Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Arabic Sript vs. Latin Script |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||
Al Jassas 
Arch Duke 
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Arabic Sript vs. Latin ScriptPosted: 21-Nov-2007 at 09:17 |
|||||
|
Hello to you all
Several countries in the last century changed their writing system from the Arabic script to latin, some even moves to Cyrillic. Intellectuals especially those who are secular or westernized are calling to substitute the Arabic script with the latin one in the last two major languages using the Arabic script, Arabic and Farsi.
My question is is that necessary? I mean changing the script has is literally changing the heart and soul of the entire culture that uses that language in that script. Toynbee said, if I am correct, that when Attaturk changed the script into Latin he simply made a complete cultural coup and Trkey simply lost the entire heritage that was written over hundreds of years and a new culture was born that was simply neither part of the West nor of the east. The linguistic connection to the east were clean cut and the western culture could not establish itself in a society that was not completely detatched from its roots.
Now, when we look to what happened to Turkey, is the change necessary? and why not keep a double writing system like what is happening in the Balkans where all the countries there have both a Cyrillic system and a latin system. Give your thoughts especialy our Turkish and Iranian friends.
Al-Jassas
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
ok ge
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 29-Aug-2005 Location: Saudi Arabia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1775 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 13:50 |
|||||
|
Arabic script is not the developed script of lines only, but an art. Caligraphy is an essential form of art in the Arab culture.
In addition, the past heritage is so deep that it is extremely hard to detach out of it by teaching the newer generation a new script. Arabic to Arabs is similar to Chinese to Chinese. Not only a script or a letter. It is an art, meaning, and continuation of thousands of years of heritage. Regarding Farsi, it was interesting to me to observe a discussion about the possibilities of adopting Latin script to replace the current Farsi font. One response that was posted ?s that if both of the Arabic-Farsi script and the Latin script are introduced foriegn scripts to the original land of Persia, then sticking with the one that connects Persians to their heritage, especially the great poems, rich Persian literature, caligraphy and art, done in the past 1300 years, support the continuation of the Arabic-Farsi script. The issue of turning the script to be phonic can be simply a re-structuring of the script itself without having to replace it. For instance, English is not a phonic language while Spanish is, though both use Latin script. In comparison, Farsi is not a phonic language while Kurdish or Chinese Uyghur script is phonic, though all of them are using a customized form of Arabic script. Edited by ok ge - 21-Nov-2007 at 13:52 |
||||||
|
D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1869 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 17:34 |
|||||
Yes, it was a vital part of a modernization process.
And why keep a double writing system at all?
How so? Which country is the successor to Ottoman Empire, if not Republic of Turkey?
And what's wrong with that?
There was no linguistic connection in the first place. Turkish is an Altaic language, Arabic is a Semitic language, Persian is an Indo-European language. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 20:17 |
|||||
|
Just for the record, as a curiosity. Spanish is one of the few language that has been written with three different scripts: Hebrew alphabet (or Aleph-bet), Arab and Latin alphabet. Middle ages' Spanish literature have several examples of this. Even today, Ladino, the Sephardite language, which is a variation of Middle Ages' Castillian Spanish, is sometimes written with Hebrew characters.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 21:47 |
|||||
|
Hello Feanor
Is this the reason why Turks are clueless about their identity, the west does not accept them and their connection to their great heritage is non existant. As for my suggestion, I think what I said is not ditch latin and return to Arabic, because this is as big a mistake as the first one. My suggestion is teach arabic so that people can really know their great heritage which is spread through libraries and museums and only a few can read. You will not translate that heritage so you might as well teach it in its original form.
A final question to you is what was the modernization that happened to Turkey after it became a republic. As far I as understand Turkey was and still is a poor country with a large percentage of rural population and a huge agrarian economy as well as a relativly high illteracy rate compared to Europe. Al-Jassas Edited by Al Jassas - 21-Nov-2007 at 21:48 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
xi_tujue
Arch Duke
Atabeg Joined: 19-May-2006 Location: Belgium Online Status: Offline Posts: 1919 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 21:48 |
|||||
|
the onlyones who can't read is the Kurds who live in small mountain villeages tbh
|
||||||
|
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph 
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 22:27 |
|||||
What does a script have to do with "modernization", I cannot accept the notion that modernity is connected to a script its ridiculous.
The only logical reason I've ever read for this script change was that the Arabic script was not easy to apply to Turkish but it couldn't have been too difficult, Turkish literature flourished using the Arab script.
