• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

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

Currently viewing this thread:

Ule

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

Haha!

Yea thats bad. Thats what you get for typing of the top of your head (And indulging in few tinnies while watching the rugby)
 

Amagic

Baron
Why do I get a nagging feeling this guy is an alt account of some forumite trolling us  :???:

Gonna find some names  :cool:
 
Ule said:
ancalimon said:
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.

Ottomans were the first Muslim Turks to enter Anatolia and Europe that's right. But Christianity and also Judaism originated from Turkic Tengrism. Turks basically had all of the religions in the world simply because they created them. They still do. So yes; I mean what I mean: Religion is Turkic in origin. And Christianity is a modified version of Turkic Tengrism by that time to rule over masses who were already Turks. They simply changed the identity of the Turks and made them fight against the new coming Turks who were converted into Islam. Today any person who is not an Arab is definitely a Turk in Israel. That's because it was Bosporus in Istanbul which was passed by the "Judaist people"

They convert people's identities and languages. I know that's insane, but that's what they did best in the past and what they do best today.

The Turks were the population of Roman Empire, and Christianity was what the clergy chose to name their spiritual life. They stole a nation, deprived them of their identity and language and made them hate who didn't convert.

This is why Turks today believe in both Judaism and Christianity but refuse trinity. They don't use the name "Christ" but "İsa" and call him a human prophet. This is because today's Turks were once the only Christians who were not conquered by Roman Empire.
 

Merlkir

1. Prove tengriism is older than and a source of all other religions.
2. Define "turk".
3. Prove that people 15 000 years ago (or so) were Turks.

...

x. Profit!


Srsly, you're like the Duracell rabbit - going going going going going going going...
 
Merlkir said:
1. Prove tengriism is older than and a source of all other religions.
2. Define "turk".
3. Prove that people 15 000 years ago (or so) were Turks.

...

x. Profit!


Srsly, you're like the Duracell rabbit - going going going going going going going...

I don't need to prove anything. Simply open and read those books and compare the mythology and traditions of Turks all around Asia. They even made a half as*ed documentary called "Zeitgeist" without naming "Turks". It's a taboo. It's like naming Turks is prohibited. This is the smell of fish. If you are are used to smell them fresh, you immediately smell it.

Compare language, Turkic place names literally printed all over the world. I keeping showing you the works being done by people who are not lazy. Everybody with a little general culture detect these things without "any" "linguistic knowledge" and they make fun of it without knowing.

Turk means a human who was created by God and who knows and understands God. It is believed that the name was given by the God itself (by Mahmud of Kashgar)

For example: You don't have to be a genius to see that Olympus means holy, high, connected to God, misty, cloudy, icy etc.. in Turkic... while it's etymology is unknown.

Ulu, Uğlu, Oğlu:  HOLY, HIGH, LUCKY, CONTAINING U, UĞ, OĞ
BUZ: ICE
PUS: smoke, mist, cloud
UZ: connection to upperworld
OZ: connection to Tengri
...


Ulytau, Altai, Uludağ...  Turks own religion and mythology of the world. Their language owns it. Those Ancient Turks living in Anatolia and Eastern Europe simply spoke a different dialect of Turkic. That's it.

If only one nation was not a made up nation in the world, that would be Turks. They simply don't care. Only in Turkey Turks care about these things. Others don't care at all.



People simply don't want to accept the truth, because the system is literally designed in order to stop people from reaching this truth.

Would I care if it was Africans and not Turks? Definitely not! I'm a truth seeker.
 

Allegro

Baron
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Kvedulf said:
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.
Lets not forget that Romans culled down the population of Celts heavily.
 

theAthenian

Ottomans were the first Muslim Turks to enter Anatolia and Europe that's right. But Christianity and also Judaism originated from Turkic Tengrism. Turks basically had all of the religions in the world simply because they created them. They still do. So yes; I mean what I mean: Religion is Turkic in origin. And Christianity is a modified version of Turkic Tengrism by that time to rule over masses who were already Turks. They simply changed the identity of the Turks and made them fight against the new coming Turks who were converted into Islam. Today any person who is not an Arab is a definitely a Turk in Israel.

