Talk:Bulgarian language

Controversial section

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists including J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe, is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

I have removed this section per WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for its controversial content. See arguments above.

I would support something along the lines of:

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

How can there be no international and two international linguists in the same time? Have you lost your mind? FunkyFly 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you aren't going to suggest an alternative:

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

And by the way, I don't see where Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words is not used anymore... Yes I realise it is a guideline. But a good one. - FrancisTyers 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, because it presents a biased view of the problem. You cannot source every single linguist in the world, you only can sample opinions, and it is not fair to claim there are only two in support. With the same success I can claim that 90 or 100 or whatever sources you have still do not constitute a majority. Btw, what's with your bias? FunkyFly 17:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By "it is not used anymore" I was refering to "some", now substituted with "certain", which according to my understaning of English expresses a smaller quantity. FunkyFly 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My "bias" as you put it is just good linguistics. I remain surprised that there are two people calling themselves linguists who would say "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language". I am truely astonished. It just is not done. It does not present a biased view of the problem at all. Really I am beginning to doubt you've ever studied linguistics or sociolinguistics at all. Ok, here's a suggestion, how about we take all the linguists I can find say "Macedonian is a separate language", and all the linguists you can find saying "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language" and we divide your number by my number and multiply it by 100 to get the percentage? I can guarantee it will be below 10%, if I wasted enough time finding names, probably below 1%. Perhaps I could do a survey and get it below 0.1%. The fraction would be miniscule.

On the other hand, provide sources or don't include it. How about this:

Appeal to motive here? FunkyFly 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian recognised by all non-Bulgarian and non-Greek linguists who have studied the language, with the exception the two detailed below as a distinct standard language. The opinion in Bulgaria and to some extent in Greece is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language. This is also the opinion held by linguists international linguists J. Henniger and Michel Malherbe. International linguists, such as, Otto Kronsteiner characterise Macedonian and Bulgarian as being standard forms of the same diasystem.

With regard to "certain", "some", doesn't matter. We have sources for "two", so two it shall be. Unless you can find more sources instead of continuing this farce. Why don't you want to find sources? I am quite happy to provide a source for anything I add. - FrancisTyers 17:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course you realise we can't do my suggestion because of WP:NOR ;) - FrancisTyers 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is you demand that all sources I find be added as an exception, except this linguist, except that one and so on, which is POV. Now the number is up to three, it can climb more in the future, so I stick to this - certain linguists, without naming. Sources in the reference section.

Bulgarian is closely related to Macedonian, generally recognized as a distinct language, although the prevalent opinion in Bulgaria, to some extent in Greece, and that of certain international linguists is that Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language.

As for your comment about how a serious linguist can consider Macedonian to be Bulgarian dialect - well that just shows that you are full of yourself my dear. FunkyFly 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't demand all the sources you list be added as an exception. You have provided two linguists, which is a small enough number to add as an exception. They are an exception. For example, fifteen linguists could not reasonably be added as an exception. Three probably could. But as you have refused to present any sources we will not know. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you finally name your price :) The magic number of 15. We'll see if we can get there. FunkyFly 18:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't static, if you can find eleven I'll be impressed :) Don't worry, I'm not going to be unreasonable about this. And remember when you are looking for sources... "Macedonian is a literary variant of the Bulgarian language", they must present Macedonian as subordinate to Bulgarian. Doesn't have to be the precise wording, but words to that effect. "Macedonian and Bulgarian are the same language" will not do. - FrancisTyers 18:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Prof. James F. Clarke
• Prof. Heinrich A.Stammler
• Prof Afanasii Matveevich Selishchev --Komitata 08:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Prof. Antony Giza, Poland.
• Prof. Otto Kronsteiner - THE COLLAPSE OF YUGOSLAVIA AND THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF THE MACEDONIAN LITERARY LANGUAGE:

… Similarly to the case with Moldovan, when the Cyrillic script was introduced to distance it from Roumanian, the Macedonian glossotomists decided to adopt the Serbian alphabet (respectively, orthography) including letters having become more or less a myth , (instead of the Bulgarian Щ, ЖД, as well as the Serbian , .) . The core of the Macedonian alphabet is actually lying in these two letters and their phonetic materialisation. Hence the joke: Macedonian is Bulgarian typed on a Serbian type-writer. Had the Bulgarian orthography been applied to the new language, everyone would take it for Bulgarian (despite the peripheral nature of the basic dialect chosen), just like the dialectally tinged texts by Ludwig Toma and Peter Poseger, which are taken for German ones. …

• K. Misirkov, - "On the Macedonian Matters", Sofia 1903

… I speak bulgarian and I believe that our country is Bulgaria'…

note: K. Misirkov is a bulgarian, however in FYROM (Republic of Macedonia)he is considered to be macedonian, so he "counts", aint he?

