text:
Talk:Old Church Slavonic

Recensions
I see this has been discussed before although the article hasn't been edited. Modern linguistic terminology refers to Bulgarian, Macedonian and Moravian recensions. It seems as though a user has mistakenly "described" these recensions as Western and Eastern Bulgarian while specialists use "Bulgarian", "Macedonian" and "Moravian" to differentiate them. Please correct me if I'm mistaken regarding Wikipedia's policy for specialist terminology. --124.169.35.72 (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the biggest part of "specialists" regard them as they were prior to your edit. You're correct in one, though - this has been discussed and this is the version we got to. --Lav e o l  T 21:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. From what I can see (and believe me, I've been digging all over the place), this article is the only one to every use those terms. --124.169.205.21 (talk) 10:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

!!! I don't know how to start a new article, but... I believe the items in this article should be set in a cyrillic face. I can't stand the romanization. It's sacriligious? How do you spell that? Thanks.

If there are people and specialists referring to Eastern Bulgarian and Western Bulgarian recessions these should be in the wiki article! You cannot censor the term "Western Bulgarian Recension" simply because you do not like it. These were two schools in the Bulgarian state - both were Bulgarian recensions - and the article should note that these can be referred to as eastern Bulgarian and Western Bulgarian. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TERM "Western Bulgarian Recension"!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.157 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Recensions, again...

 * This article is a big LOL - all the original texts, even the heretical ones in this language were written in Bulgaria, all the scholars were Bulgarian, even FYROM was in Bulgaria in that time - until 14th century all the so called Slavic states - Serbia, Russia, only copy original Bulgarian texts, FYROM appeared in 1945. What give you the right to call this language slavonic or fyromnian, since the so called slavs did not produce a single piece of original literature in it?  It became a living language only because of the efforts of Bulgarian Emperors and Bulgarian scholars, all the literature is studied nowadays in Bulgaria in its original and we call the language Old Bulgarian, because our ancestors made it possible.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.123.205 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Sometime around the end of 2005, an anonymous editor added the term "Macedonian recension" which VMORO swiftly removed.
 * User:Crculver rightly advised VMORO that the terms "Macedonian recension" and "Old Macedonian" are valid and "quite common in contemporary English handbooks" to which VMORO erroneously replied was "extremely rarely found name which on top of it is used for the Ancient Macedonian language", instead insisting on the terms "West Bulgarian" and "East Bulgarian". Crculver reverts again and, understandably frustrated, says "Do you even own the English handbooks (Schmalstieg, Nandris, Lunt, etc.)?".
 * User:Kroum removes "Old Macedonian", Crculver reverts ("The term "Old Macedonian" is widely used in English handbooks, such as Schmalstieg's and Nandris'").
 * Over the next few years, there are reverts here and there. Several discussions are start on the talk page:
 * Removed "macedonian" from the recensions
 * Nomenclature
 * Recensions
 * Recensions 2

The four sources given for "Macedonian recension" attest for its use in Western academic literature and even distinguish it from the Bulgarian. This is not the case for those sources given for "Western/Eastern [sic] Bulgarian":

 * The first source states: Codex Marianus is an Old Church Slavonic text of West Bulgarian provenience.

I can give several arguments for why this doesn't apply, but it just doesn't attest the use of the term "Western [sic] Bulgarian recension". The phrase "of West Bulgarian provenience" in this context especially isn't a linguistic one by any stretch.

 * The second source states: Der Text [Codex Zographensis] stammt aus dem westbulgarischen (makedonischen) Raum und wurde Ende des 10.Jh. oder Anfang des 11. Jh. geschrieben. Am archaischsten ist er hinsichtlich seiner Phonetik, während die Morphologie neuere Züge aufweist.

This text isn't even in English: it cannot attest the use of scholarly English full stop.

The terms West(ern) Bulgarian and East(ern) Bulgarian recension can only be found in this Wikipedia and its mirrors.

It is my opinion that several users (from both sides of the revert war) have made this an issue of ethnicity. I can't believe that this has been kept for 4 years. --124.169.205.21 (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that users like you have turned this into an ethnicity issue (and continue doing so). The fact is that the political entity within which the language was developed was the First Bulgarian Empire. I know it's hard to believe, given a certain education background, but it's a fact. Hence, the name. It's been heavily discussed in the past as well. Think of them as the two aspects of identifying the language. Geographically the Western recension was developed in Macedonia (the region) and the political entity that supported it and in whose educational/spiritual centres that developed it, was the First Bulgarian Empire. Thank you. --Lav e o l  T 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I do not dispute the political entity in which the language developed, but rather the English scholarly terminology used in literature which isn't represented in this article. "Macedonian" in this context is unrelated to the political entity the Republic of Macedonia. This does not mean we as editors need to accommodate for any misinterpretations a reader may or may not have which can be resolved with a simple opening sentence stating such ("the names of the recensions in contemporary literature as based on..."). Why do you insist on using a particular terminology invented solely for this article? That's is why I suspect that you believe (whether consciously or unconsciously) this to be a matter of something other than linguistics. I'm sorry if I've offended you, perhaps I've misunderstood something. --124.169.205.21 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that Macedonian recension is widely used. That language is quite different than the language used in BG at that time and that's why it is mentioned separately in the linguistics. I heard this term West BG recension here on Wiki, off course after the BG POV presented here. In Macedonia and in the Slavistics the Macedonian recension uses different language that the Bulgarian and that's why it is separated. Even the earliest Macedonian writer Partenija Zografski explains this in his book and states the differences between the Macedonian and Bulgarian language. I support the use of Macedonian recension only.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As Laveol pointed out, we have to make sure that readers do not misunderstand what 'recension' refers to. It is very important that we avoid an association between the Bulgarian language of the Ohrid Literary School and the modern Macedonian language. The way MacedonianBoy and other contributors who have received similar education view the matter, it is very easy to mislead the reader. It is also quite clear that some contributor's actually aim to make the section easy to misunderstand and to purposefully associate the modern Macedonian language with the Bulgarian language of the Ohrid Literary School by not naming it 'Bulgarian' altogether.
 * The language of the Ohrid Literary School was simply put the language spoken in that area of the Bulgarian Empire, i.e. a western Bulgarian vernacular. The Ohrid recension displays some of the features of that vernacular, which means that the 'Western Bulgarian' nomenclature is perfectly logical. An argument against naming the recension 'Macedonian' might be that the region did not bear that name at the time: the medieval theme of Macedonia was actually in modern Thrace. What's more, Ohrid was not the only centre of Western Bulgarian literature: there was also the early centre Devoll, which is in modern Albania, not in the region of Macedonia. Of course, the name 'Macedonian recension' is a valid name used by scholars, so I'm not against retaining it in parentheses, as wrong as it may be.
 * I am opposed to any attempts to remove 'Western Bulgarian' as the name of the recension, however. Even reversing the wording ("Macedonian (Western Bulgarian) recension") will make it look like a modern political argument, which it is not. The way we currently have the names, it is as clear as possible to the reader that the recension is unrelated to the modern Macedonian language, but rather refers to the modern geographic region where it was used, and which fell in the western part of the Bulgarian Empire.
 * In short, the name 'Western Bulgarian recension' is both more accurate and 'safer', and the name 'Macedonian recension' is ambiguous and extremely misleading (see MacedonianBoy's post above as a good example of an attempt to use it to deceive the readers). Todor→Bozhinov 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * As Laveol pointed out, we have to make sure that readers do not misunderstand what 'recension' refers to. It is very important that we avoid an association between the Bulgarian language of the Ohrid Literary School and the modern Macedonian language.

So why were terms such as "West Bulgarian recension" and "East Bulgarian recension" invented in place of contemporary terminology? Why can't this possible misunderstanding be resolved by a sentence explaining the context in which these terms are used in contemporary linguistic studies? The problem remains that the recensions are only named "West/East Bulgarian" in this article and nowhere in academic literature!

 * The way MacedonianBoy and other contributors who have received similar education view the matter, it is very easy to mislead the reader.

This has nothing to do with what is taught in Bulgarian schools VS schools in the R. Macedonia. This is a subject which has been studied in Western academia for a quite a while now.

 * The language of the Ohrid Literary School was simply put the language spoken in that area of the Bulgarian Empire, i.e. a western Bulgarian vernacular. The Ohrid recension displays some of the features of that vernacular, which means that the 'Western Bulgarian' nomenclature is perfectly logical.

Nobody is disputing that, but it is illogical to use the 'Western Bulgarian' nomenclature because it was invented for this article. Secondly, it is confusing because it is a term used in modern linguistics to distinguish the dialect groups within the modern Bulgaria. I can provide several sources to support this, but you can just read other articles here where they are used in that very same context.

 * An argument against naming the recension 'Macedonian' might be that the region did not bear that name at the time: the medieval theme of Macedonia was actually in modern Thrace.

You're getting way off-topic. The problem is not whether or not these terms correspond to anything back then, but the terminology used in modern English-language literature. By that logic, Russian language should be renamed Great Russian language because that's older nomenclature. '''But we are talking about contemporary terminology developed and considered standard in Western academia. Not politics. Not ethnicity.'''

 * I am opposed to any attempts to remove 'Western Bulgarian' as the name of the recension, however. Even reversing the wording ("Macedonian (Western Bulgarian) recension") will make it look like a modern political argument, which it is not.

For the umpteenth time: this is not an issue of politics or anything other than current terminology! If you are so worried the use of "Macedonian recension" will somehow detract from your national myth, perhaps you can add a sentence (or paragraph, knock yourself out) explaining the context in which the term in used.

