tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post3443953370410740952..comments2024-03-25T10:01:53.114-07:00Comments on Bulgarian language: Bulgarian compared to other Slavic languagesLyudmil Antonovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-69184477586733055552024-02-28T06:05:40.371-08:002024-02-28T06:05:40.371-08:00I agree with this. The language of the Romanized T...I agree with this. The language of the Romanized Thracians, Dacians, Getians, etc. Balkan tribes persisted through centuries as unofficial language and was officialized as late as 18 century. Until then the Walachian voevods wrote their official letters and prayed in church in a "crooked" Slavic (i.e., Bulgarian) which was the third European written language after Greek and Latin.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-88121957001983966552024-02-04T15:29:50.855-08:002024-02-04T15:29:50.855-08:00The Romanian language existed. It was spoken by th...The Romanian language existed. It was spoken by the simple people, not the fancy ones. You should preoccupy yourself more with how Romance speakers gave you Bulgarian and speakers of crooked Slavic.ulvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546543962493604464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-88485718399193447012023-08-31T03:08:22.253-07:002023-08-31T03:08:22.253-07:00In fact, so amateurish as to refer to the book of ...In fact, so amateurish as to refer to the book of 1780 by Samuil Micu-Klein called "Elementa linguae daco-romanae sive valachicae" that started the pre-modern period of Romanian language with a grammar taken from French-Latin. Before this book Romanians wrote in Cyrillic (Bulgarian) alphabet and Romanian language did not exist.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-15866874879571615242023-08-11T09:17:54.276-07:002023-08-11T09:17:54.276-07:00"conjugated the words according to French gra..."conjugated the words according to French grammar". You very amateurish Mr Antonov.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-39253839097359986052022-11-12T01:23:38.207-08:002022-11-12T01:23:38.207-08:00I corrected the errors that you found. And, actual...I corrected the errors that you found. And, actually, Slavic Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian supported by all historical sources, in spite of the MANU political agenda to falsify Bulgarian history and culture.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-43427197145642156492021-01-28T01:53:58.773-08:002021-01-28T01:53:58.773-08:00I don't want to separate Macedonian from Bulga...I don't want to separate Macedonian from Bulgarian and Ukrainian / Belorussian from Russian because a lot of politics is involved in these separations. For example, for Macedonian we know the exact date and place of its "creation" (November 1945 in the Prohor Pchinski Monastery) under the direct order of the Communist International and executed by Serbian politicians. <br /><br />This article strives to find the common traits among the Slavic languages under the layers of differences accumulated through interactions with various non-Slavic peoples during the centuries. Most often, older words and older authors reveal the common traits much better than the recent ones. Just one example: the word čirida in Slovak meaning "balcony". I bet that it is not used in modern Slovak or even that not many Slovaks know about its existence. In Bulgarian we have the word чeрдак (cherdak), also pronounced in some places as чардак (chardak) or чарда (charda) also meaning balcony. This word is used only in the writings of old authors (18-19 centuries) and is not used in modern Bulgarian. Many younger Bulgarians have not even heard it or know what it means. After the Liberation, the language puritans in Bulgaria cleaned this word out of the official language along with many others because it was thought to come from the Turkish language. However, because Slovak and Turkish do not have many touching points, its presence in old Slovak points to the need for reconsidering its origin.<br /><br />I don't want to delve much in the above post of the "Unknown" except to tell him that I consider his opinion as inaccurate and misled. About Bulgarian, Ukrainian and Russian I can give many facts in support of my opinion; vocabulary is only a secondary influence from Polish or German through Polish (compare "Danke", "Dziękuję", "Дякую"). However, as I said above, I avoid the Ukrainian topic because of politics. As for Italian, Portuguese, French, and Spanish, they are all indeed dialects of Latin arisen after the fall of the Roman Empire and no serious linguist will deny this. These dialects are called languages only because of the political divisions during this long history. A very obvious example for this is that the Popes in Vatican changed the Latin for its Italian dialect in an effort to look more modern. The case with Romanian is different. Up till 18 century Romanian was primarily a Slavic language. After that, a strong effort to de-Slavianise the language and assimilate it to the "civilised Europe" and especially to France changed the alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin, cleaned almost all Slavic vocabulary and grammar out of the language, ushered dialect forms inherited from Roman soldiers and Dacians living in these lands in ancient times, conjugated the words according to French grammar and here comes modern Romanian. They did a similar thing with their history.