|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jan 26, 2011 19:53:49 GMT -5
I think the connection is pretty strong considering that it is a staple word for nearly all Turkic languages.
As was a common practice in medieval Europe. The ruling nobility would often be related as a consolidation of power but that didn't mean that they were the same stock as the people they ruled.
And yes , Bulgaria ruled Belgrade far longer than Dusan ruled Greece but again , nobody is implying that all the Bulgarian subjects were Bulgarian.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jan 26, 2011 19:55:51 GMT -5
The common words in Turkish found for father are expressed in other Turkic languages just as commonly. Turkic penetration into Slavic vocabulary could have been via the Turkic peoples of the Caucus as wellHowever, in the case of the south Slavs , the vast majority of that influence was Turkish. That's true, did you know that Knjige and Biser are of Turkic origin? Cool.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 26, 2011 20:01:33 GMT -5
I think the connection is pretty strong considering that it is a staple word for nearly all Turkic languages. As was a common practice in medieval Europe. The ruling nobility would often be related as a consolidation of power but that didn't mean that they were the same stock as the people they ruled. And yes , Bulgaria ruled Belgrade far longer than Dusan ruled Greece but again , nobody is implying that all the Bulgarian subjects were Bulgarian. Ok, but after the BG empire any Bulgarians hypothetically left would have probably been Serbicized by the Serbian empire. Now after the Serbian empire there was no other Slavic empire ruling this portion of land (Salonica/Macedonia), so the Serbs there could only be Grecofied. All of this, of course is hypothetical. I hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jan 26, 2011 21:36:41 GMT -5
I think the connection is pretty strong considering that it is a staple word for nearly all Turkic languages. As was a common practice in medieval Europe. The ruling nobility would often be related as a consolidation of power but that didn't mean that they were the same stock as the people they ruled. And yes , Bulgaria ruled Belgrade far longer than Dusan ruled Greece but again , nobody is implying that all the Bulgarian subjects were Bulgarian. Ok, but after the BG empire any Bulgarians hypothetically left would have probably been Serbicized by the Serbian empire. Now after the Serbian empire there was no other Slavic empire ruling this portion of land (Salonica/Macedonia), so the Serbs there could only be Grecofied. All of this, of course is hypothetical. I hope this makes sense. Sure but also consider thinking about this the other way. Before the Serbian empire , other Slav empires ( particularly the Bulgarians) had a huge impact on the area. It's really dismal black hole when you try to decipher how much of the Slav influence there was Bulgarian or Serbian especially when modern ethnic identities were not yet established ( people were far more loyal to a regional identity than some more obscure ethnic identity in the whole of the Balkans.) Macedonia was the heartland of the slavic Bulgarian state, even their patriarch is in Orhid. It was the cultural heart of their 'golden age.' Its much akin to what Raska was for early Serbia and Dalmatia ( north-central) was for early Croatia. Not to dismiss the Serbian contributions because in all likelihood they existed but I think it would be foolish to outright dismiss the Bulgarian contribution to 'slavicisms' this far south in the Balkans. Not only that , whatever is 'Slavic' today that far south , linguistically belongs to the East-South Slav family while the Serbs claim their standard as West-South Slav. I don't think Serbian was both west and east south slav because the differences are about as pronounced as Czech and Polish , enough to be different languages. But then again, we could be just talking about various Slavs that didn't belong to either ( perhaps the cannon fodder of Avar and/or Bulgar invasions) that eventually assimilated the Bulgars and submitted themselves to the new Serb ruling class.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Jan 26, 2011 21:52:52 GMT -5
That was so stupid you're approaching pyrros' level. Your saying that remaining Slavs are only assimilated into another Slavic identity after a new Slavic power takes over. So somehow when the Serbs lost power in Greece and there was no Slavic power they became Greeks instead of merging with comparitively very similar Orthdox Bulgarian Slavs. Thats if there was a general Serb settlement anyway which there isn't evidence of. And if it was nobility it would be way easier to trace but that just isn't the case here either. All this for a lousy Fikret lol.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 26, 2011 23:43:20 GMT -5
