Hungarian and Sumerian?

[Saim]

What's wrong with being named after a Turkic people?

Seriously though, let's get real here:

-historians and linguists have no reason to posit any Turkic connection to Bulgaria
-Bulgarian nationalists have every reason to insist on their Slavicness and purity of blood

Who do you think is just making shit up here?

[language learner]

What's wrong with being named after a Turkic people?

Claiming a theory to be correct without solid evidences is wrong.

Who do you think is just making shit up here?

Whoever makes claims without backing them up with any solid evidence.

[chung]

What's wrong with being named after a Turkic people?

Claiming a theory to be correct without solid evidences is wrong.

Who do you think is just making shit up here?

Whoever makes claims without backing them up with any solid evidence.

So are we to infer then that the Bulgars always spoke some dialect of South Slavonic? No offense имен, but you seem to be adhering to the fundamental misunderstanding (as Johanna Laakso puts it) arising from Romantic Nationalism's interconnecting of language, culture and ethnicity when she posted:

This view is also motivated by a fundamental misunderstanding deeply rooted in the National Romanticism. This ideology that was central for the national awakening of many European peoples, Hungarians and Finns included, was based on the idea of a unitary nationhood, expressing itself in the history, culture, and language of the people in question. In this thought, language, culture, and race melted together into an indivisible whole, the role of language as the most important characteristic of a nation was vastly exaggerated, and generations after generations were taught never to question the -- largely language-based -- definitions of a nation.

So here the undercurrent (i.e. not stated but discernible on additional thought or research) in your curt responses is that because the modern Bulgarians speak a Slavonic language (true), and identify as Europeans (true), then it's inadmissable for some hitherto unspecified reason that they have (or could have) some connection to a group of people who did not convincingly have such traits (i.e. linguistically non-IE pagans called "Bulgars"). OR another undercurrent could be that because the Bulgars were likely ethnically heterogenous like other Eurasian peoples in the Dark Ages, then it's somehow impossible that they could speak a Turkic language because they comprised people who did not speak (either during the tribe's existence, or earlier) a Turkic language but an Indo-Iranic one such as Scythian.

Both of these undercurrents smell like non-sequiturs.

If you think that I'm making stuff up, then feel free to seek out the sources listed in the footnotes and sources in "Bulgar Language". It's interesting to note also the rather neat delineation in scholarly efforts where Bulgarian academics tend to ascribe the Bulgars' language to Iranic (specifically Pamiric) in contrast to their peers outside Bulgaria who tend to ascribe it to Turkic (more specifically Oghuric to which Chuvash belongs)

[language learner]

If you think that I'm making stuff up, then feel free to seek out the sources listed in the footnotes and sources in "Bulgar Language". It's interesting to note also the rather neat delineation in scholarly efforts where Bulgarian academics tend to ascribe the Bulgars' language to Iranic (specifically Pamiric) in contrast to their peers outside Bulgaria who tend to ascribe it to Turkic (more specifically Oghuric to which Chuvash belongs)

It seems you think I'm writing this because of nationalism and not because that theory is lacking any good evidence? Then let's see the wiki article you're linking to:

The language of the Danube Bulgars (or Danube Bulgar) is recorded in a small number of inscriptions, which are found in Pliska, the first capital of Danube Bulgaria and in the rock churches near the village of Murfatlar, present-day Romania. Some of these inscriptions are written with Greek characters, others with runes similar to the Orkhon script. Most of them appear to have a private character (oaths, dedications, inscriptions on grave stones) and some were court inventories. Although attempts at decipherment have been made, none of them has gained wide acceptance. These inscriptions in Danube-Bulgar are found along with other official ones written in Greek. Greek was used as the official state language of Danube Bulgaria until the 9th century, when it was replaced by Old Bulgarian (Slavonic).

The language of the Danube Bulgars is also known from a small number of loanwords in the Old Bulgarian language, as well as terms occurring in Bulgar Greek-language inscriptions, contemporary Byzantine texts, and later Slavonic Old Bulgarian texts. Most of these words designate titles and other concepts concerning the affairs of state, including the official 12-year cyclic calendar (as used e.g. in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans). The language became extinct in Danubian Bulgaria in the 9th century as the Bulgar nobility became gradually Slavicized after the Slavic language was declared as official in 893.

