Skip to comments.A Turkish origin for Indo-European languages
Posted on 08/24/2012 8:04:40 AM PDT by Renfield
Languages as diverse as English, Russian and Hindi can trace their roots back more than 8,000 years to Anatolia now in modern-day Turkey. That's the conclusion of a study1 that assessed 103 ancient and contemporary languages using a technique normally used to study the evolution and spread of disease. The researchers hope that their findings can settle a long-running debate about the origins of the Indo-European language group...
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
Proposed spread of language, animated:
The title is absurd: Turkish is an Altaic language.
Why folks outside the Turkish Republic accept the conceit of Ataturk and his political heirs that everything inside the bounds of the modern Republic of Turkey is “Turkish”, when most of the history and much of the culture even after the region was overrun by the Turks was Greek, Armenian, Kurdish, Roman, Persian,. . . always mystifies me. The sort of willful historical ignorance, endemic among Americans, that can’t see further into the past than WW II, I suppose.
The ancient Anatolian branch of Indo-European, including Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic in the second millennium B.C., and some later languages such as Lydian, are rather different from the other languages and that branch seems to have diverged from the rest a little earlier. That does not seem to fit in with Anatolia being the original center from which all the later languages spread out.
Pachalafaka sounds so romantic in Turkey.
While I don’t want to sound too literal, headline writers can be so ignorant.
“Turkish” refers to a country, a language group and a wide-spread ethnic group. All three have Indo-European roots, but the Article refers to Anatolia, not Turkey.
The title of the article is misleading. A “Turkish origin” doesn’t imply geographical Anatolia but rather an origin among ethno-cultural Turkish groups from central Asia who eventually migrated to Anatolia, which then became “Turkey” (after themselves).
True, Turkish ia an Altaic language but it spread into modern day Turkey from Asia. The languages spoken prior to that were not Altaic. The Turkish language has nothing to do with this article.
Didn’t Noah’s boat land in Turkey after the Flood?
Did you read the second paragraph of my post?
Ataturks objective, and that of his nationalist predecessors, was to cleanse Turkey of all alternative cultures and create a homogenous, unified Turkish nation-state.
And oh and by the way, These modern day "Turks" are really just badly baptized Greeks anyhow. ...to paraphrase Doroshevich
See Genesis 10
No it landed on the Mountains of Ararat. It could be in Turkey, Iraq or Iran(Persia).
So now in addition to Astronomy, Mathematics, the Space Program, Brain Surgery, Nanotechnology and Spicy Take-Out Chicken, Muslims are getting credit for inventing the English Language too?
Yes, yes, I know that. But how is that relevant to the acceptance of his conceit that, for instance, the Ecumenical Patriarchate or some Persian ruins in far eastern Anatolia or the Greek, Armenian, or Kurdish citizens of the Republic of Turkey are “Turkish” by the rest of the world?
But apart from Astronomy, Mathematics, the Space Program, Brain Surgery, Nanotechnology and Spicy Take-Out Chicken...what have the Muslims ever done for us?
Then why are they looking at the Anatolian origins of the Indo-Europeon language instead of around the area or Iraq and Iran?
BTW, how many Ararats are there in the world?
How is this possible when aryans/indo-iranians/indo-aryans and sanskrit came from india?
King James Version (KJV)
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
It says the “mountains of Ararat” NOT nessarily on THE Mt Ararat.
Yes, I understand it says “mountainssssssss of Ararat” and not Mount Ararat itself. The mountains of Ararat don’t extend that far out to Iraq or Iran. From documentaries that I have watched in the past about Noah’s ark there are towns near Mt. Ararat and the mountains of Ararat that indicate that Noah did land close by.
What the linguists are saying about the Turkic origins of the Indo-European languages indirectly supports that story from the Torah (aka the Bible).
And the other posters are correct that the Turkish language is a very late import from the Central Asian steppes with Semitic elements picked up from the Arabic Quran. The language was even (clumsily - Turkish needed a few vowels) written in Arabic script until Atatürk's reforms in the 1920's.
The conventional wisdom for some time now has been that it originated somewhere in Eastern Europe, perhaps in what is now the Ukraine or Kazakhstan. With the tribes spreading out from there east, west and south, reaching India as part of the Aryan invasion.
There is a noisy group of Indian nationalists who claim that the Aryans and their languages originated in India and went north and west from there, but they have remarkably little evidence to support their position, which AFAIK is held by no linguists or historians outside India.
Was not aware of that but I will take your word for it. Interesting subject.
The oddest part of this “controversy” is that the Indians involved seem to take it as a national insult to theorize that the Aryans invaded and conquered India. While Europeans are not at all offended by theories that the Aryans (or their western relatives) invaded and conquered Europe.
No. They predated the Muslims many thousand years. After all, even though now they own it, nobody claim Muslim built Constantinople.
“What the linguists are saying about the Turkic origins of the Indo-European languages indirectly supports that story from the Torah (aka the Bible).”
for a study, and comments on a study about languages, referring to Anatolia (the place) in reference to orgins of Indo-European languages, it seems strange that any learned person would refer to them as either the “Turkish” (a modern nation) or the “Turkic” orgins, as the language “Turkish” is not native to Anatolia, but came from central Asia, around what is not Turkmekistan, which is wherefrom the “Turks’ that took over Anatolia came from
“Turkish” the language came along after the original “Indo-Europeans” migrated, radiating out from Anatolia
so, we can talk about the “Anatolian” origins of the Indo-European languages, without confusing the place, in history, with the modern day occupants of the area
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks BIGLOOK, and well said.
Here’s one from the FRchives that has many of those cool language tree diagrams and whatnot:
Unearthed Aryan cities rewrite history
The Australian | 04 Oct 2010 | The Sunday Times
Posted on 10/04/2010 12:15:28 AM PDT by Palter
There is a Turkish language called Gagauz spoken by 150,000 to 200,000 people in the Balkans, Moldova, and Ukraine. The speakers are Christians (mostly Orthodox, some Protestants) and supposedly do not differ in their DNA from neighboring speakers of other languages (Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian--all Indo-European languages). Maybe they settled there before the period when that region was part of the Ottoman Empire.
Because this stuff is in Turkey, the Turks call it Turkish, and many people tend to bend over backwards to refer to things in a country according to the way the countries’ current leaders want them to. Applies especially to third world countries. Some people bend over backwards doing this.
The Turks want us to go along with their calling Greek Orthodox things Turkish because calling them Greek would prick their ethnic chauvinist conceits.
It wasn’t this way in the past. Things were Greek, Mesopotamian or Anatolian in their proper context.
Thanks for the link to the earlier thread. It was a veritable grove, I mean, trove of information.
Turkish is a relative newcomer to Anatolia. Before the Turks arrived, there were Lydians, Lycians, Hittites, Luwians, etc and they spoke languages within the Indoeuropean subgroup called Anatolic Languages. Not closely related to modern Turkish at all.
As young people would say, “no, duh!” And in between the times you point to and the Turkish conquest, most folks in Asia Minor spoke Greek, another Indo-European Language.
Why folks feel like posting things which are actually amplifications of the point I made as if they were correcting me, I really don’t know. As I pointed out, the title is stupid in the context of an article on linguistics and based on nothing other than kowtowing to the conceit of Ataturk and his political heirs that anything on the territory of the present Republic of Turkey is “Turkish”.
Hey, I think I’ll be stealin’ that.
That’s a pretty cool graphic.