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


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 3rd, 2012, 09:45 AM   #61
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,662
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
yes, there is no evidence at all for turks in the ancient. we should not forget, that the recent regions of Turks were populated during ancient times by indo-iranians. the term itself appears in the 6th century CE. It is difficult to say, but the origins of the Turks are somewhere around the 3rd century in the Altai-region, originated from a mix of mongolians and indo-arians.
The last sentense is arguable. According to the legenв Ashin, (a father of all Tyurks) was a Hun prince.
azato2000 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 3rd, 2012, 09:49 AM   #62

Midas's Avatar
Γορδιεϝαις the Phrygian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Scandinavia, Balkans, Anatolia & Hatay
Posts: 3,221
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by bilbil View Post
Yep, whenever I read for Greek origin, Greece or Greek language in ancient period (especially BC) I know that source is "reliable and truthful" hehe
Before you ridicule yourself, mind to check it up. Cambridge University Press.

But I forgot... Cambridge and Oxford are part of this Greek and Albanian conspiracy. How, could I fool myself really


Next time come with a contribution, not sarcasm. Phrygian curses await...

Last edited by Midas; June 3rd, 2012 at 10:04 AM.
Midas is online now  
Old June 3rd, 2012, 10:01 AM   #63

Midas's Avatar
Γορδιεϝαις the Phrygian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Scandinavia, Balkans, Anatolia & Hatay
Posts: 3,221
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by beorna View Post
yes, there is no evidence at all for turks in the ancient. we should not forget, that the recent regions of Turks were populated during ancient times by indo-iranians. the term itself appears in the 6th century CE. It is difficult to say, but the origins of the Turks are somewhere around the 3rd century in the Altai-region, originated from a mix of mongolians and indo-arians.

Ok, I don't think the just pop up in the 3rd CE. The Altaic languages are quite old themselves. As for the Indo-Aryans, I guess you were thinking of Scythians right? Also, Tocharians (non Indo-Aryans) must have interacted with Turkic groups. All those people had similar lifestyle, even though their origins were far from each other.
Midas is online now  
Old June 3rd, 2012, 11:27 AM   #64

beorna's Avatar
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Lower Saxony
Posts: 12,258

Quote:
Originally Posted by Midas View Post
Ok, I don't think the just pop up in the 3rd CE. The Altaic languages are quite old themselves. As for the Indo-Aryans, I guess you were thinking of Scythians right? Also, Tocharians (non Indo-Aryans) must have interacted with Turkic groups. All those people had similar lifestyle, even though their origins were far from each other.
The lack of inscriptions makes it difficult. I agree that there were Turkic groups of course before the 3rd century BC and i have no problem to enlarge the phase of Turk ethnogenesis from the 1st to the 3rd.
If we look on the distribution of turkic languages, then we have two regional branches, one in the taiga and Tundra of Siberia, mainly eastern siberia and one in the steppe belt. In the east of siberia we have another related language family, the tungusian, in the west of siberia uralic. between the northern and southern branch of the turkic languages we have the mongolian languages.
I am no linguist, but my opinion is, that turkic, not turk, groups migrated from the original taiga habitats into the steppe region and assimilated mongolian and mainly indo-iranian tribes. The similar life style was of course a supporting factor for it. I can't say, what the reasons were for the superiority of the Turkic people over the other tribes. Attractive for the migration were probably the indic and chinese reigns and empires and the prosperous trade routes.
beorna is offline  
Old November 6th, 2012, 07:11 PM   #65
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

There is actually a Turkic philologist that read some of Etruscan writings in Turkic. If what he wrote turns out to be true in the future, Etruscan might be classified as a dialect of Turkic.

http://ebooks.preslib.az/pdfbooks/en...garasharli.pdf

Two examples from the book:
Click the image to open in full size.
The sentence written from right to left sounds as follows:
ii ulaθ iline inaθ

Click the image to open in full size.

This situation completely coincides with the words uttered by the woman.

