Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?
- Thread starter ancalimon
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Leifr Eiríksson said:
Of course!
Its root most probably (definitely) comes fromSOR*: ask, question, seek out, search for
PS: Don't bother looking for the etymology of the word. It definitely does not come from "circle". LOL. I can almost imagine what the person that made up that etmology was thinking. :"when people are searching for something, they circle around an area. So that must be it! It comes from circle!!!!...." not. That's just pitiful.
So "circare" comes from SOR*? Because you can follow "research" back to "circare" without much of a problem.
So yeah, explain.
I'm eagerly awaiting to receive yet another glorious facial of wisdom.
Ah, you edited.
And you fail at reading. It's "circle" as in the verb "circle" and not the noun, you twat.
So yeah, explain.
I'm eagerly awaiting to receive yet another glorious facial of wisdom.
Ah, you edited.
And you fail at reading. It's "circle" as in the verb "circle" and not the noun, you twat.
Just another word: I followed this thread more or less from the beginning (of course with long pauses in between), but only several months ago I got curious enough about the blatant goropism to actually start a small jstor-research whether there are any articles about goropism in general and the shown Turkish one specifically.
It wasn't and isn't very surprising that that's not the case, there are no rebuttals by linguists of such "theories" since there never was any academic discourse concerning them. They and especially their "methods" are just too ridiculous to be even discussed in peer-reviewed journals (that's the not-surprising part).
What was, at least for me, a bit surprising is the (relatively) vast coverage of the so-called "Turkish History Thesis" in many articles which were (especially) published over the course of the last 10 years. I read some of those whenever I felt like in leisure time.
Tanyeri-Erdemir (2006), which I quoted in the last post, tried to show, beside the stuff about THT I (partially) quoted, how the field of archaeology in Turkey developed in the 1930s being more or less on par with its European equivalents by reflection on the methods they learned on excavation sites of foreign archaeologists and systematic programmes for students to study on European universities before returning to the Turkish excavation sites.
The same can't be said as far as linguistics are concerned - there were only amateurs, whose "methods" were accordant. Aytürk (2004), also quoted in the last post, is a, in my opionion, good short outline concerning the historical circumstances which made such amateurish charlatanism socially acceptable (at least to some degree, and of course locally constricted). One of the, again at least for me, more surprising facts is that the "method" and the results haven't changed at all - they are still exactly the same they were in the 30s (and before).
Aytürk (2004) also doesn't criticise the "method" itself, solely because there just isn't anything to criticise from a point of view of someone who has the slightest idea of (modern, historical and/or comparative) linguistics; or to quote Aytürk (2004, 1, who quotes Friedrich Giese, a participant of the Third Turkish Language Congress, on which the Sun Language Theory was presented:
"What is the principle behind these studies? Are you depending on unambiguous proof, or are you proceeding by intuition? Although these are very interesting matters, one still needs to depend on a methodology. What is that methodology?"
There of course is no methodology - at all. The same thing can and was done for more or less all languages by (what a surprise) speakers of the respective speech community whose language was thought of as the Ursprache (an interesting article about several other exponents of the one and only true most ancient language and their approach to it in general). I tried to do the same thing ancalimon does with "sound-patterns" (or whatever I imagined the word sounds like, it's not like any of those "experts" took the time to study the phonology of the language in question) of German and some random other languages (preferably - as it's also usually the case - languages I don't even speak and have no idea whatsoever about). Sadly I wasn't able to do so, not because I couldn't (it's actually really easy, especially in times of the internet) but because I just felt uncomfortable (might even say: dirty) raping (even if they are just merely) words. Therefore just a link.
I for one think it's alright if ancalimon or anyone else likes to "compare sounds" and "discover stuff" as a hobby even though it has no scientific, academic, linguistic or, for that matter, intellectual value - the same can be said about playing table tennis - as long as he's feeling content doing so. In this spirit: carry on and may the Kampradturk guide you.
It wasn't and isn't very surprising that that's not the case, there are no rebuttals by linguists of such "theories" since there never was any academic discourse concerning them. They and especially their "methods" are just too ridiculous to be even discussed in peer-reviewed journals (that's the not-surprising part).
What was, at least for me, a bit surprising is the (relatively) vast coverage of the so-called "Turkish History Thesis" in many articles which were (especially) published over the course of the last 10 years. I read some of those whenever I felt like in leisure time.
Tanyeri-Erdemir (2006), which I quoted in the last post, tried to show, beside the stuff about THT I (partially) quoted, how the field of archaeology in Turkey developed in the 1930s being more or less on par with its European equivalents by reflection on the methods they learned on excavation sites of foreign archaeologists and systematic programmes for students to study on European universities before returning to the Turkish excavation sites.
The same can't be said as far as linguistics are concerned - there were only amateurs, whose "methods" were accordant. Aytürk (2004), also quoted in the last post, is a, in my opionion, good short outline concerning the historical circumstances which made such amateurish charlatanism socially acceptable (at least to some degree, and of course locally constricted). One of the, again at least for me, more surprising facts is that the "method" and the results haven't changed at all - they are still exactly the same they were in the 30s (and before).
Aytürk (2004) also doesn't criticise the "method" itself, solely because there just isn't anything to criticise from a point of view of someone who has the slightest idea of (modern, historical and/or comparative) linguistics; or to quote Aytürk (2004, 1
, who quotes Friedrich Giese, a participant of the Third Turkish Language Congress, on which the Sun Language Theory was presented:"What is the principle behind these studies? Are you depending on unambiguous proof, or are you proceeding by intuition? Although these are very interesting matters, one still needs to depend on a methodology. What is that methodology?"
