| DJ_SHEMA |
The ABECEDAR
The Greek government, upon signing the Treaty of Sevres on August 10, 1920, undertook obligations to protect its national minorities. Articles 7,8,and 9 stipulated the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious services, etc.
In March 1925, the Council of the League of Nations insisted that Greece carry out the stipulations of the agreement and provide the Macedonians with their educational and religious needs. The Greek government notified the League of Nations that:
"...measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/1926 and towards granting freedom to practise religion in the Slav language." 14
A primer, entitled ABECEDAR, was written in the Macedonian language and was intended for use by Macedonian school-children. This was used by Greece as evidence of their commitment to the League of Nations agreement. It was prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925.
The following is a quote from Salonica Terminus:
"Official policy, since the integration into the modern Greek State of the region called Macedonia, has been to deny the existence of the Slav-Macedonians as a distinct people, separate from the Greeks. But lingering just below the bright, hard surface of the discourse of authority is an ill-concealed malaise. In 1925, the country's education ministry prepared a primary school reader in Slav-Macedonian entitled Abecedar for submission to the League of Nations. The book was to be held up as proof that the Macedonian Slavic tongue was neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, but a distinct language protected and encouraged by the State. On the delegation's return from Geneva, the Abecedar was confiscated and destroyed. Two years later, by government decree, all Slavonic church icons were repainted with Greek names. Why had it become necessary to eradicate that which did not exist?"
By signing the Treaty of Sevres on 10th August, 1920, the Greek government undertook certain obligations regarding "the protection of the non-Greek national minorities in Greece". Articles 7, 8 and 9 of this treaty stipulated precisely the free use of the minorities' language, education, religious practice, etc. Bulgaria and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes interested themselves in the implementation of this treaty, and when Greece realized it was in its interest to sign the "Lesser Protocols" (League of Nations, Geneva, 29th September 1924) on the protection of the Greek minority in Bulgaria and the reciprocal protection of the Bulgarian minority in Greece, Sofia launched a campaign in support of the activities initiated by the Joint Greek-Bulgarian Commission for the ,'voluntary" exchange of minorities. Large numbers of Macedonians were forcibly moved to Bulgaria, and Orthodox Christians from Turkey, Bulgaria and other places were brought to the Aegean part of Macedonia where, as Greeks, they took over the Macedonians' property. However, since this met with resolute opposition not only in Sofia but in Belgrade as well, the Greek parliament did not ratify certain relevant clauses of the "Lesser Protocols".
In March 1925 the Council of the League of Nations concerned itself with the situation so created and addressed three questions to the Greek government, insisting particularly on a reply on the measures taken with regards to the needs, the education and the freedom of religious practice of the "Slav speaking minority" in Greece. These documents treated the Macedonians neither as a Serbian nor as a Bulgarian minority, but as a "Slav-speaking minority". In its reply the Greek government categorically denied the Bulgarian government the right to be interested in the "Slav-speaking minority", claiming that only the League of Nations could have and had the right to intervene with regard to the rights of this minority. Greece stated that no steps were taken for the protection of the "Slav-speaking minority in Greece" as it had been thought that the convention on reciprocal resettlement would result in "the moving of all Macedonians" beyond the borders of Greece.
The Greek government also notified the League of Nations that "measures were being taken towards the opening of schools with instruction in the Slav language in the following school year of 1925/26" and towards granting freedom to practice religion in the Slav language. The primer intended for the Macedonian children in this part of Macedonia, entitled ABECEDAR, was offered as an argument in support of this statement. This primer, prepared by a special government commission and published by the Greek government in Athens in 1925, was written in the Lerin-Bitola vernacular (even though Bitola was not within the Greek borders!) but printed in a specially adapted Latin alphabet (instead of the traditional Cyrillic, which was the official alphabet of Bulgaria and Serbia).
