Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Suspicious loanwords between IE and Turkic

  1. #1
    Regular Member Diocletian's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-14
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    3 members found this post helpful.

    Suspicious loanwords between IE and Turkic

    Eng. earth, swe. jord - tur. yurt

    I guess earth and jord are derivatives of each other. Meaning of yurt is "the place of residency" or "homeland" in Turkic. The main reasoning is that earth, meaning soil, is a place of residency and land is earth.

    Eng. sea, proto-gem. saiwaz, dum. see - tur. su

    Su means water.

    The ones that got my attention so far.

  2. #2
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,731


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    there was probably a lot of interaction between IE and Turkic, around some steppe area, far away from the seas, I'd guess 1-4000 years ago

  3. #3
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    there was probably a lot of interaction between IE and Turkic, around some steppe area, far away from the seas, I'd guess 1-4000 years ago
    Doubtful.

    With regard for the examples given by Diocletian (welcome to Eupedia, by the way), the original form isn't that similar:

    English has "Earth", Swedish "jord", German has "Erde"... the Proto-Germanic form would have been *erθō. In my opinion, this is a "false twin".

    Also, Proto-Indo-European (Pontic Caspian steppe) and Proto-Turkic (western Mongolia?) were quite far away from each other.

    Proto-Turkic is also much younger (iron age, there's a common Turkic word for iron - Turkish "demir", Kazakh, Uzbek "temir") than Proto-Indo-European (Copper / Bronze Age). In fact, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Turkic were probably spoken around the same time, but in completely different areas of Eurasia and had no possibility of contact. There are Turkic loanwords in Germanic, but these are much younger (Migration Period and later). An example is the modern German "Dolmetscher" ("translator", compare Turkish "dilmaç").

  4. #4
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,731


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Doubtful.

    With regard for the examples given by Diocletian (welcome to Eupedia, by the way), the original form isn't that similar:

    English has "Earth", Swedish "jord", German has "Erde"... the Proto-Germanic form would have been *erθō. In my opinion, this is a "false twin".

    Also, Proto-Indo-European (Pontic Caspian steppe) and Proto-Turkic (western Mongolia?) were quite far away from each other.

    Proto-Turkic is also much younger (iron age, there's a common Turkic word for iron - Turkish "demir", Kazakh, Uzbek "temir") than Proto-Indo-European (Copper / Bronze Age). In fact, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Turkic were probably spoken around the same time, but in completely different areas of Eurasia and had no possibility of contact. There are Turkic loanwords in Germanic, but these are much younger (Migration Period and later). An example is the modern German "Dolmetscher" ("translator", compare Turkish "dilmaç").
    PIE is some 6500 years old, Turkic some 3000 years maybe, so I don't mean interaction between PIE but between a IE language (probably Iranic) and Turkic

  5. #5
    Regular Member Diocletian's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-14
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Doubtful.

    With regard for the examples given by Diocletian (welcome to Eupedia, by the way), the original form isn't that similar:

    English has "Earth", Swedish "jord", German has "Erde"... the Proto-Germanic form would have been *erθō. In my opinion, this is a "false twin".

    Also, Proto-Indo-European (Pontic Caspian steppe) and Proto-Turkic (western Mongolia?) were quite far away from each other.
    Thanks for your welcome. How would you consider the IE migrations to the east, presence of Andronovo and Sintashta cultures near Central Asia in Bronze Age, around 3rd-2nd millennium BC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis
    Proto-Turkic is also much younger (iron age, there's a common Turkic word for iron - Turkish "demir", Kazakh, Uzbek "temir") than Proto-Indo-European (Copper / Bronze Age). In fact, Proto-Germanic and Proto-Turkic were probably spoken around the same time, but in completely different areas of Eurasia and had no possibility of contact. There are Turkic loanwords in Germanic, but these are much younger (Migration Period and later). An example is the modern German "Dolmetscher" ("translator", compare Turkish "dilmaç").
    Proto-Turkic is considered to had existed around 4000-4500 BC. What you are referring to is probably the separation of Turkic into its branches around 500 BC.

  6. #6
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    Thanks for your welcome. How would you consider the IE migrations to the east, presence of Andronovo and Sintashta cultures near Central Asia in Bronze Age, around 3rd-2nd millennium BC?
    The known later branches of Indo-European that - in my opinion - plausibly had such an early contact with Proto-Turkic would be either the Tocharian languages (of the Tarim Basin) and the Scytho-Sarmatian languages. The problem is that the former are wholly extinct, and the latter are nearly extinct (with the exception of modern Ossetian, which probably is not particularly representative of the Scytho-Sarmatian languages further east).

    Proto-Turkic is considered to had existed around 4000-4500 BC. What you are referring to is probably the separation of Turkic into its branches around 500 BC.
    Let me ask you something: what is your opinion on the Altaic language family? I'm personally not really convinced on the inclusion of Japonic (a good case can be made that Proto-Japonic was originally creol language) and even Korean, but I'm inclined that a "narrow" Altaic family (of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic) does hold up. The question then, of course, when was Proto-Altaic spoken? I will agree with you that Proto-Turkic has to have a history before its fragmentation into daughter languages, but the chronology is opaque.

    I would think that its quite plausible that early Proto-Turkic had contact with speakers of Indo-European (Tocharian languages in particular, since there are known Chinese loanwords from Tocharian, for example the Chinese word for "honey", 蜜 "mì"), but not with the Germanic languages.

  7. #7
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,731


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    Proto-Turkic is considered to had existed around 4000-4500 BC. What you are referring to is probably the separation of Turkic into its branches around 500 BC.
    so, where and when do you think there was contact between IE and Turkic then ?

  8. #8
    Advisor bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,731


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I would think that its quite plausible that early Proto-Turkic had contact with speakers of Indo-European (Tocharian languages in particular, since there are known Chinese loanwords from Tocharian, for example the Chinese word for "honey", 蜜 "mì"), but not with the Germanic languages.
    There probably was trade between Tocharians and China through the silkroad since 3000 BC.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture

    IMO this trade was not direct, but through a tribe in the middle.
    And this tribe in the middle was not Turkic. Probably some extinct tribe.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Diocletian's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-10-14
    Posts
    29


    Ethnic group
    Turkish
    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    The known later branches of Indo-European that - in my opinion - plausibly had such an early contact with Proto-Turkic would be either the Tocharian languages (of the Tarim Basin) and the Scytho-Sarmatian languages. The problem is that the former are wholly extinct, and the latter are nearly extinct (with the exception of modern Ossetian, which probably is not particularly representative of the Scytho-Sarmatian languages further east).
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    so, where and when do you think there was contact between IE and Turkic then ?
    I tend to think that it was around late Bronze Age that Scytho-Siberians, and later Tocharians had contact with proto-Turkic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Let me ask you something: what is your opinion on the Altaic language family? I'm personally not really convinced on the inclusion of Japonic (a good case can be made that Proto-Japonic was originally creol language) and even Korean, but I'm inclined that a "narrow" Altaic family (of Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic) does hold up. The question then, of course, when was Proto-Altaic spoken? I will agree with you that Proto-Turkic has to have a history before its fragmentation into daughter languages, but the chronology is opaque.
    Well, what you are suggesting is true, a "narrow" Altaic family really holds up. Japonic and Koreanic seem a little far to this narrow family, but the grammatical structure, the sentence order and the agglutination style of them, especially of Koreanic, indicate that they might have been developed from the same root in a proto-Altaic level.

    According to anti-Altaicist views, the relation of Japonic and Koreanic to this narrow Altaic family is just an indication of a geographical interaction. I'm not sure whether that is the case. But I would say that such similarities due to geographical interactions might hold true for, at least, Altaic and Uralic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis
    I would think that its quite plausible that early Proto-Turkic had contact with speakers of Indo-European (Tocharian languages in particular, since there are known Chinese loanwords from Tocharian, for example the Chinese word for "honey", 蜜 "mì"), but not with the Germanic languages.
    Agreed, but [jord/yurt] pair still confuses me. I wish I had the chance to figure out what that meant in Tocharian languages.

  10. #10
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,862

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 members found this post helpful.
    as said Taranis, 'jord' is cognate with 'erde', 'earth', 'aard' - the /jo/ sound seems a diphtongation of a long /e:/ before /r/ an "opening" liquid consonnant

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocletian View Post
    I tend to think that it was around late Bronze Age that Scytho-Siberians, ...
    Some excerpts from Anatole A. Klyosov, The principal mystery in the relationship of Indo-European and Türkic linguistic families, and an attempt to solve it with the help of DNA genealogy: reflections of a non-linguist, Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58:

    The next section relays the story about of opposition between “Iranists” and “Türkists”. Actually, the opposition does not exists literally, it is rather a figure of speech. Too unequal were both sides to call it an “opposition”. But this figure of speech reflects the essence of the problem. Ever since the beginning of the 1950s, the official historical science postulated that the Scythians were “Iranian speaking”. The issue was not to be discussed any more. Any arguments and scientific evidence on the subject were not acknowledged by the official science (and that the official science exists is beyond discussions), or reacted to with dead silence for at least 60 years. ... the Scythian people - in fact, a collective term, were both Türkic-lingual, and “Iranian-lingual”, or more accurately, Aryan-lingual. They were both nomadic pastoralists (which is typical for the Türkic tribes), and farmers (which is often typical for the Aryans). They had both haplogroups R1a1, and R1b1. They lived in felt yurts (many of those who lived in them, were carriers of R1b1), and also in stationary buildings (many of those were farmers, R1a1). Unfortunately, neither the specialists in the Indo-European languages, nor the Turkists are willing to recognize the duality (at least) of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and many other steppe (and not only steppe) tribes of the 1st millennium BC and the beginning of our era. Moreover, these tribes definitely had other haplogroups, in the first place G, Q, N, C. The carriers of the haplogroup G in the Scythian and Sarmatian times likely were “Iranian-speaking”, and lived in the Iranian Plateau much earlier then the Aryan times. Then, of course, they were not “Indo-Europeans”. The carriers of the Q, N, and C were most likely Türkic-lingual. ...

    I.M. Miziev “History around us” (Nalchik, 1990, cit. per T.A. Mollaev “A new perspective to the history of the Ossetian people,” 2010, p. 6):


  12. #12
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Some excerpts from Anatole A. Klyosov, The principal mystery in the relationship of Indo-European and Türkic linguistic families, and an attempt to solve it with the help of DNA genealogy: reflections of a non-linguist, Journal of Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy (ISSN 1942-7484), 2010, Vol. 3, No 1, pp. 3 - 58:

    The next section relays the story about of opposition between “Iranists” and “Türkists”. Actually, the opposition does not exists literally, it is rather a figure of speech. Too unequal were both sides to call it an “opposition”. But this figure of speech reflects the essence of the problem. Ever since the beginning of the 1950s, the official historical science postulated that the Scythians were “Iranian speaking”. The issue was not to be discussed any more. Any arguments and scientific evidence on the subject were not acknowledged by the official science (and that the official science exists is beyond discussions), or reacted to with dead silence for at least 60 years. ... the Scythian people - in fact, a collective term, were both Türkic-lingual, and “Iranian-lingual”, or more accurately, Aryan-lingual. They were both nomadic pastoralists (which is typical for the Türkic tribes), and farmers (which is often typical for the Aryans). They had both haplogroups R1a1, and R1b1. They lived in felt yurts (many of those who lived in them, were carriers of R1b1), and also in stationary buildings (many of those were farmers, R1a1). Unfortunately, neither the specialists in the Indo-European languages, nor the Turkists are willing to recognize the duality (at least) of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and many other steppe (and not only steppe) tribes of the 1st millennium BC and the beginning of our era. Moreover, these tribes definitely had other haplogroups, in the first place G, Q, N, C. The carriers of the haplogroup G in the Scythian and Sarmatian times likely were “Iranian-speaking”, and lived in the Iranian Plateau much earlier then the Aryan times. Then, of course, they were not “Indo-Europeans”. The carriers of the Q, N, and C were most likely Türkic-lingual. ...

    I.M. Miziev “History around us” (Nalchik, 1990, cit. per T.A. Mollaev “A new perspective to the history of the Ossetian people,” 2010, p. 6):
    Frankly, Klysov's idea does not hold any water from the linguistic perspective. There is a field of linguistics called onomastics (the study of names), and from that it is clear that the Scytho-Sarmatian people spoke an Iranic language, not a Turkic one. The idea to re-interprete them, miraculously, as Turkic (and to claim "the Turks have _always_ been in Central Asia") sounds to me a lot like historic irredentism, and it reminds me of other fringe positions - as an example that Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Britain in pre-Roman times, or Slavic was spoken on the Balkans in Antiquity.

  13. #13
    Elite member
    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,508

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    In Kurdish "earth" means "erd". But I heard that the term earth/erde/erd might be a Semitic loanword into Indo European.

    "erd" means earth, but "akh" means land/ground/soil

  14. #14
    Elite member
    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,508

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Frankly, Klysov's idea does not hold any water from the linguistic perspective. There is a field of linguistics called onomastics (the study of names), and from that it is clear that the Scytho-Sarmatian people spoke an Iranic language, not a Turkic one. The idea to re-interprete them, miraculously, as Turkic (and to claim "the Turks have _always_ been in Central Asia") sounds to me a lot like historic irredentism, and it reminds me of other fringe positions - as an example that Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Britain in pre-Roman times, or Slavic was spoken on the Balkans in Antiquity.

    Exactly, all inscriptions found on Scythian language (Like that of Khotanese Scythian in Western China) have been identified as Iranic. People such as Sarmatian and Sogdian have been identified as Scythian related by ancient authors such as Herodotus and confirmed by modern linguists using Sogdian inscriptions, as belonging to the Iranic family. The only groups who can be said to be linguistically descend of Scythian or Sarmatian, such as Yaghnobi, Ossetian and Pamiri have been identified as East Iranic.

    As you said it is an attempt to claim Turkic speakers more native in the territory they nowadays live as well ethnic nationalism (we are the best in the world we created everything big). It is not the first time I see Turks claim Iranic tribes as well Anatolian and Mesopotamian tribes as Turkic. From there the insulting term "mountain Turks" stems from, because Turkish scientists believed we are Turks who went into the mountains and lost their original Turkic tongue. Than there are Turkish scientist who even believe Medes/Parthians are Turanic (Turkic) people and therefore Kurds are Turanic, not knowing that Turan is an Iranic term and was used by West Iranians to refer to the rival Central Asian Iranic tribes.


    In most cases however those kind of claims come from Anatolian Turks and it has to do with the century of brain washing of the Turkish population by the kemalistic school system, to teach the children that Turkic is the mother of all other languages of the world.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Language_Theory


    And it's not like these kind of believes are gone in the Turkish school system. Still it seems a majority of Turkish schoolers believe this. They have learned it that way.

    Here is a Prof. on a well known Turkish channel claiming the Alpines (people of the Alps), Sumerians, Subarians, Scythians, Etruscans, Huns, Hattians, Atlantis, native Americans as Turks. Basques are Turk related and Magyars, Finns, Mongols are Turanians("Turkic").
    Starting at 22:30 the host asks "so if Sumerians are Turks, so is Prophet Abraham" the Prof answers yes , than the host goes on "so if He was Turk than also Prophet Mohammed was also Turk", he says with a facial expression like, "they got me" yes. And for a few seconds silence in the room :). But than the heavier of the two hosts agrees with him.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80KvywM-xFs


    Here is another one claiming that Kurds are of Turkic race.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkkARjV8Tyg

    And another one with the same claim that Kurds are of Turkic origin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ANC6Jmccsk


    The web is full of this.


    I rarely see Central Asian Turkic people do that. This is why I kinda doubt we have a Kazakh guest here.
    Last edited by Alan; 07-05-15 at 00:36.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    Frankly, Klysov's idea does not hold any water from the linguistic perspective. There is a field of linguistics called onomastics (the study of names), and from that it is clear that the Scytho-Sarmatian people spoke an Iranic language, not a Turkic one. The idea to re-interprete them, miraculously, as Turkic (and to claim "the Turks have _always_ been in Central Asia") sounds to me a lot like historic irredentism, and it reminds me of other fringe positions - as an example that Anglo-Saxon was spoken in Britain in pre-Roman times, or Slavic was spoken on the Balkans in Antiquity.
    That's the point. But let me introduce following aspects now...

    T.A. Mollaev “A new perspective to the history of the Ossetian people,” 2010, p. 9:
    “The “Iranists” explained the Scythian words in this mode: was taken any anthroponym, ethnonym, etc. recorded by the ancient written sources, then for it was randomly sought a lexical unit from Ossetian or other Iranian, and even from other Indo languages, phonetically more or less suitable. And after that had to be held that the result of that comparison for a lexical unit of the Scythian words is translated such and such from the Iranian languages. With that method, and with the same success, could be compared with the Scythian word the lexical units of any other languages in the world. And then, with some phonetical resemblance, declare the Scythian words as translations from those languages.

    Thus, the initial absence of appropriate scientific methodology, or more accurately ignoring methodology, allowed this theory a chance to appear and penetrate into historiography. The founders of the theory were three very bias minded Indo-Europeanists of the 19th century (J.H.Klaproth, K.V.Müllenhoff, V.F.Miller). Using identical method, with some desire, any word can be etymologized in any language of the world”.

    M.Z. Zakiev “Genesis of Türks and Tartars” (Moscow, 2003, pp. 139-140):

    “The theory of exclusive Iranian linguality of all tribes united by the common name of the Scythians seemed plausible when the Iranists conducted etymological studies of the Scythian written monuments only selecting the word ( ethnonyms) with solely Iranian roots. However, the research circle of these monuments was extending. The problem was also approached by non-Iranists, in particular Turkologists and other linguists. In the scientific circulation were introduced words with non-Iranian roots, especially with the Türkic roots, indicating the presence in the union of the Scythian tribes Türkic-lingual tribes ... The result is a vicious circle: archaeologists are guided by the opinion of linguists, the archaeological culture of the Scythian and Sarmatian period is attributed to the Iranian-speaking tribes, and the linguists-Iranists for confirmation of their theory refer to the findings of the archaeologists”.

    M.Z. Zakiev, ibid:

    “Notably, all the Turkologists that reached the Scythian materials and studied them themselves, unequivocally recognize the Türkic-linguality of the main composition of the Scythians and Sarmatians, and prove that with linguistic, ethnological, mythological, and archaeological evidence”.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Arame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-03-15
    Posts
    182


    Country: Armenia



    2 members found this post helpful.
    This new calculations makes Turkic languages 2600-2100 year old.
    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02...pth-204bc.html

    Yes of course Proto-Turkic existed before that perhaps as a part of another family but one investigating the borrowings of Turkic and IE should keep in mind that Proto-Turks didn't contact with PIE but with Iranic languages.

    p.s. I know some Turks will think this is a euro-centric approach but I think that even an amateur linguist will admit that Turkic languages are not much different from each other. This could happen only if the split is recent.

  17. #17
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post


    I rarely see Central Asian Turks do that. This is why I kinda doubt we have a Kazakh guest here.
    His IP says Germany. There is no reason to doubt that there are no Turk-centrists in Kazakhstan.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  18. #18
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,286


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    Indo-European Loanwords in Altaic
    by Penglin Wang (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

    Victor H. Mair, Editor
    Sino-Platonic Papers
    Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
    University of Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 USA
    [email protected]
    www.sino-platonic.org

    http://www.sino-platonic.org/complet...rds_altaic.pdf

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    His IP says Germany. There is no reason to doubt that there are no Turk-centrists in Kazakhstan.
    12.5% German and 87.5% Kazakh to be exact. Thanks to my German side I have the privilege to live in Europe. I am not a Turk-centrist neither, I read every point of view and evaluate my own personal views, I set great importance on objectivity. Coming to your point, it is true that most researchers in Kazakhstan believe in a Turkic-linguality of bronze age steppe nomads.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Indo-European Loanwords in Altaic
    by Penglin Wang (The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

    Victor H. Mair, Editor
    Sino-Platonic Papers
    Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations
    University of Pennsylvania
    Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305 USA
    [email protected]
    www.sino-platonic.org

    http://www.sino-platonic.org/complet...rds_altaic.pdf
    It must also be mentioned that Anna Dybo and colleague came to the conclusion that, I cite: The main conclusion is that the hypothesis of a steppe environment is more applicable for the Proto-Altaic population, whereas for Proto-Indo-Europeans a mountainous region seems more appropriate.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2013/08/...-language.html

    Seems you already had a thread about this study just a few months ago -> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...d-near-the-sea

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Arame View Post
    Yes of course Proto-Turkic existed before that perhaps as a part of another family but one investigating the borrowings of Turkic and IE should keep in mind that Proto-Turks didn't contact with PIE but with Iranic languages.

    p.s. I know some Turks will think this is a euro-centric approach but I think that even an amateur linguist will admit that Turkic languages are not much different from each other. This could happen only if the split is recent.
    We should also keep in mind about the possibility that Proto-Turkic may have been just another extra-Indoeuropean branch which split off very early in time from the main Indoeuropean bulk. There is high probability for this I think.

  22. #22
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Coming to your point, it is true that most researchers in Kazakhstan believe in a Turkic-linguality of bronze age steppe nomads.
    I find that funny because, amongst other things, there's a common (Proto-Turkic) word for "iron" (modern Turkish "demir", Kazakh "temir", Uzbek "temir"). How could the Bronze Age steppe nomads supposedly have spoken Turkic, if the language could have been only spoken in the iron age?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    02-04-15
    Location
    Saray
    Posts
    80

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    L1b Elite Hun

    Ethnic group
    Turkic/Iranian
    Country: Kazakhstan



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I find that funny because, amongst other things, there's a common (Proto-Turkic) word for "iron" (modern Turkish "demir", Kazakh "temir", Uzbek "temir"). How could the Bronze Age steppe nomads supposedly have spoken Turkic could have been only spoken in the iron age?
    Iron should not be necessarily restricted to Turkic nomads only, since steppe cultures have always been multiethnic, so it's quite probable that Indoeuropean-speaking nomads were the first to have handled iron. Moreover Hittites, which are known to have spoken an Indoeuropean language, were the first people that handled iron. Correct me if I am wrong.

  24. #24
    Elite member arvistro's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-14
    Posts
    1,004


    Country: Latvia



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    I find that funny because, amongst other things, there's a common (Proto-Turkic) word for "iron" (modern Turkish "demir", Kazakh "temir", Uzbek "temir"). How could the Bronze Age steppe nomads supposedly have spoken Turkic, if the language could have been only spoken in the iron age?
    It could be spoken before iron age with one of these scenarious:
    a) they all took the word for iron from one of their tribes
    b) they knew iron before iron age
    c) their languages split at or after iron age

    b is likely, for example wiktionary gives PIE word for "iron" - Proto-Indo-European *gʰelgʰ- (“iron”), although since word is only attested for Balto-Slavic branch, maybe it is rather proto-Balto-Slavic, but even proto-Balto-Slavic should be older than iron age. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dzelzs

  25. #25
    Elite member
    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,378

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    We should also keep in mind about the possibility that Proto-Turkic may have been just another extra-Indoeuropean branch which split off very early in time from the main Indoeuropean bulk. There is high probability for this I think.
    Well, no offense, but this doesn't make the slightest sense, because Indo-European and Turkic have very different grammars. Indo-European languages are fusional, while Turkic is an agglutinative language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpakut View Post
    Iron should not be necessarily restricted to Turkic nomads only, since steppe cultures have always been multiethnic, so it's quite probable that Indoeuropean-speaking nomads were the first to have handled iron. Moreover Hittites, which are known to have spoken an Indoeuropean language, were the first people that handled iron. Correct me if I am wrong.
    You're missing the point here. Its clear that the word was part of the original vocabulary - before the language split up - as it adheres to the subsequent sound changes. Therefore, Proto-Turkic couldn't have split up any earlier.

    Regarding arvistro, how does "they knew iron before the iron age" even make sense?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •