ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 21, 2010 7:31:31 GMT -5
but how do you know if that differentiation existed before their migration in Balkans, or before the Bulgars' reign? I told you. By linguistic means it is proven that some toponyms were left by "Bulgarian" and other - by "Serbo-croatian" slavs. For example if a toponym contains the letter "SHT" in it, it is obvious that it is not serbian, because that letter was foreign for the Serbs (unlike Bulgarians). I m not linguists, but I ve already posted research by a linguists that by linguistic means prooves that the slavic toponyms in Greece were left by slavs that spoke southeastern slavic language. why? in the long run those slavs come into being Bulgarians and are assimilated in the Bulgarian ethnos. Their language is Bulgarian. rule has little to do with it.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 21, 2010 8:00:58 GMT -5
but how do you know if that differentiation existed before their migration in Balkans, or before the Bulgars' reign? I told you. By linguistic means it is proven that some toponyms were left by "Bulgarian" and other - by "Serbo-croatian" slavs. For example if a toponym contains the letter "SHT" in it, it is obvious that it is not serbian, because that letter was foreign for the Serbs (unlike Bulgarians). I m not linguists, but I ve already posted research by a linguists that by linguistic means prooves that the slavic toponyms in Greece were left by slavs that spoke southeastern slavic language. why? in the long run those slavs come into being Bulgarians and are assimilated in the Bulgarian ethnos. Their language is Bulgarian. in the same logic I can say that the homo sapiens lived in Greece were in a way Greeks....since their genes are among us... you can't call the slavic toponyms in Greece as "Bulgarian" or "Serbocroatian", when the majority of the were given before any notion of bulgarian or serbocroatian identity or language, aka 6-7-8th centuries... they were simply slavic, by Slavs who felt as members of their tribe and their zadruga... not members of ...Serbhood and Bulgarianism...
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 21, 2010 8:03:10 GMT -5
rule has little to do with it. All is "rule". The reason of existence of Bulgarians and Serbians today as the two major Slavic nations in Balkans is the existence of kingdoms that incorporated various slavic tribes and gave a sense of political unity to them and protected them from other hostile tribes or kingdoms... Without Bulgarian empires and kingdoms there couldn't be a Bulgarian nation today.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 21, 2010 9:53:12 GMT -5
i dont know, i haven't sodomized any Patrinia there yet. well Patrinies don't hang out at places where you meet the woman that you marry...strip clubs.... Patrinies only do private visits. I do not know why you persist that i met my wife in a strip club. Is this a way to stress reality to fit in your albanian world? Generally Slav women (just like Slavs) are wonderful people. In Addition, Serb women (just like Serbs) are as tough as it can get. There are bigger chances to see your sister in a strip club than *any* Serbian woman. (Makedonian/Boslim/Croatian women included). The only exception are women from (western) bulgaria.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 21, 2010 9:58:11 GMT -5
For example if a toponym contains the letter "SHT" in it, it is obvious that it is not serbian, because that letter was foreign for the Serbs (unlike Bulgarians). The most common Serbo-croatian word is "SHT", from "STA", from which stems the word Shtokavica.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 21, 2010 10:08:37 GMT -5
guys... since i don't have an obsession with any nation here, like another "greek" over here... i can't see totally false and unhistorical things over here.... the town of Gordoservon is already recorded in 4th century and has nothing to do with Servoi-Serbs.... in Notitiae Episcopatuum 187 by Epiphanius... Serbs in 4th century Minor Asia is crazy... I am rephrasing the paranoia of the albanian. He wants to downgrade as much as possible the presence of Serbs in Greece in the early medieval times, so 1) he finds some second-class source from an average american univ (irvine??? WTF) that shows that the name Gordoservon was present in 4th century 2) he takes for granted that this time is "too early" for any serb to have penetrated his pseudo-empire So based on 1) and 2) he concludes that Gordoservon has nothing to do with the Serbs. Classical case when an idiot thinks that "two wrongs might make one right". laughable logic.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 21, 2010 13:13:08 GMT -5
for your case I would use only the first word...
