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

Bromden

Archduke
Best answers
0
:lol: That last part was golden. It shows us that you know just as much about genetics as about linguistics.

Why you "feel" Turkic is so special is because it's your mother language and you didn't learn any other language as thoroughly as that. So it's speciality is not a real property of that language, but it comes from your lack of knowledge about anything else. Of course the only thing you know will feel special.
 

Antonis

Marquis
WBWF&SVCNW
Best answers
0
Bromden, you've got it all wrong...He didn't need to learn any language except his own, simply because Turkic is the mother of all languages and with a few adjustments only, he can fluently speak any language he wants(that includes dead ones as well, as ancalimon proved us with the flawless use of the Hittite language)
 

ModusTollens

Baron
M&BWBWF&S
Best answers
0
ancalimon said:
The research just shows that the easiest language that can be learned by a human baby is the Turkic language. (I bet a baby born from German parents adopted by Turkish parents would learn Turkish just as fast as a Turkish baby would. This would mean many things. It would mean that modern Turkic is naturally the closest language to primordial ~ archetype language.
I bet a baby from x parents adopted by y parents would learn l(y) just as fast as a y baby would. This would mean only one thing: That a baby risen in an environment where only l(y) is spoken would (only) learn l(y).
ancalimon said:
I did not say there is no relationship between language and human genetics.

ancalimon said:
I think there is some kind of connection between our genes and our ancestors genes.
No **** - but most likely not the way you hallucinate it.

ancalimon said:
So I think we are afraid of things that our ancestors did. Or we like things that our ancestors did. Or it's easier to speak the language of our ancestors unless our minds are entangled with other languages.

Turkic is a language in which words would make you feel what they really mean.
That's the bat**** craziness everyone loves and never gets tired of.

Anyway, everyone who doesn't want to read the whole thread in order to get the picture of "Turkishness" as presented by ancalimon in the spirit of the great Kampradturk, here some passages from journals exemplifying the origins of these "theories" as they can be found throughout this very thread.

Tuğba TANYERI-ERDEMIR, Archaeology as a Source of National Pride in the Early Years of the Turkish Republic. In: Journal of Field Archaeology 31/4 (2006), 381-393, here: 382f.
The Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) was founded on June 4, 1930, under the guidance of Atatürk. The first assignment of the commision was to investigate the roots of Turkish history and to come up with an historical thesis that could be tested through future research. Every scholar was given a particular segment of the world's past that was deemed important for Turkish history. [...] The manuscript included discussions of China, India, Mesopotamia (the Sumerians, Elamites, and Assyrians), Anatolia (the Hittites, Phrygians, Lydians, and Seljuks), the Aegan Basin (the Greeks), Italy (the Etruscans), Iran (the Achamenids, Parthians, Sassanians), Central Asian Turkic states, and the Ottoman Empire. The large number of cultures included in this list highlights an important feature of early Repbulican nationalism. The aim, it appears, was not to isolate a single culture of historical lineage as the ancestor of the Turks, but rather to find a way of creating a common ground for all the citizens of the newly established nation-state. The all-embracing nature of this nationalism not only helped the intellectuals to imagine "Turkishness" as a general, inclusive concept, but also nurtured respect of all archaeological cultures.
This preliminary research formed the basis for the Turkish History Thesis (Türk Tarih Tezi) and for drafts of new middle and high school history books. The Turkish History Thesis, in a nutshell, suggested that the Turks were an ancient people whose original homeland in antiquity was Central Asia. These early Turks moved out of Central Asia through a series of migrations and inhabited different parts of the world. In the course of this movement, it was thought, they brought civilization to native populations living in various regions, including China, India, the Middle East, northern Africa, the Balkans, and parts of Europe [...] According to the Thesis, the Turks were believed to be the direct ancestors of the Hittites and the Sumerians, and were also thought to have influenced native peoples living in the Aegean Basin, thus contributing significantly to the development of Greek civilization [...] This theory allowed the Turks to claim to be the legitimate heirs (and, indeed practically the progenitors) of all civilizations that had existed previously on the soil of the new Turkish Republic. For the proponents of the Thesis, showing the world that the Turks contributed to the foundation of both Western and Near Eastern civilization was seen as an effective way of counterbalancing the prejudiced view that Turks were nothing more than barbarians.

