National Geographic's "Now you see it - Now you don't" MACEDONIA magic trick!

April 10, 2011

Miltiades Elia Bolaris

Here below is a well presented video, showing how international geopolitics (Yugoslavia's rapprochement with the West after the Tito-Stalin rift) led the "scientifically objective" National Geographic to follow a three step magic act of deception and chicanery on a grand scale:

In 1962 the "apolitical" National Geographic makes its first magic act by "splitting" historic Macedonia of Greece, causing in amoeba-like genesis the sudden geographic appearance of another "Macedonia", this one in Yugoslavija, in line with Washington's appeasement of Titoist policies at the time.

The second act of National Geographic Balkan magic happens in 1969, where Macedonia disappears from the National Geographic universe, being erased from the map of Greece (as well as from that of Yugoslavia) fading temporarily into geopolitical and geographic oblivion.

The final act of National Geographic's grand forgery magic act appears in 1992 through the parthenogenesis  of a "Macedonia" (in reality the metamorphosis of the Yugoslav so called People's Republic of "Makedonija") and the concurrent disappearance (erasing) of historic Macedonia from the map of Greece!

The illusion of scientific objectivity and fallacious sense of political impartiality by the National Geographic is amply documented in all its State-Department-line-tailing, narrow minded "geopolitics Über Alles" apotheosis!

Here is the magical proof:

Ongoing Ethnogenesis in 21st Century Balkans: FYROM and the ethnic Slav majority

Article in the American Chronicle

John James Smith 

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/227817

April 04, 2011

The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is one of the world´s newest nations established towards the end of the 20th century. In September, 1991 the mixed population of ethnic Slavs (majority ca. 64%), Albanians (largest minority ca. 27%), Vlachs, Roma, Turks, and Greeks of this former Yugoslav state voted for independence in a referendum. From the outset, however, the constitutional name (e.g. Republic of Macedonia) and ethnic identity (Makedonski) of this young fledgling state have been at the centre of an intra-regional dispute spanning nearly two decades. 

On the one hand, Greece, FYROM´s southern neighbour disputes any reference to the name Macedonia without a geographic qualifier. According to Greek arguments, FYROM´s constitutional name has irredentist designs on a Greek province of the same name. In addition, the Greeks consider the ethnonym Macedonian to be associated with their ancient heritage and in particular to those ancient Greek speaking tribes that lived on the lands corresponding to the Modern Greek province of Macedonia. On the other hand, Bulgaria also disputes the ethnic identity of the Slavs of FYROM, claiming that they are in fact, Bulgarians. Their claim hinges on ethno-linguistic grounds and on the historical figures which constitute part of FYROM´s pantheon of founding fathers, e.g. Ivan Hadjinikolov, Gotse Delchev, Boris Sarafov, Dame Gruev, Krste Misirkov, and Nikola Karev. 

Indeed, can a nation which has yet to celebrate its 20th birthday be loaded with so much ethno-historical baggage? 

Apparently so, according to the government in Skopje, the Slavic speaking majority have ample evidence to rightfully press their ancient origins as far back as Alexander the Great. They even found a group of long lost relatives among the Hunza tribes of Pakistan, who were invited and flown to Skopje by Gruevski´s government with much pageantry and fanfare and which according to the local historians, are descendents of Alexander´s troops and hence distant relatives of the ethnic Slavs of FYROM. Interestingly, while no foreign media at Skopje was able to interview the (suspicious) State guests, back in Pakistan word had spread of the tale resulting in the production of a local comedy loosely translated ´Iskander and the new Yunana (Greeks).´ The play ridicules the ethnic Slavs of FYROM as too backward, vulgar, and incompetent to be the descendents of the famous ancient Greek warrior Iskander (Alexander) reducing FYROM´s fanciful assertions to local tribal jokes. More amusingly, however, was that FYROM unaware, had not picked up on it at the time. 

Arguably, the Skopje government is so highly determined to foster an ancient ancestry that its decision to import such questionable and dubious credentials reveals the government´s somewhat naïve yet desperate attempt to implement historical veracity to its national identity. One cannot help but wonder what sources the historiographers of FYROM have drawn on to produce their national narrative. Pretentious designs, not to mention the waste of thousands of taxpayer´s dollars, on exaggerated narratives with a hollow past only serves to alienate the very people who have faithfully witnessed the active engineering of their modern identity. 

The question is, however, have the ethnic Slavs of FYROM accepted this monstrous deception by their government? In a recent national spree of impulsive nationalism the Skopje government set about renaming everything from highways, bridges, airports, and stadiums to controversial historical figures which has drawn the ire of some of its neighbours. Furthermore, the capital city of Skopje has been in the midst of a grand developmental building project called, Skopje 2014 which is said to feature statues, colonnaded buildings, and even a Roman styled Arc´ de Triumph. Unsurprisingly, many of Skopje´s citizens who were polled consider the Skopje 2014 project nothing more than an expression of ultimate kitsch reflecting a government in desperate denial. 

Surprised? No, why should we. FYROM needs a historical past quick smart if it has any chance in establishing the ethnogenesis of a new, polished, and somewhat malleable Balkan identity whereby the ethnic Slav majority of FYROM will constitute the main ingredient in the famous regional Macedonian salad of Bulgarians, Greeks, Albanians, Roma, Turks, and Vlachs. 

Then, a couple of years ago there was also the so called ´Macedonian Prayer´ shown on national television, and according to the distributors (government sponsored?), emphasised the intricate significance and superiority of the so called ´Macedonoid race,´ presumably a race of people from whom, and unbeknown to the global scientific community, the white race was conceived. The video attempts to marry FYROM´s religious pulse with science by apparently having the voice of FYROM´s God dictate a Darwinian spread of the (white) human race from Skopje (not Africa) to the rest of the world. How can the scientific community interpret such flagrancy other than to simply shrug it off as just another case of pseudo-science whereby certain individuals in FYROM must feel both threatened and desperate subsequently establishing their own version of racial-evolution. 

Again, the question is, were the ethnic Slavs of FYROM seduced by such unabashed discriminatory rubbish? 

Regrettably, the expected response from FYROM´s Academy of Sciences and Arts (MANU) to such public racism did not eventuate and was unfortunately quite muted. Conversely, the global academic community who were first and foremost appalled by the highly racist material (reminiscent of Nazi Aryanism), refused to comment on it and dismissed it on what they perceived as nothing more than nationalistic propaganda to score political points for the government in power. There was, however, global bemusement and disappointment for all those venerated (apolitical) scholars who work at MANU, and who did not openly and concretely distance themselves (and the academy) from such racist propaganda.

