From: Vassil Karloukovski
Message: 22915
Date: 2003-06-09
--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "m_iacomi" <m_iacomi@...> wrote:
...
> He is not judged. His writings are judged. Thus, one can deduce
> something about reliability of his works. They belong to that
> category of works not being trustworthy. Not being a linguist is
> an explanation, not an excuse for producing low quality material.
> No serious scholar would take into account a non-reliable work as
> worthwhile theoretical construction since too many facts are to
> be checked again.
there are also a number of dubious and misleading interpretations
regarding the Bulgars by (otherwise) serious Turkologists like Golden
or Triarsky. Let's just say that the level of studies in this area
leaves more to be desired.
> > 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.
>
> First one has to check if the data presented are correct both in
> meaning and interpretation. Then one might discuss.
if you mean the text (?) of the Namelist or other epigraphic
evidence, like stone inscriptions in Greek or with Greek letters,
there shouldn't be ambiguity. As for their interpretation... It is
indicative to the level of the studies that Dobrev was the only one
to attempt a mathematical decipherment of the ordinals in the
Namelist (everybody at least agrees that the calendar terms there
contain the name of the cyclic-year plus the month - shegor tvirem,
vereni alem) as opposed to the piecemeal approach to fit them to
Turkic counterparts.
This doesn't mean that I would follow exactly the 'Iranian' theory,
what I was looking for from knowledgeable people here and elsewhere
was whether the corpus of Bulgar language data so far allows
definitive statements - was it IE or not, Turkic or not.
Regards,
Vassil
> Regards,
> Marius Iacomi