History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedEthnic Origins of the Bulgars

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
Author
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 11:34
Originally posted by barbar barbar wrote:

 
Anton, I can't believe you are using a layman work as a credible source.
 
Interestingly I have found the following comment from some known professors from the same site:
 
"It is of course well known that Iranian vocabulary was borrowed into Turkic
and Slavic (e.g. BAG/BOG) at a quite early stage, so there's nothing
surprising in principle about finding cognates. Nothing in principle,
either, to preclude the possibility that the original Bulgars were
ethnicaly/genetically Iranians. But to prove it would take a much more
professional investigation, and I doubt if there's the data to support it. 
John R. Perry
University of Chicago
CMES
5828 S. University Av.
Chicago IL 60637 "
"

I am a native speaker of Pashto and also know Urdu and Persian.  Your list
is quite long and I do not know what kind of comments you would prefer.  I
have no direct knowledge of Turkish and its spread into the Balkans, but I
know that Persian (and Arabic) words did spread there through Turkish.

Farooq Babrakzai "

 
Barbar, what is so wrong with the list? I basically posted it as an illustration that many of the known Bulgar words might be explained by Iranian ethymologies. Which actually your professor did not deny. Based on more or less THIS list people made conclusion that language of Bulgars was Turkic. This conclusion to my opinion is overestimation made by biased people. More objective people (like the guy you posted in your previous post) find not only Turkic but also Iranian, Slavonic and other ethymologies.
.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 13:58
 
That list is a joke to any serious linguistist, Anton.  If you study the ethymolgy using modern dictionaries you can find, then I never bother to give my comment.  Just at a glance of the list, anyone can see that the author had certain conclusion before the study started. He is so pathetic, that he spent so much of his time to produce that junk.  Maybe I'm wrong, that typical revisionist list might at least can be used in historical classes as an example of revisionism.   
 
I have no doubt any ancient Turkic tribe were linguistically influenced by the neighbouring groups, and this applies to any other groups (So called Pamerian, east Causasian, Persian .....).  We have to be objective about this.
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 14:10

Basically the same, barbar, one can say for analyses made by Zlatarski and others who "proved" Turkic origin of Bulgars. Their linguistic analysis is ridiculous too. Especially their explanation of slavonic names like Bezmer, Gostun, Vladimir and others. Or even more -- attempts to find Bulgarian ethnonym in Chinese "pu-ku" Big%20smile

Quote
I have no doubt any ancient Turkic tribe were linguistically influenced by the neighbouring groups, and this applies to any other groups (So called Pamerian, east Causasian, Persian .....).  We have to be objective about this.
You are now trying to pursuade me that zebra is white. Wink Or black. It is not obviously.
.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 14:52
Anton
This conclusion to my opinion is overestimation made by biased people.
 
Why biased?
 
If were to be honest, the ones with a biased view are this small group of Bulgarian historians whose motive is to try and disconnect Bulgar with any kind of Turkic origins. This ofcourse is based upon pollitical motives, hence this isn't objective historical studies, its totally pollitically motivated.
 
 
Not all Bulgarians however are insistant on believing the world is wrong and they are correct.
 
 

Bulgaria - Past, Present, and Multiethnic Future
An Interview with Vladimir Chukov

Interviewed: Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.


 

Vladimir Chukov is Associate Professor in the Bulgarian Centre for Middle East Studies and the Department of Administrative and Political Sciences in Varna Free University.

Sam: Aren't Bulgarians actually Turks? They are, after all, the descendants of the Bulgars, Turkic tribes that originated from the steppes to the north of the Black Sea and invaded the Balkan only as late as the 6th century AD.

Vladimir: First of all, I would like to underline that there are many theories concerning the origin of the Bulgarians. We have to distinguish between "Bulgarian" on the national level from "Bulgarian" on the tribal levels. It is undoubted that the Bulgarian nation is a product of the fusion of three tribes during the early Middle Ages (about 6-7 century AD): Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians. The first ethnic community played a leading role in the establishment of the state (which officially started with Byzantine recognition in 681) because they formed the core of the army and the nobility. Their political leader (the khan) and political traditions had been imposed on the newly founded State. Therefore, they were the ones to give their name to newly established nation. It is unclear what was the number, the influence, and real contribution of each group within Bulgarian socio - political processes. The majority of Bulgarian historians share the idea that Slavs were numerically superior to the Bulgars. If true, certainly the current Bulgarian people is not from Turkic origin. As time passed, this matter acquired a political interpretative aspect.

