Are Bulgarians Trachians?

[bulgarian88]

Some new theorists claim we descend from Thracians. Do you think that is possible? What happened to the Thrace? Did they just disappear like the Mayans? If we descend from Thracians, does that mean we are related to Romanians (Dacians) since Dacians were a Thrace tribe?

[Loki]

Some new theorists claim we descend from Thracians. Do you think that is possible?


How is it a new theory? I would have thought it common sense that Bulgarians would have Thracian ancestry (among other).



If we descend from Thracians, does that mean we are related to Romanians (Dacians) since Dacians were a Thrace tribe?

Yes, partially.

[bulgarian88]

Well, the theory about our Turk origin still prevails on history books... lol

P.S. If scientists prove we are related to Romanians, that's fantastic! I like Romania and its culture. I always felt drawn to it in some way or another.

[Loki]

Well, the theory about our Turk origin still prevails on history books... lol

P.S. If scientists prove we are related to Romanians, that's fantastic! I like Romania and its culture. I always felt drawn to it in some way or another.

From Wikipedia:

Bulgarian DNA profile is congruent with those described for most European populations.

As for the interpopulation analysis of Y-DNA, similarly to mtDNA, Bulgarians belong to the cluster of European populations, still being slightly distant from them. Genetically, modern Bulgarians are more closely related to other neighbouring Balkan populations (Macedonians, Serbs, Romanians, Greeks and Albanians) than to the rest of the Europeans.

[poiuytrewq0987]

How is it a new theory? I would have thought it common sense that Bulgarians would have Thracian ancestry (among other).



Yes, partially.

Personally I believe the Bulgarians are more close to Romanians than they are to us despite linguistic differences between Romania and Bulgaria. The phenotype of Southern Romanians and Bulgarians seem to be really similar. Of course this shouldn't come as a surprise since both countries share common Thracian roots whereas Serbia is more Illyrian.

[Sikeliot]

Thracian with minor Slavic genetic influence most likely.. I'm not an expert but that's what I'd guess.. some Greek thrown in too.

[Osweo]

I have an ethnographic book on the Chuvash (written by a Chuvash), who are the survivors of Volga Bulgaria. The author detailed a few points of similarity with a few aspects of regional Balkan Bulgarian folklore, as well as with the Gagauzi Turkic speakers of Moldova.

There was some Turkic input in Bulgaria, therefore.

HOWEVER, the language is the best clue for the proportions of the ancestral populations in the make up of the modern Bulgarin: It's like a badly-learnt form of Slavonic. Almost like Englishmen who've lived in Russia a few years, in the grammar... ;) There's little Turkic, and some pan-Balkan traits. There were enough Slavs to spread the language, but not enough to do it WELL. The new Bulgar upper class learnt the local Slavonic speech that had been established by the preceding invaders.

Therefore, Bulgars are mostly autochthonous Thracians, with a fair portion of Slavs, and a slight sprinkling of Steppe nomad. There'll be the odd Goth and Greek in there too, but Thracians must still constitute the majority.

[Lithium]

HOWEVER, the language is the best clue for the proportions of the ancestral populations in the make up of the modern Bulgarin: It's like a badly-learnt form of Slavonic. Almost like Englishmen who've lived in Russia a few years, in the grammar... ;)


That was rude and so untrue. I understand ALL Slavic languages because I speak Bulgarian so I dont think this is a "badly learnt" Slavic Language. You shoud learn more about our influence from the Indo-Iranian Language group.

[Osweo]

That was rude and so untrue. I understand ALL Slavic languages because I speak Bulgarian so I dont think this is a "badly learnt" Slavic Language.
:p Sorry, but it IS true! The Slavonic case system has been utterly shot to pieces in Bulgarian!

I have a few Bulgarian books (I found them by chance in a country-town bookshop in Lincolnshire, and bought them very cheap :p ) and can mostly read them well enough with my Russian. There is almost no system of declining nouns, adjectives or pronouns according to grammatical case, though!

All other Slavonic languages preserved the cases. Bulgarian was therefore distorted in the mouths of Thracians who didn't understand or value the grammar of Slavonic well enough to preserve it.

If you translate 'The old man shot the old woman with his old gun' into Russian, Serbian and Bulgarian, it will demonstrate it very well.


You shoud learn more about our influence from the Indo-Iranian Language group.

Yes, there may well be some Sarmatian impact. But in terms of sheer numbers of people, it will be tiny.

[Lithium]

I am sorry too but your theory sounds hilarious to me :D By the way, do not try to read Bulgarian with you Russian language skills because the pronouncing of the two languages is really different. About the sentence you picked for example... there are really MANY ways to say something in Bulgarian, it is not just one. You can tell it in two totally different ways and still will be with the same sense :D

[Osweo]

I am sorry too but your theory sounds hilarious to me :D
:shrug: It's the most straightforward explanation for the state of your language. Please, give me a reasonable alternative!


By the way, do not try to read Bulgarian with you Russian language skills because the pronouncing of the two languages is really different.
Sure, that's usually the case. But it's easier to listen to than Polski, at least! :eek:


About the sentence you picked for example... there are really MANY ways to say something in Bulgarian, it is not just one. You can tell it in two totally different ways and still will be with the same sense :D
Come on, do it the simplest way you can, or the most simplified way like this;

Starets strelyal starukhu so starym oruzhyom svoim.

Hmm, no, for our purposes, better to say 'old man' and 'old woman' with separate adjectives;

Stary muzhik strelyal staruyu babushku so starym oruzhyom svoim.

How would that be po-b@lgarski?

[Lithium]

'The old man shot the old woman with his old gun'
Старият мъж/Старецът застреля старата жена/баба/старицата със старото свое оръжие.

[Lisa]

:p sorry, but it is true! The slavonic case system has been utterly shot to pieces in bulgarian!

I have a few bulgarian books (i found them by chance in a country-town bookshop in lincolnshire, and bought them very cheap :p ) and can mostly read them well enough with my russian. There is almost no system of declining nouns, adjectives or pronouns according to grammatical case, though!


Не забывайте , они сильно изменили свой язык после того как мои предки освободили их от турок . Они даже ввели написание фамилий как в России . И конечно на русский язык оказал небольшое влияние церковнославянский - который похож на болгарский .

[Osweo]

'The old man shot the old woman with his old gun'
Старият мъж/Старецът застреля старата жена/баба/старицата със старото свое оръжие.

Blagodaryu! Okay, let's compare;

Stary muzh zastrelyal staruyu babu so starym svoim oruzhyom.

Stariyat m''zh zastrelya starata baba s''s staroto svoye or''zhie.

Very similar, obviously. In lexica, anyway.

But, the case endings;
Stary muzh_ zastrelyal staruyu babu so starym svoim oruzhyom.

Stariyat m''zh_ zastrelya starata baba s''s staroto svoye or''zhie.

Russian old baba in nominative case; staraya baba
Russian old baba in accusative case; staruyu babu

Russian his old gun in nominative case; svoyo staroye oruzhiye
Russian his old gun in instrumental case; svoim starym oruzhyom

Bulgarian nominative; baba, staroye svoye or''zhiye
Bulgarian accusative; baba
Bulgarian instrumental; ........ staro .. svoye or''zhiye

I.e. there is little or no case system in Bulgarian. Very unusual among Slavs.

English is similar to Bulgarski in this way, actually. It might be because of our similar story of assimilation of large numbers of natives by incoming barbarians.

[Osweo]

Не забывайте , они сильно изменили свой язык после того как мои предки освободили их от турок .
They did borrow a lot of Russian, this is true, but this is not relevant to the very DEEP non-Slavonic traits in their language.


Они даже ввели написание фамилий как в России .
Da? Kak eto? Ya zhnayu Bulgarina, po imeni Angel Perev Dimitrov. Eto ne 'Perovich'.


И конечно на русский язык оказал небольшое влияние церковнославянский - который похож на болгарский .
Old Church Slavonic was a fully inflected Slavonic language, with all the grammar (and more!) that Russian preserves. Bulgarian itself has lost these. Kirill and Mefodiy seem to have used a Bulgarian dialect, but perhaps it was the case that the countryfolk in their time were already using this distorted simplified form that we see in Modern Bulgarian.

To yest, the Bulgar elite spoke normal Slavonic, but the masses could not, being Slavonicised Thrakiitsy. The replacement of the elite by the Ottomans may have 'helped' the simplified form to preponderate... :chin:

[Guapo]

I always thought Bulgarians spoke some archaic Slavonic but maybe Osweo has a point here.


Old Church Slavonic was a fully inflected Slavonic language, with all the grammar (and more!) that Russian preserves. Bulgarian itself has lost these. Kirill and Mefodiy seem to have used a Bulgarian dialect, but perhaps it was the case that the countryfolk in their time were already using this distorted simplified form that we see in Modern Bulgarian.

To yest, the Bulgar elite spoke normal Slavonic, but the masses could not, being Slavonicised Thrakiitsy. The replacement of the elite by the Ottomans may have 'helped' the simplified form to preponderate

[Osweo]

I always thought Bulgarians spoke some archaic Slavonic but maybe Osweo has a point here.

It's always good to have the support of a big titted naked mestiza in such complex and involved linguistic matters. :hug:

How about giving us the Serbian, that we might compare how Bulgarian might have ended up, had the Thracians been better linguists? ;)

[Lisa]

They did borrow a lot of Russian, this is true, but this is not relevant to the very DEEP non-Slavonic traits in their language.

Da? Kak eto? Ya zhnayu Bulgarina, po imeni Angel Perev Dimitrov. Eto ne 'Perovich'.
How today Turkmens or Kazakhs use ov - ova . :wink

[Osweo]

How today Turkmens or Kazakhs use ov - ova . :wink

I think that ending is much older in Bulgaria than the 1870s. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that surnames became more fixed then.

[Guapo]

It's always good to have the support of a big titted naked mestiza in such complex and involved linguistic matters. :hug:

How about giving us the Serbian, that we might compare how Bulgarian might have ended up, had the Thracians been better linguists? ;)

stari/deda/djed/deka etc ubio staru zenu/babu/kravu sa svojom starom oruzje.

[Osweo]

Hvala, Guapo! Mordid also gave me a Polish version (probably with some 'humourous' bad words in... :p), but the grammar is what we're interested in:

Bulg; Stariyat m''zh zastrelya starata baba s''s staroto svoye or''zhie.
Russ; Stary muzh zastrelyal staruyu babu so starym svoim oruzhyom.
Serb; Stari djed ubio staru zenu sa svojom starom oruzje.
Pols; Stary mężczyzna zastrzelił starą kobietę starym pistoletem

Bulgarian is clearly the odd one out, and this needs explaining. Seems to me that heavy Thracian influence is the key.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Hvala, Guapo! Mordid also gave me a Polish version (probably with some 'humourous' bad words in... :p), but the grammar is what we're interested in:

Bulg; Stariyat m''zh zastrelya starata baba s''s staroto svoye or''zhie.
Russ; Stary muzh zastrelyal staruyu babu so starym svoim oruzhyom.
Serb; Stari djed ubio staru zenu sa svojom starom oruzje.
Pols; Stary mężczyzna zastrzelił starą kobietę starym pistoletem

Bulgarian is clearly the odd one out, and this needs explaining. Seems to me that heavy Thracian influence is the key.

or Turkish.

