GRAMMAR
of the
MACEDONIAN LITERARY
TAWATTANT
LANUUAUL
by HORACE O.LUNT
A GRAMMAR
OF THE
MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE
BY HORACE G. LUNT
SK @P)]E 1932
PREFACE
he
oP
It is the aim of this book to introduce the reader to Macedonian literary language. The first part consists of a descriptio of the structure of the sound pattern A the morphological system of the language, the second, part is made up of typical examples of Macedonian prose, and the last gives a representative list of Macedonian words with their English equivalents.
This is the first attempt to present Macedonian entirely in its own terms. The current school grammar, Maxedouncxa epanaruxa (1950), by Krume Kepeski, amounts to an adaptation from similar Bulgarian works, with many quite unnecessary comparative and historical references. The only extensive treatment of Macedonian in any other language is the sketch included in R. de Bray’s Guide to the Slavonic Languages (London, 1950; pp. 248—313). De Bray took most of his information from Kepeski, and unfortunately included some of the latter’s misinterpretations. In the Guide, Macedonian is explained exclusively from the comparative point of view, within the framework of the whole group of the Slavic
AN MIN dSAGc OVthar published wravize ahaiuit ManndAnnian
1 — = AVA w ley LA1IP UGHv- AWwULLOS MUNA
WOrksS aOuul awaCCaonian are OfTruy short articles enumerating the salient features of Macedonian as compared to the other Slavic languages.
There are, however, several‘ books and monographs about Macedonian dialects which furnish valuable material for compar- ative and historical studies. Principle among them are the works of the French Slavists. Prof. André Mazon has written extensively on two of the southwest Macedonian dialects. Contes slaves du Macédoine sud-occidentale (Paris, 1923) treats the dialects in the Tegion of Hlorina or Lerin, in oe “oe cs ee et treatise on ihe ee of an prised group of Madani in the village of BoboStica in Albania. With Prof. André ‘Vaillant, Mazon edited and published a nineteenth-century text from an area in
VI
vi
Greece which has long been completely hellenized, L’Evangéliaire de Kulakia, un parler slave du Bas-Vardar (Paris, 1938). The biblio- graphical and comparative data about all Macedonian dialects given in this book are particularly important. The Russian scholar 4. Seli8¢ev, writing more from a historical point of view, published several important studies: Ouepxu no maKxedoncKoll duanexTONOZUU (Kazan’, 1918), a general description and history of Macedonian dialects; Maxedoncxue xoduxu XVII u XVIII eexoe (Sofia, 1933), an analysis of older written materials; and TIonoz u ezo 6bonzapcKoe nacerenue (Sofia, 1929), which contains a description of a northwest- ern dialect. The Polish scholar M. Matecki studied and published materials from the southeasternmost Macedonian dialects, from the villages of Suho and Visoka, northeast of Salonika. None of these works is directly concerned with the dialects on which the Mace- donian literary language is based, although Selistev does touch on them from time to time. The monograph by the Serbian linguist Aleksandar Beli¢é, Galitki dijalekat (= Srpski dijalektoloski zbornik, VII, Srem. Karlovei — Beograd, 1935), analyzes a western Mace- donian dialect which, although not one-of those from which the literary language is drawn, nevertheless has many cHaracteristics in common with them, as for example the accent and the triple definite article.
There is a mass of literature dealing with the origins of Macedonian dialects and the question of their relationship to Serbian or Bulgarian. The majority of this literature is polemic and hopelessly biased. An excellent summary of the opinions expressed during the °30’s can be found in Matecki’s article *Z, zagadnien dialektologii makedonskiej’, Rocznik Slawistyczny,. (1938), 119—144. 7 None of this literature has been used directly in writing the present grammar. Some of the contemporary work by Macedonian linguists has been very important, however. The short monograph by Blaze Koneski on his native dialect of Prilep, "IIpunencxnor Tosop’, published in the Toduwen 36opnux of the Skopje University for 1951 is of great value. It is an analysis of one of the principle sources of the literary language, written by the leading Macedonian linguistic scholar, and has influenced my point of view in a number of respects. The articles in the little journal published by the Seminar of South Slavic Languages in Skopje, Maxedoncxu Jasux (1950), have also proved useful. Nearly all of the material for the treatment .of the accent and the prepositions has come ftom Koneski’s articles in this journal, and other articles have been used freely, although
uvroerr =e ae Se See ee Saaeves =
in basically modified form. ; ;
Vil
A number of difficulties face anyone who tries to analyze such a new language. Macedonian, like most literary languages, contains elements from several regional dialects, and is not identical with any single dialect. While there is general agreement on the outlines and the most significant features of the pronunciation, morphology and syntax, there remains a mass of secondary matters which have still to be solved.
