Language of the Gorani

[donnie]

edlund said:

donnie said:

The definite article in Albanian comes in the form of a suffix at the end of words. Depending on the word, this suffix can look differently, such as -i, -ja, -u. -a, -ua etc.

When it is a masculine word it usually ends in -i, such as burri (from burrë, man) meaning 'the man'. The exception is if a word ends in -k, -g or -h, at which time the suffix becomes -u or -a, such as bregu (from breg, shore) meaning 'the shore'.

The feminime suffix is -a or -ja, such as vajza (from vajzë, girl) meaning 'the girl', or gruaja (from grua, woman) meaning 'the woman'.

Personal names and placenames also come in definite articles; if a name ends in -o, such as Eno, the definite article becomes Enoja or Enua. Otherwise, the same rules apply to names and placenames as above.

Thanks for the explanation, Donnie.
Is it possible in Albanian to add definite article to an adjective? Like in English "the left hand" in Bulgarian is "ljavata ryka". "Left" is an adjective, not a noun, but it also can have a definite article as a suffix.

Yes. Right in Albanian is djathtas ('th' is pronounced as in the English word three). The definite article is
e djathta. Left is majtas. The definite article is e majta.

[terroreign]

I think they are a nation now, but they are a new nation. I think they are a new nation, because I have searched long for proofs of the existance of a Macedonian nation before 20th century and haven't found such. If you have any, please

Cul sum deka turskite dokementi pisuvaat deka narodot na makedonija se bile makedonci, taka da postojuvale i otad.

I didn't understand exactly what you mean, please write more elaborate things in your mother tongue if it is English.
The Bulgarian language was official for the Bulgarians in Macedonia until the end of the Balkan wars.

I was referring to your comment about 'dead' languages, and simply stating that if Bulgarian was the official language in Macedonia, then the Macedonian dialects would die off. This way today, they live on.

Hmm malku veke trebas da govori na makedonski, ili da nauci, i togas ke ti da bide poveke majstor.

;D

[Edlund]

terroreign said:

Cul sum deka turskite dokementi pisuvaat deka narodot na makedonija se bile makedonci, taka da postojuvale i otad.

I've heard that your sister is a whore. Prove me she's not. Otherwise I will believe she is.

[terroreign]

hahaha good one

[Rhezus]

Thracian was very close to the Baltic l-s. But these similarities, as far as I know, are not concentrated on the Balkan sprachbund traits.

That's correct Krorania. Latvian lang. is related to the one Thracians spoke before. But even the Albanian has some words, similar to the ancient Thracian.

[kroraina]

raezus said:

That's correct Krorania. Latvian lang. is related to the one Thracians spoke before. But even the Albanian has some words, similar to the ancient Thracian.

... similar to ancient Thracian or Dacian. Something the Albs are not very happy about.

Here is an excerpt about the Baltic - South-Slavic isoglosses by S. Bernstein, "A comparative grammar of the Slavic l-s", 2. ed., 2005 (copied from this lingvoforum):

"Ïåðåéäåì òåïåðü ê ðàññìîòðåíèþ áàëòî-ñëàâÿíñêèõ èçîãëîññ.
Èññëåäîâàòåëè ñëàâÿíî-áàëòèéñêèõ îòíîøåíèé ìåíüøå âñåãî îáðàùàëè âíèìàíèÿ íà þæíî-ñëàÿíñêèé ÿçûêè. Êàçàëîñü, ÷òî îíè ñôîðìèðîâàâøèåñÿ íà þæíîé òåððèòîðèè ïðàñëàâÿíñêîãî ÿçûêà, íè÷åãî èíòåðåñíîãî è íîâîãî äëÿ ðåøåíèÿ ïîñòàâëåííîé çàäà÷è äàòü íå ìîãóò. Ïîýòîìó âàæíûé è öåííûé ìàòåðèàë îñòàâàëñÿ âíå ïîëÿ çðåíèÿ èññëåäîâàòåëåé, íåñìîòðÿ íà òî, ÷òî â ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêîì ñëîâàðå áîëãàðñêîãî ÿçûêà Ìëàäåíîâà èìåþòñÿ î÷åíü èíòåðåñíûå ñîïîñòàâëåíèÿ îòäåëüíûõ áîëãàðñêèõ ñëîâ ñ áàëòèéñêèìè ñëîâàìè. Ñëåäóåò ñêàçàòü, ÷òî ñàì àâòîð ñëîâàðÿ èç ýòèõ öåííûõ íàáëþäåíèé íèêàêèõ âûâîäîâ íå ñäåëàë.  ïîñëåäíåå âðåìÿ âñå ÷àùå è ÷àùå â îòäåëüíûõ ýòèìîëîãè÷åñêèõ ðàáîòàõ âñòðå÷àåì ñîïîñòàëåíèÿ áàëòèéñêèõ ÿçûêîâ èìåííî ñ þæíîñëàâÿíñêèìè. Îáíàðóæèëîñü, ÷òî â ðÿäå ñëó÷àåâ àíàëîãèþ áàëòèéñêèì ÿçûêàì íàõîäèì ïðåæäå âñåãî â þæíîñëàâÿíñêèõ ÿçûêàõ èëè äàæå òîëüêî â áîëãàðñêîì ÿçûêå."

