Language of the Gorani

[Edlund]

There was a topic about the Gorani here, but it was quickly full of bullshit, 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.

[donnie]

I too hope this thread will be a serious one, because I am quite interested in this group of people, especially considering that their nucleus lies in Kosova and Albana as well as Macedonia, the so called "Gora".

Unfortuately, I am not fluent in any Slav language. But it seems to me that Gorani speech is, in essence, a mere dialect of Macedonian, which in turn is (unless you ask the Serbs) a mere dialect of Bulgarian. A vey unique feature of these dialects that form one language is their grammar which differs significiantly from other Slav languages, such as a more simplified case system and the presence of a definite article. A member of these is also the now dissapearig Torlak dialect that once predominated in what is Southern Serbia and was also the main dialect of the Slav community in Kosova. How is this possible? Could these Serbs be 'Serbianized Bulgarians' to put it primitively?

I'm just starting to consider the real impact Vuk Karadzic's language reforms had on the Serbs ... and whether what we now call Serbian was spoken to the same extent in much of Serbia as late as the 19th century.

[Edlund]

Hi, Donnie. I'm fluent in Bulgarian and Macedonian and know Serbian pretty good. So here is what I think:
There is no clear border between the Serbian and the Bulgarian language. The official Bulgarian was created from an eastern Bulgarian dialect, while the official Macedonian - from a western Bulgarian dialect. The differences between eastern and western Bulgarian are significant, bigger than between official Serbian and official Croatian.

The official Serbian was created from a dialect of eastern Hercegovina, so this dialect was western to the people of Serbia proper. This is why it is different from the western Bulgarian. There are still many similar words between official Serbian and western Bulgarian dialects.

So, the dialects between eastern Hercegovina and eastern Bulgaria didn't have an official language. The dialects from these regions are slowly dying.

and whether what we now call Serbian was spoken to the same extent in much of Serbia as late as the 19th century.

I think you're right - it wasn't.

However this doesn't mean that the people, who didn't speak official Serbian, were Bulgarians. Just like the people from western Bulgaria, this means up to Albania, who didn't speak the official Bulgarian, were still Bulgarians.

The way to distinct a Serbian from Bulgarian for me is the self-consciousness. I still haven't heard about Bulgarian-speaking man, who doesn't use definite article. While on the other hand there are Serbs, who use it. But I don't believe that this is a way to distinct the two nations. By the way, by studying Serbo-Croatian I understood how the definite article evolved in Bulgarian.

Now about the Gorani - their dialect (or dialects) are from this group, which is not included in an official language. It's closer to the newly created Macedonian than to Bulgarian, simply because Macedonian is west-Bulgarian. But I haven't seen facts, which say that they ever had a Bulgarian consciousness, so I can't say that they were Bulgarians.

[donnie]

Thanks for the clarifications Edlund.

I have also heard regular people pointing out the similiarities between medieval Serbian and the Bulgarian language. Mind you I haven't read this in serious studies but from second hand people who allegedly knew this as a "fact". Was the language of Dusan and of the mediaeval Serbs closer to Bulgarian than modern Serbian is? Could it be attributed to the Torlak dialect, which perhaps predominated in medieval Serbia?

The way to distinct a Serbian from Bulgarian for me is the self-consciousness.

Well, in the triangle of Kosova-Southern Serbia-Macedonia, this must become especially difficult if we consider it from a historical aspect when nationalist sentiments were pretty much absent. If the divide (between Serbian and Bulgarian) is diffuse and not clear-cut, could it be possible to say that the locals were 'occasionally this, occasionally that' depending on who's subjects they were, Simeon's or Dusan's, and so on?

This becomes, for me, especially interesting when studying the Slav element in Kosova, where some have argued that alot of the toponymy is Bulgarian-derived. There is atleast one village of which I know by the name of 'Bugarich'.

By the way, by studying Serbo-Croatian I understood how the definite article evolved in Bulgarian.

Interesting. Could you care to elaborate, as I am quite interested in languages. I was under the impression that this peculiar feature of Bulgarian was an indigenous (Thracian perhaps) legacy of the so called Balkan "sprachbund". One argument for it is the presence of this feature, namely the adding of a suffix on nouns so that they take a definite article, in Albanan & Romanian as well.

[Edlund]

donnie said:

I have also heard regular people pointing out the similiarities between medieval Serbian and the Bulgarian language. Mind you I haven't read this in serious studies but from second hand people who allegedly knew this as a "fact". Was the language of Dusan and of the mediaeval Serbs closer to Bulgarian than modern Serbian is? Could it be attributed to the Torlak dialect, which perhaps predominated in medieval Serbia?

