Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 2:13:54 GMT -5
ROFLMAO!!!! The retard is talking to himself it seems. You think you can kill your credibility like that and then get away with a moronic answer as the one above? ANSWER ME YOU LIAR AND HYPOCRITE. Let me refresh your hypocritical limited memory a little bit: Let us remember that it was the printing facilities in Kragujevac which produced the first books to form the neo-bulgar national identity and enlighten them. They had almost forgotten what they were. They just knew they speak smth close to Serbian. Hahahha, yeah so the Serbs revived the Bulgarian identity.. then, they spent a whole lot of time working on de-Bulgarizing Macedonia. You are so damn retarded, you don’t even see the clear contradictions of your own statements. What are you laughing about turko? WERE THE FIRST MODERN (read: typeset in a printing facility) BULGARIAN BOOKS PRINTED IN KRAGUJEVAC? YES OR NO? ?? Whether that shows either mine or the Serbs' or the Bulgars' retardation or who was (de)bulgarizing whom, that's not of my funking business. Answer the damned question turko. And here the raped Aziz tries to escape in his usual asian mongolian p**y way: ROFLMAO!!!! The retard is talking to himself it seems. Aziz, you are history. An almost forgotten insignificant dead and gone history.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 2:15:45 GMT -5
The above is just a sample from the plethora of occasions where he demonstrated a complete absence of any virtues. I don't think he has any chance of reviving his dead credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 30, 2010 2:45:27 GMT -5
The guy has lost respect from many here, who is really going to believe him.
Pyrro, we can throw into the mix, if we wanted to, the serbian named Jovan Ristich ;D
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 3:44:50 GMT -5
You mean Jovan Rajic bro? This great Serb (and first slav to write about the history of Bulgars)?? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovan_Raji%C4%87Hmm Serbs in 18th,19th century helped with all their means their slav (smaller) brothers in Bulgaria. The bulgos however proved less than grateful.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 30, 2010 3:47:57 GMT -5
^ yes ;D
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 3:51:31 GMT -5
His book about the history of south slav people was written in 1768.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 6:32:09 GMT -5
I dont see how Asen is exposed. Did he say that some books werent printed in Belgrade? No. So he technically cant be exposed. Bulgarian books were printed not only in Serbia, but in Bucharest too. Actually, the first printed Bulgarian book (Abagar) was printed in................................................................................................. Rome. Bye bye to your funny thread!!!!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 6:34:00 GMT -5
Hmm Serbs in 18th,19th century helped with all their means their slav (smaller) brothers in Bulgaria. The bulgos however proved less than grateful. when you add the Macedonians and the Torlakians, you see that the Bulgarians were more than the serbs (excluding Bosnian muslims) so its debatable who was smaller... at least at the time.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 7:00:52 GMT -5
^^^^ i just hope some time soon you will get your mongol expansionist butt kicked hard... there is no other way to learn.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 7:27:51 GMT -5
I dont believe in violence.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Nov 30, 2010 8:02:47 GMT -5
Of course you do, expansionism is violent by nature.
Look what you managed to do by peaceful means : no Makedonian wants to hear your story. (and i am sure they have their reasons).
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 9:09:42 GMT -5
I never encouraged expansionism. I always encouraged the studing of historic sources and facts (which you deny to do).
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Nov 30, 2010 18:02:43 GMT -5
Hmm Serbs in 18th,19th century helped with all their means their slav (smaller) brothers in Bulgaria. The bulgos however proved less than grateful. when you add the Macedonians and the Torlakians, you see that the Bulgarians were more than the serbs (excluding Bosnian muslims) so its debatable who was smaller... at least at the time. But Torlakians were never considered Bulgarian, while Boslims were considered Serb until a century ago. Nevertheless, Serbs have traditionally been a larger entity in the Balkans then the Bulgars. (As long as we do not include the Volga Bulgars and the Balkars).
