The History of Bulgaria

And the end of
Thracian language & Bulgarian language:

turm(-a)/ torm(-a) (rinning) - v-tur-van se (rush/ dash)
udrusa - voden (watery/ washy)
ut - ot (from/ away from/ out of...)
zama - see madiev. bulg. sam (the same)
zer - see mediev. bulg. zver/ today's zvyar (a beast)
zeta - po-syat (sowed)/ seya (sow/ drill/ sift/ bolt/ spread)
zolta - zlato (gold)
zimi - see mediev. bulg. zmii/ todey's zmiya (a snake)

And at last. Guys, I'd never said this or that kind of words have no relations to another languages. It is absolutely normal to have. But if some word existed in Your language, don't hurry up to pronounce it is only yours, because the thracians have a lot of descendents and all of us are more or less their descendents. If someone can take a dimensions how much exactly any of us comes from the thracians, pleace, do it! for example, we - the bulgarian people have about 60 %, not 100 %. That says the genetic science, not me. Isn't it a little bit naive to expect we should forget all of our language, even after more than 1500 years? Sorry, we didn't do it. By the way, Chilbudios, the thracian and dako-moessian languages was completely different, even related. Also the thracian and frigian, for my own surprise and great regret. This fact should make glad our romanian's friends, because, as they said, the Moessia was setled with dako-getians (actually in Moessia wasn't dacians, the gettians was in todays Dobrudja, and the rest was moessians) to the Balkan mountain. It  wasn't  exactly to the Balkan mountain, but almost. This is not very important because this tribes was very related and different of the thracians. Well, what to do, this is a historical fact.
Anyway don't became nervous if You don't know something. And because of this all of us are here. Are we? It is just a discussion. Good night to all of You!

At last, Chilbudios (with a great pleasure, I met a man who are familiar to this problems), the dacian terms for town/ castle/ vilage and etc. was: dava/deva/daba/deba, upa, stur, sara
the thracian was: para, brya, burt-/burd-, diza, zura, cella, berga
A little bit different, isn't it?

But abou the "dea/deba/deva" as "maiden/ virgin" this is I have in my book "The thracians and their language" by acad. Vladimir Georgiev edited in Sofia 1977. This man, as I said is one of the best linguists ever. This is not my opinion, but to international linguistic society. When he wrote this book there was no idea for some "iranian origin" of the bulgarian people. much less of the thracian one. The relations are in the base of the indo-aryan languages, not bulgarian, even it exist too. I friendly recommend to you the books of this man if you are interesting of this materials. I think there's on english too. Search for. 

Again, in one of Curta's articles there was a citation on work suggesting Avars were initially Iranian speaking tribe. Will dig it. Maybe Chilbudius may help?

Originally posted by Sarmat12 That's funny. It's a well established fact that 80% population of Avar Kaganates were Slavs. For sure Slavic was a lingua-franca there. What's revolutionary in this "discovery"?

Before this theory a large number of "Slavic invaders" was postulated in order to explain the expansion of the Slavic languages. After this theory, the number of "Slavic invaders" could have been small, it is actually the prestige of the language which caused the spread, not the initial number of speakers.

Originally posted by Balkh-Aryan Hi, Menumorut1 I have something interesting for You. It is impossible to explain how exactly the gets became a gemanian tribe/ gots? Because the gottic writers them selves called their people GETI. I meen Jordanes, Enodius, Casiodorus and etc. "got's" writers. Is this also fancy?

Jordanes called the Goths Getae, perhaps this believe appeared among Goths in 5th century, when residing in Thrace (Bulgaria), where they found information about the Getae that once lived North of Danube.

Like many peoples in ancient times, the Goths tried to revendicate an origin considered noble, that of the Getae and surely they have been confused by the closeness of the names Goths and Getae.


The true Getae were actualy the Dacians from Wallachia (Southern Romania) and Moldavia as they were called by Greeks especialy in the period BC.

During the existence of Roman province of Dacia these territories haven't been included in the province but have been under strong cultural influence.

Those Dacians have been diminished in 2-4th centuries but their civilization was quite vigurous, especialy that of the Moldavian Dacians, or Carpians. There are over 100 important sites and necropoles, the bigest Dacian necropoles are from Carpic period. Also in Wallachia there are over 100 sites of Militari-Chilia culture of the free Dacians from here.

You can see the visual documentation of a Carpic necropolis here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/95985000/Valeni-necropola_carpica.rar.html


During Gothic settling in Moldavia and Eastern Wallachia (3rd century - 376) there almost only sites of the S�ntana de Mures- Chernyachov culture in these areas but in the discoveries of these sites there are elements that shwos that important Dacian groups of population have lived together with the Goths and Sarmatians of the Gothic confederation.

Also, the Chernyachov culture is mainly inspired from Roman and Dacian material cultures (so, nothing Germanic), also Sarmatic and this shows that an important Dacian population existed at the coming of Goths.

I don't think "*berga" means "beach", it rather means "high place, mountain" (cf. Germanic "berg"). All our discussion about Thracian language makes sense if we try to keep some clear picture of it. Many connections between Bulgarian and Thracian are created when the Thracian terms are miscopied or mistranslated.

Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Mar-2008 at 23:18

Originally posted by Anton Dude, I realized that there are only to sides in your mind -- "Ridiculous claim" and "Revolution"   I wish you luck with that simple vision of the world. Curta got more evidences and looked at the question at  different point of view. This is already enough to  mention him. What is the point to shit on a thing you have nothing to say about?

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Next time try to impress me by saying that Bulgaria is mainly inhabited by Bulgarians, perhaps it will indeed shock my twisted mind