Robert character wrote:
> The Hubey character also made a reference to there being evidence
> of Turkic peoples on the Volga as early as the 2nd century B.C., if I
> recall correctly. If so, this wouldn't have been the original component
> of the Bulgars, who, as you know, have been archaeologically traced to
Doerfer's reconstruction of ProtoTurkic has *d > *c > c > y.
In many cases the Sumerian words are closer to s, or sh and are thus
closer in sound to c. There is evidence for d-bolgaric. Runic writings
in the North CAucasus have proven it. The words, dilom, daga, der, etc
do show up in d-bolgaric. One cannot make strong statements regarding
language of people using archeaology. Most people who write on this
have no idea of the latest developments.
There is no evidence for Bulgaric anywhere except the west. The other
Turkic language which is far off from others Khaladj is also in the west.
Furthermore we see the r disappearing in Central Asia from the first time
we see the writing. Instead of "ersem" today the languages are "esem".
So it is pointless to try to prove that z-turkic became r-turkic via
rhotacization. All the evidence points in the other direction. Turks (or
at least one of their ancestors) got to Asia late. The problem is that
historically and even today, "turkic" is identified with Mongoloid
peoples and hence is always put beyond the Altays.
> the Pamirs during this period. As you mention above, it seems they
> turkicized on the Volga by an existing population as they were
> slavicized on the Danube.
firstname.lastname@example.org =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey