Talk:Ancient Macedonian language

Comments

New sections at bottom, please.

Archived talk: archive1, archive2, /archive3, /archive4 -- these archives contain a lot of discussions. Make sure to look at them before you start building arguments that the ancient Macedonian tongue was an ancient Greek dialect or a "Hellenic" language. Make sure also to have a look at the archives before making claims that Ancient Macedonian was a Slavonic language.

---

Shame on us all

Ever since this [1] edit, in May 2005 (!), and even more so after series of edits by 157.* last year [2], our treatment of the Greek and non-Greek hypotheses has been on the basis of plagiarised text. Passages like:

• "... Those who favour a purely Greek nature of Macedonian as a northern Greek dialect are numerous and include early scholars ... "
• ... Those who look towards "Thraco-Phrygian" (as I. I. Russu, 1938) do so sometimes, at the cost of unwarranted segmentations ... "

are taken verbatim from Masson. There must be others. The plagiarised and the legitimate parts are now so intimately intertwined that it will be difficult to pull them apart, but some spots really still stick out like a sore thumb.

Someone will have to rewrite this article from scratch sooner or later. It's in very poor shape anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Distortion of sources

Just saw this [3] outrageously distorting edit.

For the record: The LinguistList tree shows a structure that looks like this [4]:

Hellenic
|_ Greek
|_ Macedonian

further expanded to:

Hellenic
|_ Greek
   |_ Greek, Ancient
   |_ Mycenean Greek
   |_ Attic
   |_ Doric
|_ Macedonian
   |_ Ancient Macedonian

So, the only correct way to describe this is indeed: "Hellenic" as a subfamily uniting Macedonian and "Greek proper". "Macedonian and the other Greek dialects" is a patent falsification of what this tree means.

The same is true for the wording of the B. Joseph quote that's referenced in the same context: "Macedonian and Greek would be the two subbranches of a group within Indo-European which could more properly be called Hellenic." [5] The sole point of this statement is to describe a model where XMK was not "another Greek dialect". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

blah blah blah. you are distorting the sources mr hero. it's called Hellenic. for a reason. deal with it. --150.140.231.61 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I propose to split the article. The Ancient Macedonian article should have language rules and interpretations while Glossary section should have another article, maybe renaming to Ancient Macedonian Inscriptions article. I don't see the sense of having all that kind of vocabulary and inscriptions here. This section from Woodard describing even the much debated topics could be used here [6], while this article should have the competing hypothesis and Ancient Macedonian language rules, just like any other language article. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

the article isindeed getting a tad long, but article length will also be the only rationale for possible WP:SS splitting. There is no "Ancient Macedonian language rules, just like any other language article", because, doh, xmk is a fragmentarily attested language, so its discussion will be a discussion of fragments, not a discussion of a full-fledged grammar. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The one problem I currently have with the long glossary lists is that they seem to be unsourced. Lots of sourcing of course about the primary sources, but none to the secondary literature that discusses their relevance, import, etymologies, etc. Any idea where this came from in the first place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there are not many rules than we can focus more in competing hypothesis (each one should have its due space with its arguments) and historical sources just like Woodard article, which is way better than a presentation of a long list of words which adds nothing important to the topic. If they were to remain the proper place is Ancient Macedonians Inscriptions article, right here they are more confusing than helpful. Aigest (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

These glossaries are not from inscriptions but from texts given as Macedonian, such as Hesychius. Your idea on inscriptions though is very interesting and merits further notice. I am also not eager to keep these lists in this article as long as a proper article is created and properly linked. GK1973 (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, small correction, there are no "texts given as Macedonian". Hesychius only lists isolated words. And the word lists in the article are partly from Hesychius, but partly from inscriptions, but whoever added them didn't tell us what secondary sources they were working from. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All the various classification theories are given due weight. There is no need to give even more weight to one of them just because Aigest wants to. As for the vocab list, it is indeed long, but the problem is not so much that, but that it is unsourced, as Future says. I don't see any other language articles split in this fashion. Nice try, though, Aiget. Boy, you must be REALLY mad about Origin of the Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fut can you create a template to work with without affecting the article. If it reaches a more elegant (and of course consensual) form than we can replace with this one. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@Athenean could you stop personal attacks and be more constructive? Aigest (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a "template"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with wiki templates. I remember reading somewhere that there are templates or something like that which you can build an article upon until you feel ready to put it online, some kind of Special:MyPage/Ancient Macedonian Language? The trick here is to have it available for all contributors not for just one, or if we can't do it let one of the editors have this page and he can notify other users to contribute there until the article is finished. Hope I was clear, was I? Aigest (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible misleading use of the word "texts"?

