|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 8, 2010 10:41:23 GMT -5
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 11:01:29 GMT -5
Umm OK, so you can’t count either.. it’s ok, retards have difficulty with number too I guess. It was 3 books, and there’re plenty more out there.
I’m well aware of the fact that you only see Serbian sources as credible. And any source that contains even the slightest contradiction to the BS Serbian propaganda you are reading you deem as not credible. Fortunately, the rest of the world doesn’t see things the way you do.
And who would my opponents be exactly? You!? Pazar!? Your posts are self-contradictory most of the time and highly delusional the rest of the time.
Here we go with the “sodomized bitch” comments again. Did I not already tell you that I’ll gladly trade source for source with you and Pazar, especially regarding Macedonia and its Bulgarian character.
I don’t know how things in your f**ked up head work, but an internationally published source is worth a hell of a lot more than your own personal opinions. But then again, it’s not hard to find information that’s worth more than what you have to say as most of the things you write are downright moronic.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 8, 2010 11:01:33 GMT -5
Idiotic Ruslana, can you find a SINGLE error of mine? Anywhere? Anytime? In this miserable lifetime of yours?
No?
Hmmm, i guess i can understand why you resort to bitchy comments. You apparently have nothing to say on the substance.
PS
Of course, future in greek is NOT based on verb "to want" as the idiotic "source" of Aziz claims....
Now look why you are such a b1tch and why i am not.
It is true that Ancient Greek and Slavic (Serbian) have a LOT of similarities. (more than e.g. Albanian and Greek, or even Latin and Greek).
The very paragraph that i pointed out as being in error, was refering to the formation of the future based on "to want" and presented this like a similarity between Greek and Serbian.
So, as much as it served my supposed agenta, it didn;t stop me from stating that this is pure BS.
You see Ruslana?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 11:04:09 GMT -5
^ Gyrro, like I said, internationally published sources are worth much much much much much much much more than your own personal opinion.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 8, 2010 11:13:15 GMT -5
I just mentioned one source, because it was the most verbose of the three. All three talk about an uncertain form of a phantom balkan linguistic union which somehow connects Torlakian with Albanian, Romanian, Greek etc....
Are you surely hope this theory can help promote your retarded great Bolgaria plans?
If by connecting Torlak with Albanian and Romanian (which is highly doubtful anyway) you think that you can prove anything Aziz, you are a complete idiot.
Basically what you did was to present the positions of 3 idiots who spend 400 pages to prove that Torlak is relevant with Albanian and Romanian (maybe on a fraction of 0.00000001% of the languages) and forgeting the similarities of "torlakian" with Serbian (which accounts for like 99.999999999999999999% of the respective languages).
Moreover, in the case of a comment on the Greek language, i proved that your heroes are useless retards, but ... its your stupid head and i cannot do anything about it....
Think as you wish Aziz... You choose to stay a passive idiot for ever? Then do it (but pls outside this forum)
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 8, 2010 11:15:22 GMT -5
^ Gyrro, like I said, internationally published sources are worth much much much much much much much more than your own personal opinion. Idiot, apparently you dont know how many ERRORS exist in printed books. You think that there is a magic divine gost in the type setting machine that automagically takes care of all errors (lexical, syntactial, semantical, conceptual ) ? Aziz, you are indeed a very very very big IDIOT. But that is not the point here. Your retarded sources NEVER EVER mentioned anything about Torlak as a bulgarian dialect. All they do is struggle to put it in the albano-roman-greko-bulgo Union (which is highly doubtful if it exists). Needless to say for the N-th time (yes b1ich you are right i lost counting on this one), your one source did not deal with the yugoslav dialects which is highly suspicious. PS I dont know how to count Aziz...  is that what your idiocy tried to claim? my little moron, i am a comp. sci. for faks sake... |
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 8, 2010 17:42:16 GMT -5
You are priceless, Gyrro. Crazy to the bone.
Let me ask you this now...in what dialect did Homer write? The one from Lescovac or the one from Kragujevac?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 17:50:44 GMT -5
Gyrro, calm down man.. all I said is that the opinion of internationally published scholars is by far much more relevant than your own opinion.
