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: <37029a26.70332532@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$va@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f6aeef.439178515@news.yale.edu> <7dajni$slk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3702998c.70178431@news.yale.edu> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.lang On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:55:45 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote: >I received teh folllowing message from vassil karloukovski: > >you say that Cjar (a cure), cerja (to heal) in bulg. is from turk. >c,a^re < pers. c,a:re, but I have heard of other, more genereal IE >derivations for such words: fine. I worked with the information I had in hand, assuming that a loan was the most likely solution. later I found out that this was not always the case and some words had slavic and IE cognates and thsu did not pursue them. however, all the volumes of the bulgarian etymological dictionary are not available to me, so I do not access to this word. > >the bulg. cerja (to heal) is compared to cjal, cel (whole), as is such a native word would make a loanword explanation for cjar more likely. it would also make it likely that the slavic and iranian words are related (cognate) as slavic and indo-iranian seem to be close within IE. >the russ. celit' (to heal) and celIj (whole), as is >the engl. 'to heal' and 'whole'. > >All cerja, celit', heal with the meaning "to restore the wholiness (of > >the body)" and being derived from some previous IE word. Now, the >bulg. cerja (to heal), cjar (a cure) may be derived not from the bulg. >slavic cjal/cel, but as you say via turkish from presian. But couldn't >the same IE model be followed by the (supposed) iranian bulgar >instead? What is the situation in persian with heal-whole? c,a^re in turksih or persian is not confined to medicine. in fact other words specific to medicine exist. the word is freely used to indicate any solution, whether a thing or a strategm, to a vexing problem. however, the word does not seem to be related to in any obvious way to any other word, at least in new persian. the word dobrev has in mind is the new persian word. > >Another word - choplja (to pick, to poke), you say it is from turk. >chop (stick) + -le. But I don't fell this way. Firstly, Chop in bulg. >is used only in expressions such as "to draw a chop (a lot)", not as this particular problem exists for the "direct from iranian" etymology of dobrev as well. >"a stick" in general. Next, choplja means "to pick, to poke" but not >with stick but with your finger - one could "chopli" into his nose, >into his wound (with finger). Also, why divide it into chop-lja. There if it is a loan, then it may make sense to divide it. dobrev's etymology doesn't account for the ending at all. >are such verbs in bulg. which end in -lja, but in fact -l- is part of >the stem: mislja (to think) <-> mis@l (a thought), it is misl-ja; >vesselja se (to entertain oneself) <-> vessel >(happy, adj.) > > > admittedly, these matches are not exact, but neither is dobrev's claims (two essentially overlap). so I'll put a question mark in front of my etymologies, OK?