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 21:13:35 GMT -5
Torlakians have traditionally felt Bulgarian, as it is obvious from what happens in Bosilegrad. Volga Bulgars and the Balkars have never been considered part of the Bulgarian ethnos by any (sane) Bulgarian. There might be some distant relateness between Bulgarians and the Volga Bulgars through the Bulgars, but you have to remember that the first Bulgar state was in UKRAINE. FROM UKRAINE some Bulgars moved to Volga Bulgaria where they mixed with the already existing Turkic and Ugro-finnic preexisting people and most probably also lost their language as the Danube Bulgars. But Volga Bulgaria later were conquered by the Tatars and the Mongols - most of the mixed people of Bulgars, Ugrofinns and Turkics were enslaved or also mixed with tatars and mongols. Almost the same thing happened in Bulgaria: Bulgars mixed with the slavs and the thracians and were slavicized. So there is the Bulgar ingredient in both people, but the dominant ingredient (if we look at the language is not Bulgar) for Bulgaria its the slavs, for Volga Bulgaria its the Turkics. Balkars are not yet proven to have anything to do with the Bulgars. mOst scholars think they are a mix of Iranian and Turkic people. The origins of the Balkar people have not yet been definitively established: various hypotheses have associated them with the Huns, the Khazars, the Bulgars, the Alans, the Zikhs, the Brukhs, the Kipchaks (Qïpchaqs, Polovtsians), the Vengrians, the Chekhs, the Mongol Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, and Turkicized Japhetic groups.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Nov 30, 2010 21:21:15 GMT -5
Even today, if you go and visit the pages in wikipedia for Serbs and Bulgarians you will see that the Bulgarians are more.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Nov 30, 2010 22:35:41 GMT -5
^ Give it up Ioan, your freaken just a d*******!. Go on, show the readers here of this one stupid quote by a serb in Pirot saying his serbian dialect is a simple version of BuLgarski.
Again, take an example from Serbian = Torlakian/Shopski = BuLgarski
On = On = Toj Ona = Ona = Tya Oni = Oni = Toa Presno = Presno = PrYAsno Mleko = Mleko = MlYAko
So it seems this simple BuLgarski is actually serbian ;D
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Nov 30, 2010 23:07:18 GMT -5
Torlakians have traditionally felt Bulgarian, as it is obvious from what happens in Bosilegrad. Volga Bulgars and the Balkars have never been considered part of the Bulgarian ethnos by any (sane) Bulgarian. There might be some distant relateness between Bulgarians and the Volga Bulgars through the Bulgars, but you have to remember that the first Bulgar state was in UKRAINE. FROM UKRAINE some Bulgars moved to Volga Bulgaria where they mixed with the already existing Turkic and Ugro-finnic preexisting people and most probably also lost their language as the Danube Bulgars. But Volga Bulgaria later were conquered by the Tatars and the Mongols - most of the mixed people of Bulgars, Ugrofinns and Turkics were enslaved or also mixed with tatars and mongols. Almost the same thing happened in Bulgaria: Bulgars mixed with the slavs and the thracians and were slavicized. So there is the Bulgar ingredient in both people, but the dominant ingredient (if we look at the language is not Bulgar) for Bulgaria its the slavs, for Volga Bulgaria its the Turkics. Balkars are not yet proven to have anything to do with the Bulgars. mOst scholars think they are a mix of Iranian and Turkic people. The origins of the Balkar people have not yet been definitively established: various hypotheses have associated them with the Huns, the Khazars, the Bulgars, the Alans, the Zikhs, the Brukhs, the Kipchaks (Qïpchaqs, Polovtsians), the Vengrians, the Chekhs, the Mongol Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, and Turkicized Japhetic groups. Go ask Stevan Sremac how the Torlaks felt, most of his life was spent in Eastern Serbia and much of his writing was on Torlaks. Maybe you can watch the film "Ivkova Slava", it's about Torlaks celebrating Srpska Slava and it's in the Torlak dialect. Hell, Vojvoda Veljko Petrovic was a Torlak, and he was a huge Serb patriot who fought for independent Serbia. Do not know what you mean here. Bulgarians, if you did actual research you'd see that the Torlak dialect and Serbian have many more similarities than Torlak and Bulgarian. Torlak is simply Serbian with no grammatical cases and uses the definite article. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by andromeda on Nov 30, 2010 23:30:06 GMT -5
