Um, how is it even remotely possible to know this? The Thracian language and culture went extinct after the invasions of the Celts, Goths, Huns etc. LINK Without written records there is absolutely no way to prove Bulgarians are of Thracian origin. (unless you all made a huge archeological find recently we're not aware of)By the way, are you and your friends here learning all this from your teachers? I'm not trying to insult you or your instructors. All I'm suggesting is to be careful of and know the difference between history and propaganda, ivkhan.
This is not a propaganda. It is an uncovering of the truth about Bulgarians. They were lied, that they are slav people. It was hidden from them about their contributions for Europe and the World etc. Now, they are a not very big people, but in the past they were very big and very great ones. Every people has to know his own realy history!Here are some of the many proofs about Thracian?s origin of Bulgarians. First I recommend you to know with the books of Dr. Stephen Guide ? ?The Thracian Script Decoded? in IV volumes. You will see who are the Thracians = Bulgarians. Old Bulgarians are Thracians, who are returned in their nativeland. Second, here are some statements from the ancient chronicles.1 ? Michael Atalait ? ?History??Mesians are, with a sureness, the Bulgarians, who are received their new name, later..???The Bulgarians are the mirmidonians??2 ? Zonara dictionary?Peonians ? or Thracian people, makedonians. These are so called Panonians, Panonians are Bulgarians.?3 ? Joan Tsetsas ? ?Hiliadi??Peonians are Bulgarians?.4 ? Fulko ? a french priest : A describe of the first crusade campain 1096 year.?Hinc iter aggressi per fines Vulgariorum, quos vocitant Thracas, ut habent monumenta priorum? ? From here, they started their road through the lands of the Bulgarians, who are called Thracians in the previous memorials.5 ? Kasiodor ? a roman historian, IV century, writes ? The Bulgarians are an old mesian people.6 ? Enodea Titseaski / 473-524/, a bishpop, a historian of the goth king Teodorich , shows too, that the Bulgarians are an old mesian people.7 ? Laonicus Chalcondyles says, that the Tribals ? one of the many Thracian tribes- have been the most ancient and the biggest people than the other peoples. Now they are called Bulgarians.Bulgarian folklor today is the Thracian folklor. The stucture or the grammer of Bulgarian language is the Thracian structure or the grammer. There are and many words of Thracian origin ? read Stephen Guide ? I have written about him. Read his books ?The Thracian Script Decoded?.You will understand that Bulgarians are the forgotten savers of Europe. The Bulgarians deserve more respect. Now, there are many Bulgarian citizens from Gipsy origin in western countries. I do not mean them. It is necessarily to be made more and more archaeological excavations in Bulgaria, because the world has to know his history.I sorry, that I could not continue. I have written about that. But I will try to provide
I just want to know what transcendant science is. Is it anything like scientology? I can find absolutely nothing out about Dr Guide. Where did he get his doctorate and what is it in?I cant help myself from getting involved in this train wreck again, even though I swore I would not.
I just want to know what transcendant science is. Is it anything like scientology? I can find absolutely nothing out about Dr Guide. Where did he get his doctorate and what is it in?I cant help myself from getting involved in this train wreck again, even though I swore I would not.
