Talk:Bulgar language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	language Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

	Bulgaria Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	To-do list for Bulgar language:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

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)

‘The Bulgar language of Great Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria was a Turkic language and it is proven by archeological finds.’

Fair enough about Volga Bulgaria, but what archeological finds prove that the language of Great Bulgaria was Turkic and the same as the one spoken later in Volga BG?

Contents 1 Words used in Itil Bolgharia 2 Petar Dobrev 3 Language family 4 Added POV-intro 5 A Kind of History: A must read

[edit] Words used in Itil Bolgharia

arvo = value, jyvä = grain, marras = death, kassi = bag, mehi = bee, mesi = honey, ora = thorn, orpo = orphan, osa = part (share), osto = buy, petkel = crusher, porsas = (small) pig, sarvi = horn, sata = hundred, suka = brusher, suola = salt, taarna (sara hay) = sedge, utare = udder, varsa = foal, vasara = hammer, viha = hatred. All these words have appeared in Baltic Finnic languages as loan (borrow) words from Indo European language used in Itil / Idel / Idyll / Atäl / (Volga) bend in Volga Bolgharia c. 650-1236.

These words came from Itil Bolgharian language as loan (borrow) words to Komi-murt language; bus = dust, karta = cattle shed, kolta = sheaf, ketsh = hare, kushman = black radish, serkni = turnip, tus = grain, tsharla = sickle, tshipan = hen, zep = pocket, kyd = punnet, kan = king, gob = mushroom.

Peharps these loan words help to make a decision what was the origin of the language, Old Turkic Oghur or Old Persian Parsi (Farsi). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.90.91 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not exactly sure how just 2 dozens of loanwords can help make the decision, given how ethnically mixed the region was and still is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.85.178 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petar Dobrev

Please stop adding links to his works. He's far far from being a credible source. He's not a historian (not even an amateur historian, rather a fantasist!) and he's even less of a linguist, applying his methods one can easily prove that proto-Bulgarian was a Martian or whatever you choose language and that the proto-Bulgarians were from Pluto. Let's keep Wikipedia clear from such crap.

[edit] Language family

There is absolutely no evidence on belonging of this language to Pamiri or such languages. It is clearly a Turkic language and as such it has been identified in all credible encyclopedias. --Mehrdad (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree the evidence is weak, but unfortunately, it is a prominent view in Bulgaria - see Bulgars for more details - and even Britannica seems to be adapting to the fact (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42723/Bulgaria#476436.hook), IMO without justification. BTW, the evidence for the Turkic theory is also pretty weak, if one does more research. I don't share the Iranian view, but I prefer it to be mentioned, because if you delete it, all you'll get is new Bulgarian editors adding it in a more POV way than the one in which it is presented now.

BTW, you should have written this in your edit summary, and it is not a good idea to identify such edits as your deletion of that view and as this post on the talk page as "minor". It is misleading and can create the impression that you are trying to make your edits without being noticed by people who might object. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How can one include the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

"it (Bulgar Language) ... ultimately gave rise to the modern Turkic Chuvash language"

"some Bulgarian historians have recently linked it to the Pamiri languages of the Iranian language group"

These Bulgarian historians must be after something. Nostradamus1 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious, the article lead mentions there are two theories, both theories are sourced, and the rest of the article presents the prevalent one (the Turkic one) as true. I don't understand your reason for a POV tag either. --91.148.159.4 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

See my entry below. Just by placing the theory of a biased local view does not qualify it to be mentioned before or as equal as the prevailing majority view. The weight matters!Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added POV-intro

There is a rush to mention the controversial Bulgarian theory of Bulgar language being of Pamirian origin. This is a minority view that may not even qualify to be more than a footnote. Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush, the mention has been in the intro for quite a long time, you are the one pushing for a change from the long-standing version. I see no better place for the Iranian theory, the alternative would be to place it in a separate section, in which case it would have to be stated in some detail, and then it would be even more necessary to mention it in the intro. The theory is controversial, but it is, for one reason or another, very widespread among modern Bulgarian historians and that fact is sufficient to make it deserve mention - after all, Bulgaria is the largest "descendant" of the Bulgars, and the only country to bear their name, so the Bulgars are studied there much more than elsewhere (although also with a much more biased agenda than elsewhere - this is a recurrent problem with national histories). I assure you that the evidence is, in fact, very ambiguous and meagre for both theories, so the current proportion is reasonable. Compare also the Bulgars article, which presents arugments for both theories in detail (I guess they should be moved here), and the link to Britannica, which suggests that the Indo-European (=Iranian) theory was judged to deserve mention by their editors. And, as I said, "hiding" the Iranian theory in an unnoticeable footnote will only lead to numerous policy-ignorant Bulgarians adding the same theory in a much more detailed and biased way, basically posting pieces from the many nonsensical or half-amateurish Bulgarian sources on the topic, and most other editors won't even be able to judge the credibility of these sources because of the language barrier.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We can not compromise the quality because of concerns of some misguided Bulgarians vandalizing the article. The often repeated argument about the "multiple" theories is questionable. There is the overwhelming majority view and the tiny minority view of Dobrev whose motives in coming up with such as a "theory" are all to clear to be mentioned here. According to Wikipedia 'Undue Weight' policy Dobrev's Pamirian theory does not even qualify to be mentioned in these articles. I quote from the wikipedia NPOV (Undue Weight) section below:

