FOR ARABS, CHINESE, AND HINDUS
(the best world language)
by Chris MYRSKI, 2011 - 2016
CONTENTS (with short explanations)
[ This is a try to provide English reading people all around the world with an easy and simple introduction to Bulgarian language. The material contains the following parts: the way how the Slavonic alphabet looks, together with one method to mark in Latin the exact pronunciation, then phonetical explanations coupled with author's ideas about the types of vowels and consonants, after this some simple grammar, without going into much details, and to the end is placed a super-short (which is not really very short) dictionary of Bulgarian words by categories together with their nearest relations with other Western languages (German, English, Latin, Greek, etc, yet also Russian in places as another Slavonic one). The last means that here is performed comparative analysis of Bulgarian language, and such comparisons are done also in the previous parts, what is important feature of the material and such things are not given in usual lessons. In short, this is not a series of lessons in Bulgarian but a unique review and solid basis for further rich on consequences evolvement in the next materials to one crucial for the whole world idea.(2016) ]
Under Bulgarian Banner
[ In this paper I stand thoroughly on my “Bulgarian Lessons” with the intention to make one directly crucial for all Arabs, Hindus, Russians, Kazakhs, Negroes, Chinese, and many other nations, what in the end means for the whole world, proposition that is related with Bulgarian, yet not exactly, banner. What is the concrete proposition let remains for the time being a secret, but I will support it with enough arguments. Well, it sounds to a great extent utopian, but nevertheless is entirely realizable and leads to a bunch of nice consequences. It must become known to as many as possible number of people, at the top, but also at the lowermost levels, between adolescents, so that, please, scratch your intelligent (for it is not a custom to say otherwise) heads, and give a thought to it. In author's opinion it is as simple as it is brilliant, but at the same time is entirely actual. (2016) ]
Down With The English (Language)!
[ This paper I have written practically anew in English and its contents is obvious — we, all the world, have to cease using this language so widely because it is simply ... vulgar, many grammatical categories are not well qualified, it is not exact enough to be used so massively, it was, in a way, a miscarriage, it seems simple and good for the pubs and stadiums, but not for official conversations in it. Yet because the topic is more or less clear, and I have touched it in the previous materials in this folder, I speak here a bit more frivolously and comical in some places, what has to make the work more palatable. The sections here are: some preliminaries and explanations why I write this anew and don't use the Russian variant, then some try to excuse the ancient Englishmen who have made this super-simplified language, then what is so bad with this language in comparison with the others European (at least) languages, and in the end mark out some important places where something has to be done in order to better the language if the people want to better it (because it, in spite of all its drawbacks, sounds good, nearly like singing). Only I have to warn the readers that, being third material in the sequence, this one has to be read after the others, it is not good to skip them.(2016) ]
Abstract:This is a try to provide English reading people all around the world (yet basically without Europe and also without native English speaking people from USA etc., because they will hardly care much about this, as I suppose), what is reduced mainly to, Arabs, Hindus, some Asian people, and even Chinese, with an easy and simple introduction to Bulgarian language. Being this the material contains the following parts: the way how the Slavonic alphabet looks, together with one method to mark in Latin the exact pronunciation, then phonetical explanations coupled with author's ideas about the types of vowels and consonants, after this some simple grammar, without going into much details, and to the end is placed a super-short (which is not really very short) dictionary of Bulgarian words by categories together with their nearest relations with other Western languages (German, English, Latin, Greek, etc, yet also Russian in places as another Slavonic one). The last means that here is performed comparative analysis of Bulgarian language, and such comparisons are done also in the previous parts, what is important feature of the material and such things are not given in usual lessons. In short, this is not a series of lessons in Bulgarian but a unique review and solid basis for further rich on consequences evolvement in the next materials to one crucial for the whole world idea.
My dear readers, I hurry in the very beginning to tell you that this is not a textbook of Bulgarian language and can not substitute such necessary tool for learning of this language, if you have decided to learn it. Yeah, but if you don't cherish much such ideas then somebody has to convince you that this is necessary, what I intend to do not only in this, but also in the next materials. And this one thing is not a textbook, no, it is more than this, it is a try to provide you with a popular, although for that matter superficial, introduction to this language, to make you a bit acquainted with it, not to be frightened by it, because this is not some rare language with no or just a few other similar family members around (like, say, Hungarian, or also Estonian), but is first of all Slavonic language, then European one, what means that we have many common roots and words with the Teutons, the English, the French and Latin people, but also with the Greeks, and even with the Turks and Persians. In contrast with these and many other languages, though, the Bulgarian is very simple, nice sounding, and worth learning it, especially on the background of contemporary, I would say, mess and deadlock in linguistical aspect, because you know that for the last about a century several languages have come down from the world stage, namely: before a century the French, then the German, then after the collapse of Communist block also the Russian, and remained only the English, which is ... well, bad, of course, unsuitable for many nations (on what I will dwell in the third material here).
So that if you know English good enough to read and understand it, then you better read these papers, more so because here I will compare different languages, will make comparative analysis of Bulgarian and at least English, and will do this in quite untraditional and unorthodox way, using some new ideas of mine about standardization of the alphabets for the whole world, and about the kinds of vowels and consonants in all languages, and this should be interesting, I suppose. So, for example, in the first chapter I will give Bulgarian alphabet, yet only to see it, to know that it is not something twisted like Hebrew or Arabic or Sanskrit, or even Greek alphabet, but is not much different from the Latin, and then will make use of one latest invention of mine to use only the 26 (and even minus 3) standard Latin letters for writing of all words, and so how they are pronounced, not in the crazy — ah, sorry, — English way. Then in the next chapter I will discuss the various possible sounds in all languages and show you that the Bulgarian has the simplest phonetic at all, even better than that of the Italian, which is proverbial language in the sense of clear and simple vowels (yet it is pretty restricted, over simplified — just to give an example: they don't say bible but say bibbia —, and, hence, poor), where the Bulgarian phonetic is all-comprising, there are present many old sounds, from Sanskrit, through Arabic, and to the English. Further we will come to the grammar, which is again the simplest possible, we have no cases, only present, future, and past tenses (and, say, the Italians have 14 tenses), all genders are easily recognizable by the endings, though there are some peculiar (yet not difficult) moments which will be explained. And at the end will be given some super-short dictionary but with explanations, why we use this or that word, to which other contemporary or ancient roots it is related, what is part of my etymological researches given in my enormous and inimitable book about my God Urrh.
So that, when I say: "Dear reader, it's for you/ Arab, Chinese, or Hindu/ or from other nation, too", then this is the real situation, I don't just attract gullible readers, I am telling important things, and you'll do better to pay them the necessary attention. My only common advice is: don't try to read everything at once, the things are easily explained and in clear English (my relatively limited English vocabulary is this time of advantage for foreign readers), but the material is difficult, my explanations are highly informative, so that you better read by a chapter a day (or even a section sometimes), and then go to have some coffee (or some ... hmm, refreshing sex, ah?).
Ouch, let me include in the beginning also some shortenings, because some words I will repeat often, and it is well accepted in scientific literature to use abbreviations. My short signs will be the following: lang. for language, char for character, V. for vowel, C. for consonant, M. for Modifier, w. for word, r. for root, let. for letter, alph. for alphabet, bc. for because (it turns that I use it quite often), m. for means, s. for see, comp. for compare (with), sim. for similar, smt. for something, smb. for somebody, smw. for somewhere, and maybe smt. more will be added later. Then all langs I will shorten to 2 or 3 chars, like: Eng. (for English), Bul. (Bulgarian), Rus. (Russian), Fr. (French), Ger. (German), Teu. (Teutonic), It. (Italian), Am. (American), Lat. (Latin), Gr. (Greek), Ar. (Arabic), Per. (Persian), Tur. (Turkish), Skr. (Sanskrit), Chi. (Chinese), and possibly others; also with "s" this will m. the people speaking this lang., say, Lats, or Ams, or Ars. et cetera (even Frs or Engs, end you read it if you want as -men). And also "" are for usual quoting of ws, '' are for the pronunciation, where also It. font may denote some foreign w. or may just stress on the meaning.
1. Bulgarian alphabet
I will tell you the Bul. alph. but before this is necessary to have settled some way for explaining of pronunciation, which things I discuss in my maybe oldest work in this field "An Illiterate World" (further as "Ill.W."), but so far as I have made my latest invention of "Myrski's English Transliteration" (further "Eng.Trlit."), where are used only the lets from Lat. alph. and without whatever points, stresses, or other "chicks" above or below, I will paste here one fragment from the short user's guide for the latter proposition. It is not so universal, yet it is good enough, and for Bul. lang. it is more than enough.
Firstly the Latin (Lat. for shot) alphabet is purified using each letter for only one sound, what means that "c" becomes 'c' and 'k', "g" becomes 'g' and 'zh', "y" is freed (with using of the "i"), as also "q" (substituted with the 'k'), "x" (changed to 'ks'), and "w" (it isn't used in the Lat.). In addition are introduced "h" and "j" as modifiers (M. /Ms), where "h" is M. for the vowels (Vs), used for prolongation (to 1.5 sounds approximately), and also for consonants (Cs), used to harden their sounding (like 'th', 'gh', etc.) , and "j" is M. for Vs, used to build diphthongs (shorten to diph., usually written as "ai" or "io" etc.), and of Cs, used for softening of their sounding (like in the Sp. for Spanish cañon); when there is a necessity to write "h" as readable char then 'hh' is to be used (if in the given lang. for language may arise confusion). As you have seen, the double quotes are used for direct quotation of chars, and the single ones for this new transliteration, and in this manner it also shows how the chars are to be pronounced.
Then is introduced one new basic V., in addition to the usual "a", "e", "i", "o", and "u", which is coded with 'y' and sounds like in Eng. (for English) "girl". In addition to the basic Vs we may have also Md (for modified) what means that one begins to tell one sound but ends with saying another one; examples for this are: the Lat. "ae" (like in "back") and "oe" (used mainly in the Fr. for French), but also many others, like: 'ya' as in "but", "yi" (this is Rus. for Russian eri, as in myi-we etc.), Fr. 'uo', 'io', Fr. and Rus. etc. 'ie', and whatever you want; mark though that here can't be used "j" bc. it isn't V. Then there can be also diphs, mainly with "j", like 'jo', 'ja', aj', uj', etc. (the examples are obvious and in other langs they are usually written using "i"), but also how one wishes, like in: 'iy' (as in 'niy'-near), 'aey' (as in 'paey'-pear), 'ou', 'au', etc.; there can be triphthongs, too, like 'auy' (as in 'tauy'-tower), 'aiy', etc., but they are better to be thought as two syllables (like in Ger. for German 'bau|y'-Bauer). As the basic, so also the Md Vs, as well as the diphs, can be prolonged adding "h" after them (like in 'gyhl'-girl, 'fah'-far, 'suhn'-soon, 'mjuhzik'-music', etc.). If one wants to make the way of combining the Vs indisputable one has to use subscripts for the Md Vs (like in 'byat'-but, 'blaek'-black, 'myi'-Rus.-we, 'paey'-pear, etc.), and /or superscripts for the diphs (like in 'boj'-boy, Ger. name 'Johanes', 'grou'-grow, 'taun'-town, 'tauy'-tower, etc.), and /or put between the Cs "|" or "-" to signify that they are not to be joined (say, like in Lat. pi|ano), but usually this is rarely necessary because every lang. permits, either simple combining of Vs read separately, or modifying or making of diphs.
As to the Cs, there are used all usual ones, with the following remarks: 'c' is like in Caesar, or Ger. Zahn-toot), "h" is written like 'hh' when read (with exception of beginning but still somehow read "h" like in Ger. 'haben'-haben-have), "k" is 'k', hence "ck" is 'kk', "q" is written with 'k', "r" may be sometimes given as 'rh' or even 'rj' (but if it is equally read in the given lang. only 'r' suffices), "v" is 'v' (so Ger. "w" is changed to 'v'), the Eng. "w" is written as 'vh', "x" is 'ks', 'z' is like in "zero", then 'sh' is like in "shop", 'ch' is like in "church, 'zh' is like in "measure" or Fr. jour-day, 'th' and 'dh' are the same like in the Eng., "ph" is not used in new langs and changed to 'f', in some langs may be met also 'bh', 'gh', etc., the Eng. "j" is 'dzh', and is added usage of "j" as softening sign after Cs (like in Sp. 'kanj|on').
So that is it. Don't forget that this is method for writing of the words how they are read, so that if there are several ways for writing of one phoneme then confusions may happen, the responsibility for which take the very lang. It is lang. specific, but except of this it is still universal for every lang., and the Lat. alphabet is well known.
And now there are no problems to cite for you our Cyrillic (Cyr. for short) alph., which has 30 lets, but 3 of them are combinations (щ, ю, я), so this gives 27 in number, not really more than in Lat., yet with 'sh', 'ch', and 'zh' included as single lets, and with the most important sound 'y' (like in girl), which is missing from all Western alphs.
А ('a'), Б ('b'), В ('v'), Г ('g'), Д ('d'),
Е ('e'), Ж ('zh'), З ('z'), И ('i'), Й ('j' as semi-V.),
К ('k'), Л ('l'), М ('m'), Н ('n'), О ('o'),
П ('p'), Р ('r'), С ('s'), Т ('t'), У ('u'),
Ф ('f'), Х ('h' as let.), Ц ('c'), Ч ('ch'), Ш ('sh'),
Щ ('sh|t'), Ъ ('y'), Ь ('j' as M.), Ю ('ju'), Я('ja'),
As simple as that. Where you can see that roughly half of the lets are from the good old Lat., with some mixing here and there bc. of the Gr. alph. If we start from 'a' then our "в" looks like Lat. "b" bc of the Grs (they just never have together 'b' and 'v', either this or that, and their β-'beta' is now read 'vita'), then our "г"-'g' is more like Gr. γ, "ж" is a new sign, "з"-'z' is like ζ, our "р"-'r' looks like Lat. "p" bc. the Lats have messed the things, this is Gr. ρ (and "п"-'p' is Gr. π, and the image of the last, according to Myrski is ... a chicken or hen), then our "с"-'s' is nearer to Gr. σ, then "у"-'u' looks like Lat. "y" also bc of misunderstandings between the Grs and the Lats (this is the image of Gr. υ, which has given both Lat. "u" and "v"), then "ф"-'f' is made symmetrical, "х"-'h' is Gr. χ and it is pronounced also in Sp. in this way, and the other lets are new inventions of Cyril and Methodius (who made our alph. back in 9th century).
So this alph. is called Cyr., but it is rather Bul., not only bc. we make perfect use of it and it suffices for us, whether other nations add smt., at least Lat. "i", but also bc. we pronounce everything as we write (and v.v.) while even the Russ have some exceptions, don't say pure 'e' but 'ie', for example (and have also that "donkey" sound 'yi'), the Serbs also have additions, and the Czechs and Poles have surely problems with Lat. alph. (and the Turks, too). So that this alph. is pretty good for all langs, it is quite near to what is given in "Ill.W." yet I will not use it here, I will use my way for transliteration with Lat. chars in single quotes bc. you can't learn it so quickly. But let me again stress that we read everything exactly, we have no exceptions of reading of some sound according to the environment, i.e. what is after the char., yet sometimes also what is before it (like with "-gn-" m-ing 'nj', say, It signore); neither we write one sound in several ways (like the Frs write the nasal sound 'oq' in 4 different ways; or take also the "traditional" from old Gr. "-ai-" m-ing simple 'e', like in Fr. paire which has become "pair" in the Eng.). It is really amazing how we, the Buls, being such ... barbarous people in many other aspects, have managed to use the alph. so straightforwardly and correct, but that's it.
And one more moment, the alph. is not smt. unavoidable there can be used another one with some tricks, many nations use this approach (say, the Turks) but it is always good to have an adequate with the lang. alph., like our is (at least bc. it is a relatively later invention), not such utterly inadequate like with the Fr. and the Eng., and from this we can elementary transfer to whatever new standard for world-wide alph. there emerges, so that, in the end, the alph. also is very important element, and it is now one of the European alphs (and langs), mark this!
Ah, maybe it will be interesting to you to perceive why some people use unsuitable alph., and not only do this trying somehow to cope with the difficulties using several chars to mark their sounds (like the Its, the Sps for Spaniards, or the Gers), what is decent behaviour, but try to differ maximally from the (Lat., usually) original, and read everything topsy-turvy (like, e.g., Fr. "oi" as 'uo', or, Eng. "i" as 'aj', etc.). Well, I have come to the conclusion that here, in addition to the normal (but if in some measure, not overdone) wish to differ from the others, to express oneself, hides also mere ... hypocrisy, for they have understood pretty formally the bible words that in the beginning was the word. Id est they have pretended that they don't change the ws, yet reading them in different way is a changing, this is not real faith, this is hypocritical behaviour. The surest way out is to use different alph., and the more universal it is the better.
