At first I have to ask a few questions about you after your comments:
Originally posted by mustafa
Heck, it's even not all that easy for someone from Istanbul to learn the "real" Turkish that was spoken (and is still spoken) in Anatolia before that so calld "language reform" in Turkey. Istanbul Turkish and the "real" Turkey Turkish even have different grammar and words.. |
Are you Turkish? Are you Muslim?
If so, I am sorry but you are getting misinformation about the subject. Language reform has done in the area of literature and education to eliminate Persian and Arabic influences on Turkish. So that daily used spoken Turkish has started to be used in those areas. In fact by doing so the ordinary people in Anatolia could use easier than before its own language.
Istanbul Turkish and Turkey Turkish do not have different grammar and there is not something like real Turkish. This is an artificial thing. In every country there is main accent which is used as basic such as London English or Paris French. This is related with the locations literature, cultural, demographic and scientific properties.
Originally posted by mustafa
I don't think you have *any* idea what I am talking about. I am not talking about girls from Turkey but Turkic people in general and their origins. Read the posts above carefully and you might figure it out. |
Well you are still resisting on despite many sources given to you. If you want an origin you can start from Africa since all scientific research have shown that homo sapiens are originated from Africa. The place that you like to decide, as this is the origin of this human group can only be a scientific fact (if it really is) for a limited period of time since people are moving, interacting and even genetically changing during time.
I am again repeating that the issues on origin, homeland, urheimat or whatever you call of all language groups, or nations is a matter of debate in academic circles. It is still a matter of discussion that if Ural-Altai is a single group or not. Korean and Japanese are two new languages, which have been seen similarities with Altaic languages.
According to Miller, proto-Altai language has roots in West Siberian steppes on the north, Caspian Sea on the west and Altai mountains on the east before 7000 years ego. Proto Altaic people have been moved towards east to Altai region and they split up two as west and east. Western group has formed proto-Turkish. Famous Turkolog Nemeth put the area from the east of Urals till Altais. Menges put it even west.
Originally posted by mustafa
Actually, they probably are very similar. Germanic people have been a very homogeneous society, although recently that might be changing. |
You know this change since it you see it, you lived it. But historically speaking it is very dubious that they are very homogeneous society since they are mixed with Celts, Latins, Slavs, Uralics and even may be with other Asians such as Turkics.
Originally posted by mustafa
I lived in Germany for most of my life and know Germany's and Europe history very well. Since these people were sedentary they would not leave their villages and settlements pretty much all their lives. |
Your life span is beyond our scope when it is talked about thousands of years. Being sedentary doesnt mean that they did not move anywhere and others did never get in touch with them. Our knowledge about Germans starts with when Romans get into contact with them and put their observations on paper. We do not have enough info about them before. But after this we know that they went from Africa to Crimea and at last to America. So they were moving. We know that they are racially Nordic but they have clear, now and before, non-nordic element inside their society.
Originally posted by mustafa
Plus...with Turks we are talking about mixture between caucasians and asians. In Central Europe it would just be different tribes of caucasians and it would not make such a huge difference on their genotype and phenotype. |
I cannot understand your point. What is the difference between the two. Mixing is mixing. They are both homo sapiens at the end. Moreover you cannot assume that being caucasian is an European property since they were coming from Asia. What is the importance if there is not a difference on their gene and phenotype or not? We are talking about a different thing.
It is me who is saying that Turks are a sum of people both Caucasian and Mongoloid. The difference between us is that you are saying that Turks were Mongoloids even in 1683 at the siege of Vienna (how did you get it. It is a mistery though) but suddenly changed to caucasoid until the invention of photograph machine. And I am opposing by saying that Turks has gained caucasoid features during their long journey to Anatolia without denying the fact that they have also mixed with Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, Serbians, native Anatolians. So my objection to you is not related with some nationalistic stance or opinions. Plus we can not even know if the very first Altaic speaking peoples were Mongoloids or not.
My points are:
1) Chinese chronicles
2) There are both Caucasoid and Mongoloid skeletons in Altai and other parts of Central Asia. They are all my ancestors. Especially Tocharians. There are lots of common words in Turkish and Tocharian. I do not care about the very very beginning first Altaic speaking people 7 or 6 thousands year ego.
3) I am looking at western Turks which are Anatolian Turks, Azeris of Azerbaycan, Azeris of Iran, Turks of Caucasia, Crimean Tatars, Baskurts of Russia, Gagauzs of Moldova, Karaim Jews, Turks of Balkans (millions in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia etc) and some who stayed in Central Asia showing caucasoid features such as Uighurs were all caucasoid. There is a reality on me. I am seeing it. But you are claiming that they were Mongoloids and by mixing with native population they have changed to caucasoid. And they have adopted their languages. Well but we are talking about a huge population. How a group of warriors could achieve to convert all these population and they have started to talk Turkish?
4) I am looking at Turcoman yoruks in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. They were not Mongoloids moreover there are many blonds.
5) I am looking at Alevis in Anatolia assuming that they may be the closest Turks who came to Anatolia at the beginning. Especially Alevi dedes have a long family track showing their roots in Khorasan. They were not Mongoloids but some of them have Turanian features.
6) Language is a very important aspect in identifying ones identity. Even if from Iran to Russia and to Anatolia Mongoloid Turks have mixed with locals and changed their languages it means that todays Turks are this and they are not the same as 2000 years ego. So what? We are still Turks and we are still carrying something from Mongoloid Turks.
7) There is social theory of assimilation of conquerors. If a group of people who conquered another country by only warriors or without a mass migration they are assimilated inside the main group. Since the language is learnt from mother. A small group of nomad warriors can not convert a huge geography. This is beyond the scope of logic, science and this has never seen during history.
Originally posted by mustafa
I know some chinese people personally who have pretty light brown hair with an asian face and they are not mixed with caucasians. |
How do you know it? I want to remind you that some Turco/Mongol tribes had also ruled China and entered inside of it.
Originally posted by mustafa
If Turks, assuming they were originally asian, which makes total sense by the way, had mixed with Koreans, you would not consider Turks a "mixed population" today. So the comparison with a "mixed" German population is like comparing apples with oranges. |
You are seeing Asians as a different race. It must be a result of living in Germany. Indo-Europeans were Asians too I am not seeing differences between humans they are both homo sapiens. From that perspective we can say that there is no mixed society.
Originally posted by mustafa
--All caucasian people and all sedentary people. See above. Plus, the Maurs that conquered half of spain back then are probably, at least to a degree if not fully, genetic descendants of tribes like the Vandals that migrated to North Africa from Northern Europe and probably mixed with the original population. |
Oh! No!!!!!!!! This was terrible. You have educated in Europe I think.
Originally posted by mustafa
Since when are Uighurs part of the Oguz? Since when are Tocharians even Turkic? Since when are Sakas Turkic? Persians? Mongols? I hope you were just enumarating the different peoples that *might* have mixed with the turks instead of implying that the poepl ementioned int he parantheses are Oghuz. |
Turks who came to Anatolia and to west was a group of people composing from those people. This is very simple.
Edited by Alparslan