
National Folk Ensemble would be established. In the meantime, a national literature was
bound to shape up, and the first writer to venture in any genre, would be proclaimed a great
playwright, novelist or lyrist on the new language. [4] All that in its turn, called to life a
literary history. The political accompaniment to the whole affair would be a most
characteristic sentence in the communist countries: notably, that the (new) language was "a
remarkable achievement serving the entire cultural complex". And, the direction to follow
derived from the (unvoiced) formulation: "the worse the old language is treated, the better for
the new one", that is, the worse Romanian is being spoken/spelled, the better for Moldovan,
which would be more correctly spoken/spelled. And, this entailed a deepening of the artificial
gulf between the old and the new tongue (even by the use of force). All that holds good of the
Macedonian literary language (македонскиот jазик).
2
Date of creation: 1944

Place of creation: The Socialist Republic of Macedonia (within the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia) - the "Prohor Pcinski" monastery.

Used by: some 1 000 000 Bulgarians (in Macedonia).

Oldest literary monument: "New Macedonia" newspaper.

Fabrications:

H. Lunt, A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje, 1952.

Блаже Конески, Историjа на македонскиот jазик. Дел I. Увод, За гласовите,

За акцентот, Скопjе, 1952; Дел Il: 3a формите и нивната употреба, Cкоnje,
1957.

Блаже Конески, Исторjа на македонскиот jазик, Скопjе - Белград, 1965,

1981,
1982.

Правопис на македонскиот литературен jазик со правописен речник,

Скопjе, 1970, 1979.

Речник на македонскиот jазик со српско-хрватски толкуваниjа (II-III),

Скопjе, 1961, 1966, 1979, 1986.

в. Милики , Обратен речник на македонскиот jазик, Скопje, 1967.

Двуезични речници и учебници по немски, английски, френски, полски,

румънски, руски и словенски.

Научно списание "Македонски jазик" от 1954 г.

М. Георгиевски, Македонско книжевно наследство од XI до XVIII век,

Скопjе,
1979.

Д. Митрев. Повоени македонски поети. Антологиjа, Скопjе, 1960.

М. Друговац, Современи македонски писатели, Скопjе, 1979.

М. Ташковски, Кон етногенезата на македонскиот народ, Скопjе, 1974.

Историjа на македонскиот народ (Институт за национална историjа,

Скопjе, 1969. I. Од предисториското време до краjот на ХVIII век. II Од
3
 почетокот на ХХ век до краjот на првата светска воjна. III Периодот ме у
двете светски воjни и народната револуциjа (1918-1945).

While T. Stamatoski (also Stamatov, Stamatovski) wrote back in 1986 on the struggle for
Macedonian literary language, looking back and ahead in future at the same time (?) (Борба
за македонски литературен jазик, Скопjе), Blaze Koneski had already (3 years before)
told the "Communist" (1376, from July 29, 1983) the story of the endorsement and the
introduction of this literary language (Афирмациjа на македонскиот jазик. Сосем
оформен современен литературен jазик, Скопjе).

A most ridiculous text is the historical phonology of the new language fathered in 1944 (B.
Koneski, A Historical Phonology of the Macedonian Language, Heidelberg, 1983).

A major departure was effected, not only from the Bulgarian language, but also from its rich
literary heritage, as well as from the world literature in translation. However, something had
to be saved, and it was done by encroaching upon the miscellany of songs by the Miladinov
brothers, born in Macedonia, and which had been originally entitled "Bulgarian Folk Songs",
(1861) containing songs from Struga, Okhrida, Prilep, Kukus, Kostur and from other parts of
Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. In 1962 it came out in Skopje under the forged title of
"Miscellany", with a forged “Macedonian” text, and on top of everything else, labeled "the
most outstanding work ever published, of the Macedonian literature.

On the name (glossonym) Macedonian

The adjective Macedonian (in Bulgarian: македонски; in Greek: , in
Albanian: maqedonas) was out of use as a glossonym prior to 1944. Until then, Macedonian
used to be an adjective (designating the region (toponym) of Macedonia). [5] So, ever since
1944 it has scarcely been clear whether the toponym or the glossonym is actually meant
under the word Macedonian, which caused a confusion of notions (deliberately provoked,
too), that worked in favor of the reinforcement of the myths of the Macedonian nation. The
impression was created as if this same language since time immemorial, has been the
language of the "country" Macedonia. Alexander the Great was Macedonian. Cyril and
Methodius were Macedonians, and Kemal Ataturk too, was Macedonian (a fact which is
often suppressed). Neither of those however, had anything in common with the Macedonian
literary language of Mr. Blaze Koneski (i.e. Blagoj Konev). And for the delusion to be
complete, the textbooks in history and geography read: "In the Socialist Republic of
Macedonia there live Macedonians, Albanians, Turks etc." This downright usurpation of
ethnic names seems the right tool of forcible differentiation (compare: the French, Bretons,
Basques - all of them nationals of France) etc., instead of the French French, the Breton
French, the Basque French or (given the common territory of a nation), the French Bretons,
the French Basques etc. It would be right to say: the Bulgarian Macedonians, the Albanian
Macedonians, the Turkish Macedonians etc. (in this case, the residents of the republic of
Macedonia), or, as it had been generally accepted to say by 1944 (e.g. Veigand) - the
4
Macedonian Bulgarians, Macedonian Albanians, Macedonian Turks, etc. (given the common
territory of a nation). And, since through the new Macedonian language, erstwhile Bulgarian
ceased to exist officially (!), that is, it became a (strongly estranged) foreign language, the
glossonym and the ethnonym Bulgarian disappeared too.

On the orthography of the Macedonian literary language

Similarly to the case with Moldovan, when the Cyrillic script was introduced to distance it
from Romanian, the Macedonian glossotomists decided to adopt the Serbian alphabet
(respectively, orthography) including letters having become more or less a myth
,
(instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД, as well as the Serbian .) . The core of the
,
Macedonian alphabet is actually lying in these two letters and their phonetic materialization.
Hence the joke: Macedonian is Bulgarian typed on a Serbian type-writer. Had the Bulgarian
orthography been applied to the new language, everyone would take it for Bulgarian (despite
the peripheral nature of the basic dialect chosen), just like the dialectally tinged texts by
Ludwig Toma and Peter Poseger, which are taken for German ones.

On the dialectal basis of the Macedonian literary language

A very special trick of the Macedonian glossotomists was the choice of the peripheral
dialectal area as the dialectal basis of the new language. It lies precisely on the Serbian-
Bulgarian language boundary, hence, it represents a transitional dialect to Serbian. Another
town could have been chosen instead of Skopje as capital (in the linguistic aspect too), such
as Ohrid, but it would have made the difference with Bulgarian hardly discernable. The inner
structure of the new language follows lexically and morphologically [6] the Serbian model
enforced through the Belgrade Radio and TV, received everywhere. The new language served
the rule: the more non-Bulgarian, the more Macedonian! The strengthening of the Serbian
influence meant Macedonia's estrangement from Bulgaria politically and culturally as well [7]
(something passed unnoticed by Europe). Bulgarian studies were not taught in Yugoslavia's
universities, as they were replaced by Macedonian studies (and that, needless to say, held
good of Skopje). Bulgarian was converted into an anti-language.

In the lingual-geographic aspect, the “Macedonian” dialects were declared all too unique,
having nothing in common with Bulgarian. This explains why a Macedonian dialectal atlas
was never released. Every dialectologist is well aware that there is no dialectical boundary to
separate Bulgaria from Macedonia, and that intrinsic Macedonian peculiarities (such as the
triple article, instead of Щ, etc.) are common in Bulgaria too. Hence, the whole thing
smells of Stalin-styled misinformation which was successful in misleading even some
representatives of "critical" Slavonic studies in the West. [8]

Who was in need of linguistic partition (glossotomy)?

Since in all the cases (in the communist region) of linguistic partition the underlying strategy
would be quite the same, the question arises whether it is also valid for the functioning of that
5
mechanism. The method of "splitting" would be applied not only to languages, but also to the
history of nations, and to entire nations. And as in neither of those cases people's will had
been consulted, it is thus far unclear where the central stage players had actually seen the
sense, for themselves, their country and their policy. It is surprising that together with the
states (The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) the purpose would be lost behind these language
partitions, given it was related to a centralized state policy. The latter would unite on the one
hand, and divide, on the other. Within the framework of the Soviet Union, Ukraine and
Byelorussia had to be russified, whereas, the Turkish- speaking peoples would be partitioned
in the smallest possible portions. For its part, Yugoslavia had been pursuing a language and
cultural assimilation with a Serbian emphasis (see: "Directive" by Garasanin). All this attests
to the moral (!) integrity of science which has never been short of people for such tasks. As to
the Serbian policy, it did not resort to similar language partition against the Yugoslav
Albanians and Turks - they were actually deprived of all their rights; they were not
considered nations at all, but rather a "minority" in its worst connotation, although they were
prevalent in some areas. The assimilation effort against linguistically closer Bulgarian
Macedonians, however, was much more apparent. For the sake of historical truth we should
note that those assimilation efforts do not date back to socialist Yugoslavia, but even earlier,
to the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yet they could
score success only under socialism with its methods - in the post-1944 period. No wonder
then that the Albanians do not tend to associate with the new Republic of Macedonia, while
as far the "macedonized" Bulgarian Macedonians are concerned, it seems at least, they. do. l
do not subscribe to any annexations (Anschlusse), something I feel alien to, being Austrian; I
believe that the Slav Macedonians are bound to re-think the roots of their identity which as of
1944, has been resting on a diffuse feeling of being Yugoslav. Any single piece of criticism
against the new, Macedonian language is by rule interpreted as a blow against Yugoslavia.
Thus, the whole thing has boiled to overcoming the past since historical falsehood and
forgery could not but influence younger generations who now suffer the consequences of
national nihilism. The generation of today identifies itself with neither Serbia, nor Bulgaria.
We can hardly deny the emergence of initial symptoms of a new identity. Here is one
example from among many: the complete separation back in 1967, of the Macedonian from
the Serbian-Orthodox church (though the former has never been recognized by the latter). [9]
The degree of serbianization however is considerable, which is indicative of the power of the
Serbophile nomenclature in Macedonia.

