|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 28, 2012 0:43:37 GMT 3
For people who do not know Turkish and for people who never read the paper;
Tuna's case does not prove that Sumerian language is related with Turkic language. Actually he tells this himself. All that the case proves is that Sumerians were highly influenced by some unknown people who had these words in their vocabulary.
Problem of time debth was also considered by one of the three linguists who accepted the theory as proven.
Please read Tuna's paper throughly if you haven't done so yet.
Let me repeat myself; the case is already proven as in "everything Tuna says in his paper is the truth until someone proves otherwise using widely accepted linguistic tools like he did".
There is nothing to get over.
Today, it is a fact that Turkic language has the oldest written words among languages that are still alive. These words can be seen as borrowed words on Sumerian cunieform tablets.
As far as I know a proven case does not get old and obsolete if the tools used are still valid. The same tool is used for reconstructing PIE roots and in my opinion, they are much more far fetched than what Tuna did.
In my opinion it does not make any sense. Either he and the 22 linguists were highly mistaken or we really need a revision of what we know about the past.
Actually the first expert to decipher Sumerian writings said that The closest languages closest to Sumerian was Turanic languages. But the bishop supervising them said Turks being uncivilized and primitive can never be related with Sumerians and the experts must do everything they can to prove this. After that Turanic (mainly Turkic) was replaced by a newly invented term which is Asiatic (a language spoken by some people we know nothing about. They might have lived on Mars as far as we are concerned)
I don't think so. Not because I think aliens do not exist. They might exist as long as they don't try to eat me. I am an open minded person. But not that much to think that Sumerians are related to people that might or might not have existed.
So that bishop was definitely wrong in intimidating those experts and those experts were also not right because they did not have enough evidence to link Sumerians to Turks. Neither did Tuna.
Thanks to new archeological evidence found mostly related to art, we are now closer to truth.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 29, 2012 14:00:46 GMT 3
I wonder if anyone outside Turkey has ever supported Tuna's theories.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 29, 2012 15:39:26 GMT 3
I wonder if anyone outside Turkey has ever supported Tuna's theories. Of course nationalist Turkish people would support his theory about Anatolia being populated by Turks. It's actually some kind of Cassus Belli against people supporting Kurdish independence in Anatolia and people supporting Anatolian lands to be given to Armenia. It's the only fulcrum Seperatist Kurdish terrorists in Turkey have against the Republic of Turkey. They say that Turks are late comers to Anatolia thus Kurds have the right of independence because they were here before Turks were. Other than that, Sumerian borrowing Turkic words is "proven". Noone has the luxury to disagree with this. The case was accepted as proven by three experts and debated by 22 linguists not consisting of a single Turkic person. Let me repeat myself. It does not matter from a scientific point of view whether other linguists or historians disagree with what he said. What he said is correct until someone proves that "regular sound correspondences" is not a reliable tool and thus anything that got help from this method including "reconstructed PIE roots" is invalid. It's like many people in Iraq saying "I don't believe in Law of Gravitation". If you believe in something, you have to prove it if you want others to accept what you say. The thing is that it's the only reliable tool in historical comparative linguistics in order to test whether it's a coincidence or not that words appear in two different languages very far from each other. The Sumerian-Turkic is examples are much more believable because in order to reconstruct PIE roots, linguists push it too far. I would advice contacting University of Pennsylvania to get for information about this if you are really interested.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Aug 29, 2012 18:01:24 GMT 3
Ancalimon,
A few things jump to mind.
- You are confusing. First you say Sumerian borrowed some words from Proto-Tirgris and described it as related to Turkic. Then you say it wasn't Turkic but some unknown language. Now you are claiming again that the language was Turkic. - A theory can be overturned if the application of the method was faulty. For example, words compared really should be contemporaneous: from the same time period. Remember that the method of regular sound correspondences was invented using modern versions of languages. It is almost impossible to use with Sumerian because of the chronology problem between our earliest knowledge of Sumerian and the earliest reconstructed proto-languages. - A theory can be overturned if the underlying data was defective in some way. For example, over the past 100 years the phonetic value Sumerian experts have assigned to many signs has changed as their understanding of Sumerian improves. What words were used by Tuna, who knows? - You have not volunteered any information about who these 3 experts and 22 linguists are. That makes me very, very wary and extremely skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 29, 2012 18:58:11 GMT 3
www.scribd.com/doc/64297815/Osman-Nedim-Tuna-Sumer-ve-Turk-Dillerinin-Tarihi-%C4%B0lgisiSee here for names. A group of unknown people speak an unknown language called Proto-Tigris. The words given to Sumerian by this language are from Proto-Turkic. This doesn't necessarily mean that Proto-Tigris was related to Turkic or those people were Turks. They might as well borrowed these words from some other people who in turn also borrowed them from another group of people who might or might not have been Turks. I just think that it's a possibility because of several archeological finds. Most of which are documented recently. Here's an example of what he did: Sumerian = Turkic = English g- = Ø- gud = ud = cattle, bull gig = ig = sick, sickness, ill giþig = eþik = door, entrance, corridor gid = ýd- = to release, to send gaz = ez = to break, to crash, to squeeze gur = or = to cut, to hit, crop, to harvest These Turkic words gained a guttural g sound when they entered Sumerian from Proto-Tigris. According to some linguists we would need 3 such pairings like the one above to accept that it's not a coincidence. Some say we would need 4. Tuna worked on those words that are considered as foreign borrowings inside Sumerian. Tuna have 32 such pairings 16 of them documented and peer reviewed. Some letters were assigned new values. It does not necessarily mean that they were right in doing so. Sumerian has a depth of its own. For example Bilgamesh might have turned into Gýlgamesh over time.
