Topic: Bulgarian origins Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 12:50
[QUOTE=Menumorut] 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bulgarian_monarchs[/QUOTE]
I actually do not claim it is wrong I claim it has many weak points as any other. I think there is a difference between these two statements. What I think is wrong is a claim that Bulgars are homogeneous Turkic speaking ethnos.
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.
Myself I think there is not any clear evidence that the Bulgars were Turkic speaking.
That's what I and the other two "natioanlistic turkic - haters" are saying, nothing more.
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 I already provided a paper on how modern Turkish (a real Turkic language) deals with initial clusters (moreover it describes a very interesting experiment where a group of speakers were required to borrow a foreign word into Turkish).
I also suggested that in the original form that sound may have not been an "a" (Turkic languages and Greek do not have the same sounds), and my examples are relevant for my hypothesis, to show that this phenomenon manifests in the Turkic languages, a fact which you doubted. Given my suggestion is just a hypothesis, it is valid unless proven self-contradictory or counter-factual.
It took me less than 1 minute to find a material on clusters in Old Turkic phonology:
http://books.google.com/books?id=l4yGbSQcrBoC&pg=PA109 I fail to understand why you keep bugging me to prove hypotheses and uncertainties and why are you unable to check a minimal bibliography easily accessible online.
This is what I meant too. He cites others where he does not consider him as specialist.
The others he cites are sometimes grouped as "All modern scholars". Even if emend his view to "almost/virtually all modern scholars", we still have a mainstream supporting this theory. Referring to Beshevliev's work, Rashev speaks also of "irrefutable evidence" which leaves "little room for discussion". Of course, he hasn't met you.
No I don't.
Please, don't answer to rhetorical questions you don't even understand (the two paragraphs below prove it, one paragraph aboves shows what I found to be "grotesque")
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.
You actually misrepresented these scholars if anything, Beshevliev holds Old Bulgarian to be a Turkic, not a Romanic or Slavic language. Beshevliev in Die protobulgarischen Inschriften (p. 165-171) holds the same thing I enounced all along and you rejected, that "kana" is the Bulgar version of "khan".
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.
But no one claimed "kana = khan" is the "proof for Turkic version of Bulgar origin". It is an entire array of Turkic words and roots. Like I already said, if you want proofs, then do your readings.
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.
You're hallucinating, persuading people is the least of my concerns and the irony is lacking from most of my remarks. I don't give a damn on your or anyone else's beliefs ("it's not like this world is not large enough for everybody" is what I told you earlier)
This is not an "argumentation" but derogatory remarks.
No, those are arguments you didn't understand, arguments which were not derogatory at all. The first one claims that almost anything, no matter how certain it looks (like the moon-landings), gets disputed by a minority (the moon landings hoax accusations), as such makes little sense to keep stressing out that "kana = khan" is a disputed equation (and if you do, I have nothing against it, the world is large enough for both positions to be held). The second one shows that some linguistic comparisions are really untenable, one would find closer matches for "khan" in the Australian "kangaroo" than in the Slavic "knyaz". As the Australian connection is out of the question, I see no reason why the Slavic hypothesis should get any credit. If you however choose to credit the Slavic hypothesis (and repeat it is about a close similarity), it's not something which is open to discussion, it's simply a belief of yours.
If you can't get my one-liners and you need essays, then I apologize for over-estimating your intelligence.
On my note that your irony is nothing but agressive personal attack you started to judge my mental abilities.
Your notes were actually personal attacks. You replied at least two sentences which are about my personal abilities and you judged them maliciously (but erroneously, you found irony where was none, you accused me of aggresivity were was none - see my paragraph above).
And once you follow this road, you can't complain about the replies you received. In all honesty, I truly question someone's mental abilities when he fails to understand a point and he starts insulting the person enouncing it.
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.
If you have traumas from the past then go see a shrink.
So, I claim that actually this is you, who does ad hominem attacks, not me.
Yes, I argue ad hominem, especially when replying to other personal attacks directed at me. You, on the other hand, deny it thoroughly. Like I earlier said of you - no back-bone.
But I already provided a paper on how modern Turkish deals with such clusters (a real Turkic language) deals with initial clusters (moreover it describes a very interesting experiment where a group of speakers were required to borrow a foreign word into Turkish).
Yet you didn't provide any example of a particular cluster. Without it, your suggestion remains invalid.
I also suggested that in the original form that sound may have not been an "a" (Turkic languages and Greek do not have the same sounds), and my examples are relevant for my hypothesis, to show that this phenomenon manifests in the Turkic languages, a fact which you doubted. Given my suggestion is just a hypothesis, it is valid unless proven self-contradictory or counter-factual.