As this paper intends to only look at the recent construction of identity in FYROM, it is important to keep in mind that this means only the identity of the ethnic Slav majority of FYROM. While some ethnic Slav citizens of FYROM and in particular the Diaspora contend to be descendents of and believe to have legitimate rights to the ancient Macedonians, it is significant to point out that in pre-WW II Yugoslavia the vast majority of their ancestors openly proclaimed a Bulgarian ethnicity. This can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century when in a time when most of the Balkans were attempting to liberate themselves from the Ottoman yoke, a sense of collective identity was formulated on the grounds to unite the people to a common cause. The birth of a number of revolutionary organisations created by a group of Bulgarian intellectuals conceived the idea to free the region of Macedonia from Ottoman control, extract autonomy status with the support of the European powers, and finally unite the Bulgarian people of Macedonia with their Bulgarian motherland. 

Many of these intellectuals (e.g. Hadjinikolov, Delchev, Gruev, Misirkov) perceived a Macedonian identity as nothing more than the regional appellation of the many ethnicities that straddled the land of Macedonia. This was most evident in the preamble of their revolutionary organisation BMARO – Bulgarian Macedonia Adrianople Revolutionary Organisation – which although a Bulgarian organisation, openly called to arms all the inhabitants of Macedonia regardless of ethnicity. Coincidently BMARO is the ancestor organisation of many contemporary political offspring organisations in both Bulgaria and FYROM under the acronym VMRO. 

Here it must be stressed, that contra to the nationalistic rhetoric emanating from both Skopje and the Diaspora, the preamble was formulated and approved by its Bulgarian committee (e.g. Hadjinikolov, Delchev, Gruev, etc.) to mainly signify its Bulgarian roots and Bulgarian identity in the lands of multiethnic Macedonia and Thrace (hence Adrianople). Over the years we have put forward the same question to a number of nationalists in the Diaspora about the significance of the Bulgarian identity in the preamble whereby we mostly received a series of confused, mumbled, and contradictory replies. It must be said that most of the nationalistic propaganda stems from Diasporic groups that peddle nationalistic newsletters usually filled with a good dose of historical fiction and a few pages inflamed with current politics. Many of these Diasporic groups refer to themselves with geographic qualifiers, e.g. Egeski, a term relating to the Aegean Sea in Greece. These recently invented terms give the impression that they once resided along the Aegean littoral but in reality they all come from the mountainous border regions, e.g. Florina, and have no historical, cultural, culinary, or maritime tradition to the Aegean Sea. Some see the creation of these geographic terms as irredentist designs by FYROM and her Diaspora with intentions to usurp Greek territory. 

It is no secret that there is a new wave of neo-nationalism in FYROM and the Diaspora, and a lot of it is hand fed by incumbent figures who have resigned to the use of the internet as a field of propaganda to further fabricate an imaginary historical past dotted with mythologizing figures and events. Obviously, the lack of sociological knowledge in arm-chair nationalism clearly reflects the monolithic premise behind the absolute ignorance (and chauvinistic arrogance) of how the social construct of ethnic identity has always been in a state of flux or in a constant realm of becoming. The unsophisticated assumption that a regional identity (e.g. as that proclaimed in FYROM and her Diaspora) is static, rigid, and distinct to one people shows how little such assessments understand the social and conscious parameters of human agency and endeavour. 

Obviously, the problem pertaining to the Skopje authorities over the years has been how to reconcile what has been termed as their antiquisationist projects (e.g. the deliberate grafting of ancient historical figures, symbols, events, onto modern national narratives) with that of their most recent past which, according to the revolutionary figures (e.g. Sarafov, Sandanski, Delchev), were deemed to be of Bulgarian stock. Ironically, it is these same Bulgarian intellectuals such as Hadjinikolov, Delchev, and Gruev whose memoirs are left to posterity, effectively dismantle FYROM´s antiquisation fairy tale based on the fact that these men (and many others) recognised and traced their Bulgarian roots back through the historical Bulgarian struggles. They saw as their direct ancestors Bulgarian revolutionaries such as Hristo Botev, Georgi Benkov and the martyr Vasil Levski (also known as the Apostle of Freedom) whose struggle to free Bulgaria from the Ottoman yoke cost him his life. For example, Gotse Delchev considered Vasil Levski as his faithful ancestor, and was once restrained by his comrades from attempting to strangle to death a 16 year old youth for publicly slighting the ´Apostle.´ In addition, they drew on their Bulgarian identity to create BMARO (and later VMRO) which was a carbon copy reproduction of Levski´s revolutionary organisations. BMARO´s preamble, the slogan ´Freedom or Death,´ as well as the symbol of a crossed pistol and dagger all find their origin in Levski´s organisations in the Bulgarian struggle for freedom. Others who get mention as Bulgarian forerunners in the intellectual´s memoirs are medieval leaders such as Samuel, defeated by the Byzantine ruler Basil who not surprisingly was also known as the Bulgarslayer.

What is certain is that none of the BMARO revolutionaries had any qualms or confusion in openly declaring the Bulgarian identity of the people the preamble was meant to defend. One must not forget that the existence of BMARO was in effect just another link in a chain of revolutionary freedom movements going back to Levski as the only alternative left for freeing the Bulgarian people of Macedonia and Thrace from Ottoman rule. Hadjinikolov, Delchev, Gruev, and many others repeatedly declared their Bulgarian identity in their memoirs something that was never contradicted by their followers and the rest of the Bulgarian people of Macedonia and Thrace. In spite of all this evidence, some FYROM and Diasporic commentators unconvincingly argue that these intellectuals must have been, nevertheless, confused of their ethnic identity. This then should not come as a surprise that some of these same commentators who are obviously ´confused´ by their own immediate ancestry can naively turn and claim ethnic continuity reaching back into the Neolithic period (some even claim 70,000 years), long before the conceptual birth of ethnicity, culture, and identity. Sensibly, many international academics have reasonably dismissed this and many other similar quasi-science assertions.