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-2126045838301683702017-07-07T05:29:22.632-07:002017-07-07T05:29:22.632-07:00Peter, thanks for your constructive criticism. I w...Peter, thanks for your constructive criticism. I will have this in mind when trying to improve and develop this article.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-67829738302106088982016-05-05T16:04:04.896-07:002016-05-05T16:04:04.896-07:00This is a very inaccurate and misleading report. F...This is a very inaccurate and misleading report. For example, Bulgarian is much closer to Russian than to Ukrainian. Just look at the vocabulary. Ukrainian is much closer to Russian and Polish than to Bulgarian. Also, Slavic languages are in no way dialects of each other with the exception of certain vocabulary words between certain specific Slavic languages. Other than that, and in particular, they are all distinct LANGUAGES not dialects. Calling them dialects is the same as calling Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, French, and Spanish, DIALECTS! I don't know how this author misinterpreted his research so greatly in writing this report.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02361954722895014098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-23793638489226164632015-03-28T07:33:30.580-07:002015-03-28T07:33:30.580-07:00You asked for proverbs:
yes, there are also errors...You asked for proverbs:<br />yes, there are also errors, in vocabulary, grammar or typography. However, their form should very depend on particular regional dialect from which they were collected (and respective collector).<br /><br />But again, you should standardize and specify down your sources, that would be better. Even better to write it in current standard Slovakian (as probably you do in Bulgarian versions). But again, there is no way that most of them are not existing in Moravian dialects or in own Czech dialects...Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-79590819618014428632015-03-28T07:14:46.084-07:002015-03-28T07:14:46.084-07:00If you aimed to compare the "old state" ...If you aimed to compare the "old state" of languages, it would be much clearlier to write thoroughly to any chapter a subchapter and through the all text "Old Bulgarian", "Old Slovak", "Old Czech", "Old Ukrainian" etc. Or it is better to write "medieval"? And to which historical point?<br />And there would be other questions when comparing the older state: which of particular dialect would be "proper one" to stand for whole language in comparison? From my very limited knowledge up to today, we have not any historical documents written directly in Great Moravia and in real native language (no matter how close it was to Slavic of Constantine and Methodius), with almost any own literature (in the sence of separate publications) in succeeding close centuries, Slovakian was standardized only in late 19th century and even then the standard form was developing. Before the final standardization there was more trials to standardize, all unsuccesful, there was also Slovaks who meant we should write only in Czech because "the speech in villages is not good enough"...<br />Thus the number of questions arises only when you would a comparison of "old states", for example of Slovakian. And how should one identify particular typography in the old documents with the real pronunciation at that time?<br />When reading your blog, no one here knows, what source of Polish/Czech/Slovenian etc. you use for your comparison when you do not cite relevant documents and their date (and their evaluation from historical and linguistic point). And as to scientific research, better would be to look for and referr to original modern papers, not to very outdated (yet valuable) researches (or "researches") published long ago. <br />So maybe it would be better to compare old Slavic traits and their final forms in recent Slavic languages, and then to write subchapters on their comparion to recent Slavic Bulgarian (on the base of old Slavic traits). That's a lot of work to do and much of it is done by you. But vocabulary is only one side, the grammar is the other.<br /><br />I don't see the point of that large space for "Czech is so far and Slovak so close", especially when in the history they were only closer and closer. Isolation of some words does not the whole work if one would not see the amount of identical or almost identical others. I reckon that if you were familiar with standard Slovak then you will understand also standard Czech to a good ratio. So Bulgarian is actually similarly close also to Czech. Just the sencences should be analyzed, not chosen words.<br />Or in reverse: Bulgarian with the loss of declination is sooo apart from other Slavic languages...<br /><br />Above with "researches" I meant following:<br />Before some time I have read an explanation about some names in Liptov (a basin below the High Tatras), northern central Slovakia. And a German researcher said that they come from old Germanic, a Hungarian one said that it is surely from Hungarian, a newer research from a Slovak has finally shown relations to other Slovakian words. Therefore, a linguistic research is sometimes (or more often) not at all that linguistic and real.