From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: The Bulgars are Bulgars (Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 31 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <3701a4c4.20580553@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> <3701a35c.20220675@news.yale.edu>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.lang

On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:26:45 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
wrote:


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>DOJKA - a wet-nurse
>
>The Bulgarian etymological dictionary [BER] correctly connected it
>with 
>DOJA ('to suckle; to milk'), not providing, however, any direct
>parallels 
>from other l-s. The only group of peoples who have a similar 
>word is the Pamirian, where it sounds as DO*J*A, DA*J*A 
>(RPDS, 389; GASK, 334, etc.]
>

dobrev clearly has read the bulgarian etymological dictionary which I
have partially been able to look at as well. one wonders why he still
includes loanwords from ottoman turkish (and a few from the local
dialect). perhaps he thought this was part of the "turkic" argument
for the origin of the bulghars, which it obviously is not. even the
vocabulary  of bulghar which incorporates the steppe jargon and used
by the tu"rku"t is not sufficient. the turkic theory posits an -r
turkic origin, and hence one looks for the appropriate deviations from
common turkic. it seems to me dobrev hasn't completely grasped the
fine points of the argument.