Saints Cyril and Methodius

[Delodephius]

Going through the Korenine website and reading the latest Proceedings I see not much has changed in the recent years. What I see is they still like to claim that Slavic languages could be equated or are synonymous with Proto-Indo-European. Although I would agree with them in the past, before I started to actually study Slavic languages, comparing them with each other and other IE languages, I came across quite quickly across something that these "experts" seem not have even noticed: that Slavic languages, or if we go back into the past the Old Church Slavonic which would be the closest to some Proto-Slavic or Common Slavic language, if one ever existed, are in terms of their grammar much evolved than other IE languages of the past. And I don't mean evolved in a very positive way. I mean, that in Slavic languages grammar has been so mutated that it is quite different than grammars of let say Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Gothic and Hittite, the five oldest attested IE languages. What I'm talking about is the verbal system. Slavic languages have lost most of their paradigms! One third of them is non-existent at all already in OCS, the medium voice, and another third, the passive voice, is built by using the active voice and the reflexive pronoun in Accusative, and in the active voice the imperative mood is based on the conjugation endings of the former optative mood. All the older IE languages use simple endings for many verbal forms Slavic needs to use a descriptive form. But this is simply because modern Slavic languages are being considered to be very archaic and old, when in fact they can't hold a candle to the older IE languages. Neither can any other modern IE language, but we don't hear English or German being declared "oldest IE language out there" simply because there exist something called language evolution and that Slavic languages today have evolved less in some areas or more slowly then other IE languages compared to their predecessors, which does not mean that Slavic didn't evolve faster in the past, before written records.
The only thing Slavic languages still preserved is their somewhat complex declination system which is as much as complex as the Baltic ones. But Slavic languages as I said cannot compete in the system of verbs to such languages like Celtic or even English.

There is also the thing with the vocabulary and deciphering ancient unknown inscriptions using modern(!) Slavic languages and claiming that they cannot be deciphered with any other language, based simply of similarity of words and not much of anything else. Words don't make a language alone.

[Delodephius]

P. Serafimov makes too many assumptions and speculations. What he wrote is not in a credible academic method. Let me just skip his oversimplification of things and then taking those oversimplifications and treat them as valid facts.

He first compares the Glagolitic script to Greek, Hebrew, Pheonician, but then goes on to compare it to untestified and undeciphered scripts, like the "Sarmatian" runes, of which I have seen plenty of inscriptions but either without decipherment or "deciphered" using Iranian, Turkic, Hungarian, Baltic, and other languages. He then mentions the Thracian and Venetic alphabets, of former he doesn't show examples and of the latter he assumes (as much as rest of the "Venetologists") that it is a "Slavic" alphabet. There is his next problem: equating modern Slavs with various other groups in the past, the period he is speaking of. Also, the Slavs of the 6th century were bog dwellers around the marshes of the Danube, not just those for whom the term was used later, much later. But he falls into the same trap Slavists have been falling for centuries.

He makes mention of one M. Popov who allegedly "proved" Proto-Bulgars were anthropologically Slavs! He apparently sees this as a genuine fact, and something normal at that: that ethnic groups are different from each other not just in languages but also in anthropological features.

Then he goes on to compare Linear A and Linear B scripts to Glagolitic and claims that 33 letters of Linear A and 32 letters of Linear B resemble the Glagolitic alphabet. I checked it out myself: only some 7, or if I push it up a bit, some 10-11 Linear A and Linear B letters resemble the Glagolitic ones, that's pretty much as the Coptic alphabet, or Greek and Hebrew combined.

He assumes the Kurgan theory for real; also the a migration of Balkanites into the Middle East as the so called Sea People; that the Vinča inscriptions were an alphabetic script neglecting the fact that none of the letters that coincidentally resemble Phoenician, Greek, Latin, and other alphabets, have never been given proper sound value since they don't form any inscriptions and therefore be deciphered at all; he equates pottery findings not as a sign of trade but as migrations, a similar mistake done by archaeologists since the dawn of modern science; he assumes that the spread of scripts also means spread of people; he mentions a greater ethnos that existed in Europe which he equates with the Veneti or Slavs; and so on. He throughout his paper relies on his claims as facts to draw more and more conclusions. He uses elementary and high school reasoning for his explanations, this I say not as an insult but by the fact he does not delve into things beyond what you would except from a school book.