The so-called Torlak dialect, like modern Serbian and modern Bulgarian are different from the language of Dushan's Code. The official Bulgarian and the official Serbian back than were almost the same language. The problem is that we don't know what were the spoken languages. Recently around Vidin was found a tombstone from 14th century, which said "Bog da go prosti" instead of "Bog prostit ego" (May God rest his soul). This shows that back than the cases were already gone in the speach of the common folk, but the books were written with cases until 18th century.

Well, in the triangle of Kosova-Southern Serbia-Macedonia, this must become especially difficult if we consider it from a historical aspect when nationalist sentiments were pretty much absent. If the divide (between Serbian and Bulgarian) is diffuse and not clear-cut, could it be possible to say that the locals were 'occasionally this, occasionally that' depending on who's subjects they were, Simeon's or Dusan's, and so on?

Yes, I think the locals might have changed their national feelings depending on who's subjects they were. It happens today, so it's normal to have been happening throughout the centuries.

By the way, by studying Serbo-Croatian I understood how the definite article evolved in Bulgarian.

Interesting. Could you care to elaborate, as I am quite interested in languages. I was under the impression that this peculiar feature of Bulgarian was an indigenous (Thracian perhaps) legacy of the so called Balkan "sprachbund". One argument for it is the presence of this feature, namely the adding of a suffix on nouns so that they take a definite article, in Albanan & Romanian as well.

It's a difficult problem, which still puzzles many linguists. I will write shortly now and maybe more later.
The "demonstrative pronouns" in old Bulgarian - ty, to, ta, developed to the definitive article in modern Bulgarian. Very similar thing happened in French, Italian and Spanish, where the Latin demonstrative pronouns illus, illa, illum developed to definitive articles.
In Serbian "this love" is "ta ljubav". In some cases, I think when it's in a poem, it becomes "ljubav ta".
Here are the lyrics of a song of Ceca:
jer kosta me ljubav ta
ni tuga nije besplatna
In Bulgarian the demonstrative pronoun "ta" became the definitive artivle "-ta" and so "the love" is "ljubovta".
The lyrics of Ceca will be:
kostva mi ljubovta,
ni tygata ne e bezplatna
The Serbs don't have a way to say "the love", so it's the same like "this love". In Bulgarian "this love" is "tazi/taja ljubov".
I hope I was clear enough, I have to go now, see you later.

[donnie]

The so-called Torlak dialect, like modern Serbian and modern Bulgarian are different from the language of Dushan's Code. The official Bulgarian and the official Serbian back than were almost the same language. The problem is that we don't know what were the spoken languages. Recently around Vidin was found a tombstone from 14th century, which said "Bog da go prosti" instead of "Bog prostit ego" (May God rest his soul). This shows that back than the cases were already gone in the speach of the common folk, but the books were written with cases until 18th century.

Very interesting. Is this the same as "Old Slavonic" of Cyril & Methodius?

Yes, I think the locals might have changed their national feelings depending on who's subjects they were. It happens today, so it's normal to have been happening throughout the centuries.

Indeed. In the case of the Gorani, I think they've lacked a sense of national consciouness throughout their known history. They were simply known as highlanders. In the 17th century, due to some quarrell with a Greek bishop, the Gora district converted collectively to Islam. In a modern age, the Gorani community is fractured. Some of them classify themselves as Bosniak, others as Serbs. Some have approached the Macedonians & Bulgarians. There is even a village which has declared itself Albanian.

It's a difficult problem, which still puzzles many linguists. I will write shortly now and maybe more later.
The "demonstrative pronouns" in old Bulgarian - ty, to, ta, developed to the definitive article in modern Bulgarian. Very similar thing happened in French, Italian and Spanish, where the Latin demonstrative pronouns illus, illa, illum developed to definitive articles.
In Serbian "this love" is "ta ljubav". In some cases, I think when it's in a poem, it becomes "ljubav ta".
Here are the lyrics of a song of Ceca:
jer kosta me ljubav ta
ni tuga nije besplatna
In Bulgarian the demonstrative pronoun "ta" became the definitive artivle "-ta" and so "the love" is "ljubovta".
The lyrics of Ceca will be:
kostva mi ljubovta,
ni tygata ne e bezplatna
The Serbs don't have a way to say "the love", so it's the same like "this love". In Bulgarian "this love" is "tazi/taja ljubov".
I hope I was clear enough, I have to go now, see you later.

Thanks for the explanation, very enlightening. It seems quite plausible.

[c0gnate]

The Torlak dialect of Southeastern Serbia, considered Serbian, and the Shop dialect, spoken in the adjacent region of Bulgaria and considered Bulgarian, are quite close to each other.