So, and now let us come to smt. more lang. specific, to the
2. Bulgarian phonetics.
The Vs in the whole world, in my opinion, are of three categories: basic, modified (M.), and combined (comb-d) or diphthongs (and triphthongs). I am sorry if this will make some literary men or linguists indignant, bc they may not use this terminology, but I am not to be blamed that there is not an unified view to such things, and even the Indo-European langs (I.-E. for short) are called by the Gers Indo-German, or, say, the Engs write "a" and read 'ej' (as also the well known Tur. ... coffee is called in Greece Gr. one). Such things often happen (that one finds that — I beg to be excused — the own sh## does not smell) and I like to have universal and unbiased approach for every nation, so that I have thought about this even in my "Ill.W.". And I am telling this bc., as you will see just now, the basic Vs are all present in Bul. lang., but I have come to the conclusion which exactly are they not bc they are from the Bul., but bc. they are basic ones.
a) I count for basic vowels (or main, pure) the following 6 Vs: 'a', 'e', 'i', 'o', 'u', and 'y' (in Cyr.: 'а, е, и, о, у, ъ'). And this exactly in Bul. pronunciation, not in Rus., for example (who have our "ъ" but don't pronounce it at all, think that this is smt. like apostrophe), or in Ger. (who have not the 'y' sound but use it in some endings, e.g. their Lehrer-teacher is pronounced 'lehry'), or also in It. (they don't even dream about such beautiful 'y' sound), not to mention the severe cases like Fr. or Eng. (it turns out that the latter don't have simple 'a' — they have 'ah', have 'ae', etc, but not the purest V., i.e. they have confused all ideas about what is basic and what is derivative in some way). Well, in the Rus. variant of this paper I explained to them what they don't pronounce correct (and they have paid no attention at all to me, you can bet about this), and that their usual "е" is 'ie', but their "back 'e' (э in their Cyr.) is the right 'e', but will not indulge here in such deviations (it is enough for you to learn Bul, there is no need to come to Rus. or Ukr. for Ukrainian, these langs, in fact all other Sl. for Slavonic langs are, in one or another aspect, severe cases). So, these differences come often from old Gr., and there, really, are two 'e'-s, ε and η. But let me mention also, as a bad example, the Frs, who use three kinds of stress signs, neither one of which is real stressing, and when they put two points above some V. this means not its modification, but exactly on the contrary (like, e.g. their Citroën).
b) The modified vowels (Md), as we have already said, are such where we want to say one thing but until we say it we change our intention and say smt. else, yet this is one sound, not a comb-n. When there are 6 basic Vs then there can be maximum 6*6 Md Vs, each with each, yet you may count them for 30, bc. modification with the same V. are meaningless, and with 'y' the possible are as if only 'ya' and Rus. 'yi' (you try so say smt. like 'ye' or 'yu.' — but maybe the Chis will use them). There are many such Md Vs in Ger. or Fr., or Eng. (where the right way is the Lat. one, their "-ae-" and "-oe-", what is accepted also by the Gers, say, their böse-angry, etc) but in Bul. there are no such sounds (we write rarely our "ьо" as 'io', but it may be taken also for the diphthong 'jo' without making of big error). Well, we often substitute more open Vs ('a', 'o', 'e') with their more closed pairs ('y', 'u', 'i'), and may pronounce the known on the East 'boza' like 'buzy', but this is taken as uneducated, and it is another thing. And, as already said, in Bul. when we write, say, 'a' we read it exactly, not like the Russ, who pronounce their unstressed "о"-'o' as Md 'ya' (as in Eng. "but", however strange this may seem).
c) The combined vowels (double and triple "thongs") are now a comb-ns of several sounds which are spoken joined, in one breath, as one syl. for syllable, yet this is not one sound; they can consist of basic as well also of Md Vs. ( There is used the w. diphthong also for some cases where are used 2 chars but is read only one, like in the mentioned Fr. paire-'per', but for me this is not correct use of this term. ) Such comb-d Vs we have, yet in the simplest and everywhere spread variants, with the semi-V. 'j', either before, or after the V., like: 'jo', 'ju' (written with one let., "ю"), 'ja' (also one let., "я"), as well also 'aj', 'oj', etc., but as far as we have our "й"-'j' char, there are no problems at all (as also in Ger. with their "j"). Ah, there may be some problems with the let 'j' in general, bc. it may associate with the previous or with the next V. (like in the example of Fr. mayonnaise, where I always have thought that it is 'ma-jo-nez', and it turned that it is 'maj-o-nez'), but with our 'ju' and 'ja' lets there are no problems in Bul. (yet in Rus., and maybe some other Sl. langs, there are long endings for adjectives, like '-aja', '-juja', '-yij', where, if there were not these last 2 char in the alph., there might have been problems, and we would have been forced to give them here as '-a|ja', '-ju|ja', '-yij'). I suppose that 'j' as semi-V. can be observed as 'ii', and when it is joined with some V. it remains only one of its parts, i.e. either the basic 'i' or the modifying 'i', but this is not of principal importance.
Yet mark, please, that there is a difference between 'jo' and 'io', as well also between these Vs. and the usual consequence of Vs. (like in It. piano, what the Its pronounce as 'pj|ano', the Sls as 'pi|ano', and the Engs as 'pjae|nou'). But these are not problems for the Bul., as said, our lang. has the simplest phonetics, like in the It. and even better with the Cs. We even have not long Vs, which can be signified here with adding of "h" as M. (say, like in Eng. "ah"), there may happen sometimes 'aa' or 'ii' but these are just by 2 Vs ('a|a' or 'i|i'), they can be split on two lines, and in some langs, like in Lat. and It., there is not so much stressing than is slight prolongation, and in the Lat. they are usually marked with horizontal line above the let. (but such elongation existed in the Skr., and it exists in the Gypsy lang., so that they will say, for example, 'mahngo' for their beloved jargon 'mango' m-ing simply a man, or 'bahte' for Bul. 'bate'-older-brother).
Here, too, exist no problems at all, especially with our special lets 'sh', 'ch', 'zh', and even 'sh|t' (with this peculiarity that in Rus. the last let, is read 'sh|ch'). Despite of this I will explain here the things properly again by types of Cs, how this is given in "Ill.W.".
a) The basic consonants are the following (19), according to me, and they go in doubles and triples, namely: 'b-p, v-f, d-t, m-n, r-l, g-k-h, z-c-s, zh-ch-sh', and they all are present in the Sl. langs, and we don't need more than them. It can be said that the Rus. 'shch' or Bul. (what is the beloved Gypsy sound) 'dzh' must also be added (like the latter is added in Eng. with "j" or in It. with "g" sometimes), but this is unnecessary luxury, and then the Poles can require also 'psh', 'ndr', and others), and such comb-s are split at the end of the line, where you try to split 'sh' or 'zh' (which not only in this transliteration are written with 2 chars, but usually on the West, where the most severe case are the Gers, who write our 'ch' as "tsch"). Some of these Cs, in general from the triples above, may not be present on the West, but they exist in all Sl. langs.
b) Modified consonants in Bul. lang. do not exist, but they are present in many Western, as well also in old and Eastern langs, like, for example: "ph" and "th" for Gr. φ and θ, the Eng. 'dh' , like in "this /that", their notorious "w", which even becomes a V., and many aspirated consonants in the old Eastern langs (like 'bh' or 'gh' — which sounds I prefer to call choking sounds, if you'll excuse me, my dear Ars, Pers, and Hindus), and so on; even our usual 'r' on the West is not heard in many cases (like in the classical case of the "car" pronounced as 'kah'). We don't use even our "ь"-'j' as M. where the Russ use it quite often (e.g.: 'myishj' is a mouse, 'rechj' is a speech, etc.), and not only they, this is often met sound in It., Sp., or even in Ger. and Eng. like 'rj'; I personally don't think that this lack of using of one good M. in Bul. lang. is a good think, bc. it gives melody to the ws, but that's it, we like "it" to be hard (m-ing here mainly that "ь" is called "soft sign", where "ъ" is "hard sign").
c) There can be various combined consonants, like our "щ"-'sht', or the mentioned 'dzh', or even Srb. for Serbian 'srp' (like in 'srpski' m-ing exactly Srb. — and in such cases we insert our beloved "ъ"-'y'), and so on, but there is nothing difficult here. I repeat, in Bul. the phonetics is the simplest possible, like It. and even better, and bc. of this we speak relatively good Eng. (not like the Chis, Negroes, and even Its, or also Russ — who, for example, can't pronounce the w. "girl", they say smt. like 'giorl').
3. Simplified Bulgarian grammar
Well, even the simplified Bul. grammar for Eng. speaking Ars. etc., has to take some 50 or so pages, yet the great Myrski will try to do this on a pair of pages (how? — obviously only perfunctory, there is no other way, but I have explained that my goal is to introduce you in Bul., not to teach you it).
3.0. Main verbs and pronouns
The main verbs, naturally, are to be and to have, but I may add a pair more verbs (like must, will, can, etc.). Let me tell you though that we have even not an infinitive form, we use the 1st person sing. for singular (resp., pl. for plural). So that to be is 'sym' with forms in present tense: 'sym, si, e; sme, ste, sa', then for the future tense is used particle (like in the Eng.), 'shte' m-mg "will", and the forms are: 'shte byda, shte bydesh, shte byde; shte bydem, shte bydete, shte bydat'. In the past tense there are some variants, the simple past tense is called in Bul. 'svyrsheno'-finished 'vreme'-tense with forms: 'bjah, beshe, beshe; bjahme, bjahte, bjaha' (yet have in mind that we read the 'h', this is not M., maybe it has to be given here as 'bjahh', ... 'bjahhme', etc. but I said that we have not prolonged Vs.), then there can be said also 'bil / bila, bilo /bili' when we are not sure about the action, and some other more complicated forms like 'sym bil, si bil, ...', 'bil sym bil, ...', 'shtjal sym da sym bil, ...' but such things are rarely used. It is also interesting to comp. our present tense with the It. one, where they say: sono, sei, e, siamo, siete, sono, which are very similar.
Then the verb to have is 'imam' with present tense: 'imam, imash, ima; imame, imate, imat', the future is 'shte imam, sthe imash, ...', simple past tense is 'imah (имах), imashe, imashe; imahme, imahte, imaha', and also variants like 'bjah imal', 'bil imal', bil sym bil imal', and others (we will look at this mole closely later). Though, exactly in Bul., 'imam' isn't main verb, we don't use it for building of past tenses, only 'sym' is used, I cited it by tradition. So that let us add also the verb "must", which is of the r. of Eng. "try" or rather "thrive", i.e. some pushing forward with force, and there is even one form, we take this as particle, and say just 'trjabva' in present tense, 'shte trjabva' in future, and 'trjabvashe' or trjabvalo' in past tense. The verb "will' we already gave, this is 'shte', also in one form, but to can is full-rights verb with forms, in the present: 'moga, mozhesh, mozhe, mozhem, mozhete, mogat', then in the past is 'mozheh, mozheshe, mozheshe, mozhehme, mozhehte, mozheha', also one more past tense as finished action, 'mozhàh, mozhà, mozhà, mozhàhme, mozhàhte, mozhàha', and in future 'shte moga, shte mozhesh, ...'.. We have no modal verbs (like the Gers who have 6 such), and the passive is expressed in third person sing. (e.g. "this material is written by me" will be '... e napisan ...', where 'napisan' is participle from 'napisha'-to-write.
Now about the pronouns, which are a mixture of Lat, Ger., Gr., and maybe even Skr. words. The main forms are: 'az, ti, toj, tja, to; nie, vie, te', what means, by the way, that we have 3 genders, and are more or less similar with the Ger. (ich-'ih', du, er, sie, es; wir, ihr, sie; or then with the Eng. forms but the Eng. lang. is said to be Teu. one), or It. (io, tu, egli-'elji', essa, esso, noi, voi, essi). Then in Accusative they are: 'men, teb, nego, neja, nego; nas, vas, tjah'; further in Dative are the same preceded by the particle 'na', i.e. 'na men, na teb, ...' or shorter: 'mi, ti, mu, `i' (stressed in order to differ from 'i' as "and"), 'mu; ni, vi, im'; then the possessive forms (for mas. for masculine; where fem. will be for feminine, and it is built with adding of an '-a') are: 'moj, tvoj, negov, nejn, negov; nash, vash, tehen'; and reflexive form is 'se' or 'si'. Ah, and I mentioned the Skr. bc. "your own" is 'svoj', and a farther in law is 'svekyr', what in Ger. is Schwieger (read 'shvihgy'), and in It. it is suocero (read 'suochero'), and smt. similar is in the Skr., with the m-ing of smt. own, added to you.
Well, this point is left from the Rus. variant, bc. they have 6 cases and we have not a single one (although there is a rudiment of one — the vocative case, when addressing smb., say, if he is 'Ivan' we say 'Ivane', if she is 'Penka' we say 'Penke', etc, though 'Pencho' remains unchanged), and without cases are used simply more prepositions. This is so, but in regard of the frequency of use, not of their numbers, and the main are the following: 'na' as of, possession, for, at, on, etc. (like in "bettering of the rules of working of this appliance" will be 'podobrjavane na pravilata na rabota na ustrojstvoto', and we try somehow to drop some of them, like the marked in It. first occurrence), 'za' as for, about, 'po' as on, through, via, by, etc., 'ot' as from, out of, 'kym' as to, toward, 'v /vyv' as in, into, 'pri' as to, by, 'do' as next to, adjacent, but also others, like: 'nad'-above, 'pod'-below, 'otpred'-at-the-front, 'otzad'-at-the-back, 'vyn'-outside, 'okolo'-around, and others
( If you are interested I may give you some hints about these prepositions, which ideas a hidden behind them. So 'na' is variant of "on" but the m-ing of possession may come from the particle "now" in Eng. or nah in Ger. in the sense of smt. obvious, or to attract attention, and we use illiterately the particle 'na' as "take it". Then 'za' has to stay smw. around Ger. zu as to, for; 'po' must be akin with old Gr. πεδον as earth, ground, where are also the pedestals; 'ot' might be related with a Skr r. 'ud' as smt. raised above, or also comes from our 'otivam' as "go to"; 'kym' is Lat. cum as with; 'v' is inserting, fusion, some 'fi'; 'pri' is like Lat. per, which is also old Gr.; 'do' is after in the Lat. view of the things, where in It. dopo means after (and I have strong suspicion that this is related with the hole in form of our 'dupe' what is ... an ass-hole); 'nad' is above and here is our 'nadezhda'-hope, so that we maybe hope in some god; 'pod' is somehow like 'po' and especially 'pod' in Bul. is a floor; 'okolo' is the circle, and around this 'o' stays also the Rus. 'u'-around; and so on; these are very fuzzy ideas, but for one-syllabic ws this suffices. )
Ah, here are new moment. Bc. what is this article you know but you think that it has to walk all by itself before the noun, yet it turns out that there can be exceptions. And for the Russ, by the way, these exceptions seem enormously big bc. they don't use at all articles (somehow manage, around their 6 cases, to do without these parts of speech, say, when they say "good book" in Rus. they understand that "this is a good book" and when they say "book good" — they have the habit to miss the verb to be, what came smw. from the old Lats —, they understand that "the book is good"). So what I wanted to say is that the article in this sense in the Sl. langs is called 'chlen', which word means also a member, and you know that every man has some special "member", called sometimes "cock", and to say that the Russ have no "cocks" seems wrong, the more so bc. the 'chlen' stays usually before, yeah, but the Buls put it ... ha, ha, they put it behind and even glue it to the noun! And this is the strange moment here, that we don't say, e.g., "the table", but, this w. being 'masa' in Bul., say 'masata'; or also the chair is 'stol' and "the chair" will be 'stola' or even 'stolyt'; or also the mentioned quite recently 'dupe'-bottom with definite article will be 'dupeto'; similarly also in pl.: 'masite, stolovete, dupetata'. Not that this is smt. difficult, but it is pretty strange.
Though, on the other hand, there is nothing shocking in this and I will give you now some similar examples of gluing of some words together in different langs. I mean not only ws like businessman or landowner or foreword and similar things, but in Ger. all numbers till 1 million are written as one word — could you imagine this? —, and the very Russ glue the reflexive particle 'sja' ('se' in Bul, -self in Eng.) with the verb (e.g. to bathe is 'kupatj' and bathe oneself is 'kupatjsja'; though in Bul. this is not glued). Yet the most similar to the Bul. case exists in It, where they join not only the reflexive particle, but also the pronoun or article, and for example, say smettetela ('zmettetela') for "you stop with this" (to stop is smettere, smettete is for 2nd person pl. and la is article m-ing here this or that or with that). So that we are not really perverse in this sense, we are more or less like the Lats, and if one gives a thought to the matter it will turn out that the Bul. way is even more justified, and not we are perverse in this regard but all other nations, bc: what is more important from the combination "the table"? I suppose this is "table", not "the" (or der, die, la, il, al, etc.), so that we put the more important thing first, this is the American tendency in ordering of the documents (the last is on the head), or also the date, the month goes before the day. All is a matter of habit. Well, there is difference for mas. like 'stola' what we call "unfull member" (or, then, maybe, empty one, ah?), while 'stolyt' is "full member", where the latter is used only for the subject in the sentence, but these are things to which nobody pays any attention, and if you use always the form with '-a' everything will be correct (yet for the Russ this remains a kind of nightmare, they may live by ten years in Bulgaria and still forget the 'chlen').
The genders are three, mas., fem., and neu. for neutral, what is the most spread case around the world (but in the Lat. langs, like It. or Fr. etc., not counting the very Lat., for your information, they don't have neu., what seems to me quite a radical approach, i.e. you either have a "baton", or have an orifice, and I indulge in such reflections bc. I suppose that this has forced the old Engs to apply their even bolder decision, to take away all genders for unanimated things). So, but I have opened this subsection bc. our genders are just a pleasure to have them, they can be guessed almost always by the endings, and if the w. end on consonant then it is mas., if it ends on '-a' is fem., and if ends on '-o' or '-e' is neu.; there are as if no nouns ending on 'u', then 'i' is used for pl., and ending in 'y' does not exist now but earlier this, or similar let., was used like the Fr. dumb "e", i.e. as sign for the end of the w. but that is not read. There surely may happen exceptions (we are humans, not robots, we can't live without exceptions, even the very ... life is an exception, if you ask me), but they are quite rare, say, the classical case is 'bashta' as father, or in children lang. 'tati', or Rus. 'papa', what are all variation of Lat. papa, or then Tur. baba (you maybe recall a fairy tale about some Ali-baba) what comes from smt. sim. in the Skr. (like their deva-god, from which on the West has left only the Lat. diva as a kind of goddess).
In the same moment in the other langs are much more exceptions (say, in Rus. ws ending on their "ь"-'j' may be mas. or fem., also in It. are exceptions for Lat. and especially old Gr. ws), and there are langs, like Ger., where is just necessary always to learn the gender. For the Gers I usually give the following example: the spoon is der Löffel ('loefel'), where "der" is for mas., and the fork is die Gabel, where "die" is for fem., and I have invented nearly a poem (in prose) about the reason why this is so, bc. a normal person will take that the spoon is some hole, and the fork is, well, not one, usually 3 or 4 spikes, but still smt. pricking, isn't it? So I have tried to penetrate in the soul of Gers and maybe even ancient Aryans, and have come to the conclusion that the spoon in merely ugly, disgusting, while the fork is just beautiful, slim! This has to be so (or else you find other explanation), and in my old age learning It. I have met the same idea there, where the spoon is il cucchiaio ('kukkjaio', and il is for mas.), and the fork is la forchetta ('forketta', and la is for fem.), and not only the genders are the same, but forketta is smt. small and fine (it is diminutive from their forca), but the most important consideration here is that the spoon is smt. wry, ugly, bc. the bitch-dog there is la cuccia, there is Bul. 'kuka' what is your hook, and there is Lat. coccus /cocci, as bacillus /bacilli.
