Are Bulgarians Slavs?
Philip Kremer
Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
(My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
Bulgarians have to say.)
PK
Ilya V. Talev
to give us a definition of a "Slav". I am asking you
because you seem to have an opinion on the problem:
1. race (what does a "Slav" look like)
2. customs & culture (including folklore)
3. common history
IT
zie...@my-dejanews.com
kre...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu (Philip Kremer) wrote:
> A debate has erupted on another newsgroup about whether Bulgarians are
> Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
> Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
>
> If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
>
> (My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
> Bulgarians have to say.)
>
> PK
>
>
Slavs are Bulgarians
Do you understand ?
Have a nice time !
Ziezi
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Philip Kremer
Ilya V. Talev <ta...@ex-pressnet.com> wrote:
>Before we answer your question, would you be so kind
>to give us a definition of a "Slav". I am asking you
>because you seem to have an opinion on the problem:
>
>1. race (what does a "Slav" look like)
>2. customs & culture (including folklore)
>3. common history
>
>IT
Actually, I intentionally left the question without a definition. This
way, I can gain an understanding not only whether Bulgarians consider
themselves to be Slavs, but also of what Bulgarians consider "Slav" to
mean.
By the way, you also forgot,
4. language.
PK
Ilya Talev
The black Americans speak only English
(kinda). Do you consider them Anglo-Saxon?
Philip Kremer
>No, I didn't forget the language.
>The black Americans speak only English
>(kinda). Do you consider them Anglo-Saxon?
Good point.
Language is not the only relevant factor, but it is one among many
relevant factors.
My guess is that each Slavic-speaking group has a huge mix of non-Slavic
racial elements: Russians have Finnic and Tartar elements, Ukrainians
have Pecheneg, Czechs and Poles have German elements, and the South Slavs
have various mediteranean and other elements. In fact, I think that
"Slavic" is primarily a linguistic group simply because the various
Slavic-speaking groups have so little in common from the racial point of
view, and there is no single group that represents the original "Slavic"
element. Of course, "Slavic" is also, to some extent a cultural group,
but I do not know how much culture the Serbs share with the Czechs.
"English" is different from "Slavic" in two respects: first, it is a
single language and not a group of languages; and second, there is a
single subgroup who more or less represent the original speakers, although
many many people who are not descended from that subgroup (myself
included) now use it as their main language.
Perhaps "Turkic" is more like "Slavic": my impression (although I have
not researched this deeply) is that Anatolian Turks (with primarily
Caucasian-Mediteranean features) do not share much in common, racially,
with Kazakhs (with primarily Asiatic features). So I would say that
"Turkic" is more of a linguistic group than a racial one.
Stephan Nikolov
>A debate has erupted on another newsgroup about whether Bulgarians are
>Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
>Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
>
>If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
>
>(My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
>Bulgarians have to say.)
>
>PK
The Bulgarians are also Slavs in terms of cultural inheritance, language, even
self-consciousness. The Bulgarians, however, do not identify themselves solely
against
the Slavic background that is only one out of many elements of Bulgarian
culture.
As for the self identification most Bulgarians are still taught in schools that
they are mixture of Thracians, Turkic Bulgars and Slavs, where the Bulgars left
their name and state tradition, and the Slavs -- their language. Now all this
simplistic scheme is under revision -- the Slavic element is believed to have
been overestimated in the past. There are serious doubts whether the ancient
Bulgars (not modern Bulgarians) were Turkic at all.
My modest opinion is that Thracian, Valachian (Latin), Illyrian, Armenian,
Turkic (note the difference with Osman Turkish), Iranian, Slavic, Osman Turkish,
Greek, among others, elements can be traced in Bulgarian culture. The "Slavness"
of the Bulgarians has been maintained long by the Bulgarian orthodox church, for
instance.
As you can see, it is not simple "Yes" -- "Not" answer. In order to understand
me better, I would ask you "Are the Americans English?"
SN
bra...@my-dejanews.com
Finns,Balts and some Germanic people).The other subdivision being the
Western-Scando-Atlantic.The whole Nordic race are remnants from the Corded
Ware Culture(also known as The Battle Axe) who were a highly homogeneous and
occupied the whole of Northern Europe from Mount Ural in the East to Northern
France to the west around 3000-2200 BC.Later occured the
Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe due to gradual invasions by
Indo-Europeans coming from the fertile lands of Southern Ukraine and Southern
Russia (North Pontic and North Kaspian sea areas). To cut a long story
short,Bulgarians are a mixture of Protobulgars(who were already a mixture of
Turks,tribes from NE Caucus,Alans and Fenno-Ugric), Thracian
autochthons,Greeks,Ottoman Turks and Slavs (as well as some Kumans). There is
a high number of gypsies who are mainly endogamous. The Anthropology of the
Bulgarian people - Sofia 1959 by Methodi Popov gives the mean figure of 16 %
of blonds among Bulgarians (light blond,blond and dark blond included).That
figure of 16 % may correspond to the Slavic part amid Bulgarians. This part
is a bit higher amid Serbs and Croats (around 20 %),the biggest part among
them, especially Croats being the Dinaric race (maybe up to 50%). Kossovar
Albanians are not a pure race either,some of them are Serbs(who themselves
are a mixture of different races)converted to Islam by will,by force or by
intermarriage,others are an admixture of the Dinaric and Epirotic races. When
Serbs say they are Slavs that implies only language. The Slavic community by
language maybe exceeds 300 millions.But racially they may be only some 30-35
% of this figure.But culturally speaking there is not much left in common
among Slavic speaking people. As Germanic speaking people spread Blondness in
the west,so Slavic speaking people spread Blondness to Eastern Europe.Apart
from Fennic speaking people in Russia who were naturally Blond.
Brannik Shkoynov
bra...@hotmail.com
Ilya Talev
"George S. Tsapanos" wrote:
> And yet ....................they are still afraid to use the word
> VLACHS !
> Oh well .....................if they want to be from the Siberian
> Tundras, let it be.
>
> Regards to all ................L.
You are DAMN RIGHT, Gheorghe!
(At least, once in a while)
IT
Ilya Talev
"George S. Tsapanos" wrote:
> And yet ....................they are still afraid to use the word
> VLACHS !
> Oh well .....................if they want to be from the Siberian
> Tundras, let it be.
Let me give you some simple examples of the influence
from the Tundra:
1. Post-positive article based on the demonstrative
adjectives, -t (-s, -v, -n in dialects), like -l in Vlach;
2. Analytical nominal system (some cases preserved
in dialects in terms for relatives);
3. 18 basic verbal tenses;
4. A few thousand common words like "masa", "trup"
"skara", "kat", "che", "ami", "prazhiola", etc., etc., etc.
5. Personal names: translated or directli borrowed
from Chenese: Primus - Pyrvan, Quintus - Petko,
Petka; Vitus - Zhivko, Zhivka; Vitan, Vitka, Vichka,
Marin, Stanciu... The custom of giving grandparents'
names to the first-born children;
6. Same customs and rituals borrowed fromTibet...
What else? You might help a bit.
IT
Ilya Talev
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> As for the self identification most Bulgarians are still
> taught in schools that they are mixture of Thracians,
> Turkic Bulgars and Slavs, where the Bulgars left
> their name and state tradition, and the Slavs -- their
> language.
Tova e na Ljudmila Zhivkova istoricheskata "nauka" -
trakijci prez IX vek! I che cneshnata bylgarska dyrzhava
se opira na "state tradition" na pra-bulgarite? Agferim,
samo v Oxford Ljudmila mozheshe da byde proniknata ot
takava metodologija...
Ama tova ne e nishto:
> Now all this simplistic scheme is under revision --
> the Slavic element is believed to have been overestimated
> in the past. There are serious doubts whether the ancient
> Bulgars (not modern Bulgarians) were Turkic at all.
Tezi "doubts" osobeno se uvelichavat s razkrivaneto
naposledyk na pra-bylgarski grobove: s mongoloidnite
ochertanija na cherepite i proporciite v kostnata sistema,
s hunskite deformacii na glavite na myzhete (neshto kato
"nimbusi", ako znaete kakvo e tova), s simvolichnite
trapanacii na cherepite.
Pyk da ne govorim za sledite v ezika! Iranskijat suffiks
"-chii", taka dobre poznat na vsichki, kato v zasvidetel-
svuvanite formi "lovchii" - lovec, "knigchii" - knizhnik,
"kormchii" - vozhd; iranskite koreni ot Mongolija
*-alk kato v "lakom" i "alchen", *alv kato v "lov",
"loviti", "lovchii", Iransko-kitajskata duma *kjuinig
kato v "kniga", "knigchii", "knizhoven", Iransko-tjurkskite
dumi "bybrek", "beleg", "biser", i kakvo li oshte ne.
Tazi iranska moda, kojato na njakoi v tazi grupa taka
mnogo haresva, e nishto poveche ot naj-primitiven
rasizym, par excellence. Nikoj ne mozhe da si
izbere roditelite ili praroditelite, s izkljuchenie
na njakoi bylgarski i makedonski pishman-istorici.
No normalnite hora projavjavat kym tjah edno
elementarno uvazhenie, i interes shto za hora sa
bili te. No tova e izvyn obsega na pishman-
istoricite: te si imat svojata "agenda", i tja im
stiga.
Tova ne e kritika kym SN, zashtoto toj pishe:
> My modest opinion is that Thracian, Valachian
> (Latin), Illyrian, Armenian, Turkic (note the difference
> with Osman Turkish), Iranian, Slavic, Osman Turkish,
> Greek, among others, elements can be traced in Bulgarian
> culture.
Ako priemem negovoto "modest opinion", kakvo
znaete za tezi praroditeli na dneshnija bylgarski
narod? Za tjahnata materialna i duhovna kultura,
nravi i obichai, sledi ot ezika im, koito sa ostanali
do dnes sred nas?
I ne e li roljata na edna istinska istoricheska
nauka da osvetli i objasni vlijaneto na tezi
komponenti vyrhu dneshnata etnicheska obshtnost,
narichana bylgari?
IT
George S. Tsapanos
VLACHS !
Oh well .....................if they want to be from the Siberian
Tundras, let it be.
Regards to all ................L.
Ilya Talev wrote in message <3728E8AC...@ibm.net>...
Ilya Talev
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> ..As you can see, it is not simple "Yes" -- "Not" answer. In order to understand
> me better, I would ask you "Are the Americans English?"
I would rather ask: Are the Mexicans Spanish?
IT
Ilya Talev
his own question is: "In fact, I think that "Slavic" is primarily
a linguistic group". But just a few hours ago he wrote:
> (My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like
> to hear what Bulgarians have to say.)
So, are the Bulgarians "Slavs" or "Slavic speakers", like
the American blacks are "Germanic speakers" and the
Mexicans or Guatemalans are "Romance speakers"?
I don't see much of an answer to my questions about
customs & culture and common history.
In brief, why does Mr. Kremer hold "the opinion
that Bulgarians are Slavs"?
IT
George S. Tsapanos
more than a while, whouldn't you say ?
regards to all ...............L.
Ilya Talev wrote in message <3728EEF8...@ibm.net>...
>
>
>"George S. Tsapanos" wrote:
>
>> And yet ....................they are still afraid to use the word
>> VLACHS !
>> Oh well .....................if they want to be from the Siberian
>> Tundras, let it be.
>>
>> Regards to all ................L.