All in all, what he wrote was quite boring and uninformative, at least to me. There are other more professional works out there, like Florin Curta's works and the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory, both of which give at least some facts that can stand on firm ground on their own without making even the basic of assumptions.

Another thing. Serafimov much like many other pseudo-scientists when dealing with ancient languages, they use to compare them with modern languages they know or speak. I was always wondering why the Venetologists never compared the Venetic inscriptions with OCS, not just words, since lexical inventory of any language means little without its grammar in showing genealogical affiliation. It is ironic that most pseudo-scholars who practice palaeolinguistics actually don't know any ancient language or have studied linguistics after high school. I'm not saying you can learn all you need about linguistics in college, far from it, but you are introduced to methodology, terminology and concepts there that one needs to understand how languages work and how to analyse. The rest is up to you. But these pseudo-scholars never much bothered with reading some linguistics manual or read the voluminous researches of expert linguists, no matter if these linguists were right of wrong, that matters not, but to see how things should be done to increase one's chance of being closer to truth, and perhaps expanding the boundaries of science, introducing new methods and theories. But these pseudo-scholars try to prove scholars wrong by fighting them with sticks and stones. Sad and a waste of time.

[Delodephius]

In Europe there existed three different runic alphabets: the Norse unes, the Hungarian rovas and the Turkic Orkhon runes. All these scripts look very much alike and share a set of common looking letters. The thing is however that none of those letters have common sound values and represent something else. Similar thing is with Greek and Carian alphabets though these are of common origin they just have been using the letters differently. As for the runes there is nothing but coincidence.

[Sovius]

Pavel Serafimov presented an interesting paper at the 6th International Conference Origins of the Europeans in Slovenia in 2008 regarding the origins of the Glagolithic script, ultimately attributing it to the Neolithic Script of the Balkans.

The Origin of the Glagolitic Alphabet

http://www.korenine.si/zborniki/zbornik08/glagolitic.pdf

The NSB was in use between Sarmatia and the Levant, providing a plausible explanation for the similarities discovered between the Sarmatian runes and Levantian writing systems such as Phoenician and Hebrew discussed in the paper and between the runes and Glagolithic. The proximity of the Sarmatian territories to what was known as Greater Bulgaria on the eastern shores of the Black Sea could explain the similarities between the proto-Bulgarian script and Glagolithic. The paper also provides an explanation regarding the similarities between the NSB and Linear A and B.

While rarely yielding a symbolic and phonetic correlation worth positing as relevant, there is a structural similarity between Glagolithic and Sanskrit alphabets (Brahmi, Devanāgarī, etc.) that should be of great interest to researchers now that there are chronologically defined migration paths connecting the two regions. The triangular symbol which stood and stands for the “s” sound in Glagolithic and Brahmi is one of those few instances.

I personally believe the origin of Glagolithic involves the origin of linear writing, itself, as many of the symbols found among the sites that make up the Danubian region can also be found among the artifacts discovered at the Neolithic village of Banpo in China. While its easy to pass the similarities off as coincidence, populations carrying the R1a marker did make their way into the eastern parts of Eurasia and I’m sure people from the Far East made their way into Europe as well, as prehistoric trade emerged and human exploration continued. Perhaps, the Silk Road is older and longer than previously reconstructed or human prehistory is much more complex than previously envisioned?

[TrueMacedonian]

Happy Saint Cyril and Methodius Day. On this joyous occasion we should look at why they were chosen by the Emperor in the first place to go amongst the Slavic speakers.

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ocsol-3-X.html

At the time St. Cyril, then still known as Constantine, was receiving his education in Byzantium, there was a strong German effort to convert the Slavic population in Moravia to the Roman Catholic faith. Their teachings however were in Latin, and as a result, in 862 or 863, the Moravian Prince Rostislav sent to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III for a "bishop and a teacher," saying, "My people have rejected paganism and hold the Christian law, but we do not have a teacher who could preach to us in our own native tongue." The Emperor quickly chose to send Constantine, accompanied by his brother Methodius, justifying his decision with the words "You two are from Salonika, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic." Constantine immediately composed an alphabet and with his brother began the process of translating the Gospels into Slavonic. It appears that, at the time, the Slavonic dialects were little enough differentiated so that a translation could be made which would be broadly intelligible.

