Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 4:59:27 GMT -5
I don't understand where is the complexity in understanding this: Bulgars had a state and some ethnicities (including Slavs) were incorporated into this state. Is it so tough? Pyrro, you know storks? They have small brains but every year they fly south and then return without making any mistakes during their journey. Such small sized brain creatures and yet so smarter than you. Ruse i already admitted my incompetency in learning 1000 foreign words per day, please dont humiliate me any longer, show some mercy ;D Alright, you ultra-IDIOT cannot comprehend that the time sequence of events in your country, dictates that you cannot have: S (slavs) +T (Bulgars) + V( thracians, vlahs, ....) = B (bulgarians) yet claim that S (slavs) in FYROM stems from B (bulgarians). Its an recursive function, a funking endless loop doomed to never yield any result,( if you ever managed to take a programming course for kids with down syndrome under 10. have you?) PS If you fail to comprehend the above i will downgrade you to Atan-level ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 5:34:01 GMT -5
"I don't understand where is the complexity in understanding this: Bulgars had a state and some ethnicities (including Slavs) were incorporated into this state. Is it so tough? Pyrro, you know storks? They have small brains but every year they fly south and then return without making any mistakes during their journey. Such small sized brain creatures and yet so smarter than you." Before you insult people, read the DAI as Constantine Porphyogenitus was no pseudo historian believer like yourself. Seriously, your the one lacking, not Pyrro!. So tell me, are these common Slavic tribes who inhabited the Balkan peninsula *BEFORE* the arrival of second wave of inter-related slavic tribes (Slovenes, Croats and Serbs), and even much later the Turkic Bulgars are decendant from only the severci from Dobruja?, if you think that is the case then you are deluded!. You want to know something they were all related to each other, hence the term common or undifferentiated. Branichevich (Central Serbia) Timochani (Central Serbia) Moravljani (Central/Southern Serbia) Brsjaci (Vardar) Dragovich (Vardar & Nth Greece) Velesich or Velegostich (Nth Greece) Vojnich (Nth Greece) Tikvesh (Vardar) Milinci (Greece) Jezerani (Greece) Smoljani Rinhini Sagudati (Greece) Severci (Bulgaria) There were also undifferentiated slavic tribes in Albania.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 5:38:04 GMT -5
"Its an recursive function, a funking endless loop doomed to never yield any result,( if you ever managed to take a programming course for kids with down syndrome under 10. have you?)"
These Bulgarians are useless, they are programmed zombies who feed off 19th century propaganda.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 5:47:10 GMT -5
Novi, let me tell you smth in addition to your post:
Which tribe was in Epirus? Who ever they were, - THEY SPOKE EKAVICA - THEY SAID SUVO (= dry) and NOT SUHO - Some of their toponyms they left, are found EXACTLY the same in todays Yugoslavia (Doljanj, Zagora, Leskovac, etc...)
and i have slight suspicions that they were the today vardarians ....
Their resemblance to the later Serbs is more than astonishing, in contradiction to the bulgars... So ofcourse there is a connection from proto-slavs to Serbs, Bulgarians, but it is bidirectional for Serbs and mono-directional for bulgarians.
PS NOVI you deluded SERB PROPAGANDIST, do you exclude the possibility that the mighty Tikvesh and Severci was one and the same, and that some priests among them united them in order to become Bulgarian in the future? ;D ;D i dont see anything illogical in that ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 22, 2009 6:07:49 GMT -5
Here we go. Now I must assume that the city of Stara Zagora in Bulgaria is Serbian too. Added to Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna that makes quite an impressive list of Serbian cities. Pyrro, I see you insist on making linguitic assumptions. You have learned a new word yesterday? p.s both of you can start attending a common course in Serbian. Novi can not speak it as well But it is always a pleasure to read your conclusions on languages your lot is unfamiliar with.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 6:22:53 GMT -5
Here we go. Now I must assume that the city of Stara Zagora in Bulgaria is Serbian too. Added to Sofia, Plovdiv and Varna that makes quite an impressive list of Serbian cities. Pyrro, I see you insist on making linguitic assumptions. You have learned a new word yesterday? p.s both of you can start attending a common course in Serbian. Novi can not speak it as well But it is always a pleasure to read your conclusions on languages your lot is unfamiliar with. What an ultra weak comeback! Oh and Sofia etymologically is greek. But that is a side issue here. Listen you, you learn first to accurately assess what your opponent says. I didnt say that *some* of them could not be found in Bulgaria, its natural, since Bulgarian today is a slavic country. What i said is that SOME OF THOSE TOPONYMS ARE FOUND EXACTLY and with a high density (many instances) in ex-YU. And i ADD THAT SOME OF THEM (DOLJANJ) ARE *ONLY* found in ex-yu. GOT IT? First Ioan denies his EXACT own words, his OWN PHRASE, when presented by me, then Ruse goes on with his dull and boring cute jokes (i dont read them at all to be frank), as you understand, the main issue is that you guys have lost any trace of reliability, and you two will have to demonstrate SPECTACULAR improvement in order to be able to continue any kind of conversations. IDIOTS.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 22, 2009 6:46:28 GMT -5
It was Serdika, then Sredets, now it is Sofia. And thanks a lot for sharing this info about the name. Now, if you tell me it has something to do with wisdom, I will be stunned.
