Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedBulgarian origins
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 27282930>
Poll Question: Bulgarians =Thracian descendants?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
9 [13.85%]
21 [32.31%]
4 [6.15%]
16 [24.62%]
4 [6.15%]
11 [16.92%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Bulgarian origins
    Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 17:44


How do you want to proof this? Eliminated?

Following the genetic variations of local population period by period.


The problem with genetic material is that too many people work with it with too few knowledge. If there is a high percentage of a special haplotype in a certain region, what does it mean? Is this the last region of a former greater territory. Did all other groups with these haplotype come from this certain region? There are so many possibilities. And even the time factor.

Exactly, you should study it in dynammics rather than comparison of modern populations. Although even these studies disprove quite a lot of previous historical claims.


Genetic science is very interesting and one day it will be very helpful, but in the moment it is more a weapon in the hands of people that shouldn't deal with it.

Exactly as reading historical sources ;D
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 20:25
Originally posted by beorna

The threads abount the Balkans are allways a subject for the minefield. So perhaps let me lead our view to an other place. Who are the ancestors of the French. Can you give me an answer? It is difficult, isn't it? We can say there Celtic. Yes, we know this from Cesar. But what is Celtic? There were Belgae, which were calling themselves in parts of an Germanic origin. There were Volcae from East of Rhine. Were they pure Celts or were they become Celts in Gaul? What's about the Arecomici like the Veneti. Or what's about the Aquitani. A lot of them are linked with Iberians. So we have a problem, if we call the French as descendants of Celts.
Romans! There was a Roman immigration after the Celtic defeat against Cesar. French speak a Roman language. But was is Roman?
So we have perhaps a Germanic origin. There were a lot of Germanic invaders, Germani cisrhenani, Atuatuci, Eburones, Nemetes, Triboci, Vangiones, Ubii, Sigambri, later Franci, Alamanni, Burgundes, Visigothi but Iranian Alans not to forgot. The Franks are without a question of a Germanic origin. But unfortunately some og f the Germanic groups I mentioned above are of a quite uncertain origin. And there never where great masses of Germanic groups coming to Gaul.
So you can see it is not possible to say who is THE ancestor of the French.
 
This is the same with the Bulgarians. They have a lot of roots. The Bulgars that invaded the Danube region where a mixture of different groups as well. all started with a little probably Turkic group that moved westwards and teard an unknown amount of different ethnoi with them. The population that lifed in the later Bulgaria has other roots. They are of Slav origin, of Iranian, of Thracian, of Roman, of Greece of Germanic of Celtic and perhaps more. But as I said, you speak about Bulgarians but everybody speaks about different ones.
 
Well, this is exactly my point too. Turkic kernel rulling Slavonic majority is oversimplification. Neither Turkic is monoethnic Turkic but most likely simply steppe population nor Slavonic is homogeneous Slavonic but local population. I do not see a contradiction to what you've said :) There is nice study of Pohl claiming more or less the same:
 
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 20:56
In fact, I also agree with this statement. We can't say for sure whether Bulgars were 100% Iranic or Turkic or something else. It's very likely that there also could be Finno-Ugric, Slavic and even Germanic (from Goths that still lived in Northern Caucasus and pre-Pontic steppe at this time) elements in them.
 
There are, however, some indications that the Bulgar elite was Turkic and sometimes I got impression that a lot Bulgarian members are obsessed with the idea that there was 0% of Turkic blood in Bulgars and they were tall blond (AKA Conan the Barbarian) Arian warriors.
 
Finally, term "Turkic" in this regard just mean a language spoken. Various tribes of the steppe just adobted some Turkic dialect as a lingua franca of that time although those tribes could be Iranic or Ugric originally, but by no means Turkic means a 100% definite cultural patterns of racial characteristics.
 
This is especially true for the realm of the steppe where different nomads of Iranic, Turkic, Mongolic, Ugric etc. origin followed very similar customs and traditions.


Edited by Sarmat - 23-Feb-2009 at 20:59
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 21:34
I have not researched this enough to really say much but from what I have read the Bulgarian are largely Slavic but I have no doubts they mixed, to some degree, with the pre-Slavic invasion population. Even the Greek today have some Slavic mix, the whole region is mixed.
I was in Plodiv a few year ago and to be honest most of the Bulgarians, to me, looked like Russian, but I do not know what a Dacian or Thracian looked like; except for representations from Roman sculptures and reliefs. I really believe that while they are largely Slavic they have Dacian, Celtic, Roman, Germanic, Turkic,thraican and in some regions Greek. The Bolgars were a Turkic tribe and I know some Bulgarians dispute this.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 21:35

"There are, however, some indications that the Bulgar elite was Turkic and sometimes I got impression that a lot Bulgarian members are obsessed with the idea that there was 0% of Turkic blood in Bulgars and they were tall blond (AKA Conan the Barbarian) Arian warriors."