>
Bozil Zaharieff
samo v nas, noi vxv vsichki uzhno evropaiski stani i dori v Svetxt.
Vashij otgovo vxpreki mnogo obsh e nai-"plausiblel". Da ne zabravjme che
do mnogo skoro(1940g.), kogato v Bxlgaria 95% ot naselenieto zhiveeshe
na selo, 50% ot naselenieto ne hodeha po dalech ot Okoliiskij Sentxr i
zhenitbite stavaha nedalech ot seloto. Kakvo e bilo predi 1,300g.,
kogato nazijta se e sxzdavala? Kakvo vlijnie okazva, che sme na
krastopxt ili pod robstva? Bsicho tova okazva efekt. Kolko i da ne sa
pxlni i pogreshni prouchvanijta, bi trjbvalo da ima po dobxr otgovor ot
tozi, kojto se opitvame da dadem po pamet ili nesiguren nolezh.
Interesni vxprosi. Zasluzhava si da se pomxchim da razberem poveche,
tozi pxt s pomoshta na Internet, koito ni dava dostxp do arhivite i
universitetite na Sveta.
Dobre,che horata ne pitat i na nas ni e malko neudobno che ne znaem
tochnij otgovor. Ako "Tato" beshe zhiv, toi znaeshe vsichko i shteshe da
ni kazhe, che ako go slushahme i stanahme 16-ta Sxvetska republika,
tolkova shtjhme da se obezlichim, che vxprosa shteshe da bxde
"Akademichen".
Bladodarj, che prochetohte moite ne tolkova izdxrzhani pisanij.
bobi
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>
> Philip Kremer wrote in message <7g9vo7$bvk$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
> >A debate has erupted on another newsgroup about whether Bulgarians are
> >Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
> >Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
> >
> >If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
> >
> >(My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
> >Bulgarians have to say.)
> >
> >PK
>
> The Bulgarians are also Slavs in terms of cultural inheritance, language, even
> self-consciousness. The Bulgarians, however, do not identify themselves solely
> against
> the Slavic background that is only one out of many elements of Bulgarian
> culture.
> As for the self identification most Bulgarians are still taught in schools that
> they are mixture of Thracians, Turkic Bulgars and Slavs, where the Bulgars left
> their name and state tradition, and the Slavs -- their language. Now all this
> simplistic scheme is under revision -- the Slavic element is believed to have
> been overestimated in the past. There are serious doubts whether the ancient
> Bulgars (not modern Bulgarians) were Turkic at all.
> My modest opinion is that Thracian, Valachian (Latin), Illyrian, Armenian,
> Turkic (note the difference with Osman Turkish), Iranian, Slavic, Osman Turkish,
> Greek, among others, elements can be traced in Bulgarian culture. The "Slavness"
> of the Bulgarians has been maintained long by the Bulgarian orthodox church, for
> instance.
> As you can see, it is not simple "Yes" -- "Not" answer. In order to understand
> me better, I would ask you "Are the Americans English?"
>
> SN
George S. Tsapanos
A nucleus of people are crossing the Danube. The only thing having going
for them is their ferocity.
They end-up in lands managed by Byzantines, which were making their
Emperors from people from the West as from the East.
The king of that nucleus is admitted in the capital of those Emperors
and taught the latest in everything.
The Emperors decide to make a language with grammar for them, but they
decide to use other people's speech mainly --- according to them the
Slavs --- could it be the Vlachian ?
So .............somehow the Emperors had to make the masses be able to
communicate with the nucleus in order to use them and abuse them.
NO !
I don't believe anything came from the East.
I do believe that everything was designed from what was already there.
It was something made for the Arvanites and the Vlachs of the land, and
for the small nucleus --- that was named Bulgars---.
The Slavs offered their populations also, but I doubt it that they were
in big numbers.
They named Slavs everyone that they didn't named Bulgars.
If the Slavs were numerous, they should have been able to stay in the
southern peninsula once they visited.
No !
They didn't have the numbers and in addition they didn't have the
nucleous.
The similarities from the east could be of everything.
Even certain Emperors maybe brought them in the Empire.
The grammar had to be cut in such a way that the masses should be able
to learn.
Should be cut according to what the masses were speaking.
Should be cut according to the Arvanit and Vlachian language.
Regarding the name giving of the grandparents, that;s again something
that everyone was doing it in the Balkans.
And with a scripture 10,000 years old, makes you wonder who were the
first civilized ones.
Nope.......I do believe the secret is in here, in the Balkans.
We are not even made or brought here from the African apes.
We were borned here and we began the civilization in here.
The Balkan peninsula was the craddle.
Regards to all .................L.
Ilya Talev wrote in message <3728F236...@ibm.net>...
>
>
>"George S. Tsapanos" wrote:
>
>> And yet ....................they are still afraid to use the word
>> VLACHS !
>> Oh well .....................if they want to be from the Siberian
>> Tundras, let it be.
>
Stephan Nikolov
Not Ilya Yalev, but Ziezi is the person to address.
Btw, do you know a person called Silviu who is
working out the Vallachian -- Slavic realtions in sci.lang
I bet you will be a very good team.
He is digging out the pan-Roumanian historiography from the last century and
tries to convince us that the Venedi in Pliny were Slavs-- Valachians.
SN
George S. Tsapanos wrote in message <#9LzBbxk#GA.52@cpmsnbbsa03>...
user_...@my-dejanews.com
> Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
> Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
>
> If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
>
> (My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
> Bulgarians have to say.)
>
> PK
>
What is a "Slav"?
If you mean, that to be a Slav is being a Russian cousin, then I think, that
we are not slavs at all.
user_...@my-dejanews.com
zie...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> Slavs are Bulgarians
>
> Do you understand ?
>
> Have a nice time !
>
> Ziezi
Slavs are Bulgarians? But a very limited minority among the Bulgarians,
because everything is a Bulgarian (in your opinion), including Serbs,
Macedonians, I'm not sure about the Americans and the Chinese. God is also a
Bulgarian and therefore there is some limited possibility that he is a Slav
also. So, beware Americans!
user_...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Slavs are Bulgarians
>
> Do you understand ?
>
> Have a nice time !
>
> Ziezi
Slavs are Bulgarians? But a very limited minority among the Bulgarians,
because everything is a Bulgarian (in your opinion), including Serbs,
Macedonians, I'm not sure about the Americans and the Chinese. God is also a
Bulgarian and therefore there is some limited possibility that he is a Slav
also.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
George S. Tsapanos
Stephan Nikolov wrote in message <7gcghm$bvc$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
>Yorgos,
>
>Not Ilya Yalev, but Ziezi is the person to address.
And who that might be ?
>Btw, do you know a person called Silviu who is
>working out the Vallachian -- Slavic realtions in sci.lang
>I bet you will be a very good team.
>He is digging out the pan-Roumanian historiography from the last
century and
>tries to convince us that the Venedi in Pliny were Slavs-- Valachians.
>
Thats their problem ! Too much digging and not enough brains to use
what is already known.
Tell him something.
The more he is digging, the sooner he'll find out that the first
inhabitants of this peninsula were locally borned people.
People that primarily were making a living from the sheep, and later
were called by many many different names.
The Dacian-Romanians don't even know what they are, and they didn't
even had a personality to name theirselves and their country after
something of theirs.
Instead they chose to be called by the name of the conquerors.
They were the sheep. We were the masters.
Regards to all ........L.
Ormr
> No, I didn't forget the language.
> The black Americans speak only English
> (kinda). Do you consider them Anglo-Saxon?
Yep, kinda <G>. Actually, if you listen to some Afro-American linguists
they'll tell you that their "kinda" English=Ebonics has some fundamental
african stucture to it, so even by language they are not Anglo-Saxons.
MANOV
Philip Kremer <kre...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:7g9vo7$bvk$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu...
Stephan Nikolov
>my impression is that Phillip Kremer is just trying to solicit information
>concerning his question and you are pressing him to define his
>predisposition concerning an answer(s).This seems fair enough- provided Mr
>Talev has something to offer Mr Kremer by way of an opinion on the
>subject. So Im "kinda" waiting for Mr Talev to expand on the subject.Mr
>Talev, how would you define what it is to be a Slav- and how do you
>identify?I have next to no knowledge of whether or why this would be a
>heated question- but then again I think black English is as adequete as
>white or brown or slavic english.....
>
I am afraid that noone in his right mind would rush into clean-cut definition of
"Slav"unless (s)he is having ideological, political or other agenda.
Whereas there is little doubt that peoples living in great part of Eastern
Europe are linguistically close, and speak languages that are commonly defined
as "Slavic", the idea of "Slav-ness", "Slavdom", "Slav-hood" , etc., hardly
hardly withstands the lack of evidence of common history and fate, beside the
numerous attempts of Slavic speaking historians, linguists, etc., to forge a
sort of Slavic commonwealth.
Indeed, the major if not the only base for the ""Slav-ness"" or "Slavic
civilisation" approach is the Old Church Slavonic, a literary idiom formed out
of an alphabet invented by a Byzantine imperial emissary, based on a dialect
spoken in a Balkan area where Slavs were by no means the only population, and
even perhaps they were not the predominant population. The alphabet and the
ecclesiastic writings written with this alphabet, as well as the liturgy created
on this dialect were for the first time used in the region of the middle Danube
(Pannonia/Moravia), where again the "Slavs" were not the only population but
lived together with peoples of Germanic, Celtic and Iranian (mostly Sarmatian)
linguistic affiliation.
Indeed, the term "Common Slavic" might be used synchronically with reference to
one concrete period in Slavic linguistic evolution, say, 5th -- late 11th
centuries, where the creation of Old Church Slavonic, in fact, might have
prolonged the existence of Common Slavic with a about a couple of centuries.
Another problem for the ""Slavdom"" theories is the fact that prior to the
papal-organised (sic !!!) promotion of Slavonic literacy in the second half of
the ninth century, the "Slavs" in question did not call them selves "Slavs" but
rather used local tribal self-identification. Terms like "ethnicity", as well as
"ethnogenesis", of the Slavs makes little sense if we bear in mind that various
tribes were called "Slavs" by the outside observers in a period when, for
instance, the outside world called the subjects of the Byzantine emperor
"Greeks", and when a fair deal of western Europeans were termed "Franks" in the
Greek literary tradition. The linguistic identification of the Germanic peoples
as "nemtzy" (that is "mute people") in Slavic languages as well as the close
linguistic relation between the Gothic word "Teuch"(own) with "Deutch"(German in
German) and "Chuzhd"(foreign in Slavic) should also point, in my opinion, that
linguistic identification might have worked mostly one way: as a source of
identification of the "otherness" rather than as a self-identification. I would
imagine, however, that such a statement of mine might face the harsh criticism
of many linguists.
Indeed, works in Byzantine created and papal-promoted Old Church Slavonic speak
of Slavs but they rather create than register the idea of common history, fate
and consciousness of the Slavs. The introduction of Slavonic liturgy and
literacy in Moravia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, Kievan Rus' and other medieval
states at the end of the ninth century and in the tenth and eleventh centuries,
prompted the ideas of "Slav-hood" for a while, but these ideas were quickly
"nationalised" in the late 11th - 13th century, when we can clearly find
statements "The Slavs, i.e. the Rus', etc. This spread of "ethnicising the
"Slav-ness"" process was linguistically registered to a certain degree in a
series of linguistic "reforms" of the ecclesiastical language in Bulgaria, then
in Russia, and in other "Slavic" states.
