Re: [tied] Yers

> In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" wrote:
>
> >> As previously said: not being a linguist is an explanation and
> >> by no means an excuse.
> >
> > I am not taking the role of the judge, I just want to see if we
> > can get something out of these Bulgarian inscriptions.
>
> Then you should present the inscriptions, not Dobrev's assertions.

Marcus, you are right. See what I wrote to Alex on posting.

>
> > If we take all that Dobrev said for wrong,
>
> No. The correct attribute should read "irrelevant" not "wrong",
> since a possible truth would be hidden by high level ground noise.

Yes, so you may try to remove the noise. It is a lot of dirty work,
but it may give you a starting point. At least the idea to look at
Iranian languages.

>
> > Btw. I am reading a very interesting old book by Wilhelm
> > Bernhard now, in which he shows that Strabo and the other
> > classical authors had no knowledge of the Sea of Azov
>
> You wanted to say "Aral" not "Azov", isn't it?!

Yes, but I wonder how I ended up thinking about the Sea of Azov. I
have a visual memory and I really think the author was writing about
the Sea of Azov (huh?). It is an old book printed in 1910, but it
looks impossible that he did not know the difference. It is either
that I need better glasses or that he did not know what he was
talking about. I fell upon the book as a source while looking
something up in Encyclopaedia Americana from 1830 (or 1832), so the
book must be older. I will check this up.

Since Alexander the Great, Greeks had some knowledge on flows.

> In reality, Oxus (Amu-Darja) flew at that date in the Caspian
> through the Ughuz valley. See by example the URL:
> http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%
> 3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Doxus
> or, for a more detailed story:
> http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/OxusRiver.htm

Thanks.

>
> > So, why do we read Strabo then, if he got it wrong?
>
> On this, also Wilhelm Bernhard got it somehow wrong.

I have to agree on that :-)

> We read Strabo since he is one of the few available sources, but
> one is aware that some of his assertions are to be taken "cum
> grano salis". And on another hand, the scientific standards are
> nowdays higher than 2000 years ago.

Yes, and still people will not stop making mistakes. And sometimes
you will find a great idea right in the middle of the rubbish.

> >> There are two possibilities:
> >> 1. you earn a huge amount of money making you able to sustain
> >> financially a serious research work done by specialists, then
> >> you ask them about what they found;
> >
> > Did I ever show signs of even considering this possibility?
> [...]
> No, but you show signs of impatience, so you might be interested
> in it. :-)

That's just my temper. I am aware of it.

>
> >> 2. you follow the normal path at the University and have your PhD
> >> in historical linguistics certifying you're able to do worthy
> >> research work in this field, then you look for answers.
> >
> > I am doing this.
>
> "this" meaning what exactly? You said there is no historical
> linguistics in Bulgaria, then it should be somehow difficult to
> make a PhD without advisor. :-)

I am studying Historisch-Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft at the
Humboldt University, Berlin. But I am just in the beginning. This
is my second semester, I am far from the PhD and I am not quite sure
I will do it in Germany. I had mentioned that previously.

> > But there is a huge discussion among scientists on that. If
> > anything, I did my job of an (already graduated) journalist in
> > informing you on that.
>
> So, you have studied journalism and now you're on your way to get
> an university degree also in linguistics?! Just for precision.

Yes. And did opera singing in between (was admitted at the Boston
Conservatory). And that's not all about me. My faculty chair also
found me a bit eccentric (I wear funny dresses and a hat) in the
beginning and applied to my desire to study Indogermanistik the usual
sarcastic tone most linguists tend to have (what a waste of language
skills). After I did an exam in one of his courses and since I am
also doing others with him, he seems to have changed his mind.
Everyone figures it out one day :-)

>
> > [...] I chose to start from Iranian, because I don't find other
> > mythomaniac writings like "Bulgarians are Pelasgians" particularly
> > attractive for they could, indeed, be listed under the Romanians'
> > ridiculous claims that they are the offspring of the Thracians,
>
> You should always care for precision.

Yes, I have noticed historical linguistics requires more precision
than many other sciences. I am working on this. Yet I do have, from
journalism, a very good sense of logical flow plus a careful approach
to citations. And some self-irony. That's a start.

Nobody denies that Romanians

> have also an important *ethnic* Daco-Moesian component and there
> can be found a few substratal reminders in their language. Romanians
> aren't exclusive descendents of Dacians but the result of a mix-up
> of populations including them,

Eben. But you have no idea what I have read. Indirect quote: There
is a whole plot against Romanians. All European culture stems from
them, but because of the plot, nobody says anything about it. This
is ridiculous. Btw, Bulgarian mythomaniacs also write such things.

Yet Dobrev does not classify exactly as a mythomaniac. Many scholars
took after him. Even one of the conservatives, the Director of the
National Historical Museum (Bozhidar Dimitrov), who first insisted
the Bulgars were Turkic, has now become so passionate on the
Iranian/Bactrian theory that he simply sucks new things out of his
fingers (I think he beats Dobrev in that). However, apart from his
interpretations, the archeological evidence he is referring to is
real and he had access to it for a long time.

they don't have the ethnic conscience

> of being of Dacian descent but of Latin descent (through the ethnic
> name inherited from Romans), and their language is nothing else but
> evolved vulgar Latin. Don't confuse things.

I am not. I am very open to the most eccentric theories, if they
sound consistent.

Eva