Maybe there are some but much less than is usually claimed -- there is an opposite tendency, people citing Rashev or Dobrev are immidiately considered as nationalists by many. Guess where are they from? :) And one more thing, much more fruitfull for Bulgarian nationalists is a claim of Bulgars to be of local origin and hence Mediterranean antropological type -- i.e. somewhat different from blond with blue eyes ;)
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 23:00
Originally posted by Anton

Kan but not Kana, kanna, kane or with latin words Canna. Beshevliev says that there is no convincing explanation of the later A in Kana word from Turkic language point of view.
In the end the "a" might be just an epenthesis (between kan and sybigi), as the Turkic languages are not really tolerant to some consonant clusters (many languages have such oddities). And from someone unable to articulate a half-phrase in Latin and fantasizing about Slavic etymologies, I really take this to be a moody rejection. You have no problem to assume "cana subigi" actually means something in Latin or that "canas" is a odd spelling of Slavic "knyaz" but you whine about an unexplained "a"? Look for the word "parsimony".
Beyond all these you raise a good point, the reputable Bulgarian linguist Beshevliev considers Old Bulgarian to be a Turkic language. He did not find a final answer on that "a" (and I followed him in his uncertainty), but he concluded that much. Which is actually the core of this debate.
 
Possible is not a proof. You can't make serious conclusions based on unsure paralels.
I didn't say I proved Kampaganos is "kan paganos" (I actually provided two posisble ways of interpreting this name). I was not concluding, I was providing an example, a case to discuss. Instead of straw men and red herrings, perhaps you'd give a better try at understanding someone else's message.
 
How would they be spelled?
You provided some examples yourself ...
 
Partially it may explain it yes. But this explanation is not the only one.
It is the most reasonable, parsimonious, acceptable hypothesis put so far. You keep parroting it's not the only explanation, but your attempts to read it in Latin and Slavic turned out to be ridiculous (and that is an euphemism).
 
What was that? LOL You are really bad in writing ironical statements.
Or you're not smart enough...
 
That is right, I DO BELIEVE IT. I do believe that khan is not the only possible explanation, and thus cannot be used as a sure argument in Turkic hypothesis.  Your irony as I pointed already is not as shining as your ability of aggressive arguing.
You hit the nail - belief. Like some people here believe Germanic populations to be descend from Scythians, or that Rosetta Stone was written in some archaic Slavic language.
And you know what, in most of the cases I'm not ironical at all. It's worrying and grotesque when utter disappointment is taken for irony.
 
As for my alleged aggressivity, you're the one trying to be my biographer, not vice-versa.
 
And proofs for various Turkic groups led by Asparuh shown in this book?
If you want proofs, then do your readings.
And I didn't say that book holds any proof. Perhaps the first thing you should learn to read are the posts from this forum ....


Edited by Chilbudios - 23-Feb-2009 at 23:04
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Feb-2009 at 23:50
Originally posted by Chilbudios

What was that? LOL You are really bad in writing ironical statements.
Or you're not smart enough...
 
LOL
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 00:13
Originally posted by Chilbudios

And from someone unable to articulate a half-phrase in Latin and fantasizing about Slavic etymologies, I really take this to be a moody rejection.
The someone was fluent in Greek, Latin and Turkic languages, weren't fantazying about Slavic etymologies and his rejection was supported by other "someones" equally "unable to articulate a half-phrase in Latin".
 
 
 
 
 
Instead of straw men and red herrings, perhaps you'd give a better try at understanding someone else's message.
Look who writes that LOL Did you ever bother to understand other messages yourself?  
 
 
You provided some examples yourself ...
Yes. "Kanas".
 
 
 
It is the most reasonable, parsimonious, acceptable hypothesis put so far. You keep parroting it's not the only explanation, but your attempts to read it in Latin and Slavic turned out to be ridiculous (and that is an euphemism).
Still keep "parroting" that it is not the only one.
 
 
 
 
As for my alleged aggressivity, you're the one trying to be my biographer, not vice-versa.
Your egocentric attitude becomes more and more ridiculous.  
 
 
If you want proofs, then do your readings.
And I didn't say that book holds any proof. Perhaps the first thing you should learn to read are the posts from this forum ....
 
LOL again. Look who is writing that...
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 00:20
Originally posted by Chilbudios

In the end the "a" might be just an epenthesis (between kan and sybigi), as the Turkic languages are not really tolerant to some consonant clusters (many languages have such oddities).
 
