Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Slavic languages.

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by copperworks (U5523776) on Thursday, 1st February 2007

  Is it true that Bulgarian is the modern Slavic language that is most closely related to the ancient 'Proto-Slavic'?
  Also is it true that Slavic speakers,- Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs, Ukranians, Russians etc - can roughly understand each other in speech?

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 1st February 2007

  Copperworks,
  
  I could answer, but I want to wait for more knowledgeable replies as from my Polish friend Jozef, or the Russian Henrylee or the Ukrainian Jack.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mr_Gregor (U5298579) on Friday, 9th February 2007

  It is true that some Slavic language-speakers can understand each other. Eg I can easy understand a slovak, and follow a croat. A czech can understand a sorbish speaking and so on. A bulgar is more difficult for me to understand.
  A russian and an ukrainian can understand each other.

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 10th February 2007

  Is it true that Bulgarian is the modern Slavic language that is most closely related to the ancient 'Proto-Slavic'?Β 
  
  Something tells me it was a Bulgarian who told you that...
  
  Others will know better than me but my understanding is that while most scholars believe there must have been a 'Proto-Slavic' language it is not possible to say who spoke it, where it was spoken, or when or how it started to develop into the modern Slavic languages.
  
  'Proto-Slavic' is essentially a theoretical construct based on the existence of a group of languages that share certain 'family resemblances'. (compare 'Indo-European')
  

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 11th February 2007

  I do not know who said that about Bulgarian as my first guess would be Russian since the archetypal slavic language should be almost certainly traced back to the east side or just on the western side of the Urals.
  
  However, this is an extremely interesting issue of linguistics as the family of slavic languages cover practically half of Europe (all its eastern part with the excemption of Roumania and Hungary) from north to south. Αs a collection of mother tongues, the family of languages as mother tongues (of course, otherwise it is certainly English).
  
  It happens that I have visited numerous times Sofia and know well the structure and sound and accents of the Bulgarian language as well as I have heard many times pretty much ALL slavic languages and idioms (so that no tacky guy can tell me in FYROM they speak another language other than "villagois" Bulgarian or that Chechs cannot undestand Slovacs or that Croacian is distinct to Serbian - someone here has to differentiate between language and nation (no matter if historic or religious fabricated or quite recently politically fabricated etc.) and to understand that for political needs even idioms can be throwed in different... family languages (anyway, we have heard anything on earth!).
  
  Bulgarians among modern nations in Europe are actually (surprise!) the second oldest nation in Europe (conscious of their nationality at least from the late 6th A.D. century!) and had once been the second most ferocious military force in medieval Europe (to give you the idea, the likes of Vicking raiders of 9th A.D. century were minor annoyances in front of Bulgarian raiders of the same period - it is just that Bulgarians never took it to the sea to be heard elsewhere!!). They are also the first of the slavic nations to raise a stand and get a recognised king (second had been the Kievan Russians albeit with the aid of Scandinavian Vickings and third the Serbians). They were also the first of the modern Slavs to receive from the Greeks the cyrillic alphabet especially designed for their slavic accents since they were their neighbours (however in Russia the alphabet was given directly from Greeks and not via Bulgarians).
  
  But all that antiquity is enough to raise suspicions for the claim of being the closest to proto-Slavic? As I said above I would go for Russian. Normally modern Bulgarian sounds like Russian more than Polish or Serbo-Croacian or Chechoslovakian, though without that distinctive "mozzzzznie-mouzzzzznie" a bit "villageois" but really colourfull and beauty-adding accent that Russian has and sounds more stern and more heavy. However, I do not know why (perhaps because they are our neighbours and their way of talking strikes most!) I have that notion that Bulgarian language exemplifies the typical Slavic language - this is just an impression of course, it means nothing! Other foreign speakers might have another impression. On the other hand it also happens that I have the dictionary given to Bulgarian athletes for the 1980 Olympics and I was wondering if any of them ever needed to seriously use it (maybe in one or two occasions). The languages are really close despite the fact that there is a complete chasm of at least... 1500 years of completely different history (Bulgarians were a part of the Eastern Roman Empire, had some short lived kingdoms, then fell under the Ottoman Empire till getting independence like others 100 years ago while at the same time Russians got organised by Scandinavians, created a kingdom, fell under the Mongols, then again revived their kingdom to the north and expanded mainly eastwards)!!! And the question is why Bulgarian seems to be closer to Russian than say Serbocroacian or the geographically neighbouring to Russian, Polish?
  