Many primers written mainly in Macedonian and intended for schools in Macedonia were published in the 19th century, but this was the first primer for Macedonians written and published by a legitimate government for its citizens and under the aegis of the League of Nations. This significant act on the part of the Greek government was condemned outright by both Belgrade and Sofia. The former proved that those for whom the primer was intended were in fact "Serbs", whereas the latter claimed that they were "Bulgarians". Bulgaria commissioned its outstanding philologists and Slavists to help its diplomats and Belgrade inspired petitions from two ailari villages (written in Serbian!) which were sent to the League of Nations. These petitions stated that the signatories were "Serbs by nationality" and that they demanded their rights "as a national minority" and also a "Serbian school" in order to "protect their language from enforced Graecization". At the same time, propaganda activities were undertaken among the population of these villages, promising free land and Serbian priests and teachers to those who declared themselves as Serbs. The Greek government's immediate response was another petition from the same village (Birinci), signed 16th October 1925, in which the signatories claimed that "in this region there are no Serbs, nor are there any Serbian institutions, and consequently the Serbian language is not used". The League of Nations used this statement to ask, in writing, the following question: the Greek government claims that this population does not speak Serbian, but does not say "what the language they speak in is".
At the last moment before the deadline the Greek government replied by cable saying that "the population of these villages knows neither the Serbian nor the Bulgarian language and speaks nothing but a Slav-Macedonian idiom". Thus the Greek government officially recognized for the first time the separate national entity of the Macedonians within Greece's borders, which is also clearly confirmed by the pure language of the pnmer, ABECEDAR, published in Greece. Following the stormy and violent reaction in the press of the three monarchies the Greek government decided, with relief, not to introduce the primer, which was already published, into Macedonian schools.
The Metaxas Dictatorship
"The use of the Macedonian language was prohibited both in public and at home, and the penalties included fines, forced drinking of castor oil, thrashing, torture, and exile. All its native speakers were forced to attend night school to learn Greek." 17
General Metaxas severely persecuted those who spoke Macedonian, even in private everyday life in the villages, at funerals, and at home. Adult Macedonians were denied the right to speak their mother tongue and were forced to attend night school to learn Greek.
Use of the Macedonian language meant harsh reprisals, including a "language tax". The following is a quote from Hristo Melovski, a professor of history at the University of Skopje, who was born in Aegean Macedonia.
"They told us our name was now Mellios and it was forbidden to speak our language-for every Macedonian word, you would be fined 30 to 40 drachmas (40 cents U.S.). One man I knew fought it. He would see a policeman and go right up to him, pronounce a Macedonian word, and hand him the money." 18
"The dictatorial regime established in 1936 under General Metaxas adopted a policy of forced assimilation of the Macedonian minority. The repression of the Macedonian minority in Greece was further stepped up. Macedonians were forbidden to speak their language in public, and deportations to the islands became a usual governmental practice. According to Yugoslav sources, some 1,600 Macedonians were interned on the islands of Thasos and Cephalonia in the years preceding World War II."
"The dictatorship of Ioannis Metaxas (1936-1940) was especially brutal in its treatment of the Slavic speakers of Aegean Macedonia, who by this time had increasingly begun to identify themselves as Macedonians. On December 18, 1936, the Metaxas dictatorship issued a legal act concerning 'Activity Against State Security.' This law punished claims of minority rights. Ont he basis of this act, thousands of Macedonians were arrested, imprisoned, or expelled from Greece. On September 7, 1938, the legal act 2366 was issued. This banned the use of the Macedonian language even in the domestic sphere. All Macedonian localities were flooded with posters that read, 'Speak Greek.' Evening schools were opened in which adult Macedonian were taught Greek. No Macedonian schools of any kind were permitted. Any public manifestation of Macedonian national feeling and its outward expression through language, song or dance was forbidden and severely punished by the Metaxas regime. People who spoke Macedonian were beaten, fined, and imprisoned. Punishments in some areas included piercing of the tongue with a needle and cutting off a part of the ear for every Macedonian word spoken. Almost 5,000 Macedonians were sent to jails and prison camps for violating this prohibition against the use of the Macedonian language. Mass exile of sections of Macedonians and other 'difficult' minorities took place. The trauma of persecution has left deep scars on the consciousness of the Macedonians in Greece, many of whom are even today convinced that their language 'cannot' be committed to writing."
|
| Kiril i Metodi |
How do U like this?
THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS
OF THE MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
(A LATE CASE OF GLOSSOTOMY?)
Prof. Otto Kronsteiner (Austria)
"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, Rumanian writer from Moldova, (Literatura si
arta am 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, 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 spedal
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 recognised for its linguistic uniqueness.
As late as the XXth c. the method of linguistic partition (glossotomy) [1] would be repeatendly applied, motivated politically,
rather than linguistically. In the West (as was the case of SlovenianNindian) those attempts crashed and burned. In the East
however, forcefully conceived languages under communism (socialism) (Rumanian/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 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 was bound to shape up, and the first writer to venture in any genre, would be proclaimed a
great playwright, novelist or Iyrist 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 Roumanian 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).
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 почетокот на ХХ век до краjот на првата светска воjна. III Периодот меу 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 Skopie 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 (glossonym) Macedonian
The adjective Macedonian (in Bulgarian: македонски; in Greek: , in Albanian: maqedonas) was out ot 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 favour 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 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 orthographyof the Macedonian literary language
Similarly to the case with Moldovan, when the Cyrillic script was introduced to distance it from Roumanian, 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 materialisation. 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 Skopie as capital (in the linguistic aspect too), such as Okhrida, 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 (see the maps at the end of this article), 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 ot 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 mechanism. The method of "spliting" 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 centralstage 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 centralised 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 salce 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 diffusse 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 copse-i quences
of national nihilism. The generation of today indentifies 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 serbization however is considerable, which is indicative of the power of the Serbo-phile 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: Whospeaks 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 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 Ianguage, 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 millenium 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.
Ways to tackle the "Macedonian problem":
1) Leaving behind the bilingual theory.
2) Wider access for Bulgarian so that it can be used parallel to the current form of the Macedonian literary language.
3) Optional teaching of Bulgarian in primary and secondary schools.
4) Establishment of an Institute of Bulgarian Language and Literature a1 the University of Skopje.
5) Usage of the Bulgarian alphabet (orthography) for the current form of the Macedonian literary language.
6) Lifting all restrictions over the free exchange of newspapers, magazines and literature between Macedonia and Bulgaria.
7) Linguistic integration by way of joint radio and TV broadcasts, as well as theatre shows and recitals in the two countries.
8) Creation of a joint institution on the Macedonian-Bulgarian linguistic matters. (The linguistic convergence could intensify in
this way).
9) Avoidance of further serbization of the language.
10) Exchange of works of history between the two
11) The right of free choice of a surname.
12) Joint effort on behalf of Macedonia and Bulgaria for the recognition of the Slav-Bulgarian ethnic group in Aegean
Macedonia (Greece) in compliance with the principles of the European minority rights (see: the linguistic map in "Die slawischen
Sprachen" 15/1988).
13) Recognition of minorities based on uniform principles.
14) Observance of accurate terminology with regard to residents of Macedonia (Bulgarian Macedonians, Albanian
Macedonians, Turkish Macedonians etc.) and of Bulgaria (Bulgarian Bulgarians, Turkish Bulgarians, Macedonian Bulgarians
etc.) .
Translated by Daniela Konstantinova
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 Bulganan Studies closed (1981), I was travelling 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 Okhrida lake, or else with the awarding of the title of corresponding member
of the Macedonian Academy of Sciences.
An example of the in-depth pre-war 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 Okhrida" University in
Sofia, in Macedonian: when however, a sudden draught scattered his manuscript, he just went on lecturing... in Bulgarian.
|