Читать книгу: «The Alphabet of Discord», страница 4

Шрифт:

2.5 Some peculiarities related to the characters of the Abecedar

The Abecedar was a text of forty pages: the first part corresponded to the primer proper, in which the letters were illustrated by pictures and examples; in the latter half some parts of speech and eight short reading texts were presented. Since, as mentioned above, the Greek government defended the position that the Slavophones in Greece were neither Bulgarians nor Serbs, but rather a specific nationality, the committee working on the primer opted for a variant of Croatian latinica, thus rejecting both the Bulgarian Cyrillic alphabet and the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet reformed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. The Latin alphabet used for the manual consisted of 29 letters, two of which were digraphs. Two of the characters devised by the commission were unique and corresponded to phonemes not represented in the modern Macedonian alphabet of 1945: the <î>, for the Bulgarian mid back unrounded vowel <ъ>, and <ü>, which indicated the palatalization of the previous consonant.

Miletich pointed out that the letter <ü> was introduced to indicate the sound corresponding to the Bulgarian Cyrillic letter <ю> (Miletich 1925: 230), as for example in the word lülka (люлка in Bulgarian—swing). The scholar rightly remarked that the commission in this case had preferred to adopt the German alphabet letter <ü>, instead of the digraph “ju” coming from Croatian latinica (expressed by the Bulgarian Cyrillic grapheme “ю”) (Sagiaksis, Lazarou, & Papazahariou 1925: 37).

The authors of the Abecedar introduced a further innovation: instead of using the single grapheme <r>, which is characteristic of Croatian latinica (as a semivowel or syllabic consonant, as occurs, for example, in the word “drvo”—“tree”), they decided to transliterate into Latin characters the Cyrillic combination <ър> of the two sounds involved. Thus, they represented the correspondent of the Bulgarian Cyrillic letter <ъ> separately, through the use of a letter coming from the Romanian alphabet, <î> (similar to the muted <ı> which would have been adopted shortly afterwards in the new Turkish alphabet). Consequently, in the Abecedar, the word for “tree” is “dîrvo.” The same <î> designates the Bulgarian character <ъ> in the word sînceto (= слънцето in Bulgarian, p. 37). In the texts in the Abecedar we can also observe that the authors indicated the specific Macedonian consonant rendered in its contemporary Macedonian Cyrillic version through the character <s> with the digraph <dz>, as well as today’s Macedonian Cyrillic letters <ќ> and <ѓ> with the digraphs <kj> and <gj>.

There are many other interesting aspects with reference to the letters in this manual, first of all the fact that the order of the letters is not exactly logical. The letter <b> is followed by <e> and not by <c>, undermining at the very beginning the title Abecedar itself; the letter <e> is followed by <v>, a fact which could prompt us to think that the authors were attempting to devise a new alphabetical order. The order of appearance of the 29 letters is in fact as follows:

dž

This is then contradicted by the order on the last page of the first section (p. 34), which follows that of the Latin alphabet:

dž

If we take a closer look, however, we note that there are 28 letters here, and therefore one is missing: it is the letter <î>. In short, there is a lot of confusion in this text, and the errors do not stop here.

As a general consideration, it is important to remark that, in the process of the creation of a new writing system, all efforts should be aimed at minimizing ambiguity while maintaining maximum simplicity for users (cf. Venezky 1977: 41-42). The work performed by the Greek linguists in designing the alphabet for the Slavophones in Aegean Macedonia was actually quite advanced on the purely technical (and theoretical) level, especially for the modernization of the language’s transcription system. This is true especially in comparison to the Bulgarian alphabet of the time, in which some letters that corresponded to mere orthographic archaisms remained (cf. Guentcheva 1999: 359).9 The latter made this writing system therefore not strictly phonemic, that is, based on the principle of “one letter, one sound.”

The combination of two or more letters to represent a single phoneme is generally considered, especially from a Cyrillic perspective, to be one of the major shortcomings of the Latin-based writing system (Wellish 1978: 47); in the case of the Abecedar, this element is certainly not the most important problem, as the obstacles to literacy in the Slavic-speaking community emerge in much more significant imperfections appearing in the text. In his review, Miletich cites a long series of examples from the pages of the primer in which words appear to be spelled incoherently, and notes that these inaccuracies represent a clear act of outrage by the Greeks against the Bulgarian script (Miletich 1925: 232).

It appears that the authors of the Abecedar did not pay too much attention to details and neglected the correct use of the writing system they had developed, probably due to a lack of time and attention, but perhaps also, one could assume, due to their own inability to handle a Latin alphabet they had not mastered very well. In this way, they undermined their own linguistic work and jeopardized the possibility of success for the use of the new alphabet by the target population, if that was indeed the goal of their efforts. According to Fishman (1977: xv), the creation of a new script becomes relevant only “insofar as it leads to the acceptance and implementation of the writing systems.” In our case, the decisions that taken in the Abecedar seem rather to indicate of a lack of will and seriousness in planning alphabet reform.

