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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCombining all Turkic languages into a sin
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Combining all Turkic languages into a sin
    Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 14:05
DerDoc
And now, you want to explain to me the meaning of "Bahâdur" although you do not even understand a word Persian?!
 
Well Bahaur is Turkic in origin so I don't need to be an expert in Persian to comment on it. Practically every source supports this, every name book I've checked says the name means, "Brave, bold" not beautiful pearl.
 
If it means beautiful pearl why doesn't it simply just state this, also isn't "durr"-"pearl" derived from Arabic originally from durra meaning grain-bead? For example Durr-i Durran of Afganistan, Pearl of Pearls but this isn't an ancient tribal name its recent from 1747.
 
If Durr is Arabic, then it means this name Bahadur was probobly post-Islamic but it clearly is a pre-Islamic name.
 
DerDoc
Modern Anatolian Turkish does not have [q] or [x]. That's why they say "haber" instead of the correct Arabic "xabar" ([x] = [kh]), and why the say "horasan" instead of the correct Persian "xorâsân". They say "han" instead of the correct "xân" and "hakan" instead of the correct "xâqân".
 
 
As I explained in the last post, the sound "q" does exist but the letter doesnt. X sound is not a harsh kh, it is rather a h with a rougher sound, more emphasised from the throat. Xabar is not pronounced Khabar its pronounced Hk(soft k)abar. This sound is used in Anatolian Turkish, Istanbul Turkish does not emphasise the K alot but outside Istanbul it is emphasised especially across Anatolia.

 
DerDoc
Of course these languages influenced each other. Actually, most of the titles in Persian and Turkish are of Arabic origin: Sultân, Amir, Caliph, Sayyed, Khwâjah, Hâji, Rahbar, etc.
The Persian and Turkish military title "Mir", for example, is derived from Arabic "Amir".

Sayyed is more popular as a Persian title due to religous reasons, what is Kwajah?

Also Hukumdar is one, actually a mix of Arabic and Persian.

Mir was popular your correct.

 
Military titles are taken from all 3 languages, while the Turkish words are dominant. In the fields of politics and court-life, Persian titles dominate (wazir, wazir-e azam, mirzâ, etc), while Arabic titles dominate in the field of religious sciences (Sayed, Mowlâh, Sheikh, etc).
 
I though Mowlah was Persian? and Hodja was Turkic? 

 


The Iranian and Indian honorary title "Khân" - the title given to a family's leader - is not derived from the military title "Khân" (actually "Khâ'ân", derived from proto-Mongolian "Gaqân" - see Encyclopaedia Iranica), but from the Iranian word "khâna" ("house") and "khândân" ("family", "clan"):

Khan is not derived from Mongolian, Turks didn't borrow it from Mongols there is no evidence of this, its an Altaic term.
 
Khandan derives from Khanate - Khanadan, like the Kirim Khanadan.
 
Khan means leader, lord, nobleman and later passed down the social ladder, it's not just a millitary title.
 
Khan became a popular name after the comming of the Turks, prior to that Persian Kings and nobles arn't called "Khans".
 

In the inscriptions of the Muslim sultans of Bengal there are gradations of titles like Khan, Khaqan / Malik as follows: Khan, Khan ul Muazzam, Khan-ul-Azam, Khan-ul-Azam-ul-Muazzam etc and Khaqan, Khaqan-ul-Muazzam, Khaqan-ul-Azam, Khaqan-ul-Azam-ul-Muazzam etc. [Abdul Karim]

First of all, Tarkhân is not Turkic but Mongolian. It was introduced to the Islamic world by Gengis Khan. In fact, he gave the title even to Non-Mongols, for examples to the family of the famous Timurid administrator Giath ud-Din Tarkhan, father of Gowharshâd.
 
That is completely incorrect.
 
Tarkhan is Turkic, if you search Mongolian dictionaries it doesnt even have an entry
 
 
 
Tarkhan was used a millenia before Genghiz Khan as I explained in the last post.
 
And it was introduced into the Islamic world via Turkic armies and the famous "Farabi", "Uzlug Tarkhan Farabi".
 
 
 
DerDoc
On of the leaders of the Persian Khurrâmiyyah movement was known as Tarkhân. But it is a known fact that he was not a Turk:
 
Who? what was his name? who was this leader, this is a Turkic term, it doesnt have a meaning in Persian.
 
Also why is it impossible for this liutenant Tarkhan to be a Turk? Azrak was also one and he was an Arab. It wasn't a mono-ethnic movement, plus Turks were often in foreign armies as mercenaries so it wouldnt be a supise.
 
 
 
ROFL Are you being serious?! Farabi's origins are unknown
 
This is getting ridiculous now.
 
 
 

Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Awzalagh al-Farabi was born in approximately ah 257/ad 870. He may rightly be acclaimed as one of the greatest of Islamic philosophers of all time..... We do know that he was born in Turkestan and later studied Arabic in Baghdad; it has been claimed that most of his books were written here. He travelled to Damascus, Egypt, Harran and Aleppo, and in the latter city the Hamdanid ruler Sayf al-Dawla became his patron.

 
 
born c. 878, Turkistan
died c. 950, Damascus?

in full  Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Tarkhan ibn Uzalagh al-Farabi , also called  Abu Nasr al-Farabi , Latin name  Alpharabius (also spelled Alfarabius) , or  Avennasar  Muslim philosopher, one of the preeminent thinkers of medieval Islam. He was regarded in the Arab world as the greatest philosophical authority after Aristotle.

Very little is known of al-Farabi's life. He was of Turkic origin and is thought to have been brought to Baghdad as a child by his father, who was probably in the Turkish bodyguard of the Caliph

 
 

Muhammad ibn Tarhan ibn Uzlug el-Farabi, also known as Alpharabius or Avensar in medieval Latin texts, born 878 in Turkistan, died 950, one of the most brilliant and famed of Muslim philosophers; also know as the second teacher, (Aristotle being the first). He was of Turkish origin. Farabi’s father was in the Turkish bodyguard of the caliph, and his life was spent in Baghdad and Aleppo.

Farabi, al: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980 edition, Vol.4, p.51.

Al-Jawhari al-Farabi was one of the first lexicographers to bore the title "al-Turki".
 
Tarkhan Farabi is known to have worn Tukish costume and hat throughout his life.
 
 
 
 

Mohammed Ibn Mohammed Ibn Tarkhan Ibn Uzalagh Al Farabi, later called Abu Nasr Al Farabi, or simply known by the name of Al Farabi, was born in the year 878 AD. His place of birth was the small town of Farab in Transoxiana, or what today is Otrar in Turkistan. The facts about Al Farabi’s life are somewhat obscured. He had no interest in documenting his own life course, though a fair degree can be inferred from his numerous written works.

What is known is that he was multilingual from a very early age. Being of Turkic heritage, he also became fluent in Arabic in his formative years when he was taken to Baghdad. At that point in time, Baghdad was a centre of Muslim leadership as well as of Greek philosophy and science. It was Al Farabi’s father, working as the Caliph’s Turkish bodyguard, who took him to Baghdad. At this point, Al Farabi made this city his home and lived there for more than forty years, from 901 AD to 942 AD. In 942, he moved to another center of Islamic thought - Halab - or Aleppo in Syria today, under the patronage of Prince Sayf Ad Dawlah. Here Al Farabi would spend the final years of his life

http://www.alshindagah.com/novdec03/alfarabi.htm
 
 
There were Nomadic Turks, sedentary Turks, semi-nomadic Turks and in the Abbasid domain many hired millitary Turks.
 
Tarkhan Uzlug Farabi was a son of the Turkic bodyguards of the Caliph and so was able to recieve a good education.
 
 
 
DerDoc
The problem is that you do not want to believe that there are sometimes pure coincidences
 
No, the problem is everything is a coincidence to you LOL
 
WoW, I've never seen so many coincidences, its just one big coincidence that after Turks came Persians started using Khan, Khanoum, Agha, Gurkan, Bahadur and so on.
 

 
 
      “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 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 16:28
Originally posted by Bulldog

Well Bahaur is Turkic in origin so I don't need to be an expert in Persian to comment on it. Practically every source supports this, every name book I've checked says the name means, "Brave, bold" not beautiful pearl.


Absolutely irrelevant comment ...
 
If it means beautiful pearl why doesn't it simply just state this, also isn't "durr"-"pearl" derived from Arabic originally from durra meaning grain-bead? For example Durr-i Durran of Afganistan, Pearl of Pearls but this isn't an ancient tribal name its recent from 1747.


It does not matter whether the name "Durrâni" is 10000 years old or only 10. What matters is that the word "Dur" in "Durrâni" has a meaning, and that "Dur" can be the same as in "Bahâdur". If "Bahâdur" were not a an Altayic name (you constantly and wrongly call it "Turkic"), it would still have a meaning in Persian, the same way "Gurkan" has a meaning in Turkish, although its original meaning is something totally different.
 
If Durr is Arabic, then it means this name Bahadur was probobly post-Islamic but it clearly is a pre-Islamic name.


You still do not get the point, Bulldog. The talk is not whether that name is Arabic, Persian, or Turkish. This is NOT the discussion. The discussion is whether "Bahâdur" could have a meaning BESIDE its original meaning. "Gurkan" has a meaning in modern Turkish, although its origins are evidently Mongolian and have nothing to do with the modern Turkish meaning. The same goes to "Bahâdur" - it has another meaning in Persian BESIDE its original meaning and it means "noble". The meaning in Persian is certainly "noble" anjd not "brave".

As I explained in the last post, the sound "q" does exist but the letter doesnt. X sound is not a harsh kh, it is rather a h with a rougher sound, more emphasised from the throat. Xabar is not pronounced Khabar its pronounced Hk(soft k)abar. This sound is used in Anatolian Turkish, Istanbul Turkish does not emphasise the K alot but outside Istanbul it is emphasised especially across Anatolia.



"Khabar" is pronounced with a "-kh". The Arabic letter is a "khe" ﺥ and not a "h"ﺡ

خبر   -   "khabar"

This sound does not exist in Anatolian Turkish. The same goes to [q] as in [Q]ur'ân.  

