Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

About "Bagatur" word, question.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Tangriberdi View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 267
  Quote Tangriberdi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: About "Bagatur" word, question.
    Posted: 27-Sep-2006 at 16:48
I am repeating myself against those ultra anti Turk Iranians:
Read carefully:
BEK>BEG>BEGH> and finally BEY(landlord, lord, landowner, folk's owner, possessor) is a very old Turkish title . It is akin to Mongolian Baaigaan( Able and capable man, powerful male, Rich , Wealthy). It is too difficult that a word from Persian comes first into Turkish and than later from Turkish to Mongolian. If it was true, the mongolian loan word should have reflected the Turkish sound system BEG . But Mongolian word is Baaigaan. There is no direct contact so it is impossible. BAAIGAAN( some other versions  are Baagaan or baaiaan)or BEG is Altaic,
BAAIG, BAAI, BEK, BEG, BEGH , BAAI, BAAIGHAAN, BAAIAAN, BAY BAYAN
All these words are related and they are Altaic not Iranian.
 
But Persian Aachaar, Qaashoq, Qishlaamishi kardan, Kangash kardan, Bazak and so many on... all are of Turkic origin.
Stop this stupid Iranian debate.
Beg or Bag as a root is Altaic and so Turkic.
It has nothing to do with Iranian Baga God. 

Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 04:27

The 'root' in all Altaic languages are a three (or four) - character section:

'Tangri' ---> tang
'Siregun' ---> sire
 
The same is for any word you might think; except for combinations, like 'ulusarasi' = international ---> ulus +ara+ (s+i)).
'tayilbarqu' = tayil + bar + qu ---> to explain
 
This three (or four) - character 'root' is different mostly when you talk about verbs (to sit, to go).
 
But when it comes to objects (table, window, names of animals), they are not that much different as you mentioned (it's not as similar as I'm mentioning either!!!); 'glass', 'decision', etc.


Edited by gok_toruk - 30-Sep-2006 at 04:29
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 10:08

Well, Can you analyse "Bahatur" with the Mongolian root words?
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2006 at 05:55

The word 'baqatur' is derived from the Proto-Altaic word 'maqa' which means 'glory, praise'. It is very probable, an 'i' existed after 'a' and before 'q'; I mean it is probably 'miaqa':

Turkic ---> baqta
Mongolian ---> maghta
Manchu and Tungus ---> magh
Korean ---> maghar
Japanese ---> mawas
 
You see dropping 'agha' off is not just in modern Turkic or Mongolian.
 
'Tur' in Altaic languages makes 'dative'.
 
The word has been slighter in Mongolian, to 'bakhatur' first, and then to 'bahatur'. 
 
Totally together, the word 'baqatur' means 'somebody ascribed to glory'.
 
By the way, note 'miaqa' itself is 'mia+qa' in which 'qa' makes 'noun'.
 
That's why I believe we can't relate the word to a specific branch of Altaic languages.


Edited by gok_toruk - 01-Oct-2006 at 06:42
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 08:40

Nice work buddy. However, what we are discussing is the origin of the word. How are you so sure the original form of the word is "Baqatur" instead of "Bater"? moreover, derived Turkic words usually made with the root words that have distinct meanings.

Maqtash in Uyghur means "praising" indeed. But the word Batur doesn't mean "some one who gets praising". Batur just shows the bravity of a man. In this sense, I prefer to agree with Uyghur-aryan's theory: Batur--Bat+er.


Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
gok_toruk View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
9 Oghuz

Joined: 28-Apr-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1831
  Quote gok_toruk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2006 at 17:14
We're talking about roots, right? In fact, that was what you asked. The root is proto-Altaic. So, you're talking about more before christ. 'Baqatur' is considered a solid word for the time being; but it's a combination originally. The meaning also is supposed to be like you mentioned. But, the original meaning is different.
 
Well, you may accept anything you like. But as for Linguistics, the structure is the above mentioned fact. It's only Uighurs who say 'Bater' (really?). Central Asians as well as Siberian tribes use 'baqatur' or 'bahatur'. By the way, it's one of the characteristics of Turkic langauge that the sound system is really stable. It's not so easy to change 'bater' to 'batur'. You only see the case in Uighur.


Edited by gok_toruk - 17-Oct-2006 at 06:39
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
Desperado View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Apr-2006
Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 227
  Quote Desperado Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 05:22
BTW in all Russian tales, the heroes(knights) are always called bogatyr' and in Hindi bahadur means brave man, hero-like Indian made MiG-27 "Bahadur".
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
  Quote Vivek Sharma Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Oct-2006 at 05:38
And Bahaduri means bravery.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 05:35
greetings here!
 
my 1st post here! though zorigo should know me..
 
i will like to offer something alternative for turkic "beg"
 
chinese has a title named "bo", which sounds more closer "bek"  in ancient times and still attested in modern chinese dialects...
 
while, i would not say outright its the origin for "beg", this chinese word is very old, attested since 1200BC in Shang times  
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Tangriberdi