• I.Kaliganov - РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯ О МАКЕДОНСКОМ "СРЕЗЕ" ПАЛЕОБОЛГАРИСТИКИ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.0.97 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm, You realise those aren't citations right? A name is not sufficient, I need a reference for where they said it. - FrancisTyers 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Common expressions

The common expressions that are in here are so close to croatian is not funny.Is this really bulgarian.Or it should get a mention that this launguage is so closely related to other slavic launguages.--Chaos2501 (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This is really Bulgarian. Common expressions are very simmilar in related languages, so no special mentioning is required.

Kostja (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Bulgarian words translated section

This is English Wikipedia, so it makes sense to show some sample words and their English translations. From there, why is the article listing equivalents in other languages—even Indonesian? For example, we are told that дърво means tree. Fine. From there, telling us that the Spanish equivalent for tree is árbol and the Indonesian one is pohon is irrelevant, since this isn't an article on How to speak Spanish or Sample Indonesian words. WP:COATRACK applies. I'm planning to remove the extraneous columns, but any comments before I do so? (Yes, I realize they aren't hurting anyone but that isn't the point!) —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering pretty much the same thing when I saw a user adding the words in Indonesian earlier today. Well, I too, think it's quite unnecessary besides maybe the Macedonian and Serbian variants as Bulgarian is quite closely related to the former and to some extend to the latter. --Laveol ^T 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the non-slavic words are no longer there. But I still don't quite see the point of those tables.--Uanfala (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Common expressions?

I'm Bulgarian and I'm not convinced that the first person usually says здравей and the second здрасти. You can start with здрасти just as well. The detailed explanation of "кое си ти" (an obscure expression that you hardly ever hear nowadays) does not belong in the "common phrases" section. The observation about agreement in коя сте вие doesn't either, it should be in the Pronouns section, if not in the main Bulgarian pronouns article. In any case, questions such as "who are you?" are not very "common phrases" at all and sound impolite, I would expect to hear them in the context of trespassing or when you suspect someone to be a thief: "Who are you (and what are you doing here)?" --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right. Change "who are you" to "what is your name". —Stephen (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

offical status

offical status is not true...Turkey recognised only Turkish language and Bulgarian language isn't recognised Ukraine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.246.160.135 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Palatalization

In this article there is a lot about Palatalization, but the fact is that the palatalization is quite uncommon in Bulgarian. It is even rare unlike the Slavic languages. I consider to make this clear in the article. 84.179.21.187 (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's uncommon. It's less common than in Russian, but it's more common than in Serbian. Arath (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if palatization was more common in Bulgarian than in Serbian; in the latter it occurs in many cases where it does not occur in the former, such as 'bjel', 'polje', 'konj' etc. Any sources? Apcbg (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I would also ask for sources. 92.195.249.22 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does the person claiming that "the palitazation is quite uncommon in Bulgarian" have any sources? Yes, in Serbian palatalization occurs in many words, which don't contain palatalization in Bulgarian (although I don't think "bjel" and "konj" are good examples for that - "бял", "конят").

Some of the most frequently used words in Bulgarian have palatalization: тя, тях, тяхна, няма, трябва, някой, някакъв, всякакъв, свят, сляп, сняг, сядам, тяло, хляб, цвят, цял, бягам, бял, (в)-ляза, място, вярвам, вятър, голям, грях, дядо, дясна, желязо, звяр, клякам, коляно, ляв, лягам, лято, мляко, обядвам, пряк, прясна, пяна, мярка, пясък, рядък, Сряда, тясна and many others not so frequently used ones.

It occurs in the conjugation of some important verbs: бях, щях, видях, живях, пях, умрях, спрях, and many others not so important ones.

It occurs in the past imperfect tense of many first ans second conjugation verbs: четях, крадях, летях, вървях.

It occurs in the first and third person present tense forms of many verbs: говоря(т), летя(т), вървя(т), седя(т), къпя(т).

It occurs in the definite and count form of many nouns - краля, приятеля, рибаря.

The consonants г, к and х are always usually palatalized before е and и, as mentioned in the article.

Most of the above words do not contain palatalization in Ekavian Serbian.