There is no example of resolving "ns" cluster by Turkic languages untill you show one. Hence your "hypothesis" is just a fantasy.
It took me less than 1 minute to find a material on clusters in Old Turkic phonology:
http://books.google.com/books?id=l4yGbSQcrBoC&pg=PA109 I fail to understand why you keep bugging me to prove hypotheses and uncertainties and why are you unable to check a minimal bibliography easily accessible online.
Brief look through this materials shows that there is no example of "ns" cluster and its resolvement by "a".
The others he cites are sometimes grouped as "All modern scholars". Even if emend his view to "almost/virtually all modern scholars", we still have a mainstream supporting this theory. Referring to Beshevliev's work, Rashev speaks also of "irrefutable evidence" which leaves "little room for discussion". Of course, he hasn't met you.
I can perfectly read what he wrote. Yet the discussion continues by modern linguists and old problems still remaind unresolved from Turkic point of view.
No I don't. Please, don't answer to rhetorical questions you don't even understand (the two paragraphs below prove it, one paragraph aboves shows what I found to be "grotesque")
You don't understand what you write yourself.
You actually misrepresented these scholars if anything, Beshevliev holds Old Bulgarian to be a Turkic, not a Romanic or Slavic language. Beshevliev in Die protobulgarischen Inschriften (p. 165-171) holds the same thing I enounced all along and you rejected, that "kana" is the Bulgar version of "khan".
Due to absance of ability to read posts of others, you fail to understand that I only point to weak sides of their logic which they (linguists) admit themselves. This starts to be ridiculous.
But no one claimed "kana = khan" is the "proof for Turkic version of Bulgar origin". It is an entire array of Turkic words and roots. Like I already said, if you want proofs, then do your readings.
This is another meaninless statement, you probably don't want me do answer.
You're hallucinating, persuading people is the least of my concerns and the irony is lacking from most of my remarks. I don't give a damn on your or anyone else's beliefs ("it's not like this world is not large enough for everybody" is what I told you earlier)
This is how it looks from outside. Agressive attempts of leaving no room for discussion of other possibilities, accusation in nationalism, absence of enough intelligence etc. Especially in case when you can't proof your faulty hypotheses.
No, those are arguments you didn't understand, arguments which were not derogatory at all. The first one claims that almost anything, no matter how certain it looks (like the moon-landings), gets disputed by a minority (the moon landings hoax accusations), as such makes little sense to keep stressing out that "kana = khan" is a disputed equation (and if you do, I have nothing against it, the world is large enough for both positions to be held).
Your posts states otherwise. And I see agression in them and I repeate, not going to tolerate them.
The second one shows that some linguistic comparisions are really untenable, one would find closer matches for "khan" in the Australian "kangaroo" than in the Slavic "knyaz". As the Australian connection is out of the question, I see no reason why the Slavic hypothesis should get any credit. If you however choose to credit the Slavic hypothesis (and repeat it is about a close similarity), it's not something which is open to discussion, it's simply a belief of yours.
It is not a belief of mine, but suggestion of mine. Kanas may be a version of slavonic knias in Bulgar language whatever group it belongs to. I do not insist it to be true but claim it has right to exist. Just because someone blindly follows widely agreed conclusions and agressively disallow others to discuss it does not it make it less valid.
If you can't get my one-liners and you need essays, then I apologize for over-estimating your intelligence.
Inability to formulate properly your thoughts and ideas is a form of lack of an intelligence.
Your notes were actually personal attacks. You replied at least two sentences which are about my personal abilities and you judged them maliciously (but erroneously, you found irony where was none, you accused me of aggresivity were was none - see my paragraph above).
And once you follow this road, you can't complain about the replies you received. In all honesty, I truly question someone's mental abilities when he fails to understand a point and he starts insulting the person enouncing it.
This is the road very familiar to you so I just joined your way.
If you have traumas from the past then go see a shrink.
It is not a trauma from the past, it is just an experience arguing with you, which says me that shrink is needed for you, not for me.
Yes, I argue ad hominem, especially when replying to other personal attacks directed at me. You, on the other hand ,deny it thoroughly. Like I earlier said of you - no back-bone.
Absence of back bone for you as far as I understood is unacceptance to tolerate accusations in nationalism and stupidity. Then yes, I do not have a back bone. But I would call it otherwise.
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 15:11
Menumorut Asparukh is a name made of Iranian language words like other Bulgar monarchs too:
Using this logic Bulgars were actually Slavic as most the monarchs names were Slavic.
Anyway I thought this was about the Origin of Bulgarians, not Bulgars.