[Âñå-òàêè ÿ áûë íå ïðàâ íà ñ÷åò þãîñëàâîâ, â áîëãàðñêîì áîëüøå èçîãëîñ].
Äàëüøå Áåðíøòåéí ðàññìàòðèâàåò ôîíåòè÷åñêèå âàðèàíòû, ñëîâîîáðàçîâàòåëüíûå âàðèàíòû, ëåêñè÷åñêèå âàðèàíòû. Òåêñòà íà ïîëòîðû ñòðàíèöû, òàê ÷òî ÷èòàéòå ñàìè.

And my translation:
Let us consider the Balto-Slavic isoglosses. The researchers of the Slavo-Baltic relationship concentrated least of all on the South-Slavic l-s. It looked as if they, having formed in the southern area of the proto-Slavic language, could not contribute anything interesting or new to this topic. That is how important and precious material was overlooked by the scholars, notwithstanding the many interesting comparisons between certain Bulgarian words and Baltic words in the etymological dictionary of the Bulgarian language of S. Mladenov. It must be said that Mladenov himself did not draw any conclusions out of these precious observations. In more recent etymological studies we see more and more cases where the Baltic l-s are compared exactly with the South-Slavic ones. It was found that in a number of cases correspondences to the Baltic l-s can be found above all in the South-Slavic l-s or even only in Bulgarian.
[ Futher on Bernstein presents phonetic correspondences, word-forming correspondences, lexical correspondences. The text is 1.5 pages long.]

[ljubotan]

Hey Edlund, good topic, I myself have always wondered the origin of the Gorani.

You're right to assume, they speak about 90% of the same dialect as us on the other side of Sar Planina. The only difference with our village is we don't use 'vo', 'vaka', 'kje' and the 'et or at' endings. Otherwise amazingly, its identical pretty much.

It would be interesting to know exactly where they migrated from, because then it would pretty much identify where we and the Eastern Kosovo Serbs came from too? I personally think that the Slavs of majority of Kosovo came there during Simeons time. It makes sense, since their accents are more MakoBugaro as opposed to Montenegrin/Hercegovinian. One should not forgot as well, that Bulgarian has had position of Kosovo than Serbia ever did=300yrs or so. I know of a family from Kosovo who are very patriotic but whose last name comes from Bulgarian mountains near Sofia.

Novi talked about the 'Mijaks' inhabiting today's NW Macedonia; does anyone have any thoughts on this? It is interesting though that many 'old' words found in Macedonia can be found in Montenegro as well. I wonder what the connection is/was there?

Anyway, in our area there has never been a strong ethnic stance. Majority will still say 'Yugoslavian' as they feel uncomfortable to say Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian. These areas are very unique in that neither Bulgaria nor Serbia had a strong political influence there, its only been sense the wars that my village and surrounding have declared some sort of stance for Serbia. I think its ridiculous because people from my village don't even know who Sv Sava or Nemanja were? I think they back Serbs because of their struggle and fight for justice and truth, so they perfer to identify with them. To a Montenegrin or Bosnian Serb, I am as different to them as a German.