[Osweo]

or Turkish.

Turkic, conceivably, but Palaeo-Balkan is far more likely.

There were lots of Agriculturalists already on the land when the Slavs appeared. Later a Bulgar elite came, from the Steppes. The latter's heirs, if as children they had grown up among native Slavonic speakers in their new kingdom, would have been fluent, making no grammatical errors.

The key phase was clearly prior to the Bulgar advent.

The Ottoman thing was much later, and could hardly have had such a complete influence over every little region in Bulgaria.

[Lithium]

Aren't you all exhausted to prove how barbaric my ancestors are? Better look your history and ancestry and then decide who is the barbarian and etc... who can't speak properly :D

[Osweo]

Aren't you all exhausted to prove how barbaric my ancestors are? Better look your history and ancestry and then decide who is the barbarian and etc... who can't speak properly :D

Briton + Angle + Norseman + Gael = Osweo. The sum of the bestest barbaric tribes of all Europe. :D

Like I said, English is similar to Bulgarian in this grammatical respect. We didn't like grammar either! :p

[Amapola]

Briton + Angle + Norseman + Gael = Osweo.

And you definitely only look like the first :D

[Lithium]

It is not fair to see the things only throught the Slavs. Other tribes, the Thracians, for an example had left much more heritage and did achieved far more things than the Slavs ever did.
http://www.dnevnik.bg/shimg/zx980_757666.jpg

[Osweo]

http://www.dnevnik.bg/shimg/zx980_757666.jpg

http://forum.socionix.com/uploads/gallery/1198596704/gallery_114_16_23788.jpg
http://www.expressyourmind.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/need-yuri-gagarin.jpg

:thumb001:

[poiuytrewq0987]

achieved far more things than the Slavs ever did.


:pound: Thracians are extinct today whereas Slavs are still standing and that says a lot. ;)

[Lithium]

I am talking about the ancient Slavs.

[safinator]

Surely they had some Thracians blood.

[Yaroslav]

Around 22.5% Thracian, 22% Greek, 15.5% Turkish, 15% Slavic

[Dacul]

How you reached the conclusion that bulgarians have 15.5% turkic ancestry?
Lol.

[Yaroslav]

How you reached the conclusion that bulgarians have 15.5% turkic ancestry?
Lol.

15.5% J2, also I said TURKISH not Turkic. Turks are not really Turkic genetically speaking.

[Dacul]

Well since when is J2 turkic?
Is pretty present also in Campania in Italy (33%) from Europe.
Besides in whole Italy there is good percentage of J2,same in Greece,same in Cyprus.
Maybe is from colonists brought by Roman Empire there and from greeks?

Beside,hebrews also have plenty of J2,but that does not means greeks are hebrews,first they are christian orthodox,second they are speaking greek,third they are looking different.
Most bulgarians have pontid phenotype at women and it seems same happens to romanians,while I did not saw turkic women of pontid phenotype.
Also it seems that in south Russia are enough women of north-pontid phenotype (which is more toward nordid).

[Yaroslav]

Well since when is J2 turkic?
Is pretty present also in Campania in Italy (33%) from Europe.
Besides in whole Italy there is good percentage of J2,same in Greece,same in Cyprus.
Maybe is from colonists brought by Roman Empire there and from greeks?

Beside,hebrews also have plenty of J2,but that does not means greeks are hebrews,first they are christian orthodox,second they are speaking greek,third they are looking different.
Most bulgarians have pontid phenotype at women and it seems same happens to romanians,while I did not saw turkic women of pontid phenotype.
Also it seems that in south Russia are enough women of north-pontid phenotype (which is more toward nordid).

TURKISH not Turkic. When I said Turks I didn't mean Turks literally, but ancestors of modern Turks (which are Anatolians who carried J2).

[Dacul]

Turkish turcik what is the difference.
Is actually probabily that a lot of turkish men died in wars and most Y DNA from Turkey is european.However,not same happens with mt-dna from Turkey.
You know there are clades of J2,in case you want to make a deep DNA tests and you can see if actually there is some significant percentage of Y DNA from turks in Bulgary,which I doubt.
There are also clades of R1B and R1A and there is possibile that from R1B and R1A in Turkey a lot is not european.

[Lithium]

TURKISH not Turkic. When I said Turks I didn't mean Turks literally, but ancestors of modern Turks (which are Anatolians who carried J2).

All of the new researches showed no non-European mixture in the Bulgarians.

[Yaroslav]

All of the new researches showed no non-European mixture in the Bulgarians.

Modern Turks = Genetically Europeans.

[Yaroslav]

Turkish turcik what is the difference.
Is actually probabily that a lot of turkish men died in wars and most Y DNA from Turkey is european.However,not same happens with mt-dna from Turkey.
You know there are clades of J2,in case you want to make a deep DNA tests and you can see if actually there is some significant percentage of Y DNA from turks in Bulgary,which I doubt.
There are also clades of R1B and R1A and there is possibile that from R1B and R1A in Turkey a lot is not european.

Turk:

http://www.warchat.org/pictures/turko-italian_war_1912_mustafa_kemal_ataturk.jpg

Turkic (Kyrgyz):

http://balticreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/090911-F-7087B-139crop.jpg

[Hess]

All of the new researches showed no non-European mixture in the Bulgarians.

That's impossible. Every European has some non European admix.

This map, for example, shows the West Asian admix in Europe
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg705/scaled.php?server=705&filename=westasianadmixture.jpg&res=landing

[Yaroslav]

That's impossible. Every European has some non European admix.

This map, for example, shows the West Asian admix in Europe
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg705/scaled.php?server=705&filename=westasianadmixture.jpg&res=landing

G is Caucasian haplogroup. Caucasians are Europeans.

[Hess]

Caucasians are Europeans.

are they?

Some think so, but many others would disagree.

[Yaroslav]

are they?

Some think so, but many others would disagree.

This forum has Armenian section, so officially this forum accepts Caucasus as European.

[Hess]

This forum has Armenian section, so officially this forum accepts Caucasus as European.

it also has a Turkish section, does that mean we have to accept them?

[Europa]

Partially yes,but no one has clearly proven how much exactly the Bulgarians are descentants of the Thracians.



.....and as far as the language goes...
I see the 'English professor' was banned and might not be able to respond.

Bulgarian compared to other Slavic languages

Bulgarian language is the Slavic language spoken by the today's Balkan Slavs known by the name Bulgarians. To distinguish it from the language of the Asparuch Bulgars (Bulgar language), it would be better named Slavo-Bulgarian language, as it was refered to by the first writers of the new Bulgarian literature. Since today there is no other non-Slavic tribe with the name Bulgars, or if there is, it is so insignificant and distant from today's Bulgarians that it's impossible to confuse, we can boldly use the names Bulgarian and Bulgarian language to mean Slavo-Bulgarian people and Slavo-Bulgarian language.
Although the first embryo of the Bulgarian state was made by a non-Slavic tribe (Bulgars), although the name of Bulgarians is from non-Slavic origin, everyone studying the language of Bulgarians will assure that it is as much Slavic as is, e.g., Russian or Serbian. The deeper study in the Bulgarian culture shows that today's Bulgarians cannot be separated from other Slavs and that their ancestors, together with the ancestors of Serbs, Croats, Russians, Slovenes, Poles, and Czechs, were members of the same Slavic tribe which some time lived on one territory. Moreover, Bulgarians showed their Slavishness before all other Slavs when as early as 9th c. were the first to create Slavic literature and spread enlightment in all Slavic countries. The modern Bulgarian language, in spite of some non-Slavic traits, is still pure Slavic language because if one looks closer into these non-Slavic traits, he will see that they arise from a common Slavic basis. Thus, modern Bulgarian is rooted in that common Proto-Slavic language which is thought of as th
e source of all Slavic languages.


Classification of Slavic languages


There is no established opinion among Slavists about the classification of Slavic languages; not only there is no consensus about the basis for classification but also about the number of individual Slavic languages. Evidently, this despairs some, so they revolt against any classification. However, these attempts since the very beginning of Slavistics until now, even they did not give an end result, are important because they show how Slavistics gradually acquires "more knowledge both on the whole group and individual parts of Slavic languages" [2] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref2). Dobrovsky [3] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref3) after enumerating the 12 Slavic languages without classification in the dictionary of Catherine the Great Comparative Dictionary of all Languages, 1793, attempted to classify the Slavic languages on a scientific basis. He accepted two groups of Slavic languages: (1) Russian, Old Slavonic, Illyric or Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, and Wendian (Slovenian in Carniola, Stiria, and Carinthia); (2) Slovak, Czech, Upper Lužician, Lower Lužician, and Polish.
There are 10 distinguising traits of the Dobrovsky classification:
Southeastern groupNorthwestern group 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.раз
из
epenthetic л
-л-
щ
зв
тъ (той)
пепел
птица
десницаразум
издати
корабль
сало
мощь
звезда




роз
вы
no epenthetic л
-дл-
ц
гв
тен
попел
птак
правицарозум
выдати
корабь
садло
моць
гвезда




This first classification of Slavic languages was immediately accepted by all Slavists at that time and held for a long time with some ammendments and additions proposed by Vostokov. He omitted points 1, 2, and 9 because in Russian it is роз and вы, and птака; instead of those traits, Vostokov points that in the first group there is p, and in the second group — рж: рeч — ржеч.

http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt347/lantonov/safarik2.jpg (http://s626.photobucket.com/albums/tt347/lantonov/?action=view&current=safarik2.jpg)Pavel Josef Šafarik