My dear wise, fluent in Latin friend. We have a particular clusster -- "Kan" or "Kann". Proove me that Turkic languages are "not really tolerant" to this particular ones. You yourself write strawmen after strawmen while accusing others in this... Analogy "kana"="khan" is used as one of key proofs of Turkic origin of Bulgars it should be convincing.
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 00:38
Originally posted by Anton

The someone was fluent in Greek, Latin and Turkic languages, weren't fantazying about Slavic etymologies and his rejection was supported by other "someones" equally "unable to articulate a half-phrase in Latin".
 
If one suggests "kana sybigi Omurtag" is Latin he obviously he's not fluent in this language. "Kanas" = "knyaz" is a fantasy.
 
Look who writes that LOL Did you ever bother to understand other messages yourself?  
For the time being is you who misinterprets my position, not vice-versa.
 
Yes. "Kanas".
No, that is not an example, but an invention.
 
Your egocentric attitude becomes more and more ridiculous.  
It's not my fault you keep writing about me instead of focusing on subject. For example in this post I'm replying to 3 out of 6 lines are about me as a person.
 
 
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:04
Sure, after you lacking of arguments start ironical statements comparing me with nationalists, writing personal statements about my latin knowledge (although I posted Beshevliev's doubts, not mine), suggesting that I am not smart enough. What else did you expect? Respectful discussion? :)
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:11

Originally posted by Anton


My dear wise, fluent in Latin friend. We have a particular clusster -- "Kan" or "Kann". Proove me that Turkic languages are "not really tolerant" to this particular ones.
I can only wonder what is the consonant cluster in "kan"? Anyway, my hypothesis was that without the "a" the text reads "kan sybigi" with a "ns" cluster which may require (under who knows what dialectal circumstances and linguistic environment) an epenthesis. It may have not been a real "a" vowel, but a whatever sound for which the closest approximant in Greek was an "a".
That some Turkic languages use epenthesis to resolve some clusters is a well known fact. For instance, check http://sail.usc.edu/~dbyrd/Chapter_4_Kaun.pdf for epenthetic i in initial st- and fl- clusters.



Analogy "kana"="khan" is used as one of key proofs of Turkic origin of Bulgars it should be convincing.
It's not a "key proof', it's one of the many evidences supporting this theory. Even your Rasho Rashev concedes that the Bulgarian elite (as evidences by inscriptions, titles, etc.) was Turkic speaking.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:15
Originally posted by Anton

 
Maybe there are some but much less than is usually claimed --
 
 
 
We all agreed there was a more or less Turkic bloodline of Bulgarian population.Just a few irritated by the fact LOL
 
No one ever suggested that modern day Bulgarians are racially or ethnically Turkic people not Slavs or Eastern Europeans,it should settle baseless fear of concerned individuals.
 
Contrary,Sinophobic S Korean ultra-nationalists of late fancy pure " over-exaggerated " racial Turkic origin or pure Mongol in order to distance themselves from " the Chinese " they've historically associated with culturally politically genetically for 1500 years or more ( based on solid facts ).
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 24-Feb-2009 at 03:33
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:24
Originally posted by Anton

Sure, after you lacking of arguments start ironical statements comparing me with nationalists, writing personal statements about my latin knowledge (although I posted Beshevliev's doubts, not mine), suggesting that I am not smart enough. What else did you expect? Respectful discussion? :)
Actually all what you whine about came as reply to your ad hominem remarks. And you're right, I don't expect a respectful discussion with someone who doesn't even bother to read what his opponent writes and holds, who keeps pushing fringe theories and doesn't have a back-bone to take responsibility for his desperate, unjustified attacks.
 
As for Latin, you actually attempted to translate using this web-site: http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?  That missing back-bone ...


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Feb-2009 at 01:27
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 01:54
Originally posted by Chilbudios

I can only wonder what is the consonant cluster in "kan"? Anyway, my hypothesis was that without the "a" the text reads "kan sybigi" with a "ns" cluster which may require (under who knows what dialectal circumstances and linguistic environment) an epenthesis. It may have not been a real "a" vowel, but a whatever sound for which the closest approximant in Greek was an "a".
That some Turkic languages use epenthesis to resolve some clusters is a well known fact. For instance, check http://sail.usc.edu/~dbyrd/Chapter_4_Kaun.pdf for epenthetic i in initial st- and fl- clusters.