They convert people's identities and languages. I know that's insane, but that's what they did best in the past and what they do best today.

The Turks were the population of Roman Empire, and Christianity was what the clergy chose to name their spiritual life. They stole a nation, deprived them of their identity and language and made them hate who didn't convert.

This is why Turks today believe in both Judaism and Christianity but refuse trinity. They don't use the name "Christ" but "İsa" and call him a human prophet. This is because today's Turks were once the only Christians who were not conquered by Roman Empire.


You know what? **** this ****. I refuse to take anymore of these stupid jokes. I am not a Turk! In my veins runs Greek blood, the blood of heroes and geniuses like Alexander, Achilles, Socrates, Aristotle etc. I was never and will never be a Turk. You clearly suggest that the whole world including all the human race in it is Turkish. I seriously feel like I am insulted by your ignorrance and selfishness. And btw, I see you are trying to pass all sorts of bull****(see underwear) as proof of your false accusations. From now on I suggest we stop posting in ancalimon's thread and let it die. He is clearly trying to troll us/flame us.

Scandinavians are Scandinavians.
Greeks are Greeks.
Europeans are Europeans.
Americans are Americans.
Africans are Africans.
Arabians are Arabians.
Turks are Turks.

Want some proof? See their geneological tree, their DNA, their traditions, their habits etc.

And Olympus is a GREEK word. Etymology is:
ολο: whole
λαμπής: shining

Would I care if it was Africans and not Turks? Definitely not! I'm a truth seeker.
You are not a truth seeker. You hide yourself behind blatant lies.
αλήθεια(truth) etymology
α: not, out of
λήθη: sleep, a state of not knowing what's real.
 
theAthenian said:
And Olympus is a GREEK word. Etymology is:
ολο: whole
λαμπής: shining

Great..

olympiad Look up olympiad at Dictionary.com
    late 14c., "period of four years" (between Olympic games), from Gk. olympiados, gen. of Olympias (see Olympic). Used by ancient Greeks as a unit in computing time. Revived in modern usage with revival of the games, 1896.

Olympic Look up Olympic at Dictionary.com
    c.1600, "of or in reference to Olympos, also Olympia (khora)," town or district in Elis in ancient Greece, where athletic contests in honor of Olympian Zeus were held 776 B.C.E. and every four years thereafter, from Gk. Olympikos, from Olympos, of unknown origin. The modern Olympic Games are a revival, begun in 1896. Not the same place as Mount Olympus, abode of the gods, which was in Thessaly. The name was given to several mountains, each seemingly the highest in its district.

Olympus Look up Olympus at Dictionary.com
    high mountain in Thessaly, abode of the gods, from Gk. Olympos, of unknown origin.


I guess this makes the word :  "all shining Casio watch of athletic gods"

It makes sense... 

Not?


By the way who is saying all those people are Turks?  I never said that. I say that Turks "were" living there or "they were" related to Turks.
 

theAthenian

It makes sense... 
You dare speak to me about sense?
Ancalimon's theory:
ALL people on Earth are Turks because they come from the same origin which is Turkish(I think not!). Christianity and all other religions are fake and exist only to control the masses. Every object on Earth is Turkish. Turks are the only people who know the truth etc...
BULL****


Anyways, I am gonna stop posting now. He is clearly blind and listens only to himself. I'm gonna take my leave from ancalimon's threads and I strongly suggest you guys do it too.

You can't argue with an idiot, he will drop you to the same level.
 