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 21, 2010 13:24:49 GMT -5
All is "rule". The reason of existence of Bulgarians and Serbians today as the two major Slavic nations in Balkans is the existence of kingdoms that incorporated various slavic tribes and gave a sense of political unity to them and protected them from other hostile tribes or kingdoms... Without Bulgarian empires and kingdoms there couldn't be a Bulgarian nation today. I disagree. The Dutch were Dutch even before Netherlands was established and when they were incorporated into the Spanish empire. You may have a case in other instances when the state is cot connected with the ethnos it rules - like Belguim. But neither Bulgaria, nor Serbia fall into this cathegory.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Dec 21, 2010 13:55:14 GMT -5
Patrinos, back in the 600's you had Bulgars (Turkic speakers/Turkic relgiion), Serbs (Slavo-Iranic lang & customs), and then various Slavic tribes (indiscernable Slavs). These people existed simultaneously.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 21, 2010 15:46:02 GMT -5
All is "rule". The reason of existence of Bulgarians and Serbians today as the two major Slavic nations in Balkans is the existence of kingdoms that incorporated various slavic tribes and gave a sense of political unity to them and protected them from other hostile tribes or kingdoms... Without Bulgarian empires and kingdoms there couldn't be a Bulgarian nation today. I disagree. The Dutch were Dutch even before Netherlands was established and when they were incorporated into the Spanish empire. You may have a case in other instances when the state is cot connected with the ethnos it rules - like Belguim. But neither Bulgaria, nor Serbia fall into this cathegory. if you don't accept this truth then you assume that "Bulgarian Slavs" started as a united entity from the original homeland of Slavs (today Poland/Belarus?who knows for sure) and migrated all together in the "bulgarian lands" where by... addopting the Bulgars in order to be ruled by them created a kingdom that finally fullfiled their dream of a Bulgarian state? Krivo, of course you're right, even if i'm not sure if the Serbs were indeed connected or were Iranic tribe. Nobody can say that the many many slavic tribes that established in Balkans in ca 600 were either Serbs or Bulgarians... these two big groups of Balkan Slavs were a gradual evolution of indepedent slavic tribes transforming in slavic tribes faithful to a kingdom, being it the Serbian or the Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Dec 21, 2010 16:58:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bobolinkovic on Dec 21, 2010 17:18:08 GMT -5
The bodies of peoples who would become modern Serbs were influenced by Slavs, who were themselves influenced by another Iranic people?
So three distinct bodies of peoples contributed to the modern Serbian ethnos: Balkanians (Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians; Greeks(all four later becoming Vlachs?); Slavs we presume were called Serbs; and Iranic peoples who possibly gave aforementioned Slavs name of Serbs?
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Dec 21, 2010 17:26:56 GMT -5
The bodies of peoples who would become modern Serbs were influenced by Slavs, who were themselves influenced by another Iranic people? So three distinct bodies of peoples contributed to the modern Serbian ethnos: Balkanians (Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians; Greeks(all four later becoming Vlachs?); Slavs we presume were called Serbs; and Iranic peoples who possibly gave aforementioned Slavs name of Serbs? and going like that back in the past we come down to a neanderthals
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 21, 2010 17:27:49 GMT -5
if you don't accept this truth then you assume that "Bulgarian Slavs" started as a united entity from the original homeland of Slavs (today Poland/Belarus?who knows for sure) and migrated all together in the "bulgarian lands" where by... addopting the Bulgars in order to be ruled by them created a kingdom that finally fullfiled their dream of a Bulgarian state? Krivo, of course you're right, even if i'm not sure if the Serbs were indeed connected or were Iranic tribe. Nobody can say that the many many slavic tribes that established in Balkans in ca 600 were either Serbs or Bulgarians... these two big groups of Balkan Slavs were a gradual evolution of indepedent slavic tribes transforming in slavic tribes faithful to a kingdom, being it the Serbian or the Bulgarian. I mean there were clearly on the Bolkans differences between the southwestern (to become Serbo-croats) and southeastern (to become Bulgarians) slavic tribes since their arrival, because some specific traits in Bulgarian and Serbo-croatian are prooved to be existing via the toponyms. Now I dont think that Bulgarians were unmixed slavs: on the contrary... The Bulgars, the Thracians contributed to our ethnos, but it was the southeastern slavic that would become the language that the other groups would adopt.