 
Under who knows what dialectal circumstances? LOL This is amazing! What was all this statement about? I asked you for the reason of last "a" in word Kana/Kanna/Kane and you offered explanation that A is needed because Turkic languages did not tolerate some clusters. Which clusters? Show me which particular cluster is present here and prove that Turkic languages are not tolerant to this particular one.  It is widely agreed that Chuvash language is close to Ancient Bulgar one -- show me an example (preferably several ones) with such a cluster and how this "intolerancy" is resolved in Chuvash. Only after this I may accept your hypothesis as convincing. So far, question still stands -- why only in Bulgar word Kanasybigi where someones (not all) artificially split it into two -- kana and sybigi this "a" is present? In other words, the doubt about "Kana"="Khan" analogy still exist.
 


It's not a "key proof', it's one of the many evidences supporting this theory.
I do not understand how artificial split of a particular word into two -- one with Iraninan etymology and one which strangly reminds Turkic "khan" but with uncommon for Turkic languages ending be considered as an evidences of something. At the end of the day, Russian kniazes called themselves Kagans sometimes. Kanasybigi I remind you was used in extremely short period of time -- some 15 years.
 
Other "evidences" are similarly explainable by other hypotheses.
 
Even your Rasho Rashev concedes that the Bulgarian elite (as evidences by inscriptions, titles, etc.) was Turkic speaking.
It is difficult to deny Turkic influence or participation in Bulgar ethnogenesis. "My" Rasho Rashev actually points that it is much less than suggested before. As for their language, Rashev can hardly be considered as a specialist i Bulgar linguistics.
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 02:11
Originally posted by Chilbudios

 Actually all what you whine about came as reply to your ad hominem remarks.
Oh, please! You started ironical statements absolutely not related to the arguments we discussed. I consider them as agressive and you perfectly know that. This is not how "respectfull discussion" is happening.  So, this is actually you who usually starts personal attacks not me.  
 
And you're right, I don't expect a respectful discussion with someone who doesn't even bother to read what his opponent writes and holds, who keeps pushing fringe theories and doesn't have a back-bone to take responsibility for his desperate, unjustified attacks.
Maybe I do fit this description but I see someone here who also fits well.
 


Edited by Anton - 24-Feb-2009 at 02:12
.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 03:03
Originally posted by Anton

Under who knows what dialectal circumstances? LOL This is amazing! What was all this statement about? I asked you for the reason of last "a" in word Kana/Kanna/Kane and you offered explanation that A is needed because Turkic languages did not tolerate some clusters.
You're fabulating. I pointed out that epenthesis not as an answer to some question of yours.
 
Which clusters? Show me which particular cluster is present here and prove that Turkic languages are not tolerant to this particular one. 
I showed both in what you quoted in your reply. Do you know what a cluster means?
And why prove? I said "in the end [...] might be".
 
I do not understand how artificial split of a particular word into two -- one with Iraninan etymology and one which strangly reminds Turkic "khan" but with uncommon for Turkic languages ending be considered as an evidences of something. At the end of the day, Russian kniazes called themselves Kagans sometimes. Kanasybigi I remind you was used in extremely short period of time -- some 15 years.
 
Other "evidences" are similarly explainable by other hypotheses.
It is difficult to deny Turkic influence or participation in Bulgar ethnogenesis. "My" Rasho Rashev actually points that it is much less than suggested before. As for their language, Rashev can hardly be considered as a specialist i Bulgar linguistics.
But Rashev doesn't invoke his expertise, he says ( http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html ):
 
"were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively"
 
"The linguistic data in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine written sources as well as the Proto-Bulgarian stone inscriptions are given as an irrefutable evidence to that. The Turkic names, phrases and words they contain, leave little room for discussion."
 
"the Turkic linguistic remains and elements of material culture represent exclusively the language and the culture of the Proto-Bulgarian military-administrative and clan leadership"
 
 
Reputable Bulgarian linguists like Beshevliev also support this theory (Rashev actually relies on Beshevliev). On the other hand we have a trolling Anton with no expertise whatsoever in linguistics who doesn't understand the evidences. Don't you realize the grotesque of the situation?
 
Oh, please! You started ironical statements absolutely not related to the arguments we discussed. I consider them as agressive and you perfectly know that. This is not how "respectfull discussion" is happening.  So, this is actually you who usually starts personal attacks not me.  
If you're an irrascible young man, with improper reading skills and always ready to troll and turn a discussion into a flame-war, this is not a blame I will take. "Some people dispute the moon-landing ..." and "You can, as well, claim "kangaroo" to be the closest acceptable match " are not personal attacks and were part of my argumentation. Your reply however was ad hominem and I dealt with it accordingly.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 24-Feb-2009 at 03:13
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 11:33
Pebbles
We all agreed there was a more or less Turkic bloodline of Bulgarian population.Just a few irritated by the fact LOL
 
No one ever suggested that modern day Bulgarians are racially or ethnically Turkic people not Slavs or Eastern Europeans,it should settle baseless fear of concerned individuals.
 