I am repeating myself against those ultra anti Turk Iranians:
Read carefully:
BEK>BEG>BEGH> and finally BEY(landlord, lord, landowner, folk's owner, possessor) is a very old Turkish title . It is akin to Mongolian Baaigaan( Able and capable man, powerful male, Rich , Wealthy). It is too difficult that a word from Persian comes first into Turkish and than later from Turkish to Mongolian. If it was true, the mongolian loan word should have reflected the Turkish sound system BEG . But Mongolian word is Baaigaan. There is no direct contact so it is impossible. BAAIGAAN( some other versions  are Baagaan or baaiaan)or BEG is Altaic,
BAAIG, BAAI, BEK, BEG, BEGH , BAAI, BAAIGHAAN, BAAIAAN, BAY BAYAN
All these words are related and they are Altaic not Iranian.
 
But Persian Aachaar, Qaashoq, Qishlaamishi kardan, Kangash kardan, Bazak and so many on... all are of Turkic origin.
Stop this stupid Iranian debate.
Beg or Bag as a root is Altaic and so Turkic.
It has nothing to do with Iranian Baga God. 

Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919
  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 15:22
Originally posted by lifezard

greetings here!
 
my 1st post here! though zorigo should know me..
 
i will like to offer something alternative for turkic "beg"
 
chinese has a title named "bo", which sounds more closer "bek"  in ancient times and still attested in modern chinese dialects...
 
while, i would not say outright its the origin for "beg", this chinese word is very old, attested since 1200BC in Shang times  
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Tangriberdi

I am repeating myself against those ultra anti Turk Iranians:
Read carefully:
BEK>BEG>BEGH> and finally BEY(landlord, lord, landowner, folk's owner, possessor) is a very old Turkish title . It is akin to Mongolian Baaigaan( Able and capable man, powerful male, Rich , Wealthy). It is too difficult that a word from Persian comes first into Turkish and than later from Turkish to Mongolian. If it was true, the mongolian loan word should have reflected the Turkish sound system BEG . But Mongolian word is Baaigaan. There is no direct contact so it is impossible. BAAIGAAN( some other versions  are Baagaan or baaiaan)or BEG is Altaic,
BAAIG, BAAI, BEK, BEG, BEGH , BAAI, BAAIGHAAN, BAAIAAN, BAY BAYAN
All these words are related and they are Altaic not Iranian.
 
But Persian Aachaar, Qaashoq, Qishlaamishi kardan, Kangash kardan, Bazak and so many on... all are of Turkic origin.
Stop this stupid Iranian debate.
Beg or Bag as a root is Altaic and so Turkic.
It has nothing to do with Iranian Baga God. 



If I'm not wrong these 2 are related to eachother but I don't remember exactly so c an realt say I need to look it up
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Mordoth View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 21-Sep-2006
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 192
  Quote Mordoth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 14:54
We can say that the word is modified from the word " Baghaaturk " ; that could be evaluated as 2 words within itself .

"Baagha" is meant to be " brave , couregous "
And "Tur" could come from the Word " Tura " which is an ancient calling of " Turks " . ( So The Turan is )
 
Baghaa is modified into word " Bahaa " .
Some Turks uses " Bahadir " and some uses " Baha " as an abbreviation .
 
Jang is an iranian word , that is possibly true .
 
Ulaan Batoor could also be Turkic origined , i can not properly dedicate it .
Ulaan means " Sary" . ( You all know Jannisary ) 
It could mean " Brave Turkish Son "   
If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :|
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote DerDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 08:36
The word "Bagatur" is Altaic - no question about that. And the Persian word "Bahdur" is derived from it. However, unlike other forms of the word in other languages, the Persian form is much more "Persianized".

By itself, the word "Bahdur" can also mean "beautiful pearl"; "bah" = "pretty" and "dur" = "pearl". In a wider sense, it could mean "noble".

When the Mughals gave their princes this name, they probable were not aware of its Altaic origins. Most likely, they only chose the name because of its meaning in Persian.

This is similar to the word "Yabghu" in (ancient) Turkic languages. While the military title "Yabghu" was almost exclusively used by Turkic conquerors, it has certainly an Indo-European origin and was borrowed from either Eastern Iranian languages or from Tokharians. The influence of ancient Iranian peoples in the region is attested. For example, the self-designation of the Yakut people is "Sakha", evidently derived from "Saka" ("Scythian"), an ancient Iranian nomadic confederation in Central Asia.