[Risto the Great]

People worthy of honour indeed.
I hope Ivanov's audience with the Vatican is fruitful.

[Soldier of Macedon]

May the memory of the brothers be preserved by their Macedonian descendants, and by the students of Slavonic letters in the world.

Вие обајцата сте солунчани, и сите солунчани зборуваат чисто словенски.

[Makedonian]

Happy Saint CYRIL and METHODIUS Day Macedonians!

Macedonian bloggers READ below:

Macedonia today is celebrating the all-Slovenes brothers Cyril and Methodius, missionaries of Christianity and creator of the slovene alphabet.

To read more about the Macedonian orthodox christian brothers and holiday in Macedonian go to the following link:

http://www.a1.com.mk/vesti/default.aspx...

Happy Saint Cyril and Methodius Day and may God bless their souls!

Orthodox Christian Greetings from Down Under!

Makedonija na Makedoncite!
Makedonia for the Makedonians!
FREEDOM TO QUEBEC / QUEBEC LIBRE!

[Delodephius]

It is suprising, very. How can the 'mystery' alphabet not be cited by ANY of writers during the 9th/10th century onwards, given its (according to this recent theory) significant contribution to Glagolica? Doesn't sound very solid, it's like there never having been mention of the fact that the Greek alphabet originates from Phoenician (Semitic), when, as history testifies, the connection is spoken of several times from antiquity onwards.

History works without rules. No one knew of the Tocharians before their remains were found and even less was known that they had a written language. Hittites were lost from history and their enormous libraries were forgotten as well as their unique hieroglyphic script of which none speaks a word. Meroitic script was never mentioned and it was the royal script of Nubia. I am quite sure there are other examples. The fact is not one historical text speaks of the Proto-Bulgar script, but not one historical text speaks of the Hungarian or the Orkhon runes either. I personally don't find it surprising since it is from a historical point of view normal. People just never mentioned it, and why should they? And those people who did write history at the time most likely just didn't know about it. Cyril and Methodius never mentioned how they created the first Slavic alphabet and those after them did neither, most likely they didn't know. If they didn't mention anything is it surprising they didn't mention the Proto-Bulgar runes? Unless they mentioned them I can't think of a good reason for them to do so, in the context of their time.

Not here to judge the value of your opinion, just stating the facts, you don't find it odd that most people who agree with your suggestion are people who live in the modern Bulgarian state, scholars or otherwise? Bulgarians need not know about Proto-Bulgar and Orkhon scripts, the fact that they have (in the last 20 years) been trying their utmost to distance everything they can from the dominant Turkic element of their supposed Asian Bulgar ancestry, speaks volumes.

I personally don't care who agrees with me or not nor do I care of other people's opinion, especially those people I don't know personally. And I care even less what modern Bulgarians are doing or did, I only care about the ancient past, present is of no interest to me. And I just care that they don't make my research into the matters I'm interested in more difficult.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Perhaps, but it is specifically mentioned in Cyril's biography that he created a script......

Yes it is, but then it could also be assumed that its creation was based on an older script lacking material evidence. The Chersonean 'connection' is a recent theory and is far from credible, it seem more like some would-be pioneering types trying too hard to 'read between the lines'.

No, nor is it surprising really.

It is suprising, very. How can the 'mystery' alphabet not be cited by ANY of writers during the 9th/10th century onwards, given its (according to this recent theory) significant contribution to Glagolica? Doesn't sound very solid, it's like there never having been mention of the fact that the Greek alphabet originates from Phoenician (Semitic), when, as history testifies, the connection is spoken of several times from antiquity onwards.

.....how is my opinion of lesser value if it just happens to agree with the opinion of the "people who live in the modern Bulgarian state"?

Not here to judge the value of your opinion, just stating the facts, you don't find it odd that most people who agree with your suggestion are people who live in the modern Bulgarian state, scholars or otherwise? Bulgarians need not know about Proto-Bulgar and Orkhon scripts, the fact that they have (in the last 20 years) been trying their utmost to distance everything they can from the dominant Turkic element of their supposed Asian Bulgar ancestry, speaks volumes.

