|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 7, 2010 7:46:31 GMT -5
"no, because it developed the same way all other Bulgarian dialects did. Also, no matter that Bulgarian (OCS) used to have declensions, it still had unique Bulgarian features, not found in Serbian. Thats way Serbian is not considered direct descedant of OCS as Bulgarian is. Add to this that the first chance you got, you made your own recension of Old Bulgarian, putting in your serbian features. That happened centuries later of course..." Readers, do you see the nonsense l have to put up with from these BuLgari everytime. I used to laugh at these BuLgarski comments, but now, l have no joy laughing at them, l feel sick  |
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Dec 7, 2010 8:04:58 GMT -5
Haha ma daj bre, Dragan Djilas? Vuk Kostic? To su svi iz Crne Gore brate, Djilasi Vasojevici (Milovan Djilas), Kostici iz Pive i sa Ceva!! Nije ni sporno da u drugom svjetskom ratu pola sumadije su ubijali nemci i poslije su doselili Srbi sa zapada, danas jesu Sumandinci al nisu ti originalni... Slovaks and Germans most numerous? Hah, it was the Madjari bre, they used to be much bigger in Vojvodina population 200 years ago. I zbog njih imamo rijeci poput 'varos' 'astal' itd....al opet potvrdim, ako iko izgleda kao da su iz severne evrope u Srbiji to su ti Vojvodjani...tipovi koji piju banatski rizling i misle da su moderniji od ostalih Srba Hm, da ali Djilas ne lici na tipicnog Crnogorca, dok ovde je bukvalno svako drugi sa svetlo smedjom kosom isto i u Sumadiji. Nemoj da gledas previse face javnih licnosti, narocito ne sportiste Nisu Madjari bili najbrojniji, Svaba je u Vojvodini bilo oko 600.000 negde do kraja drugog Svetskog rata Cist primer ti je lik na novcanici od 1000 dinara, Djordje Vajfert |
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 7, 2010 8:23:31 GMT -5
Vajfert kao u firmi piva "Vajfert"? Da li je on isti covek?
|
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Dec 7, 2010 8:26:36 GMT -5
da, to je taj covek koji je osnovao firmu
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 7, 2010 8:32:30 GMT -5
Hvala, dobro je razgovarati sa tobom na srpskom.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Dec 7, 2010 8:40:29 GMT -5
haha, samo napred  |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 7, 2010 10:52:28 GMT -5
WOOOOW. I guess Serbs really are confused. How can one take a person such as Krivo seriously, after having made a statement like that? Or even, after his hypocritical remarks that ‘Kosovo Serbs are Bulgarians’ etc. etc.
Bwahahahahhaha
Dear retard, don’t worry. I’ll see about posting some INDEPENDENT sources regarding Old Bulgarian, ie. Old Church Slavonic.
|
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Dec 7, 2010 14:11:46 GMT -5
Ljudi, smesna su ova prepucavanja sa Bugarima, ostavite se toga
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 7, 2010 15:11:18 GMT -5
Ulf, why man? Are you not entertained?
I mean, granted, some of the posts by Gyrro and Pazar really do put a big fat stain on Serbia and Serbians as a whole in my opinion.
Realistically, the image they portray is that of ignorant racists. And of course, we have the odd comment from Stanko and the likes that reinforces that image.
And as a side note, what's with the desire to 'censor' content? I'm not saying that you want to do that, but it looks to me that the way our discussions go on here are as follows..
1. We post a source, or two, or ten. International sources too.
2. Gyrro and Pazar get angry, they have nothing to say or show regarding the direct discussions so they somehow divert the topic to things along the lines of 'Bulgars are Mongols', or 'Bulgars are Turkified Serbs' etc.
3. We respond in a similar manner, though much more civilized I'd say. At least, we keep our attacks toward a select few retards and not Serbians as a whole.
4. Gyrro and/or Pazar, at this point are at a loss, they're too stupid to actual form some sort of educated thought.. so they come back with threats that they'll delete our posts. Yey Serbdom!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 7, 2010 15:31:43 GMT -5
Truth sets you free asen  |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 7, 2010 15:40:30 GMT -5
I'm aware of that, however, there's no truth to be found in the old Serbian or the newer Yugoslav ideologies.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 7, 2010 15:47:50 GMT -5
^Old Serbian/Yugoslav ideologies? That Torlaks are Serbs isn't part of ideology, its just the nature of reality....modern Serbian has been affected alot by Torlakian, some of the biggest Serbian patriots were Torlak, and Torlaks celebrate Slava....not to mention its mutually intelligible...what linguistics have to say is really irrelevant
They're Serbs that speak with a huge bulgarian influence, accept this
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 7, 2010 16:18:23 GMT -5
The truth is that the lands that are currently inhabited by Torlaks have never been a firm part of Serbia in the past.. and it was never for longer than a couple of decades. These lands only came into the Serbian sphere of influence near the end of the Ottoman Empire.. mid to late 1800's. Before that, all that was Serbian, and all lands that were truly Serbia were isolated to the regions around Belgrade and Republika Srpska. All else is nothing but artificial political initiatives.