During the first half of the Third Bulgarian State (1878-1944), Bulgarian historiography emphasized the Bulgar origin compared to the second half (1944-1989) which was dominated by pro-Soviet history. During the Communist rule, the local historians attempted to show that Bulgarians actually remain predominantly Slavs and focused on Slavic solidarity and the close relationship with the Russians. As far as the origins of the Bulgar tribe itself, two main theories exist: that they are issued from the Turks or from the Huns. I would not venture to comment of the reliability of both these historical hypotheses. In general, we can admit the Turkic origin of Bulgar tribe on a historical hypothetical level only.



Edited by Bulldog - 30-May-2007 at 14:54
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 15:40
Biased because they first proposed a theory and then searched proofs for that.
 
Quote
If were to be honest, the ones with a biased view are this small group of Bulgarian historians whose motive is to try and disconnect Bulgar with any kind of Turkic origins. This ofcourse is based upon pollitical motives, hence this isn't objective historical studies, its totally pollitically motivated.
 
Where did you learn this spell?  Besides, I do not remember Derzhavin, Artamonov or Pohl to proclaim their Bulgarian nationality. And Bulldog, could you make the type of your previous post smaller? 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 15:44

Quote

Their political leader (the khan)
 
Dead
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2007 at 15:56
Quote

The names of the Danube Bulgars offer an illustration of the pitfalls into which scholars are likely to stumble when they approach the complex problems of the migration period with their eyes fixed on etymologies. In spite of the labor spent on the explanation of Bulgarian names since the thirties of the past century, there is hardly one whose etymology has been definitely established. The name Bulgar itself is an example. [73] What does it mean? Are the Bulgars "the Mixed ones" or "the Rebels?" Pelliot was inclined to the latter interpretation but thought it possible that bulgar meant les trouveurs. [74] The Turkish etymology was challenged by Detschev; he assumed that Bulgar was the name given to the descendants of the Attilanic Huns by the Gepids and Ostrogoths and took it for Germanic, meaning homo pugnax. [75] Still another non-Turkish etymology has been suggested by Keramopoulos. [76] He takes Bulgarii to be burgaroi, Roman mercenaries garrisoned in the burgi along the limes. Without accepting this etymology, I would like to point out that in the second half of the sixth century a group of Huns who had found refuge in the empire were known as fossatisii. [77] Fossatum is the military camp.

In addition to the objective difficulties, subjective ones bedevil some scholars. Turkologists are likely to find Turks everywhere; Germanic scholars discover Germans in unlikely places. Convinced that all proto-Bulgarians spoke Turkish, Nmeth offered an attractive Turkish etymology of Asparuch; other Turkologists explained the name in a different, perhaps less convincing way. [78] Now it has turned out that Asparuch is an Iranian name. [79] Validi Togan, a scholar of profound erudition but sometimes biased by pan-Turkism, derived shogun, Sino-Japanese for chiang chn, "general," from the Qarluq title sagun. [80] Pro-Germanic bias led Schnfeld to maintain, in disregard of all chronology, that the Moors took over Vandalic names. [81]

The same guy posted by barbar.
.
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 385
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2007 at 12:30
REALLY EVERY nomadic tribe union was mixed in the older past and in the middle ages. Their language was mixed, their origins were mixed, their habits and legends were mixed. (like by the bulgars and by the hungarians the Attila myth: by the bulgars it ccan probably been originated from huns under bulgarian rule, and by the hungarians from bulgars and from the germans(!!). (f.e. Nibelung Lied)
 
Nation and tribe can't be used with equal meaning.
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 12:48
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Biased because they first proposed a theory and then searched proofs for that.
 
