Re: [tied] Yers

From: m_iacomi
Message: 23007
Date: 2003-06-10

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

>> 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.

Then you should present the inscriptions, not Dobrev's assertions.

> If we take all that Dobrev said for wrong,

No. The correct attribute should read "irrelevant" not "wrong",
since a possible truth would be hidden by high level ground noise.

> 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

You wanted to say "Aral" not "Azov", isn't it?!

> and so they all wrote (and probably all copied from each other),
> that the Amu-Darja flows in the Caspian Sea.

Since Alexander the Great, Greeks had some knowledge on flows.
In reality, Oxus (Amu-Darja) flew at that date in the Caspian
through the Ughuz valley. See by example the URL:
http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%
3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Doxus
or, for a more detailed story:
http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/OxusRiver.htm

> So, why do we read Strabo then, if he got it wrong?

On this, also Wilhelm Bernhard got it somehow wrong.
We read Strabo since he is one of the few available sources, but
one is aware that some of his assertions are to be taken "cum
grano salis". And on another hand, the scientific standards are
nowdays higher than 2000 years ago.

> That's what I am offering. I am not driven by megalomania, but
> by a desire to see what the inscriptions say.

Then post the *inscriptions* on section "Files", not Dobrev's
comments on inscriptions.

>> 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?
[...]
No, but you show signs of impatience, so you might be interested
in it. :-)

>> 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.

"this" meaning what exactly? You said there is no historical
linguistics in Bulgaria, then it should be somehow difficult to
make a PhD without advisor. :-)

>> 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.

OK. Go ahead then, you'll figure it out one day.

>>> 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?

This is supposed to be a reminder of caution, nothing more.

> 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.

So, you have studied journalism and now you're on your way to get
an university degree also in linguistics?! Just for precision.

> [...] 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,

You should always care for precision. Nobody denies that Romanians
have also an important *ethnic* Daco-Moesian component and there
can be found a few substratal reminders in their language. Romanians
aren't exclusive descendents of Dacians but the result of a mix-up
of populations including them, they don't have the ethnic conscience
of being of Dacian descent but of Latin descent (through the ethnic
name inherited from Romans), and their language is nothing else but
evolved vulgar Latin. Don't confuse things.

Cheers,
Marius Iacomi