Even pro-FYROM academics such as some anthropologists (e.g. Danforth) and historians (e.g. Borza) have openly disclosed the recent ethnic construction of the Slavic speaking people of FYROM and distanced themselves from any ancient hyperbole. Others have likened Skopje´s (and certain Diasporic elements) antiquisation insistence as the likely outgrowth of an ´Inferior Slav Syndrome´ perceived and embodied in the national identity and fearful of being equated as a new Balkan upstart. Essentially, the theory of creating/inventing/fabricating ancient roots to provide instant ethnic legitimacy is in effect the Gordion knot which unfortunately for FYROM has yet to find Alexander´s intuition.

What then, is it that makes a segment of FYROM society (and many in the diaspora) seek their identity in antiquity? We know from reading many of the Diasporic articles that there is no shame in misappropriating historical material for nationalistic consumption. For instance, we have seen how on certain web-pages Diasporic individuals have altered the original Carnegie report of the Balkan Wars in 1912-13 to deliberately change and substitute every ethnic Bulgarian village in Macedonia (and unwittingly Thrace) to a more digestible reading along nationalistic lines for their national narrative while attempting to completely erase every Bulgarian presence from pre-Yugoslav Macedonia. This has also been the case where the Bulgarian language has been concerned.

The present Slavic language of FYROM was first codified in 1944 to purposely cleanse it of what was considered by the authorities to be to close to Bulgarian (something FYROM has yet to properly address). The question that should be asked here is, does the reassembling of various Bulgarian dialects constitute a new language (and identity)? Much of the original Bulgarian alphabet that was taught throughout the region of Slavic speakers was substituted with Serbian attributes. While I myself learnt Bulgarian in America and after nearly 35 years of research in the Macedonian region of Greece, Bulgaria, Albania, and FYROM, I have still to meet a villager who I did not understand. Sure many of the Bulgarian dialects spoken could be a little challenging at first, but it was never problematic in conducting our interviews. To conduct research one needs a good command of language, knowledge of customs, and most importantly mutual respect. It became obvious last year, while on a field trip researching the dialects in the southern Balkans that the Bulgarian speakers in the region of Thrace (in Greece) could (as we could) understand with amusing ease the Slavonic (or Bulgarian?) spoken in FYROM, Albania, Greece (Macedonia), and Bulgaria. One should normally ask how is it possible that a number of Bulgarians from Komotini in Thrace (Greece) were able to clearly understand the Slavic spoken in Kastoria (Greece), Ohrid (FYROM), Korce (Albania), and Goce Delchev (Bulgaria) if it is a supposed distinct, separate language to Bulgarian as some linguists attempt to claim.

The Slavic language of FYROM was recognised as an international (non-Bulgarian) language only after the assistance of the linguist Horace Lunt. One begs the question, had the highly admired linguist (Lunt) not endorsed the newly codified language in Skopje would Tito (with Stalin´s assistance) have continued on his anti-Bulgarian ethnic construction in the newly born Yugoslav state. Stalin was, nevertheless quite clear, creating new ethno-linguistic national identities seemed to be normal practice in the Soviet Union, e.g. Belarusian. Yet, in the last 30 years many Slavic linguists have made it clear that the Slavic spoken in present day FYROM is as different to Bulgarian as Austrian is to German, American to English, Brazilian to Portuguese, or Mexican to Spanish. It is said that the difference between a language and a dialect is that unity brings about a dialect, and with separation a language. This model fits like a glove with FYROM´s past. Under Ottoman rule Bulgarian dialects were present from the Black Sea across to Lake Ohrid. With the recreation of Tito´s post-WW II Yugoslavia the regional Bulgarian dialects were subsequently stripped, raped, and reproduced as a new language complete with a new Yugoslav state border and identity. Unlike Slovenian and Serbo-Croation, which are not mutually intelligible to Bulgarian speakers, although a superficial understanding can take place (e.g. such as the Romance languages - Italians can make some superficial sense of French or Spanish), the Slavic speakers of FYROM have a linguistic bond to Bulgarian even after the fervent though flawed attempts in the post-WW II period to cleanse the dialect (come language) of its Bulgarian roots.

There are those Slavic linguists (e.g. Friedman) who adamantly espouse the distinctive quality of the language spoken in FYROM but one needs to take their assertions with a grain of salt. Just as one needs to also remember, that all academics (linguists included) need a thesis to validate their position. And as such, we come to a good example of mutual intelligibility that took place in 1995 when FYROM´s President Gligorov attempted to have interpreters present to translate the proceedings between himself and his Bulgarian counterpart. He was promptly denied on the grounds that both the Bulgarian diplomats and his (Gligorov´s) entourage (especially his interpreter) found the exercise ridiculous. Later, one diplomat commented that Gligorov thought, that by having an interpreter present he would help validate a distinct FYROM language separate from its Bulgarian origin. In other words, while everyone at the diplomatic meeting agreed that the language spoken by all parties was mutually intelligible, political maneuvering by Gligorov failed to vindicate his claim. For example, Gligorov´s (interpreter) attempt was nothing short of seeing, for instance, Barak Obama requesting the services of an interpreter to translate David Cameron´s British English.

In the end, it is noteworthy to mention that no matter how much linguistic engineering took place in 1944 (even with Lunt´s approval) the social construction of FYROM´s language was absolutely incapable if not outright inept of erasing its Bulgarian origins.

Elsewhere (and quite disappointingly), there has been the FYROM government´s constant refusal to assist local and foreign research on the subject of the country´s ethnogenesis. For example, for many years applications have failed to access post-WW II archives in Skopje to understand the mass and sometimes brutal enforcement of the erasure of Bulgarian surname suffixes (e.g. –ov/ev (masc.), -ova/eva (fem.), into –ovski/evski, -ovska/evska) in a period when Tito accepted (with Stalin´s blessing) both a newly constructed ethno-linguistic Yugoslav identity with a newly created Yugoslav state. Research revealed that every region of the newly created post-WW II Yugoslav state (FYROM´s predecessor) was forced by the Skopje authorities of the time (sometimes under pain of death) to change their Bulgarian surnames into their newly constructed identities. It has remained one of the most secretive periods of FYROM´s past and continues to assert much hate among the few surviving older generation who as children remember those terrible times. Many of the eye witness accounts retell the horrific events that led to the sufficient rebaptism of the general populace. For example, many who refused to change their Bulgarian family names were first beaten in front of their families, and then forced to watch the rape of their wives, daughters, and mothers before being led away, mostly never to be seen again. This period of enforced ethnogenesis has and still remains, one of the most tragic stains of selective amnesia on the country´s conscious. It has been argued that even if the Skopje authorities opened their post-WW II archives there would be no trace of any documents alluding to both the codification of the language and the brutal enforcement of a new Yugoslav surname to promote the new post-WW II ethnic identity of what has today become FYROM.

