For the position of the Macedonian language in our society, and taking care for it, one needs to talk all over again. It applies to speakers, as well as regarding it as an issue with wider social scope. Finally, and to the reflex of the political representative, as a representative of society, caring for the Macedonian language during these times of programming of political activity. So, how people in general, regard our language, what is the care for the language of everyone, the individual and the general public.
Because, as Krste Misirkov would say, the language of the people is its spiritual wealth and heritage in which are locked its vocal signs or words, all thoughts, feelings and desires that people have experienced and are experiencing and which are passed on as something sacred from one generation to another. Language is our determinant as people. It expresses our identity.
It is not only me feeling that taking care of the Macedonian language in society today has been weakened and that it needs to be restored.
The emphasized need for a shift and caring for the Macedonian language exists because there are many efforts that have been focused on jeopardizing the Macedonian people internationally, denying it and not recognizing the language, and in general, its identity traits. Pressures to weaken the status position of the Macedonian people and the position of the Macedonian language in our society are pretentious.
Moreover, some discussions about the origin of the Macedonian people, presented as “antiquization” in the sphere of language have carried out additional disorientation. Of course, the discussions, various dilemmas are possible but they are subject to inter-language scientific discourse. And not as something that can justify dwindling commitment towards the Macedonian language.
The lack of literary form of the language in the diaspora is also a matter of great concern. Because although there is domicile effect on the Macedonian language, people speak in dialect as well. And that language, due to education, public communication and other is absent. And the language is lost entirely. The reduction of lectureships, which were committed to preserving the literary form of the Macedonian language abroad, has also contributed to this process.
The interest in Macedonian language studies in the country is constantly diminishing. The number of students studying Macedonian language is decreasing, which is certainly a kind of indicator for the position that the Macedonian language occupies in society. At the same time, the Macedonian grammar classes in education being reduced means classes for learning the Macedonian language have been reduced too.
The previously existing enthusiasm for building the language and the care for the application of its literary form has also decreased. The beautiful tradition, established by language activists, of editing sections as “Language Lessons” and “Language Corner” has been abandoned.
The practice of individuals speaking in dialect, with of errors in accent, syntax, spelling is widely spread. The uncritical acceptance, and in an unacceptable volume, of foreign words and foreign language constructions in the media, in general, in public speaking, writing posts and other is worrying.
Such is the case, for example, with the usage of the non-Macedonian form in female surnames according to the family name (with suffixes as ov, ev, ski). Moreover, permitting this practice is not just satisfying one’s personal desire, but a craze and disruption of the Macedonian tradition.
The above mentioned highlights indicate the need for active engagement of our society and the need for public concern in order to establish the rule of literary language. For caring, as Professor Krume Kepeski would say: “Until those working in administration, and those on the streets, at the markets to the last speak literary Macedonian.”
But as if there is lack of public commitment of the Council for Macedonian language at the Ministry of Culture in this regard. There is also an ultimate inconsistency in the application of the law on presence of proofreaders in institutions.
These highlights create great discontent among experts. Even more, as their public recommendations on specific linguistic issues are disregarded by the public and by the competent social authorities, which don’t respond with appropriate decisions (regulations, etc.).