Linguistic chaos
For the constructors of a language, and of the Macedonian literary language too, it is no
problem at all to invent linguistic norms. The actual difficulty is whether these norms are
applicable. The ways to say something on the one hand, and to spell it on the other, have
always differed, yet the question is: Who speaks this language? Macedonians themselves can
be heard to say quite often: we have no command of this language, we have not studied it.
The immediate impression is how very uncertain such Macedonians feel linguistically. It
transpires in every single piece of conversation, how tough it is for them to "stick" to this
language. [10] Soon one is in trouble guessing whether what is spoken is bad Bulgarian, or bad
6
Serbian. Anyway, no impression is left of a linguistic identity (unlike the case with Ladinian
or Catalan). Talking with Macedonians, one is overwhelmed by compassion over their
linguistic confusion. Such a language can be defined negatively: by stating what it is not. The
drive to replace the nationality of the Macedonians, making them Serbian, has actually called
to life a kind of a creole tongue, which for its part might be helpful to the Serbians some
generations later to "recommend" to the Macedonians Serbian as a literary language. And, in
its current capacity of a literary language, Macedonian is open to Serbian, with the latter
supplying the former. As to Bulgarian, it has fallen in total isolation.

With the political situation of today pregnant with options for new orientation, this
destructive process needs to be contained, despite the deep traces it has left in the course of
its 50-year-long development. I will refrain from forecasts as to the future direction linguistic
development is likely to take. However, one thing is certain: the present situation is quite
unsatisfactory. Moreover, fears remain that there are quite a few people in Skopje, who might
try to accomplish what has already been started. If so, a precedent for Europe might emerge
when political glossotomy being a preliminary stage leading up to linguistic, respectively
ethnic, changes, has turned out to be successful.

In view of the common, older than a millennium Bulgarian history, we can hope that political
objectives resting upon numerous lies, will ultimately fail. Otherwise, the televised statement
of a Serbian tchetnik on the Austrian TV might become a sad truth, notably, that Macedonians
were not using a normal tongue, but a hotchpotch of Serbian plus Bulgarian words, hence, the
Macedonians belonged to Serbia.

The fact that an American, Horace Lunt is the author of the Grammar of the Macedonian
Literary Language (Skopje, 1952), the first grammar-book of Macedonian (!) paving the way
for a literary language tailored by the communists, attests to the profound "insight"
Americans show in European problems.

Footnotes:
1. See: DSS 14/1988: 23-66 (H. Goebl, Glottonymie, Glotottomie und Schizoglossie.
Drei sprachpolitisch bedeutsame Begriffe).

2. See: DSS 19/1989: 11 5-i40 (K. Heitmann, Probleme der moldauischen Sprache in
der Ara Gorbacev).

3. In the case of the Turkic peoples in the USSR, there were fears over the possible
emergence of Pan-Turkic movements.

7
4. Compare, the valuable notes by Izo Kamartin, a specialist in Romansh (Nichts als
Worte?) Ein Pladoyer fur Kleinsprachen. Zurich Munchen, 1985: 171 - Eine Kleine
Literatur...)

5. P. Koledarov, Името Македония в историческата география, Sofia, 1985; H.R.

Wilkinson, Maps and Politics, A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia,
Liverpool, 1951.

6. Even surnames with the Bulgarian ending -os/-es were refashioned into -ски or -ски (
Serbian -и ). Thus, Georgiev would turn into Georgievski or Georgievi .

7. My own experience testifies to how very anxious Serbia was over cutting off any
contact between Bulgaria and Macedonia. After the First International Congress of Bulgarian
Studies closed (1981), I was traveling home from Sofia, when I was held for 5 hours at the
Serbian border (in Gradina/Dimitrovgrad). There a UDBA-group from Nish started a lengthy
inquiry, followed by taking away various Bulgarian books and magazines they found in my
car. And since I wanted to speak in Bulgarian, they told me to use a normal (Serbian?)
language. They accused me of being a Bulgarian spy employed by the Bulgarian secret
services. Further I was warned that if I persisted in manifesting anti-Yugoslav sentiments
(non-acceptance of the Macedonian language?), I had to suffer the respective consequences.

8. While in Slavonic and Romance studies and in general linguistics there was not a hint
of hesitation as to the linguistic features of the region by World War II, after the war the view
and stands of quite a few students of Slavonic studies concerning the Macedonian problem,
could be singled out for their exceptional naively. The latter could very well be in some
relation with summer courses in Macedonia at the fascinating Ohrid lake, or else with the
awarding of the title of corresponding member of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences.

An example of the in-depth prewar research is the work "Ethnography of Macedonia".,

Leipzig, 1924 (re-printed in Sofia, 1981) by G. Weigand and "Studies in Macedonian
Dialectology", Kazan, 1918 (re-printed in Sofia, 1981) by A.M. Selishtchev. Weigand, as well
as Selischev, speak about Bulgarians in Macedonia and Macedonian Bulgarian language.

9. Compare D. Ilievski, The Autocephality of the Macedonian Orthodox Church.

Skopje, 1972. As there is no national (Macedonian) translation available of the Bible, the
Serbian one is being recommended, and it is another factor for the structuring of the
Macedonian literary language. Bulgarian in all of its aspects is deliberately kept in hiding.

10. The story goes that one of the leading glossotomists was delivering a lecture at the St.
Kliment of Ohrid" University in Sofia, in Macedonian: when however, a sudden drought
scattered his manuscript, he just went on lecturing... in Bulgarian.

8
 MACEDONIA FROM S. S. CYRIL AND METHODIUS TO HORACE LUNT AND
BLAZHE KONESKI: LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY

(Prof. James F. Clarke, The Pen and the Sword: Studies in Bulgarian History, edited by
Dennis P. Hupchick, Boulder: East European Monographs ; New York: Distributed by
Columbia University Press, 1988.)

Among Americans increasing interest in Macedonian subjects is to be noted in academic

circles. Few society meetings occur without Macedonia appearing on the program, usually in
a linguistic form, but lacking historical perspective. Occasionally an article appears in a
scholarly journal such as one by Prof. Stephen Fisher - Galati on "IMRO" in the East
European Quarterly, edited by him, but without first-hand knowledge of the subject. Perhaps
more interesting is a book published in 1977 by the University of Pittsburgh Press, Reading
the Ashes, An Anthology of the Poetry of Modern Macedonia. Basically a product of Skopje,
the Introduction by the American editor is riddled with errors. It required 32 "translators" to
9
translate the 26 poets. As is to be expected, it ignores, or is ignorant of, Bulgarian
Macedonian history and literature, substituting instead myth and misinformation. It is my
purpose here to describe how the myth of a Macedonian literary language got started.

There have been two so-called Macedonian literary languages separated by 1081 years. That
of Cyril and Methodius was the first Slavic literary language, with the first Slavic alphabet -
the Glagolitic, later transformed into the Cyrillic. This was adopted by all the Slavs and
became a world language, the first language and alphabet in Europe with a religious basis.
The other, as now practiced in Yugoslav Macedonia, is the latest, the smallest (except for
Lusatian Serbian) and we may presume, the last Slavic literary language. Cyril's Old
Bulgarian, or Old Church Slavonic, was originally spoken by the Slav inhabitants of what is
now Greek (or Aegean) Macedonia (Lunt, Old Church Slavonic, p. 2). New Macedonian is
made up of dialects from the Center of Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia.

My title would seem to put Horace Lunt in the position of isapostolos, or a latter-day Saint;
"disciple" would be more appropriate. Like St. Cyril, he is a distinguished multilinguist.
Since 1959 professor of Slavic at Harvard, he has worked both ends of the long Macedonian
street. His first major work, written at the Biblical age 33, was a Grammar of the Macedonian
Literary Language (Skopje, 1952), the first linguistic description and analysis in any
language. Lunt's is the only grammar listed in Koneski's Istorija na Makedonskiot Jazik
(History of the Macedonian Language, Skopje 1965), aside from his own. Only three years
later (1974) came his Old Church Slavonic Grammar (6th edition, rev.), described as "the first
to be written in English" and for many years a standard work (J. O. Ferrell, Language, vol.
33, p. 450 - 453). A thousand years of spoken Macedonian separate these two grammars.

By-product of Lunt's work on the Macedonian language was his "Survey of Macedonian
Literature" in the first volume of Harvard Slavic Studies (1954) of which he was editor. This
also was a pioneer work (and remains the only English source - other than an English
translation of one of Koneski's works. Towards the Macedonian Renaissance, Skopje, 1961).
He has also published a few shorter pieces. Of special interest is an article, "The creation of
Standard Macedonian" (Anthropological Linguistics, May, 1959).

Lunt himself tells us how he discovered Macedonia in the Preface to Grammar of the
Macedonian Literary Language, p. 1. While in the U. S. Army in 1944, he stumbled on some
partisan underground publications in a Macedonian dialect. After the war he attended lectures
on Macedonian in Prague, and in 1950 at Bled, given by the leading Skopje authority, Blazhe
Koneski, and sponsored by the Yugoslav Council for Science and Culture. In 1951, fresh
from a Columbia Ph. D. (1950), he spent three months in Skopje with financial aid from the
Yugoslav Council and the Macedonian Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture. There he
had the guidance and assistance of Prof. Koneski and associates at the University of Skopje.
Thus, Koneski's Slavic Seminar acted as judge and jury in determining what was to be
standard. Lunt's Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language was printed in Belgrade and

10
published by the Macedonian State Press in Skopje in August 1952. It might, therefore, be
considered official.

Instant Standard Literary Macedonian

On August 2, 1944, one of the first acts of the 122 delegates from Macedonia to the Anti-
Fascist National Liberation Council, meeting clandestinely at the St. Prohor Pchinski
Monastery in Serbia, was the following decree:

1. In the Macedonian state as official language is adopted the People's Macedonian

language.
2. This decision enters into force immediately.
(Dokumenti od sozdavanjeto i razvitokot na N. R. Makedonija, Documents on the Creation
and Development of the P. R. of Macedonia, Skopje, 1949, p. 22)

This must be the quickest creation of a literary language in history. A Commission, including
Blazhe Koneski, was appointed in December to spell out the new literary language. It came
up with a new alphabet and orthography on May 3 and June 7, 1945.

