Talk:Pamir languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, Ogneslav. Everyone knows that Bulgarian is today a Slavic language, but that was not always the case. Unlike Russian, Czech and all the other Slavic languages, Bulgarian is not genetically a Slavic language, but is Slavic only by the process of borrowing and adoption.

There are still some words and structures in Modern Bulgarian that remain from the language of the ancient Pamirian Bulgars. The Bulgars were a Central Asian people who lived between the Volga and the Urals and who spoke a Pamirian language (Iranian language family, not Slavic). As the Bulgars migrated toward the present-day Balkans, their language was strongly influenced by other languages along the way, especially Turkish. After reaching the Balkans, the Bulgars eventually adopted the local Slavic language ... but Modern Bulgarian still contains some bits and pieces from the ancestral Pamirian tongue.

In short, the proto-Bulgar language of the Pamirs is NOT unrelated to modern Bulgarian. Today's Bulgarians are the descendents of the ancient Pamirian Bulgars. — Stephen 15:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete mention about Bulgars

Whatever ethnic background could ever be traced for Old Bolgars its language as it was known from their North Caucasus homeland to Balkans and Middle Volga is undoubtedly Turkic (see related discussion at Bulgars). It apparently included some Iranic loans from neighbouring Iranic dialects of Alani/Jazygi but by no means from any Pamir languages (though the former and latter are related). So I have deleted any mention about Bulgars and if someone really wants to put it back please provide serious reference or any other proof. Koryakov Yuri 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen claims of probable Ugrian origin, Turkic origin, and Pamirian origin, but you are the first person in my experience to say that the origin was definitely Turkic, with no possibility that anything else preceded. You ask for serious reference or other proof of origin other than Turkic ... but where is your evidence that the origins were definitely and ultimately Turkic? —Stephen 10:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say about origin, I said the Bolgar language is undoubtedly Turkic as it easily demonstrated from its (really scanty) records. Ann in the article there is no word about 'origin', it reads: "The Bulgar language... is believed to have been a Pamirian language originally". If origin could really be multiple the actual language is normally only one and (mixed languages apart) of one language family. And, Stephen, why Pamirian? I could understand Alanian, generally East Iranian, but exactly Pamirian (especially considering it is not a genetic notion but rather an areal one) - it that beats everything! I will not certainly delete this passage again but I hope you will change your mind and at least make this assertion more toleratable (is there such a word?). Koryakov Yuri 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the earliest provable language spoken by the Bolgars was Turkic. I know you’re also aware that it’s possible that they previously spoke a completely different language, and that it was supplanted by Turkic as a result of military conflict, economics, or other reasons...just as the great majority of today’s North American native peoples have lost their old language and now speak only English. This could be the reason that Chuvash diverged so dramatically and unexpectedly from the other Turkic languages. There are sometimes very complex interplays among the languages of a given region, especially if the region is relatively well populated (as in Southwest Asia), and if there are several strong (in a socio-economic sense) languages in close proximity, and especially if some of the peoples are nomadic or are displaced because of natural or man-made disaster.

I need to reread the article to refresh my memory, but if the sentence says "The Bulgar language... is believed to have been a Pamirian language originally", then it should be weakened a bit. Bolgar may have been Turkic from the start, or maybe not. Another competing theory is that it was Ugrian.

The reason for saying Pamirian rather than Iranian is precisely because it is an areal and nonspecific term. There is too little evidence to make a claim for anything as specific as the Alans. The only evidence that remains of their prehistoric origins is genes, and genetic studies are under way. When done, they won’t say anything about the Bolgars’ early language, but they should give a good idea about the earliest area that they have in common, and I think the likelihood is the Pamirs. —Stephen 09:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgars and the problems of modern Bulgarian historians

I am a Bulgarian but I want to support mr. Koryakov (see above) in his opinion that the Bulgars spoke a Turkic language. However, the problem to recognize this comes from the unwillingness of modern Bulgarian historians to have anything to do with Turkey, this is why they prefer to invent, without evidence, theories about a Pamirian or Iranian origin of the Bulgars, supplanted by a Turkic aristocracy which brought a Turkic language. As far as I know, this is just a hoax, since linguistic evidence from Hungarian, Chuvash and Volga Tatar languages supports the fact that Bulgar was a Turkic language with Iranian borrowings from various Iranian substrata or adstrata. It will take some time and certainly the appointment of a new director of the National Museum of History (current Bozhidar Dimitrov is an outspoken ultra-nationalist and national romanticist) for Bulgarian scientists to stop taking dreams for facts. 85.11.148.125 08:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgarian IS genetically a Slavic language

To Stephen. Bulgarian IS genetically and linguistically a Slavic language, just as are Russian, Czech, Polish, Serbian/Croatian and Slovene. Between the end of the 7th and the 10th century, the Proto-Bulgar, or just Bulgar, language assimilated into it, without leaving much trace other than the country's name, Bulgaria. Pretty much the same way as the Franks left their name but not their language to France and the Scandinavian Rus left their name, but not the language, to East Slavic Russia. Later, in the last millennium or so, the Slavic Bulgarian language (*note: there is no separate "Macedonian" laguage speaking linguistically, its creation was a result of a political decision by Tito and Yugoslav authorities to de-Bulgarianize the local population in the Vardar Region) changed significantly, as compared to other Slavic languages under the surrounding Balkan influence by Greek, Romanian, Albanian, and (to a lesser extent) Turkish languages. This, however, is a LATER development. It FOLLOWED the assimilation of Proto-Bulgars and their dissolution among the the country's Slav-speaking population. The proof is easy to find, e.g. the Slavonic or Church Slavonic language (originating from the region of Thessaloniki) stands closer grammatically to Czech, or Slovene, or Russian, than to modern Bulgarian. There is also more evidence from neighbouring non-Slavic languages as Greek, Albanian, Romanian and Hungarian. However, pretty much in the same way in which historians in the FY Republic of Macedonia "invent" a new history, wich they wish had happened, Bulgarian historians today try to diminish the idea of Turkic founders of the state and (rather wish to than succed in) gather evidence about an Iranian origin. There are also many who would like to diminish the Slavic character of the language and the Bulgarian ethnos. I would just remind you that in the 30-es and the 40-es there was a fashion supported by pro-Nazi and high-ranking Bulgarian scientists of seeing the (Proto-)Bulgars as a German tribe,in line with the Nazi propaganda of the day. The danger of creating a false "national mythology" could be easily seen if we looked south-west. 85.11.148.125 08:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)