Now have some Bulgarian friends and we don't speak our languages to one another because I can't understand them. Yes, they can make out somewhat of what I'm saying but they perfer I speak english. To me, the Bulgarian official language seems to be well off my dialect, but its interesting to note we both use the same words(razbiram, sega, deka, sakash etc). So there has to be some sort of historic connection between us, but I think it goes back to the 10 century.

Question:
Did Serbia and Bulgaria ever speak the 'same' languages in the 10 centuries, or were they just closer dialects with differences then?
When did we Maks and Bulgarians drop the case systems and why was it so easy to use the definitive articles that quickly?
If we could hear an original Serb Bulgarian from 1000yrs ago, do you think we could understand them or has the language gone through that drastic of a transformation?
I truly don't believe that anything southwest of Nis and half of Kosovo are truly authentic Serbs but rather a mix of Bulgarians and other Slavic tribes. To me, Serbian is Uzica area and south to Montenegro plus eastern Bosnia-Hercegovina especially.

Let me know your thoughts..

edlund said:

There was a topic about the Gorani here, but it was quickly full of bulls**t, so I don't even read it. Here is something interesting - Gorani songs from a Gorani website.

www.freewebs.com/blockout2/zbirkagoranskihpesama.html
The language has no cases and in most of the songs the words have definite article:
Levata ruka sekirèe,
Desnata ruka levorver, de.


There is a song similar to "Nazad nazad, mome Kalino":
Nabatince konja kuje


Nabatince konja kuje,
a dilber mu lamba drzi
em mu sveti, em go moli:
Konja kujes, nalbatince,
galiba ce putujes?
Ja ce idem dalek na daleko !
Zemi meme, mlado nalbatince,
tvua da bidem, so tebe da dojdem !
Ne mozes da dojdes, dejce, ce zadjines,
pred mene je visoka planina.
ce se ucinim jeno sareno pile,
ce preletam visoka planina,
ce preletam, so tebe ce dojdem.
Pred nas ima jeden cesti orman,
ne mozes da dojdes, dejce, ce zadjines.
Ce se ucinim sumaska golubica,
ce preletam, so tebe ce dojdem,
so tebe da bidem.
Pred mene je jeno dlboko moe,
cede dlboko tu je i siroko,
nemozes da dojdes ce propanes.
Ce se ucinim morska riba,
ce preplivam crno more,
ce ispliva, so tebe ce dojdem,
tvua da bidem, so tebe da zivujem.

I'm posting it because the language is interesting. If Ljubotan is reading this I'm interested if it is close to his language?

I know that some "experts" will start fights again, so I have to say that I'm not interested in proving that these people are Bulgarians. In my opinion it's only in the recent years that some Gorani started declaring themselves for Bulgarians, because they want Bulgarian passports.

[Edlund]

Hi, Ljubotan, I'm very happy that you wrote here

ljubotan said:

Question:
Did Serbia and Bulgaria ever speak the 'same' languages in the 10 centuries, or were they just closer dialects with differences then?

The official language was the same, but the peoples spoke their own dialects, which had differences.

When did we Maks and Bulgarians drop the case systems and why was it so easy to use the definitive articles that quickly?

It was a long process and nobody knows for sure when the case system was dropped, because the writers of books tried to keep the old language and weren't writing in the spoken language. And the case system was not fully dropped - even today the vocative case is existant in Bulgarian, it's used almost as much as in Serbian. However many of our stupid journalists are avoiding it, instead of "Ivane" many times they say "Ivan". Speaking without cases is much simpler and this is the reason for their disappearance.
I think this is the reason for the existance of dialects - the people want to speak more simple and dialects spring up.
The definite articles exist in the Roman and Germanic languages, although the Latin and the old Germanic languages didn't have definite articles. So it's a normal process - the demonstrative pronoun becomes definite article, because with it can be said certain things, which otherwise can not be said.

If we could hear an original Serb Bulgarian from 1000yrs ago, do you think we could understand them or has the language gone through that drastic of a transformation?

I think the language has gone through a drastic transformation. And I also think that there were always dialects, there were never original Serbs or Bulgarians.