We can compare some random texts in both languages and count how many times the letter j appears after a consonant and how many times the letters я, ю and ь appear after a consonant. This would be original research but it could settle our argument. Arath (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't said that it does not exist, but that it's uncommon. And I think you are mixing up the diphtong [ja] and the actually palatalized combinations like [tʲ]. If you have learned russian, you would know that the palatalized consonants like [tʲ] sound different and do not occur in Bulgarian. 212.186.67.83 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"The consonants г, к and х are always palatalized before е and и, as mentioned in the article." Well the article does not say "always palatalized" but "tend to be palatalized", and that's 'citation needed' tagged. Apcbg (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources for your claims? Arath (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my point was that the article tends to describe the bulgarian language as extremely palatalized, whereas palatalization does not occur more often than in German or Hungarian for example. There's just so much about palatalization in the article... as I already said, if you speak Russian or Polish, you should know how different theses languages in terms of palatalization sound. The "palatalization" section just does not correspond to the level of palatalization. And what's most disturbing - the consonant-table even includes "soft" and "hard" variants! And as you may know, palatalized "soft" speech is considered highly provincial in Bulgaria.

Ironically, the lack of palatalized consonants at syllable-final positions in Bulgarian is the reason why Russian-speaking-Bulgarians and Bulgarian-speaking-Russians have always such distinctive (foreign) accent.

And before you ask for sources: I don't have to look for sources; you should first look for sources if and where does the palatalization in Bulgarian appear.

And prove that рибаря for example, is to be pronounced as [ribarʲa] and not as [ribarja] as well. 84.179.44.163 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article say that Bulgarian is "extremely palatalized". It just contains extensive exhaustive information on the subject of palatalization in Bulgarian.

Palatalization of consonants before /i/ and /ɛ/ is considered provincial. The article says that this is not a feature of the standard language.

I don't have to prove anything. There are books on the topic of Bulgarian phonology, written by experts, saying that Bulgarian has palatal consonants, one of which is /rʲ/. Arath (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You said it: it contains "extensive information" on a subject, which is NOT extensively represented in the Bulgarian language! So I will reduce it.

Exactly, if there are such books, you would have to quote them, this is the main principle of Wikipedia as you may know. If not, I'd have to remove the unproven claims about palatalized consonants. 84.179.47.36 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Every book on Bulgarian phonology I have read confirms the existence of palatal consonants in the standard language. For example, I can quote "Граматика за всички" by Боримир Кръстев. Can you quote a source that denies this claim?

You can add or remove any content, as long as you can provide reliable sources that it is true or wrong. Arath (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Aorist

The article Aorist is in need of editors who can help develop it, both in general and particularly the Bulgarian section. If you watch this page and can spare some time, your input would be much appreciated. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why did you vandalize the page? There were no sources after a whole month! 84.179.14.136 (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

/x/

Is there a native speaker who could upload a sound file pronouncing a word with the letter х, for example тихо? --JorisvS (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This is how I pronounce it. Arath (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a clear /x/, not a /h/. --JorisvS (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This pronunciation is also confirmed by Omniglot, though I'm not certain how reliable source this is. Kostja (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You know perfectly that a sound file created by a wikipedian is not a source. Besides, this is not the standard pronounciation of the word, I presume that you have created the file to prove your statement.

Have you even listened to the sound files at Voiceless glottal fricative and Voiceless velar fricative?? 84.179.24.235 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This is most certainly the standard pronunciation of the word. Do you have any sources that mention Bulgarian using h instead of x? Kostja (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this argument is about, but I can say that this is the way we pronounce the word. Exactly the way. --Laveol ^T 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you once again: have you even listened to the sound files? 84.179.24.235 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you answer me please? You pronounce it that way? The pronounciation is most certainly glottal, not velar. And I am not supposed to have sources that it is pronounced like h, you first will have to prove that it is pronounced like "x"84.179.34.211 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In the sound file above it is most certainly velar. You're just hearing it wrong. --JorisvS (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is described as a velar [x] (though with "only slight friction", which may account for why some people might perceive it as relatively similar to a [h]), in E. Ternes' and T. Vladimirova-Buhtz' chapter on "Bulgarian" in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, Cambridge UP 1999, p.55f. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-war on the Republic of Macedonia