Sayyed is more popular as a Persian title due to religous reasons, what is Kwajah? Also Hukumdar is one, actually a mix of Arabic and Persian. Mir was popular your correct.


"Sayyed" is a title given to the descendants of Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima and her husband Ali ibn Abu Talib. Its common all around the world, and many royal dynasties, such as the Hashemits, call themselvs "Sayyed". "Khawjah" - or "Hoja", as it is pronounced in Anatolian Turkish - is the title given to descendants of the 2nd Caliph of Sunni Islam, Omar ibn al-Khattab.

 
I though Mowlah was Persian? and Hodja was Turkic?


"Mowlâh" is Persianized Arabic, "Hodja" is actually "Khwâjah" (the "wâ" is pronounced like English "aw" in "law" ...)

Khan is not derived from Mongolian, Turks didn't borrow it from Mongols there is no evidence of this, its an Altaic term.


"Khân" is certainly taken from Mongolian, because it was first used by the proto-Mongolian "Rouran". All the rest took it from this original Mongolian tribe. It was first used by the proto-Mongols, was then adopted by Turks, and exported to other parts of the world. Here is an academic source:

"... The Avars belonged to the Syän-bi — the same tribal confederation as the later Qitan and Mongols — and so are without doubt the first Mongolian group to be historically attested. They were the first to use the title gagan (later qân, ka'ân) for their supreme ruler. The term was adopted by the Turks in Mongolia as soon as they shook off Avar overlordship (ca. 552), when the Avars were in general retreat over the steppes north of China. ..." - K.H. Menges, "Altaic", in Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f9/v1f9a004.html)
 
Khandan derives from Khanate - Khanadan, like the Kirim Khanadan.


"Khândân" is certainly not derived from Khanate. It does not even have a similar meaning. It is taken from "khâna" = "house" and means "family" or "clan". Do you have a source for your claim?
 
As for Farabi: none of the sources you have posted are comparable to the Encyclopaedia Iranica which is a primary, authoritative academic source. Britannica is a general encyclopedia. The authors are not academics. The Encyclopaedia Iranica (as well as the Encyclopaedia of Islam or the Encyclopaedia Americana) are primary academic sources used in universities. So, the sources you have presented in no way prove Iranica wrong. There are plenty of other, non-academic web-sites telling something different. Next to Iranica, ther are also some other academic sources saying that he was not Turkic:

"... Abu Nasr Mohammad Ibn al-Farakh al-Farabi was born in a small village Wasij, near Farab in Turkistan in 259 A.H. (870 C.E.). His parents were originally of Persian descent, but his ancestors had migrated to Turkistan. ..."

- Trinity College (http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/muslim/farabi.html)

- "Iran Chamber", University of Columbia (http://www.iranchamber.com/personalities/farabi/farabi.php)

Even this Uyghur site says that he was Persian: http://www.oqya.5u.com/photo6.html

Britannica's claim that he was a Turk and was a descendant of an alleged "Tarkhan" is a remnant of the earlier Britannica 1911 and is not very reliable. The same encyclopedia claims that the Timurid ruler Ulugh Beg was a "Persian":

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/TUM_VAN/ULUGH_BEG_MIRZA_MAHOMMED_BEN_SH.html

While Ulugh Beg's mother was indeed Persian, his "ethnic identity" was certainly Chaghatayid Mongol, as he was the grand-son of Timur and considered himself a direct descendant of Genghis Khan.
 
WoW, I've never seen so many coincidences, its just one big coincidence that after Turks came Persians started using Khan, Khanoum, Agha, Gurkan, Bahadur and so on.


Persians do not know "Gurkân", and they do not use it. It was only used by the Timurids as a selfdesignation and was also unknown to the Turks. Prior to the Mongol conquest, even the Turks called themselvs either "Sultans" (like the Seljuqs) or "Shâhs" (like the Khwarezmshahs). So, the spread of the military titles "Khân" and "Khâqân" are not really achievements of Turks, but that of Mongols. Turks were not conquerors in the Islamic world. They were - at the beginning - Mamluk slaves. They had lost all of their pre-Islamic traditions. The first Turks to rule as a conquering dynasty were the Seljuqs (all previous dynasties of Turkic origin were rather Arabs or Persians in identity) - and even the Seljuqs were not really "Turks" in identity. They, too, had started their political career as Mamluks, and when Toghril and Chaghri conquered the Muslim lands, they also quickly adopted the way of life of their subjects - the reason why Turks have never been regarded "foreigners" by Persians. Unlike the Mongols, all pre-Mongol Turkic dynasties are celebrated in Persian history as "Iranian kingdoms". People in Central Asia and Iran do not define peoples by "ethnicity" but rather by religion and way of life. So, the early Turkish sultans and shahs were "their own people" ... the Mongols - Genghis Khan and Timur - are still regarded as "barbaric invaders". Until today, the Gurkâni dynasty of India is known as the "Mughal" - the "Mongol" dynasty - although they had given up their Mongolian and nomadic way of life and identity. That's why Babur called himself "Turk" in his memoires - because he did not want to be associated with the Mongols. And that's the reason why later Mughals abandoned the Chaghatay language from their courta nd did not want to be associated with the Turko-Mongol nomads of Central Asia. 



