I love you so much right now.
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
I love you so much right now.
Yet you act like you're a 100% correct on every stupid thing you make up.
"This comes from that, that comes from this. Oh, did I make a mistake? Must be the richness of the language!"
"This comes from that, that comes from this. Oh, did I make a mistake? Must be the richness of the language!"
Stop distracting me! Here I have a beautiful Turkic word.
spirit
two Turkic words: ES - BİRİNGÇİ (NG ~ N is nasal so it's dropped)
The meaning? Wonderful. It means the "primordial want", "the primordial breath", "the first idea", "the first time God blew soul to human", "the first will of God that made humans gain the ability to want to do things. It's the first inspiration that came to human from Tengri. To realize existence.
This ES (mind, outside force, to blow air, to get inspiration to do things) should also be related with SU (water) itself.
PS: If I said that this word means different thing before, this last post should render it most probably false.
spirit
two Turkic words: ES - BİRİNGÇİ (NG ~ N is nasal so it's dropped)
The meaning? Wonderful. It means the "primordial want", "the primordial breath", "the first idea", "the first time God blew soul to human", "the first will of God that made humans gain the ability to want to do things. It's the first inspiration that came to human from Tengri. To realize existence.
This ES (mind, outside force, to blow air, to get inspiration to do things) should also be related with SU (water) itself.
PS: If I said that this word means different thing before, this last post should render it most probably false.
ancalimon said:
Well, it must be the richness of the language again, but...The link to the online Etymology dictionary
Also, I thought that the Turkish word for spirit was can(jan or maybe gan,I don't recall exactly which one of these three words). Finally, I couldn't find anything(official) in the whole Internet about your "ES - BİRİNGÇİ" theory. Thus, another linguistic explanation turns out to be wahooney-shaped.
Antonis said:
Of course you want find it on the Internet. That's original research. (it's actually only me seeing that the word consists of two Turkic parts). All I do is speak the word in different IE languages aloud, "espirit" and than consider whether t sound and ch, th sounds are phonetically similar.
The word ES or the similar US are clear enough. It's "birinci" part that makes it a bit hard to make a connection with. The thing is why should you call a spirit as the first "primordial want", "the primordial breath", "the first idea", "the first time God blew soul to human", "the first will of God that made humans gain the ability to want to do things". It's the first inspiration that came to human from Tengri... Does this makes sense? For me it does a lot with the cultural background I have and my view of structure of universe and beyond. Especially when I consider the nature of the magical word ES. Which was also used as a foundation for Indo-European Civilizations theory (which later got renamed to IE Languages Theory after racism went out of fashion)
Antonis said:So, what you are saying is that you speak various words loud and then you decide their etymology and meaning in your native language. How...scientific of you!
Actually I don't decide anything. It's all there, thousands of words are corrupted Turkic sentences. Sometimes I use dictionaries and etymology dictionaries to find related words for those words for which there is no apparent connection.
I mean if your native language was English and you saw a word like "dathingdatbornswentuched" or "redhatair" in Turkish which meant "fire", wouldn't you even consider that word might be related with the English sentence "the thing that burns when touched" or "red hot air"; especially if there were thousands of examples like that?
So for example let me cook something up. When I see the word "solar", my mind automaticaly makes the connection with the Turkish sentence "ısı olur" which means "it becomes heat", "heat is created". Then I make connections with other Turkic dialects. Old Turkic čoɣ meaning "glowing heat" comes to my mind and things get clearer.
Dude,that's an abominable generalization. According to your path of logic, just because the modern german language has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek Grammar and I study Greek and Latin History at university(where Ancient greek and Latin are obligatory) I can speak fluent German and write a dictionary about that language?
Yeah, man. You can make **** up and go on forums, claiming you must be right because whatever you made up while high surely must be right. It's actually all there, everyone else lacks the ability to make connections!
Goker said:
Maybe you are right. Maybe other people can not make the connections I make. For example, I never heard anyone that made the evident connection between "solar" and "ısı olur". And that's just something that came to me instantaneously as soon as I thought about fire.