There is not yet a generation educated solely in Macedonian, and the influences of the school languages (principally Serbo- Croatian, and secondarily Bulgarian) are ever present both in speech and in print. The written norms are now fairly well codified; and ' people who are concerned with culiture write in accordance with the norms. That is not to say that the daily press, which must print hurriedly translated news items, achieves a high standard, nor that the barber or baker who puts a notice in his store window is careful with his spelling or his grammar. But it does mean that there is something which can be identified as standard literary’ Macedonian and contrasted to other things which are not standard.
As a basis for description, I took prose published in the years 1950-51, further restrictmg myself to works coming under the general heading of belles-lettres. Poetry was excluded because it admits a plethora of archaisms and dialectisms and abounds in variant forms not found in prose. Journalistic and most expository . prose was not included because the writers too often are strongly _under the influence of their school Serbo-Croatian, and they have not taken the time to become sufficiently acquainted with the daily language of the people and with the details of the newly established norms of the literary language. As arbiter for the quality of any given work, and for the ,,correctness”.of any form or construction, I have relied on the judgment of the members of the Seminar of South Slavic Languages at the Macedonian University in Skopje. The description is thus to some degree also a prescriptive, normative grammar, for it ignores usages arbitrarily termed as not-in accord- ance with the standard. However a complete description of all the usage found in all prose of the two.years in question would fill several volumes with variant details and elements from many different dialects and languages.
In speaking, most Macedonians continue to pronounce accord- ing to their local dialects, and many individuals retain their native morphological and syntactical systems. More and more effort is being made, however, to adopt a pronunciation more in accord with the written standard, and deviant morphological forms are less and less in use among intellectuals. As a basis for the description of the phonemic system, I took the pronunciation. of Blaze Koneski, - poet, writer, translator, and Professor of the Macedonian Language at
Vil
the University, a native of Prilep. Certain of my observations are based on the speech of his colleagues in the Seminar of South Slavic Languages, Prof. Krum ToSev (also a native of Prilep), Assistant Bozo-Vidoeski (from Poreée, an area north of the Prilep—Bitola— Kitevo—Veles quadrangle), and Assistant Rada Ugrinova (from Skopje). Data-from recordings which other speakers made for me have in every case been checked with these four people.
The grammar is intended to be strictly synchronic. Historical and comparative remarks are confined to the outline in the Intro- duction and to occasional footnotes. The description is not complete, for it does not treat in detail] the adverbs, conjunctions, and particles. The salient points of syntax are included in the morphology. All the points treated have been illustrated by examples taken from Mace- donian prose or from one of the four informants named above. The examples have all been checked by Macedonians, and are thus guaranteed to be standard. Any errors in translation are of course my own fault.
The grammar has been written from a strictly linguistic point of view, and will therefore be of most interest to the student of Slavic and general linguistics. I believe, however, that the non- linguist who is interested in learning Macedonian will find it possible fo understand the terminology and point of view if he will read slowly and carefully, and will study the examples in conjunction with the grammatical statements.
The texts in the second part of the book have been chosen to illustrate different kinds of prose treating different subjects, and _at the same time to present a few representative pieces of Mace-- donian literature. It cannot pretend to be an anthology, for the- selection was made more on the basis of length and of type of . vocabulary and subject matter than on that of literary value. It was preferred to present long excerpts which are complete in themselves, or complete works, rather than many fragments which might perhaps be more varied, but which would be incomplete. Although some of the selections were written before 1950, they have been edited to bring them into line with contemporary usage.
The first three selections are folktales which were collected and published during the nineteenth century. They illustrate the type of language. which is considered exemplary for the new lite- rary language, although certain details are not accepted. In this book, these texts have been slightly edited, principally in ‘ortho- graphy, to eliminate the least acceptable regionalisms. For the benfit of the reader who is interested in comparing this standard with the orignal dialect form of the stories, I will cite the sources. Menara od fasonrcka onawxa was recorded in the town of Stip
IX
by A. Kostencev and published in the Bulgarian journal Coopnux 3a napoduu ymoreopenun IX (1893), 155. Maxopor auuja xanyfep is one of the many folktales recorded by the expert racconteur and folklorist Marko Cepenkov, a tailor of Prilep, and published in the same CoOopxurx, VIII (1892), 217. Ceexop, ceexpea u cntaa was published in the C6Oopnux or 6dnzapcku napodnu yMoTeopenuA, wacr Bropa, VII, 1 (Sofia, 1892), p. 65, compiled by Kuzman Sapka- rev, one of the foremost educators in Macedonia in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
The story of the Good Samaritan was included for the benefit of those who are interested in comparing this version with other languages. The same text in many different Slavic languages was published in Rajko Nahtigal’s book Slovanski jezilet, 2nd edition, Ljubljana, 1952.
