Form 122a 2: Fill & Download for Free

Explicit references to “Macedonian speech” exist. Plutarch, the Greek savant of the firstand second centuries AD, when writing of Cleopatra ( Life of Antony 27.3–4), the last of thePtolemies (the Macedonian kings of Egypt), lauds her linguistic abilities, reporting that shecould speak the languages of the Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabs, Syrians, Medes,and Parthians. In contrast, her male predecessors had not even learned Egyptian and somehad even “ceased to speak Macedonian”. Presumably they hadcontinued to speak Greek (i.e., had not taken a vow of silence). Athenaeus, a Greek writerof the later second century AD, in his account of a “Learned Banquet” ( Deipnosophistae 3.121f–122a),places on the lips of one of the guests, the cynic Cynulcus, a Latin word decocta (a kind of drink made by boiling and then rapidly cooling a liquid); in turn, Athenaeus hasanother guest, Ulpian (an “Atticist,” promoting the use of untainted Attic Greek), rebuke Cynulcus for uttering a barbarism (!). Cynulcus fires back, retorting that even in the best old Greek one finds Persian loan words and that he knows many Attic Greeks“ using Macedonian speech”; a participle from Plutarch’s verb). Elsewhere, Plutarch uses anadverb makedonist´ı having the same sense. For example, in his Life of Alexander (51.4), Plutarch recounts how the Macedonian conqueror, in a fit of rage, refusing to bequieted by his body guards, shouted out for the hypaspistai (Macedonian infantry troops,one contingent of the army of Alexander), “calling in Macedonian – and this was a sign of a great disturbance.” The precise sense of “speaking Macedonian” in these and other passages can be and has been debated; yet when these references to Macedonian speech are considered in their context, it is not difficult for one to conclude that what is being reported is the useof a distinct, non-Greek (“barbarian”) Macedonian language. Macedonia was a difficult land in history.2400 BC Greeks arrived in Macedonia. Thracians were already there.They settled on top of Thracians. The mainstream scenario for the migration of the Indo-European (IE) peoples in the period 4000–1000 BC: Known as the Kurgan hypothesis, the scenario envisages the IE peoples migrating outwards from an original homeland in the steppe of southern Russia, north of the Caucasus Mountains (purple zone). The red zone indicates the possible extent of IE expansion by circa 2500 BC, the orange zone by around 1000 BC. Note the movement of the Italic branch from the secondary zone (around Moravia) into the Italian peninsulaBefore 530 BC Thracians settled both sides of the Straights. Persians defeated Thracians. A coalition of Macedonians, Greeks, Illyrians, Peoni and Thracians defeated the Persians. Alexander Macedon with a Macedonian, Greek, Illyrian and Thracian army conquered Persia. None mentioned the Illyrians and the Thracians.Until 169 BC Macedonians, Illyrians, Peoni and Thracians populated Macedonia. Greeks were way down South. Romans conquered Macedonians, Illyrians, Peoni and Thracians and the Straights. Byzas was a Thracian name. Constantinople was built on a Thracian city. Constantinople was a Roman city, not a Greek city.After Romans Romanized the area until the arrival of Serbs and Slavini from Bulgaria, the population for over 700 years spoke Latin in Macedonia.Romania until IustinianThe Roman Empire, aka Romania, still exists?First, we must know some basics.Everybody has heard about the Roman Empire or about the Byzantine Empire. Everybody thinks that the names of Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire (or Eastern Roman Empire) are the proper ones. Also, everyone knows that the Roman Empire has perished somewhere at the end of Antiquity, whereas the Byzantine Empire came to an end during the Middle Ages (1453).But are these statements true?The NameThere are few people who know that Rome was not an empire throughout its existence as a state. In its first stage, it was a confederation of the Latin – or Roman – tribes, after that a kingdom, after that a confederative republic, and just in 27 B.C. it became an empire of sorts (the ruler was called Augustus, not emperor).Also, even fewer people know that the Roman Empire did not generally use the name of „Roman Empire” for itself. Of course, in its first centuries of existence, Rome was not an empire, but a confederation of tribes, a kingdom and, after that, a confederative republic. So, there were three names people used for the country: Terra Romanorum („The Land of Romans”), Senatus Populusque Romanus („The Roman Senate and People”) or Romania.The name Romania was a name people used when referring to the country, and from the 2nd century A.D. it was used officially, becoming the official name of the country in the 4th