From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <79skrj$u81@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36c0be5b.7038981@news.yale.edu> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang In article <36c0be5b.7038981@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says... >On 9 Feb 1999 21:13:03 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: ... >>>that would be the chinese calendar, which is luni-solar, and which the >>>turkic calender has obvious affinities with. where did you get your >>>information? >>from one work of Peter Dobrev who in his turn cites a work of Ivan Dobrev >>("The position of the zodiacal symbols in the Chronicle of 1073 AD, >>Starobylgarska kultura, 1975, 5). Ivan Dobrev has given an example where >>the fourth month "törtünchi ai" comes at the tenth place, the third month >>"üchinchi ai" comes eleventh, and the seventh month "jätinchi ai" comes >>twelfth. >BTW using common turkic ordinals when talking about the bolgars is >misleading anyway since these were never claimed for bolgarian. yes, I understand that but I replied to your question about the turkic calendar in general. the >reconstructions follow chuvash or those of the volga inscriptions >which are close to it. > >>That the bulgar calendar was lunar and turkic was proposed by V. Zlatarski, >>but you are right about the solar-lunar calendar, I checked another reference. - >>Most of the researchers had equated the bulgar calendar to the turkic solar- >>lunar calendars. A proper reference here would be: O. Pritsak, Die bulgarische >>Fürstenliste und die Sprache der Protobulgaren, Ural-Altaische Bibliothek, >>I, Wiesbaden, 1955, 1-102. > >I'll check it. menges in 1951 says that boodberg will be tackling the >problem of the nominalia, do you know if he published and where? No, I don't know. There is one recent bulgarian study of the nominalia done by Mosko Moskov (M. Moskov, Imennik na bylgarskite hanove, Sofia, 1988) who worked along the turkic hypothesis. According to him the original text of the nominalia must have been written in greek and the present (slavic) text we have is a rather clumsy translation from greek. So he, first, reconstructed the 'original' greek text, and after that translated it back, as he claims, correctly! An year ago Dr. A. Hetzer also mentioned in soc.culture.russian a recent study on the (Volga) Bulgar inscriptions done by some prof. Erdal from Frankfurt, again, within the framework of turkic studies. But I don't know whether the nominalia was included there. Regards, Vassil K.