From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 15 Apr 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <37166cc8.98542626@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$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <370e76ba.60158954@news.yale.edu> <7enbsd$cm7@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3714f8fc.639900@news.yale.edu> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On Wed, 14 Apr 1999 20:22:47 GMT, cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) wrote: > >>>>and there was -r turkic speech, with chuvash charcteristics, at this >>>>end as well, as evidenced from hungarian. >> >> >>there still remains to be proven r-turkic was brought exactly by the >>bulgars and not by the accompanying them tribes - the Suvars/Chuvash actually it is said by many that there were hungarian contacts with -r turkic speakers in the volga region as well. but that would only psuh -r turkic speech amongst the volgabulghars or soemone living quite close to them back. the fact of bilingualism with -r turkic furhter south still remains. > >the identification is not definite. > >>(the Sabirs of southern Russia, <-> Siberia), the Barsils/Bersula, the > >the sabirs (who may have been at least partly mongolic), szekelys >(essegels? it is thought they represented the eskil bulghars) >were federates of the kabars and bulghars. if you want to try >to sort out which section spoke -r turkic fine. but they were >sufficiently numerous, at least in the case of the volgabulghars >and khazars, that they were able to impose their speech on them. >records show hungarians being bilingual with khazars and onoghurs, >there is no record of a third type of speech and -r turkic >affected hungarian profoundly, not just peripherally. one could >discern some alanic influence in hungarian, but this is relatively >marginal. > >>Essegels (also found in Hungary/Transylvania), the Burtas, etc. > >there is no reason to believe that the burtas were turkic. they >seem to have been an indigenous population, probably fino-ugric. >