And one more remark, bc. in the Eng. there are no genders for things, that the genders are not rudiments, they are good idea, they provide ways for distinguishing of the ws when pronouns are used, and there are many cases where they are simply necessary. You know that even names are not qualitative enough, and if you don't make differences also in professions (like our 'profesor /profesorka', or 'uchenik /uchenichka' for school-children, etc.), and don't use (in the Eng.) diminutive forms (and not only the Slavs use such things, the Gers too, and the Its are the top), then the lang. becomes poorer, where what it (and the life in general) needs is diversity, these are important moments. So that in this regard, too, the Bul. lang. is very simple and good.
3.4. Verbs and tenses
Like we have given above examples with the main verbs we will give here with some others, say, with to "work", what is 'rabotja' in Bul. But let me tell you in the beginning here that the point is not in the number, but in the difficulty (say, the Eng. tenses are 4*4 = 16, yet half of them are continuous, there is added suffix "-ing", these are simple things, and in many cases are used some equal particles for all persons, and the forms are nearly the same — what is even not good, if you ask me —, etc.), and I have looked now (I am going up to 70 years and I have never needed to know how many tenses we really have — do you imagine this? — bc. I know that there are a pair of tenses and that's all), so we have had 9 tenses. Well, according to me, there are about 2.5 tenses, with full forms I mean, and the other variants give some kind of modality and are built with adding of some particle (w.) so that can't be counted for "full-rights" tenses; besides, the problem for the foreigners in Bul. lang. are not the very tenses, but this 'bjah' or 'bil' difference, and the type of the verb, i.e. is it finished or not. Because we don't have continuous tenses (all Slavs don't have, and the Gers, too) but have these two types of verbs which we call 'svyrsheno' and nesvyrsheno' 'vreme'-tense (and let me shorten them to 'svyr.' / 'nesvyr.'), and when it is 'svyr.' it can't continue more, while 'nesvyr.' is imitation of continuous tense.
So, now to the 'rabotja'-to-work: present tense is 'rabotja, rabotish, raboti, rabotim, rabotite, rabotjat'; past 'svyr.' (call "aorist" what I don't know what m-s, smt. Lat.) is 'pabotih, raboti, raboti, rabotihme, rabotihte, rabotiha'; past 'nesvyr.' is 'raboteh, raboteshe, raboteshe, rabotehme, rabotehte, raboteha'; past indefinite is 'sym rabotil, si rabotil, e rabotil, sme rabotili, ste rabotili, sa rabotili' (and this is for mas., for fem. in sing. is added '-a', and in neu. is added '-o'); past preceding is 'bjah rabotil, beshe rabotil, beshe rabotil, bjahme rabotili, bjahte rabotili, bjaha rabotili'; future tense is 'shte rabotja, shte rabotish, shte raboti, shte rabotim, shte rabotite, shte rabotjat'; future preceding is 'shte sym rabotil, shte si rabotil, shte e rabotil, shte sme rabotili, shte ste rabotili, shte sa rabotili'; future in the past is 'shtjah da rabotja, shteshe da rabotish, shteshe da rabotish, shtjahme da rabotim, shtjahte da rabotite, shtjaha da rabotjat'; and future preceding in the past is 'shtjah da sym rabotil, shteshe da si rabotil, shteshe da e rabotil, shtjahme da sme rabotili, shtjahte da ste rabotili, shtjaha da sa rabotili'; what now makes 9.
Yeah, but with full forms are only present and past, usually 'svyr.' or 'nesvyr.', they are sim. and nobody bothers to make the difference (and if, then adding some explanatory ws that the person has worked but has ceased), they are smt. like the imperfect (I worked); then the past indefinite (with 'sym, si, e, ...') is like the present perfect (I have worked) and there are not new forms; and then past preceding (with 'bjah, beshe, ...') is like past perfect (I had worked) and again has no new forms, so that till here we have 2 and a half tenses. The simple future tense is like in Eng. with adding of one w. before, there is nothing to learn here (yet in the Lat. langs there is what to learn), the other future tenses are not used, maybe only future in the past, 'shtjah da rabotja, shteshe da rabotish, ...'. Still, I don't say that the tenses are very simple, they are the most difficult part in Bul. lang. (together with the phonetics for some people, bc. a lang. learned in old days is never spoken like that learned with one's mothers milk), but from my experience with hearing how the foreigners speak Bul. the major errors with the times are to confuse past tenses of 'bjah rabotil' with 'bil rabotil', where 'bil' form is a modal thing, that smb. has done smt. but I am not sure about (and this usually in 3 person); also we have different types of verbs, 'svyr.' and 'nesvyr.', what I will try to explain now.
In plain ws, and not how the grammarians will explain this, the situation is such: the basic words, like 'rabotja', 'ucha'-to-study, and others, are 'nesvyr.' (i.e. continuous), but when you build derivative with prefix, say, 'izrabotja' (to do, make) or 'naucha' (to learn well), this now becomes 'svyr.' type, yet we can make them to be 'nesvyr.' adding a suffix, usually '-vam', what here will be 'izrabotvam' or 'nauchavam'. Here can be various difficulties, also for the Buls, but the rule of the thumb is that the 'svyr.' tense can't be pronounced by itself, one has to add before it the particle 'da' with m-ing of "to"; here one can't say 'izrabotja' (in a sentence, like "I want to make this") but has to say "I want 'da izrabotja' this", or 'da naucha', but 'izuchavam' or 'prepodavam' (this is to teach smb.), etc. can be used alone. And there is also the mnemonic rule that if the verb is longer then the action continues, where by the shorter verbs they are as if truncated somehow, they are 'svyr.'-finished. Yeah, and to recompense these problem we have one auxiliary verb, 'sym', we make no difference between transitive or not verbs (they exist, but we don't care about them), and we have no strong or irregular verbs, which usually are about a hundred in a lang.; well, some r. Cs can change if it is difficult to pronounce some form (like 'moga, mozhesh, ...') but such things happen also in the best "families".
And now, in order to check what we have understood (also for the author, bc. native-speaking people don't think about grammar things when speaking) let me invent one verb with Eng. rs meaning this activity which one having a "prick" can do with it, which verb in Bul. will be 'da prikna' as 'svyr.' and 'prikvam' as nesvyr.' So we will have: present 'da prikna, da priknesh, da prikne, da priknem, da priknete, da priknat', past ('svyr.' or not I can't make the difference) 'priknah, prikna, prikna, priknahme, priknahte, priknaha' ('prikneh' somehow does not sound good to me, neither I can see where is the continuation), then (roughly like perfect) 'sym priknal, si priknal, e priknal, ...', then (like past perfect, or Ger. Plusquamperfekt) 'bjah priknal, beshe priknal, ...' (where if you are not sure about then 'bil priknal, ...') , and simple future 'shte prikna, shte priknesh, ...', what is quite enough and like in Ger., or in rough strokes (not counting the continuous tenses) like in Eng., and without this something will be missing. So, and as to 'nesvyr.'-continuous forms we will have: present 'prikvam, prikvash, ...', resp. future 'shte prikvam, shte prikvash, ...', simple past 'prikvah, prikvashe, ...', like present perfect 'sym prikval, si prikval, ...' and like past perfect 'bjah prikval, beshe prikval, ...', what gives another five continuous forms (if we don't count 'shtjah da prikvam, ... shtjah da sym bil prikval, ... shtjal sym bil da prikvam, ...'). You try alone with 'demokratiziram' or, if you like, 'onaniram' which are 'nesvyr.', or with 'da prestana' and 'prestavam, what is to stop, or also 'da propileja' (here the endings will be different) and 'propiljavam', what is to waste (time or money), or even with one jargon w. 'da izkrejzja' and 'izkrejzvam' built from Eng. "crazy".
3.5. Other grammatical moments
This point is not especially necessary, here I indulge in some reflections bc. of the Russ, but as far as such things happen also in other langs, and I don't know (and have no idea about) Ar. or Hindu or Chi. etc., so that such things may exist in some of those langs, too, and for this reason I decided to leave it in its place.
First of all about movement and still standing, or Akkusativ and Dativ in Ger. (resp. accusative and prepositional case in Rus.), I said already that we make no difference here, but I would like to give you my version about why this difference exists from very ancient times and in all ancient langs, bc. I have met nowhere such explanations and they might be interesting for some of my readers. I have though about this and have come to the conclusion that the point here is related with the Eastern philosophy, or rather theosophy (divine explanation of the world, scientific in as much as this was possible in those times, but presupposing the existence of some gods), which views are expressed mainly in old Gr. slogan "Everything flows, everything changes" (Παντα ρει, παντα κινεται). And when everything changes it is important to know whether we are moving or not, yet not only this but also the assertion that the movement is more spread and universal than the stillness, and for this reason for it is chosen the simpler case (accusative is the nearest to nominative case, I suppose, in all langs with cases) than for the stillness (the prepositional case in Rus. is not of the difficult, yet there are necessary prepositions, but in Ger. the Dativ is unquestionably more difficult then Akk.). So that this difference is rudimentary in the contemporary langs but in the ancient ones it existed (and in the Skr. there were 7 cases, and even the main forms of the verbs to be and to have, as well also the pronouns, are similar, so that this is an old thing). In Rus. exist not only this, they make difference in the periods of time, and when they speak about hours and days of the week they use accusative (for the movement, there the things change fast), but from the weeks, then months and years, they use prepositional case (for one can stay still in a longer period). It is not at all easy to make this difference in Ger., too, with all their articles and adjectives etc., and also the existence of transitive verbs or not is a mystery nowadays (I still don't feel these things, have to think about and make errors), and from here whether has to be used haben-to-have or sein-to-be causes problems, while in Bul. such problems are left behind (for we are living in such times that people not only not like to look philosophically at the things, they even don't like to think at all).
Further there are langs where the numbers are far away from the strict decimal positional system like in Eng. and Bul., in many other langs there happen some exceptions. For example, the Russ make difference for numbers ending on one, then 2 to four, and then from five and up (here they use pl.), there are exceptions also for the years, they have two different ws for pl. of the w. year. The Gers, on their part, not only write big numbers in one w., they pronounce up to 100 (!) first the ones and then the tens (say, my age of 65 in the moment will be "five and sixty"), and other moments (I discuss these things in "Reflections About The Numbers"). Yet this can be accepted somehow, but the really crazy Fr. way to pronounce numbers (by 20-s) is total confusion. So that it is full with rudiments all around the world, but not in Bul. lang., we are democrats in regard of the numbers (and if there are problems with the tenses then they also can be simplified further). For example, we have had earlier nasal sounds, but don't have anymore, have abandoned the cases, from roughly the middle of the last century have rejected one dumb 'y' in the end of the ws if they end on C., and one char. that once is read so, but other times in another way, too, and now we don't need to look even one char. forward, to say nothing about several or the whole word.
So this is the Bul. lang. and now we move to the last chapter about some ws and rs in Bul. in order to allow you a little more closer look at it, to convince you that we are Europeans.
4. Very succinct list of Bulgarian words
Here I will use the same examples (with maybe slight changes here and there) which I have used in the Rus. variant with the purpose to show how near Bul. lang. stays to the Rus. On one hand this is wrong approach, bc. the so called Ars, Chis, and Hindus surely don't know Rus., but I have used nearly arbitrary set of ws, and why should I now choose another one? But not only this, I think, standing on my enormously big Urrh, that I will succeed to prove here how European (m-ing: Sl., Teu., Eng, Fr., Lat., Gr., Ar., Per, and so on I.-E. langs) the rs and ws of Bul. lang. are, so that studying it you will lose nothing but only get to know more I.-E. rs. This is so bc. our ws are on about 90% Sl. but on about 10% old Bul., what means chiefly Tur., Per., Gypsy, even Mongolian; then the Sl. rs are, quite approximately, in 60% Latin, in 25% Teu., and in 15% also smt. Eastern but come to them directly, not via the Lats; then the Lat. ws are, again very roughly and in my opinion, on 90% Gr. and on 10% also smt. Eastern (Per., directly Skr., smt. like this); then the Teu. ws are on 70% Lat. and Gr., but on about 30% again Eastern (this time Aryan, Per., etc); and the Gr. ws are not exactly their own, surely (they have not fallen in the Adriatic from the blue), they have just carried over old Per., Ar., and Heb. (for Hebrew) ws, say, in 85% and have mutilated them bc. of their pretty poor phonetics. In short, everything is mixed, but don't forget that Bulgaria is placed next to Greece, and ancient Greece was though for navel of the ancient world so that we may be on the border of Europe, but we are still in the middle of ancient world, we unite all these and many other langs. Just to give an example for old Bul. w.: nice in Rus. (as chief Sl. lang.) is 'krasivyij', and we have the w. 'krasiv', but we have for synonym also 'hubav', what surely (at least for me) is related with Ger. hübsch ('huebsh') m-ing the same, but we have not taken it from the Gers, this is old Bul. word.
So, and now I will write all in lines, where in the beginning will be the Bul. w., then the m-ing in Eng., and then some explanations (I will try for them to be short but am afraid that in places they will be very long), usually on one line I will put several sim. ws, and if occasionally the meaning has to be clear I will put only "=" (in Rus. there are many such signs but here they will be much rare). To the usual shortening like: m. for means, s. for see, comp. for compare (with), I will add rel. for related (with), sup. for suppose, smh. for somehow, ~ for near to, sim., rel-d, / as alternative (or), ? for I don't know, ".." if I find the explanations are too long (and you better look in the Urrh); s.im. for sound imitation, c.Sl. for common Sl., Ser. For Serbian, Gyp. for Gypsy, East. for Eastern, and also cyn. for cynical, jar. for jargon, conv. for conversational, cult. for cultured.