Can ERIMTAN, Hittites, Ottomans and Turks: Ağaoğlu Ahmed Bey and the Kemalist Construction of Turkish Nationhood in Anatolia. In: Anatolian Studies 58 (200:cool:, 141-171, here: 167.
The Republican leadership's attempt to disconnect the Turkish citizens from their Ottoman past led to an official search for an alternate historical reality that was supposed to bolster the alleged 'nationalist' pride of the Anatolian population. Based on Ağaoğlu Ahmed's misguided claims, the TTK [the Türk Tarih Kurumu, see spoiler above, MT] and other proponents of the 'History Thesis' were hard at work to establish the Hittites as worthy Anatolian forebears of the Republic of Turkey throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Due to the development of racial theories in the 1930s, the Hittite Empire as a true forebear of the Republic of Turkey became a prehistoric ethnically Turkish state organisation in the minds of Turkey's leadership and its wider population. The Türk Tarihinin Ana Hatları significantly speaks about the 'Turkish race' ('Türk ırkı'), and how this race has civilised the rest of humanity in the course of their migrations. The Hittites, as an ethnic sub-group of the wider Turkish race, had migrated to Anatolia where they set up the earliest Turkish state structure in an Anatolian context [...] The active archaeological programme propagated by the Türk Tarih Kurumu throughout the 1930s and 1940s supported and sustained the official belief that Anatolia's prehistory had been a purely Turkish affair, a conviction that can still boast its proponents today. These rather fanciful ideas about the nature of prehistoric Anatolia and its population orginate in Ağaoğlu Ahmed's contribution to the propaganda efforts of the provisional Ankara government in its concern to create a Turkish homeland in the early 20th century Anatolia, a homeland which was unencumbered by the presence of either ethnic or religious minorities. Anatolia's present was supposed to be purely Turkish, and similarly, the Republican leadership also perceived Anatolia's past as solely Turkish entity. The ethnically divergent Muslim population of the Anatolian peninsula received a new Turkish identity in the 1920s that was to form the basis of Republican citizenship throughout the 1930s and beyond.
Sounds familiar.

İlker AYTÜRK, Turkish Linguists against the West: The Origins of Linguistic Nationalism in Atatürk's Turkey. In: Middle Eastern Studies 40/6 (2004), 1-25, here: 1.
In the transformation from the defunct Ottoman Empire to the Republic of Turkey, the official imperial language, Ottoman Turkish, represented an undesired past in the eyes of the Turkish nationalists. Just as the Ottoman Empire was an assembly of many ethnic groups, Ottoman Turkish was a conglomeration of Turkish, Arabic and Persian with some Italian, Greek, Armenian and other European elements, and was written using Arabic characters. Ottoman Turkish was not, therefore, palatable for the westernizing, nationalist elite, who wanted to create a nation-state for the Turks and to burn the bridges connecting the nascent republic to its Islamic, oriental predecessor. As part of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's reform movement, first, the alphabet was romanized in 1928. The establishment of the Turkish Language Institute (Türk Dil Kurumu) followed in 1932. The task of the institute was, among other things, to 'purify' the language by ridding it of its non-Turkish components and to coin new, 'authentic' words to replace them.

ibid., 7
The Turkish reaction in the early republican era took two distinct forms. First was the attempt to blur the line distinguishing the inflectional from the agglutinative categories and to assert that Turkish is an Indo-European language. The second form of reaction was even more daring than the first. It aimed at establishing Turkish as the Ursprache, the original mother tongue of all human beings. The apogee of the second movement was the notorious Sun-Language Theory of 1936.

ibid., 9
Mustafa Celaleddin [1826-75, an Ottoman general and Polish convert to Islam, who published 'Les Turcs et Modernes' in which he postulated that Ottoman Turks were descendants of the Turanian family, MT] found in comparative philology an excellent tool to prove his case. He certainly was not a philologist, but he cultivated an interest in languages and philology like many other well-educated European gentlemen in the nineteenth century. A large part of his book is devoted to comparative philological analysis of Turkish and 'Aryan' languages, especially Latin. It needs to be mentioned, however, that Mustafa Celaleddin's amateur philological analysis were totally devoid of any sort of methodology acceptable to his professional contemporaries. Unacquainted as he was with the study of morphology in Indo-European and Turkic languages, Mustafa Celaleddin's comparisons relied solely on similarities in the sounds of certain syllables. In this way he was able to dervie Frence societé from Turkish söz (word), Latin domus (domicile) from dam (roof or primitive dwelling), and Latin columna (column) from kol (arm). These purported similarities were so blatantly unscientific that a Turkish nationalist of a later generation brushed them aside as wild speculation, while expressing sympathy for the general line of argument contained in Mustafa Celaleddin's treatise.

