|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 16, 2010 12:18:28 GMT -5
I'm half Punjabi and I dont see my fellow Indo-Europeans the Swedes as my brother brother like how you Turks see the Kazakhs and other Turkics as just a first brother.I mean,we have an Indo-European connection,but thats just it.We are still very distinct. And that's the difference b/c Swedish and Hindu are not the same language, but Turkish spoken in Turkey and Uygur Turkish is almost identical
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 16, 2010 15:40:32 GMT -5
but that is artificial^
Ataturk made it more similar.If it was the one that you adopted from the Turkic Ottomans,there will helluva lot of differences reflecting the Ottoman heritage.The Ottomans are Turkic who had branched off from far away from those Turkics and incorporated lotsa Arabic,Persian,Greco-Armenian stuff gradually.
Ataturk's one is artificial.Ottoman one more colourful,intresting.
And there is no language called Hindu.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Apr 16, 2010 16:05:50 GMT -5
Nobody is perfect. However, Ataturk modernized Turkey, and did what he could. Perhaps you do not like it, but we will always recall him as Ataturk, in other words, as the father of the Turks.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 16, 2010 16:53:12 GMT -5
you know what I mean Indian. Punjabi or whatever you speak.
You also do not know that the educated Ottomans spoke Ottoman, but the villagers still spoke Turkish.. I bet you did not!!
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 16, 2010 16:54:31 GMT -5
Yunus Emre is a great example of a Turkish poet.
There are Arabic and Persian words in Central Asian Turks too!
All you write is pointless nonesense.....
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 16, 2010 17:24:34 GMT -5
Of course there are Persian and Arab words in CA Turkics! They SETTLED in a Persian influenced area and are Muslims! All Muslim groups have Arabics words in them.
Ottoman? They Osmanlica.The villagers spoke a language that was more Turkish,but it still had helluva lot of non-Turkishness.The degree of non-Turkishness in Anatolian Ottoman Turkish is was made branched off far from other Turkics.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 16, 2010 17:40:51 GMT -5
u r not contradicting thracian. Turks peasents spoke old Turkish... the same as Uygur Turks, before Ataturk was even born
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 16, 2010 18:38:47 GMT -5
pls go ahead and ask a Uygur just how different our languages are!
you sound sooo pathetic!
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 16, 2010 19:11:49 GMT -5
Whats the point?
Ataturk had people change the language to make it more Turkish.Hence,its artificialness
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Apr 16, 2010 19:46:47 GMT -5
Ataturk didnt change he enhanced the language to be cleared of foreign words that entered during ottoman times. As Thracian said, Turkish peasents were already speaking the original Turkish. Ataturk himself is a Yoruk Turk of course he wanted his nation to speakthe older Turkish not the arab/persian type.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 16, 2010 21:09:38 GMT -5
He took out plenty of Arab and Persian words and added many words from various languages.
But he did not fully remove the Arabic and Persian words.
This language in Turkey,is the product of the Ottomans.It was a very mixed language reflecting the ethnic groups they came in contact with,ruled over and incorporated.
Turkey,is the child of that.The language spoken by the masses,with its particular mix,is the "Turkish" language.A language that had evolved gradually for centuries.
Then Ataturk had his "I want this this this and I dont I want that that that". Fake!
He destroyed the heritage and history of Turkey in what he did to the language.
If you are going to change,you change it for convenience,safetyness etc.Ataturk had it changed to fit HIS ideas,for his vanity.He is definitely like Hitler.
Elif Safak said the Turkish spoken during Ottoman times was rich and beautiful.She even used words that were thrown out of the language as part of Ataturk's language reform which resulted in her being criticized by Kemalists.
She also said it's sad that people today, that when they look at the graves of their grandparents,great-grandparents and older deceased generations,they cant even read the tombstone,they dont even understand it.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 16, 2010 22:31:38 GMT -5
well there was a goal amongst the Ottoman authority CUP in the WW1 era to estabish a pro Turkist nation state and that is what happened, that goal was achieved.
its true in that time period of nationalism Turkey was not the only nation state to have emerged from a nationalist goal.
yet some say this goal was achieved to some extent at the expense of other non Turkic non Muslim historical minorities of Anatolia.
as for the language it already had a Turkish component it seems Ataturk edited it to make it more purely Turkic than it was.
