|
Post by rusebg on Mar 2, 2011 17:00:48 GMT -5
Not exactly. Come on, Krivo, don't make me post this for umptieth time, after all you are not Pazar not to get it from the first time. Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolythic alphabet, and the Cyrrilic one was created by their students in Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 2, 2011 19:48:36 GMT -5
^ Go on Ruseche, post it. Besides, OCS was used as the basis of cyril and methodius (Thessaloniki region).
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 2, 2011 20:18:10 GMT -5
"oo so 'Bulgarian' is a fluid title of enigmatic origins which just floats through history like a magic carpet. Sure buddy."
We are dealing with the most thick and stubborn people in the whole galaxy, nothing can beat their backwardness.
"Bulgar is a turkic word, Bulgars were a turkic tribe, Khan Boris betrayed his own people and made you something you weren't. We can consider him (Boris) a medieval backwards Ancient-Makedonian FYROMian."
Bulgar is a name that was applied to one of the Turkish groups of people in East Asia, a non indo-european Mongol-Altaic language speaking tribe related to the mongoloid racial types, i.e, THE TURKISH SAKA. At the point of origin of this Mongol Turkish tribe, it was fully Asiatic (Mongoloid) as it moved westward, its culture and race became DILUTED with indo-european tribes, whom it absorbed when conquering or whom it came into contact with. When this tribe reached Europe, its original culture and race became so diluted that only remnants remained. It is interesting that Asparuch's Turkish OLD BULGARIAN langauge survived intact without any real linguistic modification. Asparuch's decendants, today known as the Gagauz, do speak a fully Old Bulgarian language, as they call it: Hasli Bulgar.
Krivo, do you know that Asparuch built his capital (Abode) then in todays Pliska, in a Turkish Asian fashion?
"He takes one ethnic group's name (Bulgarians) and applies it to a another people's language and culture (Slavic)."
Hence why this needs to be cleared up because today's danube bulgarians are corrupting the real history and are using it for their own territorial expansion objectives.
|
|
|
Post by ulf on Mar 3, 2011 8:08:59 GMT -5
Not exactly. Come on, Krivo, don't make me post this for umptieth time, after all you are not Pazar not to get it from the first time. Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolythic alphabet, and the Cyrrilic one was created by their students in Bulgaria. Right, glagolitic alphabet isn't even created for South Slavs. Moravian king asked Byzantine emperor to send them some priests who can teach Moravian priests word of God in the language they know, and not in Latin like Catholics were initially trying to do. So he send Cyrill and Methodius
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 22, 2011 10:59:44 GMT -5
No one knows the ethnicity of Cyril and Methody for certain. All that is known is that they were citizens of the East Roman Empire. There are speculations that they could have been Bulgarians, they could have been Greeks, they could have been mixed.. but all these are speculations. Though, it does seem as they must have had some sort of Slavic blood in ‘em.. they had command of the Slavic language, and they didn’t study it in school. That could only mean that at least one of their parents was able to speak it.
The ancient Bulgarians did indeed have their own alphabet. They Cyrillic alphabet was based on a combination of the Greek, the Latin, the Glagolithic, and partly on the old alphabet/symbols of the ancient Bulgars.
Also, it’s very important that we don’t confuse the Glagolitic alphabet with the Cyrillic one. The Glagolitic alphabet was created by Cyril and Methodious, while the Cyrillic alphabet was created by their students.. most notably St. Clement of Ohrid.
Yes, and the Cyrillic alphabet wasn’t really referred to as the Cyrillic alphabet.. but simply as “the alphabet”. The point is that contemporary linguists have found enough similarities between Old Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic to conclude that they are the same things. There are plenty of sources, and I’ve already posted some of them (non-Bulgarian sources) that refer to Old Church Slavonic as Old Bulgarian.
And how do you propose we do that, when you don’t even read your own sources?
Lol. As suspected, your opinion is that Bulgarians are a mix of Turks and Serbs. That alone shows how vast your ignorance actually is.
Like I said Pazar, your personal opinion counts for nothing. If you want to be taken seriously, why don’t you try to provide sources? And whatever happened to that long awaited discussion of the IMRO/VMRO you were promising?
