From: m_iacomi
Message: 23007
Date: 2003-06-10
>> As previously said: not being a linguist is an explanation andThen you should present the inscriptions, not Dobrev's assertions.
>> 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,No. The correct attribute should read "irrelevant" not "wrong",
> Btw. I am reading a very interesting old book by WilhelmYou wanted to say "Aral" not "Azov", isn't it?!
> 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),Since Alexander the Great, Greeks had some knowledge on flows.
> that the Amu-Darja flows in the Caspian Sea.
> So, why do we read Strabo then, if he got it wrong?On this, also Wilhelm Bernhard got it somehow wrong.
> That's what I am offering. I am not driven by megalomania, butThen post the *inscriptions* on section "Files", not Dobrev's
> by a desire to see what the inscriptions say.
>> 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?
>> 2. you follow the normal path at the University and have your PhD"this" meaning what exactly? You said there is no historical
>> 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 withoutOK. Go ahead then, you'll figure it out one day.
>> a minimal University training, as Piotr pointed out:
>
> Which does not mean in between I stop thinking on the things
> that interest me.
>>> I am not attempting a revolution for now. I want to see if thereThis is supposed to be a reminder of caution, nothing more.
>>> 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?
> But there is a huge discussion among scientists on that. IfSo, you have studied journalism and now you're on your way to get
> anything, I did my job of an (already graduated) journalist in
> informing you on that.
> [...] I chose to start from Iranian, because I don't find otherYou should always care for precision. Nobody denies that Romanians
> 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,