Re: [tied] Yers

--- fortuna11111 <fortuna11111@...> wrote:
Old Bulgarians (Iranian), ...

> >
> >(PG) They were not Iranian. They were

linguistically

> Turkic, speaking a
> language
> > related to modern Chuvash.
>
> (E)This is a theory that is at least 15 years old

*****GK: A slip for 150?****

and

> you will probably
> still read it in encyclopaedias 100 years from now.

*****GK: Probably for good reason (:=)))*****

> The
> Protobulgarian inscriptions, discovered in the 30's
> and 40's and
> thrown by the Commies in the political cellar, could
> not be
> translated with the help of all the Turkic languages
> on earth. They
> were translated about 10 years ago by a Bulgarian
> historian who used
> parallels from various eastern Iranian Languages.
> Since then it is
> generally the convention among scholars in Bulgaria
> that Bulgarians
> were Iranian, period.

*****GK: Has there been any attempt to inform the
international scholarly community of this esp. via
conferences? What has been the reaction? Are all
Bulgarian scholars convinced by the new knowledge? Are
there serious non-Bulgarian scholars who are? It's
been ten years you say. Any progress?******

Anyone claiming something

> different should
> manage to translate the inscriptions using Turkic -
> I may then be
> convinced of the opposite.

******GK: It's not a question of whether you as an
amateur and enthusiast are convinced, but whether
serious scholars are. I'm not trying to put you down,
just pointing out that the opinion of solid
professionals matters a great deal on such
issues.*****

/cut for economy/

(E)Generally, the question should no longer be if
Bulgarians were
Iranian. The question is what Iranian language they
spoke exactly.

*****GK: I think you are so far ahead of things as to
be practically out of sight... (:=))) Connect this
with the queries I made earlier.*****




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com