I was surprised this week when a student came to me and said that there is nothing written for sure in XMK. He based this opinion on the wording found here: "Knowledge of the language is very limited because there are no surviving texts that are indisputably written in the language[citation needed]" (don't know if he read further...). This is worrisome to me. Clearly we don't intend to suggest that the many inscriptions found have the status of Incan quipus or something (which I've heard only unseriously suggested as representing ancient Quechua "texts"). Perhaps what was intended was a more expansive meaning for "text", meaning something that had at least one complete sentence in it? In any case, the epigraphic evidence is commonly assumed to be in XMK (otherwise, it's a strange endeavor indeed), and these are, if admittedly limited, texts. (Epigraphs can be shorter than a single word, of course; still a "text", though.) I'd hazard a rewording myself, but find myself leaning toward just having "Knowledge of the language is very limited." as a lead-in to the third paragraph, with the rest of the second cut entirely. Would this bother anyone? Mundart (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a shortening. However, in my understanding, the issue is not about the word "texts", it's about the word "indisputably". The "epigraphic evidence" consists of essentially one single text, the Pella curse tablet – and it is indeed not "indisputable" whether the language represented in this text is in fact the same language as the one previously referred to as Macedonian in the relevant linguistic discussions, or whether it is just a form of Greek that was spoken side by side with Macedonian proper. (The other set of evidence, the glosses – which are indeed not "texts" written "in" Macedonian, but indirect evidence "of" Macedonian – attest to linguistic properties such as voiced plosives for aspirates which are crucially missing from the Pella tablet.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Future. Trying to provide a solution to Mundart's concerns, I've found a source for the passage in question. I've added it to the article removing the unsourced sentence. Is this more acceptable now for you Mundart? Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I can live with a wording along those lines. I think we can do better about the sourcing though. This is the kind of random hit you get by google-searching. Not that Michael Clyne isn't a reliable author, of course – he's a prominent researcher working on the sociolinguistics of modern multilingual societies, especially the language communities of Australia. But he's not an expert on ancient languages and Macedonian (the only context I can imagine him writing about this would be in some kind of disambiguating footnote while dealing with modern Greek and Macedonian communities.) I'd feel better if we stuck to the more specialist literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He cites Lockwood 1972:6, maybe that helps. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 08:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Also Borza has a saying on the status of the epigraphical evidence in Pg.93 in the source used for the first paragraph. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 09:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all. I reworded a tiny bit from the modified version. I understand how a student could focus on the Pella tablet and conclude from the controversy there that there were no indisputable "texts". But I'd remind them that words or parts of words on coins etc are also epigraphic evidence, a kind of text also, and are not disputed, so there was clearly some room for disambiguation. Mundart (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cletagore and Cleiona

New findings in the necropolis of Aiani, near Kozani, include epigraphical evidence of two female names: Κλεταγόρη and Κλειόνα.
http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=11386&subid=2&pubid=10584971
http://www.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_kathremote_1_08/03/2010_326966
http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_1_09/03/2010_393515
50 burials from Aiani, which include the Cletagore and Cleiona epigraphical findings, are presented in the 23rd Thessaloniki Archaeological Meeting (March 11-13, 2010), and date from the archaic and classical eras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.50.189 (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that there doesn't seem to be any English sources for the names. Do you know of any? Thanks. Gingervlad (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It makes me wonder: someone interested in editing articles on linguistics surely should be fluent in Greek, right? Anyway I cannot bother to locate English sources, Google Translate will have to do for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.51.51 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't make you wonder at all....this is the English wikipedia, people who would come to this article (and I always advise them to read the talk pages) are quite very likely not fluent in Ancient Greek, or modern Greek. However they may want to know about the language of Ancient Macedonia. Tossing out one sentence and posting three links in Greek doesn't help them at all. Do you see my point? I wasn't being rude, I just was asking you if you know of any English language links. Gingervlad (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To the propagandists spreading the notion in wikipedia that Greeks attempt to 'steal' Ancient Macedonian as their own

Thracian language. In Thracian language you don't see greeks fighting to call it greek even if a large part of Ancient Thrace is now Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.24.49 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Full family tree