Ok, but after the BG empire any Bulgarians hypothetically left would have probably been Serbicized by the Serbian empire. Now after the Serbian empire there was no other Slavic empire ruling this portion of land (Salonica/Macedonia), so the Serbs there could only be Grecofied. All of this, of course is hypothetical. I hope this makes sense. Sure but also consider thinking about this the other way. Before the Serbian empire , other Slav empires ( particularly the Bulgarians) had a huge impact on the area. It's really dismal black hole when you try to decipher how much of the Slav influence there was Bulgarian or Serbian especially when modern ethnic identities were not yet established ( people were far more loyal to a regional identity than some more obscure ethnic identity in the whole of the Balkans.) I disagree with this. I believe the concept of ethnicity/identity were the same as they are today. Regionalism still occurs today, however people don't forget their ethnic identities. Yes I guess for a time. But then Skoplje was the capital of the Serbian Empire, using the same logic one would assume there was a great amount of Serbs there too. Yeah, or it could be like today's mixed Croat-Serbs. Just a fluid group that could sway from one identity to the other. Serbs were mainly present if it all, in north-western greece, Bulgars north-eastern, but with all likelihood mixing occurred. Its just the fact of assimilation plis. People only assimilate into groups that are more abundant, or more advanced than their own. Bulgarians weren't any more advanced, and in this part of greece at least (Kozani prefecture) they weren't more abundant. So why assimilate into a Bulgarian?
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jan 27, 2011 4:48:11 GMT -5
Aw man , not even close. Modern conceptions of ethnicity/identity are the direct result of 19th century ideas permeating the Balkans ( at least in our case). In medieval times ethnic identity was like super fluid people were mostly catagorized by the region they occupied by whatever historic name. Of course a tribal ethnicity did exist and it is implied/mentioned on occasion but nowhere as frequently as people's regional affiliations. In the case of the Balkans , most of our modern identities are thanks large in part to religious institutions. In the case of the Serbs it was having your own national church and then extending nationality/ethnic incorporation ( 18th century to now) to all members of the SOC regardless of origin. It's pretty much the same for Bulgarians too. For Croats it was the Vatican that preserved almost all of the historical documentation ( >80% I'd say) that even gives us any real clue about our Medieval history. The rest can be deciphered from some artifacts, literature, inscriptions that managed to whether the centuries of erosion and destruction. The Catholic church sort of became an incubator for Croatdom in the 18th century. And then there is the importation of French Revolutionary ideas of course. Fair enough. At that medieval juncture we cannot really tell whether Skopje could've become majority Serbian ( Serbia conquered it at an earlier time too) or whether it was probably Bulgarian under rule of Serbian nobility. It makes sense that Dushan would want to set up his capital there. He ruled Albanians , Greeks , Bulgarians , Serbs, etc. Skopje was probably a more fitting capital in terms of prosperity for him( probably better than anything Serbia proper offered), it was likely a crossroads point for his multi-ethnic czardom, and it was already a seat of Kings and rulers before him , particularly the First Bulgarian kingdom. Unfortunately the only thing we can go on is what travelers to the area wrote about it. The reason its unfortunate is because this really didn't begin until after it was under Ottoman rule. However from then up to the 20th century most of Mac. Slav inhabitants seem to be described as Bulgarians. Linguistically most Serbs were always more fluid with Croats (regardless of dialect) than Bulgarians. We still belong to the west south Slav linguistic family. Bulgarian language (i.e. East south slavic) is more 'alien' to standard Serbian ( Vuk's Serbian) than any dialect of Croatian and even Slovenian. It's highly unlikely that traditional Serbian could be both west and east south slavic especially when Old Bulgarian was the patron language of east- s.slavic. Yes, there is a historical source saying the Serbs settled Salonica. But again its pure speculation how many went there in the first place and how many actually stayed. The Serb impact seems to be weak overall in that region ( despite what Pyrros might try to conjure up). But I leave it an open case since nothing is definitive for or against it. They could've mostly stayed there but then one would have to ask how many really did settle the northern Balkans if most stayed behind?