This classification was accepted also by Šafarik [4] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref4) who called the first group south-eastern Slavic languages, and the second group — north-western. But in his detailed classification Šafarik deviated very much from Dobrovsky because sometimes he took more and sometimes less Slavic peoples and dialects. For the first time Šafarik mentioned Bulgarians which Dobrovsky and Vostokov had forgotten; however, Šafarik attached Bulgarians to Serbs, together with Bosniaks, Montenegrins, and Dalmatians. After this, he corrected this error and classified the Slavic languages as follows:
I. Southeastern group: Russian, Bulgarian, Illyric (Serbian, Croatian, and Slovenian);
II. Northwestern group: Lech (Polish and Kashubian), Czech (Czech, Moravian and Slovak), and Polabian (with Upper and Lower Lužician)
Later, Šafarik in [5] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref5) removed most of the 10 points of Dobrovsky and kept only 2 of them (3 and 4) and to them added also a trait that д and т are dropped in front of н in the southeastern group, and are retained in the northwestern group: вѧнѫти — vadnouti, but the groups remained the same as in Dobrovsky.
This partition in two stuck in Slavistics especally when it was endorsed by Schleicher who accepted these three traits of Šafarik but he attached special importance to the tj and dj reflexes on which basis he made a more detailed partition of Slavic languages dividing the southeastern group in two: Russian and Yugoslavic, and then dividing the Yugoslavic group in three languages: Bulgarian (щ-жд), Serbian (ћ-ђ), and Slovenian (ч-ϳ); also, the northwestern group is divided in four languages: Czech, Polish, Lužician, and Polabian [6] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref6).
Together with such partition in 2 groups, there were also opinions that Slavic languages can be divided into 3 groups. Palacky [7] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref7) wrote about eastern (Russians and Bulgarians), southwestern (Slovenians, Serbs, and Croats), and northwestern (Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Lužicians) Slavs. Before this, Vostokov had suggested an apparent tripartition [8] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref8); describing the division of Dobrovsky, Vostokov expressed an opinion that Russian in some traits (вы, роз, птак) is intermediate between the southeastern and the northwestern Slavic group. Other Russian linguists followed Vostokov (Nadezhdin, Ustrelov, Maksimovich), who proposed with some variations tripartition instead of bipartition. The arguments of Nadezhdin involve a Russian feature that indeed separates this language from both the northwestern and the southeastern groups: it is the Russian vocalisation (Russian город vs. Yugoslav град and Polish grod). This phenomenon by itself is very important and characteristic but it is not certain if it is so old to be a basis for separation of Russian from the others, i.e., if this phenomenon is pre-Russian and Old Slavonic, or it arose on Russian soil. There are divergent opinions about this: Mikloshich [9] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref9), Jagić [10] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref10), and Krek [11] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref11) think that vocalisation is an old phenomenon but developed later on Russian soil, after the separation of Slavic languages while Maksimov [12] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref12), Lavrovsky [13] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref13), Gaitler [14] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref14), and I. Schmidt [15] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref15) think vocalisation is a pre-Russian phenomenon.
However old, the Russian vocalisation (город) couldn't be older than, e.g. the Polish grod; if one takes examples as Volos from βλάσιος, паполом from πάπλομα [16] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref16), one can assert that город is not older than град. Even if one accepts the Russian vocalisation as basis for division, i.e., to separate Russian from the other southwestern Slavic languages, one must then place Czech among the Yugoslav languages, and put Polish in a separate group. All other traits of these languages go against such classification.
Much more acceptable is the tripartition of Daničić [17] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref17), who takes as a basis a very old phonetic phenomenon, the tj, dj reflex in Slavic languages. These combinations were changed in a different way in each Slavic language and can serve as a distinguishing trait. Daničić suggested that Slavic languages first separated in 3 branches: Serbo-Croatian, Russo-Bulgarian, Polish-Czech. Serbo-Croatian remained closest to the old combinations because ћ-ђ sound similar to tj-dj; the Russo-Bulgarian group changed the sound j after т to ш, and after д to ж; hence ч (тш) and (д)ж in Russian, and after metathesis — щ (шт) and жд in Bulgarian. The western Slavic languages changed j after т to с, and after д — to з; hence in Polish ц (тс) and дз, and in Czech ц (тс) and з (д is dropped).
Leskin and Jagić objected to this classification as based only on one trait. However, Leskin, too, separated Slavic languages in three groups by only one trait, the accent, although he admits that the different accent systems developed in historical time.
For an acceptable classification of Slavic languages, we need to find the main differences between them and use these differences as a basis for classification. Most important are the phonetic traits because these are older than morphological traits. It is not accidental that all forms in Slavic languages, nouns as well as verbs are interpreted from Old Bulgarian; it is so because Old Bulgarian monuments are the oldest, dating of 9-10 c. when individual Slavic languages had very few formal differences. Studying the phonetic traits that have a potential as a basis for classification one can see that many of them cross over, i.e. they are not found in only one group; other traits are of too little importance to serve as a basis for distinction. This is why some Slavists do not speak about any classification only implicitly accepting a certain number of Slavic languages and avoiding mention on their interrelationship (Kopitar, Grigorovich, Mikloshich). Thus, Mikloshich without specifying any classification, ordered Slavic languages in his Comparative Grammar according to their similarity to Old Bulgarian (Old Slavonic, according to him); his order is this: Old Slavonic, New Slavonic, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Ukrainian, Russian, Czecho-Slovak, Polish, Upper Lužician, Lower Lužician. Sreznevsky, reviewing [5] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref5), reached to the conclusion that instead of talking about classification, it is better to accept a certain number of Slavic dialects and not push any further. Jagić was also against classification because he saw in Slavic languages a gradual transition between each other; about the generally accepted bipartition (northwestern and southeastern) he said directly:

<b>

I do not support bipartition because, strictly speaking, it is not important for science and because it does not lead to any result. [1] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref1)
It seems, however, that a partition of Slavic languges is not superfluous but quite on the contrary, it is as necessary as any classification in science. As one can speak about grouping of dialects in some more or less living language, one can speak also about classification of Slavic languages; such classification is even more legitimate because there are indeed some traits that make us accept 2 or 3 separate groups of Slavic languages. Maybe the differences that are found in the modern Slavic languages were not so big in earlier times; however, observing them today we need to stress them; according to the nature and occurence of these differences we'll have one or another classification of the modern Slavic languages.
</b>
Let us at first solve the question about the basis of classification. We mentioned above that phonetic differences between Slavic languages can serve as a basis for classification because they are older and are more characteristic. Accent is considered a phonetic difference because it is a phonetic phenomenon involving the vowel sounds. Lexical differences can also be used but those must involve a large number of words, and not only 3-4 words, as accepted by Dobrovsky (cf. points 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of his classification) and his followers; in addition, as we noted, these words are not partitioned as Dobrovsky alleged but somewhat differently; e.g. while Dobrovsky assigned the words роз, вы, птак only to the northwestern group, it turned out that they are found also in the southestern group (in Russian). Excluding, therefore, the lexical differences, out of the 10 classification traits of Dobrovsky, only 4 are left which are purely phonetic and should be taken into account for a classification basis. Let us add to these 4 the pronunciation of soft р (реч and ржеч) which was suggested by Vostokov, and the dropping of д and т in front of н proposed by Šafarik; then we'll have 6 important phonetic traits which could bolster a well justified classification of Slavic languages. To these 6 traits we can add 2 more, maybe comparatively newer but not less important. One of those is the accent which in the south-western group is indefinite (on different syllables) while in the north-western group it is definite (on one and the same syllable). In addition to accent which makes the 7th distinctive trait, we can add also the replacement of ъ: while in the south-western group ъ is replaced with a hard vowel (ъ, о, а), in the northwestern group ъ is replaced by е and therefore passes to the soft vowel category although this e still keeps its former origin. The replacement of e with ъ in new Slavonic, as well as the replacement of о with ъ in Slovac are secondary and non-general. Moreover, we should note that Slovak – if we count it as a language, and not as a dialect – is not easy to classify also by some other traits; the reason is that it is at the middle between the 2 groups and therefore it is a transitional Slavic language in the same way as there are transitional dialects.