Good thing I didn't put forward a hypothesis or a theory that Cyril used Proto-Bulgar letters to fashion the Glagolitic ones.

Uh huh.....

Why didn't the Proto Bulgar ruling class impose their language (written and oral) on the Macedonians?

Would have been a perfect opportunity to impose their runes i'd say, but instead they used the Greek language and letters as official in their state until the 9th century, when students of the Macedonian brothers gave them a script for a language most of their citizens understood (a language which like Greek, is non-Bulgar). A so-called power-house of an Asian horde, and they imposed neither language nor script. Makes you wonder....

I have my beliefs but it is interesting to look at the parallels with this and the ancient Hellenes.

An interesting parallel is yet another non-Greek speaking people using the Greek language and letters as official in their state/empire, like ancient Macedonians, Illyrians, etc did centuries earlier.

[Delodephius]

I think the Proto-Bulgars kept their language to themselves. Maybe that's why no one knew about the script they used or about their religion.

[Risto the Great]

An argument I have heard before:

Why didn't the Proto Bulgar ruling class impose their language (written and oral) on the Macedonians?
I have my beliefs but it is interesting to look at the parallels with this and the ancient Hellenes.

[Delodephius]

Which one's? Pliska?

http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_10.html

It looks like alot of speculation to me, and many of the attempts at deciphering the words use Celtic as the 'mystery' language.

Then I guess we can't be sure if the sound values given to the runic letters are accurate which means my comparison is so far useless, which is fine by me. Good thing I didn't put forward a hypothesis or a theory that Cyril used Proto-Bulgar letters to fashion the Glagolitic ones.

[Delodephius]

Couldn't the same principle apply for Glagolica?

Perhaps, but it is specifically mentioned in Cyril's biography that he created a script, it is not said which one, but it had 38 letters like Glagolitic and Glagolitic is the only script attested from Moravia written in OCS, not Cyrillic. There are a whole lot of arguments for why Cyril created the Glagolitic alphabet, I don't really have time now to explain every one of them and just open room for more speculation on trivial matters.

How about during the 9th and 10th century, when they were first testified, when Slavic letters and literature were in abundance, didn't anybody at all at least mention some sort of connection to this 'mystery' writing of the Proto-Bulgars?

No, nor is it surprising really. There is no mention of the Hungarian runes for example and these are in abundance and are thoroughly deciphered and examined. Other scripts are mentioned but none of them has remained, for example the Khazar script.

Just out of curiosity, what does the so-called Proto-Bulgar script descend from, or did Asparukh's horde conjure it?

Most runic scripts were made by the people that used them. Nordic runes, Ogham runes, Hungarian runes, Orkhon runes, these are isolates, they are not connected to any other script, and perhaps only partially which can be just as easily attributed to coincidence as much as too borrowing, influence or descend. We'll just need to create tables of comparison.

You are entitled to your opinion, 99% of the people who share it live in the modern Bulgarian state.

Does this mean what I think it means? Besides the fact that most Bulgarians perhaps never heard of the Proto-Bulgar script and even less of the Orkhon script and even less those who compared them and said what I did, how is my opinion of lesser value if it just happens to agree with the opinion of the "people who live in the modern Bulgarian state"?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I wrote about what I researched. Proto-Bulgar script does not descend from the Orkhon script.

You are entitled to your opinion, 99% of the people who share it live in the modern Bulgarian state. Just out of curiosity, what does the so-called Proto-Bulgar script descend from, or did Asparukh's horde conjure it?

Before 1970's no one apparently knew about the existence of writing among Proto-Bulgars.

How about during the 9th and 10th century, when they were first testified, when Slavic letters and literature were in abundance, didn't anybody at all at least mention some sort of connection to this 'mystery' writing of the Proto-Bulgars?

If the oldest inscription in Proto-Bulgar is from the 9th century, that does not mean the writing system was not used before, it could just mean we have no material evidence of it.

Couldn't the same principle apply for Glagolica?

There are other inscriptions, not just the one from Murfatlar.

Which one's? Pliska?

http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_10.html

It looks like alot of speculation to me, and many of the attempts at deciphering the words use Celtic as the 'mystery' language.