You are a computer scientist!? Really? I guess retards might actually have a future. Good for you though, you've been able to overcome your mental deficiencies and somehow managed to trick people that you can count.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 8, 2010 18:30:16 GMT -5
Fair enough Ahh, you can't do that Asen. If early Macedonians can be seen as Bulgarians, the Torlaks are definitely Serbian. Because that is how they felt and called themselves asen. The point is that its categorization is still debated. A standard or clear depiction of this dialect hasn't even emerged yet. The dialect(s) vary city to city. Wasn't a secret that they were fighting for an independent Serbia asen...Bulgaria was just a stone's throw away and they fight for their western neighbors instead? And not one mention of Bulgarian interests or talks on Bulgarian matters during these uprisings. Plus Slava, they just so happen to celebrate the ancient Serbian practice of Slava, tortured into doing so asen?  Or maybe Slava is an originally Bulgarian thing that was established by King Omurtag in order to praise allmighty Tangra The thing you're missing is that the designation of "Old Bulgarian", "Old Macedonian" is simply geographical, not representing the relatively newer creation of the Slavo-Bulgar "Bulgarian" nation. |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 20:45:33 GMT -5
The majority of them today identify as Serbs, but that’s mostly due to the fact that live in a country called Serbia. Things 100 years ago, or 200 years ago were not exactly the same as they are today.
Grammatically, Torlak dialects fall under the same category as Bulgarian. This isn’t a debatable fact, but rather a conclusion that many international linguists agree on.
This is a rather two dimensional comment, though I think it’s due to your lack of knowledge on overall Balkan history. Anyhow, Bulgaria was in the heart of the Ottoman Empire.. with it being so close to Istanbul, the greatest concentration of Ottomans was there. I guess it was a type of rally point. This is probably the biggest reason why Bulgaria was one of the last countries to gain its independence. Serbian uprising preceded the Bulgarian ones by some 30-40 years.
I’m not missing anything. I’m simply telling you what I’ve read. It’s no secret that all of the 19th c. sources have concluded that Old Church Slavonic is the most accurate depiction of Old Bulgarian. The Old Church Slavonic designation is nothing more but a “politically friendly” term, that’s all. Even so, today there are still scholars who use the terms Old Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic as synonyms.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 8, 2010 21:00:22 GMT -5
Proof? Not exactly, dialects as well as grammar varies among Torlak dialects, since Torlak isn't one defined dialect. So using a few dialects some linguists conclude it's an eastern slavic dialect. So what? Nothing to do with Bulgardom really... Logic's on my side, if you you're not conviced go ahead and prove me wrong. Show me proof of Bulgarian interests in the Serbian uprisings. And I'm telling you, "Old Bulgarian" was used as an alternative to OCS to pinpoint that the dialect comes from the speech of slavs in the realm of non-Slavic Bulgaria. Again, understand that your ethnicity you have now isn't the successor of the slavic culture pre-11th century in eastern balkans. You can only claim anything "Bulgarian" after that. Otherwise, every slav in the balkans is a Bulgarian |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 21:19:44 GMT -5
Proof that they identified as Serbs 200 years ago? Please do show me, as I haven't seen anything like that.
Calm down. The point is that the grammatical structure is much closer to Bulgarian than Serbian.
There you go again with these ignorant two dimensional posts. All Balkan nations wanted to see the Turks gone, and yes, this includes Bulgaria. There were joint initiatives against the ottomans from the 14th c. to the First Balkan War. Those included Albanian/Serbian, Bulgarian/Serbian, Bulgarian/Greek/Serbian etc.
Heh, look. If Serbia can claim Kosova, then Bulgaria can claim all of Serbia. The arguments are about the same, with Serbia's claim on Kosova being a little bit weaker.
