Hi Piotr,
To your other message.
> > The typical development uridg. l.>iir. r. does not apply for
Nuristani.
>
> Even if the above were true (it isn't, strictly speaking), would it
be
> relevant to our discussion in any way?
I know that it isn't, strictly speaking, but it is a phenomenon in
those languages and also in Vedic, occasionally. And it should
be connected with the topic Iranian or non-Iranian, since anyone
trying to prove Protobulgarian was Iranian will also have to
explain the l's, which are not lost. Just one of all the question
marks that have appeared in my mind in the course of my
reading. And no, I am not saying that Protobulgarian is related to
Nuristani (just in case you read something I have not tried to
say).
> Whether something is to be regarded a distinct language or
not is a
> political rather than linguistic decision.
It is hardly a political decision. It is simply a matter of
consistency. Something that is met as a dialect in present-day
Bulgaria and at that does not deviate so strongly from the
standard language as other dialects in the same country, cannot
be named a separate language. Btw, whether you call it a
language or a dialect formally is all the same to me. My point
was that you can hardly use Macedonian to prove lack of
Bulgarian influences on certain words.
The Bulgarian/Macedonian group
> has always been a dialect continuum in which the forces of
divergence and
> convergence have been maintaining a state of relative
equilibrium for a very
> long time.
No comment. Less-scientifically said, until 1945 Macedonian
did not exist. See if you will find historical references to this
language before that date. I am eager to hear about them.
Nevertheless, there are a number of old contrasts within it,
> which justifies treating Bulgarian and Macedonian as different
entities from
> the point of view of historical linguistics (like, say, Scots and
English).
In this sense, you should take other Bulgarian dialects and treat
them as other languages as well.
> Although Macedonian <k'> as the reflex of PSl. *tj may be the
result of
> early Serbian influence, it dates back to the Middle Ages
nevertheless, and
> contrasts with Bulgarian <s^t>.
The stadard language <sht> is always replaced by a <k> in the
Macedonian region. The future particle "shte" is "ke" in
Blagoevgrad, for example, and it is so in many Bulgarian folk
songs from this region: "Ke se prestoram na riba mrena i pak pri
tebe ke dojda." The "shte" is "shU" in Stara Zagora, "she" in
Sofia. What matters is, the particle is a grammatical unit very
characteristic of Bulgarian as opposed to other languages, e.g.
Russian, where you form future using the present form of
"Perfektiv" verbs (glagoly sovershennogo vida) or simply using
"to be" as an auxiliary verb.
> Yes. But if they had borrowed (Old) Bulgarian kUs^ta, it
wouldn't have ended
> up as <kuc'a>.
Just a technical question. Do you exclude the possibility that a
language adjusts a borrowed word to its own phonetic model?
The combination "sht" is very foreign to Serbian, just as their
special way of saying "c" is very foreign to us. My boyfriend tried
to teach me for a year and gave it up.
> Why shouldn't I <explain>? I have already partly answered your
question.
Because you sighed and I though you would not want to.
Comparison
> between Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian requires *ko~tja as the
common
> prototype.
You mean, in starting the comparison you already assume the
existence of a common prototype? What if there wasn't?
It reminds me of the following: I see two triangles, they have two
shared sides, the third sides *seem* to be parallel. I assume
that they are parallel and so prove that the triangles are similar.
Good that we don't do so in maths.
The related word *ko~tina is attested in West as well as South
> Slavic (in Old Polish it was used of pagan temples).
Old Polish leads me to what I have previously said about church
languages. Or do you mean something else by Old Polish? I
would be glad to learn more.
In the south, *ko~tja
> expanded at the expense of *domU; the original meaning was
more
> specialised -- something like 'building' or 'shelter', perhaps. It
is
> related to *ko~tU 'angle, corner' (a word which survives in West
Slavic,
> also with meanings like 'hideout, shelter, hut').
Bulgarian kUt. It could be etymologically related, yet how does it
show that kUshta is intrinsically Slavic? Peter's other examples
showed there are numerous other parallels in other languages.
How do you decide for the Slavic and exculde the rest?
> > This takes time.
>
> It will be time well spent.
My time is always well spent.
samtosa eva purusasya param nidhanam
Paradoxically, experts are often less
> self-confident and offer less authoritative opinions than people
who still
> have everything to learn and don't realise the extent of their own
> ignorance.
This is not paradoxical. Yet confidence is the result of self-
awareness, you don't get to it through mechanical learning of
trivial facts. You need to be able to make sense of them.
Eva