<br /><br />(continuation follows)<br /><br /><br />Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-46608832891853472592015-03-28T06:16:31.660-07:002015-03-28T06:16:31.660-07:00No, in any way I would "divorce" history...No, in any way I would "divorce" history and linguistics. But the archaeology together with the historical documents (if they tell the truth: you know that some sources are less reliable) is the right science to prove, for example, at what time the ancestors of Serbians came and to which place. A scientific linguistics has not tools for it: and I think that it is not (and should not be) also the aim of the linguistics. In the blog above you referred not to relevant scientific sources.<br />Today in Slovakia, there are also such people, that claims that Etruscans were in the point of fact Russians (EtRUScans, RUSsians). And in the base of "lingustics" thay claim that Slovaks are the oldest nation here in Central Europe and in the past they were connected with ancient Indian nations. One's head could go pop why are such people who would fight for that they are those ones, who is here the better Slav, the oldest Slav, whatever.<br /><br />(continuation follows)Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-72466982922053407322015-03-28T05:26:04.460-07:002015-03-28T05:26:04.460-07:00Thank you very much for your explanations and hint...Thank you very much for your explanations and hints to more information on Yat. Thanks.<br />Not, I'm not a linguist. I publish in the field of botany therefore I would like to write here only some note to grouping of language varieties. Existence of a language as a separate basic unit is not equal to existence of a separate basic unit (a species) in biological taxonomy. You know it, differences are anchored in culture, and culture has somethign to do with history and politics. <br />Yet, politics should not to come to linguistics as the latter should stay a scientific field only. And also personal beliefs (including to soem aspects of works of P. J. Šafárik, for example). When you look at Slovak dialect groups, one should say that the western one is so separated from eastern that they should be a separate "languages" ("the standard Czech is for me more understandable than some eastern Slovakian"). However, their users identify themselfs as Slovaks. And I think that a foreigner with knowledge of standard Slovak would consider some western Slovak dialect as belonging to Moravian ("Czech") group, not Slovak; however, it would not correspond to real nationality. <br />All that I am trying to say is that a culture is the defining point for giving either the rank a "mere" dialect or the rank of language. One cannot to speccify a such rules for language taxonomy as for biological taxonomy, because cultural-linguistical features are more complex, different. That's why some languages could be more close than somewhere else some dialects of that language. Actually the most important thing is to protect regional varietes as they are going to die out and nothing of that diversity will be left, for example, for linguistic research. This is all I wanted to say to Slavic Bulgarian and Slavic Macedonian.<br />I know, Slavs had a hard history and some forms of unhealthy Slavic nationalism is probably the result of it. However, we do not need it, really.<br /><br />(continuation follows)Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-89326300771239368142015-03-27T14:25:58.308-07:002015-03-27T14:25:58.308-07:00Thank you for reading the text and corrections, wh...Thank you for reading the text and corrections, which I will take into account. I will look and compare also the corpuses that you gave. They can be very useful as only a cursory look already found a new word to include in the table - Sk. jasnovidka -- Bg: ясновидка. The table itself should be much reworked because now, for example, SK-BG-EN words are mismatched for row sliding and some words are incorrectly translated in English. As I emphasize in the text, the comparison is focused on the OLD state of the Slavic languages and this is why many words are obsolete or not existing now in the modern languages. For example, almost 70% of the Bulgarian words given in the examples do not exist in the modern Bulgarian language or exist only in some Bulgarian dialects. It is so with the other languages, in particular with Slovak and Czech. For example, veštica -- veštkyňa -- čarodejnica and вещица mean "a woman who does magic, a witch", and that has been the old meaning in Slovak while the new meaning in Slovak is woman fortune-teller. кърчаг in BG is jug and the translation as beer-glass is incorrect. And so on. What is your opinion about the proverbs? Are there many errors in those?<br />As I have also explained in the text, Croatian is compared with Slovenian because there are many basic features that show a common origin of these languages or close interaction in the past, and also interaction with Bulgarian before Serbian came between them and introduced new grammatical and lexical traits. Again, emphasis is in old traits, and not modern traits in the languages.<br />As concerns Macedonian and Bulgarian, one of those is indeed a dialect of the other, but I leave to you as a linguist (or a person interested in linguistics) to tell which is which, taking into account the historical development of these language and dialect. You cannot divorce linguistics and history and expect to reach right conclusions. History and archeology give the objective direction for the comparison. For example, if the Rosetta stone has not been found, we would still think that the Egyptian writing is pictorial, and not alphabetic.<br />If you are interested in the development of Yat, the posts "Bulgarian dialects" and "Solun dialect" in this blog give some more information. Still, the information is not complete enough, and I intend to write a special post devoted to Yat, outlining its origin (it is not Slavic), and development in time and space, and also in the various European languages (Bulgarian (very important for dialect division), Russian, Romanian, Slovak, Polish).Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-62342682287276811892015-03-26T11:38:58.207-07:002015-03-26T11:38:58.207-07:00(a continuation)