All languages are. Unless a people live on some isolated island with no contact to other peoples/tribes, the languages will undoubtedly evolve. Langue is fluid, and changes by the decade. Hell, I can even see a difference in Bulgarian from the 1990’s to the present. When I left Bulgaria, there were much fewer English terms in use. When I’ve gone back to visit, I’ve noticed that more English terms have made their way into everyday Bulgarian.. and even some English phrases. I think that’s the case with all languages.
Yes this is one of the theories out there. However, there are several others that bare the same credibility as the one you mention. I’d suggest acquainting yourself with the topic in greater detail, as you seem to have some interest in it.. but it isn’t genuine. It seems your interest is only revealed in a manner similar to Pazar referring to the Bulgarian people as a mix of Turks and Serbs.
Boris officially accepted Christianity. What’s the problem, I don’t quite understand?
This is yet another poorly made and rather misplaced analogy. I don’t get exactly what you mean here actually, so you’re welcome to clarify.
That’s just a silly remark. What you’re suggesting is what was suggested during communism, and that is that the Bulgars were supposedly very few (estimated at 10-15,000) and got lost/assimilated into the great sea of Slavs that resided on the Balkans. This is absolutely false.
How is it that that handful of Bulgars were able to subjugate ALL Balkan Slavs, while at the same time, they were engage in active warfare with one of the greatest empires in history (ie. the East Roman Empire/Byzantium). The Bulgars were great warriors, great strategists, and great military tacticians but they sure as hell were not some sort of super-humans.
The numbers of the Bulgars were large, and Boris Christianized all his citizens.. of which, the Bulgars were a significant chunk, if not the majority of the First Bulgarian Empire’s population.
You are a re-tard Pazar. Sorry bro, I don’t mean to offend you, but you’re just one of the biggest retards I’ve ever come across.
It’s ironic how in recent years Serbs have gained favour in Macedonia, yet, historically the Serbs are one of the greatest enemies of “Free Macedonia”. Thankfully, all history is recorded, and all it takes is a spark. The libraries are there, the books are there, we ain’t got nothing to hide.. and eventually, the truth will surface once again.
Stubbornness is an easily visible Bulgarian trait. We call it “inat”, Serbs call it the same. I think Serbs have this trait as well. Anyway, it is this trait (along with our Christian Orthodox faith) that has helped us sustain ourselves as a people throughout the 500 years of the Ottoman Empire.
Though, from what I’ve seen in my personal life.. I think a Bulgar is willing to take that stubbornness to a level further than a Serb. I mean, Serbs are fucked up don’t get me wrong, but I think Bulgars are more fucked up. But then again, all Balkanians are fucked up to one level or another. Lol
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Mar 23, 2011 1:39:49 GMT -5
No one knows the ethnicity of Cyril and Methody for certain. All that is known is that they were citizens of the East Roman Empire. There are speculations that they could have been Bulgarians, they could have been Greeks, they could have been mixed.. but all these are speculations. Though, it does seem as they must have had some sort of Slavic blood in ‘em.. they had command of the Slavic language, and they didn’t study it in school. That could only mean that at least one of their parents was able to speak it. I'm sure people were able to speak languages fluently back then even without computers or school Not to mention Cyril & Methodius were quite educated for their time. That's some theory and lots of wishful thinking, though I'd like to see more research corroborating this. Got it. I mistakenly believed the Glagolithic was created before Cyril & Methodius. Slavs, or Serbs, whichever word fits your fancy asen. You guys are definitely a milkshake, with some of our ancestors included. Not talking about the language asen but the ethnic name. And of course, you're wrong. Languages are fluid, to an extent. People "-ify" foreign words for a clear reason - to not debase their own tongue and preserve their distinctive speech. Everything having to do with tradition and culture is created in order to resist change. In the Bulgarian predicament, however, a ruler inextricably destroyed the natural evolution/tradition of the Bulgar ethnos, killing off its nobility, banning the language, religion and alphabet, while instating a foreign language and religion as law, all for political gain. The only thing that remained of the Bulgars was the name. There is nothing natural about this, this was a rape of culture, ancestry and identity. You guys unfortunately are