What's new

Some Turks reconsidering Arabic connection to Turkish language

Excuse me sir but you lack knowledge about this issue, what revojam has said is true.

Enlighten us please, if what i said is not true and you and your compatriot hold the truth.
I will wait for your answer, and please forget it if it is like revojam one.
 
Its not about writing above or below the line but India writing systems are perfectly phonetic.

Phonetics have something to do with speaking and pronunciation not with writing. They change with a different accent.
 
There is no big claim. Indian writing systems are perfectly phonetic, you can pronounce a word only in one way.

That makes it a poor language compared to Arabic where you can pronounce a word in different manners to mean different things depending on the syntax and by using only some accents to point to the meaning, it changes also with the word placement in a phrase and the whole meaning of a phrase or sentence. It is more breath and energy saving than Hindu and it is so rich, beautiful and divine that God defied anyone to come up with something like it.
No bad feelings, just the truth for anyone who criticises Arabic.
 
According to scientific evidence, the first humans to invent language were Indians, rest of the uncivilized humans just copied them.

The scientific evidence is :

The Languages of India

The Languages of India belong to several language families, the major ones being the Indo-Aryan languages (a subbranch of Indo-European) spoken by 74% of Indians and the Dravidian languages spoken by 23% of Indians.[1][2] Other languages spoken in India belong to the Austroasiatic, Tibeto-Burman, and a few minor language families and isolates.[3]

India has no offical national language [4] . The official language of the Union Government of Republic of India is Standard Hindi, while English is the secondary official language.[5] The constitution of India states that "The official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script."[6] a position supported by a High Court ruling.[7] However, languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian constitution are sometimes referred to, without legal standing, as the national languages of India.[8][9]

Individual mother tongues in India number several hundred;[10] the 1961 census recognized 1,652[11] (SIL Ethnologue lists 415). According to Census of India of 2001, 30 languages are spoken b more than a million native speakers, 122 by more than 10,000. More than three millennia of language contact has led to significant mutual influence among the four language families in India and South Asia. Two contact languages have played an important role in the history of India: Persian and English.[12]

History

The northern Indian languages from the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family evolved from Old Indo-Aryan by way of the Middle Indo-Aryan Prakrit languages and Apabhraṃśa of the Middle Ages. There is no consensus for a specific time where the modern north Indian languages such as Hindustani, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Sindhi and Oriya emerged, but AD 1000 is commonly accepted.[13] Each language had different influences, with Hindustani being strongly influenced by Persian.

The Dravidian languages of South India had a history independent of Sanskrit. The major Dravidian languages are Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Tulu.[14] Though Malayalam and Telugu are Dravidian in origin, over eighty percent of their lexicon is borrowed from Sanskrit.[15][16][17][18] The Telugu script can reproduce the full range of Sanskrit phonetics without losing any of the text's originality,[19] whereas the Malayalam script includes graphemes capable of representing all the sounds of Sanskrit and all Dravidian languages.[20][21] The Kannada language has lesser Sanskrit and Prakrit influence and the Tamil language the least.[citation needed] The Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages of North-East India also have long independent histories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_India

AND

Origin of language

The origin of language in the human species has been the topic of scholarly discussions for several centuries. In spite of this, there is no consensus on its ultimate origin or age. One problem that makes the topic difficult to study is the lack of direct evidence. Consequently, scholars wishing to study the origins of language must draw inferences from other kinds of evidence such as the fossil record or from archaeological evidence, from contemporary language diversity, from studies of language acquisition, and from comparisons between human language and systems of communication existing among other animals, particularly other primates. It is generally agreed that the origins of language are closely tied to the origins of modern human behavior, but there is little agreement about the implications and directionality of this connection.