The translation of the Gospel text, and the normalization and accentuation of the folk texts were done by the author of the next selection,, Blaze Koneski. He was born in, Prilep in 1921 and educated in Serbo-Croatian schools. He studied Slavic literatures at the universities of Belgrade and Sofia. From the first, Koneski has been active in the codification and standardization of the literary ~ language, and the astonishingly rapid progress of unification is due in no small degree to his energy and good judgment, to his teachings, admonitions and example. The excerpts included here comprise most of the introduction to the book Maxedonucxara nutreparypa go 19 eex, which includes an anthology of nineteenth century Macedonian literature. They are excellent examples of Macedonian expository prose, and give some details about the history of Mace- donian culture.
In this and other texts, omissions are indicated by (...).
The play Bezanka was first written in the dialect of Kumanovo, and was produced in Skopje in 1928. Its author, Vasil Il’oski, was born in Krugevo in 1902, but grew up and was educated in Bulgarian and Serbian ‘schools in Kumanovo. He is at present Professor in the Normal School in Skopje. Bezanxa was rewritten in the new standard language, and published in 1951. The excerpts included here were selected and edited, with Il’oski’s aid and approval, to present the main plot in as short a form as possible. The dialogue is typical of colloquial Macedonian, except that it contains a rela- ‘tively large percentage of words of Turkish origin, which gives it a~ somewhat old-fashioned flavor.
The Youth of Frosina is one of the best short stories in Mace- donian to date. It appeared first in the now defunct literary maga- zine Hog Jlex (VI, 8—10, 1950, pp. 21—30). The author, Vlado Maleski, known by his war-time pseudonym ‘Tale’, was born in Struga in 1919; and educated in Albanian schools in Scutari and
X
Serbo-Croatian schools in Struga. He has been active in Macedonian cultural life and is at present cultutal editor of the daily newspaper
a e 7 . e e Hosa Maxedonuia. This story was incorporated into the scenario ° oe v¥ au
SLYOW SWI UY Fe ye ws Ow 444004 PS UL-L4 2440 bli was
which Maleski wrote for the first Macedonian film, Frosina, which had its premier on June 31, 1952. It treats one of the central themes of Macedonian literature, the difficulties of the life of the peéalbar, the worker who is forced to go away from home to seek employ- ment, and of the hard lot of the wife and children he leaves behind.
A Street (1951) is to date the longest story in Macedonian, which has yet to produce a novel. The author, Slavko Janevski, was born in Skopje in 1920, and he attended school there. He is one of the leading poets, and only recently has turned to prose. Yuuua is unusual in its treatment of life in Yugoslavia between the two wars—most Macedonian prose deals either with an older period or with the Second World War and the subsequent events.
The three selections by Jovan BoSkovski all appeared in the first published volume of Macedonian short stories, A Shot (Pacrper), which came out in 1946. They have been edited by the author to conform with the present-day standard language. Boskovski was born in Skopje in 1920 and educated there. He has written a number of short stories, of which these are typical. At present he is a writer and director with the Macedonian film company, Vardar-Film.
Ciéko Alekso is the only publishéd story of the young writer
Dimée Markovski. He was born in Prilep in 1923 and educated in Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian schools. The story was originally published in the short-lived literary magazine Idnina (II-6, 1950, pp. 45—55), which ceased publication in 1950. The language has been slightly revised by B. Koneski (principally to eliminate Serbisms), and the punctuation, which was completely chaotic, has been changed to conform.to American usage (not Macedonian standards, particularly with regard, to the use of quotation marks). The theme of the Partisan Movement, guerilla warfare, and the life of underground workers is central in Macedonian literature, and this story is typical of many others, by various authors. - It may be noted, parenthetically, that the punctuation found in Macedonian publications is extremely varied. Some authors hold to the German and Russian type of punctuation by hard and fast rules, while others follow the looser sort of system used by. the French and English. And all are dependent on the whim of the printer, who frequently imposes a few ideas of his own. The use of the comma and the means for indicating direct quotation are subject to the most fluctuation.
The vocabulary is made up first of the words in the reading selections and those discussed in the grammar. It includes, further,
XI
most of the words from the spelling dictionary.in the Maxedoncxu npasonuc, and from the vocabulary compiled by Koneski for the Serbian and Croatian readers of the AnTonozuja na maxedoncKa noe3uja (Belgrade, 1951). It also includes a number of words which I collected for a discussion of word-formation in Macedonian. The reader who is acquainted with the general Slavic habits of word-formation will find interesting material here. The vocabulary also contains some of the most important words which appear in the daily press, and the most frequent abbreviations.