It is important to bear in mind, that all the states, where Old Church Slavonic
was introduced were ruled by elites that were by no means "ethnic Slavs": Turkic
Bulgars (with somewhat strong Iranian influence), Iranian-Sarmatian Croats and
most probably Serbs, the Scandinavian Rus. I would also like to point out that
even in the beginning of the 19th century the Polish aristocracy insisted on
their Sarmatian origins (very seriously, so it more or less resulted in the
annexation of the country by the Russians in the 1780's).
Nevertheless, the language was important for the intellectuals of the late 17th,
18th and 19th centuries who "re-discovered" the "Slavdom" similarly to the Greek
intellectuals who discovered they were descendants of Solon and Pericles when
studying in western universities and looked for the classical culture as a
source of national identity. The ""Slavdom"" theories were prompted, for
instance, by Russian intellectuals (Lomonossov, for instance, in his famous
disputations with G.-F. Mueler in the 1740's and 1750's) for concrete political
reasons, and were taken over by power-factors in 18th and 19th century Russia in
order to achieve concrete political goals. Similar was the situation with the
emergence of Slavistics in the Habsburg monarchy -- about the same time. Again,
the political and ideological agenda played significant part.
The "Slavdom" theory was introduced and furthered in Bulgaria by Russian and
Czech scholars, as well as by Bulgarian scholars who were educated in Russia and
under the spell of the Russian political and cultural ideology in the last
century. As mentioned before, the "Slavdom" theory is maintained also by the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church (most of) whose eminent members are also Russian
educated. Incidentally, the common "Slavonic" connections with Serbs, Russians
and, to a certain (much lesser) extent, with Czechs overshadow by far the
acknowledgement of common "Slavic" origin with, say Croats, Ukrainians or Poles.
Again the "Orthodox -- Slavic" ideology might be the most plausible explanation
of this.
Here, perhaps, I need also to say, that I prefer the British term "Slavonic"
rather than the American "Slavic" for the reasons I mentioned above.
While the ""Slav-ness"" of the Bulgarians, is by all means overestimated, their
"Balkan-ness" is largely underestimated, in my opinion. I am not linguist, but
from what I gather from dealing with writings in Greek, Romanian (Arouman), and
what I hear from those who know Albanian (the south dialect especially),
Bulgarians and Serbians are much more likely to learn easily Greek, Romanian and
Albanian than, say the Russians. Still, Russians need hard work to learn proper
Bulgarian.
This might be the case for understanding the "Slavonic" self-identification of a
number of Bulgarians -- education shaped by means of ideology (the case with
Russian) and neighbourhood (the case with the Serbians). Again, quite a few
Bulgarians renounce their ""Slav-ness"". I do not know any Bulgarian to deny
(s)he his(her) "Balkan-ness". I am quite sure that, the understanding of common
history, fate, territorial proximity are the factors behind this. I would
imagine that this has reflected in language as well. This, however, is clearly
I. Talev's domain.
SN
Stephan Nikolov
>james montgomery wrote in message <01be93d0$dd70f240$83ee490c@montymachine>...
>>my impression is that Phillip Kremer is just trying to solicit information
>>concerning his question and you are pressing him to define his
>>predisposition concerning an answer(s).This seems fair enough- provided Mr
>>Talev has something to offer Mr Kremer by way of an opinion on the
>>subject. So Im "kinda" waiting for Mr Talev to expand on the subject.Mr
>>Talev, how would you define what it is to be a Slav- and how do you
>>identify?I have next to no knowledge of whether or why this would be a
>>heated question- but then again I think black English is as adequete as
>>white or brown or slavic english.....
>>
>
I am sorry, now I realise, I have made some mistakes: i HAVE CAPITALISED
the corrections.
SN
>linguistic relation between the Gothic word "THiuD"(OWN PEOPLE, FOLK) with
"Deutch"(German FOLK in German) and "Chuzhd"(foreign in Slavic) should also
George S. Tsapanos
George S. Tsapanos
Regards to all ..........L.
Stephan Nikolov wrote in message <7gfp9r$r4j$1...@news.ox.ac.uk>...
Philip Kremer
Philip Kremer <kre...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu> wrote:
>A debate has erupted on another newsgroup about whether Bulgarians are
>Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
>Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
>
>If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
>
>(My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
>Bulgarians have to say.)
>
>PK
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion.
I found it very refreshing to hear many Bulgarians discuss -- with some pride, it
seems to me -- the many and varied ethnic, cultural and linguistic roots of
present day Bulgaria. I believe that most European countries have similarly
mixed roots, but very few people from these other countries are so ready to
embrace their diverse ancestries. Many other countries still carry on a myth of
"purity", and I believe that much ethnic tension could be eased if each of us
realized exactly how ethnically mixed he or she is.
Thanks again,
PK
james montgomery
courses is Slavonic history/lang/culture.
Filip Stankof
>Slavs. One poster claimed that even Bulgarians do not consider themselves
>Slavs. So I wanted to do a little survey.
>
>If you're Bulgarian, tell me: Are Bulgarians Slavs?
>
>(My own opinion is that Bulgarians are Slavs, but I'd like to hear what
>Bulgarians have to say.)
>
>PK
>
My father keeps telling me we´re "Traks"
Stephan Nikolov
>> taught in schools that they are mixture of Thracians,
>> Turkic Bulgars and Slavs, where the Bulgars left
>> their name and state tradition, and the Slavs -- their
>> language.
>
>trakijci prez IX vek! I che cneshnata bylgarska dyrzhava
>se opira na "state tradition" na pra-bulgarite? Agferim,
>samo v Oxford Ljudmila mozheshe da byde proniknata ot
>takava metodologija...
>
Uvazhaemi g-n Talev,
Znaete mnogo dobre, che teorijata za "trakijskija substrat" ne e nito delo na L.
Zhivkova,
a oshte po-malko e plod na "Oxfordska metodologija". Vseki, edin kojto e chel D.
Dechev, G. Katzarov,
B. Gerov i vidi godinite na publikaciite im, she se uveri, che tyrsenija v
nasoka na "Trakojskija substrat" datirat ot predi 1944, t.e. edva li te sa
povlijani ot komunisticheska ideologija.
Podoben e i sluchajat sys "Slavjanstvoto" na bylgarite. Iztochnicite na teoriite
za "slavjanskata syshtnost" na bylgarite trjabva da se dirjat poveche v "Tretija
Rim", t.e. v Moskva prez 18 i 19 vek, otkolkoto v Kominterna.
Razbira se, tezi teorii bjaha aktivno razviti ot komunisticheskata oficiozna
istoriografija, no te ne se pojaviha na prazno mjasto, nito shte zaginat bez
sleda. Problemyt na istoricheskata nauka, e che sega se dirjat drugi krajnosti,
koito podsyznatelno ili syznatelno celjat da balansirat nadcenjavanija
"Slavjanski faktor" v bylgarskata istorija.
>Ama tova ne e nishto:
>
>> Now all this simplistic scheme is under revision --
>> the Slavic element is believed to have been overestimated
>> in the past. There are serious doubts whether the ancient
>> Bulgars (not modern Bulgarians) were Turkic at all.
>
>Tezi "doubts" osobeno se uvelichavat s razkrivaneto
>naposledyk na pra-bylgarski grobove: s mongoloidnite
>ochertanija na cherepite i proporciite v kostnata sistema,
>s hunskite deformacii na glavite na myzhete (neshto kato
>"nimbusi", ako znaete kakvo e tova), s simvolichnite
>trapanacii na cherepite.
>
Ot istoricheska gledna tochka, ne mozhete da pripishete deformacijata
na cherepite samo na "altajskija" element. Obichajat e zasvidetelstvan i
pri alanite, naprimer, a alano-tjurkskij synkretizym e dobre zasvidetelstvan
v "kurgannata kultura" juzhno-ruskite stepi oshte ot kraja na 5ti vek.
Evropoidni cherepi s deformacii sa zasvidetelstvani i na teritorijata na
dneshna Bylgarija. Alano-Sarmatski pogrebenija, datirani kym kraja na 7mi - 8mi
vek,
sa otkiti v syshtite rajoni, kydeto sa i nahodkite na mongoloite. Bez da se
otricha "Tjurko-Altajskija", ili po-tochno "Huno-Altajskija" tjurkiziran element
na Bylgarite, redica arheologicheski i antropologicheski danni govorjat za
osezaem Iranski element sred naselenieto na Severna/Severoiztochna Bylgarija ot
kraja na 7mi - 8 mi vek. Shto se otnasja za "Hunskijat element", faktyt, che ima
zasvidetelstvan prjakor-familno ime "Hunyt" (870 g.) , bi trjabvalo da ni kara
da bydem mnogo predpazlivi s prostoto otyzhdestvjavane na "Huni" i "Bylgari"
prez kysnata antichnost i rannoto-srednovekovie.
Ne biva oshte da zabravjame, che Gotski i Sarmatski plemena se pidvizhvat v
rajana na Srednija i Dolen Dunav oshte prez 4ti vek. "Skitskijat" element na
ranno-srednovekovnata bylgarska kultura, sledovatelno, ne
mozhe da byde opredelen ednoznachno. Tokova edno stanvishte e normalno, za
vseki, kojto pone malko e chel za otvorenija harakter na stepnite obshtestva,
ili e zap[oznat s istorijata na hazaro-alanskite vryzki, naprimer.
>Pyk da ne govorim za sledite v ezika! Iranskijat suffiks
>"-chii", taka dobre poznat na vsichki, kato v zasvidetel-
>svuvanite formi "lovchii" - lovec, "knigchii" - knizhnik,
>"kormchii" - vozhd; iranskite koreni ot Mongolija
>*-alk kato v "lakom" i "alchen", *alv kato v "lov",
>"loviti", "lovchii", Iransko-kitajskata duma *kjuinig
>kato v "kniga", "knigchii", "knizhoven", Iransko-tjurkskite
>dumi "bybrek", "beleg", "biser", i kakvo li oshte ne.
Taka e. Ima vse pak edin malyk problem, i problemyt se systoi v
prodylzhitelnostta na
procesa po nahluvane i otsjadane na Tjurko-altajski ezichni grupi naselenie v
Bylgarskite zemi i sled pyrvata polovina na 9ti vek. Ne biva da propusnem,
razbira se i razmeshvaneto pt pyrvata polovina na 9ti vek. Pechenegite,
naprimer, stavat faktor v Bylgarskata istorija oshte ot poslednata tretina na 9
vek, i procesyt na tjahnata infiltracija v bylgarskite zemi kulminira prez 11
vek. Uzite syshto trjabva da bydat spomenati, i da ne zabravjame, che 11 - 13
vek e period na osezatelno kumansko kulturno vlijanie. Kato pribavim "tatarskija
faktor" ot vtorata polovina na 13 vek, stava jasno che "tjurkskijat faktor" v
bylgarskata srednovekovna kultura ne e edinstveno i samo plod na kulturnata
tradicija na Asparuhovite bylgari, a edin prodylzhitelen proces.
>Tazi iranska moda, kojato na njakoi v tazi grupa taka
>mnogo haresva, e nishto poveche ot naj-primitiven
>rasizym, par excellence. Nikoj ne mozhe da si
>izbere roditelite ili praroditelite, s izkljuchenie
>na njakoi bylgarski i makedonski pishman-istorici.