the product of this, and not one people in the Balkans has had anything comparable happen to them other than the FYROMians. I provided plenty of academic sources regarding this here and they were blatantly ignored. It's mainstream academia who claims this, not me. What he did was change the destiny of your people forever. Politics & power over family and tradition. It's simple: Fyroms are "Macedonians" who speak Slavic and come from Slavs. Bulgarians are "Bulgarians" who speak Slavic and come from Turkic Bulgars, or they come from Slavs. Either way in both cases the name is misrepresentative of the people. As I clarified, that's just one of the theories. It's either that, or again Boris subjugated Bulgar Turkic people with a foreign language and culture (Slavic) and thus you are again a misleading people and Church Slavonic cannot be connected to you. How is it that a mass of Bulgars accepted a foreign language and tradition on them? Through maniacal violence (Boris'), and that's why he was an evil, anti-Bulgar figure who didn't give a sh*t about his people or values. And you guys essentially with your existence indulge in his rape of tradition and your ancestors, and ultimately to the collapse of values and honor in the balkans. Congrats. He did much more than just that, don't fool yourself. Bulgarians were the main force in an independent Macedonia and ethnic Macedonism. It's no surprise given that their hero is Boris, the language/religion-changer. I'll agree with you here, I could not believe how many times I had to re-post mainstream scholarly sources of Bulgars being turkic to the Bulgarians here.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Mar 23, 2011 5:37:22 GMT -5
|
|
Patrinos
Amicus
Peloponnesos uber alles
Posts: 4,763
|
Post by Patrinos on Mar 23, 2011 9:23:01 GMT -5
Not exactly. Come on, Krivo, don't make me post this for umptieth time, after all you are not Pazar not to get it from the first time. Cyril and Methodius created the Glagolythic alphabet, and the Cyrrilic one was created by their students in Bulgaria. Well the Greek monks Kyrillos and Methodios who used that alphabet : ...created that alphabet: ...but their bulgarian pupils more greekly than Greeks created this: А Б В Г Д Е Ж Ѕ З И І К Л М Α Β Γ Δ Ε Ζ Ζ Η Ι Κ Λ Μ Н О П Ҁ Р С Т Ѹ Ф Х Ѡ Ѱ Ѳ Ν Ο Π Ρ C Τ Υ Φ Χ ω Ψ Θ
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Mar 23, 2011 11:15:09 GMT -5
Who plays this role in Serbian history?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 23, 2011 11:22:52 GMT -5
Touché. Or rather, to-s**t, or rather, no s**t. Lol. You have discovered the Americas Kriv, pat yourself on the back bro you deserve it. All good things come to those who wait. Though, it don’t hurt to do your own research. I’m still rather perplexed at the fact that you are unaware that scholars equate Old Bulgarian with Old Church Slavonic.. so much so, that Old Bulgarian is used as a synonym for Old Church Slavonic. That shows me that you don’t have enough knowledge in the field to be discussing and claiming things with such certainty. Yes sir. It is them brothers that devised the Glagolitic alphabet. As I’ve been telling Pazar all this time.. not all Balkan Slavs were Serbs bro. However, seeing as how all of Serbia was a Bulgarian province, it’s only natural that we’ve assimilated some of your people into our ethnos.. but then again, we’ve assimilated many others. And at the same time, you’ve also managed to assimilate some of our people into your ethos.. let’s not forget about the Torlaks. Tsar Boris I killed something like 40 noble families. The contemporary estimates of the amount of Bulgars that permanently settled South of the Danube are in the range of 300,000-400,000 for Asparuh’s Bulgars and about 60,000-80,000 for Kuber’s Bulgars. There was plenty Bulgar blood left even after the execution of these 40 noble families. Ahh so many similarities between us Bulgars and them Macs, my my what can I say.. but then again, there was a time not too long ago when we were all one and the same people. Language is something that is not to difficult to change. Off the top of my head I can think of three examples: 1. The East Roman Empire (around 400AD I think it was) changes it’s language from Latin to Greek. At that time it has been recorded that Greek was mainly used as a commercial language, as a language of trade, and it was only spoken in some of the major port cities of the empire. The mainland population only spoke Latin. But yet, the language of the empire was altered successfully. 2. The First Bulgarian Empire, the language is officially altered and a form of Slavic becomes the language of the empire. It was a political move, much like our Christianization, but as you can see both stuck. Though, Bulgarian (and Macedonian of course) has a completely different grammar from all other Slavic languages. 