Talk:Bulgar language

 

Untitled

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

Comment on the word "bulga" - it is the same as what came first: the chicken or the egg? Was that "bulga" became a part of the turkic vocabulary as means of describing something that is mixed like the bulgar peoples, or did the word already exist in the turkic vocabulary at the time and that's how the bulgar people were named after? The latter seems highly implausible, since the peoples of Bulha, Bulh, Bulhara from Pamir are the ancient ancestors of the bulgar peoples of the caucasus'. The very fact that turkic peoples distinguished themselves different by calling these OTHER peoples (different than them) other names is proof that bulgar people (genetically, culturally and spiritually) were different peoples. When one follows the genetic profile of the modern day bulgarians, to the old bulgaria in the caucasus to the bulgar people, then back to the bulh people, then one can have a better understanding of who these people are and where did they come from. It is just like following a river upstream to its springs origin in the mountains. When the bulh people were recorded by the western chinese chroniclers, it was also evident that they couldn't make out anything specific of them, because they were all so different than anything they've ever seen before. One might even argue that the proto-bulh people are responsible for the creation of the mongolian peoples, simply by proto-bulh men "stealing" the chinese wifes and mixing into a new type breed. The word Mongol can be found (in variation) to the modern day bulgarian word - mangal, which (with negative connotation) means someone with darker skin. or with mixed ethnic genetic profile. One other thing I want to mention is that the only people who call bulgar, turkic, are the russians and modern westerns, because they don't know any better and in their minds turkic and bulgar doesn't make any difference. Same way that when the proto-bulgars came to the danube, the byzantine empire didn't bother to make a difference between samarian, scythians and bulgar. In regards to the language, I am native bulgarian, but I live in USA right now, so these days I consider my primary language as English, same as wherever the bulgarian people went - they assimilated the local language. But I will always hold dear in my heart the semantic meaning of the words madara (as madar horseman found in afghanistan) meaning mother, and tangra which in Eglish means thunder. Madara / Mother... Tangra / Thunder... aren't these words almost the same? But they have 2000 years difference in between them and they carry within themselves totally different feelings or something cultural and spiritual which today is only words, but if you are bulgarian you will connect to these words on higher level and your mind and my mind will connect with a profound understanding which noone else, no other peoples, can share. It is like if we communicated beyond the words, our minds connect to the ideas which are mind independent and give us feelings which there is no words to describe them. This type of non language communication is what separates us and makes us different... You want to make this even more interesting? Why don't you follow the word boyar (or bolyar) and see where it takes you! Don't be surprised if you come across Buyeo(Korean) and proto Bulgar links. And also look up the Cultural ties between Korea, Thracia, Bulgaria ... Maybe you will find that the bulgarian people are more ancient than anything you have imagined... long before even the turkic people came about and distinguished themselves as turkic. My personal opinion is that the bulgarian people have returned to the balkan peninsula right before political barriers have made it impossible to nomadic-ally travel the world on horses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.124.59 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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?

The Bulgarians have never spoken turkic language, neither in the antiquity, neither today! Stop with this communist propaganda! Please! Keep wikipedia credible source for valuable information! The Bulgarians have never been turkic, neither they are now! Read Iranian sources and they will tell you that the turkic languages have been heavily influenced by the Eastern Iranian tribes living in Bactria like the Bulgars! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.50.216 (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.152.61 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask what is your source, for Petar Dobrev not beeing a credible source? Why should we believe you he is not a credible source? I personaly suggest that we mention in the very beginning of the article that although the Bulgar language is broadly accepted to be Turkic, there are also authors who have another view. I don't think you or anybody else has the right to hide what was written about Bulgars. Maybe you should read the papers of people before you judge them. --PDijn (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Petar Dobrev mentions several loan words from Greek as being Bulgar (i.e Khoro coming from Χορός). Definitely not a good source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.193.100 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I second that, particularly in concern to @MiltenR additions from August 2022. Peter Dobrev is extremely unreliable sourse, his works are nothing more than pseudo-science and quackery. Svilenov 13:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svilenov (talk • contribs)

