Is Mythology the turth disguised as a Tale? or a Tale to disguise a Turth?

[Anarion]

They are accepted as impeccable.

We only have your word for that.

It's not understandable why you are making such a fuss about this. Why must he be wrong? Did he use regular sound correspondence method to determine that God spoke Swedish? What is the logic which led to you comparing Osman Nedim Tuna's work with that Swede? Can you show us his method?

That was a long time before that method existed, and he was making fun of contemporaries trying to argue that their mother tongue was spoken in the Garden of Eden.

About different letters becoming different letters when words are taken into another language...  That is what actually happens.

When station, stop and scala are loaned into Turkish, they gain an initial "i" making them istasyon and istop and iskele. Sometimes words starting with L gained an initial i. ilimon (although limon is more widely used).

I thought we were talking about Turkic loan words in Sumerian here, not the other way around.

 

[ancalimon]

They are accepted as impeccable.

We only have your word for that.

It's not understandable why you are making such a fuss about this. Why must he be wrong? Did he use regular sound correspondence method to determine that God spoke Swedish? What is the logic which led to you comparing Osman Nedim Tuna's work with that Swede? Can you show us his method?

That was a long time before that method existed, and he was making fun of contemporaries trying to argue that their mother tongue was spoken in the Garden of Eden.

About different letters becoming different letters when words are taken into another language...  That is what actually happens.

When station, stop and scala are loaned into Turkish, they gain an initial "i" making them istasyon and istop and iskele. Sometimes words starting with L gained an initial i. ilimon (although limon is more widely used).

I thought we were talking about Turkic loan words in Sumerian here, not the other way around.

We are talking about how different Turkic words were loaned into Sumer and how IE words are loaned into Turkish and how the process can be similar. In some instances words starting with x turn into words starting with z,  and in other instances words starting with y turn into words starting with z and vice versa. Sumerian is not uniform through its life. It changes just like how other languages change.

Most of you guus are acting too nationalistic (or maybe just too anti Turkic) . Just like I accept that most European languages are related with the religious liturgical Sanskrit, you should have the courage to accept Sumerian is related with Turkic. The method is the same and in case of Turkic and Sumerian, it's much richer despite the time gap and much less written evidence.

 

[Anarion]

Ok, I see now. But from what I understand the added initial i is there because the Turkish phonetic system doesn't allow complex onsets like st- and sk-. There's a reason why it's there. The sounds can change when a word is borrowed from one language and into another, but if the word doesn't have a too foreign structure, why change them? Our knowledge of Sumerian phonology isn't great, but it seems they did have word initial k and m for example.

 

[ancalimon]

Ok, I see now. But from what I understand the added initial i is there because the Turkish phonetic system doesn't allow complex onsets like st- and sk-. There's a reason why it's there. The sounds can change when a word is borrowed from one language and into another, but if the word doesn't have a too foreign structure, why change them? Our knowledge of Sumerian phonology isn't great, but it seems they did have word initial k and m for example.

I am not a linguist so I can not answer your question without consulting an expert. I will ask for such examples in IE languages for comparison and be extra careful about not mentioning Turkic so as not to trigger subconscious anti-Turkic feelings.

 

[Bromden]

Most of you guus are acting too nationalistic (or maybe just too anti Turkic) . Just like I accept that most European languages are related with the religious liturgical Sanskrit, you should have the courage to accept Sumerian is related with Turkic. The method is the same and in case of Turkic and Sumerian, it's much richer despite the time gap and much less written evidence.

Would you stop that "y'all are brainwashed anti-turk nationalisticists" **** please? I'm fairly sure no one gives that much ****s about his nation or the turks here that they couldn't accept that their language origins from a different region of eurasia than they previously thought. You could just post something convincing to be convincing, but your proofs are the same old logical fallacies as before, now spiced up with a major dose of self-victimization (best friend of delusion spirals).

1 new post

What anti-Turkic feelings, for ****'s sake?

 

[Areze]

What anti-Turkic feelings, for ****'s sake?

The one where we refuse to acknowledge the Turks as the master race for self-evident reasons?

 

[Moose!]

They are accepted as impeccable.

By who? I can guarantee that you won't ever see credible scientists using such language to describe research. No one's research is ever impeccable, nor is it ever above critique.

 

[Anarion]

Ok, I see now. But from what I understand the added initial i is there because the Turkish phonetic system doesn't allow complex onsets like st- and sk-. There's a reason why it's there. The sounds can change when a word is borrowed from one language and into another, but if the word doesn't have a too foreign structure, why change them? Our knowledge of Sumerian phonology isn't great, but it seems they did have word initial k and m for example.

I am not a linguist so I can not answer your question without consulting an expert. I will ask for such examples in IE languages for comparison and be extra careful about not mentioning Turkic so as not to trigger subconscious anti-Turkic feelings.

Before the gods decide to strike me down for hubris I should note that I'm a dabbling student of linguistics at best. Anyone can call themselves linguist, but it's a prestigious title that I don't think I've earned. Not that anyone is saying otherwise, just that I might have been implying I fancy myself a linguist. 
Don't know if you meant that I should provide examples or if you were going to ask your expert. I can't think of any borrowings into Indo-European (PIE or any of its descendants) where the word had to be adapted, but there might be some examples of that. Some words that were borrowed into Finnish from North Germanic like ranta ("beach") and ranska("French") were simplified because the rules of Finnish didn't allow consonant clusters in the beginning of words (although they do nowadays). 