So all we're left with is "a small number of loanwords" - is this enough evidence to claim that the Bulgarians used to speak a turkic language? On the other hand, many of the old Bulgarian names, which are claimed to be of turkic origin, can be explained relatively well with old Bulgarian and some even with the contemporary language.

[chung]

If you think that I'm making stuff up, then feel free to seek out the sources listed in the footnotes and sources in "Bulgar Language". It's interesting to note also the rather neat delineation in scholarly efforts where Bulgarian academics tend to ascribe the Bulgars' language to Iranic (specifically Pamiric) in contrast to their peers outside Bulgaria who tend to ascribe it to Turkic (more specifically Oghuric to which Chuvash belongs)

It seems you think I'm writing this because of nationalism and not because that theory is lacking any good evidence? Then let's see the wiki article you're linking to:

The language of the Danube Bulgars (or Danube Bulgar) is recorded in a small number of inscriptions, which are found in Pliska, the first capital of Danube Bulgaria and in the rock churches near the village of Murfatlar, present-day Romania. Some of these inscriptions are written with Greek characters, others with runes similar to the Orkhon script. Most of them appear to have a private character (oaths, dedications, inscriptions on grave stones) and some were court inventories. Although attempts at decipherment have been made, none of them has gained wide acceptance. These inscriptions in Danube-Bulgar are found along with other official ones written in Greek. Greek was used as the official state language of Danube Bulgaria until the 9th century, when it was replaced by Old Bulgarian (Slavonic).

The language of the Danube Bulgars is also known from a small number of loanwords in the Old Bulgarian language, as well as terms occurring in Bulgar Greek-language inscriptions, contemporary Byzantine texts, and later Slavonic Old Bulgarian texts. Most of these words designate titles and other concepts concerning the affairs of state, including the official 12-year cyclic calendar (as used e.g. in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian Khans). The language became extinct in Danubian Bulgaria in the 9th century as the Bulgar nobility became gradually Slavicized after the Slavic language was declared as official in 893.

So all we're left with is "a small number of loanwords" - is this enough evidence to claim that the Bulgarians used to speak a turkic language? On the other hand, many of the old Bulgarian names, which are claimed to be of turkic origin, can be explained relatively well with old Bulgarian and some even with the contemporary language.

Note that you've focused on the parts of the article that downplay or would cast doubt on the Turkic link. When looking at the article from top to bottom, here's what's missing in your post:

Bulgar (also spelled Bolğar, Bulghar) is an extinct language which was spoken by the Bulgars. It was a language belonging to Oghur subgroup of Turkic languages.[1][2][3][not in citation given][4]

It is named for the Bulgars, a tribal association which established the Bulgar khanate, known as Old Great Bulgaria in the mid-7th century, giving rise to the Danubian Bulgaria by the 680s.[5][6][7] While the language was extinct in Danubian Bulgaria (in favour of the Slavic Bulgarian language), it persisted in Volga Bulgaria, eventually giving rise to the modern Chuvash language.[8][9][10]

[...]

Affiliation

Most historians place the Bulgar language among the "Lir" branch of Turkic languages referred to as Oghur-Turkic, Lir-Turkic, or, indeed, "Bulgar Turkic" as opposed to the "Shaz"-type of Common Turkic. The "Lir" branch is characterized by sound correspondences such as Oghuric r versus Common Turkic (or Shaz-Turkic) z and Oghuric l versus Common Turkic (Shaz-Turkic) š.[5][7][11] As was stated by Al-Istakhri "the language of Bulgars resembles the language of Khazars".[12] The only surviving language from this linguistic group is the Chuvash.

On the other hand, some Bulgarian historians, especially modern ones, link the Bulgar language to the Iranian language group instead (more specifically, the Pamir languages are frequently mentioned), noting the presence of Iranic words in the modern Bulgarian language.[13][14][15][16] According to Prof. Raymond Detrez, who is a specialist in Bulgarian history and language,[17] such views rose in 1980s, and were based on anti-Turkish sentiments. He maintained that most of Iranian loanwords in modern Bulgarian are a result of the Ottoman language influence.[18] However, other Bulgarian historians, especially older ones, only point out certain signs of Iranian influence in the Turkic base,[19] or indeed support the Turkic theory.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][...]