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)

Ugric but Turkic nationalist will get even Hungarian to be Turkic in their pan-Turkism Edelward (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sorry Lantonov but you Bulgarians are shit. Do not even talk about how bad living under Turkish rule was. My ancestors and millions of people had to flee after ethnic cleansing commited by Bulgarian puppet state. Today there are millions of Turks who had their origins back to Bulgarian lands and there are still 750,000 Turks TRYING to live in that same Bulgaria after all those nationalistic and communistic bullshits that tried to change their names to Bulgarian ones and convert their religion. You are telling nothing but shit here with that so-called "hard times under Turkish rule dramas" If Bulgarians can speak Bulgarian language and still Orthodox, it is because of Turkish rule that gave them the tolerance. If we were really that cruel, there were no Bulgarians left today and believe me if we had performed "the steppe way" you would have been disappered from earth! Now, go fuck your own mother with those bullshits. And dont forget you were actually a Turkic tribe once and spoke Turkish in this article. Your rulers even used the title "Khan" you son of the bitch go lick your European masters' arses and accept their dominance over your so-called independent national history thesis!!! (Some guy from Thracia)

I think we should leave the above as a good example of Turkish nationalist propaganda. Kostja (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bulgar language in southern Italy

The Bulgar language was also spoken in southern Italy from the 7th until the 9th century.

In the 660s, Grimoald, Lombard king of Italy, received military aid from Altsikurs, leader of Bulgar horde. The horde was later sent to the duchy of Benevento (c. 665), and received lands in the actual region of Molise. According to Paul the Deacon (in the late 8th century), their descendants still used their original language but also spoke Latin. G. Calabria (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Website about the Bulgars in southern Italy, in Italian and in Bulgarian language (cyrillic alphabet) [1] G. Calabria (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically this may be correct that a few thousand expats spoke their native tongue for some time, but it's not really significant in the scope of the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Vastly presence of Pamirian loanwords in modern Bulgarian

Please, provide a reliabe linguistic sources about this unbelievable and frivolous claim. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm. I dont know if you have seen, but we have provided sources, one of which is a site that you regularly use. In it, any person can see the significant number of words that are of Pamirian origin, it is not like the words are 10 or 20 in number, but more. So the, how is it an unbelievable claim. That you suffer from seemingly Iranophobia (as your interaction, which is often uncivil or border on it, with edits in the Bulgar page and other pages indicates) should not come in the way of editing an article. Please keep your feelings and strong words to yourself, and stop saying that this is not a forum when nobody treats it as such - what is wrong with you?Smart Nomad (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Petar Dobrev is neither linguist nor historian but economist. His wors are not reliable source in linguistics, but original researchs, not recognized in any authoritative European University. His works are not published anywhere abroad. All this pseudo-scientists woks on the base of politically motivated, anti-turkish sentiments: Developing cultural identity in the Balkans: convergence vs divergence, Raymond Detrez, Pieter Plas, Peter Lang, 2005, ISBN 9052012970, p. 29. Jingiby (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, he is an economist and a historian - why do you think he writes about history - you know, why do I even have to explain this to you when you know it, it seems you just want to be difficult. You are wrong that it is pseudo science, judging from your comments and past edits everything to you is pseudoscience and political - get a hold of yourself and stop with you rude comments, harsh words and unjustified accusations. I also suggest you learn some proper English and spelling if you are to contribute in English. One does not need to be a linguist to see obvious words of Pamirian origin - anyone, of any background can see that a certain word in Bulgarian is the same as or similar to a certian word in Pamirian languages - and you know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 08:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that Oghur languages be merged into this article or section"

Nice joke, when there is a living language such as Chuvash which is certain to be Oghur and Turkic. --Mttll (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

a Turkic language

The Bulgars were also using the Chinese calendar / Chinese zodiac (like the other Turkic peoples!)

