• This topic has 2 voices and 1 reply.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #346534

    Anonymous

    For instance all real linguists agree that Torlak dialects of Serbia are Bulgarian. Does that mean those people were initially Bulgarian? Is it possible for them to have been initially Serb and just for some period of time (or even never) Bulgarian yet their language to be Bulgarian? I am talking about their ethnic awareness. For instance Slavs in Pirot and surrounding used to be Bulgarian in the 18th and 19th century. The self-Serbianized themselves only after 1878 when they joined Serbia (actually they "were joined" by the Serbs). The monk Kiril Zivkovic is one of the earliest neo-Bulgarian authors (paleo-Bulgarian, old Bulgarian is the so-called Old Church Slavonic). He even called his language simple Bulgarian (prost bugarski in his own dialect). Does that mean the Slavs in Pirot area have always been Bg up until 1878 or they had initially been Serbs and then they were Bulgarianized and then they re-became Serbs after 1878?
    In case of Kajkavian speakers things are clear, they used to be Slovenes, only in the 16th or 17th century they did begin to switch to the ethnonym Horvat(in?). At least that's what I learned from Lili Laskova's Serbo-Croatian Grammar (she is Bg and I suppose this piece of info she got from a Serb "linguist" that she thanks to for info in the book's foreword, this time I am pretty sure the Serb's info is accurate). Even at present all Croats (not only Kajkavians) can be considered to be Slovenian since:
    1. there is a dialect continuum between the two languages
    2. Slovenec=Slovenin=Slovjanin=Slav ("-ec" and "-(yan)in" are two Slavic suffixes with the exact same role in many Slavic language)
    Stokavian/Stakavian Croats are mostly Croats and Slovenian speaking Serbian, former users of Cakavian and Slovenian/Kajkavian languages, few of them really are Croatized Serbs.

    #431793

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    For instance all real linguists agree that Torlak dialects of Serbia are Bulgarian. Does that mean those people were initially Bulgarian? Is it possible for them to have been initially Serb and just for some period of time (or even never) Bulgarian yet their language to be Bulgarian? I am talking about their ethnic awareness. For instance Slavs in Pirot and surrounding used to be Bulgarian in the 18th and 19th century. The self-Serbianized themselves only after 1878 when they joined Serbia (actually they "were joined" by the Serbs). The monk Kiril Zivkovic is one of the earliest neo-Bulgarian authors (paleo-Bulgarian, old Bulgarian is the so-called Old Church Slavonic). He even called his language simple Bulgarian (prost bugarski in his own dialect). Does that mean the Slavs in Pirot area have always been Bg up until 1878 or they had initially been Serbs and then they were Bulgarianized and then they re-became Serbs after 1878?
    In case of Kajkavian speakers things are clear, they used to be Slovenes, only in the 16th or 17th century they did begin to switch to the ethnonym Horvat(in?). At least that's what I learned from Lili Laskova's Serbo-Croatian Grammar (she is Bg and I suppose this piece of info she got from a Serb "linguist" that she thanks to for info in the book's foreword, this time I am pretty sure the Serb's info is accurate). Even at present all Croats (not only Kajkavians) can be considered to be Slovenian since:
    1. there is a dialect continuum between the two languages
    2. Slovenec=Slovenin=Slovjanin=Slav ("-ec" and "-(yan)in" are two Slavic suffixes with the exact same role in many Slavic language)
    Stokavian/Stakavian Croats are mostly Croats and Slovenian speaking Serbian, former users of Cakavian and Slovenian/Kajkavian languages, few of them really are Croatized Serbs.

    image

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

2 User(s) Online Join Server
  • HicksGhostLDN
  • m1tric