'rabotja' - work (c.Sl.,~ Ger. arbeiten); 'dejst(vu)vam' - act (c.Sl., comp. with Lat deo-god), 'bachkam' (jar.) - work hard (there is smt. Gyp. here, or Tur.; 'bichkija' is a handsaw; 'bicha' is to cut, hatch);
'pravja' - make (this is s.im., to make big noise; also 'proizvezhdam' is to produce, hence 'pravja' ~ produce); 'vyrsha /izvyrshvam /ispylnjavam' - make, accomplish (according to me 'vyrsha', also 'vyrsheja' - to-trash-wheat, is related with ... god Vishnu; the last w. is ~ fulfill bc. 'pylnja' is to fill); 'stroja' - build (~ stretch in the sense of to order, line up; from here 'postrojka' is a building);
'rykovodja' - rule, govern (from 'ryka' - 'hand', sim. in meaning with Lat. manus); 'upravljavam' - the same (from 'pravja', but maybe the right hand as the strongest is also meant bc. "right" in Rus. is 'pravyij'); 'komand(u)vam - = (command, smt. Lat. rel-d with cum-with);
'jam' - eat (here surely has to be hidden rel-n with the existence, bc. "to be" in Rus. is 'estj', and even one old form 'esmj'; on the other hand this is s.im. — comp. with Eng. yum ); 'pija' - drink (c.Sl., also smt. Lat., in It. piovere is to rain, also Po is a river); 'gyltam' - gulp (c.Sl., s.im; 'lapam' as jar., ~ 'lapa' as wrist);
'stoja' - = (stand or stay, and let me not explain so widely spread ws.), 'stavam' - stand up; 'sedja' /'sjadam - = (sit /sit down);
'lezha' / 'ljagam' - lie (horizontally); 'namiram se' - is placed;
'spja' - sleep; 'pochivam (si)' - rest (?, smt. East., not Rus., not Lat.); 'dremja' - =;
'bjagam' - run (c.Sl., smh. rel-d with 'byrz'-fast); skacham' - jump (from 'skok' what is ~ hop); 'ripam' (jar.) - jump;
'kachvam se' - go up (here has to be rel-n with an old East. r. 'kyt /kat /kys /kus); 'slizam' - come down (~ slide);
'letja' - fly (~ light); 'reja se' - soar (from Gr. ρεω, yet comp. with ray what comes smw. from the Skr.); 'pluvam' - swim (smt. Gr., ~ float, comp. plot /plane); 'gmurkam se' - dive, plunge (?, maybe from 'more'-sea);
'hodja' /'vyrvja' - go, walk (c.Sl.); 'pytuvam' /'pyteshest(vu)vam'- travel (from 'pyt'-road-path);
'cheta' - read (c.Sl., rel-d Rus. 'chtitj'-honour); 'pisha' - write (c.Sl., s.im., rel-d ... piss, where the latter is 'pikaja', and in the Rus. the difference is only in the stressing); 'smjatam' - compute (the idea is of 'smilam'-to-grind);
'chertaja' - draw (from 'cherta'-line, c.Sl.); 'risuvam' - paint, picture (c.Sl.); 'bojadisvam' /'ocvetjavam' - paint ('boja' is a paint, Tur.' or Gr.);
'kopaja' - dig (~ cup and /or cap); 'dylbaja' - delve; 'chukam' - knock (Tur. /Per., in Rus. 'stuchatj); 'rezha' - saw (c.Sl);
'probivam' - bore, drill; 'pilja' - cut, saw; 'rendosvam' - shave wood (~ It. rendere-render-etc.);
'govorja' - speak (c.Sl., smh. rel-d with the governing); 'mylcha' - keep silent (c.Sl.); 'byrborja' /'bryshtolevja' - babble (s.im.);
'vizhdam'- see (Lat. vidi); 'gledam' - see (~ Ger. Glass-=, also Rus. 'glaz'-eye); 'chuvam' - hear (Bul., maybe Per.; in Rus. 'slyishatj'); 'mirisha' - smell (Gr.; in Rus. is 'njuhatj');
'useshtam' - feel (Bul., ?, in Rus. 'oshchushchatj'); 'pipam'- touch (some palpitation with fingers); 'dokosvam' - touch (Bul., ?);
'bija' - hit (Lat. batuo-beat-etc.; also 'tupam', 'nalagam' 'byhtja' as jar. — in a way s.im.); 'nakazvam' - punish (Sl. r. 'kaz- /ukaz /nakaz', ..);
'milvam /galja' - fondle, caress ('mil' is nice; 'galja' ~ glide); 'laskaja' - flatter (comp. lasso, lass);
'mislja' - think (c.Sl., s.im. of some 'ahm', yet rel-d Gr. mnemo-smt.); 'razsyzhdavam' - ponder, contemplate (the r. is 'syd' m-img also law-court, so it is sim. to judge); 'izmisljam (si)' - invent, imagine (from 'misyl'-thought);
'hvyrljam /mjatam' - throw (the 1st is from 'hvyrkam'-fly, s.im., and the 2nd is old r., smh. rel-d with metaphor /meteor); 'ritam' - kick (~ rhytm and hit); 'blyskam' - jostle, bump;
'streljam' - shoot (c.Sl., 'strela' is arrow, it flies 'stremitelno'-fast); 'srazhavam se' - fight (c.Sl., 'srazen' is hit, 'strazh' is sentinel); 'porazjavam' - hit, smite; 'unishtozhavam' - destroy ('nishto' is nothing, i.e. annihilation);
'chovek' - human (c.Sl., Rus. 'chelovek', old 'chlovek', maybe Tur. bc. there 'choluk /chokuk' is child; in pl. 'hora' what is Gr. and older, in Rus. 'ljudi' what ~ Ger. Leute-'lojte'); 'myzh' - man (in Rus. is 'muzh', in Ser. 'mazh', I insist that is so called bc. ... 'mozhet'-can, to beget a child); 'zhena' - woman (Gr., γιναικα-'gineka'); 'dete' - child (Gr., this is as if a detail, part of the woman); 'momche' - son / 'momiche' - girl (smt. 'malko'-small.); 'bebe' - =;
'mladezh /'junosha' - young man (c.Sl., 'mlad' is young; the 2nd is Lat.); 'devojka' - girl, young woman (Lat. and Skr., diva);
'sreshta' - meeting ('sreshtu' is against), 'razdjala' - parting (from 'delja'-divide); 'guljaj' - spree, blast, jamboree (Ar., ~ ghoul); 'vecherinka' - evening gathering (bc. 'vecher' is evening);
'obich' - love (not Sl., old Bul., smt. Mongolian, though ~ big, bull, etc., ..); 'chuvstvo' - feeling (c.Sl., from 'chuvam'-hear where might be smt. Per.); 'celuvka' - kiss (Ger. in my opinion, from zu-to-or-near and Zunge-tongue); 'pregrydka' - hug, embrace (from 'gyrdi'-breast, Lat., ~ guard); 'drugar' - friend (c.Sl., in fact Skr., ..);
'bitka' -battle, combat (Lat.); 'dvuboj' - duel ('dve' is two);
'bog' - god (Per. baga, and rel-d big-bull); 'angel' - =; 'djavol' - devil (Lat.); 'karacondzhul (jar.) - bogy, demon (Tur., 'cara' is black);
'korem' - belly (~ core; in Rus. is 'zhivot', but the same w. in Bul. m. life, ..);
b) Fauna, animals:
'kotka'/'kotarak' - fem. /mas. cat; 'kuche' /'kuchka' - fem. /mas. dog (c.Sl. — bc. curls in a Rus. 'kucha'-heap);
'kon' /'kobila' - mas. /fem. horse (c.Sl., ~ Gr. centaurs and ... dragons); 'krava' - cow (deeply Skr.), 'bik' - bull (big animal, c.Sl.); 'ovca' /'oven' - fem. /mas. sheep (Sl., maybe as disgusting exclamation 'uf'; in Rus. "he" is 'baran' what rel-s with 'barin'-master-owner, in my view); 'koza' - goat (?, maybe bc. jumps and happens in unexpected places, if rel-d with 'koz' /kaz', ..); 'magare' - donkey (I think from Gr. megera-ugly-witch); 'prase' - pig (..); 'swinja' - she-swine;
'kokoshka' - hen (s.im.); 'petel' - cock (Gr.); 'pile' - chicken (s.im. and smt. Lat.); 'patka' - she-duck; 'gyska' - she-goose; 'pujka' /'puek' - fem. /mas. turkey (bc. says 'pu', not Rus.); 'pytpydyk' - quail (s.im.); 'jajce' - egg;
'vylk' - wolf; 'lisica' - fox; 'gligan' - wild boar; 'elen' /'syrna' - mas. /fem. deer;
'lyv' - lion; 'leopard' - =; 'slon' - elephant (Sl., ..); 'zhiraf' - =; 'shtraus' - ostrich; 'hipopotam' - = (Gr. & Lat.); 'krokodil' - =; 'maymuna' - monkey (East.);
'zmija' - snake; 'gushter' - lizard (maybe bc. 'se gushi'-hides);
'riba' - fish (I think bc. lives in rivers; and your w. is Ger. and bc. says 'fyss' and disappears); 'rak' - crab (old r., maybe Skr.); 'kostur' - perch, bass; 'pystyrva' - trout ('pystyr' is motley); 'hajver' - caviar (Ar.);
c) Flora, vegetation:
'dyrvo' - tree (c.Sl., Gr. but sim. turf !); 'treva' - grass (c.Sl., Gr. but sim. tree !); 'hrast' - thicket, bush (some s.im.); 'stryk' - stem, shoot; 'filiz' /'izdynka' - offshoot (the 1st is Tur.); 'kitka' - bunch, nosegay (smt. old, maybe Per., 'kicha se' is make beautiful with flowers; 'kiten' is beautiful, yet not Rus.);
'bor' - pine; 'elha' - fir tree; 'smyrch' - spruce; 'dyb' - oak; 'buk' - beech; 'jasen' - ash; 'bresa' - birch; 'topola' - poplar; 'lipa' - lime tree;
'jabylka' - apple; 'krusha' - pear, 'sliva' /'dzhanka' - plum; 'praskova' - peach; 'zarzala' /'kajsija' - apricot (the 1st is Per.); 'djulja' - quince; 'grozde' - grapes;
'limon' - =; 'portocal' - orange; 'banan', 'kivi' - =; 'ananas' - pineapple;
'dinja' - watermelon; 'pypesh' - melon (Gr.); 'tikva' - pumpkin (I sup. bc. it 'se natikva'-shoves-or-pushes, crawls, everywhere);
'jagoda' - strawberry; 'malina' - raspberry; 'kypina' - bramble; 'borovinka' - blueberry; 'casis' - black currant;
'chushka' - pepper ('ljuta ch.' - hot p.); 'domat' - tomato; 'krastavica' - cucumber (Bul. from 'krastav' as scabby, covered with pimples, and the Eng. w. is Lat. cucumero); 'kornishon' - gherkin; 'luk' - onion ('praz' - leek); 'chesyn' - garlic; 'tikvichka' - marrow, zucchini; 'patladzhan' - eggplant (Tur.); 'cveklo' - beet; 'kartof' - potato; 'rjapa' /'repichka' - turnip /radish; 'salata' /'marulja' - salad /lettuce;
'zemja' - Earth, ground (c.Sl., ..); 'nebe' - sky (Ger., Lat., ..), 'slynce' - Sol, 'luna' - moon (Lat.);
'kamyk' - stone (.., but ~ comet); 'pryst' - earth; 'pjasyk' - sand; 'mrysotija' - dirt; 'kal' - mud, slime (where in Rus. the same 'kal' is ... faeces — the r. is Gr. but ..); 'ruda' - ore;
'voda' - water (the r. is Ar., ..); 'more' - sea (Lat. mare); 'reka' - river; 'potok /-che /ruchej' - brook, rivulet; 'izvor' - water-spring; 'blato' - bog, swamp;
'skalà' - rock; 'planina' (in Rus 'gora') - mountain; 'gora' (in Rus. 'les') - forest; 'vryh' - peak; 'poljan(k)a' - meadow; 'ezero' - lake; 'nizina' - lowland (the r. is Skr.); 'vyzvishenie' - height, upland; 'urva' - precipice; 'klisura', 'defile',- ravine, valley;
'vyzduh' - air ('duh' is spirit); 'oblak' - cloud (c.Sl.); 'mygla' - fog; 'dyzhd' - rain (c.Sl., ?, maybe by a dose); 'snjag' - snow; 'led' - ice (c.Sl., ?, maybe bc one slides on it); 'skrezh' - frost (Bul., maybe bc. one has to scratch it from the window); 'para' - vapor (Gr. r.);
'den' - day (Lat. & Skr., ..); 'mesec' - month (Lat.); 'godina' ('god' in Russ.) - (I thing ~ Ger. gut-good as big chunk of time); 'sedmica' - week (from 'sedem'-7);
'sutrin' - morning (smt. East., the sun 'se jurva'-rushes, and comp. Mongolian 'jurta'-tent); 'obed' - lunch (I sup. bc. we like to eat much then, 'obyedatjsja' in Rus. or 'ujadam se', 'prejadam' in Bul.; this is also Lat. view bc. in It. it is pranzo but 'prysvam se' in Bul., what is s.im., is to burst); 'nosht' -night (Lat. notte — and this is bc. there is no sun then);
'hljab' - bread (..); 'mljako' - milk (old East. r.); 'meso' - meat (Lat., ..); 'jajca' - eggs; 'maslo' - butter (Gr.); 'sol' - salt (Lat.); 'zahar' - sugar (East.); 'piper' - pepper; 'ocet' - vinegar (Lat.); 'olio' - oil (from olive, old r.); 'brashno' - flour (Bul., I sup. as smt. grounded to 'prah'-dust); 'fide' - vermicelli (?); 'oriz' - rice (old r., ..); 'jufka' - nuddles (smt. East.);
'sirene' - white cheese (smt. Lat., ..); 'kashkaval' - cheese (Bul., from 'kasha'-mush); 'kremvi(r)shi' - sausages (Bul., from 'krem'-cream); 'salam' - = (It.); 'shpek-salam' - dry salami (also 'lukanka', 'sudzhuk'); 'pastyrma' - biltong (Lat., 'pastir' /pastor);
'banica /banichka' - Bul. pie (usually with white cheese; I sup. from 'panica' as bowl); 'kifla - bun (?, maybe Heb., in Rus. is 'bulka' but this w. in Bul. m-s ... bride); 'gevrek' - a kind of dough-nut (Bul. & Tur.);
'boza' - traditional East. & Tur. beverage, sugary and slightly fermented;
'skara' - grate, barbecue (East., and smh. rel-d ... scare, ..); 'cheverme' - rotating grill (Tur.); 'shishche' - small skewer but often as the meat on it; 'kebabche' - "fingers" of minced meat, roasted; 'kjufte' - smt. like the last but in form of big lens (the w. is probably Heb. bc. in Rus. are 'tefteli' and there are Heb. 'falafels');
'gjuvech' - our (again Tur.) dish, stew baked in oven; 'tarator' - cold soup chiefly of yogurt and minced cucumbers with spices;
'salata' - =; 'desert' - =; 'predjastie' /'ordjovyr'- hors d'oeuvre; 'meze' - appetizer (Tur., often used w., according. to me is understood as a bite of smt. messe-meta-between two swallows); 'shopska /meshana salata' - main sorts of salads; 'ljutenica' - a kind of chutney; 'kjopoolu' (Tur.) - eggplant mash;
'zakuska' - breakfast; 'obed' - lunch; 'vecherja' - dinner;
'vino' - wine; 'vodka - =; 'bira' - beer; 'rakija' - raki, schnapps (Ar.; distilled alcohol of fruits, chiefly out of grapes or plums, but nowadays everything is, as we say, 'mentè'-fake;); 'mastika' - anisette (the name is Gr., and the funny thing is that in Rus. the same w. m-s floor polish); 'menta' - mint-brandy; 'konjak', 'likjor', 'brendi', 'limonada' - =;
f) Products of civilization:
'kyshta' - home, house (East. & Sl., of 'kyt /kat' r., ..); 'mazè' - basement; cellar; 'zdanie' - building (c.Sl., 'sidam' is to build, but I think is ~ old sumerian zikkurat); 'postrojka' - the same (from 'stroja'-build); 'tavan' - ceiling /mansarde; 'nebostyrgach' - skyscraper (literally);
'vhod' - entrance; 'ishod' - exit; 'asansjor', 'balkon', 'mecanin', 'toaletna' - =; 'banja' - bath, 'kuhnja' - kitchen; 'staja' - room (Bul., from Gr.);
'gradina /-ka' - garden; 'dvor' - yard (c.Sl., ..); 'vila' - holiday home, 'koliba' - hut;
'zavod' /'fabrica' - factory; 'predprijatie' - company, enterprise (Sl.); 'uch(e)rezhdenie' - institution; 'sluzhba' - office; 'ministerstvo' - =;
'masa' - table as furniture; 'stol' - chair; 'taburetka' - stool; 'etazherka' - shelf; 'garnitura' - furniture set; 'krevat'- bed (Sl., I think is rel-d with Rus. 'krov' as roof); 'toaletna chinija' - toilet bowl (and this 'chinija'-bowl always sounds funny to me);
'chinija' - plate, dish, 'kupa /kupichka' - bowl; 'lyzhica' - spoon; 'vilica' - fork; 'nozh' - knife; 'chasha /chashka' - glass, cup;
'stan' - loom, machinery, also camp; 'tezgjah' - bench; 'bjuro' - desk or office; 'gishe' - counter;
'plan' - = or scheme; 'chertezh' - drawing; 'skica' - sketch; drawing (also jar. 'skica' as funny bloke);
'risunka' - drawing, picture; 'snimka' - photo; 'kartina' - painting;
'kniga' - book (c.Sl., of Ar. origin, ..); 'uchebnik' - textbook, manual; 'bukvar' - primer; 'tetradka' - notebook (Gr.); 'moliv' - pencil; 'mastilo' - ink; 'himikalka' - ballpoint;
'cigari' - cigarettes; 'puri' - cigars; 'kibrit' - safety matches; 'zapalka' - lighter;
'televizor' - TV set; 'hladilnik' - refrigerator; 'radio', 'kompjutyr', 'video' - =; 'peralnja' /'mijachna mashina' - washing machine /dishwasher;
'hubav' - nice, beautiful (old Bul. and East.); 'dobyr' - good (c.Sl.); 'losh' - bad (Bul., rel-d 'lesh'-carrion); 'vreden' - harmful; 'zyl' - vile;
'prav' - right, true (m-t as straight, 'prava' is a line); 'greshen' - erroneous (also 'grjah' is sin);
'mlad' -young (c.Sl., m-t as 'malyk'-small); 'star' (un-cult. 'dyrt') - old;
'krasiv' - beautiful, nice (Sl. r., comp. 'Rus. 'krasnyij'-red with 'krasivyij'-beautiful); 'grozen' - not nice, ugly (this is ~ grand but the things are mixed bc. in Rus. 'groznyij' is terrible — like their Tsar Ivan the Terrible —, and in Bul. 'strashen' is terrible);
'visok' - high (and 'visini' is poetically for the sky, but smh rel-d with It.-Lat. vicino-near, ..); 'nisyk' - low (Skr. r. ni-); 'slab' - weak (~ slight, but also smh rel-d with the opposite notion as the w. syllable which is strong, also 'sila' is power); 'debel' - thick, obese (Bul., in my opinion m-s not-belle); 'pylen' - the same (rel-d plenty);
'byrz' - fast (Sl., some s.im.); 'ymeren' - moderate (bc. 'merja' is to measure — the Gr.-Lat. r. meta /messe); 'baven' - slow' (comp. Lat. bovinus);
'svetyl' - bright, lucid (..); 'tymen' - dark (in a way rel-d with ... teem, temple, etc, but ..); 'bjal /beli' - white (Lat. bello-nice); 'cheren' - black (I sup. it is from Skr. cyamas from where is you cyan, the colours are very fuzzy; ~ this is given Rus. 'chiort' as devil, but there are other possibilities); 'zhylt' - yellow (old r., yet m-t as gold /-en); 'zelen' - green (c.Sl., mutation of 'zhylt'); 'sin' - blue (also ~ cyan, rel-d senior, ..); 'cherven' - red (the colour of Skr. carma);
'mek' - mild, soft; 'tvyrd' - hard (c.Sl.); 'gyvkav' - elastic (old r., .., take at least Gr. letter γ which has a hump);
'topyl' - warm (Sl. & older., ~ 'topja' as to melt); 'studen' - cold (c.Sl., maybe the reversed action is m-t bc when a thing solidifies it can stand); 'hladen' - tepid (Sl.); 'goresht' - hot ('gorja' is to burn, ..);
'preden' - at the front; 'zaden' - at the back; 'ljav' - left-wing; 'desen' - right-wing (Gr., not Sl.);
'goren' - upper; 'dolen' - lower;
'umen' - clever, intelligent (old Sl., 'um' is intellect, in a way s.im. of hmm); 'prost' - simple, silly (Gr., but simpleton is 'glupak');
'typ' - blunt (comp. stupid); 'ostyr' - sharp (smt. Lat.); 'plosyk' - flat ('fl-' is ~ 'pl-'); 'kriv' - wry, curved; 'crygul' - circular, round; 'kvadraten' - square;
4.4. Some jargon and vulgar words
Here, or course, I can't do without cynical and obscene ws, but without them a significant part of piquancy of conversation is lost (especially in our "democratic" days and years, while such ws are encountered in millions of copies over the Internet), and also one has to grasp at least the spirit of conversation (whether they praise or curse him), so that I find this subsection for quite important; regretfully is only that I can not spend so much time to explain each of the words (Bul. as well also Eng. and others) but these things are treated smw. in my Urrh. So let us begin.
'mentè' - fakery, imitation (surely Lat. r.); 'trik' - =;
'dalavera', 'alysh'verish' - mercenary or business machinations (Tur.);
'chalga /-dzhija /-dzijstvo' - Tur., or Gyp. music;
'zadigam', 'svivam' - to pinch smt., carry away;
'izchezvaj', 'chupkata' - get lost, piss off;
'budala, abdal, galfon, typak, typunger' - simpleton, fool, idiot (also 'budalkam' is to fool);
'adash, arkadash, aver, majna' - close friend, buddy (the 1st 3 are Tur., the last is from around town Plovdiv);
'majtap, kudosh' - joke, pun, fun (Tur.); 'tashak'- salty joke as jar. (the direct m-ing is of testicle);
'vagabond, 'huligan' - =, 'nehranimajko' - hooligan, bum;
'myrdà' - bad guy (~ 'smyrt'-death and 'smyrdy'-stinks); 'katil' - murderer (Ar.);
'pederast, pedi, pedal, manaf' - mas. homosexual;
'kopele' - son of a bitch (the "result" of copulation, usual addressing between teenagers);
'mamka mu, mama mu stara' - damn it, cult. f##k (we hide here the witty idea that his /her /it mother is too old, else I would have ...);
'tvojta mama, maicata ti' - you s.o.b., f##k you;
'vyrvi na majnata si' - go to hell or even worse; 'siktir' - f##k you, piss off (Tur.);
'pyrdja' - to fart; 'sera' - to sh## (smh. rel-d with Lat. sera-evening and serum but ..); 'lajno' - sh## (Gyp.);
'zadnik, gyz, dupe' - bottom, ass (the 2nd is vul., arse, while the 3rd is nearly polite);
'cica /coc|ka' - tit; 'badzhak /badzhaci' - thighs (Tur.);
'mace' - girl, pussy (in Ger. is Mietze); 'svaljam (njakogo)' - to court, woo smb. (literally m-s to take down; resp. 'svalja mi se' is wants that we become lovers);
'pich, pichaga' - nice guy (of Tur. origin but we put good m-ing in it, not that he is just a good f##ker, this is usual addressing between friends);
'pichka' - a broad, whore, vagina (exactly here the bad m-ing of this Tur. w. — ~ Lat. picem as tar — is shown); 'putka' - vagina (the r. is old, I've found Skr. rel-s but .., well, in fact here is the possibly known Fr. putain-'pjutaq' m-ing the same); 'kurva' - prostitute (gone awry from the right way);
'kur' - penis (this cyn. w. has to be from Gr. κυριοσ as god, master, i.e. this is my master, but it is smh. rel-d with Lat. cura-care); 'huj' - the same (the w. is Rus. but we also use it and in my opinion it is just a happy exclamation, smt. like 'aj /uj', but it is smh. rel-d with Ar. and Skr. 'ud' as penis);
'shibam, eba, chukam' - to copulate, f##k ('shibam' literally m-s to whip and is semi-cult., 'eba' is vul. and there are some interesting moments but .., and 'chukam' is quite polite bc. m-s to knock);
'chikija' /'bija ch.' - to jerk (Tur.);
'duham' / 'pravja svirka' - to blow, blow-job (the 2nd is almost polite; yet used as curse will be 'da go duhash').
