From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 03 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <79abe0$nr@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$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$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b61035.22226830@news.yale.edu> <797ik4$jo4@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b7878f.9848962@news.yale.edu> <36B7D43B.FC0EA9C0@montclair.edu> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang In article <36B7D43B.FC0EA9C0@montclair.edu>, hubeyh@montclair.edu says... >Cluster User wrote: >> >> >> >> the difference being - if one accepts iranian origins - that the slavs >> were native to the area but the -r turkic people were not. the iranian >> stratum of chuvash would more likely be acquired in the kuban region. >> what this would say about the composition of the horde that went to >> the danube is a different matter. as for who first used in the name >> bulgar, I am frankly less interested in that matter. > >Lang says that "bolghar" means "mixed". Lang also says that in the days of Paul the Deacon the bulgars under the langobards still spoke both latin and their turkic language when, in fact, the word turkic here was added by Lang himself. Miziev says that it comes >from "bulghak-ar". and other theories derive it from the mongolian name of some rodent, from some old turkic balug (town) + -ar, etc. Or who knows what the italian encyclopaedia say on the question... All these etymologies look quite useless until the language they must based on is known. Balkars of the North Caucasus may be related >although it is a Kipchak language. They have preserved "bulgarisms". >They have been there a long time apparently. The river Malka passes >thru their territories and they call themselves "malkar". only one of the tribes is calles malkar, after the name of the gorge they live in: ' Among some peoples of the North Caucasian region there was a lack of national consiousness to the extent that the various tribes of those peoples did not even have a collective name for themselves as an ethnic group (...). The BALKARS, for example, did not have a collective name for themselves in the pre-Revolutionary times, but rather referred to themselves by tribes, _whose names corresponded to the gorges_ in which they lived [MARKARLI, KHOLANI, BIZINGICHI, CHEGEMLI and BAKSANCHI]. The only name the Balkars used as a commomn means of self-designation was "Taulu", which means "Mountainer", and which they also applied to the Karachai, Ossetians, and other Caucasian peoples. The term 'Balkar' was applied to them by the Kabards and the Russians as a collective ethnic term.' [ R. Wixman, Language aspects of ethnic patterns and processes in the North Caucasus, Univ. of Chicago, 1980, Res. paper No 191]. Regards, Vassil K. >-- >Best Regards, >Mark >-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >hubeyh@montclair.edu =-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=