Novi talked about the 'Mijaks' inhabiting today's NW Macedonia; does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The "Mijaci" was one of the names, used as something like tribe-names in Macedonia. They were mentioned for the first time in 19th century, so I doubt that they were an anceint tribe.
Other tribal names were Brsjaci, Mrvaci, Shopi, Poljani and others.
Konstantin Irechek in his book "History of the Bulgarians" from 1878 says, that the "Mijaci" proudly consider themselves descendants of Skenderbeg.
The name is considered to come from the way they said "we" - "mie", instead of "nie".

[kroraina]

edlund said:

I wasn't talking about "always". I was talking about today and the time when the official Serbian and Bulgarian languages were created, which is 19th century, not "always"

ok, you can restrict yourself to the 19th c. and to the official, literary l-s, but then this thread should turn to philology, to the literature, written in these l-s, and disregard the spoken language, the dialects and the people (e.g. the Gorani) speaking them.

Where is it accepted and what were those features?.

where only not. Features like:
- the preservation of the nasal O and A in the 'Bulgaro-Mac' area (+ Greece, Romania). Until the 20th c. in some peripheral dialects (gola^mb 'pigeon', za^mb 'tooth', da^mb 'oak-tree', dla^ng 'long', guvendar 'shepard, cow-man', zaenc 'hare', svencet 'a saint', ska^mp 'dear', chendo 'a child').

- the differing reflexes of the jat, which was pronounced initially as ja in Bulg-Mac (Predjal 'limit', (mjasto 'place').
Bulgarain shares these two features not with Serbo-Croat but with Polish, together with a number of words pertaining to a semi-mountaneous terrain (e.g. the northern Carpathians) and a corresponding trail can be observed in the toponymy, from SE Poland to the south, through Romania to Bulgaria and beyond (Greece).

- the different evolution of the proto-Slavic *tj, which became 'sht' in Bulg-Mac ('PriSHTina', 'Ta^rgoviSHTe'). Of the proto-Slavic *dj. You should know these things better than me. You are the one studying humanities in the university.

- Bulg. sa^lza 'a tear', va^lk 'wolf', bjal 'white' vs. Serbian suza, vuk, beo, etc.

[donnie]

Kroraina

Is Prishtina a Bulgarian toponym? Does it have a specific meaning ... and do you know anything about Slav toponymy in Kosova being, to an extent, Bulgarian as opposed to Serbian?

[kroraina]

donnie said:

Is Prishtina a Bulgarian toponym? Does it have a specific meaning ... and do you know anything about Slav toponymy in Kosova being, to an extent, Bulgarian as opposed to Serbian?

Prishtina is a Bulgarian-sounding word, to say the least. Consider another word pertaining to the medieval types of land-ownership - bashtina. It was in use in the XII-XIV cc. in Bulgaria/Serbia/Croatia and comes from the Bulgarian word for 'father' - bashta. Note again this 'SHT'. Bashtina was land, which could be: sold by its owner, the feudal lord, or inherited by his children. However he liked it. The lord held power over the peasant population (called collectively zemshtina, zemshchina) which inhabited it.

Now these is the Russian word oprichina (see www.efremova.info/word/oprichnina.html) which in medieval Russia meant: '1. A part of the state under the direct rule of the tsar (Ivan Grozni) and used by him in his fight against the feudal lords; 2. Land, given to the widow of a prince (in IX-XIII cc.).'

Don't take my word for granted, I am not a historian or linguist, but the prishtina in Kossovo seems to be connected with a similar feudal term, and the point it that it has the 'SHT' in the place where one finds 'CH' in Serbian (and sometimes in Russian): Russ.&Serb. svecha 'candle' vs. Bulg. svesht, Serb. kucha 'house' vs. Bulg. ka^shta, etc.

About the Slavic toponymy in Kossovo I can't tell you too much. There must be something on the net. Endlund may know more. I will try to dig out now the reference to one article of a Kossovan researcher about the Gorani.

[Edlund]

kroraina said:

edlund said:

I wasn't talking about "always". I was talking about today and the time when the official Serbian and Bulgarian languages were created, which is 19th century, not "always"

ok, you can restrict yourself to the 19th c. and to the official, literary l-s, but then this thread should turn to filology, to the literature, written in these l-s, and disregard the spoken language, the dialects and the people (e.g. the Gorani) speaking them.

I really can't follow your logic. This is what you have written:
It might not had been the case that the 'Bulgarian' and 'Serbian' dialects were always adjacent.

