|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 29, 2009 20:19:17 GMT -5
"I disagree on this one because I have Serb friends. Of course, they don't claim the three biggest Bulgarian cities as Serbian in the way Novi does. Not to mention numerous towns and villages."
Yeah sure, you and and your fellow side kicks don't hide your true colors here claiming more than half of Serbia. If you do have Serbian friends, i'm not sure whether you truely respect them with some of your comments here!.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 29, 2009 20:25:46 GMT -5
"Novi, be honest. Do you look more Bulgarian or Serbian?"
Arsenije, l absolutely don't look like an ancient Bulgar thats for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 29, 2009 20:29:40 GMT -5
"Russia should take better care of the remote slav nations in south-east." I hope they have learnt a lesson from WW1 not to award a nation territory from other nations.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jul 29, 2009 20:35:27 GMT -5
"Novi is a former Bulgarian?" Bulgarians claim that Torlakians are Serbianised Bulgars when in fact the shopi's of western Bulgaria are really Bulgarianised Serbs who celebrate Vidovden even today!. Why would you speak Torlak if you are from Novi Pazar? That language does sound pretty FYROMian to me, though I believe that FYROMian is more closely related to Serbian than Bulgarian. That's what every FYROMian has told me. I know a Serb from Pirot who says he has Bulgarian ancestry. Surname Pesic. Says it was Pesa.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 29, 2009 23:36:59 GMT -5
^ I have some family living in Novi Pazar, they came from Kosovo not long ago. I do have many still in kosovo. Many of my family came from the Torlakian regions + Montenegro (mums side).
Arsenije, don't fall for Bulgar lies, the Pirot people are Serbs they carry Serbian surnames. Bulgars tried to Bulgarianise the people when they occupied the region, they forced the people to change their surnames. Ask this person if he has a slava, then you will find your answer!. The Bulgars here will spin other lies like Pirot and Nish are Bulgar topoymns, but they forget that undifferentiated slavs named, founded and slavicised some of the ancient towns before they even arrived in 681AD.
Bulgar = Turkic
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jul 30, 2009 1:49:17 GMT -5
Whatever you look like, Novi, you are just fvcking stunning.
|
|
Atan
Amicus
Posts: 307
|
Post by Atan on Jul 30, 2009 1:50:52 GMT -5
Arsenije. What concept exactly we do not understand? May you point that out? Because I assure you we KNOW we are now a homogenous nation - WHICH WAS FORMED from three ethnic groups many centuries ago. You guys are really below average IQ. For Novi I am sure but I didn't know you are such Arsenije.
I hope we can discuss without some as.shole to delete my posts NOT BECAUSE OFFENDING but because he can't answer them. I am talking about you Novachevic you rat.
Let's discuss about Macos what you say Arsenije? And by the way - how exactly you suddenly become more Slavs than we are? I am asking since last time I checked you serbs don't look like Poles or Russians but as Bulgarians or Romanians. Or maybe the Poles are fake Slavs?
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jul 30, 2009 2:41:06 GMT -5
^ The dialect is gramatically more like Bulgarian but it is actually more intelligible with Serbian. Bulgarian & FYROMian are the only slavic languages in the world that do not use padezi. The grammar is totally different to every single other slavic language. The difference in grammar to my mind would be highly supportive of them being slavicised Vlachs as you are hypothesizing.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jul 30, 2009 3:19:00 GMT -5
The above do not change the fact that their language is Bulgarian. It is the grammer that is important, that has not changed. As we all know, probably the Thracians had casefree language and that is our Thracian heritage (because Greek, Romanian, Albanian are case free languages too). Bulgarian language is probably the child of the mixing of Slavic (mainly) and Bulgar phonetics and Thracian grammer. However that doesnt change the fact that the core is Bulgarian, the grammer is Bulgarian. Thats why fyromian is Bulgarian dialect.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 30, 2009 5:08:38 GMT -5
"The dialect is gramatically more like Bulgarian but it is actually more intelligible with Serbian. Bulgarian & FYROMian are the only slavic languages in the world that do not use padezi. The grammar is totally different to every single other slavic language. The difference in grammar to my mind would be highly supportive of them being slavicised Vlachs as you are hypothesizing."
Its simple serbian with bulgarian grammar. Arsenije, the morphology and etymology is clearly serbian, but what is clearly from an outward expression common to both Bulgarian and Vardarian, is the article, which is placed after the noun. This is a relic of an old Thraco-Illyrian language zone which Romanian, Bulgarian, old serbian languages (Torlakian + Shopski), Albanian and Vardarian are situated on.