When the Ottoman empire collapsed both the Serbian and Bulgarian states tried to claim the Torlak-Shop group. They fought a war in the 19th century over it, which Bulgaria won. Later in the 2nd Balkan War of 1913 Bulgaria lost huge territories, some of which it has tried to recover both in WWI and WWII.

[Edlund]

donnie said:

I was under the impression that this peculiar feature of Bulgarian was an indigenous (Thracian perhaps) legacy of the so called Balkan "sprachbund". One argument for it is the presence of this feature, namely the adding of a suffix on nouns so that they take a definite article, in Albanan & Romanian as well.

Yes, it's interesting that in Bulgarian, Albanian and Romanian the definite article is a suffix. Romanian is akin to French, Italian and Spanish, where the definite article is before the noun. So maybe it has something to do with a Balkan Sprachbund
I didn't have the time to write, that in the 10th century there is a famous work by Ioan Exarch, who uses regularly definite articles. He writes for example "b'cheliti", which in modern Bulgarian is "pchelite" - "the bees".

Very interesting. Is this the same as "Old Slavonic" of Cyril & Methodius?

The official Serbian and Bulgarian languages of the 14th century were different from the language of Cyril & Methodius of 9th century. I don't know about Serbian, but Bulgarian has already lost some cases and there were some phonetical differences. The writers were still trying to use the old Bulgarian language, but from their errors is evident that it was different from the spoken language.

Can you tell us more about the Albanian definite article? I know very little. In Bulgarian it's used in almost the same way as in English and German. How is it in Albanian?

[terroreign]

Hmm, edlund, da te prasuvam nesto, zosto misluvas deka makedoncite ne postojuvaat kako narod?

Ako ne se postojuvale togas ke oni da bide mrtvi kako latinski, navistina, togas bugarski kako zvanicni jazik od bugarija, bi zbourvano na makedonija. E togas kultura i jazik bi bili izgubeni!!

Razmisli na toa!

Licno mislam deka gorancite se makedonci, zatoa se za oni blizi

Golem pozdrav

[kroraina]

edlund said:

... The official Serbian was created from a dialect of eastern Hercegovina, so this dialect was western to the people of Serbia proper.

Edlund,
what is 'Serbia proper' for you? If we are to follow Constantine Porphyrogenitus or the early medieval Balkan history in general, then Serbia proper is to the west of Novi-Pazar. And Vuk was not so wrong in his choice of a dialect

[c0gnate]

kroraina said:

If we are to follow Constantine Porphyrogenitus or the early medieval Balkan history in general,

Any reason for eschewing Herodotus or Pliny?

[ioan]

I really like the thesis that the similarities between Romanian, Albanian, Greek and Bulgarian (including the southwest dialect spoken in fyrom) are due to the Thracian language

[kroraina]

c0gnate said:

kroraina said:

If we are to follow Constantine Porphyrogenitus or the early medieval Balkan history in general,

Any reason for eschewing Herodotus or Pliny?

Or Ovid, right? No, of course not. Don't confuse me for a Romanian or Albanian, please. ;D

I cut my last post short. I was going to comment on the conflicting Bulgarian and Serbian theories regarding the new Serbia proper, i.e. the modern republic. Whilst for Bulgarian linguists, historians its Slavic population are former Bulgarians, Serbinised around the time when the Turks arrived in the Balkans, the Serbian ones it seems claim that Shumadia was largely uninhabited at the time and the Serbs moved there from the west. Anyway, my idea was that Edlund was projecting back in time the present situation. - It might not had been the case that the 'Bulgarian' and 'Serbian' dialects were always adjacent. The present 'blurring' between them could be due to a recent convergence, and not to inherited traits. 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

[kroraina]

ioan said:

I really like the thesis that the similarities between Romanian, Albanian, Greek and Bulgarian (including the southwest dialect spoken in fyrom) are due to the Thracian language

sorry, but that's wishful thinking. There are some observations (of a Russian linguist) of Baltic - South-Slavic isoglosses, especially similarities between the Baltic l-s and Bulgarian. The idea behind being that the 'original', pre-Roman 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.

