Macedonians Serbian As A Literary Language example essay topic

GLOSSOTOMY IN MACEDONIA " 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. ' Leonid a Lari, Romanian writer from Moldova, (Literatura si art a a 18.8. 1988) There are quite a few European languages spoken outside their 'own' country: for instance German in Germany, but also in Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, 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, Liechtenstein ian, Argentinian, Chili en 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, Sard ian, Catalan and others. Quite to the contrary, there has never been a necessity for the creation of a new literary language to serve the Bulgarian-speaking Slavs residing outside Bulgaria (for example, in Vardar or Aegean Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Rumania, 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 XX c. the method of linguistic partition (glossotomy) would be repeatedly applied, motivated politically, rather than linguistically.

In the West (as was in the case of Slovenian N indian) those attempts crashed and burned. In the East however, forcefully conceived languages under communism (Rumanian / Moldovan; 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. 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 Rumanian- Moldovan, 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 Theatre and a National Folk Ensemble would be established. In the meantime, a national literature would 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. All that in its turn would call 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 is '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 Roumanian is being spoken / spelled, the better for Moldovan, which would be more correctly spoken / spelled, This entailed a deepening of the artificial gap between the old and the new tongue (even by the use of force).

All that holds good of the Macedonian literary language. Date of creation: 1944 Place of creation: The Socialist Republic of Macedonia (within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) - the 'Pro hor Pcinski' monastery. Used by: some 1 000 000 Bulgarians (in Macedonia). Oldest literary monument: 'New Macedonia' newspaper. Fabrications: Blaze Koneski, History of The Macedonian Language, Skopje-Belgrade, 1965, 1981, 1982 While T. Stamatoski wrote back in 1986 on the struggle for Macedonian literary language, looking back and ahead in future at the same time ('A^id'a'a c'a 'i'a^ea"a^i'i~n^e'e "e'e'old'a'o'od a'i j'ac'e^e, ~N^e^i"i ja), 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 ('A^o'ed'i'a"o'ej'a 'i'a 'i'a^ea"a^i'i~n^e'e^i'o j'ac'e^e.

~N^i~na'i ^i^o^id " ia'i ~n^i^ada " ia " ia'i "e'e'old'a'o'od a'i j'ac'e^e, ~N^e^i"i ja). The 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. 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 Struma, Okhrid, Pril ep, Kuk us, Koster 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, labelled 'the most outstanding work ever published, of the Macedonian literature.

On the name Macedonian The adjective Macedonian was out of use as a prior to 1944. Until then, Macedonian used to be an adjective (designating the region of Macedonia). So ever since 1944 it has scarcely been clear whether the toponym or the 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.

Neither of those however, had anything in common with the Macedonian literary language of Mr. Blaze Koneski. 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 - the Macedonian Bulgarians, Macedonian Albanians, Macedonian Turks, etc. (given the common territory of a nation). Since through the new Macedonian language, erstwhile Bulgarian ceased to exist officially (! ), that is, it became a (strongly estranged) foreign language, the and the 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 decided to adopt the Serbian alphabet including letters which represented sounds that didn't exist in Macedonian. The core of the Macedonian alphabet is actually lying in these few 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 dialect ally tinged texts by Ludwig Toma and Peter Po seger, which are taken for German ones.

On the dialectal basis of the Macedonian literary language very special trick of the Macedonian 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 Ohr id, but it would have made the difference with Bulgarian hardly discern able. The inner structure of the new language follows lexically and morphologically 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.

Bulgarian studies were not taught in Yugoslavia's universities, as they were replaced by Macedonian studies. 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 'U, 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's laconic studies in the West.

Who was in need of linguistic partition (glossotomy)? Since in all the cases of linguistic partition the underlying strategy would be quite the same, the question arises whether it is also valid for the functioning of that 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 Byelorussian had to be, 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. 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 sense of historical truth I 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 'macedon ized' Bulgarian Macedonians are concerned, it seems at least, they do. 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 was 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 that now suffer the consequences of national nihilism. Today's generation 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. The degree of however is considerable, which is indicative of the power of the Serbo-phil 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.

Soon one is in trouble guessing whether what is spoken is bad Bulgarian, or bad 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 t chetnik on the Austrian TV might become a sad truth, notably, that Macedonians were not using a normal tongue, but a hotchpot ch 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.

Bibliography

L. Hunt, A Grammar Of The Macedonian Literary Language, Skopje, Yu, 1952 Evans, Sir Arthur J.
Inhabitants of Macedonia are Bulgar, But Greek Claim is a Dream Unrealistic", London Times, 1903 web Ethnic Statistics In Macedonia;
web Statistic. htmKronsteiner, Prof. Otto, "The Collapse of Yugoslavia And The Future Prospects of The Macedonian Literary Language", Austria web Mok rov, Boro", The Struggle for The Macedonian Language in Mid-Nineteenth Century", Macedonian Review Newspaper 2/1981 Nikoloff, James, "The Creation of Slavic Alphabet" web E.
Les Gales Ko lories du Mas"- Azil-"L'anthropologie", 7, 1896, p.
385-427 Georgie v, Prof. Emil, "Kiril I Method iy Osnovopoloznici na Slavjanskite Literature", Sofia, 1956 Institut Za Nacional na Istoria, - Skopje, "Istoria na Makedonskiot Na rod", part I, Skopje, 1965, p.