The "Bulgars" originated from the "Dulo Clan", which was related to the Ashina's the founders of the Gok-Turk state. The Dulo Clan split and formed a confederacy including the Utigar, Kutrigar and other Bulgar tribes which was called Onoghur Bulgar Empire. Within the tribal confederacy there were Uralic, Turkic, Iranic and other various tribes with a more than likely Turkic speaking elite/aristocracy.
Edited by Bulldog - 24-Feb-2009 at 15:18
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Yet you didn't provide any example of a particular cluster. Without it, your suggestion remains invalid.
There is no example of resolving "ns" cluster by Turkic languages untill you show one. Hence your "hypothesis" is just a fantasy.
Brief look through this materials shows that there is no example of "ns" cluster and its resolvement by "a".
I don't have to. My suggestion can't be invalid because it is merely a hypothesis. You may say I didn't provide enough evidence for it, but I never claimed I did.
That book suggests "ns" is not an acceptable (tolerable, in my earlier wording) cluster (it lists and discusses the clusters and "ns" is not among them). If that "s" actually would be a "sh" (the "sh" sound was rendered in Greek inscriptions by "th", "s"+vowel, "s", "ss" etc.), that book even states explicitely that "nsh" is an "impossible cluster".
You don't understand what you write yourself.
This is where your frustration leads you to? Next thing you'll claim I don't even exist.
Due to absance of ability to read posts of others, you fail to understand that I only point to weak sides of their logic which they (linguists) admit themselves. This starts to be ridiculous.
That's exactly the flaw of your position. You only point to their doubts, ignoring that these linguists, leaving the doubts aside, safely concluded that Bulgarian is Turkic or that the best match for "kana" is the Turkic "khan". Every sane man has doubts.
This is another meaninless statement, you probably don't want me do answer.
I don't care what you do nor about your ability to resolve meanings.
This is how it looks from outside. Agressive attempts of leaving no room for discussion of other possibilities, accusation in nationalism, absence of enough intelligence etc. Especially in case when you can't proof your faulty hypotheses.
This is how it looks to you, a not-so-smart, not-so-well-educated, nationalistic Balkanic fellow. I leave plenty of room for discussing other possibilities ("it's not like this world is not large enough for everybody"), I didn't accuse you of nationalism on this thread until now (though you deserve to, but I did so in the past when you promoted Bulgarian exceptionalism and minimized the incovenient presences, especially of the "dear" Romance, Greek and now even Turkic neighbours) and certainly you seem to lack some sharpness of mind.
I never tried to prove a hypothesis. Your remarks makes me wonder if you really know the meanings of the terms "proof" and "hypothesis".
Your posts states otherwise. And I see agression in them and I repeate, not going to tolerate them.
Those posts said what they said and they were not aggressive. If you're not smart enough not to understand them, or you're intolerant enough not to leave it be, I won't give you any excuse once you burst and expose your narrowmindedness.
It is not a belief of mine, but suggestion of mine. Kanas may be a version of slavonic knias in Bulgar language whatever group it belongs to.
Someone called Anton is in blatant disagreement with you:
Chilbudios: If you believe/suggest that "kniaz" is closer to "kan" than "khan" ...
Anton: That is right, I DO BELIEVE IT (please note that this Anton chose "belief" instead of "suggestion" though I accepted both variants)
I do not insist it to be true but claim it has right to exist. Just because someone blindly follows widely agreed conclusions and agressively disallow others to discuss it does not it make it less valid.
Who "disallowed" you to discuss it? Are you suffering from some persecution mania?
Inability to formulate properly your thoughts and ideas is a form of lack of an intelligence.
I seldom have complaints from smart people. Or perhaps I'm using a coded language only the selected few can understand
This is the road very familiar to you so I just joined your way.
It is not a trauma from the past, it is just an experience arguing with you, which says me that shrink is needed for you, not for me.
Absence of back bone for you as far as I understood is unacceptance to tolerate accusations in nationalism and stupidity. Then yes, I do not have a back bone.
"Not me, you". However, if I'm to endure that, instead of a brainless monkey, I'd prefer a reverberating echo. At least it may sound nicer.
[QUOTE=Menumorut] 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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bulgarian_monarchs[/QUOTE]
I actually do not claim it is wrong I claim it has many weak points as any other. I think there is a difference between these two statements. What I think is wrong is a claim that Bulgars are homogeneous Turkic speaking ethnos.
You are absolutely right, homogenity is impossible
I don't have to. My suggestion can't be invalid because it is merely a hypothesis. You may say I didn't provide enough evidence for it, but I never claimed I did.
Good. Then we can skip your suggestion as irrelevant. Once again, Beshevliev says "The form[s] KANA instead of the expected kan cannot be satisfactorily interpreted from the point of view of the Turkic languages". End of the question for me.
