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

[ancalimon]

For elite dominance to take place, the elite group has to have higher social structure and culture and technology.

Not if it's done at the point of the sword.

It does not count. You can not force people to change their language by force. Otherwise the Kurds in Turkey would have long forgotten that their language was Kurdish since they were forced for a very long time. Besides, 20 percent of the population (more like 2 or 3 percent for a very long time) could not have the force to do so even if it was possible. They also did not kill them as can be seen from the genetic structure of Turkish people in Anatolia.

Run your gears. Think about the gibberish you believe in.

If it was religion as in the case of Indo European languages, people would have been speaking Arabic as a whole in Turkey.

 

[Moose!]

It does not count.

Yes it does. People can adopt all sorts of cultural attributes for all sorts of reasons.

 

[ancalimon]

It does not count.

Yes it does. People can adopt all sorts of cultural attributes for all sorts of reasons.

On the contrary they would hold on to their culture and language even more if they are forced to forget it (that is if the said force has enough numbers which is not valid for Turks migrating into Anatolia). You are all wrong. You are all believing a fantasy.

 

[Moose!]

You are in a fallacy. There are multiple examples of where language shift as a result of force or coercion. Look at Spain.

隐藏: Forced Language Conversion

 

[ancalimon]

You are in a fallacy.

You are not even in a fallacy. You are making things up to suit it to your world view. That is bigotry. You have been doing it for a very long time and when I start doing it and calling you that you are not who you think you are, you find it funny.

 

[Moose!]

You are making things up to suit it to your world view.

That's rich coming from you.

That is bigotry.

I don't think you know what bigotry is. Making up things to suit your world view is not bigotry, it's ancalilogic.

If you think I am biased against you, that is different. I am biased against you, but only because you have consistently demonstrated that you are intellectually dishonest. You misinterpret and apply research far outside it's scope (the Turkish "baby-language" was a good example of that) and you cite scholars who have been thoroughly discredited by their peers and purport them to be the next "Einstein." When someone disagrees with you and presents evidence, you complain that they aren't being logical, and that with a little more logical thinking, they would understand the truth. That is not how argument works. You need evidence to back up your claims, but the evidence you present leaves us wanting because 1) it is often misinterpreted, 2) it lacks credibility, and 3) it does nothing to address the massive amount of alternative evidence which supports mainstream scientific theories of language and cultural shift.

You have been doing it for a very long time and when I start doing it and calling you that you are not who you think you are, you find it funny.

What does this even mean?

 

[ancalimon]

You think that I was not speaking Turkish in the past but a couple of people came and forced me to speak Turkish and forget my "Byzantine" or whatever language using swords.

When I say that you were not speaking English in the past but lots of people speaking Indo-European came and you changed your religion and started speaking English, you find it impossible even when we have evidence of their arrival.

But when I show you the evidence of Turkic arrival in Istanbul or Europe long before any other culture existed here, you say they are Indo-European arrivals.

So first of all you accept the minimal Turkic lingual haplogroup arrival in Anatolia and you claim that they were the ones who changed the language in Anatolia.

But when the same hoplogroup is in Europe and Istanbul long before any other culture existed, you suddenly start to claim that they spoke Indo-European because the Turks around the rest of the world also spoke Indo-European languages before some other guys forced them to do so. So according to your logic the Turks that recently came to Anatolia were Turks but their ancestors were Indo-European speaking. What kind of force can force this geography to speak Turkic? They did not have culture we know of. They did not have a social structure or a tradition we know of. For gods sake they even no longer have graves!!! since kurgans are also trademarks of IE speakers according to your logic ))) They were certainly not forced to speak Indo-European by the great Indo-European speakers because those IE speakers were very good hearted people. How did these people force all of them to speak Turkic? Without a proper background they should have been using sticks and stones. Not swords!

The only option left is to assume that the Turk is the God and it must be immortal.

So who the hell were the ones who forced these people to start speaking Turkic?

Meh.. I'm very sorry.

 

[Anarion]

There must have been countless cases of one language being replaced by another even before recorded history. We certainly know of many languages were spoken and died out in Anatolia alone, including Luwian, Hittite, Lydian, Phrygian and Hattic. We also have cases of similar things happening all over the world, including the spread of Latin all over Europe and the Sinicization of most of what is today China. It's not like the Turkification of Anatolia is an isolated case, it happens all the time.