Just a quick example
english/serbian/vardarian/bulgarian
Milk/Mleko/Mleko/Mlyako
or
Place/Mesto/Mesto/Myasto
or
Bulgarian/Bugarin/Bugarin/Bulgarin
Not only the language we are talking about, but the culture and customs are clearly serbian not bulgarian. A quick example which all slavs don't have but both Vardarians and Serbs have is the slava!.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jul 30, 2009 9:31:47 GMT -5
Arsenije, i understand your vlah theory, and its pretty meaningful to go to that direction. However from the many vlahs we have in Greece, i can tell you that the problem was not with the syntax but with the pronounciation and the lack of rich vocabulary, (which was a problem for most rural mainland Greece anyway, in contrast to the peasants of Crete/Cyprus who still demonstrate a remarkable ability in using the Greek language with beauty). As far as i know Fyromaks speak with a rather "singing" accent, and from what i hear, in Predejane motel they speak with very clear slavic sounds, so, their accent sound very slavic. Also the percentage of blond ppl is also rather high in southern serbia in contrast to vlah populated regions in the balkans.
Ioan, Greek have 4 cases. Phonetiaclly most commonly the sounds differ in 2 of them. So phonetically we have 2 cases. However from ancient greek/hellenistic greek and up to 1940+, the official lanuage had 5 cases which were used ALL in official documents. In 100-200 years and with the influx of foreigners and destruction of the Greek educational system i can predict we will lose those 4 cases as well.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 30, 2009 16:08:18 GMT -5
Novi, no, that's not what i was suggesting. I am suggesting that Turks homeland is the Altai mountain region, but that they are not necessarily Mongoloid. They are Eur-Asian people. They look white and Mongol mix. The reason I'm saying this is because Turks have blue/green eyes. They have blond hair in Central Asia before they went westwards. There are no other Asian groups that have these features, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.
Turks arn't Mongols, the early Turks lived in a region including Western Mongolia, Altai-Sayan region (todays Russia, Kazakistan) and the northern parts of Eastern Turkistan. The present day Mongols were not living in that region during that period. The early Turks inhabitted a region of the world in which to the East of them populations are more Mongoloid and to the West more Caucosoid (even though these terms are pretty archaic today). Chinese sources differentiate Turks from themselves and observed that the "looked different". Thus the Turks being inbetween have characteristics from both, if you actually went to Turkic Central Asia historic Turkistan you would realise that Turks there are different looking Turks. There are peoples in Northern Afganistan, Oz'bekistan, Turkmenistan who look similar to Turks in Azerbaijan or Turkey, then there are some Turks in Kazakistan and Kirgizistan who you will find don't look similar.
According to Chinese records, Turks appear in political history of Asia with the Huns. The Huns were a coalition of various central Asian nomads, including Turks. The Hun State which first appeared in the 3rd century B.C. became a significant and powerful state during the reign of its founder, Mete Khan. Having a defined and special strategy, Mete Khan defeated the Mongols and then the Yuechis and after, having conquered the western gates and trade routes of China under his control, gained significant economic power. When Mete Khan died, the Great Hun Empire was at its peak due to its military organization, domestic and foreign policies, religion, army, war strategies and arts.
After the collapse of the Asian Hun State, a new state called the Göktürk Empire was founded at the foot of the Altay Mountains. The Göktürks who were the first to employ the word "Turk" in their official state name, chose Ötüken, the former capital of the empire as a base and established khanates. Later they spread out and became an empire. They professed that a khanate could not be ruled by means of war and bravery alone and that wisdom was very important. Bilge (means wise) Khan and Kül Tegin are noted as the wisest and most heroic figures among Turkish statesmen in history. It was because of this that both these khans and Tonyukuk, another Göktürk Khan, immortalized their accomplishments with inscriptions. These inscriptions are the first written texts of the Turkish language.
Yes, we all know that the origin of the Bulgars are Turk. After coming to present day Bulgaria, they intermmaried with the Slavs who outnumbered them, thus they lost their language.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 30, 2009 20:06:09 GMT -5
^ Thracian, most of central asian Turks are a hybrid race, period!. The way your telling me, because there is no denying of the mongoloid admixture in them, that they weren't mongoloids to begin with but because of the geographical position and close proximity to the mongoloid race it was inevitable that crossing of races was going to occur, hence your turanian theory, right?. Let me tell you, the Sakha of north-eastern (east-asia) are fully mongoloid they don't have any traces of caucasoid admixture. They are what l would call the true representitive of the ancient Turkic race!. They are 1 for 1 with todays mongols of mongolia. What fascinates me is that the mongols huts and turkic huts are similar? "They possess physical features ranging from Caucasoid to Northern Mongoloid." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Jul 30, 2009 20:12:40 GMT -5
Pyrros I don't know anything about the Greek language but as I said there is a massive gramatical shift from every other slavic language to Bulgarian & FYROMian. They sound like they're firing a machine gun when they talk. Every word ends in kata. It sounds funny to us. Now, even if it's rightfully said that FYROMian is a Bulgarian dialect simply due to grammar, don't forget that it's still more intelligible with Serbian as the words are more similar and by no means does it necessarily mean they are ethnically Bulgarian slavs. We can see that in Bosnia, Serbia & Croatia the dialects do not reflect ethnic lines & two different dialects of Serbian or Croatian will be less similar to eachother than standard Serbian & Croatian.