  One to answer had to analyse things a bit more. The basis of the modern population of Bulgarians is certainly not only Slaivc as the area (ancient Thrace) had been habitated by Thraecians (arguably more affiliated to Mediterranean people) and Greeks in the south and Black sea coasts then Goths (that came down from Ukraine) that assimilated many of Thraecians (the other part assimilated by Greeks) then by historic Bulgarians who finally assimilated the above populations. However, historic Bulgarians did not exactly come alone - like other Slavic movements they came as parts of the multinational armies of Touranic tribes (of Mongolic ancestry) such as the Avars and Petchengs who tried to raid the riches of the Eastern Empire. Avars were quickly dispersed, Petchengks lasted a bit longer but by the late 7th century Bulgarians remained practically "alone" (i.e. without mongolic chieftains) in Thrace to make their stand and naturally due to their numbers (in comparison to the very few mongolics - though some remained for longer there as part of Bulgarians) their language prevailed in the whole area. However it is not accidental that modern Bulgarian for that reason retains some traits not found easily in other slavic languages such as that the article goes after the noun and not before. Hence, a Bulgarian will say something like "dai mi zapalka ta" and not "dai mi ta zapalka". This is clearly a trait found in the extended family of tourano-mongolic languages and it is certainly not the effect of the influence of Ottoman turkish (since it is known that Bulgarian had it long before).
  
  On the other hand we should not also forget that there are hints (accepted by Bulgarian historians also) that Bulgarians followed the Avar chieftains not from anywhere near Ukraine or something but as far as from the eastern side of Urals, i.e. the supposed birthplace of the proto-slavic language. If this holds certainly truth then it is a strong hint. However someone could add here that we cannot deduct anything out of it and that even the similarity of Bulgarian to Russian is reduced to the fact that Bulgarian is the simplest language among all slavic languages in terms of grammar (something like what is English in the germanic family, presenting the simplest grammar). Bulgarian unlike Russian or Serbocroacian lacks all the 7 forms and the complex grammar and remaines a language relatively easy to learn. A hint of the fact that this language was spoken by a wide range of people in central S.E. Europe of course! But then if other slavic languages have all that complex grammar that means that it is Bulgarian that changed more than others and thus it is not easy to prove that Bulgarian is more close to proto-Slavic.
  
  Besides all the above considerations (and I would ask a slavic speaker to give us his ideas on the subject) it is still amazing how after more than 1500 years of distance, no particular contact, a completely different history, Bulgarians can still communicate with Russians without the difficulty that say English have to communicate with Dutch, Germans, or Norwegians or the difficulty that French have to understand Spanish or Italian (though these are Latin languages!).

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 11th February 2007

  Nikolaos,
  
  thank you very much for this interesting survey. I hope other Slavic speaking contributors will add their knowledge.
  
  Had a chat with a Polish lady in a Krakow clothes-shop about the ressemblances and she pointed also to the Russian-Bulgarian duo. Also with a White-Russian lady in a clothes-shop in Tenerife about the differences within the Slavic languages. She could speak, "I heard" it, fluently Spanish, Russian, reasonable German and English. I was a lot of time in that shop waiting for the wife...
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  PS. Nikoloas, I hope that you even with the "modded" message want still to take part in my Ottoman empire discussion.
  
  Second PS. I met a former interpreter in the local library Bruges Belgium. He spoke Dutch (his mothertongue), English, German, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Turkish and was learning Japanese when I met him.
  
  He said that Turkish was very easy to learn while it had a poor grammar and only a basic structure. He said that French was one of the most difficult languages to learn and to write...And he was a Fleming...
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by igal-bardak (U7769853) on Monday, 12th March 2007

  Hi!
  Russian is my mothertongue, many times I spoke to other Slavic people, including Bulgarians, so I can confirm your information - well done!
  The closest to Russian is Bulgarian (spoken & written), the next is Belorussian,next follow East Ukranian (it's very diffrent from West Ukranian, they hardly understand each another), Serbian, and, in the end of the row, Slovenian, Slovakian, Chech, West Ukranian (!!!), Polish and Lieutuwian - in this language we understand few words only (it seems to be like Englishman understands German). Of course, my opinion is subjective, but it's my own expierence.
  Why happened so that Bulgarians which were absolutely isolated from Russia a lot of time, now them more close relatives to Russians in language than Ukranians who were the same with Russians a lot of time (the most part of own history), in culture as well? I do'nt know yet. I'll try to find out, and, if it interesting, should answer.
  Best regards,
  Igal

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by igal-bardak (U7769853) on Monday, 12th March 2007

  Hi!
  Diffrent people - diffrent opinions. Few years ago I worked with interpretor who insisted that he knew 10 or so languages, including Arabic, Hebrew, Finish... He spoke that the most difficult were Parsi (Persian), Africaanos (Transvaal) and Suahily (East & Central Africa). Never spoke or heard the last three, therefore I ca'nt comment his sentence. Some time was learning French, the language is very beutyfull one, not too difficult, to my opinion. Hebrew is rather difficult in grammar, easy in everyday conversation.
  Best regards,
  Igal

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 12th March 2007

  igal-bardak,
  
  welcome to the boards.
  