I answered you:

I wasn't talking about "always". I was talking about today and the time when the official Serbian and Bulgarian languages were created, which is 19th century, not "always".

As everybody knows, in 19th century the Serbian and Bulgarian dialects were adjacent. Where have I said that I "restrict myself to the official languages"?

Where is it accepted and what were those features?.

where only not. Features like:
- the preservation of the nasal O and A in the 'Bulgaro-Mac' area (+ Greece, Romania). Until the 20th c. in some peripheral dialects (gola^mb 'pigeon', za^mb 'tooth', da^mb 'oak-tree', dla^ng 'long', gubendar 'shepard, cow-man', zaenc 'hare', svencet 'a saint', ska^mp 'dear', chendo 'a child').

- the differing reflexes of the jat, which was pronounced initially as ja in Bulg-Mac (Predjal 'limit', (mjasto 'place').
Bulgarain shares these two features not with Serbo-Croat but with Polish, together with a number of words pertaining to a semi-mountaneous terrain (e.g. the northern Carpathians) and a corresponding trail can be observed in the toponymy, from SE Poland to the south, through Romania to Bulgaria and beyond (Greece).

- the different evolution of the proto-Slavic *tj, which became 'sht' in Bulg-Mac ('PriSHTina', 'Ta^rgoviSHTe'). Of the proto-Slavic *dj. You should know these things better than me. You are the one studying humanities in the university.

- Bulg. sa^lza 'a tear', va^lk 'wolf', bjal 'white' vs. Serbian suza, vuk, beo, etc.

Again I have to remind you what you have written:
It is generally accepted that the 'Serbo-Croatian' and 'Bulgaro-Macedonian' l-s had a number of distinct features by the 6-7 cc. AD
The features you describe are the features of the modern Bulgarian and Serbian languages, not the ones of the 6-7 cc. AD. In 6-7 cc. AD it is accepted, that:
- the nasal vowels existed also in "Serbian" and "Croatian".
- The ending "L" was still an "L", not "o" or "a" like in "beo" instead of "bel".
- I'm not sure about the "jat", but it's accepted that in Croatian it turned to je, ije, i, e in 14-15 century.

About 6-7 century the only difference between Bulgarian and Serbian, that I have read about, is "tj" and "dj" turning to "sht" and "zhd" in Bulgarian. But if this difference makes two different languages, than Macedonian is a different language. The same authors, who say that "sht" and "zhd" was the distinctive feature for the Bulgarian language, don't forget to say, that it was not decissive, because there were Bulgarian dialects, in which "tj" and "dj" didn't become "sht" and "zhd".

By the way, "sht" in T'rgovishte didn't evolve from "tj". It's the suffix "-ishte" which is the same in Serbian - "pozorishte" etc.

[Edlund]

donnie said:

Kroraina

Is Prishtina a Bulgarian toponym? Does it have a specific meaning ... and do you know anything about Slav toponymy in Kosova being, to an extent, Bulgarian as opposed to Serbian?

In Serbian there is a word "prisht" meaning "whelk, pustule". In Bulgarian the word is "prishka", but it comes from "prisht". Words from the same root are found in all Slavic languages.

[kroraina]

kroraina said:

About the Slavic toponymy in Kossovo I can't tell you too much. There must be something on the net. Endlund may know more. I will try to dig out now the reference to one article of a Kossovan researcher about the Gorani.

D-r Skander Gashi, a linguist close to the late Ibrahim Rugova: "Kossovo does not aim to assimilate the Gorani" (Novinar, 21.04.2006).



According to Gashi the Gorani have been living in their area (called 'Gora') since before adopting Islam and their dialect is phonetically and morhopologically closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. There were many villages ending in 'ec' ('-ets'), like Shishtevec, Kra^stec, which is a typical Bulgarian and not Serbian suffix, etc. But there were traces of a Romance (Aromanian) language, in the toponymy of Gora from 1348 AD, as well as some Balkano-Romanian names amongst Gorani, so he suspects at least some of them are former Vlachs, etc.

[donnie]

Prishtina is a Bulgarian-sounding word, to say the least. Consider another word pertaining to the medieval types of land-ownership - bashtina.

