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

[ancalimon]

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be.

Care to enlighten us what it was? And possibly how you know?

It's in Jesus's diary 

 

[mor2]

and he was turk as well?  /rhetorical question, obviously 

 

[Merlkir]

Of course it is. Why wouldn't it be.

Care to enlighten us what it was? And possibly how you know?

It's in Jesus's diary 

right, of course it is. Because it was written in Turkic and Jesus wrote it himself after he got resurrected.

By the way "Tengri, Khuday, Deos and God" is a surprisingly little annoying anthropological musing about some pretty general stuff. But not horrible, just slightly biased.
Nothing to do with TUrks being the master race, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to post it as proof of super ancient turk alphabet.

 

[Almalexia]

Oh wow, I just saw the title of this. 

 

[ancalimon]

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievGenesis19-42En.htm

4. Origin of the traditional historical science and its influence on non-Indo-European research.

We call a traditional science the Eurocentric historical science. The Eurocentrism is considered to be a kind of ethnocentrism. "Arisen in close borders of the feudal Europe, it spread when the European peoples, who outstripped the rest of the mankind in the scientific and technical level, came onto a stage of the global progress" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 19]. In humanitarian sphere it arose during study the problems of the history and of the modern condition of the European, and, wider, Indo-European peoples. The European scientists study the problems of the European peoples, naturally, had on the foreground their problems, and the problems of other peoples were secondary for them. So, naturally, Eurocentrism grew  and  gradually reinforced its positions in the historical science.

Eurocentrism is not a science, but an ideology of the Europeans, and wider of the Indo-Europeans, who in the consideration of the historical questions act first of all out of the Europeans" and Indo-Europeans" interests, aiming to prove that Europe from the very beginning belonged only to the Europeans, that in many regions of Asia originally lived only Indo-Europeans, and the other, non-Indo-European peoples come to their modern territories much later. To the Eurocentrism "all the world is only a barbaric periphery of Europe" -  ominously said L.N.Gumilev [Gumilev L.N., 1993, 319].

The below classification briefly shows what languages (and hence, peoples) belong to the Indo-European family.

Indian or Indoarian group covers languages and peoples Hindi, Bihari, Bengali, Marathi, Singal, Sindhi, etc.

Iranian group includes Persians, Tadjiks, Pushtu, Beluchi, Tats, Talyshes, Ossetianss and many Pamirian languages.

Romance group includes French, Provencal, Spanish, Catalonian, Galician, Portuguese, Italian, Romanian, Moldavian peoples and their languages.

Germanic group includes languages and peoples: English, German, Netherland, Luxembourg, Yiddish, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, etc.

Baltic group includes Lithuanian, Latvian languages and peoples.

Slavic group includes languages: Bulgarian (Danube), Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, etc.

In addition to these groups, the Indo-European family includes separate languages: Armenian, Albanian and Greek.

Study ancient, unknown yet languages, the Indo-European scientists without justification also attributed them to the Indo-European family. So, for example, to the Tochars living in the Central and Middle Asia in 1st century BC and in the beginning of our era, German scientists artificially assigned an Iranian language. A careful study need the ethnic composition and language of the Hetto-Luvians who lived in the 18th-13th centuries BC in the central and northern parts of the ancient Anatolia, Phrygians who lived in the 2nd and the beginning of the 1st millennium BC in the northwestern part of the Asia Minor, Thracians who lived in the 6th-3rd centuries BC in the northeastern part of the Balkan peninsula and also in the northwestern part of the Asia Minor, Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Kushans, Sogdians, Kwarezmians, Parthians, etc. who without sufficient foundation were attributed to the Indo-Europeans.

Between the non-Indo-European peoples of Eurasia then were still few  historians and linguists. The history and languages of these peoples remained insufficiently studied, and the scientific criticism of the groundless of these conclusions was almost absent. The young historians and linguists of the Finno-Ugrian and Türkic peoples, naturally, tried to understand and learn the teachings of the Indo-European scientists, moreover, they aspired to enrich these teachings with fresh materials from the history of their peoples. They did not suspect at all that their teachers, Indo-European scientists, can be mistaken.