century A.D.Phrases like Imperium Romanum („Roman Empire”) or Imperium Romanorum („The Empire of Romans”) were used more as literary terms and less as official terms. Or, alternately, these terms were used to underscore the organization or the power of the country in some documents.Names like The Byzantine or the Eastern Roman Empire were never used!Actually, the name of the country governed from Constantinople was always Romania or the Roman Empire. Because, of course, it was Romania! When Constantin the Great moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople, the state, the country, the empire remained the same: Romania or the Roman Empire.Terms like Western and Eastern were used just when Romania was administratively organized in two parts – the West and the East. But when the Western part of the country fell, the Eastern part was no longer the Eastern part, but the only part of the Romania that still existed. So, the name in use was just Romania or the Roman Empire.The Byzantine Empire is a pejorative term, given to Romania by some Western scholars, beginning with the 16th century A.D., in order to negate the continuity between the Ancient Roman Empire and the Roman Empire of the Middle Ages. Very much used in the past, now it is seen, rightly so, as inappropriate. And it is replaced, more and more, by the more adequate term Eastern Roman Empire or by the right terms, Romania or the Roman Empire.The End of the Roman Empire in Western EuropeIn 476 the Western part of Romania (or the Roman Empire) fell. But the Eastern part continued to exist. And during the reign of Emperor Justinian the Great (527-565), Romania took back Italy with Rome, Northern Africa and the South of Spain. The Latin population from all these parts of the world received the Roman armies as liberators. Rome would be free, within the Roman Empire with the capital at Constantinople, for two more centuries.So, if 476 is the end of the Western part of the Roman Empire for a while, it is far from being the end of the Roman Empire itself. Even for Western Europe and Rome, as we showed, the Roman reign does not end in 476 A.D. Why are the two centuries of Roman liberty brought by Justinian the Great to Rome and to other Western provinces usually ignored? Because this would end Vatican’s claims of being the rightful heir to the Roman Empire, because this proves the “Holy Roman German Empire” (a.k.a “The Holy Roman Empire”) to be, as Runciman said, not holy, not Roman, and not an empire, at all. What denied Western Europe a chance to continue to be a part of Romania was exactly the choice of some of Rome’s bishops to use the Germans against Constantinople and the Greeks (who had come to power in the Roman Empire). But this is another part of history, beyond the scope of our essay.Serbian Empire looked like this:Vlachs and Serbians populated Macedonia until 787 ADNichodimus relocated Greeks (not Macedonians) from Anatolia and settled them in Macedonia.The first attestation of a Romanian military organization in Thessaly is given by the military uprising of the Romanians in this area in 1066. Dissatisfied with the excessive fiscal policy practiced by the empire against the shepherds, the Romanians organize a military action led by Niculita and Berivoi, both from Larissa, and Slavota of Carmalac. (Berivoi's name also appears in Transylvania, more precisely in Tagar Fagarasului, in the form of a settlement: Berivoi Mari and Berivoi Mici.Vlachia from Iustinian to 1204Margina and Marginea is a Romanian word meanind at the edge of a territory. Mircea the Old had the Almas and Fagaras counties in his crown, but both had areas called Margineni, Marginimea Sibiului, and the Boyards Udriste inhefited the rule over these areas, and in Tara Romaneasca in at the border of Dambovita and Prahova counties lies Margineni, the estate. Constantin Cantacuzino married the Irene the niece of Udriste boyard and that is how the Cantacuzino family got its right to the Vallachian trone and its fortune.Greek ERE after 1225 was not Greek, but mostly VlachGreeks were named Rhomaioi until 19th century. Vlachs were the Roman Citizens of Latin Origin.1094 with the Asanestii who as it is known formed in Transylvania an army with which they reputed a victory against the Byzantine imperial armies). Following their revolt, the old offices were abolished, but the privileges of the Romanian shepherds were also restored. This uprising demonstrates the existence of a superior social stratification of the Vlachs, as well as their presence in the cities. It is known that during this period wealthy Vlach traders, who mediated the trade in cheese and other pastoral products of the Vlachs, lived in cities, in this case Larissa, having important functions in their organization. This category is essential in the military and then