There of course is no methodology - at all. The same thing can and was done for more or less all languages by (what a surprise) speakers of the respective speech community whose language was thought of as the Ursprache (an interesting article about several other exponents of the one and only true most ancient language and their approach to it in general). I tried to do the same thing ancalimon does with "sound-patterns" (or whatever I imagined the word sounds like, it's not like any of those "experts" took the time to study the phonology of the language in question) of German and some random other languages (preferably - as it's also usually the case - languages I don't even speak and have no idea whatsoever about). Sadly I wasn't able to do so, not because I couldn't (it's actually really easy, especially in times of the internet) but because I just felt uncomfortable (might even say: dirty) raping (even if they are just merely) words. Therefore just a link.
I for one think it's alright if ancalimon or anyone else likes to "compare sounds" and "discover stuff" as a hobby even though it has no scientific, academic, linguistic or, for that matter, intellectual value - the same can be said about playing table tennis - as long as he's feeling content doing so. In this spirit: carry on and may the Kampradturk guide you.
Because we know that ancalimon will never read or reply to the whole post, I singled out what probably is the most important part in relation to this thread.
It shows perfectly why the "method" is such bull**** and the problem every single poster ever in this ****ing thread has with his ideas.
ModusTollens said:
It shows perfectly why the "method" is such bull**** and the problem every single poster ever in this ****ing thread has with his ideas.
Wellenbrecher said:
There is a great deal of corruption of Turkic here. Those are not related words.
"circus" comes from çarger meaning "to stretch out cloth to make it look like a tent". Probably the place where some Turks showed their talents with horses or their helpers with elephants.
"circle" comes from sar* meaning to encircle. It's a horde military jargon. Clearly from the barbaric speech of the barbarians in Roman army.
Wellenbrecher said:
Those are pitiful. Nothing like what I do. For example I never said something like "English word -plane" comes from "Bülent" who is someone in Turkey who is always high." All the examples I see on that page are like this.
ancalimon said:
See this is why you are being silly.
The only reason you see a tent as the proper place to for equine shows is because you are thinking of what the modern person sees as a circus.
The first circuses had nothing to do with tents, it was about circular places or in other words arenas.
It is just like Modus said, anyone can sit and take words from their language, find some roughly matching parallel in another language and claim that it proves the former is the source of all languages.
Úlfheðinn said:
Nice cop out.
I demand you do the same for all of your claims, because clearly we cannot rely on history books, various forms of art or literature from the early eras of history wherein circuses are mentioned or described.
Apparently those people simply could not find a big enough cloth! It's impractical to show your talents when even those that do not pay can watch what you do from outside. My own guess is that those that did not use a tent all went bankrupt and that's why we no longer see circuses performed outside.
You take a word, look for something with a roughly similar meaning and/or look (modern meaning, mind, as Ulf pointed out with the circus thing) and then take away stuff or add stuff or change stuff around until they fit together.ancalimon said:
It's EXACTLY what you do and what you've always done.
****, you also keep falling for false friends all the time as I've demonstrated three (or was it four?) times now and as *that dude who is three dudes and whose name I've forgotten, mea culpa* has demonstrated a bunch of times before me.
That's not an answer. First the thing about "circus" that Ulf mntioned and secondly "circle" and "sar*" are so far out of it that even by your standards it's complete bull**** to put them together.
I am sure they had a great number of reasons for doing so, however, I think we can safely establish the name circus has nothing to do with "to stretch out cloth to make it look like a tent" which makes your theory very strange.
If you would have actually researched circuses before posting, you would have found that even until the 19th century, circuses as we know them in the modern era performed primarily in large buildings or temporary structures they built for the purpose.
But again, it is just indicative of the problem with your approach, in that you disregard the history and etymology of a word and instead approach it with your modern understanding of what the word means or how it should be used.
If you would have actually researched circuses before posting, you would have found that even until the 19th century, circuses as we know them in the modern era performed primarily in large buildings or temporary structures they built for the purpose.
But again, it is just indicative of the problem with your approach, in that you disregard the history and etymology of a word and instead approach it with your modern understanding of what the word means or how it should be used.
- "circus" comes from cloth.
Circus is only related to something clothlike in modern times.
- It's because they had no cloth that's strong enough in ancient times!
Rock on
Circus is only related to something clothlike in modern times.
- It's because they had no cloth that's strong enough in ancient times!
Rock on
Wellenbrecher said:- "circus" comes from cloth.
Circus is only related to something clothlike in modern times.
- It's because they had no cloth that's strong enough in ancient times!
Rock on
Only in Roman Empire where they did not know how to weave. All they could do was to make small clothpieces which they connected using tokas (toka: the thing used to connect to things together).
Kormin
Master Knight
ancalimon said:
Depends on your definition of small: Roman Ships had massive sails made of several sheets of woven cloth. the Awning of the Collosseum is thought to of been covered by massive sheets of woven cloth. The Roman army had thousands of tents, some of which got rather large, all of which were made from woven cloth. The Romans wore woven togas that were several yards long, perhaps that is what you mean by small.
But my point is that if the Romans wanted to make a massive tent, they could, and that they did have the ability to weave.
Similar threads
