The writing style is poor to very poor. Reads like it's written by a non-native English speaker, also it's written more like a blog entry; the tone is too informal for example "it is above all the largest, fullest, correct as to its formal content and even exquisitely beautiful, specific and (for the time being) the only known coherent text in the language of Asparukh’s Bulgarians, or, in a nutshell, this inscription, as well as the Treasure itself, is unique." That reads like someone's trying to advertise the thing to sell it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I couldn't find support for the translations even on Google(!), let alone in books. I've totally rewritten the intro and added referenced translations. -sche (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A little rant: This is a golden drinking cup and it is very likely a gift from one of the names in the inscription to the other. Why would a gold drinking cup be missing a buckle if you are mostly on a horse back and the drinking cup is made of gold? My guess is that Buyla and Butaoul are two generals and the inscription says "one pours the other drinks" (Buyla Zopan tası tüketti, Butaul Zopan toğrugu içki tası.) One of the decipherments says Buyla made the cup and Butaoul made the buckle. If that is the case, Butaoul must also put the inscription on it. This also means that Butaoul owns the cup since it is worn on a belt thus a personal item. Why would Butaoul inscribe in the cup that Buyla forgot to put a buckle on the cup?
For monumental inscription it is normal to have two names contributing to the artifact: one dictates the other inscribes or erects the monument. When we use the same template for an inscription on a personal item we end up with such odd scenarios. AverageTurkishJoe (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