@ Mordoth: the term "Turan" is not Turkic, it's Indo-European, and it is related to the modern Pashto word "tora" ("black"; you've probably heared the name "Tora Bora"), Persian "trik" ("dark"), and English "dark". It means "Land of darkness", used in the Avestan Gathas as a contrast to the "illuminated" Zoroastrian world of the settled "Aryans". Although both Turanians (Scythians, Massagetes, etc) and Iranians (Persians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc) were of the same ethnic stock, they were very different in their ways of life and in their beliefs. That's the origin of the "Iran vs. Turan" legends. When the Turkic and Mongol nomads appeared in Central Asia around 900 AD, the settled Persians who regarded the Turks as a barbaric and underdeveloped "evil horde" considered these new invaders to be the legendary "dark forces of Turan". The Turks - still a nomadic people - quickly adopted Iranian ways of life, and also Iranian folk tales. Since then, they identify themselvs with the "Turanians". They believed in the old Iranian folk takes, the same way the majority of the world's population adopted the folk tales of the ancient Hebrew people (the foundation of modern Christianity and Islam). The Turks tried to identify themselvs with the Iranian epic legends. The early Turks, for example the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs, claimed to be descendants of ancient Persian kings. Later Turks and Mongols, for example the Qarakhanids and Timurids, identified themselvs with the enemies of the Iranians. That's the reason why the Seljuqs gave their children names of Persian heroes, for example Kay Qubd, Rustam, or Kay Khusraw, while the Timruids gave their children names of "Turanian heroes", such as Pirn and Mirn (both sons of Temerlane). Linguistically and ethnically, the term "Turn" has nothing to do with Turks or Turkic origins.


Edited by DerDoc - 02-Apr-2007 at 09:00
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 12:36
DerDoc
When the Mughals gave their princes this name, they probable were not aware of its Altaic origins. Most likely, they only chose the name because of its meaning in Persian.
 
Bahadur means bold, brave or other meanings along these lines in Persian, Hindi, Urdu and all other languages.
 
DerDoc
This is similar to the word "Yabghu" in (ancient) Turkic languages. While the military title "Yabghu" was almost exclusively used by Turkic conquerors, it has certainly an Indo-European origin and was borrowed from either Eastern Iranian languages or from Tokharians.
 
No, Yagbu is Turkic, how has it an Indo-European origin? please explain.
 
 
DerDoc
Although both Turanians (Scythians, Massagetes, etc) and Iranians (Persians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc) were of the same ethnic stock
 
That's debatable in itself, Scythians wern't an ethnic group, they were a tribal confederation, seen as though Altaic tribes were also involved and seen as though among the theories of the origin of Scythians its claimed they came from Siberia and around the Altay region its likely that there were Turkic, Iranic and other tribes among them.
 
 
DerDoc
When the Turkic and Mongol nomads appeared in Central Asia around 900 AD,
 
What is your definition of Central Asia? is the Altay region not Central Asia, yes it is, Turks have been in Central Asia for thousands of years its their homeland.
 
If your talking about Western Central Asia they did not "arrive" in 900 AD
 either, Xiong-nu had power across Central Asia and so did Gok Turks both way before this era.
 
 
DerDoc
The Turks - still a nomadic people
 
No this is simply not the case.
There were Nomadic Turks, there were Semi-Nomadic Turks and there were settled Turks.
Uygur Turks have a long settled history, had old cities and advanced civillisation, the Xiongnu were Semi-Nomadic having around 50 cities.
 
Kashgarli Mahmud wrote a dictionary/encyclopedia of the Turks which was given to the Abbasid Caliph, many legends are included.
 
 
DerDoc
The Turks tried to identify themselvs with the Iranian epic legends. The early Turks, for example the Ghaznavids and Seljuqs, claimed to be descendants of ancient Persian kings.
 
Firstly Seljuks and Gaznivids are not early Turks.
 
Which Seljuk leader? Seljuks claimed descendance of Oghuz Khan.
 
The Ghaznivids did but what your forgetting is that Gaznivids were ruling mainly Iranic peoples and so were the Seljuks when they took over Iran. They had to appease their subjects, claiming lineage from the Kings of past gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Basically it was more pollitical than anything. These Turks were ruling over mainly non-Turks in those regions.
 
When the local population became more Turk, like in the Seljuk Sultanate of the Rum they started promoting their Turkish heritage, making Turkish the official language in every function of the state and writting down Turkish legends.
 
 
DerDoc
Later Turks and Mongols, for example the Qarakhanids and Timurids, identified themselvs with the enemies of the Iranians.
 
Well Karakhanids wern't later, they were before the Seljuks.
 
Timurids were ruling over a more Turkic population in comparison to the Seljuks, as I said most of these actions were more pollitically motivated, these governers were pragmatists.
 
Linguistically your correct, the term Turan isn't Turkic.
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote DerDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 17:55
Originally posted by Bulldog

Bahadur means bold, brave or other meanings along these lines in Persian, Hindi, Urdu and all other languages.


The meaning of "Bahdur" in Persian is "noble" - though it has Altaic origins, it is exclusively used as a Persianized word. This is already clear from the way it was changed: from "Baghatur" to "Bahdur". Using the original Altaic sounds would not have been any problem in Persian. After all, they also adopted the titles "Khn", "Khnum", "q", etc. This is different in this case. When the Mughals used the name, they used the Persian form "Bahdur" ("noble") for their princes.
 
No, Yagbu is Turkic, how has it an Indo-European origin? please explain.