If we look at history objectively, we'll notice that all signs point to the fact that Torlaks are successfully assimilated Bulgarians. There are still Torlaks that identify as Bulgarians in Serbia yet we have zero Serbs in Bulgaria.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 7, 2010 16:39:19 GMT -5
The truth is that the lands that are currently inhabited by Torlaks have never been a firm part of Serbia in the past.. and it was never for longer than a couple of decades. These lands only came into the Serbian sphere of influence near the end of the Ottoman Empire.. mid to late 1800's. Before that, all that was Serbian, and all lands that were truly Serbia were isolated to the regions around Belgrade and Republika Srpska. All else is nothing but artificial political initiatives. Yes and that just makes my point even stronger - the fact that the region has been out of the Serbian sphere of influence for so long, and yet its core lexicon, phonemes and the people's culture and national consciousness is undoubtedly Serbian. Their self-determination as Serbs occured on their own-though with much difficulties due to turk oppression and Bulgar opposition! Against all odds, ey asen? Objectively, no. Because if they were "assimilated Bulgarians" like you say, that'd mean this assimilation process occured (quite rapidly) in the mid to late 19th century. Looking at this objectively, there was not enough time for such a thing to occur - even using your own beliefs - Macedonians couldn't be assimilated by the Serbs after 50 years!! And this was military occupation, in Torlak country no comparable thing ever occured, unless we cite the Bulgarian troops in WW2. So, looking at this objectively one would see that it's the other way around. The lack of declensions, the definite articles, and all other differences in the language attest to the length of time these people have lived under foreign influence...specifically Bulgarian influence, and the fact that they preserved their Serbian consciousness and their Serbian traditions makes their struggle even clearer and irrefutable. |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 7, 2010 17:03:22 GMT -5
Pff.. Tito created a brand new nation with a brand new ethnicity and a supposedly brand new language in less than 50 years. I’m obviously talking about Macedonia. The Torlak areas were under Serbian pressure since the mid 1800’s. That’s more than enough time to assimilate an ethnic group as history has shown us. And even so, we still have Torlaks that identify as Bulgarians.
Some were and some weren’t. Though, 50 years was more than enough to make them 'Ancient Macedonians'.
And yet international scholars group the dialect along with Bulgarian, and in the 19th c. Torlaks themselves identified their language as simple Bulgarian.
This Serbian consciousness is a new development that was instilled in them over a century of propaganda and oppression.
The bottom line is that in any such discussions we should look toward international and independent sources, not Serbian (or Bulgarian for that matter). And, we’ve done a pretty good job at avoiding Bulgarian sources. The problem is that pretty much all the knowledge that Serbs have on this forum is obtained from some Serbian propaganda sources, or worst yet, from Serbian propaganda sources that purposefully quote international authors out of context; hence, misrepresenting the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 7, 2010 17:18:11 GMT -5
But it's always easier to assimilate people into a regional identity, than an ethnic one. In this belief, Macedonians were formed by yugoslavs due to the fact Serbs before them couldn't get these people to declare as Serbs...this delusion that Torlaks somehow were assimilated (without force) so easily goes against the logic behind the Macedonian situation. "ancient" macedonism didn't arise until the 90's/80's, back in the 40's it was Macedonian slavs. Yes? They don't place it as a dialect of Bulgarian do they? These are the same scholars who consider Macedonian a similar, but separate language to Bulgarian? lol, it was one guy. Don't get greedy now asen So the old folklore songs Torlaks sing and have sung about Kralj Marko and Lazar/Kosovo and Milos Obilic are due to opression/propoganda? lol All those Torlaks that fought in the 19th century Serbian uprisings were forced at gunpoint ey? Or maybe tricked? Yeah youre right...but the reality is that it's just a little region of Serbia. There hasn't been any non-balkan scholar who cared/would invest enough time into studying and analyzing these people. |
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 7, 2010 20:14:32 GMT -5
"Old Serbian/Yugoslav ideologies? That Torlaks are Serbs isn't part of ideology, its just the nature of reality....modern Serbian has been affected alot by Torlakian, some of the biggest Serbian patriots were Torlak, and Torlaks celebrate Slava....not to mention its mutually intelligible...what linguistics have to say is really irrelevant