But later in the 2nd half of the 19th century, as a result of the multifarious study of the sources, non-Indo-European scientists and some Indo-European scientists themselves understood that many of the former conclusions of the Indo-Europeans about ethnogenesis of other peoples do not match the reality. S.N.Artanovsky wrote about the crisis of Eurocentrism of that period: "In 2nd half of the 19th century A.I.Gercen could already note the emerging crisis of the bourgeois Eurocentrism... The crush of the Eurocentric thought, appearing in our century to the full extent, meant a transition to a picture of the world with the basis in the principle of unity of the world history and of the cultural development of mankind" [Artanovsky S.N., 1967, 7.

....

By their ethnic ethnoses, the Türks were considered in some degree as descendants of the Huns, their ethnic links with other ancient peoples and tribes was not recognized. For example, in those regions where lived the Türks who created an extensive empire, earlier lived tribes and peoples carrying common ethnonyms Cymmer, Scythian, Sarmatian, Alans or As. In spite of the fact that in the presentation of the ancient historians these words were political and geographical terms for multi-lingual peoples, including the Türkic-speaking peoples, the modern traditional historical science considers them as the names of exclusively Iranian peoples, or even only the Ossetians. In the ancient peoples named by their neighbors by common ethnonyms Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan-As, the presence of the Türkic-speaking tribes is completely denied. The Türks were ostensibly formed in the Central Asia or in Altai, only in the 5th-6th centuries AD out of the remains of the Hunnish tribes, they created two empires, the First Türkic Kaganate, the Second Türkic Kaganate, and in the 8th-9th centuries they disappeared, just managing to transfer their language and ethnonym "into inheritance to many peoples who are not their descendants at all" [Gumilev L.N., 1967, 4].

Thus, in the traditional historical science the Türks are presented without ethnic predecessors, i.e. without roots, and without ethnic descendants. Hence, the ethnic roots of the Türks cannot be a subject of special study. Ostensibly it is good enough to investigate their military, political and social history.

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

In our opinion, the Türkic ethnic history should be studied starting from the most ancient times. In connection with this statement of purpose, the question of the so-called "ancietizing" of the ethnic history of peoples should be understood (The author refers here to the infamous Stalinist country-wide prohibition to address the history of the subjugated nations of the USSR beyond a proscribed limit - Translator's Note).

 

[Merlkir]

Well, as you, this person has no idea what the horrible eurocentrist historians think and what the IE theory is about. If you insist on trying to refute nationalist tendencies hundred or more years old, be my guest. But you'll look like a fool if you tell Europeans that this is what they think today.

On a much related note - how far are you in reading The Horse, the Wheel, the Language?

edit: also - it's an excellent example of a pot calling the kettle black - you're doing exactly the same thing you accuse the mythical "Eurocentrists" of, only for Turks.

 

[Kvedulf]

That whole article is painful to read.  One thing caught my eye though.  I would like to know a little bit more about language being passed through genetics.

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

I mean...WTF?  Are you saying that languages are passed down through the genes of a particular ethnic group?  Well that would explain why I've never been very good at Japanese.  Still, it doesn't explain why people from England can't speak Welsh, seeing as how those two languages are spoken by the same group of people (genetically).

And doesn't that kind of blow out your whole theory about Turks teaching other people things.  I mean, if only genetically Turkic people can speak and understand Turkic, then all those dirty barbaric Europeans wouldn't have been able to be culturally uplifted by the almighty Turks.  Because all those dirty Europeans are genetically NOT Turkic.

Unless...you're implying that there were no people in Europe before the Turks rocked up.  Or they killed all the poor defenceless Europeans and replaced them with Turks

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[ancalimon]

That whole article is painful to read.  One thing caught my eye though.  I would like to know a little bit more about language being passed through genetics.

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

I mean...WTF?  Are you saying that languages are passed down through the genes of a particular ethnic group?  Well that would explain why I've never been very good at Japanese.  Still, it doesn't explain why people from England can't speak Welsh, seeing as how those two languages are spoken by the same group of people (genetically).