"somor"(in Bulgar language) = Rat, "şegor" = Ox, "vereni" = Dragon, "dilom" = Snake, "dvan" = Horse, "tekou" = Goat, "toh" = Rooster, "yethi" = Dog, "doh's" = Pig

All of them were Turkic names. (but we don't know the names of Tiger, Rabbit and Monkey in Turkic-Bulgar language.)

source: "Tuna Bulgarları ve Dilleri" (by Talat Tekin) = "The (Turkic) Language of the Danubian Bulgar State"

"somor" < sungur, şegor < sıgur < sıgır = sığır = Ox, "vereni" < evren = Dragon, "dilom" < cilom < cılam < cılan < yılan = Snake, "dvan" < cuan < yun = yund/yunt = Horse, "tekou" < tekü < tekegü = teke, "toh" < tawuk < taguk/takagu = tavuk = Rooster, "yethi" < it < ıt = Dog, "doh's" < dokus < dogus < donguz/tonguz = domuz = Pig; so they were all Turkic names! Böri (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are uneducated, the Bulgars did not use the Chinese calendar, nor did they use Turkic calendars - they had their own, the Bulgar calendar, which is a solar calendar - solar being more accurate than the lunar calendar of the Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About this removed text:

There are three linguists who oppose of the Turkic theory. The first one is Omeljan Pritsak, who in fact was one of the principal proponents of the Turkic theory (see Mosko Moskov, Imennik na balgarskite hanove). The second one is a French linguist, Denis (?), who apparently said in 1921 that "at times one may wonder whether the language really was Turkic or simply had a lot of Turkic loanwords". The third one is Cvetana Tafradzhiyska, who was a Bulgarian specialist in Mongolian studies.

Omeljan Pritsak 's opinion on Bulgar language: The language of the Volga Bulgars belonged to the Hunno-Bulgarian branch of the Altaic group. The only living representative of the branch is the Chuvash language... chek Studies in medieval Eurasian history, Omeljan Pritsak, Variorum Reprints, 1981.

The second one is a French linguist, Denis (?) This is nonsense.

The third one is Cvetana Tafradzhiyska, who was a Bulgarian specialist in Mongolian studies. This isfact and I am going to change the article.

Jingiby (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

i am wondering, how come the bulgar language is clasified as turkic when the bulgars appeared at least 10 centuries before turks, seljuks, oguz turks or gokturks, on the surface of the earth. the turkish languages can be called bulgar, or bulgaro-mongolian, or bulgaro-persian, not the otherwise.212.13.86.194 (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but here is not place for wondering, but for providing neutral, academic, peer reviewed sources in support of your opinion, if they ever exist. Jingiby (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

ok than. as bozidar dimitrov says, the first mention of bulgars is in the 2nd ct. a.d. in bactria. oghuz and gokturks appear in the 7th-8th ct. and the seljuks appear in the 11th ct. you have articles in wikipedia about that. im not wandering, i am asking. how can something be called by something that didn't exist in the etymology of the world?212.13.86.194 (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Iranian hypothesis

Please, do not remove peer reviewed sources. A small circle of 4-5 modern nationalistic historians in Bulgaria has accepted this theory. Nobody in Europe, USA or Rusiia supports such views. This is a fringe view. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Detrez is a historian, not a psychologist, so his credentials for discerning the motivation of other historians are dubious. And you do realize that you actually need a source to claim that a historical viewpoint is fringe? Kostja (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Detrez is specialist in Bulgarian history and Bulgarian philology. I did not undersatand why his opinion published in peer reviewed book was deleted. Jingiby (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a historian doesn't mean he has the ability to guess the motivations of other historians. It's one thing to content that most historians back the Turkic theory, it's another to claim to know the motivations of his opponents on personal opinion. Kostja (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He is not only historian but also linguist. The fact of the publication of his opinion in peer reviewed books is enough. The Iranian hypothesis is neither accepted nor published anywhere abroad. Jingiby (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am neither Bulgarian nor Turkish, but the Iranian hypothesis seems very persuasive to me. First all the turkic words that linguists used to prove the "Turkic origins" are things like "titles","god name ","calender" etc, these words could be easily adopted by any other language and not necessarily came from the original "Bulgar". If you compare the Iranian words still used in contemporary Bulgarian, given the history that not much contacts had ever happened between the Bulgarians in the Balkan peninsula and the Iranians in the central Asia, one will easily raise the question of "when does those words were borrowed from the east Iranians?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.237.185 (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not remove peer reviewed academic sourced text, written by one independent expert of the issue, i.e. Raymond Detrez. Pesudo-nationalism is not welcome here. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Modern Bulgarian contains a lot of Turkish loan words, which in turn contains a lot of Persian loanwords. So in order to support this hypothesis you should find in the Bulgarian language Persian words that do NOT appear in the Turkish language... Have you got any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.237.193.100 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Old Bulgarian