This book is the result of a long-standing interest in Mace- donian which dates from 1944, when I chanced to see some Mace- donian news bulletins, a newspaper, and a tiny brochure containing a translation of a Russian story. It was impossible to get more materials in 1945, and JI learned nothing more about the néw language until 1946—47, when I attended the lectures of Prof. Antonin Frinta, at the Charles University in Prague. This was probably the first regular course in Macedonian offered by a non- Yugoslav institution. During the next few years I read the few Macedonian books which I managed to obtain, and studied the available works on various Macedonian dialects. In 1950, at a series of conferences for foreign Slavists conducted at Bled under the sponsorship of the Yugoslav Ministry of Science and Culture, I heard the lectures of Prof, Blaze Koneski and Prof. Krum ToSev on the Macedonian language, and that of Prof. Haralampie Polenakovik on Macedonian literature. In 1951, thanks to a leave granted me by the President and Fellows of Harvard University, I was able to spend three months in Macedonia, working exclusively on the language. This book represents the fruits of that visit.
oe t would-never have been possible without the constant ai
of Blaze Koneski. Not only did he furnish printed materials and help in the control of the Macedonian texts and examples, as indi- cated above, but he was always willing to spend hours in explaining grammatical problems, defining words, and furnishing suitable illustrative examples for various points. It was his initiative which made possible the printing of this bock in such an astonishingly short time after the completion of the manuscript. I can only hope that its appearance will serve in some way as an expression of my thanks to him.
Professor Krum ToSev, and Assistants Rada Ugrinova and Bozo Vidoeski also gave much of their time. Miss Ugrinova and Mr. Vidoeski particularly lightened my burden of mechanical work by helping to record vocabulary on cards, and by patiently defining words for me for hours on end. Miss Ugrinova also read the proofs of the Macedonian texts. J-am deeply grateful to these Macedonian
XII
scholars. My thanks are due also to Assistant Pavle Ivic, of the Institute for the Serbian Language in Belgrade, for his help in reading proof.
The grammar owes a great deal to the teachings of my col- league and friend Prof. Roman Jakobson, of Harvard University. The general approach to the problems is one which I learned from him, and his comments on the first eer of the manuscript enabled
tn alarifer mand Af ficu 1+ OiIn T 1A also like +n thank nt me LU Csariry ilially ULLALECULE v ints. aA, should @Qisov Lint tu Lralin ab
this time Dr. Cornelius van Schooneveld, who read most of the manuscript and discussed various problems with me. To Prof. Morris Halle of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology I am grateful for his many helpful comments, and especially for his advice on the analysis of the phonemic system. The manuscript would never have been finished in time had it not been for the unselfish help given me by Dr. Lawrence G. Jones and Dr. E. Paul Gauthier in the arduous task of typing the vocabulary. Bob Ellrich and Al Baum also gave much-needed help in the final preparatiori of the manuscript.
Finally, I wish to thank the Yugoslav Council for Science and Culture and the Macedonian Ministry of Education, Science and Culture for the financial aid which they granted me, thus enabling me to prolong my stay in Macedonia and study the language more thoroughly.
Horace G. Lunt
Belgrade, July 21, 1952.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page Preface een oie emule eee) Mie 6. et |S eso,e ° o fe eer eo) te et SO ee Ol el” fe ie es el ete: ce V Table of Contents --:-- os eS Steed ay ec caesium Ce ee XH ADDrevialiiONSm = © os 8 2 2 = es) = = 9 2 ss © oe ee Sept Naas - XV (REROUIECEIOIN 5-2 ones ee ee ener ee ici eueeename ee ] PART ONE — A Grammar of the Macedonian Literary Language ye eG Chapter I. Phonology and Orthography - Sega) Phonemics (81) oo Lom Oren IY es) wet ss ese eet cis Mion § Mor phanhonemics (§1 2) RE Sei ee ee ee fe as - + 14 Ortho raphy (§1.3) Se eee 6 se es eee wae 4 18 Prosodic Features Ve] a eo ale Ms ee = ~ QQ] Chapter II. Morphology - j ween Gi 2 enc aaunean tres: -2= 26 Introductory ‘Remarks (82), Dee oe te er 26 Substantives (§2. We ee ec a eae a ee or Gender (§2.11)- - +--+ eee eee eee Te ae te ee 37 Formsi(@242) 2 - << 6 2 6 6 Ge be rt ee ee 27 Plurals (§2. To ee es eee ere ee ei fon eer cei 28 Collectives (§2.14) - - 6 66 ee ee tb ee ee 3] ,»countedness* (§2. IGN o¢ 0.8 bo 6 6 oe od Se GU tnesel cata ceete's tt: Vocative (§2.16)" ee yn 2. haters rai aes eg ee 32 Dependent Forms (§2.17)- > - +--+ se te tt ee eee. 33 Adjectives (§2.2) ene te we erig Wa ee eee wee 34. Comparer ‘6. 24) Senet eee = soc R- spete 35 Pronouns (§2.8) - + +) + ee et tt ee ee eee | Bb ’ Personal aca (82. Sl- + 2 ees & ee cea tearence ene 37 Demonstrative Pronouns (g2-24) hele ees cae oe a 80 Definite Articles (§241) ++ s+ ee ee ee eee ee 4] Interrogative Pronouns (§2-5)..- - +--+ + +++ +> cS aS Relative Pronouns (§2.6) - + -- © ++ + test eeee 44 Indefinite Pronouns (2.7) -- . 6 + ee 2 ee ee te ee 45 Qualitative and Quantative Adjectives (§2.8). - ee ee Numerals (§2.9) - «+ 6 6 ee et ee ee ee ee es 47 Adverbs (§3) - Son, te, Poe eaker ee gol te a. on Ho Sl BpeneSinhe GAM oe ots a eee ES 52 Chapter III. The Mere Sie ee oe oS te ee alien = 66 Introductory Remarks ($5) Gans eat hel ib yik ie! ABE Ts ai era eee nes 66 A. The Morphology of the Verb -- + © - ++ +e sess 68 General Notions (§6) -- +--+ +--+ ++ eee sees 68
Aspect Morphology (§6.1-64) --:+--- Pauses ce tae oe ter saree Forms (§7) --+- +--+. ie as ae se CORI Senate eaten he Present (§8) -- +--+ +++ Poet ke wean Ga arcs ee Imperfect" (SQ Ske ee Ge eS ee ee 73
Aorist (§10) ------- Ree eee 74
XIV
PART TWO — Reading Selections
Pan
m7 oO AW
PART THREE — Vocabulary
. Gospel Text, Luke X:30-85.--.- - . Contemporary Expository ProM@#ie . 2 6 ss
. Contemporary Narrative Prose ---+-+-:--+-+:.