Edited by DerDoc - 07-Apr-2007 at 17:23
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 07:29
Originally posted by DerDoc

Originally posted by DayI

I wonder whats modern anatolian Turkish if its not Chagatay? Karluk? Kipchak?


Modern Anatolian Turkish is a branch of the Oghuz Turkic languages, with strong Non-Turkic influence, pointing toward the Non-Turkish origin of the Turcophone population. Anatolian Turkish - as the only Turkic language - lacks the use of typical Turkic souds ([x] & [q] for example), and replaces them - just like Zaza and Balouch - with "h" and "k".
Omg, just because of "h" and "k" anatolian Turkish you conclude the non-Turkic origins of Turkish people. How genious you are...

Answer my question, in which OGUZ branch belongs the anatolian Turkish if its not Chagatay?


It's not coincidence or whatever you might call it, if that name was Persian or Persianized name then why is the meaning of that name the same as in Turkic (brave, fearless) and NOT the one you've explained?


The meaning of "Bahâdur" in Persian is not "brave", it means "noble" and was usually given to princes, especially in the Indo-Persian world of the Mughals. But it is undisputed among scholars that the actual origin of the word is the Turko-Mongolian military title "Baghatur". The Persians adopted the name, but change it into a moder Persian name.
You can adopt the name but change his pronouncing not his MEANING period.

Fact is that "Bahâdur" was not used in Persian before the arrival of Altayic invaders. Modern websites and sources now use the original Altayic meaning of the word when explaining "Bahâdur". But the meaning in Persian is not "brave", it's "noble". The name of the former Afghan royal family, "Durrâni", has the same Persian root ("dur" = "pearl"; "Durrâni" = "pearle-like", "noble"). After creating Afghanistan, the Pashtun Abdâli clan adopted the new name, symbolizing their newly achieved nobility. "Durrâni" has a pure Persian origin, "Bahâdur" is Turko-Mongolian.
Bolded text proves what im trying to say, no discussion is further needed.


When was that title used in Iran? After the Turks came in Iran. The Persian Hân (khana) has different meaning then Khan as you've explained self.


The title "Khân" - as a tribal chief or head of the family - was already used in Persia before the invading East Asian nomads. However, it has no political or military meaning in Persian.
Offffffff, when was this used? When sassani's hired Turkic mercenary's?

You are confusing two words, Han and Khan. Han means house or bigger form of house and Khan means military chief or king. THere is another word Khakhan which means Khan of Khans who was also used by TUrkic people in de medievals. SO han and khan have nothing in common, one of it is Persian in origin the other Turkic!


The highest military title was "spahbud", a soldier was a "sarbâz", a general was sometiomes called "sardâr" (the last two containing the word "sar", "head"). The title "Tarkhan" was used in Persian and in Sogdian way before the Turks arrived in Iran. One of Bâbak's allies and close frieds in the "Khurrâmiyyah" movement of Azarbaijan was "Tarkhân" - but a Turkic origin of the person is totally impossible, since the Khurrâmiyyah movement was a strict, Zoroastrian, anti-Turkic and anti-Arab Persian nationalist  alliance.  The  name "Tarkhân" is also used by Ferdowsi in the Shâhnâma, evidently having an Avestan origin. The similarity to the Mongolian military title "Tarkhân" is pure coincidence.
Tarkhan is Turkic origin, way before mongolians this was used by Turkic people. IIRC the title Tarkhan was used by Gök Türk khanate, Khazar Khanate and the earlyer tribes such as Bulgar and avars.

Again you have the word "Khan" in, you now gonna say Khan is Persian origin word?

Another good example is the word "Pasha" (in Ottoman Turkish). It could be either derived from the Persian royal title "Pâdshâh" ("king") or from the Turkish word "bas" ("head"). If it is really taken from the Turkic "Bas" (maybe through "Bas aqa", as suggested by some), then the similarity - both in pronounciation and meaning - to the Persian "Pâdshâh" is pure coincidence.
Pad-i shah do means in Persian protecting king, while Pasha was the head of a military corps.  It is derivved from Bash + Agha.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 08:28
Originally posted by DayI

Omg, just because of "h" and "k" anatolian Turkish you conclude the non-Turkic origins of Turkish people. How genious you are...


That is exactly how comparative linguistics works, even if it is hard for you to believe.  The lack of certain souds and the transformation of dialects within a short time of only a few decades  has only one reason: language replacement. The  native inhabitants of a region adopt the new language, while they keep specific native sounds and incorporate it into the new language. That's why English has so many different dialects around the world, and that's why certain Eglish-speaking populations - such as the African-Americans of the US and the Jamaican population - have their own unique English dialects.

The same goes to all other languages, especially to Turkic languages which have spread in short time through Turko-Mongolian military conquests.