>No normalnite hora projavjavat kym tjah edno
>elementarno uvazhenie, i interes shto za hora sa
>bili te. No tova e izvyn obsega na pishman-
>istoricite: te si imat svojata "agenda", i tja im
>stiga.
>
Absoljutno sym syglasen s tova okachestvjavane na "iranskata" ili oshte
"arijskata"
moda v istoricheskite i kvazi-istoricheskite direnija naposledyk. Vse pak,
prenebregvaneto na Iranskija faktor,
osobeno v poslednite 50 godini imashe syshto svoite ideologicheski prichini.
>Tova ne e kritika kym SN, zashtoto toj pishe:
>
Blagodarja, makar che v konteksta na Vashite nekolkokratni aljuzii kym
Oxford, kydeto namesihte Ljudlila (bez da otchitate, che tja v Oxford se
zanimavashe s neshto
napylno razlichno - istorija na 20 vek), az malko se symnjavam v tova Vi
tvyrdenie.
>> My modest opinion is that Thracian, Valachian
>> (Latin), Illyrian, Armenian, Turkic (note the difference
>> with Osman Turkish), Iranian, Slavic, Osman Turkish,
>> Greek, among others, elements can be traced in Bulgarian
>> culture.
>
>Ako priemem negovoto "modest opinion", kakvo
>znaete za tezi praroditeli na dneshnija bylgarski
>narod? Za tjahnata materialna i duhovna kultura,
>nravi i obichai, sledi ot ezika im, koito sa ostanali
>do dnes sred nas?
>
>I ne e li roljata na edna istinska istoricheska
>nauka da osvetli i objasni vlijaneto na tezi
>komponenti vyrhu dneshnata etnicheska obshtnost,
>narichana bylgari?
>
>IT
>
Zhaem mnogo malko, mo tova ne e samo grjah na istorijata, no i na redica
"pomoshtni"
disciplini, koito sa osnovni v uslovijata na zabelezhitelnata bednota na
izvorovite danni --
naj-veche lingvistika, etnografija, fizicheska antropologija i kulturna
antropologija.
Hora kato I. Venedikov, naprimer, sa ogromna rjadkost, i otnovo, mnogo ot
dannite sybirani prez poslednite 70 godini, no ne publikuvani izcheznaha po
dosta podozritelen nachin. Shte dam primer s "prochistenija" arhiv na St.
Mladenov, ili s lispvashtija arhiv na Tzv. Tafradzhijska (kato granici vyv
vremeto).
Mnogo ot neshtata ne mogat da se vyzstanovjat.
Eto zashto vmesto da se politizira direneto i da se tyrsjat "ideologicheskite
znamenateli" na edin ili drug izsledovatel, trjabva da se sybirat i malkite
racionalni zyrna, koito mogat da pomognat za edna po-pylna i mozhe bi
po-pravdopodobna kartina za bylgarite.
SN
Ilya Talev
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> ... teorijata za "trakijskija substrat" ne e nito delo na
> L. Zhivkova, a oshte po-malko e plod na "Oxfordska
> metodologija"
Trakijski substrat e edno, a "traki" ili "romanizovani traki"
prez 8 - 9 vek e drugo. No da se vyrnem kym Ljudmilinata
metodologija v bylgarskata istoricheska nauka: nejnijat
kratyk prestoj v Oxford ne ja pravi korifgej na nikakva
nauka, ama na nikakva! Dokato pone edno desetiletie
nejhite delitantski idei za razvoja na choveshkite obshestva
prez vekovete sa gospodstvashti v oficialnite sredi na
socialisticheskite kulturtregeri na Bylgarija. Kolko
pyti chuh minzloto ljato ot "seriozni hora" v Sofija,
"da, ama tja se opitvashe neshto da napravi za bylgarskata
kultura". Dobre pone, che "Vladko na tatko" ne uspja da
se vkljuchi v okulturjavaneto na bylgarite.
Ot Marin Drinov ta do den dneshen bylgarski istorici
tyrsjat razkovnicheto v nashata istorija: slavjani...
prabylgari... pak slavjani... "japoncite na Balkanite"....
rusko-bylgarska bojna druzhba prez vekovete...
posle traki prez 9 vek... sega pyk ne bilo tjurki-bylgari,
a po-skoro iranci s trapanirani cherepi. Ne daj si bozhe
vlasi!, v izdanijata na bylgarskite prevodi na dnevnicite
na Anna Komnina dumata "vlahoi" avtomaticheski se
prevezhda s "bylgari", bez dazhe da se pravi snoska
pod reda, kakto v Skopje podmenjaha v preizdanieto
na Miladinovite bratja "Jana bela bugarka" s "Jana
bela makedonka" (nishto che rityma ne vyrvi).
I dalech ne e vypros na neznanie na elementarni
fakti; po-skoro e vypros na ignoriraneto im, otkaz da
se prosledi daden element v negovata evoljucija,
zashtoto tova bi narushilo oprosteni shemi, nalozheni
ot vremenni politicheski syobrazhenija na upravnicite.
Syglasen sym napylno, che istoricite ne sa edinstvenite
pishman-ucheni na socialisticheska Bylgarija. Spomnjam
si edin kuriozitet v oblastta na isoricheskata lingvistika:
predi 30-na godini korifejat na socialisticheskoto
ezikoznanie, ak. Vladimir Georgiev, izleze s izumitelnata
teorija za "akaneto" v njakoi pomashki govori. Vizhdate
li, to dokazvalo organicheskata vryzka na bylgarskija
i ruskija narodi, otrazjavalo "periferijni javlenija"
v "slavjanskoto more" (kakto na ruski fonetichno e "arjol"
za "orel", taka v njakoi pomashki govori e "arel").
No... korifejat se pravi, che ne znae primeri kato
"asojnica" ot "usojnica", t.e., che nachalno neudareno
"a" e doshlo ot nachalno neudareno "u" kato v
"usojnica" ili "urel", kakto bi trjabvalo da se proiznese
bez akane. Syshto taka toj se pravi, che ne znae, che
mnogo beloruski mjusjulmani sa zaseleni sred pomacite,
kakto i do dnes na juzhnoto tursko Chernomorie ima
chetiri chisto beloruski sela (njako belorusi sa mohame-
dani oshte ot 14 vek, i pyrvite literaturni tvorbi na
beloruski dialekt (ili ezik, ako shtete) sa na mjusjulmanski
tekstove.
Az njamam problem s iransko vlijanie. Predi da dojdat na
Balkanite bylgarite sa stojali dostatychno dylgo vreme
v regiona, kojto predi tova e bil naseljavan glavno s
"asi" (praroditelite na dneshnite osetinci). I do dnes
v Kavkazite imame Bolkaro-Molkarska avonomna
oblast, imame syshto v komshuluka "Bashkirija".
(Tova e za Ziezii: po pravilata na tjurkskija rotacizym,
"r" alternira sys "z", kato v "kjor" [sljap] i "gjoz" [oko],
ili po-staroto "hraniti" [ot "*harn" ---> "hran-"] i "hazna",
mjasto za syhranjavane na pari, ili oshte po-zabavnite
"kar-am" [zastavjam, nasilvam], "kaz-n" [nakazanie],
"u-kor" [poricanie], kor-kam [plasha]. Ednovremenno
imame alternacijata na "l" i "sh", kato v "bol" [izobilen,
pylen] i "bosh" [pust, prazen, sravni "boshlaf"]. Taka
che Ziezii, "boLgarija" i "baSHkirija" javno imat
genetichna vryzka.
Iranskoto vlijanie v ezika na prabylgarite stava ochevidno
samo kato sravnim "shatyr" s po-kysnoto "chadyr" (doshlo
chrez turski); obshtoslavjanskata duma za chislitelnoto
"pet" mozhe da se objasni samo kato iranska zaemka,
i oshte mnogo, mnogo primeri. No iranskoto vlijanie ne
svyrshva s prabylgarite: vizantijcite postojanno prehvyrljat
na Balkanite eretici ot iztochnite si provincii, turcite
zaselvat majsori-kilimdzhii v Evropa da uchat bylgari i
rumynci na kilimarstvo; turskata poezija i folklor sa
pod silnoto vlijanie na persijskata poezija, i vlijajat
na bylgarskija poetichen folklor (i ezik); sravni
"Dilmano, Dilbero..."
20 veka nashata istorija e edin neprekysnat choveshki
vodovyrtezh, v kojto kakvi li ne techenija uchastvat.
Njama prosti shemi za razbiraneto na tezi procesi;
no tova, koeto e nepriemlivo, e, che novi vizhdanija
na procesite i uchastvashtite v tjah oshte ne se
nasyrchavat ot oficialnite humaniterni nauki v
Bylgarija.
IT
Stephan Nikolov
>
>Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>
>> ... teorijata za "trakijskija substrat" ne e nito delo na
>> L. Zhivkova, a oshte po-malko e plod na "Oxfordska
>> metodologija"
>
>Trakijski substrat e edno, a "traki" ili "romanizovani traki"
>prez 8 - 9 vek e drugo.
Taka e, no dokato tova se osyznava ot njakoi v universiteta, naprimer,
uchitelite po istorija govorjat za "traki".
No da se vyrnem kym Ljudmilinata
>metodologija v bylgarskata istoricheska nauka: nejnijat
>kratyk prestoj v Oxford ne ja pravi korifgej na nikakva
>nauka, ama na nikakva! Dokato pone edno desetiletie
>nejhite delitantski idei za razvoja na choveshkite obshestva
>prez vekovete sa gospodstvashti v oficialnite sredi na
>socialisticheskite kulturtregeri na Bylgarija. Kolko
>pyti chuh minzloto ljato ot "seriozni hora" v Sofija,
>"da, ama tja se opitvashe neshto da napravi za bylgarskata
>kultura". Dobre pone, che "Vladko na tatko" ne uspja da
>se vkljuchi v okulturjavaneto na bylgarite.
>
Prestojat na Ljudmila za edna godina v Oxford, njama osobeno znachenie.
Kakto spoemanah, tova beshte, za da mozhe tja da si napishe disertacijata
na anglijski.
Ne iskam da zashtivam Ljudmila, no ako ne beshe tja, i dosega shtjaha da
se predyvkvat shemite, za 99% slavjani - 1% asparuhovata orda. Otnovo:
specifichnijat nacionalizym na Ljudmila do ogromna stepen "de-partizira i
de-syvetizira" bylgarskata humanitaristika.
Vizhte Talev, az kym Ljudmila njamam osobena pochit, no vse pak tja se opitvashe
da napravi,
za dobro ili losho neshto ZA, a ne S bylgarskata humanitaristika. Naj malkoto
vyzstanovi klasicheskata gimnazija i dade vyzmozhnost ot rano da se uchi
latinski, grycki i starobylgarski.
Tova tja go napravi ne bez syprotivata na "ruskoto lobi" ili na "pragmaticite",
koito narichaha
uchilishteto "popchetata" i prochee. Istina e, che 50% ot uchenicite tam bjaha
vryzkari, no
ostanalite bjaha iskreno zainteresuvani. Ot 18 choveka klas, 3 sme v Oxford --
dvama s doktorati, retijat raboti za Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oshte edin ima v
London sled kato zavyshi Yale i Stanford.
Ljudmila, ne mozhe da byde sydena izvyn svoja kontekst -- konteksta na
komunisticheska partijnost i servilnichene na CCCP. Kato cjalo sistemata beshe
idiotska, no sravnete Ljudmila s Elena Chaushescu, naprimer.