It has taken many years of interviews and field work to capture the essence of the ethnogenesis of a new former Yugoslav state in the late 20th early 21st century. But ultimately, apart from some elements in both FYROM and the Diaspora who are firmly entrenched in some half baked fantasy of being linked to antiquity, let alone to Alexander the Great, the vast majority of ethnic Slavs of FYROM are not easily persuaded by the kitsch of historical statues or by the nationalistic overtones of the Skopje 2014 project.

No instead, it is said among many ethnic Slavs in the villages of FYROM that if we have food on the table and constant work the authorities in Skopje can build, fabricate, and rename anything they want, but please don´t leave us - Unemployed. Incidentally, another area of concern was revealed recently when Transparency International (the anti-corruption body) indicated that over 70% of people in FYROM paid bribes to receive public services. If we were to use such findings to reflect and measure socio-economic success in FYROM society today, then it is possibly safe to assume that constructing a putative ancient ancestry in FYROM receives precedence over peoples´ livelihoods.

The continuing ethnogenesis in FYROM´s national narrative is, unlike other modern European nations, still in the process of (re-)inventing itself. Eventually, it will embrace a modern identity compiled, if not completely fabricated from the mosaic of regional ethnicities whose histories, languages, cultures, and historical figures will pave both its streets and its conscience. An upcoming article will continue to explore the road of modern ethnogenesis in FYROM and assess the hybrid nature of the people of FYROM as well as the recent emphasis (and invention) of a variety of regional traditions to highlight the ongoing process of becoming.

Joan Walker and Sally Monroe

Students of Ethnogenesis

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/227817

Skopje professor Vasil Iljov deciphers a 77000 years old Slavomacedonist inscription : MA-KE-DO-NI-JA!

April fools day - April 1st, 2011 - Πρωταπριλιά 2011
MA-KE-DO-NI-JA! or is it...AJ-IN-OD-EK-AM?



For more information on a related issue, which may or may not corroborate the truth of this April fools special story, please go to  the following National Geographic article:

"Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe"

http://hellenikathemata.blogspot.com/2011/04/ancient-tablet-found-oldest-readable.html

Slavic Elements in...Homer? - Part 3

Miltiades Elia Bolaris
SLAVIC HOMER IN SKOPJE and assorted Balkan fables

(Hocus Pocus Slavomakedoniensis: bogus scholarly witchcraft in the age of Antikvizatsiyja)

Petrus Invictus, a.k.a. Perica Sardzoski, a.k.a. Pero, a.k.a. Petro, a.k.a. John Donne is only one of a long series of Skopjan pseudo-scientists from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Makedonija and the Slavomacedonian Diaspora, who try to make a pointless connection between the Slavic speaking inhabitants of FYROM and the Hellenic-speaking ancient Macedonians. To make such an unlikely thesis credible, they have to A. De-Hellenize the ancient Macedonians and “prove” that their language was Slavonic and not related to Greek and, B. make the case that it was not the Slavic tribes that arrived into the Byzantine Balkans after the 7^th century AD, but it was the other way around: that the original home of the Slavs was Northern Greece, Macedonia, and that it was instead some imaginary Slavomacedonians of the ancient past who supposedly colonized the areas now inhabited by the Slavs, world-wide. 1[i]Such an amazingly in-credible theory is not so easy for other Slavs, Russians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Ukrainians and Bulgarians, among others, to swallow, but this leaves the Skopjan ultra-nationalists indifferent. The target of their pseudo-science is not the academics; they know they have lost that battle long ago. Their target focuses on the international You-Tube generation and internally on their own Slavomacedonian youth, a youth long poisoned by decades long thought-crushing brain-washing propaganda garbage.

In his “Slavic elements in Homer”2[ii] article, Perica Sardzoski has elevated the craft of Skopjan history falsification to the level of sacrilegious art. Telling us that his article is nothing else than the beginning of the writing of a “Living Bible” of pseudo-makedonism, he has no qualms falsifying even the original Bible.

In “Slavic Elements in...Homer?” – Parts 1 and Part 2, we exposed his infantile pseudo-linguistics (“Odyssey” supposedly being derived from Slavic “Odi Si” / “Go away!” etc). Building on his original quicksand of arguments, he marches on several steps further. Putting truth feet up and head down, he tries to portray Modern Greek as being disconnected from Homeric Greek and his own Slavomacedonian in direct continuum with Homer’s language.

“We need to mention here that the word οδός (odos) is the only one that can be found in modern Greek, which obviously derived from the Homeric, however with a significantly altered meaning, due to the intervention of the Katharevousa. It turns out that οδός (odos) is synonymous to δρόμος (dromos), meaning ROAD, the streets in the town. While in modern day (Slavo-)Macedonian there are almost all the forms preserved in their original meaning: ODI (to go), ODENJE (going), ODAM (I GO), ODI SI (go away), OD (a walk)…

We have already shown how ὁδός / hodos / odos has stayed virtually unchanged in Greek for the last three thousand years. It was ὁδός in Homer, ὁδός in Herodotus, ὁδός in Plato, ὁδός in the Bible, ὁδός in Byzantine Greek and ὁδός in modern Greek. We can easily find a few million instances where the Homeric Greek ὁδός / hodos / odos  appears in Greek texts of all ages, including Modern and Homeric. The amusing challenge would be for Perica Sardzovski to find any of the the Slavonic ODI, ODENJE, ODAM, ODI SI, and OD in just one instance in Homer!

