|
nicetas
Feb 15, 2012 7:29:12 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 15, 2012 7:29:12 GMT -5
"Wrong. No matter how you choose to call the language, it is proven since 19 century that this language is the language from which modern Bulgarian evolved. It is not disproven still."
You retard, no one denied that Bulgarian evolved from Old Church Slavonic, but that doesn't make Old Church Slavonic Bulgarian, just like it doesn't make French or Spanish the Latin language. You received the language from the Slavs, the credit goes to them, not to you.
"No thats the feature of the Romanians. They pride themselves on foreign cultures who has nothing to do with them - Roman, Byzantine and Bulgarian."
We don't pride on anything that's Bulgarian. Why would we pride ourselves with retardness? Roman, sure. Our language originates from there, as well as some ancient laws that we kept. Byzantine, yes, why not? Half of our people resided in the Byzantine Empire and even founded a country there.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 15, 2012 10:26:33 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 15, 2012 10:26:33 GMT -5
Wrong. No matter how you choose to call the language, it is proven since 19 century that this language is the language from which modern Bulgarian evolved. It is not disproven still. So your language evolved from OCS? I don't care even if it's true. Italian, Romanian etc evolved from Latin, so what? Why should an Italian claim something that is the work of a different people and they had no contribution to it? They used it like most of the Ortodox people around here, do you think they used it because they thought it was amazing? Amazing compared with what? With Latin and Greek alphabets? Why should I read the journal of a sad buffoon? How do we pride with Bulgarian culture? Is it such a thing as a Bulgarian culture? And how do we pride with the Roman culture? As for the "Byzantine culture" in fact it is Eastern Roman one that Proto-Romanians made a big contribution to so it's normal to acknowledge it. You should read the historians that made independent studies on the Asans sate, those that based their work on the primary sources and not on the ridiculous maniacs that are the Bulgarian historians that try to invent you something to fill those fiction books you learn the Bulgarian history from. And I never wrote OCS is Greek, I wrote that is "a Greek standardized language". I meant a language that was standardized by the Greeks as the Slavs were far too primitive to develop their own written language. Romanians formed mainly to the S of Danube, it's only because of that dispute with the Hungarians that the Romanian historians neglected the fact that S of Danube was our core area for a very long time. There the Roman rule was much longer, in fact the Proto-Romanians there ruled the Empire and after the West fell, we can say the Eastern Roman Empire has nothing to do with the ancient Rome but was the state of the Balkan Romans (Proto-Romanians) and Greeks. As for Avars, Bulgars, Cumans, Tatars and so on, they were something like the Gypsies today, they came, moved around in their smelly tents and were exterminated as soon as the opportunity came. The culture you had was Roman, Eastern Roman, so you acquired our culture in the first place. There are all the links necessary, the people living there were our forefather that left us with the name of Român from Romanus, with our language etc, and they called their country Romania. There is a brick discovered in Sirmium dating from 582 when the city was under Avar siege, it is a prayer to God written in Greek to deliver the city from the Avars which ends in ”God save Romania”. I just thought what a bad luck in a place where the population was already speaking old Romanian we got that written in Greek, what tsunami would have provoked an inscription from 582 in Old Romanian saying „God Save Romania”... Then it stroke me... That was discovered by the Yugoslavs, they dug there, now the Serbs are digging, how can we imagine they won't destroy anything that proves they live on Romanian land? They saved it just because it was written in Greek. Who knows how many proofs are hidden or destroyed by the archaeologists from Bulgaria and W of Balkans? Wherever you dig on the S bank of Danube, anything that dates from before 600 AD are the traces of our ancestors. They still lived there in large numbers even in the 20th century when primitive and brutal assimilation finally manage to exterminate them.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 15, 2012 15:33:18 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 15, 2012 15:33:18 GMT -5
Bulgarians would certainly destroy any proto-Romanian (Vlach) artifacts or scripts that they were to find. No doubt about it. An evil people, indeed.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 15, 2012 15:40:19 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 15, 2012 15:40:19 GMT -5
"This is a bold statement.. here are the numbers of all allied participants in the Russo-Turkish War."
Freak, only Russian and Romanian troops participated in your liberation. Where was your army when the Russians needed military aid to take Plevnen? Where were the 40k Bulgarian troops? Where were the Serbs, the Montenegrins? They were nowhere to be found. Serbia joined the war late in the campaign and its sole objective was to secure its independence, not to liberate your sorry ass! You weak people, you did nothing to secure your liberation. Not when it came to sacrificing your own blood. And why should you? Let the dumb Russians and Romanians do the work for you. In return, you decided to show us some gratitute ... oh wait, you didn't show us gratiture! You backstabbed us in the back! F off, you evil monster! You weak and pathetic scumbag!