Ljudmila se opita da nadmogne sredata si po njakakyv nachin -- i za vremeto si
tova beshe neshto. Ljudmila trjabva da byde ocenjavana na fona na Georgi
Yordanov i na Grisha Filipov.
Uvelichavane na specializaciite v zapadni univesriteti -- tova syshto beshe
vremeto na Ljudmila.
Ljudmila naistina napravi neshto, ako chovek sedne da se porovi iz bibliotekite
i sravni kolichestvoto zapadna literatura, koeto e vlezlo v Bylgarija po nejno
vreme, i sled kato tja umrja.
Metodologijata, ot kojato se oplakvate, ne e na Ljudmila. Metodologijata po
vremeto na Ljudmila neshe eklektika s marksistki citati. Ljudmila, taka i ne
mozha da razbere, kak da otdelja zyrno ot pljava, i pormotira i otkrovenni
mozhenici i hora kato Tafradzhijska i Venedikov.
Chakajte sega, teorijata na Vl. Georgiev beshe kitikuvana
oshte na vremeto kakto i ot bylgari, taka i ot rusnaci. Onja
den gledah (samo periferno) njakakyv sbornik v Taylorian po tozi vypros, kato
tyrseh za shopska gramatika (ne namerih).
Otnovo, Vl. Georgiev beshe ot "starata shkola" na Stalinovoto ezikoznanie.
Vizhte Talev, vie ne pravite razlika mezhdu razlichnite podrazdelenija v
komunisticheskata
ideologija, ili kakvo?
Iranskoto vlijanie v Bylgarskata kultura minava oshte ot vremeto na Darii i
"skitskoto izkustvo" (eto Vi ja otnovo granicata Iskyr - Mesta), prez "getite"
na Iordanes.
Prez Sarmatite po srednija Dunav i gotite v Dakija i posle v ilirik (pak syhtata
granica).
Iranskoto vlijanie e staro na Balkanite.
V stepite to minava prez Sugdiana. Proslovutite mongoloidni "Huni" na Boev sa
vodeni ot Atila, koeto mozhe eventualno da se izvede ot ata -- bashta, otkydeto
ide i Ukrainskata doma za vozhd - ataman. Razkovnichecheto e, v magicheskata
smes, a ne v "chistite elementi",
Ilya. Elementite imat laboratorni stojnosti i te nikoga ne sa bili "chisti".
Eto zashto kazvan, da imalo e Alani s Asparuh, no te sa bili s trapanirani
cherepi.
Irano-Altajskijat synkretizym vyrvi v stepite oshte ot vremeto na Ahemenidite,
che i ot predi tova.
Po syshtija nachin, se oshte ima idioti v Bylgarija, za koito Osmanski = Turski
i slagat ravenstvo mezhdu Osmanskata imperija i Turcija. I tova ne e ot
komunizma -- mnogo po staro e.
Komunizmyt prosto izvadi kirlivite rizi na pokaz -- napravi gi po-lesno
razlichimi.
Az ne haresvam Ljudmila, imenno zashtoto tja se opita da gi skrie, s
komunisticheska retorika sychetana s mistichni psihopatologichni videnija i
praktiki. (az kato kazvam, che Obrzihova aka Albright e kato Ljudmila, nikoj ne
mi vjarva. Sledvashtijat pyt kato se pojavi i poglednete ukrashenijata po
drehite -- no tova mozhe da sa samo neznachitelni detajli)
SN
PS: Apropos, zashto si misleh az, che onezi pomaci sa bili Ukrainski, a ne
beloruski? No mozhe da byrkam de.
Nikolay Vitanov
BTW, chuvali li ste za skandala po vreme na seminar na Ludmila v Oxford?
Kato stana duma za tova vreme, eto i edna stara molitva na rusofilite sled
konchinata i (v styla na "Razkazi s neochakvan kraj"):
Zemjata mila pribra Ludmila.
Njama da e losho da pribere i ... Reagan.
Nobody
<01be9454$5a684860$3f92410c@montymachine>...
>
The question was so simple - 'Do you consider yourself a Slav ?'.
But instead of proper response all you're getting is lots of pseudo-
scientific crap and not simply an answer.
So far only Ilya Talev has given you one : he does not feel being a Slav .
I'll give you next: I don't know and I don't give a .... I feel Bulgarian;
if
Bulgarians are Slavs - so am I , if they are not Slav so do I.
Stephan Nikolov
>Stephan Nikolov wrote: [hvalebstvija za Ludmila]
>
Hvalebstvija sa samo vyv vyobrazhenieto Vi.
>BTW, chuvali li ste za skandala po vreme na seminar na Ludmila v Oxford?
>
Ne sym chuval za scandal.
>Kato stana duma za tova vreme, eto i edna stara molitva na rusofilite sled
>konchinata i (v styla na "Razkazi s neochakvan kraj"):
>
>Zemjata mila pribra Ludmila.
>Njama da e losho da pribere i ... Reagan.
>
Ajde stiga gluposti. Chovek ocenjava neshtata v konteksta na vremeto i
uslovijata.
Ljudmila propilja mnogo pari za gluposti, napravi mnogo gluposti --
no vse pak si ima svoite kachestva i nesymneno s otlichavashe na sivija fon
na yunacite ot politbjuro i pravitelstvoto. .
Ne mozhe chovek da ocenjava bilo TJ, bilo ostanalite bez konteksta na komunizma
i na
ruskoto vlijanie.
SN
james montgomery
Nobody <nob...@no.where> wrote in article
<01be9568$bff9a920$cde57fcb@nm>...
Ilya Talev
Nikolay Vitanov wrote:
> Stephan Nikolov wrote: [hvalebstvija za Ludmila]
>
Nie sys SN javno sme na razlichni vylni:
Toj ni objasnjava kakvi dobrini e donesla na Bylgarija
na Todor Zhivkov shterka mu Ljudmila, a az mu
kazvam slednoto:
Chalnatata dyshterja na edin komunisticheski diktator
NE MOZHE da dava napravlenija v nacionalnata
nauka i kulturnija zhivot na stranata, namirashta se
pod vlastta na bashta i - prosto kato FASUL.
A sega, njakolko vyprosa za rezultatite ot blagorod-
nicheskata i dejnost:
S kakvo se otlichavat prinosite na zavyrshilite klasicheskata
gimnazija ot prinosite na neposeshtavalite ja v bylgarskite
humanitarni nauki?
Kakvi prinosi v bylgarskata i svetovnata nauka imat
nauchnite komunisticheski nomenklaturchici, koito
pod egidata na Ljudmila obikoliha zapadni universiteti
na narodni pari?
Kakvi zapadni idei proniknaha v bylgarskoto obshestvo
(i syotvetno, kak go promeniha) vsledstvie na zakupuvaneto
na zapadna literatura za njakoi biblioteki?
S kakvo se otlichavat prinosite na Ljudmila ot tezi na
naj-umnata zhena na chovechestvoto, tovarisha Elena
Chaushesku, kato "nauchnite trudove" i na dvete bjaha
napisani ot treti lica, sluzhiteli na komunisticheskata
dyrzhava, bilo to v Bukuresht ili Oxford?
Ne bjah li vi kazval, che jako sa vi promivali
mozycite!
IT
Stephan Nikolov
>
>
>Nikolay Vitanov wrote:
>
>> Stephan Nikolov wrote: [hvalebstvija za Ludmila]
>>
>
>Nie sys SN javno sme na razlichni vylni:
>Toj ni objasnjava kakvi dobrini e donesla na Bylgarija
>na Todor Zhivkov shterka mu Ljudmila, a az mu
>kazvam slednoto:
>
Nie javno sme na razlichni vylni. Zashto Vie tvyrdo otkazvate da vidite neshtata
"otvytre" ne znam.
>Chalnatata dyshterja na edin komunisticheski diktator
>NE MOZHE da dava napravlenija v nacionalnata
>nauka i kulturnija zhivot na stranata, namirashta se
>pod vlastta na bashta i - prosto kato FASUL.
>
Vizhdam, che zapochvate da proumjavate.
Ne mozhe taka e, no spored pravilata na demokracijata.
Az vi objasnjavam, che spored logikata na komunisticheskoto
obshtestvo (porochna logika, no fakt) tova beshe vyzmozhno i stana.
Podhodyt Vi e anachronichen i Vie tvyrdo otkazvate da vlezete v
situacijata na komunisticheska Bylgarija poradi principni ideologicheski i
poloiticheski nesyglasija s komunizma. Fair enogh !!!
Otnovo i otnovo iskam da povtorja, che ako komunisticheskoto obshtestvo beshe
edna specifichna forma na feodalizym, to "zaslugata" na Ljudmila, beshe v opita
za
politika na "prosveten absoljutizym". Ottuk idat vsichki pljusove i minusi.
>A sega, njakolko vyprosa za rezultatite ot blagorod-
>nicheskata i dejnost:
>
>S kakvo se otlichavat prinosite na zavyrshilite klasicheskata
>gimnazija ot prinosite na neposeshtavalite ja v bylgarskite
>humanitarni nauki?
>
Kato ezikoved, Vi preporychvam da prochetete knigata na A. Deleva za zaemkite v
starobylgarskija i da napravite razlikata za sebe si.
I otnovo, kazvam, che vyzrazhdaneto na klasicheskoto obrazovanie v Bylgarija,
koeto beshe zabraneno ot komunistite kato "burzhoazna otzhivelica", stana
vyzmozhno V KOMUNISTICHESKI USLOVIJA, samo zashtoto chalnata shterka na TJ beshe
spechelena za deloto. Inache trjabvashe li, spored Vas, da se chakat
promenite -- t.e oshte 15 godini?
Shte dobavja i oshte neshto, nito edin t tjah ne napisa trudove, koito da dadat
"nauchna obosnovka" na "vyzroditelonija proces" -- otnovo opozicijata V.
Gjuzelev -- P. Petrov e validna.
>Kakvi prinosi v bylgarskata i svetovnata nauka imat
>nauchnite komunisticheski nomenklaturchici, koito
>pod egidata na Ljudmila obikoliha zapadni universiteti
>na narodni pari?
>
Vyprosyt e nekorekten i ima svoja ekvivalent: "A kolko nekachestven produkt e
napraven ot zapadni universiteti, koito se izdyrzhat ot danykoplatcite? "
No tova sa gluposti.
Pravilnijat vypros e: A kolko pari bjaha poharcheni za obrazovanie v bratskata
syvetska strana?
Otnovo, neka da sravnim pisanijata na V. Gjuzelev s tezi na P. Petrov,
i togava da govorim.
>Kakvi zapadni idei proniknaha v bylgarskoto obshestvo
>(i syotvetno, kak go promeniha) vsledstvie na zakupuvaneto
>na zapadna literatura za njakoi biblioteki?
>
Vizhte, "pro-zapadnite" bylgarski politici -- dobri ili lozhi, sa v goljamata si
chast formirani prez 1970-te i 1980-te. (izkljuchvam onezi, oceljali ot lagerite
i prochee).
Dobra ili losha, Bylgarskata politicheska klasa v nejnata anti-komunisticheska
chast e se formira blagodarene na "razmrazjavaneto" na bylgarskija kulturen
zhivot, koito sravnen sys stagnacijata ot predishnija period i
"re-stalinizacijata" ot perioda 1984 - 1989 beshe vse pak neshto.