i know that it is widely accepted and pushed through, but you are making a mess equaling slavonic language with old bulgarian. slavonic language was existing long before bulgars came to europe and took it as theirs. the alphabet was made under the khan rule but it doesn't make it bulgarian or "old bulgarian">212.13.86.194 (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The claims of Raymond Detrez

Even if the claim that the Iranian theory is based on political reasons (a very dubious proposition), in no way can it be used to condemn a work published in 2007 - two years after its date of publication. I doubt that the book by Bozhidar Dimitrov was taken into account by Detrez, so it's probably unsuitable for a source about it as well. Kostja (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no logic at that claim above. Anti-Turkish sentiments are permanent in Bulgaria, but they grew up in significance especially during the early 1980s, and this theory arouse nearly at the end of 1980s. Dimitrov is known with his controversial biased science and anti-Turkish sentiments and is an adherent of this theory long before 2007. What is your agenda? Jingiby (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no logic in that you can't use an earlier statement to prove anything about a later statement? The Iranian theory has nothing to do with anti-Turkish sentiments; it did not appear until the 1990s, while even during the 1980s "Revival process", the Turkic theory continued to be the official one. I'm not aware of Bozhidar Dimitrov making any anti-Turkish statements, but that's not the point. The problem with the Detrez source is that it is used to condemn all Bulgarian historians who hold an alternative opinion without explaining how any of them are individually anti-Turkish (not to mention that there is no evidence that Detrez is familiar with all authors who hold this opinion) and without other evidence to support this opinion. Furthermore, this is used to characterize an author whose book was published in 2007, so Detrez's opinion can't possibly be relevant about it (and it's unlikely that Detrez could have been aware of it in 2005). So using the source in this way is both original research and a violation of neutrality (the source is given far too much weight by using it to condemn all sources which it contradicts), and I would ask you to revert yourself. Kostja (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand you. To remove the opinion of an independent expert of the Bulgarian history published by Academic publishing house in favour of biased fringe theory, which is supported only partially in Bulgaria? This is not serious! Raymond Detrez is the author of the Historical Dictionary of Bulgaria, published by Scarecrow Press, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 0810849011, and of The A to Z of Bulgaria, Scarecrow Press, 2010, ISBN 0810872021. He is an expert of the issue. Jingiby (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So what? He's still not a psychologist or a prophet. He can't know what the motives of all Bulgarian historians who support the Iranian theory are, nor could he know what the motivations of any historians would be in the future. Kostja (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Check again WP:RS and WP:NOTAFORUM. Thank you. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So basically you've failed to answer any of my arguments. Still no explanation on how a 2005 source can be used to discredit a 2007 source. Kostja (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As an aside point, if we want to be specific, and might also avoid some of the edit-warrring here, is that the prevailing theory posits that the Bulgars spoke Oghuric, which is a distinct and removed dialect of Turkic, similar to Avar and Hun. Some scholars even doubt that the term Turkic should be even applied to Oghuric, and certainly the two are no mutually intelligible. Even today, Chuvash, despite hundreds of years of influence by modern Turkic propper, is stil very very different to other Turkic languages. EgThese languages have in common such features which unite them with the Chuvash and Mongolian languages and distinguish them from Turkic. From the historical perspective, it is incorrect to call them "Turkic", since the first Turks appear in Europe long after the advent of Huns and Bulgars". Classifcation of the Hunno-Bulgarian Loan-Words in Slavonic. A Granberg. In Swedish Contributions to the Fourteenth International Congress of Slavists 2008. Pg 19 However, a Pamirian origin is definitely in the minority

