Turkic World Photos/News/Discussions.

[Targon]

I think before 1000s, most Turkic dialects were still largely mutually intelligible.

 

[Charon 2]

I think before 1000s, most Turkic dialects were still largely mutually intelligible.

Oghur languages broke off from Common Turkic already something in 500 BCE

 

[Targon]

Even if they were not mutually intelligible(which I have doubts, difference was probably less then today's, Chuvash is largely effected from neighbouring languages and probably evolved inside as well), they were composing a small part of the Turkic world and were in westernmost edges.

 

[Charon 2]

Even if they were not mutually intelligible(which I have doubts, difference was probably less then today's, Chuvash is largely effected from neighbouring languages and probably evolved inside as well), they were composing a small part of the Turkic world and were in westernmost edges.

Chuvash language belongs to the Oghur Turkic branch and this branch broke off from Common Turkic languages very early. Of course Chuvash is also heavily influenced by Finnic (Uralic) languages

 

[Targon]

Chuvash language belongs to the Oghur Turkic branch and this branch broke off from Common Turkic languages very early. Of course Chuvash is also heavily influenced by Finnic (Uralic) languages

And what ? I didn't denied that, what I'm saying is, gap between Common Turkic and Oghuric was probably smaller then today's, I think Oghuric speakers could still converse with Common Turkic speakers somehow.

 

[telkon]

If Gökturks shaped the culture and essence of Turkics why are the vast majority of Turkic peoples Muslim? The Gökturks were Tengrist nature worshipers a religion which had nothing to do with Islam don't matter if Pan-Turanists try to find desperately any connections between Islam with Tengrism.

The Old Turkic language which was spoken by the Gökturks belongs to the Siberian Turkic branch and is closely related to the modern Altay, Tuvan and Western Yugur languages. Anatolian Turks speak an Oghuz language a different branch than the Old Turkic language of Gökturks.

Seljuks and Ottomans are the continuation of the Islamic culture and civilization which was startet by the Umayyad Caliphate. They had nothing to do with nomadic Tengrist empires.

LOL just LOL

@Targon I quit arguing with him and I advise you too. He keeps parroting what he read from wikipedia LOL just like that arabic troll.

 

[atatwolf]

LOL just LOL

@Targon I quit arguing with him and I advise you too. He keeps parroting what he read from wikipedia LOL just like that arabic troll.

Wikipedia is not a good source to learn history. If we believe wikipedia, Kurds had 20 empires, while they had none, they didn't even have a country during the course of history.

Also with a lot of Turkic related articles, there is a lot of propaganda and skewing of facts through Armenian, Iranians, Russian and others.

@sharon2, we are glad you are interested in history but don't use wikipedia as a source and also don't copy and paste anymore. Read actual books. I mean you are living in Germany. I'm sure you have some money to invest in actual books. Read real history books. Or do what I do, download the pdf or epub and put it on your ereader.

 

[Charon 2]

Wikipedia is not a good source to learn history. If we believe wikipedia, Kurds had 20 empires, while they had none, they didn't even have a country during the course of history.

Also with a lot of Turkic related articles, there is a lot of propaganda and skewing of facts through Armenian, Iranians, Russian and others.

@sharon2, we are glad you are interested in history but don't use wikipedia as a source and also don't copy and paste anymore. Read actual books. I mean you are living in Germany. I'm sure you have some money to invest in actual books. Read real history books. Or do what I do, download the pdf or epub and put it on your ereader.

I'm sure you don't have any history books at home yourself atatwolf so don't tell me that I need to buy books. You can read history books also in the internet and my claims are all based from Turkologists, linguists, historians and other scholars. If you have any problems with my claims then bring other sources please. If you can't do this just shut up!

Wikipedia is not a soruce itself. It is based on sources by authors of the respective subjects and they are all noted in Wikipedia

LOL just LOL

@Targon I quit arguing with him and I advise you too. He keeps parroting what he read from wikipedia LOL just like that arabic troll.

Yes LOL because you can't arguing against my statements.

 

[Charon 2]

And what ? I didn't denied that, what I'm saying is, gap between Common Turkic and Oghuric was probably smaller then today's, I think Oghuric speakers could still converse with Common Turkic speakers somehow.

And what ? I didn't denied that, what I'm saying is, gap between Common Turkic and Oghuric was probably smaller then today's, I think Oghuric speakers could still converse with Common Turkic speakers somehow.

And what ? I didn't denied that, what I'm saying is, gap between Common Turkic and Oghuric was probably smaller then today's, I think Oghuric speakers could still converse with Common Turkic speakers somehow.

Where is your common sense? If Oghur Turkic languages broke off from Common Turkic in 500 BCE how are they mututally intelligable to each other? They weren't even mutually integible with each other in the first century if they broke off in 500 BCE. Finnish and Hungarian languages are also not mutually intelligble to each other because they belong to different branches of Uralic languages just like Oghur Turkic and Common Turkic

1. Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Oghur". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
2. Pter Golden, 'The Khazar Sacral Kingship' in Kathryn Von Reyerson, Theofanis George Stavrou,James Donald Tracy (eds.)Pre-modern Russia and its world:Essays in Honour of Thomas S. Noonan, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, 2006 p.86.

