From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 14 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3714f8fc.639900@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$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370e76ba.60158954@news.yale.edu> <7enbsd$cm7@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 10 Apr 1999 11:15:25 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <370e76ba.60158954@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>
>...
>>>>on the other hand, the known handful of khazar words are turkic.
>>>>moreover, a section of the khazars and onoghurs established
>>>>dominion over the magyars and brought about a bilinguilaism
>>>>(this is recorded). we know their language from the considerable 
>>>>loans in hungarian - not identifiable with either qypchaq or 
>>>>ottoman turkish - but showing great similarity to volghabulghar 
>>>>and chuvash.
>
>>>dobrev hasn't satisfactoraly answered this point.
>
>
>he hasn't touched this question, only these eastern-iranian words in mari
>as well as some south siberian remains in chuvash, mari, hungarian.
>

that is what makes his theory unsatisfying to me.
he fails to provide an alternative theory to explain
what the standard theory accounts for. the standard
theory *does* explain east-iranian loans - they are
from the alans / sarmatians.

>>>>it is pointless to speculate what is meant by this, as it is now well
>>>>established what the situation was for this time. for the 13th
>>>>century there was the indiginous (at least relatively speaking)
>>>>volgabulghar, -r turkic speaking population 
>
>
>fine, but what this XIII c. indigenous r-turkic on Volga has to do with 
>the V-IX cc. bulgar?
>

it closely resembles speech traceable further south in 
the original homeland of the volgabulghars, thus it is
reasonable to assume that it used was much earlier and
came with them.

for the danubebulghars, the material is less clear, so
one may offer alternative linguistic compositions to that
group.

as for the original bulghars in asia there is again
room for alternative theories. -r turkic then would
have been brought in only by the huns.

>>>this is another point not addressed to by dobrev. nor is their any
>>>record of a dramatic linguistic shift of volghabulgars from an iranian
>>>or other language to -r turkic.
>
>
>neither is there any record of a dramatic shift from bulgar to slavic
>from the Balkans.
>

OK. let me rephrase it. there is no record of an event that
would have lead to such a linguistic shift. for bulgaria
there is - the adoption of christianity. bulghar presumably was
the language of the former state paganism and the continuation
of the cult probably kept the language alive. there is absolutely
no reason for islam to have encouraged -r turkic over another
indegenous language. there was no other such muslim group, 
and even most common turkic speakers were not muslim when the 
volgabulghars adopted islam.

>>>and there was -r turkic speech, with chuvash charcteristics, at this
>>>end as well, as evidenced from hungarian.
>
>
>there still remains to be proven r-turkic was brought exactly by the 
>bulgars and not by the accompanying them tribes - the Suvars/Chuvash 

the identification is not definite.

>(the Sabirs of southern Russia, <-> Siberia), the Barsils/Bersula, the 

the sabirs (who may have been at least partly mongolic), szekelys
(essegels? it is thought they represented the eskil bulghars)
were federates of the kabars and bulghars. if you want to try
to sort out which section spoke -r turkic fine. but they were
sufficiently numerous, at least in the case of the volgabulghars
and khazars, that they were able to impose their speech on them.
records show hungarians being bilingual with khazars and onoghurs,
there is no record of a third type of speech and -r turkic
affected hungarian profoundly, not just peripherally. one could
discern some alanic influence in hungarian, but this is relatively
marginal.

>Essegels (also found in Hungary/Transylvania), the Burtas, etc.

there is no reason to believe that the burtas were turkic. they
seem to have been an indigenous population, probably fino-ugric.

>
>>>yet no mention of the alans and As (speaking an east iranian lanugae
>>>and presumabely close to that of dobrev's iranic bulghars) . these
>>>people the arabs had heard of.
>>
>>I would like to know what dobrev's answers to these points are. 
>
>
>Yes, it would be probably helpful to compare the arabic accounts of the
>alans and the bulgars. Dobrev hasn't treated this question. BTW, the 
>arab accounts in my previous post were from one book of Atanas Stamatov.
>
>
>VK
>