I suggest you stop it for now. A bit of discussion is more than welcome prior to any other reverts. I personally do not think reliable sources could be found to prove the Bulgarian cause (other than those that claim Macedonian is still a dialect of Bulgarian). And mind you, I do not think Ethnologue is actually a reliable source since it has tons of nonsense in it (yes, including the Macedonian claim). There is no clear distinction as to where Bulgarian dialects end and Bulgarian start, so it's best to stick to political boundaries (especially since that is how those languages formed in the first place). --Laveol ^T 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The building of a language takes a long time. In most of its time Republic of Macedonia (nowadays) was part of Bulgaria (we exclude the Ottoman rule on the Balkan peninsula, which also altered many of the Balkan languages). We also have to consider the Macedonian Bulgarians (to clear a possible misunderstanding - those are the Bulgarians, who live in the Macedonia region (same as Thracian Bulgarians and the Thracian region)), who lived mostly in the territory of Republic of Macedonia (however, small portions also lived in Greece and Albania)). Republic of Macedonia is a rather young country. Before the Yugoslavian period many of the ethnic Bulgarians considered themselves Bulgarians and not Macedonian (since there was no such country). The Macedonian language is mostly derived from the Bulgarian language (because of the explanations I gave above). I do recognize it as a separate language today but if we talk about its roots, than it's more correct to call it a dialect of the Bulgarian language. Consider the fact that an educated person can understand almost everything said in both languages without the need of translation. If I speak Bulgarian to a Macedonian, he/she will understand me. If a Macedonian speaks to me, I'll understand him/her. Now also take into consideration the fact that the Bulgarian language is much older than the Macedonian (hope you agree with me on this). So we have to languages one of which is older than the other and both have such similarity that no translation is needed (exceptions are present but that the thing with all dialects - there are word that you might not know :)) in order for two parties from both sides to communicate. If this isn't dialect-relationship, I really don't know what is. This doesn't apply for example for Bulgarian-Serbian or Macedonian-Serbian (have friends from Macedonia and we've discussed that quite a bit) although all those languages are from the same dialect continuum - South Slavic languages (along with Croatian, Montenegrin etc.). With this statement I don't want to start an argument. Although not a professional linguist I'm quite fond of reading about these things and would like to get in touch with the possible truth (if mine is a lie). Rbaleksandar (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Palatalized consonants

I would really like somebody to provide references about the doubtful cialms, that bulgarian consonants (for example р - [r]) followed by й, ю or я represent the palatalized version (for example [rʲ]) and not just the cluster (for example [rj]). If such sources aren't available, I will remove all that claims. Unsourced information does not have a place here, as you may know. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that р followed by й???, ю or я (you probably mean ь, not й) represents the cluster /rj/? Arath (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To remove that claim, you will have to provide evidence that such a cluster is actually possible and occurs in Bulgarian. As far as I'm aware, such a combination is not possible, because the effect is a merger into a palatalized consonant. Kostja (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

First: the sequence of a consonant and a /j/ is perfectly possible, you might look at the articles Palatal consonant or Palatal approximant for example.

Second: I could provide this profound analysis [1], which proves that "the traditionally-called 'weak (palatal)' consonants are combinations of /j/ + a non-palatal consonant" and that the palatalized consonants aren't phonemes of the Bulgarian language.

Third: because of the fact that the cluster of consonant and /j/ (rj for example) is possible, I didn't even had to provide sources, that such cluster exist in Bulgarian, because this is the standard situation. In other words: those who claim that the cluster "ря" for example represents /rʲa/ and not /rja/ would have to prove that.

Though, I just did provide a raliable source proving the opposite, so I'll remove the "palatalized phonemes" soon. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Your analysis is discussed in the article, citing 'your' source (alongside the traditional analysis of separate palatalized consonants more prominently). Unless you can provide reasons to believe that the Bulgarian phonological system was never analyzed as having separate palatalized consonants, the information on this should not be removed. The prominence of it is, of course, debatable. --JorisvS (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I failed to observe any sources in the article stating that palatalized consonants exist as separate bulgarian phonemes, would you be so kind as to point out these sources for me, please? Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you have provided does not question the existence of palatal consonants in the standard language, it merely raises doubts about their phonemicity. It tries to prove that that the palatal consonants are allophones of their non-palatal counterparts:

"Но можем да твърдим, че в съвременния книжовен български език меките съгласни фонеми са изгубили фонологичната си стойност и сега те се срещат само като алофони на съответните твърди съгласни фонеми."

"But we can claim that in the contemporary standard Bulgarian language the soft consonant phonemes have lost their phonological value and now they only occur as allophones of the respective hard consonant phonemes."

and that they are the result of assimilation:

"Според втората интерпретация наличието на мекост (палателност) в произношението на посочените думи е резултат от асимилация, т.е. пред палаталната полусъгласна /й/ съгласните се палатализират."

"According to the second interpretation the presence of softness (palatalization) in the pronunciation of the specified words is the result of assimilation, that is, in front of the palatal semivowel (j) the consonants are palatalized."

Consequently, according to your source, р + я, ю or ь is not realized as /rj/, but as /rʲj/.

The sources you demand are listed in the beginning of the paper:

Традиционно се приема, че консонантната система на съвременния книжовен български език се състои от 39 съгласни фонеми /п, п’, б, б’, ф, ф’, в, в’, т, т’, д, д’, с, с’, з, з’, ц, ц’, дз, дз’, ш, ж, ч, дж, к, к’, г, г’, х, х’, м, м’, н, н’, р, р’, л, л’, й/ (Граматика 1982; Тилков, Бояджиев 1977). Преобладаващото мнение е, че тя е организирана в две корелативни противопоставяния по признаците звучност - беззвучност и твърдост (непалателност) - мекост (палателност).