See the article "Yabghu" in Encyclopaedia of Islam. It is attested that the origin of "Yabghu" is certainly Non-Altaic and has - most likely - Indo-European roots. This is nothing uncommon. The Turks had adopted many Non-Altaic titles (such as Shah, Emir, Sultan, etc), and they brought their own titles to other places (Khan, Khaqan, etc). "Yabghu" is certainly Non-Turkic.
  
That's debatable in itself, Scythians wern't an ethnic group, they were a tribal confederation, seen as though Altaic tribes were also involved and seen as though among the theories of the origin of Scythians its claimed they came from Siberia and around the Altay region its likely that there were Turkic, Iranic and other tribes among them.


The ancient "Scythians" were certainly related to each other, the same way early "Huns" were related to each other. And the claim that Scythian were not Indo-Europeans is only supported by a minority of people, most of them non-experts. The large majority of scholars agree that the Scythians were Indo-Europeans. In later Centuries, the word "Scythian" was used for all kinds of nomads, most of them still Indo-European. It's the same with "Huns": in later centuries, "Hun" was used for all kinds of nomads. But at the very beginning, the Huns were all related ethnic confederations, most likely Altaic and - as some suggest - proto-Turks.
 
What is your definition of Central Asia? is the Altay region not Central Asia, yes it is, Turks have been in Central Asia for thousands of years its their homeland.


When I say "Central Asia", I mean the southern parts of it. The modern Central Asian states.
 
If your talking about Western Central Asia they did not "arrive" in 900 AD  either, Xiong-nu had power across Central Asia and so did Gok Turks both way before this era.


The Xiongnu were not really "Turks", the Gk-Turks were totally different from Scythians (they were firsta llied to the Sassanids, and then fought each other; many Persian and Arab sources about the Gk-Turks still exist). Otherwise, the Persians would have classified them as "Scythians". This is not the case.

In both cases, they had not much to do with the classical Scythians and "Sakas" of Greek, Persian, and Indian legends. Besides that, the existence of Caucasian and Indo-European Tokharians is attested in China - 1000 years before the Turks came to southern Central Asia.
 
No this is simply not the case.
There were Nomadic Turks, there were Semi-Nomadic Turks and there were settled Turks.
Uygur Turks have a long settled history, had old cities and advanced civillisation, the Xiongnu were Semi-Nomadic having around 50 cities.


The Uyghur Turks were in contact with Chinese and Sogdians - yet, they were still very nomadic.

The other tribes, especially the  Qipchaq and the Oghuz, were certainly nomads. They were regarded as primitive creatures by Persian and Arab Muslims because of their nomadic way of life.
 
Kashgarli Mahmud wrote a dictionary/encyclopedia of the Turks which was given to the Abbasid Caliph, many legends are included.



Have you actually read Kashgari's work?! His entire work "Divn al-Lughat al-Tork" is aimed to defend - what he believed - the "superior nomadic culture" of the Turks. He even insults the Seljuqs by claiming that "they are not real Turks, because they have adopted the Iranian way of life".
 
Firstly Seljuks and Gaznivids are not early Turks.


They were the first Islamized Turks ....
 
Which Seljuk leader? Seljuks claimed descendance of Oghuz Khan.



Seljuqs were certainly Persian-speaking. Even Sultan Tughril, the founder of the Seljuq Empire, is known as a Persian poet and is named as such by Mir Ali Sher Navai in his "Comparison of Languages". The Seljuqs are the main reason for the expansion of modern Persian from Central Asia to Iran (where the language had been replaced with Arabic). The Ghaznavids were celebrated as Iranian and Persian kings by contemporary poets and scholars (al Biruni, Ferdousi, etc).

"... Because the Turkish Seljuqs had no Islamic tradition or strong literary heritage of their own, they adopted the cultural language of their Persian instructors in Islam. Literary Persian thus spread to the whole of Iran, and the Arabic language disappeared in that country except in works of religious scholarship ..." - Encyclopaedia Britannica

"... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." - Encyclopaedia Iranica

"... Not only did the inhabitants of Khurasan not succumb to the language of the nomadic invaders, but they imposed their own tongue on them. The region could even assimilate the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks (eleventh and twelfth centuries), the Timurids (fourteenthfifteenth centuries), and the Qajars (nineteenthtwentieth centuries) ..." -  F. Daftary, Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khorasan, and Trasoxania during Umayyad and Early Abbasid Times, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol 4, pt. 1; edited by M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth; UNESCO Publishing, Institute of Ismaili Studies


The Ghaznivids did but what your forgetting is that Gaznivids were ruling mainly Iranic peoples and so were the Seljuks when they took over Iran. They had to appease their subjects, claiming lineage from the Kings of past gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Basically it was more pollitical than anything. These Turks were ruling over mainly non-Turks in those regions.