After two centuries of Slavic scholarship, very little is known about the origins and nature of
Old Bulgaria in Macedonia. Many questions remain and some probably always will.
Although the locale of the language seems established, the ethnic origin of the sainted
brothers is still disputed. It is hard for Slavs to accept them as anything but Slavs. Prof. Lunt
calls them "Greeks" (Slavic Review, June, 1964, p. 216), but also refers to Macedonian as
"St. Cyril's native Salonika dialect" (Lunt, Old Church Slavonic, p. 3). Many questions would
be answered should we discover that their mother, or at least their wet-nurse, was a "native"
(I'm told by Konstantin Mechev, a Cyrillo-Methodian scholar of Sofia, that after 5 month's
research in Moscow, he has conclusive evidence that they were Slavs; e. g. Bulgarians). Even
the traditional date for the language, 863, is disputed, especially by Russian and Bulgarian
scholars, not all of whom are Marxists. Aside from such assertions that there must have been
a couple of centuries of prior literary development (P. Dinekov, Deloto, 1100 godini, p. 5) we
find such statements as "the brothers finished their epoch-making work in 855" (N. Todorov,
et al, Bulgaria, Historical and Geographic Outline, Sofia, 1965, p. 28).

Considering the times and circumstances, it is inevitable that the great achievement of the two
"Apostles to the Slavs" should still be shrouded in myths and legends. On the other hand, the
second contemporary Macedonian literary language was created in the full light of our day.
Yet this too is obscured by a growing Macedonian Myth. To it Horace Lunt has contributed
his share and set the pace for subsequent American linguistics.

I am not here to quarrel with the current Macedonian literary language. No less an authority
than Roman Jakobson years ago declared it the thirteenth Slavic literary language. Every man
has the right to invent and write in his own language. Nor is the upgrading of a dialect into a

11
literary language a heresy, though only in a totalitarian police state can this become standard
overnight by decree.

To the 19th century the literary language used by Bulgarians in Macedonia was some form of
Serb or Bulgarian variation of the Russianized Church Slavic with degrees of spoken
admixtures, as in the so-called Damaskini. In the first part of the 19th century Greek (or
Slavic with Greek letters) was also used but increasingly the literary language was the same
as that used elsewhere in Bulgaria with occasional use of Macedonian dialects. Between the
two wars in Yugoslavia, it was Serbian by compulsion, with Bulgarian proscribed. Now it is
the new Macedonian, with Bulgarian proscribed, and with Serbo-Croatian as a second official
language.

According to Prof. Lunt, Macedonian "came of age" with the 1951 publication of Koneski
and Toshev's little Macedonian Orthography. He rather prematurely declared at the time he
compiled his Grammar that Macedonian "had achieved a degree of homogenity comparable
to that of the other Balkan languages" - this in the space of six preceding years (Grammar, p.
6). The chief architect of the language has been Prof. Koneski, President of the Macedonian
Academy of Arts and Sciences, whom Lunt considers one of the best Macedonian authors.
The first part of the Grammar came on the heels of Lunt's; the second, in 1954. His
Dictionary, in three volumes, was published in 1961, 1965, and 1966, with definitions in
Serbian. The last two volumes were delayed by the great Skopje earthquake. A major work is
his History of the Macedonian Language (1965).

I too am prepared to stipulate that a kind of Macedonian literary language is in use in Skopje,
although its growing pains are still showing. But to claim as Koneski does (The Macedonian
Language in the Development of the Slavic Literary Language, 1968), that Macedonian is
comparable to the other Slavic languages is nonsense. What interests me here are the
ideological and the political rationalizations and the problems and myths thus created.

Tito's Macedonia
Literary Macedonian owes its existence largely to Tito and the inclusion of Macedonia in his
six-room federal house. The new federal idea was laid in 1942 and publicly hatched at Jajce
in 1943. The new "co-equal" Macedonian republic was launched in 1944 at the St. Prohor
Pchinski Monastery. The motives behind its existence help explain much of its subsequent
character: Macedonian's relations with Belgrade had been a running, bloody sore in the
interbellum period; to head off Stalin opting for the Bulgarian Communist Party's claims,
Macedonia and the partisan movement there had to be forcibly tied to the new Yugoslavia;
and there was the possibility of using Vardar Macedonia as a magnet or springboard for the
acquisition of Greek and Bulgarian Macedonia and a restoration of partitioned Macedonia.

12
The elevation of Macedonia into the ranks of the historically and ethnically based Yugoslav
federal republics had to be rationalized; ideologically, politically, historically, and culturally.
A separate Macedonia had to have a separate and different official literary language -
different both from
Bulgarian and Serbian. The obvious necessity to use an existing spoken language meant
deciding which of the many dialects to use. The Western Macedonian was chosen, which in
Vardar Macedonia - meant the central dialect group, was removed as much as possible from
both Bulgarian and Serbian contamination.*

At the same time, a separate Macedonian alphabet was devised, made unnecessarily different
from the Bulgarian, including a few peculiarly Serbian letters, and containing some letters not
found in any other Cyrillic alphabet** , but it is still closer to Bulgarian than anything else.

In other ways, the makers of Modem Macedonian have tried to be different. A folk-based
language of a relatively primitive people finds it both necessary and difficult suddenly to
adapt to mid twentieth century conditions. In addition to finding or coining local folk
substitutes for Bulgarian literary expressions, the Macedonian language legislators avoid
taking ready-to-hand Bulgarian (or Russian or Serbian) technical and other ultra-modern
expressions in favor of Western, including American, terms. The purpose is to make
Macedonian as different as possible. The result is barbarous jargon, literally a Macedonian
Salad.

In contrast to the arbitrary severing of the Bulgarian literary umbilical cord, there is daily
contact with Serbian via the school, press, radio, business, politics, and the army. For
Macedonians, Serbian has to be a second, official language.

A State In Search Of Its History: The Macedonian Myth

Professor Lunt reminds us that a "language can be described and learned without the slightest
knowledge of history" unfortunately true of some of American linguists, but also that the
"elements of history are always present" (Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 2nd ed. 1959, p.
x.). The new Macedonian state and language in particular required historical rationalization to
justify their separatism. But the discouraging fact was that there was virtually no Macedonian
"state" history, as such. Consequently the Skopje scholars have found it necessary to rewrite
Balkan history at least as far back as Cyril and Methodius to make room for Macedonia. As
Lunt says, "except for a brief period under Samuil at the end of the ninth (sic) century,
Macedonia never had its own government" (Grammar, p. 3). Because the history of
Macedonia has hitherto inevitably been written mostly in terms of Bulgaria, Macedonian
historians are finding it necessary to deprive Bulgarians of some of their history, for example,
St. Clement, chief disciple of Cyril and Methodius, whose anniversary on Ohrid in 1966
(with Professor Lunt as honored guest) was celebrated as a Macedonian affair. Another
example is the Bogomils, whom the Macedonians have adopted as their very own national
movement. On some of these points Macedonians have trouble convincing even their fellow

13
Yugoslavs. But it is not my purpose here to retread Macedonian historiography and its
catharsis of Bulgarian elements.

Conclusion
For Macedonians to deny their Bulgarian heritage is like Peter denying Christ. But Peter
repented! You are familiar, I am sure, with all the distortions and denials of Bulgarian history,
literature, and culture, as related to Macedonia emanating from Skopje. But we here too have
scholars seemingly ignorant of Bulgarian Macedonian history. Take Prof. Golab of Chicago
who cites a work by
Russian scholar Selishchev on Polog and Its Bulgarian Inhabitants as Polog and Its Slav
Inhabitants.

It was at Chicago that Koneski got an honorary doctorate as "father of the Macedonian
Language". Actually Tito was the "father" and Koneski the "mother" with Horace Lunt as
"mid-wife". The kind of historical gymnastics and dialectical Macedonism indulged in at
Skopje puts the ideological cart before the historical horse: suddenly we had ultra-
Macedonian Nationalism, a gift from Marx; then came the establishment of a "state", then the
official language, then back-up "history" and finally what? A Macedonian Consciousness?

I see no quick or easy solution for today's version of the age-old Macedonian Questions,
invented at the Congress of Berlin (1878). My conviction, however, is that historical truth
will prevail and our task is to see that these truths must not be forgotten. This is the least we
should do. Prof. James F. Clarke

Appendix

Repercussion of the Macedonian emigration in USA about creation of the so-called

Macedonian language (Macedonian Tribune, Volume 43, Number 2177, Indianapolis, March
27, 1969).

Bulgarian ... Bulgarian Dictionary

The wild assimilatory campaign in the enslaved Macedonian land near Vardar often seems
pitiful and funny. The Skopian janissaries not only are embroiled to death with the elementary
historic truths but also they're trying to do the same with the truth about the alphabet. For
them it is a rule to call black white, they are used to maintain, that the sun does not rise from
the east, but from the west, that the satellite of the Earth is not the Moon, but ... Yugoslavia.

In this peculiar way, the decision was made in Skopje to issue Bulgarian - Macedonian
dictionary. It is necessary for them to prove to their own people and, if it is possible, to some
foreigners, that the population near Vardar has no relationship to the Bulgarian nation and
Bulgaria. The above mentioned dictionary is already a fact and let's say at the beginning - one
more fact of the failure of Tito's assimilatory mission. Its' authors M. Miadenov, D.
Tsarvenkovski and B. Blagoevski are Bulgarians by origin - in all their documents till 1945
they have ascertained themselves their Bulgarian origin, they have graduated Bulgarian
14
schools. They speak Bulgarian and Serbian fluently. In the last 20 years they are trying to
distort their conscience and play the role of creators of literary “Macedonian” language. We
must confess that they are very determined in the creation of the dictionary, to alienate their
language from the Bulgarian and to make it look like Serbian. Fortunately they have not
succeeded.

