> 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.
Okay, but it may be worth the effort for me. Thanks for looking at
it anyway. The need for it to be studied by a linguist is the
reason why I want to acquaint myself with this field. And I won't
just throw the lists away (they are very crude, yes), I want to see
for myself that the theory makes no sense and then I will gladly
agree with you.
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:
He is not proving that they are Iranian. As I have previously
explained, he looked for a meaning behind the inscriptions of the
Bulgarians. So he may use a parallel from Sumerian, if this
makes sense in the translation? He is not a linguist, so excuse
his methods. Yet some crazy-looking parallels with Sumerian
may help other scholars find the actual parallels. The Turkic
theory does not deal better with the inscriptions - that's the sad
fact. So we have just Dobrev for now. Would you look at the
inscriptions yourself and say what you think?
As to Bulgarians being Iranian, Dobrev is simply combinging his
linguistic "findings" with historical sources pointing out
Bulgarians are not very clearly Turkic (naming them always
separately from Turkic peoples, for example). Many of those
sources have not been given a clear reading in the past. An
interdisciplinary study between history and linguistics can be full
of mistakes on one side. It does not mean that it is completely
rubbish. I think I want to check if it is rubbish. Believe me, I am
myself a "Toma neverni" and I want to even read those historical
texts to check if they have been correctly interpreted or translated
to support Dobrev's theory. I would dedicate a lifetime to this,
because I am Bulgarian, and naturally, I want to have the
answers to those questions.
>
> 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.
He is not a linguist, as I have said.
>
> 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.
I am not attempting a revolution for now. I want to see if there IS
a revolution or just noise in the coming. If I ever write anything on
the subject (like comments on Dobrev's writings), it will be my
sense of the truth, supported by the facts and not the truth as I
want it to be. I referred to Bulgarians as Iranian because this
opinion seems to have won most Bulgarian historians on its
side. Something tells me there is a grain of truth in Dobrev's
theory, which can finally lead us to a clearer answer on the origin
of my people. At least he tried something alternative, which gave
more results than anything one did before. Isn't this to be
considered positive? I will not throw it away, but study it further.
Eva