This not being enough for him, he continues:

“To show how the transformation of the term οδός (odos) happened in the Greek language we need to quote the bible here (Old Testament, Judges 18):

«Kαί είπαν προς αυτόν, Ερώτησον, παρακαλουμεν τον θεον δια να γνωρισωμεν εαν εχη να ευοδωθη η οδος ημων την οποίαν υπάγομεν.»” (our underlining)

Something did not seem right with this quote. The translation from Hebrew into Greek of the Old Testament was done in Alexandria of Egypt, during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-247 B.C.).  The first question the Skopjan clowns who believe that the Ancient Macedonians spoke proto-Slavic and wrote Slavomacedonian in Rosetta Stone’s Demotic script, is why the Macedonian Pharaohs of Hellenictic Egypt translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek, the Hellenic Coene language, and not into proto-Slavonic.3[iii] I know enough Greek to know that the Greeks of 3^rd cBC would NOT have written “δια να γνωρισωμεν” / dia na gnorisomen, or, especially “εαν εχη να ευοδωθη” / ean echei na euodothei. “Dia na”, “ean” and “na” are most definitely derived from ancient Greek but they are Modern Greek expressions, NOT 3^rd cBC Greek. As for the expression “εαν εχη να ευοδωθη” / ean echei na euodothei, besides being misspelled, it is also outright bad Greek that does not make sense regardless of dialect or era. Wondering what kind of “Bible” this pitiful pseudo-scientist is using, I looked up the original quote and this is how the text reads:

5 καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἐπερώτησον δὴ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ γνωσόμεθα εἰ εὐοδωθήσεται ἡ ὁδὸς ἡμῶν, ἐν ᾗ ἡμεῖς πορευόμεθα ἐν αὐτῇ.

5 And they said to him, Enquire now of God, and we shall know whether our way will prosper, on which we are going. 

To see the difference, I transliterated the Greek text and the discrepancy is obvious. The first text is the original Greek of the Bible, in Latin script. The second one is the fraudulent text.

ORIGINAL: Kai eipan auto eperotison en to Theo, kai gnossometha ei euodothesetai e hodos emon, en e emeis poreuometha en aute

FRAUD: Kai eipan pros auton, Erotison, parakaloumen ton Theon dia na gnorisomen ean eche e odos emon ten opoian ypagomen

We have no idea how and why this Bible and Macedonian history falsifier came up with this Coene Greek-sounding “BIBLE” quote but for sure he is miles away from the original Greek of the Bible. Had he been living in Spain, in the wrong era, he would have been condemned to burn on the stake as a heretic. All we will do for him is to simply expose him as the fraudulent pseudo-intellectual that he is. Keeping on with his hoax, and to achieve his ultra-nationalist propaganda goals, he has no qualms falsifying even the sacred book of both Christians and Jews:

“In the Bible it is obvious that the term οδός was used with its original form, which is “long journey”. How did this transformation take place, knowing that Modern Greek is derived from that of the Bible, which on the other hand derives from that of Classical Greek and Homer?”

This is false, of course, as we will show, but, in keeping with his assertion of “a significantly altered meaning” for hodos, “due to the intervention of the Katharevousa. It turns out that οδός (odos) is synonymous to δρόμος (dromos), meaning ROAD, the streets in the town.”

Therefore, he howls sarcastically:

“You wouldn’t say that the Bible implied a rich or prosperous district of town with this passage, would you?”

No, in fact we would not. Simply because odos/οδός DOES NOT mean district of town in Greek, not now, not ever, in the same way that “Street”, “Road”, “Way” or “Highway” DOES NOT mean “district of town” in English, for that matter. Only in the crooked mind of a propagandist can these terms be equated, in order to create confusion and cover up his devious tracks using the Bible (“You wouldn’t say that the Bible implied...") as his fig leaf!

We look up at the meaning of ὁδός / hodos, in “The New Testament Greek Lexicon”:

“ὁδός

Definition:

Properly

a.         a way, a travelled way, road

b.         a traveler’s way,  journey, travelling

Metaphorically

a.         a course of conduct, a way (i.e. manner) of thinking, feeling, deciding

Out of a hundred instances of  ὁδός / hodos, in the Bible, we find it translated into English with the following words:

highways, 2;

journey, 7;

path, 1;

paths, 1;

road, 24;

roads, 1;

streets, 1;

way, 54;

ways, 9;”

This is in Coene Greek, the Greek of the Bible. In Homeric Greek, according to the Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect4[iv], ὁδός / hodos meant: (1) a way, path, track, passage, road, (2) a going, journey, voyage, course, and (3) means of journeying or passage, facilities for a journey.

In Modern Greek it can mean:

 οδός:

Street, road, way, route, tract, process, thoroughfare, passage, etc.

The word ὁδός / hodos is also used to create a dizzying multitude of such words as οδηγός/hodegos (driver), οδηγητής/odegites and Οδηγήτρια/Hodegetria (the Guiding one), περίοδος/periodos (period), μέθοδος/methodos (method), κάθοδος/kathodos (cathode), άνοδος/anodos (anode), είσοδος/eisodos (entry), έξοδος/exodos (exodus-exit), πρόσοδος/prosodos (incoming funds), οδικός/odikos (of the road,  παροδικός/parodikos(bypassing or temporary), πρόοδος/proodos (progress), σύνοδος/dynodes (synod), δίοδος/diodos (passageway), έφοδος/ephodos (attack), πάροδος/parodos (side-street)...etc etc etc. We can fill pages of these words, and many of them have actually been accepted as loanwords into several other languages, so translating Periodos, Exodos, or Methodos is hardly necessary.

Yet, according to Pero Sardzovski,

“We need to mention here that the word οδός (odos) is the only one that can be found in Modern Greek, which obviously derived from the Homeric, however with a significantly altered meaning, due to the intervention of the Katharevousa. It turns out that οδός (odos) is synonymous to δρόμος (dromos), meaning ROAD, the streets in the town. While in modern day (Slavo-)Macedonian there are almost all the forms preserved in their original meaning: ODI (to go), ODENJE (going), ODAM (I GO), ODI SI (go away), OD (a walk)…”

What else can we say...?

Now we move to what Pero calls:

“THE ETYMOLOGY OF HOMER’S “δόμονδε” (DOMONDE):

Odyssey, Book 3, lines 404-446

“πὰρ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔην καὶ ἀοιδὸς ἀνήρ, ᾧ πόλλ᾽ ἐπέτελλεν
Ἀτρεΐδης Τροίηνδε κιὼν ἔρυσασθαι ἄκοιτιν.
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή μιν μοῖρα θεῶν ἐπέδησε δαμῆναι,
270δὴ τότε τὸν μὲν ἀοιδὸν ἄγων ἐς νῆσον ἐρήμην
κάλλιπεν οἰωνοῖσιν ἕλωρ καὶ κύρμα γενέσθαι,
τὴν δ᾽ ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν ἀνήγαγεν ὅνδε δόμονδε.”