On the first page for the explanations of the abbreviations we see:

Macedonian Bulgarian abrev. transl. writen pronun.

writen pronun.
ав. авиациja aviatsiya авиация aviatsiya aviation
адми.администрациja administratsiya администрация administratsiya administration
анат. анатомиja anatomiya анатомия anatomiya anatomy
археол. археологиja arheologiya археология arheologiya archaeology архит.
архитектура arhitektura архитектура arhitektura architecture

Afterwards is published the “Macedonian” alphabet and we notice with admiration

and anger at the same time because of the impudence that this is the holy Bulgarian
alphabet (Cyrillic). There are only two changes - the Bulgarian Щ (sht) is written as
ШТ (sht) and second - they have suppressed the Bulgarian Ъ*** The first change is
hardly noticeable but the second leads to jokes. For example:

Bulgarian Macedonian
translation

writen pronun. writen pronun.

щръклица shtraklitsa штръклица shtraklitsa species of fly
върба varba врба varba willow
изтръпвам iztrapvam изтрпвам iztrapvam numb

Sometimes the Bulgarian Ъ and **** are changed with the Bulgarian A. For example:

Bulgarian Macedonian
writenpronun. translation
writen pronun.

път pat пат pat way

have a
зъзна zazna зазна zazna
cold

15
Here start the words. As in all dictionaries the beginning is for the words starting with A.
Let's have a look at the first page:

Bulgarian Macedonian translation

writen pronun. writen pronun.
абаджия abadziya абаџиja abadziya weaver
абдикация abdikatsiya абдикациja abdikatsiya abdication
абстрактен abstrakten апстрактен apstrakten abstract
абстрахирам abstrahiram апстрахирам abstrahiram to abstract
абсурд absurd апсурд aзsurd nonsense
август avgust август avgust August
автор avtor автор avtor autor
aкo ako ako аkо if
адрес adres адрес adres address
астма astma астма astma asthma
атака ataka атака ataka assault
афион afion афион afion poppy
ax ah ax ah oh

Let's go to the words of the second Bulgarian letter Б:

Bulgarian Macedonian translation

writen pronun. writen pronun.
баба baba баба baba gammer
бавене bavene бавене bavene slow-coach
бавно bavno бавно bavno slow
багаж bagazh багаж bagazh baggage
багра bagra багра bagra bloom
баджанак badzhanak бацанак badzhanak brother
in law байряк bayryak баjpak bayryak
banner баламаbalama баламаbalama stupid белег
beleg белег beleg blaze

Or with the letter E:

Bulgarian Macedonian
translation

writen pronun. writen pronun.

евнух evnuh евнух evnuh eunuch
еволюирам evolyuiram еволуирам evoluiram evolve
евреин evrein евреин evrein jew

16
 европеец evropeets европеец
evropeets european евтиния evtiniya
евтиниja evtiniya cheapness егейски
egeyski егеjски egeyski Aegean
егоист egoist егоист egoist egoist
еделвайс edelvays еделваjс
edelvays edelweiss единайсет edinayset
единаесет edinaeset eleven ерес eres
ерес eres heresy езеро ezero езеро ezero
lake

This can be seen in the whole dictionary. Only when the existence of Serbian words in the
“Macedonian” language must be justified, then they resort to translation. Or when they get to
the archaisms from the Bulgarian language that have remained in the “Macedonian”. For
example:

не ме е еня, B. - не ми е гаjле, M.бръснарница, B. - берберница, M. обущарница, B. -

кондурџиjница, M.

The Bulgarian word мелничар (melnichar) is "translated" in “Macedonian” as воденичар

(vodenichar) and the Bulgarian воденичар (vodenichar) is "translated" as мелничар
(melnichar). But both words are Bulgarian and mean a miller.This dictionary can be well
called Bulgarian Bulgarian and then one can't justify its creation. The Skopjan linguists tried
to justify this booklet by writing series of notices in different newspapers. They wrote: "This
dictionary will be helpful mainly to Bulgarian guests that visit our restaurants, hotels,
cinemas, and other public places, in their conversations with Macedonian citizens". But the
Bulgarians that visit the unfortunate Vardar area felt proud that their brothers and sisters
speak just like them. So they have no need of this dictionary. This was proved by its creators
who "translated" over 5 thousand Bulgarian words into ... pure Bulgarian language.

Footnotes:
* The so-called Macedonian Literary Language is too hasty in its development. While in the
dictionaries we can't find a lot of Serbian words, the everyday official language contains 85 -
90 % Bulgarian words, 5 - 9 % Serbian, 1 - 2 % Macedonian dialectisms, and 1 - 3 %
foreignisms.
** These letters are ќ and ѓ . They are modified by Serbian ђ and ћ.
*** This note-is not entirely correct. The differences between Bulgarian and Macedonian
alphabets are as follow:
Bg й щ ъ ь ю я ль нь гь кь дж дз
Mc ј шт ' ј јy ja љ њ ѓ ќ џ ѕ
**** is old Bulgarian letter from the times of St. Kliment Ohridski. It is suppressed by the
Macedonian and Bulgarian communists after 1945 but is in use in the editions of some

17
emigrant organizations. Depending on the dialect it is pronounced as Ъ, A or O, for example
c бота: cъбота, сабота, собота (sabota, sobota).

ADVENT OF MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE (DOCUMENTS)

"Stenografski beleshki od konferentsiite na filoloshkata komisia za ustanovuenje na

makedonskata azbuka i makedonskiot literaturen jazik", Skopje, November 27th - December
3rd, 1944.

"Stenographic Memoirs from the Conferences of the Philological Commission for

Establishment of the Macedonian Alphabet and Macedonian Literary language"

The advent of the so-called "Macedonian literary language" is an unique in the European
linguistic reality, and had not anything common with the normal springing up and
development of the languages in the continent. In contrast to all European languages, the so-
18
called "Macedonian literary language" is created from a group of people: 1) on some date, not
very far before; 2) in some place; 3) with a decree.

On August 2nd, 1944, in the monastery St. Prohor Pchinski, on the first meeting of ASNOM
(Anti-fascist Assembly for People Liberation of Macedonia), a decree for "sluzhben"
language, which "vleguva vednaga vo sila" (immediately is applyed), was announced. Some
months later again administratively - this language is up-invented, and sanctioned with voting
of 10 teachers, one poet, and one politician - ASNOM representative, on the conference in the
Skopje gradski odbor (city hall) in the period November 27th - December 3rd, 1944.
(Attending: Risto Prodanov, Risto Zografski, Dr Georche Shoptrajan, Dare Dzhambaz, Vasil
Iliev, Dr Mihail Petrushevski, Krume Toshev, Mirko Pavlov, Gjorge Kiselinov, Blazho
Koneski, Dr Milka Balvanlieva - all teachers, Venko Markovski - a poet, Epaminonda
Popandonov (from ASNOM). - the names are written according the protocol from November
27th, 1944. Stenographer: J. Kostevski.)

The documents of the stenographers protocols from the inventive meetings, which took less
than a week in the building of Skopski odbor, can show the absurdity of the advent of this
language, and can give an explanation, why this language practically is not spoken from
anyone in the Republic of Macedonia, including from its "creators". Here we have in mind
especially the pronunciation of the prominent codificator of Skopska norm, Bl. Koneski,
author of the many times issued "Gramatika na makedonskiot literaturen jazik", Skopje,
1952, which is full with many deviations from the created by him rules. We shall give, with a
minimum commentary, the typical moments of creating the "new language", which is on the
base of the south-western Bulgarian speeches in Macedonia.

Now enjoy the discussions:

1. Self-acknowledgement, that the decisions of the commission are not scientific:

"It will be good, if we can reconcile the views, to find something mild, it can be not scientific,
but practical, and in moderation. Kiril also had a hard time. (here St Constantine Cyril is in
mind!) Let we also try hardly, without hurry." - Krume Tosheski, p. 35.

2. Fast inventing of the language: "We have not time to wait this language to be made.
We are in fast need to have a literary language, and have no time, and cannot wait this
language to be made from poets, bookmen and journalists. In France, as a literary
language, Paris dialect is taken, in Russia - Moscow dialect, in Serbia - Hertsegovina
dialect. From these dialects, after that, continuously a literary language has developed.
But, as I have said, we have not time to wait some our dialect to be developed into literary
language." - Gjorge Kiselinov, p. 3.

3. The teachers of the new-created language will be also low-literate: "Our teachers will
be with fifth-sixth grade. Teaching with low-qualified teachers will be very difficult." -
Krume Tosheski, p. 34.

19
4. The artificial rules will be never acquired nor by pupils, nor by the elderly people:
"Here, the word is for the paedagogics and for the pupils. But it is all the same also for the
elderly people. These people will never learn the rules." - Risto Prodanov, p. 30.

5. Falsifying the language history, in order falsifying the reality to be acquitted - (here a
long pseudo-study of Gjorge Kiselinov is omitted. Grand-grand-childrens of Alexander of
Macedon, etc.)

6. Acknowledgement, that the revivalists in Macedonia wrote by the canons of

Bulgarian language: "Konstantin Miladinov called the dialect of his songs struzhko-
resenski. But it is nor Struga dialect, nor Resen dialect. One of the main characteristics of
our Macedonian language is the stress. In our language the stress is on the third syllable
from the end of the word. If we take his poem (of K. Miladinov) "T'ga za jug", it is
melodical only if it is pronunciated with Bulgarian stress. Here it is! (Recites.) But if we
recite it with the typical Macedonian stress, on the third syllable from the end of the word,
what we shall obtain? (Recites.) You see, that there is not rhythm." - Venko Markovski, p.
15.

7. The commission is also engaged in futurology: "In the not-near future, in the edge of
the capitalism and the imperialism, a common Slavic language will be developed, not only
common Yugoslavian language. We do not know in which direction it will be developed,
but most probably this will be the Russian language, which gave so much words to the
Germans and the Americans in technics." - Dare Dzhambaz, p. 40-41.

8. If the common Yugoslavian language will be not developed, than a try with the
Russian can be made: "Our comrade said, that we must have in mind an aspiration
towards a common Yugoslavian language. ... But you can have in mind, that a common
Yugoslavian language is an illusion, and cannot be made. Why? Because the Serbs and
Bulgarians have their literature ... If we want to create a common Yugoslavian language,
than they ought to refuse from their literature, and from their literary language, and to
accept the new one. But this will never happen. We, Macedonians, which have not until
now our literature, and our common literary language, would not refuse from the ours,
and the Serbs and the Bulgarians would not surely refuse also. But if we cannot made a
common Yugoslavian language, than we can made a common Slavic language, and it will
be the Russian language, which can be imposed with the space and the width of the
Russian word." Gjorgi Kiselinov, p. 38.