Well, the conclusion is necessary chiefly in order not to end the material on cynical words, yet we can as well summarize the things about Bul. language. The quintessence is that it has perfect alphabet, where not only is written everything how it is said and v.v., but there are not places where one sound can be written in more than one way, and one should not look ahead in order to understand how the concrete place has to be read. Then it has also the most simple phonetics that is possible to have and it is better even than in It. because they have not our most important vowel which we marked here as "y", and have not all necessary consonants and simplify the word like little children; we have also no modified vowels, yet we have the simplest and necessary combinations of vowels, chiefly with 'j'. Further, we have nearly the simplest possible grammar, with 3 genders (like all decent nations) that are recognizable elementary by their endings, have no cases at all (with a tiny exception to which nobody pays attention), have no long endings of words (like the Russ), neither difficult matching of articles (like the Gers), which are even shorter and glued to the rear of the words; in addition to this we make no difference between moving of not, i.e. transitive or not verbs, although we have them, use one main verb for building of all times (and passive forms), and have the necessary about 5 used tenses with only two tables of endings, even have a way (like other Slavs) for building of continuous verbs instead of tenses with longer or shorter suffixes, as well also can show some modalities in a simple way. According to our words, we have a mixture of nearly all world languages, not only of Sl. (which are in their core Lat.), but also of Teu., Gr., Ar. and East. and with some practice can be well understood by people of all other nations.
And, come to think about, all these amazing results we have reached bc. of our cleverness to move the articles at the end of the words (where they belong being a kind of characteristic of the words), and chiefly because we were not ashamed to include the most important vowel in our alphabet and words (which the other Slavs either not read or miss, heaping up several hardly pronounceable consonants together, and the other nations, like Engs, Gers, Ars, etc., mark each in its strange way but not as usual letter). So, because the Buls like "it" to be hard, and the Bul. girls, too, I'll tell you, everything reduces to this "hard sign" which we marked here as i-Gr., but it was used as i-Bul., i.e. this 'y' written in Bul. as "ъ", this important and big "Ъ".
Rus. original in Sep. 2011, translated in Eng. and revised. in Feb 2016
UNDER BULGARIAN BANNER
Abstract:In this paper I stand thoroughly on my "Bulgarian Lessons" with the intention to make one directly crucial for all Arabs, Hindus, Russians, Kazakhs, Negroes, Chinese, and many other nations, what in the end means for the whole world, proposition that is related with Bulgarian, yet not exactly, banner. What is the concrete proposition let remains for the time being a secret, but I will support it with enough arguments. Well, it sounds to a great extent utopian, but nevertheless is entirely realizable and leads to a bunch of nice consequences. It must become known to as many as possible number of people, at the top, but also at the lowermost levels, between adolescents, so that, please, scratch your intelligent (for it is not a custom to say otherwise) heads, and give a thought to it. In author's opinion it is as simple as it is brilliant, but at the same time is entirely actual.
0. Explanation of this what I don't mean
Well, to tell you honestly, the Bulgarian banner is put here to catch you, or for advertising purposes — because you know that nowadays everybody must advertise himself, this is the only way if behind somebody do not stand strong and powerful circles, and what powerful circles can stay behind a unique and original thinker like you author? So that the banner must not be understood literally, only as a metaphor. I don't invite you to stand under the Bulgarian banner for the simple reason that there is nothing special or out of the ordinary in it — usual tricolor, white, green, and red, which allows 6 different permutations, and 3-4 of them are already used; in any case, we have equal with the Italians views about this what colours are the best.
Further, I don't have in mind also our national coat of arms — lion, like our money unit, "lev" in Bulgarian —, for the reason that it is ... well, at least ridiculous, because there have never been lions in our land, and they will likewise not emerge (if the global warming will not turn us in a desert, of course). Usually the other nations boast with some eagle (even with two heads — to make the things more interesting) like symbol of power, or with something specific for them (say, baobab, rising sun, maple leaf, or hammer and sickle, and similar things). To be lions can imagine themselves only ... small nations, like the Hebrews, with their Leons, yet the Hebrews have lived earlier where the lions live, for them this is justified, while for us — with nothing. Still, with the coming of democracy in our country have grown the appetites also regarding the lions, and now we have whole three of them on our coat of arms. And they are intertwined with one another like Islamic ornaments in the mosques. But then, if it comes to this, I have a proposition in this regard, this time to the Bulgarian authorities: let us make them five, where will be at the bottom four not very big lions, and above them, and having stepped with one paw on the back of each of the ordinary lions, rises the Lion-King (or President). Or even better proposition, it is in the style of stars on the banner of European Union: let there be on our coat of arms exactly seven lions, and they will chase each other like little mischievous mice, running in direction of the right hand, or counter-clockwise. Or even better than this: let there be again seven lions, but they will run in two concentric circles — in the outer four lions and counter-clockwise, and in the inner three and clockwise. ( And on Internet sites they will really run, ah? )
Actually, there can't be said that is felt deficiency of brilliant propositions by me. But let us go down to business, to the very overwhelming proposition, that will turn everything upside down, with the single intention to do good to all countries, firstly to those in some big unions and confederations (like Russian CIS, Arab countries, South Asian countries, India, China, other Far Eastern countries, South and whole Africa, Latin America, and so on), and in the end also to Europe and USA, raising them to a higher step, which will allow them to compete more successfully with the powerful countries like USA or United Europe (in the same manner how the latter was finally turned to reality because of the wish to be able to show stronger resistance to the United States of America — as main argument in my opinion).
1. The very brilliant proposition
It, as it was naturally to expect, is extremely simple, and related with something Bulgarian, yet not with the banner or coat of arms, but with Bulgarian language! ( For it can't be said "Under Bulgarian language", especially because the latter word in many other languages is the same as the tongue. ) It is the following: let us make Bulgarian language official language in your community or state!
There are many — and obvious, come to think about — reasons for this, but in this section we will discuss the three most important ones. Though I have to warn you that I have made initially (and before about five years before this translation) this proposition to the countries from CIS (the former significantly melted Soviet Union, and also so called "big brother" to the Bulgarians", so that this was quite natural decision of mine), and despite of my adaptation to the new auditory I, still, in several places, may have some similar situation in mind. This is, however, unavoidable, because I address pretty big, in fact enormously big, auditory, and can't be acquainted with the exact situation in all other cases, but it will be sufficiently similar in any big block of countries, or even in a single big country (and, frankly speaking, in any country at all, as small as Bulgaria, with its seven-something millions, or smaller than this, say, in Estonia). So that I have made my proposition and the people there, as is said, don't give a damn about this, but this may lead to situations where, chiefly because of not paying much attention to this super-important question with the common for the world language, they will be damned, as it is also said, by other nations, because I raise, in fact, the ancient problem from the Babylon tower fable. But let me continue (or, rather, begin).
1.1. Bulgarian language is very simple
Here I stand on the expressed in my "Bulgarian Lessons" (further only "BulLes") theses and will not repeat them, so that you better read them before (or, at the worst, after) this material. Yet for completeness of the explanations I will allow myself to sum up some of them. Ah, and because of often repetition of many names of nations I will use shortenings (explained in "BulLes") like Bul. for Bulgarian, Rus. for Russians, Ar. for Arabs, etc., and with adding of "-s" will understand the people there, say, Buls for Bulgarians, Frs for Frenchmen, et cetera. So the Bul. lang. (for language) has the perfect possible alphabet, and when I say "perfect" I mean it! It not only contains all necessary for us letters and we don't use a single other letter more than this, but we write each sound (C. for consonant, of V. for vowel) in one only way, and hare no need to look around for to know how the char (for character, obviously) is to be read. More than this, this alphabet can with big success be used for writing in all other langs, on which ideas I have hinted in my "Illiterate World" ("IllitW"), and given example in the latest "Myrski's English Transliteration" ("EngTrlit"), for the reason that there are present all basic Cs and Vs of all world langs. I don't know Ar. or Heb. or Skr. alphabets but I am afraid that such purity of ideas and straightforwardness of their applying do not exist in them (if not for other reasons, then because our Cyrillic alphabet is the newest, made "only" in 9th century). And nowadays this alphabet is one of the European's, so that it becomes not less important than, for example, the Gr. one. And it pays to learn it, and it is not much different from the Lat., providing some mixture of Gr. and Lat. letters, and if with it you can write whatever — name, geographical place, etc. — in the same way at it is to be read, this becomes very important. Yet in order not to torment my readers I have used in my "BulLes" the Lat. letters like explained in "EngTrlit" and will put the words in '' quotes also here.
Then about the phonetics. As explained in the former material we have all necessary main Vc and Cs, have even some Cs which are not present in the Lat. (like 'zh, ch, sh'), have no modified Vs or Cs (like in Eng. bad, bear, or in East. 'bh, ph, dh', etc.), but have all necessary combined sounds (diphthongs), chiefly with 'j' (as "jot" and not in Eng. reading, i.e. 'aj, ej, jo, ju' etc.). This is also very important moment, and you try to find another lang. where the things are better, and with the use of our indispensable letter "ъ" given here as 'y' (like in girl) we avoid building of hardly pronounceable Cs (like, say, Cz. name 'Bendrzhih', or Ser. 'srpski'), and this V. is widely used not only in the old, but also in the contemporary langs (like Eng., Ger., or Rus. in modified form as their unstressed "o" like 'ya' or eri like 'yi'). So that it can boldly be stated that Bul. lang. is not like the proverbial as paragon in the world It. lang., but is even better than it (in many aspects, but here I mean only the phonetical ones). Well, in langs where some basic Vs (or Cs) are missing people may have some problems with learning of the simpler and unmodified or combined form (say, if they are used to say 'ie' instead of simple 'e', or 'dzh' instead of only 'zh'), but here nothing is to be done, the simple is just the simple, so that such nations will have to go "to the basics" as is said.
So we come to the grammar, and here, again, Bul. grammar is the simplest possible (if one compares with alive langs, I don't know Esperanto), with some small peculiarities here and there (but well, the uniqueness of Buls has to show itself somehow, only the letter 'y' is not enough for us). Here we have genders but they are always (with very few exceptions) to be recognized by their endings, so that this poses no problems at all, and the genders are necessary at least to keep restricted the use of pronounces to make it clear who does the thing. We have articles like almost all langs (yet without the Russ) but they are also simple with the only peculiar moment that we glue them at the end of the words (what is even better because in this way we say the more important thing, the very word, first, and only then change it a bit), and, for example "the table", it being 'masa' in Bul., will become 'masata', and similarly with the other genders. Then we use only one main verb, 'sym, si, e, sme, ste, sa' and have even no infinitive form, because of what we use the 1st person sing. (for singular, resp. pl. for plural) as infinitive. The used grammatical tenses are about 5, including: present, 2-3 past tenses (like imperfect and perfect), and future, but taken as endings with tables these are only two, in other cases are used particles (like Eng. "will") what simplifies the things; also we have not irregular verbs, only some mutations of the root V. is possible here and there (like 'moga'-to-can becomes 'mozhesh, mozhe, ...'). We have, instead of continuous tenses, ways for building of two types of verbs, which can be taken as imitation of these tenses (for example, there exists a verb 'da izrabotja, pronounced usually with the help of this particle "da", as to make, finish something, but if we use the verb 'izrabotvam' this will be continuous tense, we do this repeatedly, unfinished number of times).
OK, and we have no difficulties with transitive or not verbs, neither with the passive forms, nor with the numbers and the counting; we have short forms of adjectives (not like in Rus., Ukr., etc., what makes them sound like ... Chi.), and so on. As to the words, they are mostly Sl., but also Lat. (because the Sl. words are quite often of Lat origin), then also Teu., directly Gr. in some cases, older East., like Tur., Per., Ar., so that they should not make special problems for anyone (i.e. everybody will find something similar for him of her). As to this, whether the Bul. lang. is so rich like, say, Ger., or Eng, or Rus., or Lat., etc., then my opinion is that there is no such thing like insufficient or poor lang., poor can be the lang. of somebody, and if a given lang. happens to have not enough terms in some field, then words from other langs around are taken, this happens all the time, in the old centuries, and in the current days. But some langs can not be much precise as to the functions of different words in the sentence, where the Lat., Ger. (maybe Skr., Ar. etc.), even other Sl. langs with cases (for all other Sl. langs have cases, only Bul. has not) are overly precise, one can't pay so much attention to the grammar nowadays, while some other langs, like Eng. in the first place, then also Fr., It., maybe others, pay just not enough attention, they hurry too much, what now is not good.
In this aspect our Bul. lang. is really the best compromise variant, roughly speaking, between the very difficult and precise Lat., and the oversimplified Eng. (yet the latter looks simple only at first sight, not if you want to master it, with correct writing and correct use of ... incorrectly build derivatives of words — say, "man clothes", what is this, which word is adjective to which, or also "I work my work", who speaks so, somewhere in Mumbo-jumbo tribe, or in a civilized country? — , this is not a good decision). I will not indulge here in reflections about the poverty of the Eng. in grammatical aspect, because I intend to write third material here dedicated to the Eng. lang., but it is, on the contrary with Bul., the worst possible lang. and in spite of this it is more and more widely used nowadays (maybe in order to ... make more precipitous its plumping down after about a century or less — like the communism has fallen down, not because its ideas were bad, but because the communists have overdone everything). So that the Bul. lang. is the best choice having in mind the very lang., but there are other moments in the communities, on which I will ponder a bit in the next subsections.
1.2. Internal political advantages for each community of nations
This is an obvious observation, yet maybe only Myrski dares to say it in the open. What I mean here is that it isn't good when the official lang. happens to be mother (or father, or of the kindergarten) lang. of the hegemonic ethnic group. When this is not so the frictions in the community (or even in the country, because in each country there are various ethical minorities) are significantly less. Usually such situation happens for other reasons, not because those at the top have deliberately thought about this, but it is so. Look around yourself, and also in the time. Here is the European Union which has no official lang., but the unofficial official is the Eng., and there is no Eng. speaking country in the community (well, for the moment, but even if England enters in this union it will not be the domineering in ethical aspect, at least because the very Engs are not 100 percent Engs). Or look at the USA: there the official lang. is Eng., but when this state was formed roughly 1/3 of the population were Irish, another third were Hebs, and the last third take all remaining nationalities (chiefly Teus); in the current days there live all possible ethnic groups, but the new immigrants are mainly from Indochina. Or look (well, conditionally, virtually) at the ancient Roman Empire, where the Romans were the ruling nation, but all in some extent intelligent Romans have studied old Greek. Or cast a look at the "conspirators" from Swiss, or at Belgium, and surely other examples. The official lang. is necessary, or at least a pair of such mostly spoken, but when this is not the lang. of the "older brother" then the situation in the country or community is more quiet.
This is valid entirely for the CIS countries, where the major frictions happen with the Ukrs, and I have told them that if they don't like the Bul. then let them adopt the Ukr., or ... Georgian, or Chi., or of the Chechen people, only not the Rus., but maybe one must simply not cast pearls before the .. Russ, who knows? And similar problems exist also in the tiny Estonia, or in the "Great" Britain with the Irish, or somewhere with the Zulu people, or in the Ar. countries (I suppose), or in the enormously big as population India and China, where, surely, are spoken several langs. While Bulgaria is pretty small country for some nation to take this my proposition as a try for domineering over the world, and even if so (because this is possible, the Serbs almost sure will raise their protesting voices) then I for this reason have explained to you in the very beginning what I don't have in mind, to copy our political chaos and confrontation. In a way, if I am right, and if many nations will little by little begin to learn Bul. lang., then exactly we, the Buls, will be put is the most disadvantageous situation, but, well, I think that the tiny Bulgaria can sacrifice its national interest in the name of peace all around the world, or then, hmm, can remain the last country which will use Eng. as official language. Jokes aside, but the internal political advantages of using of one easy enough foreign lang. as official one have to be obvious.
1.3. External political advantages for each community of nations
This is also almost obvious, with the use of Bul. lang. each other nation will at once enter in Europe! We are insignificant country, about only 1 per mille of the population on Earth, and also stay on the border of it, on Balkan peninsula, yet we are at the center of ancient world when the Gr. democracy has arisen, so that we have absorbed everything valuable from the conflict of Eastern with Western civilization (where for the West their civilization has emerged thanks to the old Grs, but Myrski can allow himself to doubt in this and to have his special opinion, namely that the Grs have stopped the direct influx of Easter culture to the West and in this way maybe even delayed Western development; at least in phonetical aspect the Gr. lang. is very poor, and has shown its bad influence on the Lat. one, what has forced the Lat. nations later to change many things — say, the Its. have changed all 'c'-s to 'ch'-s). So that learning Bul. lang. all nations outside Europe, and then the newest world, the USA, will only win, and that is why I address my proposition to all such people, and they are milliards, and in some way dissatisfied with the way how the West ignores them, while armed with the easy Bul. lang. they will be able to oppose the (decaying) Western civilization.
