|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 19, 2009 10:12:58 GMT -5
"You are lucky that there are still Serbs in Strpce, Vranje and NW Macedonia; otherwise you'd have no right to the slogan 'Kosovo je Srbija'. These people you guys make fun of the way they speak are the ones that live in agony daily, yet they still manage to stay in Kosovo.
Albanians have 2 major dialects and 3 different religions yet they are very united and do not divide amongest themselves. While we Serbs divide and make fun of one another, trying to show off whose a a 'true and better' Serb.
That's why we shouldn't blame any of our neighbors but rather ourselves first for never be united properly."
I agree with you 100% ljubotan, whats the purpose of CCCC when no one 'really' understands its meaning. Serbs are gods gift to others but not to ourselves, take Tesla for instance, his mind was a gift for the western world.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 19, 2009 11:50:02 GMT -5
I do not undersand the negativity and the hatred against a person that has shown a historic knowledge and impartiality on a such a controversial matter. No one denies that the Torlaks today in Serbia are as Serbian as any other Serb. But there are lots of documents that show that the majority of those people at some time before beginning of 19 century identified as Bulgarians. Peoples nationalities shift trough times and the Torlakians are one recorded example of this. There is nothing shameful or bad or velikobulgarian in addmiting a historic fact. This does not takes something from the Serbian selfidentification of those people today in Serbia. I do accept them as pure Serbs. I just accept the fact that at some time back their ansestors identified as Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by soko on Aug 19, 2009 12:14:37 GMT -5
It is disturbing to know that people on this forum would actually want to join stormfront, a neo-nazi internet site Anyways, why on earth does it matter, all peoples all over the world are "mixed" out in some way, there are linguistic groups, and there are/there were regional differences in appearance. I don't see why people are so into this, it is utterly irrelevant. What also puzzles me is that on this forum, supposed Christians and supposed Muslims care so much about genetic traits, I was under the impression that your religions found "race" to be irrelevant, in theory at least. Even if followers of both religions have used the Blacks as slaves....LoL
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 19, 2009 13:13:14 GMT -5
That's retarded, because there are plenty of documents and such that record the exact opposite of what you are saying. What about the observation of the slava in Ohrid and Macedonia in 1018? I can find a million other documents that would disprove your whole idea. The fact of the matter is, saying we were all once Bulgarians is ridiculous because that's simply not true and I don't know why it should be so important to you if you really consider them as Serbs now and not as Bulgarians, like I suspect.
And I for one, know as a fact that my ancestors never identified themselves as Bulgarians because my family history is decently well preserved (thanks largely to my father and grandfather) and we have been nothing but Serbs as far back as we know. I mean, I had ancestors that actually fought Bulgarians in the Balkan Wars and in Macedonia as well.
Also, Arsenije, respond to my post already.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 19, 2009 17:43:13 GMT -5
What also puzzles me is that on this forum, supposed Christians and supposed Muslims care so much about genetic traits, I was under the impression that your religions found "race" to be irrelevant, in theory at least. Even if followers of both religions have used the Blacks as slaves....LoL I very much agree with this as I am a Christian. The way I see it although there are differences there is also too much overlap to seperate people this way in present times anyway. And this is why I found Srbobans question to me a while ago if accepting a black person as a Serb would be possible. I thought it was a stupid racist question as of cource I would & they are. Perhaps because Srbobran is anti-religion your point stands even more. Also you will see mostly Albanians have this attitude as well since they are the most anti religion.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Aug 19, 2009 17:45:49 GMT -5
And what about the fact that Ohrid has always been one of the centers of Bulgarian culture? What about the fact that your capital has been nothing but a border Bulgarian city for centuries? What about the fact that Belgrade has been an area of wars between Bulgarians and Magyars and even in your wildest dreams you could never imagine it would one day belong to Serbia? And what about the fact that we gave you the Cyrillic alphabet, voluntarely or not?
Do you need some more 'what abouts'? I am ready to serve you.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 19, 2009 19:11:56 GMT -5
^ but who invented the cyrillic, Ruse?. Yes, Ohrid the centre of Bulgarian culture while the slava, a serbian custom, was always there lmao.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 19, 2009 19:26:45 GMT -5
"I do not undersand the negativity and the hatred against a person that has shown a historic knowledge and impartiality on a such a controversial matter. No one denies that the Torlaks today in Serbia are as Serbian as any other Serb. But there are lots of documents that show that the majority of those people at some time before beginning of 19 century identified as Bulgarians. Peoples nationalities shift trough times and the Torlakians are one recorded example of this. There is nothing shameful or bad or velikobulgarian in addmiting a historic fact. This does not takes something from the Serbian selfidentification of those people today in Serbia. I do accept them as pure Serbs. I just accept the fact that at some time back their ansestors identified as Bulgarian."