3. The Ottoman Empire, the language was officially altered by Ataturk. The language spoken during the Ottoman Empire and the language that was to become official in the newly establish Turkish republic were very different. It has been said, that a modern day Turk would have great difficulty understating the language spoken in the Ottoman Empire. Ataturk basically removed all, or most, non Turkic influences from the language.. so Arab and Persian contributions (which were many in the Turkish language of the Ottomans) were removed, or rather, replaced with Turkish/Turkic words. There are many other examples. Romanian was much different and much closer to Slavic in the past. However, in the 1800’s their government decides to undertake a policy of “Latinization” of their language. Slavic influences were extinguished, and a focus on Latin became their national agenda.. and even so, there are many other Slavic influences that they were not able to extinguish. I’ve dated 4 Romanian girls now, with one I was with for 3-4 years.. and I’ve seen this. They would use the phrase “Bog da prosti” except they’d write it/pronounce it as a single word “bogdaprosti” and they have no idea what it means. Yet in Bulgarian, that simply translates as something along the lines of “God forgives”. The situation with Macedonia and the newly formed Macedonian language.. if things keep going the way they’ve been going over the past 20 years, I’d assume that in some 50-100 years that might actually become a language different from Bulgarian. The keyword here is “mainstream academia”. What this means, is that many historians who don’t specialize in the topic base their conclusions on those that came before them. However, if you read up on some contemporary scholars who actually specialize on the matter, and actually do their own research, those who take into consideration things that have been uncovered over the past 100 years and don’t solely focus on what someone else has concluded.. those people, ie. the specialist on the topic, are not firm on the Turkic theory. In fact, they down play the Turkic theory due to the lack of evidence in support of it. Many of personal names such as Asparuh and Asen for example, were originally thought to have been of Turkic origin, however, they were later confirmed to have been of Iranic origin. There are many more examples, cultural, spiritual, linguistics, historic, etc. that must be taken into consideration. And as I’ve already mentioned, those scholars have a different opinion. We had gotten into that discussion over at the Macedonia forum; feel free to read through it again. He did what he thought was best. The First Bulgarian Empire reached its peak during the reign of Tsar Boris’ son (ie. Tsar Simeon the Great). Hell, we even had another great empire (ie. the Second Bulgarian Empire). I think the results speak for themselves, and Boris’ decisions proved to be advantageous for the Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people. We can go round and round in circles here.. but the bottom line is this: practically all independent/neutral sources (including earlier Serbian ones) have concluded that the vast majority of the Slav speaking population of Macedonia (ie. 82.5% +) self identified as Bulgarians until about 50-60 years ago. Whatever Macedonians were, Bulgarians are the same. Whatever Bulgarians were, Macedonians are the same. Do your research. I’ve already provided some sources, and there are many more. Old Church Slavonic is indeed Old Bulgarian, and Old Bulgarian is Old Church Slavonic. Such were the conclusions of non-Bulgarian Scholars. The only reason why this is not a commonly publicised fact is due to politics, and due to Bulgaria’s weak position in global politics. That’s all. Those who have the funds are not only able to publicise their own history, but they’re even able to bend the truth.. with money, one can even fabricate history from thin air. And let me tell you, nearly 90% of Bulgarian history has been recorded by non-Bulgarian sources. So you can think whatever you want to think, but I’d highly suggest you get out there and read some more material.. do try to focus on neutral sources, as this will help you avoid many of the pitfalls that you seem to fall into during such discussions. Of course he did. He was the one that made all of Serbia into a Bulgarian province. Bulgarians, mainly Macedono-Bulgarians to be more specific, were indeed the main force behind an independent Macedonia. However, the main culprits behind “ethnic Macedonism” were initially Serbs like Novakovich, and later Yugoslav politics (especially during Tito’s time) that made that whole “ethnic Macedonian” thing official. Desire, that’s an interesting link. I enjoyed reading it. It’s a great representation of how easily language can be changed, and how quickly certain linguistic features can be adopted into one language from another.