Thus, the division of the Slavic languages into 2 groups – northwestern and southeastern – is based on the following 8 phonetic traits:
1. The reflex of the old sound combinations tj and dj (dental + j)
In the northwestern group (Polish and Czecho-Slovak) instead of the old tj and dj there are hissing sounds (ц and дз in Polish and Slovak and ц and з in Czech) while in the southwestern group (Russian, Bulgarian, Serbo-Croat and Slovenian) insthead of tj and dj there are affricates: ч-ж in Russian, щ-жд in Bulgarian, ћ-ђ in Serbian, ч-j in Slovenian).
2. The changes of the labial consonants when followed by j (epenthetic l)
In the northwestern groups linking of labials with j is allowed: zemia, while in the southwestern group in these cases a labial (softening) ль is inserted: землıа. Here it is meant the older state of Slavic languages when in Bulgarian was also землıа.
3 .The pronunciation of soft ŕ or rj
In the northwestern group the soft ŕ or rj receives an accompanying sound ж, so that it is pronounced as рж: Polish rzecz, Czech řeč, while in the southeastern group ŕ or rj remains unchanged: реч.
4. The reflex of kv and gv
In the northwestern group we find these old sound combinations unchanged: Czech květ, Polish kwiat; Czech hvězda, Polish gwiazda, while in the southeastern group those are replaced by цв – зв (or дзв): цвѣт, звѣзда.
5–6. Dental d and t in front of l and n
In the northwestern group the dentals d and t are retained in front of l and n while in the southwestern group they disappear: on one hand radlo, sadlo, pletla, vadnouti, svitnouti, and on the other – рало, сало, плела, ванѫти, свьнѫти.
7. Pronunciation of ъ
In the northwestern group ъ is pronunced as an є-sound though different from the etimological є while in the southeastern group this vowel is hard: ъ, о, or а; in Czech and Polish deska, in Bulgarian дъска, in Russian доска, and in Serbo-Croatian daska. In Slovenian, although it is written deska, it is pronounced дъска.
8. Accent.
In the northwestern group accent is definitive, i.e. it falls on one and the same syllable, namely: in Czech – on the first syllable, and in Polish – on the penultimate syllable while in the southeastern group the accent is indefinite, i.e. it can fall on any syllable. Whatever exceptions there are, those are either new, or do not occur in the standard languages but only in dialects.
Out of the 8 phonetic traits which we accept as distinctive traits between the 2 groups of Slavic languages, the most important for classification is the tj,dj reflex because it can be used for further classification. Indeed, this reflex not only distinguishes clearly the 2 main Slavic language groups because instead of tj-dj we have on one hand (in the northwestern group: Polish and Czech) hissing consonants (ts-dz), and on the other (in the southeastern group: Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Russian, and Bulgarian) affricate consonants (tš-dž) but furthermore, comparing the main Slavic languages again on this basis we see that the pronunciation of tj-dj separates them very well from each other; thus, we can always recognise Polish by its c-dz instead of tj-dj, Czech – by c-z, Serbo-Croatian – by ћ-ђ, Slovenian – by č-j, Russian – by ч-ж, Bulgarian – by щ-жд.
Thus, assuming unmutated tj-dj in Proto-Slavic, we have:
In common Slavic svêtja – medja.
I. In the northwestern group tj-dj give hissing reflex.
Polish
Czechc-dz
c-zśvieca – miedza
svice – mezeII. In the southeastern group tj-dj give affricates.
Russian
Bulgarian
Serbo-Croatian
Slovenianч-ж
щ-жд
ћ-ђ
č-jсвѣча – межа
свѣща – межда
свиϳећа – међа
svêča – mejaOf course, this classification does not prevent combining Slavic languages in other groups by some or other common traits; this could only help understand their relationship. Whatever we do though, the primary division in two will stand firm; first, because it is supported by very important and old traits, and second, because through it we obtain 2 groups of languages separated very well dialectally and geographically. Separated, because the few "crossovers" that occur here and there do not contradict the above classification because these crossovers occur either near the division border, such as, e.g. dl-tl in Slovenian which comes from neighbouring Slovak, or are later phenomena such as: да светна, да падна, земя, оставям, бракя in Bulgarian.
However we classify Slavic languages, we must admit that the problem of their interrelationships is very difficult because it is interweaved with issues that have no positive solution. First of all, we do not know since when the Slavic peoples occupy their present lands and if their present location has always been the same; if not, how it has changed. Furthermore, we do not know the date of the various phonetic and morphological changes in individual Slavic languages and if, e.g. the same changes in 2 or more Slavic languages are due to living in a community, or as neighbours, or those arose independently. Thus, we see that both in Serbian and in Russian the Old Bulgarian ѫ is replaced with у; if we assume that this is because both languages are in the southeastern group then why don't we find the same replacement in Bulgarian and in Slovenian? They are in the same group, aren't they? Moreover, why do we find the same reflex in Czech, which is in the northwestern group? The same confusion ensues also when we ask why ѣ is replaced in Russian, Serbian, and Czech with e and ϳe while in Bulgarian and Polish this vowel is replaced with ϳa, although the last 2 languages are not from the same group. These questions can be answered somehow but it seems that in addition to individual reasons there should be taken account of the natural contact through neighbourhood – either hisorical or pre-historical. If it is always stressed that the present dialect traits in Slavic languages had arisen early in Proto-Slavic times, why shouldn't we assume for some identical traits in different Slavic languages to be a result of a previous neighbourhood of these languages, a neighbourhood that has thereafter been eliminated by historic events?
Thus, the comparison of Bulgarian with other Slavic languages suggests that at some time Bulgarian had other other Slavic neighbours and not only Serbian as it is now. Indeed, if we take into account that Bulgarian Slavs were located at some time in the Hungarian plain, in Transylvania, Walachia, and Moldova, as is suggested by so many Bulgarisms in Hungarian and Romanian, we must conclude that in the past Bulgarian touched not with one language, as now, but with several; for it took the center of the circle of Slavic languages situated around it, the place that is now occupied by Hungarians and Romanians. Hence, some striking similarities of Bulgarian with Slavic languages with which it doesn't come in geographic contact.
And indeed, the more we study the relationship of Bulgarian to other Slavic languages, the more we are convinced that Bulgarian, taken together with its dialects, contains in itself traits from all Slavic languages. Maybe every other Slavic language seems to be so encompassing if we start comparisons from it but still there are facts that give some advantage to Bulgarian in this respect. Thus, in addition to its undoubtedly central location until the arrival of Magyars in today Hungary and Transylvania, Bulgarian has also the advantage that its documental history dates from the earliest time when no other Slavic language possessed written monuments. Furthermore, the numerous Bulgarian dialects not only confirm with living examples what is conserved in written monuments but put it in touch with one or another Slavic language; because in Bulgarian dialects we find reflected almost all old and new phonetic traits of Slavic languages. This gives us a basis to conclude that many of these common traits between Bulgarian dialects and individual Slavic languages are an echo from the time when Bulgarian was in touch with those languages.
One or two examples can explain what was said above. Bulgarian in its present area touches to the west with Serbian, and to the north-east – with Russian; thus it is natural that it has the most common traits with these 2 languages. This is really so, but while the similarities between Serbian and Bulgarian are easy to understand because these 2 languages lived many centuries next to each other, the similarity between Russian and Bulgarian cannot be explained by a present neighbourhood because in fact it dates since newer time, since some 180 years, namely, since the various Russian-Turkish wars when many Bulgarian youth from Eastern Bulgaria left their homeland to live in Russia. This new neighbourhood did not influence significantly the 2 languages, or if it did, it did it only locally, not affecting the deeper language structure. Therefore, the similarity between Bulgarian and Russian should be interpreted as a coincidence, or as a consequence of a former closer neighbourhood. The latter is more probable, because it is supported by other facts.
Second. Bulgarian and Polish are now furthest from each other both in space and in language traits. In spite of this, these 2 languages keep an identical pronunciation of ѣ, the same pronunciation that is characteristic for Bulgarian from its written monuments. This similarity between Polish and Bulgarian is not accidental but dates from the time when these 2 languages bordered each other, and maybe even then they were as distinguished from other Slavic languages by this common trait as they are now.
Some obvious similarities of Bulgarian with Slovenian and Slovak languages that will be described below, lead to the same conclusion that these languages which are now far apart, were close neighbours at an earlier time – thus, the amazing similarities among them.



Bulgarian compared


Before we go over to a detailed comparison between Bulgarian and other Slavic languages, we'll give a short summary of individual Slavic languages, with emphasis on their phonetic traits.


Russian




tj and dj are pronounced as ч and ж: свѣча, межа.
ѫ reflects in у: рука, мука; ѧ reflects in я: мясо, ряд.
Russian vocalisation: instead of ра and ла that arose from older or ol, in Russian we have оро, оло: борода, голова instead of брада, глава; also, in Russian we have instead of рѣ, лѣ (from the ancient er, el between consonants) – ере, еле (or оло): дерево, железа, молоко.
In Russian unlike any other living Slavic language, the old pronunciation of ъı, written ы, is preserved: сын, мышца.
ъ and ь which are pronounced as vowels, become о and e: плотно, день.
Old Bulgarian interconsonant ръ and лъ keep their old original form (ор-ол, ер-ел, ро-ле, ре-ле) only in Russian: торг, волк, зерно, кровь, плоть, крест, слеза. In most Bulgarian dialects this form has reflected very long ago: тръг, влък, зръно, кръв, плът, кръст, слъза.
The accent is old, undefined.
Russian is divided in 3 dialects: Russian, Ukrainian, and White Russian.


Serbo-Croatian




tj and dj are replaced with ћ and ђ, pronounced as very soft чь and джь: свећа, међа.
ѫ reflects in у: рука, мука; ѧ reflects in е: месо, ред.
ъ is assimilated with ь and both are pronounced as а: даска, дан, лан.
ръ and лъ (interconsonant) are pronounced as р̥ (vowel)̥ and у: прст, суза.
л at the end of syllables is vocalised as о: пепео, криоце.
The accent is undefined, however, in Serbian it is regularly shifted forward by one syllable.
Serbo-Croatian has tonal accent.
Serbo-Croatian is divided in 3 dialects according to the pronunciation of чьто: Shtokavian, Chakavian, and Kajkavian. Shtokavian is spoken by the true Serbs, while Chakavian and Kajkavian comprise the Croatian language.


Slovenian




tj and dj are replaced with ч and j: свеча, меjа.
ѫ reflects in о: рока, мока; ѧ reflects in е: месо, ред.
ъ is assimilated with ь in a dark sound ъ which is written as е: bez, deska, den, len.
ръ and лъ are pronounced as vowels р̥̥ and л̥: prst, slza.
The accent is old but very much mutated.
There is tonal accent but it is new and long vowels are only the stressed ones.
Verbs have dual forms.


Polish




tj and dj are pronounced as ц and дз: świeca, miedza.
ѫ retains its original pronunciation as оⁿ (written ą ) and ѧ retains its pronunciation as eⁿ (written ę ); however they are exchanged sometimes so that instead of ѫ comes eⁿ and instead of ѧ comes оⁿ. It is usually accepted that long ѫ and long ѧ give оⁿ while short ѫ and short ѧ give еⁿ: dąb – dębu (дѫбъ, дѫбѹ), wiązać (вѧзатн), pęto (пѫто).
ъ and ь are replaced with e and ie (soft e).
ръ and лъ are pronounced as ro and lo: gród, wrota, glowa.
ѣ is pronounced я or е as in the Eastern Bulgarian, depending on its location; ѣ is reflected not only before soft syllables but also before labial and pharyngeal consonants: kwiat (flower), źelazo, biały – but: bielić, liewy, chleb, świeca, grzech.
Specific softening of consonants resulting on more hissing and affricated sounds than in other Slavic languages; thus, in addition to soft ŕ giving rz, all d and t before soft vowels give dz and c while z, s, c give ź, ś, ć: miescie (мѣстѣ), kość (кость), jeźdźić (ıаздить).
Accent is defined and falls on the penultimate syllable.
Kashubian and Polabian dialects are affiliated to Polish; Polabian is no longer spoken.


Czech




tj and dj are replaced by ц and з (c and z).
ѫ gives u or ou depending on whether it is short or long: ruka, soud. ѧ gives ě, í or a, á depending on whether it is short or long and whether it stays before soft or hard syllable: pět' – páty, svaty – světiti, kníže (кънѧsь). Besides, the length of Czech vowels does not correspond to the supposed Proto-Slavic tonal accent.
ръ and лъ are reflected differently – either in vowel r and l: brv, krv, hltati, or in re, lu: krev, slunce.
ѣ gives ě or í depending on whether it is short or long: běl, bědny, tělo, víra (faith), lěto (summer), mlíko. The same reflexes occur also with ѧ and ia (я).
Long o gives u which is written ů: vůle, nůž.
ю (ju) reflects in i or í depending on whether it is short or long: klič, jítro.
г is pronounced as h: hlava, hora (forest).
Soft ŕ gives чж written ř: břeh, dřevo, moře, tvořiti.
Accent is definite and always falls on the first syllable.
Tonal accent is present and is relatively new phenomenon.
Slovak language is usually affiliated to Czech but it differs mainly the reflex of dj in dz, ъ and ь reflect in o and e, there is no ř, the tonal stress is not the same as in Czech.
Affiliated to Czech are 2 Slavic dialects – Upper and Lower Lužician which are spoken in Saxony and Prussia.
This short characteristic of Slavic languages shows their phonetic variety which sometimes makes it difficult to find unifying traits.