Quote
If were to be honest, the ones with a biased view are this small group of Bulgarian historians whose motive is to try and disconnect Bulgar with any kind of Turkic origins. This ofcourse is based upon pollitical motives, hence this isn't objective historical studies, its totally pollitically motivated.
 
Where did you learn this spell?  Besides, I do not remember Derzhavin, Artamonov or Pohl to proclaim their Bulgarian nationality. And Bulldog, could you make the type of your previous post smaller? 
Do you have any problem with possiblity of bulgarians being turkic. Is this a shame or problem for you?
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 14:15
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Evrenosgazi wrote:

Do you have any problem with possiblity of bulgarians being turkic. Is this a shame or problem for you?
 
Is it a kind of argument in solving the Ancient Bulgar puzzle? I didn't get it. Tongue
 
 
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 16:09
Well, how about Volga Bulgars, who are turkic?
 
I think it is well known that the original Bulgar Horde has spread intro several parts one of which moved to Volga and kept the name Bulgar since than.
 
Only recently they adopted the name Tatar (more precise Kazan Tatar). But Tatar is not their national name, it was originally had been brought by Russians and Volga Bulgarians reluctanty adopted it.
 
Even now there are a lot of Kazan Tatars, that call themselves Bulgars and want to get rid of "Tatars"
 
 
A Bulgarian official even visited Kazan and presented the president Shaimiev of Tatarstan with the copy of the sword of Kurbat as a recognition of their common roots.
 
(the Russian inscription on the top reads: Unity of Bulgars)
 
 
Volga Bulgarians (Kazan Tatar) are Turks. Isn't that the best prove that original Nomadic Danube Bulgarians were Turkic?


Edited by Sarmat12 - 01-Jun-2007 at 16:15
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 20:21
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

Well, how about Volga Bulgars, who are turkic?
 
 
That is true. And Danube Bulgars are now Slavonic. And Alzeco Bulgars are now Italian. Bulgars settled in Caucassus were assimilated by Armenians.
 
 
Quote
I think it is well known that the original Bulgar Horde has spread intro several parts one of which moved to Volga and kept the name Bulgar since than.
It is. And after that they were overrun by some turkic and mongolian tribes weren't they?  
 
Quote
Only recently they adopted the name Tatar (more precise Kazan Tatar). But Tatar is not their national name, it was originally had been brought by Russians and Volga Bulgarians reluctanty adopted it.
Even now there are a lot of Kazan Tatars, that call themselves Bulgars and want to get rid of "Tatars"
 
It is their right to get rid of ethnonym Tatars as soon as they feel as Bulgars. However, there is not enough data to suppose that they did not change their language being influenced by Khazars, Arabs, Kypchaks, Finish tribes and Russians.
 
 
Quote  
Volga Bulgarians (Kazan Tatar) are Turks. Isn't that the best prove that original Nomadic Danube Bulgarians were Turkic?
No it is not. There are many other possibilities. Such as for example:
1. They changed their language.
2. When Great Bulgaria splited between 5 brothers (actually 2 of them are supposed to be mythical) multinational part splited based on national principle. Western part consisted of remains of Sarmats, Antes and Avars and Eastern was part that were ruled by Turk Khanate before Kubrat's rebelion.
3. They were all Turkic as you suppose.
4. All three previous points are true.
and many other suggestion might be proposed with some imgination.   
 
I do not think think we have enough data to prove any of this point. So, basically you cannot call Tatars and Chuvash sort of "more Bulgars" as Danube Bulgarians. And use them in attempts in determining of Bulgars ethnicity and language.


Edited by Anton - 01-Jun-2007 at 20:22
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2007 at 21:58
TO Anton
 
 
Well, thank you for this post. Now, I understand the logic behind your idea.
 
I think, the problem is lies in the original language of Volga Bulgar. I thought there were enough data to support the preposition that they were a Turkic language speakers before the Mongol invasion. Perhaps we need to examine Arab sources on their conversion to Islam more in detail.
 
I am not very familiar with these sources, so I would appreciate if you could cite some which for example name Bulgar language Turkic or Non Turkic. If there is no any sources on Bulgar language before the Mongol invsion then it might be an argument to support your position.
 