 * The way we currently have the names, it is as clear as possible to the reader that the recension is unrelated to the modern Macedonian language, but rather refers to the modern geographic region where it was used, and which fell in the western part of the Bulgarian Empire.

So why can't we state that in the article instead of inventing West-this and East-that? --124.169.205.21 (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, I don't why I'm bothering. The two sources for "Western [sic] Bulgarian" don't support the use of that term, nor are there any sources for "Eastern [sic] Bulgarian". --124.169.205.21 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

 * TO END THE DISPUTE
 * I would like to remind you all that :
 * The Bulgarians were a small tribe that was assimilated in the large population of Slaves (Serbs or whoever they were – this is not known), and by remaining Thracian tribes. They all finally adopted slave language, but lost declinations – so they adopted it as foreign language.
 * The state has been Bulgaria for over 10 centuries and its name was based on the initial Bulgarian dynasty, but the adopted language was a variant of the slave language, not Bulgarian language.
 * The Thessaloniki and that part of the Balkans was Macedonia since 4-6 centuries BC. The people who lived there were geographically Macedonians and traditionally Macedonians and belonged to the inheritance of the Macedonian empire of the Alexander III. At the ancient times all what counted was officially accepted citizenship (as this should be also today!) and ethnic belonging was of little importance. Initially then, after Alexander III, Macedonian empire kingdoms were replaced by Roman empire which become Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). During all that time Macedonian provinces remained as the provinces or themata. This stayed like this even after the Slave invasion in 5th and 6 century, as well as during Ottoman empyre. Macedonia always existed. Who are the people who are there, is the other, ethnic and I think question wity strong racist conotations.
 * The population around Thessaloniki was by the 6th – 7th century obviously predominantly Slave and certainly NOT Bulgarian. So the language was Slave. This was the language of the Old Slavonic, which remained in these Slave regions (including Russia and other Slave countries) as Church Slavonic. There is no old Bulgarian as such. The name of the Eastern version is nevertheless linked to the Bulgarian kingdom from these times (it was even recognized as empire for a short period of time), and the name is technical and has NOTHING to do with the ethnic structures of the populations. What may be "Bulgarian" in the modern Bulgarian language, is probably the absance of the declinations and other similar impurities. The "Old Bulgarian" is in fact old Slave, or probably it was the most close to the Old Macedonian (of Cyril and Methodius, and not of the ancient Macedonia, which was the language of Phillip II of Macedonia).

 * The claims that now Macedonians are Bulgarians is equally absurd as the claim that modern Macedonian language is the same as the Ancient Macedonia of Fillip II and Alexander III. But the populations of Bulgaria and Macedonia ARE a mixture of predominantly Slave and populations of the ancient Thrace and Macedonia.

 * Therefore for the time being, technical as they are, the linguistic definitions of the languages in question, Old Church Slavonic and its various “recensions”, are correct. To use the imperfections of these definitions in order to advance local political aspirations, is polluting the site and should be avoided.HERODOTUS1A.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.7.165 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's quite a disgrace that an IP defended Wikipedian rules, while longtime registered users, who should have known better, defended nationalist POV. All the learned considerations that all the Bulgarian users here have expressed are completely irrelevant, because Wikipedia is supposed to reflect English academic usage, full stop. Wikipedia may not invent and use new terms, this is the job of scholars, and if you do it here, it's Original Research. Do you people seriously think you as Wikipedians are qualified to correct academia's allegedly "mistaken" and "misleading" terminology? This is completely opposite to everything that Wikipedia is about. And you have the nerve to be sarcastic about "certain education backgrounds", when your behaviour is the living example of the fact that once someone has passed a Bulgarian nationalist education, no amount of foreign language learning and international project experience can change anything. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

f there are people and specialists referring to Eastern Bulgarian and Western Bulgarian recessions these should be in the wiki article! You cannot censor the term "Western Bulgarian Recension" simply because you do not like it. These were two schools in the Bulgarian state - both were Bulgarian recensions - and the article should note that these can be referred to as eastern Bulgarian and Western Bulgarian. PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE TERM "Western Bulgarian Recension"!!!

The term "Macedonian Language" or "Old Macedonian" did not exist before 1945 and was artificially created by the Yugocommusists to serve political goals. This is a scientific - not political article. Terms like West Bulgarian and East Bulgarian recessions - should be kept; while terms like "Old Macedonian" which is absolutely meaningless from scientific point of view (unless you are referring to the old macedonian language that was used in Alexander the Great's empire) should not be used. Please DELETE the term "old macedonian" throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.157 (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Consonant clusters
Are there any consonant clusters with more than three consonants in Old Church Slavonic? --84.61.151.145 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Macedonian
How does the term "Old Macedonian" apply to Old Church Slavonic? If I am not mistaken, there was no language called Macedonian until the 1940s. Further insight would be much appreciated. Robercie (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * "Old Macedonian" is an alternative name (along with "Old Bulgarian") used in academic literature to refer to the Old Church Slavonic language. It's obviously taken from the name of the region in which the language originally developed. Whether or not you believe a Macedonian nation or language existed pre 1940 is irrelevant and completely unrelated to the term itself. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * If you follow the link, you'll see the sources which attest its use. I'd even go as far as to say "Old Macedonian" dominates over "Old Bulgarian" when discussing alternative names. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Understood and duly noted. I hope you can see how, living in the present, a patron might be able misconstrue the meaning of the term. Also, I did not wish to convey an opinion on the presence of a Macedonian language prior to the 1940s; I simply made a statement in accordance with the best of my knowledge. Robercie (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "Old Macedonian" is not a scientific term but a political term invented and propagated by the Yugocommunists. The only language which might qualify for the term "Old Macedonian" is the language spoken the the empire of Alexander the Great - which I understand is NOT related to the slavic languages discussed here. Please delete the purely political term "Old Macedonian" language from this article which deals with slavic and NOT hellenic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.157 (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling and go to Greek pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Martens (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

West/East Bulgarian
I am removing the above terms from the article because:
 * no references have been given to attest the academic use of "East Bulgarian recension" or "Moesian recension"
 * the two references for "West Bulgarian recension" do not attest its use in academic literature:
 * the first states the Codex Marianus is from Western Bulgaria, the second states the Codex Zographensis is from Western Bulgaria/Macedonia. Also note the second source is in German. --203.166.230.176 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recensions
I don't see why some registered editors feel like the earlier recensions need to be grouped together under a single heading. It also doesn't make much sense to have "Bulgarian recensions: Bulgarian, Macedonian, Moravian" or "Moravian recensions: Moravian, Bulgarian, Macedonian". They are not grouped as such in literature dealing with OCS. --124.150.58.207 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Recension nomenclature, yet again
So, I'm really not sure why this article takes pains to state that the Macedonian recension is so distinct from the modern Macedonian language. The Codex Marianus, for instance, shows some distinctly Macedonian reflexes for the strong yers (occasional though the mistakes are), and while modern literary Macedonian certainly didn't descend from the Ohrid school, there are clear phonological relations. It just doesn't make any sense to take such pains to so heinously misrepresent to readers in the service of what's clearly Bulgarian nationalism. Duke Atreides (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current section name, which already is quite a significant compromise, may be misleading to the average reader as to the connection between OCS and the modern Macedonian language codified in the 1940s. Yes, the work of the Ohrid Literary School certainly reflects the dialectal pecularities of the Bulgarian language used in the western part of the First Bulgarian Empire, which was, of course, not solely limited to the region of Macedonia. (And some of which, of course, are also there in the dialects spoken in the region of Macedonia today.)
 * The paragraph, however, does not seek to explain any phonological similarities between western Bulgarian dialects and that recension. Its goal is to make it clear that the modern Macedonian language did not descend from the Ohrid School, as you pointed out. The names "Macedonia" and "Macedonian" are, I believe, ambiguous enough to warrant that explanation. In other words, the part you're adding is irrelevant to the paragraph and does not improve the article.
 * Also, try not to start with those accusations so early in the discussion, it serves you no good. Implying someone is a nationalist and calling their edits "heinous" will hardly leave you with any opportunity for discussion whatsoever. Todor→Bozhinov 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The name's a significant compromise if you're a balls-deep (slang, not an insult) Bulgarian nationalist who thinks that Macedonia is full of anti-Bulgarian propaganda machines (evident from the earlier parts of this talk-page, and your own user page as well), sure, but if what one wants is to represent English-language scholarly opinion and usage, then it's rather deviant. The Ohrid School reflects peculiarities of the modern Macedonian language, painful as that might be for you to hear. Sorry, but dropping back yers to o is about as non-Bulgarian as you can get. As you would have it, the article would denounce anything that even smells a bit of legitimizing Macedonia. It's sort of a truism to say that the Macedonian language didn't descend from a school of copyists. What the paragraph in the uncompromisingly-hardline-Bulgarian-nationalist instantiation does is give the impression that there is absolutely no link between the Macedonian recension and the modern Macedonian language. I'm sorry, there is, just read Lunt (or probably any English-language sources on the matter) and you might find that out. Just to reiterate, one merely needs to read the talkpage for this article (or check out your own userpage, and see that you are indeed a balls-deep Bulgarian nationalist who thinks that Macedonia is uppity (irony much?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Atreides (talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is over. Todor→Bozhinov 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And just to make it clear, the only attempt at a scholarly argument that you're making above ("yers to o" being non-Bulgarian) is entirely wrong. Todor→Bozhinov 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Except that there's a rather major problem using those to claim that the Ohrid school is now Macedonian because a few non-standard Bulgarian dialects dropped yers to o. Texts from the Ohrid school don't collapse the yers into a single vowel, they preserved distinctions between the yers, dropping strong ь to e and strong ъ to o, systematically, regardless of environment. They also lost some epenthetic ls here and there. Do we find these same features in modern Macedonian? Yes. Do we find them in vowel-system-collapsing Eastern Bulgarian dialects? Not really, no.Duke Atreides (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I find myself wondering: If the section on the Macedonian recension goes on to discuss features reflected in the modern Macedonian language, why does the section take even the slightest pains to tell readers that the recension is so named not because of any relationship to the language spoken by the Macedonian speech community? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke Atreides (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian recension silliness

 * The recension was named so to differentiate it from the (eastern) Bulgarian recension of Preslav and because its literary centre, Ohrid, is located in the modern geographical region of Macedonia

It was not named 'Macedonian' to specifically differentiate it from anything except the other recensions, thus the first part of the above sentence is superfluous. We wouldn't write "the English language was so named to differentiate it from the hundreds of other languages spoken in the world".