Bulgarian and Serbian


Shown here are only the very old traits that distinguish the 2 languages. For a fuller description of the linguistic borders between Bulgarian and Serbian (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html#linguistic_borders), see the article on borders of Bulgarian language (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/02/borders-of-bulgarian-language.html). Serbian, namely, and not Serbo-Croatian, first, because Bulgarian touches only to Serbian and not to Croatian dialects; second, because in respect to Bulgarian, we should differentiate between Serbian and Croatian. As we'll see, the "Croatian" dialects (Kajkavian and Chakavian) in some traits are closer to Slovenian and Bulgarian than to Serbian.If we exclude the traits that distinguish Bulgarian from Serbian as parts of the south-eastern Slavic group then amazingly very few traits are left that are common to the two languages. Those are the following 5, 3 of which concern phonetic traits and 2 are syntactic:
1. ъı = и. Both in Serbian and in modern Bulgarian the pronunciation of this vowel reflects in the ordinary и. This pronunciation today is not common only to Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian but also with Slovenian and is a common distinctive feature of all Yugoslav languages. The impulse for this reflex comes from the Serbian milieu and goes to the east. The following arguments support this:
a) we do not have any positive knowledge about an old Serbian pronunciation of ъı while Bulgarian monuments as late as 14th c. use this vowel very correctly;
b) even today there are Bulgarian dialects that keep the old pronunciation of ъı though not in full;
c) the Bulgarian dialects with retained old ъı are far from the Serbo-Bulgarian ethnographic border – they are near Solun and Shumen;
d) the reflex of ъı in и developed together with other reflexes specific for Serbian (ѣ = e, ь = ъ, ѫ = у, ѧ = е) while in Bulgarian these are either lacking or came by impulse from the west.
2. ѧ = е. Both in Bulgarian and Serbian the Old Bulgarian nasal ѧ reflects in the same vowel е – of course, if we ignore those old reflexes (йъ, йо, я) found in Bulgarian dialects. Because the reflex in е now is common for all western Bulgarian dialects while the other reflexes occur only in Eastern dialects, it is very probable that the reflex ѧ = е also comes as a continuation of the Serbian reflex for this vowel. This is even more acceptable taking into account the Russian reflex я and the Croatian-Slovenian reflex а (after palatals). Therefore, the ѧ = е reflex comes into Bulgarian as a wave from the west, as well as the ѣ = е reflex which at present takes only the western half of the Bulgarian language territory. Accepting this continuity, likewise accepting everything common between Serbian and Bulgarian, it cannot be excluded that such ѧ = е reflex may have arisen secondarily on Bulgarian soil.
3. ѣ = е. This is the third phonetic similarity between Serbian and Bulgarian. Because half of Bulgarian still keeps the old pronunciation of ѣ (as я) and only the western dialects reflect it in е as in Serbian, the comparison by this point only confirms what was said above on the direction of phonetic reflexes – they go from west to east, from Serbian to Bulgarian. The same is true for the reflex of ръ in Serbian and Bulgarian.

4. Future tense is made by the same auxiliary verb хощѫ (to wish) in both Bulgarian (ще) and Serbian (ћу, ћеш, ће, ћемо, ћете). This trait is common only for Bulgarian and Serbian, while Croatian and Slovenian use for this purpose the verb бѫдѫ. Probably this trait have passed from Bulgarian to Serbian and this is why it does not occur in the other Yugoslav languages. In Bulgarian this trait is relatively new – it is lacking in Slavic languages other than Bulgarian and Serbian and has arisen on the Balkan Peninsula because it is common for all Balkan languages.
5. The infinitive is made by the conjunction да + finite verb in both Bulgarian and Serbian. Although such infinitive decomposition is not still fully applied, it is common in Serbian, while in Croatian and Slovenian it does not occur, or it is very rare. This analytical trait is also due to Bulgarian dialect influence upon Serbian because in other cases, too, we observe much greater trend toward analyticity in Bulgarian than in Serbian.
With so few common traits, the difference between Serbian and Bulgarian seems great; but in fact, Bulgarian is closer to Serbian more than to any other language. This is so because the pronunciation of the other vowels and consonants is similar without the reflexes and palatisation that occur in the northern Slavic languages (Czech, Polish, and Russian). In Serbian and Bulgarian, and in South Slavic as a whole, there is no Czech reflex of ja into je and jí, no Russian vocalisation, no Polish-Russian ьо instead of e, while the phonetics is comparatively conserved and the words have few reflexes from their old pronunciation. There is something else which assimilates these languages even more: the great number of common words. The vocabulary and the morphemic complex is almost identical in Bulgarian and Serbian. In respect to its local folk vocabulary Bulgarian is undoubtedly closer to Serbian than to Russian, although the literary loans between Bulgarian and Russian approximated these languages, too. It seems incredible that conversational Bulgarian has 3 times more common words with Serbian than with Russian. This can be checked by comparing the same text in the 3 languages: while in an average page of Russian text, a non-linguistically educated Bulgarian finds 24 to 30 unknown words, in the same page Serbian text, he will find only 8 to 10! This lexical similarity and difference of Bulgarian with its 2 neighbouring Slavic languages is probably a result of more recent relations between Serbs and Bulgarians, which did not take place between Russians and Bulgarians. This multitude of common words makes Serbian better understood for Bulgarians and vice versa – Bulgarian for Serbs. The lexical similarity would facilitate very much the introduction of a common literary language between these two peoples if the political rivalry between them didn't reject any idea for mutual cooperation.





Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian


Comparison of Bulgarian with the other Yugoslav languages or dialects – beyond Serbian – reveals curious facts, suggested above, namely, that Bulgarian did not have Serbian as a neighbour in the past. It is true that now Bulgarian and Serbian are the closest languages, but it is also true that Bulgarian has some common traits with Croatian and Slovenian that are lacking in Serbian.The group of Croatian-Slovenian dialects is a united whole, separated from Serbian, when compared to Bulgarian so they are taken together. And indeed these dialects have many common, old traits which distinguish them from Serbian and assimilate them to Bulgarian. Here, by "Croatian" are meant the 2 Croatian dialects – Kajkavian and Chakavian which by the tj-dj reflex are the same as Slovenian, which reflect in ч-j, and not in ћ-ђ, as in Serbian.
The following traits occur in Croatian-Slovenian and Bulgarian, and do not occur in Serbian:
1. In Croatian-Slovenian in addition to the common reflex ѧ = e, there is also another reflex that is similar to the Middle Bulgarian Yus reflex, namely, after palatals (ж, ч, ш, and й) ѧ reflects in а, and not in е: jazik, prijati, žatva, etc. The same reflex шѧ, жѧ, ѩ occurs in many Bulgarian dialects: йъзик and язик, шътам and шатам, жътва and жатва. This trait does not occur in Serbian.
2. In Bulgarian, as well as in Slovenian and Croatian, the initial ѫ is pronounced with the objective в – вѫ: vos, vozel, vože, vohati, votek (in Slovenian) vs. ѫсъ (въси), ѫзлъ (възел), ѫжє (въже), ѫхати (въхам), ѫтъкъ (вътък) in Bulgarian. In some Bulgarian dialects, here and there, the archaic pronunciation without в is retained: ože, ozel – йъже, йъзол (in Ohrid dialect) and яже, язол (in Prilep-Mariovo and Bitola dialects).
3. In both Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian, the group чръ is not reflected: черно – črno, червей – črv, etc. while in Serbian чръ is reflected in цр: црно, црв. It is true that in many Bulgarian dialects the reflex чр = цр occurs but all these dialects are western, therefore, closer to Serbian, while in the more distanced dialects it is always чер and not цър. The only exception is the word църква which is pronounced so also in the east (together with черква) but for it we have the Old Bulgarian цръкъı.
4. The end-of-syllable л which in Serbian passes in о (рекао, пепео) remains unchanged in Croatian and Slovenian, as well as in Bulgarian. Also, the reflex of the interconsonant group лъ in у (вуна, жут) is not widespread neither in Slovenian, nor in Croatian.
5. The similarity between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian is seen also in the inconsistent use of the epenthetic л. In this respect, Serbian is very strict, so that it has retained all cases known from old Bulgarian, and even has added new cases (снопље, гробље vs. снопнѥ, гробнѥ) while many Croatian and Slovenian dialects not only lack the new cases but also abandon the old ones; cf. spravjati, stavjati, zovjem, skubje in [18] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref18).
6. Similarity between Bulgarian and Chakavian is found in the pronunciation of words like веселje, каменje where we do not hear the fused Serbian љ, њ but the separate лj, нj which is characteristic also for Bulgarian dialects.
7. The accent between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian is also similar, while in Serbian it is different although originating from older common basis.

8. In the pronunciation of ѫ as ô in Slovenian (and some Kajkavian dialects) we can find strong similarity with the Bulgarian Debar and Rup dialects where ѫ has the same reflex.
9. In Croatian-Slovenian, as well as in the Bulgarian southwestern dialects (Kostur, Lerin, etc.) щ is pronounced as шч and not as шт as in Serbian. This similarity is included here because the standard Bulgarian also came from an older шч which later became шт.
Therefore, while between Bulgarian and Serbian there are only 2 or 3 phonetic similarities, between Croatian-Slovenian and Bulgarian in addition to the Serbo-Bulgarian phonetic similarities there are 9 others. Moreover, if we compare the similarities between Bulgarian and Serbian with those between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian we see that the former are from more recent time and obviously passed from one language to the other while the similarities between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian are of such nature that they cannot be accepted as new loans but are an evidence of older relationship between the respective languages.
How to explain this similarity? Did it arise at the time when the Slavo-Bulgarian language touched to the Croatian-Slovenian directly on the Panonian plain or this similarity dates from later neighbourhood of Sloveno-Croatian (Kajkavian and Chakavian) and Bulgarian on the present Serbian lands before they were occupied by Serbs? The first hypothesis is supported by the fact that Bulgarian has some similarities with other Slavic languages that do not border it at present (Slovak and Polish) while the second hypothesis is supported by the fact that the similarities between Serbian and Bulgarian are from more recent time. It is risky to state a decisive opinion on this issue but from the many similarities between Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian it is clear that the dialect continuum among the Yugoslav languages is disrupted by the Serbian language and if we can speak about Yugoslav dualism in the sense so staunchly defended by Jagić [19] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulgarian-language-and-other-slavic.html#ref19), we are justified enough to support another older dualism, Bulgarian and Croatian-Slovenian on one hand and Serbian, on the other which is separated by the late arrival of Serbs and their wedging between Bulgarians and Croato-Slovenians.
The comparison of Bulgarian with other Slavic languages leads to this same hypothesis that Bulgarian Slavs in their former location in the Panonian and Dacian area were close neighbours with Slovenians (and maybe Croats), with Slovaks, Poles, and Russians, while with Czechs and Serbs they were not in direct touch and this is why they have not common old traits. Slovaks separated Bulgarian from Czechs but where were Serbs so that they were not neighbours to Bulgarian Slavs, it is not known; it is probable that they were somewhere beyond the Carpathеs, and after the Slovenes (Bulgarian Slavs and Slovenians) and Croats settled their present lands, Serbs came between them on the Balkan Peninsula. With this, we accept that the Porphyrogenet evidence about the late migration of Serbs is true, and the opinion of Miklošić about the kinship of the present Bulgarian and Slovenian is acceptable as far as that in 9th c. they were just the same 2 Slovene dialects which are today the most Bulgarian щ-жд dialects and the southwestern Bulgarian кь-гь dialects, i.e. they were very close to each other but differed only in the tj-dj reflex; in Slovenian it was ч-j (and maybe also кь-гь), and in Bulgaro-Slovene it was щ-жд.

