From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 28 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <78ppdl$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36A95129.AF5336A1@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

In article <36A95129.AF5336A1@earthlink.net>, Robdimi@earthlink.net says...
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:

>     You seem to be basing your appraisal of his work on a site known to
>me on the internet. I've actually read one of his books in Bulgarian,
>where he sticks primarily to Iranic (Dardic) cognates. I don't think it
>would be accurate to say that he doesn't make much sense of them
>interpreting them as such. As I mentioned, the namebook of the Bulgar
>khans yielded a 100% accuracy using his translations, as opposed to the
>abysmal success of the turkologists. However, since this is a seemingly
>obscure field of study, the generally accepted dogma about "turkic"
>Bulgars is likely to remain the dominant one for a long time to come.


Robert,
We should not worry too much. At the end, even the Scythians were thought to
be Turkic in the 19-th century, so - be patient and probably in the due time
the scholars will start to study the old Bulgars' question more seriously and 
without the constant repetition of the Turkic mantra.


Regards,
Vassil Karloukovski

>All studies of Bulgars, Avars, and others appears to stem from the
>"turkic" paradigm.
>
>Robert