Re: [tied] Yers

----- Original Message -----
From: fortuna11111
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] Yers


> A reading of the iscriptions is given by the historian Petar Dobrev (Here
is an English translation of some of his writings

> http://members.tripod.com/~Groznijat/pb_lang/index.html

Eva,

I've had a look at the site. Sorry, but so much of it is utter rubbish that
digging out any sensible information that might hide there is hardly worth
the effort. The author, among other things, uses Sumerian and Celtic (in
addition to comparison with a random selection of Iranian words from various
lanuages) to prove that the Bulgars were Iranian. Here's a sample of his
data:

Quote:

Proto-Bulgarian word ------ Old Celtic analogies
EL (1), ELEM (first) ------ EL (one), from which - ELEVEN (11)
TE (2), TUTOM (second) ------ TU (two), from which the English TWO
CHIT (3), CHITEM (third) ------ CHITEAM (the 3rd month of the spring) -
Irish
TVIR (4), TVIREM (fourth) ------ TEOIR (four) - Irish
VECH (5), VECHEM (fifth) ------ FIF, from which the English FIFTH
SHEHT (6), SHEHTEM (sixth) ------ SEAHT (seven) - Irish
ES (8), ESTEK (80) ------ ES (eight) - Cornish, ESDEK (eth, ethdek) - 80
ALT (11), ALTEM (eleventh) ------ EALTA (multiplicity), ALT (added to the
end, old)

Whoever wrote that had no idea what historiocal linguistic is all about, and
was as ignorant of Celtic as, apparently, of linguistics in general. Sorry
again, but the whole thing is simply too silly to be worth refuting.

Historical linguistics and Indo-European and Slavic studies are vast
disciplines. There are no shortcuts in science. You can't contribute
anything of interest (let alone stage a paradigm-changing revolution)
without acquainting yourself with the field.

Piotr