|
|
Post by Edlund on Jun 12, 2008 16:05:20 GMT -5
"Realtively early" doesn't mean 6-7 century. I also provided you with a similar view from a Russian/Soviet source, from S. Bernstein, the long-time head of the Slavic l-s department of the Moscow State University, that there was no common proto-South-Slavic language and that there were very old dialectal differences. You haven't. What do you mean with "genetic grouping"? Where have I said that the South-Slavic languages are/were "genetic grouping"? |
|
|
|
Post by kroraina on Jun 13, 2008 6:17:44 GMT -5
"Realtively early" doesn't mean 6-7 century. Why?, Richards could well have meant 6-7 cc. I don't know for sure because I have no access to his work or to Western studies he quotes. But neither have you apparently. but of course I did:  It means exactly what you have been alluding to up to now (without providing any scholarly back-up, mind you. Your and mine personal views count for absolutely nothing) - that Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian were really close l-s, that there was nothing significant to differentiate between them in the past, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Jun 13, 2008 17:28:57 GMT -5
but of course I did: You didn't post this before. And what can this prove? It has no relevance to our discussion. Bernstein says that there was no "south Slavic protolanguage". Where have I said that there was? By the way, you missed to mention an important fact from the scientific biography of Bernstein - he was serving the Communistic International and in the 1940's he was working on proving that Macedonian is a separate language. That's really interesting. You claim something - that Bulgarian and Serbian/Croatian had many different features in 6-7 century. You name these supposed features. I show you enough sources that you are wrong about all of them, except about the nasal vowels, about which I couldn't find information, but you can't find eather. So you could be wrong about them too. The simple logic is that if you claim something, you have to prove it, not me. |
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Aug 15, 2008 5:45:43 GMT -5
I took a look at the famous "Bashchanska plocha" - bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bašćanska_ploča. It's dated around 1100 and is written with Croatian glagolitic script. It contains the nasal sound e(n), in it's variation ie(n) -  It's the 7th letter on the 4th row. The word is SVOJĘ |
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 18, 2008 4:28:34 GMT -5
There is a table in the section under vocabulary that demonstrates Edlunds arguement that there isn't a clear boundary between bulgarian and serbian, hence why shopi, torlakian and vardarian are considered as transitional (dialectual) lanuages? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopi |
|
SuperAlbanian
Amicus
King of Gays
20%
CANARIS IS THE REAL KING OF GAYS! OH WAIT! HES THE QUEEN OF GAYS!!!!
Posts: 1,283
|
Post by SuperAlbanian on Aug 24, 2008 16:25:55 GMT -5
I think there is a possibility the Goranis are slavised Albanians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Aug 25, 2008 11:38:27 GMT -5
There is a table in the section under vocabulary that demonstrates Edlunds arguement that there isn't a clear boundary between bulgarian and serbian, hence why shopi, torlakian and vardarian are considered as transitional (dialectual) lanuages? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShopiThe "table in the section under vocabulary" doesn't show this. It's just a few words. The speech of the shopi and of the people in Vardar are Bulgarian dialects. Most important for a language is it's grammar, and the grammar of those dialects is Bulgarian. There are some words in the dialect of the shopi, which are common with Serbian and not with official Bulgarian, but there are much more words which are common with official Bulgarian and not with Serbian. The proper "transitional" dialects between Serbian and Bulgarian I think are the Torlakian. Their grammar is closer to Bulgarian and they have lots of words, which are found in Bulgarian but not in Serbian. |
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Aug 25, 2008 16:15:33 GMT -5
I think there is a possibility the Goranis are slavised Albanians. Do you know of other examples of slavicized Albanians? |
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 8, 2008 22:19:42 GMT -5
The wikipedia link somewhat has examples which would make its grammar (shopi) also an intermediate dialect/lanuage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Sept 9, 2008 4:14:23 GMT -5
The wikipedia link somewhat has examples which would make its grammar (shopi) also an intermediate dialect/lanuage. Which are these examples? |
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Sept 10, 2008 7:33:19 GMT -5
^ I don't want to completely enter into a debate here at the moment, the link does show a connection to both lanuages. "The Transitional Bulgarian dialects are a group of Bulgarian dialects which are located west of the yat boundary and are part of the Western Bulgarian dialects. On Bulgarian territory, the Transitional dialects occupy a narrow strip of land along the Bulgarian border with Serbia, including the regions of Tran, Breznik, Godech and Belogradchik. They also cross the border to include the dialects or subdialects of the Bulgarian minority in the Western Outlands (the regions of Tsaribrod and Bosilegrad), Bulgarian territories transferred to Serbia by the Treaty of Neuilly as punishment for Bulgarian participation in World War I on the side of the Central Powers. The Transitional dialects are akin and closely related to the Torlak dialects spoken in southwestern Serbia and are part of the gradual transition from Bulgarian to Serbian. The Bulgarian Transitional dialects and the Serbian Torlak dialects are characterised by mixed, predominantly Serbian phonology and predominantly Bulgarian morphology." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_Bulgarian_dialects |
|
|
|
Post by Edlund on Sept 10, 2008 12:37:05 GMT -5
What you quoted here says, that the Torlak dialects are transitional. This is what I said earlier. You said, that the dialect of the shopi is transitional, but your quotation doesn't prove it at all.
Because you can't.
You don't know what are you talking about, this is why you quote sources, which you don't understand.
Where?
|
|