The Ghaznavids were Mamluks (slaves) and did not have an ethnic identity. All they knew was the Iranian and Islamic culture they had grew up with. Thus, the Ghaznavids were not really "Turks" but rather "Persians". As Professor Ehsan Yarshater of the Columbia University puts it:

"...Although the Ghaznavids were of Turkic origin and their military leaders were generally of the same stock, as a result of the original involvement of Sebktegin and Mahmud in Samanid affairs and in the Samanid cultural environment, the dynasty became thoroughly Persianized (see Omidsalar, 1999), so that in practice one cannot consider their rule one of foreign domination. In terms of cultural championship and the support of Persian poets, they were far more Persian than the ethnically Iranian Buyids, whose support of Arabic letters in preference to Persian is well known. ..." - Encyclopaedia Iranica
 
When the local population became more Turk, like in the Seljuk Sultanate of the Rum they started promoting their Turkish heritage, making Turkish the official language in every function of the state and writting down Turkish legends.


This is nothing but assumption and is not based on any facts. Fact is, that the Seljuqs had no interest in Turkish culture or language. The first Turkish dynasty in Anatolia to declare Turkish as the "official language" was - EVIDENTLY - the Karamanoglus. The Seljuqs were - like the Ghaznavids - a totally Persianized dynasty. Here, I suggest you read the book:

M. Ravandi, "The Seljuq court at Konya and the Persianisation of Anatolian Cities", in Mesogeios (Mediterranean Studies), vol. 25-6 (2005)

... or the very informative article "Persian Manuscripts in Ottoman and Modern Turkish Libraries" by Turkish scholar O.zgndenli in  Encyclopaedia Iranica
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote DerDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 18:01
Sorry for the small fonts. I do not know what happened.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 19:30
DerDOC
"Yabghu" is certainly Non-Turkic.
As far as I know it is definately Turkic.
 
If its not Turkic, could you tell me its etymology and what it means in the language you say its from?
 
 
DerDoc
The ancient "Scythians" were certainly related to each other
 
Well it depends on where you consider Scythians to be from.
 
If like many sources state that they were also in the regions of Altay, its likey that they wernt' a mono-ethnic group but a confederation of tribes being descendants of Iranic and Turkic tribes.
 
 
DerDoc
When I say "Central Asia", I mean the southern parts of it. The modern Central Asian states.
 
Well Kazakistan is a part of Central Asia which includes a part of the Altay region making Turks originally Central Asian.
 
 
DerDoc
The Xiongnu were not really "Turks"
 
Xiongnu being the ancestors of Turks, proto-Turks and including among them probobly other groups.
 
 
DerDoc
The Uyghur Turks were in contact with Chinese and Sogdians - yet, they were still very nomadic.
 
Uygurs have a long settled history, where do you get they were nomadic from, the Oghuz were most Nomadic.

DerDoc
Seljuqs were certainly Persian-speaking. Even Sultan Tughril, the founder of the Seljuq Empire, is known as a Persian poet
 
No, Seljuks wern't Persian speaking, their subjects were, writing poetry in Persian doesn't make you a Persian.
 
DerDoc
"... here one might bear in mind that non-Persian dynasties such as the Ghaznavids, Saljuqs and Ilkhanids were rapidly to adopt the Persian language and have their origins traced back to the ancient kings of Persia rather than to Turkish heroes or Muslim saints ..." - Encyclopaedia Iranica
 
Firstly you still havn't shown me which Seljuk King referred to himself as being descended from ancient Persian Kings. Seljuks were a religous state, they were protecting the Caliphate claiming they didn't place emphasis on Muslim saints is ridiculous. Taking into account, Haci Bektash Veli, Yunus Emre, Mevlana, Nasreddin Hoca etc famous muslim figures who entered popular society, literature and thought spread during the Seljuk era it really is a totally absurd claim.
 
 
And what did I clearly write.
 
 
What your forgetting is that Gaznivids were ruling mainly Iranic peoples and so were the Seljuks when they took over Iran. They had to appease their subjects, claiming lineage from the Kings of past gave them more legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Basically it was more pollitical than anything. These Turks were ruling over mainly non-Turks in those regions.
 
When the local population became more Turk, like in the Seljuk Sultanate of the Rum they started promoting their Turkish heritage, making Turkish the official language in every function of the state and writting down Turkish legends.
 
 
DerDoc
The Ghaznavids were Mamluks (slaves) and did not have an ethnic identity. All they knew was the Iranian and Islamic culture they had grew up with. Thus, the Ghaznavids were not really "Turks" but rather "Persians". As Professor Ehsan Yarshater of the Columbia University puts it:
 
Are you just driven to re-write history or something.
 
They were slaves who turned on their master and then ruled their old masters, serves enslavers right  Big%20smile
 
They had a clear ethnic identity, they were from millitary families and practically ruled the Samanids from within before taking total control. They were bought up in Turkic millitary tradition, the founder of the state was "ALPTIGIN", his family were Turkic and they ruled over mainly Non-Turkic poulation.
 