"... the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population ..."  - Vladimir Minorsky

If this is true for Azerbaijan, then it is also true for Turkey. The Azeris are mostly descendants of Armenians and Persians who have adopted the language of the Oghuz conquerors starting some time in the 12 century. The Anatolian population was mostly Greek and Armenian, and to a lesser degree Northwest-Iranian (Kurdish, Zaza, etc). That's why certain characteristics of Anatolian Turkish reflect the Non-Turkish origin of the majority of Anatolian Turks.

Honestly, I have no idea why it is so hard for Turks to accept this simple scientific fgact?!

Answer my question, in which OGUZ branch belongs the anatolian Turkish if its not Chagatay?


Oghuz is a totally different branch. Along with Qypchaq and Uyghur ("Chaghatay") - and a few minor branches - it forms the total of Turkic languages. That means that all of these branches have one ancestor, but they are now different branches. There are fundamental differences between these groups.

Your question is totally illogical. It's like saying: "What group do Germanic languages belong to if not to the group of Romanic languages".

You can adopt the name but change his pronouncing not his MEANING period.


Of course you can change the meaning of a word. The European word "Paradise" is taken from Persian "Pardîs". While the Persian word means "garden", the Euorpean meaning has become a synonym for "heaven".


Offffffff, when was this used? When sassani's hired Turkic mercenary's?


No comment ...

You are confusing two words, Han and Khan. Han means house or bigger form of house and Khan means military chief or king. THere is another word Khakhan which means Khan of Khans who was also used by TUrkic people in de medievals. SO han and khan have nothing in common, one of it is Persian in origin the other Turkic!


What are you talking about?! First of all, what you - as an Anatolian Turk - pronounce "Han" is actually the same as "Khâna" (as I have explained, Anatolian Turkish does not know the [kh] sound and replaces it with an [h]). Languages that DO HAVE the [kh] sound do not differenciate between the "Khân" that is derived from "Khâna" ("house") or the "Khan" that is derived from proto-Mongolian "Khaqan" ("king").

The Antolian Turkish word "Han" sounds exatly like the Chinese word "Han" - but these two words are not related and have totally different meanings. Similar sounds, but different meanings. The similarity is coincidence.

The same way, the similarity of the two words "khândân" and "khâqân" is coincidence, the same way the similarity between "Pasha" and "Padshah" (not "Padishah", which is a Turkish corruption) seems to be coincidence.

Again you have the word "Khan" in, you now gonna say Khan is Persian origin word?


Again, you totally fail to understand that there are similar words in different languages which are not necessairily related. Turkish "Han" (derived from "Khan") and the Chinese word "Han" sound similar, but they are not related and do not have the same meaning. The same way, the Persian honorary title given to tribal chiefs is derived from "khândân" ("house"). It is NOT related to the Turko-Mongolian word "khân" which means "king".

Pad-i shah do means in Persian protecting king, while Pasha was the head of a military corps.  It is derivved from Bash + Agha.


So you agree with me that the similarity is coincidence?! Then why don't you accept the fact that the similarity between the "Khân" ("tribal chief") and "Khân" ("king") is also coincidence?!
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 09:54
[quote]DerDoc
"Khabar" is pronounced with a "-kh". The Arabic letter is a "khe" ﺥ and not a "h"ﺡ'
 
Thats in Arabic, in Turkic Khabar is not pronounced "Kh-abar the h  is pronounced
more gluttal without a k sound infront of it.
 
 
DerDoc
The lack of certain souds and the transformation of dialects within a short time of only a few decades  has only one reason: language replacement.
 
LOL
Oh yeah suuure
 


Edited by Bulldog - 08-Apr-2007 at 09:54
      “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
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 10:20

So everybody in Anatolia of Azerbaijan was some mono-ethnic group all speaking the same language.


What you still havn't seemed to realise is that, there were many seperate groups and
many seperate languages spoken in the region. When the Turks arrived compared
to these individual seperate groups they were a larger group than them.


"... the Iranian population of Ādharbāyjān and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population ..." 


Oh the same old stories, the legends of fear, the fantasy stories you want so hard to believe,
wouldn't it be great if everybody said, hey were not Turks were just wannabe be
Turks who were forcefully Turkified bla bla bla

There was never an assimilation or Turkification policy.

They are Turks whether you like it or not, why do you insist on using "racsism", this obsession with genetics
is today redundant and rejected by mainstream scholors because it simply means nothing. Why are they Turks
yet Talysh arn't? why are they Turks yet Kurds arn't. It's an unlogical argument, if what you like to believe
happened, the whole of Iran would be speaking Turkish today. So why is it just Turks who are speaking Turkish,
the Qashqai isolated group of 2-3 million Turks living in the South of Iran, why on Earth are they Turks
yet the surrounding areas arn't, these are the big holes of your "Turkification" theory.

The Turks in the region are simply Turks, not semi-quasi-wannabe or whatever, genetics and so on does not
determine a Turk that's another thing you still havn't realised.

There is no "Turk" dna, there is no "Persian" dna, no nation has a specific "dna", everyone is "human", nations
are not different species, there is no pure blood, pure nation. THerefore your entire argument about
non-Turks becomming Turks and basing this upon "race" is rubbish, humans are always mixing regardless of their
nation.