[Europa]

Bulgarian was the first Slavic language to be written: it start to appear in writing during the 9th century in the Glagolitic (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/glagolitic.htm) alphabet, which was gradually replaced by an early version of the Cyrillic (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ocslavonic.htm) alphabet over the following centuries.
At the end of the 18th century the Russian version of Cyrillic (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/cyrillic.htm) or the "civil script" of Peter the Great (1672-1725) was adapated to write Bulgarian as a result of the influence of printed books from Russia. During the 19th century a number of versions of this alphabet containing between 28 and 44 letters were used. In the 1870s a version of the alphabet with 32 letters proposed by Marin Drinov became widely used. This version remained in use until the orthographic reform of 1945 when the letters yat (Ѣ ѣ), and yus (Ѫ ѫ) were removed from the alphabet.
A modern literary language based on vernacular spoken Bulgarian was standardised after Bulgaria became independent in 1878. Many Turkish words were adopted into Bulgarian during the long period of Ottoman rule. Words have also been borrowed from Latin, Greek, Russian, French, Italian, German and increasingly from English.

[Europa]

Bulgarian and (Czecho)-Slovak


It remains to see how Bulgarian stands in respect to the second main language of the northwestern group – Czech.Of all Slavic languages, Czech is farthest from Bulgarian, so we can't compare the 2 languages because wherever we come from we can't find any similarities between these languages, only differences. But this lack of common traits between Czech and Bulgarian confirms the main idea for the past location of Slavo-Bulgarian among the other Slavic languages, that these 2 languages were not in such close neighbourhood to develop or retain the same traits. And it was so indeed, because between them there was another Slavic language which separated them and was a transitional dialect; it is the present Slovak language which today retains this property – to be a transition between the northwestern and southeastern Slavic languages, so that it is still not clear if it is a separate language or a Czech dialect. This is because Slovak language (or Slovak dialect) takes a middle geographical position between Slavic languages (it touches Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, and Croatian-Slovenian), so it is very hard to compare with it: because it concentrates phonetic and morphological traits from all surrounding Slavic languages whatever similarities we find between Slovak and Bulgarian, we'll find these also in other Slavic languages, and we are not always certain whether to count those as old traits or as more recent loans. Therefore, the common traits between Slovak and Bulgarian would only be worthwhile if it can be shown that they are characteristic for Slovak since a time for which neighbourhood between Slovaks and Slavo-Bulgarians can be assumed. This is very difficult to prove. The similarities between Slovak and Bulgarian are the following:
1. ъ = о, ь = е. The reflexes of Old Bulgarian ers in Slovak are the same as in Bulgarian: lož (лъжь), von (вънъ), voš (въшь), zamok, došol; den (дьнь), lev (львь), lest' (льсть), kupec (коупьць), etc. All right, but this trait can be interpreted very well as a later Ukrainian influence, and not as an old permanent trait; however, there is something that indicates a Slovak-Bulgarian community in this respect. It is the fact that in Slovak we find traces suggesting that ъ, before it reflected in о, had a dark reflex, just as in Bulgarian; because instead of the usual reflex ъ = о there are also а and е: moch and mach, rož and raž, dožd', dažd', and dežd', doska, daska, and deska; all these ъ reflexes point to one and the same dark and indeterminate pronunciation ъ, characteristic for Bulgarian and Slovak (dъska, tъšč, kъvъl, etc.).
2. ѧ = ä ( = йъ). The Old Bulgarian vowel ѧ is pronounced variously in modern Slovak: as ä, as ıa, and as e. It is not yet determined which is the original reflex here. Gebauer [21] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref21) points to ıa, Pastrnek [22] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref22) – e, Jagić [23] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref23), and Oblak [24] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref24) – ä. Of these 3 reflexes the best candidate for precursor is the sound ä, which is intermediate between the other two. But exactly because it is in the middle, it can equally well come either from Czech or from Ukrainian – the more so because this sound ä in Slovak is very widespread, and is a reflex not only from ѧ, but also from ѣ (väža, človäk, zemän, snäh), from a (vytapät', stavät, čäs, käd', gäjdy, kämen), and from є (mäd, jäzero). If it is proven that the reflex ä = ѧ is older that the others, it can be related to a similar reflex (йъ) in some Bulgarian southeastern (Rup) dialects, as well as in the Paulician dialect which is spoken in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Transylvania. Thus, we can properly compare the Slovak pät, mäkka, sväty, päta with пйът, мйък, свйътà, пйътà (Batak dialect) which are the immediate reflexes from пѧть, мѧкъкъ, свѧтъ, пѧта, from which later developed the Rup пьоат, мьоак, etc.
We must note that the sound ä replaces in Slovak only short ѧ, and then only after labial consonants – otherwise ѧ is replaced by я or ıa – depending on whether this is short or long ѧ: klatba – kliat', pät – piatok, sviazat', riad, etc. Thus, if we start from ä, we must accept for я and ıa a subsequent clearing of the dark sound ä – either for tonal, or for assimilatory reason. The same clearing must have occurred then in Czech, as well as in Russian, while in Croat-Slovenian (excluding Rezian) such increase of ä to a was limited only to syllables жа, ша, їа, and ча, and the other cases developed towards e. In Bulgarian, the dark pronunciation of the palatal syllables is common (жътва, шъпа, йъзик) especially in the eastern dialects while the central dialects clear ъ into a (жатва, шапа, язик).
3. A nice similarity between Bulgarian and Slovak can be seen in the pronunciation of ръ and лъ which are reflected into their sonant character (irrespective of their old origin) in the same way as in Old Bulgarian, so that we have only: srna, vrba, črn, krv, črv, plno, slza, vlk, blcha, klka, žlč while in Czech in addition to srna, vrba, etc. we have červ, čern, and in addition to pln, vlk we have blecha, kluk, žluč, etc. The similarity consists in the fact that Slovak has preserved the same position of these sound groups which has been probably a common trait of the Sloveno-Bulgarian language in its first homeland, with the only difference that in Old Bulgarian (at least in writing) this position is expressed always with ъ after р and л: връба, влъкъ, кръвь, слъза.
4. The fourth simiarity between Bulgarian and Slovak is the partly preserved pronunciation of ѣ as ia or 'a: diavka, smiach, bl'ady, b'alo, bl'ačat (блѣıати), biada, hriach, neviam, vara (вѣра), caly, preciadzat', kviatok, chliav, driamat', liatat, poobliakal, priachrščia. Pastrnek [22], pp. 45-49 (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref22), sees a Polish influence in ѣ = ia; however, they are more likely to be traces of old local ѣ = ia, because, if they were loaned from Polish, they would obey the Polish rule for ѣ, i. e., we wouldn't have examples as: smiach, hriach, priahrščia, neviam, driamat', obliakal, hliav, etc., which in Polish are impossible. Cf. also: capit', vravit', zabol'alo, l'av, l'ava, l'avo, bl'adý, sňat, neviäm, cadzit', caly, etc.
5. The fifth similarity is the same pronunciation of the group чрѣ, which both in Bulgarian and Slovak was extended in the so-called vocalised form; Bulgarian: череши, череп (or чиреп), черясло, черен (or чирен), черва or чирева; Slovak: čerešňa, čerep, čerieslo, čerevo, čerevička, čirida (balcony).
6. The verbs ending in овати are pronounced with ending ува, уват in both Slovak and Bulgarian (although in the Slovak conversational speech the ending ovat' is preferred): menúvat', darúvat'. Similar pronunciation occurs in some Ukrainian dialects, and in Old Croatian but this similarity is also obvious and, maybe, not accidental.
7. The seventh similarity between Slovak and Bulgarian is lexical; it is the many common old words that sometimes are amazingly similar in form and meaning. It is not surprising to develop a lexical similarity between two neighbouring languages, such as Bulgarian and Serbian: Serbs and Bulgarians lived for many centuries next to each other, had a common culture that was imposed either from one or from another side, so common words were constantly transferred. But when you find a word in Slovak which you thought occurs only in Bulgarian, you unwittingly linger on it and wonder if it is not a remnant from the time when Slovaks and Bulgarians (Sloveni) were closer neighbours. First Šafarik [4], pp. 98-99; 375-377 (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref4) noted the fact that many Old Bulgarian words occur in Slovak and not in Czech, but a detailed study on this problem is lacking. The Slovak dialects contain many words and idioms that remind the former close neighbourhood and event unity between Slovaks and Bulgarian Slavs. This is characterised by the following words which occur in Slovak and Bulgarian, while in Czech they are either completely lacking, or have other meaning, or are very rare.
SlovakBulgarianEnglishbabka
babonstvo
bachor, bachorok
bočnik
božit' sa
bezcený
brav
buzogáň
cedilo, cedilka
celiet' sa
daždovnica
dever
dobytče
dochnut'
dojit'
dojelnica
dolčina
domašni
drhlavý, drglavý
dubica
duška materina
gajdy
grlačka
grochtat'
huňa
imanie
jaraby
kábaň
kasanka
klatit' sa
kl'akam
klinec
klokoči
kračuň
kyša
klečka
kodkodakat'
koleda
krčah
krepél
kutkovat'
kutník
kvaka
lemeš
leskovica
leskovina
lichva
ličim
ličnost
liskav
loža
lub
mačkat', smačkat'
mešec
mladoženec
mladoženica
mlazga, mliazga
mrholi
munkat'
mzda
nahrnut'
naježit' sa
naňo
neduh
obad
ovad
obahnit'
oblažit', oblažovat'
odčesnut', razčesnut'
odolok
napokon
okotit' sa
omela
ornica
osyka
ovalát'
paprat'
pchat'
peciarka
pištel, pištelka
pitvor
plešivec
podlizovat' sa
pohár
pochabý
pokyv, kyvat', kyv
polaznik
postav
práchno
priečka
prieloh
prikmotrit' sa
psie-hrozno
pútec
rabuša
ranina
rataj
rozsadlina
rozsadnut' sa
rucho
samokov
samotok
sedmorka
shovor
shovorit' sa
schulit' sa
siaknut'
šiabra
skapat' sa
sklesnit'
slehnut' sa
sloboda
stipka
streh
strnisko
strpnut'
stulit' sa
stud
suk, suč
svak
šašo
šatrny
šibat'
škopit'
škopec
škvrna
šuta
šutit'
taliga
test
tuňo
urda
úsad
useknut'
vahanec, havanec
velmož
veno
veštica
velit'
vhlbit'
vov
vyblknut'
vybočit' sa
vybuchnut'
vybuchat'
vlkolák
vrava, varavet'
vskresit'
zaprtok
бабка
бабуни
бахур
бочник
божа се
безценен
брав
боздуган
цедило, цедилка
целя̀ се
дъждовница
девер
добиче
издъхвам
доя
дойница
долчина
домашен
дръглив
дъбица
бабина душица
гайда
гърлешница
грухти
гуня
имàне
яребат
кабаница
касатка
клатя се
клякам
клинец
клокочи
крачуни
прòкиш
клечка
кудкудякат
коледа
кърчаг
кърпел
къткам
кътник
квака
лемеш
лесковица
лесковина
лихва
лича
личбина
лъскав
ложе
луб
мачкам, смачкам
мѣшьць
младоженец
младоженка
мъзга, млъзга
мърхоли
мънкам
мьзда
нагърна
наежвам се
нане
недъг
обад
овад
обягна се
облажавам
разчесна
одолнѥ
напокон
окоти се
имел
орница
осика
овалям
пъпря
пъхам
печурка
пищял, пищялка
притвор
плешивец
подлизвам се
пахар
похабен
киване, кивна
полезник
постав
прахан
пречка
прелог
окуми се
куче грозде
пътец
рабуш
ранина
ратай
разседлина
разседна се
рухо
самоков
самоток
седморка
сговор
сговарям се
изхули се
пресекна
жабри
скапа се
клесна го
слегна се
слобода
щипка
щрек, стрег
стърнище
изтръпвам
потули се
стоудъ (OBg.)
сък, съчка
свак, сват
шаша
шатърен
шибам
скопявам
скопец
сквърна
шута
шутя
талига
тъст
тоунѣ
урда
у̀сад
да усекна
ваганка, гаванка
велможа
вѣно
вещица
вели
вглъбвам
във
избликна
избочвам се
да избухна
да избухам
върколак
вървя
да възкръсна
запъртък
old coin
wizard(ry)
sausage (kind of)
shirt sleeve
to vow
invaluable
wether
mace
baby sling
cure oneself
newt
brother-in-law
animal
expire (for animal)
to milk
milking cow
hollow
poltergeist
scraggy
oak wood
thyme
bagpipe
gourd
to grunt
shepherd's cloak
treasure
variegated (for birds)
shepherd's cloak
apron
to shake
to kneal
nail
to gurgle
Christmastide (1) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note1)
acid
stick
to cackle
Christmas
beer-glass (1) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note1)
club
cluck
molar
croak
ploughshare
hazel-stick
hazel
interest
beautify
beauty
shiny
bed (2) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note2)
bast
crumple
pouch
bridegroom
bride
sap
to drizzle
to mumble
wages
to drape
to bristle
uncle
ailment (3) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note3)
horse bot fly
horse bot fly
to yean
to envy
to comb
lap
at last
to have kitten (4) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note4)
mistletoe
fallow
aspen
to roll in
to crawl
to poke
mushroom
shin, whistle
narthex
baldhead
to leak
bowl
worn
nod, to nod
carol-singer
a loom of material
tinder
obstacle
fallow land
to drop in
nightshade
path
tally
at dawn
farm-hand
fault
to fault
garb
smithy
must (pulp)
set of seven (5) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note5)
agreement
to agree
to slip out
to stop
gills
to fall to pieces
to split
to settle down
freedom (6) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note6)
pinch
on the lookout
stubble
to tingle
to hide
shame
branch, twig
in-law
crackpot
attentive
to lash
castrate
eunuch
stain
hummel
to trim
cart
father-in-law
cheap
infusion
farm
to blow nose
mortar
noble, lord
marriage portion
witch
says
make concave
in
to gush out
to bend
to burst
to thrash
werewolf (7) (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#note7)
to walk
to rise from the dead
addle egg


