|
Post by sarmat on May 30, 2010 18:57:00 GMT 3
I can't find a source right now but AJİ meant sign (İŞARET) in old Turkic language. Here is an actual photography of the Turkoman militia: Notice the + sign on the soldiers' clothes. (I'm not actually sure what it means. It may mean a totally different thing) ;D What are you talking about? What sign? These Turkmen militia were employed in the Russian military service, don't you see the Russian guy in the middle-left? "The signs" that you see are Russian military decorations that most of the time were in the form of crosses. Seem that these guys wearing the Order of St. George which was a very high decoration. www.gwpda.org/medals/russmedl/st-grg4.jpgI'm not sure but the picture might me from WWI. I talked about Turkmens in the Russian army during WWI in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on May 30, 2010 19:46:16 GMT 3
That sounds fine to me. Why not? I accept all religions. And my wife is Christian, qualified minister even after 2 years of Bible College. And I accept her. I also attend Church with her with our daughter even on sundays like today after opening up shop. Dont you think your unsourced religious views are a bit over-the-top however? You can't just so simply relegate every "cross-symbol" to Christianity mate. Actually it's the other way around. I suspect that every Semitic and non-Semitic religion goes back to Tengrism.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 31, 2010 13:19:47 GMT 3
Let us check the various Old and Middle Turkic dictionaries to see if your statement is true:
Ahmet Caferoğlu's Old Uyghur Dictionary: Ačïġ (Açıg): - Anger, getting angry, violence - Pain (which is the meaning we have in modern Turkish Acı), agony - Sour, bitterish - Gift (same with Mongolian Ačuġ and Ačaġ)
Mahmud of Kashghar's (Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī) Dīwānu Luġāt al-Turk: Ačï (Açı): - Old woman, grandmother (in the dialect spoken in Barsġan; this word is a different version of Äči (Eçi)) Ačï-(-maq): to become sour, hurting - of wound, body- Ačïġ (Açıg): - Living in blessing - Khan's present - Bitter, everything that is bitter; sour Ačïq (Açık): Big brother Ačïq-(-maq): To become hungry
Various Qypchaq Dictionaries: Ačï (Açı): - Bitter, pain - Salty - Salty yoghurt - Sad, sadness giver, pain, sorrow - Hungry, person who has become hungry Ačï-(-maq): - To hurt - The reddening of the space between the legs and its stinging Ačïġ (Açıg): Sad, sadness giver, pain, sorrow Ačïq (Açık): - Open, thing not covered - Comfortable, wide - Hungry, person who has become hungry - Laying down because of illness or sorrow, fever Ačïq-(-maq): To become hungry
Sorry ancalimon, but your statement seems to be wrong.
This is why I think ideologies should be kept outside scientific, historic, linguistic, theologic, etc researches.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on May 31, 2010 19:49:46 GMT 3
Religion is no science, it's a mystery.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on May 31, 2010 19:55:40 GMT 3
^and that is illogical
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 1, 2010 23:50:42 GMT 3
And religion has its own complicated methods of studying.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Jun 2, 2010 6:55:32 GMT 3
And religion has its own complicated methods of studying. Just like linguistics, religion has many parts that no method can explain without thinking outside the prison of linguistic rules that are not enough for a language like Turkic. For example, can you tell me which Turkic dictionary talks about what the "DAŞ" prefix actually is? Why does it exist in Turkish words like; gardaş, arkadaş, yoldaş, karındaş, yurttaş, ülküdaş, etc... On these words d"AŞ" has the meaning of (together and with the power) You may not see the "UÇ" word with a meaning of HAÇ in any dictionary. But you can reach an idea when you compare it with words containing same or similar pronunciation. Of course there should be methods even when trying to find similarities without any source. For example it is clear that "UÇ" has no relation with the word "harç" or "tuş" or "sıç" or "uçuk" After all we are dealing with a one syllabled word. But when you think in the concept, you may find many relationships with many words containing "UÇ". Like "UÇmak", "UÇmağa ermek", "h(OŞ)", "AÇı", "AÇmak" "kAŞ" The most dramatic evidence is the prefix of AÇ that converts verbs into nouns and/or gives a word the meaning of an object or a sign or an action like "ayırAÇ" AÇ prefix is a statement, it is a representation and action, just like HAÇ sign is a representation of something (this something maybe a God, an ideology, etc)powerful, strong, holding something together (like the roof of a Yurt, or holding a country together as in "yurtdaş"
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 2, 2010 17:26:22 GMT 3
Religion is no science, it's a mystery. And yet you treat it like a science. BTW "Prison of linguistic rules"? Come on mate. Heck even my wife could do better to make me question stuff; she mentioned before of old testament Christianity's connection with the Chinese language with Noah's Ark. I just looked it up just then for a credible source too. She also only told me of Noah's Ark, but it seems there's even more where she came from: www.bibleprobe.com/chinese.htmNow I don't agree with her however and modern Mandarin is actually a dialect imposed as the national language for the Chinese of the Qing Dynasty due to Liandong Chinese being part of the Mongol/Manju/Liandong invasion of China overthrowing the Ming Dynasty. Not to mention the influence from Nestorian Christians which has been part of the steppes for very long time even prior to Chingghis Khaan's rise. Science wins mate. Your linguistical theory for the sake of your religious views is far weaker then my wife's I'm afraid, which to be honest was quite convincing for a while. WOMEN have a habit of DOING YOUR HEAD IN!!! >.<! Your views can not contend with the sources the Admin has provided.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 2, 2010 20:21:47 GMT 3
;D LOL Christian protestant fanatics would do whatever it takes to advance their crazy theories. All of those characters have ethymological historical explanation. When I have more time, I'll post it.