Contrary,Sinophobic S Korean ultra-nationalists of late fancy pure " over-exaggerated " racial Turkic origin or pure Mongol in order to distance themselves from " the Chinese " they've historically associated with culturally politically genetically for 1500 years or more ( based on solid facts ).


Exactly.
The only reason threads of this nature go on for so long is because a few Bulgarians do not want to accept the Bulgars being connected to anything even remotely Turkic due to recent troubles with the Ottoman Turks. Its weird because people with this mentallity will accept any other theory and I mean any no matter how crazy it is.

There are similar people in all nations, there are some Turks who actually believe Sumerians spoke some form of proto-Turkic, or Pesians who think Germans were Persian, or people in Northern Europe thinking that Ancient Egypt was the "Nordic Empire of the Desert", try telling any of them otherwise and you'll get nowhere LOL

Your Korea example paints a similar picture, although ironically they stress their links to Turkic or Mongolic peoples and distance from Chinese.


      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 11:42
Originally posted by Chilbudios

I showed both in what you quoted in your reply. Do you know what a cluster means?
And why prove? I said "in the end [...] might be".
Cluster in this particular word is "ns" as you noted yourself. And I still ask you to provide example of such cluster in a real Turkic language (preferably Chuvash) and the way how this "ns" cluster is resolved by "a". You provided some examples irrelevant for the case we discuss. I.e. your suggestion is not valid as it was not supported by analogies.
 
 
But Rashev doesn't invoke his expertise, he says ( http://www.kroraina.com/bulgar/rashev.html ):
 
"were the Proto-Bulgarians Türks? Were the people, led by Asparukh to the Lower Danube, Turkic-speaking? All modern scholars answer positively"
 
"The linguistic data in the Namelist of the Bulgarian rulers, in the Byzantine written sources as well as the Proto-Bulgarian stone inscriptions are given as an irrefutable evidence to that. The Turkic names, phrases and words they contain, leave little room for discussion."
 
"the Turkic linguistic remains and elements of material culture represent exclusively the language and the culture of the Proto-Bulgarian military-administrative and clan leadership"
This is what I meant too. He cites others where he does not consider him as specialist. 
 
Reputable Bulgarian linguists like Beshevliev also support this theory (Rashev actually relies on Beshevliev). On the other hand we have a trolling Anton with no expertise whatsoever in linguistics who doesn't understand the evidences. Don't you realize the grotesque of the situation?
No I don't. We started discussion about analogy of "kanasybigi" and "khans" words and I pointed to some works showing weak sides of this analogy. These works were published by by the same Beshevliev and other linguists. I also pointed to work claiming that second part of this word -- sybigi has no convincing Turkic etymology. And thus the whole case can not serve as a undisputable proof for Turkic version of Bulgar origin. There is nothing grotescue in keeping in mind  that conclusion of this equality has weak points. Thus, instead of Trolling Anton we have trolling Chil, who's sharp ironical statements attempt to screw up the discussion when he fails to pusuade people.
 
 
If you're an irrascible young man, with improper reading skills and always ready to troll and turn a discussion into a flame-war, this is not a blame I will take. "Some people dispute the moon-landing ..." and "You can, as well, claim "kangaroo" to be the closest acceptable match " are not personal attacks and were part of my argumentation. Your reply however was ad hominem and I dealt with it accordingly.
This is not an "argumentation" but derogatory remarks. On my note that your irony is nothing but agressive personal attack you started to judge my mental abilities. In the past you also suspected me in bias/nationalism ("Anything but Romanian will be OK with you"), agendas and many other things and I am not going to tolerate them. So, I claim that actually this is you, who does ad hominem attacks, not me.
 
.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 12:26
Originally posted by Bulldog

The only reason threads of this nature go on for so long is because a few Bulgarians do not want to accept the Bulgars being connected to anything even remotely Turkic due to recent troubles with the Ottoman Turks.


You are so less subtle. The three Bulgarians here are much to educated to fall in such rough bias as you say. Yo cann't accept that what they say can be objective and the common theory about Bulgars as Turkic speaking wrong.

Myself I think there is not any clear evidence that the Bulgars were Turkic speaking. I'm sure there were Turkic elements in their language but they were speaking a Iranian language. Asparukh is a name made of Iranian language words like other Bulgar monarchs too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bulgarian_monarchs

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 27282930>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.