Literature

• Brook, Kevin Alan. 2004. "Tales about Jewish Khazars in the Byzantine Empire Resolve an Old Debate". Los Muestros No. 54, pp. 27–29.[1]
• Brook, Kevin Alan. 2006. The Jews of Khazaria. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2nd ed. (1999. Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1st ed.[2]
• Clark, Larry. 1998. "Chuvash." In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 434–452.
• Clauson, Gerard. 1972. An etymological dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Décsy, Gyula. 1998. The Turkic protolanguage: A computational reconstruction. Bloomington, IN: Eurolingua.
• Dunlop, Douglas M. 1954. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
• Gmyrya, L. 1995. Hun country at the Caspian Gate: Caspian Dagestan during the epoch of the Great Movement of Peoples. Makhachkala: Dagestan Publishing.
• Golb, Norman & Omeljan Pritsak. 1982. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.
• Golden, Peter B. 1980. Khazar Studies: An Historio-Philological Inquiry into the Origins of the Khazars. Budapest: Akademia Kiado.
• Golden, Peter B. 1998. "The Turkic peoples: A historical sketch." In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 16–29.
• Johanson, Lars & Éva Agnes Csató (ed.). 1998. The Turkic languages. London: Routledge.
• Johanson, Lars. 1998. "The history of Turkic." In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 81–125.[3]
• Johanson, Lars. 1998. "Turkic languages." In: Encyclopædia Britannica. CD 98. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, 5 sept. 2007.[4]
• Johanson, Lars. 2000. "Linguistic convergence in the Volga area." In: Gilbers, Dicky & Nerbonne, John & Jos Schaeken (ed.). Languages in contact. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. (Studies in Slavic and General linguistics 28.), pp. 165–178.[5]
• Johanson, Lars. 2007. Chuvash. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier.
• Krueger, John. 1961. Chuvash Manual. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications.
• Liptak, Pal. 1983. Avars and Ancient Hungarians. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
• Maenchen-Helfen, Otto J. 1973. The world of the Huns: Studies in their history and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.[6]
• Menges, K. H. 1968. The Turkic languages and peoples: An introduction to Turkic studies. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
• Paasonen, Heikki. 1949. Gebräuche und Volksdichtung der Tschuwassen. Gesammelt von Heikki Paasonen. Herausgegeben von Eino Karahka und Martti Räsänen. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura (Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seuran toimituksia, vol. 94).
• Pohl, Walter. 1988. Die Awaren: Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567 – 822 n. Chr. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck.
• Pritsak, Omeljan. 1982. "The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan." Havard Ukrainian Studies, vol. 6, pp. 428–476.
• Rashev, Rasho. 1992. "On the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians." In: Studia protobulgarica et mediaevalia europensia. In honour of Prof. V. Beshevliev. Veliko Tarnovo, pp. 23–33.[7]
• Róna-Tas, András. 1996. "The migration and landtaking of the Magyars." The Hungarian Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 144, p. 37–41.
• Róna-Tas, András. 1998. "The reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the genetic question." In: Johanson & Csató, pp. 67–80.
• Samoilovich, A. N. 1922. Some additions to the classification of the Turkic languages. Petrograd.[8]
• Schönig, Claus. 1997–1998. "A new attempt to classify the Turkic languages I-III." Turkic Languages 1:1.117–133, 1:2.262–277, 2:1.130–151.
• Vajda, Edward J. 2000. Review of Décsy (1998). Language 76.473-474.

Here you can see the sources and authors about the Oghur Turkic and Common Turkic issue

 

[Targon]

Oh please stop repeating that, you heard this 500 b.c thingy and keep repeating that, Oghuric languages being at the edges of Turkic speaking world, had developed some unique sides, particularly in pronouncing, and unlike most other Turkic languages, had different sources of influence, this is exactly the same issue as Anatolian Turkish, just because there is a huge gap today, doesn't means it was always like that, they didn't suddenly become non mutually intelligible in 500 b.c, you're just throwing centuries of inner evolution and foreign influence to thrash.

What is the source for 500 b.c ? oh wait, there isn't because there is no such thing possible for a language without written records, its just a theory.

 

[Charon 2]

Oh please stop repeating that, you heard this 500 b.c thingy and keep repeating that, Oghuric languages being at the edges of Turkic speaking world, had developed some unique sides, particularly in pronouncing, and unlike most other Turkic languages, had different sources of influence, this is exactly the same issue as Anatolian Turkish, just because there is a huge gap today, doesn't means it was always like that, they didn't suddenly become mutually intelligible in 500 b.c, you're just throwing centuries of inner evolution and foreign influence to thrash.

What is the source for 500 b.c ? oh wait, there isn't because there is no such thing possible for a language without written records, its just a theory.

