|
|
Post by abdulhay on Oct 29, 2010 16:58:10 GMT 3
I think shamshirepars is just a spammer who tries to get people angry at this website, he recommend that he should be banned since he coming with ridicoules replies, its like saying cuyrus the great came from mongolia , I have prove from avesta is says so doesnt it  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Azadan Januspar on Nov 3, 2010 1:38:47 GMT 3
I didn't know that does it really stand for blue in Khotanese Saka?
it seems so, but I recall that read something alike about the Wusuns once.
Could you tell more about Varkana?
I don't think so, why should people get angry? and why are you getting mad personally?
|
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Nov 3, 2010 15:00:45 GMT 3
I didn't know that does it really stand for blue in Khotanese Saka? Some scholars such as Kljashtornyj claimed that but I think it is still too far away from talking certain. |
|
|
|
Post by turanicturk on Nov 29, 2011 3:32:33 GMT 3
There are blonde Turks.Most visible examples are Lithuania and Poland Tatars,in city of Adana,I myself have seen many blond Turks who are members of Anatolian Turkmen tribes,pure Turks.Main structure of Central Asia was not Iranic but it was Turkic-Mongols like Altar said,claim that it was Iranic domination racially cannot be called something else than Pan-Iranism.
|
|
|
|
Post by missanthropology58 on Nov 29, 2011 17:59:39 GMT 3
There are blonde Turks.Most visible examples are Lithuania and Poland Tatars,in city of Adana,I myself have seen many blond Turks who are members of Anatolian Turkmen tribes,pure Turks.Main structure of Central Asia was not Iranic but it was Turkic-Mongols like Altar said,claim that it was Iranic domination racially cannot be called something else than Pan-Iranism. Yoruks like Ataturk there's no such thing as a pure Turk such people are just the Janissary descendants. I don't believe the Scythians were Iranic or Turkic if anything they were just Pontic |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 1, 2011 16:02:27 GMT 3
Linking Balkan Turks to janissary descendency is an inaccurate and obsolete, politically-motivated theory that should not be taken seriously. The janissaries formed only a small part of Ottoman society.
|
|
|
|
Post by siberiancoldbreeze on May 20, 2012 21:40:10 GMT 3
My sister is typical blonde (with light honey color hair and very white skin ) on the other hand I look very asian, same mother and father Also ,my avatar is a Hazara girl..she is very blond and color eyed ..(looks like my sisters childhood except her eyes ,hazel and not monolid) We were not asketic amishes ,isolated amazon tribes or ksenophobiac people, how can we be %100 pure ? Racism and pure race ideals are a form of fear ,fear from unknown and stranger .Our ancestors were nomads ,we can't be racists. Steppe people have been most openminded ,spontenous people, found always multicultural empires, succesfully governed them.. we also don't have any institutions like cast systems, since animistic religions do not categorise people according to races.its against nature non wholistic ,very humancentric and therefore not Altaic. As far as I know Uygurs were called color eyed people in China ,i heard or read somewhere ,hope it's not wrong info but i may be right because my friends father had sky blue eyes with typical tatar face ,looked like color eyed east asian ..very unusual eurasian trait.  those are from Muğla Çomakdağı ..people are still wearing their traditional clotes ,looks very cute..with their fragrant herbs and flowers wearing on their head ..like in Karacaoğlan poems |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 21, 2012 15:25:56 GMT 3
I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by choronzon on May 21, 2012 21:16:39 GMT 3
people of Turkmenistan never mixed with iranians, the main tribes of turkmens are Tokhtamish and Utamish, kiyat tribes….. There is nothing similar with iranians,rather similar with ancient tribes of turks such as Kiyat, which means “wolf” if I’m not wrong that tribe was Oguzhan father’s, isn’t? tokhtamish & utamish--- these names reflect pure turkic names. Kiyat – the famous squint-eyed shooter, due to his magical powers an arrow shot by him always hit the target.(Oguzname) yeah..turkic warriors were not simple warriors  |
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on May 22, 2012 15:55:43 GMT 3
On the contrary, Mahmud of Kashghar tells us that the Oghuz that settled on the banks of River Jaxartes (Sayhun) lived in towns mixed with Soghdian colonisers who were on the process of Turkification (they had adopted Turkic clothing and had become bilingual, speaking both Soghdian and Oghuz).
"Kiyat" does not mean "wolf" in neither Turkic nor Mongolic. Bahaeddin Ögel linked it to Old Turkic Qayïġ (Kayı) and explained it with the meaning "Slider/One who slides" (deriving from the root Qay- meaning "to slide"). "Wolf" in Old Turkic was "Böri" and in Pre-Classical and Classical Mongolian "Chinoo" or "Chono".
|
|
|
|
Post by choronzon on May 24, 2012 12:01:19 GMT 3
Yes you’re right kiyat means – Qai-sliding + At-shooting=Qai+At= kiyat squint shooting. We can not confine kiyats only to oguzs Kiyat was also among kipchaks as mentioned in ancient russian chronicles, --“ In the year of 6603,prince Vladimir made piece treaty with kipchaks, itlars,kiyats. Later on prince Vladimir’s generals persuaded him to unsheathe sword against all mentioned tribes, Vladimir stood against betrayal of peace treaty but at last agreed. He robbed his son Svyatoslav from kiyats and killed many of them, that’s why kipchaks declared war on Vladimir, another russian prince Oleg Chernigovskiy turned to turks side and waged war against Vladimir.” Here we see that kiyat doesn’t originate only from oguz, it as well originated from kipchaks also. kiyat has common turkic origins.
|
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on May 24, 2012 17:24:44 GMT 3
-at is probably plural suffix. Yes, Old Turkic had more than one plural marker. Not everything was -lar/-ler.
|
|
|
|
Post by siberiancoldbreeze on May 24, 2012 18:47:31 GMT 3
-s -z may be another suffix i notice we have them words like
göz (two eye) ,diz (knee )yüz (face ,two cheeks) ,ikiz(twins) ,ağız (two lips?),oğuz (arrows) i only suggest ,not sure ..is that true?
|
|
|
|
Post by ancalimon on May 24, 2012 18:53:55 GMT 3
-s -z may be another suffix i notice we have them words like göz (two eye) ,diz (knee )yüz (face ,two cheeks) ,ikiz(twins) ,ağız (two lips?),oğuz (arrows) i only suggest ,not sure ..is that true? That's true. I once read an article about s-z plural suffixes in old Turkic. But the examples I remember were only ikiz, üçüz, dördüz, beşiz, etc... Other Turkic plural suffixes are: uz - az (Oghuz) ur - ar (Ogur)
By the way... As far as I know, the typical Iranian person is not blonde but has black curly hair, dark eyes and has very white skin. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardavarz on May 24, 2012 23:31:37 GMT 3
Ligeti and W. Bang thought that in the oldest times plural number in Turkic languages was expressed with -z. I wonder since the given examples designate double objects whether this isn't an evidence for some ancient dual rather than plural form. The dual number is not attested but reconstructed for the Altaic proto-languages: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages#Morphological_correspondences The reconstructed -r would become -z in common Turkic, but could have been preserved in Oghuric (r-Turkic) languages. It is interesting also that the common Altaic plural suffix -t resembles North-Eastern Iranian plural suffix -tä. |
|
;D