Which part of ex-Yu?
How do you know they are dull and boring if you don't read them at all?!
As a start, Gyrro, learn a little bit of Serbian. When you do this, you will have the right to come and share your prolific thoughts on the language issues, something that has become an obsession of yours. Pusi kurac is not a sign of knowledge, I know much more curses than you, believe me. Until then - good bye.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 22, 2009 7:03:45 GMT -5
First Pyrro I never denied my words. Its just your brain, I have to explain to you my words obviously much longer in order you to get what I mean. So I said the slavs in fyrom and Bulgaria are from the Bulgarian slavic group. That group is called by the linguists of TODAY and it is called this way because their speech became what we today call Bulgarian language. But the above mentioned doesnt mean they were called Bulgars, Bulgarian slavs etc at the time before the arrival of the Bulgars. I never said that. They had different tribe names. Later they mixed with Thracians and Bulgars to form the Bulgarians. So the linguists called them Bulgarian slavs, because they were probably the biggest etnicity that form todays Bulgarians. I HAVE NEVER CONTRADICTED MYSELF, IT IS YOU THAT CAN NOT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE THINGS.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 7:04:46 GMT -5
^ READ DAI RUSE AND YOU WILL FIND SALVATION!!.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 7:30:08 GMT -5
First Pyrro I never denied my words. Its just your brain, I have to explain to you my words obviously much longer in order you to get what I mean. So I said the slavs in fyrom and Bulgaria are from the Bulgarian slavic group. That group is called by the linguists of TODAY and it is called this way because their speech became what we today call Bulgarian language. But the above mentioned doesnt mean they were called Bulgars, Bulgarian slavs etc at the time before the arrival of the Bulgars. I never said that. They had different tribe names. Later they mixed with Thracians and Bulgars to form the Bulgarians. So the linguists called them Bulgarian slavs, because they were probably the biggest etnicity that form todays Bulgarians. I HAVE NEVER CONTRADICTED MYSELF, IT IS YOU THAT CAN NOT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE THINGS. There is great anachronism here Ioan. You cannot study history of 500AD-> by todays terms. The "Bulgarian slavic group" is a skew, a modern fabrication due to the lack of further knowledge (or the deliberate HIDDING of knowledge) and due to political convenience. There was nothing "bulgarian" about those slavic tribes in order to be arbitrarily named as such some 1500 years after. Novi gave the list of the pre-serb slavic tribes. THERE LIES THE TRUTH. You cannot pick selectively 2 of them and name them bulgarian even with todays terms, and live happily thereafter. Also there is nothing connecting those proto-slavs with todays bulgarians more than the analogous connections with Serbocroatians. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 7:31:20 GMT -5
"So I said the slavs in fyrom and Bulgaria are from the Bulgarian slavic group."
No they are not!.
Listen for the millonth time, have you ever read the DAI?, PORPHYROGENITUS (do you know who this man is by the way?) said that the serbs, without meeting any opposition came to Salonica and settled near Salonica in a district which was called 'ta Serblia.' While that occured your Turkic kin the Bulgars were over in the eurasian steppes. Then a man by the name of J.Mikotcy said that in 640 the serbs spread FIRST over northern Greece (Macedonia) then into illyria. Another man by the name of Schafarik said that ONE PART OF THE SERBS, UNWILLING TO RETURN WITH THE MAJORITY TO NORTH REMAINED IN MACEDONIA......this occured 41 years prior to Asparuch having founded his capital in modern north-eastern Bulgaria!.
Why do you think their culture and traditions is serbian, we know that the Bulgars of the 19th century who tried to eradicate all things serbian, ioan.