SlovakBulgarianEnglishzarana
žasnut' sa
zastrkadlo
zbutňeje
želje
zluhat', zolhat'
zmamit'
zpuchet' sa
zrutit'
zvara
zvarat'
žabyklač
žavčas
žílka
živorit'
žlna
žltak, žltok
žltenica
žrebзаран
джасна се
стрѣкало
бутнее
жалее
слъгвам
измамвам
спухри се
срутвам
извара
изварям
коли-жаба
завчас
жилка
живурка
жълна (dial.)
жълтък
жълтеница
жребе, жребийmorning
to bash oneself
key-lock
to sprout
to grieve
to fib
to deceive
fester
demolish
curds
to boil
blunt knife
in a short time
vein
to vegetate
woodpecker
yolk
jaundice
stallion, lot
1. This word occurs in Czech but it is considered a Slovak word.
2. In Czech louža means 'stream'.
3. In Czech this word is archaism.
4. Otherwise the word mačka is used for 'cat' in Slovak which, as in Bulgarian, means both 'cat' and 'anchor'.
5. In Czech, it is sedmerka.
6. This word is found in Bulgarian dialects; in Czech, it is svoboda.
7. In Czech, it is vlkodlak.

The following idioms have a curious similarity in the two languages
SlovakBulgarianEnglishna jeden dušok
žaludok mele
vspak-ruky
urečú ho
veru!, vera!
bol som sa zariekol
čini sa mi
treba je
ktori-si
celi boži deň
zabol'alo ho srce
hračka-plačka
umoknuti ako myš
čertovskà robota!
vre u ňom
ma dlhy prsty
čert ne spi
preliat' olovo
hladny jako vlk
blädý jako stena
lahký jaku pierko
biely jako sňah
sladky joko mäd
rovný jako svieca
slany ako živicaна един дъх
стомахът меле
наопък-ръце
урочасват го
вяра!
зарекъл съм се
чини ми се
трѣба ѥстъ
някой-си
цял божи ден
сърцето го заболя
играчка-плачка
мокър като мишка
дяволска работа!
ври и кипи в него
има дълги пръсти
дяволът не спи
лея куршум
гладен като вълк
бледен като стена
лек като перо
бял като сняг
сладък като мед
прав като свещ
солено като бигорin one breath
the stomach churns
inside-out
put an evil spell
by my faith!
I've promised
it seems to me
have to
somebody
the whole day
he had a heartache
a cry-toy
wet as a mouse
devil's deed!
it boils in him
he has long fingers
devil doesn't sleep
to pour lead
hungry as a wolf
white as a wall
like as a feather
white as snow
sweet as honey
straight as a candle
salty as travertineIn Slovak very often verbal nouns ending in ица are used, just as in Bulgarian: mačkanica, motanica, metenica, dušenica, plieskanica, sušenica (dried cheese).
Also interesting are the verbal adverbs ending in ačky: spiačky, stojačky, nechtiačky, etc. as in Bulgarian: стоячки, седечки, etc.
This is only a cursory comparison between Slovak and Bulgarian vocabularies. But if the comparison goes further in the field of the intellectual and material culture of these two peoples, one would find more points of contact; there are many common fairy-tales, proverbs, folk customs, dances, plays, etc. Below is a list of many Slovak proverbs which have the same Bulgarian counterparts; some of them are so identical that they need not be translated, and all of them show how close is Slovak to Bulgarian.

Idi mu na krivo gajdy — разкриви му се гайдата — his bagpipe got bent
Nohy založim za plece a ujdem — ще си туря краката на рамо и ще ида — I'll put my legs on the shoulders and go
Tak s ním zaobchodi, ako s malovanim vojcem — гледа го като писано яйце — Cares for him as a painted egg
Tma ako v rohu — тъмно като в рог — as dark as in a horn
Vola za rohy, človeka za reči chytaju — вол се хваща за рогата, а човека – за езика — the ox is taken by the horns, and the man – by the tongue
So suchym aj sirové hori — покрай сухото гори и сурово — the raw burns along with the dry
L'ava dlaň ma svrbi – prijmem peniaze — лявата длан ме сърби – ще получа пари — my left hand is itching – I'll get money
Aby ti vòz ne škriepal, pomast' mu kolesa — намажи си колата да ти не скърцат — Grease the wheels not to screech
Boh dopušt'a, ale neopušt'a — Бог забавя, ала не забравя — God delays but does not forget
Ide, kode ho oči vedú — отива, където го очи водят — goes where his eyes lead him
Ne pchaj nos kde si ne treba — не пъхай нос дето не трябва — don't stick your nose where you shouldn't
Ne pchaj prsty medzi dvere — не си пъхай пръстите между вратата — don't stick your fingers between the door
Od hlavy do päty ho premeral — премери го от глава до пети — he measured him from head to toes
Odl'ahlo mu na srdci — олекна му на сърцето — his heart got lighter
Buchnem t'a, že ti hned' oči vyskočia — така ще те ударя, че ще ти изскочат очите — I'll hit you so that your eyes will pop
Tak t'a capim, že hned' jazik vyplaziš — така ще те цапна, че ще изплезиш език — I'll slap you so that you'll pull out your tongue
Ryba od hlavý smrdi — рибата се вмирисва откъм главата — the fish stinks from the head downwards
Čo hluchý ne počuje, to si vymisli — каквото глухия не чува, си го измисля — the deaf imagines what he cannot hear
Palica ma dva konce — тоягата има два края — a stick has two ends
Nevolaňy host' má miesto za dverami — на неканен гост мястото му е зад вратата — an uninvited guest stays behind the door
Klin s klinom — клин клин избива — wedge removes wedge; to fight fire with fire
Jedon Boh na nebi, jedon král' na zemi — Бог високо, цар далеко — one God on heaven, one King on earth
Potreba ruši zakon — нужда закон изменя — need changes the law
Kto malo hovori vel'a mysli — който малко говори много мисли — that who speaks little thinks much
Jako ti hrajú, tak musiš tancovat' — както ти свирят, така ще играеш — you dance as they play
Až ked' preskočiš, povedz hop — като прескочиш, тогава кажи хоп — when you jump then say hop
Dlhé vlasy, kratky rozum
Kad' slnko svieti a dažd prši, čert babu bije — дъжд вали, слънце пече – дяволът се жени — it rains, the sun shines – it's the devil's wedding
Nič mu ne chýbä, iba vtačie mlieko — има от пиле мляко — he has even bird's milk
Chcel by mat' aj vlka sytého, aj barana celého — и вълка сит и агнето цяло — both the wolf sated and the sheep whole
Nieje domu bez dymu — няма къща без дим — there is no house without smoke
Darovanomu koňovi ne hl'ad' na zuby — на подарен кон зъби се не гледат — you don't check the teeth of a gifted horse
Nešt'astie ne chodi po horách, lež po l'ud'och — нещастието не ходи по горите, а по хората — misfortune goes to people and not to the woods
Dobré sa samo chvali — хубавото само се хвали — the good speaks for itself
Prázny klas hore stoji — празният клас стърчи нависоко — the empty wheat ear climbs higher
Jaká otázka taka otpoved' — какъвто въпроса такъв и отговора — response matches the question
Narodil sa so zubama — родил се със зъби — he was born with teeth
Jako seješ, tak budeš žat' — каквото сееш това ще пожънеш — you will reap what you saw
Ukáž mu prst, a on celú ruku chyti — покажи му пръст, той ще ти отхапе ръката — show him a finger and he will bite your hand
Kto priskvary l'ubi, tomu na svadbu prši — който се кара, на сватбата му дъжд вали — shrews have a rainy wedding
Ruka ruku umýva, a obe sú biele — една ръка мие другата, та и двете чисти — one hand washes the other and both are clean
Proti smrti niet lieku — няма лек срещу смъртта — death cannot be cured
Ked' vodie slepý slepého, padnú oba do jamy — слепец води слепеца и двамата падат в ямата — a blind man leads another blind man and both fall in the pit
Ne vidi d'alej od nosa — не вижда по-далеч от носа си — doesn't see farther than his nose
Pójdem, kam mä dve oči ponesú — ще отида където краката ме отнесат — I'll go where my legs carry me
Vrana vrane oči ne vykole — гарван гарвану очи не вади — a raven doesn't poke the eyes of another raven
Chodí spat' so sliepkami — спи с кокошките — goes to bed early
Je to stará liška; t'ažko sa chytat' dá — стара лисица е; трудно се хваща — he is an old fox; it's hard to catch him
Jedon šije, druhý páre — един шие, друг пере — one sews, another washes
Trafila kosa na kameň — удари коса на камък — hit an obstacle
Vajce chce byt' múdrejšie nežli sliepka — яйцето е по-мъдро от кокошката — the egg is wiser than the hen
Dvakrat meraj, a raz strihaj — два пъти мери, веднъж режи — measure twice, cut once
Sytý ne verí lačnému — ситият не вярва на гладния — the sated doesn't believe the hungry one
Dobrý chýr d'aleko ide, ale zlý ešte d'alej — добрият слух отива далече, а лошият още по-далече — the good rumour goes far but the bad one even farther
V mútnej vode ryby lovit' — лови риба в мътна вода — he fishes in a turbid water
Prazdný sud najviac huči — празно гърне най-много дрънчи — an empty jug clangs louder
Do osieho hniezda pichnut' — бръкна в осино гнездо — poked in a wasps' nest
Krev neni voda — кръвта вода не става — blood is thicker than water
Dotial krčah k studní chodi, dakial sa ne zabije — веднъж стомна за вода, два пъти, па счупена — the keg goes to the spring until it is broken
Sveti slnko, ale zybaté — свети слънце, но зъбато — the sun shines, but has teeth (it's cold)
We dwelt more on Slovak because this language is not well known and because this exposition could interest some linguists to continue this comparison, which will convince us that what we call Slovak language was recently separate from Czech and Polish, and was much closer to the south Slavic group, and more specifically to Bulgarian language.
Many authoritative scientists supported such separate status of Slovak language (Šafarik, Maretić, Florinsky, and others), and some (Kopitar, Miklošić, and Dümler) go further – they allege that Slovaks have originally been Slovenians (Slovinians) that were later Czechized. Maretić alleged the same but Jagić countered this opinion saying that the Slovaks were closest to Czechs even in the 9th century [25] (http://lyudmilantonov.blogspot.com/search/label/language#ref25).
No one denies this closeness but it does not prevent the suggestion that in the 9th c. Slovak was more south Slavic than western Slavic language.