And your observations of southern Serbia are quite interesting. Coming from Bosnia I find Serbia proper in general & the people to just be a lot more slavic in vibe for some reason.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 30, 2009 20:28:18 GMT -5
Andrej N. Sobolev somewhat has your view: Macedonian in the Western Balkan linguistic areaThe paper suggests that, at the dialect level, the Macedonian language should be viewed as part of the Balkan linguistic West, rather than the Balkan linguistic East. It is argued that the Macedonian, Serbian, Albanian and Arumanian languages share a number of common lexical, semantic, word formation and grammatical features that are not characteristic of the Greek-Bulgarian linguistic area. This explains the specific linguistic development on the Macedonian territory, which is characterized by the conservation of numerous Slavic archaisms on the one hand, and the accumulation of West Balkan innovative features, on the other. www.atypon-link.com/AV/doi/abs/10.1524/stuf.2008.0015?journalCode=stuf
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jul 30, 2009 20:34:32 GMT -5
"Yes, we all know that the origin of the Bulgars are Turk. After coming to present day Bulgaria, they intermmaried with the Slavs who outnumbered them, thus they lost their language."
100% agree with you, but it wasn't a smooth union between the Bulgars and Slavs (Severci Slav tribe), it took acouple of centures before they merged!.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jul 31, 2009 12:44:48 GMT -5
I am not denying Mongoloid features, but I am saying Turks and Mongols are not the same people.
Turks and Mongols are different peoples, though they share a kinship, due to proximity, similarities in language, culture, and religion and of course, intermarriage. (Turks as in Turkic peoples)
Why do you assume that the Sakha respresent the Turkish race? Turks are not from Siberia, they are from present day Mongolia.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 2, 2009 7:12:38 GMT -5
^ Fair enough Thracian, l agree that the Turks and Mongols are different ethnic peoples, its like saying German and Spainish (two different ethnic peoples of the caucasoid branch and indo-european family). But the oringinal Turks started off as a mongoloid race, as represented as by the Sakha peoples today. Like l was saying above, the Turkic peoples absorbed caucasoid elements and these caucasoid peoples spoke indo-european aryan languages, not turkic like the sakha. The Turkic peoples never were originally caucasoid to begin with, they commenced as a mongoloid people that looked like present day peoples like the Mongolians, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese etc.....They did not look like european peoples at the beginning of there existance, period!.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 11, 2009 15:53:16 GMT -5
Clearly you don't know shit, shejtani because Bulgarian and Serbian are mutually compatible and very similar. Also, it was the Serbs who absorbed who absorbed a large proportion of Vlachs.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Aug 11, 2009 16:57:36 GMT -5
Katun is definetely an Albanian word, related to the verb "tund" ie. a mobile community with movable possessions, të tundshme. It meant the same in medieval Slavic and Vlach (pastoral settlement as opposed to regular village). To my knowledge, this word isn't in use anymore among South Slavs, though you have many toponyms with it. Last year in Dalmatia we encountered a village named "Katun".
Serbs have indeed absorbed a large group of Vlachs, particularly in Bosnia and Hercegovina as well as Krajina. But other than a few loan words, Vlach speech hasn't left much of a trace in Serbo-Croatian. The grammar with its high inflection is rather typically Slavic.
Bulgarian is different on the other hand. I don't know what you mean by Serbian and Bulgarian being "mutually compatible", I assume you meant mutually intelligible? In which case I cannot say you're right or wrong, since I speak neither. But gramatically, Bulgarian shows a very different pattern than most, or rather all infact, Slav languages, including Serbian. It is an analytic language with no cases, which is untypical of the Slavic languages. It has developed a definite article, postfixed to the noun, much like in Albanian and Vlach ... which suggests a substratum is involved, possibly through a Vlach intermediary. In this regard, although Vlachs were absorbed into the Serbian nation as well, Vlach as a language has had a more profound effect on Bulgarian than on Serbian, since the former is considered part of what has been named the "Balkan sprachbund". Serbian is not, except for the Torlak dialect which some have difficulties with classifying as a Serbian or Bulgarian dialect.
|
|