I repeat, taking Bul. lang. all other (deprived in some way) nations will figuratively said put their leg — well, let it be only the big toe of one leg — on the European territory, and in one entirely peaceful manner! Like the saying goes: "If the mountain will not come to the Mohammed, then Mohammed will go to the mountain", i.e. if one can not nowadays lead conquering wars, then he can just try to copy something from Europe, the Bul. lang., which will serve him as a kind of visa. And, again to repeat, to take not some part of Bul. territory, or our disorganized way of political and economical evolvement, but some non-material cultural artifact, so to say, to which we have come chiefly because are not like the other civilized countries, are unique in some way, even barbarians, but clever and civilized barbarians (because, after all, we have not begun world wars, nor thrown atom bombs, like some civilized nations have done).
And don't confuse, please, the official lang. with your mother (or father) one! I don't try to convince you to forget your Ar., or, Kasakh, or Hindu, or African, Chi, Indonesian, an on and on, lang., but just learn and use as first (or initially as second) foreign lang. the Bul. one, which is not only an easy lang., but perspective in political regard, if you could succeed to raise it higher and give it wide spreading in the world; in this way you will be mixed in European affairs, and maybe even show better influence over us (especially over Buls this is quite possible, and the Europeans are also not paragons of good citizens — to remind you again about the First and Second World Wars, which were not, say, Chi. or Ar. or Zulu or you-name-it wars but European, alas). I don't state that the other langs are bad, more then this, I have repeated in many places that the most important thing on this world is the diversity, and every lang. is good in its own way — like a personality, so to say — but standard is standard, this is necessity!
This was necessity back in the times of Babylon, but in those times people have thought that they have to fight with one another, this is their purpose, this is way for selection of better people, and so on. Such view to the things has existed till less than a century, and in fact still exists, yet I say: people, enough selection! We have reached what we can, we try to substitute even God in creation of new species, it is time now to live quietly, in better organized society, but better organization can't be got without official lang., and you see well that there is not good candidacy for world-wide one. Look around and judge for yourself, but the Lat. has faded long ago, like Per. and Gr., then Fr. also has come down from the scene, Ger. too, Rus. too (not only because of the crashing of communism, it is simply not good), It. is for children (in my opinion), Sp. might happen to be good, yet I doubt about the grammar, and the phonetic also is not better than of the Bul., and the alphabet is badly used, and, on the other hand, nobody, really, thinks to adopt Ar. or Swahili, or Hindu, Chi, Kazakh, etc. lang. (the center of civilization is still taken to be Europe), so that it remains only the Bul., that's the situation. If you don't take the baton from me and carry it to more and more people and nations, you will only slow the peaceful development in the world. It is true that in my old age I often defend the thesis that we have to slow the process of development because we are moving too fast in the last nearly two centuries, so that the not accepting of my proposition may turn to be not so bad, but I doubt in this. I doubt because it is one thing to slow the scientific or economic or military (they all go hand in hand) progress, and it is another thing to slow the means for better communication between the people and the nations (which have never been good enough).
So that, how one looks at the matter, one standard lang. is necessary, but this does not mean that you have to speak Bul. in the pub., or in the bed, or with the children, or on work, no, you have just to speak at least two langs, to what I am coming now. And one more advantage of Bul. lang. is the fact that its pure phonetics and its most important "ъ"-'y' sound are quite good platform for learning of other langs; you may not believe me much but I am convinced that the Buls speak relatively good foreign langs (at least compared with, for example: Russ, Chi, Fr., Negroes, Its, Gr., and surely others, but these are the nations which I have had possibility to hear speaking Eng.).
2. Other arguments in favour of the proposition
2.1. Bilinguality has its advantages
Ever since Ancient Greece was known that the language is logical creation, way for writing of signs and symbols, "logoses", and the intellectual people can speak good. Now, for somewhere about half a century, is known that the center of "logos" is placed in the intellectual or left hemisphere. And when it is so then, surely, if somebody has two such centers he is more intelligent, even if he has not special education — at least because the new linguistical center, the new language spot in the cerebral cortex, this is a new window, through which the brain looks at the world around. And one learns one things in one lang., but another ones in another, and in case of necessity he translates one knowledge in another lang., transfers it to the other center — in other words, these centers communicate between themselves, do not copy the things literally but change them a little, give them a thought, argue with one another, and in disputes the truth is born.
All this is well known, and if it isn't then look around and you will see that where the people are bilingual these countries differ with something from the gray flow around, like, for example: in Switzerland, Belgium, Canada (they have many Franco-phones there), and even in the very USA (there nearly by everyone is one family lang., which the children learn already before they begin to go to school); or take as an example the different nationalities in the former Soviet Union (or, then, the old Austro-Hungary, or contemporary Germany with its many immigrants like Slavs or now Turks, or the Great Britain and different nations there; or India, etc.) — surely that the more some people differ from the proper Russ, the more exotically and interesting they seem; or then take the Hebs — they are born polyglots (because they were often persecuted and were forced to run from one county to another), and it is a secret for nobody that they are clever than the other nationalities, generally speaking. So that two linguistical centers is very good (three or more is already luxury, but two are just necessary). And then what it happens with the pure Russ (or other major citizens of one country or community)? Well, it happens this, that they are not equal with all other nations in the now CIS, but also in the very Russia, for the reason that the others have two language centers in their heads, while the Russ have only one! And don't begin to argue with me (said I to the Russ before, but this can be applied to all Gers in Germany, or Engs in England or USA or Canada or Australia, and other examples), that the Russ, see, all learn foreign lang. from young years, and if before this was the Fr., then now this is the English. Learn they surely do, but to know it, they don't! It is one thing to learn some lang. in order to have good grades in school, from textbooks, and it is quite another thing to learn it so that to be able to use it (in order to, say, buy something in the shop, or converse with colleagues at work, and in general to read in this language, to curse in it, as it often happens).
So that all this pure Russ or Gers or Engs etc., speaking only the official for the country lang., are simply sillier than the other ethnic minorities, even the Gypsies, they are the gray majority, on the background of which the other ethnoses differ and stand out — you just have to swallow this bitter pill!. Because to know good some second lang. means not only to translate phrases from your mother tongue in it, but to think in this other lang., what is just another step higher. I personally know this well because I have studied in two different countries and in two different langs. So that you all pure, now "Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, and from other nations too" (in order to justify the coined by me title for the folder where I put these materials), stand quickly under the banner of Bul. lang. in order to become equal with the other minorities! In this way you will become, up to some extent, ... immigrants in your own country, after some 50 or so years, but in a positive sense, not that you will be somehow discriminated, but that you will have incentive to strive. Because that is how it is, the immigrants try to move forward, to become equal with the others, and for this reason each (developed) country feels necessity of some amount of immigrants, this is beneficial for both sides. And don't think pretty long time because then you will not become more intelligent.
2.2. The native language can be reformed by the native people
Naturally that this can be done, because it has happened so with the Lat. lang. by the contemporary Lat. nations (Its, Frs, Sps, etc.), but also with the Ger. (it has not 6 cases but only 4, and the tenses are significantly simpler than in the Lat., and there was hardly readable Gothic font by them which is now abolished, etc.), so that such things can be done, yeah, but you (my dear Arabs etc.) will ... not do this and basta. And not because this is so difficult to be done (though it, surely, is not easy), but because you will never get rid of the feeling that in this way you disfigure or mutilate, maim, you own good language. That's it. Because, you see, we love something chiefly because of its (or his or her) shortcomings, its imperfectness (not that I pretend that discover America with this). I mean that it happens usually so, one wants to have some difficulties in reaching of a given goal (here of mastering of your lang.; yet also when you court a girl you don't want it to be pretty easy, right, and if she is such then you don't value her much), i.e. the point in having of difficult langs is not only in the exactness of them (for natural langs, definitely, from the positions of exact sciences, are not exact and can never be such, there are necessary other tools like, schemes, formulas, drawings, etc.), but in the satisfaction when you have mastered them, that you are clever person, not like the common people. Yeah, but the standard lang. has to be the contrary to this, it has not to be so nice because is restricted or imperfect in some way, but because is easy to be learned and used in everyday activity. These are different things.
And on this place in the Rus. variant I give them example how they can "mutilate" their lang. trying to make it like the Bul., but this is not suitable to be given here. Still, I have ideas about this what, in general, has to be bettered in the langs that I know (more or less), and they usually follow the points of advantages of Bul. lang., beginning with purifying of the alphabet, then of the sounds, then of the genders, articles, tenses, and so on. Though for the Rus. this is nearly hopeless, the best way for all Sl. langs is just to return —because historically it was really so — to the Bul. lang., than to try to maim their own one, at least not to force this process, for it little by little is simplified, like almost all other languages. Yet what concerns the Eng. there the process is rather reversed, there the lang. has to be made a bit more complicated but more conventional; say, have to be made, first of all, difference between verbs and nouns and introduced more different forms of the verbs (I may spit this here, I think — if I will live long enough to make my proposition for English ... Myrskanto lang. — to add to the verb forms suffix "-ow", in a Gr. manner, e.g.: workow, thinkow, stayow, etc., but this only for the infinitive), then between nouns and adjectives (but here I have not taken the decision, it is difficult), then something has to be made also with the genders, then there is a pity not to have diminutives, and other moments. I don't want to indulge here in more explanations (at least because I can't know all world langs, can I?), but I mention this for to stress that this process is a kind of ... masochism, where in the Bul. this is already done, in broad outlines.
With Bul. lang. all Arabs etc. at once wash their hands and only the Buls will suffer (really, but not much, each coin has two sides, as you know). What returns us again to this that using Bul. lang. as "scapegoat" will preserve the other langs from harsh and unnatural mutations! In fact I have doubts as to this whether Bul. authorities will embrace my proposition or not, but I am democratic dissident, I don't publish in Bulgaria, I, so to say, am emigrant from it, and we have "traditions" in not understanding and spitting at revolutionary and prominent people and ideas, so that such reaction will not surprise me. I have called myself Myrski and I think about the world, which in Rus. is 'mir', yet surely not neglecting the interest also of Bulgaria (how I understand them). And, well, I have told you that we are civilized barbarians, what means civilized yet barbarians, or, then, v.v., and you may bet that no Bul. authority will confess that we are barbarians, this is not, hmm, pedagogical. So that, my dear Arabs, Hindus, and who you also can be, if after some 50 years, and this if you have adopted my utopian but realizable idea expressed here, Bul. Government decides not to allow you to use our lang. because it is national cultural artifact, you have always the choice to use it unofficially, like the Europeans use now the Eng., or else not to say that you have understood my words about us being barbarians literally but just as metaphor. ( For me remains the problem of how we, being barbarians, have succeeded to come to this paragonal lang. of us, but, after all, we are unique nation, we are capable of many things, this is related with our genes. And the civilized barbarity is a way to express your uniqueness, to differ with something really valuable. ) But let us go further.
2.3. You have no other way out
In two words, and how I have already mentioned, the choice is mainly between the Eng. and the Bul. langs, there are no other candidatures, and while all nations are not informed about my proposition they simply choose the Eng. one, what is not the right thing to be done. I can easily analyze your fears about Bul. lang.: the point is that there is just no such practice to choose something because it is good, no, people usually choose something what they are forced to choose, by powerful conditions, i.e. because of compulsion. Yeah, surely. But must we always behave in this way? Aren't now the times more democratic than centuries before? Of course they are such, or have to be. And when you chose the lang. of the stronger state you never like it much, you know this, nobody likes the ruler and his symbols; after all, the democracy has won its positions because it succeeds to fool the population that they have to listen to their rulers when they have chosen them, not because the choice from below is reasonable — I have dwelled in many places about this. So that the choice of the stronger is natural, it might be used, but when there are no other alternatives, and when there are such, then one has to take them, too, in consideration.
What I propose you here is one alternative way of choice, a way for choosing of something because it is better. Or have another look at the things: the choice of the proposition of the stronger is good for those who feel themselves somehow also strong, or can become such making this choice, something of that kind. And are you, my dear Arabs, Chinese or Hindus, so much exhilarated by the choice of Am. (because that is what Eng. nowadays means) lang., are you feeling stronger by this, are you happier? Allow me to doubt in this because nobody likes world gendarmes, and these are the Ams. While Bul. lang. is, indisputably, the lang. of the weak, for we are the poorest possible country in European Union (a bit better than Albania, but it is not in EU, so that we are at the tail). That's it. Even if we were not the poorest we are one of the smallest according to the number of population, but we are also the weakest in economical regard. And after this come the other consideration about the alphabet, good sounding, easiness, et cetera. So that if you are feeling akin to the Ams choose their lang., however bad it can be, but if you are feeling somehow neglected, underestimated, deserving more respect from the stronger USA and Western Europe, then join the Buls in their language, which the Cyril and Methodius have invented more or less with the similar purpose, to allow us to have better means for communication between the Slavs. I am reviving, and extending, old ideas, this is not really mine idea. Yet the weak alternative is important. One has always to have the so called plan B.
But OK, I agree to the compromise, for the whole world to learn as foreign lang. (because there is 1st and 2nd), together with the Bul., also the Am.-Eng, and even the Spanish. And how the triumphant march of the Bul. all around the world will proceed, we shall see in the next section.
3. The exact steps
3.1. Realization of this idea in ... Nativestan
Nativestan surely means you own community, it might be CIS countries, or Arabian countries, or Central-Asian such, or India, China, Indochina, some African countries, and so on, for the moment I exclude only the Western Europe and USA from this beginning stage. And, well, I don't have in mind something revolutionary, only accelerated evolutionary evolvement, i.e. evolvement with planning at the top, with a vision, as now is said, yet at the same time sufficiently slow, in order not to force the older people to learn again new lang. in advanced age.
a) Stage of discussions and popularization of Bulgarian language with a view to making decisions for the future — from 2016 (for the Russ. it was from 2012 but time has passed) till 2020. During this time you have simply to show interest to Bul. lang., converse with friends or professionals about it and the proposition, and (where this is possible) try to read things in it, in order to become convinced that it really is so easy, as I am presenting the things. There have to be organized all thinkable courses (by Internet, full-time, part-time, in the schools, etc.) for learning of Bul. lang., visiting of our country, and so on. In pretty modest scale can be organized teaching of Bul. having initially, say, only a thousand people knowing relatively good both langs, but better the Bul. one. Such people surely can be found, there are enough Bul. immigrants everywhere, as well also young (or old) unemployed people in Bul. who know some other foreign lang. and can be taught in it the Native lang., or, then, just come to Bulgaria to study (no matter what). When the people see that the Bul. is easy to understand and learn, then may begin its learning in some schools as second foreign language. But in all cases the people at the top have to have their saying and take the necessary perspective decision, somewhere about 2020, as to the stages of introducing of Bul. as new standard lang. in Nativestan. Without this all will remain only a new whim — nice, good, yet why have we to bother about?
b) Stage of accepting of Bulgarian as recommended language in Nativestan — from 2020 to 2030. I.e. this lang. will be simply some plus by applying for a given job, it will be advisable to label all products in the shops in Bul., and with its alphabet, to try to use it in all possible cases (by the traffic rules, for example), and, in general, for the time being, have to be offered parallel texts in the shops, at work, and so on. This sub-stage, in fact, will be its actual transitional period, in schools it will begin to be learned as first foreign lang., but it is clear that if somebody is older than 40 years then he (or she) will somehow do without serious learning of Bul., relying only on its understanding, without good abilities to express himself in it. At the same time, under already taken decision for subsequent entering of this lang. in all states and regions (or countries) of this Stan, surely also other countries outside this community, first of all Slavonic, but also Arabian etc., will also show interest and many of them will follow this decision of your community. In this sense the Nativestani and their followers will simply happen to be the first, on the crest of the gathering speed wave.
c) Stage of adopting of Bulgarian as official language in the community — from 2030 to 2040. This, naturally, will mean that all young people who have begun to learn this lang. will find now work to translate all official documents of the community, and of each state, as well also to occupy places as necessary translators in all institutions. This will be the stage of real penetration of Bul. lang. in the (presumably immense) Nativestani continent or part of it, yet, I suppose, nobody will be ... sent to prison for this, that he or she will not speak Bul. in some official place, or do you have objections? But everybody will speak, because the world will begin to orient itself to the Bul. standard, in parallel with its alphabet.
d) Stage of ruling of Bulgarian as official language in Nativestan (and not only) — from 2040, or to round the number more (and because the things, as is seen, are delaying) from 2050 and further.
3.2. The way of Bulgarian language around the globe
Well, I have done, in broad outlines, my proposition, so that let us look, a bit more frivolous and humorously, at what will happen in the world, beginning somewhere in 2020 and to the middle of 21st century. The things will look so.
First of all will be either the Russ, or the other Slavs from CIS, or the non-Slavs from CIS, or also the Arabs, Afghani people, Persians, some Negro states from Africa, or some Southern American states, or also Far East, beginning with India, or China, or Indochina, or Indonesia, or, then, Ruritania or Bimbinistan, or whichever country or community, because if there is (and I hope it will be) continuation then there must have been a beginning. All Sl. states, of course, will become at once interested in this proposition (and will become even angry that not they have guessed about this earlier and not their own lang. now triumphs around the world). When the Czechs, Poles, and all southern Sls — but also the Romanians and maybe the Hungarians, because they live long enough surrounded by Sls for to adopt many Sl. words in their langs — grasp that they have nowhere to go, and if so then better sooner than to happen to be in the tail, then they will also join the wave of first enthusiasts; if the CIS counties are not from the first then they will also unite with the massive flow, especially the central Asian republics, Mongolia, and around, because for them the Bul. will, surely, be better than the Rus. or the Eng. as American. In this way will turn out that the half, if not more, of Europe (if till that time people will succeed to agree as to where exactly on the east it ends) already speaks Bul. and this will strongly change the balance of powers in Europe. The Gers will begin to think, has not come the time to join us, and they will not think long. The Gers are good people, they can be convinced in whatever — say, that the fascism is a good thing — if one tries hard enough. After them will follow all Scandinavian countries, because they are to the half Teus, and that half that isn't Teu. is quite specific (Ugro-Finnish, and nobody else understands them — almost like Swahili, ah?).
And what will happen on the south of Europe? Well, nearly the same. With the Greeks, certainly, the things will not go smoothly, they still think that, when they carry the same name as the ancient Greeks (and their noses are as long as by Socrates), then they are the same people and they have the same (if not bigger) abilities, but this is far away from so (they, let it be said with their silent permission, in such extent are like the ancient Greeks, in which the Neanderthal looks like a monkey, in my opinion, or, then, as a giraffe looks like a goat). In this case we will skip them for the moment, but as far as their phonetics is maybe the most restricted from all other nations (they, for example, have either the letter 'b' but have not 'v', or vice versa, though never both letters; or also they simply have not one letter 'u' — could you imagine this? — and imitate it with "ου"), so they will like neither the Eng. nor the Sp., nor, say, Chi., Ar., and so on, so that later (in no case sooner) they will join the Bulgarizing (for the moment) Europe.
