From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 04 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7gmcsd$3tn@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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> <372D87F2.7A65@worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

In article <372D87F2.7A65@worldnet.att.net>, grammatim@worldnet.att.net says...
>Cluster User wrote:

>>  << ...DObrev also has the old syrian BLEHARO - a fine leather, in a
>> I-II c. AD dictionary of old syriac, which according to Dobrev comes
>> to show they had this industry even before their moving to Europe.
>> ..>>

>There's no such thing. The earliest native Syriac lexicography (Bar
>Bahlul) is ca. 8th c. If he means a modern dictionary of Old Syriac,
>there's also no such thing; the materials are too meager and there's no
>reason to separate them into a separate research tool.


here I should explain that it was probably a mistranslation on my part.
From the bulgarian text ("Ako se sydi po dumata BLEHARO, s kojato se
narichat finite kozhi v edin drevnosirijski rechnik ot I-II v. sl. Hr....")
it wasn't clear to me whether "drevnosirijski" meant "old syrian" or 
"old syriac". The same ambiguity with "fina kozha", "kozha" means both
"leather" and "skin", and Dobrev could still be technically correct in
saying that that blepharw meant "fine skin", but it was unfair on his part
not to explain it in greater detail.

 Finally, there
>are no texts in Syriac from the 1st c.; the earliest dated Syriac
>document is a bill of sale from Dura Europos from 114 A.D., and the
>earliest Syriac ms. is from 411 A.D.
>
>> so this gives the ZDMG article as a reference. I don't know what
>> thesaurus syriacus is quoting, but that in itself is a late 19th
>> century syriac - latin dictionary,
>> 
>> so there is no ble*kh*arw but ble*ph*arw. ... and evidently they are
>> talking about diseased eyelids and not bulghar leather!
>
>And it's obviously a Greek lw. in whatever medical text it may come
>from.


do you know the etymology of that ble*ph*arw?


VK

>The Payne Smith Syriac Lexicon (based on the Thesaurus) doesn't seem to
>list such a word, and Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum has bl'prwnwn
>defined as 'venafranum (oleum)', with a reference to Geop 86:25. (Geop =
>Geoponicon in sermonem syriacum versorum quae supersunt P. de Lagarde
>edidit. Leipzig 1860.)
>
>-- 
>Peter T. Daniels                                        grammatim@worldnet.att.net