--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:
...
> > 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)
you are probably right in general and there is a lot of rubbish
there. The author, P. Dobrev, did exclude references to Sumerian in
his later works and concentrated on Iranian and Caucasian words only,
which is historically much more justified. But he shouldn't be judged
too harshly, as he is not a linguist. And he did com up with
important insights in some cases, e.g. regarding the name of
Avitokhol, the name of the progenitor in the Namelist of the
Bulgarian princes (the best the Turkic school had to offer was to
equate it to Attila). So there is a net gain, as I see it.
> prove that the Bulgars were Iranian. Here's a sample of his
> data:
OK, the Celtic data are irrelevant (and probably false). Still,
nobody has shown why the Turkic ordinals are more relevant to the
treatment of the Bulgar ordinals from the Namelist than are the Indo-
Iranian.
Regards,
Vassil
>
> Piotr