Farther, across the Adriatic, comes Italy, and they are like little children. For them is difficult to pronounce even the simple word "fact" and instead of it they say fatto, to say nothing about more difficult Cs or diphthongs (I have had the possibility to listen how one It. girl has spoken very funny in Eng. — grammatically correct, nice to the ear, but was not able to say even the word "really" and said 'rilli'). So that for such "children" Bul. phonetics will look like manna from heaven, the more so because by us and by them the national tricolour has the same colours. Then after them come the Sps and they, naturally, think that their lang. is the most Lat. one today and because of this exactly it must become world lang., in what, I confess, is a grain of truth. But they will not succeed to oppose the powerful wave flooding the whole Europe and in the end they will understand that better Bul. than Eng. (at least because we write how we speak). The Portuguese will agree with the Sps rather than with the Frs (to whom their lang., as is said, stays closer), because in Latin America they are simply brothers. The Scandinavian countries will go with the Gers — where are they to go? And then it will turn out that from the whole Europe will remain only France, which will resist for long time (nearly like the Grs), but they, too, will capitulate in the end, because for them will be better even Chi. or Swahili, only not the Eng. ("damn those Anglo-Ams", will say they to themselves, "they have ... shat at all our nice words and still command where only can, while with the Buls we will have it much easier, look, they have taken in their lang. a heap of our words like: 'bushon'-electrical-fuse, 'tirbushon'-corkscrew, 'ekler'-éclaire-eclair, 'minet'-minette-blow-job, and similar things"). Well, and the Engs we will leave for the time being, they are not from the Continent.
And how will look the things in the Near East and the Arab lands? Well, just brilliantly, I'll tell you! If they are not the fist enthusiasts (what is quite probable) they can outstrip the Russ or other nations, but in no case will remain behind. At least the Turs will not fall behind (for them the phrase about the Mohammed is, in fact, their own). The Ars can think that the Buls are giaours and infidels, what in some extent is true (at least I join with the opinion of other prominent or "non-prominent" Buls, who think that we are not a nation but a herd — only, then, of rams, who go obstinately ahead), yet here it goes about our lang. and this is something else, it is perfectly suitable for the East. nations — in any case it reflects better their peculiarities (due to our unforgettable V. "ъ"-'y', first of all), than all Western langs (if you like, taken together). Bul. lang. is better than the Eng., but even if it was worse, they would not have accepted lang. in which is spoken in USA for their official lang., believe me (the Ars never forget the bad, to put it mildly, attitude). Besides, even now there are not a few Arabs in Bulgaria (because in their lands people often fight and we don't, we could have been preferred only for this reason), and they speak Bul. nearly perfect (a bit harder, but without problems).
But let us move now to the east, to India. Well, I don't know this country, but our phonetics should not be difficult for them (we have not, roughly speaking, their glottal Cs and elongated Vs, for them the Eng. also is good, but when the world does not like the Ams, and the very Hindus also have not good reasons especially to "love" the Engs, then the Bul. will be for them like a new Mecca and Medina). Farther, after Tibet, is China. The Chis I, surely, don't know, but many of them like it in Bulgaria in the present days, and when they will understand clear that they will never make the world speak Chi., then they will learn anew, little by little, the Bulgarian. And the question again stays as: Bul. or Eng., and taking into account our perfect alphabet and purest phonetics then their choice will be like of the whole world, believe me.
And how are in the meantime going the things in Africa? I would have said: normal. From the east or north our lang. moves to the south almost without problems (really, to say this what you write, one can meet neither in the Eng., nor in the Fr., and in the Teu. langs there are many exceptions, for the reason that the Lat. alphabet was not made for them, and it is not pretty good even for the very Lat.). On the north of Africa will be some delay (somewhere till 2030-2040, but not later), until the Frs boycott the proposition, but sooner or later they will join the Ars and the whole world. In this way, moving to the south and along the western coast, we will reach South Africa and, this time our, Cape of Good Hope — because it will turn out that the entire Africa is invaded by the Bul. lang. (the inner regions, where are mainly various wild animal sanctuaries we will leave in peace — I don't hope to teach, say, the lions, to growl in Bul., right?).
And how is it with America? Well, the Southern, on the basis of Sp. and the world tendency will surrender not later than the middle of 21st century; in addition it will also want to differ with something from the North one. And the North, it will ... also capitulate for the reason that till the middle of this century the glory of United States of America will be darkened: by the European Union, by the united with Bul. lang. CIS and other Southern Asian countries, and by the united Arab lands (because, if you ask me, after the petrol, and after, so, 20-30 years, the main raw material will become the ... sunlight, and it is there in absolute abundance, so that the Arabs, as well also the whole Africa, will definitely prosper in half a century), but also by itself alone, so to say, because it is high time for the USA to pass the "shirt" of global economic leader. And with them will surrender the (nowadays not so much) Great Britain, as also Australia (though the latter can be left as ... reservation for the Eng. lang., I personally have no objections).
So that, however one looks at the things, in the 22nd century Bul. lang. will become the single standard lang. of the whole world, together with its alphabet (if not with a new one, according with my proposition in "IllitW").
I can't restrain myself to exclaim with the words of the great Ostap Bender (this is from a book of known Rus. humorous authors Ilf and Petrov), that the Bulgarian language will become new-English, and the English will become old-Bulgarian!
Yet everything depends on the people around the world. If they will be convinced that I am right in my opinion about Bul. alphabet, purity of sounds, easy grammar et cetera, and all this compared with other possible langs, not just by itself, if they call to their help some scientific consultants and ask their fellow citizens living in Bulgaria, they have to come to the conclusion that this my proposition (as also many others, surely, but let us leave them now) is very important and there is no sense to oppose it because of positions of misunderstood national pride. What I intensely lack is ... a befriended with me powerful dictator! You may laugh at this but this is the bitter truth, most of the important for the people creations are introduced with the strong hand of some dictator, and the same was the situation with the very democracy in Ancient Greece introduced by the tyrant Pisistratos. If I have had some buddy-tyrant at hand, he would have at once called an international council of a dozen eminent linguists from the whole world, including representatives from, say: Eng., Fr., Ger., Rus., Ar., Per., It., Sp., Hin., Chi., and other lang. groups, and would have asked them for their opinion; he could have also invited by two students from about 20-30 countries and required from Bul. authorities to teach them for, say 3 months, in Bul. and then asked also their opinion about this lang.; or he might have also tried to conduct such courses with the mostly spoken in the world langs, like, e.g.: Chi., Hin., Eng., Ar., Rus., Ger., Fr., Sp., Port., It., Africanas, Indonesian, etc., and try to compare the knowledge or both kinds of students. Yeah, but I know not such powerful tyrant and the tyrants are also not much valued nowadays.
Instead of this I use the common people for meaning what is not a good approach because they happen usually to be either teenagers or "oldagers", for the reason that the people from between these poles usually don't read, they have no time, and in addition to this my readers, naturally, are not specialists, they are profanes. So that it is very good to say that "vox populi, vox dei" only that it isn't so, the "vox"-voice of the common "populi"-people is far away from being "dei" or of God. But well, what can I do? As I said somewhere before, you just try to act reasonable, to communicate with your friends about this proposition, to perform partly the work of an educated monarch, because you are those whom this concerns, I am nearing my 70, I will never see the triumph or the failure of my ideas. Yet I will make one last effort to present the things to you from different viewpoint, because when some theory is sound it has many facets, it can be taught in different ways, it always allows new perspectives, and if doesn't allow (say, that the Eng. is good lang., to the opposite assertion of what I will dedicate the next material in this folder), then some new look will disprove the unmotivated assertion.
So now let us start with the highly desirable wish to know at least two langs and know them good, use them every day, because in this way every one of us builds in his or her brain two linguistic spots, which incessantly communicate between them, giving to you look through two "windows", in two directions, so to say, a stereo view to the things, this surely will increase the intelligence of each of us. This, naturally, means that the one lang. has to be your mother one, the lang. that is spoken in the family or local community, and the other one is the official one, which is spoken everywhere else, i.e. in the schools and Universities, on work, on the streets and official places, by the central informational agency, in the Government, and so on. OK, and in order to be possible for the bigger majority of population to have different local lang. than the official one it is obviously necessary that the official lang. has to be native lang. of one very small minority, do you agree? So, but you see quite well that if in the times of Babylon people could have done somehow without one common lang. all around the world, then nowadays, and with the global communications meaning chiefly the Internet, these requirements have to be applied to all nations (really to the Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, and to many other nations, too); yet in the same time the official lang. has to be natural one, spoken really by some people, with its common for many I.-E. langs roots and with its idioms etc., not invented artificially. In this way we come to the requirement that it is highly desirable that this lang. was of some small nation, about 5-10 millions, not more.
Now it is time to enter other restrictions because we still have several candidates. The natural restrictions are that this lang. was easy to be learned, good sounding, with maximally suitable alphabet, with sufficiently easy grammar but not with mixing of common grammatical categories, and all the things that I explained in section 1. In addition it will be much preferable if this standard lang. is of people from Europe, placed relatively in the center of civilized world, and if these people or lang. look a bit strange and even queer this will only make the things more interesting, will guarantee the uniqueness of the lang. and the view to the world around, that these people are not some gray mass that can only fight and proliferate in enormous scale. The small nations, like all exceptions, are always interesting, the point is only that they were representative samples of human population, peaceful and relatively intelligent, what concerns the genes.
So that's it. Like some Ben Spinoza has proven that if God is one ever-present substance etc. etc. He must be unavoidably good, in this way I have shown to you that if the world wants to have better means for peaceful communications it is bound to choose Bul. lang. as world-wide standard for the next half to one millennium. Not that all other langs have to be abolished, but the best is the best, and who wants to be second or third? I have done my duty, I have proposed to you something highly necessary, your part is to accept it and live happily for a long time, or to reject it in order ... to preserve causes for future conflicts.
Rus. original in Dec. 2011, translated in Eng. and revised in March 2016
DOWN WITH THE ENGLISH (LANGUAGE)!
Abstract:This paper I write practically anew in English and its contents is obvious — we, all the world, have to cease using this language so widely because it is simply ... vulgar, many grammatical categories are not well qualified, it is not exact enough to be used so massively, it was, in a way, a miscarriage, it seems simple and good for the pubs and stadiums, but not for official conversations in it. Yet because the topic is more or less clear, and I have touched it in the previous materials in this folder, I will speak a bit more frivolously and comical in some places, what has to make the work more palatable. The sections here are: some preliminaries and explanations why I write this anew and don't use the Russian variant, then some try to excuse the ancient Englishmen who have made this super-simplified language, then what is so bad with this language in comparison with the others European (at least) languages, and in the end will mark out some important places where something has to be done in order to better the language if the people want to better it (because it, in spite of all its drawbacks, sounds good, nearly like singing). Only I have to warn the readers that, being third material in the sequence, this one has to be read after the others, it is not good to skip them.
Surely, it does not deserve to be so widely spread, this is very good language to, hmm, curse in it, or sing songs, speak in the pub, but not as official language for nearly the whole world. It is contemporary Latin, yet the ancient Latin was very precise and this one isn't. So that I intend to ruin it totally here, if not for other reasons, than at least for to ... spur the people using it to take measures for its bettering. Yeah, but, my dear Arabs, Chinese, and Hindus, don't skip the previous materials in this folder because I use many things from them, also many shortenings, at least those for the langs, and don't intend to explain them also here (for nobody pays me to do this, right?).
I write this material anew because in the Rus. folder is as third material one small letter to all CIS citizens about the very name of this Union, which is not suitable for Ars etc. (though I gave there very interesting propositions, like the one variant is to call their countries ... Bear Lands). And you can well see that there just have to be at least three things, this is pretty old tradition for to break it here. Then there emerged in 2015 one more material in Rus., an Angry Continuation, where I began nearly to call them names for not giving a damn (not that to give a damn is such a good thing, but still) to my brilliant ideas, where I explain to the Russ that for the last 25 years the number of people outside CIS speaking Rus. has diminished with roughly (though quite precisely, I am mathematician, I can make approximate calculations) 100 mln, and those in the CIS speaking Rus. have diminished with nearly another 100 mln (this time not so precisely calculated) or are ready to give it up at once if there is another alternative (at least the Ukrs are utterly malcontented, and the non-Sl. countries are about 90 mln). And I checked for them in the Internet that there is no other Sl. lang. without cases, the Bul. is just unique. And so on, but this is not for the present auditory. Ah, and in the end I have put some poetical jokes with their Putin, and threatened them to call him for help and beg him to whack them on the heads, figuratively said, what I don't think to do because I don't try to impose my views, I try to make the people think alone because the situation with their lang. is serious.
Yet, my dear Arabs etc., don't cry, I will find about what to speak here. For example, just now I will try to exonerate a bit the old Engs for their so drastic spoiling of the lang., although in my view, what means that the good may sometimes change place with the bad and v.v., but such is the life, really, neither good nor bad, simply has to be lived.
1. Why the ancient English have spoiled their language?
Surely with good intentions, you may bet it, but have overdone the things (like, for example, the communists, or Catholics, etc.). And why have overdone them then, ah? Well, because of the major desire of everything alive, which is ... And what is it, according to you, this first and unavoidable aspiration of everything alive, animal or vegetation? But I will not play hide and seek with you because this is not the point in this paper, it is clear that everything alive wants to live and procreate, what means chiefly that it has to oppose the nature, which does not allow it to do this so easy. But when the people try to oppose something they usually forget about whatever moderation and begin simply to oppose the circumstances, or to act just in spite of something. That's it. So that when the ancient Engs simplified up to illiteracy their lang. they have done this in spite of something. If you think that such desire is attenuating circumstance then I exonerate them, but if you think that this is aggravating circumstance then I accuse them even more. It depends. Yet I don't think that they have done this because were more uneducated than the other nations — all common people, peasants, especially before about a millennium were uneducated simpletons, like the Engs, so the Frs, or the old Teutons. It remains only to look what exactly they opposed and why were so ... pissed off by it.
Now, the old Engs were genetically or ethnically Teus, but they lived under the strong influence of the Fr. in social area, so that they opposed both, the Teus and the French. What means that they were pissed by both nations and to stay on such cross-pissing isn't easy, in my view to the things. More concrete, the Teus, judging by the contemporary Ger. lang., were excessively strict in what they said, they even now write all Nouns with capital Letter, and I hope you see pretty well that such Thing is boring, right? Then they count till hundred in the reverse order and connect all numbers till one million in one single word, e.g. the Great French revolution has begun in onethousandsevenhundrednineandeighty and this is even more boring. Then they have four cases what is not so strange, the Lat. has seven. But they the bad habit, when some compound sentence to build want, in the subjugated clause everything in reversed order to put, have. Did you get it? And when the sentence contains a pair of subjugated clauses and takes normally half of the page, and when they also like not to insert new paragraphs and usually write the whole chapter in one paragraph (till about two century they still have written in this way), you can well imagine that one begins to feel very bored. This their ordering of the words in the sentence they call not exactly erection, sorry, but Rektion, yet one can as well have an erection and also finish with it until they finish their long sentence with their long words. And when, in literary works, the noun has 3-4 adjectives, including some subjugated clause, and you have to take extreme care about the endings of every word and in the necessary case (with definite articles in one way and with indefinite ones in another), and remember the not yet said verbs till you come at last to the end of the sentence, then you can become even extremely bored, what I called, with your silent permission, pissing off.
And the Engs are Teus, there must be no doubts about this, but if you want we can prove it with a tiny set of words for everyday use and compare with their Ger. variants. For example the following: bread, milk, egg, water, sea, tree, grass, bird, stone, home (and in Ger.: Brot, Milch, Ei, Wasser, Meer, Baum, Gras, Vogel, Stein, Hause, where the sea is different but die See is a lake, the tree is different but the der Forst is a forest, and only Baum and Vogel seem Teu. words), or also some verbs: read, learn, sleep, go, fly, eat, drink, swim, work, f##k (and in Ger.: lesen, lernen, schlafen, gehen, fliegen, essen, trinken, schwimmen, arbeiten, ficken, where as if only lesen is Teu. and arbeiten is around the letter "r" where is the robot and our Bul. 'rabotja'), and so on. And there are other problems with the Gers, like that one can rarely guess the right gender (where I usually give the example with del Löffel as spoon and die Gabel as fork, which have equal endings).
And one pretty strange thing, they read always "ei" as 'aj' (like Einstein and heil), what is as if motivated with nothing because they can pretty well write it with "ai", while in this way they simply restrict their lang., for they can never write 'ej'. So I have thought about this and wondered for a long time until once occasionally saw in one dictionary (with directions for reading in Eng.) that the Hebs have nearly (up to, maybe, 80%) the same words and where there is "ei" they read it like 'ej'. And then I said to myself, maybe the Gers on the purpose read all words in this way, to have something to differ from the "nasty" Hebs, and that this was introduced somewhere around 17th century; in short, the Ger. were also pissed off by something and have worsened a bit their language for that reason.
And being on the pi..., well. let us say "extremely boring" wave, I can give you another similar example with the Buls, which is still a big puzzle for our linguists, I suppose, but never more for your Myrski. We almost always when are saying "yes", what is 'da' (quite similar with Ger. ja meaning the same, by the way), are shaking our heads, while when are saying "no", what is 'ne', we nick with our heads, and this, surely, is not Sl. ... perversity but local, Bul. one. The enlightening came to me when I heard that the Grs say exactly 'ne' for "yes", where "no" for them is 'ohi' (i.e. ah /oh how bad the thing is), and for their 'ne' can be found some relations in Lat. (there is the note as something important that we don't deny, I suppose, or there is also the Eng. "now", or Ger. na, meant as "look, hark"). So that we also can act in spite of something and this is quite spread and natural (though silly, of course) reaction.
But to return to the old Eng., who were p..., extremely bored, by the old Gers and decided to act on the contrary; which contrariness may be coming also from the Celts or the Irish (I have the feeling that the latter are taken as proverbial .. donkeys by the Engs). But there were also the Frs, who since many centuries have (not well deserved, if you ask me) high self-esteem or pride (like the cocks, in fact) and have tried to teach (I suppose) the old Engs how to live and how to love and how to build society and whatnot (or, then, the old Engs have taken them for examples and in this case despised them as really better in some way — you have to know that nobody likes the paragons for the simple reason that he can also be one of them but has not sufficient strength of character, prefers to behave wildly and naturally). And the Frs have shown that there can be two genders (all Lat. nations have now only mas. and fem.), and that they can be bold enough to read the Lat. words in their own way (say, to write "oi" but read 'ua', though neither of the Vs is the same; or also to use three kinds of stressings neither of which is real stressing; or mark some V. with two dots above not in order to modify it but on the contrary, not to modify it). And they have also invented such wild sounds which one can never hear in another civilized country, only in the jungle. And they use widely nasal Vs and insist that this is only a V., with no C. after it (like, say, Ger "-ung" what is as if prototype for the Eng. "-ing").