>S kakvo se otlichavat prinosite na Ljudmila ot tezi na
>naj-umnata zhena na chovechestvoto, tovarisha Elena
>Chaushesku, kato "nauchnite trudove" i na dvete bjaha
>napisani ot treti lica, sluzhiteli na komunisticheskata
>dyrzhava, bilo to v Bukuresht ili Oxford?
>
Za tehnite trudove njama da govorja, ponezhe nikoga ne sym tvyrdjal, che
Ljudmila e nauchen korifej. Za konkretnata razlika mezhdu Ljudmila i Elena, moga
da kazha, che vremeto na Ljdmila beshe period na edna sravnitelna "otvorenost"
kym zapada, koeto trudno mozhe da se tvyrdi za Elena, kojato razbirashe razi
otvorenost samo za sebe si.
V kraja na kraishtata po vremeto na Ljudmila i blagodarenie na "epigonite",
bylgarite "otkriha" M. Forman, Kubrick, Parker, Antonioni. Po vremeto na
Ljudmina (t.e. Slavkov), syvetskite filmi pochnaha da se prevezhdat i vremeto na
Syvetskata televizija beshe silno ogranicheno i proporciite zapadno -- syvetsko
v muzikata i programite na mediite silno se promeni (ot 15%(zapadno) - 25 %
(bratski socialisticheski strani) - 60% -- syvetsko, to stana na 35% zapadno -
65 % socialistichesko izkustvo.
>Ne bjah li vi kazval, che jako sa vi promivali
>mozycite!
>
>IT
Ne bjah li vi kazval, che vsjako neshto ne vyznikva na prazno mjasto, a v
ramkite na
opredelana sreda i si ima kakto prichini, taka i mnozhestvo sledstvija.
No naj-lesno e da se dyrzhi chovek kato britanski chinovnik v Indija, t.e.kato
Amerikanec v Kosovo.
SN
Ilya Talev
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> ... Vizhte, "pro-zapadnite" bylgarski politici -- dobri ili
> lozhi, sa v goljamata si chast formirani prez 1970-te i
> 1980-te. (izkljuchvam onezi, oceljali ot lagerite i prochee).
> Dobra ili losha, Bylgarskata politicheska klasa v nejnata
> anti-komunisticheska chast e se formira blagodarene na
> "razmrazjavaneto" na bylgarskija kulturen zhivot, koito
> sravnen sys stagnacijata ot predishnija period i "re-stalinizacijata"
> ot perioda 1984 - 1989 beshe vse pak neshto.
Korkata Polsha, gorkata Chehija!
Zapochvam da se pitam kak te mozhaha da syzdadat Lech
Walesa i Vaclav Havel, bez da si imat Ljudmila...
IT
MANOV
koyato da e chsta:))
a amerika e onazi meshana salata deto se gvurlia v pomiata ot vsichki
restauranti
Stephan Nikolov <stephan...@history.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7gj0av$boe$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Stef
news:372DEEA3...@ibm.net...
>
>
> Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>
> > ... Vizhte, "pro-zapadnite" bylgarski politici -- dobri ili
> > lozhi, sa v goljamata si chast formirani prez 1970-te i
> > 1980-te. (izkljuchvam onezi, oceljali ot lagerite i prochee).
> > Dobra ili losha, Bylgarskata politicheska klasa v nejnata
> > anti-komunisticheska chast e se formira blagodarene na
> > "razmrazjavaneto" na bylgarskija kulturen zhivot, koito
> > sravnen sys stagnacijata ot predishnija period i "re-stalinizacijata"
> > ot perioda 1984 - 1989 beshe vse pak neshto.
>
> Zapochvam da se pitam kak te mozhaha da syzdadat Lech
> Walesa i Vaclav Havel, bez da si imat Ljudmila...
>
> IT
>
Pak se zajazhdate za nishto. A kak mozhaha czehite da syzdadat
Dubchek prez 1968, dokato nie "syzdadohme" Gorunja?
I zashto v Bylgarija njamashe Ruski vojski, za razlika ot Czehija, Polsha,
DDR, a mozhe i v Rumynija
(dve bazi, kakto naposledyk s iznenada razbrah).
Ima kulturni specifiki i mantalitet i malko ni e gazil Ruski botush.
Koja druga nacija v Sveta naricha Rusnacite bratushki -- ako i da e
podighravatelno.
Kakto kazah, nishto ne se pojavjava s vylshebna prychica ot vyzduha.
Kogato si bil v karcera, se radvash i na kilijata s malko prozorche.
sn
Stef
> > lozhi, sa v goljamata si chast formirani prez 1970-te i
> > 1980-te. (izkljuchvam onezi, oceljali ot lagerite i prochee).
> > Dobra ili losha, Bylgarskata politicheska klasa v nejnata
> > anti-komunisticheska chast e se formira blagodarene na
> > "razmrazjavaneto" na bylgarskija kulturen zhivot, koito
> > sravnen sys stagnacijata ot predishnija period i "re-stalinizacijata"
> > ot perioda 1984 - 1989 beshe vse pak neshto.
>
> Zapochvam da se pitam kak te mozhaha da syzdadat Lech
> Walesa i Vaclav Havel, bez da si imat Ljudmila...
>
> IT
Tozi posting naistina me kara da izdiveja....
Pitajte se zashto dokato Czehite imat Karlovija Universitet, nie imame
Evtimievata shkola. Dokato te imat Irechek, nie imame
Marin Drinov (pak toj ne e samo Bylgarski produkt).
I zashto Bylgarskata politicheska klasa spori dve desetiletija za
postrojavaneto na edin zhelezen pyt -- kym Dragoman ili kym Ruse.
Barem togava Vi prosvetne.
SN
Stef
news:01be9568$bff9a920$cde57fcb@nm...
> james montgomery <james.mo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <01be9454$5a684860$3f92410c@montymachine>...
> >
>
> The question was so simple - 'Do you consider yourself a Slav ?'.
> But instead of proper response all you're getting is lots of pseudo-
> scientific crap and not simply an answer.
> I'll give you next: I don't know and I don't give a .... I feel Bulgarian;
> if
> Bulgarians are Slavs - so am I , if they are not Slav so do I.
Tvojata e naj-lesna. Prodylzhavaj taka, mozhe da se pochustvash i eskimos
sled njakoj drug mesec.
SN
cold...@my-dejanews.com
In article <7gamqq$b83$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
bra...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[del malko rasovi teorii]
brja!!!! brannik ne bilo mashinka, to bilo zhivo? i dazhe bilo specialist po
rasite? :) ochakvam prodqlzhenie na materiala po vqprosite na rasovata
higiena.. tia oshte mqrdali, bozhe gospodi!!!!!!!
Ilya Talev
Stef wrote:
> Pak se zajazhdate za nishto. A kak mozhaha czehite
> da syzdadat Dubchek prez 1968, dokato nie "syzdadohme"
> Gorunja? I zashto v Bylgarija njamashe Ruski vojski, za
> razlika ot Czehija, Polsha, DDR, a mozhe i v Rumynija
> (dve bazi, kakto naposledyk s iznenada razbrah)...
> ... Tozi posting naistina me kara da izdiveja....
> Pitajte se zashto dokato Czehite imat Karlovija Universitet,
> nie imame Evtimievata shkola. Dokato te imat Irechek, nie
> imame Marin Drinov (pak toj ne e samo Bylgarski produkt).
Ili da zavyrshime vyprosite s otgovor, kojto predi desetina
godini dadoh v malka statija v "Demokracija":
Zashtoto poljacite imaha Poznan i Gdansk, zatova imat
Lech Walesa, a nie imame Zhelju Zhelev; a te imaha Gdansk,
zashtoto polskijat intelektualen elit se obedini okolo Stefan
Kardinal Wiszynski, Papa Joan Pavel II, Jerzy Popeluszko,
i Jecek Kuron, a bylgarskijat elit se obedini okolo "na Todor
Zhivkov shterka mu Ljudmila" (kakto obichashe da ja naricha
pokojnijat Stefan Popov).
Ta takiva mi ti raboti, Stefane...
IT
Ilya V. Talev
Stephan Nikolov wrote:
> ... Proslovutite mongoloidni "Huni" na Boev sa vodeni
> ot Atila, koeto mozhe eventualno da se izvede ot ata -- bashta,
> otkydeto ide i Ukrainskata doma za vozhd - ataman...
Ottam idat i drugi dumichki:
*at- (Tjurk) ---> *ot- (Sl) ---> ot-ec (St. Bg) [kratki "a" i "o"
v Sl. davat "o"].
No po-interesni sa drugi syotvetstvija, mezhdu syvremennija
bylgarski i syvremennija chuvashki:
Atta <---> tato
ichchi <---> chicho
anna <---> nane
akka <---> kaka
abba <---> baba
Zabelezhitelno e, che i dvata ezika imat unikalni termini za
po-vyzrasten rodnina (myzh ili zhena): nane (za "bate") i
kaka. Ne e jasno obache, dali tezi termini sa nasledeni
direktno ot tjurkskija bylgarski ezik, a sa doshli po-kysno
ot drugi tjurkski ezici, kato pechenezhski ili kumanski,
ili dazhe njakoi drugi, na koito ne znaem i imeto (taka
narechenite "Uri/Uzi")
GS
Ilya V. Talev wrote:
> Stephan Nikolov wrote:
>
> > ... Proslovutite mongoloidni "Huni" na Boev sa vodeni
> > ot Atila, koeto mozhe eventualno da se izvede ot ata -- bashta,
> > otkydeto ide i Ukrainskata doma za vozhd - ataman...
>
> Ottam idat i drugi dumichki:
>
> *at- (Tjurk) ---> *ot- (Sl) ---> ot-ec (St. Bg) [kratki "a" i "o"
> v Sl. davat "o"].
>
> No po-interesni sa drugi syotvetstvija, mezhdu syvremennija
> bylgarski i syvremennija chuvashki:
>
> Atta <---> tato
> ichchi <---> chicho
> anna <---> nane
> akka <---> kaka
> abba <---> baba
>
> Zabelezhitelno e, che i dvata ezika imat unikalni termini za
> po-vyzrasten rodnina (myzh ili zhena): nane (za "bate") i
> kaka. Ne e jasno obache, dali tezi termini sa nasledeni
> direktno ot tjurkskija bylgarski ezik, a sa doshli po-kysno
> ot drugi tjurkski ezici, kato pechenezhski ili kumanski,
> ili dazhe njakoi drugi, na koito ne znaem i imeto (taka
> narechenite "Uri/Uzi")
There is also a little Uigur dictionary and grammar with similar
finds. ALso cf. usage of similar terms from Tartar in Cossack usage.
Stephan Nikolov
>
>Stef wrote:
>
>Ili da zavyrshime vyprosite s otgovor, kojto predi desetina
>godini dadoh v malka statija v "Demokracija":
>Zashtoto poljacite imaha Poznan i Gdansk, zatova imat
>Lech Walesa, a nie imame Zhelju Zhelev; a te imaha Gdansk,
>zashtoto polskijat intelektualen elit se obedini okolo Stefan
>Kardinal Wiszynski, Papa Joan Pavel II, Jerzy Popeluszko,
>i Jecek Kuron, a bylgarskijat elit se obedini okolo "na Todor
>Zhivkov shterka mu Ljudmila" (kakto obichashe da ja naricha
>pokojnijat Stefan Popov).
>
>Ta takiva mi ti raboti, Stefane...
