Български > Дискусии

Re: Произход на българите !

<< < (64/92) > >>

Rasate:
В случая със самата статия на Динков имам много забележки:


1. Първите американци са Европоиди-Културата Кловис.  ;D


2.А консервативните думи не са пратюрски- а енисейски.


3. Има подобен род и протоиндоевропейски консервативни думи-в зависимост от индианските групи.
Словоредът на думите в говоримия език Губи релевантния си характер; в езика Нáуатл определението се поставя пред името (напр.:Tototepec=totot-“птица” +tepet-“хълм” ,т.е. ‘птичи хълм’ ], докато в езика на Миштеките и Сапотеките  то се явява в постпозиция спрямо съществителното (напр.:YucuDzaa=yucu“хълм” +dzaa“птица”). Независимо от това и при трите писмени системи специфичният определител се изписва над пиктограмата, обозначаваща ‘хълм’...."
Тук трябва да се направи аналогия в езиците Губи и Науатл с древноперсийската. täppe, täppä – хълм, могила, връх .






http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/features/dna.
http://nauka.bg/a/нови-археологически-находки-доказват-културното-разнообразие-на-ранните-заселници-на-америка
http://www.protobulgarians.com/PODSTRANITSA%20NA%20DR%20ZHIVKO%20VOYNIKOV/PRABULG-NOSTRAT-TEORYJA.htm
http://georgesg.info/belb/personal/kitova/Interes_por_la_lengua_en_la_antiguedad.htm

Гледай поредицата:Първите американци са европоиди





Първа част:
http://www.vbox7.com/play:6cc9882c

Rasate:
Виж това :
«Тайната история на татарите»




http://www.otzvuk.com/Knigi/New%20books/Bulgaria/Tainata%20istoria%20na%20tatarite.pdf

Човека си казва ,че етногенезиса на всички европоидни тюрки е ирански ,които поради тюрската инвазия в късната античност им се променя езика- най нов пример е Турция- анатолийци ,които само до преди 800 години са говорили на койне, преди 2300 парси,а преди 3000- хетски.
А да не споменавам Османският,който в 70 % си е ирански.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Subeyi Kurt:
Ot statiyata: Древнобългарският език е бил “архаичен тюркски език, сроден с общотюркския”Езикът на прабългарите се е сформирал върху хунския език и езика на прототюркската общност “теле  ( tova e stanovishteto na vsichki istorici i lingvisti, koito ne byrkat naukata s politika i ideologii)

Subeyi Kurt:
Има хора, които държат на "величието" на българската история, в което няма нищо лошо. Но величието на тази история е свързано единствено изобщо с тюрките и тяхната история, защото българите са от тюркски произход. Тъй като поради политически причини десетилетия наред се внушаваше на българите, че е имало "турско робство" и турците са "лоши", то днес някои от тях свързват тюрките единствено с "лошите" турци . Това се използва като удобен мотив и предпоставка за манипулация и интерпретация на историчната хронология и някои хора вярват, че "българите" са първите хора на света и т.н. Ние едва ли бихме могли да обясним на всички хора реалната история, защото когато хората вярват, че черното е бяло или обратното, процесите на обяснение стават безпредметни. Но можем да опитаме ( St.Dinkov)

Marlboro:
Turks in Persian poetry
Main article: Persian literature[
“Countless Muslim authors have left us graphic descriptions of what they considered the essential attributes of the Turks as an ethnic group and the reasons for the latter's pre-eminence in the Islamic world from the eleventh century onwards. These accounts are counterbalanced, often, by description of what these same authors considered the all too obvious limitation of the same people. All authors of adab works, manuals of war, and mirrors for princes, agree on the military superiority of the Turks, their hardiness, their skill with horses and the bow and arrow, as well as their 'lion-like' qualities and pride.Ibn Khaldun[/color] considered the Turkish mamlūks to be the saviours of Islam.
Nizām al-Mulk recalls that Al-Mu'tasim, the caliph who first introduced a mamlūk army, 'always said that there was none for service (khidmatkār) like the Turk'. 'I can tell that Al-Mu'tasim knew very well what he was about when he made them into a corps and took them into his service', writes also Al-Jāhiz, for '... nothing can withstand [the Turks], and none desires to oppose them'. Mobile as they were, they were never pursued for 'the Turk does not need to escape'. Turkish prowess in arms not only buttressed the caliphs' power in the dār al-Islām, but was also especially effective against the infidel kings of Hind. 'Arrow-shooting Turks' are a favorite topos of Persian poetry, where they are compared with the bubbles in a glass of wine. No other army could charge as well, and Turkish horseman were taught to carry two or three bows and strings to match them. 
From ethnological parallels it is known that a skilled archer can shoot at least six aimed arrows a minute. The image of the Turk in Persian poetry soon developed into an ideal of manliness, the ideal beloved, white and beautiful, albeit cruel. 'Turk' came to relate to 'Hindu' like 'ruler' to 'slave', 'angel' to 'devil', while for Rūmī[/size][/color], for instance, [/color]Turkestan[/color] became the heavenly world of light (from which the beloved appeared) and [/color]Hind[/color] the dark world of matter. Often enough the word 'Turk' was turned into the equivalent of 'Muslim', at least in India, where at times it also became a synonym for soldier. Ultimately the 'lion-like' Turk, with his disdain for menial household tasks, was linked to the climate of his country of origin which predisposed him to a certain robustness and military valour. The nomadic Turks had a strongly developed 'love of homeland' (maḥabbat al-waṭan) or 'longing for homeland' (al-ḥanin 'ilā-l-waṭan). This attachment reinforced the mutual similarity and homogeneity of the Turks which expressed itself in an absolutely single-minded desire to achieve military command. The Turks' very single-mindedness was praised by Muslim writers as 'the only way to achieve anything'. Solely the Dailamites[/size][/color] were at times regarded as more warlike. But the dark side of the Turkish character, regarded as equally universal, was an insatiable love of plunder and violence. In their own country, 'the Turks do not fight for religion nor for interpretation of Scripture nor for sovereignty nor for taxes nor for patriotism nor for jealousy, unless their women are concerned, nor for defense of their home, nor for wealth, but only for plunder. Given to violent appropriation, they were however free from unnatural vice, they treated prisoners well, kept their promises, and were not given to hypocrisy or intrigue, while being impervious to flattery, and not addicted to 'rivalry in poetic display'.

'The Turks know not how to flatter or coax, they know not how to practise hypocrisy or backbiting, pretence or slander, dishonesty or haughtiness on their acquaintance, or mischief on those that associate with them. They are strangers to heresy and not spoiled by caprice, and they do not make property lawful by quibbles. Their fault which makes them most unpopular is their love of land and love of moving freely up and down the country and propensity for raiding and preoccupation with plunder ...'. Such, in short, were the characteristics of a people which had mastered 'the art of war' to the same degree of perfection as 'the Chinese have attained in art, and the Greeks in philosophy and literature and the Sasanids in empire'. And, unlike other ethnic groups, the Turks were bound to obscurity if they did not leave Turkestān, they achieved fame and fortune only if they left their homeland. 'Since the creation of the world until today no slave (banda) bought for money achieved the position of king (pādshāh) except the Turk'.

A former, legendary, king of the Turks is supposed to have said:

'The Turk is like a pearl (dur) in its shell at the bottom of the sea, when it is worth nothing; but when it comes out of its shell, and out of the sea, it becomes valuable and adorns the crown of kings and the neck and ears of brides'.[/color]”[/color]Compiled from: Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th–13th centuries, Oxford University Press, 1997, page 76-78.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page