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 10:17:29 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 16, 2012 10:17:29 GMT -5
Gyppo, you're talking about things that you clearly have never had the mildest of interests. Old Church Slavonic has been referred to as Old Bulgarian, by non-Bulgarian scholars. Such was the case until emerging nationalistic propaganda programs of other (wealthier) states started to complain about picking a term that is more "neutral". But the fact remains that it was Bulgaria that spread the culture and the language to the all other Slavic speakers. It was Bulgaria that made this Slavic language an equal to the other three officially accepted languages (Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) for the translation of the bible.
And one other fact remains; call it Old Bulgarian or Old Church Slavonic, it doesn't matter as they're synonyms. But the writing on those icons sure as hell ain't "Romanian", Greek, or Latin. The writing is a form of Slavic, which came to you from Bulgaria as your lands were mere Bulgarian provinces for centuries. Try to remember that.
Hahahahha. Look at how low your Gypsy mentality makes you sink. This statement alone shows that either you are 1.) a complete moron who knows jack shit, or 2.) you're just talking smack because you're having a hard time controlling your emotions. Either way, this be typical of a Gyppo.. but then again, I don't have to tell you, the whole western world has your nation pegged as Gypsies. Try to remember that too.
LOL. Pathetic Gyppo, pathetic.
False. It is neutral sources that have reached those conclusions.
Hahahha, you really are that dumb huh. Old Bulgars and Slavs have been the integral ethnic components of your ethnogenesis; as for the Thracians, or rather Slavicezed Thracians, were partly absorbed in your ethnos.. BUT, we DON'T claim them. If we did, then we'd be as moronic as your nation. "Romanian = Romans + Dacians" <--- L O L!
Holly crap, these Gypsies can get quite arrogant.
That may be so, but history remains. It's written and recorded, by neutral sources, and it will do you good to actually acquaint yourself with it.
Why the hell do you Gyppos keep bringing up French, Italian, Spanish etc.!? I know you are all asswipes for those "Romance" countries, but grow some balls pride yourself in your actual history. As for Old Bulgarian and Old Church Slavonic, you should do some research. These are conclusions that were initially reached by non-Bulgarian scholars.
Bwahahahhahahahahahha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Now, dance Gyppos, dance.. I got a pocket full of coins.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 10:49:14 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 10:49:14 GMT -5
Yes, several neutral and contemporary sources also state that Asen was Vlach, yet you guys do everything to deny that. As for you calling Old Church Slavonic for Bulgarian and saying that other sources used to refer to it as Bulgarian, I will gladly inform you that in the Romanian principalities, we have always referred to it as Old Church Slavonic. I agree with you that that ugly language was spread from you. There's no doubt about it. Yet we were never a province of your empire. It's true that before the formation of Wallachia and Moldavia, the lands were loose vassal states to the Vlach-Bulgarian Empire under the Vlach dynasty of the Asens.
Sorry about mentioning French an Italian. I wasn't trying to asswipe them. They get on my nerves too, especially the French. The Spanish are okay, though.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 11:23:39 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 16, 2012 11:23:39 GMT -5
Ahh, the difference is that their ethnic origin is 'highly' debatable. Some say Vlach, some say Cuman, others say Bulgarian, and then there are those that say that they were most probably mixed. However, this really is an irrelevant topic as we know for a fact that they themselves identified as Bulgarian. Regardless of their origin, they claimed a Bulgarian identity.
You can refer to as whatever you'd like. Bottom line is that it has been concluded by neutral sources that Old Church Slavonic is structurally the same as Old Bulgarian, and its written origins are traced to Bulgaria. Some refer to it as Old Macedonian, which is not necessarily wrong; but then again, during those times, Macedonian itself was known as Bulgarian.
LOL. Listen, it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. The things I post are NOT my conclusions, I'm not a historian. I'm merely letting you know what the vast majority of historians and scholars have concluded. Don't make this personal, you're only deteriorating the discussion.
Don't be silly. The lands of present day Romania have been Bulgarian provinces since the time of Old Great Bulgaria.
Since Old Great Bulgaria..
Shhh.. they might hear you.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 12:04:40 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 12:04:40 GMT -5
No, we were never a province of you. Again, read what I said. F read you F moron! Read damn it! When I said that we were never a province of you, I meant Wallachia and Moldavia as a state. You F learn how to read before writing here! Haha!
"You can refer to as whatever you'd like. Bottom line is that it has been concluded by neutral sources that Old Church Slavonic is structurally the same as Old Bulgarian, and its written origins are traced to Bulgaria."