2.6 The “involvement” of Cyril and Methodius

As mentioned above, the use of the Latin instead of the Cyrillic alphabet provoked strong reactions in the Bulgarian press. In fact, once more precise information about the “character and tendencies of this primer” (Shishmanov 1926: 2) was released, anger seized all social circles, without distinction (ibid.). It is interesting to remark that the Greek authorities, in defending their choice, argued that Latin characters were easier to learn than Cyrillic and better suited to the sounds of the language; they recalled that Latin characters had already been used for writing other Slavic languages such as Croatian, Polish and Czech and that, by using some specific diacritical marks, they were able to make the most of the specific phonology of Slavic languages (Michailidis 1996: 339). It is clear that this comparison is accurate from a purely technical and linguistic point of view, but not from a cultural and historical one, since the Slavic peoples mentioned belong to the Catholic sphere of influence and, for them, unlike for the people of the Orthodox faith, the Cyrillic alphabet had no symbolic meaning.

In discussing the phenomenon of the creation of new writing systems, it is essential to evaluate the importance of some extralinguistic factors (Fishman 1977: xii): the application of a writing system to a language is impossible without the imposition of conventions that are accepted as binding by virtually all those who read and write that language (Wellish 1978: 41). In this case, the will of the people was certainly not taken into account in the choice of a Latin-based alphabet. It was not so much a question of abandoning fidelity to previous writing conventions, since the majority of the population were illiterate, but rather of breaking the bond with the Cyrillic alphabet of the liturgical books and icons in the local churches: that is, with the Orthodox religious tradition.

The Bulgarian and Greek governments, as well as the government of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, were all aware of the “power of writing,” that is, of the fact that writing, and therefore literacy, would have a great impact on the speakers of a language and their society (Biscaldi, Matera 2016: 91). They also knew that the conventions of writing systems were inherently sacred and that one writing system could only be replaced by another by force (cf. Wellish 1978: 42). In Bulgaria, the concern about alphabet reform in Latin letters for the Slavophone population in Greece was linked to the belief that this would represent a disruption in the cultural and religious tradition inaugurated by Saints Cyril and Methodius, and this would have extremely significant consequences for this minority’s identity. This was also the immediate reaction of the local Slavic population to the news of the publication of the primer in Latin characters, who exclaimed: “Are they also going to make us Catholics now?” (Kuševski 1983: 186)—a reaction which shows that use of the Latin alphabet was automatically associated with the Catholic sphere of influence.

In Bulgaria, on the news of the publication of the primer for the Macedonian Bulgarians, the philologist Miletich bitterly commented that it was not written “with their centuries-old Cyrillic alphabet, which they gave to the Slavic world through the Cyrillo-Methodian script, but with a kind of Latin alphabet” (Miletich 1925: 230; my translation). Moreover, Miletich criticized the very definition of Abecedar, which was in itself controversial: “The primer is called ‘Abecedar,’ a name that the Bulgarian population would hardly understand, since it is derived from the first letters of the Latin alphabet.” According to Miletich, the Greek government treated its Bulgarian subjects as “a new nation, a recently discovered one, without legitimacy, without its own writing and literacy, without its own literary tradition and standardized literary language” (Miletich 1925: 230; my translation).

In his text, the philologist Shishmanov addressed the Greek Ministry of Education and demanded an explanation for choosing the Latin alphabet for the Slavic people living on Greek territory. Since the Ministry recognized the existence of this minority, he wondered, was it not necessary to retain the Cyrillic script used by this population in all their “many and thriving” schools, whose existence preceded the Greek occupation? Shishmanov also insisted, much like Miletich, on the fact that the Slavic alphabet (referring in his case to the Glagolitic alphabet, not the Cyrillic) was, “as commonly known, created by the brothers Cyril and Methodius on the model of the Greek script.” He explained that the Greek authorities’ choice in 1925 was provoked by the strong fear on the part of Greek institutions of Bulgarian cultural—and hence political—influence. Consequently, the minority population was deprived of the possibility of reading books and newspapers printed in Cyrillic letters in Bulgaria, and was materially and symbolically isolated from its most “natural” context of reference. Shishmanov also raised a very practical question, wondering what would happen to the Slavic liturgical books if the Greeks were really to force the Slavophone minorities to use the Latin alphabet for education:

Must these also be translated into the Bitola-Prilep dialect and printed in Latin letters? And from where will “Slavic” priests be taken henceforth who know how to use the Latin alphabet? These disturbing questions have not been answered by the official Greek authorities because they have not thought about these implications at all. They knew very well that in the end it was a simple “bluff.” (Shishmanov 1926:14; my translation)

