Relationship bw Bulgar and Iranian Langua

I found this great website showing similarities between Kuper Bulgars and Asparukh Bulgar languages with Pamiri languages (Eastern-Western Iranian  & Dardic Languages such as Pashto, Yazgulami, Wakhi, etc.) of the Hindu Kush Mountains in Central Asia.

Very interesting find:

http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/index.html

Browse this portion (screenshot) of the website:

 

 

 

I can't believe u guys are taking this seriously...Certainly the bulgars as all steppe nomads had some iranian "blood'' and were influenced by iranian to some degree.This doesn't mean they were iranics.If u read some objective history books, u'll find that their language was turkic, as well as their appearance, and social stratification.

I'm sure u could find the huns and avars to be influenced by iranian languge,too- that is if there are written records of their language.Here's a "surprise":all steppe nomads probably adopted the lifestyle of iranian nomads. Surely, many of them had direct/close contact with iranian nomads...

And if u compare polish or russian and especially ucrainian to iranic languages, u'll find many more quite obvious similarities. Many toponymus all over eastern europe are unquestionably of iranian origin.Serbian has a few striking parallels-not found in other languages, like azdaha(serbian) and ezdeha(persian)-meaning dragon.Or Kurosh (Cyrus) and Urosh (common name in serbia-not found anywhere else, i think).However, even if the original serbs were sarmatians (it's very likely), their ''genetic print'' to us modern serbs is rather poor ( even the slavic one is questionable, although serbs feel as slavs) and their language was lost in just a few centuries-if not even sooner. 

Based on this claims by bulgarian nationalists, the slavs could claim they're germans, based on a great number of loan words from germanic languages-or better yet-turkic for the same reason...

Originally posted by Socrates I can't believe u guys are taking this seriously...Certainly the bulgars as all steppe nomads had some iranian "blood'' and were influenced by iranian to some degree.This doesn't mean they were iranics.

Where do you come off to think that I believe they are Iranians?  Bulgarians are a mix of many different peoples, but thei biggest influence today is the Slavs.  I didnt mention anywhere that they are Iranians, I said that Old Bulgar and even Bulgar today has words that are found even in remote peoples (some numbering less than a million) living over 3,000 Miles away in the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Pakistan. 

If u read some objective history books, u'll find that their language was turkic, as well as their appearance, and social stratification.

Well if you actually read something on the website, it also makes references to Turkish words used as well.

And if u compare polish or russian and especially ucrainian to iranic languages, u'll find many more quite obvious similarities. Many toponymus all over eastern europe are unquestionably of iranian origin.

Well I found one similarity talking to my Bulgarian friend.  The name "Vladmir" means King of Cities or King of a territory.  Vlad can be translated to Vilayat (province or territory), and Mir as King. 

Originally posted by Socrates If u read some objective history books, u'll find that their language was turkic, as well as their appearance, and social stratification.

That's highly disputable! Unless, of course, if the average Turkic height was 1,75 metres! Because archaeologic excavations of Bulgar graves show exactly this - average height 1,75 meters, absolutely no mongoloid lines (or to an absolute minimum degree). And I guess the Turkic people also used to live as semi-"nomads" and live not only in yurts (something like tents), but also to build stone fortresses... And I also guess that all Arab and Armenian chroniclers (from the period before Danubian Bulgaria, i.e. in the Eurasian steppes) always mention them as different people than the Turkic only by coincidence or mistake (or fraud?)... So I'd say that the Iranic influence in the Bulgars is much more stronger than in the other steppe nations, although I agree that the Bulgars were most probably a mix of Iranics and Turkics, probably with a ruling Turkic elite and Iranic-Turkic common people. And btw even today modern Bulgarian is closer to the Iranic languages than to the Turkic languages (despite of the strong Turkish influence during the Ottoman times), as in this order: 1. Slavic languages, 2. Baltic, 3. Germanic, 4. Iranic languages. But this question is so disputable that it's extremely hard to come to a final conclusion! All I can say is that there's a strong mix of Iranics and Turkics, but we can't be absolutely sure to what degree...

P.S. To some degree it's also understandable if there's an Iranic linguistic influence on Serbia too, even if there's no direct Iranic influence - the Serbian language (as well as the Russian) was quite heavily influenced by the old-Bulgarian during the middle ages and some things could've passed. But, of course, that's just my hypothesis...