This shortage of empirical evidence has led many scholars to regard the entire topic as unsuitable for serious study. In 1866, the Linguistic Society of Paris went so far as to ban debates on the subject, a prohibition which remained influential across much of the western world until late in the twentieth century.[1] Today, there are numerous hypotheses about how, why, when, and where language might first have emerged.[2] It might seem that there is hardly more agreement today than there was a hundred years ago, when Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection provoked a rash of armchair speculations on the topic.[3] Since the early 1990s, however, a growing number of professional linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists, and others have attempted to address with new methods what they are beginning to consider "the hardest problem in science".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language
 
Enlighten us please, if what i said is not true and you and your compatriot hold the truth.
I will wait for your answer, and please forget it if it is like revojam one.

What you said was:

You are a bit off the mark, you are confusing Alphabet with language, it was the Turkish language that was written in Arabic alphabet and was than under Ataturk changed to be written in Latin alphabet; it is the same language written in different Alphabets, like the Persian, the Urdu or others that are distinct from the Arabic language but are written in the Arabic alphabet.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/middle...nection-turkish-language-6.html#ixzz2YiRbzJyh

Now what we are say is; Yes, Ataturk changed alphabet and he removed many words that originated from arabic and persian and replaced them with Turkic.

Meaning he changed the language itself a bit.
 
turks should use Cyrillic so they can understand other turkic languages better

We can understand other Turkic languages just fine(even though we never been there) if anything few remaning Turkic states should switch to Latin already.
 
by the way iam big fun of antique persian silver . you guys have beautifull hand work..i have to admit it is much better than turkish. sorry it is out of topic:) iwont find another topic to admit that:):)
 
@Alienoz_TR

I wanna ask about Rouran's, as far as i know Turk's were living under Rourans and revolted. I heard/read something like, Turk's wiped the entire Rouran nation from the face of earth. Is it true ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We can understand other Turkic languages just fine(even though we never been there) if anything few remaning Turkic states should switch to Latin already.

why should they if majority of turkic countries using Cyrillic alphabet. Its also more eastern while turkey is using western product. Mongolia, kazakstan, kyrgizstan they all using cyrrlic including Bulgarian turks plus all the other turkic minorities in russia.

Cyrillic_alphabet_world_distribution.svg
 
why should they if majority of turkic countries using Cyrillic alphabet. Its also more eastern while turkey is using western product. Mongolia, kazakstan, kyrgizstan they all using cyrrlic including Bulgarian turks plus all the other turkic minorities in russia.

Cyrillic_alphabet_world_distribution.svg


To erase all traces of Russification , in fact few years ago a chance rose up when Kazakhistan decided to switch to latin alphabet and we used this chance to create new common Turkic language based on Latin alphabet : For that purpose a Turkic organization created and four Turkic states(Turkiye , Azerbaijan , Kazakhistan and Krygyzistan) supported the common Turki language idea but whole thing gone missing after a while.Finally Kazakhistan announced this year they give up the idea of switching to Latin alphabet.
 
To erase all traces of Russification , in fact few years ago a chance rose up when Kazakhistan decided to switch to latin alphabet and we used this chance to create new common Turkic language based on Latin alphabet : For that purpose a Turkic organization created and four Turkic states(Turkiye , Azerbaijan , Kazakhistan and Krygyzistan) supported the common Turki language idea but whole thing gone missing after a while.Finally Kazakhistan announced this year they give up the idea of switching to Latin alphabet.

why should they if russians living their too and economy is dependent on russia. But i am right most of the turkic languages are using cyrrilic if you count turkic languages in russia as well as mongolia which you turanists are looking up to. You say russiafication what was kemal doing in the 30s? It was westernization which let turkey to no where these days.
 
why should they if russians living their too and economy is dependent on russia. But i am right most of the turkic languages are using cyrrilic if you count turkic languages in russia as well as mongolia which you turanists are looking up to. You say russiafication what was kemal doing in the 30s? It was westernization which let turkey to no where these days.

Kemal was erasing traces of Arabization(cause of Islam and Ottoman past) , both Arabization through Islam and Russification dangerous assimilation threaths for Turkic states.
 
Back
Top Bottom