Conclusions


All said above about the relationship of Bulgarian to the other Slavic languages allows us to make the following conclusions:First. Bulgarian Slavs before they settled on the Balkan Peninsula were located in their old abode at such place that they touched with Sloveno-Croats, Slovaks, Poles, and Russians, but they did not touch with Czechs and Serbs.
Second. In the above location, Slavonic Bulgarian had already the same phonetic traits that are found in the oldest monuments of the Cyril and Methodius writing; namely, in addition to all traits characteristic for the southeastern Slavic languages, it had the following specific traits:

tj-dj = шч-ждж and шть-ждь
ѫ = ън; initial ѫ = ън and вън
ѧ = йън and ен
ъ = ъ and о, ь = йъ and е
ръ = ръ, лъ = лъ
ѣ = я
чръ = чръ
ъı = ъй
accent is on various syllables
Taking into account the present Bulgarian dialects, we could suggest for that age, and even earlier, a certain division in two groups differing by the following:
I.II.1.
2.
3.
4.щ-жд = шч-ждж
initial ѫ = ън, йън
ѧ = ен (йен, жен, шен)
ъ = о, ь = ещ-жд = шть-ждь
initial ѫ = вън
ѧ = йън (йън, жън, шън)
ъ = ъ, ь = йъ
In the modern Bulgarian language group I corresponds to the southwestern dialects, while group II corresponds to the eastern dialects, especially to Rup dialects. But it is very likely that there were more than 2 branches which by their subsequent crossing gave the present variety of Bulgarian dialects.
The old and new situation of Bulgarian language, as in general the mutual relation of the main Slavic languages, can be graphically expressed with a chain of 6 circles, intertwined about a central 7th circle. The central circle could represent the old place of the Slavonic Bulgarian which at present is occupied by Hungarians, Romanians and Slovaks, and the 6 circles around it represent the main present Slavic languages which by their interactions produced mixed languages or dialects: between Czech and Polish – Lužician-Sorbian, between Polish and Russian – Belorussian, between Russian and Bulgarian – Ukrainian, between Bulgarian and Serbian – Kosovo-Morava dialects, between Serbian and Slovenian – Croatian, between Slovenian and Czech – Slovak. But Slovak today occupies a central position so that it touches to all Slavic languages as before, with the exception of Bulgarian.
Once we consider so the position of Slavonic Bulgarian, the problem of the origin and the name of the Cyril and Methodius language becomes very clear; because whether it originated on the Balkan Peninsula or in Panonia, it is all the same because the tribe that spoke it, then occupied both Panonia and the Balkans. Only if we wish to specify together with its name also the place where the first Slavic writing was invented, we can, according to our conviction, call it Panonian Slavonic or Balkan Slavonic. However, both names point to the same Slavic tribe, the tribe from which the today Bulgarians arose.

:coffee:

[Ianus]

I think they have Tharacian ancestry, but i don't know in which measure.

[Trun]

Bulgarians aren't Thracians. Thracians are no longer existing.

[Vojnik]

Certainly more Thracian DNA then Bulgar DNA in Bulgarians.

[d3cimat3d]

No, only Lazar Angelov is a real Thracian

http://i41.tinypic.com/2yk1jpf.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/6zq800.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/rs9yqs.jpg

All you other Bulgarians go back to Slavgolia

[Trun]

Lazar Angelov is rather a real Persian.

[Shkembe Chorba]

тука ако кажа какво мисля, хората ще ме изядат с парцалите

[morski]

тука ако кажа какво мисля, хората ще ме изядат с парцалите

Кáжи си, батенце!:d

[Shkembe Chorba]

асам трак! навсмисъл кореняк трак!

[morski]

Фостата тоагва!

[Shkembe Chorba]

Fostata indeed.

[ioan assen]

The reality: we will never know the Thracian percent in the Bulgarian ethnicity. All else is speculation including the genetic researches. However its deffinately a fact that Thracians took part in the formation of the Bulgarian ethnicity and the strongest argument in that respect is our language. It is only Bulgarian and Macedonian (which can be seen as dialects of the same language) and partially Torlakian (which has quite alot of Bulgarian/Macedonian feathures) that share so many grammer rules with Romanian and Albanian, and to a lesser extend with Greek... This in my oppinion is a very strong argument that in Bulgarian/Macedonian ethnicity the natives (mainly Thracians, including Peonians) had bigger part than say in Serbian ethnicity, because Serbian retained the slavic grammer... As we know lexic is the easiest thing to change unlike grammer... So in conclusion, probably many citizens of the Bulgarian empire had that language that had similar grammer with Romanian/Albanian. But the state policy since 9th century was to impose the slavic language and culture of the slavs of the empire. My personal oppinion is that if there were slavic schools in Romania, as there were in Moesia and Macedonia, the Romanians would ve been speaking Bulgarian.

[d3cimat3d]

Lazar Angelov is rather a real Persian.

Actually if he shaved the beard and lost the tan he would not look Persian.

Maybe he is not the best Thracian example, but here is what genetics say about Thracians:


As concerns the frequency of point mutations in the 12 nucleotide positions we have realized that the Italian individuals show the highest mutation frequency with 12.5 %,followed by the Thracian individuals with 8.3 %, the Alban individuals with 7.5 %, the Romanian and Greek individuals with 6.25 % and the Bulgarian individuals with only 4.6 %.Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9 %), the Alban(6.3 %) and the Greek (5.8 %) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/PaleomtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-SouthEast-of-Romania


Strikingly, an analysis including novel ancient DNA data from an early Iron Age individual from Bulgaria also shows the strongest affinity of this individual with modern-day Sardinians.

http://www.ashg.org/2012meeting/abstracts/fulltext/f120123058.htm

The Thracians were S-W European-like but with Kurgan founder element:

http://i44.tinypic.com/155j6h2.gif

Modern Bulgarians are different. They are 1/2 Byzantine Greeks + assimilated Thracians, 1/4 Slavic from the Seven Slavic tribes who before were called Antes (Slavs + Sarmatian confederation), and 1/4 Kurgan steppe type brought with proto-Thracians, then with Roman resettlement of Sarmatian people in Bulgaria then finally Bulgars, Pechenegs & etc. bringing more Kurgan influences. All my opinion of course.

http://i43.tinypic.com/122gbgi.png

http://i43.tinypic.com/2m5ne50.png

http://books.google.com/books?id=xkOhwFzz1AkC&pg=PA422&lpg=PA422&dq=bastarnae+probus&source=bl&ots=pP6uh-gImd&sig=i4v0M63xlj_he63Tw1MpZuWQpPg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NUo7UvWxNu_riQKru4GICg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q&f=false

You can see here the break-down of Bulgarians compared to other Slavs here:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2jdewxl.jpg

I am convinced the "N-E European" in Bulgarians did not entirely come from the Slavs but also from steppe peoples.

[Mihail Nikoloff]

Some new theorists claim we descend from Thracians. Do you think that is possible? What happened to the Thrace? Did they just disappear like the Mayans? If we descend from Thracians, does that mean we are related to Romanians (Dacians) since Dacians were a Thrace tribe?

More like modern Romanians are related to Bulgarians, since we influenced them very much in the middle ages. Through the Orthodox faith and language. Wallachia and Moldova were parts of the Bulgarian empire.

[Mingle]

Yes, Bulgarians are mostly descended from Thracians. They claim cultural continuity from the Bulgar people, who were Turks. But the Turks didn't have much genetic influence on the Thracians that used to live there.

Geto-Dacians were a Thracian tribe that lived on both sides of the Danube River, so yeah, you two are related. Bulgaria also had a lot of influence on Romania after it got Slavicized and most Romanian words of Slavic origin are from Old Church Slavonic.