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