  I find slavic languages difficult to learn, while they differ that much from the Romance-Germanic languages I know and can speak because in Belgium I had the opportunity to have practice in French, English and German. Dutch is my mothertongue. But it is easier, even without practice, to learn them in my opinion while they have so many similarities. I have to say that I also learned six years Latin in a Roman-Catholic college.
  
  But Russian for instance I find much more difficult, because the words differs that much and the grammar is so difficult too, nearly Latin. I learned it three years in evening school in Bruges Belgium (end of the Seventies), but without much spoken practice. And I am not able to make a conversation, not to understand the Russian TV. Only some words.
  
  But perhaps it is only the lack of practice? I met some two Russian girls of a 12-14 years old in the local library in Bruges and they spoke after two years practice at school already fluently Dutch.
  
  If I remember it well, when I left the Roman-Catholic College at 18, I could already read French and started to understand it easily, especially while we could catch in the beginning only one French TV channel from neighbouring France (and only one Dutch from Belgium). But to say to speak French? no...I could as easily speak English from the practice in Ostend of British visitors from the Ostend-Dover line. My French-speaking came only later from practice with people from Brussels and France in the factory where I worked.
  
  So to conclude, I think that the opportunity of talking a foreign language comes all from a continuous speaking with natives...I guess that if I passed one year in Russia I would be able to speak Russian too .
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.
  
  PS. We have now already the Pole Jozef, the Ukrainian Jack. The Russian? Henrylee, we don't see anymore? And the Czech Michal?

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 14th March 2007

  Igal thanks for veryfying what I presented, it was not of course due to any in depth knowledge of mine of slavic languages - my elder brother is just an expert speaker of Bulgarian and having talked with many slavic speakers from all over Europe he simply passed to me his remarks. It is true that I have seen the ease he could speak with Russians but really what surprised me was your remark as a Russian speaker that even in comparison to East Ukrainian, Bulgarian seems more easy for you to understand!!! That is really amazing and lets not forget that the history of Ukraine is also that of Russia as Kiev had been the first historic capital of Russians. Where Bulgarians fit into all that I really cannot give an explanation, only guesses!
  
  To my friend (and multi-linguist) Paul from beautiful Bruges I would propose, if he wanted to re-enter to slavic languages to start from Bulgarian as it seems to be the easiest of all, it is really a pleasant language (despite its a bit more harsh than Russian sound) not to mention that it had been really a hit in S.E. for the last 1500 years as everyone seemed to prefer it to other languages.
  
  Russian is indeed difficult (and personally I think many westerners might find Greek more easy to learn (I have seen Albanians learning Greek really fast and Albanian bares as much resemblance to Greek as... Gaulic!) but Bulgarian is definitely more easy and has of course some features that can do a bridge with what you know, like it does with what I know:
  
  the verb to be in Bulgarian=English (modern-ancient greek)
  az am = I am (ime-ise)
  ni esmen = we are (imaste-esmen)
  vi este = you are (iste-este)
  
  The bulgarian language uses the verbs very often in a similar way that (ancient and modern) Greek does. For example:
  
  govoris = you talk, singular (omilis)
  govotite = you talk, plural (omilite)
  
  and of course they use a lot of greek words and expressions even where it is not expected like for example to say "come here" they say "ela" (i.e. the equivalent greek verb)
  
  On the other hand we may find details like "may" itself:
  
  moje=may and moje be = maybe (maybe some trace from the long lost goths of thrace there???)
  
  
  Now, if Russian shares so much with Bulgarian I think any European apart Hungarians and Finish will find some links to the Russian language no matter how difficult it is (and indeed it is not an easy language as it has a complex grammar, certainly no comparison to simplified Bulgarian).
  
  Still this Russo-bulgarian similarity becomes increasingly a riddle....

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 15th March 2007

  Re: messsage 10.
  
  Nikolaos,
  
  thank you for your interesting reply.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Slavic languages.

  Report message11

Back to top