ibid., 13-15
Samih Rıfat stated his aim in writing this book in the introduction: He wanted to prove that 'Turks are the oldest race in the world.' [Samih RIFAT, Türkçede Tasrif-i Huruf Kanunları ve Tekellümün Menşei, 5; MT] His philological endeavours were a means to that end. However, he aspired to transform the science of linguistics in more than one way. First, he found fault with the western linguistic tradition in that it ruled out studying the question of the origins of language and human speech. [...] Samih Rıfat, in attempting to restore the question of origins to the agenda of linguistics, had recourse to a dwindling number of European linguists, who were considered by theoi colleagues as rebels in an established tradition. [...] The practice of praising such European mavericks, quoting these 'righteous Gentiles' in a hostile scientific tradition had characterized not only the works of Samih Rıfat, but also the nationalistic literature in the Ottoman Empire and early republican Turkey. Second, Samih Rıfat advocated the introduction of the methodology of psychology into linguistic studies. [...] Psychological insights, he believed, could help linguists discover the residues of the first language of human beings, which remained deposited in the oldest layers of each language. Third, Samih Rıfat claimed to have employed a revolutionary philological principle that would necessitate the reconsideration of much of the linguistic literature. He intended to eliminate the root-based typology that had dominated western philological studies since the beginning of the nineteenth century by casting doubt on the function of the root as the smallest meaningful particle in any given word. Samih Rıfat argued that western philologists had until then studied mainly the roots in the inflectional languages that had lost their original identity; this misplaced emphasis had resulted in an incorrect language typology. The beginning of meaningful articulation, according to him, should be sought not in roots, but rather, in the first sounds that human beings were able to utter, which we today represent with vowels and consonants. [...] Turkish was the original language of human beings, according to Samih Rıfat, as the capacity for speech was first brought to fruition in their homeland at the heart of Asia. In other words, the issue at stake was again the worth of the Turks and their place in history. 'The Aryan and Semitic roots,' he declared, 'the majority of whose principles of origins [menşei kanunlar] we find in our Turkish, will scientifically prove to us the utmost reaches of the nobility of the Turk.' [ibid. 110, MT] Samih Rıfat's observations that appeared in print in 1922 eventually constituted the basis on which the Sun-Language Theory of 1936 would be built. It is indeed puzzling why Samih Rıfat's contribution to the latter theory had never been acknowledged, neither during the heyday of the theory in 1936, nor since.

ibid., 16
To put it briefly, the Sun-Language Theory was a bewildering combination of historical comparative philology, various elements from psychological theories of the nineteenth century and psychoanalytical themes from Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung. The details about how the theory was concocted in the first place are not exactly clear, but apparently it was the brainchild of the same circle of amateur linguists, most of whom were members of the Turkish Language Institute. In pre-historic times, the theory goes, the Turkic peoples of Central Asia had established an illustrious civilization; but as a result of climatic changes and a severe drought they started to emigrate in all directions, transmitting their Neolithic civilization to other peoples of the world. Naturally, it was assumed, the ancient form of the Turkish that these conquering emigrants spoke was also carried with them and contributed to every primitive language the most important concepts necessary for abstract thought as loanwords. Hence, the Sun-Language Theory had provided a pseudo-scientific explanation for a presumed linguistic transplantation and complemented the equally half-baked Turkish History Thesis.
The scientific methodology of the theory, to the extent that one can consider it scientific, was to conduct etymological studies on a diverse group of languages, including Latin, Greek, Romance and the Germanic languages, Arabic, Sumerian and the native languages of North, Central and South America. All these etymological studies were undertaken with the help of a 'revolutionary' etymological method, according to which the smallest meaningful particle of each word was not a root, but a sound, a psychoanalytic unit. Similiar to what Samih Rafıt had suggested earlier, each sound was endowed with a particular meaning regarding the identity of the speaker, or demarcated the boundaries between the speaker and an object. The proponents of the theory tried to establish that Turkic is the language that reflects the perfect form of these sound-meaning relationships, it being the Kultursprache of the Neolithic Age. In their eyes, each such correspondence between a certain sound and meanding had originated in ancient Turkish and found its way into other languages. These correspondences were etched in the sub-conciousness of all nations and peoples.

Karl MENGES, The Turkic Languages and Peoples. Wiesbaden 1968, 9f. Quoted from: Scott REDFORD, "What Have You Done For Anatolia Today?": Islamic Archaeology in the Early Years of the Turkish Republic. In: Muqarnas 24 (2007), 243-252, here: 243.
Turkish scholarship suffered from the quasi-totalitarian superimposition upon all historical, philological, and linguistic studies of the official Kemalist state myth proclaiming the Proto-Anatolian origin of the entire Turkish "race" and the Proto-Turkish nature of the Hittite language. Naturally, under such conditions, with a state doctrine contrary to all historical and linguistic evidence, objective scholarship was suffocated or preveneted from developing.