In English:

“…and with her was furthermore a minstrel whom the son of Atreus straitly charged, when he set forth for the land of Troy, to guard his wife. But when at length the doom of the gods bound her that she should be overcome, then verily Aegisthus took the minstrel to a desert isle and left him to be the prey and spoil of birds; and her, willing as he was willing, he led to his own house.”

δόμονδε – pronounced [domonde] – meaning “homeward”, shows a striking similarity to the Macedonian word DOM (home), or DOM-ON (that home over there).

ONDE in Macedonian means OVER THERE. It is an adverb of place which can be afflicted to nouns in its short form ON, NA, NO, NE, NA.

So if we have DOM+ONDE (home + over there), in modern Macedonian, and then δόμονδε, meaning HOMEWARD, when in Greek we have: προς το σπίτι (pros to spiti). In Greek it is σπίτι (SPITI), which means HOME.”

Let us start with the last comment. Spiti/σπίτι is in fact commonly used in Modern Greek for “home”, but “spiti” is not a Greek word originally, it is a Byzantine loanword from Latin. It was originally Hospitium (see: hospital, hosting, etc), then it became Ospition, Ospiti and now Spiti. In some modern Greek dialects like in Pontian it is still Ospiti or Ospitin. The other two common words used in modern Greek for home or house are either oikia/οικία or katoikia/κατοικία, and in some cases also oikos/οίκος: “oikos eugerias”/ οίκος ευγηρίας, “old people’s home”. The word Economy is derived from Oikos, spelled also in Latin as Oecos, (Economy was spelled Oeconomia, in Latin, and the O was later dropped in other languages). Ecology, Ecosphere and other Eco- words are also derived from Oikos, home.

Now let us read carefully Sardzovski’s arguments on domonde:

“δόμονδε – pronounced [domonde] – meaning “homeward”, shows a striking similarity to the Macedonian word DOM (home), or DOM-ON (that home over there).”

He is correct in translating δόμονδε /domonde as “homeward” or, more precisely: “to the house”. He is also correct in noticing a similarity between the Greek δόμονδε /domonde and the Slavomacedonian DOM (home), but once he goes to DOM-ON (that home over there), then he already slipped. We will explain: The Greek word Δόμος/Domos means house in ancient Greek, more specifically the “built” structure, house more than home. It is a common Indo-European word to the Latin Domus, the Slavonic Dom and the Sanskrit Dama, among others.

In Homeric Greek “dom-” related words denote structure, construction, frame, house, built item etc:

“Domos/Δόμος (demo/δέμω): house, home, denoting a dwelling as a whole; usually singular of temples, and when applied to the abodes of animals, but often plural of dwellings of men.

Demo/Δέμω, (aorist) edeimna/έδειμα...build, construct

Demos/Δέμος (demo/δέμω), frame, built of body, joined with είδος

Demnion/Δέμνιον: pl., bedstead, bed5[v]”

Pero is already moving in a different direction:

“ONDE in (Slavo)Macedonian means OVER THERE. It is an adverb of place which can be afflicted to nouns in its short form ON, NA, NO, NE, NA.
So if we have DOM+ONDE (home + over there), in modern (Slavo)Macedonian, and then δόμονδε, meaning HOMEWARD, when in Greek we have: προς το σπίτι (pros to spiti). In Greek it is σπίτι (SPITI), which means HOME.”

Onde, he tells us means “over there”, in Slavomacedonian. Therefore, he reasons, “ if we have DOM+ONDE (home + over there), in modern (Slavo)Macedonian, and then δόμονδε, meaning HOMEWARD. This is good alchemy, but hardly convincing linguistics. While there is DOM (home), and even DOM-ON (that home over there), in Slavomakedonski, there is no “Domonde” word meaning “homeward”. That home “over there” means THAT HOME OVER THERE! Any way you cook it does not mean “homeward”!

Furthermore, let us follow the Greek text in Homer, and Pero’s linguistic alchemy will become even more transparent: 

We read the last line, which has what we need:

“τὴν δ᾽ ἐθέλων ἐθέλουσαν ἀνήγαγεν ὅνδε δόμονδε
ten d’ ethelon ethelousan anegagen onde domonde
and her, willing as he was willing, he led to his own house”

This is a good English translation, but we will translate each one of the last three by themselves:

ἀνήγαγεν/ anegagen : he led

ὅνδε δόμονδε  / onde domonde : “to his own house”. 

This is CORRECT English but NOT a literal translation. 

If we were to translate the EXACT Greek words it would be more like:

(ἀνήγαγεν/ anegagen: he led)  ὅνδε δόμονδε  / onde domonde = “to his own to the house”, since:

ὅνδε/ onde means “to his own” and δόμονδε/domonde means “to the house”.

Δόμονδε/domonde, we were told by Perica Sardoski, is derived by the Slavic DOM+ONDE (home + over there).

But the Greek text has ONDE DOMONDE, and more specifically ὅνδε δόμονδε, which Petro seems to bypass whistling indifferently. So, then how would he translate it using his own Slavonic dialect?

 “Over there home over there”? 

And how, then, would he translate the complete last line?

“…and her, willing as he was willing, he led over there home over there.”?

We would hate to see Pero translate Homer in Slavomakedonski. That would be yet one more grave disservice (among many others) to the Slavomacedonian youth and the literary community in Skopje.

ὅνδε is in fact a combination (ὅν-δε) of ὅς + -δε: to his own…or more precicely: to his6[vi]

ὅνδε acts as the attribute of δόμονδε which is also a combined word (δόμον-δε) of δόμος+δε.

The doubling of “-δε” in both the attribute (ὅνΔΕ) and the object (δόμονΔΕ) is used to create emphasis. And of course it is more poetic and rhythmic, something never lost in Homer!

He uses it all the time in fact7[vii]:

“νοστῆσαι Ὀδυσῆα πολύφρονα ὅνδε δόμονδε,

that the wise Odysseus should return to his own home,”

Homer Odyssey. 1.80

The use of -δε / -de as an emphatic suffix is not unique to Homer, to the contrary.

Onde / ὅνδε is accusative singular masculine of ὅς + -δε. This means that onde/ὅνδε can also appear

in nominative masculine singular as osde/ὅσδε (the s is in fact eclipsed and it actually becomes ode/ὅδε), 

in genitive masculine singular as oude/ούδε, in dative masculine singular as ode/ώδε and of course as onde/ὅνδε. 