Yes, it is possible that they changed their language under the influence of Kypchaks, like for example Bashkirs who switched from Finno-Ugric to Turkic. It is however, also possible that their language was already very close to Kypchak.
 
There could be an indication that Bulgars were Turkic, by taking Balkars as an example. Balkars is a small ethnicity in the Northern Caucas which is believed to be originated from the Bulgars.
 
Notably, they also speak Turkic language. I cite this example because Caucas is an interesting place, in fact, a lot of ancient ethnicites were able to save their original language there, like for example Alans.
 
Alans also were under Turkic influence, but they kept their Iranian language intact. It is thus, very possible that  if Balkars are indeed the decendants of Bulgars that they were able to keep their ancient Turkic language.
 
Well, if they are not, than this theory is probably not valid. But it is very likely that they are.
 
In the end, I think you convinced me that the problem is not certain. But, I would like to say that there is a relatively high probability that ancient Bulgars were Turkic.
 
In any case, I am very interested in conitnuation of this topic !
 
Regards.
 
 
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 07:58
Bulgars had many Turkic administrative titles -- kavhan, boil (this one might not be Turkic actually), bogotur, ichirgu boil. Title of their ruller in Danube Bulgaria sounds like kanasubigi. It can be read in different ways. Turkologists prefer to read it as Khan something (I do not remember what exactly) but the problem is that the title stands before the name whereas in Turkic tribes han stands after. Others propose alternative translations. For example "Kanes u Boga" from Slavonic  "Kniaz given by God". This might not be valid since archeological data shows they were initially nomadic people and thus cannot be slavonic people. However archeological data shows that they frequently lived together with Antes -- a bruch of Slavs. You may find archeological data from north of Black Sea ini the article of Rashev that I posted above.
 
Volga Bulgaria language is not known either. They wrote a book about their history but it was not preserved unfortunately. Major sources about them are Arab chronicles like Ibn Fadlah for example.
 
Some more data pointing to the language of Bulgars are contradicting:
1. Ibn Fadlan clearly differentiates their language from Turks and Slavs.
2. Khazar Kagan Iosif wrote in his letter that their language is close to Bulgar. Since Khazars are supposed to be Turkic than Bulgars are Turkic as well. However as far as I remember Iosif said that Khazar language is noit only close to Bulgarian but also Greek and some other languages.  I will check whether this is correct or I just bull sh..ted you. Smile
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 14:02

I also meant Ibn Fadlan when talked about Arabian sources. If he distinguishes their language from Turkic it might be really an argument in the favor that they were not Turkic.

But how about Chuvash, Chuvash language although Turkic is still very different from Kypchak Turkic. And Chuvash claim to be Bulgars.
 
It is still very likely that Volga Bulgar originally spoke somekind of old Chuvash language, that's why Ibn Fadlan found it different from Turkic. By Turkic he meant Kypchak I suppose.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 20:37
Originally posted by Sarmat12 Sarmat12 wrote:

I also meant Ibn Fadlan when talked about Arabian sources. If he distinguishes their language from Turkic it might be really an argument in the favor that they were not Turkic.

 
Not necessarily. He might not know the languages to distinguish between them.
 
Quote
But how about Chuvash, Chuvash language although Turkic is still very different from Kypchak Turkic. And Chuvash claim to be Bulgars.
 
They do not claim, they ARE descendants of Bulgars. As well as Kazan Bulgars and Bashkirs. They speak language that is in Turkic family of languages but:
1. It (Chuvash) is most distant from other Turkic lnguages and other Turkic nations basically do not understand them much,
2.The language that they speak now is Turkic. We don't know the development of their language from 9th century untill now.
 
Quote  
It is still very likely that Volga Bulgar originally spoke somekind of old Chuvash language, that's why Ibn Fadlan found it different from Turkic. By Turkic he meant Kypchak I suppose.
 