In pure Turkish she wishes the soldier a happy journey saying ii ulath ilina, which in Turkish reads “iyi ulash iline”, literally, “reach your country well” (ii – iyi “well”, ulath - ulash “reach”, “join”, ilina – iline “to your country”). In the word ii the consonant y was omitted between the two sounds as in some Turkic languages (ii “good”, “well”). Ilina (Turkish iline) is the Turkic noun il (“country”) with the suffixes denoting possession (il – in “your country”) and dative case (-e): il – in – e (Etruscan il-in-a) “to your country”.

In the verb ulath (Turkish ulash “reach”, “join”) the interdental sound th coincides with the Turkish sh. This consonant interchange is also observed between the Etruscan athay (Turkic asha «to eat») in the text dealing with a feasting ritual, as well as within Turkic languages ( Turkic bash ~ Chuvash puth «head»).

The expression ii ulath ilina (“reach your country well”) uttered by the Etruscan woman is followed by the word inath, which we can compare with the old Turkic verb yinat/yinath (“get well”, “recover”) [14, 687; 176, 261]. This comparison is semantically logical as it corresponds to the content of the previous expression: ii ulath ilina inath «reach your country well, recover”. In relation to the soldier being seen off by the woman the expression is quite appropriate.

The absence of the pre-positional y in the word inath can be explained with the frequently observed omission of that consonant in many Turkic languages (yil~il “year”, in~yin “to go down”, etc). In reply to the woman the soldier asks her to bless Thaf and sympathize with Lathl, the Etruscan gods:

thafa alkı
lathlni kay

Both alkı and kay are Turkic: old Turkic alkı «to bless», «to give blessing», kay «to sympathize»[176]. The answer is quite logical: in reply to the woman who wishes him to reach his country well (ii ulath ilina – Turkish. iyi ulash iline), he is asking her to address these gods for his journey to be fortunate, to bless Thaf and to sympathize with Lathl. Thaf and Lathl have insignificant phonetical difference from the Lasl and Thvf mentioned in the list of the Etruscan gods, where they are presented side-by-side [106, 181].

The names are found in the Turkic dative (-a: Thaf-a) and accusative (-ni: Lathlni) case forms, both of which are known to be characteristic of the Etruscan morphology.

The text describing the parting of the woman with the soldier was first published by G. Korte, who didn’t provide a translation. Z.Mayani, who tried to interpret it into Albanian made inadmissible mistakes. For some reason he read the first three letters of the sentence as liu («god»), while there is no letter denoting l in the beginning, and the last five letters of the line he read in reverse direction, from left to right, getting a female «name» for the woman – Thania. Reading a part of the line from right to left and another part in reverse direction is inadmissible.

Worse than this was the appearance of the invented female name (Thania) in the sentence uttered by the woman, where mentioning her own name is not logical at all. As we already know, the woman wished the soldier a good journey.

Such patterns of deciphering the Etruscan texts were usual for many researchers. Only the combinatorial method promoted the correct interpretation of some small texts, although the origin of the interpreted words remained unknown until today.

In some Etruscan texts we observe the correspondence of the Etruscan post-positional th with Turkic t (ath~at “horse”, flerth~belirt “to show itself” etc).

In one of the Etruscan pictures we see a young man driving a
cart harnessed to four horses.

Click the image to open in full size.

He is riding the horses very hard. The content of the picture is expressed in the sentence axla ithuk athe kufarce in which we easily see the expression athe kuf corresponding to the Turkic atı kov («to ride the horse ») [176, 461].

Athe is in the accusative case form of the noun, characteristic of the Chuvash language (-a, -e, in other Turkic languages -i) [90, 18].

Kufarce consists of the verb kuf («to ride»), the suffix arke, which denotes an action going on at a definite moment in the past and corresponds to the Turkic ardi with that meaning. The expression athe kufarce, thus, can be translated as «was driving horses».

The word ithuk preceding the expression athe kufarce is consonant with the old Turkic ithuk («free», «set free», «given the free reins (about the horse)». Consequently the Etruscan sentence expresses «Akhla (personal name) was riding the horses given the free reins».

Another consonant interchange, observed in the Etruscan and Turkic languages, is the pre-positional f-b. The above mentioned Etruscan flerth differs from the Turkic belirt with two consonant shifts: the widely spread post – positional th – t and pre-positional f – b. The Etruscan pre-positional f, by some linguists, are considered to have developed from b [105, 41], which is obvious between flerth and the Turkic belirt.



