|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 5:01:35 GMT -5
The Slavs influenced the people living in the Balkans, including the Bulgars. The Slavs influenced the Romanians before the Bulgar state was founded.
The two brothers that invented the Cyrillic alphabet were Greek.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2011 5:35:06 GMT -5
The two brothers that invented the Cyrillic alphabet were Greek. i doubt that. Greeks in Greece died at 300 ad. no use of greek language was practiced between 300 and 700 ad. after 700 ad the eastern romans started to use the greek lang only to instigate the western romans. true greece died at 300 ad (when the visigoths attacked greece). but then again, use of greek lang does not necessarily equal "TRUE GREEK". its like some maimoun indian from india claiming the proud Saxon history just because he speaks english...
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 6:03:22 GMT -5
The Slavs influenced the people living in the Balkans, including the Bulgars. The Slavs influenced the Romanians before the Bulgar state was founded. Wrong. If we talk about the real influence of SLAVIC CULTURE AND LITERACY, we can speak about it AFTER the invention of the alphabeth and AFTER the establishment of the first slavic schools - in Pliska (later Preslav) and Ohrid. Before that the influence of the slavs is just supposed: however the Bulgarian influence over Romania in the lithurgy, state titles, the church etc. is from the time after the establishment of Bulgaria. Certain linguistic influence on Romanian may predate the Bulgarian state, but this linguistic influence is of eastern southslavic origin - so you were influenced by the slavs that later were assimilated into Bulgarians. Linguists have prooved (I ve read such researches) that the slavs that passed through Romania were all from the eastern south slavic group (Bulgarian group). So in reality it is a Bulgarian influence. Agree, eventhough their mother is said to have been slav and the slavs in around Thessaloniki later were assimilated into Bulgarians thus I d say they had slavic blood of slavs which later were known to all people as Bulgarians.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 6:16:18 GMT -5
It is not a Bulgarian influence. The Slavs first settled on our soil before they continued further south. Those Slavs were assimilated and influenced us.
Nothing that is of Slavic origin can be credited to the Bulgarian state. Only the Mongol legacy that you left to the Balkans can be credited to you.
The Slavs influenced us, like they influenced you and other people. It's that simple.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 12, 2011 6:22:12 GMT -5
Lol. The semi-literate showing his illiterate side yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 6:23:09 GMT -5
Hi 'tard, are you here to learn English?
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 6:48:08 GMT -5
It is not a Bulgarian influence. Where are those slavs that influenced you linguistically before the Bulgarian state was established? They were assimilated into the Bulgarian ethnicity. Conclusion: even the earliest slavic influence on your speech is of eastern southslavic (= Bulgarian) origin. Those slavs later were known as Bulgarians. On the contrary - the fact that Serbia and Russia and others write in a Bulgarian alphabeth, invented by the Bulgarian Kliment in Pliska, the fact that the oldest slavic books are all Bulgarian means that everything of cultural significance for the slavs in the earliest period of the development of the slavic culture should be credited to the Bulgarian state and personally to the Bulgarian zars Boris-Michail and Simeon. The mongol influence over the Balkans of the invading Mongols in 11 century was coming from the north - from Romania. The mongols devastated Romania and from your teritory (earlier- Bulgarian second-rate province so I dont know if I should speak about your teritory at that time) were attacking us. Thus the mongol influence on the Balkans was spreading through Romania mostly south. If you talk about Bulgar influence (not Mongol) then you can credit us and thank us also, because your state organization was very much influenced by the Bulgars - for example the title bolyarin, which you took from us (I suppose from the time Romania was a Bulgarian province). As a whole - everything that was Bulgarian (I include here everything that was left from the Bulgars and the Slavs from the south eastern group) influenced deeply the Romanians. Mainly because (I suppose) centuries you were integral part (province) of the Bulgarian state. Centuries after the disappearance of the Bulgarian empire you were keeping the Bulgarian titles and language and culture. Only in the 19 th century you were debulgarized but not naturally. You can not influence yourself. But you can influence the others and we influenced the Romanians from a very early time.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2011 6:50:54 GMT -5
It is not a Bulgarian influence. The Slavs first settled on our soil before they continued further south. Those Slavs were assimilated and influenced us. Nothing that is of Slavic origin can be credited to the Bulgarian state. Only the Mongol legacy that you left to the Balkans can be credited to you. The Slavs influenced us, like they influenced you and other people. It's that simple. well put. bulgos cannot claim everything slavic when their language is the most exotic slav language found on earth.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 6:53:18 GMT -5
well put. bulgos cannot claim everything slavic when their language is the most exotic slav language found on earth. you know nothing about bulgarian language.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 6:56:30 GMT -5
Ioan, the first Slavic tribes to settle in the Balkans settled on our soil, which the hundreds of Slavic toponym bear witness to. There were several waves of Slavic migrations. Not all Slavs would migrate to Bulgaria. A big portion of them would remain on our soil and assimilate and it is they that influenced us the most.