Imperfect I-participle ($1 By teu Se ye eel ee Aorist I-particinle (§12) Se CURSE eee edrrs 2 ans nyt participle “(§13) i ee rary are secs Imperative (§14).- = - - ese tt ttt atte eee Verbal Adverb (§15) BE vente, cctece nay ce cat en Verba! Substantive (818) Sores see eee ss biel ee menue: (40 ciate pete 18) (GUT) = 2s wees nae? AGO fee Shetek eat ween a ee Summary (Ge ee et he Meaning and Use of the Verhat Forms eos 8 8 @ 8 8 ee inect Forms i ee ees res ecm oe ee Present (G20) - 2-9 «S25 oe eee Fee
Excurse: a + Present Forms (oe ee Imperfect (§22)
eee: G@e. 8 6 ee. en eee nce el h See CA et ele aw ee) 6) iv Re
Aorist (§23 ay Seeger cn oie ee eine: i. ae »Distanced“ Forms (§24) pus ialn geet a, TS a oes aS njt participle (§25) - - -- +--+ +s e+e es oo
HMa-compounds W534... :
Potential Mood (§26) ee eee ee eee Projective Mood (§27) +--+: ++ esse ee ae
Intransitive Voice (§28)- +. +--+ +--+ Imperative §2 29) WacbalbAeverh (Sa0), © 089-5 = 4s se eG eee Verbal Substantive (§31)
2 se ese (eo see ver 6a | (Osprey Sie ete ceo ce fen cel ei) Sie ete bw al ven 48:
Phe tt Cer ee tomes ace Career tee Ce ee re oe er
. Qitace eye AU cielo ies Fie) (ee wet NO poe V8) pceertcs ve 4 80 lel ee:
Folk Texts, by RAO Ss 6 be Bo ne Oe ete oe cr oe ae )Kena og FaponcKa onawKa ---- - To ge ees ee ee
Mauopor aynja uv Kanyfep +--+ + ee te ee tt es Crexop, CBeKpBa CHaa
O ips 8: Gal ie) a a; te) Sa ae) ew) 8 a ee ew ow ae ae « « (8 (eve sf ww 8 Ss fa
Blaze Koneski: excerpts from Makemouckata auTepaTypa BO oe oes .
, Caticce, Dramatic Prose ©. -- +. -.: .
Vasil Woski: excerpts from Beranxa
Ce LG je? ie wa) GO Ae Gar) fe ied (aah Mes | 6.
Viado Maleski — ,,Tale*: Mnangocta Ha @pocnna - Slavko Janevski: excerpts from Ynuua--+-. - - Jovan Boskovski: Henpujarenn ---. - 2-5 ++ 2 52-0, BOsMOKON : = 6 + 2958s es ew 5s eB as ee 3emjata Ha Tanka Bicep Be Somer ge ee tes Gay a Dimée Markovski: Uuyxo Astekco
er ee a ey te ey er te we ee a oe:
ee OS eo ee fe ee a ee el ee) eh ee
Map of the Republic of Macedonia
o © © «& w« *
aor adj. ady. Bg.
coll. can. def.
dial. dim. excl.
gram.
indef.
Mac.
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
aorist
adjective
adverb
Bulgarian
any consonant collective. coniunction
definite
dialect, dialect form diminutive
east
€xclamation feminine grammatical imperfect interminative indefinite
masculine Macedonian, Macedonia
N north
© old >
pej. pejorative pl. plural
pi. tant. pluralia tanta (nouns occuring only iu the plural)
pr present ' PSI — Proto-Slavic > South SC erbo-Croatian Sg. singular SSI South Slavic T terminative voc. vocative W west 2, zere | or
~ opposed to, alternates with
INTRODUCTION
Macedonian is the official language of the Peoples Republic of Macedonia, one of the Six federal units which comprise present- day Yugoslavia. It is the native tongue of the 800,000 Macedonian Slavs who live in the Macedonian Republic, and is an important secondary language for the 200,000-Albanians or Shiptars, the 95,000 Turks, the 10,000 Arumanians (Vlachs); and the 20,000 Gypsies there.
