Talk:Bulgar language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would like to move the article to "Bulgar language", please say if you are happy/unhappy with that... VMORO 15:39, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm against as modern Bulgarian and Bulgar are completely different languages regardless of the name and the historic connection between them. Kostja 16:14, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is not a good idea to move the article. The Bulgar language of Great Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria was a Turkic language and it is proven by archeological finds. While modern Bulgarian language is from Slavic language family. Thanks and br, Anvar

I can't really see what you two are ojecting against - there is Bulgars and Bulgarians, two terms meaning different things. In the same way, it should be Bulgarian language and Bulgar language. It is illogical for the people to be called with the English name Bulgars, and the language of the same people to be called with the Russified name "Bolgar". VMORO 11:57, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

It should be Bulgar and I think it should be slavicized.

The turkic origin of the bulgar tribes is a well established historical fact.

The word "bulga" has actually a meaning in old turkish and is related to the word "bula" in modern turkish. It means "to mix". The bulgar tribes are considered to be mixiture of some of hun tribes scattered after Attila's death and the ogurs tribes, who were also turkic, but seperated from the mainstream turkish tribes quite early in the history. It would be more correct to keep the original name and to add such details in the article. - Gurcan

You should read all materials before discuss the theme! For example that bulgarian was left to right writed, reffered to other than turk language etc. For example words and clues similar to iranian, ancient authors always made clear difference between turks and bulgars...- Alex

I do agree that the article should be moved from Bolgar to Bulgar because this is what the Bulgars called themselves and probably their language and we should't adopt the Russian spelling. We ARE the Bulgarians, the decendant of those Bulgars, and we have the right to say what to call the language of our ancestors and not the Russians.

To the guy who said that the TURKIC people split early in the history and one part of them became the Bulgars, I will say that even though NOWADAYS "Turkic" is a collective term for people speaking tongues somewhat related to Turkish, this probably wasn't the case back then. It is the same thing to say that the early Polish people split to form the modern Slavic nations. If Bulgars were anyhow related to the Turks it would be more correct to say that the Proto-Turko-Bulgars split in two very early in history to form the Bulgar and the Turkic ethnoses. That's why the ancient authors made difference bethween Bulgars and Turks and also that's why Bulgars wrote from left to right. Internedko 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)