|
Post by rusebg on Dec 25, 2009 18:37:10 GMT -5
Show us a link please.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 25, 2009 18:48:16 GMT -5
I have no doubt that you don't think about it, you just do it.. like Nike! This sort of stuff is like second nature to you.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 26, 2009 1:12:17 GMT -5
^ You and Ioan denied he had an Armenian mother lmao he is repeating this lie every 2 years. Its getting tiring. The fact he had an Armenian mother doesnt make him less Bulgarian. I know you are dying to proove he wasnt Bulgarian, but Serb (though Serbs have always lived far in the northwest - I mean real Serbs, not wanna be Serbs), but it wont happen. The historians at the time obviously sensed we are getting Novi so in every inscription and source the state is called Bulgaria, the people - Bulgarians and Samuel - Bulgarian zar.
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Dec 26, 2009 8:09:57 GMT -5
Well the Ancient Macedonians called it Skupi and the Albanains today call it Shkupi. "In Albanian it is called Shkup or Shkupi" "...changed from the Turkish Ü sküp" versus Skopi Skopia Skopje Skoplje If Turkish Üsküb is connected to Albanian Shkupi, it's obvious they adopted the form from us who've been here in the Balkans before them than vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 26, 2009 18:11:46 GMT -5
"though Serbs have always lived far in the northwest - I mean real Serbs, not wanna be Serbs"
Real Bulgars always lived far in the northeast - l mean real Bulgars, not wanna be Bulgars ;D
|
|
|
Post by Duke John on Dec 26, 2009 22:29:48 GMT -5
Well the Ancient Macedonians called it Skupi and the Albanains today call it Shkupi. "In Albanian it is called Shkup or Shkupi" "...changed from the Turkish Ü sküp" versus Skopi Skopia Skopje Skoplje hahahaha, how stupid post! bravo admin!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 27, 2009 0:32:45 GMT -5
"though Serbs have always lived far in the northwest - I mean real Serbs, not wanna be Serbs" Real Bulgars always lived far in the northeast - l mean real Bulgars, not wanna be Bulgars ;D i m talking about bulgarians, but either way you are wrong - there were bulgar settlements in fyrom.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 27, 2009 7:44:24 GMT -5
^ Thats absolutely B.S. Bulgars and slavs of Bulgaria only managed to merge in the 10th century, while this Bulgar Khan Kuber mixed immediately in vardar in the 6th century with serbian slavs lmao lmao lmao lmao
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 27, 2009 7:52:46 GMT -5
This was the fight you should have won, Novi: Too bad you got kicked so badly.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 27, 2009 9:28:11 GMT -5
serbian and slavs are oximorons, serbs were iranian tribe from volga, described very well by all ancient authors. nice try though. and yes, kuber was in fyrom, where he mixed with slavs from the bulgarian linguistic group
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 27, 2009 11:49:40 GMT -5
Indeed.. Kuber not only mixed with the Slavs that were present in Macedonia, but he played a major role in assimilating them into the Bulgarian ethos as Kuber's Bulgars merged with Asparuh's Bulgars.
And thos Slavs never considered themselves Serbs. There may have been a small settlement of Serbs in the area, but that was so tiny that the Serbs would have a more credible claim on Turkey. This is exactly what Novi's sources and maps have shown us in the past.
And let's not forget that "Serbs" south of Belgrad, ie. the Torlakians, are really assimilated Bulgarians. After all, after the Ottoman Empire fell, and the Belgrad dialect was chosen as Serbia's official language.. the people to the South and South-East of Belgrad (ie. the assimilated Bulgarians) could barely understand their own supposed 'Serbian' language.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 27, 2009 18:19:38 GMT -5
Ruse, l like the picture
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 27, 2009 18:24:45 GMT -5
"Indeed.. Kuber not only mixed with the Slavs that were present in Macedonia, but he played a major role in assimilating them into the Bulgarian ethos as Kuber's Bulgars merged with Asparuh's Bulgars."
Never happened because everything prior to the 9th century were simply just raids.