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 27, 2011 6:14:47 GMT -5
And yes , Bulgaria ruled Belgrade far longer than Dusan ruled Greece but again , nobody is implying that all the Bulgarian subjects were Bulgarian. Another Ustasa-type lie. Srbobran had proved that Bulgars controlled Belgrade for less than 3 years. This cannot be compared to a 1000-years long history of the Serbs in Greece, now can it?
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 27, 2011 6:31:19 GMT -5
Aw man , not even close. Modern conceptions of ethnicity/identity are the direct result of 19th century ideas permeating the Balkans ( at least in our case). In medieval times ethnic identity was like super fluid people were mostly catagorized by the region they occupied by whatever historic name. Of course a tribal ethnicity did exist and it is implied/mentioned on occasion but nowhere as frequently as people's regional affiliations. In regards to ethnicity I follow the Kinship Primordialism school of thought. Read Anthony Smith's Ethnic Origins of Nations. Imagine ethnicity as the idea of family, and regionalism as the idea of property/a house. Now think for a moment which idea came first. I think the religious institutions just protected ethnic identities in the Balkans, or in the Muslims case, created new ones. Sveti Sava nationalized the Serb Church for the sole purpose of uniting all Serbs into one religion (during that time there were Catholic, Pagan and Orthodox Serbs), and end the squabbling amongst the people. And hence Sveti Sava's fateful words "Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava". I believe he only recognized the Serbs and Greeks as constitutive peoples, but I'd have to read his Zakonik. (I know he only added "of Greeks" to his title after he acquired Serres/Southern Greece). I don't know about that. I personally understand Macedonian much much better than Chakavian or Kajkavian. In fact, if I stop speaking with padezima and change my -o's into -u's and -e's it'd be quite similar to Mako-Slav. There's definitely a dialect-continuum amongst south-slavs in the balkans. Just one of the many mysteries of the Balkans waiting to be discovered. lol
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 27, 2011 7:53:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately the only thing we can go on is what travelers to the area wrote about it. The reason its unfortunate is because this really didn't begin until after it was under Ottoman rule. However from then up to the 20th century most of Mac. Slav inhabitants seem to be described as Bulgarians. There was a guy (Milibrand, Bilibrand,Miliband smth like that, he was anglo-germanic) passing from the south coast of southern Greece i think at 700 AD which said that here starts the domain of the Slavs. Yes, there is a historical source saying the Serbs settled Salonica. But again its pure speculation how many went there in the first place and how many actually stayed. The Serb impact seems to be weak overall in that region ( despite what Pyrros might try to conjure up). But I leave it an open case since nothing is definitive for or against it. They could've mostly stayed there but then one would have to ask how many really did settle the northern Balkans if most stayed behind? I dont know if they were called Serbs or not, but based on toponyms the vast similarities of my home land are between Hrvatska Krajna, Bosanska Krajna, then Crna Gora, then Srbija and last Bulgaria. And the fact that most of those Serbs say naively "we are from kosovo" or "we are from Crne Gore", makes one believe that those people were not natives in those places (HR/Bos). I would bet smth less than 100 dollars that they are from Greece. I offered many times to abandon childish speculations and go for a *real* competition among the Yugos and the Bulgos but the Bulgos declined even before i made the proposal. My whole theory has one basic assumption. One constraint. SERBS-SLAVS ARE/WERE POWERFUL. If we accept this as true, then there are not many ways that we can fail with our theories. The complete slavicization of Greece was a fact. Now did the slavs stay? of course not, because being stronger they would assimilate the unidentified Greko-Vlahs. So they left. Where to? I offered an answer.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Jan 27, 2011 9:20:36 GMT -5