Here is an example of Turkic taboo.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Pedersen_%28linguist%29

Origin of the Nostratic theory

Pedersen seems to have first used the term "Nostratic" in an article on Turkish phonology published in 1903. The kernel of Pedersen's argument for Nostratic in that article was as follows (1903:560-561; "Indo-Germanic" = Indo-European):

        Grønbech considers it possible p. 69 that the Turkish word for "goose" could be borrowed from Indo-Germanic (Osm. kaz Yak. xās Chuv. xur). There are in my view three possibilities with regard to this word: coincidence, borrowing, and kinship. One must also reckon with this last possibility. Very many language stocks in Asia are without doubt related to the Indo-Germanic one; this is perhaps valid for all those languages which have been characterized as Ural-Altaic. I would like to unite all the language stocks related to Indo-Germanic under the name "Nostratic languages." The Nostratic languages occupy not only a very large area in Europe and Asia but also extend to within Africa; for the Semitic-Hamitic languages are in my view without doubt Nostratic. With regard to the proof of the relationship of the Nostratic languages, not only must all root etymologies and in general all etymological frivolities be kept at a distance, but one should in general not concern oneself with heaping up a mass of material. One should rather limit oneself to the rational consideration of a series of pronouns, negatives, in part also numerals which can be traced through several language stocks (in Turkish one is reminded of the Indo-Germanic by the negation -ma, -mä and the word-initial interrogative particle m, the interrogative pronoun kim, the pronoun of the first person män, the verbal ending of the 1. sing. -m, 1. plur. -myz, -miz and the ending -jin in the 1. sing. of the "optative," very reminiscent of the Indo-Germanic subjunctive [with the optative affix -a-, -ä-], the pronoun of the 2. sing. sän [cp. the IdG. verbal ending -s], the causative formation with -tur- [cp. IdG. -tōr nomen agentis; the Indo-Germanic causative also appears as if it were derived from a nomina agentis of the φορός type], the nomina actionis like Orkh. käd-im "clothing," several numerals: Orkh. jiti "7," jitm-iš "70," [with j = IdG. s as in Proto-Turk. *jib- "approach," Osm. jyldyz "Star": to Indo-Germanic word for "sun," jat- "lie": IdG. word for "sit"]; Proto-Turk. bǟš "5" [with š = IdG. -que; cp. Osm. piš- "be cooked," IdG. *pequeti "cooks"] etc., etc.). I resist the temptation to enter into this question in more detail.

Pedersen’s last sentence should be understood as referring to the article he was writing, not the rest of his career. Although he defined the Nostratic family, he himself never produced the work of synthesis the concept seemed to call for. That would await the work of the Russian scholars Illich-Svitych and Dolgopolsky in the 1960s for its first iteration. Nevertheless Pedersen did not abandon the subject. He produced a substantial (if overlooked) article on Indo-European and Semitic in 1908. He produced a detailed argument in favor of the kinship of Indo-European and Uralic in 1933. In effect, the three pillars of the Nostratic hypothesis are Indo-Uralic, Ural-Altaic, and Indo-Semitic. Pedersen produced works on two of these three, so the impression is incorrect that he neglected this subject in his subsequent career. His interest in the Nostratic idea remained constant amid his many other activities as a linguist.

English "Nostratic" is the normal equivalent of German nostratisch, the form used by Pedersen in 1903, and Danish nostratisk (compare French nostratique). His 1931 American translator rendered nostratisk by "Nostratian," but this form did not catch on.

In his 1931 book, Pedersen defined Nostratic as follows (1931:33:cool::

        As a comprehensive designation for the families of languages which are related to Indo-European, we may employ the expression Nostratian languages (from Latin nostrās "our countryman").

In his view, Indo-European was most clearly related to Finno-Ugric and Samoyed, with "similar, though fainter, resemblances" to Turkish, Mongolian, and Manchu; to Yukaghir; and to Eskimo (1931:33:cool:. He also considered Indo-European might be related to Semitic and that, if so, it must be related to Hamitic and possibly to Basque (ib.).

In modern terms, we would say he was positing genetic relationship between Indo-European and the Uralic, Altaic, Yukaghir, Eskimo, and Afro-Asiatic language families. (The existence of the Altaic family is controversial, and few would now assign Basque to Afro-Asiatic.)