 
DerDoc
This is nothing but assumption and is not based on any facts. Fact is, that the Seljuqs had no interest in Turkish culture or language. The first Turkish dynasty in Anatolia to declare Turkish as the "official language" was - EVIDENTLY - the Karamanoglus. The Seljuqs were - like the Ghaznavids - a totally Persianized dynasty. Here, I suggest you read the book:
Assumption? not based on facts?
 
The Karamanogullu's were subjects of the Seljuks, when Karamanogullu Mehmet Bey made his famous policy it was adopted by the Seljuks, the Karamanogullari took Konya but later Seljuks re-took it.
 
Selcuks were not a Persianized dynasty, they were a pragmatist dynasty, when ruling Persians they adjusted to not create a backlash, when ruling over predominantly Turks they adjusted to this.
 
The Selcuks are responsible for the spread of Turkish language and culture in Azerbaycan, Turkey and Northern Iran this is an uncontestable fact. Turkish literature flourished during this age and continued as it was carried on by dynasties of the future. This isn't undermining that Persian was a very important language and used extensively aswell. However, be realistic, prior to the Seljuks there were few Turkic speakers apart from a millitary class West of the Capsian Sea after their reign there were millions and Turkic rulers were in control of this vast region.
 
You talk of Persianizification but in reality there was no such occurance and it had no impact on local population.  The educated would learn Persian, traditionally Persian was used in pollitics Arabic in religion and Turkish in the millitary. This changed after the Karakhanids end of the Seljuks, spread of Karamanids, rise of the Timurids and Ottomans. If as you would like us all to believe they were a Persian speaking Persianised empire, nobody would be speaking Turkish today in those regions but in total contrast Turkish speakers outnumber Persian speakers in the region.
 


Edited by Bulldog - 03-Apr-2007 at 19:36
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
bleda View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 07-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283
  Quote bleda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Apr-2007 at 20:28
fact today persians are arabized.
and derdoc .nomadic turks ruled persia nearly 1000 years.
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote DerDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Apr-2007 at 10:17
Originally posted by Bulldog

As far as I know it is definately Turkic.
 
If its not Turkic, could you tell me its etymology and what it means in the language you say its from?


The correct etymology of "Yabghu" is not known, what is for certain is that the term is not of Turkic origin. For example, it lacks vocalic harmony by using "u" and "a" in the same word; this was totally unknown to early Turkic languages and was introduced much later through the influence of Non-Turkic languages.

Well it depends on where you consider Scythians to be from. If like many sources state that they were also in the regions of Altay, its likey that they wernt' a mono-ethnic group but a confederation of tribes being descendants of Iranic and Turkic tribes.


That's the case for all Eurasian nomads. Yet, based on littel linguistic sources which have survived, one can say that Scythians were of Indo-European origin while Huns were most likely of Altaic origin.
 
Well Kazakistan is a part of Central Asia which includes a part of the Altay region making Turks originally Central Asian.


"Central Asia" has many definitions. Yet, the very first Turks were inhabitants of what is now Mongolia. "Central Asia" from an Iranic point of view ("Turan") is the southern parts of what is now known as "Turkistan".
 
Xiongnu being the ancestors of Turks, proto-Turks and including among them probobly other groups.


This is vague claim - and is disputed by many scholars. However, it is interesting that you do not accept the Indo-European origins of the Scythians, while at the same time you claim that "Xiongnu were proto-Turks" - totally illogical, since the Indo-European language(s) of the Scythians is attested. A "Turkic language" of the Xiongnu is pure assumption.

Recent studies by Prof. Alexander Vovin rather support the theory that the Xiongnu were Yeniseian :

V, Alexander: "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal 44/1 (2000)
 
Uygurs have a long settled history, where do you get they were nomadic from, the Oghuz were most Nomadic.


The Uyghurs are a confederation of Turkic and Indo-European, in part also Chinese peoples who - through the course of time - have all adopted a Turkic language, mostly due to the rule of the Qarakhanids.

In total, Ughur history starts some time around 100 BC, and is related to the history of Turkic nomadic movements in the region. The nomads conquered the lands in the Tarim basin, and that gave birth to the modern Uyghur nation.

The "settled" part of Uyghur history is Non-Turkic, mostely Chinese.

As very evident from the writings of Mahmoud al-Kashgari, the Ughurs and the Turks of the Tarim basin were still nomads at least until the 11th century.

No, Seljuks wern't Persian speaking, their subjects were, writing poetry in Persian doesn't make you a Persian.


The Seljuqs were evidently Persian-speaking. All of the sources available from Seljuq times are in Persian, with only some exceptions which were not connected to the Seljuq court, for example the poems of Yonus Emre.

The entire Seljuq state affair, their undiputed support for Persian literature and culture, and the very fact that they gave their children ancient Persian names (Kay Qubad, Kay Khusrow, Rustam, etc) shows this.