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Dec 21, 2010 18:20:35 GMT -5
if you don't accept this truth then you assume that "Bulgarian Slavs" started as a united entity from the original homeland of Slavs (today Poland/Belarus?who knows for sure) and migrated all together in the "bulgarian lands" where by... addopting the Bulgars in order to be ruled by them created a kingdom that finally fullfiled their dream of a Bulgarian state? Krivo, of course you're right, even if i'm not sure if the Serbs were indeed connected or were Iranic tribe. Nobody can say that the many many slavic tribes that established in Balkans in ca 600 were either Serbs or Bulgarians... these two big groups of Balkan Slavs were a gradual evolution of indepedent slavic tribes transforming in slavic tribes faithful to a kingdom, being it the Serbian or the Bulgarian. I mean there were clearly on the Bolkans differences between the southwestern (to become Serbo-croats) and southeastern (to become Bulgarians) slavic tribes since their arrival, because some specific traits in Bulgarian and Serbo-croatian are prooved to be existing via the toponyms. Now I dont think that Bulgarians were unmixed slavs: on the contrary... The Bulgars, the Thracians contributed to our ethnos, but it was the southeastern slavic that would become the language that the other groups would adopt. so you think that these minor grammatical or other linguisitc differences among the various slavic tribes were enough to unite the Slav in Ruse with the Slav in Strumnitsa and make the one in Ruse feel stranger and "other" from the Slav of Nis?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 22, 2010 0:17:54 GMT -5
Most probably no, but who knows. And Nis is not the best example .
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Dec 22, 2010 0:35:59 GMT -5
Now I dont think that Bulgarians were unmixed slavs: on the contrary... The Bulgars, the Thracians contributed to our ethnos... Which means Slavs, Dardanians, Paeonians, and Macedonians contributed to our ethnos.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Dec 22, 2010 0:42:28 GMT -5
The problem is that presentday Macedonia covers pretty much Peonia, which means that the majority of the preslav people must have been peonian. Peonians were thought to be Thracian by the way. Of course Macedonian and Greek blood cant be ruled out, but I dont think its the dominating one. Add to this also the Bulgar blood of Kubers people.
|
|
Nikola
Senior Moderator
Posts: 1,835
|
Post by Nikola on Dec 22, 2010 0:54:00 GMT -5
The problem is that presentday Macedonia covers pretty much Peonia, which means that the majority of the preslav people must have been peonian. Peonians were thought to be Thracian by the way. Of course Macedonian and Greek blood cant be ruled out, but I dont think its the dominating one. Add to this also the Bulgar blood of Kubers people. I brought this up once before but everyone ignored it. Almost half of the country lays over ancient Macedonia or it's influence. Bylazora was the most northern city and is only kilometres away from Skopje.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Dec 22, 2010 3:13:35 GMT -5
^^^ It is very tricky to do such assumptions without studying the history of Greece.
Example : Everyone naive could conclude that we modern Epirots are the descendants of ancient epirots, right? (who were a tribe very close to the makedonians, dorian speakers, etc...) In most books among the ocean of info and chronologies, one can find one liners hidden somewhere with the content :
"at 146 BC Romans devastated Epiros (who were in alliance with the makedonians) and took about 250,000 slaves to italy....."
Modern epiros has about 300,000 ppl.... There are big chances that modern Epirots have nothing to do with ancient Epirots and it is very much probable that modern makedonians (greek speakers, vlah speakers, slav speakers) do not have anything to do with ancient makedonians.
PS Pontians from Asia Minor, have more chances of being connected with ancient makedonians than the old locals.
|
|