As for Turks of Turkey, in my oppinion if that is their cultural identity then sure that is what they are, as for genetics sure many Turks have some CA Turkic genes and I think its possible to see that in some Turks physically but its also true in my oppinion many Turks are genetically heavily mixed with numerous peoples of Anatollia and Balkans and Caucasus and Middle east. Also from memory I have read there is actually by percentage less Turkic genes in Turkey compared to non Turkic genes. This is not a big deal or very suprising when it comes to national cultural identity for example there are not that much Slavic genes in southern Slavs either despite the fact they speak Slavic language etc.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 17, 2010 3:53:37 GMT -5
"This is not a big deal or very suprising when it comes to national cultural identity for example there are not that much Slavic genes in southern Slavs either despite the fact they speak Slavic language etc."
Thats true Ozskar, l hear that the slavs of Ex-Yugoslavia are decendants of native romanised speakers, native hellenised speakers and hellenes, romans who were settled during the roman times (from nth italy), then you have assimilated illyrians? and thracians?
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Apr 17, 2010 3:56:01 GMT -5
"She also said it's sad that people today, that when they look at the graves of their grandparents,great-grandparents and older deceased generations,they cant even read the tombstone,they dont even understand it."
HB, thats really interesting what you say. Even with the reforms modern Turkish still has plenty of persian words.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2010 4:55:18 GMT -5
yes Novi many of those ex yugo's are probably genetically decendants of the autochenous or aboriginal people of that region as well as the others you mention.
The Slavic genes are higher or highest amongst Ukranians ,Russians and Poles.
.
Persian culture is very ancient and peoples from that region were moving around and influencing many peoples actually, this is not suprising to hear there is many Persian words in Turkish language.
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 17, 2010 4:58:15 GMT -5
Yes Novi.I did say that there are still Persian and Arabic words left in the language.
ozskar,most of the population of Turkey is indigenous Anatolian,and then you have Balkanian,Crimean,Caucasus populations as well.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Apr 17, 2010 5:20:03 GMT -5
Yes Novi.I did say that there are still Persian and Arabic words left in the language. . yes I know.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Apr 17, 2010 12:55:29 GMT -5
of course u can't read tombstones in the arabic script - we don't use those letters.
But your comments are pointless, as Turks in Central Asia also use Arabic and Farsi words.
You really try to differentiate us from each other, but we're so similar; language, customs, and traditions, you won't succeed!
and HB did u know who made the Turkish language reforms, an Armenian!
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 17, 2010 16:08:02 GMT -5
We in Malaysia mostly dont use it.But we do learn it in school(for Muslims).So at least we can read it.That one is not hard to learn.
If you had read what I said in past posts here,of course CA Turkics have Persian and Arabic words.1.Because they settled in a Persian influence and related area. 2.Because of Islam. Even in Malay language there are Persian words,probably adopted centuries ago as a result of contact with Persian traders.
Yes,there is a lot of differences:CA Turkics dont have the cultural make-up of Greek and Armenian cultures unlike the ethnic Turks of Turkey.
Really? An Armenian? Whatever,the Armenian was made or chose to do it and the Armenian did it.It's a job!
|
|
|
Post by hellboy87 on Apr 17, 2010 16:18:13 GMT -5
yes Novi many of those ex yugo's are probably genetically decendants of the autochenous or aboriginal people of that region as well as the others you mention. The Slavic genes are higher or highest amongst Ukranians ,Russians and Poles. . Persian culture is very ancient and peoples from that region were moving around and influencing many peoples actually, this is not suprising to hear there is many Persian words in Turkish language. I too suspected that the Slavs of the Balkans are indigenous Balkanians who have been assimilated by conquering tribes from somewhere else.Just like the Turks of Turkey.So they have a rich ethnic ancestry. And I would think so too that Slavic genes are high amongst Eastern Europeans because that's where the Slavs cam from. As for Persian culture,the Persians had a large empire but the place where their culture left a huge impact on the locals is Central Asia.Another reason is also because the Central Asians then were made up of Indo-Iranians and the proximity with the Persian Empire.And the Turkics who later settled there en masse intermarried with the locals and adopted the culture.You see this today especially with their clothing I think.
|
|