> Dear Vassil, I've got nothing personal against Dobrev, and far
be it from me
> to judge HIM.
Still, my opinion about the quality of his work published on
> the Internet is very low.
Yes, Bulgaria has to wake up from the stone age of
communism. And unfortunately, historical liguistics does not
exist as a field of study in any Bulgarian university (I think I want
to do something about it one day). So Dobrev simply cannot
offer anything better than that. He is a product of the old school
and cannot fight with his own realities. Which strangely
combines with the fact that many others also did not do better,
albeit they wrote in a more acceptable way scientifically. A
person who writes in an inexperienced way is not necessarily an
idiot or a liar.
If he is not a linguist, he should leave matters
> linguistic to people who know something about the subject.
See above. We first need to inform liguists of the need to make
a study. At home we have just historians and specialists in
Bulgarian. The historical linguists will have to be made
interested in the subject or we will have to educate such who are
interested.
No conscientious
> scientist would write about things he's so ignorant of.
Can't you assume he does not know he is being ignorant? But
he may not be ignorant on history. E.g. I did not know of the
Slavic parallels of skr. tr.na, sincerely. But since I am studying
historical linguistics, I know that I am ignorant, so for now I am
just writing emails, using the others' comments to check against
my own potentially false assumptions.
I wouldn't buy a
> used car from Dobrev, figuratively speaking. The part of his
work I'm
> competent to judge is rubbish, so I don't trust the rest either.
Well, that's too extreme, I think.
>
> I don't care for terms like "the Turkic/Bulgarian/Ruritanian
school". The
> purpose of a scientist, as I understand it, is NOT to serve his or
her
> nation. Knowledge belongs to all.
Yes, but we are naturally more interested in our peoples. You
can never get to know Bulgarian and Bulgaria in its heart as I
can, unless you grew up or lived there. Peoples should help
each other get to the truth and a people will always remain there
as a social entity out of natural necessity. It is no drama and no
tragedy at all.
National pride only makes people lose
> their objectivity and fall victim to wishful thinking. We've seen it
too
> often even on this list. There's no denying that there was some
Iranian
> influence on the Bulgars; George Knysh made the point too a
few postings
> back.
Okay, I did not know about this. I will look at it.
Some of the names of their aristocracy were clearly Iranian
> ("Asparukh" undoubtedly so).
But this is already a lot.
Still, everybody knows how easily names are
> borrowed. We are both Slavs with etymologically Greek names
(George is
> another, while Eva's name is Hebrew; are there any Slavs with
Slavic names
> here :-)?).
Yes, but it was not so in the past, Piotr. People had a different
attitude to family and nation. Linguistics should always be
connected with history and culturology/ethnology.
Btw, I was Jewish in my past life and I do believe I am the first
woman :-) *wink*
Insight without solid knowledge isn't worth anything. You still
> need an expert to judge whether someone's insight is sound
or not.
Okay, take a deep breath, I understand your anger, but...
constructively speaking, would you care look at the inscriptions. I
am genuinely interested in an opinion. Not out of national pride.
I just have an insatiable interest in learning.
> I'd like to see a _serious_ treatment of the data first.
It will take me more time than it will take you. If you want to
contribute, take Beshevliev and do it yourself. Or I will gladly
come back to you with what I have found out one day. I think I will
live long enough. :-)
It looks amateurish and totally unreliable. George's questions
deserve
> to be addressed too:
I have addressed them. We just need some time to wake up
after Communism. It is a natural thing and no mystery.
Eva