Let me ask again Asen, if kuber managed to mix with serbian slavs of vardar in the 6th century and converted them into bulgars with such speed, then why were Asparuch's Bulgars a separate people up until the 10th century?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 27, 2009 18:32:46 GMT -5
"kuber was in fyrom, where he mixed with slavs from the bulgarian linguistic group"
Ioan, bratko, look there was no bulgarian linguistic group then, all the balkan slavs practically spoke one language so you cannot say its Bulgarian linguistic group. OCS was the language of the slavs which had a declension system that modern bulgarian lost later, so your arguement is void.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 28, 2009 1:50:01 GMT -5
on the contrary, it is proven by linguists that there were 2 slavic tribes on the bolkans (serbo-croatian linguistic group and bulgarian (including fyromian) linguistic group. OCS is proven to have been part of the bulgarian linguistic group by you know REAL LINGUISTS who happen to know the language UNLIKE YOU bratko. The fact that you (I mean Torlaks you do not fall in this because u do not speak serbian or Bulgarian oooops I mean Torlakian) speak Bulgarian dialect with recently incorporated serbian lexic, that no real Serbs understands is no reason to twist facts that contradicts all linguists researches, so that u can prove your "Serbness". Now you are Serb, assimilated from Bulgarian, but we accept you as a Serb. OCS is known as Old Bulgarian because it has features to be found only in modern Bulgarian As for the so called "serbian slavs" in fyrom, as I told you serbs are iranians not slavs. the settlement of iranians was very sparce in fyrom and kuber mixed with fyromian slavs who were from the bulgarian linguistic group.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 28, 2009 7:11:04 GMT -5
"on the contrary, it is proven by linguists that there were 2 slavic tribes on the bolkans (serbo-croatian linguistic group and bulgarian (including fyromian) linguistic group."
No, incorrect, it was only one (proto slavic). Modern Slovenian is most closest to proto slavic from the 6th century.
"OCS is proven to have been part of the bulgarian linguistic group by you know REAL LINGUISTS who happen to know the language UNLIKE YOU bratko."
Modern Serbian has a declension system just what the old language of the slavs had in the 10th century, whereas modern Bulgarian doesn't, it lost it as it EVOLVED!.
If Vardarian is a Bulgar language then why didn't it evolve just like Bulgarian to have 2 definite articles, but instead it evolved to have 3 types of definite articles?
"OCS is known as Old Bulgarian because it has features to be found only in modern Bulgarian"
Again, Serbian has a declension system whereas Bulgarian doesn't, and its correctly called old church slavonic.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 28, 2009 7:13:40 GMT -5
Well the Ancient Macedonians called it Skupi and the Albanains today call it Shkupi. "In Albanian it is called Shkup or Shkupi" "...changed from the Turkish Ü sküp" versus Skopi Skopia Skopje Skoplje If Turkish Üsküb is connected to Albanian Shkupi, it's obvious they adopted the form from us who've been here in the Balkans before them than vice versa. nice logic...i would apply the same in Avlona and the way Turks call it...Avlonya...
|
|
donnie
Senior Moderator
Nike Leka i Kelmendit
Posts: 3,389
|
Post by donnie on Dec 28, 2009 8:19:45 GMT -5
Thanks.
? Albanians say Vlora, not Avlona. Turkish "Avlonya" seems to have a Greek/Byzantine intermediary, unlike Üsküb, they probably firstly heard of the town from the Byzantines.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 28, 2009 10:04:29 GMT -5
No, incorrect, it was only one (proto slavic). Yes there was once only 1 slavic language but it was B.C. However different dialects emerged and in 5-6 century 2 slavic dialects were spoken on the Bolkans - Bulgarian and Serbo-croatian. no one knows how this protoslavic sounded let alone be sure that slovenian was the closest to it. yes yes yes you may say that Bulgarian was slowly balcanizing, it aquired features characteristic of the Balkan linguistic union. it has evolved as Bulgarian. This sentance can be said only of a person who doesnt speak Bulgarian. as we know you speak no Serbian too. The fact that there is small difference between them doesnt make them different languages, rather dialect forms of 1 language. I mean if Torlakian is considered Serbian with its totally different (Bulgarian) grammer, what a small difference could mean to you? ??/ Serbian was never called OCS, whereas OCS is known as Old Bulgarian by all linguists.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 28, 2009 13:01:28 GMT -5
Hahahha, Novi speaks of Macedonians being Serbian Slavs initially.. yet, all sources show that before Kuber came the Slavs in that region didn't have a developed ethnic self designation. They were assimilated into the Bulgarian Empire and referred to themselves as Bulgarians up until 1945 or so.. at which point they started referring themselves as Macedonians. A Serb self identificaiton in Macedonia was never present, and the few that actually identified as Serbs were 0.1% of the overal population of Macedonia.
The funny thing is that if Novi actually stops and reads his own sources carefully, he'll see that they are filled with self contradictions and the supposed facts they show are taken and applied out of context.. thus rendering them as 'not credible'.
|
|