|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 6:20:36 GMT -5
Pyrro, what the text above was saying, which Toski and the Bulgars didn't understand was that simliar looking and sounding words were interchaged between them, this in the end caused people to call these slavs incorrectly as Bulgars. "But i'll stop here, i dont wanna put ideas into their empty heads!!" I know brate, they will end up claiming slovenian as their language also
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 12, 2010 6:39:52 GMT -5
Republika Srpska BiH do Zadara! Republika Srpska Krajina do Zagreba! Juzna Srbija do Gevgelije! Istocna Srbija do Varne!
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 12, 2010 6:43:50 GMT -5
Take this, Gyro and wipe the foam from your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 6:56:47 GMT -5
Pyrro, l'm going to show them now from a serbian source, watch the replies l get lmao Before l even start, l once wrote about the significance of the term BULGAR and even then the replies l received was propaganda lmao Readers, check this out: Milojko Veselinovich (in 1888), Jovan Dragashevich (in 1890) and Stojan Protich attempted to fix more or less precisely the meaning of the term "BULGAR" (in Serbian "bugarin" and in Bulgarian "bulgarin"). "Under no circumstances," wrote Veselinovich, "will an inhabitant of Vardar or southern Old Serbia call himself a 'bolgarin' or 'bulgarin,' but only (and then out of necessity) 'bugarin,' which is a sign that a serb is speaking, since lu becomes u in the pronunciation of a Serb alone and of no one else." As distinct from Protich, who, writing on "Vardar and the Vardarians" in Odjek, asserted that the Vardarian Slavs took the name "Bulgar" from the Latin "vulgaris," Veselinovich claimed that it was derived from the Greek "vulgaros." Dragashevich, who, as an ethnographer, was a member of the Serbian delegation to the Berlin Congress, held more or less the same view on the origin of the term "Bulgar" as Veselinovich. His derivation is from the Greek Boulgaroi, which means common people. He goes on to say that the word Bolgaroi, which was applied to the Bulgars proper, "signifies a definite nation," while Boulgaroi indicates only the cultural level of the people. Later, the Greeks confused the two expressions, "particularly as the Byzantines could not regard even those in the east as being civilized, and also both these peoples [in the eastern and western halves of the empire], although differing from one another, were related. Subsequently, the uninitiated took these expressions as meaning the same thing, i.e, as being the name of a nation." "Bolgar and Boulgar," he continues, "are two quite different expressions: the former, in Latin Bulgar and in Slav bolgar and bugar, is the name of a nation that never crossed the Rhodope Mountains and Despotova Gora, which separated it quite naturally and inevitaably from the peoples to the west of these mountains.....Boulgar designates the people, or plebs; it is the equivalent of the Latin Vulgar, and means the 'lower class' of the people in a country." Dragashevich also agrees that fear of the Turks was the reason why the Serbs in Vardar called themselves Bulgars: they followed the whim of their masters, while "many used this alien name instead of their own in their dealings with citizens on whom they were economically dependant." Cvijich: "During the Turkish regime," says Cvijich, "the name 'Bulgar' as applied to the raya spread bbeyond Bulgarian districts [and came to be applied] to serfs and peasants farming land on a tenant basis. The area controlled by this extremely oppressive regime extended to Skopje and beyond.....Applied, as it was, in this sense in the Vardar districts, the name 'Bulgar' began to penetrate as far as Kosovo and Metohija, while one Russian traveler in the seventeenth century applies the name even to Serbian peasant farmers in the area of Sarajevo, in Bosnia. Pyrro, your right brate, these Bulgari are noise
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 7:33:20 GMT -5
From the foregoing, the true meaning of the expression "Bulgar" should be clear, both as applied by the people to itself and as comprehended by foreign travelers. It designated, not an ethnic group, but the common people, the working masses, who spoke slav. The most menial tasks, which neither Greeks nor Turks were willing to undertake, were known as "Bulgarian work." The fact that foreign travelers referred to the Slavic population as Bulgars was due to ignorance and to the wrong information obtained from the Greeks and from other sources. Of all such travelers, with very few exceptions, Tihomir Georgevitch is merely stating the truth when he says that they knew neither the history, nor the language, nor the customs, nor the mutual relationships of the peoples they were describing. "Only a small number of books on Macedonia," he says, "has been written with a real knowledge of the subject, truthfully, independancy and without bias."
How foreigners gathered their information on the inhabitants of the areas through which they passed may be seen from two examples. The French consul Pougueville, who journeyed through Greece and parts of Turkey and Macedonia at the beginning of the nieteenth century, was accompanied by a young Greek who simply called all Slavs Bulgars. Franz Bradashka says of Hahn that he was insufficiently acquainted with the ethnic relationships of the areas through which he traveled, and did not even known Serbian. "I am not at all surprised," says Bradashka, "that he was unable to obtain detailed information about everything: in the first place, his journey was too hasty; in the second place, his servants and escorts were Albanians; and in the third place, he knew no Slav language. In particular, this ignorance of Slav explains his inability to distinguish between Bulgars and Serbs and the fact that, relying on his Albanian guides, he copied down inaccurately severval Slav names which had been written quite correctly on the attached sketch of the terrain by Major Zah."