The fancy word for that is phonotactic constraints. For example, you can't have a word like mbele in English but you can in Swahili. It's quite hard to tell what kind of constraints a dead language like Sumerian would have had, I think.

 

[ancalimon]

Another thing. In oldest tablets, Gilgamesh is originally recorded as Bilgamesh. So we know that it changed into Gilgamesh after something significant happened there.  (think of it like the name Bill changing into Gill in English).  It's rather suspicious that everybody uses the Gilgamesh form while its original form is  Bilgamesh.

 

[Moose!]

In the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh goes on a journey to discover eternal life after his friend and companion, Enkidu, dies. If the original form of the name is Bilgamesh...

bir / one, a particular

gam / sorrow, anxiety

es / companion, the other half of a pair

That means Bilgamesh is actually Proto-Turkish for one who feels sorrow over (the loss of) his companion, which is exactly what happens in the story!

Spoiler

 

[ancalimon]

In the epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh goes on a journey to discover eternal life after his friend and companion, Enkidu, dies. If the original form of the name is Bilgamesh...

bir / one, a particular

gam / sorrow, anxiety

es / companion, the other half of a pair

That means Bilgamesh is actually Proto-Turkish for one who feels sorrow over (the loss of) his companion, which is exactly what happens in the story!

Spoiler

Good good! let the evil flow through you!

Bilge: wise
miş: a suffix meaning "you heard this from someone else and not witnessed it yourself"  or  "the one that is"
Bilgemiş ~ Bılgamış : the one that is said to be wise.  or  the wise one.

 

[Anarion]

Why suspicious? Gilgamesh was written about for thousands of years, in both Sumerian and Akkadian. Could be that the second syllable g influenced the b so it was assimilated.

 

[ancalimon]

Why suspicious? Gilgamesh was written about for thousands of years, in both Sumerian and Akkadian. Could be that the second syllable g influenced the b so it was assimilated.

Then why not take the original form of the word which was not influenced by another language?

When I look at history books, I don't see the Turkish İskender form of the name Alexander.

 

[Anarion]

It's probably because most of our texts concerning Gilgamesh are in Akkadian. The complete epic survives in Akkadian, and if there ever was a unified story told in Sumerian, only fragments remain.

 

[ancalimon]

It's probably because most of our texts concerning Gilgamesh are in Akkadian. The complete epic survives in Akkadian, and if there ever was a unified story told in Sumerian, only fragments remain.

Meaning they show us a closer (or the same) version of their own language. So when we are talking about Sumerian's relation with other languages, we have to take the original ones into account.

It's the same case with Scythian.

If you decided to determine which language Turkich was related with 3000 years in the future when there was no knowledge about Turkic, you would have to take the oldest form and not the latest form in which there are words like istasyon, tren, otobüs and internet. Otherwise one could reach the conclusion that Turkish was a dialect of French as they did similar with Scythian.

 

[Anarion]

In this case it's more like how many tend to favour Hercules over Herakles. The Roman form of his name is just more familiar and well known.

 

[ancalimon]

In this case it's more like how many tend to favour Hercules over Herakles. The Roman form of his name is just more familiar and well known.

The difference is that they are well documented and known languages. Whereas Sumerian was long forgotten.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

They are accepted as impeccable.

By who? I can guarantee that you won't ever see credible scientists using such language to describe research. No one's research is ever impeccable, nor is it ever above critique.

So true.

 

[Anarion]

In this case it's more like how many tend to favour Hercules over Herakles. The Roman form of his name is just more familiar and well known.

The difference is that they are well documented and known languages. Whereas Sumerian was long forgotten.

Yeah, but this is just one name. It doesn't change how we view Sumerian or Akkadian. It's not exactly a secret that Gilgamesh was sometimes spelled Bilgamesh.

Then again, according to this jounal, Gilgamesh was probably the original form. Cuneiform is an odd writing system. Sometimes the signs should be read one way on their own and another when put together, sometimes they mean different things in different contexts.

In sum, the reading /gil/ o NE-šeššig is actually attested and in perect consonance with the existing evidence,whereas the /bil/ readings exhibit a limited distribution according to clear constraints (a small set o lexical items,loanwords, and the like). Tus, the reading Bilgames, instead o Gilgameš, in Sumerian, seems simply the resulto a misunderstanding o the sign sequence. Moreover, the possibility o reading Pabilgames as the earliest ormo this name is again predicated on a misconstruction o a ew Early Dynastic spellings. One must, thereore,conclude that the name o the amous ruler o Uruk was Gilgameš, and only Gilgameš, throughout all periods o Mesopotamian history, both in Akkadian and in Sumerian. Bilgames is, thereore, nothing but a scholarly ctionreinorced by a penchant or learned olk etymologies o proper names, which were as enticing to ancient Meso-potamian scribes as they still are to modern Assyriologists.

https://www.academia.edu/1750824/Reading_Sumerian_Names_II_Gilgamesh_JCS_64_2012_ (Page 12)
I did read that nearly in its entirety, by the way. I  found it to be impenetrable, I guess you need to be an Assyrologist to understand any of it.

 

[ancalimon]

http://www.stavacademy.co.uk/mimir/scythianterms.htm

Here is an attempt at deciphering Scythian religious terms that are related with "Turanian" languages.


http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/scytha.html