Remark: All citations are taken from "Stenografski beleshki od konferentsiite na filoloshkata
komisia za ustanovuenje na makedonskata azbuka i makedonskiot literaturen jazik", Skopje
November 27th - December 3rd, 1944.

20
 NATURE OF STANDARD MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE

by Mladen Srbinovski, "Glas", Skopje, No. 23/Dec. 1995

Part I
It is forbidden for everybody, who works on and with the language of Macedonia, to do
remarks on it. From this restriction, only the people from the scientific institutions, secretly
blessed by the official authorities by some strange "criteria", are excluded. The other people,
which do not think like the Macedonian linguists and historians, and dare to express openly a
disagreement, are under many troubles and dangers.

21
My opinion on the forbidden Macedonian subjects is a humble one, but on the other hand, is
completely mine. Similar is my opinion on the nature of the standard Macedonian language,
the language on which I am educated and brought up, the language which I use and on which
I write. Everybody can reach to similar concept of Macedonian traumas if decides to study
the Macedonian problematics - it is not necessary a high intellectual level, only a bit of
honesty. But the latter is in lack of Skopjean Macedonists, and because of this lack are our
disagreements.

I shall begin with the compulsory education, which was imposed over me, and with the
thoughtlessnesses, which I had to absorb until I studied the national problematics.

We meet everyday, read and hear since our childhood, that "Macedonian language is the
youngest, but simultaneously the oldest from all Slavic languages." The logical
thoughtlessnesses and stupidities which are put into us in the schools are many ones, but the
best way is they to be accepted without contradiction and mockery, because otherwise you
can be regarded from your teenagers years as a suspicious one. The doubt in the logics of the
above sintagma led me to my first collision with my teachers, which gave me troubles. "What
for an audacity! How is it possible, that a student cannot understand, that his language is the
youngest, but simultaneously the oldest from all Slavic languages because of the specific
conditions of its development! Here is nothing for doubt or non-understanding, the suspicious
is YOU!" - was the reply, which I received.

If you are not satisfied with the similar solutions of the ideological knots, on which the
macedonism is based, and you begin to untie them, you will inevitably reach my position, but
for the unbinding it is necessary you longly to investigate the pathology of the macedonist lie.
My humble person will try now to give his explanation about the above mentioned enigma
about "the youngest, but simultaneously the oldest from all languages", which on first glance
is like the sophism of the priority of the egg or the hen. The attempt to unbind this maybe the
most tightened knot of the Gordian unit of macedonism can be regarded as an attempt to
understand and explain the nature of the standard Macedonian language. The question is very
serious, but as it is given by Skopjean linguists, it is like Gogol literary material from his
unwritten satire. But who does know, maybe the Skopjean linguists had (and have) Gogol
sense of humor. In this case the (d)effect is like that of Buster Keeton - everybody laughs, but
you remain deadly serious.

Part II
The historical continuity of the youngest of all Slavic languages goes only 50 years ago -
since
ASNOM from 1944, and the three language commissions, which created our language. Using
those political steps, it was decided one western Macedonian dialect to be written on the
reformed Vuk alphabet, and to be raised to the level of literary language.

The grounds for that approach towards the new language are best described by the
contributors in the language commissions. Venko Markovski: "You can accept it as a
22
directive, to write with the Vuk alphabet." Milka Balvanlieva-Georgevich: "With the Serbo-
Croatian alphabet we shall have Yugoslav alphabet."

The transition over the high artificial fence, and seeking the connection with the older written
tradition before the last half of the XX century, denotes the transition from the youngest to
the oldest of the Slavic languages. The psychological barrier for separation from the oldest
literary Slavic language is created in us from our bringing up. For my generation, educated
after the war and using the youngest literary Slavic language, the oldest literary Slavic
language is unintelligible already. Except some linguist somewhere, it is very seldom some of
us to read even one sentence from "his" oldest Slavic language. With nowadays spelling, we,
the new generations, cannot even write down correctly our names and families. This is the
most bright illustration of the continuity between the youngest literary Slavic language and
the oldest one. The macedonists care to give us "translated" from the oldest to the youngest of
all Slavic languages even texts written in the 20-ies of this century in order they to be
intelligible for us. Even the "apostle of macedonism", Misirkov, we can only read transcribed,
because as he wrote is unintelligible for us. This artificial division, glossotomy by which
from one language were created two ones, was a dexterious political step, and a stage, which
was in the past. Insistment in Macedonia our texts to be read in original is regarded as a
scandal one. In our past can dare to penetrate only selected persons, which can freely use the
"scientific" method - falsification. Glossotomy led to the fact, that the Macedonian language
today is in crazy fast motion, and according to Heisenberg principle, because of the excess
velocity, the direction of this motion cannot be determined.

The poor written tradition, which is assigned as written heritage to the contemporary
Macedonian language, is inheritance written on the western dialects of "prostejshi
neknizhoven bolgarski ezik" (K. Pejchinovich) and Macedonian scientists catch on that straw
as drunkards on the table. Of course, and that sintagma "prostejshi neknizhoven bolgarski
ezik" is falsified for the students, and is represented before them as the Macedonian people
speach, predecessor of the Macedonian literary language. In such a case, using political
alchemy, "prostejshi neknizhoven bolgarski ezik" is raised to the rank of the youngest of all
Slavic literary languages. The same language, which equally in rights, participated for more
than a thousand of years in the developing and the enrichment of the oldest of written Slavic
languages - the Bulgarian one.

Part III
Until recently, in Greece, there were two official variants of the Greek literary language
katharevousa, or the pure language, and dimotiki - the language of the peasants. Both variants
were used in the state, they were equally in rights, and were simultaneously used. If it was
possible two official variants of one and the same language to exist in one and the same state,
it is even more possible such variants to coexist in two neighboring countries. I doubt that
somebody which is concerned with writing, can oppose against the advantage of existence of
two languages, as sprouts of one and the same trunk, but the things are complex in the
Balkans. The Macedonian language is above all a political puzzle, and the thesis for mutually

23
enrichment of the languages is a high treason for the Macedonian linguistics. My non-
prejudices unbinding of the most important knot of the Macedonian problems leads me to the
following interpreting of the conceptions of "the oldest and the youngest written Slavic
languages" - the katharevousa, used as the literary standard in Bulgaria, is the oldest written
Slavic language; and the dimotiki, as literary variant used in Macedonia, is the youngest
written Slavic language. It is not to be recommended, or allowed (and until recently it was
punishable very strictly) to read anything written on the oldest language, the katharevousa.
The reason is very simple - in such a case the most important consequence from the use of
both languages is avoided - the establishment of a point of quiet. We all know from the
physics lessons, that it is necessary to point to some body, which is in a condition of quiet, in
order to be determined which body is in motion. Without the support of such a point of quiet,
we feel ourselves as in an auto-station, when it is not possible for us to say even for a
moment, which bus is starting, and which is standing still. For more than 50 years, the
artificial condition of quiet is maintained, and none contact is allowed between the youngest
and the oldest of the written Slavic languages. The oldest of all written Slavic languages is
exactly such a point of quiet for the youngest one. It was enough for me to read one book on
the oldest of all written Slavic languages, in order to discover that point of quiet for the
youngest Slavic language, which I use every day.

In every state, choosing one dialect as an official language is a political treaty, consensus, a
ball of snow, which with its rolling will be increased and enriched. And Macedonian literary
language is such a snow ball, created by the force of such political treaty, and put to roll over
a steep slope, until Macedonian adepts are asking and amazing for 50 years how is stained
and neglected the youngest of the Slavic languages. In its accelerating motion, it gathers from
Vuk language everything which is necessary to it - from spelling to lexics, and even the
idioms... And it is logical, having motion in this direction, earlier or later, the youngest of
Slavic languages to conclude with its motion, to pacify and merge with Vuk language. The
direction of motion of the youngest of all Slavic languages can be easily determined, using
Heisenberg principle, the only thing which can be discussed is the velocity of this motion. I
sincerely hope, that this is not the velocity of the light. And if in XIX c. the big revivalist of
Macedonia Konstantin Miladinov expressed the main attitude of the population of Macedonia
on dimotiki in one beautiful song "T'ga za jug", in XX c. this attitude ought to be expressed
most exactly as "T'ga za Sever". This is the main reason our service dimotiki to be guarded in
every case and with all means from its meetings with its katharevousa.

24
IMPORTANT NOTE:

Wherever in the previous articles one reads about (the) “Aegean (part of) Macedonia”, one
should think of the famous historical province in northern Greece (capital city:
Thessaloniki), of which territory roughly corresponds to that of the ancient Greek kingdom of
the same name, once ruled by King Philip II and his son, Alexander III, the Great, of the
Argead dynasty. The “three parts” extended Macedonia region of “Aegean + Vardar +
Pirin” is a later historical development, a delimitation of Macedonia’s territory adopted by
the early modern era Bulgarian and Slavic North Macedonian nationalists, which roughly
corresponds to the Roman empire’s administrative units (provinces) of Macedonia Prima (the
earlier kingdom) and Macedonia Salutaris. Also, wherever in this paper one reads about
(the) “Vardar (part of) Macedonia” or simply “Macedonia” and “Macedonian” referring to
the country north of modern Greece, its culturally Slavic people and their native Slavic
language, one should think of the Republic of North Macedonia (capital city: Skopje),
previously internationally recognized as "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"
(FYRoM), the Slavsic North Macedonians and, respectively, their Slavic “Macedonian”
language (a Bulgarian dialect or a Serbo-Bulgarian “language”).

IS IT A DIALECT OR IS IT A LANGUAGE?

by Marcus A. Templar

It has come to my attention that a few Skopje surrogates in Greece headed by Alexandra
Ioannidou wrote an article of some type back in February 2018 insisting that the FYROM
Slav speech is a language, not a dialect. The codification of an oral or written speech is a
philological issue that follows a political decision. Linguistics deals with the vernacular of
speakers of a specific region, a town, or even a neighborhood.