Originally posted by Afghanan Where do you come off to think that I believe they are Iranians?  Bulgarians are a mix of many different peoples, but thei biggest influence today is the Slavs.  I didnt mention anywhere that they are Iranians, I said that Old Bulgar and even Bulgar today has words that are found even in remote peoples (some numbering less than a million) living over 3,000 Miles away in the Pamir Mountains of Afghanistan-Tajikistan-Pakistan.

No ,slavic influence is not that significant.They�re mainly of east mediteranian stock.This means that they assimilated the natives, like all south slavs did.As for those ��3000 miles words��-u�ll find a whole heap of them in serbian-and in south-slavic in general.They can be found also in english and other ��western�� languages which makes them ��4000-5000 miles words�� Iranian influence reaches further then bulgaria.Give me some of those commonly used words from afghanistan,tajikistan and pakistan and i�ll find u parallels in serbian.

Btw, maybe u don�t know, but slavs lived near and with scythians\sarmatians\alans for more then a millenium.All linguists agree that their influence on slavic languages was significant.Like bog ( in iranian means good, in slavic it means god) or ray �paradise.So, what u need is a more striking iranian\bulgar parallel.Like my examples from serbian (azdaha and urosh)-something unique.

Well if you actually read something on the website, it also makes references to Turkish words used as well.

Actually, i did read it.And it only further confused me.

Well I found one similarity talking to my Bulgarian friend.  The name "Vladmir" means King of Cities or King of a territory.  Vlad can be translated to Vilayat (province or territory), and Mir as King.

You see, this is what happens when u do not have any knowledge of slavic languages and  jump to conclusions.VLADIMIR in russian means the ruler of the world ( MIR means world in russian and some verb form of VLAD means to rule).In serbian (south slavic) Vladimir means something like the one who preserves peace �or the ruler of peace-if u take it by the word (VLADATI-to rule, MIR-peace).Here�s some similar examples: BRANIMIR-( braniti-to defend)-the defender of peace; BORIMIR-the one who fights for peace; RATOMIR-the one who enters in war for peace etc,etc. As u can see, it�s very easy to manipulate linguistics-but only to some extent-any skilled and objective linguist would reject your etymology as false.

Originally posted by NikeBG Originally posted by Socrates If u read some objective history books, u'll find that their language was turkic, as well as their appearance, and social stratification. That's highly disputable! Unless, of course, if the average Turkic height was 1,75 metres! Because archaeologic excavations of Bulgar graves show exactly this - average height 1,75 meters, absolutely no mongoloid lines (or to an absolute minimum degree). And I guess the Turkic people also used to live as semi-"nomads" and live not only in yurts (something like tents), but also to build stone fortresses... And I also guess that all Arab and Armenian chroniclers (from the period before Danubian Bulgaria, i.e. in the Eurasian steppes) always mention them as different people than the Turkic only by coincidence or mistake (or fraud?)... So I'd say that the Iranic influence in the Bulgars is much more stronger than in the other steppe nations, although I agree that the Bulgars were most probably a mix of Iranics and Turkics, probably with a ruling Turkic elite and Iranic-Turkic common people. And btw even today modern Bulgarian is closer to the Iranic languages than to the Turkic languages (despite of the strong Turkish influence during the Ottoman times), as in this order: 1. Slavic languages, 2. Baltic, 3. Germanic, 4. Iranic languages. But this question is so disputable that it's extremely hard to come to a final conclusion! All I can say is that there's a strong mix of Iranics and Turkics, but we can't be absolutely sure to what degree... P.S. To some degree it's also understandable if there's an Iranic linguistic influence on Serbia too, even if there's no direct Iranic influence - the Serbian language (as well as the Russian) was quite heavily influenced by the old-Bulgarian during the middle ages and some things could've passed. But, of course, that's just my hypothesis...

Where do i start...Well, by saying: WHAT A LOAD OF C..P!!!