And no... English was not being spoken during times Sanskrit was being spoken. Yet they keep finding relations using several methods. They just use several layers. The things with Turkic and Sumerian is that there are no layers between Sumerian and Turkic. The only missing link is the historical documents about Turks living in Anatolia. We are talking about historical documents. Perfectly possible to fake or destroy especially during times when everything was centralized and noone was aware of what others were doing. Most importantly no youtube, no phone - tv - radio, no cameras, no blogs... Not even Wiki Leaks. History is the most unreliable tool in this case and that is an over-optimistic attitude. Application of method was found correct. Otherwise they wouldn't have accepted the case as proven. I'm no expert though. A time might come when some experts find the application of method incorrect. Until then Turkic is the oldest language among those that are still alive that has written words. Finally just remember this. During a time Sumerians were considered related to Turks, a bishop came and forced experts to change their minds. Even this little truth must be forcing you to think. I'm not saying that those experts were correct. It's just that even if they were correct, we would still have a faulty and revised foundation.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Aug 30, 2012 1:58:43 GMT 3
Yeah yeah everyone and everything is Turkish dammit. How foolish ignorant idiots we are by not accepting these most magnificently wondrous zillionpercent correct scientific facts.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Aug 31, 2012 16:28:08 GMT 3
Yeah yeah everyone and everything is Turkish dammit. How foolish ignorant idiots we are by not accepting these most magnificently wondrous zillionpercent correct scientific facts. I don't know why you are overreacting this way. I never said that Tuna proved that Sumerians were Turkish or I never said that Tuna proved that Sumerian is a Turkic dialect. He also never said what you wrote above as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 1, 2012 13:01:51 GMT 3
Dude I won't argue this thing with you because none of us are Sumerologists.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Sept 3, 2012 14:17:22 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 3, 2012 18:33:16 GMT 3
If you don't know any better, then how can you accept Tuna as proven anymore than Ihsan can reject it? Twenty two linguists make up only a small subset of the linguistic and Sumerology community.
Besides, if you accept that Tuna's theory is proven, you must equally accept that W. Deeters has proved that two words in unrelated languages are more likely to resemble each other due to phonetic evolution over millennia.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Sept 3, 2012 20:10:40 GMT 3
If you don't know any better, then how can you accept Tuna as proven anymore than Ihsan can reject it? Twenty two linguists make up only a small subset of the linguistic and Sumerology community. Besides, if you accept that Tuna's theory is proven, you must equally accept that W. Deeters has proved that two words in unrelated languages are more likely to resemble each other due to phonetic evolution over millennia. Because no experts refuted it. Every Sumerologist knows about his work and none of them do anything to refute it. And I don't see any reason for some experts to try refuting it. His work simply stays on dusty shelves. It's not up to me to accept it as proven. Who am I to prove or disprove something about Sumerian? I don't have any qualifications to prove or disprove what he did. It's just wrong to reject something without any reason and expertise especially while it's accepted as reality by the experts themselves. What Tuna did was to actually prove that it was not a coincidence. If you really want to know how, I might try translating it to English. We are not talking about two words. We are talking about 16 peer reviewed pairings consisting of 5 or 6 words out of 32 totaling up to hundreds of words. Tuna's work does not concern W. Deeters work because of what it actually is. It's something that proves that it's not a coincidence. If Tuna didn't prove this case using the method he used, then what you said could have been true. But it shows how groups of words with certain attributes evolved into Sumerian. We are not simply talking about something vague like " Tengri sounds like Dingir" or something like "both Sumerians and Native Americans and Turks use the reiterative kap kacak meaning kitchen utensils (a reduplication like walkie-talkie or teenie-weenie). It's a much more complicated work.
|
|