However, in Pedersen's view the languages listed did not exhaust the possibilities for Nostratic (ib.):

        The boundaries for the Nostratian world of languages cannot yet be determined, but the area is enormous, and includes such widely divergent races that one becomes almost dizzy at the thought. (...) The question remains simply whether sufficient material can be collected to give this inclusion flesh and blood and a good clear outline.

Why should Turkic Goose be borrowed from Indo-German ?  When references in Turkic languages related to KUŞ are much more than the sum of Indo-European languages?

Even the shape used to write GOOSE using Turkic letters (which were supposedly taken from Phoneticians because Turks are not capable of creating alphabet.. I daresay Turks  created all of the alphabets. Yes.) is a bird shape. and even UÇ (fly), UC (leader, highest), KUŞ (bird), ÜÇ (three)  these are all related. So why can't it be a Turkic borrowing in Indo-European?  I'll tell you why. Because this would make Turks "more ancient" than necessary.

All in all why name it "Nostratic" ?


There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.
 

Kvedulf

Sergeant Knight
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

And that is why Ancalimon can never be defeated...

Mind you, you've still ignored me.  Although I don't want to repost a wall of text, I'm going to until you answer my questions and the points I've made:

Kvedulf said:
ancalimon said:
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?

ancalimon said:
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?

ancalimon said:
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
ancalimon said:
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
ancalimon said:
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

Unless, of course, you've already answered this in the form of:
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

Which brings me to another point:
ancalimon said:
There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.

Point 1: Languages are not "natural".  They are a cultural construct.  They exist and evolve within a culture and that culture's interactions with other cultures.  Languages are not consistent.  All you have to do is take a look at any major language today and compare it to what was spoken/written only 200 years ago.  Hell, less than 20 years ago in some cases.  Languages are constantly shifting, evolving and changing to suit the needs of the culture.  They are anything but "consistent"

Point 2: Your use of the word should in your final paragraph is an indication of personal opinion.  It is your opinion, in a perfect world, of how a language "should" be.  The reality is, as stated above, very different.

Cheers
Kvedulf

EDIT:
Allegro said:
Lets not forget that Romans culled down the population of Celts heavily.
That is debatable.  Not sure on the genetic studies for Gaul, but the genetic population of Britain, until very recently, has remained relatively unchanged since the Neolithic.  The actual change in genetics, from what I can remember, is only about 10%.  So the population of Britain, at any rate, appears to have never really been affected by the influx of the various invaders, settlers and migrants.
 

Anarion

Marquis
ancalimon said:
Ulu, Uğlu, Oğlu:  HOLY, HIGH, LUCKY, CONTAINING U, UĞ, OĞ
BUZ: ICE
PUS: smoke, mist, cloud
UZ: connection to upperworld
OZ: connection to Tengri

You're trying to tell us that -us is a word and not a case marker? Have you ever as much as looked at a Greek text? Latin? Lithuanian?
 
Anarion said:
ancalimon said:
Ulu, Uğlu, Oğlu:  HOLY, HIGH, LUCKY, CONTAINING U, UĞ, OĞ
BUZ: ICE
PUS: smoke, mist, cloud
UZ: connection to upperworld
OZ: connection to Tengri

You're trying to tell us that -us is a word and not a case marker? Have you ever as much as looked at a Greek text? Latin? Lithuanian?

since this word is ancient; aka:razz:re-Greek or better known as Ancient-Greek,  it's probably is an exception. Keep in mind that etymology is unknown and the best one our friend could get was whole-shining even though I gave the Turkic words related and even Turkic mountains with similar names.

I'm not talking about a single meaning. All of the similar words are related to mountain-God-clouds-highness-holiness-cold...

If OS is a case marker in this case, then we are left with Olymp which is nonsense in Greek.
 

Amagic

Baron
I have a theory! Because both European and Chinese mythology have dragons in them, but Chinese dragons are older so the Europeans must be Chinese. And because Europeans are Turkish it must mean that Turks are Chinese!

...right?
 
Amagic said:
I have a theory! Because both European and Chinese mythology have dragons in them, but Chinese dragons are older so the Europeans must be Chinese. And because Europeans are Turkish it must mean that Turks are Chinese!