 

[matmohair1]

So who the hell were the ones who forced these people to start speaking Turkic?

Marvel Comics...

隐藏

 

[ancalimon]

There must have been countless cases of one language being replaced by another even before recorded history. We certainly know of many languages were spoken and died out in Anatolia alone, including Luwian, Hittite, Lydian, Phrygian and Hattic. We also have cases of similar things happening all over the world, including the spread of Latin all over Europe and the Sinicization of most of what is today China. It's not like the Turkification of Anatolia is an isolated case, it happens all the time.

The problem is that you base languages on haplogoups when it makes some people not Turkic. But you do the opposite when it makes some people Turkic speaking. 
So it's either that we are not Turkic in origin or it's either that Turks were in Europe and Istanbul long before we were here. Or I'm right in everything I say.


There has to be a source of Turkic language and the power they had to force all these people into speaking Turkic. But there is no evidence of their strong culture apart from this dickstone: (it also was accepted as a long forgotten Indo-European language.

Is this stone the culprit?

And now even the Chinese are accusing the Turks for stealing their Indo-European heritage which is East Turkestan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicisation_and_Turkicisation_of_Xinjiang

It turns out that Ogurs also are Indo-Europeans meaning Oghuz were also Indo-Europeans. Why did these people kept absorbing Indo-Europeans and why were everyone Indo-European in Turkic lands? Did they all become Turks after teaching the collapsing Turks how to ride horses and bury their dead in kurgans?

 

[Anarion]

The problem is that you base languages on haplogoups when it makes some people not Turkic. But you do the opposite when it makes some people Turkic speaking.

Who do you mean exactly? I certainly don't, I only know that haplogroup R1a has been linked with the spread of IE languages by some, but I'm no expert on that.

So it's either that we are not Turkic in origin or it's either that Turks were in Europe and Istanbul long before we were here.

It seems likely to be the former case. Otherwise there should be more evidence that the Byzantines ruled over a largely Turkic-speaking populace.

There has to be a source of Turkic language and the power they had to force all these people into speaking Turkic.

As with every widespread language family, yes.

But there is no evidence of their strong culture apart from this dickstone

Because the Turks were largely nomadic, they didn't leave a whole lot of traces after themselves. That's not unique to Turks either, the spread of Bantu languages in Africa can be inferred from linguistic and genetic evidence but there aren't any grand monuments after the first Bantus.

And now even the Chinese are accusing the Turks for stealing their Indo-European heritage which is East Turkestan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicisation_and_Turkicisation_of_Xinjiang

We have some written evidence that IE languages were spoken in the Tarim Basin. Like my point was earlier by referring to Latin and Chinese, it's not far fetched that these died out and the locals adopted a Turkic language.

 

[Moose!]

You think that I was not speaking Turkish in the past but a couple of people came and forced me to speak Turkish and forget my "Byzantine" or whatever language using swords.

Yes. That is what happened. The Turks migrated into Anatolia, and over a period of centuries and defeated the Romans. Genetically, the people who live in Anatolia are fairly distinct from people who live in Central Asia (where the Turkic language family originated).

When I say that you were not speaking English in the past but lots of people speaking Indo-European came and you changed your religion and started speaking English, you find it impossible even when we have evidence of their arrival.

My ancestors are German and Polish, not English.

Regardless, that is (in a general sense) how the English language developed. The development of English and Turkish are quite comparable.  Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes) invaded Britain and brought their language with them. However, only a minority of English (estimates vary, but range from 15% - 30%) are genetically linked to Germans.

But when I show you the evidence of Turkic arrival in Istanbul or Europe long before any other culture existed here, you say they are Indo-European arrivals.

I don't believe that you have ever shown any credible evidence that demonstrates this.

So first of all you accept the minimal Turkic lingual haplogroup arrival in Anatolia and you claim that they were the ones who changed the language in Anatolia.