Stupid statement. Everything is a theory, Targon and espeically when it comes to language subjects.

This branch arguably broke off from Common Turkic perhaps as early as 500 BCE.[2]. Click to 2 and you have your source.

 

[Targon]

Stupid statement. Everything is a theory, Targon and espeically when it comes to language subjects.

This branch arguably broke off from Common Turkic perhaps as early as 500 BCE.[2]. Click to 2 and you have your source.

No I don't have my source because there isn't, I'm not telling we should put all theories aside, I'm telling we should not value them like facts, if you ask me 500 b.c theory is particularly ridiculous considering Turkic history.

 

[ASQ-1918]

@Charon 2

No need to get offended or upset, but you should really expand your sources. Your saying that wikipedia articles are sourced elsewhere, that is still a very limited number.

For instance you are saying that Göktürk language belonged to Siberian Turkic branch, but based on which features? You are saying that it's closely related to modern-day Tuvan and Western Yugur, have you tried to compare them (you don't even need to do that in a academic sense, just basic knowledge of general Turkic)?

An example of Western Yugur: The Wolf

First of all its vowel system has been hugely affected by Chinese. But beyond that, I still don't see features that could validate your claim.

It would be more correct to assume that the language Göktürks spoke was more or less "common Turkic", and separate Turkic dialects/languages emerged later on.

 

[Charon 2]

@Charon 2

No need to get offended or upset, but you should really expand your sources. Your saying that wikipedia articles are sourced elsewhere, that is still a very limited number.

For instance you are saying that Göktürk language belonged to Siberian Turkic branch, but based on which features? You are saying that it's closely related to modern-day Tuvan and Western Yugur, have you even taken a quick look at those languages?

An example of Western Yugur: The Wolf

First of all it's vowel system has been hugely affected by Chinese. But beyond that, I still don't see features that validate your claim.

But it would be more correct to say that the language Göktürks spoke was more or less "common Turkic", and separate Turkic dialects/languages continued to emerge/diverge thereafter. This includes Oghuz, Kypchak-Kyrgyz, Karluk-Uygur and Altai-Siberian branches.

I didn't deny that the Göktürks spoke a Common Turkic language. The thing is that most Turkologists and linguists say that it was a Siberian Turkic language.

• Ö.D. Baatar, Old Turkic Script, Ulan-Baator (2008), ISBN 0-415-08200-5
• M. Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 8 Uralic & Central Asia, Brill, Leiden (2004),ISBN 90-04-10294-9.
• M. Erdal, Old Turkic word formation: A functional approach to the lexicon, Turcologica, Harassowitz (1991), ISBN 3-447-03084-4.
• Talat Tekin, A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic, Uralic and Altaic Series Vol. 69, Indiana University Publications, Mouton and Co. (1968). (review: Gerard Clauson, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1969); RoutledgeCurzon (1997), ISBN 0-7007-0869-3.
• L. Johanson, A History of Turkic, in: The Turkic Languages, eds. L. Johanson & E.A. Csato, Routledge, London (1998),ISBN 0-415-08200-5
• M. Erdal, Old Turkic, in: The Turkic Languages, eds. L. Johanson & E.A. Csato, Routledge, London (1998),ISBN 978-99929-944-0-5

1. Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Old Turkic". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

 

[Charon 2]

Äynu people. I didn't know that they existed



The Äynu (also Ainu, Abdal, and Aini) are a people native to the Xinjiang region of western China. There are estimated to be fewer than 30,000 Äynu, mostly located on the fringe of the Taklamakan Desert.

Origins

The origins of the Äynu people are disputed. Some historians theorize that the ancestors of the Äynu were a nomadic people who came from Persia several hundred years ago,[2] while others conclude that the Persian vocabulary of the Äynu languageis a result of Persian being once the major trade language of the region, or Persian traders intermarrying with local women.[3]

Language

Main article: Äynu language
Uyghur is spoken at home and in public, by Äynu men and women alike. Äynu men also speak Äynu, a Turkic language with mainly Persian vocabulary.[1]

Culture

The Äynu people engage mostly in agriculture, although in the past some were peddlers, circumcisers, or beggars.[1]

There is a tradition of discrimination against the Äynu by their neighbors, who identify the Äynu as Abdal, a name which carries a derogatory meaning.[1] Intermarriage with their neighbors the Uyghur people is uncommon.[4] However, the Chinese government counts the Äynu people as Uyghur.[4]

The predominant religion is Shi'a Islam.

Sources

1. Johanson, Lars (2001). Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map 5. Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul. pp. 21–22.
2. Safran, William (1998). Nationalism and Ethnoregional Identities in China. Routledge. p. 77. ISBN 978-0-7146-4921-4.
3. Matras, Yaron; Bakker, Peter (2003). The Mixed Language Debate: Theoretical and Empirical Advances. Walter de Gruyter. p. 9. ISBN 3-11-017776-5.
4. Gordon, Raymond G., Jr., ed. (2005). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (15th ed.). Dallas, Tex.: SIL International.