From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 30 Jan 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36b34d7c.60430113@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>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 30 Jan 1999 13:55:36 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On 28 Jan 1999 12:27:24 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote:
>
>
>>>call them - the Bolgary-Suvary. The town of Suvar initially rivalled that of 
>>>Bulgar until it was conquered and incorporated into the Bulgar state.
>>
>>and they are mentioned as being linguistically related.
>
>I didn't know about that. What is the source?

for example, ka*sh*gari.

>
>...
>>>It is a corrupt argumentation in itself as it rests on later accounts,
>>>inscriptions _in Arabic_, that is - post-dating the pagan period. If we apply
>>>the same reasoning to the IX-X-th cc. accounts, inscriptions in Cyrillic, etc.
>>>from the Danube Bulgaria, we will have to conclude that the Bulgars were 
>>>Slavic through and through. 
>
>>yes, it is somewhat late, but the language corresponds to -r turkic,
>>whereas the later qychaq conquerors spoke -z turkic. the adaption of
>>the arabic script is not along the lines eastern of turkic, which was
>>essentially a transliteration from uyghur script, but taken directly
>>from arabic (few plene indication of vowels - perhaps with a long /
>>short distinction, use of emphatics in the neighborhood of back
>>vowels). (the anatolian turkish adaption is another seperate one).
>
>
>If Dobrev is to be believed, a number of agricultural and other terms in
>Mari have Pamirian parallels but these words are not found in the other
>Finno-Ugrian languages. So he identifies them as loanwords from the language
>of the original Volga Bulgars. Another problem with the Chuvash being equated

an iranic substratum for chuvash and the volga-bolgar inscriptions is
not denied. however, an -r turkic migration into the region has to be
accounted for and there are other reasons for believing such a
presence in the kuban region. furthermore, we know the volga bolgars
became muslim and we have such a muslim languange in the inscriptions,
with chuvash its nearest modern representative and both are -r turkic.

>to Volga Bolgaric is the presence of the sound Z in many of the oldest Bulgar 
>names - ZIEZI, ZENTI, ANZI, ZERA, IZOT, while in Chuvash ZIEZI, for example, 
>would sound as SIESI (and in Mari it would sound as SHIESHI). 

chuvash has a number of late developments. the language of the danube
bolgars may be a different matter. it seems also that the -r turkic of
the kuban region may have developed independently a z sound, but it
does not represent proto-turkic or proto-altaic (or what have you,
depending on your classifaction and viewpoint) *r2 (which developed
into common turkic -z, *r1 representing r in all groups).

>
>
>Regards,
>Vassil Karloukovski
>