And doesn't that kind of blow out your whole theory about Turks teaching other people things.  I mean, if only genetically Turkic people can speak and understand Turkic, then all those dirty barbaric Europeans wouldn't have been able to be culturally uplifted by the almighty Turks.  Because all those dirty Europeans are genetically NOT Turkic.

Unless...you're implying that there were no people in Europe before the Turks rocked up.  Or they killed all the poor defenceless Europeans and replaced them with Turks

Cheers
Kvedulf

There were people in Europe but they didn't have a language. Not in the sense what we today call a language.

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.

There are two very important things:

1-)The elite group can force people to speak another language "only if they have more population"

2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"


I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

 

[The Cow Dude]

Turks came from Orion

Spoiler: ?

?

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1406

 

[Kvedulf]

There were people in Europe but they didn't have a language. Not in the sense what we today call a language.

Where is you evidence for this?

I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

Where is your evidence for this?

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.

There are two very important things:

1-)The elite group can force people to speak another language "only if they have more population"

2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"


I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

First up, point 1 is wrong.  Just take a look at the Romanisation of Gaul.  Or Britain.  The native Gallic or British populations were much greater than the "elite" Roman population, yet Latin replaced the Celtic languages in both places.  Or Britain after it's abandonment by Rome.  The native population of Latin speakers was much greater than the Germanic speaking Anglo-Saxons, yet it was English, not Latin that became the dominant language.

Secondly, you've contradicted yourself (again) by stating in one post that

Naturally, with such a position is impossible to agree. We know that the ethnonym can pass from one people to another, without a genetical relationship, but the language is transferred from one people to another only when the peoples are genetically related. From the Türkic runic inscriptions we have a good idea  that already in the 6th-8th centuries the Türkic language was a well developed, standardized language, it already then had no exceptions of the general rules. This language could not be passed in such a harmonious shape to other peoples, ethnically and genetically unrelated with the Türks. Therefore hardly is right L.N.Gumilev, suggesting that Türks, after the split of the first and second Kaganates, had completely disappeared, leaving only their name in inheritance to many peoples who ostensibly were not their descendants at all.

However, you then go on to say that

So when I say that Europeans are Turkic in origin, I don't mean that Europeans that were living in Europe 20000 years ago were Turkic.
...
2-)Mother teaches her child her own mother language... Also see "1"

That is two very different concepts that you're spouting there.  So which is it that you're wanting to pursue?

If language is genetic, then it means that the native population of Europe was replaced by genetically (not culturally or ethnically) Turkic people, or that the population of Europe is genetically identical to the Turkic people.  If that's true, it raises the question: which group of "Turkic" people created this great big language?  The Turkic people from Eurasia, or the Turkic people from Europe?

And if language is passed on by the mother...what language was it that was spoken by all those wives and concubines and slave-girls taken by the all-conquering Turkic empire?  You guessed it, their native language, which was not some pseudo-Proto-Turkic.

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[mor2]

Where is you evidence for this?

For the past 46 pages, this question was asked many times by many people, the only answer i have for you is
Propaganda, you can choose which technique fits better starting with Ad nauseam and Big Lie...

/not a turk.

 

[Ule]

I don't say Indo-European languages are derived from Turkic languages...(they were artificially created by the elite clergy over time) I only say that Indo-European words are Turkic in origin.

created by an elite clergy? so we talking religious? so either all western languages were made up by the roman priests or by christian priests... (the most widespread clergy in western Europe)
which means all western languages should be latinised?

which explains why German is Latin, and also English.....  your intellectual insights are the most mightyest of insights in the world, you should be an oxford dean! **** Steven hawkins and the rest its arcalimon we should be asking for all our answers!

or by elite clergy do you mean the space Turks who were nice enough to grace us with their landings, coz before they came there was no homans at all! just monkeys who these space Turks taught to stand up right and use tools and thus speech!

thus the human race has the Turks to thank for our assendance as the higher being, thus all Turks are gods and should be worshipped!!

all hail the Turks!! for they are surely mighty and wise and arcalimon is their leader who is immortal and gracious and shares with us his eternal knowledge! which is by no means utter bull**** and wrong at all

 

[theAthenian]

That made me lol.
ROFL

 

[Anarion]

Some priests sat down and decided to make up a few dozen similar languages. The natives just rolled with it.