Race/Dna/Genetics has nothing to do with Nationality-Identity.
 
It wouldn't matter if your mother five generations ago was from Mars, it wouldn't matter if your grandfather three generations ago was from Pluto, it wouldn't change your nationhood/ethnicity/identity today however, if we traced your Dna obviously the various relatives you have would be witnessed. However, it wouldn't mean anything or change anything.
 
Nationhood/ethnicity/identity is shaped by culture, language, family, historical connections, bonds, acceptance. It has little to do with "race/Dna", what is race/Dna? what is the Dna of a Turk of a Persian of a Greek of an Arab is there a specific DNA? what is this special DNA cocktail.
 
Therefore this pathetic claim that Turks of Turkey and Azerbaijan arn't actually "real Turks" is nonsense. There is no "real", "pure", half-breed, cross-breed, I mean what is this, are you breeding horses?
 
Turks of Turkey, Azerbaycan and wherever are Turks, why? because their mother tongue is Turkish, their identity is Turkish, their culture is Turkish, the historical root of their nationhood is Turkish, their accepted as Turks and therefore are Turks. Doesn't matter if their Black, White, Pink or Purple.
 
If they were Greek they'd be Greek, they'd speak Greek, identify as Greeks have a Greek history, simply they'd be a Greek, capiche.
 
If they were Arab they'd speak Arabic, identify as Arabs and simply be Arabs, capiche.
 
If you want to get into these silly racist arguments take a look in the mirror first, are Persians all pure?  do all Iranics share the same DNA? are they all they same, what is this Persian DNA? did Persians never mix with anyone? Shall we start posts saying, Persians arn't Persian but a mix of Arabs and Elamites who adopted Persian and forgot their roots? Persians are just Persianized non-Persian folk who today think their Persians...

 
DerDoc
The same way, the Persian honorary title given to tribal chiefs is derived from "khândân" ("house").
 
Khanadan is a dynasty not a house.
 
 
 
DerDoc
So you agree with me that the similarity is coincidence?! Then why don't you accept the fact that the similarity between the "Khân" ("tribal chief") and "Khân" ("king") is also coincidence?!
 
Everything to you is a coincidence, maybe you just don't want to accept the Turkic origin of alot of your titles...
 
Khan, a large house-inn.
 
Khan means King, Lord, tribal chief, leader.
 
Khan was used as a title after the Turks entered the region.
 
 

Khan (First Name Origin and Meaning)

Turkish · Male

Prince.
 
 
 
Khan
Muslim: from a personal name or status name based on Turkish khan ‘ruler’, ‘nobleman’. This was originally a hereditary title among Tartar and Mongolian tribesmen (in particular Genghis Khan, 1162–1227), but is now very widely used throughout the Muslim world as a personal name. In Iran and parts of the Indian subcontinent it is used as an honorific title after a person’s name.  
 
 
 
Many Khans were not only named Khan in India and Pakistan but also "Khan Bahadur"
 
Is it just a coincidence that prior to Turks, Khan wasn't used as a title name yet after they arrived, not only Khan but Khatun, Khanum, Galin Khanum, Khan Bahadur etc etc
 
 
 
Gur Khan, allegedly meaning supreme or universal Khan, was the ruler of the Turkic Kara-Kitai
 
 
 
 
p.s Farabi was Turkic this is widely accepted, he was born in Turkistan-Kazakistan, he came from a millitary slave-bodyguard family his fathers names Uzlug and Tarkhan those who protected the caliph these slave-soldier-bodyguard families were Turks. The Britannica source is not from 1911, present day Britannica also verifies this.


Edited by Bulldog - 09-Apr-2007 at 11:21
      “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 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 11:32
Everything has been said, and there is no reason to continue this discussion with you, Bulldog. Those who want to accept truths and facts will understand why I am trying to say. Other who want to stay ignorant will stay ignorant.

Only one last point, since this thread is about words and language:

"khândân" means "family" and is a Persian word, no matter how often you try to divert facts:

"... First, it is not customary in the hereditary system of Indian music for someone outside the khandan [family] to be a principal benefactor of the ..." - Prof. D.T. Joshi (http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:PSwJe-IIkMIJ:www.pathcom.com/~ericp/bansuri11neuman.pdf+khandan+family&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=de)

According to an online Persian-English translator (http://www.farsidic.com/):
family, house (hold)  = خاندان

It is totally unrelated  to the Turko-Mongolian word "Khan".  And this word - the Persian "Khândân" - is the root of the Indian and Indian honorary title "Khân". The Turko-Mongolian "Khan" was  given to military leaders and rulers, not to ordenary people. The Persian word is given to all the elders of a family.  It's root is the Persian word "khâna" - "house".  So, it has the same root as the Persian word  خانگاه , known as "Tekke" in Turkish (derived from Arabic "Taqiah" - "belief").