All the unscientific nonsense ancalimon fabricates is still the same as it was (approximately) 80 years ago. He can claim as much as he wants that his "theories" have nothing to do with the Sun-Language Theory or any of its harbingers/successors and/or equivalents on the "archaeological" field - it's still the same ****, with the same non-existent methodology, and the same unsustainable claims.

I'm fully aware that those short passages from a small selection of a large variety of articles, which were especially published in the last 10 years, concerning the "Turkish History Thesis" (and "Turkish Linguistic Thesis") won't change the mind of its amateurish proponents - nevertheless that's my small contribution to this gaping abyss of nationalistic pseudo-science - was worth a small time span of my vacation (at least for me).

All hail to the Kampradturk.
 

Wellenbrecher

Archduke
WBM&BVC
Best answers
0
:lol:
I hope, I pray, I sacrifice to all the gods, that one day you'll see the irony of that post.

(once more assuming you're not a troll)
 

NikeBG

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Thank you for the post, mate! It shows quite well that our dear ancie is not simply an amateur, but even a noob in his amateurism - he still uses comparisons of roots, instead of sounds.
 

ancalimon

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Wellenbrecher said:
:lol:
I hope, I pray, I sacrifice to all the gods, that one day you'll see the irony of that post.

(once more assuming you're not a troll)
And I hope one day you see the fallacy you are in.

NikeBG said:
Thank you for the post, mate! It shows quite well that our dear ancie is not simply an amateur, but even a noob in his amateurism - he still uses comparisons of roots, instead of sounds.
I compare sounds. It just turns out that many roots share the same sounds with words from other languages.
 

Goker

Archduke
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
ModusTollens said:
ancalimon said:
The research just shows that the easiest language that can be learned by a human baby is the Turkic language. (I bet a baby born from German parents adopted by Turkish parents would learn Turkish just as fast as a Turkish baby would. This would mean many things. It would mean that modern Turkic is naturally the closest language to primordial ~ archetype language.
I bet a baby from x parents adopted by y parents would learn l(y) just as fast as a y baby would. This would mean only one thing: That a baby risen in an environment where only l(y) is spoken would (only) learn l(y).
ancalimon said:
I did not say there is no relationship between language and human genetics.
:lol:

Stay classy, ancalimon.
 

ancalimon

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
All right.  Here is a nice one. It's about Akadem (Akademos), a legendary Athenian of the Trojan War tales.

His name means two things in Turkish:

Arrow man (OQ is an ethnic identity. It means ARROW, UPRIGHT, ERECT and READ)

or

I am the learned one ~ I have read.

---

Now suddenly the word  academy makes extreme sense.

Oh and before talking about Greek schools of philosopy, Plato means:  "he was knowledable" or "Knowledge Father" in Turkish.

and

http://bltnotjustasandwich.com/2012/02/25/whence-the-honey-bee-aristotle-and-the-lxx/
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/events/show/the-philosopher-and-the-bees-aristotle-on-bee-flower-constan

Aristo means "The one that is knowledgable about bees".

---

Another one:  Icarus <  Yukarı :  Upwards, higher.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Icarus&allowed_in_frame=0
 

Kormin

Master Knight
Best answers
0
ancalimon said:
All right.  Here is a nice one. It's about Akadem (Akademos), a legendary Athenian of the Trojan War tales.

His name means two things in Turkish:

Arrow man (OQ is an ethnic identity. It means ARROW, UPRIGHT, ERECT and READ)

or

I am the learned one ~ I have read.

---

Now suddenly the word  academy makes extreme sense.

Oh and before talking about Greek schools of philosopy, Plato means:  "he was knowledable" or "Knowledge Father" in Turkish.
ancalimon said:
All these are just words. They don't show anything. You can not simply deny something because stupid people believe it.
 

ancalimon

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Here  are some Latin words:

corsair < cursarius (Latin) < xarsăr (Ogur Turkic :bold, courageous) <> uğursuz (Turkish: wicked, baleful, ominous, vicious) > hırsız (Turkish: thief)

care < cura (Latin) < kor* (Turkic : protect, care). For example -koru: protect, care, guard  ....  korkuluk: the railing made to protect people or especially children from falling down from a high place)

folk < folkus (Latin) < pulkkă (Turkic : herd, flock...  also the name of the Turkic tribe)
 

ancalimon

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Bromden said:
Even when totally neglecting logic and reason?
Actually logic and reason is the reason itself I'm doing it. It's just that I think I am right while most of other people think I'm wrong because they don't get what I get. It's also possible (while I don't think so) that I'm totally wrong which would mean my reasoning is poor.