Will do. While we are recommending books check this out. I know , when I saw it I was skeptical as hell too. The author is even picking on Croatia as his primary target. However, it turned out to be a good read and quite eye opening. That's true in a way. As I said the Orthodox and Catholic Churches preserved old ethnic/tribal identities. I guess that's a romantic way of looking at it. Still , Orthodoxy was brought to non-Orthodox by the sword as well (Orthodox Serbia conquers Catholic parts of Montenegro in the 12th century) They have a totally different rule set for grammar. ( Macedonian and Bulgarian). In terms of grammar and syntax ( which is the structure of a language) Kaj, sto , and Cha are interchangeable. Between the three west south slav dialects the largest difference comes in their vocabulary , not structure and grammar ( which are virtually identical as I said). When someone speaks Chakavian to me , lets say some bodul ( islander) the only part of his speech I would have trouble understanding is his vocabulary which uses a lot of local words borrowed from Latin and Greek not found in as much frequency inland. Vocabulary has nothing to do with structure and grammar. Check this out : Eng : Hey , what are you doing? Oh , nothing. I just slept all morning.KajCro: Kaj delash? Nikaj , Spaval' sem celo jutro. ChaCro: Cha Chinish? Nish , Spava san cilo jutro. StoCro: Shta Radish? Nishta, Spavao sam cijelo jutro. Notice you mostly get differences in grammar but in this case Raditi , Chiniti , and Djelati are all Croatian words and used by all three dialects. Really set up any combination you want. Mix match and have fun because you can. Its the same structural language is my point. Give a Cha, Kaj, and Sto speaker the same vocabulary and they are essentially dialects of the same language ( obviously since they belong to the same family). That is not the case with Macedono-Bulgarian. An easy one between Kaj, Sto, and Cha as they are virtually interchangeable and have always followed the same rules of grammar in the western Balkans. I say there are far more barriers when it comes to the east south slav.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Jan 27, 2011 10:45:45 GMT -5
They have a totally different rule set for grammar. ( Macedonian and Bulgarian). In terms of grammar and syntax ( which is the structure of a language) BS Grammar can change very easily. Accent and lexis very hard. Also by your definition, Polish or Russian are closer to Stokavica (because of grammar) than Bulgarian, but believe me, you would feel at home at Vidin western Bulgaria (where they have intense similarities with Stokavian), but not so home in Vladivostok...
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 27, 2011 11:10:20 GMT -5
Don't be silly bro. All of Serbia was a part of the First Bulgarian Empire for quite a while. Much of Serbia was also a part of the Second Bulgarian Empire. Let's not get into that, 'cuz we got them maps. We can post them, or you can search 'em. Don't kid yourself.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 27, 2011 11:11:52 GMT -5
^Please don't claim the first BG empire, they were Turkic you are not.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 27, 2011 11:13:02 GMT -5
Gyrro, your assessment is idiotic. The language spoken in Eastern Bulgaria and Western Bulgaria is the same, any dialectical differences are hardly noticeable. You'd have the same luck understanding a Bulgarian from Vidin as you would a Bulgarian from Varna.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 27, 2011 11:15:02 GMT -5
Don't claim the First Bulgarian Empire!? Have you heard of Old Great Bulgaria? We claim that as well, it's a part of our heritage, it's ours to claim, it's ours to remember.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jan 27, 2011 21:58:08 GMT -5
"Grammar can change very easily. Accent and lexis very hard." Pyrro, the slavs of vardar have the same accent as the serbs
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Jan 27, 2011 23:02:15 GMT -5
Don't claim the First Bulgarian Empire!? Have you heard of Old Great Bulgaria? We claim that as well, it's a part of our heritage, it's ours to claim, it's ours to remember. Either you're Turkic or you're Slavic, make up your mind already
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Jan 28, 2011 0:14:02 GMT -5
^ Don't be silly, educate yourself.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Jan 28, 2011 1:32:21 GMT -5
Pyrro, you ate totally wrong as usual. Lexis and accent change easily, it takes something like several hundred or thousand times orf a given word to be repeated and it enters the lexis. Or you have to spend some time in a given area and you can change your accent. But you can not change tenses, genders, cases just like that. It is a very very long process.
|
|