state development of the Wallachian Thessaly.Starting with 1250, the Greek region of Thessaly was considered an independent state under the name (given by Greek chroniclers) "Megale Vlachia" ("Great Wallachia"), led by the Vlach military and merchant class, which relied on the strength of Romanian shepherds here, who According to some estimates, they made up a third of the region's population. Related to the existence of the Great Wallachia is the founding of the monastery complex at Meteora.Although the Wallachian Sea was part of the Serbian Empire during this period, and many monasteries were founded by Serbian rulers, the Romanian element that contributed is not negligible.At the death of Athanasius in 1383, the founder of the monastery Megalo Meteora, as abbot of this settlement, follows the Vlach king of the imperial vine, Ioan Duca Paleologul, with the monastic name of Joasaf.His successor, Alexie Anghel, signed in green ink in a document "Cesar of Wallachia".Thus, in the annals of the monasteries, built on the territory of this Romanian political formation, there are names of Vlach rulers such as Petrita, Dragu, Calota, Bunila.Ioan Cantacuzino, another king of the Great Wallachia, is the founder of St. Stephen's Monastery.Great Wallachia played an important strategic role in the Serbian Empire of Stefan Duşan, but with the expansion of the Ottoman Empire in the region, this formation was incorporated in 1394.The Ottoman Empire, the military organization of the Vlachs in Thessaly is maintained, the Vlach troops being used in repeated Turkish military actions.The Roman Empire was called Romania!!! Why? Because it was Roman, not Greek nor Byzantine!!!This is Serbia at 1350:This is Serbia in 13621450 ADThe truth about the Byzantine Empire as being Greek history was that it represented a TINY part of Romania or Vlachia.jumping to the censuses in modern times:1895 census:Religion Population 1. Muslims 1,137,3152. Bulgarian Orthodox 692,7423. Greek Orthodox 603,2424. Catholics 3,3156. Jews and others 68,432Total 2,505,503Special survey in 1904 of Hilmi Pasha (648 thousand followes of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and 557 thousand faithful of the Bulgarian Exarchate, but an additional 250 thousand of the former) had identified as Bulgarian speakers.Religion Population1. Muslims 1,508,5072. Bulgarian Orthodox 796,4793. Greek Orthodox 307,0004. Vlachs 99,0005. Serbs 100,7176. Jews and others 99,997Total 2,911,700Then the second population resetlement of Greeks from Anatolia (not Macedonians) and population exchanges, pogroms, etc.Vlachs to Romania, Bulgarians to Bulgaria, Serbs to Serbia and of course Turks to Turkey.Until the truth is not told, the Macedonian story is a lie.Population transfers or conversion: Thracians from the old Europe population, Greeks from Thracians, Romans from Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians from Romans, Turks from Romans, Greeks again from Serbian, Bulgarian and Turks, expelling them and repopulating Macedonia with Greeks from Anatolia.

NRS 122.010  What constitutes marriage; no common-law marriages after March 29, 1943.1.  Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by solemnization as authorized and provided by this chapter.2.  The provisions of subsection 1 requiring solemnization shall not invalidate any marriage contract in effect prior to March 29, 1943, to which the consent only of the parties capable in law of contracting the contract was essential.No common law marriage in Nevada BUT:NRS 122A.100 1.  A valid domestic partnership is registered in the State of Nevada when two persons who satisfy the requirements of subsection 2:(a) File with the Office of the Secretary of State, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of State, a signed and notarized statement declaring that both persons:(1) Have chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring; and(2) Desire of their own free will to enter into a domestic partnership; and(b) Pay to the Office of the Secretary of State a reasonable filing fee established by the Secretary of State, which filing fee must not exceed the total of an amount set by the Secretary of State to estimate:4.  As used in this section:(a) “Common residence” means a residence shared by both domestic partners on at least a part-time basis, irrespective of whether:(1) Ownership of the residence or the right to occupy the residence is in the name of only one of the domestic partners; and(2) One or both of the domestic partners owns or occupies an additional residence.NRS 122A.110  Solemnization ceremony not required for domestic partnership; religious faiths free to choose whether to grant religious status to domestic partnership under own rules of practice.While there is no “Common law” marriage there is a Domestic Partnership.