It is traditionally accepted that the consonant system of the contemporary standard Bulgarian language contains 39 consonant phonemes /p, pʲ, b, bʲ, f, fʲ, v, vʲ, t, tʲ, d, dʲ, s, sʲ, z, zʲ, t͡sʼ, t͡sʼʲ, d͡z, d͡zʲ, ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ, k, kʲ, g, gʲ, x, xʲ, m, mʲ, n, nʲ, r, rʲ, l, lʲ, j/ (Grammar 1982; Tilkov, Boyadzhiev 1977). The prevalent opinion is that it [the consonant system] is organized into two correlative oppositions by the features voiced - voiceless and hard (non-palatal) - soft (palatal).

Even the author himself confirms that there are people who disagree with him:

Повечето български езиковеди, макар че познават споровете за наличето (или липсата) на меките съгласни като самостоятелни фонеми, традиционно приемат становището, че меките съгласни са самостоятелни фонеми.

Most Bulgarian linguists, despite being aware of the disagreement over the presence (or lack thereof) of soft consonants as independent phonemes, traditionally accept the view that the soft consonants are independent phonemes. Arath (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you really understand the meaning of that study. It states most clearly:

"Приемам, че в консонантизма на съвременния книжовен български език признакът твърдост-мекост няма фонологична стойност, и че той се състои само от твърди съгласни фонеми /п, б, ф, в, т, д, с, з, ц, дз, ш, ж, ч, дж, к, г, х, м, н, р, л, й/"

"I accept that in the consonant inventory of the contemporary standard Bulgarian language the feature hardness-softness does not have phonological value, and that it [the consonant inventory] contains only hard consonant phonemes /p, b, f, v, t, d, s, z, t͡sʼ, d͡z, ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, d͡ʒ, k, g, x, m, n, r, l, j/"

There are also additional references to this conclusion at the end of the study:

"К. Хоралек изразява интересната идея, че в българския книжовен език палаталността (мекостта) изчезва и то по пътя на декомпозиция чрез развиване на особен j (й) елемент, свързан със следващата гласна. Например, "тйало, бйах" вместо "т’ало, б’ах" и пр. (Първев, Радева 1980).

"K. Horalek expresses the interesting idea, that in the standard Bulgarian language the palatalness (softness) disappears by way of decomposition, where a special j (й) element appears and connects with the following vowel. For example /tjalɔ, bjax/ instead of /tʲalɔ, bʲax/ and so on. (Parvev, Radeva 1980).

Б. Николов (1971) твърди, че непалаталните (твърдите) и палаталните съгласни са варианти на едни и същи фонеми: меките срички [тя, тьо, тю] се състоят от "непалатална съгласна + й (глайд) + задна гласна".

B. Nikolov (1971) claims that the non-palatal (hard) and the palatal consonants are variants of the same phonemes: the soft syllables [тя, тьо, тю] consist of "a non-palatal consonant + j (glide) + back vowel".

Покойният професор А, Данчев (1988, 1990) също смяташе, че книжовният български език разполага само с твърди съгласни фонеми."

The late professor A. Danchev (1988, 1990) was also of the opinion that the standard Bulgarian language has only hard consonant phonemes." Kreuzkümmel (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you don't understand the difference between phonemes and phones, and you fail to realize that even the source you have provided acknowledges that there are people who agree that the palatal consonants are separate phonemes and people who disagree, and that the general consensus is that they are. Arath (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone please translate, this is after all still the English WP. --JorisvS (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added translations. Arath (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)#

I am most certainly able to understand the difference between phonemes and phones, please avoid any personal attacks. That's even the point of the study, the palatalised consonants are not separate phonemes, /morjak/ and /morʲak/ would be allophonic for a bulgarian speaker, so listing them as different phonemes is nonsense. And yes the author acknowledges that most bulgarian phoneticians recognise the palatalized consonants are separate phonemes, but he explains that this opinion isn't supported by much evidence, but on some phonetic experiments without dealing with the phonological aspects. He also assumes that the classification of the palatalized consonants as separate phonemes could be nothing more than an attempt to "redesign" the bulgarian consonant system to be more russian-alike. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You started it first. You said "I don't think that you really understand the meaning of that study". "The palatalized consonants are not separate phonemes" according to the author of the study. That's not enough to justify removing the section. Arath (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that this alternate theory is already mentioned in the article, so the question is which theory should be described as the leading one. As even Kreuzkümmel's source describes the palatal theory as the most widely accepted, unless some other evidence is presented, the current situation shouldn't be changed. Kostja (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to the source that Kostja provided regarding the dispute a-ɑ (see bottom of the discussion) "Handbook of the International Phonetic Association Bulgarian has only unpalatalized consonants and the theory, which assumes that Bulgarian has the existence of palatalized consonants as well, is "an alternative analysis". The IPA-Handobook even states further "...palatalization does not go further beyond the degree that is conditioned by the inevitable play of coarticulation.". Neither the IPA-consonant table, nor the IPA-transcription of the Bulgarian text passage uses palatalized consonants - for example /tjax/ and not /tʲax/. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Number