Clueless? would you like to explain.
I don't know where you got that their connection to their heritage is non-existant, its not the case at all.
Its a script, a script can be learned in a few weeks, Turkish can be written in Arabic, Chinease, Latin even the old Turkic script, its not a big issue.
Turkey is among the 20 most powerfull economies of the world and rising.
Adult literacy in males is 95% woman 80%
Turkey isn't a part of Europe, compare her to the region.
|
||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||
|
||||||
|
The Hidden Face
Chieftain 
Ustad-i Azam Joined: 16-Jul-2005 Location: Mexico Online Status: Offline Posts: 1379 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 22:37 |
|||||
|
Good topic.
How many countries changed their writing system from the Arabic script to Latin? As for Turkey. The idea of changing the script into latin was first discussed by Young Ottomans in the 1870's. The Ottomans were suffering from the duality so much then. Everything was two headed: Western one and Eastern one. Young Turks and Kemalists simply chose the Western civilization. A Young Turk, Ziya Gokalp said that from now on Turkey would move together with the West instead of the East. Al Jassas, Turkish economy is the largest economy in the Middle east without a drop of Oil - And almost two times bigger than Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and the second largest economy in the whole Islamic World right after -230 Million People- Indonesia. As you said since Turkey has a large percentage of rural population, this means that this economical growth is because of highly westernized-urbanized-secularized Turks of 15-20 million, who lives mainly in western Turkey, especially in the Marmara region. When Turkish westernization is completed (Still needs at least 100 more years I think), Turkey will become a western class country. Which all means that what Ataturk did is the right thing. And Western States accept Turkey. That's the whole thing actually, Al Jassas. The West accepted Turkey immediately when Turkey decided to be westernized. It's the people of Western states that refuse Turkish people thinking that Turkish people are racially, historically, linguistically or spiritually not Westerner. But Western States accept Turkey as a "Western state." It's more about states in this case. Edited by The Hidden Face - 21-Nov-2007 at 22:44 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
DayI
Sultan 
Joined: 30-May-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2408 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 23:18 |
|||||
|
somewhat i think we should keep that Ottoman language or writing system to know what actually was written by Ottomans. Turkey is successor of the Ottoman empire so we should be the ones who can read what our ancestors did wrote on their graves, documents, etc etc
ANd I do think we did make many mistakes to be westernize our country, we should westernize our country by not changing the script, banning the fez, turkifyng arabic selaa or ezan but by industrializing our country, having a decent democracy like taking the good fruits of a tree. Look at Japan or China, did they changed their script, banned their previous cultural elements to be powerfull as many western country's are? |
||||||
|
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg"> |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1869 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 23:18 |
|||||
I beg your pardon? Who are you to make such a bold statement?
'The West' is not equal to EU. That's something different altogether. Turkey is accepted by the West in many ways.
No, it's not. Turkey has a modern, secular administration, but it also has great respect for Ottoman cultural achievements.
This is getting confusing. You mean the script, or the language? Not that it would make a difference though. It's stupid either way.
What does that have anything to do with this? We would be richer than UK if we kept Arabic script? Cool.
That and many other things as well. It was just a part of it as I previously stated. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1869 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2007 at 23:24 |
|||||
There is a big difference. Turks were under the strong influence of a foreign culture - Arabic - unlike Japanese or Chinese. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 00:10 |
|||||
|
[quote]The_Hidden_Face
this means that this economical growth is because of highly westernized-urbanized-secularized Turks of 15-20 million, who lives mainly in western Turkey, especially in the Marmara region. [/quote]
A few corrections.
- Highly westernized-urbanized-secularized Turks are the sole people responsible for Turkey's wealth.
This is a ridiculous statement.
- Urban dwelling is nothing new, it has nothing to do with westernization or secularization.
- Proove there are 15-20 million Westernized Turks.
- Proove there are 15-20 million Secularized Turks.
Here's something that'll put a spanner in your works, Turkey isn't becomming more Western or Secular, infact its going in the opposite direction and more sucesfull as a result. Turks are learning to embrace their own cultural identity and promote this instead of being a cheap immitation.
Given the choice which would you have.
A new original Apple Ipod
Or a cheap, imitation I-pod that breaks after a few days.
While the immitator tries to copy originallity, originallity will be devloping more original products.