The neighboring areas of Bulgaria and Greece are also part of the region historically known as Macedonia. In Bulgarian or Pirin Macedonia, the Macedonian language enjoyed the status of a secondary tongue from 1944 until 1948, but it has since been forbidden. In Greek or Aegean Macedonia, where the Slavic popu- lation has been decreased: by emigration or hellenization, the language has never been permitted.
Macedonian is a South, or Balkan, Slavic language, closely related to its two neighbors, Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, and to the more distant Slovene. All of these are akin to the East Slavic languages (Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian) and the West Slavic languages (Polish, Czech, Slovak, Upper and Lower Sorbian). Balkan Slavic may be divided into two parts on the basis of one . very old feature: in the east, the two Common Slavic reduced vowels known as jers (b and b) did not develop alike, while in the west the two fell together and shared the same subsequent developments. The western part of Balkan Slavic evolved into the dialects which gave rise to the Slovene and the Serbo-Croatian literary languages. The eastern Balkan Slavie dialects gave rise to the Buigarian literary language in the nineteenth century and to the newest of European literary languages, Macedonian, in our own day.
‘It was also from the eastern Balkan Slavic dialects that the first Slavic literary language, Old Church Slavonic, came. This language, based on the Salonika dialect of the Slavic Apostles’, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, was used by all of the Slavs during the
1 Macedonian grammar 1
Middle Ages. It was the medium of a flourishing culture in Moravia and Bohemia from about 863 to the end of the eleventh century, and was influential in the formation of the new Czech and Polish written languages somewhat later. It was the language of the *Golden Age’ of literature during the reigns of the Bulgarian Tsars Boris and Simeon. From there, the language and the culture were taken over by the Russians, late in the tenth century, and the South Slavic elements from the language of Cyril and Methodius are still vital and productive in present-day Russian. Church Slavonic was also the language of the new princedoms and kingdoms which were formed in Croatia and Serbia in the eleventh century and later.
In the ninth century, when Cyril and his, brother created an ~ alphabet for Slavic and made the first translations, the Slavic peoples, spread over a tremendous area from the Baltic to the Aegean, from the Elbe to central Russia, spoke dialects which were so close to each other that there was no difficulty in communication. The dialect of Salonika was perfectly comprehensible to the Mora- vians, who did not hesitate to accept it as the written language. Although basic phonetic changes took place in the next two centuries, fundamentally modifying the spoken dialects in different respects, the force of cultural tradition kept the written language relatively unified. Different centers of learning stylized the lan- guage in their own ways, adding elements of the local dialects. Thus arose different versions or recensions of Church Slavonic, such as the Bohemian, the Macedonian, the Bulgarian, the’ Serbian, the Russian, and the Croatian recension. The oldest manuscripts date from the tenth century, and in spite of the fact that their language is not completely uniform, it is difficult to localize them exactly. Sometimes there is even doubt as to whether a manuscript is Russian or South Slavic. Later on, the local versions became more distinct, but many a manuscript from the thirteenth to fifteenth century is difficult to identify closely. The literary language remained essentially one, particularly for the Serbs, Bulgarians, and Mace- donians, despite the different centers of learning with their different styles of writing and spelling. Even the strong political rivalries did not prevent a lively cultural exchange.
One specifically Macedonian trait is found even in the oldest of the Old Church Slavonic texts from the Balkans, the Codex Zographensis and the Codex Marianus. The reduced vowel ‘4, ~ in the so-called ’strong position’ is often replaced by © as for instance, in co#* (probably pronounced son) for an older chin. A closely related trait which is characteristic of Macedonian and the neighboring Bulgarian dialects, but not of Serbian or Eastern Bulgarian, is the replacement of ’strong b’ by e, aS in TeMHoO OF TemhHo (probably pronounced temno), found in ‘the oldest manu- -
2
scripts beside the older form Taasuo. There are other special Mace- donian. features occuring in such manuscripts as the Bologne Psalter
Although Macedonia had one of the most important Slavic cultural centers in the Balkans during the tenth to thirteenth centuries, at Ohrid, political affairs did not allow the development of a special Macedonian literature. Except for a brief period under Samuil at the end of the ninth century, Macedonia never had its own government. It was first part of various. Bulgarian-ruled states, then came under the Serbs. Until the end of the fifteenth century, the Slavic culture was maintained fairly intact, and Church Slavonic was the written language, sometimes in a more Bulgarian type of recension, sometimes in a more Serbian type.