So that the old Engs have decided to oppose the difficult Ger. lang. how only they can, and also to surpass the Frs and made them feel ashamed (seeing their ideas in absurd dimensions)! And the curious thing was that they succeeded, they have made pretty good sounding and easy to speak it (only not to write) lang., I can't deny this! As experiment (like also the Fr. revolution, or, then, the communism, etc.) this is great achievement (as I said, for the pub, for cursing, for everyday use from uneducated peasants), only not as world-wide spread lang. with pretensions of exactness, like the good old Latin. These are the reasons for no genders in the Eng. (because one such means nothing, there is no distinction, there can't be "unary" arithmetic system, it has to be at least binary), for equalizing of the verbs and the nouns (say, if a stone or earth are indisputably nouns then they can also became verbs in some sense), for making of almost no derivative words, like adjectives (say: man clothes, car park, tourist industry, etc.), for almost no forms of the verbs (like: I can, you can, etc.), for no distinction between people (say, he is a professor, and she is a professor), for no diminutives, etc. etc., and for reading of the words just how they like and giving reasons for as much as you want cases of confusion (e.g., "sure" and not "shure", or "I read now" and "I already read this book", or I and eye, or man and men, and many others). I, for my part, as former scientist, agree that the negative contribution is a contribution, but I insist that it is negative. Yet enough for now, because we will chew this issue also in the next sections, from a bit different aspects.
2. What is so bad in the English and needs strong measures for bettering, if at all possible?
Let us begin from the beginning, and in the beginning was the alphabet (shortened to alph.). Already in my "IllitW" I have been interested about the common sounds in all world langs, and have made my decision and invented one standard alph. for the whole world so that there is at least one better variant. Yet recently I came to the idea to use better the good old Lat. alph. in my "EngTrlit", which is also quite suitable, but there is also our Sl. Cyrillic which is perfect for the Buls but can be used also relatively good for any language. You see, as much our alph. is good to such extent the Lat. alph. is bad for the Engs; it is bad also for the Frs, but the Engs have surpassed the badness of the French. To learn Eng. as uneducated people do, only to speak it but without writing, how it was in the past centuries, this is not so big a drawback, but nowadays everybody learns reading and writing and here begin the problems, especially for the foreigners. So that here something has to be done, at least can be used the transcription or words like it is given in the dictionaries, though there are more than 40 sounds in the Eng. and this isn't so easy, neither these characters are good enough for writing, but nobody wants to learn anew and the situation continues to be the same. Transliteration of a lang. sometimes happens (for example the Turks have done this using Lat. alph.) and somebody has to think about this, but the changes have to be made on a large scale, only writhing "color" instead of "colour" is not sufficient.
Then there come the sounds. Again, as Bul. phonetics is pure and contains all basic sounds, in such extent the Eng. sounds are complicated (if not more, then at least as much as the Fr. ones). Yet this is irreparable, I think, because if there is some sense in learning of Eng. this is because of its sounds, they are just beautiful; difficult for the foreigners but good to the ear. My remarks can regard only the triphthongs, which can be thought for two syllables (say, "tire" can be taken for 'taj-y' in my writing here).
And now we come to the grammar and here almost everything is botched. First there are the genders, which are simply necessary, I have not heard about a lang. with no genders for non-living things, they are necessary because there exists category of pronouns and they diminish the repeating if we want to make the things clear, and, please, don't tell me that we are all equal, both sexes, because we are not, there are tiny differences, this is how God has created us, He has not made us equal, equal are the amoebas and the worms, even the vegetation needs different sexual organs. Though I have discussed this somewhere in the previous materials, the point is not to have no genders, but to distinguish them easy, or to have (and to use) suitable suffixes (like -ess for fem.). I will dwell in this area in the next section, more.
Then what is this, that 2nd person sing. and pl. have to be exactly equal, in what other lang. this exists? I sympathize with the ancient Engs that it is difficult to use 3 or 4 polite forms (like in Ger. there is Sie with capital letter from 3rd person pl., then Du with capital letter from 2nd person sing., then in old times was used some Er again with such letter from 3rd person sing., and there can also be used Ihr again with such letter from 2nd person pl.), and the politeness of capital letter can not be seen when speaking, but this does not mean that there must not at all exist pl. for 2nd person (or, then, sing.), this is not childish, this is vulgar (and I don't say that to be vulgar is a bad thing — everything on this world is necessary, at least to distinguish the things — but it is nonetheless vulgar). In Bul. we have 'ti' for 2nd person sing. and 'vie' for 2nd person pl., which form we make with capital letter if this is polite form. And here also exist obvious decision — how the Engs have run away from the Teus in the old times, so they can move closer to them now and retain their "you" only for pl., with or not capital letter, and for sing. use Ger. du (or also 'tu').
Then we come to the verbs where exist this so brilliant that even stunning decision to make no difference between verb and noun, and in this case I also don't know to exist precedents around the world — so that one can quietly state that the Eng. is almost in all aspects unprecedented lang., only not in the good sense (because there are unprecedented fools, or cruelty, or naivety, and so on). When the forms are equal then one has to add something and these are the pronouns, but they are unnecessary otherwise, I have shown in my "BulLes" that there can be quite simple but still different forms, so that here also we will chew the things in the next section (the Its, by the way, not only miss the pronoun of the doer, but begin with the pronoun of the object, like for "I have done this", what in Bul. will be 'az go napravih', they usually say, again in Bul., 'go napravih', where we would have said 'napravih go').
Further we come to the tenses where, thanks God, I find everything OK. I mean that no matter that the tenses are given as 16, half of them are continuous and built easy from the non-continuous, and from the 8 are used usually 4-5 tenses, and as tables with forms for each person there are only two tables, what is nearly the same as in Bulgarian. There are also not big differences with the transitive or not verbs, the perfect is built only with "have" (not like in Ger., and similar to Bul.). Yet there are strong or irregular verbs in the Eng. (which don't exist in Bul.), but I think that this is not so difficult moment, one learns, after all only two more forms, where are analogies, and in all Lat. langs the things are much more difficult.
Another good moment in the Eng. are the numbers, and I would have added the lack of double negation, which exists in Bul., what isn't correct, I admit, but the situation here can be changed only under the pressure of all Arabs etc., we alone continue to value our bad habits. Ah, I personally like the use of gerund, although here the things are also oversimplified (but one can somehow do without deep grammatical analyses). Yet there are many other bad points in the Eng., because there remain the mixing of nouns and adjectives (this glass junk, or car park, or men clothes, etc.), the possessive case is not correctly applied (because of mixture with pl.), the lack of diminutives (which exist in every self-respecting lang., so to say), and other moments. I alone have not thought these things through (no matter that nobody asks me about my meaning), but I will cast some raw ideas in the next section.
So that the Eng. is a miscarriage and has to be reformed if people like it, or then left to die naturally (after a century). This will be a bit regretfully if we continue to take as standard the symbols of the stronger, because then can as well happen that the next world-wide spread (say, in the 22nd century) lang., if my ideas will be left also to fade away, will be Chi., Hin., or Ar., which I suppose are much worse as choice than Bul., but one can not oppose millions and milliards with naked ideas (and without powerful dictator at hand). Because of this I say "Down with the English!", because at this stage, in which the Eng. lang. is now, the only way to better it, is to provide some stimulus for this, after first throwing it down in the mud, for the simple reason that such is the dialectics. If it is not so, then why the Engs, and here I mean the intelligent, the grammarians, have allowed the situation to become so grievous and have not lifted a finger, but have succeeded to convince the common people that the double negation is a bad habit?
3. Ideas for bettering of the English language
Here I will tell you some raw ideas for bettering of the Eng., yet I have again to repeat that this is as if announcing of one of my further ideas, which I intend to christen "English Myrskanto (lang.)", I have not thought seriously about the matter, these are only pieces, and I even don't want to give them all away. Still, nobody knows how long he will stay on this world, so that better I will spit something, than keep all in secret.
This time we will leave the alph. in peace and begin at once with grammatical categories. About the genders I think to make them even ... 4, adding one for animated object but without precising of which sex exactly. Then the personal pronouns will be: io (read as 'jo'), tu ('tu'), he, she, it, et; we, you, they, where "tu" can be confused sometimes, but "du" will also be confused, and it is better to have some correspondence between tu and you (yet maybe it has to be written as "tou" or "tue", I can't judge here, I don't know the Eng. so good). Then in objective case they will be: me ('mi'). te ('ti'), him, shim ('shim'), tim ('tim'), tem ('tem'); wim ('vhim'), youm ('joum', or 'jom'), them, yet they still don't sound pretty good to me (but I object to preserving of "her", this does not correlate with "she"). In possessive case they have to be: my, ty ('taj'), his, shis ('shis'), its /tis ('tis'), ets ('ets') /tes ('tes'); wis ('vhis'), yous ('jos') /yours, thes ('dhes') /theirs, and if one so much wants may use also mis ('mis' and tis ('tis'); this also doesn't sound pretty good but there is some logic. In this case the reflexive pronouns have to be a bit simplified to: myse ('majsi'), tyse ('tajsi'), hisse ('hissi'), shisse ('shissi'), itse ('itsi'), etse ('etsi'); wisse ('wissi'), yousse ('youssi'), thesse ('dhessi').
Then we are going to the verbs. The infinitive has to have a bit Gr. ending, with "-ow" (read 'ou'), , and the endings for present tense, in alike to It. (as Lat.) way, are: -o ('o'), -ey ('i'), -(a)s ('as'), -am ('am'), -at ('at'), -on ('on'); the same for imperfect will be: -edo ('(i)do'), -edey ('(i)di'), -edas ('(i)das'), -edam ('(i)dam'), -edat ('(i)dat'), -edon ('(i)don'). For example: for workow in present: worko, workey, work(a)s, workam, workat, workon; and in past: workedo, workedy, workedas, workedam, workedat, workedon; or for studiow: in present: studio, studiy, studias, studiam, stydiat, studion, and in past: studiedo, studidey, studidas, studidam, studidat, studidon. Or let us take irregular verb, goow in present: goo ('goo'), goey, goas, goam, goat, goon, and in past: wento, wentey, went(a)s, wentam, wentat, wenton. Then the main verb amow (fo to be) will be in present: amo, amey, is, aram, arat, aron; in past: waro, warey, was, waram, warat, waron; in conditional form: wero, werey, wes, weram, werat, weron; I can propose even shortened forms like in present: 'mo, 'mey, is, 'ram, 'rat, 'ron, and in past: w'ro, w'rey, was, war'm, war't, war'n. Then havow will be easier: havo, hevey, has, havam, havat, havon, and respectively: hado, hadey, had, hadam, hadat, hadon, or maybe also hedo, hedey, et cetera. Also willow will be willo, willey, wills, willam, willat, willon, and then wildo, wildey, etc., or wouldo, wouldey, et cetera. It seems difficult, but not to the learning of the tables, they are maximally simple.
So this was the hardest part with the endings yet there are other moments, too. About the genders I think that it is almost imperative to use widely the suffix -on for building of mas. and -ess for fem., like studenton & studentess, professoron & professoress, dogon & dogess, caton & catess, birdon & birdess, and many many others; also boyon and boyess (if some girls want to say so), or girlon and girless, but I suppose the latter word has simply to be rejected, it associates with some hole or else loud cries. On the other hand "man" has to remain only as human, no matter of what sex (at least because of Lat. manus as hand, i.e. the "salt" here is not in the sex), and for men to be used machon, and for women — femess. In some cases one may use these genders also for things and, applying ets (instead of his or her) associations, to bildow (there is no need of "to" now but it can be left) nouns of desired gender, say: tableon (if it is very big, or, maybe, rough) and tabless (if it is pretty nice, or one just likes it), or also chairon, bedon, et cetera.
Then there have to be added also diminutive endings, where I can propose: -chic, -ino, -ina; as well enlargers (if I can say so), like: -chor, -ono, -ona. In this case man (instead of one, but also widely used in Ger.) can say also: tablechic or tablechor, as well professorino or professorono, or professoressina and professoresona; or small pine treino, or big oak treono (there have to be several variants because here it doesn't sound good to say treechor, but treechic maybe is still possible). You see, such possibilities enliven the lang., and these things can be applied even now, without the verb forms and pronouns.
Then there is not properly solved the possessive case, because suffix "-s" not always is heard and is confused with the pl., so that I think it would be better to use also ending "-sy", like statesy interests (because state's interest is rarely used and here the possession is obvious. Then one can surely say mansy /womansy clothes (or also machonsy / femessy clothes what now sounds much more precise), or hensy eggs. Then come the problem with building of adjectives from nouns, and there as if exists only -ish and sometimes -ian (also -ist in another sense), where I think can be used also the Lat. suffix -ory /-ary /-oly /-aly (like pulmonary, circulatory, spectrally), or sometimes only -y, so that then can be said carory park, or glassory junk, or monkeyly intelligent, or ramly /bullishly stubborn (after all it is said girly behaviour, or earthly plants, so that I don't propose Martian dialect). Or to give more examples, like: spirally galaxy, pressory review, bussory or tramory tickets (or bussy and tramy, but bussic or bussist or bussish are not good, I think), or headory /stomachory aches, and others.
Or there is much simpler approach, one has just to connect the word with a hyphen, and then man-clothes, or head-aches, or buss-tickets, or glass-junk, etc., are perfectly acceptable, no matter that the hyphen is not seen when speaking but it is supposed (yet to take as uneducated writing of man clothes etc.), and the next step to be connected writing as manclothes. Also I can't understand (and not only I, a big number of foreigners, I suppose, too, yet about 50 times less then the correct variant, judging by the number of occurrences given by the browsers) while sometimes is added -al but sometimes isn't, like democratical or touristical is not correct but commercial is OK, and when there exists domestically then it has to exist also domestical, I mean that when people feel necessity to build such forms (because in the other, and Western, langs is done so, then this has to be accepted not only as exception but as more correct usage).
And surely other things. At least have to be added a pair of hundred new words (not only machon and femess) in order to avoid confusions in some cases, like the proverbial: I and eye (with io this is eliminated), man and men (I don't see what is so bad with mans; yet "people" have to remain, this is nice word, like peeping of chickens), read in present with read in past (why not readed, or, then to insert one "h" as meaning nothing, like rehad). Also some words have to be excluded, not only "girl", also Miss /Missus /Mrs. and be used Lady instead, and there are others, too. But well, as I said, this is raw proposition, yet it is necessary, something has to be done in order to return the Eng. lang. to the "family" of other civilized lang., else it is now the prodigal son, it is lost in some thicket, from where it can hardly pull itself out alone, neither wants to do this.
In conclusion not only of this paper but of all three things for Arabs, Hindus, and many other nations, even Chinese, I will repeat that Bul. lang. is the best possible choice for all nations in this millenium, for several reasons: alphabetical, phonetical, grammatical, political, and as to the roots of the words, too, while Am.-Eng. lang. is on the contrary the worst possible, for the same reasons (only the tenses are well thought), that's it! The only problem for its massive applying is that we are very few people, one per mille of the word population and with not very good name as being barbarous nation. Yeah, but I don't propose to begin to love and worship us, just to love and use some of the things, the artifacts, that we have done (like, folksongs, dances, alphabet, lang., our genes, if you want), because we exist for more then 13 centuries and have proved our vitality and originality in many aspects, creating this perfect, I repeat, perfect alphabet and phonetics. If you don't like the Ams and the Eng. lang., and even if you like the lang., you have to throw it in the mud and step over it, it is high time to do this, the sooner, the better. I am joking, but you know pretty well that the mud heals from many diseases, it is healthy! If this lang will succeed after, say, a century to raise itself renewed from the mud and continue to walk around the world, then you have done good to it, you have given it the possibility to prove that it is vital and deserves to be used (because it has various positive elements, it sounds just nice), and if it will not succeed to stand alive from this mud-bath (in what I doubt, every language is good by itself, it is human creation), then it serves it right, because this is survival of the fittest! Bul. lang. has survived (we have been 5 centuries under Turkish, called now Ottoman, yoke, and have survived, and before this, in the 9th century, have created this now perfect for us, and for many other nations, too, alphabet), Bul. lang. is the fittest!
So that I simply appeal to you: use it, please, you will never do a mistake with this, you will only benefit from this! If you find our grammar still difficult, then help to make it simpler (this is possible, where the Eng. is almost irreparable — you have seen how I strived to do this but it isn't easy, and when I do it at last the native people will most probably not accept my propositions, because their own sh## does not smell to them), and if you find our words not sufficient, then there is nothing simpler then adding of new words, this is done all the time in all langs, but the fundament, the alphabet and the sounds are good, so that you will build on proper ground. The only problem is until the people speaking Bul. will reach a pair of hundred millions, and then the avalanche will move further by itself. The Arab countries are more than 300 millions, this will be enough; the CIS countries are also very suitable, the Negroes in Africa will also do the thing, or the South Americans, or the Hindus (more than a milliard), or the Far East, to say nothing about the Chinese. So that there are many possibilities. If only one out of a hundred people decides to learn Bul. then this will make some 6-7 hundred millions, more then enough for the beginning.
And don't forget that there, really, is linguistic crisis nowadays, even the very Ams, I suppose, feel this, and where there is not some ancient family lang. there the people just wonder what lang. to learn, as first, as well also as second (because they will surely not learn, say: Ar., Heb., Hin., Chi., Rus., Ger., Fr., and so on, and there remain as if only It. and Sp., yet they will not succeed to speak in It. with the Chis, will they?). Similar is the situation in whole Europe (the Gers may study Fr. but they don't like it much, and similarly the Frs, neither will somebody there, without special reasons, that's it, learn Pol., or Ukr., or Ar., or Gr., etc.). And similarly in the vast Central Asia, or on the south there, or in Africa, an on and on. So that just ponder about, ask the specialists, ask the people living there, or just risk a bit. We are small country for to have had possibilities to have done the other nations wrong, and this argument nowadays becomes extremely important.
That is what Chris Myrski said, and to what conclusions he came in