WTF! I know that shyt. No one disagrees with that shyt. But what you must understand is that before the Bulgarian identity was formed, the Slavonic language came first; and it is from that time that the name derives. Shyt, even Edlund understood and agreed with that reasoning. WTF is wrong with your brain, Ivo?
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 12:23:54 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 16, 2012 12:23:54 GMT -5
AnittasAll the contemporary sources state that the three brothers were Wallachians. Bulgarians played a insignificant role in chasing out the Greeks. It's only the fact that Asan brothers wanted international recognition that they claimed the long gone Bulgarian „Empire”. Just like the Germans made a Holy Roman Empire with Latin as the chancellery language. @ivo Hystericov Yet in the documents written in Moldavia and Wallachia the language is called Slavonic. Bulgarians had nothing to do with it, in fact some Serbian clerics were those that introduced OCS in both Wallachia and Moldavia. One very important cleric was Nicodim de la Tismana who was related both to the Serbian and Wallachian ruling houses, he wrote the oldest book preserved in Wallachia, in 1405. The oldest illuminated book from Moldavia that survived was written in 1429, unfortunately, like many other of it's kind, now it is in some foreign museum. This one is in Bodleian Library of Oxford. Its author is Gavriil Uric (Gavriil son of Uric) who developed a new type of fonts for Cyrillic that spread both in Wallachia and also in Ukraine and who knows where, they were so popular that even today to inscription in the Churches although in Latin script use fonts inspired by those of Gavriil Uric. theconveyor.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/the-oldest-illuminated-manuscript-from-moldavia/As you see, the scholars of today don't give a sh*t on the language, but are interested in the miniatures of the manuscript which are significant examples of late Byzantine art. So where's the Bulgarian influence? There must be some sort of conspiracy or maybe you were nobodies copying the Byzantine (East Roman) culture and making little or no original contribution to it. Because that's the Slavonic culture, it's just Byzantine (E Roman) culture. The Slavs made no improvements at all. No, they're not synonyms, I'm sure there are at least 10 Slavonic manuscripts and documents written by Romanians to any single one written by Bulgarians. Actually in the case of documents it's more like 100 or 1000 to one. Only in one Romanian monastery you'll find more Romanian illuminated books in Slavonic that all the known Bulgarian ones. So what your pathetic race had to do with that? Even in Slavonic we were much better than you. It no wander that you claim, when you have nothing you only have to claim what others have. There are no Slavicized Thracians, by the time your savage ancestors crossed the Danube there were no Thracians, there were only Romans of Latin and Greek language (Romanians and Greeks) and of course there are the Albanians who may very well be of Thracian origin and only partly Latinized. You say Slavicized Thracians because you can't say that the small decent elements in you nation came in fact from the assimilated Romanians.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 12:31:46 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 12:31:46 GMT -5
Yes, all conteporary souces mention the Asen as Vlachs (not as Wallachians). I used the word several to underscore that there are more than just a couple of sources.
I'm glad that the Serbs assisted us in that Slavonic thingy. I remember reading a long time ago about something similar.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 13:09:10 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 16, 2012 13:09:10 GMT -5
It's the same thing, Those that used the form Vlach used it for all the Romanians either S of Danube, Moldavian, Muntenian etc.
Anittas, what do the guys in the next video reminds you of? Do you think they are European?
Nice Asiatic song. Is it Mongolian, or is it from the Ottoman masters?
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 13:16:33 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 16, 2012 13:16:33 GMT -5
Lol dumb Gyppos.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 13:39:46 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 13:39:46 GMT -5
Without doubt it's oriental, from the far East. The same goes for the music. I could've never guessed that was in Europe. The only thing that resembles anything European are the costumes, which they took from the natives.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 13:49:44 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 13:49:44 GMT -5
Once upon a time in Bulgaria...
