From: e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski)
Subject: Re: The Bulgars are Bulgars (Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 03 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7bj56t$qrl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
References: <36ca073a.16343620@news.yale.edu> <36cca3ed.14676934@news.yale.edu> <36ccb13d.18084634@news.yale.edu> <7ap23l$klu@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36dc5653.5725843@news.yale.edu> <36dc59d9.6627990@news.yale.edu>
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.lang

In article <36dc59d9.6627990@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...

>>>TAGROGI - a word from Nagy   Tagarog - a reapproachment;
>>> Saint Miklos’ treasure,               becoming related by marriage
>>> referring to the                          (Persian)
>>> fraternization of two
>>> zhupans

>>i have not been able to find "tagarog". 
>>there is however, indeed `ar. taqa:rub being or coming near to each
>>other, rapprochment. one of the many litterary loans in persian,
>>rendered in the modern pronounciation as ta*gh*a:rob.
>
>one of the most unlikely loans for danube bulghar!


indeed. For volga bulgar it is still understandable, if they were 
islamicised or had islamic groups among them earlier, several decades 
before Ibn-Fadlan's trip.

But what about some other semitic language as a source for the (danube) 
bulgar words? The jews living among those bulgars in the Caucasus? Some 
older arameic influence on iranian?  

Just speculating...

Regards,
Vassil K.