With the Turkish “conquest, Slavic culture in the Balkans almost died out. From the early sixteenth century until the eighteenth, literary activity was restricted to copying the books necessary for church services, and even this activity was limited. From this period, only a few Macedonian and Buigarian manu- scripts have survived the repeated wars, fires, earthquakes, and other disasters. ;
As the Turkish rule weakened, the Balkan Slavs began again to revive their culture. At the end of: the seventeenth, and even more in the eighteenth century, books of sermons began to appear in a language which mixed in many elements of the local spoken dialects with the now archaic church language. The church language itself underwent changes with the introduction of Russian texts. All Orthodox Slavs came to use the Russian recension of Church Slavonic as the language of the liturgy.
° The first printed book containing Macedonian texts is not a sign of the strength of Slavic culture, but of its*weakness. It is the “four-language’ conversational manual by a certain Daniil of Moscopole, in southeastern Albania, first published in 1793, as has recently been éstablished by Prof. H. Polenakovik of Skopje. This Cetirijaziénik was intended to teach Albanians, Arumanians (Vlachs) and’ Macedonians how to express themselves in Greek, then the
eee Ue sas Tae an Vee pers 244s aah NAAT UM,. aaa
language of the dominant cleric and merchant class in the Balkan provinces of Turkey. The Macedonian texts were written for Daniil by the priest Stefan, of Ohrid, and are in the Ohrid dialect. — During the nineteenth century, Bulgarians and Macedonians intensified their efforts to educate their children, to achieve the independence of their church, ‘and to strive toward political freedom. Two attitudes toward language developed among Mace-. donians; some wanted to write just as they spoke, while others believed. that a compromise with: the dialects of the Bulgarians
3
could bring about a unified literary language. There was still another factor, however; the effort of the Serbs to introduce Serbian books into the Macedonian schools. The Macedonians were thus struggling against the Turks and the Greeks for religious and political freedom, and with these plus the Bulgarians and the Serbs for cultural independence. It was an unequal struggle, and as a compromise many preferred to join forces with the Bulgarians against the major enemy, the Greek-Turkish domination. Thus many Macedonians accepted the Bulgarian literary language, and after the establishment of the hegemony of the Bulgarian church in Macedonia in 1871, the schools became almost exclusively
* news
Bulgarian,
This was only a temporary solution, however, for although many Macedonian elements had been accepted into the Bulgarian literary language, many Macedonians still felt that their own tongue was different enough to warrant a difference in writing. They were still at a great disadvantage, for while Bulgaria had achieved a measure of independence, Macedonia remained only a backwar province of the Turkish Empire. Having no press of their own, the Macedonians attempted to express their ideas in the Bulgarian press, but they met with opposition at every step. A booklet written in Macedonian and advocating both Macedonian political indepen- dence and a Macedonian literary language: was destroyed by Bulgarian officials in a Sofia printing shop in 1903, and this incident does not seem to have been isolated. Most such works, however, never even reached the printer’s shop.
Macedonian separatism did not die, however, but was even intensified because of the unsatisfactory solutions offered after the Balkan Wars and the First World War. Historical Macedonia was divided into three parts, parcelled out to Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. In Greece in the nineteenth century the Slavic population reached the outskirts of Salonika. From the middle of the century, thanks to the dominance of the Greek church, and the Greek merchants, the process of hellenization proceeded steadily, working out from the towns. Still, in 1912 there was a large Slavic population in Greek Macedonia, particularly in the border areas. After the award of these regions to Greece, many. Slavs emigrated to Pirin Mace- donia or other parts of Bulgaria. Even more changes took place in the ethnic composition of Aegean Macedonia after 1918, for many Anatolian Greeks were settled there. Bulgarian schools were supended, and those Macedonians who did not emigrate were subjected to intensive hellénization. The Bulgarian-Serbian frontier was changed many times between 1912 and 1918, but the local population, particularly in the west, considered both Serbs and Bulgarians as foreign ‘oppressors, and continued to demand the
4
During the nineteenth century a number of collections of
Macedonian folksongs and folktales had b geen published. Under the
label of folklore, it was possible to print them according to the
Macedonian pronunciation, although the language was usually proclaimed to be a Bulgarian dialect. "These folk materials had served as an Tnepimenen to a few educated Macedonians who tried to nite original poetry in the nineteenth century, and in the 1920’s and ’30’s they again became a powerful influence to stimulate the growing feeling of nationalism, among the young Macedonians in Yugoslavia. In the late 30’s the poets Kosta Racin, Venko Markovski and Kole Nedelkoski published original poems in Macedonian. Racin’s volume, which appeared in Zagreb, was considered by the critics as a manifestation of regional eat in a South Serbian dialect, 1 while the other books, published i 1 Sofia, were viewed as Western Bulgarian works. In fact, naneeen these poems served to fire the imaginations of many more young people, who found their own native Macedonian language in them.