In Serbian there is a word "prisht" meaning "whelk, pustule". In Bulgarian the word is "prishka", but it comes from "prisht". Words from the same root are found in all Slavic languages.

Well, the former seems more plausible, but the latter sounds closer phonetically.

According to Gashi the Gorani have been living in their area (called 'Gora') since before adopting Islam and their dialect is phonetically and morhopologically closer to Bulgarian than to Serbian. There were many villages ending in 'ec' ('-ets'), like Shishtevec, Kra^stec, which is a typical Bulgarian and not Serbian suffix, etc.

Interesting. Some villages in Kosova end in 'ec' or evc, such as Lubovec or Marevc/Marec.

[kroraina]

Apr 12, 2008 11:53:13 GMT -5 Edlund said:

Again I have to remind you what you have written:
It is generally accepted that the 'Serbo-Croatian' and 'Bulgaro-Macedonian' l-s had a number of distinct features by the 6-7 cc. AD
The features you describe are the features of the modern Bulgarian and Serbian languages, not the ones of the 6-7 cc. AD. In 6-7 cc. AD it is accepted, that:
- the nasal vowels existed also in "Serbian" and "Croatian".

Can you provide a reference to this? What I have read is the nasals in S.-C. were transformed before their arrival. O(n) turned to U, etc.

- The ending "L" was still an "L", not "o" or "a" like in "beo" instead of "bel".

Ok, probably not in the 6-7 cc. but still they must have lost the -l- quite early. Linguists identify a 'Bulgarian' layer of Slavic borrowings in Hungarian. For example, words like 'bolha' (flea, Bulg. 'ba^lha' <-> Serb. 'buva'). Why wouldn't they claim it as S.-C.? Or why claim that the name of 'Belgrade' on the Danube, attested that way since in the mid-9 c. AD, is also 'Bulgarian' and not 'Serbian'.

- I'm not sure about the "jat", but it's accepted that in Croatian it turned to je, ije, i, e in 14-15 century.

About 6-7 century the only difference between Bulgarian and Serbian, that I have read about, is "tj" and "dj" turning to "sht" and "zhd" in Bulgarian. But if this difference makes two different languages, than Macedonian is a different language.

not, it isn't. In the past the reflex of -tj- was mainly 'sht' in Macedonia, as it is in Bulgaria. Even the reflex of the jat as 'ja' (nowadays found only in estern Bulgaria) was more widely spread, as attested by the Greek spellings of town names: Priliapos (modern Prilep), Prisdriana (Prizren). Check this article - www.kroraina.com/knigi/bugarash/ed/





I agree about 'Ta^rgovishte', my bad. Something else. I got hold of longer quotations from the works of two Russian slavicists about the Balto-South Slavic isoglosses - www.kroraina.com/slav/bern_trub.htm Some of the comparisons of the second author, Trubacov, seem a bit fishy.

[Edlund]

May 28, 2008 11:37:45 GMT -5 kroraina said:

Apr 12, 2008 11:53:13 GMT -5 Edlund said:

Again I have to remind you what you have written:
It is generally accepted that the 'Serbo-Croatian' and 'Bulgaro-Macedonian' l-s had a number of distinct features by the 6-7 cc. AD
The features you describe are the features of the modern Bulgarian and Serbian languages, not the ones of the 6-7 cc. AD. In 6-7 cc. AD it is accepted, that:
- the nasal vowels existed also in "Serbian" and "Croatian".

Can you provide a reference to this? What I have read is the nasals in S.-C. were transformed before their arrival. O(n) turned to U, etc.

Why don't you provide me a reference to what you have read?

About O(n) turning to U:
Serbian was written with Cyrillic and it had a letter for O(n), so we don't know how did they pronounce it.
Croatian was written with Glagolitic and it had a letter for O(n), so we don't know how did they pronounce it.
Bulgarian was written with both Cyrillic and Glagolitic so we are not sure about the development of this sound in Bulgarian aswell.
The only way we can find out is by using toponyms, but I don't know where to get Serbian and Croatian toponyms from ca. 7th century.

Ok, probably not in the 6-7 cc. but still they must have lost the -l- quite early. Linguists identify a 'Bulgarian' layer of Slavic borrowings in Hungarian. For example, words like 'bolha' (flea, Bulg. 'ba^lha' <-> Serb. 'buva'). Why wouldn't they claim it as S.-C.? Or why claim that the name of 'Belgrade' on the Danube, attested that way since in the mid-9 c. AD, is also 'Bulgarian' and not 'Serbian'.