The Slavs influenced the Bulgars. You are not Slavs, but the Slavs can be credited for the foundation of your statehood.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Sept 12, 2011 7:01:20 GMT -5
^^ its really marginal.
i am sure my albanian-vlah ancestors spoke a language 1/3-greek, 1/3-vlah, 1/3-slav , where most of the church lexis was greek, most of the social/pastoral lexis vlah and the rest social/agricultural/geological/geographical part was slavic. so , greek was for the "abstract" world (religion) vlah was for the moving world (animals, people) slav was for the steady world (land)
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 7:06:42 GMT -5
We are slavs, because we speak slavic language. Slavic is a linguistic term. Proove that we do not speak slavic language. Every single linguist agrees that Bulgarian is slavic language. The core lexic is slavic. For the Romanians we can speak of Bulgarian (eastern south slavic) influence, because your language is not of the slavic group. Its a romance language (latin derived) with heavy slavic influence (heavily reduced in 19th century). However your language is not slavic.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 7:12:08 GMT -5
You do speak a Slavic language. How could anyone prove otherwise? From a linguistic perspective, and maybe also culturally, you are Slavs.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 7:18:48 GMT -5
So if we are slavs, we can not influence ourselves. We are the slavs from the southeastern slavic group. If you want to understand it: those slavs that passed through Romania and influenced your speech were from the eastern southslavic group. They went south and were the main ethnicity that took part in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity. Why the main: because we speak their language and the Bulgarians developed a totally slavic culture that spead from Bulgaria to Romania and other states.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 7:36:14 GMT -5
So if we are slavs, we can not influence ourselves. We are the slavs from the southeastern slavic group. If you want to understand it: those slavs that passed through Romania and influenced your speech were from the eastern southslavic group. They went south and were the main ethnicity that took part in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity. Why the main: because we speak their language and the Bulgarians developed a totally slavic culture that spead from Bulgaria to Romania and other states. Of course you can influence yourself. I said you are Slavs from a linguistic perspective; but from a genetic one, not really, so I wouldn't be bragging so much with the legacy that the Slavs left. Besides, your scholars look to other origins of your 'specie* they look at Mongols and maybe an Iranian people. I know what you're saying about the Slavs that migrated to Bulgaria and I'm saying the same thing. The Slavs that first settled on our soil, a part of this population would later join other waves of Slavic migrations and settle on your soil, aiding in the foundation of the Bulgarian state. Yet we do not owe the greatest part of our Slavic influence to the Bulgarians because, 1. they were Slavs--and those Slavs do not equal Bulgarians, 2. they settled on our land before Bulgaria was founded.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Sept 12, 2011 11:24:03 GMT -5
you do owe the greatest part of your slavic influence to us, because the biggest influence is post 681. And I think even before that your slavic influence is Bulgarian, because it is of southskavic eastern origin. Also I dont really understand what you mean by the statement that we are not slavs from genetic perspective. The genetic origins are studied using genetic researches, right? And according to most I ve seen they dont proove neither Mongol nor Iranian genes: rather Mediteranean genes with slavic influence: in short more Thracian (preslavic) genes.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 12:17:01 GMT -5
We don't owe you that because you are not true Slavs. The Slavic influence on your genetic pool is minimal. I'll rather not elaborate on this issue. Lolz
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 12, 2011 13:06:58 GMT -5
You're proven wrong by your own words.
This in-itself makes us Slavs as 'Slav' is an ethno-linguistic term where there are no 'pure' Slavs. Therefore language is a factor that remains consistent for all Slavic groups, and all peoples that speak a Slavic language as their mother tongue are Slavs.
If we were to look at 'genetics' alone, then according to you, Romanians are Slavs.. as you've claimed that Romanians have more Slavic blood than Bulgarians.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Sept 12, 2011 14:01:12 GMT -5
No and no. Yes, you are Slavic in linguistic terms, but not genetically. Yes, we probably have more Slavic blood than you, but that doesn't make us Slavs. To say that we have more Slavic blood than you doesn't mean that the Slavic element is the predominant one.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
Post by ivo on Sept 12, 2011 17:56:17 GMT -5
Now you sound exactly like those retards that claim that all South Slavs are Serbs, but then again I never thought of you as a person of superior intelligence.
|
|