By way of the literary center being in Ohrid, Macedonia, we get 'Macedonian recension'.

 * not to imply a direct relation to the modern Macedonian language.

No modern Slavic languages are directly descended from OCS. Besides, it does not imply a 'direct relation to the modern Macedonian language' anyway, but then to say there is no relation is completely wrong.

 * Bulgarian recensions: Eastern Bulgarian recension, Macedonian recension

No one outside of Wikipedia speaks of a category of 'Bulgarian recensions'.

 * Both recensions were actively used by Bulgarian scholars and writers in the First Bulgarian Empire.

Who and what are the 'Bulgarian scholars'? Ethnic Bulgarians? We can't say that they all were with any certainty. Bulgarian as in citizens of Bulgaria? In that case, 'Bulgarian scholars' is stylistically superfluous. The Bulgarian Bulgarians from Bulgaria were Bulgarian Bulgarians from Bulgaria. Bulgaria! --203.206.77.175 (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, none of this will be taken into consideration by anyone because you're all too busy having your little edit wars and POV disputes. --203.206.77.175 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha. Sorry, but the arguments seem quite silly. Bulgarian in this sentence clearly means a subject of the Empire. You could be a Byzantine scholar working in Bulgaria (remember Cyril and Methodius?...oh, sorry, I forgot they were ethnic Macedonians and subjects of their own Macedonian Empire, for which existence all scholars close their eyes). The specification in the sentence you do not like is needed since a lot of people (like you) want the term to actually co-relate to a modern (and by modern I do not mean as "coming from modernity", but something that's actually new - as new as 60 years old) term. This could lead readers to the impression (especially if they read other dubious articles on the matter) that there actually is such a thing. Happy, now? --Lav e o l  T 19:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No modern Slavic languages are directly descended from OCS. Wrong. Bulgarian language is a direct descendant of OCS. That's why OCS is more properly called 'Old Bulgarian'. Thereupon all above arguments go to the waste basket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.18.254 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bulgarian is not a direct descendant of OCS. --124.150.51.98 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, modern Bulgarian indeed IS the direct descendant of this language. - And moreover, following the Macedonian argumentation, you should not talk of "Latin" but of "Old Vaticanian". Besides, there should then be no Old High German but rather "Old High Liechtensteinian". Now if that seems ridiculous, so does "Old Macedonian". Nino, 01:24 CEST, 28th Nov. 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.172.41 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 * With all due respect', perhaps you source that claim. --203.206.2.254 (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * ...spoke the offended proponent of Old Liechtensteinian... Seriously, how can I prove there is no Old Vaticanian?! At times, Yugo-propagandists have marvellous requests... - Nino, 13:33 CEST, 12th April 2011.

Unrelated edits
I would like to inform the uninformed user Jingiby that this article is about the Old Church Slavonic language and its regional language variates, which there is not a small connection with 1940s or the modern languages, except the development of the languages themselves. So I would kindly ask him to stop writing things which are off topic. I added that the language variety started differentiating and shaping into new group of dialects that compromise the Macedonian language, and what did he do? He is writing about 1940s and similar things, unrelated sentences. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care what someone's bringing in the article as much as I care not to find lame expressions/sentences in it. Just go on and read what you wrote. --Lav e o l  T 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had seen the article previously, you would notice that that same sentence has been written by someone else, probably by someone who wants to show something unrelated. I am glad to see that efforts to 'show the truth' are not in the focus. I have removed that sentence, returned the relevant and sources things ans removed the sentence that might be more appropriate for the highly POV and out of reality article Bulgarian dialects.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm and cause you didn't like some POV, you had to go on and add the: extreme opposite, just so we could have another grand edit war. Thanks. --Lav e o l  T 23:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's obviously nonsensical a recension to be named after a country that came into existence much later than the recension. I see what you're trying to imply, but it simply won't do. --L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you really want to edit war. I'll just wait till you calm down and rethink some of it. But, please, stop writing nonsense. --<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 23:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Laveol, I did not call you name nor asked opinion from you. You are vandalizing Wikipedia right now since you are deleting my relevant sources compared with that Bulgarian. I did not start edit war, your friend did. The statement about the dialects will be in the article, since it is sourced and if you do not like that I do not care about it. Also, let it be region Macedonia, but then we do not need about that name Ku... or how was it, but we need the modern country where the city is. Face the reality, Ohrid is in Macedonia, the country. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to see where and who spreads the absurdity here, take a look at this paragraph:

"The Macedonian recension is one of the oldest recensions of Old Church Slavonic and thrived in the period between the 10th and 14th centuries. The recension was named so to differentiate it from the Eastern Bulgarian recension of Preslav and because its literary centre, Ohrid, is located in the modern geographical region of Macedonia, not to imply a direct relation to the modern Macedonian language. Both recensions were actively used by Bulgarian scholars and writers in the First Bulgarian Empire."

Now tell me who wanted to show that in Macedonia is spoken Bulgarian even though Bulgarian appeared much much later? Who started to write POV? I have just corrected the sentence, sourced and gave more details. If you do not have facts, please do not revert my references. BTW, which language expect Macedonian can be spoken in Macedonia and particularly in Ohrid? Isn't this stupid dialogue that we are having since even you know that what I write is true, no matter it is opposite BAN's views.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to stick with you, but I really fail. Where do you see anyone implying that present-day Bulgarian was spoken at the time? It doesn't say so in the abstract you just pasted. I agree that we might drop the whole this language is a direct descendant of that, but it should come from both sides. And what langauage was spoken in a given region at a given time period depends mostly on what political entity owned it at the time. As the case of Macedonia clearly shows this could be Greek, Bulgar, Slavic, Bulgarian, Turkish, Serbian and most presently Macedonian. That's not something easy to spot.--<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 10:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Laveol, if you can read the sentence just beneath this comment you will see who is trying to show something here and who is blaming for things that do not exist. BTW, do yo really need that sentence that Macedonian language was considered as Bulgarian even though it is mentioned everywhere where Jingiby has opportunity to post something? It is just irrelevant for the passage. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: You misunderstood. In the article we are not speaking about the facts which languages were spoken in Macedonia, but which language the dialects make. It is well known that foreign languages were introduced in Macedonia, starting from Bulgarian and ending with Turkish.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Macedonian Boy, stop POV-ing this article, please. Jingby (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy, the only way to win an argument is with facts and logic (just a fraction of either one will suffice when dealing with Jingby or Laveol). Find an authoritative book on OCS in English and you'll clearly see how these recensions are categorized and why they are named as such (you won't see 'West Bulgarian' or 'East Bulgarian'). We'll all then see that the very definition of OCS is based on its manuscripts and none of these POVs will ever be brought back into the article (yeah, right...) --124.150.52.156 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Definition of recension
"The tenth and eleventh centuries witnessed far-reaching changes in the several Slavic macrodialects. Reflections of the changes in the spoken languages appear in the spelling and the grammatical forms in the manuscripts and enable us to identify them as Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian, or Rusian (sic) (early East Slavic). As a convenient (but arbitrary) date, it is generally reckoned that non-East Slavic manuscripts written (or believed to have been written) before 1100 are Old Church Slavonic, as opposed to the Macedonian-Church Slavonic, Bulgarian-Church Slavonic, or Serbian-Church Slavonic written after that time. (These later forms of Church Slavonic are also known as the Serbian, Russian, etc. recensions of Church Slavonic. There is also a Croatian recension, attested in glagolitic mss (sic) throughout the Middle Ages and still used in some Croatian parishes. There is evidence for a Bohemian or "Moravian" recension, although only isolated fragments from this area have survived.)"

— Lunt, Horace G. Old Church Slavonic grammar. Walter de Gruyter (2001). p.4 --203.206.2.254 (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Amendments

 * Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic (abbreviated as OCS), also known as Old Bulgarian or Old Macedonian

Undue weight is given to the terms 'Old Bulgarian' and 'Old Macedonian'. It would be better to have "(see other names below)". A third insignificant name in this category is 'Old Slovenian' (see   ). The last source states, "(in this context, the more or less obsolete "Old Slovenian" and "Old Bulgarian" can be disregarded.) The relationship of the terms Church Slavic and Old Church Slavic is unambiguous: the former is the broader of the two, with Old Church Slavic representing its earliest phase. However, occasionally Church Slavic is contrasted with Old Church Slavic, and then the former is used to designate the modified or locally further colored recensions of Old Church Slavic".

