From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 30 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3729300b.108774789@news.yale.edu>
References: <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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <371e5362.14471999@news.yale.edu> <7fs1j8$brv@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3722705D.B10E96BA@montclair.edu> <37228395.105363334@news.yale.edu> <7g2adc$qkv$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <3724c639.8283551@news.yale.edu> <372792ce.17040963@news.yale.edu> <3728f548.21087652@news.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

of course, the turkic theory is weak in explaining the nominalia,
specificaly errors concerning asparukh and tervel. dobrev identifies
ver (or veren) as "dragon" but both imenshegor and teku as "horse.
teku was previously identified with teke "kid" (goat, and considered a
variant name for year of the sheep). nevertheless teku could also be
reasonably connected with chuvash tixa (c. turkic tay) "pony".
finaly enielem is "11" and aspurukh's reign is shortened.

OTOH there was this post from vassil:

>Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
>Date: 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
>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:


>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!

now, briefly, how was this done? (the pamphlet is in bulgarian)