The L turning to O like in Beograd is late feature. Here it says that it's from 14th century:
Ïðåëàçàê Ë ó Î ¼å ãëàñîâíà ïðîìåíà ñðïñêîã ¼åçèêà ó êî¼î¼ ñå ñóãëàñíèê Ë ìåœà ó âîêàë Î. Èçâðøåíà ¼å êðà¼åì 14. âåêà.

The syllabic L turning to U is different feature. Here is the prayer "Otche nash" in Croatian from 1400 - www.croatianhistory.net/etf/ocenas.html
It says:
i otpusti nam dlgi naše
jakože i mi otpuščaem dlžnikom našim.
So, in this prayer the word for "debt" is still "dlg" with syllabic L. In modern Croatian it's "dug".

- I'm not sure about the "jat", but it's accepted that in Croatian it turned to je, ije, i, e in 14-15 century.

About 6-7 century the only difference between Bulgarian and Serbian, that I have read about, is "tj" and "dj" turning to "sht" and "zhd" in Bulgarian. But if this difference makes two different languages, than Macedonian is a different language.

not, it isn't. In the past the reflex of -tj- was mainly 'sht' in Macedonia, as it is in Bulgaria. Even the reflex of the jat as 'ja' (nowadays found only in estern Bulgaria) was more widely spread, as attested by the Greek spellings of town names: Priliapos (modern Prilep), Prisdriana (Prizren).

I know how was it in the past. But today many western Bulgarian dialects use k' and g' instead of sht and zhd and the "jat" is only "e". So if Bulgarian and Serbian were different languages in 6th century because of these two features, than modern Macedonian is also a different language.

[kroraina]

May 29, 2008 17:40:40 GMT -5 Edlund said:

Why don't you provide me a reference to what you have read?

About O(n) turning to U:

there is one recent study of an American slavicist, Ronald Richards, about the pre-Hungarian Slavic language of Pannonia. There is a major renovation going on in my house right now so I couldn't find his booklet, "The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic ProtoLanguage", but here is one of his conclusions:
the reflex of the nasal o(n) in Pannonian Slavic was something similar to the Serbo-Croat u:



More from Richards:

The Identification of Pannonian Slavic Loanwords in the Hungarian Lexicon
...
I will begin by presenting a brief overview of the criteria used heretofore to identify these earliest Slavic loanwords, followed by a critique of their strengths and weaknesses. Included among those criteria are the following:

a. The reflection of Common Slavic nasal vowels as Old Hungarian nasal diphthongs, e.g., Common Slavic /r#d&/ ["#" = front nasal vowel, "&" = back jer] --> Hungarian /rend/. Since nasal vowels were lost relatively early in this area of Slavdom, and since Old Hungarian had no nasal vowels, the presence in Hungarian of such nasal diphthongs in tautosyllabic position suggests the early entrance of such lexemes into the Hungarian lexicon.

b. Sound substitution for Common Slavic dental affricates and voiced palatal fricatives as seen in Old Hungarian, whose phonological inventory included neither dental affricates nor voiced palatal fricatives,...

I guess that Samuel Bernstein's comparative grammar of the Slavic l-s from 2005 would have similar views and would list in greater details the historical developments in Serbian. Wouldn't it be easier to get hold of such materials, Russian or Western, and put them on-line instead of bickering over minor points neither of us has full grasp of? Let's not trust Serbian (or Bulgarian for that matter) studies about the Serbian epithentic or whatever it is called -l- for now, because they are directly linked to the dispute about the identity of the early medieval Slavic population of the Morava valley, Belgrade. About the syllabic -l- - bear in mind that it is thought that the loss of it had reached even Macedonia by the time the Cathars and terms like 'bougre' (from the Bulgarian ethnonym) appeared in Western Europe, i.e. its loss must have begun much earlier than AD 1400. Anyway, what do you expect from early Serbian, Croatian ecclesial texts? - Of course they would be heavily influenced by Bulgarian/(Macedonian) features and would not faithfully reflect the colloquial Serbo-Croat.

