|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 2, 2010 1:53:15 GMT 3
Come on fellas, let's keep things friendly.
About to head off to work, I'll give this some thought and answer this thread tonight when I can.
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 2, 2010 3:03:57 GMT 3
Don't worry. Friendship of the Steppe will prevail. Your topic is in safe hands
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on Dec 2, 2010 4:12:14 GMT 3
Well, as far as I know this has begun about two centuries ago when similarity between some European (particularly German) and Indian languages was discovered. The term first used then was "Indo-Germanic" (I think Franz Bopp was who coin it). Some scholars in 19th century also used the term "Aryan". Now "Aryan" is only another name for Indo-Iranian group of Indo-European family. In modern linguistics are preferred more "geographical" names for language families (like "Indo-European", "Altaic", "Afro-Asiatic", "Uralic" etc.) instead of the old ethnical (f.e."Indo-Germanic", "Turko-Tartarean", "Ugro-Finnic" etc.) or mythological ("Semitic", "Hamitic", "Yaphetic" etc.) ones.
The languages are united in groups and families based on some grammatical features (mainly phonological and morphological). I should emphasize that these terms are just useful concepts and not something essentially existing. They can be very useful in some respects, but misleading in others. The tacit assumption that linguistic groups and families suggest some primitive languages (Ur-Sprachen) and primitive people (Ur-Völker) is rooted in an obsolete but still vital paradigm originated from medieval science based on biblical mythology. This so called "family tree" theory (Stammbaumtheorie) still causes much confusion not only in historical linguistics but also in ethnology. I think the model of "language unions" (Sprachbünde) although not so elaborated for the present could be more useful and adequate in this respect.
It's sad to see how the purely linguistic terms are widely used outside their proper context. About a century ago Jan Baudouin de Courtenay wrote that language is not related to the race. But cultural habit (not to mention deliberate ideological concoctions) is very persistent. If a language group or family is named after an ethnos which happens to speak such a language at this particular age, that fact already conditions the mind to think that all similar speakers are somehow related culturally, historically or genetically (well, they could be, but not necessarily!). This "general history on linguistic basis" is a Western invention as Lev Gumilev pointed. It often speculates not about real people, but about ethnonyms which are in most cases pseudonyms.
Now genetics came in fashion and DNA research data are quoted as evidence, but an ethnos is not defined by genes, but by behavioral pattern. It's a psychological, not genetic phenomenon and certainly has nothing to do with the arbitrary political ideology of "nations". The similarity of the genome of some population is an indicator of its age (because of inter-marriages), not of its "purity". Thus the genetic differences between Indian castes practicing endogamy is bigger that those between some peoples in Europe. So one could expect that every ethnos in early stages of ethnogenesis is far more heterogeneous.
Race is not the same as the ethnos and then the culture is something else. Political, ethnic and linguistic history even though inter-related are different processes . Unfortunately they are not properly defined and distinguished in most studies.
As a conclusion I am tempted to cite one of my favorite witty passages from Oswald Spengler which nice ridicules this particular feature of modern thought:
"Very careful historians, even, after going to much trouble to clear their theoretical basis (up to the point) slide back thereafter onto treating peoples, race-parts, and speech-communities as completely equivalent. If they find the name of a people, it counts without more ado as the designation of a language as well. If they discover an inscription of three words, they believed they have established a racial connection. If a few "roots" correspond, the curtain rises at once on a primitive people with a primitive habitat in the background. And the modern nationalist spirit has only enhanced this "thinking in therms of peoples"." ("Decline of the West"; vol. II, chapt. VI).
|
|
|
Post by jamyangnorbu on Dec 2, 2010 17:35:47 GMT 3
I don't understand, the concept of race is "officially" debunked sure, but it's everywhere. Yes it is. It is reinforced in popular culture in the news and so on, but it doesn't make it intellectually sound or correct. We are all responsible for looking at and evaluating information. Some people are lazy and prefer to use earlier materials from the time when racialism was prevalent and unquestioned in academics.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 2, 2010 19:27:51 GMT 3
I have written this before but I strongly think that IRKDAŞ (people belonging to same race) and ARKADAŞ (friend - people who protect each others back) are the same and they are URUKDAŞ (people belonging in the same place) So Turkic culture saw "RACE" as people living together and protecting each others life and property and honor. It is not uncommon to find people who looked European in Kurgans. This doesn't make them European property in my opinion. By saying European I don't mean people who are from Europe. I mean belonging to European mentality. That is not true, Irk in Turkish is a loanword from Arabic. And no, contrary to what you want to believe, it is NOT a Turkic word. And the word Arka (Back) has nothing to do with the word Uruk (Clan). Just because they have the same suffix ( -daş) and just because they have the sounds "r" and "k" does not mean that these words are related.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 3, 2010 1:48:39 GMT 3
I concur with verything written by ardavarz above!