It is a common misbelief that Seljuqs were Turkic-speakers, although there is absolutely no proof for this. Only because one of their distant ancestors was a Turk does not mean that the Seljuqs were like him still nomadic Turkic-speaking warriors. Keeping in mind that the Seljuqs had to create family bonds with local rulers and nobles, it is very unlikely that the stayed "Turks". Also important is the fact that Alp Arslan broke the tradition of of appointing a Turkic "Atabek" for his son, and willingly chose the Persian Nizm al-Mulk as the advisor and "Atabek" of Malikshah.

I have already given the sources.
 
Firstly you still havn't shown me which Seljuk King referred to himself as being descended from ancient Persian Kings. Seljuks were a religous state, they were protecting the Caliphate claiming they didn't place emphasis on Muslim saints is ridiculous. Taking into account, Haci Bektash Veli, Yunus Emre, Mevlana, Nasreddin Hoca etc famous muslim figures who entered popular society, literature and thought spread during the Seljuk era it really is a totally absurd claim.


Actually, from the time of Malikshah (or Alp Arslan) on, the Seljuqs were Persianized. Not only because of their Persian advisors and vezirs, but also because of family bonds with local nobles.

You are correct that the Seljuqs (like all dynasties back then) had rather a religious identity than an ethnic identity.

Haji Baktash Wali was not a Turk either. He was also Persian, from Nishapur in Iran. He belonged - just like Mowlana Rumi and some other poets and saints of the time - to the so-called "Horasan erleri", "saints of Khorasan", pointing to their Persian origin.

The character of "Mullah Nasredin" is fictional. This character exists in many Islamic cultures - from India to Marocco. A comparable character even exists in German folk tales: Tim Eulenspiegel.

Yonus Emre was the only true Turkic poet. His writings also prove that Turkic poets DID write in Turkish, while Persian scholars who had fled the Mongol invasion and found refuge in Anatolia kept on writing in their own mother-tongues. Religious writings were still being written in Arabic, such as the works of Haji Baktash.
 
 
Are you just driven to re-write history or something.


Quoting Prof. Ehsan Yarshater, one of the most famous and most important historians in this field, is not "rewriting history". You should have known that ....
 
They were slaves who turned on their master and then ruled their old masters, serves enslavers right  Big%20smile


They did not "turn on their masters", but they continuied the Samanid rule from Ghazna. It was not a battle of "Turks vs. Iranians".

The Ghaznavids were military slaves and Muslim ghzis - and when they founded their own dynasty after the collapse of the Samanid state, they did not change anything about it. They were not considered "foreigners" by the local populations, and there is not a single source of that time and place written in Turkic. Ferdousi, Persia's national poet, dedicated his Shahnama to Sultan Mahmoud. The Shahnama is an extremely anti-Arab and anti-Turkic national epos, and it seems like Sultan Mahmoud had no problems with Ferdousi insulting the Turks.

Recent archiological discoveries in Afghanistan further underline the theory that the Ghaznavids actually believed to be of epic Iranian origin:

".... Mas'ud III was an enthusiastic warrior whose armies were active in India against the infidels. It seems that Mas'ud, like the rest of his dynasty, employed the spoils of war and the temple treasures of India to beautify his capital Ghazna and to construct gardens and palaces (Bosworth, Later Ghaznavids, pp. 35, 87-89). Adjacent to the minaret of Mas'ud (formerly, and wrongfully, attributed to Sultan Mahmud), the Italian Archaeological Mission in Afghanistan excavated a palace of his, notable for what was apparently a Persian poetic text on marble slabs forming a dado round an inner courtyard. The poem extolls the sultan and his forebears both as Muslim gzs and as heroes connected with the Iranian epic, legendary past (see Bombaci). ..." - Clifford Edmund Bosworth in Encyclopaedia Iranica

They had a clear ethnic identity, they were from millitary families and practically ruled the Samanids from within before taking total control. They were bought up in Turkic millitary tradition, the founder of the state was "ALPTIGIN", his family were Turkic and they ruled over mainly Non-Turkic poulation.


This is not true. The military slaves were not brought up in a "Turkic military tradition" - they were simply soldiers and guards, trained to protect the Sultans. And they did not "rule the Samanids from within" - they were military generals, not vezirs.

As for the family of Alp Tegin: his adopted son, Sebktigin, was married to a Persian noble from Zaranj, and so his son, Mahmoud, was half-Persian. This is attested by the famous Medieval historian Ferishta. Ferishta also records that Sebktigin did not have clear origins (this fact is accepted by almost all Ghaznavid scholars) and that he claimed to be a direct descendant of Yazdgard III, last Sassanian Emperor of Persia. Of course, this claim is wrong. But what is interesting is that Sebktegin really claimed this way before his son became Sultan of a vast Empire.
 
 

Assumption? not based on facts?
 
The Karamanogullu's were subjects of the Seljuks, when Karamanogullu Mehmet Bey made his famous policy it was adopted by the Seljuks, the Karamanogullari took Konya but later Seljuks re-took it.


Where are your sources?!
 
Selcuks were not a Persianized dynasty, they were a pragmatist dynasty, when ruling Persians they adjusted to not create a backlash, when ruling over predominantly Turks they adjusted to this.
 