OK scout1067, I will proof that Bulgarians are Thracians without the help of D-r Stephen Guide. But before that I give you the site, where you can find something about D-r Stephen Guide : Enter in ?Google? and write ? The Thracian Script decoded . Here is the e-mail : PR@instituteT-Science.comHere is the proof about Bulgarian origin. This is a fact, not a hypothesis, because Bulgarian language speaks here and the speech, which Bulgarians use every moment could not be falsify.Who are Bulgarians ? - The language, which they talk shows thatHere is one very important condition ? how we deal with the language. Because one language has two faces. One is its vocabulary, which is its outside face and can misguided us and other is its structure or grammer and this is the base of the language. The base of the language or its grammer is the real its essence . This essence is a constant thing, like a concrete and could not be changed. For example the greek language has recorded writings since 3000 years and from them is apparently that the greek language in the ancient past and now has the same grammer or its base is not changed. One language could receive some little grammer changes, but the whole grammer always is unchanged. The vocabulary could be changed drasticly, but this is only the outside face.Bulgarian language is one analytic one. It means without cases. The languages of the other peoples on Balkan peninsula are synthetic ones or with cases and different base, grammer. The Balkan peninsula is a part of the nativeland of the Indo-Europeans. Before 10000 years there was a big flood and then was created Black sea and many people went to the east ? these are the Old Bulgarians. In their way they met Turks and Iranians, the languages of whom are synthetic ones. In 7 centure A. D. Bulgarians returned on Balkan peninsula and continue to speak their analytic language. The other peoples on Balkan peninsula are new-comers, only the Thracians are the real native habitants, for that reason the other peoples speak different languages with different grammers. What follows of that ? Old Bulgarians are Thracians, who are returned in their nativeland. For that reason there are many chronicles in which is said -?The Thracians, who are called Bulgarians? ? I have written about that and have given examples.
I looked at the site and it does not give a Biography of Dr. Guide. I have not questioned your conclusions, just your source. If he is a Dr., in what and where from? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Anyone can claim they are a Dr., if they really are they would have a bio available. I realize he supports your contention about language. I just question his credentials.You would jump on me if I cited Dr. Mickey mouse wouldn't you? You would ask for proof, that is what I am doing.
ivkhan, your enthusiasm is admirable, if not misdirected. The Thracian language is lost to extinction. There is absolutely no trace of it whatsoever. Archaeology is against you and any supposed scholar who claims otherwise. The inscriptions found are an unknown language. Any translation of them is just a guess and nothing more.
For example the greek language has recorded writings since 3000 years and from them is apparently that the greek language in the ancient past and now has the same grammer or its base is not changed.
This is not a good example. Ancient Greek is a "dead" language (ie no one speaks it, but it can still be translated). Thracian is extinct, that is, there are no records of it so it cannot be accurately translated.
I looked at the site and it does not give a Biography of Dr. Guide. I have not questioned your conclusions, just your source. If he is a Dr., in what and where from? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Anyone can claim they are a Dr., if they really are they would have a bio available. I realize he supports your contention about language. I just question his credentials.You would jump on me if I cited Dr. Mickey mouse wouldn't you? You would ask for proof, that is what I am doing.
Sorry scout 1067! I do not know this D-r Stephen Guide. For that reason I followed the logic with the situation of the languages and suppoused that I reached to the truth. The languages are one real fact.
If the source is flawed or suspect, logically any conclusions drawn from information in that source are also suspect. that is the point I am driving at here. I am perfectly willing to accept your conclusion if it is based on sound, peer-reviewed research.An analogy would be. It would be unreasonable of me to conclude that the sky is green based on the testimony of a blind man. The blind mans (the source) is a suspect authority. therefore, any conclusions I draw from the (suspect) testimony of the blind man would be false.
If the source is flawed or suspect, logically any conclusions drawn from information in that source are also suspect. that is the point I am driving at here. I am perfectly willing to accept your conclusion if it is based on sound, peer-reviewed research.An analogy would be. It would be unreasonable of me to conclude that the sky is green based on the testimony of a blind man. The blind mans (the source) is a suspect authority. therefore, any conclusions I draw from the (suspect) testimony of the blind man would be false.
After all, we could not ignore the real fact-the language! The ancient chronicles confirm that i am right!
ivkhan, your enthusiasm is admirable, if not misdirected. The Thracian language is lost to extinction. There is absolutely no trace of it whatsoever. Archaeology is against you and any supposed scholar who claims otherwise. The inscriptions found are an unknown language. Any translation of them is just a guess and nothing more.
For example the greek language has recorded writings since 3000 years and from them is apparently that the greek language in the ancient past and now has the same grammer or its base is not changed.
This is not a good example. Ancient Greek is a "dead" language (ie no one speaks it, but it can still be translated). Thracian is extinct, that is, there are no records of it so it cannot be accurately translated.
only the Thracians are the real native habitants
What proof do you have of this?
