• This topic has 3 voices and 4 replies.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #342189



    OK, for those who don’t know what Rovás is, this thread is not for you :D but anyway, Rovás is to Hungarians what Glagolitic is to us Slavs.


    According to some sources some Rovás inscriptions were written in Slavic.

    The Carpathian Basin Rovas script, or Kárpát-medencei rovás
    in Hungarian, was used in the Carpathian Basin between about the
    7th and 11th centuries. Most of the inscriptions are in Hungarian,
    but some were in Onogur, As-Alan, Slavic or Eurasian Avar.

    I can’t find them anywhere online.
    Does anyone know something more about it or where I could find it? I would like to see the Slavic Rovás inscriptions.

    Pre-Christian eastern Europe is one big mystery and sadly it’s hard to put the puzzle together. :'(

    There seems to be a bit different version of Rovás used by Szeklers: https://www.omniglot.com/writing/hungarian_runes.htm


    I found something in the PDF file on the reference site.

    Figure 2-8: The photograph of the No. 6 jug and the inscriptions on its bottom from the 9th-10th centuries

    The transcription of (ROVÁS INSCRIPTION) is /sïu̯-syrim/, its translation is ‘filtered water/cleaned water’ from Onogur. The transcription of (ROVÁS INSCRIPTION) is /βizi/; its meaning is ‘water’ in Hungarian. Between the two inscriptions there is a symbol that can be presented with (ROVÁS INSCRIPTION) WORD SEPARATOR VERTICAL BAR. The transcription of (ROVÁS INSCRIPTION) is /vodojɔ̃/ ‘with water’ in Slavic. The fourth expression (ROVÁS INSCRIPTION) is in As or Alan language, its transcription is /dan(u)/ ‘water’.

    OK. That’s one word. At least something. ;)

    EDIT no. 2

    The meaning of word “rovás”:

    The writing system is generally known as rovásírás, székely rovásírás, and székely-magyar írás (or simply rovás ‘notch, score’).

    About pre-Christian Slavic writing systems:

    Before, the Slavs did not have their own books, but read and divined by
    means of strokes and incisions, being pagan. Having become Christian,
    they had to make do with the use of Roman and Greek letters without
    order [unsystematically], but how can one write [Slavic] well with Greek
    letters… and thus it was for many years.
    – Chernorizets Hrabar, 9th century

    It’s highly possible that Chernorizets Hrabar meant Rovás as one of the writing systems by “strokes and incisions”.

    If anyone knows something more, please, let me know. Thanks.




    I’d highly question the seriousness of that site, especially considering its claim that one of those languages was Onogur (how the hell would they know it’s Onogur? Historians and linguists are still at each other’s necks on whether the language of the Bulgars as a whole was Iranic, Turkic or something else, so what’s left about the language of a specific sub-tribe, even if it’s the royal one?).

    As for Chernorizets Hrabar’s quote – yes, that’s usually regarded as a reference to a runic script, but it’s usually considered to be the Bulgar runic script (keep in mind that a few Bulgar runes entered the Cyrillic script, namely the ж and ь). A Magyar runic script is theoretically a possibility, but by the time About the Letters was written, the Magyars had barely even “settled down” in Pannonia, let alone had time to impose their script on the local Slavs.



    @NikeBG Thanks for the info.




    >Historians and linguists are still at each other’s necks on whether the
    language of the Bulgars as a whole was Iranic, Turkic or something else

    Not really. Historians have no word at this as it is beyond their field of expertise; as far as linguistics are concerned, the few Bulgar glosses preserved in Greek inscriptions and OCS documents are undoubtedly Turkic, of a stock closely related to modern Chuvash. The “Iranic” thing is a crank theory originating in Petar Dobrev’s unqualified writings from the late 80.

    >but it’s usually considered to be the Bulgar runic script (keep in mind
    that a few Bulgar runes entered the Cyrillic script, namely the ж and ь)

    There’s no such thing as “Bulgar runic script”; the rune-like signs from Pliska and Preslav are all from the Christian era (10th century and later), they have no analogues north of the Danube, they include Cyrillic letters and, because of all this, are typically interpreted as nothing more than mason cypher (see e. g. Rasho Rashev’s Българската езическа култура).



    A few “Bulgar glosses”, mostly a few military and calendar terms, are hardly a proof of a language being “undoubtedly Turkic”. Especially considering even Turkic-theory supporters like Beshevliev admitted that many of the Bulgar names are of Iranic origin (and some Turkic, and some that could be either, plus a couple potentially Finno-Ougrian, IIRC) and that the Bulgar runes are most closely related to the Sarmatian type. Not to mention runic analogues are found from Nagy szent Miklos, through the Saltovo-mayatsk culture till Volga Bulgaria, all of them north of the Danube (even if the core is, indeed, the Pliska-Preslav culture).



    Thanks for the confusion. :D

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.