Here is the citation from the article: "However, a recently developed language norm requires that count forms should only be used with masculine nouns that do not denote persons. Thus, двама/трима ученици is perceived as more correct than двама/трима ученика, while the distinction is retained in cases such as два/три молива ('two/three pencils') versus тези моливи ('these pencils')."

Here is the issue: I, as a native speaker of that language, am not aware of such a norm, so please mark this at least as "reference needed".

Example follows, which should shed some light: In the language you'd never use "двама хора" / "тези хора" instead of the proper form "двама човека", even though "човек" is masculine and animate. Actually "човек" is the embodiment of the English word "person" ... so it seems rather wrong to clam it's the norm. It may be that some people use that construct, but as far as I know, although I'm not a philologist, the correct use is "двама/трима ученика". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.43.45 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not many non-philologists seem to be aware of that norm. But it's a norm nevertheless, see for example R. Nitsolova, Balgarska gramatika. Morfologia, 2008, p. 67. And you're right, in the language you'd never use dvama hora ("two people"), the norm would have it as dvama dushi. But dvama choveka (with the count form) is so frequent that it's listed as an exception. The other exception is dvama sina ("two sons", with the count form) instead of dvama sinove.--Uanfala (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronouns/Cases

Case remnants in personal pronouns are 4 corresponding to the respective - Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genetive. That's excluding the locative forms, which are mostly archaic, and rarely used in formal context (with few exceptions).

Nominative	Accusative	Dative	Genetive
кой (who)	кого (whom)	кому (to whom)	чий (whose)
някой (someone)	някого (-)	някому (-)	нечий (-)

Also note that you have genitive roots for all family names, like "Иванов" (of Ivan). In general all -ов/-ова and all -ски/ска suffixes are genitive derived. I'm not sure about this, but I think most noun-noun phrases, without a preposition in-between, like "паркинг пациенти" - lit. "parking patients" is also a remnant from the genitive case. So, Please fix this!

A a back vowel?

While Bulgarian linguists often treat "а" as a back vowel, that doesn't mean that it's actually ɑ or ɒ, merely that it's a back vowel in comparison with е and и. I doubt, in any case that the two sources given, by Kreuzkümmel state that Bulgarian uses either of the two vowels. See the "Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, where the sound is marked as "a" - open front unrounded vowel. So unless an actual citation is given to prove the existence of those vowels in Bulgarian, I'm reverting back to the established version. Kostja (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the "Граматика на съвременния български книжовен език в три тома; Том първи, фонетика." ISBN 954-584-235-0, the three volume grammar on Bulgarian syntax, phonology and morphology, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, it is a back vowel, more precisely an open back unrounded vowel: „Артикулационните характеристики определят гласната "a" по следния начин: по учленително място тя е задна, по степен на издигане на езика — ниска, а по проход между гърба на езика и небцето — широка” - "The articulatory characteristics define the vowel "a" in the following way: according to its place of articulation as back, by the vertical position of the tongue — low, and by the opening between the blade of the tongue and the palate — wide". Also according to "Звуковете в българския език", ISBN 954-8021-40-4 by Vladimir Zhobov its IPA representation should be /ɑ/. Even if it is not absolutely back, it is a back vowel and definetely not /a/. Kreuzkümmel (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So there seems to be a dispute between sources. At least according to my personal opinion, the Bulgarian vowel, sounds exactly like /a/ and nothing like /ɑ/. Of course this is no evidence at all, though I would be interested in what users think.

I also note that the IPA template for Bulgarian claims that the vowel is /a/ and the source for that is "Звуковете в българския език" Kostja (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the vowel triangle of the IPA Handbook Bulgarian /a/ is actually shown as slightly closer to a central vowel than to front. And Bulgarian [a] doesn't normally sound like a front vowel; it also behaves as a non-front vowel as regards its effects on preceding /l/, /k/ and /x/ (and, in Eastern dialects, on all consonants). The problem is that IPA doesn't have a special sign for a central vowel (see Open central unrounded vowel), so [a] can stand for either front or central, hence the transcription symbol used in the IPA handbook. BTW, it's kind of weird to have stuff like [druk] "other" in phonemic brackets (/druk/).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial У

