> *****GK: Just to clarify matters. Would you extend
> your contention that Macedonian is not a language
> distinct from Bulgarian to ethnicity and nationality,
> or would you distinguish these issues?
Of course, I distinguish it. An argument on their national
consciousness is simply ridiculous, especially in our century,
Not to mention that Macedonians have lived through enough
attempts from outside forces to "define" them in one way or
another. For scientific purposes, however, things are to be
called what they are. There was no Macedonian nation prior to
1945. The fact that it exists now should not influence our
science.
I.e. Do you
> accept (or not) that the Macedonians as a group are a
> different ethnos or nation (in the "right of nations
> to self-determination" sense) from the Bulgarians or
> not?
Of course I do.
Would you see their relationship as something
> akin to that of Romanians and Moldavians or as
> something more definitively (as far as anything in
> this world can be "definitive") established for
> purposes of ethno-national identity?******
George, this will be the same attempt at defining them that I have
named futile above. People are free to call themselves as they
wish. Yet what I disagree with is that they take a picture of
Samuil with the clear inscription in Old Bulgarian "Samiul, Tsar
of the Bulgarians", put it in a museum in Skopje and write down
for the uninformed visitors (who can hardly read Old Bulgarian):
Samuil, Tsar of the Macedonians. I think you can understand
why I disagree with that.
Eva