Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 16th, 2012, 11:46 PM   #131

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir View Post
"G.Dyorfer has suggested to refuse those methods which use аltaists, finding that these methods are developed for studying of Indo-European languages and can't be applied concerning the Altay languages. The generality of the Altay languages revealed by altaists, G.Dyorfer recommends to explain only a consequence of loans - from Turkic in Mongolian, and from Mongolian in Tungus."

Scherbak A.M. "Introduction in comparative studying of Turkic Jazykov.-s.-items: the Science, 1994.-S.123.
G.Dyorfer doesn't find any reliable case in which the Turkic nuclear word would have the conformity in the Mongolian language. Most likely, there are cases when Turkic and Mongolian languages have the general peripheral basic words that leads the researcher to a following conclusion: the Altay languages show a picture unrelated, and is faster than the mixed languages."
Regarding the validity of Comparative method there is no doubt that it should hold in case of Sumerian-Turkic if you actually believe these languages are related. These methods have been successfully applied to the establishment of Uralic, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Dravidian, many native American tongues, and countless other language families. Although the Comparative Method has a set of rules which have been established in an ad hoc manner, there are anatomical and logical foundations for it, which are reinforced by evidence from historical events.

The application of the comparative method on the Altaic languages is also universally accepted by both Ural-Altaists such as Denis Sinor, and Altaists such as Vovin and Sergei Starostin and critics such as Clauson, Doerfer and apparently Vovin himself. Whatever their stance towards the Altaic family; the methods are useful for scholars in both proving and disproving the genealogical relationship.

Last edited by hazratemahmood; November 17th, 2012 at 12:00 AM.
hazratemahmood is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 16th, 2012, 11:57 PM   #132
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazratemahmood View Post
So at best we do not know his opinion; although by not including Sumerian in his investigations one can assume that he did not consider the relationship plausible. In any case, Doerfer's words are of no use in your argument.
You direct attention of readers to consideration of your own conclusions on absence in work of Doerfer what that of mentions of relationship of Sumer and Turkic languages.
I consider your arguments incorrect as you prefer to use a method "from the return", the opposite end.
Shliman to you would help...
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 12:09 AM   #133
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazratemahmood View Post
Regarding the validity of Comparative method there is no doubt that it should hold in case of Sumerian-Turkic if you actually believe these languages are related. These methods have been successfully applied to the establishment of Uralic, Afro-Asiatic, Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Dravidian, many native American tongues, and countless other language families. Although the Comparative Method has a set of rules which have been established in an ad hoc manner, there are anatomical and logical foundations for it, which are reinforced by evidence from historical events.

The application of the comparative method on the Altaic languages is also universally accepted by both Ural-Altaists such as Denis Sinor, and Altaists such as Vovin and Sergei Starostin and critics such as Clauson, Doerfer and apparently Vovin himself. Whatever their stance towards the Altaic family; the methods are useful for scholars in both proving and disproving the genealogical relationship.
Sergey Starostin never was neither the historian, nor the linguist.
Starostin was the most stupid and self-confident pupil at university and differed only extreme diligence in service of ruling communist party - the CPSU.
All its works pursued the aim to execute the POLITICAL ORDER from the CPSU Central Committee.
Your aspiration to use Starostin's "works" or Vovin's "works"as arguments force me to suspect and you of untidiness, at least, and in an involvement - as a maximum.
Try to dispel my doubts and use not political authors, please.
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old November 17th, 2012, 01:23 AM   #134

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir View Post
Sergey Starostin never was neither the historian, nor the linguist.
Starostin was the most stupid and self-confident pupil at university and differed only extreme diligence in service of ruling communist party - the CPSU.
All its works pursued the aim to execute the POLITICAL ORDER from the CPSU Central Committee.
Your aspiration to use Starostin's "works" or Vovin's "works"as arguments force me to suspect and you of untidiness, at least, and in an involvement - as a maximum.
Try to dispel my doubts and use not political authors, please.
There you go.
hazratemahmood is offline  
Old November 18th, 2012, 11:15 PM   #135
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazratemahmood View Post
There you go.
Ooo, no...
go yourself and alone....
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 03:29 PM   #136
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

I want to add that I have found a glossary of the second record on the Behistun rock which investigated Oppert and which he has defined Tatar language.
I represent you a part of this glossary, and at once I ascertain that this glossary in the pure state Tatar, without an exception.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg midian language.jpg (83.6 KB, 8 views)
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old November 20th, 2012, 10:33 PM   #137

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir View Post
I want to add that I have found a glossary of the second record on the Behistun rock which investigated Oppert and which he has defined Tatar language.
I represent you a part of this glossary, and at once I ascertain that this glossary in the pure state Tatar, without an exception.
Which part of the Behistun inscriptions is your magnum opus referring to? I am quite sure there are only three languages there, two of them I already know (Elamite and Old Persian) and one of them partly intelligible to me (Akkadian), and none of them is Sumerian. Or is every language in the world simply a dialect of the grand Tatar language?
hazratemahmood is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 12:43 AM   #138
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Tatarstan
Posts: 200

You are true to yourselves: From all out-of-date sources, you choose the most odious.
Or you pretend to be blind and deaf, but completely not mute.
Read my posts once again and attentively.
Read once in life the primary source, the book of Juel Oppert instead of playing a role of the no mind baby .
ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 12:56 AM   #139

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir View Post
I want to add that I have found a glossary of the second record on the Behistun rock which investigated Oppert and which he has defined Tatar language.
I represent you a part of this glossary, and at once I ascertain that this glossary in the pure state Tatar, without an exception.
I read the glossary you have posted, which is a clear indication of the Authors ignorance. Orat, Mukhannath, Lash, Har, Kulba, Muzhak are all loanwords in Turkic. The grammatical structure ... Ya ... ( ... or ... ) and Chun in nichun, which simply means "for what reason" is also a loan.
Among these, not knowing that the word Mukhannath is Arabic and Muzhak is middle Persian is very strange to me, how does a linguist miss that? Every Turkologist knows that words with the sound "zh" and "th" are not originally Turkic. Also, Kulba has a mid consonant cluster and should be a compound in Turkic, which is not discussed here.
hazratemahmood is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 12:59 AM   #140

hazratemahmood's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Karaj, Iran
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by ki-en-gar from ki-en-gir View Post
You are true to yourselves: From all out-of-date sources, you choose the most odious.
Or you pretend to be blind and deaf, but completely not mute.
Read my posts once again and attentively.
Read once in life the primary source, the book of Juel Oppert instead of playing a role of the no mind baby .
Please just answer my questions.
hazratemahmood is offline  
Closed Thread

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
ethnicity, sumerians


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Sumerians ttanner History Book Reviews 0 April 6th, 2009 06:48 AM
sumerians jterrain Ancient History 6 October 4th, 2006 08:56 AM
The Sumerians Commander Ancient History 2 June 26th, 2006 07:57 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.