@article {Балкански2006,
	title = {Българското кисело мляко и неговите названия в българския език},
	journal = {Българска реч},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {33{\textendash}41},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор and Димитрова, Маргарита}
}
@article {Балкански2006,
	title = {Българското кисело мляко и неговите названия в българския език},
	journal = {Българска реч},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {33{\textendash}41},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор and Димитрова, Маргарита}
}
@article {Балкански2006,
	title = {Призрачната еклезиономия в Средните Родопи},
	journal = {Българска реч},
	volume = {12},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {118{\textendash}120},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор}
}
@article {Балкански-2005,
	title = {Българските етноразличителни онимни знаци в разказа на Иван Вазов {\quotedblbase}Саломоновият цирк{\textquotedblleft}},
	journal = {Българска реч},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {61{\textendash}66},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор and Кондов, Васил}
}
@article {Балкански1986,
	title = {Опит за изучаване на първобългарските следи в българския и карачаево-балкарския език},
	journal = {Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics},
	volume = {11},
	year = {1986},
	pages = {5{\textendash}14},
	abstract = {<p>o far Bulgarian linguistics has looked for traces of Proto-Bulgarian primarily in the {\v C}uva{\v s} language as a mediator. The authors of the paper abandon this approach and investigate the linguistic and historical connection between Bulgarian and the Balkar-Kara{\v c}aev language. As a result of that novel approach a number of new words, both from the onomastic and non-onomastic classes have been added to the established Proto-Bulgarian ones: b{\u a}lgarin b{\u a}alk{\u a}ar, m{\u a}alk{\u a}ar, kopanec, {\v c}eren tatarin, {\v c}avka, taj{\v c}e, Tangra-Tejri, Atila, Asparuh, {\v S}ibil, Kospartov and {\v S}abla. It was found that for the purposes of defining more accurately the Proto-Bulgarian lexical layer, the Kara{\v c}aevo-Balkar language offers a number of advantages as compared to {\v C}uva{\v s}. Evidence was also found to substantiate the claim that the Kara{\v c}aevo-Balkar language is the most suitable mediator for studies of the Rumanian substratum of the Bulgarian language.</p>
},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор and Хашходжов, Едуард}
}
@article {Балкански1985,
	title = {Монголски езикови следи в родопската топонимия.},
	journal = {Съпоставително езикознание / Сопоставительное языкознание / Contrastive linguistics},
	volume = {10},
	year = {1985},
	pages = {41{\textendash}44},
	abstract = {Some problems concerning the traces of Mongolian in the toponymic system and in ethnonymy of the Northern parts of the Rhodope Mountains are discussed in the paper. Plenty of contrastive toponymic material relating to the Mongolian languages has been collected from the areas of the Soviet Republics in Central Asia and from Mongolia to prove the etymology of some local toponyms in the Rhodope region, like Sem{\`e}r ul{\`a}, B{\`e}lja, and Hajrerob, as well as the origin of the ethnonym kalm{\`u}k. The toponyms must have been introduced to the Bulgarian speech community within the period ranging from 1380 to 1750 by shepherds of Turkic origin who had started for the Balkan Peninsula from the areas in Central Asia, where the names under discussion occur quite frequently and are derived from Mongolian geographical terms. Another point the paper attempts to put across is that it was not only the Proto-Bulgarians who brought all the traces of Mongolian culture to the Balkan Peninsula, as some scholars in this country seem to imply.},
	author = {Балкански, Тодор}
}