Ancalimon, these words you are...producing have a lot in common, especially when you speak them loud. But, you have to remember that all these languages are brnches of the Indo-European tree. Also, the language tree that the Turkic language belong is the Altaic,which is proposed. It is more of an idea, than hard-case evidence. But if someone wants to find similarities and origins, I guess it is easy for all things.
Maybe you are completely obsessed about a theory and you try to suit everything you hear to that theory, rather than searching for all the facts. You close your mind to every other possibility. Once you make up a connection between a Turkish and a non-Turkish word, you immediately assume that the non-Turkish word must have had its roots in Turkish. Then you create some sort of backstory in your mind to justify that line of thinking.ancalimon said:
You see, maybe other people can make the connections you make but find it incredibly illogical that they laugh at it. You can either realize how silly you are being or try to fool yourself by claiming that everyone else is wrong and you can see no one else can. Fooling yourself is the easier course.
I do hope that one day you will realize this though;
ancalimon said:
That is such an incredibly appropriate reply to being shown wrong by your own words.ancalimon said:
This was your chance to stand up to your (possible) mistakes or something and BAM! The eyes in the sky you walk straight into the hole.
It's not even "proposed".Antonis said:
ModusTrollens posted about this earlier. The idea behind it was to prove that "everything is Turkish" and then they went ahead and tried to find examples. It's so arse backwards...
Oh yeah, didn't you see ancalimon's reply to that?
ancalimon said:
Yeah...
Should tell you all you ever needed to know.
[edit]
Also what the heck?
Esprit is what you meant, right?ancalimon said:
That has no th, ch or t sound...
ancalimon for World President of the Un-Masterful World.
Exactly - ɛ'spriː or ĕ-sprē'ancalimon said:
or maybe (?): ē'spɪrɪt
Anyway: I once again link to Mark Newbrook's article Linguistic Reconstruction and Revisionist Accounts of Ancient History, originally published in the Skeptical Intelligencer 7 (2004), 22-33.
Two relevant quotes for those who don't want to read the whole thing:
Salient examples of the revisionist strategy are listed below (this list is far from exhaustive!). Some additional points arise here:
1. As will be seen, a number of these proposals are partly motivated by nationalistic feelings, including the conviction that one’s own language and culture are somehow pre-eminent and very 'old'. This is especially common where the language and/or the culture in question is regarded as historically very significant or distinguished but as now lacking in power; an obvious example is Greek. It is also common in the cases of 'genetically' isolated and thus mysterious languages such as Basque or Burushaski (a language considered 'genetically' isolated is one for which no 'genetically' related languages are currently known). Again, it is common in the cases of languages of disputed 'genetic' affiliation (thus again mysterious) such as Hungarian. In some cases, the traditional religious associations of a language are also a factor (see below for examples). [it's a pretty long but of course not exhaustive list going from 'Afrocentrists', some extraterrestial "theories" and Atlantis, which we both had here already too, Basque, Etruscan - including some conspiracies of the Roman-Catholic church in the 'Dark Ages' and medieval times-, other examples we already had, someone who actually claims that Modern English existed since ancient times, Hungarian, Turkic and so on; MT]
2. Some of the claims discussed are even more suspect than most, in that they repeatedly fly in the faces of known etymologies, which are often very well supported with historical and linguistic evidence. Other claims deal mainly with the remote past where the actual etymologies are uncertain, and the point here is not that those offered are known to be wrong but that there is no particular reason to accept them.
3. In addition, the writers mostly pay no attention to the positions of the various languages in their respective families with their well-established histories. This renders many of the etymologies offered even more implausible or indeed impossible.
4. In some cases, multiple etymologies with different sources are posited for the very same word. For obvious reasons, such claims are most unlikely to be correct.