The Chishti Sufi order, for example, is known as "Khângâhe Chisht" or as "Khândâne Chisht":

"... Often we see that friends, husband and wife, lovers, the murshid and mureed, in time grow to look alike. The portraits of the different Sheikhs of Khandan-i Chisht all look as if they had been molded in the same mold. ..." - "The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan", London, Barrie and Rockliff, 1960 (1960)


Edited by DerDoc - 08-Apr-2007 at 11:44
Back to Top
bleda View Drop Down
Earl
Earl

Suspended

Joined: 07-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 11:42
derdoc=shinai
this topic about turkish language not persians


Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2007 at 12:22
DerDoc
It is totally unrelated  to the Turko-Mongolian word "Khan".  And this word - the Persian "Khândân" - is the root of the Indian and Indian honorary title "Khân".
 
No its not, no sources support your claims, practically every source in existance support what everybody knows and that is "Khan", is a honoury title used after Turks entered the region.
 
 
DerDoc
The Turko-Mongolian "Khan" was  given to military leaders and rulers, not to ordenary people.
 
Look, don't you realise that many titles originally have such a meaning but throughout time the meaning of the term extends down the social ladder. Esquire was a term used by English nobles, today its used by anybody especially in America, you don't need to be a noble anymore to be able to call yourself one.
 
Or Bey, Beg, Begh, Bek, its original meaning is Chieften, Leader, Lord, Duke...but today anybody can be referred to as a "Bey" as a sign of respect also I have Pakistani friends who have "Beg" in their name.
 
In exactly the same way, Khan originally meaning leader now is used more commongly.
 
Persian, Khan for house-inlet is not a "title" and historically has not been used as one either.
 
 
 
bLEDA
derdoc=shinai
 
Yeah, they should check his IP


Edited by Bulldog - 08-Apr-2007 at 12:32
      “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
karajoz View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary

Suspended

Joined: 29-Mar-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 07:06

very interesting topic. i like reading it.

 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 07:52
Yeah, they should check his IP
 
Just did:
 
Shinai = Canada
DerDoc = Germany
 
And their style of writing and posts are nothing alike.  Shinai made claims and posted narrations and never provided evidence and when asked to would deliberately divert whereas DerDoc makes effort to back up his claims and has a much better command of the english language and a better argument structure.
 
Now, aside from that - just because you don't like what someone is posting, it does not mean that they are trolling or breaking the rules - you must make counter arguments to support your case and not resort to ad hominem because such a thing does constitute a material breach of the code of conduct.
 
This discussion can still be considered on-topic because it is discussing etymology related to the topic.
 
And Karajoz, I too am enjoying reading this thread.


Edited by Zagros - 09-Apr-2007 at 07:53
Back to Top
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 10:55
Yes, they two are very different. However, unlike shinai, Derdoc seems to have come here with a special mission. LOL
 
Actually this topic has already gone far off topic.
 
The following is to other Turkic members to see how much they can understand Uyghur Turkish. Try to make percentage:
 
(Abdurehim otkur--"Iz")
 
Yash iduq müshkül seperge atlinip mangghanda biz,
Emdi atqa mingidek bolup qaldi ene nevrimiz.


Az iduq müshkul seperge atlinip chiqanda biz,
Emdi chong karvan atalduq, qaldurup chöllerde iz.

Qaldi iz chöller ara, gayi davanlarda yene,
Qaldi ni-ni arslanlar deshti chölde qevrisiz.


Qevrisiz qaldi dimeng yulghun qizarghan dalida,
Gül-chichekke pürkinur tangna baharda qevrimiz.


Qaldi iz, qaldi menzil, qaldi yiraqta hemmisi,
chiqsa boran, köchse qumlar, hem kömülmes izimiz.


Tohtimas karvan yolidin gerche atlar bek oruq,
Tapqusi bir kün bu izni bizning nevrimiz, ya chevrimiz.
 
 
 
 


Edited by barbar - 09-Apr-2007 at 11:37
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:12
And Test Number 2. Big%20smile
 
Ozbek Turkish, how much do you understand? this is standard and literary Ozbek Turkish. A difference I notice between Oghuz and Chaghtay/Karluk is the use of g and k.
 
Oghuz Turkish
 
Turkiye Turkish - Geldi
Turkmen Turkish - Geldi
Azerbaycan Turkish - Geldi
 
Chaghtay/Karluk
 
Ozbek and Uygur Turkish - Keldi
 
 
 
 
Bilamas kim, unlar sizni yoshamoqqa qoymaylar
Bilamas kim, kuningizni tomchi-tomchi ichalar
Bilamas kim, unlar sira yuvosh halqini sevmaylar
Bilamas kim tuproq uchun insonlikdan kecheler.
Cho'lpon


Go'zal Turkiston senga ne bo'ldi?
Sahar vaqtida gullaring so'ldi,
Chamanlar barbod qushlar ham faryod
Hammasi mahzun bo'lmas mi dilshod?
Bilmam nuchun qushlar uchmas bag'chalaringda
Birlig'imizning tabranmas tag'i


Cho'lpon
 
 
Or these news extracts
 
 
 
VATAN TUYGUSI
28 Mart 2007 23:29
Jahongir bilan tez-tez suhbatlashib turamiz. Aqlli bola, ikki yarim yil Germaniyada o‘qib keldi. Nemis, ingliz tillarida yaxshigina so‘zlasha oladi. Zehnli, ko‘p kitob o‘qiydigan bu yigit bilan suhbatlashsam millat, Vatan tuyg‘usi, yurt sog‘inchi, insonlarga muhabbat haqidagi tushunchalarim yanada tiniqlashadi.
 
