Re: [tied] az+

> Since discuting with a senior linguist, there no doubt he's aware
> of these trivia.

Now this is a very scientific statement :-) Truly based on belief.

For the sake of concision, you should avoid them

> if they aren't necessary.

In your opinion.

>
> > [...] the Tessaloniki dialects are listed under Bulgarian dialects
> > in university courses to the present day (this has reference to
> > language and not to territorial claims, to save you the paranoia).
>
> That's yet another remark which you should avoid.

This is a remark on something I have experienced. Consider the
lengthy explanations on Macedonian.

> >> What evidence? The existence of a similar word in Iranian?
> >
> > Archaeological evidence confirming the Protobulgarian migrations
> > and connections with Iranian peoples.
>
> That doesn't account for _linguistical_ evidence.

Sciences are supposed to be isolated from one another? Good point.

That could be

> said about any two peoples having had some contact for a while.

What does "for a while" mean to you?

> I had given a link to one source.

Not one that I remember, sorry.

> The idea of "basic mixture" is fallacious.

A basic mixture is something that I have experienced because I have
been exposed to many languages simultaneously. When I speak too fast
and do not concentrate, I may occasionally produce a sentence in four
languages, mixing grammar and vocabulary. I sometimes do this
deliberately, when I want to save time and speak to someone who
understands those languages as well. The brain simply sends you the
closest and simplest version available on what you want to say. Some
languages have a pattern for saying something, which is quite simple.
That may not be true for other languages. If you speak two or more,
you end up choosing the simpler version. At my university the
students spoke primarily "Bulgarish" (an interesting social dialect
that had delevoped only after a few years of study there), when I meet
an English friend here I may occasionally speak Denglish, shall I
mention the Anglo-Russian and German-Russian that I have also spoken,
although the languages are seemingly unrelated. Whatever your theory
says on languages, I believe it may have to do with the way languages
are codified, but it has little to do with how they actually function
in reality.

> > That was just one example that I shared. I want to go further
> > researching this. You don't really have to worry. If there is
> > nothing behind such a thesis, it will get disproven.
>
> Your example got disproven.

At this stage.

> Well, for making science you should try a more rigurous approach,
> that is neither the amateurish "ear checking" with a roommate, nor
> "aus dem Kopf".

We do what we can, with the tools that we have at the moment. If an
amateurish check gives me a reason to look further, I will. :-)

> > I also tried the words "karam" and "mUrdam". [...] The example
> > with "karam" probably proves nothing, but it has given me some
> > reasons for thought.
>
> You tried what, exactly?

Tried considering them for the list, in view of their sounding
non-Slavic to me.

>
> > E.g. how did those words end up with those meanings in Serbian?
>
> Semantical evolution. It's that thing giving continuous headache
> to Alex.

I meant having such marginal meanings may mean borrowing under a
certain context. As it turns out to be so with "karam".

> You're based on... ?!

My learning of Sanskrit and Old Persian. Dzoj Edel'mann has written
books on the similarities and common vocabulary of Iranian and Slavic
languages. This is definitely more than zero.

> > So why do you call it linguistics at all if it is not based on
> > knowledge of languages?
>
> The methods are of course based on what one knows on languages
> in general and on scientifical requirements.

In general.

To study a particular

> language, the very same methods are used on a specifical set of
> linguistical data, giving correlated results.

You mean the same general tools?

>
> > Unfortunately, linguistics does not have those checking mechanisms.
> > And my general impression is many linguists are actually worse at
> > speaking living languages than many amateurs. I do not think this
> > is normal.
>
> That impression is an Alex-like idée fixe. Just forget it and wait
> for your graduation before making any assumption on future fellows.

Marius, I have already graduated, I do not need to worry about this.
Your comments actually don't show a much better style then Alex's.
Just tend to be a bit more supercilious.

Eva