If you would like to give a real ...(a continuation)<br />If you would like to give a real scientific value to linguistics, then – besides of using reliable sources – you should separate all ideological and political admixtures of the writings of respective authors or even scientists. It was (and is) not uncommon that results of linguistic (and especially historical) research is in the publications overshadowed by author's own political, ethnical, religious or other beliefs/opinions – but in the negative way. <br />Please do not go that way. Your work is amazing and actually I believe that you did it with an honest intention. Corrections are needed, and, please, do not try to explain with linguistics problems belonging to archaeology and historical science. A political centre of the state (so-called Great Moravia) where Constantine and Methodius worked was in that Moravia (not Panonia), which is situated between Bohemia and recent Slovakia and politically it is a part of Czech republic.<br /><br />It would be interesting if you could compare Bulgarian also to Macedonian especially or to Rusyn, Ukrainian and Belarussian. <br />Also I am surprised that you grouped Croatian with Slovenian and not with Serbian, but it's another question (and a lot of politics and worthless nationalism: see the whole chapter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian#Present_sociolinguistic_situation ). Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-90677354120278843512015-03-26T11:38:32.864-07:002015-03-26T11:38:32.864-07:00I was originally searching for some information on...I was originally searching for some information on "jať" and the origin of "ä" in codified Slovakian (see also https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dejiny_sloven%C4%8Diny ) when I was brought to your blog. I find your blog very interesting, but: if you want to compare languages to that extent, it would be better to become familiar with particular languages, especially with actual word forms. <br />I am Slovak and I can tell you that more than often are your examples of Slovakian incorrect or completely wrong. The same could be applied for samples of Czech words (as I am older, I have spent my childhood in Czechoslovakia, so in the TV there was predominant Czech-spoken broadcasting). If that amount of mistakes should appear in other languages' samples, then most of the comparison here would go wrong, I am sorry.<br /><br />I am going to write you here some corrections, however, you could consider official Czech (http://ssjc.ujc.cas.cz/) and Slovak (http://slovniky.korpus.sk/) linguistic databases.<br /><br />Chapter "Czech":<br />pět' – páty, svaty – světiti: five is "pět", the fifth is "pátý" (masculine gram. gender), a saint is "svatý";<br />brv, krv, hltati, or in re, lu: krev, slunce: I do not know the word "brv", Czech has not the word "krv", only krev";<br />běl, bědny, tělo, víra (faith), lěto (summer), mlíko: if "běl" should stand for white then the correct form is "bílý", if bědný was meant to be "poor" then "bídný", summer is written in Czech only "léto";<br />klič, jítro: only this way "klíč", "jitro";<br />hora: the main meaning of this word in Czech is "a mountain";<br />I do not know anything about tonal accent in official Czech and Slovak. And if you mentioned Upper and Lower Sorbian, one can search closer affiliation also (or maybe better) to Polish.<br /><br />Your chapter "Bulgarian and (Czecho)-Slovak" is full of mistakes. When I read it once again, the amount of needed corrections is so long, that it would take two days to make it. So I wil not make it: if you have some special questions, then write it, please, here to your blog. I am very curious about what was your sources to Slovak... it has nothing to do with real official Slovakian language. As Slovak, Czech and also other Slavic languages have many different regional and local dialects, when you would like to compare "languages" as separate entities, then it is supposed to do with their official versions, isn't it?<br />Here only some chosen examples from your table of "Slovakian-Bulgarian (and not Czech)" words:<br />A wizard is in Slovakian "čarodejník" (in Čzech "čaroděj"), female wizard is "čarodejnica", while a witch could fit "bosorka". Then "veštica" is actually something like a fortune teller (in female, a male fortune teller is "veštec").<br />Invaluable is equally in Slovak and Czech "bezcenný".<br />A milking cow is actually the same as in Bulgarian, i.e. "dojnica", however in Czech it is "dojnice".<br />Christmas is "Vianoce (in Czech "Vánoce"), krčah is a jug.<br />Slovakian has actually a word couple "za rána", but it has the meaning "in the morning", a morning is "ráno".