From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 30 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> 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 <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says... >On 28 Jan 1999 12:27:24 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: >>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. I didn't know about that. What is the source? ... >>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). If Dobrev is to be believed, a number of agricultural and other terms in Mari have Pamirian parallels but these words are not found in the other Finno-Ugrian languages. So he identifies them as loanwords from the language of the original Volga Bulgars. Another problem with the Chuvash being equated to Volga Bolgaric is the presence of the sound Z in many of the oldest Bulgar names - ZIEZI, ZENTI, ANZI, ZERA, IZOT, while in Chuvash ZIEZI, for example, would sound as SIESI (and in Mari it would sound as SHIESHI). Regards, Vassil Karloukovski