 * in the region of Macedonia (Note: during the time of the Byzantine Empire the Theme of Macedonia (administrative unit) was elsewhere - namely in the lands of South-Central/Eastern Bulgaria of today and parts of Turkey).

Why is the is note necessary?

 * Eastern Bulgarian recension

Unattested outside of Wikipedia. This is the 'Bulgarian recension'.

 * A number of prominent Bulgarian writers and scholars worked at the school

It already states the Preslav Literary School was within the Bulgarian Empire. Why is every noun prepended with the adjective 'Bulgarian' when referring to people? That is just redundant and poor style.

 * The recension is named so by modern scientists because its literary centre, Ohrid, is located in what today is referred to as the geographical region of Macedonia,

All of the recensions are named after the regions they developed in. This needs to be mentioned under "Basis and local influences".

 * At that period, administratively Ohrid was in the province of Kutmichevitsa in the First Bulgarian Empire until 1018.

Relevance?

 * Even though nowadays the Macedonian dialects make the Macedonian language itself,[18][19] most sources before the Second World War referred to them as a Bulgarian dialects.[20][21][22][23][24][25]

Again, what relevance does this have in the Old Church Slavonic article?

 * Nomenclature

We need to add 'Old Slovenian'.

Because some users have made this an issue of ethnicity-based POV, I'll wait for a response before making any amendments so as to avoid any possible disruptions (vandalism, edit wars, etc.). --203.206.2.254 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

what are all these recensions anyway?
How about a definition of recension? (That article doesn't really help much.) —Tamfang (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a recension something like a standardized dialect? —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Or a version of the Bible? —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A recension is a variety which uses elements of the local vernacular, differentiating it from the earliest OCS manuscripts and other recensions. --58.7.136.237 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Australian IP-s, expert on OCS
Please, Australian expert on OCS, do not change sourced info, before discussing it here. Jingby (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Can you please provide an excerpt from that source which you believe to attest the use of 'East/West Bulgarian recension' and the classification of the Macedonian recension within a Bulgarian group. --124.148.228.142 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The entry of the Slavs into Christendom: an introduction to the medieval history of the Slavs, A. P. Vlasto, CUP Archive, 1970, ISBN 0521074592, pp. 174-177.
 * Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, Blackwell textbooks in linguistics, Benjamin W. Fortson, John Wiley and Sons, 2009, ISBN 1405188960, p. 431.
 * The Slavic languages, Roland Sussex, Paul V. Cubberley, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0521223156, pp. 64-65. Jingby (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Can you please provide an excerpt from that source which you believe to attest the use of 'East/West Bulgarian recension' and the classification of the Macedonian recension within a Bulgarian group. I can follow a hyperlink myself, but I want to know which sentence/paragraph/footnote/whatever you think attests this. I've read through them all and none are suitable for your claim, so please provide an excerpt. --124.148.228.142 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Read them, as much as necessery. And do not revert the article again. Full stop. Jingby (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Jingby, I don't see what it is you're referring to. So, I politely asked you to provide an excerpt, and given that it's in an electronic format, I don't see why it would be so much trouble. I think you may have misunderstood those texts. As far as I can see, there is nothing there which states (even in a roundabout, misread way) that the manuscripts of Preslav belong to an 'East Bulgarian recension'. The names of the recensions are fairly precise and technical, and their classification is uniform across expert English-language works on OCS. Secondly, you have no right to tell me not to add sourced information: Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I will continue to contribute according to the policies and guidelines. Full stop. :) --124.150.62.117 (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I'll make it easy for you:

 * East Bulgaria with the two capitals...

 * If this is the sentence you refer to, then it's a 'cause vs. effect' argument. It makes mention of linguistic features originating from the East of then-Bulgaria which influenced the language variety known by scholars as the 'Bulgarian recension'. We could just as easily interpret ...original Macedonian character to mean the Macedonian recension is the oldest—which, in some ways, is more accurate. Furthermore, this source may not be suitable as it presents a fringe view (...modern Macedonian [was] born of the overlay of Serbian dialect on Bulgarian); however, I would certainly not argue for its exclusion based on that point alone.

 * From the point of view of Bulgaria, Macedonian is simply a west Bulgarian dialect.

 * Here the author is talking about modern languages and their political status. Lastly, I don't see anything in the third source which could even remotely be connected to your claim. --124.150.62.117 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The third source counts the recensions of OCS. They are five and no Macedonian or (Eastern) Bulgarian recesion are distiguished, but only one - Bulgarian. Jingby (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

 * No, it counts the recensions of Church Slavonic (it states in plain English these constitute Church Slavonic). There's initial 'Macedonian' OCS (Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus), recensions of it and then further recensions which are classified as Church Slavonic. Instead of doing a search for "Old Church Slavonic + Bulgarian", try reading a whole chapter. --124.150.62.117 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Of cource, it counts the recensions of OCS. Jingby (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Recension
Can someone please tell me why there's no mention of the West Bulgarian or East Macedonian recension? And where on Earth are my South and North Bulgarian recension, huh?! ;) --124.148.245.171 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in South Australian language, in Perth! Jingby (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Perth is in Western Australia. Here's an idea: why not go see if you can get Ukrainian language renamed to 'Southwestern Russian language'. I'm curious to see if your bullshit would work in that article. --124.148.245.171 (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
A 'recension' is a language variety represented by its texts. None of the sources are relevant (they only speak of political climates in the west and east of the Bulgarian kingdom). The reference for "Macedo-Bulgarian" uses it as an alternative name for OCS, not talking about any manuscripts. --124.148.247.197 (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, do not vandalise the article. Do not delete referenced text. Do not push your POV here. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I am removing manipulated references. Best you read what it says in those books before blindly reverting. --124.168.244.58 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Australian IP, do not vandalize the article again. Do not delete referenced text. Do not push your nationalistic POV here. Discuss before making such huge changes and deleting sourced material. Achieve Consensus at first and then edit. Thank you! Jingiby (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that someone has pushed a distinctly modern and post-19th century nationalist point of view in the section "First Bulgarian Empire." A few sentences there are at best misleading. The sentence "The existence of two major literary centres in the Empire led in the period from the 9th to the 11th centuries to the emergence of two recensions (otherwise called "redactions"), termed "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" respectively" cites Vlasto and Fortson. The content of that statement is false. Both sources categorically do not say that there are "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" recensions. Vlasto distinguishes between “East Bulgaria” and “Macedonia” but makes no suggestions that only one of the two is Bulgarian while the other is Macedonian. In fact, a footnote on that same page 174 (Vlasto) reads, “The modern Macedonian language (lately elevated to separate written and literary status) is a later development, born of the overlay of Serbian dialect on Bulgarian.” For Fortson, the language of Constantine and Methodius is just as much “Old Bulgarian” and it is “Old Macedonian”, noting that Macedonian could only be dated back to the nineteenth century. The very next sentence reads, "Some researchers do not differentiate between manuscripts of the two recensions, preferring to group them together in a "Macedo-Bulgarian." False again. Here Bimbaum and Puhvel discuss not recensions of Old Church Slavonic, but the development of the South Slavic languages from a linguistic standpoint. It’s misleading to suggest that this is a term the authors use for the recension of Old Church Slavonic in the First Bulgarian Empire. Using the names "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" to describe what the Preslav and the Ohrid schools were doing is an anachronism because the modern Bulgarian identity was barely developing at that time and the Macedonian would have to wait more than a thousand years till the late 19th/early 20th century. We cannot misleadingly extend them extrapolating further back in time as though they mean the same as they mean today. For this reason, I propose to rename the section "Bulgarian recension" to "Preslav recension" and the section "Macedonian recension" to "Ohrid recension." I don't want to edit before I see some discussion and agreement. Please comment, Fut.Perf., Jingiby, Vorziblix, CodeCat Pavel Stankov (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Per prof. Oliver M. Traxel's article 'Languages', in Handbook of Medieval Culture: Fundamental Aspects and Conditions of the European Middle Ages Vol. 2, ed. A. Classen (Berlin and New York, 2015), pp. 794-835 (available here, check pp. 820-821:) Old Bulgarian variant of Old Church Slavic had two branches Eastern developed in Preslav and Western developed in Ohrid, the later called also Old Macedonian. Jingiby (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The deletion of the term Bulgarian in this article and its substitution with the term Macedonian as ultra-nationalistic POV
Throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th century, there was no clear formulation or expression of a distinct Macedonian ethnicity. The Slavic speaking majority in the Region of Macedonia had been referred to (both, by themselves and outsiders) as Bulgarians, and that is how they were predominantly seen since 10th,  up until the early 20th century. It is generally acknowledged that the ethnic Macedonian identity emerged in the late 19th century or even later. However, the existence of a discernible Macedonian national consciousness prior to the 1940s is disputed. Anti-Serban and pro-Bulgarian feelings among the local population at this period prevailed. According to some researchers, by the end of the war a tangible Macedonian national consciousness did not exist and bulgarophile sentiments still dominated in the area, but others consider that it hardly existed. After 1944 Communist Bulgaria and Communist Yugoslavia began a policy of making Macedonia into the connecting link for the establishment of new Balkan Federative Republic and stimulating here a development of distinct Slav Macedonian consciousness. With the proclamation of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia as part of the Yugoslav federation, the new authorities also started measures that would overcome the pro-Bulgarian feeling among parts of its population. In 1969 also the first History of the Macedonian nation was published. The past was systematycally falsified to conceal the truth, that most of the well-known Macedonians had felt themselves to be Bulgarians and generations of students were tought the pseudo-history of the Macedonian nation.

oversourcing
Old Church Slavonic or Old Church Slavic (OCS).(словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first literary Slavic language, first developed by the 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius who were credited with standardizing the language and using it for translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianization of the Slavic peoples.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]

Ten sources for a well documented fact? Let's cut it down to one or two? 23:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Infinitives
Out of curiosity, has Old Church Slavonic had an infinitive form? -- Zz (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight
Undue weight is given to the terms 'East Bulgarian' and 'West Bulgarian'. The overwhelming majority of scholars use the terms 'Bulgarian' and 'Macedonian'. Some users seem to think these terms are ethnic designations (they are not, they are used for convenience) and have consequently attempted to suppress their use in this article. --123.3.240.230 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I am also replacing 'dialect' with 'recension'. In OCS textual criticism, the usual term is 'recension'. It goes beyond the definition of dialect because this term also encompasses script and other minor features. --123.3.240.230 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

John Shea is neither neutral, nor academic source. He is pro-Macedonian abd biased author. Look at note # 26. The Routledge History of the Holocaust, Jonathan C. Friedman, Taylor & Francis, 2011, ISBN 0415779561, p. 273.  Jingiby (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Despite standard Macedonian was separated from Bulgarian diasystem through ausbau-move in 1945".
 * Are you fucking retarded, man ?! What relevance does that have at all?! --123.3.229.10 (talk) 10:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Editing via a floating IP does not give you the right to insult editors. You are going to ANI for this. --<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You have an imperfect understanding of what Ausbausprache means. Macedonian did not diverge from any preexisting Bulgarian-Macedonian language, nor was it separated from anything of that sort. Just look at the wording from the source: "delimited". The standardization of one of the Macedonian dialects for use as a standard language *had the effect of* delimiting itself from Bulgarian and every other standard language in the world because no other standard language is a codified variant of that very same dialect. You are not contributing in good conscience: I can still see your search queries in the links to those sources ("Macedonian dialect of Bulgarian", "Macedonian asbau Bulgarian 1945"). You're simply searching for texts which discuss the standardization vis-à-vis Bulgarian and then deceitfully using them to back up your POV that "Macedonian was concocted by the nasty commies". Go and read standard language and dialect continuum. By the way, just because you think the Macedonians are brainwashed Bulgarians does not mean their language doesn't exist independent of yours: Neapolitan and Sicilian are both spoken by ethnic Italians but nevertheless are still distinct languages. --101.112.170.122 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I would also like to apologize for my incivility. I have now amended the question. --101.112.170.122 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is no apology. Not only did you write it, not only did you just strike it, levaing it there in effect, but you still call editors retards. Great way forward. How do you expect to work with people when you call them things like that. Yes, I know you are unblockable, but you could at least give it a try. --<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 15:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not see serious reasons to delete this info. Jingiby (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't have thought you would. This is an article about Old Church Slavonic. The sentences about modern Bulgarian and modern Macedonian were added so that readers did not confuse them with the Bulgarian and Macedonian recensions. The information about their codification, their political statuses and relationship to other languages is completely out of the scope of this article. If you think it's so important that Wikipedia readers know these little tidbits, you could add them to the articles Bulgarian language and Macedonian language where they belong. --101.112.158.76 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This information was long standing here without bothering anyone, but you remove it because you personally do not like this facts. Then just do not read them. Jingiby (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * No, you're adding irrelevant information because you need to quantify every mention of the Macedonian language with a history lesson. You do this because you want to perpetuate the fringe view and conspiracy taught exclusively in your country. Anyway, it doesn't matter if no one noticed it until now -- I now have. It's irrelevant and doesn't belong in this article. This article is about an extinct language which was once used in the 9th-11th centuries, not about the the codification, political statuses and genetic relationships of two modern, vital languages. --101.112.158.76 (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am just readding the essential info deleted here from Australian IP like you, several days ago for the first time, without gaining consensus. Jingiby (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

After the initiated
By the way — After the initiated in the early 20th century linguistic secession, ... what does this mean? —Tamfang (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Later I got it: the phrase initiated in the early 20th century is meant to function as an adjective; evidently written by someone whose first language is not English (German?). —Tamfang (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the article about the philologist Krste Misirkov, please. In 1903 he initiated this process, for the first time, but he himself rejected his ideas later several times. They were endorsed in 1930s again, by some left intellectuals and so in 1945 a new language was codified in Communist Yugoslavia. Jingiby (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't got the slightest thing to do with Old Church Slavonic for starters... A majority of Bulgarians would like the world to believe that Macedonians and their language didn't exist before a certain date and that they were invented by the communists in a plot to injure Bulgaria. No kidding, this is what they're taught in school. 'Linguistic secession' would suggest that there was once 'unity', a Bulgarian-Macedonian language. There never has been. Jingiby and his posse are a bunch of chauvinistic nationalists and vandals, and spoil every single article they come across. They've been warned numerous times, but for some reason they're still here doing the same old thing day after day... --101.112.140.58 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Content disputes are content disputes. Calling editors "bunch of chauvinistic nationalists and vandals" is not ok. Do not expect anyone here to take any notice of your comments until you stop insulting people in every single comment. On a side, note, you say some interesting things about schoolbooks. Do you have one or two near you and share with us what exactly they have to say on the topic? I am not calling you a liar, but would really like to see if it this is true. --<font color="#007700">L<font color="#009900">a<font color="#00aa00">v e o l  T 15:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Kaufman, Stuart J. (2001). "Modern hatreds: the symbolic politics of ethnic war. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 193. ISBN 0-8014-8736-6.

..."''The key fact about Macedonian nationalism is that it is new: in the early twentieth century, Macedonian villagers defined their identity religiously—they were either "Bulgarian," "Serbian," or "Greek" depending on the affiliation of the village priest. While Bulgarian was most common affiliation then, mistreatment by occupying Bulgarian forces (in Serbian Macedonia) during WWII cured most Macedonian Slavs from their pro-Bulgarian sympathies, leaving them open to embracing the distinct Macedonian identity, promoted by the Tito's new communist regime after the War. According to the new Macedonian mythology, modern Macedonians are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great's subjects. They trace their cultural identity to the ninth-century Saints Cyril and Methodius, who converted the Slavs to Christianity and invented the first Slavic alphabet, and whose disciples maintained a centre of Christian learning in western Macedonia. A more modern national hero is Gotse Delchev, leader of the turn-of-the-century Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), which was actually a largely pro-Bulgarian organization but is claimed as the founding Macedonian national movement...''"

Hatreds are extremely emotionally disliked people, directed against any perceived evil. The objects of such hatreds can vary widely. Who knows, maybe they are among us? Jingiby (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

People, get over it. This article is about Old Church Slavonic, not about its modern descendants. Stop hoisting your WP:COATRACK material about those boring old POV obsessions regarding modern Macedonian on innocent readers of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * It's about time a nonaligned admin took notice of this. --101.112.183.106 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.
I am unable to leave a message on the above-named user's talk page, so I'll leave it here:
 * There are a few issues which you may have overlooked during your recent cleanup (who can blame you!). The point about which is the "oldest dialect" (or more accurately, 'recension') is valid. A recension in OCS scholarship is those manuscripts which have common features—linguistic and otherwise (script, interpolations, etc.)—and which are therefore of the same presumed provenance. Thus, a particular recension is older than the others if its manuscripts have been dated so. The term 'dialect' has been misused; there are no dialects of OCS, only recensions of manuscripts which exhibit features of the Slavic dialects developing parallel to it. So, a scribe from Serbia would have unthinkingly incorporated elements from his spoken language into his OCS text. Also, OCS does not have any modern descendents despite what Macedonian and Bulgarian nationalists would have us believe. Only the liturgical Church Slavonic language is derived from OCS, while all modern Slavic languages developed parallel to OCS. --101.112.189.93 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No objection if you think you can reword it in a way that makes sense. What matters to me is that I would like to avoid conceptual confusion between writing varieties (which can be "created", and hence be "older" and "younger"), and actual – spoken – dialects, which cannot, so if you could put in something along the lines of your explanation here, that would certainly be useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Maybe, it is more precise to change the expression "one of the oldest dialects..." with the next phrase: "one of the earliest, recorded in written form, dialects of OCS". Jingiby (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper expression for that would be "earliest attested dialects". But first take into account what 101.* was saying above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, the specific provenance reflects a concrete local speach, i.e. dialect. The differences between the local dialects if they existed, were minimal. Some authors do not distinguish such local dialects of that time, another do it. Who knows? Jingiby (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, they do not distinguish different dialects. They distinguish recensions, sometimes also called 'redactions'. Reread my (the IP's) comment again. Nowhere are they refereed to as dialects, because they weren't dialects. First it was the West/East thing and now dialects... --101.112.188.233 (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Use of Я?
On Wiktionary we have come across a few Old Church Slavonic entries that use Я in their names. I noticed that a few words in this article also use it. But if the article about Я is correct in stating that Я is a later form of Ѧ, then presumably the use of the newer form in these entries is anachronistic. Nonetheless, it seems that other online sources also use this letter in those words. So is this common practice among Old Church Slavonic studies, or is it really an error brought on by modern writing, and was Ꙗ actually the intended letter? Or does Я actually stand for Ѧ in these words? CodeCat (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ‹Я› is indeed a later form of ‹Ѧ›; more specifically, from Peter the Great's "civil script". Academic works consistently transliterate OCS because of the obvious need for a single scheme (as opposed to alternating between Glagolitic and Cyrillic) and because Glagolitic and Cyrillic can sometimes be ambiguous. I've only quickly glanced over them, but it seems as though ‹Ꙗ› should be used in each case (недѣля → недѣлꙗ). I'll replicate my comment on Wiktionary. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. It seems Church Slavonic (not Old) spelling has confused things; in it, ‹Ѧ› and ‹Ꙗ› are simply positional variants of one another, and they were dropped to ‹Я› in the civil script. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

OMG
Hah, i cant believe that people that dont know anything about Macedonia nor Bulgaria are arguing right now and making up history.... You talk of specialist that have never been to this lands, that havent probably seen the language, the chronicals and so on... you twist the history in your own way and I signalized the problem to BTV - a television in Bulgaria that haves a campaign agaist this kind of offensive, lying and manupulating acts!!!