I added the full family tree of ancient Macedonian as officially listed here [7]. GK 19:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "official" about that site, and as has been discussed here innumerable times, that tree version is purely conjectural, and the concept of "Hellenic", as used in it, too open to misunderstanding to be used in a box all on its own. Out with the box; leave such things to the text to clarify. Nothing about XMK is simple and straightforward enough to be boxed, nothing at all, not even the idea that it existed in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I think that this list is as official as it can get and certainly a most properly academic source, I have no problem with no infobox given. Should the community though think that there should be one (as is common practice), then it should be properly done and fully given. GK 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, it is exactly "as official as it can get". Namely: not at all. There can be no such thing as "official" in this domain: genetic relationships between languages are a topic of free academic debate, not a topic about which any institution on earth, be it ever so reputed, could possibly be in the business of making "official" pronouncements. The idea of this "Hellenic" grouping is a tentative suggestion that has been made in the literature in a few places, which we cite in the text (among them is Brian Joseph, who is indeed an extremely influential voice in the field, and no doubt the anonymous compilers at Linguistlist got the idea from him, in the absence of anything more specific being proposed elsewhere.) By the way, note that if we were to decide unilaterally upon following this scheme, this would be a heavy POV blow against the view favoured by your fellow countrymen: the one and only point in calling the branch "Hellenic", in this context, is to distinguish it from "Greek" itself. In linguistics, genetic names in "X-ic" are systematically used to denote families that prototypically contain language X, but also related languages that are outside X proper. Just like "Germanic" contains German plus other languages that aren't German; "Japonic" contains Japanese plus other languages that aren't Japanese, etc. If you read Joseph, that is precisely the meaning he is giving the term here. If you think the tree branching in the way you quoted it implied that XMK was Greek, you didn't understand the tree; and if we were to print it in a way that would suggest such a thing to the unaware reader, it would be deeply misleading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually am not Greek, although I live in Greece, but that does not matter. I don't really mind with Hellenic being a broader group in this list than Greek, no matter what my personal beliefs are and I am all too clear on that matter. I just want the infobox to be properly presented and this (Hellenic?) or avoidance thereof is just awkward. Hellenic is OK with me if we prefer to have an infobox. Don't worry FTP, I completely understand this list... GK 17:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for making mistaken assumptions about your nationality. BTW, would you mind going back to a normally formatted signature, with a link to your user or talk page? Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Right now the version "Ancient Macedonian was the Indo-European language or Greek dialect of the ancient Macedonians" doesn't make much sense. Greek Language with all of her dialects belongs to the group of Indo-European languages. It is like saying that "It was mammal or human"!?. Can we make the first sentence more simple like "Ancient Macedonian refers to the language of the ancient Macedonians. It was spoken in Macedonia during the 1st millennium BC and it belongs to (or is classified as)...." the next words clarify its position. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Would be fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for "Ancient Macedonian refers to the language of the ancient Macedonians". Like many suggest it can be simply a dialect of Greek and not a different language. I would suggest: "Ancient Macedonian was the language or the dialect of Greek spoken by ancient Macedonians" OR "Ancient Macedonian refers to the language or the Greek dialect of the ancient Macedonians". I think with the second, you include all information the initial phrase had, without making it confusing. After that you can explain it is clearly an IE language. FKITSELIS —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC).

"Ancient Macedonian refers to the language of the ancient Macedonians" is silly. It is ludicrous to have an article on ancient Macedonians separate from ancient Macedonia in the first place. We only ever get this sort of thing for groups people are obsessing about for reasons of their own national identity. I suggest that the link is redundant in the lead. It isn't worth to repeat "Macedonian" four times over in the first sentence just so that we can link to all conceivable spin-off articles that have been created on the topic. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn' a matter of what people feel or trying to wave away any point they don't agree with as "nationalism". It's a fact that there are divisions among experts as to whether it was a distinct language or simple a dialect of Greek.

"The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all contending that it was a dialect of Greek. The increasing volume of surviving public and private inscriptions makes it quite clear that there was no written language but Greek. There may be room for argument over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy, but it is hard to imagine what kind of authority might sustain that. There is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent."

- Cambridge Ancient Histories", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.131.168 (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording "was the language of …" doesn't even imply that it was a "separate language". "was the language of X" simply means nothing else but "was whatever X spoke". It comprises both the separate-language and the dialect scenario. Your proposed "was the language or dialect of" is nonsensical, because it implies a dichotomy between two terms that aren't even on the same logical level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: according to IP and geolocation data, the above anon user is most likely banned user Crossthets (talk · contribs), evading his ban. He can be reverted on sight without regard to the 3RR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Made some copyedits and also changed "Macedonia" to "kingdom of Macedon", I think some disambiguation is in order here. I'm also not sure why "Most of them are similar to standard Greek, while some have been interpreted as pointing to a separate lineage from Indo-European." was removed [8], as no rationale is provided. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not think it lead-worthy. Also, there was no "standard Greek" in the 5th century BC. --dab (𒁳) 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that the there is no "standard Greek" in the 5th century BC, but that can be easily fixed. However, considering just about every sub-section in the article discusses the possible relation of anc. Macedonian with Greek, I feel it is lead-worthy. Besides, if that is not lead-worthy, then how is "A body of words has been assembled from ancient sources, mainly from coin inscriptions, and from the 5th century lexicon of Hesychius of Alexandria, amounting to about 150 words and 200 proper names. " lead worthy? How does one decide what is lead-worthy anyway? Athenean (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Introductory Material

I'm sure you'll agree that a significant amount of users don't go beyond the introductory material. So it should be pristine, even when the whole article needs rewriting. The greek-related approaches are somewhat undertoned and poorly quoted (further down in the article in Classification, several more references claim a clear connection), while the "agnostic" approach is much more prominent and impacting, and this does introduce some POV. Noblivion (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Names

Macedonian names (Alexander, Philippe, Bucephalus, etc) may give important insight on XMK. Shouldn't they be included in the article?Noblivion (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Coins

If coins have been found, and any writing is on them, that may also give some insight on XMK. Yet hardly mentioned.