In the Bulgarian national conception of which both Miletich and Shishmanov were representatives, the population of Aegean Macedonia was seen as dependent on the Bulgarian cultural and religious sphere and therefore inseparable from the Cyrillic alphabet (see Tramontano 1999: 323). According to a vision associated with the Slavic Orthodox cultural tradition, indeed, writing exercised a function far beyond the mere graphic representation of phonemes, since alphabet and faith were intimately connected. This is not an exclusive feature of Slavic Orthodox culture, for in other Eastern Christian traditions, as well as in the Islamic world (and also beyond), the value of the written word is also extremely strong (see Cardona 2009b: 133), especially when it occurs in a form perceived as “native.” So, in addition to the Glagolitic alphabet for Bulgarians and Croats (as we will see in Chapters 7 and 10), the Cyrillic alphabet for Bulgarians, Serbs, Russians, etc., we also have the examples of the Armenian alphabet for Armenian communities worldwide (associated with the Armenian Apostolic Church; see, for example, Maksoudian 2006, Uluhogian 1996), the Georgian alphabet (see Gamkrelidze 1994) for Georgians, as well as the Ge’ez alphabet for Ethiopians and Eritreans (see Cardona 1986: 151) and their respective Tewahedo Orthodox Churches (see Bekerie 1997).

The value of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission can be understood by its “revolutionary” historical value: at a time when the dogma of the three languages (Biblical Hebrew, Latin, Greek) was in force for the transcription of the Holy Scriptures, a Slavic language was able to assert itself and gain legitimacy thanks to a new work of alphabetic creation. In Shishmanov, the desire to maintain the Orthodox cultural and writing tradition coexisted with a broad international commitment at the European level, as he was one of the founders of the so-called Paneuropean Union, an embryonic version of today’s European Union (cf. Koneva 2011). Shishmanov was a great advocate of the idea of a united continent, which included respect for the rights of minorities as a fundamental value. His support for the message of Cyril and Methodius probably also stemmed from his attachment to the deeply European ideals of protecting and promoting cultural and linguistic diversity in every part of the continent.

Cyril and Methodius were “invoked” not only by Miletich and Shishmanov. Reference to their work also appeared in the reaction of an anonymous reporter published in the Bulgarian press in the Macedonian region of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Macedonian News (Nouvelles Macedoniennes) (Press of the Revolutionary Association VMRO), although the two saints were credited with creating the Cyrillic alphabet and not the Glagolitic one (cit. in Tramontano 1999: 324). The use of the Latin alphabet was also condemned by the pro-Bulgarian organizations of Macedonian refugees in Sofia, who demanded the immediate introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet (cf. Michailidis 1996: 336). In an article published in the daily Word on 15 October 1925, the Bulgarian politician and journalist Georgi Kulishev expressed his opinion on the subject, referring to the memory of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission:

The great work of Saints Cyril and Methodius has been eclipsed [...] three Greek specialists [...] have graced the Bulgarian people of Western Thrace and Macedonia with a new writing and a new manual for education. It is true that this writing is not so new—it is the Latin alphabet adapted to a not very beautiful cause, a semi-barbaric one. (in: Shishmanov 1926: 4; my translation)

In the same article, the author stated that the Abecedar represented something completely unheard of and “monstrous.” The Greeks had so achieved their goal that the Bulgarians had difficulty in recognizing their own language in the manual, a language subjected to “unheard-of tortures in their martyrology” (ibid.).

Similarly, in a text published in the journal Macedonian Review (Makedonski Pregled) in Sofia, the historian Georgi Strezov expressed his dissatisfaction with the way the Bulgarians were treated by the Greek authorities in Aegean Macedonia, condemning the violation of their cultural and national rights (Strezov 1926: 146). Strezov affirmed that such actions stemmed from the Greek will to uproot this minority from its land and to appropriate everything that was Bulgarian by every means at their disposal—“imprisonment, exile, pitchforks, primers”—and above all by banning their language: all with the aim of “de-Bulgarianizing” Macedonia. The Greeks hence aimed to eliminate all historical evidence of Bulgarian cultural presence in the area. “But we do not want to leave, we are obedient subjects of the Greek state, and we want only one thing—to pray to God in our mother tongue and to read books in Bulgarian” (Strezov 1926: 148; my translation).

The populations in Aegean Macedonia and Western Thrace that were considered “Bulgarian” by the above-mentioned authors already possessed their own written literary tradition, comprising books, newspapers, writers, printing houses, churches, clergy and schools, one which had reached an enviable level: in short, all the cultural characteristics of an advanced society (see also Rossos 2008: 147). The decision to introduce a different writing system and deprive them of such civilizational elements was incomprehensible to the Bulgarian public and unacceptable from a moral, linguistic, cultural and religious point of view. Referring to the population in question, Shishmanov asked: “What benefit could they derive from this Latin writing system? The result will be their inability to read not only a Bulgarian book, but also a Serbian or Russian book” (Shishmanov 1926: 9; my translation).

Certainly, one can conclude that the Greek commission did not adhere to what, in modern sociolinguistics, is considered to be the basis of linguistic and orthographic planning (cf. Fishman 1977: xv). In any project aimed at introducing a new writing system for educational purposes in a speech community, there are indeed a number of crucial decisions to be made: first of all, the choice between using an existing writing system and one created specifically for that language. The proponents of script reforms cannot decide arbitrarily on this fundamental aspect, but should take into account the reaction of the native-speaking population at all stages of the planning process (Berry 1977: 5).