In addition, there's a reason that I mentioned the footnotes and sources in the article. It is from there the text derives, and it also explains why the sections above on affiliation and the introduction state what they do: i.e. Bulgar was (or at least more likely was) a Turkic language instead of a non-Turkic one, in addition to the details about Danubian Bulgar not being deciphered to wide acceptance (which in turn leads to the questions about acceptablility to whom and reasons for the lack of wide acceptance, but those are worthy of their own thread in a discussion intended for Hungarian and Sumerian). When you take the article as a whole, you leave with the situation where a majority of scholars conclude one thing, while a minority conclude another with some reasons given plus sources behind those positions. That's no accident.

External Links

Britannica Online - The article describes the position of Bulgar and Chuvash in the classification of the Turkic languages.
Sergei Starostin's Tower of Babel - A Russian Turkologist's take on Danube Bulgar inscriptions and the Bulgar calendar, in Russian. The article contains a tentative decipherment of inscriptions based on the Turkic hypothesis.PDF (350 KiB)
Rashev, Rasho. 1992. On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians. p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo - A Bulgarian archeologist's proposal. The author concedes that the ruling elite of the Bulgars was Turkic-speaking as evidenced by the inscriptions etc., but stipulates that the bulk of the population was Iranian.

By the way, why in the hell are we nitpicking over Bulgar? The bulk of my post was addressed to parasztember and his comments on how Hungarian's Uralic connection is somehow egregiously faulty.

[language learner]

Note that you've focused on the parts of the article that downplay or would cast doubt on the Turkic link. When looking at the article from top to bottom, here's what's missing in your post:

The first part of the article, while sounding convincing about the trutfulness of the theory, doesn't bring any evidences by itself.This is why I did not mention it.

While the language was extinct in Danubian Bulgaria (in favour of the Slavic Bulgarian language), it persisted in Volga Bulgaria, eventually giving rise to the modern Chuvash language.[8][9][10]

Or the Volga Bulgarians could have began speaking it as well.

When you take the article as a whole, you leave with the situation where a majority of scholars conclude one thing, while a minority conclude another with some reasons given plus sources behind those positions. That's no accident.

Just because the majority of scholars accept it, it doesn't mean it's true.

By the way, why in the hell are we nitpicking over Bulgar?

Because I can't really stand this ridicolous theory anymore.

External Links

Britannica Online - The article describes the position of Bulgar and Chuvash in the classification of the Turkic languages.
Sergei Starostin's Tower of Babel - A Russian Turkologist's take on Danube Bulgar inscriptions and the Bulgar calendar, in Russian. The article contains a tentative decipherment of inscriptions based on the Turkic hypothesis.PDF (350 KiB)
Rashev, Rasho. 1992. On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians. p. 23-33 in: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev, Veliko Tarnovo - A Bulgarian archeologist's proposal. The author concedes that the ruling elite of the Bulgars was Turkic-speaking as evidenced by the inscriptions etc., but stipulates that the bulk of the population was Iranian.

The first article only takes what is said to be true; the second one does make some attempts - now correct me if I'm wrong - as far as I know no turkic word begins with more than one consonant - is this so? Since I can definately see such one. And also this decipherement, as with others, hasn't gained wide acceptance. I couldn't be bothered to read much from the third article, which is essentially a wall of text, but as far as I understand based on archeological evidences it claims that the majority of population was of Iranian origin. However, the origin of Scythians and Sarmatians is whole another topic.

[Mongol]

No similarities between the various branches of Altaic ? Hardly. There are many cognates between Turkic and Mongolian . For example Turkish Chichek (flower), Mongolian Tsetsek.
Turkish Kad1n ,Mongolian Xatun, Trukish Alt1n (gold) Mongolian Altun. And so on.
Some claim that these are merely borrowings, but who knows ?

[Karavinka]

What, this sh*t got dumped over here?

[księżycowy]

Apparently . . .

[JackFrost]

Remember, this thread never dies. It has quite a reputation, so...

[Bubulus]

UniLang has a(n unwritten, traditional) policy that being delusional by itself isn't a reason to get your thread locked, let alone get you banned.