Like l said to Ruse when you read the DAI l will answer you seriously, but for now your known to me as DIZENG!.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jun 22, 2009 7:40:46 GMT -5
First Pyrro I never denied my words. Its just your brain, I have to explain to you my words obviously much longer in order you to get what I mean. So I said the slavs in fyrom and Bulgaria are from the Bulgarian slavic group. That group is called by the linguists of TODAY and it is called this way because their speech became what we today call Bulgarian language. But the above mentioned doesnt mean they were called Bulgars, Bulgarian slavs etc at the time before the arrival of the Bulgars. I never said that. They had different tribe names. Later they mixed with Thracians and Bulgars to form the Bulgarians. So the linguists called them Bulgarian slavs, because they were probably the biggest etnicity that form todays Bulgarians. I HAVE NEVER CONTRADICTED MYSELF, IT IS YOU THAT CAN NOT UNDERSTAND SIMPLE THINGS. There is great anachronism here Ioan. You cannot study history of 500AD-> by todays terms. The "Bulgarian slavic group" is a skew, a modern fabrication due to the lack of further knowledge (or the deliberate HIDDING of knowledge) and due to political convenience. There was nothing "bulgarian" about those slavic tribes in order to be arbitrarily named as such some 1500 years after. Novi gave the list of the pre-serb slavic tribes. THERE LIES THE TRUTH. You cannot pick selectively 2 of them and name them bulgarian even with todays terms, and live happily thereafter. Also there is nothing connecting those proto-slavs with todays bulgarians more than the analogous connections with Serbocroatians. Sorry. I dont care, its well established term: Linguistic, archaeological and ethnographic research indicates that the process of the differentiation of the two major groups of South Slavs set in as early as the fifth to seventh century: the Serbo - Croat group (Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Montenegrins) and the group of the Bulgarian Slavs, so called because they became a part of the Bulgarian state, which was formed later. www.eunet.bg/books/history/slavs.html
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jun 22, 2009 7:44:57 GMT -5
Novi, usually communication, discussion, even agruments go like this: you state something, the other guy states something else. You give a link, he gives you a link. Then you discuss again. So far you haven't read a single link i gave you and expect me to answer to your questions only without answering a single one. I gave you a link about Bulgar presence on the balkans starting from the 5th century, you obviously haven't paid attention and continue to ask one and the same things. Sorry, I've had enough. Leaving you in your world of geologists and hoping you will learn Serbian some day. You know, 'srpska jezik' is not something that a proper Serb would ever say. Beware of cangaroos. Another kick in your head might be fatal. I don't want this to happen because Gyrro will have no one to agree with from then on.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 7:46:17 GMT -5
LMAO Novi, here is the site of the town "Ta Servia": www.servianet.gr/however some anti-slav kastorianoi and basilmakedons in this site claim that the toponym is ancient greek, and then became latin....... so its latin and it means serve/guard, LMAO LMAO!!! Novi man, PLEASE GIVE ME ONCE MORE the source of the book which writes about those slav tribes. I think i asked you before, but in the confusion of several turko-chechens trolls this info was lost. Put it here for everyone to see.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 7:58:13 GMT -5
I dont care, its well established term: Linguistic, archaeological and ethnographic research indicates that the process of the differentiation of the two major groups of South Slavs set in as early as the fifth to seventh century: the Serbo - Croat group (Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Montenegrins) and the group of the Bulgarian Slavs, so called because they became a part of the Bulgarian state, which was formed later. www.eunet.bg/books/history/slavs.htmlthats BS LINGUISTICALLY I PROVED THAT AT LEAST THE TRIBE IN EPIRUS SPOKE SMTH CLOSER TO TODAYS SERBIAN THAN TODAYS BULGARIAN. So if linguist connections is your tool, there you have it. Also i am not aware OF ANY FORMAL RESEARCH ON THE MATTER. FIND ME ONE.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 7:59:16 GMT -5
You know why l don't answer, its because they are twisted from the begining. Its not srpska jezik but srpski jezik. Go learn more from B'lgarshtinata B.S and show us what other new fabrications the B'lgari have for us like Kubers Khanate centered on Vardar and the freaken fake stone inscription.
Have you ever heard of the term TURKISH SERBIA?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 8:07:30 GMT -5
The list of these slavic tribes comes from a book from Marin Drinov in Zalselenie Balkanskago poluostrova Slovenami (The Settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula), Moscow, 1873
&
Constantin Jos. Jirechek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Prague, 1876
Its sad that there arn't any web links which will tell us this, but crap like wikipedia have accepted the fabrication about Khanates in vardar and other sites as well.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 8:08:33 GMT -5
Also, even their ultra-twisted wikipedia article admits: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarians"In the late 7th century, some Bulgar tribes, led by Asparukh and others, led by Kouber, permanently settled in the Balkans, and formed the ruling classe of First Bulgarian Empire in 680-681." LMAO!
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jun 22, 2009 8:09:49 GMT -5
The list of these slavic tribes comes from a book from Marin Drinov in Zalselenie Balkanskago poluostrova Slovenami (The Settlement of the Slavs in the Balkan Peninsula), Moscow, 1873 & Constantin Jos. Jirechek, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Prague, 1876 Its sad that there arn't any web links which will tell us this, but crap like wikipedia have accepted the fabrication about Khanates in vardar and other sites as well. THAT IS REAL INFO, THAT IS SIGNAL PREVAILING OVER NOISE AS we say in elec. engineering (hey turkos!! you know Tesla right?)
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 22, 2009 8:11:49 GMT -5
|
|