Talk:Bulgar language

message: arvo = value, jyvä = grain, marras = death, kassi = bag, mehi = bee, mesi = honey, ora = thorn, orpo = orphan, osa = part (share), osto = buy, petkel = crusher, porsas = (small) pig, sarvi = horn, sata = hundred, suka = brusher, suola = salt, taarna (sara hay) = sedge, utare = udder, varsa = foal, vasara = hammer, viha = hatred. All these words have appeared in Baltic Finnic languages as loan (borrow) words from Indo European language used in Itil / Idel / Idyll / Atäl / (Volga) bend in Volga Bolgharia c. 650-1236.
These words came from Itil Bolgharian language as loan (borrow) words to Komi-murt language; bus = dust, karta = cattle shed, kolta = sheaf, ketsh = hare, kushman = black radish, serkni = turnip, tus =  grain, tsharla = sickle, tshipan = hen, zep = pocket, kyd = punnet, kan = king, gob = mushroom.
Peharps these loan words help to make a decision what was the origin of the language, Old Turkic Oghur or Old Persian Parsi (Farsi).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.90.91 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words used in Itil Bolgharia 

message: Please stop adding links to his works. He's far far from being a credible source. He's not a historian (not even an amateur historian, rather a fantasist!) and he's even less of a linguist, applying his methods one can easily prove that proto-Bulgarian was a Martian or whatever you choose language and that the proto-Bulgarians were from Pluto. Let's keep Wikipedia clear from such crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.152.61 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, particularly in concern to @MiltenR additions from August 2022. Peter Dobrev is extremely unreliable sourse, his works are nothing more than pseudo-science and quackery. Svilenov 13:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petar Dobrev 

message: Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.--Nostradamus1 --Nostradamus1 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the comments under the article. Read also User:Nostradamus1/Conversions_to_Islam_in_Bulgaria to learn how eager and willing were the Bulgarians to convert to Islam because "The rapid and thorough conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans convinced many Christians that the religion of the conquerors must be superior to Christianity, a conviction leading to conversion to Islam" and how happy they lived in the Ottoman Empire.Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could have waited until I completed the article. In any case I encorage everyone to read it as well.  It will shed some light to the "super human" side of Bulgarian history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I bet. Even unfinished, the light is so bright and shining that there are no dark nooks left. Let other Europeans be jealous, and clench their teeth in anger that they have missed those good days. If they had known how good life under Ottomans was, they would have met Ottoman troops in Vienna with bread and salt, not with bullets.Lantonov (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand how an article in a blog type of an Internet site can serve any purpose. As I see, Nostradamus1 is a Turkish nationalist, trying to promote his POV, which is unacceptable in any serious publication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.26.215 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should leave the above as a good example of Turkish nationalist propaganda. Kostja (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Kind of History: A must read 

message: The Bulgar language was also spoken in southern Italy from the 7th until the 9th century. 
In the 660s, Grimoald, Lombard king of Italy, received military aid from Altsikurs, leader of Bulgar horde. The horde was later sent to the duchy of Benevento (c. 665), and received lands in the actual region of Molise. According to Paul the Deacon (in the late 8th century), their descendants still used their original language but also spoke Latin. G. Calabria (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Website about the Bulgars in southern Italy, in Italian and in Bulgarian language (cyrillic alphabet)  G. Calabria (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically this may be correct that a few thousand expats spoke their native tongue for some time, but it's not really significant in the scope of the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgar language in southern Italy 

message: Please, provide a reliabe linguistic sources about this unbelievable and frivolous claim. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vastly presence of Pamirian loanwords in modern Bulgarian

message: Nice joke, when there is a living language such as Chuvash which is certain to be Oghur and Turkic. --Mttll (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It has been suggested that Oghur languages be merged into this article or section" 

message: The Bulgars were also using the Chinese calendar / Chinese zodiac (like the other Turkic peoples!)
:: "somor"(in Bulgar language) = Rat, "şegor" = Ox, "vereni" = Dragon, "dilom" = Snake, "dvan" = Horse, "tekou" = Goat, "toh" = Rooster, "yethi" = Dog, "doh's" = Pig
:: All of them were Turkic names. (but we don't know the names of Tiger, Rabbit and Monkey in Turkic-Bulgar language.)
:: source: "Tuna Bulgarları ve Dilleri" (by Talat Tekin) = "The (Turkic) Language of the Danubian Bulgar State" 
::: "somor" < sungur, şegor < sıgur < sıgır = sığır = Ox, "vereni" < evren = Dragon, "dilom" < cilom < cılam < cılan < yılan = Snake, "dvan" < cuan < yun = yund/yunt = Horse, "tekou" < tekü < tekegü = teke, "toh" < tawuk < taguk/takagu = tavuk = Rooster, "yethi" < it < ıt = Dog, "doh's" < dokus < dogus < donguz/tonguz = domuz = Pig; so they were all Turkic names! Böri (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  i am wondering, how come the bulgar language is clasified as turkic when the bulgars appeared at least 10 centuries before turks, seljuks, oguz turks or gokturks, on the surface of the earth. the turkish languages can be called bulgar, or bulgaro-mongolian, or bulgaro-persian, not the otherwise.212.13.86.194 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok than. as bozidar dimitrov says, the first mention of bulgars is in the 2nd ct. a.d. in bactria. oghuz and gokturks appear in the 7th-8th ct. and the seljuks appear in the 11th ct. you have articles in wikipedia about that. im not wandering, i am asking. how can something be called by something that didn't exist in the etymology of the world?212.13.86.194 (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  a Turkic language 