And in addition to this, you seem to be forgetting that the its not the secular westernized Turks who are taking the country forward, its the conservatist, religous Turks who are comfortable with their identity. The Anatolian Tigers are the sucess story of today, their dynamism is making them the driving force in the country.
Cities like Konya, Kayseri, Gaziantep etc are developing and living conditions are better than cities in the West, they have less shanty towns and have rejected Westernization.
You seem to be stuck in a time loop, its like your stuck in the 1900's.
In the real world it doesn't matter anymore if you are in the East or West, there are even more developed countries in the East today, were living in an era of globalisation, countries can co-operate with whoever is in their interests.
This fixation of being Westernization is a backwards, retarded mentallity of people with inferiority complexes.
 Is that what the Turkish media tells you.
No, Western states don't accept Turkey as Western and don't have any intentions of either.
Your contradicting yourself.
A key aspect of the West today is "democracy", which is supposed to represent the peoples of the land.
If the people don't accept Turks as European and the people are the state then there is nothing you can argue with.
Turkey is not Western, never will be, doesn't have an obligation to be, get over it. She can have relations with the West but cannot be part of it.
Turkey won't be let into the EU, public opinion is against joining the EU, the time is getting ripe for change in country, you have to be blind not to see this, people are fed up and want alternatives. Edited by Bulldog - 22-Nov-2007 at 00:33 |
||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 00:18 |
|||||
This is historically incorrect.
Turks were not under a strong influence of a foreign culture.
Turks conquered foreign cultures and took what they liked from them.
Infact the total opposite can be argued today.
|
||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1869 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 00:59 |
|||||
Incorrect. Pre-Islamic Turks didn't conquer Muslim Arabs. They served them as slaves or mercenaries, and took the control much later on. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
malizai_
Sultan
Alcinous Joined: 05-Feb-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2252 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 03:29 |
|||||
Since the Young Turks killed off the Ottoman state and created a state antithetical to Ottomanism, i do not see how they could be described as the inheritors/successors. Since Ottoman pluralism was displaced with the adopted philosophy of Western Secularist Nationalism, i don't see how the two can be reconciled.
It is like the Antichrist being the inheritor/successor to Christ.
AFAIK the only people that held Ottomanist Ideals in the end were Muslims of the sub-continent, later segregated by the national boundaries of India, Pakistan etc. When Kemal banned the Fez in Turkey the Muslims of Indo-PAk took onto wear it with greater enthusiasm. I hope u c my point.
Edited by malizai_ - 22-Nov-2007 at 03:36 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Omar al Hashim
King 
Suspended Joined: 05-Jan-2006 Online Status: Offline Posts: 5697 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 05:21 |
|||||
|
Indeed Malizai, ideologically, Pakistan is much more of a successor to the Ottomans than the Republic of Turkey. I think Rep. Turkey is no more of an a successor than the state of Syria, or Iraq.
I also agree with Bulldog, westernised secular nationalists are loosing their influence all over the word. Including in Turkey. Whether you like it or not, secular nationalism is last centuries idea. I personally, would not be surprised to see traditional turkish script (ie arabic) becoming more popular over the next 100 years. Edited by Omar al Hashim - 22-Nov-2007 at 05:22 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 08:21 |
|||||
|
Hello to you all
My first response is the the Hidden Face and it is WAKE UP. Secularist "intellectuals" have been selling the notions of westernization and modrnization, and finally joining the worst organization in history, the EU to the people raising false hopes and what was the response, you are not and will never be part of europe period. For 40 years Turkey was backing europe under the false hope that one day they will be accepted and to what resul, into their faces was a big NO. The secularist intellectuals made Turkey the laughing stock of the Arab states, and indeed the entire western world, which are a complete failure compared to Turkey because the gave everything up for the sake of Europe and the result was a resounding IN YOU DREAMS. Serbia which was responsible for the Balkan wars, and Croatia which still refuses to give Serbians their lands back are candidated for the EU and in several years will full time members and Turkey which is far more democratic then them or most of the other states recently accepted which were not 20 years ago sworn enemies to the EU. Wake up man, Turkey is not pat of Europe and this is not a bad thing or an indication for inferiority. Turkey economy6 has been growing more than 7% in the last 5 years and the average growth of the EU countries was 1.5 % if I am not wrong.
As for Feanor, if you really knew anything of your own heritage you would have known that the Persian culture was, and still is, the main influence on Turkish art and literature not Arabic.
