Saints Cyril and Methodius

[Delodephius]

After stumbling upon the Proto-Bulgarian script I noticed how similar some letters are to the Glagolitic alphabet:



So I did a comparison (I also compared it to Hebrew):



The only two letters I'm definitely sure Constantine created (or his students or brother) were the "I" and "S". These two when used as an abbreviation for Jesus/Исѹсъ, in Cyrillic they form ·ИС·, but in Glagolitic:



which is one of the symbols of Christianity and Jesus, the Fish or Ichthys, Classical Greek ΙΧΘΥC, abbreviation of "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ" ("Iēsous Khristos Theou Huios, Sōtēr") = "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".

I'll do more research and compare Glagolitic to other scripts used around the time of Constantine since he being a polyglot and versed in many languages most probably had contact with. The Proto-Bulgar script might be the script that Constantine saw in Chersones and which are referred in his biography as the "Russian" letters.

[Risto the Great]

What an interesting path of original thought.
Keep going!

[Soldier of Macedon]

Slovak, where did you obtain the source and information for the Proto-Bulgar script?

Are you talking about the below Turkic script?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

...........the Bulgars used an alphabet similar to the Turkic Orkhon script, although this alphabet hasn't been satisfactorily deciphered yet: fortunately, the Bulgar inscriptions were sometimes written in Greek or Cyrillic characters, most commonly in Greek, thus allowing the scholars to identify some of the Bulgar glosses. Supposedly, the name Bulgar is derived from the Turkic verb bulģa "to mix, shake, stir"[33] and its derivative bulgak "revolt, disorder",[34] transliterated most commonly as the "rebels".[35]

[Delodephius]

Originally Posted by Soldier of Macedon

Slovak, where did you obtain the source and information for the Proto-Bulgar script?

Are you talking about the below Turkic script?

I compared the Orkhon Turkic runes with the Proto-Bulgar script and besides few letters the scripts are quite different. Magyar runes are also quite different then the Orkhon ones yet they too are claimed to be derived from them, except few similar letters perhaps.

Many other alphabets/runic scripts existed in the Early Middle ages in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, like the Kabardian and the Old Udi script and still today used Armenian and Georgian alphabets. There are also many short inscriptions that are undecipherable and cannot be classified. Some inscriptions are written in languages that are usually found far from the place of the inscription, like Sogdian (an Eastern Iranian language) inscriptions in Pannonia.

For the Proto-Bulgar script I found the table of letters on the Serbian Wikipedia:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%...B0%D1%80%D0%B8

and the information about the script and examples of inscriptions I found here:
http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/index.html
There too are tables of the Proto-Bulgar script but are not of such good quality and not all letter-forms are there.

[Delodephius]

Here is a comparison of Medieval Greek, Coptic and Early Cyrillic alphabets:



Not all Cyrillic letters were written in the same way we know today and many can no longer be found in modern Cyrillic alphabets. The above table shows how the Cyrillic letters looked like in the 9th-11th century AD, so no, I didn't make any mistakes writing them, so don't think I don't know Cyrillic.

The same goes for Medieval Greek. It wasn't written in the same way as Modern Greek, or even Classical Greek. It is also called Uncial script and the letters are correct as you see them in this table. You can check them out more here:
http://www.skypoint.com/members/walt...ialScript.html

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Slovak

The Proto-Bulgar script might be the script that Constantine saw in Chersones and which are referred in his biography as the "Russian" letters.

Is there anything at all to corroborate that theory? When the Slavic letters were created, were there no contemporary sources that made mention of a Chersonean connection?

I compared the Orkhon Turkic runes with the Proto-Bulgar script and besides few letters the scripts are quite different. Magyar runes are also quite different then the Orkhon ones yet they too are claimed to be derived from them, except few similar letters perhaps.

Slovak, what you write above doesn't disprove that the Bulgar runes descend from the Orkhon. Furthermore, why has the connection never been established, or promoted, throughout the centuries since the advent of the Slavic alphabets, of this 'Proto-Bulgar' connection?

For the Proto-Bulgar script I found the table of letters on the Serbian Wikipedia:
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%...B0%D1%80%D0%B8

From the second link you gave,
http://www.kroraina.com/pb_lang/pbl_2_2.html

Notwithstanding the great interest, the interpretation of the writing of Murfatlar proved difficult. So far we could be confident only about the date of the inscriptions. According to opinion of the researchers they were produced during the epoch immediately after the adoption of Christianity in Bulgaria - the end of the IXth and the beginning of the Xth century. The dating is based, first, on the fact that part of the inscriptions were carved on the walls of small rock churches, where inscriptions with Cyrillic letters are also to be found.

There seems to be no agreement in what the inscriptions write, how can sounds be attributed to each letter with complete confidence?

Slovak, this is the earliest that these inscriptions are testified in the Balkans, Glagolica and Cyrillic were already in circulation, how can Glagolica derive from Proto-Bulgar? Isn't it coincidental that they appear at the same time? Shouldn't there be Proto-Bulgar inscriptions from the 7th and 8th century, when they first came, before they fell under the influence of Greek and Slavic?

[Delodephius]

Is there anything at all to corroborate that theory? When the Slavic letters were created, were there no contemporary sources that made mention of a Chersonean connection?

The "Russian letters" are mentioned in the Vita Constantini. That is as far as I know. Whether these were actually the Proto-Bulgar letters is left for speculation since nothing but one sentence of them is mentioned.

Slovak, what you write above doesn't disprove that the Bulgar runes descend from the Orkhon.

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

Furthermore, why has the connection never been established, or promoted, throughout the centuries since the advent of the Slavic alphabets, of this 'Proto-Bulgar' connection?

Before 1970's no one apparently knew about the existence of writing among Proto-Bulgars. Much like the great Hittite Empire (not just their writing) history just forgot.

Slovak, this is the earliest that these inscriptions are testified in the Balkans, Glagolica and Cyrillic were already in circulation, how can Glagolica derive from Proto-Bulgar? Isn't it coincidental that they appear at the same time? Shouldn't there be Proto-Bulgar inscriptions from the 7th and 8th century, when they first came, before they fell under the influence of Greek and Slavic?

The Glagolitic script was created according to written history around 862 AD. Cyrillic was created after 885 AD. Yet the oldest texts in these scripts we have from the late 10th century, well at least Glagolitic. Cyrillic is from the early 11th century. 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.

There seems to be no agreement in what the inscriptions write, how can sounds be attributed to each letter with complete confidence?

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

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Slovak

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.

[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"?

[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.