What is the difference?

Usually, I would not care about this, but when I read lame arguments from people who are
educated in cognate fields of linguistics as philology and even applied linguistics in order to
promote their political pro-Skopje affinities under the cloak of science I perceive it as a
25
personal attack on my intelligence. A true linguist knows that in a strict linguistic sense of the
word there is NO difference between a language and a dialect. In order to support their
views, Alexandra Ioannidou has brought up scientific issues of pronunciation in hopes that
they raise a winning argument to support their political views. The author’s angle was
philological at best with a fig leaf of linguistics under the burqa of politics.

The text below is for the benefit of those who might have gotten confused by the politically
motivated nonsense of the people in question. I am giving an example of an issue in a more
familiar setting to the Greeks.

The ancient Athenian grammarian Aristeas codified the Greek language, and to my
knowledge, the whole process lasted about 20 years (285 -265 BC). At that time, over the
Greek-speaking world, one would hear Ionic, Doric, and Aeolic as the primary forms of
speech, but also the Doric Koine, Northwestern Doric, Attic Koine, and their linguistic
offshoots.i

The Macedonian Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II sponsored the language codification
project for strategic cultural and political reasons. Geostrategically speaking, a river and sea
thoroughfare offer means of communication with other cultures develop trade, grow the
economy, foster language promotion that in turn stimulate the foundations of cultural
expansion advances people’s education. In essence, the sky is the limit of what individuals
and societies can do.

Over the years, the product of Aristeas’ assignment developed to the point that the Greek
language became the beacon of enlightenment to the world. One of the results of such
colonization gave rise to the Latin alphabet as the result of such use of the language
and culture of the colonists from Euboean town of Cumae (Κύμη), the spread of Judaism and
Christianity, the emergence of the Cyrillic Alphabet.

Then darkness came to the land, the Ottoman Turk oppressed education in the local speech. It
lasted until 1830. Governor Capodistrias ordered the establishment as Greece’s literary
language the Koine dialect, which was already codified. In 1976, the vernacular was declared
the official language of Greece, having incorporated features of Katharevousa and giving
birth to Standard Modern Greek, which is used today for all official purposes and in
education. That was also a political decision.

Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I chose to copy the opinion of the famous author and true
linguist, Mario Pei.

Politically speaking, one might answer that a language is what is officially accepted as the
national form of speech, a dialect what does not have such acceptance. This definition would
eliminate as languages such tongues as Welsh and Breton, while Lithuanian and Lettish, not
having been languages under the Tsars, would have become languages with the creation of
the Lithuanian and Lettish Republics at the close of die First World War, and then would

26
again have ceased to be languages as soon as these nations were absorbed by the Soviet
Union.

From the literary standpoint, one might say that a language is a form of speech that has
given rise to a literature, a dialect one that has not; this would establish Sicilian and
Neapolitan, Ozarkian and Brooklynese as languages, while it would eliminate Sardinian and
most of the languages of the African and Native Americans.

A third reply is that there is no intrinsic difference between a language and a dialect, the
former being a dialect which, for some special reason, such as being the speech-form of the
locality which is the seat of the government, has acquired preeminence over the other
dialects of the country.

Actually, there is no clear-cut reply to the question. Even linguists shrink from answering it,
and rightly. When a language is examined under the microscope, it is found to be infinitely
diversified. There is one form of cleavage and stratification along social and cultural lines,
which leads to the infinite gradations of standard tongue, vernacular, slang, cant and jargon.
There is also a local, geographical division which extends not merely to regions and sections
of a country, but also to towns and quarters of towns. Some linguists go so far as to assert
that each speaker may be said to have a dialect of his own, as evidenced by the fact that his
friends can identify him by his speech (Pei 1949, 46).

Whether a speech is a dialect or a language is always a matter of the criterion one uses.
Alexandra Ioannidou chose the political criterion concluding that “Macedonian” is a
language, not a dialect.

My background
Before I proceed, let me explain my linguistic background. I was born in an extended family
of four languages with Greek being the fifth language as lingua franca. I learned the speech
of the Bitola – Prilep, which to me is one of the South Eastern Linguistic Bulgarian group of
dialects, from my maternal family from the day I was born. It was my first language, which I
heard from my dearest mother. The first alphabet I learned was the Serbian based Cyrillic
alphabet of Skopje even before the Greek kindergarten. As far as my mom was concerned,
she spoke Srpski or Serbian as she used to call her speech. Why Serbian?

To begin with, at the time of my mother’s birth the region of the FYROM was called South
Serbia. Blazhe Koneski standardized the language under the auspices of the Marxist
government of Yugoslavia. It was a philological product for political expediency.

27
The Past
Misirkov suggested that the new country, Macedonia, as visualized by the Socialist fighters
of the VMRO and later resolved by communists should recognize the central dialect as its
literary language. He did not suggest that the government assign the task to a pro-Serbian
linguist who would take it away from the original tongue. I have no idea what happened to
the – Шо праиш? Aрнo! (Sho prajish? - Arno!” (How are you? Well!) of the Prilep-Bitola
dialect. It has been replaced by the Serbian – “Kako si? – Dobro”. This is only one small
example of how Koneski had fixed the new “language.”

However, the language started as part of the Western Bulgarian group of dialects, and
through the intervention of politicians, it was navigated towards Serbian away from the
original speech. I would never forget my mother telling her first cousin in the 1960s, “What
have you done to our language? In a few years, we will not be able to communicate any
longer”.

The explanation of whether the language that my mother spoke was called Serbian or
Macedonian exists in the annals of the Illyrian Movement. Dragutin Rakovac, author and
publicist with degrees in law and philosophy, wrote a fascinating observation in his short
essay entitled Mali katekizam za velike ljude (Small Catechism for Grown Men), in which he
remarked, and I am translating,

The names of peoples and languages may not and cannot be invented. The Croat, Serb, and
Slovene names would, all else being equal, have the greatest right to the common appellation
for our language and literature. These three names are hereditary in southwestern Slavia, as
the names of the three main branches of the southwestern Slavic people. But we know that a
brother does not tolerate a brother's supremacy and experience teaches us that a Croat will
never accept a Serb or Slovene name; a Serb will never accept a Croat or Slovene name, and
neither will a Slovene accept a Croat or Serb name. (Dragutin Rakovac, Mali katekizam za
velike ljude, Zagreb: Illyrian National Press of Dr. Ljudevit Gaj, 1842, p. 16) -- Translation is
mine.

Members of the Illyrian Movement knew who the South Slavic tribes were. How is it
possible that they missed the Macedonians and their distinct language? That movement gave
rise to Yugoslavism and later to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. As it is
apparent, ethnicities as Bosnian, Montenegrin, and Macedonian were missing. It was before
Communism started implementing The National Question as the tool serving the national
interests of Russia under a different administration.

In the sixth paragraph of the Resolution of the Comintern dated 11 February 1934 is stated,
“The chauvinists of Greater Serbia, referring to the presence of Serbian impurities in the
language of the local Macedonian population, declare this population as one of the tribes of
the single Yugoslav nation-state and forcibly serve it.” The tribes the resolution had
mentioned were Serbian, Montenegrins, and “Macedonians.” They all spoke the Štokavian
dialect during the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
28
Alexandra Ioannidou also mentioned something about phonemes and alphabets. There is a
difference between the standardized alphabet, which in theory represents the phonemes of a
language, and the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The standardized alphabet of any
language is part of philology, although letters, in theory, represent phonemes. The
International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), is part of linguistics of that language, but it is not part
of philology. Such an alphabet concerns the phonemes of a speech in any conceivable way
regardless of how they are presented in the standardized alphabet. For instance, if we take the
Greek language, we see that the alphabet does not include letters reflecting the sounds of λ, ν,
μ, π, in λαλιά (lj), νιάτα (ŋ), μιά (ɱ ), ποιός (πχ). We can have the r flat or roll, and yet we
use only one letter for both. Something similar one can say about the letter L that is known as
dark L at the end of a word or light L at the beginning of a word. What can we say about the
Pelasgian remnants found in the Greek language as σσ, ρρ? They exist, but their sounds are
questionable.

I would expect some candor over the political poppycock from someone who pretends to be a
philologist, even in Russian. Such a philologist remind me of a Croat teacher in DLI who
insisted that Croatian and Serbian are different languages; then a Bosnian Muslim came into
the discussion noticing that Bosnian was a completely different language from the other two.
A young Muslim woman from Ženice, Bosnia told me, “Now that we have a country; we
have our own language, Bosnian.” Furthermore, their governments of the former Yugoslavia
had certified interpreters for communication among themselves. It is ridiculous.

Thus according to the specifications of Alexandra Ioannidou, a country has to have its own
language. As late as 1920, an attempt was made to coin the term Unitedstatish to describe the
language of the American Union (Pei 1949, 298). This means that if the U.S. Congress had
succeeded in passing the law, the official language of the United States would not have been
English, but Unitedstatish language!!! Under the same logic, Americans, Canadians,
Australians, Irish, and all other people whose governments have imposed on them English do
not have their own language. We have to push for Austrian and Swiss languages. I do not
even want to touch the issue of Spanish, French, Portuguese, and a few others. My goodness,
billions of people are mute! Are we serious? It is the ultimate extreme of nationalistic
inferiority.

Some “linguistic” examples from my life

In the Slavic languages of the same group, in particular, the distinction between languages is
more difficult than anyone can imagine. People can easily communicate after they dismount
from their nationalistic high horse.

Nevenka was a Serbian refugee who lived at the UN housing at the Votsi area of
Thessaloniki. She and my grandmother had befriended each other after an accidental
encounter. All the years of friendship, Nevenka used her Serbian jekavski dialect while my
grandmother spoke her native Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect.

29
In my life, I have attended meetings of Serbs discussing matters with Bulgarians by using the
kje (ќ) speech as they had mentioned, i.e., the Bitola-Prilep-Veles dialect. In my presence
Croats from Zadar, Dalmatia spoke in ikavski with Serbs from Vojvodina in ekavski of the
Što dialect. I have attended conferences and meetings of the people of Yugoslavia back in the
1970s and 1980s. Every single speaker spoke in his or her dialect. They just used the
vocabulary of their preference without any problem of understanding each other and that
included the Slavonic months that Croats use.