About the latter. - Open any modern Western linguistic book on the subject and you will see that the Balkan sprachbund is viewed as an areal feature, having affected not only Romanian/Bulgarian/Albanian, but also Turkish (Gagauz) and eastern Serbian dialects. Probably some Roma and some Greek as well. So, no Edlund, according to the Western linguists one cannot use the presence or absence of Balkan features in order to draw a line between Serbian and Bulgarian. It would be equally scientific to draw the line according to whether the local people blaspheme or not. As noted in 1890 by a Russian journalist who had lived for a long time in Bulgaria and Serbia, the Serbians are only Slavs that swear against God ;D

As a side notå: êàêâî ñòàâà ñ òåáå áå, Åäëóíä? Êàêâè ñà òåçè çàëèòàíèÿ êúì èñòîðè÷åñêè ðîìàíòèçúì è íàèâèçúì? Êúäå îòèäå ðâåíèåòî äà êðèòèêóâàø è ïîñòàâÿø ïîä âúïðîñ âñå è âñÿ è êàê ñå ñòèãíà äî òàêúâ ñòàòè÷åí è 'áðàòñêè' âúçãëåä çà áàëêàíñêàòà èñòîðèÿ?

[kroraina]

c0gnate said:

The Torlak dialect of Southeastern Serbia, considered Serbian, and the Shop dialect, spoken in the adjacent region of Bulgaria and considered Bulgarian, are quite close to each other.

When the Ottoman empire collapsed both the Serbian and Bulgarian states tried to claim the Torlak-Shop group. They fought a war in the 19th century over it, which Bulgaria won. ...

Even before Serbia and Bulgaria took these lands, at the time of the Ottoman empire in the late 19 c. there was a Bulgarian bishop in Nish. The stipulations of the sultan's ferman were that the Christian population of a given district had to vote with a 2/3 majority in favour of the Bulgarian Exarchate, in order to leave the Constantinople patriarchy. And that's what happened in Nish. And later, when the Serbians came to 'liberate' these districts from the Turks, they eradicated every Bulgarian cultural or religious presence.

One would think that it is largely irrelevant who has won what war, and that would not have influenced the nationality of a population living close to the state border. But as seen, sometimes it does matter who is the ruler of the land. The dialect the locals speak is a side issue.

[donnie]

Can you tell us more about the Albanian definite article? I know very little. In Bulgarian it's used in almost the same way as in English and German. How is it in Albanian?

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.

[Edlund]

kroraina said:

edlund said:

... The official Serbian was created from a dialect of eastern Hercegovina, so this dialect was western to the people of Serbia proper.

Edlund,
what is 'Serbia proper' for you?

Of course I meant Serbia proper of today - this is Serbia excluding Vojvodina and Kosovo and including Nish.

Anyway, my idea was that Edlund was projecting back in time the present situation. - It might not had been the case that the 'Bulgarian' and 'Serbian' dialects were always adjacent.

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".

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

Where is it accepted and what were those features?

So, no Edlund, according to the Western linguists one cannot use the presence or absence of Balkan features in order to draw a line between Serbian and Bulgarian.

Where have I said that?

êàêâî ñòàâà ñ òåáå áå, Åäëóíä? Êàêâè ñà òåçè çàëèòàíèÿ êúì èñòîðè÷åñêè ðîìàíòèçúì è íàèâèçúì?

Êîå íàðè÷àø "èñòîðè÷åñêè ðîìàíòèçúì è íàèâèçúì"? Àêî ñúì êàçàë íåùî íåâÿðíî, êàæè êîå å òî.

[Edlund]

donnie said:

Can you tell us more about the Albanian definite article? I know very little. In Bulgarian it's used in almost the same way as in English and German. How is it in Albanian?

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.

[Edlund]

terroreign said:

Hmm, edlund, da te prasuvam nesto, zosto misluvas deka makedoncite ne postojuvaat kako narod?

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

Ako ne se postojuvale togas ke oni da bide mrtvi kako latinski, navistina, togas bugarski kako zvanicni jazik od bugarija, bi zbourvano na makedonija. E togas kultura i jazik bi bili izgubeni!!

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. They had Bulgarian schools in which they studied the official Bulgarian language. The heroes of the modern fyromians - Goce Delchev and Dame Gruev, were also teachers in Bulgarian schools.
When Serbia took today's FYROM, the Bulgarian schools were destroyed and the Serbian language became official.
The Macedonian language was created in 1944. Here is a picture of the creators:

[vlaici]

ioan said:

I really like the thesis that the similarities between Romanian, Albanian, Greek and Bulgarian (including the southwest dialect spoken in fyrom) are due to the Thracian language

I like it, too.
It always stroke me the sound of Albanian and Bulgarian, perceiving it as something familial. I learn from you more about this balkanic "sprachbund" (very interesting the XIX-th century german disposition to explore the phenomena even if despising us, balkanics, for prefering French!).
It makes me the impresion that a group of closely related people were to use different tongues, early in their evolution.
Nevertheless, I understand nothing of Bulgarian and Albanian.
Thank you to have let me know the meaning of "bogdaproste" that I use in Romanian...