Torlakians have traditionally felt Bulgarian, as it is obvious from what happens in Bosilegrad. Volga Bulgars and the Balkars have never been considered part of the Bulgarian ethnos by any (sane) Bulgarian. There might be some distant relateness between Bulgarians and the Volga Bulgars through the Bulgars, but you have to remember that the first Bulgar state was in UKRAINE. FROM UKRAINE some Bulgars moved to Volga Bulgaria where they mixed with the already existing Turkic and Ugro-finnic preexisting people and most probably also lost their language as the Danube Bulgars. But Volga Bulgaria later were conquered by the Tatars and the Mongols - most of the mixed people of Bulgars, Ugrofinns and Turkics were enslaved or also mixed with tatars and mongols. Almost the same thing happened in Bulgaria: Bulgars mixed with the slavs and the thracians and were slavicized. So there is the Bulgar ingredient in both people, but the dominant ingredient (if we look at the language is not Bulgar) for Bulgaria its the slavs, for Volga Bulgaria its the Turkics. Balkars are not yet proven to have anything to do with the Bulgars. mOst scholars think they are a mix of Iranian and Turkic people. The origins of the Balkar people have not yet been definitively established: various hypotheses have associated them with the Huns, the Khazars, the Bulgars, the Alans, the Zikhs, the Brukhs, the Kipchaks (Qïpchaqs, Polovtsians), the Vengrians, the Chekhs, the Mongol Tatars, the Crimean Tatars, and Turkicized Japhetic groups. Go ask Stevan Sremac how the Torlaks felt, most of his life was spent in Eastern Serbia and much of his writing was on Torlaks. Maybe you can watch the film "Ivkova Slava", it's about Torlaks celebrating Srpska Slava and it's in the Torlak dialect. Hell, Vojvoda Veljko Petrovic was a Torlak, and he was a huge Serb patriot who fought for independent Serbia. Do not know what you mean here. Bulgarians, if you did actual research you'd see that the Torlak dialect and Serbian have many more similarities than Torlak and Bulgarian. Torlak is simply Serbian with no grammatical cases and uses the definite article. That's all. It is not uncommon for people to be absorbed into the nationality and politics of their country especially if they may belong to a minority ethnic group. As far as Torlak goes , one can say it has nothing to do with Bulgarian and they may be right but isn't it a strange coincidence that where Torlak is spoken just happens to be not too far from Bulgaria and that is follows virtually the same grammatical rules of Bulgarian? If it quacks like a duck ....
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 1, 2010 0:01:01 GMT -5
But this is not the case here. Torlak was the majority dialect in Eastern Serbia, thus so were the Torlaks. Yet they were the heart of the 19th century Serbian uprising.
First, one could argue that the Torlak dialect was indeed formulated through the many years of Bulgarian influence and occupation in the region (First and Second Bulgarian Empires) and also simply the close contact with Bulgarian speakers caused undeniable similarities. However to now go and say that it is no longer a dialect of Serbian is absurd. It's lexicon, phonology and nearly every other linguistic feature coincides with Serbian.
I believe Bulgarians here are so desperate in proving that Torlak isn't Serbian, so they can assuringly convince themselves that FYROMacedonians are Bulgarians.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 1, 2010 2:00:35 GMT -5
Torlak is simply Serbian with no grammatical cases and uses the definite article. That's all. Torlaks have been traditionally using five declensions and no definite articles. Also, as long as makedonia is concerned, Novi had posted a lot of poems from Makedonia from 18th century (1700+) which had the full 5-declension system. Also considering that the Dusan codex was written in Torlakian, i guess it was just a construct in south Serbia and Makedonia, heavily influenced by the religious circles of the Church. Lets us not forget that Dusan's empire was supposed to include non Slavs-Serbs and that maybe he wanted to find a common Serbian "lingua-franca" that all citizens could understand. Remember that Greek language had also 5 declensions. For us greeks the following declensions are hard to utilize : Instrumental, Locative. So Torlak had the same set as the Greek tang : Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative and Vocative. And lets not forget the traditional Slav-Serbian definite articles (Taj, Ta, To) show great resemblance with the greek articles (O,I, To->Tou, Tis, Tou->Ton Tin To). I guess, later on the religious circles in macedonia made further changes to the language, made further resemblance with the greek language (the enhanced use of the articles) and thus the macedonian grammar was formed. Later the Bulgarians just copied that grammar, since their religious centers had always been towards the west. Thats why today bulgos have an ukranian-sounding language with macedonian grammar.
|
|