First a point of clarification - haplogroups are a means of determining one's genetic ancestor through the location of particular genetic alleles. The only person who calls R1b a "lingual haplogroup" is [urlhttp://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-104904.html]your modern day "Einstein."[/url]

Second, R1b (the haplogroup sometimes associated with Indo-European languages) developed long before Indo-European languages ever did, just like R1a (the Central-Asian haplogroup sometimes associated with the Turkic language) developed long before Turkic was a family of languages. We have a fairly good understanding of language shift, and they change much faster than genetics.

Third, yes. I think this is a reasonable hypothesis. The people who lived in Anatolia spoke a variety of languages (of Indo-European origin) before the Turkic expansion, after which they spoke Turkic language.

But when the same hoplogroup is in Europe and Istanbul long before any other culture existed, you suddenly start to claim that they spoke Indo-European

Can you be more clear here? I don't know what you are saying. R1b (the "Indo-European" haplogroup) developed in the Pontic Steppe long before any of these cultures existed (20,000 - 16,000 years ago). Also, Indo-European isn't a single language. It is a family of languages. I don't really know what you are saying.

because the Turks around the rest of the world also spoke Indo-European languages before some other guys forced them to do so.

No. The Turkic language family is distinct from Indo-European. The people in Anatolia were not Turks, and they did not speak Turkish prior to the Turkic expansion (after the 6th).

So according to your logic the Turks that recently came to Anatolia were Turks but their ancestors were Indo-European speaking.

No. Turkic languages are distinct from Indo-European languages. The Turks who expanded into Anatolia probably had ancestors who spoke Turkish.

So who the hell were the ones who forced these people to start speaking Turkic?

I don't think this makes much sense. Turkic languages developed in this region, and they they expanded into Anatolia. I don't know what you are trying to prove with this picture. I could just as well post a picture of Europe and say "who the hell were the ones who forced these people to start speaking Indo-European" and it would make just as much sense.

The problem is that you base languages on haplogoups when it makes some people not Turkic. But you do the opposite when it makes some people Turkic speaking. 
So it's either that we are not Turkic in origin or it's either that Turks were in Europe and Istanbul long before we were here. Or I'm right in everything I say.

I'm not basing the relationship between languages on haplogroups. Haplogroups are based on genetics, and haplogroups can be used to show genetic ancestors. The study of the relationship between languages requires historical linguistics, and not just genetics.

There has to be a source of Turkic language and the power they had to force all these people into speaking Turkic. But there is no evidence of their strong culture apart from this dickstone: (it also was accepted as a long forgotten Indo-European language.

No, Turkic is not accepted as a long forgotten Indo-European language. Turkic languages are distinct from the Indo-European language family. You are in a fallacy.

 

[ancalimon]

No. Turks will always be Turks. It might have been possible to convert the Scythians into  non-Turks but it will not be possible to do the same the other Turks in Central Asia.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/DAnthonyBronzeAgeEn.htm

”There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they (Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes ) had a common ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian.” and ”Given the increasingly large number of divisions and subdivisions of the generic Andronovo culture(s), with evidence for ”no one group having undue prestige over the others,” there is neither reason nor evidence to believe that they all shared an Indo-Iranian language. From the common roots of the millennia-long Andronovo culture(s) [and before that the related Timber Grave culture(s)], processes of both convergence and divergence [archaeologically indicated by the eastward migrations of the Andronovo culture(s)] allow for the presence of not only the Indo-Iranian languages but for other language families as well, that is, Altaic and Uralic. Clearly, the convergence of cultures, that is, the assimilation of local populations by an in-coming peoples, is very poorly developed within the archaeological discipline.”

http://anthropology.fas.harvard.edu/people/cc-lamberg-karlovsky


My liturgical IE language dominance theory is compatible with sane reasons. People never started switched to Turkic language because nomadic Turks never had the means to force it neither in numbers, nor technology or social structure or culture... This is all a dream even a greater dream than mine!   Much later it probably was the Aryans that forced their languages whereever they went because they had high culture and technology and a religion formed from the universal Tengrism philosphy. They used it to gain allies.

So people thought similar and spoke similar. Then a group of elite people (deservingly) decided that they are better than the rest and created a new language based on the control mechanism (we today call religion) they created from people's cosmology.