This is where your frustration leads you to? Next thing you'll claim I don't even exist.
Frustration as a psychological phenomena requires important goal. I have no goal especially important even somebody looks for such.
That's exactly the flaw of your position. You only point to their doubts, ignoring that these linguists, leaving the doubts aside, safely concluded that Bulgarian is Turkic or that the best match for "kana" is the Turkic "khan". Every sane man has doubts.
I never disagreed that it is common opinion. I just emphasize that discussion still continues.
I don't care what you do nor about your ability to resolve meanings.
Let me guess... another meaningful statement of yours?
This is how it looks to you, a not-so-smart, not-so-well-educated, nationalistic Balkanic fellow.
You just portrayed yourself.
I leave plenty of room for discussing other possibilities ("it's not like this world is not large enough for everybody"), I didn't accuse you of nationalism on this thread so far (though you deserve to, but I did so in the past when you promoted Bulgarian exceptionalism and minimized the incovenient presences, especially of the "dear" Romance, Greek and now even Turkic neighbours) and certainly you seem to lack some sharpness of mind.
You continue false accusation which clearly state your level of intelligence. And probably some nationalistic complexes.
I never tried to prove a hypothesis. Your remarks makes me wonder if you really know the meanings of the terms "proof" and "hypothesis".
I am worried same about you.
Those posts said what they said and they were not aggressive. If you're not smart enough not to understand them, or you're intolerant enough not to leave it be, I won't give you any excuse once you burst and expose your narrowmindedness.
Continued accusation.
It is not a belief of mine, but suggestion of mine. Kanas may be a version of slavonic knias in Bulgar language whatever group it belongs to.
Someone called Anton is in blatant disagreement with you:
Chilbudios: If you believe/suggest that "kniaz" is closer to "kan" than "khan" ...
Anton: That is right, I DO BELIEVE IT (please note that this Anton chose "belief" instead of "suggestion" though I accepted both variants)
[/QUOTE]
Strawman.
Who "disallowed" you to discuss it? Are you suffering from some persecution mania?
Accusation.
I seldom have complaints from smart people. Or perhaps I'm using a coded language only the selected few can understand
Basically only you can understand all this crap you just posted.
"Not me, you". However, if I'm to endure that, instead of a brainless monkey, I'd prefer a reverberating echo. At least it may sound nicer.
Good. Then we can skip your suggestion as irrelevant
You can't skip my suggestion as irrelevant because it addressed a problem: why the inscription has "kana" and not "kan".
Once again, Beshevliev says "The form[s] KANA instead of the expected kan cannot be satisfactorily interpreted from the point of view of the Turkic languages". End of the question for me.
Once again, Beshevliev says that the language is a Turkic language and that "kana" means "khan". His evidence for that is obviously not something which "cannot be satisfactorily interpreted from the point of view of the Turkic languages".
Frustration as a psychological phenomena requires important goal. I have no goal especially important even somebody looks for such.
You rant a lot for someone with no declared goals. But probably the explanation lies below:
You just portrayed yourself.
You continue false accusation which clearly state your level of intelligence. And probably some nationalistic complexes.
Continued accusation.
Strawman.
Accusation.
Basically only you can understand all this crap you just posted.
You are hopeless, my dear backboned friend.
If I'm that unintelligent, complexed, hopeless and I write so much crap why are you my epigone? (that's also an accusation, you don't need to exhaust your little brain to give me this reply)
I know I am right, but this statement is nationalism of complexated Bulgarian isn't it? At least how it looks from north
Bulgarian nationalism does not manifest through an appeal to homogenity (virtually impossible in Balkans) but favoring some ancestors (Slavic, Thracian, even Iranian) and some cultures at the expense of the others. This is how Hungarian nationalism is, how Romanian nationalism is, how Albanian nationalism is, how Greek nationalism is.
If I'm that unintelligent, complexed, hopeless and I write so much crap why are you my epigone? (that's also an accusation, you don't need to exhaust your little brain to give me this reply)
Bulgarian nationalism does not manifest through an appeal to homogenity (virtually impossible in Balkans) but favoring some ancestors (Slavic, Thracian, even Iranian) and some cultures at the expense of the others. This is how Hungarian nationalism is, how Romanian nationalism is, how Albanian nationalism is, how Greek nationalism is.
Yeah, yeah, I know that. I read ridiculous Curta's review on Vassary's book. Anyway, I am not favoring any ancestors at the expense of others. It is a result of your sick imagination.
As Sarmat mentioned there is a serious need for participants to "cool-off," thus this thread will be closed for a temporary period of time so that everyone can get back to normal.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Bulgarian origins
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Topic: Bulgarian origins
You just portrayed yourself. 
