> As previously said: not being a linguist is an explanation and
by
> no means an excuse.
I am not taking the role of the judge, I just want to see if we can
get something out of these Bulgarian inscriptions. If we take all
that Dobrev said for wrong, they still remain there untranslated.
So I would rather take Dobrev and see if I can do something with
his crude writings, whether I turn out to agree or not.
Btw. I am reading a very interesting old book by Wilhelm
Bernhard now, in which he shows that Strabo and the other
classical authors had no knowledge of the Sea of Azov and so
they all wrote (and probably all copied from each other), that the
Amu-Darja flows in the Caspian Sea. He claims that the Arab
sources are much more reliable on the history of this particular
region, since they show exact data ot the location of various
geographical units. So, why do we read Strabo then, if he got it
wrong?
Toss him out. Btw, we have a very good historical book-burning
site in front of the Humboldt University. I pass by it every day.
> 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.
Okay, thanks for the guidelines. That's some food for thought.
>
> > Would you look at the inscriptions yourself and say what you
think?
>
> To have them discussed here would make more sense.
That's what I am offering. I am not driven by megalomania, but
by a desire to see what the inscriptions say.
>
> > As to Bulgarians being Iranian, Dobrev is simply combinging
his
> > linguistic "findings" [...]
>
> "linguistic findings"? A kinda Napoleaon Savescu... :-)
I come from another culture. I guess I did not get you on this
one, sorry.
>
> > 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;
Did I ever show signs of even considering this possibility? And
by the way, I never thought scientists are supposed to be driven
by a desire to get paid. I thought they first of all want to know and
inform on what they know. So if there is something which is not
yet given a meaningful translation, it is supposed to be of
interest to them.
We have had a lot of paid scientists on earth, and... having
worked for the media, I have my additional reservations, if you
get what I mean.
> 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.
I am doing this.
> There is no short way to do that correctly by yourself without
> a minimal University training, as Piotr pointed out:
Which does not mean in between I stop thinking on the things
that interest me. I may think some b***s**t for a while, but that is
subject to change. I read somewhere intelligence should be the
ability to adapt to changing environments. A scientific
environment changes all the time.
> >> [...] 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).
This is supposed to be new to me?
>
> > [...] 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.
Their science is not so bad as you may think, regarding their
own field. Btw, I don't think anyone teaches at the university that
Bulgarians are Iranian. But there is a huge discussion among
scientists on that. If anything, I did my job of an (already
graduated) journalist in informing you on that.
>
> > [...] 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.
Marius, I am sorry if you don't understand why someone would
keep looking for answers even after a few futile attempts.
Hypothetically, my studies may take me to a conclusion that
Bulgarians are Marsian, not necessarily Iranian. Yet you cannot
look in the whole galaxy simultaneously. You need to start
somewhere. The Turkologists have been seeking long enough
without results (regarding the translation in question). Their
theory also does not look serious now that it does not seem to
be able to incorporate the new unique evidence that we have. So
we have to seek in other directions. I chose to start from Iranian,
because I don't find other mythomaniac writings like "Bulgarians
are Pelasgians" particularly attractive for they could, indeed, be
listed under the Romanians' ridiculous claims that they are the
offspring of the Thracians, or how about the Macedonians
stemming from Alexander the Great?
I hope you got my point this time and save your efforts in bringing
all your armies to fight with me. I principally agree with what you
are saying (and also tend to use my brain often, in spite of my
not knowing many things).
Eva