Does У have, or acquire, a 'W' quality?
If it is used to transliterate an English word using 'W', how does it sound in Bulgarian? Varlaam (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that'd be the case with words beginning with w and a vowel like wolf (уълф) and wool (уул). I am no linguist, though, and input from such editors would be more helpful, I guess. --Laveol ^T 06:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. English 'w' in initial position is transcribed (not transliterated) by Bulgarian 'у' pronounced like the English vowel in 'book'. Ordinance No. 6 for the transcription of English gives the following examples: Waterford - Уотърфорд, Wellington - Уелингтън, Whitehaven - Уайтхейвън, Wimbledon - Уимбълдън, and Wolverhampton - Улвърхамптън (the variant form Вулвърхамптон is obsolete). English-like pronunciation with a 'w' quality 'у' might be heard from some English speaking Bulgarians but that is neither standard nor common. Apcbg (talk) 08:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

3,000 verb forms?

The article states that "the Bulgarian verb can take up to 3,000 distinct forms, as it varies in person, number, voice, aspect, mood, tense and even gender." The ultimate source of that much repeated statement seems to be a 1976 article by Pashov; yet there this number is just mentioned, we don't see how it has been derived. I think that it is just some fancy arithmetic that doesn't take into account all of the overlaps and asymmetries in the paradigm.--Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the conjugation of the verb "чета". I've done it according to the Bulgarian grammar book, published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (it's in Bulgarian). The verb "чета", has 278 active voice forms (pages 290-350 for the indicative forms and pages 352-360 for the renarrative) + 425 passive voice forms with the past passive participle (pages 245-246). Additionaly, to every active voice form one can add the reflexive pronoun "се" to form the other passive construction (page 245), so we have 981 distinct finite forms for "чета". It also has 220 additional forms, which don't differ in meaning, they are just variations (in the grammar book, they are given on the same pages 290-350, 352-360). So, in total, we have 1201 finite forms + 38 non-finite forms (pages 374-384) = 1239 form for the imperfective verb "чета". We can also include the perfective "прочета" and secondary-imperfective "прочитам". "Прочета" also has 1201 finite forms + 22 non-finite forms = 1223 forms. "Прочитам" has 246 active voice forms + 246 "се"-passive forms + 425 passive forms with the past passive participle + 220 additional forms + 34 non-finite forms = 1171 forms. For all three we have 3633 forms.

I've taken into account "the overlaps and asymmetries in the pardigm", for example for the conclusive mood I count only third person forms, because the others are identical to the renarrative forms.

The number varies greatly, depending on whether the verb is imperfective or perfective, transitive or intransitive.

Most of these forms exist only theoretically, and it would be very difficult to find any practical use for them (I'm not saying it's impossible). I don't think they occur in literature of any epoch or genre, nevertheless they are given in the grammar book. They are like the English construction "I will have been being taken". I've never seen any usage of it, but it's theoretically possible. Arath (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, Arath! Still, I would object to including се forms in the count. Yes, they do express a traditional verbal category, among other things; but form-wise, do they appear any more morphological than the combinations with the rest of the pronoun clitics? And don't derivations like чета -> прочитам (even in the cases when a prefix isn't involved) more properly belong to lexical level?--Uanfala (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying what should be included and what shouldn't. I'm just explaining how to get the number 3000. Morphologically, the "се" forms don't differ from the other pronoun clitics, but they do have a very different meaning. Morphologically, "искам да чета" is no different from "щях да чета", but only one is considered a tense. "чета", "прочета" and "прочитам" are considered three different verbs (the last one is even from a different conjugation category). The original statement allows variation in aspect. If you want to reach 3000, you have to count all three verbs with the "се" forms.

Personally, I don't really know if the aspect of Bulgarian verbs is a semantic or a grammatical category. The difference between "чета" and "прочета" is both semantic and grammatical: "чета" has the generic sense of "to read", "прочета" means "to read read til the end", as in "to read a whole book", "чета" can be used in independent clauses in the present and imperfect tense, "прочета" cannot. "Прочета" and "прочитам" have the same semantic meaning, but "прочитам" can be used in independent clauses in the present and imperfect tense. Arath (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Original Bulgarian language name