<br />And so on, and so on. It looks like you (or your sources) don't know what is Slovakian is. The same would be if one should say that there are not visible differences between Italian and Spanish or Danish and Swedish, that Dutch is the same as German, and finally, that Bulgarian is something like a dialect of Slavic Macedonian... all of this is simple wrong, you know what I am meaning by this.<br />Peternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-56673090500781477332013-08-23T02:19:03.319-07:002013-08-23T02:19:03.319-07:00Thank you for the appreciation. Glad that I've...Thank you for the appreciation. Glad that I've been useful.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-63162145336013115202013-08-23T00:49:45.762-07:002013-08-23T00:49:45.762-07:00hello / zdravejte
very good and very interesting ...hello / zdravejte<br /><br />very good and very interesting site<br />i am french with polish origins with my grand parents, so i speak well polish as i have been to Poland several times and since a few i learn the basic of bulgarian because i have been to Bulgaria in June and i will be back in september again. it is very interseting to learn the bulgarian especially the conjugation which is differant.<br />i learned a lot with this article and congratulations<br />PascalAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-89413207089321945072012-11-07T02:13:30.352-08:002012-11-07T02:13:30.352-08:00Excellent article. Very informative, interesting a...Excellent article. Very informative, interesting and well written. Very good use of examples and clear logical structure. Thank you for sharing this!Nickonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-37262510883352282012012-10-13T01:51:36.231-07:002012-10-13T01:51:36.231-07:00A great post with some much personal things reveal...A great post with some much personal things revealed for us. Thank you for sharing and participating along with me too<br /><br /><br /><a title="teach yourself slovene" href="http://blog.thehouseofoojah.com/?p=1698" rel="nofollow">teach yourself slovene</a>Mamunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339907476362419380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-34395113369111483812012-08-07T23:59:48.727-07:002012-08-07T23:59:48.727-07:00Thanks, greetings to a Bulgarian heart!Thanks, greetings to a Bulgarian heart!Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-62794078447355794322012-08-07T21:33:43.105-07:002012-08-07T21:33:43.105-07:00I AM IMPRESSED --- MOST POSITIVELY SO !!!
Greeting...I AM IMPRESSED --- MOST POSITIVELY SO !!!<br />Greetings from an American descendant of Bulgarians from Aegean Macedonia and Pirot !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-76162863920442863662011-11-07T06:32:08.463-08:002011-11-07T06:32:08.463-08:00To 11:49
Уважавам мнението Ви, макар и различно от...To 11:49<br />Уважавам мнението Ви, макар и различно от моето, в достатъчна степен за да отговоря.<br /><br />Относно разликата между български и "македонски". Както Ви е добре известно, "македонски език" беше изобретен през 1944-1945 гг. по политически причини. Няма сериозни лингвистични причини за такова отделяне на българските диалекти в географската област Македония от тези в останалата част на българската говорна област. Цялата литература преди Втората световна война описва тези диалекти като български и с пълно основание. Макар, че избягвам да се занимавам с политика смятам да напиша отделна статия с основанията "за" и "против" глосотомията.<br /><br />Относно отделянето на хърватски и сръбски. В статията са посочени доста лингвистични факти, които показват, че те са били винаги отделни, като различията са в самата им основа.<br /><br />Отделяне на "босненски език". Може би тука сте прав и няма достатъчни причини за такова разделяне. Ще се наложи нова корекция в картинката (Уикипедията не е характерна с достоверност) за премахване на "босненски" като отделен език.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-70302045890155195012011-11-05T11:49:38.135-07:002011-11-05T11:49:38.135-07:00Благодаря за статията и за политическата позиция н...Благодаря за статията и за политическата позиция на българия в нея. Струва ми се излишно да говоря за нещо за което зная че се счита за правилно само в България. Знаеш добре за какво става дума, па само ще обърна внимание на снимката коя си добавил с графичн обработка, коя май подобно е различна от оригинала (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slavic_languages.png). Интересно е и не съм знаел че бошняпкия, сърбския и хърватския се считат за отделни езици, а българския и македонския за един същ. Иначе, статията доста добре илюстрира вързката с останалите славянски езици.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-3613222997630841442011-09-18T13:20:40.660-07:002011-09-18T13:20:40.660-07:00Благодаря. Желая Ви приятно и ползотворно четене.Благодаря. Желая Ви приятно и ползотворно четене.Lyudmil Antonovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01659108355246802266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7858962929111375880.post-31935856367658750822011-09-17T20:41:32.620-07:002011-09-17T20:41:32.620-07:00You are articles are very well written and with go...You are articles are very well written and with good factual basis. Браво много хубаво ! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com