I am just going to point the true facts - Macedonia was always a region in Bulgaria, sense 1945 part of the region became a country named the same - Macedonia. It is an official country sense 1991 and the language they are speaking - bulgarian dialect, (or macedonian language - there are problems with this part) but still - ots considered Macedonian language sense 1999!!! So if you are speking of Old Macedonian - thats the Macedonian from 1999!!! Bulgarians are not only the bulgars people - you must read history very well before claiming that - bulgarians where all the people living in the BULGARIAN EMPIRE - Slavs, Tharcinians, Bulgaris, Goths etc. All of them where rulled by a bulgar king - sense in the 1 Bulgarian Empire all of the kings where from the klan Dulo, and where with bulgar blood!!!

I dont know how could someone say that the people living in the BULGARIAN EMPIRE where not Bulgarians, but say that the people living IN THE REGION MACEDONIA where "real" macedonians!!!

It is written in history that after the idea of separating Macedonia there have been many untruthful facts that Macedonians made, and their their highly agrresive nationalistic behavior is been documented!!! You dont know how many times i have watched this on the NEWS. If i have to i am going to find this videos - some of them life from the place where the offense has happened!!!

You have no right to still something sooo big from the history of Bulgaria by making up stories or realing on improvenet sources!!!

I asked milions times - why are you so detemrment to re-wright history like this, why are you believing some unreal "specialist" from somewhere!!! How come all the bulgarian references you have in wikipedia are not reliable enought for you but the few made up Macedonian are? How many times should I tell you THERE WAS NO MACEDONIAN COUNTRY - AT THIS TIME THE ONLY THING WAS THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE RULLED BY BORIS I. Only the fact that this alphabet was made in the Bulgarian Empire for the Bulgarian poeple (wich where considored all the tribes living in the teritory of Bulgaris) means that this is OLD BULGARIAN LANGUAGE!!! Poeple living (for more than some years) and BORN in Italy are what - Italians!!! People living (for more than some years) in America and BORN in America are considored what - Americans!!! And even when you marry an American - you became American (its the same with the other countries in the world).

How come you dont see how offensive all the argues against Bulgaria are!!! THE FIRST SLAVIC LANGUAGE - Old Bulgarian, i dont know why you dont want to except it and why are you so determent to proove its not true when it is! THIS NON SENSE MAKES ME WONDER - I already asked in a nother place and i am going to ask again - I AM NOT MAIKING ANY ACCUSATINS - i am asking, this is a question that "poped up" in my mind, this is not documented, or enything. It's just a person trying to defens himself starting to think this: did somehow someone "payd" so that you say this and now i am askind if you are doing this becouse you are macedonian??? (this quenstions may sound horrible and they are - i am wondering and i am asking, not accusing) I dont have any proof nor anything becouse I AM NOT accusing - i am asking!!!

I hope from the TV they see soon enought whats happening here in Wikipedia and help, but I am not going to weight only on them - I am starting groups, writing messages, searching all over the internet, I will send here every source I find until this offensive non sense stops!!!

The only problem with your sourses is going to be that its all in Greek or Bulgarian sense there was NO MACEDONIA they dont have any history from that period!!!

And one more thing - when Bulgaria wanted to free itself from the Ottoman rule they where always fighting for Macedona as part of the country - couse it always had been a part of the country and in Bulgaria the region Macedonia still exist and they spek Bulgarian dialect called Macedonian!!!

ONE MORE THING: WHY ONLY IN ENGLISH, RUSSIAN AND MACEDONIAN THE FACT THAT ITS OLD BULGARIAN ARE LEFT OUT, CHANGED TO OLD MACEDONIAN OR WRITTEN NEXT TO OLD MACEDONIAN WHEN 1.) OLD MACEDONIAN DOESN'T EXIST 2.) ALL THE OTHER LANGUAGES - FRENCH, SPANISH, ITALIAN, UKRAINIAN SAY ITS OLD BULGARIAN AND HAVE REFERENCES!!! But not you offcourse!

YOU have been offensive to ALL BULGARIANS by defending unreliable sourses, It like you people are saying that The Pope is from Tokyo becouse someone actually wrote that down and now you believe him!!! Read all the facts all the articles all the documents and come here again and tell me i am not right - this will never happen couse there is proof, and you can't offend a country like this!!!

I start to think that who ever wrote the article about macedonia must be part of the macedonism groups, why? Becouse he is so agressivly MAKING UP STORIES and if you must know this Macedonian stealing history problem is a problem for years - but you people are not the right editors to judge this nor wtite - OLD MACEDONIAN enywhere at all!

My sources: The Bulgarian country, hah i guess you have to contact them, you can come to Bulgaria, go to the History Museum, the Library - wherever you want and see yourself the old documents and papers! Its normal that they are IN BULGARIA sense we are talking abpout THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMIPRE.

One more thing - how can you argue with the fact that the Old Church Slavonic was developed in THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE that automaticly makes it OLD BULGARIAN. And you can check and see articles about the Cyrilic - Made in Bulgaria - Bulgarian, now used by all Slavic countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettkata (talk • contribs) 08:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

 * This isn't a forum where you can vent. More importantly, you should avoid mixing history and linguistics with politics. Wikipedia isn't written from a nationalist perspective but rather from a neutral point of view. --WavesSaid (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Politically and historically incorrect article
That articles starts with: "The 9th century Byzantine Greek missionaries Saints Cyril and Methodius are credited with standardizing the language and using it in translating the Bible and other Ancient Greek ecclesiastical texts as part of the Christianisation of the Slavic peoples." First of all in 9th century no Byzantine has existed and it never has. That empire was the Eastern Roman Empire and it's citizents considered themselves as Romans and not all of them were Greeks. Then Byzantine Greek... now that's totally rediculous claim as there is no proof that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. Their father was an Eastern Roman official living in an area surounded by Slavic speaking people. What would be the odds that they were of Slavic origin? Also these brothers didn't just tranlate the Greek literature into the language of the Slavs. They have translated lots literature from Hebrew. It appears to me that the article was writen by Greek nationalists and it is full of pro-Greek propaganda not based on any real facts but on pro-Greek mythology and rumors. Why would Greeks would devote their life to defending the right of the Slavic people to pray and preach in Slavic if at that time only Hebrew, Latin and Greek were the officially recognised languages? Another ridiculous fact about this articles is it basically claims that Cyril and Methodius created the Old Church Slavonic language!!! Seriously???? They didn't just create an alphabeth and translated some books but they have created a Church language for the Slavs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.174.229 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 January 2013
 * "The Slavonic languages" by Comrie and Gorbett discussed the question on whether Cyril and Methodius were native Greek speakers or native Slavic speakers. One of the points it raised is that if they were Greek speakers, they would not have had such a vested interest in designing a whole alphabet for Slavic. So it is kind of what you said except there is a reliable source for it (which is kind of what you should have provided in the first place). But it is true that the brothers and their disciples created a standard language, but only in the literary sense that they established two alphabets and rules for which to use them, so that other Slavs could start writing too. Old Church Slavonic was never truly a spoken language, although it closely reflected various spoken languages. As for the Greek/Roman question, that is really kind of arbitrary. The Byzantine Empire is normally understood to be the same as the Eastern Roman Empire so it is just a matter of naming. The fact is that the administrative language of the Empire was Greek, no matter if they were "Romans" or not. CodeCat (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

reconstruction in circles?
Recently added to the lead section:
 * It is also extremely important in the historical study of the Slavic languages, because it is quite similar to their unattested common parent language (Proto-Slavic).

How do we know anything about the similarity of an unattested language to OCS? Why, we've reconstructed it, using (among other evidence) OCS! Hm. I'd prefer a wording that avoids this suggestion of circularity; for example

 * As the oldest attested Slavic language, OCS provides important evidence for the features of Proto-Slavic, the unattested common ancestor of all Slavic languages.