>
>IT
Mnogo mu haresvam na Stefan Popov knigite.
Shto se otnasja za elita, za kakyv intelektualen elit stava duma.
Polovinata Bylgarski intelektualci gi izbi VMRO prez 1920te godini.
Ostanalite si otidoha prez komunistite.
Njama nacija, kojato tolkova posledovatelno da si e izbivala elita v svojata
istorija:
oshte ot Tervel ta i po-nasetne.
Az ne iskah da otvarjam duma za Polsha, che pak njakoj shteshe da skochi i da me
obvini, che iztykvam katolicite. No ti otvori dumata.
Ti mi govorish za Stefan Kardinal Vishinski, e dobre bylgtarskijat mu ekvivalent
beshe eksarh Stefan, kojto blagoslovi komunistichreskoto pravitelstvo predi te
da go pratjat na zatochenie.
Pogledni Patriarh Kiril, koito vyvede oficerite ot DS v cyrkvata ( inache edin
prekrasen myzh).
I posle go sravni s general-major Maksim, kojto izlyga edin vselenski synod (e
ne e chak sybor, kakto go pisaha po vestnicite), za da zapazi vlastta si.
Okolo kogo da se obedini bylgarskijat narod bre, Ilya? Zashto stava duma ne za
intelektualen elit , a za "narodno-tvorcheska inteligencija". Tova e tazi
inteligencija, kojto ne pochita dyrzhavata, no vjarva v dobrija tzar?
Inteligencija, kojato se prismivashe na TJ, no mu tyrseshe uslugite i oblagite?
Che Bylgarskijat "Havel", Zhelev izleze za pryv pyt na televizijata s dumite "Az
sym Marksist" -- Vremeto e Koleda 1989.
Che edna prijatelka E.K. me karashe da vdigam revoljucija zaradi 4 stalinistki
partizanski profesora po ideologicheski disciplini -- tja ubedenata potomstvena
anti-komunistka.
Ilya, Ilya ...... Ljudmila si beshe tochno na mjastoto. Tja beshe kato manna
nebesna -- edna nedosegaema posredstvena zhena s psevdo-intelektualni
naklonnosti i sklonnost kym originalnichene. Bez sama da znae kakvo pravi, tja
napravi poveche otkolkoto vsichkite starci v politbjuro predi i sled neja, na
koito edinstvenoto umenie beshe da razbirat gore-dolu ruski i da glasuvat "za".
Zashtoto vyv vremeto na zastoja e po-dobre da se vyrvi v greshna posoka,
otkolkoto da stoish da si gledash pypa.
SN
Krasimir Yalamov
>
> Zashtoto vyv vremeto na zastoja e po-dobre da se vyrvi v greshna posoka,
> otkolkoto da stoish da si gledash pypa.
(spored agencia Bayram Dere)
Stephan Nikolov
Krasimir Yalamov wrote in message <372F0B22...@worldnet.att.net>...
Blagodarja, che dadohte nagleden primer na tova, koeto imah pred vid.
SN
Vassil Karloukovski
----Forwarded----
From: cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 21:20:09 GMT
Organization: Yale University
On Tue, 04 May 1999 20:59:11 GMT, cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User)
wrote:
>a translation of a post in soc.culture.bulgaria was fowarded to me,
>apparently on a topic simialr to this thread:
>
>... "Bashkirija". (... according to the rules of the turkic rotacism,
there isn't such a rule. turkic r (*r1) and z (*r2) are seperate
phonemes (or *sh* ~ l) . there are only a few pairs in which the
meanings seem related.
>"r" alternates with "z", as in "kjor" (blind) and "gjoz" *eye),
ko"r "blind" is from persian and unrelated (no claims that it is
turkic). go"z "eye" is turkic
>or the older "hraniti" (to feed) [from
not turkic.
>"*harn" ---> "hran-"] and "hazna" (Treasury), "kar-am" [to
xazna is from turkish hazne (xazne) < `ar. xazna(t) < pers.
it is unrelated to bulgarian words with xran-. these may very well be
related to iranian xwa:r= "to eat" (found in osset). I don't know if
they are cognates or loans form alanian.
kar-am may very well be cognate or a loan form iranian kar= "to do."
>urge, to force], "kaz-n" [penalty!?, again isn't it slavic?],
? not turkic.
>"u-kor" [a reproach], kor-kam [to frighten]. Simultaneously we
ukor is not turkic.
korkam is from turkish kork= (to be freightened, unrelated to go"z)
>have the alternation of "l" and "sh", as in "bol" (abundant,
>full] and "bosh" [barren, empty, sompare to "boshlaf"]. Thus Ziezi,
bol ~ bo$ may be a contrastive pair in turkic.
>"boLgarija" and "baSHkirija" obviously have a genetical link.
($ = sh)
bashkir was ba$qurt, ba$g~Ird etc. one etymology of ba$qurt is ba$
(head, chief) + qurt (wolf in og~uz). I don't know how reliable this
is.
if bulg~ar comes from bulg~a= "to mix" then it can't be related, one
has /l/ for the verb, not /$/
Vassil Karloukovski
----Forwarded----
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 15:07:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Vassil Karloukovski <E.Karlo...@uea.ac.uk>
From: ... Cluster User
Subject: Re: Pishman-istorici
...
> Not to speak about the remains in the language! The "iranian"
> suffix "-chii", well known to everybody, as attested in forms
-chii is definetly turkic.
> such as "lovchii" - hunter, "knigchii" - literator, "kormchii" -
> leader; the "iranian" roots from Mongolia *-alk as in "lakom"
> (greedy, gluttonous, voracious) and "alchen" (greedy, avaricious;
-chin is the mongol version of -chi. there is also -chin in turkic
(less common) denoting habitual actions (hIr - a squabble, hIrc,In
"nasty"). al- means "to take". this word could be belivably turkic as
well.
> avid), as *alv in "lov" (a hunt, a chase), "loviti" (to hunt,
in turkic it is "av" and this form seems to be known to the khazars
"avchi" "hunter" (turkish avcI). never heard of the /l/ getting inserted
there though.
> to catch), "lovchii" (a hunter). The "irano"-chinese word
> *kjuinig as in "kniga" (book), "knigchii", "knizhoven" (literate),
yes. this word is chinese, known in medieval turkic and it seems to have
been brought to eastern europe.
> the "irano"-turkic words "bybrek" (kidney), "beleg" (scar, mark),
yes, these are turkic.
> "biser" (pearl; howl), and many others. This iranian fancy,
biser seems to be of arabic origin, meaning "bead" or "false pearl"
some qychaq languages seem to have it (in arabic it more commonly means
unripe date(s) - busra(t), busr). I attribute it to either pecheneg turkic
or the meditaranean trade. pecheneg - if nemeth's interpretaion of the
nagy treasure is correct - had some arabic words like "tabaq" (plate, as
in turkish),"tas" (< pers., discussed befeore. as in turkish)
...
----------
Ilya Talev
Vassil Karloukovski wrote:
> In article <3728E8AC...@ibm.net>, ta...@ibm.net says...
>
> ----Forwarded----
> Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 15:07:33 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Vassil Karloukovski <E.Karlo...@uea.ac.uk>
> From: ... Cluster User
> Subject: Re: Pishman-istorici
>
> ...
> > Not to speak about the remains in the language! The "iranian"
> > suffix "-chii", well known to everybody, as attested in forms
>
> -chii is definetly turkic.
>
> > such as "lovchii" - hunter, "knigchii" - literator, "kormchii" -
> > leader; the "iranian" roots from Mongolia *-alk as in "lakom"
> > (greedy, gluttonous, voracious) and "alchen" (greedy, avaricious;
>
> -chin is the mongol version of -chi. there is also -chin in turkic
> (less common) denoting habitual actions (hIr - a squabble, hIrc,In
> "nasty"). al- means "to take". this word could be belivably turkic as
> well.
>
> > avid), as *alv in "lov" (a hunt, a chase), "loviti" (to hunt,
>
> in turkic it is "av" and this form seems to be known to the khazars
> "avchi" "hunter" (turkish avcI). never heard of the /l/ getting inserted
> there though.
The "L" was not inserted, it disappered in very early stage, but
left a compensatory lenghtening in Mongalian dialects, making the
initial a- long: Av- [catch, hunt] Ach - [hunger]; therefore, older
forms *alv- and *alch- could be reconstructed; As far as the Slavic
form lov- [<-- *alv-] and alch-/lak- [<-- *alch] are attested
exactly with the same meanings, catch/hunt and hunger/greed, such
a reconstruction does not seem far fletched. The formes "lov-dzhi-"
and "av-dzhi" exist in contemporary dialects, in some dialects
simultaneously as alternate forms.
>
> > to catch), "lovchii" (a hunter). The "irano"-chinese word
> > *kjuinig as in "kniga" (book), "knigchii", "knizhoven" (literate),
>
> yes. this word is chinese, known in medieval turkic and it seems to have
> been brought to eastern europe.
>
> > the "irano"-turkic words "bybrek" (kidney), "beleg" (scar, mark),
>
> yes, these are turkic.
>
> > "biser" (pearl; howl), and many others. This iranian fancy,
>
> biser seems to be of arabic origin, meaning "bead" or "false pearl"
> some qychaq languages seem to have it (in arabic it more commonly means
> unripe date(s) - busra(t), busr). I attribute it to either pecheneg turkic
> or the meditaranean trade. pecheneg - if nemeth's interpretaion of the
> nagy treasure is correct - had some arabic words like "tabaq" (plate, as
> in turkish),"tas" (< pers., discussed befeore. as in turkish)
Although Arabic by origin, biser (SL) cannot be a direct borrowing
from the Arabic form "busra"; it would give in Slavic a non-attested
form "**b'sra". Vasmer, Mladenov, Bernecker and others derive it
from Turkic *bUsrA (sorry,cannot render here vowels with 2 dots
on top, something like *bjusrja; there is no difficulty in explaining
the vowel -i- in Sl. "bis'r" from Turk. "*bjusr-" with a short *-U-.
Pecheneg is too late for the IX century Slavic; the word is known
in contemporary Bulgarian, Serbian and Ukrainian, as well as in
Old Russian.
IT
Stephan Nikolov
>Az njamam problem s iransko vlijanie. Predi da dojdat na
>Balkanite bylgarite sa stojali dostatychno dylgo vreme
>v regiona, kojto predi tova e bil naseljavan glavno s
>"asi" (praroditelite na dneshnite osetinci). I do dnes
>v Kavkazite imame Bolkaro-Molkarska avonomna
>oblast, imame syshto v komshuluka "Bashkirija".
>(Tova e za Ziezii: po pravilata na tjurkskija rotacizym,
>"r" alternira sys "z", kato v "kjor" [sljap] i "gjoz" [oko],
>ili po-staroto "hraniti" [ot "*harn" ---> "hran-"] i "hazna",
>mjasto za syhranjavane na pari, ili oshte po-zabavnite
>"kar-am" [zastavjam, nasilvam], "kaz-n" [nakazanie],
>"u-kor" [poricanie], kor-kam [plasha]. Ednovremenno
>imame alternacijata na "l" i "sh", kato v "bol" [izobilen,
>pylen] i "bosh" [pust, prazen, sravni "boshlaf"]. Taka
>che Ziezii, "boLgarija" i "baSHkirija" javno imat
>genetichna vryzka.