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 7:39:53 GMT -5
^ Doesn't it remind us all of the time l wrote about, MACEDONIA AS A GEOGRAPHICAL CONCEPT and the confusion which the idiotic serbs from montenegro and central serbia were even referring to their territories macedonian
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 12, 2010 9:02:00 GMT -5
"Of all such travelers, with very few exceptions, Tihomir Georgevitch is merely stating the truth when he says that they knew neither the history, nor the language, nor the customs, nor the mutual relationships of the peoples they were describing. "Only a small number of books on Macedonia," he says, "has been written with a real knowledge of the subject, truthfully, independancy and without bias.""
So true, Novi bro. Western sources about balkans are 100% unreliable, when driven by politics. A recent look on CNN/BBC and the yugoslav wars is a living proof.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 12, 2010 9:18:41 GMT -5
In 17th and early 20th century English works, the country was often referred to as Servia. The usage was often resented by Serbs, who felt that the use of “Servia” linked the Serbs to the Latin servus, a slave or servant. The British press stopped using the term by the 1930s, allegedly due to the efforts of Vojislav M. Petrović (Âî¼èñëàâ Ì. Ïåòðîâèž, publisher of the Serbian grammar in London. balkans360.com/serbia/
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Jan 12, 2010 9:24:30 GMT -5
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 12, 2010 10:00:46 GMT -5
Ioan you are correct. During WWI, when the AMERICAN and ENGLISH (your current MASTERS) were writing heartedly articles IN FAVOR of SERBS and FURIOUS ultra negative articles AGAINST Bulgarians, it is true they used the term "Servia, Servians". You should follow Serbs paradigm and encourage other countries to drop the name Bulgaria and use Western Mongolia instead
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 12, 2010 11:09:18 GMT -5
If Greece is to named after you, gyro, it should be called Hairy Backia. Or considering your confused mind, Serbia should be called Dlakavoledzija.
|
|
|
Post by EriTopSheqeri on Jan 12, 2010 11:16:06 GMT -5
WWI anglophones are today Bulgarians' masters? How old are they today if I may ask ? Highlander and pokemon are just fiction, Pyrrovic.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 12, 2010 11:52:47 GMT -5
Gurross ********* makes yet another great claim. So, Western sources are 100% unreliable, but Serbian or Serbian influenced sources of the early 20th c. are huh? If history has shown us anything it has shown us that Serbia’s government has been involved in deceit and racial segregation over the past 100-150 years. I don’t think that any Serbian source has any credibility on such matters, and I’m sure that all objective people will agree.
Wooooow, Captain Kangaroo has outdone himself this time.
Listen, guys, generally when there is a dispute over anything.. an independent point of view is needed. I have avoided all Bulgarian sources on the matter as I think that they won’t hold as much credibility as the independent sources. The books I’ve quoted from are NOT Bulgarian, have no relation to Bulgaria, were not published in Bulgaria, and some of the authors are known to have been very fond of Serbia and Serbs in general; ie. they are objective; ie. they are not biased.
And here you are quoting sources that directly originate from the University of Belgrade.
Each of your statments significantly degrades your credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 18:18:16 GMT -5
^ and the one after cvijich was a western source. So this frenchman has been disproven, Asen. Tough luck that these people were never Bulgars from the eastern group to begin with ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 12, 2010 18:30:15 GMT -5
"So true, Novi bro. Western sources about balkans are 100% unreliable, when driven by politics. A recent look on CNN/BBC and the yugoslav wars is a living proof."
Exactly pyrro and that post you read was even from a western source. Do you see pyrro how everything a Bulgar posts here is easily broken down, like l said before they have no legs to stand on when it comes to vardar.
Its funny that sources l've viewed from 100 years ago had never mentioned of this B.S of khan kuber and his supposedly khanate conviently centered on vardar. The Bulgars here say that Khan Kuber named his Khanate something that started with k?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 13, 2010 3:52:11 GMT -5
Kuber who? LMAO!! We still dont know who KUber was, but we might say that he most probably drank a lot of KUmis!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 13, 2010 6:49:01 GMT -5
^ lmao, kumis gave them strong warrior bones lmao
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 13, 2010 15:12:28 GMT -5
One western source huh? As I've said, practically all western sources agree that Macedonians were/are Bulgarians, NOT Serbians. There is probably the occaisional confused author, but you know what.. why don't give me the source anway.
Please provide the name of the author, the publication year and location, page of quote(s), and of course the name of the book. I'll gladly address that source.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 13, 2010 15:13:33 GMT -5
Yup, especially that one bone. It's quite strong. You know the one I'm talking about right? The one you use to penetrate Gurrooossss ************ when he's bending over for you.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 14, 2010 18:16:15 GMT -5
^
Typical 'twisted' Bulgar response, in this case, your now telling me:
"As I've said, practically all western sources agree that Macedonians were/are Bulgarians, NOT Serbians. There is probably the occaisional confused author, but you know what.. why don't give me the source anway."
I'll give you the sources and l want to see what BS you will come up with ;D
|
|