—Tamfang (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I understand your reasoning, but it is scientific fact that reconstructed Common Slavic is almost the same as OCS. So the statement isn't false, really. CodeCat (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying it's false. I'm saying that, if I were a reader stumbling into the matter of Slavic hist-ling for the first time, I'd read this sentence and find it fishy, at least in the absence of supporting context.  That whiff of fish could easily be avoided, unless it is important to preserve the claim (seemingly irrelevant here) that PS is very similar to OCS.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternative names
Hello. Some time ago, we moved all alternative names from the beginning of the article into new section "Nomenclature" just to avoid nationalistic behaviour and edit war. We would like to keep it that way. At the beginning only Old Church Slavonic and Old Church Slavic are enough. Old Macedonian and Old Bulgarian are in the nomenclature. And to be honest, at that time no one called the language BG or MK, but just Slavic (slavjanski). best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason they are no longer included in the opening paragraph is because they are rarely used in English-language works, and doing so would be giving them undue weight. The 'nomenclature' section explains it nicely anyway. --203.59.21.104 (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to propose (or at least dispute) the English translation of the Czech name for OCS “staroslověnština”, which is currently just “Old Slavic”. The English translation is too general (suggesting that the Czech name stands for “Slavic”, not e.g. “South Slavic”, “Slavonic” or even “Slovenian” as I will show later) because the contemporary translation of “Slavic (language)” to Czech is “slovanský jazyk” or “slovanština”. The name “slověnština” has an unusual (aged? foreign?) vibe to it in the contemporary Czech language. I cannot be certain but the relation of “(staro)slověnština” with “(Old) Slovenian” might be drawn from the shift ě → i (slověnština → slovinština) during earlier periods of Czech. Lenoch Ondra (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Occult nonsense
" Old Church Slavic[1] (often abbreviated to OCS; self-name словѣ́ньскъ ѩзꙑ́къ, slověnĭskŭ językŭ) was the first Slavic literary language. "

Slavic language was not invented by the Greeks, Goths or Romans or by any "holy" Church.

Church Slavic language was language which was artificially created (manipulated Slavic) language.

Here is one example of the pre Christian Slavic (written) language which pre existed before Judaical/Christian aggressors.

Sitovo inscription

Here is another version of Alpine Slovene language; Freising manuscripts

(language of Freising was of course not an invented language; like Church Slavic, which was artificial).
 * The Sitovo inscription article says that it's not even clear what language it is, let alone what it means. Old Church Slavonic was a literary language, like the introduction says. It was as much a real language as classical Latin was. The people didn't speak quite the same as they wrote, yes, but that is not unique in any way. The same happens to almost any language with a written tradition, including English. Finnish is also a particularly noteworthy example. And what about Russian before the spelling reforms of 1917? CodeCat (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Example text.
Many language pages have an example text somewhere in them I suggest we add one here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.206.70.190 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Church Slavonic recensions
Countless articles link back here instead of to [[Church Slavonic]] simply because this is where features of Church Slavonic recensions are described. I suggest we either relocate and significantly trim the section ==Later recensions== to the article [[Church Slavonic]], or create stubs from its subsections since each of these recensions has its own literature, history, grammar books, dictionaries and so on and is article-worthy. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian - Macedonian Controversy
In relation to the already boring Bulgarian-Macedonian recension argument, following Jingiby's undoing of an excellent and unbiased edit which would have been a good long-term settlement, and to answer Jingby's "Reverted a lot of strange edits. Back to stable version. Per sources.Discuss at talk before making substantial edits. Thanks." I hereby argument myself while making changes:

 *  Students of the two apostles [...] brought the Glagolitic alphabet to the then-First Bulgarian Empire.

Semantically wrong. Then it was not "the First Bulgarian Empire". "First" and "Empire" are terms used nowadays retrospectively and to distinguish from the Second Empire and the Third Tsardom. Then it was simply "Bulgaria". I see nothing strange in correcting this obvious error. To speak of "Bulgaria-proper" or "Any-Other-Country-proper" in the Middle Ages is strange. Deleting nonsense from Wikipedia is not strange. ... Which area? Paraphrasing to sound less clumsy and more academic without affecting the meaning. Since this is a list of features of the "Bulgarian" recension, and the same thing is paraphrased later in the "Macedonian" recension, I think this was dropped here by someone for a reason, but it would be strange to pass it by and not delete it. Same as above.
 * ...the Preslav Literary School, is located in Bulgaria-proper
 * The recension is so named because its literary centre, the Preslav Literary School, is located in [...], what is today Bulgaria. Cyrillic is attributed to this school, as the earliest datable Cyrillic inscriptions have been found in the area.
 * In the Macedonian recension ъ was sometimes substituted with о.
 * In the Bulgarian recension the original ascending reflex ...

I hope this the above argumentation is sufficient. Please do not revert on account of being strange.

What is STRANGE is that all seem to agree with the fact that these are two Bulgarian (broadly speaking if you wish) recensions, yet we distinguish them from each other by calling one Bulgarian and the other Something-else. It is more than obvious that this is a way to go round the proven fact and sneak in a suggestion: both are, but one of them is and the other one is not. Of course this, I believe, was the (political) idea of the scholar(s) who devised these terms.

What we have is two identical recensions distinguishable by very subtle linguistic variations, both located in the Bulgarian realm, both centred around Bulgarian literary schools, both represented by Bulgarian writers and saints (all proven Wikipedia facts), therefore they are both Bulgarian but one of them is and the other one is not. If this were not deliberate, it would be strange. What is strange is that Wikipedia has settled with this contradiction which suits a certain POV in order to suit that POV.

--Moesian (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that adding "then" may give the impression that that's what it was called then. But it could also be interpreted as meaning that what existed then is what we now call the First Bulgarian Empire. I suppose "then" is a bit redundant here, but I really wouldn't read too much into it. I think it's far more misleading to use "Bulgaria" here, though, because that has a modern meaning and is likely to be understood as different from what it really means. In terms of modern English, "Bulgaria" did not exist then, what existed what what is called the "First Bulgarian Empire" in modern English. Since this article is written in modern English, not some kind of contextual-naming-centuries-ago English, we should not use "Bulgaria" to refer to the old empire unless we specify it first.
 * "Bulgaria proper" is used in the Volga Bulgaria entry too. Specifically: "Some Bulgar tribes, however, continued westward and eventually settled along the Danube River, in what is now known as Bulgaria proper, where they created a confederation with the Slavs, adopting a South Slavic language and the Eastern Orthodox faith."
 * All I think is necessary here is to replace "the" with "that".
 * I don't understand what you mean at all here. The version reverted to by Jingiby makes more sense to me.
 * Likewise.
 * The names "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" refer not to the empire, but to the historical regions of Bulgaria and Macedonia, which predate the empire. "Bulgaria" here is understood as "Bulgaria proper", the same term that you disputed earlier. Having a name that refers to different areas in different contexts is nothing new. "Italy" referred originally to the peninsula alone, not to the part north of it which is now part of the state of Italy, nor to Sicily and Sardinia. "Spain" included Portugal in Roman times. "India" referred originally to any land east of the river Indus, and included land as far away as Indonesia up till recently. "Africa" was originally only the northern part of the continent. "Poland" referred originally to what is now Greater Poland. "Finland proper" is only a small part of what is Finland nowadays. The "Netherlands" historically included Belgium and parts of northeastern Germany, what is now called the "Low Countries". So you see, there are many examples where names for regions are not exactly defined and have changed over time. However, what is much more relevant in this case is that "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" are commonly used in sources to refer to the two recensions. So those are the names we use. CodeCat (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with almost everything written above!
 * In fact, not using the term "Bulgaria" directly would be misleading. "Bulgaria" is what Medieval sources such as The Life of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid use clearly and unambiguously. Any other politically correct, (pseudo)scientifically convenient rewording can serve as basis for speculations, which is the intention of certain editors in Wikipedia trying to project a recently emerged national consciousness into the distant past by adjusting the historical facts. If I understand your meaning correctly, one cannot refer to Spain, Hungary and China when talking about the middle ages.(?)

 * If that is the case with the article about Volga Bulgaria, then it needs to be edited. "Proper" broadly refers to internationally recognized or legally or historically fixed boundaries. Therefore this term is completely inept for the Middle Ages when boundaries were determined purely by the power of the sward and shifted from decade to decade. The fact that the term was misused in another article is not a valid argument to use it here.

 * The other remarks, I think, deserve no comment.

"The names "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" refer [...] to the historical regions of Bulgaria and Macedonia, which predate the empire." This is completely wrong. While it is true that Macedonia was a region in antiquity (although Macedonia in that period was a totally different area), to say that Bulgaria as a region predates the empire is absurd. More importantly, the area referred to as Macedonia today (and in ancient times) was known as Bulgaria in the 11th and the 12th century, when the so called "Old Church Slavonic" recensions developed. That is why, in my opinion, the terms "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian" are totally inadequate and superficially imposed. These terms are derived from and refer to modern political entities and not to the medieval reality. There is evidence that the (pseudo)scolar(s) who first coined these terms were employed by a certain interest group and served a hidden agenda. However I am not in a position to disprove or unmask the sources, and Wikipedia (fortunately) relies on sources. Therefore I will have to reluctantly admit the view that recensions are two and they are called "Bulgarian" and "Macedonian". However the article should make it explicitly clear, and I think it now does, that the differences between the two recensions are very subtle and they are both Bulgarian. Any attempt to push a different interpretation in any roundabout way without referring to sources should be acted against. Thanks to Jinnby for reverting the article to a "stable version".