You guys are so funny that you accuse me of nationalism because I claim that I spoke Turkish yet you dare to call everybody Indo-European.  This is more then bigotry. What kind cultural imperialism is this anyway? How could they spoil people like you?

 

[Úlfheðinn]

You guys are so funny that you accuse me of nationalism because I claim that I spoke Turkish yet you dare to call everybody Indo-European.  This is more then bigotry. What kind cultural imperialism is this anyway? How could they spoil people like you?

Would you like me to mail you a tinfoil hat to protect you from the lizard people and the Illuminati?

If you send me $50, I'll also be sure to send you a magical Swedish crystal that prevents people from reading your mind.

For another $75 I'll also throw in holy Chinese relic that protects you from the global Indo-European conspiracy.

 

[Anarion]

Why were they necessarily forced? No one's forcing Apiaká speakers to speak Portuguese, or Oroch speakers to speak Russian. Languages die all the time as its speakers abandon it for convenience's sake. 

 

[Moose!]

No. Turks will always be Turks.

Why?

It might have been possible to convert the Scythians into  non-Turks but it will not be possible to do the same the other Turks in Central Asia.

Why? What makes them distinct.

”There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they (Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes ) had a common ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian.” and ”Given the increasingly large number of divisions and subdivisions of the generic Andronovo culture(s), with evidence for ”no one group having undue prestige over the others,” there is neither reason nor evidence to believe that they all shared an Indo-Iranian language. From the common roots of the millennia-long Andronovo culture(s) [and before that the related Timber Grave culture(s)], processes of both convergence and divergence [archaeologically indicated by the eastward migrations of the Andronovo culture(s)] allow for the presence of not only the Indo-Iranian languages but for other language families as well, that is, Altaic and Uralic. Clearly, the convergence of cultures, that is, the assimilation of local populations by an in-coming peoples, is very poorly developed within the archaeological discipline.”

http://anthropology.fas.harvard.edu/people/cc-lamberg-karlovsky

What does this mean? Can you summarize it for me?

My liturgical IE language dominance theory is compatible with sane reasons.

Can you summarize your theory for me in it's entirety so I don't make any false assumptions about what you are trying to say?

People never started switched to Turkic language because nomadic Turks never had the means to force it neither in numbers, nor technology or social structure or culture... This is all a dream even a greater dream than mine!

Except we know that they did switch to a Turkic language during the Turkic expansion. The people of Anatolia spoke other languages long before they spoke Turkish. This is a historical fact. We have writings to prove it.

Do you believe there is a distinction Pre-Turkic languages and PIE? I am trying to understand your position.

Much later it probably was the Aryans that forced their languages whereever they went because they had high culture and technology and a religion formed from the universal Tengrism philosphy. They used it to gain allies. So people thought similar and spoke similar. Then a group of elite people (deservingly) decided that they are better than the rest and created a new language based on the control mechanism (we today call religion) they created from people's cosmology.

Could you rephrase this? I can't make sense of it. What are you trying to say?

 

[kurczak]

The explanation is pretty easy. If you look in the event files you"ll see that the basic mtth for a province to convert to the ruler's culture is 550 and is decreased by high Learning, having the "Convert a province" ambition and a neighboring province of the ruler's culture. It also has a modifier of 0.25 (!) if the ruler is Turkish and the province is in Anatolia.

The mtth for ruler assimilating to the province's culture is 400, BUT there's a modifier of 5 (!) if the ruler is Turkish and the year is less than 1200. It is further increased by high age of the ruler.

So it is more or less fourteen (!) times more likely that the "province assimilated" event kicks in before the "ruler assimilated" event kicks in. And you wait on average just ten-ish years for it to happen. And that's just the starter province with an average ruler.

 

[crodio]

Can I do that in the castle age?

 

[pentagathus]

Are werewolves humans who turn into wolves or wolves who turn into humans?

 

[Bluehawk]

Why did God choose Arabic to convey the Quran, an Afroasiatic language foreign to the Turkish supermen, whom can never be converted to any other language family?

Is the Quran actually a false-flag created by Satan to lure Turks down into the desert to kill them? Should the Ottomans have destroyed the Kaaba when they had the chance?