[Edlund]

Jun 7, 2008 8:35:57 GMT -5 kroraina said:

there is one recent study of an American slavicist, Ronald Richards, about the pre-Hungarian Slavic language of Pannonia. There is a major renovation going on in my house right now so I couldn't find his booklet, "The Pannonian Slavic Dialect of the Common Slavic ProtoLanguage", but here is one of his conclusions:
the reflex of the nasal o(n) in Pannonian Slavic was something similar to the Serbo-Croat u:

From this picture I understand that he's saying that O(n) in Hungarian turned to U(n). It's clearly not U.

a. The reflection of Common Slavic nasal vowels as Old Hungarian nasal diphthongs, e.g., Common Slavic /r#d&/ ["#" = front nasal vowel, "&" = back jer] --> Hungarian /rend/. Since nasal vowels were lost relatively early in this area of Slavdom, and since Old Hungarian had no nasal vowels, the presence in Hungarian of such nasal diphthongs in tautosyllabic position suggests the early entrance of such lexemes into the Hungarian lexicon.

What you have quoted means that the Hungarians borrowed Slavic words with nasal vowels. This is against your earlier statements, I think
Earlier you said that one of the features that was different between Serbian and Bulgarian in 7th century is:
"- the preservation of the nasal O and A in the 'Bulgaro-Mac' area (+ Greece, Romania). Until the 20th c. in some peripheral dialects (gola^mb 'pigeon', za^mb 'tooth', da^mb 'oak-tree', dla^ng 'long', guvendar 'shepard, cow-man', zaenc 'hare', svencet 'a saint', ska^mp 'dear', chendo 'a child')."

Now you're quoting me an author, who says, that Hungarian borrowed nasal vowels. How does that prove that there were no nasal vowels in Serbian in 7th century?

Wouldn't it be easier to get hold of such materials, Russian or Western, and put them on-line instead of bickering over minor points neither of us has full grasp of?

Go ahead. You were the one saying that "It is generally accepted that the 'Serbo-Croatian' and 'Bulgaro-Macedonian' l-s had a number of distinct features by the 6-7 cc. AD". If it is generally accepted it should be easy to find such materials.

Let's not trust Serbian (or Bulgarian for that matter) studies about the Serbian epithentic or whatever it is called -l- for now, because they are directly linked to the dispute about the identity of the early medieval Slavic population of the Morava valley, Belgrade.

I really don't underastand this. How can one syllabic consonant define the identity of a population?

By the way, the word is spelled "epenthetic" and has nothing to do with the syllabic consonant L that I'm talking about.

Anyway, what do you expect from early Serbian, Croatian ecclesial texts? - Of course they would be heavily influenced by Bulgarian/(Macedonian) features and would not faithfully reflect the colloquial Serbo-Croat.

Yes, they are influenced, but in the case with "debt" the situation is different. In Old Bulgarian it was äëúã (dl'g). The Croatian text says "dlg", which means that it's different from Bulgarian.

[kroraina]

Jun 7, 2008 17:35:31 GMT -5 Edlund said:

What you have quoted means that the Hungarians borrowed Slavic words with nasal vowels. This is against your earlier statements, I think

This is from a more recent article of Richards about some Slavic loanwords in Hungarian and not from his PhD thesis about the Pannonian Slavic I was referring to. But it doesn't matter. Never mind what Richards' conclusions are. He even speculates that Pannonian Slavic could be not of 'Serbo-Croat' but of 'Slovene' type, with the Slovenes being far more widely spread in past, to the east of the lake Balaton and modern Slovenia being just a mountain refuge for that language. The point of mentioning Richards was his implicit acceptance, his reference to a widely held (apparently) view that:

Since nasal vowels were lost relatively early in this area of Slavdom, i.e. I provided you with a Western quote, however brief it may be, that the nasal vowels in... the Slavic dialects of the NW Balkans were lost relatively early. In contrast to the situation in the E Balkans. I also provided you with a similar view from a Russian/Soviet source, from S. Bernstein, the long-time head of the Slavic l-s department of the Moscow State University, that there was no common proto-South-Slavic language and that there were very old dialectal differences. If you are interested, I could dig out more quotes from Russian slavicists stating that South-Slavic is an areal grouping and not a genetic one.