They're Serbs that speak with a huge bulgarian influence, accept this"
Krivo, l won't say that it was influenced by BuLgar language because even Eastern BuLgarski has evolved. If Torlakian was influenced by BuLgarski, then Romanian influenced BuLgarski because structurally one may argue that BuLgarski is not at all Slavic but Latin?. You must understand that when the undifferentiated slavs first came and settled in the Balkans their language was so ALIEN to modern BuLgarski, if we got a slavic speaker from 1500 to 1600 years ago and sat him next to Ioan or Asen, would they be able to understand each other?....no, most certainity not!!!. However when the first Serbian/Croatian/Slovene tribes moved into the Balkans about 100 to 200 years after the undifferentiated slavic tribes, their languages were practically the same, so if we had an undifferentiated slav speaking with a Croatian slav of the 6th century they would be able to hold a conversation with each other with no major problems. Practically up until the 10th century when Cyril and Methodius formulated Cyrillic and Old Church Slavonic from the local slavs of the region around Thessaloniki (Northern Greece), this language was basically understood by ALL SLAVIC SPEAKERS OF THE BALKANS WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. Maybe a century or so later, we began to see changes in this common language due to location of the slavs (new micro dialects formed and dialects became languages etc..)
PS People have to get out of their heads that BuLgarski was spoken by slavs when they first arrived to the balkans. This is a massive error to conceive!.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 8, 2010 3:32:16 GMT -5
"But it's always easier to assimilate people into a regional identity, than an ethnic one. In this belief, Macedonians were formed by yugoslavs due to the fact Serbs before them couldn't get these people to declare as Serbs...this delusion that Torlaks somehow were assimilated (without force) so easily goes against the logic behind the Macedonian situation."
Excellent logic Krivo, well done.
"However when the first Serbian/Croatian/Slovene tribes moved into the Balkans about 100 to 200 years after the undifferentiated slavic tribes, their languages were practically the same, so if we had an undifferentiated slav speaking with a Croatian slav of the 6th century they would be able to hold a conversation with each other with no major problems."
Definitely true, Novi. The toponyms speak for themselves. Those ancient slavs (if not directly 100% identical with the Serbs) linguistically were very very very close to the Serbs.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 9:29:38 GMT -5
I agree with this statement.
Look, that whole theory that Macedonians were a Slavic group separate from both Serbs and Bulgarians is not accurately applied to the people of Macedonia. The Bulgarian identity of Macedonians has been recorded extensively, and I’ve personal spoken to Macedono-Bulgarians here in Toronto who had immigrated to Canada as children with their families. They’ve told me how everything Bulgarian was forcefully destroyed in every way possible, and I’ve read these same conclusions/findings in a whole bunch of independent sources.
Anyhow, this theory of a Slavic group with a weak ethnic identity is much better applied to the Torlaks. I believe Arsenije talked about how their allegiances swayed towards both Serbia and Bulgaria.. maybe he can elaborate more on the topic.
The group it with Bulgarian, so how exactly can you classify it as a Serbian dialect if linguists don’t even put it in the same category?
There was a common enemy, that’s all. This doesn’t prove anything. Vasil Levski, probably the most celebrated hero in Bulgarian history, has fought with the Serbs dressed as a Chetnik against the Ottomans. This was a few years before Bulgaria got its freedom. Anyway, he was all Bulgarian.. nothing Serbian about him.
Pazar, don’t be stupid. The relevant thing is that Old Church Slavonic is really Old Bulgarian as concluded by many international linguists. And as I've already told you, I'll gladly see about providing some sources on the topic.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 8, 2010 9:48:25 GMT -5
^^^
Aziz, you keep spinning about the international linguists, but all you showed to us is a piece of crap from only one book,
which 1st, never ever put Torlak and Bulgarian together, without also putting Romanian and Albanian in the same group, and
2nd never referred to the dialects of Yugoslavia. Moreover it contained grave mistakes which i pointed out (where they talked about Greek forming future based on the verb "i want" which is BS), but you chose to swallow that.
Aziz, you gotta struggle really hard to be taken seriously. You cannot simply bypass the questions put here by presenting books of idiots as "sources" or as "international linguists". That is substandard by any means. You will have to face your opponents like an adult. All you do is hit and run (like a beaten up b1tch).
|
|