--Moesian (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand your reasoning here at all. Medieval sources aren't relevant for the use of terms within this article, because we're not speaking Medieval Greek, we're speaking early 21st century English. What they called Bulgaria or something similar - it's obviously not exactly the same because they wrote and pronounced it in Medieval Greek, too - is not what we refer to by that name. Going by your reasoning, we could keep calling Thailand "Siam" or refer to Robert Mugabe as the president of Rhodesia.
 * What matters here is that we use terms that are understandable to our readers, not terms that we've determined to be "technically correct" in some way, even if they are completely misleading. Calling the First Bulgarian Empire "Bulgaria" would be misleading, unless we qualified beforehand that this is what we mean in the article by "Bulgaria". Most readers would assume that "Bulgaria" covers what is now called Bulgaria. Furthermore, a quick glance at the results for "Bulgaria proper" on Google Books suggests that this term is quite widespread, and generally refers to an area more or less coinciding by what is now the state of Bulgaria, and is often explicitly contrasted with the larger Bulgarian area that includes Macedonia, Thrace and other former parts of the empire. So I'm sorry but the sources do not support your call for changing this.
 * As for your claim that "Bulgaria" as a region does not predate the empire, are you saying that whoever created the empire also created the name at the same time? That claim certainly needs sourcing. Your claim that what is known as Macedonia today was not known as Macedonia then most certainly also needs sourcing, because I'm quite sure the Greeks called it by that name long before then. Why else do you think they still stake a claim to the name even today? The name "Macedonia" has been in use since Greek times, although it has referred to different pieces of land over time. If modern Slavic Macedonia (not modern Greek Macedonia) is not located in an area that was called Macedonia in OCS times, then that needs sourcing too.
 * I really feel that you're grasping at straws here and that your aim is more to prove a point, regardless of merit, than to actually improve the article. So I'm going to invoke WP:SOAP here. In any case, it's clear by now that there is no consensus for your changes, so don't reinstate them until a consensus is reached. And just so you know, consensus doesn't mean you have to agree with it. CodeCat (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear friend,

No one reading this article will assume that the disciples of St Cyril and Methodius went to the Second Bulgarian Empire or the People's Republic of Bulgaria. ... perhaps only you, but then I have the privilege of educating you on the matter. There was one place called Bulgaria in 886 and there can be no confusion about it. If someone like you is unsure, the link directs to the First Bulgarian Empire. Please pay special attention the section "Nomenclature". "What they called Bulgaria or something similar - it's obviously not exactly the same because they wrote and pronounced it in Medieval Greek, too - is not what we refer to by that name."" Really??!! Please clarify. Although the comparisons with Thailand and Robert Mugabe are "slightly" out of place, they do bring some flavour into our discussion.

I want to make it clear that I don't want to change anything at this time. I have made the necessary changes and I think the article is OK as it is now.

In relation to my "claims that need sourcing", dear friend, I don't need to waste my time sourcing facts and arguing with you. I gave you the links which, I am sorry to see, you did not follow. If you are interested in the subject, you can do your own reading and then you will see that we have nothing to argue about. Otherwise we are just wasting space in this talk page. I hope this ends our discussion.

--Moesian (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Macedonistic POV
''The letter щ denoted different sounds in different dialects and is not shown in the table. In Bulgaria, it represented the sequence /ʃt/, and it is normally transliterated as št for that reason. Further west and north, it was probably /c(ː)/ or /tɕ/ like in modern Macedonian, Torlakian and Serbian/Croatian this looks like blatant macedonistic POV which should be removed, I added the "quotation needed" marker for now. Blazhe Konevski himself writes about toponyms having the щ and жд sounds from the region of Vardar Macedonia till the 17th and 18th century. 82.217.140.156 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * щ and жд for the most part developed from Proto-Slavic palatalized t and d; see Kortlandt’s paper From Proto-Indo-European to Slavic or pretty much any other linguistic work on the subject. The historical development from Proto-Slavic (and early OCS) to Bulgarian was /tj/ > /tj/ > /tć/ > /ść/ > /šć/ > /št/. Kortlandt specifically notes, “Simplification of geminated affricates: tć > ść, dʒ́ > źʒ́, also śtć > ść, źdʒ́ > źʒ́. This development was limited to Bulgarian.... For the other languages I assume that length shifted from the first, occlusive element of the geminate to its second, fricative element: tć > ćś, dʒ́ > ʒ́ź... Merger of palatal fricatives: ś > š, also ść > šć, źʒ́ > žʒ́... The clusters šć and žʒ́ were later reduced to št and žd in Bulgarian and the eastern dialects of Serbo-Croat." Lunt similarly notes in his OCS grammar that the sound of щ varied regionally (though he doesn’t go into detail).

 * Linguists understand the development of Proto-Slavic quite well, and one would be better served by keeping nationalist opinions out of linguistics; the only "blatant POV" here would seem to be your own. With that said, however, I don’t know whether the innovative change of /tć/ > /št/ spread as far as the Vardar valley or not. In any case, that’s not what the article says, so we needn’t debate it. Vorziblix (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove this outrageously stupid sentence "Further west and north, it was probably /c(ː)/ or /tɕ/ like in modern Macedonian, Torlakian..."! 1) The letter щ denoted not only št derived from tj, but also from st, sk. 2) The letter щ was never used for transliterating Greek [c]. 3) In Torlakian there are ʧ, ʤ in the place of t', d' rather than c, ɟ. 4) The replacement ʃt, ʒd > c, ɟ in Macedonian takes place later and is not fully completed, cf. ноќ, моќ vs. сношти, помош.

Use of tilde as diacritic in OCS
What does a tilde mean when used as a diacritic in Old Church Slavonic? For example, from the article Tsar: ц︢рь. Or is that a tilde? ZFT (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s not properly a tilde but rather a titlo; it generally marks abbreviations. So, in your example, ц︢рь is the abbreviated form of царь. It can also mark that a letter is being used as a numeral, so, for example, ꙁ is just a letter but ꙁ҃ means the number 7. Vorziblix (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

ꙁ instead of з?
In the first section of this article з is used for the name of OCS in OCS; but on the OCS wikipedia ꙁ is used. Should we change to use the latter? I know pretty much nothing about this subject, so some expert opinion would be nice. Wyverald (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Both ꙁ and з are largely interchangeable variants of the same letter. ꙁ is the earlier variant, and was the only one in use for most early Cyrillic ustav (uncial) manuscripts. з started to appear later, in poluustav (half-uncial) texts in the 1400s, and became the dominant form only after Nikon’s reforms in 1654. The only reason these glyphs are encoded separately in Unicode is to make it possible to accurately transcribe poluustav texts, which sometimes use ꙁ and з haphazardly, but they are for all practical purposes the same letter. In sum, the variant ꙁ was used in OCS, and з only appeared after OCS was already dead, but since they are just variant forms of the same letter, it’s not all that important; it’s like the question of whether to transcribe early English texts with long s or just regular s. Vorziblix (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

u-stem has not disappeared in all attested languages
In the article it states that the u-stem has disappeared in all attested languages. However, this is clearly not the case as the old u-stem nominative plural ending -ове has been preserved in modern Bulgarian such as for the word cited in the article domъ. Of course it has spread to many other monosyllabic masculine words, but it definitely has not disappeared. This should either be changed or clarified. Terinuva (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Old Church Slavonic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719123753/http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf to http://www.manu.edu.mk/cal/CAL/004_Seg_Staroslovenski.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Terminology
Here are some basic data regarding the terminological frequency:

 * Google Books Search hits for Old Slavonic language and Old Church Slavonic language
 * Google Books Search hits for Old Slavic language and Old Church Slavic language

Similar data can be found on Google Scholar:

 * Google Scholar hits for Old Slavonic language and Old Church Slavonic language
 * Google Scholar hits for Old Slavic language and Old Church Slavic language

Data shows that terms Old Slavonic language and Old Slavic language are sufficient as primary designations for this language, and therefore the other (wider) versions, with the word "Church", should be considered as secondary variants. Sorabino (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Standard scholarly sources use Old Church Slav(on)ic as the language name. Try this instead for (overly) simple comparison. Doremo (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That chart does not include the basic term "language", and this one does: Google Books Viewer. Search Results on Google Scholar are clearly showing that there is no preference for the use of wider terms, with the word "Church". Sorabino (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Languages are not generally called "X language" in English. Doremo (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discord server for the editors of the Old Church Slavonic Wiki?
Dear all,

I was wondering if there is a discord server or anything of the sort for the editors of the OCS Wiki as it'd make direct communication quite a bit easier.

Kind Regards,

Міи

Moving individual Church Slavonic recensions to Church Slavonic, Bohemian recension, etc.
So I significantly expanded the Church Slavonic subsection over the last couple of months and as usual, I went over the top (I tend to write too much). I would suggest moving most of the info there to Church Slavonic, which currently has numerous issues of its own and is inaccurate, and leaving here only a couple of sentences per each individual Church Slavonic recension.

There is also the issue of the Bohemian recension, whose place is probably not in Old Church Slavonic, given that it reflects manuscripts that are not part of Old Church Slavonic canon. It should perhaps be moved to the Church Slavonic, as well.

Can any interested parties please give an opinion on this, especially on the Bohemian recension? Thanks in advance! VMORO 10:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The page can benefit from several points
The Wikipedia page on Old Church Slavonic could benefit from the following clarifications:

- Define Old Church Slavonic language, explaining the use of "Church" in its name ? - Specify whether people in medieval Central and Eastern Europe widely spoke Old Church Slavonic. Why would anyone speak church language ? - Distinguish between the Old Church Slavonic language and the Old Church Slavonic script. - There was a common pool of vocabulary and various dialects. But we know of the existence of this common language through the canonical written scripts used in religious texts. - Writing and copying specific texts comes from original sources. Whats the origin ?

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Old Church Slavonic