message: Please, do not remove peer reviewed sources. A small circle of 4-5 modern nationalistic historians in Bulgaria has accepted this theory. Nobody in Europe, USA or Rusiia supports such views. This is a fringe view. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Detrez is a historian, not a psychologist, so his credentials for discerning the motivation of other historians are dubious. And you do realize that you actually need a source to claim that a historical viewpoint is fringe? Kostja (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Being a historian doesn't mean he has the ability to guess the motivations of other historians. It's one thing to content that most historians back the Turkic theory, it's another to claim to know the motivations of his opponents on personal opinion. Kostja (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian hypothesis 

message: i know that it is widely accepted and pushed through, but you are making a mess equaling slavonic language with old bulgarian. slavonic language was existing long before bulgars came to europe and took it as theirs. the alphabet was made under the khan rule but it doesn't make it bulgarian or "old bulgarian">212.13.86.194 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Bulgarian 

message: Sort out the disputes without personal attacks please. Maybe an WP:RfC would be appropriate? Doug Weller talk 10:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Raymond Detrez has been quoted as stating in the book  "Developing cultural identity in the Balkans: convergence vs divergence" of which he is a co-author that the supporters of the Iranian origins of the Bulgars are motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment. Looking at the source, the quote is from a note under the line, rather than from the main text, showing it to be more of a commentary than part of the main subject of the book. More importantly, Detrez does not name any such authors and does not provide any evidence, explanation or citation to support his views. All of this shows clearly that this views is nothing more an than unsupported personal opinion of little scientific importance. Therefore, in its current usage, the citation is a significant violation of both the usage of reliable sources and neutrality, as it misuses the authority of a noted scholar to dismiss any author who would disagree with the mainstream view without actually providing any evidence for this dismissal. Kostja (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: you don't provide any single valid reason that it's a "violation" and because of you think that it's a  is not a valid reason to remove an author's quote. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The valid reason is that this is an unsupported opinion, not a scientific assertion. A scientific assertion is based on evidence and scientific method of investigation. As I explained, the author has not named any supporter of the alternate theory who is motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment and certainly has not providence any evidence on which to base this opinion. As it reads his statement is a blanket condemnation of any author who supports the Iranian theory and as such has nothing to do with scientific discourse and amounts to little more than a personal attack against dissenting views. And therefore, Detrez's qualifications are irrelevant here (apart from the fact that nearly all of his publications are on modern history), since in no way can it be shown that these qualifications played any role in forming this opinion. Kostja (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: To add to my comment, it needs again to be mentioned that at least one of the works supporting the Iranian theory was published after Detrez's book and therefore Detrez could not have evaluated it in any way determine whether it's author was motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment or not. As such, the inclusion of Detrez's comment is even more misleading, since it falsely suggests that it applies to all authors supporting the alternate theory. Kostja (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Detrez's opinion cannot be  deleted without any serious sources refuting it. Jingiby (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raymond Detrez opinion about the motivations of supporters of alternate views 

message: With the last edit by @MiltenR, an information that it can be an Iranic language has been added to the definition. We have Bulgar inscriptions, it is certain that they were Turkic and spoke an Oghur Turkic language.  BurakD53 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The matter has been addressed in topic 3. Talk:Bulgar_language#Petar_Dobrev. Peter Dobrev is extremely unrelible source, it is a pseudo-science. Svilenov 13:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranic language 

message: Yet another strangely written article about the ancestors of the Bɤ̞lgari. I think I'm not just overreacting by pointing, that the Bulgar language, denoted in this article, is actually the Volga Bulgar language of 14th century!? One of the branches of the proper Magna Bulgaria state, that settled in the north, was a neighbour to Turkic tribes, took Islamic faith, was the rich, multi-ethnical heart of trade, that underwent century of Mongol invasions and was subdued by the Golden Horde - this is your pristine source of Bulgar language? 
By the way, in your article there is that passage from Al-Istakhri, that states:
"The language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks [...] and the language of the Bulgars is like the language of the Khazars."
Therefore, the language of the Bulgars is different than the language of the Turks! Even your own text slightly contradicts the point it's supposed to be making.
Correct me, if I'm wrong. Really. Utar Sigmal (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Really. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on personal analyses of primary sources. Jingiby (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an answer. By "Really" I meant some information. Maybe it's the wrong address - to seek information in Wikipedia. I don't know. Apparently, neither do you.. Utar Sigmal (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

text: And nothing has changed? That is pretty telling. If discussion, new research (facts) and logic cannot move the article even an inch, some heavy geopolitical weight is attached to it. Utar Sigmal (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Volga Bulgar language", not "Bulgar language"