--- fortuna11111 <
fortuna11111@...> wrote:
> (GK) I gather that in your scenario the
> > "Iranians" are the Proto-Bulgars? The difference
> here
> > is that you have yet to prove that the
> Proto-Bulgars
> > were Iranian.
>
> It is called a hypothesis and was deliberately
> placed between question
> marks. A hypothesis is no proof, but a necessary
> tool in analysis.
> Something like "let's see what happens if we look at
> it this way"?
*****GK: There is nothing hypothetical about the state
contacts between ancestors of Slavs and Iranians. It
is as firm a scientific fact as one would wish to
find. And therefore there is a world of difference
between conclusions drawn from this indubitable fact
and your imaginary situation, twice removed therefrom
scientifically. In order to have a hypothesis you need
at least a modicum of evidence. You (rather your
sources) haven't even provided that for the
Proto-Bulgars, as far as I can see. Not
linguistically, not historically, and not
archaeologically. What you are saying is "let's see
what happens if we take this fantasy seriously?".
That's not a hypothesis, and certainly not a necessary
tool in analysis. I'll change my mind about this as
soon as you point to linguistic, historical, or
archaeological data that would be acceptable (as a
"modicum" of evidence worth following up) to our
competent peers on this list. When that happens, you
will indeed have a hypothesis. Which will then only be
once removed from the situation I described about the
Slavic-Iranian contact. On the other hand, if you were
to argue about a Proto-Bulgar/Iranian state contact,
rather than to fantasize about the Proto-Bulgars being
Iranians, you would have a much better case.*****
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com