Bulgar is Turkic and the language is Slavic, what is the original Slavic name of this language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.18.6 (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no original Slavic name for any modern concept. As time went by with each development as two nations merged, various words will have described relevant features. So the name is balgarski ezik (бълграски език). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian was the first "Slavic" language attested in writing. As Slavic linguistic unity lasted into late antiquity, in the oldest manuscripts this language was initially referred to as языкъ словяньскъ, "the Slavic language". In the Middle Bulgarian period this name was gradually replaced by the name языкъ блъгарьскъ, the "Bulgarian language". In some cases, the name языкъ блъгарьскъ was used not only with regard to the contemporary Middle Bulgarian language of the copyist but also to the period of Old Bulgarian. A most notable example of anachronism is the Service of St. Cyril from Skopje (Скопски миней), a 13th-century Middle Bulgarian manuscript from northern Macedonia according to which St. Cyril preached with "Bulgarian" books among the Moravian Slavs. The first mention of the language as the "Bulgarian language" instead of the "Slavonic language" comes in the work of the Greek clergy of the Bulgarian Archbishopric of Ohrid in the 11th century, for example in the Greek hagiography of Saint Clement of Ohrid by Theophylact of Ohrid (late 11th century). Jingiby (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a similar discussion in the past months. Do I take it Bulgarian nominally once existed alongside another language which continued to be called Slavic that was spoken by the rest of the Slavic communities throughout Europe? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No - Bulgarian is a slavic language. "Old Bolgar" was the turkic/related language spoken on the upper Volga and was the native tongue of the invaders into the Balkan peninsula - that language was abandoned/fused with the native slavic tongue to form the Bulgarian slavic language.

codification

there is no mention that the Bulgarian language was codified by the american missionaries of the methodistical church in 1858 year. they used Macedonian and Thracian Cyrillic Slavic dialects. (THE MISSIONARY HERALD, Vol. LIL № 10. – October, 1858),(Haskell, Edward B., American Influence in Bulgaria, New York: The Missionary Review of the World 1919, 3), the missionary Dr. Riggs (Elias Riggs) was in charge.79.126.230.109 (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide us with an exact citation by the way? Or points to a full version of the text? This sounds interesting. --Laveol ^T 22:41, 30 August 2012

The College is best known in Europe for the influence that it had in building up a free state in the Balkan Peninsula.

no

Fifty years ago, except to a few students of history, the Bulgarians were a forgotten race in America and western Europe. We did not exactly discover them, but we played an important part in making them known to the Western world at a time when they most needed help. Years' before this they had discovered us, and through the young men who studied in the College they had come to have faith in our wisdom and goodwill. The most important thing that we ever did for them was the educating of their young men to become leaders of their people, at a time when there were very few Bulgarians who knew anything of civil government in a free state.

This was our legitimate work and naturally and inevitably led to our doing what we could for them after they left the College, to give them the advice which they sought in their new work, and to defend their interests where we had influence in Europe. That, in this way, we had an important part in the building up of this new state is a fact known to all the world and best of all by the Bulgarians themselves, who have never failed to recognize their obligation to the College and to manifest their affection for us as individuals. (P. 298.) .212.13.86.194 (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

To correct your assumption above, if Bulgaria/Bulgarians were not on the tongues of common westerners, it was hardly "forgotten" - embassies, part of the Warsaw bloc, etc. 50 years ago the Balkan wars were much within the living memory of many people, also. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

it is not an assumption, it is a "quote" from the american missionary herald in 1858, like this one:

THE CHRISTIAN RACES. By far the greater part of these profess the Greek religion,

though, as has been seen, only about one million, out of eleven

millions, are true and proper Greeks. Most of them are of Slavonian or Tartar origin, and they cherish the most perfect »dislike to the, Greek bishops, whose policy always has been, and is, to extinguish, if possible, every remnant of national feeling, and obliterate all traces of their real origin.

The people desire to have their children taught through the language of their own homes and firesides, while the bish- ops insist that only Greek should be taught in their schools. They desire that their bishops, and other ecclesiastics, shall be chosen from among their own people ; but the Patriarch forces upon them Greek bishops, men of a foreign tongue, and of .foreign habits and sympathies; whose whole aim is to keep the people under the galling yoke of ecclesiastical tyranny, and to squeeze the last farthing from their pockets.

I have put down 7,500,000 of the inhabitants of Euro- pean Turkey as belonging to the Slavonian race. This is per- haps not strictly true. The Bulgarians, who are supposed to number at least four millions, are supposed by some to have ^had a Tartar origin ....212.13.86.194 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Answering about two words in common with Portuguese

Considering that what I wrote was in the miscellany section, that English Wikipedia, for obvious reasons, allows comparison with English all the time, that two non-related European languages (despite the fact that I don't know if the Portuguese use ê-ê at all, because they absorve most of the lexicon that was originally ours by telenovela and it is sorta substandard in Brazil) share exactly the same word – maybe the etymology of the latter word came to us by Bulgarian or Macedonian immigrants (we don't have schwa, which is randomly approximated to the closer Brazilian vowels, but [e ~ e̞] is particularly more common), who would know?! – and it is also a kinda cultural trait, I thought it would be worth mentioning here. Lguipontes (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)