When I attended the U.S. Army certification course of translator/interpreter, one of our
teachers was a Croat from Bosnia, one from Montenegro and one from Serbia.

In 1968, near the White Tower of Thessaloniki, where the touring coaches are parked, I spoke
Serbian to a group of Slovak tourists who came to see the birthplace of the great brothers
Cyril and Methodius. We did not have a communication problem.

In the late 1970s and before I joined the U.S. Army, two women, and I were talking as going
to work at Sears Tower in Chicago. One of the women spoke Russian, the other one Polish,
and I spoke Serbian. We had no problem communicating.

In 1973 waiting for the train for Zagreb at a Train Station platform in Trieste, Italy, I was
speaking Croatian to someone thinking that he was a Croat. As we saw the train coming, the
man asked, “Where did not you learn such excellent Bulgarian?” I was stunned. He
explained to me that he was a Bulgarian diplomat. He thought I spoke Bulgarian as an
educated Bulgarian would. We had spoken for approximately 20 minutes, and yet we never
realized that we spoke different languages, both Slavic of the South Slavic group.

In 1984, as a valedictorian student of my Czech Class at the Defense Language Institute,

Monterrey, California, I gave my speech in Slovak, not in Czech. To this day, I am the only
one who has done so. Nobody had any problem understanding it. I spoke about the city of my
birth Thessaloniki and the contributions of its two children (Sts. Cyril and Methodius) to the
Slavic enlightenment. Its title was Solún, nevesta Termy (Thessaloniki, the bride of Therme).

In 1993 while in Sofia, I used my maternal dialect of Bitola – Prilep communicating with my
Bulgarian collocutors as if we spoke the same language, we actually did speak the same
language! I had attended my Sunday liturgy in Bulgarian; no sweat.

I know a woman who works as a cashier in a grocery store nearby; she is from Petrich,
Bulgaria. One day I spoke to her in the central Skopjan dialect, per Misirkov. She said to me
that my Bulgarian reminded her of her grandmother. To me, it was a compliment.

Politics is Perception
Nevertheless, the issue that Alexandra Ioannidou has raised is not linguistic; it is philological,
which means very political. They have made evident that their concern was strictly political
as they allied with gods and demons defending not their own country’s national interests and

30
national security, but the adversary’s national interests acting as Skopje’s fifth phalanx and
proxies.

Politics is perception. The nationalistic overtones as Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje
surrogates put it, had to do with slogans like Η Μακεδονία είναι μία και είναι ελληνική. Such
slogans perhaps facilitated more Skopje’s positions internationally than strengthening
Greece’s rights. Although I fully understand the meaning of “Macedonia is one, and it is
Greek,” because I have read Strabo (Ἐστι µέν οὖν Ἑλλάς καί ἡ Μακεδονία), billions of
people around the world might have thought that the Greeks wanted to annex Skopje. After
all, the republic of Skopje is known to be called “Macedonia” all over the world for 30 years
now.

The idea was not to hide into our shell ignoring the world, nor was it a psychological mirror
image of the world, i.e., since we see it our way, everyone else sees it likewise. The whole
idea was to win both the hearts and minds of the world. Slogans that emanate nationalistic
and expansionistic overtones as historically correct, as they were, hindered our objective. A
very slight change in the wording would make the essential vital difference. Perhaps, the
organizers should consult people who understand advertising and how the market works to
prepare slogans that sway people to their destined target.

Nevertheless, I would not be hastened to blame the demonstrators whose region and indeed
the country are under attack for the failure of the organizers (leadership and sponsors) of
such demonstrations. To me, it is a patriotic sentiment expressed in a misguided mode. In the
article by Alexandra Ioannidou, I had not read anything that condemned the truly irredentist
slogans, maps, photographs by the WMC, UMD, and other Skopjan Organizations. I am not
even touching the issue of Skopje’s official violations of articles 2, 3, 4, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 11.1 of
the Interim Accord or pre-Agreement if you wish, which include the antiquization project
regardless of the intended purpose, always according to Skopje.

As I started writing this paper, Skopje’s Prime Minister has already violated Article 4.3 of the
Prespes Agreement (The ink is not dry yet.), article 6.2 of the Interim Agreement, and the
Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

I do agree with Alexandra Ioannidou that the acronym The FYROM was stupid, but not for
the reasons they think. It is downright stupid knowing how International Law works.

Greek diplomacy should have known better. The termination of the acronym, i.e., Macedonia
gave the right to Skopje to maintain it in the final name. It was also the name responsible for
the whole world to call Skopje, Macedonia. It was not an accident that Mr. Vasilakis a fine
diplomat and negotiator back in the 1990s had started pushing for the name Republic of
Macedonia (Skopje) under the precedent principle of Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville)
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Kinshasa). The argument was simple, “since
Greece had accepted the word Macedonia in the Interim Agreement, it shall accept it in the
final name. International Law is based on the principle of stare decisis; once a country

31
accepts something, it establishes a new reality even if in the future the new reality proves
impractical or detrimental to the country at hand leading to various troubles or being
impossible for it to carry on without further complications. We all see the complications now.

The other issue is that people tend to simplify official names of countries that look complex,
names such as United States of Brazil, United States of Mexico, and United States of
America to respectively Brazil, Mexico, and America. They did the same with Skopje’s
stupid acronym.

Many years ago, I read an article of Nova Makedonija in which a journalist was asking,
“Who has ever heard a country to adopt the name of its Capital?” The journalist, had never
heard countries such as Mexico and Panama that took their name from their Capital. Both
cities, Mexico and Panama, preexisted the countries and their names.

Greek blogs very irresponsibly did everything possible to fall for any sensationalist trash
prepared by the propaganda experts of Skopje and its diaspora that read online pushing
people to react taking away the attention of the Greek population from the real issues of
national interests to one shoddy information or another. The sensationalist trash of the Greek
blogs, in reality, was a manufactured compost.

Finally, Greek Mass Media recklessly filtered the thoughts, mouths, and hands of those few
Greek Vouleftes who wanted to mention something sensible away from the rubbish of their
party line. As if they were scandalmonger tabloids, the Mass Media seeking political dirt in
order to improve their ratings and revenue started calling such Vouleftes undignified and
pejorative names as “dolphins” who wanted to take over the leadership of a Party even when
the so-called leadership stank. Obviously, for these media, Article 60.1 of the Greek
Constitution is subject to lavatory use.

Misirkov and Today’s Reality

Misirkov, the so-called Father of Macedonism, wrote a book On Macedonian Matters, and
some articles and essays. One of his essays and two articles in addition to the book are
pertinent to this article.

One of these essays On the Significance of The Moravian or Resavian Dialect for
Contemporary and Historical Ethnography in the Balkan Peninsula offers scientific
argument that Alexandra Ioannidou in Greece forgot to mention. It is about the Resavian
dialect the phonemes of which coincide with the central dialect of the FYROM.

Although the book On Macedonian Matters originally was published in the late autumn of
1903, there are certain words and expressions that suggest some redactions, at least three
times. One emerged after 1914. The second redaction occurred after May 1919, i.e., after the
32
formation of the Third or Communist International Association aka Comintern and the third
modification ensued after July 1924, i.e., publication of the III Communist International,
Fifth Congress Resolution on National Question in Central Europe and Balkans - The
Balkans: Macedonian and Thracian Questions.

The above book and the two articles published in Mir in 1925 expressed one and one thing
only. The separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria that Misirkov advocated had nothing to do
with the existence of the Macedonian people as I am explaining below. Misirkov advocated
the separation of Macedonia from Bulgaria in order to stop Bulgarian ideological
interference in Macedonia that Misirkov did not like. I am quoting him,

To avoid copying them blindly and transplanting socialism into Macedonia instead of
nationalism, as the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization has done. By divorcing
our interests from those of Bulgaria we will be saved from aping the merciless acts of the
Bulgarians and from having to accept their assurances that Bulgaria is our benefactor and
Russia our greatest enemy; thus we will also develop a critical attitude towards our own
actions and those of others (Misirkov 1970, 111-2).

Misirkov used the phrase “Macedonian people” in the sense of a Slavic ethnicity, but he
recognized the fact that in Macedonia other ethnicities existed, e.g., using the same
demonym. Any time he wanted to clarify who were the Macedonians he was writing about,
differentiated his “Macedonian” compatriots and of course himself as “Macedonian Slavs”
(27 times).

As the Comintern was concerned, Hristo Andonov-Poljanski, a historian and former rector of
the University of Skopje, gave the following explanation regarding the definition of the
Macedonian people, “In Comintern papers, the expression Macedonian people cover all
populations that inhabited the region of Macedonia. That is, all the inhabitants of Macedonia,
irrespective of ethnic origin, constituted the Macedonian people” (Hristo Andonov-Poljanski.
1981, v. 2). Such a definition is also evident in Misirkov’s book in which he wanted to see
Macedonia as a country with the Macedonian Slavs as its dominant ethnicity and the central
Macedonian dialect its literary language for all Macedonia.

He also explained that on March 12, 1925 (Macedonian Nationalism) the Macedonian Slav
intelligentsia was scientific in thought, Macedonian in conscience. The first term means that
the Macedonian Slav intelligentsia was revolutionary socialist or communist if you wish and
the second one means that the revolutionary socialist or communists were compelled to
follow the edict of the Comintern issued about nine months earlier.

However, since Alexandra Ioannidou brought up certain phonemes to prove her philological
points using some sketchy phonemes, here what Misirkov read into one of the meetings of
the St. Petersburg Ethnographic Society and afterward printed in the journal Живая старина
(Live Antiquity) of the Society VII Edition; III and IV Sections; V, 482-485 and also in the
Bulgarian Review, V, volume I, September 1898, 121-127.

33
Bearing in mind the role that language plays in the classification of different tribes and
larger units, as nations, I draw attention to research that I have done in the South Slavic
transitional dialect between the Bulgarian and Serbian languages and currently very
important because of the historical ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula. I mean the
Moravian or (according to the Karadzić) Resavian dialect, to which more than two-thirds of
all the Slavic population in Serbia speak.