The Selcuks are responsible for the spread of Turkish language and culture in Azerbaycan, Turkey and Northern Iran this is an uncontestable fact.


Nonsense. Azerbaijan and Eastern Anatolia (the centers of Seljuq power) were Non-Turkic until the late 17th century. Azerbaijan was Turkicized by the Aq- and Qara Qoyunlu confederations, and later by the so-called "Qizilbash Turkomans" of the Safavid Empire.

Before that, Azerbaijan was mostly Iranian-speaking. I have already pointed to the poems of Safi al-Din Ishaq Ardabeli. Another famous Persian poet of the area and of that era was Nizami.

Anatolia was Turkicized much later during the reign of Ottomans and - even more important - after the reforms of Atatrk.

Turkish literature flourished during this age and continued as it was carried on by dynasties of the future. This isn't undermining that Persian was a very important language and used extensively aswell. However, be realistic, prior to the Seljuks there were few Turkic speakers apart from a millitary class West of the Capsian Sea after their reign there were millions and Turkic rulers were in control of this vast region.
 
"Millions"?! The entire Seljuq Empire was being governed by Persian vezirs and scholars. I have given you academic sources.

Where are YOUR sources?!

You talk of Persianizification but in reality there was no such occurance and it had no impact on local population.  The educated would learn Persian, traditionally Persian was used in pollitics Arabic in religion and Turkish in the millitary. This changed after the Karakhanids end of the Seljuks, spread of Karamanids, rise of the Timurids and Ottomans. If as you would like us all to believe they were a Persian speaking Persianised empire, nobody would be speaking Turkish today in those regions but in total contrast Turkish speakers outnumber Persian speakers in the region.


The Timurids were indeed Turkic-speakers. But they used Chaghatay, not Oghuz.

The Ottomans had 3 languages, and their own native tongue - Ottoman - was extremly influenced by Persian and Arabic.

The spread of Turkish began much later, especially after the reforms of Atatrk which forced the newly created, "modernnized" Turkish language on everyone in Anatolia. Modern Turks do not understand Ottoman, because Atatrk's creation is much different from languages spoken before.

That's also the reason why Kurds, Armenians, and a few others were regarded (and regarded) as "enemies of the state", because they did not accept the forced Turkification imposed by the Young Turks.

Besides that, Turkic-speakers do not "outnumber Persian-speakers", the numbers are quite equal. If you are talking about the Turkic languages as a language family, then you are still not correct, because the Iranian languages had some 150 million speakers (just like the Turkic languages), and the Indo-Iranian language family has more than 1 billion speakers (also a process of "language replacement").
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
  Quote barbar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 11:45
Originally posted by DerDoc



The Uyghurs are a confederation of Turkic and Indo-European, in part also Chinese peoples who - through the course of time - have all adopted a Turkic language, mostly due to the rule of the Qarakhanids.

In total, Ughur history starts some time around 100 BC, and is related to the history of Turkic nomadic movements in the region. The nomads conquered the lands in the Tarim basin, and that gave birth to the modern Uyghur nation.

The "settled" part of Uyghur history is Non-Turkic, mostely Chinese.

As very evident from the writings of Mahmoud al-Kashgari, the Ughurs and the Turks of the Tarim basin were still nomads at least until the 11th century.
 
Apparently this shows your utter ignorance of Uyghur people, however you are saying this just as if you are an authorative. (Typical style of Iranian4life) Show a single historical or archeological fact attributing the Uyghur settled part of history to that of the Chinese. Believe me, Chinese government will honor you, as this is what  its historians or others  have been trying in vain to establish.
 
Quote Qeshqeri's exact words. We all know what psuedo-historians do, just naming some famous references and put words in the respective authors mouthes.
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote DerDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 13:31


Fresco of the Qyzyl caves, Tarim Basin, China. The picture clearly shows blond and brunette peoples, wearing traditional clothing of Central Asia. These people were Tokharians and they were living in Xinjiang way before any Turko-Mongol invasion. The Tokharians were also the founders of the Kushan dynasty and those who built the "Great Buddhas of Bamiyan". The Uyghurs not only adopted the way of life of the settled population of the Tarim Basin, they also converted to their religions: Buddhism and Manichaeism (both Indo-European religions with roots in the old "Karma" beliefs of the "ry").



Another Indo-Euopean, blue-eyed monk in Western China.

These are moren Uyghurs:




And these are the historical Uyghurs:



You simply cannot deny the strong Non-Uyghur, Non-Turkic, and mostly Indo-European Tokharian influence on the modern, so-called "Uyghur" people. In many ways - clothing, food, way of life - the Uyghurs reflect the culture of Central Asia and the settled population of the Tarim Basin ... from a time before Turks and Mongols conquered the area.

It's only Pan-Turkist nationalists who refuse to accept these facts. The "Uyghurs" are a mix of peoples, including Indo-European Tokharian origins. Their language is Turkic today.



Edited by DerDoc - 08-Apr-2007 at 13:48
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.