Ioan, what did the Turkish backed Bulgarian Exarchate sort to achieve in Vardar and to a lesser extent in other Torlakian areas?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 19, 2009 19:28:40 GMT -5
I want you to read this: BULGARIZING THE SERBS. * Sign in to Recommend * E-MAIL Jul 3, 1918, Wednesday Page 12, 872 words Eastern and Southeastern Serbia the Morava Valley, Nish, Skoplje--are at present in the hands of Bulgaria. There was a time, and not, so long ago, when, according to some students of the complications of races in the Balkans, Eastern Serbs and Western Bulgars ... [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ] query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9502E7D9173EE433A25750C0A9619C946996D6CF
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Aug 19, 2009 20:04:50 GMT -5
When are you going to stop speaking on my behalf, and start answering my post? Defend your "theory".
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Aug 20, 2009 3:16:00 GMT -5
Either Climent of Ohrid or Naum of Preslav, during the reign of Boris I and it was named after Cyril.
What Cyril and Methodius invented was the Glagolythic alphabet but it was used for a very short period of time. With the exception of Croatia where it lasted till the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 20, 2009 4:27:52 GMT -5
^ Cyril and Methodius are the two great men. I've read from some sources stating it was their students at Preslav Literary School in the First Bulgarian Empire that divised cyrillic then cyril only expanded it......my god
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 20, 2009 10:46:04 GMT -5
What Ruse is saying is the truth, my uninformed friend Novi. Unfortunately for you, it was the Bulgarian Kliment or the Bulgarian Naum who invented the CYRILIC not the GLAGOLIC (invented by Cyril) alphabeth: Paul Cubberly posits that while Cyril may have codified and expanded Glagolitic, it was his students at the Preslav Literary School in the First Bulgarian Empire that developed Cyrillic from Greek in the 890s as a more suitable script for church books.[6] Later the alphabet spread among other Slavic peoples - Russians, Serbs, as well as among non-Slavic Vlachs and Moldavians. The Cyrillic alphabet came to dominate over Glagolitic in the 12th century. The literature produced in the Old Bulgarian language soon began spreading north and became the lingua franca of Eastern Europe where it came to also be known as Old Church Slavonic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_alphabet
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 20, 2009 20:27:58 GMT -5
^ As l understand from Crnorisez Hrabar in 'o pismeneh' says he (cyrill) formed according to the Greek letters and others according to the Slav idiom.
Being still pagans, the Slavs did not have their own letters, but read and communicated by means of tallies and sketches. After their baptism they were forced to use Roman and Greek letters in the transcription of their Slavic words but these were not suitable ... At last, God, in his love for mankind, sent them St. Constantine the Philosopher, called Cyril, a learned and upright man, who composed for them thirty-eight letters, some (24 of them) similar to the Greek, but some (14 of them) different, suitable to express Slavic sounds.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 20, 2009 20:34:48 GMT -5
^ Anyway it seems interesting, l'll have to do some more reading because maybe it was kliment. As l understand its been attributed to Cyril.
|
|
|
Post by ljubotan on Aug 20, 2009 20:39:02 GMT -5
are there any texts from 7th to 14th centuries so we can see how the language of both Bulgaria, Vardar and Serbia sounded back then?? I'm curious to know if they were much more similar, since southern areas used more 'cases' back then.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 20, 2009 22:04:33 GMT -5
Novi, please try to DISTINGUISH between Cyrilic and Glagolic alphabeth. Now you are citing the BULGARIAN Cernorisez Hrabar (some say that he is Simeon the Great himself), but it doesnt proove anything.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Aug 21, 2009 1:19:37 GMT -5
^ give me time ioan, l will find out about this topic of cyrillic.