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Nostradamus1 (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is whether Dobrev's is indeed a tiny minority view. Given its popularity among Bulgarian scholars and the fact that few scholars outside Bulgaria have ever devoted a comparable amount of attention to the whole issue, I don't think it's so tiny.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I go to the library and borrow all the material regarding the Bulgars and the Bulgar language. Every source mentions the Bulgars as a Turkic people and the Bulgar language as a Turkic language. This should be clearly reflected in this article. Not the Biased Bulgarian view. Are you suggesting that the non-Bulgarian scholars are uninformed? Read the Bulgaria article and see how Bulgars are mentioned as Bulgarians. This clearly is not an oversight. There were no Bulgarians on this planet at the time of Asparuh. This is what happens when it is left up to the Bulgarian scholars to tell the world about the Bulgars. When the Pamirian theory is discredited enough they will come up with the Patagonian theory.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that material that you borrow is very little, isn't it. Because, as I said, not only is the material scarce, but also few people outside care about the issue; so in that sense, non-Bulgarian, non-Chuvash, non-Tatar scholars are uninformed - and BTW, almost all their info comes from Bulgarian, Chuvash and Tatar scholars (with the odd Finn or Hungarian in years past).

As for "Bulgarian" for "Bulgar", I do think it was mostly an oversight. I didn't use to know that it is called "Bulgar" in English either. It's just that the Bulgarian word for "Bulgarians" (bulgari) sounds like "Bulgars" anyway, and so people in the 19th century had to invent the term prabulgari ("proto-Bulgar(ian)s") to differentiate between the two; then, recently, the historians "realized" that the latter term was never used in history (of course it wasn't, because it is only meaningful in retrospect), and they started using only "bulgari" for both; and finally, someone uninformed has translated, incorrectly, all instances of "bulgari" as "Bulgarians" in the wiki article.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nostradamus1, from your 'Turks in Bulgaria' page I can safely assume that you're Bulgarian, as such you should know very well that during Communism/Socialism history and pretty much every other science was used to push through propaganda, the party line and so on. If you read pre-1989 history books you'll find out that Bulgaria at the end of World War 2 was ‘liberated’ by the USSR from the ‘monarcho-fascist regime’ (needless to say how absurd the term monarcho-fascist itself is!). Now, (emphasis on 'now') w'all know that was not the case (the USSR occupied Bulgaria and imposed a regime that nobody here wanted). Luckily today there is no party line and it should not surprise you that there are historians who express opinions that once it was impossible to verbalize let alone be published. Also, as far as I know Turkic influence on Bulgar isn't vehemently denied per se by Bulgarian historians who favour the Indo-Iranian link, it'll be silly to do so, after all there's been a good amount of Turkic tribes north of the Black Sea where the first Bulgarian state was founded and Central Asia from where the Bulgars came. The Bulgars don't seem to have been very resilient to influences, look how fast their language disappeared both in Danube Bulgaria and along the Volga rive. And I'd love to learn how well-studied the (Proto-)Bulgars are by Western historians... point is that I believe there is a fair amount of copy and paste from Bulgarian and Russian/Soviet sources into those heavily-acclaimed encyclopaedias.
  • I agree with most of what you stated above. Unfortunately Dobev appears to be a populist. Yes, there must be some Bulgarian scientists to put science and evidence before nationalism. However, in a nation accustomed to explain quite a few negative aspects of life in Bulgaria with expressions starting with "500 years of ..." this becomes a chellenge. Read the article mentioned in the next section for an insight. (I don't know how you reached that conclusion, BTW. I'm not Bulgarian). --Nostradamus1 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The 500 years of brutal Turkish domination are a historic fact and it's hard to miss the impact they've left, look for example at the sharp differences between Croatia (formerly under Austrian domination) and Serbia/BiH (formerly under Turkish domination), they (the differences) clearly go along the former empires' border. And the Arabs who were under the same domination don't appear to have kept very fond memories either despite the common religion, anyway I fail to see what the habbit of explaining many negative things with the said 500 years has to do here?! And in either case Bulgarians tend to have a very external locus of control, not only do they (well, we) love to see the roots of all evil soomewhere outside, but also they (we) always expect someone from outside to come as some kind of deus ex-machina and save us (Simeon II, Boyko Borisov). That Vagabond article hardly provides an insight, well, actually it does, but it's an insight into the lack of knowledge of its author, because you can buy the kind of books he talks about everywhere in the world; belief in cospiracy theories and so on aren't strictly Bulgarian traits. On the other hand what do the Turks know about the Ottoman empire? They simply know it as 'the benevolent empire' (yeah right). By the way even ethnic Turks are Bulgarians, Bulgarian nationals that is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.152.61 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Kind of History: A must read

Bulgarian scepticism towards the Turkic-ness of Bulgars and their eagerness to accept the Iranian/Pamirian theory can be better understood in the light of this article by Christopher Buxton.--Nostradamus1 --Nostradamus1 (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the comments under the article. Read also User:Nostradamus1/Conversions_to_Islam_in_Bulgaria to learn how eager and willing were the Bulgarians to convert to Islam because "The rapid and thorough conquest of the Balkans by the Ottomans convinced many Christians that the religion of the conquerors must be superior to Christianity, a conviction leading to conversion to Islam" and how happy they lived in the Ottoman Empire.Lantonov (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You could have waited until I completed the article. In any case I encorage everyone to read it as well. It will shed some light to the "super human" side of Bulgarian history.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I bet. Even unfinished, the light is so bright and shining that there are no dark nooks left. Let other Europeans be jealous, and clench their teeth in anger that they have missed those good days. If they had known how good life under Ottomans was, they would have met Ottoman troops in Vienna with bread and salt, not with bullets.Lantonov (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand how an article in a blog type of an Internet site can serve any purpose. As I see, Nostradamus1 is a Turkish nationalist, trying to promote his POV, which is unacceptable in any serious publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.26.215 (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)