The Moravian dialect covers the entire southern, eastern, and central Serbia to the River
Kolubara and the tributaries to the left of the River Ibar. [The Moravian dialect] is very near
to both Shopski and Skopjan speech indicating the ethnicity of the modern Moravian
peasants. Also, taking into account the prevalence of the relationship of the spoken word, the
latter understand the speech of those mentioned within the borders of the medieval Serbian
kingdom. It seemingly gives us knowledge of the ethnicity of the Slavic tribes, which
composed of the kingdom.

Here is what Misirkov articulated:

Instead of the Old Slavonic also known as the Old Bulgarian nasal sound ь as in ръкa, мъка,
път the nasal sound converts to y ( = u) as in рука (ruka = hand), мука (muka = torture),
пут (put = road).

The voiced л (L) does not exist anymore and instead of l turns into u, e.g., from влк, ябълка,
вълна to vuk (wolf), yabuka (apple), vuna (wool).

Old Slavonic dark sounds ъ and ь are replaced by the sound 'a,' which, when it is not
emphasized is pronounced on more or less between а and ъ, e. g.: пожаревац and
пожаревъц.

Instead of the Old Slavonic шт (sht) and жд (zhd) the sounds of ћ (ć), i.e. between ts and
ch; it is a voiceless alveolo-palatal affricate, and ђ (đ pronounce dz - дz), which people older
than 30 years of age pronounce it softer, almost palatalized as к and г in кь, гь or к' and г')
(Translation is mine).

Based on the above features of the Moravian dialect, its proximity to Bulgarian is higher
than to the Serbo-Croatian language. The use [of the Serbian language] at the western limits
of the medieval Serbian kingdom, the absence of accurate data on the existence of Serbs in
the territory of [modern day] Serbia specifically those speaking the Moravian dialect until
the founding of the kingdom of Nemanjić, and finally, because there is indirect evidence
pointing at the absence of Serbian tribes in the area of Morava, I came to the following
conclusion.

1. That the modern Serbian Slavs from Moravian speech are closer to Bulgarian Slavs than
to Serbo-Croats,

34
2. That the ancestors of the Moravian Slavs were closer to those Slavs, which afterward
formed the Bulgarian nation;

3. The medieval Slavic kingdom founded by Nemanja enlarged but his successors called
Serbians was formed by tribes closer to those Slavs, which was initiated Bulgarian kingdom
than to Serbo-Croatian tribes

4. That in the Serbian kingdom only the Nemanja dynasty was Serbian.

Misirkov, Importance of Resavian or Moravian dialect of Contemporary and historical

ethnography of the Balkan Peninsula, Saint Petersburg, 1897.

The readers can draw their own conclusions. Misirkov continued,

“these principles should guide us in creating our literary language and orthography. These
principles entail:

1) The adoption of the Prilep-Bitola dialect, as the central dialect in Macedonia for the
purpose of creating a literary language equally different from Serbian and Bulgarian.

2) The adoption of a phonetic orthography with letters as used in this back and with minor
concessions to etymology.

3) The collection of lexical material from all the regions of Macedonia”. (Misirkov 1970,
202).

Regarding the speech Misirkov stated,

Each national language has its history and its contemporary variants, dialects, sub-dialects,
etc., and our language is no exceptions. The history of our language shows that the present
variants are derived from older ones, which is proof that they originate from a common
Macedonian language, and that Macedonian comes from the South-Slav group, and so on.
On this basis, one may determine which variant or dialect in any particular period was most
used in the written language.

The history of Macedonian, like the history of other languages, shows that any dialect,
regional variant or accent may be used in literature. The privilege any dialect or regional,
accent may enjoy through being made the vehicle of literature as historians of the language
might say is not granted on the basis of any aesthetic superiority it may have, but for purely
practical considerations, i.e., as a result of historical and cultural circumstances (Misirkov
1970, 194)

Thus when Misirkov mentioned that the Macedonian Slavs could not understand the
Bulgarian literary language what he meant was that they could not understand the Eastern

35
dialect of the Bulgarian language. The Eastern dialect employs free intonation and in general
sounds like Russian while the long e of the Western dialect becomes ya in the Eastern dialect.

That is (W) mléko = (E) mlyáko = milk. Under such circumstances, any illiterate,
uneducated, or untrained Macedonian Slav was bound not to understand the new literary
language.

I could easily contribute some truly linguistic information regarding the pronunciation of the
letter ѫсъ aka юсъ большой (big yus) in Russian after its abolition from modern Cyrillic.
Although it is not written anymore, it does affect the pronunciation of words that used to
include it. This is only the pronunciation in areas mainly of Bulgaria and the FYROM, but
also the region of Pirot. The original spelling was зѫбъ (tooth) and мѫжъ (man) although the
pronunciation of the same letter differed. The actual pronunciation of the words зѫбъ (tooth)
and мѫжъ (man) in the modern era is зъб, мъж, заб, маж, зуб, муж, зôб, мôж, зоб, мож,
зêб, мêж, зъмб, мънж, замб, манж, зôмб, мôнж in different regions of Bulgaria, the
FYROM, and Serbia transcending political boundaries.

One cannot judge the linguistic family of a speech and its relationship to other vernaculars by
its vocabulary or even by the philological codification, but by its grammar and syntax.
Notwithstanding, the literary language of the FYROM grammatically is identical as all
Western Bulgarian dialects whereas its vocabulary has been “improved” by insertion of
Serbian, Greek, and even Polish words in order to make it a language separate from both
Bulgarian and Serbian. If such a move is not political, I have no idea what is.

Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje’s surrogates in Greece got a chance to mock the Greek
public since very few Greeks know the philology and linguistics of the Skopjan Bitola-
Prilep-Veles dialect. Alexandra Ioannidou actually in her effort to describe the grammar and
syntax of the FYROM literary speech she described the grammar and syntax of ALL Western
Bulgarian dialects, but she coined it as “Macedonian.” In their mind, such a criterion makes
the Skopjan dialect, a language. Whom are they kidding?

The arguments they have brought could buy them a bravo among the linguistically ignorant
people. If we apply identical criteria to Greece, each village and town in Greece along with
cities like Athens and Thessaloniki would end up having about 10 to 20 dialects each and not
one of them could reach the point of a language unless the government of Greece designates
which of them will be Greece’s literary language. That is a political criterion, not a linguistic
one. Greece did the same at the beginning of 1982. Indeed each of us has his or her dialect.

Phonological differences make one speech different from another and in this case the
grammatical or phonetic differences are in general the characteristics which one may apply or
attributed on all of the Western Bulgarian linguistic group that includes more than 30
dialects. We could easily add the transitional dialects or the Torlak group.

Let me add something else that Misirkov wrote:

36
Hence one ethnic group does not choose a name for itself, but the neighbouring ethnicities
make up a name for it, and the [said] ethnic group adopts it. It is the most common and very
natural thing that one’s ethnic name first occurs in one of its neighbouring ethnic groups. So,
the neighbouring ethnic groups are related like a godfather and a godchild (Misirkov 1970,
168).

I wonder why didn’t Skopje want Greece to baptize their ethnicity? If it were up to me, I
would have baptized the country as Yugoslavonia, which would apply as the nationality to all
citizens and Slaviani for the ethnicity of the Slavic population per Misirkov (Misirkov 1970,
168).

Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece missed Misirkov’s book and essays
preferrering Skopje’s absurdities only because they want to support Skopje’ positions, not of
their birth country.

Conclusion

I found the explanations of Alexandra Ioannidou and Skopje surrogates in Greece very
political, perhaps somewhat philological, but not at all linguistic. As far as linguistics is
concerned, what the Skopje surrogates in Greece wrote was,

Από την πόλη έρχομαι και στην κορφή καν' έλα

Ν' ανοίξω το μπαστούνι μου να μην βραχεί η ομπρέλα.

As one of the greatest minds of all times put it, “It is no mark of a man's intelligence to be
able to confirm whatever he pleases: but to be able to discern that to be true which is true,
and that to be false which is false, is the mark and character of intelligence” (Swedenborg
1912, 334).

If Alexandra Ioannidou and the Skopje surrogates in Greece are behind the recognition of the
Macedonian language as referred to in Article 1.3c of the Prespes Agreement and whether the
same people had influenced the process or deceived as volunteered experts the Greek
negotiators and the political world, the only conclusion one reaches is that Greece lacked
negotiating strategy and experts. The country was led like sheep to the slaughter.

I only hope that Skopje keeps violating the Agreement to the point that the blame game starts
and the UNSC forces take some action against Skopje. With the present crop in the Greek
Parliament regardless of political party, I cannot see any future government taking Skopje to
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting cancellation of the Agreement by pressing
for the International Law Commission to investigate based on Article 2, paragraph 4 of the
UN Charter or other pertinent articles of the Vienna Convention.

The question I have is, how is the Greek government going to implement the Agreement. As
it is drafted is bound to fuel domestic instability considering the irredentism promoted by
37
external third parties and extremist groups, it undermines Greece’s national interests, and
leaves Greece’s psychological aspect of national security undefended; it is a clear threat to
Greece’s stability. Usually, a country in psychological disarray seeks solace in some positive
aspects of the tragedy. I have no idea what kind of a solace one can reap from the Agreement
of Prespes.

Biographical Note
Marcus A. Templar is a Slavicist and former Code Breaker, and Principal Subject Matter
Expert in Signal and All-Source Intelligence Analysis serving the U.S. Intelligence
Community over 30 years. During his Intelligence career, he has supported U.S. intelligence
operations on a national level and served as a professor of Intelligence and National Security
Courses in U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after the
Commune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and
activities of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) aka VMRO. The
research also examines the organization’s activities in order to create a communist regime of
Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20 years before the founding of the USSR. More
specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factions
of the organization (IMRO) with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and
governments, as well as the organization’s political and terrorist activities.

Academically he is intrinsically interested in matters of national security, public

governmental policy, and strategy.

Professionally he has been involved in the Order of Battle, Military Doctrine, and Strategic
Culture of Turkey, Ukraine, as well as Counter-terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

________
iFor details on the ancient Macedonian dialect of the Greek language family read,
https://www.academia.edu/23581922/Hellenic_Migrations_and_Katadesmos_A_Paradigm_of_Macedonian_Sp
eech

38