From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: The Bulgars are Bulgars (Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 20 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36ce00fc.114298853@news.yale.edu>
References: <36ca073a.16343620@news.yale.edu> <36cca3ed.14676934@news.yale.edu> <36cca75c.15555467@news.yale.edu> <7akfgt$1lb@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.lang

On 19 Feb 1999 19:54:05 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <36cca75c.15555467@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>
>>>AMI - but, and,    AME, ME (‘this, such’) [IJa,    Ishkashimi,
>>> why, well         AG, 332]                        Mundzhani
>>>                        
>>
>>
>>turk. ama "but" < `ar. 'amma: (particle for contrast)
>[...]
>
>
>Thanks a lot of for your efforts to produce all these etymologies. 
>When/if you are ready with your final version, I could add it as a 
>third explanatory column to the tables at
>       http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/b_lang/
>
>Still, your list would explain as ottoman around 100 out of the

but I only did the ones in the website.
 
>total number of more than 600 (modern) bulgarian words for which 
>Dobrev claimed proto-bulgarian origin. I noticed that you have 
>included few verbs when it is exactly very commonly used verbs such as
> vyrvja (to walk), ticham (to run), karam (to drive), prashtam (to send),
> hvyrcha (to fly), chupja (to break), tyrsja (to seek), pusha (to smoke)...
>for which iranian/(caucasian) cognates are proposed and which sound
>pretty un-slavic to my ears (I compare them to russian). 
>
>Also verbs like
> butam (to push), bucha (to pin), byrkam (to make a mistake),
> vadja (to pull out), debna (to stalk), drusam (to shake), 
> drypna (to pull), kanja (to invite guests), kracha (to pace),
> kachvam (to climb), mrazja (to hate), mushkam (to poke),
> pazja (to guard), patja (to suffer), pyrzha (to fry), 
> ritam (to kick), trygvam (to set off), chukam (to knock), etc. 
>
>Could it be that your "ottoman" list lacks verbs because they are more 
>difficult to be adopted from another language (say, turkish)?

probably. when they are loaned they get integrated into the native
system, unless they remain as a verbal noun plus an auxillary and they
get transformed. these they are difficult to spot

>
>
>Regards,
>Vassil K.
>