Slovenski Volk (talk)

In Chuvash much as in Russian, шăк (urine) - сок (juice).--89.232.118.27 (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bulgar language was Hunnic language

My experience shows that discussions here are useless and waste of time, because most users who write about the articles concerning Bulgars, are of Turkic origin and they claim that Bulgars were Turks. The only reason for this is that the language resembled old Turkic, but actually it was different. That's why my edit seems out of the topic, because the article is written by Turks. To the point, O. Maenchen- Helfen : The World of the Huns. Chapter IX. Language, page 378 : http://www.kroraina.com/huns/mh/mh_1.html

"In one instance we are explicitly told that the Kutrigur and Utigur, called Huns by Procopius, [16] Agathias, [17] and Menander, [18] were of the same stock, dressed in the same way, and had the same language."

The Utigurs and Kutrigurs were the two most important Bulgar tribes. I will not argue that they were not. See the book "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe" by Hyun Jin Kim for this. Also see the book of Runsiman : A history of the First Bulgarian Empire, Book I The children of the Huns, http://www.promacedonia.org/en/sr/

according to Antoaneta Granberg : " the data is insufficient to clearly distinguish Huns, Avars and Bulgars one from another" - introduction, the second paragraph : https://www.academia.edu/683028/Classification_of_the_Hunno-Bulgarian_Loan-Words_in_Slavonic — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Antoaneta Granberg the Hunno-Bulgarian language was formed on the Northern and Western borders of China in the 3rd-5th c. BC. The analysis of the loan-words in Slavonic language shows the presence of direct influences of various language-families: Turkic, Mongolian, Chinese and Iranian. The Huns and Proto-Bulgarians spoke the same language, different from all other “barbarian” languages. When Turkic tribes appeared at the borders of the Chinese empire in the 6th c., the Huns and Proto-Bulgarians were no longer there. It is important to note that Turkic does contain Hunno-Bulgarian loans, but that these were received through Chinese intermediary, e.g. Hunnic ch’eng-li ‘sky, heaven’ was borrowed from Chinese as tängri in Turkic The Hunno-Bulgarian language exhibits non-Turkic and non-Altaic features. Altaic has no initial consonant clusters, while Hunno-Bulgarian does. Unlike Turkic and Mongolian, Hunno-Bulgarian language has no initial dental or velar spirants. Unlike Turkic, it has initial voiced b-: bagatur (a title), boyla (a title). Unlike Turkic, Hunno-Bulgarian has initial n-, which is also encountered in Mongolian: Negun, Nebul (proper names). In sum, Antoaneta Granberg concludes that Hunno-Bulgarian language has no consistent set of features that unite it with either Turkic or Mongolian. Neither can it be related to Sino-Tibetian languages, because it obviously has no monosyllabic word structure. --PavelStaykov (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A few red flags here. First, you claim that those who disagrees with you are part of a conspiracy. This is the first defense of a crackpot, so I immediately assume that what you have to say is nonsense.

Second, Granberg *starts* with the claim that Bulgar and Hunnic are the same language, when that is what she should be demonstrating. That makes me wonder is this is because she *can't* show they're the same.

Granberg also says apparently stupid things such as Bulgar can't be related to Sino-Tibetan because it isn't monosyllabic. But Sino-Tibetan isn't monosyllabic either. Her comparisons with Turkic and Mongolian also strike me as superficial and trivial. This is not my area, but it's suspicious.

Finally, WP relies primarily on secondary sources, especially for controversial claims. There is no secondary evaluation of how Granberg has been received by the academic community.

A problem specifically with your edits is that they violate WP:COPYVIO.