|
|
|
Post by rusebg on Mar 23, 2011 15:37:17 GMT -5
Asen, please leave Krivo to first answer how Serbs accepted Christianity and the Cyrillic alphabet. It will be very interesting to know how they, so attached to their Sarmatian roots and whatever ancient alphabet they used, accepted the alphabet and religion of the so-called (by him) Turkic Bulgars. I foresee a very ironic explanation.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Mar 24, 2011 11:48:56 GMT -5
I'd first like to know how exactly asen distinguishes the Serbs from the other Balkan Slavs. Then I'll explain how Serbs accepted christianity, and all that jazz.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 24, 2011 12:14:43 GMT -5
^ All records regarding the Slavic tribes in Macedonia that I've come across don't refer to those Slavs as Serbs. They are referred to by their own tribal names. Here are a couple of maps I came across. The map is from around the time period when Asparuh initially decides to settle south of the Danube, and you can clearly see where the Serbs were located.. and that wasn't Macedonia. And here's another one that is not really related to this particular topic, but it's interesting.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Mar 24, 2011 19:35:21 GMT -5
^ All records regarding the Slavic tribes in Macedonia that I've come across don't refer to those Slavs as Serbs. They are referred to by their own tribal names. Many slavs in the balkans are referred to in DAI and other Roman/Greek sources by their tribal names, and then defined as being Serbs. For example the Zahumlijans, Paganijans, Travunians, Rascians, Triballians, etc. It's clearly inaccurate because as you can see the Neretvians, Zahumlijans, Terbunians (Travunians), and Docleans are shown separate from "Serb tribes", when in fact each one of those are identified inarguably as Serbian by historical sources.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 25, 2011 10:22:22 GMT -5
These, as you can see, were not residing in Macedonia. So even if these tribes were referred to as Serbs or not is not relevant to our discussion as they were not settled in the region we're discussing.
These Slavic tribes were residing in Macedonia. If you know of a source that equates these tribes with the Serbs, then please go ahead and post it. I'd be happy to read up more on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Mar 25, 2011 11:13:18 GMT -5
These, as you can see, were not residing in Macedonia. So even if these tribes were referred to as Serbs or not is not relevant to our discussion as they were not settled in the region we're discussing. Well if these are inarguably Serbs than where is the line drawn, how do we know that the other random slavic tribes in the balkans aren't Serbs too, that's the thing-we don't. I know the Berziti are Serbs as well, today known as the Brsjaci tribe.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 25, 2011 14:32:41 GMT -5
Ok, but as we already concluded those Slavic tribes that were "inarguably Serbs" were not located in Macedonia.
The Berziti were a Slavic tribe that was eventually assimilated into both the Serbian and the Bulgarian ethnic groups.
|
|
|
Post by terroreign on Mar 25, 2011 22:02:31 GMT -5
So they weren't located in Macedonia - they moved around. Obviously someone knowledgable like yourself is aware there were Serbian dynasties from Macedonia, and migrations of Serbs to and from that area. But then again I suppose there might be an imaginary Wall of China bordering north-west Macedonia which prevented Slavic tribes to move around. I mean I know you're an Asiatic Bulgar and everything but, this is the Balkans not China bro ;D
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Mar 26, 2011 12:53:25 GMT -5
Once more, we've never disputed that there was SOME Serbian presence in Macedonia. The point is that the Serbs who lived in Macedonia were only as significant as the Armenians for example.
Serbia's claims on Macedonia and it's people are recent, and have no historic foundation. A Serb can claim Macedonia with as much credibility as he can claim Turkey.
I knew you were a sensitive boy. It's ok bro, relax, don't get your panties in a knot.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Mar 27, 2011 5:07:59 GMT -5
"Serbia's claims on Macedonia and it's people are recent, and have no historic foundation. A Serb can claim Macedonia with as much credibility as he can claim Turkey." Asen its really the other way around, Bulgar claims to Vardar are weak. Jordan Ivanov, the chief Bulgarian authority on the Bulgarian character of Macedonia, was ONLY able to quote a few cases in which the name Bulgarian was mentioned in Southern Serbia before the exarchists began their work.Take these for example from the Bulgarian Ivanov: "In the year 1704, VELJKO POPOVICH of Kratovo says that he was born in the Bulgarian lands, in the place known as Kratovo" "In 1818, a certain NESHO MARKOVICH, a merchant from Kratovo, printed in Budapest a calendar for the convenience of the Bulgarian people." Kratovo Asen, was a Serbian center
|
|