In 1941, western Macedonia was taken from, Yugoslavia and annexed by Bulgaria, The population did not find that the change brought any improvement in their position, and they believed that ene had simply exchanged one foreign official language for another. As the resistance movement grew, it became clear' that one of the slogans must be cultural freedom for Macedonia. During the struggle against the occupying forces, Macedonian was regularly used in news bulletins, eee and the songs, poems, and stories written for and by the soldiers.
With victory and the final expulsion of the Germans in 1944, the Coane of Macedonia was proclaimed, and the official language was declared to be Macedonian,
Macedonian dialects are not, of course, uniform. They shade into the neighboring Serbian dialects to the north and Bulgarian to the east. There is a relatively homogeneous group of dialects to the west of the Vardar river, in the area roughly defined by the quadrangle Prilep—Bitola—Kitevo—Veles, and, since this is also the most populous area of Macedonia, these dialects were taken
as the basis of the literary language.
A commission established in 1944 defined more specifically which features were to be incorporated into the written language, and since that time the norms have been worked out in more detail. With the publication of the little handbook on spelling, Maxedoucxu npasonuc (Macedonian Orthography) in the spring of 1951, the new language can be said to have come of age. In that short period of
9
time it had achieved a degree of homogeneity comparable to that of the other Balkan languages.
Naturally the spoken language of a population which was overwhelmingly peasant and agricultural did not contain the terminology to deal with the complex civilization and culture of a modern state. It was necessary to-find or create all the terms
Laem wrlitine nhilndnnnher Kean ture lanAerqunad tank we Al Acs Wesel el 101 PUALLLeS, PpuLdsopny, ILUGTALUrL &y aavancea LOULIIUIUE Y > alu ° GAalL
the other fields. At first, the tendency was to borrow outright
from Russian, Bulgarian and Serbian. Since the people who had any education at all had heen trained in Serho-Croatian or Bulga-
rian schools, the influence of those two languages has been parti- cularly strong. At present, the tendency'is rather to replace the borrowed words with terms made up of native elements, or words which have been found to exist in local dialects. For instance, for event’ many used the Bulgarian word co6Outne, while others preferred the Serbian zorabaj. But in the folksongs there is the word nactau, with the same meaning. This word was introduced, and immediately was accepted, and the two competing loan-words have been discard- ded. Older categories‘have been extended to encompass new usages. Normally, a verkal substantive can have no plural. But even before 1940 the word mpaiatize ’a questioning, a process of questioning’. came to mean simply ’question’, and it developed a plural npamata *questions’. Many other verbal substantives followed suit. Termino- logy in. many fields is still not settled, and the discussions about new words and usages are lively and productive.
As has been stated, Macedonian is very closely related to both Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian. The relationship with Bulgarian is doubtless closer. Macedonian and Bulgarian together form a special group which I have calied Eastern Baikan Slavic. Beside the very old feature mentioned above (maintenance of a difference between the reflexes of the ,,jers’”), there are many traits in common. Chief among ther are the loss of declension, the use of prefixes rather than suffixes to form the comparative and superlative of adjectives and adverbs (panHo ‘early’, nopanHo ’earlier’ — cf. SC parnyje), the
Tones af tha infinitiva and tha develooment af a nactnnacitivs definite LUO VL LLL ALLLALILALAV Ny QAiitkt UbllAw UNV tus 2A VL A PY Ye pyueitive VALU LLL Nee
article. All of these are shared to some extent by the southeastern Serbian dialects, but it is fairly clear that this is a recent develop- ment. It may be noted, however, that there is no sharp, ‘distinct line which marks off Serbian from Bulgarian, any more than there is an absolute frontier between Macedonian and’ Serbian or Bulga- rian, or, on the other hand, between Croatian and Slovene. Macedonian has very few phonemic, morphological or syntac- tical traits which are unique, but the peculiar combination of traits marks off a system which is different from those of all the other Slavic languages. The Macedonian accent is unique, and it is the
A Vv
outstanding feature which sets Macedonian apart from Bulgarian. The stress is bound tothe antepenult, while Bulgarian stress is free. Macedonian does not have the musical intonations which are characteristic of the western Balkan Slavic languages, Serbo- Croatian and Slovene.* In morphology, only Macedonian has the suffix -am for the first person Singular of all verbs. The develop- ment of a verbal compound with the verb ’to have’ as auxiliary, coupled with the neuter form of the past (historically speaking, passive) participle (umam Bupero "I have seen’, cf. §25.4) is peculiarly Macedonian, although the. germs of such a development can be found in other Slavic languages, particularly Czech and Polish. Only Macedonian has the obligatory use of the short direct and indirect object pronouns together with a definite direct or indirect object (My ja mangos na Wierpera Kuurata ’I gave Peter the book’, cf. §2.311), although some usages in Bulgarian are similar. The triple postpositive definite article is shared by Macedonian only with the ‘closely related Serbian and Bulgarian dialects just to the north (xKeHaTa, 2eHapa, weHana