...right?
Of course! It's all clear now! I finally understand.
 
Nodscouter said:
Amagic said:
I have a theory! Because both European and Chinese mythology have dragons in them, but Chinese dragons are older so the Europeans must be Chinese. And because Europeans are Turkish it must mean that Turks are Chinese!

...right?
Of course! It's all clear now! I finally understand.

Dragons aren't real. They are wolves. Dragons are the imaginations of Chinese and Europeans. Just like "Indo-European"

Folk were Turkic. They are "not" Turkic now.
 

mor2

Master Knight
Nodscouter said:
Amagic said:
I have a theory! Because both European and Chinese mythology have dragons in them, but Chinese dragons are older so the Europeans must be Chinese. And because Europeans are Turkish it must mean that Turks are Chinese!

...right?
Of course! It's all clear now! I finally understand.
You both took too many monty python logic lessons. :lol:
 

Kvedulf

Sergeant Knight
Your right mor2.  We should probably stop feeding him.  And I'd love to, but the fact that he ignores me, or at least refuses to answer me is really infuriating.  So, until he answers, I'm just going to keep posting the same wall of text at him.  Sorry to everyone else.

So, again Ancalimon: answer me.

Kvedulf said:
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

And that is why Ancalimon can never be defeated...

Mind you, you've still ignored me.  Although I don't want to repost a wall of text, I'm going to until you answer my questions and the points I've made:

Kvedulf said:
ancalimon said:
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?

ancalimon said:
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?

ancalimon said:
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
ancalimon said:
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
ancalimon said:
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

Unless, of course, you've already answered this in the form of:
ancalimon said:
I don't need to prove anything.

Which brings me to another point:
ancalimon said:
There is no logic to Indo-European languages. No consistency at all. Nature is consistent. Anything that arises from nature is consistent. But not Indo-European. Why is that?

try - lie - I - aye - eye - high - hi - why?:  why do they end with the same sound? Which letter is that? This is "artificial". It's modified. Letters don't suit the words.

y  - ie  - I  - aye - eye - igh  - hi -  hy

Language should be like mathematics. Natural, explainable.. It should arise from needs and it should be reflection of nature.

Point 1: Languages are not "natural".  They are a cultural construct.  They exist and evolve within a culture and that culture's interactions with other cultures.  Languages are not consistent.  All you have to do is take a look at any major language today and compare it to what was spoken/written only 200 years ago.  Hell, less than 20 years ago in some cases.  Languages are constantly shifting, evolving and changing to suit the needs of the culture.  They are anything but "consistent"

Point 2: Your use of the word should in your final paragraph is an indication of personal opinion.  It is your opinion, in a perfect world, of how a language "should" be.  The reality is, as stated above, very different.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Cheers
Kvedulf
 

Anarion

Marquis
ancalimon said:
Anarion said:
ancalimon said:
Ulu, Uğlu, Oğlu:  HOLY, HIGH, LUCKY, CONTAINING U, UĞ, OĞ
BUZ: ICE
PUS: smoke, mist, cloud
UZ: connection to upperworld
OZ: connection to Tengri

You're trying to tell us that -us is a word and not a case marker? Have you ever as much as looked at a Greek text? Latin? Lithuanian?

since this word is ancient; aka:razz:re-Greek or better known as Ancient-Greek,  it's probably is an exception. Keep in mind that etymology is unknown and the best one our friend could get was whole-shining even though I gave the Turkic words related and even Turkic mountains with similar names.

I'm not talking about a single meaning. All of the similar words are related to mountain-God-clouds-highness-holiness-cold...

If OS is a case marker in this case, then we are left with Olymp which is nonsense in Greek.

Nonsense, he says.

Nominative: ὁ Ὄλυμπος
Genitive: τοῦ Ὀλύμπου
Dative: τῷ Ὀλύμπῳ
Accusative: τόν Ὄλυμπον
Vocative: Ὄλυμπε
 
Top Bottom