From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User)
Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars
Date: 12 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <37126681.75432836@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> <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$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370d1b3e.17350739@news.yale.edu> <7en7q2$1t8@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
Organization: Yale University
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

On 10 Apr 1999 10:05:54 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil
Karloukovski) wrote:

>In article <370d1b3e.17350739@news.yale.edu>, cluster.user@yale.edu says...
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 1999 12:14:49 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk wrote:
>
>...
>>>not the bulgars. Ibn-Fadlan (921-922) says that the language of the volga
>>>bulgars didn't resemble either turkic or slavic, while Istahri, Haukal, Bekri
>>
>>I'll look at the last names at little more.
>>
>>>and Jakut find similarities between the khazar and bulgar l-s, but say they
>>>didn't resemble either turkic or persian.
>>
>>yes. it didn't resemble *common* turkic.
>
>
>OK, you may interpret it as an evidence of some *uncommon" turkic, but 

"uncommon" is not the words used by linguists, but that is the general
idea.

>it could
>also support the alternative eastern-iranian theory. The latter is 
>supported by
>the iranian words recorded by ibn-Fadlan and others for volga bulgar 
>as well as 
>by the eastern-iranian agricultural and other loanwords in Mari. Simply, 
>from
>now on the turkic theories will not be able to dismiss these "details" 

these are not dismissed but they are accounted for.

there is no doubt that the language had an alanian (i.e. eastiranian)
substrate. in addition, languages such as mari could have obtained
those words directly from alanian earlier.

>and to
>automatically jump to the desired conclusions (because I do think we are 
>dealing 
>with preconceptions regarding volga bulgar).
>

the "preconception is a reasonable deduction: given evidence
that there was -r turkic speech in the homeland of the 
volgabulghars and given that there is written evidence later
in their new state, it is deduced that they spoke the language
inbetween.

>
>Regards,
>Vassil K.
>