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 14:08:25 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 16, 2012 14:08:25 GMT -5
The only thing that resembles anything European are the costumes, which they took from the natives. To me it looks like the caps on their heads are inspired from the Ottoman fez. As for the rest of their clothes: the trousers are not authentic, that vest it's like a Turkish yelek. I don't say much about the shirts but i don't like the embroidery on them. I like better the second video, the old movies are a treasure. Maybe you want to compare the clothes with those from two Romanian movies, one from Transylvania, Maramures subregion and one from Moldavia.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 14:49:03 GMT -5
Post by ioan on Feb 16, 2012 14:49:03 GMT -5
uou, what a bunch of bollocks!!! the tragedy of the Romanians is that they are proud on some illusionary achievements that no one bothered to write down. So they specialized on stealing others achievents and making it "their own". As I said its not only Bulgarian culture, but also Roman and Byzantine one that got robbed. Is the stealing of other people cultures, heroes etc. the other reason you are often reffered to as gypsies? As for the Asen brothers: they might have been Vlahs! Yet, they have nothing to do with the Romanians or Romania. They never did anything for "the Romanians" or "Romania"!!! To think: they actually fought Romania (the Byzantine empire). What was their purpose: if the vlachs felt "roman" since time immemorial as Catcher wants us to believe one would guess they would ve restored the Roman empire or Romania, made the Latin language official: in one word: if he was "Romanian" or wanted or praised what the Romanians praise today he would ve never restored the "Gypsy camp" as Cather put it or write his letters in BULGARIAN than translate them into GREEK than into LATIN. If he was a "Roman", a person who treasured the Roman empire, who felt this is the empire that represented him the most shouldnt he just announce latin as official in his empire and called his state Romania? Why was he preffering the uncultural Bulgarian language? Why only Kaloyan was reffered to and saw himself as emperor of Bulgarians and Vlachs and the Vlachs disappear 10 years later? The reality is: whatever his origin, be it Vlah, he never stand up for anything Romanians do today, he never saw himself as "Dacoroman"or the Bulgarians as inferior, he never saw himself as "Roman", he saw himself as Bulgarian.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 16:22:03 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 16, 2012 16:22:03 GMT -5
What the hell are we stealing? Are you out of your mind? I brought the proofs that you are the one stealing, claiming etc.
It's ironic that they did exactly like that. Don't they teach you in schools? Of course they don't. If they do, the whole Bulgarian fake identity will go down the drain.
Some quotes from one of the letters in the correspondence between Ioniţă Caloian and Pope Innocentius the 3rd.
Decemb. 1202
Papa Innocentius III Calojoanni, Domino Blacorum et Bulgarorum
Romanam Ecclesiam matrem tuam... The Roman Church is your mother.
...qui ex nobili Romanorum prosapia diceris descendisse...
...you who are said to have descended from the noble Romans...
These correspondence is just because Caloian asked for a Roman Church.
This should be corroborated with a quote from a Bulgarian book printed in 1844 in Buda named Tarstevenica:
„It was noted in some old books written by hand that after the death of the Bulgarian Patriarch Saint John, Asan (Asan the 2nd) called father Teofilact from Ohrida and enlightened and cleaned all Bulgaria of the many heresies that were then in the land. After that he invited emperor Asan to cross into Wallachia, to conquer it and to clean it of the Roman heresy that was reigning there at that time and Asan went there and subdued both Wallachias and forced the Wallachians that untill then read in Latin to leave the Roman confession and to stop reading in in Latin but in Bulgarian and ordered that to those that will read in Latin to have their tongue cut off, and since then the Wallachians started reading in Bulgarian.”
This hardly can be taken ad litteram but I think it does have some truth in it. I don't know if this happened during Asan II, it could have happened some other time when OCS replaced not Latin but Romanian.
Also this Asan II was clearly a Bulgarian. I don't think he had something to do with the three brothers beside claiming to be the son of Asan so he could take the throne. That's what the Bulgarians do, they let the others do the hard job and then thanked them in a typical Bulgarian way.
As for the Gypsies, do you know how you look? Most of our Gypsies are whiter than the average Bulgarian.
Who are the Gypsies?
Look at 5:10 when camera close up.
The Gypsies look more European, Mediterranean not Hindo-Mongolian.
|
|
ivo
Amicus
Posts: 2,712
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 17:04:13 GMT -5
Post by ivo on Feb 16, 2012 17:04:13 GMT -5
Umm.. according to the average European, you are. They really do think of you as Gypsies, I'm not saying this to insult you.. but that's how they see you.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 17:17:04 GMT -5
Post by Catcher in the Rye on Feb 16, 2012 17:17:04 GMT -5
Yet, it is you, not me, who going into W Europe locals will think he's from Maghreb.
|
|
|
nicetas
Feb 16, 2012 17:22:15 GMT -5
Post by Anittas on Feb 16, 2012 17:22:15 GMT -5
Have you even visited Europe? You live in Canada. Tell us of our image over there. In some countries, in Europe, we have a decent image; in others, we have a poor image. Yet most Europeans understand that Gypsies are a minority, like they are a minority in Bulgaria. Yet Gypsies are not the problem here. In fact, one could ask himself: are you European, are you white? Or are you, in fact, Asiatic?
As for the Asens, they fought for the Bulgarian-Vlach Empire. That was the name for the empire, that is what they fought for. It was their home. Asen was Vlach, all contemporary sources state so. Only the Bulgarians beg to differ, so who is stealing whose history? We are not stealing anything from you by pointing out to all the sources that say that Asen was Vlach.
To go back to what I was saying, as far as I'm concerned, you are an Asiatic people. Gypsies, having originated from the Indians, are closer to the Europeans than your Asiatic people are.
|
|