And I also guess that all Arab and Armenian chroniclers (from the period before Danubian Bulgaria, i.e. in the Eurasian steppes) always mention them as different people than the Turkic only by coincidence or mistake (or fraud?)... So I'd say that the Iranic influence in the Bulgars is much more stronger than in the other steppe nations, although I agree that the Bulgars were most probably a mix of Iranics and Turkics, probably with a ruling Turkic elite and Iranic-Turkic common people

Why would the chroniclers lie??Why,why and WHY?And WHY ALL OF THEM??Or maybe they didn't have their glasses on? Once is a mistake or coincedence, twice, well we can accept it, three times-ok...tolerable- but all chroniclers to lie, make frauds and mistakes.Dear boy,what possible reason did the arabs have to lie?They didn't care if bulgars were chinese or africans or nordics.They wrote of what they SAW-not what they presumed or imagined.

.If u know some history, u�ll know that the wife of serbian emperor Dusan was bulgarian-there�s a fresco depicting them two-and it�s clear enough she�s got slanted eyes.Even the description of her mentions ��asiatic eyes��.Where did she acquire these eyes? From iranians? Bare in mind that we�re talking about 14th century here-so after hundreds of years of mixing with slavs, more or less oriental look was still present not in all bulgarian slavs,very probably, like today. I know some bulgarians-they all look more or less like other balcan slavs.Some of them could easily pass as austrians, poles or northern italians.Some got slanted eyes, but as I see it, majority doesn�t.I can only guess that the upper classes in the medievals were made of bulgars and slavs, but more bulgars.And nobody said that old bulgars were fully mongoloid-they were more of ��semi-oriental�� stock.It�s a possibility that they assimilated some iranics-like all steppe warriors-but that�s it.There�s nothing more to connect them to iranics.

  And btw even today modern Bulgarian is closer to the Iranic languages than to the Turkic languages (despite of the strong Turkish influence during the Ottoman times), as in this order: 1. Slavic languages, 2. Baltic, 3. Germanic, 4. Iranic languages. But this question is so disputable that it's extremely hard to come to a final conclusion! All I can say is that there's a strong mix of Iranics and Turkics, but we can't be absolutely sure to what degree...

That proves absolutely nothing-it's absolutely absurd!!The germans or italians or scots or russians (etc,etc,etc) can say the same thing-and vice verse!!Those are all INDO-EUROPEAN languages!!Of course there's more or less similarities...and even today there are many speculations and uncertainties about them.And of course you're language is most similar to other slavic languages-and after them to baltic ones...is it possible that u don't know that the subfamily is called balto-slavic??And if u knew some further history, you would know that before balto-slavic, there was germano-balto-slavic.And the similarity to iranic languages is explained in my previous post(irano-slavic connection)+they're both SATEM languages.

.S. To some degree it's also understandable if there's an Iranic linguistic influence on Serbia too, even if there's no direct Iranic influence - the Serbian language (as well as the Russian) was quite heavily influenced by the old-Bulgarian during the middle ages and some things could've passed. But, of course, that's just my hypothesis...

What?? Bulgars influnced serbs and russians with iranian words? If I were u I'd be seriously ashamed.What about the scyths, sarmatians, alans: the influence of iranian to slavic lasted for 1200 years!!! At least-if your starting date is the arrival of scyths in todays ucraine in the 7th century BC.The sarmatians are mentioned even in the early middle ages.You do the exact maths.Sarmatians are even mentioned in old russian folk tales-as warrior women spreading fear and horror.have u ever heard of ANTES?This is how the east slavs were called in first few centuries AD-the ethymology of the word ANTES is iranian,and they r thought to be a confederation of slavo-sarmatian tribes-many artifacts from that period are infact sarmatian. And what about the original serbs mentioned by pliny and ptolemy (sarmatian tribe)?Hmmm...could it be that they influnced serbian language-not bulgars?I mean-it does appear to be a more logical explanation wouldn't u say?

Edited by Socrates

Ezhdeha means dragon in Persian. Th zh sound being equivalent to the J in French "Jaques", I don't believe the sound exists in Turkish, correct me if I am wrong.

I beleive you, I wasn't sure of it myself, I just didn't read through carefully so I thought you meant that it was of Slavic origin. But persian words, as well as Turkish and Arabic, are not so unusual in South Slavic languages since Ottomans ruled over the Balkans for 500 years. So foreign words like azdaha comes from them.

In Bosnia it's also used, but it's an old word. It's used only to offened someone. Like "hajvan", for example. Maybe it exists in Albanian also.

Namaz is also a persian word, right? What about the name Mirza?

I mean that words like azdaha and hajvan are not frequently used. Hajvan, for ex., means animal, but it's almost only used when intention is to offened someone.