I think by Turkic he meant Khazar. I agree with you that it is still very likely that ancient Bulgars spoke kind of old Chuvash language but to me available data (both archeological and linguistic) show that they spoke different language as they lived in the north of Black Sea and were extensively mixed with other nonturkic tribes. I am not a professional linguist but as far as I was told when several nations are mixed the resulting language usually adopt the grammatics of one of the languages and take words from all of them. In case of Bulgarians those nations were many: Turkcs, Avars, Ants or other Slavs, Sarmats, even we know from some sources that they got mixed with population from Thrace, Illyricum and Mysia. 
 
As for the ethnonym "Bulgars" -- we  meet it in 354 and later in north of Black Sea, Caucassus and Balkans and I do not see any reason to search its origin somewhere else in China, Hindukush, Balhara or other planet. IMHO.
.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 22:22
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

But how about Chuvash, Chuvash language although Turkic is still very different from Kypchak Turkic. And Chuvash claim to be Bulgars.
 
They do not claim, they ARE descendants of Bulgars. As well as Kazan Bulgars and Bashkirs. They speak language that is in Turkic family of languages but:
1. It (Chuvash) is most distant from other Turkic lnguages and other Turkic nations basically do not understand them much,
2.The language that they speak now is Turkic. We don't know the development of their language from 9th century untill now.
 
 
Yeah, that's right but this makes the theory that they speak the language of original Bulgars more reliable. I think the movement of the Turkic tribes through the Southern Russia is more or less known.
 
The tribes that moved beggining from the 9th century were Kypchaks (Cumans or Polovtsi in Russian sources). So in fact only they (Kypchaks) were able to alter the language of the local tribes, which seem to happen in the case of Bashkir and Kazan Tatar.
 
Since the language of Chuvash is not Kypchak,  it was not the result of the interaction with the passing Turkic tribes after the 9th century, since the only passing tribe was Kypchak. Thus, Chuvash is a language which was spoken before that.
 
If it's not the original language of Bulgar, than when it comes from? From Hunns or may be from Khazars?  But still the most plausible explanation in this case is that it is their original language. It is the most simple explanation.
 
It is still very likely that Volga Bulgar originally spoke somekind of old Chuvash language, that's why Ibn Fadlan found it different from Turkic. By Turkic he meant Kypchak I suppose.
[/QUOTE]
 
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

I think by Turkic he meant Khazar. I agree with you that it is still very likely that ancient Bulgars spoke kind of old Chuvash language but to me available data (both archeological and linguistic) show that they spoke different language as they lived in the north of Black Sea and were extensively mixed with other nonturkic tribes. I am not a professional linguist but as far as I was told when several nations are mixed the resulting language usually adopt the grammatics of one of the languages and take words from all of them. In case of Bulgarians those nations were many: Turkcs, Avars, Ants or other Slavs, Sarmats, even we know from some sources that they got mixed with population from Thrace, Illyricum and Mysia. 
 
As for the ethnonym "Bulgars" -- we  meet it in 354 and later in north of Black Sea, Caucassus and Balkans and I do not see any reason to search its origin somewhere else in China, Hindukush, Balhara or other planet. IMHO.
 
Yeah, that's right. But usually, the language still gets a kind of classification. There are very few isolated languages that can't fit in any language family.
 
For example, English, although having most of the vocabularly originated from French still is considered Germanic.
 
So, I believe the Ancient Bulgarian language also should fit in some language group although may be it was indeed very influenced by other surrounding languages.
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 02-Jun-2007 at 22:26
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 22:39
By the way, I read that one crazy linguist found several hundreds common words in Chuvash and the language of Inca Indians !  ConfusedSmile
 
But, actually there were theories about the relations between American and Turkic languages, that's another topic though.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 2888
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 22:49

Bulgars themselves were influenced by Avars and (especially eastern) Khazars. So Chuvash were influenced as well. As for groups, correct me if I am wrong but I had an impression that some linguists put Chuvash language in Finnish group of languages. Smile

.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Jun-2007 at 23:12

Some say, that Chuvash is a heavily Turkinized Finno-Ugric language. In this connection, I think we should study the Hungarian trace.

Isn't the word Hungarian coming from Onogur, which was the name for some Bulgarian tribe?
 
I think the name for Hungarians in Romanian is Ungur, which clearly resembles Onogur.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.