I've asked at WP:LANG for comment on this thesis. — kwami (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't said conspiracy, I said Turks. It's quite different. I am not a linguist and I can't say anything about the quality of her work. I spent 3 months to argue here and I will not waste time any more. From my point of view this article is a disaster. Also the article Dulo. Encyclopedia Britanica is much more neutral about controversial topics as the origin of Bulgars. Bulgars were Huns and their language was Hunnic. Most Roman, Greek and later Byzantium historians (as Jordanes, Priscus, Procopius, Agathias, Menander, Theophylact) refer to Bulgars and Huns indiscriminately to describe the same people. A good starting point is reading the aforementioned book of Runciman. The problem is who were the (European) Huns. I know about the traditional Xiongnu theory, but this theory is wrong. European Huns were conglomeration of Yuezhi-Wusun-Saka tribes. The language was a mixture of Tocharian, proto-Turkic and proto-Mongolian. Later an Iranian substratum was added when Yuezhi moved from Tarim basin to Kazahstan. Even today there are many tocharian words in modern Bulgarian language.

The Huns practiced artificial cranial deformation, while there is no evidence of such practice among the Xiongnu. Artificial cranial deformation of the circular type can be used to trace the route that the Huns took from north China to the Central Asian steppes and subsequently to the southern Russian steppes. The people who practiced artificial cranial deformation in Central Asia were Yuezhi/Kushans. Yury Zuev and Edwin G. Pulleyblank identify Utigurs, a successor tribe of European Huns, as one of the tribes of the Yuezhi : "the Utigurs of Menandr are Uti, and the word Uti was a real proto-type of a transcription Yuezhi < Uechji < ngiwat-tie < uti". The taxonomic analysis of the artificially deformed crania from 5th–6th Century AD (Hun-Germanic Period) found in Northeastern Hungary showed that none of them have any Mongoloid features and all the skulls belong to the Europid "great race".

Otto Maenchen-Helfen questioned the lack of anthropological and ethnographic proximity between European Huns and Xiongnu. E. A. Thompson in his monograph on the Huns also denies the continuity of European Huns with the Xiongnu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PavelStaykov (talk • contribs) 14:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

In order to say the Bulgar language is Hunnic, we need sufficient samples of Bulgar and Hunnic to be able to compare them. AFAICT, we don't. If we can't show that they're the same language, then it's silly to say they're the same language. I've asked for comment from someone knowledgeable about this at WP:LANG. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You know very well that such samples don't exist. All we know of the language of the Huns/Bulgars are personal and tribal names. That's why scientists as Granberg are studying the traces of this language into the Slavic languages. We even don't have a sufficient sample of personal names - only 33 names have survived. O. Pritsak and M. Helfen concluded that they were of Turkic, Iranian and undetermined origin. If the Bulgarian language was identical to Hunnic is difficult to say, but apparently it was close enough to be mutually understandable. As a non-native speaker of English I know that there are some differences between Australian and American languages, but for me these two languages are the same. --PavelStaykov (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of what you know to be true without any evidence. Why does Granberg say the language is the same? What is the evidence? — kwami (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Don't bother talking to him, just follow if his edits violate WP:NPOV (unfortunately they mostly do). I already discussed with him for several months, you can read those discussions (about Bulgars and Dulo clan) in their respective talk pages, his own talk page, and some on noticeboard. His claims are based upon his own personal research (OR), or some outdated sources, or very minor considerations, or with biased and ideological background. I am on a wikibreak, and cannot believe he decided to exploit that. @PavelStaykov: It's summer time, enjoy it, and when I return will take it to the noticeboard dispute resolution as I promised. Sorry for being late, had several problems, but neither such a useless and unconstructive dispute (it deals more about your own personal belief and OR ie. you) inspired to take an earlier initiative.--Crovata (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I will try to answer Kwami's question first because it's a real question and the guy probably wants to know the truth. This question for me should be a red flag for Crovata who wrote the article Bulgars - I assume that Kwami have read the article and he didn't understand who were the Bulgars. The truth is that there is no difference between the Bulgars and the (European) Huns. They were the same people. It is not only about the language. The basis for this statement are the Roman, Greek and Byzantine chronicles from 4th up to the 7th century AD. In all these chronicles the people who entered Europe in 4th and 5th centuries AD were called Huns, sometimes Bulgars, and sometimes they were called by their tribal names. In the 6th century Procopius wrote that Utigurs and Kutrigurs were the two core tribes that founded the nucleus of the Hunnic Union in the 4th century. According to the legend a few youngsters from the Kutrigur tribe were hunting a deer (in some versions of the legend they were taming a stallion that run away) and they found a pass through the Great Marsh (Kerch Strait). The youngsters saw that there were people living on the other side, they returned back to their tribe and told the adults for their discovery. The Kutrigurs called their relatives, the Utigurs, and the two tribes attacked the Goths who were living on the other side of the Kerch Strait. That's how the Hunnic invasion in Europe started. At this point Crovata will start to argue that Utigurs were not Bulgars and so on, that this is "personal research (OR), or some outdated sources, or very minor considerations, or with biased and ideological background". Identification Bulgars = Huns is widely accepted among scholars. There is no way to distinguish between them. Ask Crovata to comment this paper http://www.bulgari-istoria-2010.com/booksBG/Sanping_Chen_SOME_REMARKS_ON_THE_CHINESE_BULGARIAN.pdf - page 8, line 1:

 In fact contemporary European sources kept equating the Bulgars with the Huns

Ask him why so many historians as Runciman, Vernadsky, Zlatarski and many others think that the first two names in the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans are actually Attila and his third son Ernak? Who were the Pannonian Avars and who were the Buluoji Bulgars of China? Crovata can't answer these questions because his beliefs are wrong. The sad thing is that he is foisting his ideas on Wikipedia articles. Probably he is not doing this on purpose, I can understand that he is really believing what he writes is true. Nevertheless, the result is formally well written articles with fake content. Lets comment the first cited book on the article Bulgars. This book is not for the origin of the Bulgars at all, the name of the book is "Macedonia and Greece". Lets see if a book about Macedonia and Greece can tell us something about the Bulgars. We read:

" The Proto-Bulgarians or Bulgars, a Turko-Tatar people, crossed the Danube..." bla bla bla sth else

the term Tatars is used in historical science to denote Turkic people in Mongolian plateau in the 12th century. What turko-tatars from 12 century can have in common with Bulgars who entered Europe 800 years before that? The author of this book is completely unaware who were Bulgars. Probably the book is good about the history of Macedonia, I haven't read it. But this book have nothing to do with the Bulgars. I even can't believe that Crovata is doing this. --PavelStaykov (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, a lot of unsupported claims without addressing my question. Not acceptable for a WP article. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This information was provided for you informally and it can be supported by sources. Your question is addressed. If the Bulgars and the Huns were the same people, or closely related people, it is obvious that their language was the same, or almost the same. See O. Maenchen- Helfen, page 378 : " the Kutrigur and Utigur... had the same language." If you are not satisfied, you can write a personal email to Granberg and ask her. On the Gothenburg' University site http://sprak.gu.se/english/contact/teachers-researchers/antoaneta-granberg there is a contact form. I am sure that she will answer your question. What is strange for me is how books about Macedonia, or about the Jews of Khazaria or unrelated things, that state obviously wrong things, are acceptable to be cited on WP, but scientific paper that is exactly on the topic is not acceptable.--PavelStaykov (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Nationality ≠ language. Your claims aren't supported to WP standards, so they don't belong. — kwami (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Article protected

Sort out the disputes without personal attacks please. Maybe an WP:RfC would be appropriate? Doug Weller talk 10:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Detrez opinion about the motivations of supporters of alternate views

