From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 28 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu>
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> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 28 Jan 1999 12:27:24 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:51:26 GMT, mcv@wxs.nl (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>
>I was informed about the existence of this thread only now but, without 
>being a specialist in the field, I would want to comment on some of the
>arguments advanced.
>
>>>Well, I didn't exactly claim the Bolgars were all Turkic, just that
>>>some (R-)Turkic speaking people were among them, as suggested by the
>>>fact that Chuvash is now spoken in former Bolgaria on the Volga.  
>
>
>In fact the capital of the former Bulgaria on Volga is situated in the present
>republic of Tatarstan and not in Chuvashia. What I read recently in one book 
>of a Chuvash historian is that the Chuvash regard themselves to be descendants
>not of the Bulgars but of the associated tribe of the Suvars/Sabirs, or as they

OK. I had mentioned some of this in an earlier post.

>call them - the Bolgary-Suvary. The town of Suvar initially rivalled that of 
>Bulgar until it was conquered and incorporated into the Bulgar state.

and they are mentioned as being linguistically related.

>
>>volga bolgar is known from some inscriptions in arabic script and is
>>definitely a turkic language (of the -r variety), which can be
>>described as "old chuvash" if you like. also medieval accounts, like
>>the lexicographer mahmud al-kashgari testify that it was a variety of
>>turkic.
>
>
>It is a corrupt argumentation in itself as it rests on later accounts,
>inscriptions _in Arabic_, that is - post-dating the pagan period. If we apply
>the same reasoning to the IX-X-th cc. accounts, inscriptions in Cyrillic, etc.
>from the Danube Bulgaria, we will have to conclude that the Bulgars were 
>Slavic through and through. 

yes, it is somewhat late, but the language corresponds to -r turkic,
whereas the later qychaq conquerors spoke -z turkic. the adaption of
the arabic script is not along the lines eastern of turkic, which was
essentially a transliteration from uyghur script, but taken directly
from arabic (few plene indication of vowels - perhaps with a long /
short distinction, use of emphatics in the neighborhood of back
vowels). (the anatolian turkish adaption is another seperate one).

>
>>>It's true that the inscriptions adduced by Dobrev don't look Turkic
>>>at all.  However, Dobrev isn't able to make much sense of them by
>>>interpreting them as Iranian either.  Unfortunately, this doesn't
>>>stop Dobrev from "translating" the inscriptions.  If no suitable
>>>Iranian (Pamiri) word is found, Dobrev does not hesitate to provide
>>>Celtic, Chechen, Georgian or "Sumero-Akkadian" parallels.  Anything
>>>goes (except, apparently, Turkic).
>
>
>Chechen and Lezgin are just fine - the Bulgars had inhabited the Caucasus for
>centuries before coming to the Balkans. Most of the Georgian parallels come 
>from Svanetia, the northern Georgian province that borders the region of 
>Balkaria of the Northern Caucasus, and their presence was interpreted by P. 
>Dobrev as pointing to a migration to the south of Bulgar speakers from Balkaria,
>probably caused by the settling of Kipchak Turks in Balkaria itself. The 
>"Sumero-Akkadian" parallels in the reconstructed Bulgar are also fine as long
>as they are attested in Lezgin or Chechen.
>
>There is another list compiled by Dobrev which contains several hundred non-
>Slavic words in modern Bulgarian and their [proposed] parallels in the eastern-
>Iranian l-s (Pashto, the Pamirian dialects, Talish), as well as in Chechen and
>Lezgin. In some cases there are both eastern iranian and eastern caucasian
>analogues to the Bulgarian words (BUMBAR in Pashto, BUMBAR in Chechen vs. the 
>Bulg. BRÂMBAR for 'beetle'; the Mundjani GÂWIA, 'moulded vessel' and the Chechen
>GEVENK 'wooden bowl' vs. the Bulg. GAVANKA, 'the same', etc.) which also looks 
>very intriguing.
>
>The URL of the page is http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/index.html 
>and it also contains a list of the reconstructed grammatical and phonetical 
>features of the old Bulgar language. I would appreciate any comments received 
>from specialists on eastern-iranian or eastern-caucasian l-s.

I agree, it would interesting and I have an open mind to it. even if
the thesis concerning danube - bulgarian is true, this still does not
change what is said about volga-bulgarian and it would be still be
silly
to deny an -r turkic presence (differntiated from -z turkic, or what
is usually meant by "turkic") previously in the kuban region.

>
>
>Regards,
>Vassil Karloukovski
>
>>>On the basis of Dobrev's materials, it seems safest to say that
>>>Danube Bolgarian (like Hunnish) is a language of as yet unknown
>>>affiliation, probably with a number of Turkic and Iranian loanwords.
>>>
>>>=======================
>>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
>>>mcv@wxs.nl
>>>Amsterdam
>
>