I see nothing wrong with that theory. The mages of Acheron were powerful and more than capable of doing that through magics foul and terrible.

 

[Llew2]

Yep. The Clergy also cooked up Christianity and Catholicism while they were at it.


...Oh wait.

 

[ancalimon]

They were so powerful that they decided who the rulers were going to be. They had an army (consisting of children of Turks who were killed by these clergy) and they basicly took Christianity and shaped it according to their agenda. By that time, the Turks were already Christian (since first Christianity was Tengrism which the planet worshippers called Atheism and Paganism because in Tengrism God is not born and God does not breed. It didn't suit them as they needed something more believable to have control over people. They needed a dummy. God is not like a human) the clergy created a dummy scapegoat and a dummy holy book and thus corrupted both of them to suit their agenda. They forced people to stop speaking their mother language by the power of the religion they created and by the force of their army. They labeled these who refused as infidels, witches and gave the name "sign of the beast" to Turkic cross...

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Wow dude, I am getting high just reading that post.  Trippy.  By the way, what size shirt do you wear?  I think this would look good on you:

Spoiler

 

[theAthenian]

They were so powerful that they decided who the rulers were going to be. They had an army (consisting of children of Turks who were killed by these clergy) and they basicly took Christianity and shaped it according to their agenda. By that time, the Turks were already Christian (since first Christianity was Tengrism which the planet worshippers called Atheism and Paganism because in Tengrism God is not born and God does not breed. It didn't suit them as they needed something more believable to have control over people. They needed a dummy. God is not like a human) the clergy created a dummy scapegoat and a dummy holy book and corrupted both of them to suit their agenda. They forced people ti stop speaking their mother language by the power of the religion they created and by the force of their army. They labeled thise who refused as infidels, witches and gave the name "sign of the beast" to Turkic cross...

ARE YOU REALLY SERIOUS????

 

[Ule]

They were so powerful that they decided who the rulers were going to be. They had an army (consisting of children of Turks who were killed by these clergy) and they basically took Christianity and shaped it according to their agenda. By that time, the Turks were already Christian (since first Christianity was Tengrism which the planet worshippers called Atheism and Paganism because in Tengrism God is not born and God does not breed. It didn't suit them as they needed something more believable to have control over people. They needed a dummy. God is not like a human) the clergy created a dummy scapegoat and a dummy holy book and corrupted both of them to suit their agenda. They forced people ti stop speaking their mother language by the power of the religion they created and by the force of their army. They labeled thise who refused as infidels, witches and gave the name "sign of the beast" to Turkic cross...

some one corrupted a religion to further their own means??!! how could anyone do such a thing, i mean to know this you'd only have to look any HISTORY EVER! to realise this. or modern times!!

an christian Turks, now OK call me crazy (not arcalimon crazy, hes worse than Mr m.jackson) but the ottomans which brought the Turks in the north (Europe) were Muslim?! so your telling us that a Muslim nation were the first Christians?!

and christian means you be live in Christ, not some sky spirit, you can say they were the first Jews for be living in an all mighty dude, but not christian as that means Jesus Christ, unless of course were amazing and forsaw Christ (apparently coz i r a pagan) descending upon us?!

and the rest of the post is just utter stuff that falls out a bullocks anus.

now for you
EUROPE IS EUROPEAN, TURKEY IS TURKEY, TURKEY HASNT, DOESNT AND WONT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON EUROPEAN CULTURES APART FOR THE ODD WAR IN THE BORDER REGIONS. FULL STOP. EUROPE NOT TURKISH EVER. EUROPEAN. AS A PAN EUROPEAN I FIND YOUR LACK OF INTELLIGEANCE INSULTING. AND ALSO AS HUMAN BEING I FIND IT INSULTING.

go way now.

 

[Amagic]

Usually I'd think anyone with that grammar was as bad as Ancalimon here but for once I agree with him