Re: [tied] Yers

In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "fortuna11111" wrote:

>> 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.

As previously said: not being a linguist is an explanation and by
no means an excuse.

> 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.

That is: you have nothing but amateurish enthusiast(s). For the
science that's equal to zero. Regularity of phonetic changes or
other linguistical facts showing some common pattern would start
to be of some interest.

> Would you look at the inscriptions yourself and say what you think?

To have them discussed here would make more sense.

> As to Bulgarians being Iranian, Dobrev is simply combinging his
> linguistic "findings" [...]

"linguistic findings"? A kinda Napoleaon Savescu... :-)

> I would dedicate a lifetime to this, because I am Bulgarian, and
> naturally, I want to have the answers to those questions.

There are two possibilities:
1. you earn a huge amount of money making you able to sustain
financially a serious research work done by specialists, then
you ask them about what they found;
2. you follow the normal path at the University and have your PhD
in historical linguistics certifying you're able to do worthy
research work in this field, then you look for answers.
There is no short way to do that correctly by yourself without
a minimal University training, as Piotr pointed out:

>> [...] 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.

BTW, most pseudo-scientists are producing revolutionary theories
(since they're obviously more fascinating than normal contributions
which have no serious impact on non-specialists).

> [...] I referred to Bulgarians as Iranian because this opinion
> seems to have won most Bulgarian historians on its side.

Historians or "historians"?! If you speak about historians, that's
sad news with respect to quality of science they're producing.

> [...] I will not throw it away, but study it further.

... making Alex to look not so isolated in his tenacious attempts
to "study" amateurish theories.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi