Suspicious loanwords between IE and Turkic

Diocletian

Regular Member
Messages
29
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Ethnic group
Turkish
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.
 
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
 
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"). :)
 
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
 
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?

Taranis said:
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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).

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.

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.

Taranis said:
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.
 
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
 
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):

kkrg.png
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
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”.
 
This new calculations makes Turkic languages 2600-2100 year old.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/turkic-language-family-time-depth-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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/complete/spp065_loanwords_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/indo-europeans-in-journal-of-language.html

Seems you already had a thread about this study just a few months ago -> http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...s-were-the-Highlanders-who-lived-near-the-sea
 

This thread has been viewed 35169 times.

Back
Top