From: cluster.user@yale.edu (Cluster User) Subject: Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars Date: 04 May 1999 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <372f5348.89657110@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> <372D87F2.7A65@worldnet.att.net> <7gmcsd$3tn@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> Organization: Yale University Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang On 4 May 1999 08:58:53 GMT, e.karloukovski@uea.ac.uk (Vassil Karloukovski) wrote: >In article <372D87F2.7A65@worldnet.att.net>, grammatim@worldnet.att.net says... >>Cluster User wrote: > >>> << ...DObrev also has the old syrian BLEHARO - a fine leather, in a >>> I-II c. AD dictionary of old syriac, which according to Dobrev comes >>> to show they had this industry even before their moving to Europe. >>> ..>> > >>There's no such thing. The earliest native Syriac lexicography (Bar >>Bahlul) is ca. 8th c. If he means a modern dictionary of Old Syriac, >>there's also no such thing; the materials are too meager and there's no >>reason to separate them into a separate research tool. > > >here I should explain that it was probably a mistranslation on my part. >From the bulgarian text ("Ako se sydi po dumata BLEHARO, s kojato se >narichat finite kozhi v edin drevnosirijski rechnik ot I-II v. sl. Hr....") >it wasn't clear to me whether "drevnosirijski" meant "old syrian" or >"old syriac". The same ambiguity with "fina kozha", "kozha" means both he gives as a reference a review of a syriac dictionary of the last century. "old syrian" doesn't really make any other sense. >"leather" and "skin", and Dobrev could still be technically correct in >saying that that blepharw meant "fine skin", but it was unfair on his part >not to explain it in greater detail. however, he seem to feel it is connected with trade (i.e. animal skins). I think he got it wrong. also it isn't a "fine" skin, it is diseased human skin. > > Finally, there >>are no texts in Syriac from the 1st c.; the earliest dated Syriac >>document is a bill of sale from Dura Europos from 114 A.D., and the >>earliest Syriac ms. is from 411 A.D. >> >>> so this gives the ZDMG article as a reference. I don't know what >>> thesaurus syriacus is quoting, but that in itself is a late 19th >>> century syriac - latin dictionary, >>> >>> so there is no ble*kh*arw but ble*ph*arw. ... and evidently they are >>> talking about diseased eyelids and not bulghar leather! >> >>And it's obviously a Greek lw. in whatever medical text it may come >>from. > > >do you know the etymology of that ble*ph*arw? > it is not blexarw (in greek) as he gives it in his 1986 book. > >VK > >>The Payne Smith Syriac Lexicon (based on the Thesaurus) doesn't seem to >>list such a word, and Brockelmann's Lexicon Syriacum has bl'prwnwn >>defined as 'venafranum (oleum)', with a reference to Geop 86:25. (Geop = >>Geoponicon in sermonem syriacum versorum quae supersunt P. de Lagarde >>edidit. Leipzig 1860.) >> >>-- >>Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net > > > > > >