From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: The Bulgars are Bulgars (Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 09 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3736019e.9033128@news.yale.edu>
References: <36ca073a.16343620@news.yale.edu> <36cca3ed.14676934@news.yale.edu> <36cca75c.15555467@news.yale.edu> <36cf2980.190197920@news.yale.edu> <36dee7fa.108219411@news.yale.edu> <36e40f21.4849643@news.yale.edu> <7c6hs4$va@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f6aeef.439178515@news.yale.edu> <7dajnt$ssk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7ei51h$4m5$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <370cf95d.8677457@news.yale.edu> <7en884$1t8@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3712427B.DA4346AA@mbay.net> <3713a994.660219@news.yale.edu> <371BFCD7.98263C22@montclair.edu> <372220bb.143446995@news.yale.edu> <37226EDB.7038A129@montclair.edu> <7fuohl$ori@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <372f5c62.91986990@news.yale.edu> <372f5cbe.92079743@news.yale.edu> <7gp50a$cct@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3734b8cd.146733852@news.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.lang

On Sat, 08 May 1999 22:23:41 GMT cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
wrote:

>
>I recieved the following reply from Vassil Karloukovski:
>
>Cluster User wrote: wrote:
>
>> anyway, did -r turkic ordinalia leave any impression on you? the error
>> about asparukh notwithstanding, they were impressive in terms of the
>> turkic theory.
>
>yes, probably phonetically, but do they satisfy the records of the
>nominalia?

well, there is an error concerning asparuch.

an anternative is to have ver eni elem and interpret
this as follows (I think moskov):

ver = bo"ri (wolf)
en = on "10", volgabulghar wan, wa:n chuvash
elem = "first"
thus enielem = "11" (as hubey noticed).

this is inelegant from a turkic standpoint:
"wolf" is not a tradional calendar animal, 
so what does it represent tiger? dragon?

then enielem as "11th". normally bir + ordinal suffix
would be used, not a derivative of "il".
secondly, this is how later turkic langauges represented
"11": on bir, litt. "ten one". however, old turkic
(tu"rku"T) had the pattern bir yigirmi + ordinal suffix, 
i.e. "11" was bir yigirmi, litt. one twenty (!).
except for xalac, (which preserves the tu"rku"t pattern
and has other archaicisms) all current turkic languages 
have the pattern "on bir" (i.e. ten one), including
chuvash. it should be noted that a (european) hunnic 
name was interpreted as oniki ("ten two") "twelve",
like the modern pattern (number names are found in 
turkic). OTOH at least at the time of the inscriptions
volgabulghar also had the current simpler system, found
in such words as wa:n sekir "18" (turkish on sekiz, 
"ten eight").


interpreting the month for asparukh's accession
towards the end of the year takes care of the
discrepancy with the text (provided it was a
dragon year).

perhaps *verenivenelem shortened to verenielem??

the other of dobrev's interpretation is teku as
"horse" as well, and this can be doen within 
turkic. however, even dobrev seems to ackonowledge
an error within the nominalia.

since the start of the year is unknown (the numbers
may have even been an archaism like october, not
the 8th month in the julian calender), one doesn't
really know about "elem" - it very well have been,
or meant, the first month.

I don't think there is a problem with the other
numbers.

>BTW, about this "alem" (first) you had some doubts. Dobrev has: "The

in common turkic "il" is attested (codex comanicus), and its
derivatives. what is disputed by clauson is "al" meaning "front"
in addition to this.

>"pamirian" "alem" (alam, olam) and "tvirem" (tijorem, tiram, diverem)
>denoted the beginning and the end of the harvest, correspondingly. Z.
>Lenz in "Zeitrechnung im Nuristan. Berlin, 1938, had that the
>"pamirians" (I wonder whether he means the nuristani) celebrated the
>New year twice - as "Nauruz-i-olam" (initial New Year) and, the

I don't know what is meant by these words. if it really means "first"
it is not common in iranian. it could be a combined arabic - iranian
awwal-am as in talysh (which adds the turkic -inci as well!). modern
persian prefers awwal (a"vva"l) to the native word. it cold also be
an archaic loan from turkic. or even arabic `a:lam (world, i.e.
standard)

>second festival - "Nauruz-i-tiramokh" (literally "New year in the

ti:r ma:h (with -h, it might be a transcription error on the part of
dobrev as he does not distinguish -h and -x in new persian ti:r 
means arrow, ma:h means moon or month; I don't know if this is the 
correct etymology for ti:r which is avestan ti*sh*tryehe). soghdian 
and xwarezmian had the new year in the beginning of summer (as in 
nuristan) and this did in fact coincide with the persian (4th) 
month of ti^r.

>month of the end of the harvest", i.e. Autumn New Year.) Besides the
>pamirians, a similar term for the month when the harvest is completed
>is found among the neighbouring dardic peoples. Among them one of the
>months is called "diver" and it is regarded as particularly important
>as at that time the harvesters return from their summer camps."
>

this seems to councide with the sangesari (iran) calendar which has 
names similar to the persian ones in a very different order. the
new year (month of nu^sa^l "new year" - soghdian has something 
cognate - not nawru^z - new sun / day) marks the beginning of
summer and ti^r@mo^ (ti^r ma^h) is the second month of autumn.

the persian names of the month and their order continue a
traditon beginning with avestan, parthian and pehlevi.

see enc. iranica "calender".
 

>Dobrev also cites some sumero-accadian "alejn" (first, initial),
>assyro-babylonian "ejlul" (ejl-ul, first month), and for "tiramokh,

it's the first month of the jewish year. eyl or something similar
may be thought of for semitic "first," arabic 'awwal

i don't know of th eatymology of 'elu^l other than it is from
assyrian ululu (gesenius gives no info).

>direm" - some "underlying" sumerian "tibiru" (to finish, to complete),
>"*tiviren" (final, last), etc., but this is from his early (1991)

this doesn't coincide with his decipherment of the nominalia.

>book. Later, he changed some of his interpretations and also stopped
>digging so deep. 
>
>
>
>