A Bulgarian is any person who genuinely identifies as such, Slav or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 8, 2010 22:07:58 GMT -5
Proof that they identified as Serbs 200 years ago? Please do show me, as I haven't seen anything like that. What for? Serbs have been there for thousands of years, why would they have to prove their Serbianess? Instead, one who claims they're Bulgarians should cite where in fact did they do so. Since they never had a Bulgarian uprising or anything else that'd infer such a thing. As I proved in another post, grammar really isn't much of a connection. I can speak Serbian with no declensions and add definite articles and it's still Serbian. If you argue further, then it'll just come down to our languages being the same, since we're both South Slavic. Yes of course. But that doesn't apply in this case. Serbian uprising was done by Serbians...since there were no other ethnic groups living with them! Show proof of a joint initiative if it did exist (and not simply volunteers from different countries coming to fight). Research your own Bulgarian uprisings (you had some right? ;D) and see why you never had any Torlaks participating. lol Not really, because the Serbs of that period have direct ethnic continuity to the Serbs today. Not the case for Bulgaria, which was a Turkic-Steppe culture ruling over non-descript Slavs. A country with two languages, two religions and two cultures. You have no continuity until after the 11th century. And slavs in Thessaloniki and Thrace did not call themselves Bulgarian until the 10-11th centuries. |
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Dec 8, 2010 23:08:04 GMT -5
Really? It’s rather odd then that this is not reflected in any medieval maps or documents.
When you have two related languages such as Bulgarian and Serbian, grammar makes all the difference in the world. And Torlak grammar is far from Serbian grammar.
Yup, much like modern Greeks have direct ethnic continuity to the ancient Greeks.. while, the Bulgars and the Balkan Slavs had planned to have a massive orgy in the 10th c. and BOOM, after that one monstrous orgy they became one people. Pffff
False yet again. When the East Romans had taken Macedonia as it shifted between the Bulgarian Empires and the Byzantine Empire.. the East Romans took many slaves from the region. These slaves were documented by the East Romans as being of ‘Bulgarian stock’.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162 
|
Post by ioan on Dec 8, 2010 23:42:37 GMT -5
What for? Serbs have been there for thousands of years, why would they have to prove their Serbianess? Instead, one who claims they're Bulgarians should cite where in fact did they do so. Since they never had a Bulgarian uprising or anything else that'd infer such a thing. The first manuscript written in Torlakian dialect in 18 century reffered to the language as "simple Bulgarian". A serbian historian in 19 century listed Nish as Bulgarian city. In the Anonym Bulgarian apocriph, written in 11 century Bulgaria, among the main cities of Bulgaria is Nish. I agree with Asen. When our langs are as close the grammer makes the difference. we are both southslavs, but all linguists (even serbian though its not in its interest) agree that there are western and eastern southslavic subgroups. Wrong. Serbs are recorded to have moved to the Bolkans in 7 century, the same as the Bulgars. The Serbs were different from the slavs settled on the Bolkans, as the Bulgars were. The Bulgarian ethnicity was already on the historic scene in late 9 century (proven by the books written in the FIRST SLAVIC SCHOOL - Preslav one). The fact that we know nothing about the first centuries of your history, because no one saw the need to record it (while every year of our first history was extensively recorded because of the might of our empire) doesnt mean there were no mixture between you and the slavs you encountered in the Bolkans. Just the Byzantines didnt care. Because it was at those times when the Byzantine had their first fights with Samuels kingdome and could see that those people were also Bulgarian. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall_Stanko on Dec 9, 2010 0:16:32 GMT -5
Zona Zamfirova, it is a Serbian movie and it is a Torlakian dialect and i understand it completely. Then when i watch this video and listen to the Bulgarian language,
I only understood itleast 5% of Bulgarian where as in Torlak i understood it 100%. So claiming Torkak as part of the Bulgarian language is seriously a joke.
The language itself says it all.
