From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 01 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36b62cc5.29538494@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> <36A95129.AF5336A1@earthlink.net> <78ppdl$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0d7ec.2343569@news.yale.edu> <78v145$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 30 Jan 1999 13:23:17 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <36b0d7ec.2343569@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On 28 Jan 1999 13:41:09 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote:
>
>...
>At the end, even the Scythians were thought to
>>>be Turkic in the 19-th century, so - be patient and probably in the due time
>>>the scholars will start to study the old Bulgars' question more seriously and 
>>>without the constant repetition of the Turkic mantra.
>
>>what I object to is  calling the prevailing view a "mantra". it is not
>>made up of whole cloth.
>
>
>Yes, a prevailing view and that is for decades. The Nagy Saint-Miklosh
>inscription is in the process of translating from Turkic for decaded, and 
>newer and newer translations are being offered. Which only means there is 
>something inherently wrong with all of them. Kizlyasov made the same 
>observation regarding the contradicting to each other Turkic translations 
>of the runic inscriptions from southern Russia. 
>
>The same with the nominalia of the Bulgarian princes which is known since the
>mid-19-th century. The Turkologs had a plenty of time to analyze it but in 
>order to make their 'translations' look plausible they had to pronounce half 
>of the records in it incorrect. What is the problem then if an alternative 
>reading - be it Iranian, or Mongolian or Gypsy or whatever, is offered which 
>fits better to the records? But to discard linguistic or material evidence in 
>favour of some theory looks indeed like a religious belief.

whatever the final evaluation of dobryev's work is, turkic was used as
a model for the reasons I summarized in part, and it was not just
pulled out of the hat. I also think that dobryev is making errors in
neglecting or denying -r turkic etymologies. I have avoided getting
into this since I have not seen a published criticism of his work.

>
>
>Regards,
>Vassil Karloukovski
>