|
|
|
Post by Caslav Klonimirovic on Aug 31, 2009 2:07:47 GMT -5
All things aside I’ve decided that the best way to answer the question if Serbs are an ethnicity that migrated to the Balkans or not is to ask where haplogroup I2a2 came from. I believe this is a predominantly Serbian gene particularly historically as I’ve pointed out <A HREF="http://illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=srbijaserbia&action=display&thread=26305">HERE</A> and think this can really give us a conclusive answer because it’s likely to be one or the other. Now, it seems that this haplogroup has been assumed to be autochthonous to the Balkans simply by virtue of the fact that this is where it occurs the most. I haven’t seen any other reason presented. On the other hand the Serbs are theoretically also said to have migrated to the Balkans in large numbers & if this was the case you would expect them perhaps to have a dominant haplogroup of some sort & if that was the case why would you assume now that it is autochthonous? So to answer this question I think surely you could find archaeological samples of Balkan peoples & just test the DNA. It has apparently been done with other extinct peoples like the Kurgan Sarmatians. Someone really needs to do this to settle some issues in the Balkans. In any case if that can't be done here are some reasons why you might think haplogroup I2a2 arrived with the slavs. 1. This is the main point - It occurs less in Albanians then all south slavs but also less in Albanians than in other slavs. If this was the actual native Illyrian haplogroup as it has often been labelled we would expect its occurrence to be reversed ie highest in Albanians and less in all the south slavs and especially less than other northern slavs but the case is the exact opposite. Haplogroup I Selected Groups (Double Mention = different studies) Hercegovinans - 63.8% Romanians - 48.1% Bosnians - 42.9% Bosnian Serbs - 40.7% Slovenians - 38.2% Croat (mainland) 38.1% Moldavians - 35.2% Slav Macedonians - 34.2% Slovenians - 30.7% Serbians - 29.2% Macedonians (Skopje) - 28.8% Belorussians - 25.0% Ukrainians - 24.5% Greeks - 23.9% Albanians - 23.6% Albanians - 21.8% Greeks - 19.5% The following describes the distribution of the subclade; I2a2-M423 (M423) Typical of the Slavic speaking populations of the Balkans, especially the populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia; also found with high frequency in Moldavia and Romania and high haplotype diversity values, but lower overall frequency, among the West Slavic populations of Slovakia and the Czech RepublicThe lower frequency amongst Albanians has also been noted <a href="http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1589185.htm">HERE</a>. Within Europe, several populations are distinguished by having a significantly "lower" frequency of Haplogroup I than the surrounding populations: these depressions in the frequency of Haplogroup I distinguish the populations of Italy and Switzerland from Germany and Sardinia, Iberia from southern France and Normandy, Greece, Albania and the Slavic peoples, and the Baltic Latvians from the Finnic Estonians. In all these areas, Haplogroup I populations are small relative to the dominant European haplogroups (R1b in Western Europe, R1a1 in Eastern Europe, and N in Northeastern Europe).2. If it was a migratory slavic gene then we would expect a gap in it’s physical distribution. That is, you would expect to see a gap between it’s occurrence amongst the south slavs and then occur high again somewhere where these slavs could have came from. The one map we have that shows its distribution does actually show this with another area of focus in Moldavia. The way it is this would have to mean that the Serbs are somehow related to Moldovans? Well first of all I would point out that Moldavia has a large slavic minority (over 20% Ukrainians & Russians) which might explain its apparent high occurance there. Moldavia also has strong slavic links through history and the Kievan Rus slavic state. Also I really would suspect that if regional haplogroup testing was done in Ukraine you would expect to see its distribution a lot higher in the east towards & in the Carpathian region. It’s specific distribution amongst other slavs was noted in the previous point so I think that this map could be changed a little so that it goes further into Ukraine & Slovakia. This is perhaps already alluded to in this map as you can see M423 (I2a2) is noted in northern Moldavia & M223 further south. Going on percentages there could be 24.5% of 46 mil = 11 million Ukrainians carrying this haplogroup. Certainly enough to have in the past represented a significant migratory percentage. 3. The direction in which haplogroup I subclades progress is in a southerly direction towards the Balkans not the other way. 4. There is at least one possible toponym linking Serbs to the Carpathians. In late Roman documents, the Eastern Carpathian Mountains were referred to as Montes Sarmatici. The Western Carpathians were called Carpates. The name Carpates is first recorded in Ptolemy's second century book Geographia. Around 310 AD the Carpathians are mentioned as Montes Serrorum by the Flavius Galerius Valerius Licinianus Licinius. Ceraunian Mountains 155 Chapter IV Dacia after the Romans Dacia before the ... This is very week imo but it has been discussed a fair bit & I think there may be a few other toponymy that could be linked.
|
|
|
Post by PrijesDardanian on Aug 31, 2009 20:27:45 GMT -5
Arsenije, i said in my early posts about haplogroup I2a2 or I2b1a (dont say never haplogroup I).
Homeland of I2a2 what that formed is Central Europe and later they invaded from haplogroup R1a (Slavs, Sarmatians ect) and some of them assimilated as slavs, also Latins.
Then in VII century they moved in Balcan together with R1a haplogrops, you can notice high I2a2 is generally among population which has hight R1a (like Balcan Slavs, Polish, Chezc, Slovaks, Ukrainans ect)
You must remember that I2a2 has estimated 3000 years old (acroding TMCRA) so it is very young sub-clade.
|
|