|
Post by sarmat on Sept 3, 2009 23:01:48 GMT 3
AFAIK Indian surnames almost always show cast/clan/origin affinity etc. An Indian person with the last name "Khan" very likely has a Persian, Afghan or Turko-mongol ancestry.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 3, 2009 23:29:47 GMT 3
I can't believe this question slipped my mind when I had to chance to ask Indian historians themselves. However from what we are discussing, its also possible that the surname Khan comes also from Persians or Afghans. So is it really safe to say that those actually possessing the surname are actually descendents of state officials in the Mughal Empire? Sorry to be difficult, but I'm just curious As it's kinda funny when years ago this Polynesian girl said to me "I knew a Mongol guy once because his surname is Khan"
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 3, 2009 23:44:26 GMT 3
I can't believe this question slipped my mind when I had to chance to ask Indian historians themselves. However from what we are discussing, its also possible that the surname Khan comes also from Persians or Afghans. So is it really safe to say that those actually possessing the surname are actually descendents of state officials in the Mughal Empire? Sorry to be difficult, but I'm just curious As it's kinda funny when years ago this Polynesian girl said to me "I knew a Mongol guy once because his surname is Khan" Yeah, I would assume it's safe to say that they descend from Mughal Empire ruling class (could include state, military officials, landlords and aristocrates etc.).
|
|
|
Post by kenmirzz on Sept 4, 2009 4:57:59 GMT 3
Nope. I am definitely sure that it's not "Furqan" but "Fir Khan" or "Fer Khan".
As for Mirza, my paternal grandpa have this name Mirza Abdul Rashid Beg. "Beg" is Turkic but he always boasted of being Moghul. I guess, we are mixed up with Persian, Turkic and Barulas Mongol then.
When I was in Mongolia visiting my wife's family, they asked about my mum's and dad's name. When I tell them, they said that it sounds Turkic. My mum have "Jan". Her name is BaatarJan. "Baatar" is Mongolian words for warrior while "Jan" is Persian, its meaning is life.
What a jumbled up heritage. ;D
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 4, 2009 13:16:02 GMT 3
Some Indians tend to be very ignorant on the Turko-Mongol period of Indian history. Because the Ottoman sultans also had the titles Khan and Khaqan, the Safavids made a word play and made Khan the title of coutryside lords in their own empire to show the Ottoman sultans lower in rank. Jan is a Persian word as you said but it's frequently used by the Turkic peoples as well
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 4, 2009 15:56:25 GMT 3
Try Aussie Indians The only educated ones seem to be all in Asia.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 4, 2009 21:37:23 GMT 3
in pronunciation however i think teh Persian Khan is pronounced with a hard K while the Turko-Mongol Khan is like Han.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 4, 2009 22:52:18 GMT 3
No they are the same, with the Frictive H (KH, like in German or Scottish "ch") sound. It's only in Anatolian Turkish when it becomes Han with ordinary H.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Sept 5, 2009 22:14:55 GMT 3
are you sure? i thought (modern) Mongols also pronounce this like H. or Captain Kirk in Star Trek II doesn't know how to pronounce Khan... www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRnSnfiUI54in German it's also pronounced like Khan (not Chan) with a hard K, i've actually enver heard anyone pronoucne it like CH...
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Sept 5, 2009 22:58:28 GMT 3
That's really funny that you mention Star Trek. Wikipedia's featured article yesterday was on Khan Noonien Singh. Gotta love how fake Hollywood is sometimes: a Mexican (Spanish) playing a Sikh character that was originally envisioned as a Nordic Ubermensch.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Sept 5, 2009 23:44:42 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 6, 2009 17:21:12 GMT 3
Yes I'm sure. More than a thousand years, the Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Indians and others who used the Arabic script have written Khan with the "Frictive H", "Long A" and "N" letters: ﺨﺎﻦ (Khān/Xān/Ḫān). In the Arabic script, the Hard K (Qāf ق), Soft K (Kāf ﻙ), Ordinary H (Hāʾ ه), Frictive H (Ḫāʾ خ), the special Semitic H (Ḥāʾ ح), Soft G (Gāf گ) and Hard G (Ġayn ﻍ) are all distinguished letters, and Khan is always and always written with the Ḫāʾ خ letter. The only difference about Q (Hard K) today is that in Persian, if I am not wrong, it's pronounced like Hard G. Nothing different with the Frictive H though.
My point is that, Russian-Mongolian X (Kh) is pronunced the same way with the Ch of German and Scottish (a bit harder than the German Ch actually) and the Frictive H (Ḫāʾ خ) of the Arabic script. The word Ḫan is written in English and German with "Kh", which is the actual English way of writing the Frictive H sound, but the English-speakers and Germans mispronounce it as Hard K (Q), which is wrong. But it has been mispronounced for a very long time that it's now impossible to change the pronunciation in those languages. Even I pronounce Khan as "Kan" when speaking in English, and only as the real "Khan/Xan" when speaking with Turko-Mongols, Arabs, Iranians and Pakistanis-Indians.
|
|
|
Post by kenmirzz on Sept 7, 2009 18:25:04 GMT 3
Mr Ihsan, thank you for your explanation. You are superior in terms of knowledge.
Just adding my two cents, normally the Arabs do not use the word ﺨﺎﻦ because it means something else in Arabic. In Arabic, this word mean betrayal or treachery. No Arabs will have "Khan" behind their name.
I think the Persian started using this title after Mongolian invasion of Persia but completely discarded it after the arise of Shiism in Persia or today's Iran.
Finally, this surname remain adopted in Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and of course, Mongolia.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Sept 7, 2009 19:24:05 GMT 3
It's also used in Central Asia and Caucasus. Though mostly with combinations with other roots like Karakhan or Makhmedkhan etc.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Sept 7, 2009 20:08:57 GMT 3
Thank you. My knowledge is not superior, these are just simple facts The reason why the Arabs won't use it is because before the 20th century, the majority of them were under Ottoman rule, and both Khan and Khaqan were among the imperial titles of Ottoman rulers, contrary to the Iranian and Indian Turks who used the title Khan for ordinary statesmen. Thus, no one in the Ottoman Empire, except the sultans, used Khan, and this means it wasn't transmitted to today as family surnames. By the way, the useage of Khan in Iran actually increased during the Safavid period. I haven't seen many people with the last name Han in Turkey (though there are a few, but that was probably a modern useage selected in 1934).
|
|