The old greek language is not a dead one, this a form, an old form of the greek language. For that reason my exampel is a good one. I follow the logic with the languages. Read carefuly. The Thracians are the real native inhabitants on the Balkan peninsula and the others are new comers and their languages are with a different structure. This shows that old Bulgarians are Thracians who were returned in their native land, because the language of the Bulgarians is with a different structure of the other peoples on the peninsula, who are new-comers. The ancient chronicles confirmed that!
Yes it is. It is not used anymore, the pronunciation is different, as well as the spelling. What modern peoples speak Koine or even Byzantine Greek today? This is similar to Old and Modern Gaelic. No one uses or speaks old Gaelic anymore, except for scholars.
The Thracians are the real native inhabitants on the Balkan peninsula and the others are new comers and their languages are with a different structure.
Again, I ask, what proof do you have?
The ancient chronicles confirmed that!
Examples of these alleged ancient chronicles (preferably translated into English) would be appreciated.
If the source is flawed or suspect, logically any conclusions drawn from information in that source are also suspect. that is the point I am driving at here. I am perfectly willing to accept your conclusion if it is based on sound, peer-reviewed research.An analogy would be. It would be unreasonable of me to conclude that the sky is green based on the testimony of a blind man. The blind mans (the source) is a suspect authority. therefore, any conclusions I draw from the (suspect) testimony of the blind man would be false.
After all, we could not ignore the real fact-the language! The ancient chronicles confirm that i am right!
Yes it is. It is not used anymore, the pronunciation is different, as well as the spelling. What modern peoples speak Koine or even Byzantine Greek today? This is similar to Old and Modern Gaelic. No one uses or speaks old Gaelic anymore, except for scholars.
The Thracians are the real native inhabitants on the Balkan peninsula and the others are new comers and their languages are with a different structure.
Again, I ask, what proof do you have?
The ancient chronicles confirmed that!
Examples of these alleged ancient chronicles (preferably translated into English) would be appreciated.
Before about 10000 years from Balkan peninsula Old Bulgarians went to the east and in 7 century A. D. they returned in the peninsula. The other peoples on the Balkans are new-comers-what of that, but their languages are with a different structure from this of the Bulgarian language. This shows that old Bulgarians are Thracians, who are returned in their native land. May be ancient chronicles, deleberately, are not estimated. May be someone do not want Bulgarians to be so ancient ones. Ask any fillologist, about the structure of one language and he will explain you, that the structure is the base of the language, one constant thing, like one concrete. Gentlemen, you do not want to recognize that Bulgarians are Thracians, who are the base of European civillisation and who created 3 big and powerful states in Europe and saved the continent. I said, what I have to say. The facts exist and talk. For that reasn I stop to write. But I am very grateful to you, because you ,with your questions, helped me to make the name of Bulgaria more famous and to show, that Bulgarian people deserves more respect and the same time I to practise my english. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH !
I am glad that you are happy we helped you propagandize your position.What I have been trying to do recently is get you to critically evaluate your sources. I have actually not taken a position on whether the Bulgarians are the ancient Thracians nor do I particularly care. I would really like to see you evaluate sources and then be able to prove your point. I would like nothing more than to agree with you, but agreement is hard when one of your main sources is a Transcendental Science Dr. from San Francisco who nobody has ever heard of. I cant even find a definition for Transcendental Science, and believe me, I have tried. I have no choice but to call this guy a flake, and any theories based on his work are by extension flaky.
Gentlemen, you do not want to recognize that Bulgarians are Thracians
No, it's not that. It's because we only recognize facts and proof.Hey, kiddo, I'm a student too, and even though a relatively new student I can clearly see your sources as horribly flawed, biased, and just flat out wrong.
This thread should be locked. It's clearly run its course unless something new is offered soon to justify it remaining open. All I see is an impasse that Ivkhan will not concede, nor any of the naysayers against what he argues.