Raymond Detrez has been quoted as stating in the book "Developing cultural identity in the Balkans: convergence vs divergence" of which he is a co-author that the supporters of the Iranian origins of the Bulgars are motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment. Looking at the source, the quote is from a note under the line, rather than from the main text, showing it to be more of a commentary than part of the main subject of the book. More importantly, Detrez does not name any such authors and does not provide any evidence, explanation or citation to support his views. All of this shows clearly that this views is nothing more an than unsupported personal opinion of little scientific importance. Therefore, in its current usage, the citation is a significant violation of both the usage of reliable sources and neutrality, as it misuses the authority of a noted scholar to dismiss any author who would disagree with the mainstream view without actually providing any evidence for this dismissal. Kostja (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kostja: you don't provide any single valid reason that it's a "violation" and because of you think that it's a clearly that this views is nothing more an than unsupported personal opinion of little scientific importance is not a valid reason to remove an author's quote. Beshogur (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur:The valid reason is that this is an unsupported opinion, not a scientific assertion. A scientific assertion is based on evidence and scientific method of investigation. As I explained, the author has not named any supporter of the alternate theory who is motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment and certainly has not providence any evidence on which to base this opinion. As it reads his statement is a blanket condemnation of any author who supports the Iranian theory and as such has nothing to do with scientific discourse and amounts to little more than a personal attack against dissenting views. And therefore, Detrez's qualifications are irrelevant here (apart from the fact that nearly all of his publications are on modern history), since in no way can it be shown that these qualifications played any role in forming this opinion. Kostja (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To add to my comment, it needs again to be mentioned that at least one of the works supporting the Iranian theory was published after Detrez's book and therefore Detrez could not have evaluated it in any way determine whether it's author was motivated by anti-Turkish sentiment or not. As such, the inclusion of Detrez's comment is even more misleading, since it falsely suggests that it applies to all authors supporting the alternate theory. Kostja (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Detrez's opinion cannot be deleted without any serious sources refuting it. Jingiby (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Iranic language

With the last edit by @MiltenR, an information that it can be an Iranic language has been added to the definition. We have Bulgar inscriptions, it is certain that they were Turkic and spoke an Oghur Turkic language. BurakD53 (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The matter has been addressed in topic 3. Talk:Bulgar_language#Petar_Dobrev. Peter Dobrev is extremely unrelible source, it is a pseudo-science. Svilenov 13:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svilenov (talk • contribs)

"Volga Bulgar language", not "Bulgar language"

Yet another strangely written article about the ancestors of the Bɤ̞lgari. I think I'm not just overreacting by pointing, that the Bulgar language, denoted in this article, is actually the Volga Bulgar language of 14th century!? One of the branches of the proper Magna Bulgaria state, that settled in the north, was a neighbour to Turkic tribes, took Islamic faith, was the rich, multi-ethnical heart of trade, that underwent century of Mongol invasions and was subdued by the Golden Horde - this is your pristine source of Bulgar language?

By the way, in your article there is that passage from Al-Istakhri, that states: "The language of the Khazars is different than the language of the Turks [...] and the language of the Bulgars is like the language of the Khazars." Therefore, the language of the Bulgars is different than the language of the Turks! Even your own text slightly contradicts the point it's supposed to be making.

Correct me, if I'm wrong. Really. Utar Sigmal (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Really. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on personal analyses of primary sources. Jingiby (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not an answer. By "Really" I meant some information. Maybe it's the wrong address - to seek information in Wikipedia. I don't know. Apparently, neither do you.. Utar Sigmal (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all over the same discussion on Bulgars search "Detrez" in archives. Beshogur (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

And nothing has changed? That is pretty telling. If discussion, new research (facts) and logic cannot move the article even an inch, some heavy geopolitical weight is attached to it. Utar Sigmal (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Also regarding Istakhri:

"Oğuric Turkic, spoken by many of the subject tribes, doubtless, was one of the linguae francae of the state. Alano-As was also widely spoken. Eastern Common Turkic, the language of the royal house and its core tribes, in all likelihood remained the language of the ruling elite in the same way that Mongol continued to be used by the rulers of the Golden Horde, alongside of the Qipčaq Turkic speech spoken by the bulk of the Turkic tribesmen that constituted the military force of this part of the Činggisid empire. Similarity, Oğuric, like Qipčaq Turkic in the Jočid realm, functioned as one of the languages of government." (Golden 2006, p. 91)

al-Iṣṭakhrī's account however then contradicts itself by likening the language to Bulğaric (Golden 2007a, pp. 13–14, 14 n.28).

If there is no doubt on Khazar tongue, and Bulgar is similar to Khazar tongue, what's the problem here? Beshogur (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)