In Feminine form it can also appear as ede/ήδε, esde/ήσδε ήδε/ede as well as in neutral ὅδε/ode, oude/ούδε 

and tode/τόδε:

πῶς δ᾽ ἂν γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ἐν κραταιλέῳ πέδῳ
γαίας ποδῶν ἔκμακτρον; εἰ δ᾽ ἔστιν τόδε, 535
How could there be an imprint of feet

on a stony plot of ground? And if there is, 535

Ἠλέκτρα/Electra, Euripides 535

τόδε/tode: emphatic “there!”

This is only for singular, the same holds for the plural forms. Nobody ever claimed that Greek is an easy language. 

But it is very precise and very expressive. 

Domonde/δόμονδε means to the house, homeward, as we said. This is the only thing which petro told us that is correct. But as we noted above, a δόμονδε is a combination of δόμον + δε (δόμος-δε) and not as Petrus Invictus claims of Dom + Onde (house – over there). Domos+de not dom+onde!8[viii]

Entha/ἔνθα means here, but enthade/ἐνθάδε (ἔνθα + -δε) means towards here, hither, right here! “ἐνθάδε κεῖται” are the most famous two words written on a Greek tombstones, similar to the RIP in English: “ἐνθάδε κεῖται / here lies”, and the name of the deceased.

All adverb of place, indicating the place receive the -δε /-de in the end: domos/δόμος means house and it gives us domonde/δόμονδε, but oikos/οἴκος means home and it give us oikade/οἴκαδε. 

τὸν δ᾽ οὐχ ὑποδέξομαι αὖτις

οἴκαδε νοστήσαντα φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν.

but my husband I shall never welcome back,

returning home to his dear native land. 

Hom. Od. 19.258

οἴκαδε νοστήσαντα / oikade nostesanta / returning home : Oikade/οικαδε = οίκος + -δε : oikonde/οικονδε / to one’s house or home. 

Mache/Μάχη means battle, machende/μάχηνδε means to battle. 9[ix]From Ulympos/Υλυμπος we have Ulymponde/ ὔλυμπόνδε and from Phthia/Φθία, Achilles’s homeland, we have Phthiende/Φθίηνδε. Homeward. From Athens/Athena/Αθήνα we derive Athenade/ Αθήναδε were D morphs into Z and it becomes Athenaze/Αθήναζε, to Athens. Going towards Ithaca to Ithake/Ἰθάκη becomes Ithakende/Ἰθάκηνδε, to Ithaca:

εἰ κεῖνόν γ᾽ Ἰθάκηνδε ἰδοίατο νοστήσαντα,

ei keinon g’ Ithakende idoiato nostesanta,

were they to see him returned to Ithaca,

Homer, Odyssey, a.163

We mentioned earlier that ὅνδε δόμονδε has a repeating –δε (acting as emphasis on ὅνδε, while still being a locative on δόμονδε) which is adding emphasis to the whole expression : onde domonde / ὅνδε δόμονδε:

τοῖος, -α, -ον which means “such, of such nature, kind”, becomes emphasized by the addition of –δε as a suffix and then it becomes: τοιόσδε, τοιήδε, τοιόνδε which also means: “such, of such nature, kind”

ἐν τοῖσδ᾽ ἐκείνου τηλορὸς ναίω δόμοις

I live in his house, at a distance from the city.

Ἠλέκτρα/Electra Euripides 251

τοῖσδ᾽ ἐκείνου / toisde ekeinou - toisd’ekeinou - translated here as: in his own…δόμοις / domois – house

This becomes even more apparent when we look at a few examples of the the word tosos/τόσος, τόσσος, -η, -ον, meaning “such in number, quantity or volume” which becomes “τοσόσδε, τοσσόσδε, τοσήδε, τοσόνδε” without changing the meaning of “such in number, quantity or volume” but it is merely strengthened by the final addition of –δε as a suffix.

We start with an example from Homer:

“205αἲ γὰρ ἐμοὶ τοσσήνδε θεοὶ δύναμιν περιθεῖεν,

τίσασθαι μνηστῆρας ὑπερβασίης ἀλεγεινῆς,

 [205] O that the gods would clothe me with such strength,

that I might take vengeance on the wooers for their grievous sin,

Homer, Odyssey, 3. 205

τοσσήνδε δύναμιν / tossende dynamin / with such strength”

Then we have an example from Sappho, in the Aeolic dialect:

“αἰ γὰρ] οἰδήσαις ἐπὶ τ[ρὶς τόσονδε

I wish you would swell to thrice your size”
Symmachus, Sappho

τ[ρὶς τόσονδε / tris tosonde / thrice your size

Then we move centuries back, to a 14^th- 12^th c.BC example, several centuries before Homer, and we go to the earliest example of the appearance of Greek writing, the Linear B templates, where a surprising example of –δε is found, being used exactly in the same way, as an emphatic suffix. We follow J. T. Hooker in his book on Linear B: 

#122 (8) Some words are formed with the demonstrative stem to-

To-so = τόσ(σ)ος “so much”

To-so-de = τοσ(σ)όσδε (with emphatic suffix) , same meaning10[x]

As am matter of fact, three and a half thousand years later, this very expression has survived remaining almost unchanged in Greek: 
To-so = τόσ(σ)ος (tosos) it was in Linear B, toso/τόσο or tosos/τόσος is "so much" today.
To-so-de = τοσ(σ)όσδε (tososde) was the emphatic so much" in linear B, 3500 years ago, toso da / τόσο δά it is today, in Demotic, colloquial Greek.

Having seen –δε being used as early as the 12^th-14^th c BC in the ὅνδε type of emphatic sense, we are pleasantly surprised to find –δε being also used in the δόμονδε, locative sense, in those same Linear B templates, the earlier example of Greek script. We go to page 71 of the same book by J.T.Hooker. These are from Knossos, in Crete:

(iii) Name in –e-jo (-είον):

KN da-da-re-jo-de = Δαιδαλείόνδε 

...

(v) names in –i-jo/-i-ja (-ιος/-ια) and –u-wa  (υFα):

KN a-ka-wi-ja-de = ΑχαιFίανδε?

...