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on Dec 3, 2010 3:00:05 GMT 3
I concur with verything written by ardavarz above! I agree. I have written this before but I strongly think that IRKDAŞ (people belonging to same race) and ARKADAŞ (friend - people who protect each others back) are the same and they are URUKDAŞ (people belonging in the same place) So Turkic culture saw "RACE" as people living together and protecting each others life and property and honor. It is not uncommon to find people who looked European in Kurgans. This doesn't make them European property in my opinion. By saying European I don't mean people who are from Europe. I mean belonging to European mentality. That is not true, Irk in Turkish is a loanword from Arabic. And no, contrary to what you want to believe, it is NOT a Turkic word. And the word Arka (Back) has nothing to do with the word Uruk (Clan). Just because they have the same suffix ( -daş) and just because they have the sounds "r" and "k" does not mean that these words are related. Could ARKA be related to these words? Could there be another word hidden inside it? Especially the AR part. I see a striking pattern. Aren't these related to places, earth, the land and/or movement? Also why do we mix up KARINDAŞ (tied to the same stomach), GARDAŞ (the same as above) and ARKADAŞ (friend)? We call our friends "Gardaş" although we are not from the same mother. Could "the mother" here be "the land" thus "motherland"? Maybe Turks see the land as the mother thus calling people living together with them as IRKDAŞ? Maybe they see the "KARA TOPRAK: black EARTH, DIRT" as their RACE? which reminds me the verse "Benim sadık yarim kara topraktır":"my loyal lover is the (old?) earth itself" Also, isn't "UR" related to "YER" I'd really like to know about your ideas regarding what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 3, 2010 13:34:42 GMT 3
Thank you so much for your replies and for helping me understand all this, it's been on the back-burner of my brain for a long time and I never managed to get my finger around it, making me confuddled half the time whenever IE comes up. You fellas really hit the nail on the dot.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 3, 2010 19:06:59 GMT 3
Could ARKA be related to these words? Could there be another word hidden inside it? Especially the AR part. I see a striking pattern. Aren't these related to places, earth, the land and/or movement? Also why do we mix up KARINDAŞ (tied to the same stomach), GARDAŞ (the same as above) and ARKADAŞ (friend)? We call our friends "Gardaş" although we are not from the same mother. Could "the mother" here be "the land" thus "motherland"? Maybe Turks see the land as the mother thus calling people living together with them as IRKDAŞ? Maybe they see the "KARA TOPRAK: black EARTH, DIRT" as their RACE? which reminds me the verse "Benim sadık yarim kara topraktır":"my loyal lover is the (old?) earth itself" Also, isn't "UR" related to "YER" I'd really like to know about your ideas regarding what I think. No, that is simply not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Dec 4, 2010 12:34:01 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by merlkir on Dec 4, 2010 12:45:49 GMT 3
Yeah, that's a really lame news piece. I'm sorry to see it popping up everywhere, it's horrible drivel.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 4, 2010 13:55:48 GMT 3
LOL! See what I mean? ;D
They are everywhere, hell you should see the ones of my people, still remember one article I read 2 yrs back even quoted "experts" claiming we were descendants of Amazonian warrior women! WTF?! lol
Oh well, the good thing is that at least I got a good forehead for my constant facepalming, Tengri sure planned ahead.
|
|
|
Post by gopal on Nov 3, 2017 16:14:39 GMT 3
Initially European scholars included Greeks latin iranian Indians as Indo Europeans. They conceded local mingling in each of them. plus they made centum and its mirror image classification. thought arabic semetic as different group. did not classify ancient sumerians, mesopotomians, egyptians at all. then they had to add parthians sogdians. with tochharian A &B they included turks in the list. But they have stuck up there. They call mangolian altaik japanese as isolated languages. Scythians--- they have started organising huge exhibitions but unable to identify people or languages. world history pages are blank on scythians sarmatians yeuchis huns mangolians alans kazzaks et al. most unfortunate. i came to this forum in search of this history and expected more local views and info.
|
|