More later
Al-Jassas
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 2800 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 13:09 |
|||||
Pre-Islamic Turks and the Arabs fought together against the Chinease at one point.
There were Turkish mercenaries and slaves your correct, however, they did pretty well for themselves don't you think, if ever there was a case of slaves owning their masters Turks would be among the most sucessfull of these.
I appreciate your point, however, we must not forget that Muhammed Ali Jinnah was a keen supporter of Ataturk and was inspired by his resistance war against the Brittish, infact Jinnah's daughter would refer to him as, Grey Wolf.
The peoples of Turkey are inheritors of the Ottoman era, the old capital lies within their terretory and their grand-fathers fought for the Ottomans.
The muslims of the Indian Sub-continant and Turks have strong bonds, infact during WW1 the muslims from this region provided alot of support even though they wern't under Ottoman rule.
If they were in the Arab lands instead of Arabs its likely the Ottomans may have succeeded in the war but these are just "what if" scenarios and not very relevant to reality.
Persian influenced Turkish, Turkish influenced Persian, Persian influenced Arabic, Arabic influenced Persian etc etc
All have had influence on each other, all have fused and have borrowed.
The typical arguments of certain extremists is to pretend that they were under some sort of strangle hold by the so-called oppressor, Turks liked to blame Arabs, Arabs like to blame Turks and so on.
They both are as ridiculous as each other.
And they both don't like it when you question them about if the Turks or Arabs were so bad and your so against "foreign imposed culture", why don't you have a problem with foreign culture being imposed when it comes from the West.
|
||||||
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1869 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 15:31 |
|||||
|
You guys are missing a huge point. Why did pro-Western secularist nationalism emerged in the first place, huh? Can it be because Ottoman Empire was in constant decline and Ottoman society was clearly becoming more and more backwards in comparison to Europe which was brought down to its knees by Ottomans themselves just a few centuries ago? Or maybe it was the revolting minorities in Balkans, Caucaus and Mideast? Every single mechanism of the state was in rust and it was obvious that Ottoman Empire was going to fall. Reformists tried everything, including 'imitating Western science & technology, but staying away from its culture' thing as some people on this thread are suggesting as if it's an original idea. Well, it simply didn't work. And things turned out as they did.
malizai, Ottomanism was not the basis of anything. It was just another ideology to save the future of the empire in a conservative way. It was not more deep-rooted than Young Turks at all. They are all parts of a historical period which lasted a century. The Ottoman state was founded as a typical medieval kingdom, and a empire later on, but ideologies didn't exist back then. As for 'Syria, Iraq, Pakistan being similar to Ottoman Empire more than Turkey': Well, this statement tells more about you and your view of history, rather than Republic of Turkey, in my opinion. 'A typical Islamist delusion' I'd say if I had to guess, but actually I'm unsure why would anyone claim such an absurdity. Al Jassas, firstly I'm tired of your attempts to lecture me at every turn. Secondly I know that Ottoman Turkish resembled Persian more than any language, I just tried to point out that Turks were under the strong effect of Arabic culture overall. You and other Muslims may view Islam as a universal message to guide human beings in some ridiculous test of a deity, whereas I think it's a gigantic part of Arabic culture. Omar al Hashim, of course Arabic script will not be more popular than Latin script in Turkey. This shows how clueless you are. If you don't believe me, ask Mortaza or OSMANLI. Mortaza will probably say that he doesn't find either one superior or inferior to each other and that your prophecy is baseless. And OSMANLI will probably say that he prefers Arabic script, and also that your prophecy is baseless. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Al Jassas
Arch Duke
Joined: 07-Aug-2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Nov-2007 at 17:26 |
|||||
|
Hello to you all
I think this thread has gone out of its original path for many reasons, so I will rewrit here the purpose of the thread because it is dangerously going out off topic.
My main goal is not whether Arabic script is superious to latin or vise vesa or whether Turkey should return to Arabic script or Farsi and Arabic should ditch it. The main question is: Is it worth it?
Changing the script literally means detaching a language from it old roots and detaching society of its entire written heritage. Is this worth it? If the society chose the switch then its the society's who wants the boycott but if the government chose that, is it their right to steal centuries of national treasure and impose their own version. This is what happened in Turkey and Central Asian republics and nearly happened to Iran when the Shah wanted to do it but wa stopped by the intellectuals of Iran who knew what this meant to the cultural heritage of Iran. My question, is it worth it.
Al-Jassas
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.