5. There is an important contrast between (a) proposals which involve normal unplanned linguistic change and (b) a special group of proposals which involve the deliberate concoction of known languages out of other known languages or reconstructed (or invented) languages (often by churches and other bodies with an alleged interest in deceiving humanity). For cases of type (b), the relevant statistical considerations are much more difficult, since these assume normal unplanned change; those theories, although they are typically both implausible and indemonstrable, are thus almost immune to effective disproof along these lines. (However unsystematic and/or otherwise implausible a set of changes might be, it could occur if it was deliberately planned as part of a project of language concoction!) By way of an additional feature, some cases of type (b) and a few of type (a) involve (re)analysis of linguistic forms (especially of the alleged ancestral forms) into monophonemic, monosyllabic or other very short morphemes.
1. As will be seen, a number of these proposals are partly motivated by nationalistic feelings, including the conviction that one’s own language and culture are somehow pre-eminent and very 'old'. This is especially common where the language and/or the culture in question is regarded as historically very significant or distinguished but as now lacking in power; an obvious example is Greek. It is also common in the cases of 'genetically' isolated and thus mysterious languages such as Basque or Burushaski (a language considered 'genetically' isolated is one for which no 'genetically' related languages are currently known). Again, it is common in the cases of languages of disputed 'genetic' affiliation (thus again mysterious) such as Hungarian. In some cases, the traditional religious associations of a language are also a factor (see below for examples). [it's a pretty long but of course not exhaustive list going from 'Afrocentrists', some extraterrestial "theories" and Atlantis, which we both had here already too, Basque, Etruscan - including some conspiracies of the Roman-Catholic church in the 'Dark Ages' and medieval times-, other examples we already had, someone who actually claims that Modern English existed since ancient times, Hungarian, Turkic and so on; MT]
2. Some of the claims discussed are even more suspect than most, in that they repeatedly fly in the faces of known etymologies, which are often very well supported with historical and linguistic evidence. Other claims deal mainly with the remote past where the actual etymologies are uncertain, and the point here is not that those offered are known to be wrong but that there is no particular reason to accept them.
3. In addition, the writers mostly pay no attention to the positions of the various languages in their respective families with their well-established histories. This renders many of the etymologies offered even more implausible or indeed impossible.
4. In some cases, multiple etymologies with different sources are posited for the very same word. For obvious reasons, such claims are most unlikely to be correct.
5. There is an important contrast between (a) proposals which involve normal unplanned linguistic change and (b) a special group of proposals which involve the deliberate concoction of known languages out of other known languages or reconstructed (or invented) languages (often by churches and other bodies with an alleged interest in deceiving humanity). For cases of type (b), the relevant statistical considerations are much more difficult, since these assume normal unplanned change; those theories, although they are typically both implausible and indemonstrable, are thus almost immune to effective disproof along these lines. (However unsystematic and/or otherwise implausible a set of changes might be, it could occur if it was deliberately planned as part of a project of language concoction!) By way of an additional feature, some cases of type (b) and a few of type (a) involve (re)analysis of linguistic forms (especially of the alleged ancestral forms) into monophonemic, monosyllabic or other very short morphemes.
It will be seen from the above that the general nature of the main problem with the linguistic aspects of most of these theories/claims is very much the same. The authors, relying largely on 'common sense' examination of superficial similarities and knowing little or nothing of historical linguistics itself, are 'stuck' in the eighteenth century; they are not even failing to re-invent the 'wheel' of careful comparative reconstruction, because they have not seen that this 'wheel' is necessary, and because the 'easy' method of relying on superficial similarities can readily be applied in such a way as to 'support' their nationalistic ideas or their revisionist histories. Being isolated, private workers or small groups of the like-minded, each with a conviction that they alone are right, they do not talk to each other, and so they do not observe that the same unreliable methods 'work' more or less equally well for all of their mutually contradictory claims. (If they do ever talk to each other, the discussion usually descends rapidly into mutual vituperation, as noted in the case of Nyland and Kaya.) One can persuade oneself, using such methods, that any two languages are related; as noted, linguists faced with such ideas have occasionally done just this (e.g., for Mayan and English), as a tour-de-force. Even when linguists do make a supportive contribution, they are mainly those who are themselves on the 'fringe' of academic scholarship; if they were not, they would scarcely be involved in such ideas.
Similar threads