Cajkavian and Kakavian are Croatian dialects yet i understand it completely, but comparing them all to Bulgarian, i am completely lost when listening to the Bulgarian language. Even the Macedonian language i may not understand it completely but i understand 1/3 of the Macedonian language and same with Slovenian, but when it comes to the Bulgarian language, Ukranian, Russian, Slovak, Polish Czech etc, i am completely lost.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 9, 2010 0:19:49 GMT -5
Also the French economist Jérôme-Adolphe Blanqui when passes through in the 40ties of 19 century Nish he describes the city as Bulgarian: he writes his Travels in Bulgaria 1841 (1843). According to Serbian wiki page on him thought its written: Ïðîïóòîâàî ¼å ìåó îñòàëèì çåìšàìà è åâðîïñêè äåî Òóðñêå öàðåâèíå, òå ¼å äàî èçâàíðåäàí îïèñ àóòîíîìíå Ñðáè¼å è íåîñëîáîåíèõ ñðïñêèõ êðà¼åâà — Voyage en Bulgarie pendant l'année 1841 (1841). So it turns out that French economist thought he is in Bulgaria, not in Serbia (though the Serbian page insist he was in Serbia (neglecting the very title of his work  |
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 9, 2010 2:53:45 GMT -5
Gyrro, calm down man.. all I said is that the opinion of internationally published scholars is by far much more relevant than your own opinion. You are a computer scientist!? Really? I guess retards might actually have a future. Good for you though, you've been able to overcome your mental deficiencies and somehow managed to trick people that you can count. Aziz, your reaction was 100% as predicted. You are a little stupid snake which all it manages to do is bite and hide and hide and again hide. Actually most the time you hide. You put out your little head to bite, anyway you can, and then run back to hide. You have nothing to say on my attacks on your useless sources. You are useless yourself Aziz. PS I dont know of many retards who graduated Comp. Sci. with 8.21/10. My dear snake, you gotta find more efficient ways to hide your emptiness. |
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 9, 2010 3:04:18 GMT -5
Not really, because the Serbs of that period have direct ethnic continuity to the Serbs today. Not the case for Bulgaria, which was a Turkic-Steppe culture ruling over non-descript Slavs. A country with two languages, two religions and two cultures. You have no continuity until after the 11th century. In the case of Bulgaria, i think the nations were actually 4: - The Seven tribes (identical to the Timok Serbs) ===> todays western Bulgarian Ekavica - The Antes ====> responsible for the official eastern speech (Ukranian-like) - The initial Turko-Bulgars - The great (in numbers) Thracians (most probably vlah-latin speakers) I think the local slavs and the Thracians, never really "liked" their Mongol-Ukranian masters. The stance of the bulgarian member "Thracian" is a sign of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Dec 9, 2010 20:33:03 GMT -5
Asen:
"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."
Krivo:
"Fair enough"
Krivo, its not fair enough, don't fall for it. If there are *some* Vardarians who claim BuLgarski origin, its not because they are *Authentic BuLgari*. You must understand the whole dynamics of Southern Serbia (Vardar) of the 19th century, there are many factors:
1) Ottoman decline
2) Russian influence
3) Bulgarian Expansionism and Propaganda
4) BuLgarian Exarchate
5) German/English (western powers) & San Stefano BuLgarska
Anyway, let me tell you of a man known as JORDAN IVANOV (a BuLgarin) who was the chief Bulgarian authority on the Bulgarian character of Macedonia. This BuLgarin Ivanov was ONLY ABLE TO QUOTE A FEW CASES IN WHICH THE NAME "BULGARIAN" WAS MENTIONED IN SOUTHERN SERBIA (VARDAR) BEFORE THE EXARCHISTS BEGAN THEIR WORK:
The earliest of these dates from 1474: the Consilium Rogatorum of Dubrovnik decided to grant alms to the extent of twenty perpers to the Bulgarian monastery of St. Joachim Osogovski, whose abbot, Gervasije, stated at an audience in Moscow in 1586 that he came "from the Bulgarian lands." In 1686, the Patriarchate Arsenije III Crnojevich visited this monastery: at the end of a Gospel at Pech, he wrote a note that he had been at the monastery of Osogovo, where there was "some disorganization in Church matters." On two occasions in the year 1704, VELJKO POPOVICH of KRATOVO says that he was born "in the Bulgarian lands, in the place known as Kratovo,"while in 1753 the nun Ana says that she "was born in Kratovo, in Bulgaria." In 1818, a certain NESHO MARKOVICH, a merchant from KRATOVO, printed in Budapest a calendar "for the convenience of the Bulgarian people." In 1619, we find mention, in an inscription in a church at Vodensk, of "Angelaki, grand secretary of Justiniana I and all Bulgaria." In the legend entitled "Slovo Kirila Filosofa kako uvjeri Bugare" (The Tale of how Cyril the Philosopher Converted the Bulgars), it is stated that the city of Ravanj is in Bregalnica and that Cyril was brought there by the Bulgars. In a manuscript at the moanstery of Zograf, it is stated that Pirot is situated in "the Bulgarian lands." The same is said of the whole Pelagonia.
PS This is only Ivanov managed to find..... ;D
|
|
is that what your idiocy tried to claim?
Or maybe Slava is an originally Bulgarian thing that was established by King Omurtag in order to praise allmighty Tangra 