Spored njakoi (A. Rona-Tas, Golden) -- tova e taka, spored drugi ne, obache
(Menges na pyrvo mjasto, kojto otricha "praviloto" za Tjurksija rotacizym).
Az lichno bih bil izkljuchitelno predpazliv s otzhdestvjavaneto na Bas(h)qir i
Bolg(h)ar na bazata na tvyrdoto razgranichenie na Bashkiri i Volzhki Bylgari ot
Ibn-Fadlan prez 10 vek, makar che
Menges postavja Tshavash - Bulghar i Bashquirt kato blizki, makar i razlichni
dialekti ot zapadno tjurkutskata grupa.
SN
Ilya Talev
Vassil Karloukovski wrote:
Well, Ossetian is the last Iranian language I would be looking at
for pure Iranian words: the Ossetian homelands were inhabited
by Turkic tribes, including Bulgars, for long periods of time, and
most of the Iranian influences in Bulgar culture were brought
by those Ossetians who joined the Bulgars.
I am fully aware of the controversy in Turkic historical linguistics
concerning roticism. The opinions range from full rejection of
the concept to its embrace by N. Ja. Marr and his students as a
universal derivational mechanism reaching far beyond the borders
of the Turko-Altaic group.
While /-r-/ ~ /-z-/ is not a living morphophonemic mechanism in
any turkic language, it might once have been, as attested by traces
in derivation and the shape of cognates in different turkic dialects.
We see similar "dead" alternations in the kentum~satem correspon-
dences within the Indo-European family (how I hate that term!).
The parallel of Latin "kentum" and Slavic "s'to" (meaning "100")
is drawn between two distinct language groups, while that between
Russian "Suk-a" and Bulgarian "Kuch-e" (meaning "dog") is
observed within a single language group. Bulgarian /kuch-e/ <---
/kuk-eNt-/, where the change of /-k-/ to /-ch-/ is the regular
outcome of the First Slavic Palatalization, and the extended
diminutive suffix /-eNt-/ is realized in the contemporary plural
form "kuch-et-a". And how about the Turko-Altaic pair /sobak-/
~ /kjopek-/?
An unattested form such as*harn- need not represent a Turkic
phonetic word-shape, but simply a Slavic perception of the shape
of the word, according to the Slavic phonetic rules at the time of
borrowing. The Greek /-th-/ was perceived by different Slavic
speakers as either [-t-] or [-f-], and contemporary Russians
perceive the two different English sounds for "-th-" (as in "thick"
and "this") as [-s-] and [-z-] respectively. The early borrowing of
*haRn- into Slavic as /hran-iti/ "to feed, preserve" and as /hazn-a/
"treasury" has an elegant parallel in a much later borrowing from
Turkic Bulgar of *korm- found in the earliest attested Slavic writings.
The word "kormchij" (meaning "ruler, leader") cannot be anything but
a Turkic borrowing, because of the suffix /-chij/, which is never attached
to a non-Turkic root. It is related to Slavic words denoting food and
feeding, such as "k'rma" (meaning both "food" and "animal feed"),
"korm-iti"/"k'rm-iti" (meaning "to feed" or more specifically "to
breast-feed", as well as "to rule, govern; also "to steer a boat", from
which comes a
secondary meaning of "k'rma" -- "sterm of a boat, where the tiller is" --
"bE sam na k'rmE na dohtorE s'peN", Mark 4,38), "korem"
(meaning "stomach"), and the Russian "karman" (meaning "pocket" or
originally "purse"). The overlapping semantic fields of Slavic words
with the roots *harn-, *korm-, denoting both feeding and protection or
preservation are further documented in Greek sources. Byzantine
authors tell of the custom in the Bulgarian court for the Khan to put
morsels of food directly into the mouths of his courtiers, the quantity
and quality of which reflected their relative standing in his favor.
Stone inscriptions in Greek, commissioned by the Bulgar Khans Omurtag
and Malamir (814-836 A.D.) refer to members of the Bulgar aristocracy
as "threptoi antrwpoi" (i.e. "fed men"). And Russian Church Slavic gives
a clear indication of the synonymity of the two roots in the
interchangeable
epithets of the Virgin Mary: "Kormilitsa" and "Khranitel'nitsa" (meaning
"protectress").
IT
Cluster User
see sci.lang for a response.
Cluster User
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 May 1999 09:10:45 -0400, Ilya Talev <ta...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>see sci.lang for a response.
caucasoid bulgars/turks
Cluster User
>
>
>Vassil Karloukovski wrote:
>
>> In article <372CE070...@ibm.net>, ta...@ibm.net says...
>>
see sci.lang caucasoid ... for my response
vvel...@imap3.asu.edu
[...]
: 4. A few thousand common words like "masa", "trup"
: "skara", "kat", "che", "ami", "prazhiola", etc., etc., etc.
I have another question, which has been puzzling me for two years - ever
since I arrived in the Southwest:
Is there a connection between the 'common word' "masa" and the old word
"mesal" in the Bulgarian language? It struck me and has been
puzzling me ever since I brought from Arbanasi to Arizona a beautiful
bulgarian "mesalche".
Then one day I looked around in the desert and said "I'll be damned!..." :-)
Pozdravi,
Vesso
--
Vesselin H. Velikov, Post-doctoral Research Associate
Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, ASU; Tempe, AZ 85287-1604
vvel...@asu.edu; 602-839-2189(H); 602-727-6243(W); 602-965-2747(Fax)
vvel...@imap3.asu.edu
Hich ne mi trjabva da se mesja v podobni sporove... Osobeno sled kato sqm
chuval ot "prijateli" na Talev mnenija podobni na tova na SN... :-)
Obache se setih za edin mnogo pouchitelen primer za progresivnoto -
vidjano "otvqn" i "otvqtre".
Razkaza mi go edin aver ot kazarmata, kojto beshe uchil ruska filologija
v Moskva, no pokraj interesa si kqm arabski i razni aziatski ezitsi i
kultura (po linijata Blizkija Iztok - Iran - Pakistan - Afganistan) se e
bil sblizhil s razni afganistanski studenti v Moskva. Mnogo interesni
istorii beshe nauchil ot tjah i eto za kakvo se razpravja v edna ot tjah:
Sled prevrata v Afganistan prez '78 se pochva onaja mi ti "revoljutsija"
- pochti kato na kniga - "Razoranata Tselina"...
Objavjava se znachi "kulturna revoljutsija" - ogramotjavane na
naselenieto, obrazovane na obiknovenija chovek i izdigane na statuta i
samochovstvieto mu, skok ot feodalizma v sotsializma.... Otivat
studenti-entusiasti da ogramotjavat naroda po sokatsite. V edno selishte
otiva njakakvo momche i pqrvo se sreshta s "chorbadzhijata" na seloto.
Onja kato chul, che idvat da otvorjat bezplatno uchilishte v selishteto
(ili pqk prosto za da ne protivorechi i da se kara s vlastta) - dal si
blagoslovijata. Obeshtal da pomogne s pari, da nameri kqshta za
"uchilishteto", da izpolzuva avtoriteta (!) si sred horata v seloto ta da
si pratjat detsata na uchilishte...
Sled dva-tri dni namirat trupa na studenta-uchitel napqlnen s kurshumi,
zahvqrlen kraj razklona na pqtja za seloto...
Pita se v zadachkata - kak e stanalo taka, shtom i obrazovanijat uchitel
i mestnijat feodal sa bili na (pochti) edno i sqshto mnenie po vqprosa za
obrazovanieto?
Otgovorqt e v edna malka podrobnost: studentqt propusnal da se sqobrazi s
_realnostite_ na zhivota v edno mjusjulmansko selo na treta gluha njakqde
tam na majnata si v planinite na feodalen Afganistan.
Kato doshql da mu pomaga s uma i znanijata si - reshil, che kato shte se
podobrjava zhivotqt i uslovijata na selo - da se podobrjava vsichko ot
raz, po kqsata protsedura! I poiskal ne samo momchetata, no i
momichetata da se uchat. Sqglasil se chorbadzhijata, dori obeshtal da
prati i trite si dqshteri da se uchat pri nego! No pri edno uslovie -
momcheta i momicheta da se uchat otdelno, v otdelni stai i da ne se
smesvat. Na koeto obarozvanijat i kulture student kazal ne ta ne!
Zhenite sa ravni s mqzhete, taka e i taka shte bqde ot tuk natatqk.
Ugovarjal go chorbadzhijata, ugovarjal go, ama onova, obrazovanoto i
progresivnoto ne otstqpva!... Pqk nakraja izvadil kalashnika i go
nareshetil. I seloto stanalo "dushmansko"...
Ta ima dqshteri i dqshteri, spored uslovijata, tova iskah da kazha.
Dimitar Gueorguiev
> Ugovarjal go chorbadzhijata, ugovarjal go, ama onova, obrazovanoto i
> progresivnoto ne otstqpva!... Pqk nakraja izvadil kalashnika i go
> nareshetil. I seloto stanalo "dushmansko"...
:):)
Seriozno, pohvalni sa bili namereniata da ogramotiavat horata po sokazite i
chukarite. Samo che e triabvalo da se syobraziavat s realnostite i da ne
iskat nevyzmojnoto. A, v azia tova e fatalna greshka. Zatova the west is the
best :):)
Ilya Talev
vvel...@imap3.asu.edu wrote:
>... I have another question, which has been puzzling
> me for two years - ever since I arrived in the Southwest:
> Is there a connection between the 'common word' "masa"
> and the old word "mesal" in the Bulgarian language?
Njama: "masa" e prozvodna ot Lat. 'mensa", s vlashka
de-nazalizacija.
Bylgarskata duma "mesil" mozhe da e vzeta napravo
ot vlashki govori, mozhe da e doshla posredstvom
grycki (messili (Gr.) ot vlashki proizhod). Ako e
vljazla ot grycki, shte trjabva da e "mesiljyt"; ako
e "mesilyt", s tvyrdo "l", shte trjabva da e prjako
ot vlashki. Ne znam kakva e tochno etimologijata
i, za syzhalenie.
Mesal ima 3 glavni znachenija v bylgarski:
1. grubo platno, s koeto uvivat hljaba da vtasa:
"Noshtvite im, kak' Sijke, ot dve godini neiztyrgani,
mesalite im zagoreli ot testo... (Chudomir);
2. kyrpa ot grubo platno:
"... tja prilichashe na Amazonka: na glavata i se
razvjavashe cherven mesal." (V. Drumev)
3. domashno tykan charshaf (rjadko se izpolzva
v tozi smisyl).
Dumata e na izchezvane.
(Izvinjavaj za zkysnelija otgovor, tezi raboti byrzo
ne stavat...)
IT
Ilya Talev
sym udaril "i". Da se chete:
"Bylgarskata duma "mesal" mozhe da e vzeta napravo
ot vlashki govori, mozhe da e doshla posredstvom
grycki (messali (Gr.) ot vlashki proizhod). Ako e
vljazla ot grycki, shte trjabva da e "mesaljyt"; ako
e "mesalyt", s tvyrdo "l", shte trjabva da e prjako
ot vlashki.".
Stephan Nikolov
Da az se chudeh za koja bylgarska duma mesal stava duma, ta se vturnah kym
rechnicite ;)
Koeto mi napomnja da te pitam za visokija -procent Latinski/Vlashki
duni v OCS. Kak sedi tozi vupros v razlichnite ezici. Ima li kachestvena
razlika mezhdu juzhno-slavjanskite ezici i ostanalite?
SN