 
 
 
      “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
barbar View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
retired AE Moderator

Joined: 10-Aug-2005
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Apr-2007 at 11:44

I understood the above Ozbekche 100%.

The major difference between Uyghur and Ozbek is, in Ozbek Turkish they don't differenciate "u" and "ü",  "o" and "ö",  "h" and "x". 
 
 
 
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2007 at 06:12
Originally posted by karajoz

very interesting topic. i like reading it.

 
it was more interesting if there wasnt an error in this forum which caused my 35minutes are lost. Angry

One thing i remember was DerDoc, with all due and respect you think very illogical Big%20smile

comparing "Padshah", it is in correct Persian Pad-i shah like Ashk-i muazzam, Shah-an Shah you see that suffix is a must.  with "Pasha" is totally unrelated.

As i and Tangriberdi several time explained Pad-i shah means protector/ing king and the other is combined of two Turkish words; Bash (head) and Agha (kind of tribal leader).

if i have time enough i'll try to repost that very long post.
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 05:25
Originally posted by DayI

comparing "Padshah", it is in correct Persian Pad-i shah like Ashk-i muazzam, Shah-an Shah you see that suffix is a must.  with "Pasha" is totally unrelated.


To someone who does not know Persian, your explanation may sound logical. But is grmmatically totally wrong.

"Wazîr-e Azam" (grand vezir), "Mard-e Pîr" (old man), "Kitâb-e jâleb" (interesting book) are always two different words grammatically connected to each other with the -e (and note that it is an [e] and not an ).

"Pâdshâh" (پادشاه) however is a single word and means "king". It does not have an -e. It is synonymous with "Shahryâr" (شهريار). Only the "Shâhânshâh" is a higher title.


Edited by DerDoc - 18-Apr-2007 at 05:27
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 09:02
Originally posted by DerDoc

Originally posted by DayI

comparing "Padshah", it is in correct Persian Pad-i shah like Ashk-i muazzam, Shah-an Shah you see that suffix is a must.  with "Pasha" is totally unrelated.


To someone who does not know Persian, your explanation may sound logical. But is grmmatically totally wrong.

"Wazîr-e Azam" (grand vezir), "Mard-e Pîr" (old man), "Kitâb-e jâleb" (interesting book) are always two different words grammatically connected to each other with the -e (and note that it is an [e] and not an ).

"Pâdshâh" (پادشاه) however is a single word and means "king". It does not have an -e. It is synonymous with "Shahryâr" (شهريار). Only the "Shâhânshâh" is a higher title.
Im sure if it was "Padshah" we could say Padshah instead of Padishah. You know Ottomans where crack in Persian writing/reading/speaking, so I dont think they took a title with grammatical errors :D


Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
[IMG">http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg">
Back to Top
DerDoc View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 11:47
Originally posted by DayI

Im sure if it was "Padshah" we could say Padshah instead of Padishah. You know Ottomans where crack in Persian writing/reading/speaking, so I dont think they took a title with grammatical errors :D


Exactly. And that's probably the reason why the Persian "Pâdshâh" because the Turkicized "Pasha", the same way "Khorâsân" became "Horasan", "Khazân" became "Hazan", "Jam" became "Cem", and "jânam" became "canim". It's just the Turkicization of certain sounds. Sounds more reliable to me than some weird etymology taken the Ottoman word "Pasha" (which, btw, did not exist at the Seljuqid court!) to "bash + agha". After all, the Ottomans were Turks. Why should they have said "Pasha" instead of the correct "Bash-Agha"?! :) It might also interest you that the official title of a king in Tunesia is "Basha Bey" - there, it means "king"; the word "Bey" is Altaic. Since the word "Basha" was introduced to Tunesia by the Ottomans (Tunesia's modern flag is still derived from the old Ottoman flag), and since it means "king", it's only logical to assume that the original meaning of the term "Pasha" was also "king" and was thus derived from the Persian "Pâdshâh".


Edited by DerDoc - 18-Apr-2007 at 11:57
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 15:26
Sorry but Pasha is not related to Padishah.
 
 
pasha Look%20up%20pasha%20at%20Dictionary.com
Turk. honorary title formerly given to officers of high rank, 1646, from Turk. pasha, earlier basha, from bash "head, chief" (no clear distinction between -b- and -p- in Turk.), Earlier in Eng. as bashaw (1534).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pasha
 
 
Pasha is derrived from, Bash-agha. It's an Ottoman term, originally used in the millitary, then by governers, then rulers and Sultans,  then the tradition of three grades of Pasha, in addition to which was the fourth grade which only the King could have.
 
 
      “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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 567

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 0.125 seconds.