[Δαιδαλείόνδε  / Daidalionde = to Daidalion

ΑχαιFίανδε / AchaiFiande = to Achaia]

In case we have forgotten Petrus Invictus, a.k.a. Perica Sardzoski, a.k.a. Pero, a.k.a. Petro, a.k.a. John Donne’ s original argument, here is is once again, in all its inglorious nakedness:

“δόμονδε – pronounced [domonde] – meaning “homeward”, shows a striking similarity to the (Slavo)Macedonian word DOM (home), or DOM-ON (that home over there).

ONDE in (Slavo)Macedonian means OVER THERE…"

We believe that it is high time for the “home over there” (home + over there) type of comical pseudo-linguistic absurdities to return and rest Σκοπίανδε / Skopiande, to Skopje. 
Attempting to make a nationalistic case of autochthony for the Slavomacedonians in Macedonia, based on some sound similarities to words found in the greatest poetic masterpiece of Greek literature, is simply too far-fetched to fly anywhere, except for the You-Tube crowd.11&12[xi] [xii]

One of the basic arguments raised by Petrus Invictus, a.k.a. Perica Sardzoski, a.k.a. Pero, a.k.a. Petro, a.k.a. John Donne, was that since the Slavomacedonians, like most other Slavs, have retained the common Indo-European word Dom/ Дом for house, while the Greek use oικος/oikos, οικία/oikia and κατοικία/ katoikia and (the Latin loanword) σπίτι/spiti, it is therefore assumed that Slavomacedonian is closer to Homer who used Δόμος/Domos. This is as valid an argument as claiming that modern Hindi is not related to the language of the Vedas just because the modern Indians do not use the Sanskrit word Dama any longer, using ghara/ House, imārata/building, gr̥ha/ Houses and bhavana/ buildings, instead. 


In the same token Italian, Spanish and French, according to that twisted logic are not derived from Latin since they use casa, casa and maison, instead of the Latin domus while Polish and Czech are closer to the Sanskrit Vedas and to Homeric Greek since they are using Dom and Dum respectively.

Although Δόμος/Domos has fallen out of use long ago from Greek as a word describing “home” or“house”, it is still very much in use for a number of home construction and other construction related terms.

Dome/δομή is the built structure, hyperdome/υπερδομή is what has been built over the foundation, doma/δώμα is the floor of a multistory building but also the flat roof, domiko/δομικό is something (usually of materials) construction-related, domesi/δόμηση is the building activity, the combination of the two Homeric words oikos/οίκος and domos/δόμος gives us oikodomos/οικοδόμος, the construction worker (literally the “house builder”), a word almost identical to the pre-Homeric toichodomos/τοιχοδόμος in plural toichodomoi-τοιχοδόμοι (to-ko-do-mo toicodόmoi building workers Etym. toicoj = wall [in Modern Greek toichos/τοίχος] + domî = build), a word that still exists in toichodomi/τοιχοδομή, meaning wall building. Naodomia/Nαοδομία is the Church building and Naodomos/Nαοδόμος is the Architect specializing in Church design and building. There is also domokataskeuastikos / δομοκατασκευαστικos, someone or something structural and construction related, apodomesi/αποδόμηση, destruction, anadomesi/αναδόμηση, rebuilding. Anadomemenos/αναδομημένος is the rebuilt one, hypodome/υποδομή is the substructure and hyperdomesi/υπερδόμηση is overbuilding. Lithodome/λιθοδομή is stone structure and plinthodome/πλινθοδομή is brick structure and  reinforced concrete is skyrodema/σκυρόδεμα.

Someone can easily claim that the word skyrodema/σκυρόδεμα is a modern word, a legacy of the katharevousa, and that is obviously correct, since there was no reinforced concrete in ancient Greece. A far better example of an unobstructed use of the domos, doma or dome in modern Greek can be found spoken in simple demotic colloquial Greek, demonstrating the uninterrupted and fruitful continuity of the Greek language much more forcefully than any modern lectical creation. Doma/δώμα , as mentioned above is the floor of a multistory building but also the flat roof. In the Greek islands, doma/Δώμα indicates the earth and seaweed flat roof typical of Greek traditional architecture and this is not a word that the locals took from the architects and structural engineers of today:

“Που τα νερά τα πολλά το δώμα μας ούλον τον σειμώναν έτρεσεν

Pou ta nera ta polla to doma mas oulon ton seimonan etresen

From so much water our doma (roof) throughout the winter was dripping”

(Cypriot expression, in the Cypriot Greek dialect)13[xiii]

Although this may sound as a surprising revelation to someone whose language (Slavomakedonski) has only recently been codified out of the west Bulgarian dialects, languages do in fact evolve. What used to be the Indo-European word for Domos, the (mostly wooden) home of the proto-Indo-Europeans, for example, has now evolved into the word for “Timber” (wood used to construct a domos) in English.
In the same token, while Δόμος/Domos has fallen out of use long ago from everyday Greek as a word describing “house”, the word originally describing the “little house”, the “diminutive house”, the “small Δόμος/Domos” is very much in use in everyday demotic, colloquial Greek:
Domatio/δωμάτιο is the Greek word for “room”, and it is a cognate word of “zimmer”, meaning “room”, in German, through which the English word “room” is also derived.

NOTES & REFERENCES:

---

1[i] http://www.maknews.com/html/articles/ristova/rosetta_stone_boshevski.html

2[ii] http://issuu.com/petro_invictus/docs/slavic_elements_in_homer

3[iii] http://macedonianissues.blogspot.com/2010/01/blog-post.html

4[iv] Lexicon of the Homeric Dialect, Richard John Cunliffe, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963 (1924), page 285

5[v] A Homeric dictionary: for schools and colleges, By Georg Autenrieth

6[vi]http://nlp.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph.jsp?l=o%28%2Fnde&la=greek&can=o%28%2Fnde0&prior=polu/frona&d=Perseus:text:1999.01.0135:book=1:card=80&i=1

7[vii] http://nlp.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/wordfreq?lang=greek&lookup=do%2Fmonde

8[viii] http://treebank.alpheios.net/content/Enclitic-de

9[ix] Theoc.25.136

10[x] Linear B An Introduction, J.T.Hooker, Bristol Classical Press, London, 1980, page 60

11[xi] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6J3DXgkxIc

12[xii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCBtu-MLUVE&feature=related

13[xiii] http://www.xanthi.ilsp.gr/mnemeia/viewXeiroPages.aspx?xeironum=963&vpage=1