Last edited by ancalimon; November 6th, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
ancalimon is offline  
Old November 6th, 2012, 10:10 PM   #66

Midas's Avatar
Γορδιεϝαις the Phrygian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Scandinavia, Balkans, Anatolia & Hatay
Posts: 3,221
Blog Entries: 3

Except from the fact that every month someones comes to Historum claiming that the enigma of some ancient language is solved, I have never seen this inscription anywhere. That is not important right now...

What Is important is that Etruscan is a known language and we know that only Raetic and Lemnian are related to it. It is far older than proto-Turkic and by no means related to it. If we examine longer inscriptions this is evident. The fact that proto-Turkic doesn't help us read Etruscan, means something. Now, lets see...

celi huθis zaθrumis flerχνa neθusl sucri θezric

On the 26th of the month of September all the offerings to the god Nethuns should be declared and made.

Some important facts... Turkic languages do not have Θ. Second, how would you pronounce fl- in the beginning of the word without putting a vowel in Turkic languages? The inscription is clearly not Turkic.


One more example of Etruscan...

m unata zutas tul dardanium tinś Φ

M. Unata Zutas boundaries of the Dardanians. Of Tin. 1000 [paces]
Midas is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 11:57 AM   #67
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 48

Excellent, Midas and Shaddam IV!

Ancalimon, it is very easy to explain any words which have no known meanings with any language. That is no proof, because such "Etruscan" words can be read through Turkish, Hungarian, Basque, Chinese, Bantu or whatever language.

You must only analyze the words about which we know what they meant! Try to explain such words through Turkish. If you cannot, Etruscan is not a Turkic language.
Jaska is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 12:11 PM   #68
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
Excellent, Midas and Shaddam IV!

Ancalimon, it is very easy to explain any words which have no known meanings with any language. That is no proof, because such "Etruscan" words can be read through Turkish, Hungarian, Basque, Chinese, Bantu or whatever language.

You must only analyze the words about which we know what they meant! Try to explain such words through Turkish. If you cannot, Etruscan is not a Turkic language.
Well.. Read the book for information. Garasharly does exactly what you are asking for.
ancalimon is offline  
Old November 7th, 2012, 01:16 PM   #69

Midas's Avatar
Γορδιεϝαις the Phrygian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Scandinavia, Balkans, Anatolia & Hatay
Posts: 3,221
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by ancalimon View Post
Well.. Read the book for information. Garasharly does exactly what you are asking for.
Basically, the link has a problem. Now, let me tell you something. When I was young and ignorant various things could get my attention. However, I have learned something in life. Get a second opinion! Do your own research. Verify!

If I were you, I would first do 2 things...


a) Look around and see what experts write about the issue. In your case I would pick Bonfante, an Italian scholar who is the biggest expert in Etruscan, recognised by the global academia.

b) If the only people supporting the subject were from a specific group (e.g from a specific ethic/political/religious/whatever group) and nobody else, I would start to wonder... Usually, they pick 10 points...7 of them are undeniably true. 3 of them are big misconceptions or lies.

Midas is online now  
Old November 7th, 2012, 02:53 PM   #70
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 47

Midas:

a) Thanks. I will look at Bonfarte's works. Any essential things you can advice?
I actually have a second opinion. It's that Etruscans appeared out of nowhere and they are in no way related to any other human being on Earth. I find it hard to acknowledge.

b) I guess that could have to do something to do with not many people being experts on Turkic dialects as a whole. If you don't know and aren't even interested in Turkic generally declaring the people and language as unhistorical and insignificant, the chances of claiming it as the source of Etruscan, Trojan and Pelasgian would become extremely small as a result.
ancalimon is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
etruscans, prototurks


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
True or False: Urartu is proto-Armenia? Zeno Ancient History 55 February 14th, 2014 01:12 AM
Black Turks / Afro-Turks Afrasiyab Middle Eastern and African History 62 October 28th, 2013 07:10 AM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Proto-writing thread Thessalonian Ancient History 4 July 31st, 2011 02:55 PM
Turanian people (turks) and ottomans turks illotempore2002 Medieval and Byzantine History 43 January 4th, 2011 09:39 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.