About Mandarin. I don't think it's specifically connected to "Liaodong Chinese" it's just based on the dialect groups popular through out Northern China and it became dominant "official dialect" because the administrative base of the 3 latest dynasties i.e. Yuan, Ming and Qing was in the north. And, btw, unlike the Southern Chinese dialects, which are closer to Ancient Chinese, Mandarin has a large pool of Altaic linguistic influences.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 2, 2010 20:26:22 GMT 3
When you have time I would appreciate it, for the sake of annoying wifey nonetheless lol! xD But she enjoys the discussions we have, just wont admit it - most of the time Also Anda, do you have a source in regards of modern Mandarin language? Would be interested to learn more of its origins.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jun 2, 2010 20:34:38 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 2, 2010 20:51:04 GMT 3
...
Well sourced... quite interesting really. I'll have to read more of this next week as things are picking up with pace at work. Thanks for the share however. This is quite enlightening information.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Jun 3, 2010 3:24:24 GMT 3
Religion is no science, it's a mystery. And yet you treat it like a science. My mind does not accept mysteries. I have reached the conclusion that every mystery is a cover for a truth which some other guy wants to hide. Because that truth hinders that other guy's purpose.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jun 3, 2010 18:17:52 GMT 3
Outside the prison of linguistic rules? How can you defy science?!
-dAş is a suffix, not a prefix. And no, -dAş doesn't mean "together and with the power", it's used for things that share something between. Kardeş/Gardaş is actually Karındaş which means "person who shares the same belly/stomach/womb". Arkadaş means "person who shares the same back". Yoldaş means "person who share the same way". Yurttaş means "person who share the same land". Ülküdaş means "person who share the same ideal". Mahmud of Kashghar also gives the meaning of Qaŋdaš Qadaš as "brothers having the same father" (Qaŋ in Old Turkic means "father") while he explains the word Iktiš/Igdiš as "brothers having the same mother".
As I repeat again, Haç is not a Turkic word, it's a loanword from Persian. And no, it doesn't come from Turkic Uç. You don't know Iranic and Turkic linguistics but dare to make comments about those. How unscientific that is. As Uğur Mumcu said, "Without knowledge, one can not have any idea".
It's the same case with Uç and Haç too.
Hoş is not a Turkic word as well, it comes from Persian Khosh. But of course you will deny this with your super scientific methods as well. Açı, Açmak and Kaç also don't have anything to do with the word Uç.
That suffix (not prefix) also doesn't have anything to do with Uç.
Wrong, wrong, very wrong. I advise you to study linguistics in a professional way before making weird and baseless assumptions like these.
Besides, according to you, historians and linguistics are unnecessary people and methologies of these branches are also unnecessary. As we say in Turkish, are we "donkey heads"?!
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Jun 3, 2010 20:14:28 GMT 3
Outside the prison of linguistic rules? How can you defy science?! I would never defy science. What I mean is one can not simply defy ideas just because that person is not a linguist. After all I'm talking about sounds and the ideas they carry. Or shapes and the thoughts they carry. I have another idea. The + sign in a circle consists of two Gammas intersecting on a single point in a circle (idea?). It is stable only if "two" Gammas are together and symmetric, just like the roof of a Yurt. Özdeş, yurttaş, yoldaş, sırdaş.. I think the "(d)aş" suffix carry within itself, the same meaning. Lets take the sırdaş example: There are two persons, they share the same secret, they have to know the same thing otherwise they wouldn't share a secret. (if one of them reveals the secret to someone else it no longer is a shared secret) They take the power of being sırdaş from sharing the same secret. It would have no meaning if one of them didn't keep the secret. Lets take the Özdeş example: There are two concepts, they are the same "in concept" (two gammas in the ⊕ shape). They are concepts in the same boundary (idea) (the circle around the gammas in the ⊕ shape) If one of the gammas was a different shape, they no longer would be "özdeş" or same. The gammas intersect on the same point; meaning they have the same conclusion. ..... I think every single word and sound meant the same thing many years ago. And it was the idea of Tengri. I'm really serious. PS: I mixed the prefix and suffix part on my previous post Here is a picture of Hızır and Alexander The Great. Here is Yin Yang: Here is Haç:
|
|