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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Mongols

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Mongols
    Posted: 02-Sep-2006 at 23:18
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Old Mongolian language is really difficult (if not to say impossible) for modern Khalkha Mongols. The structure is also VERY different. One of the parts linguists focus on to show their difference (old Mongolian and modern day Khalkha Mongolian) is that modern Mongolian lacks the use of '- qan' or '- ken' which is frequent in old day Mongolian (and also in Turkic). Instead, '- yan' is used which is EXACTLY the same as Tungusic language. As for me, I believe Khalkha Mongol PEOPLE and LANGUAGE are of Tungusic origin.
 
It is evident that you don't know old and new mongolian at all.  Of course written language of the 13th century mongols is phonetically different than modern mongolian. Every language's phonetic  changes during the time.
 
If you think that mongolian language and people are of tungusic origin, it simply shows that your lack of knowledge concerning both mongolian and tungusic.
 
I quote from Secret History of Mongols, which was written in 1240.
 
Transcription from the original text
-------------------------------------------
 
Č = Ch
q = kh
ĵ = j
ķ = g
 

1. Čiŋķis qağan-no huĵaur Deere Teŋķeri-eče ĵayaatu toreksen Borte-Čino aĵuu. ķerķai ino Qoai-Maral aĵiai. Teŋķis ķetulĵu ireba. Onan-muren-no teriune Burqan-qaldun-na nuntuqlaĵu, toreksen Bata-Čiqan aĵuu.

Modern mongolian
------------------------
 
Chingis khaanii yazgur deer tengerees zayat trsn Brte Chono ajguu. Gergii n Goo Maral ajee. Tengis getelj irev. Onon mrnii tergn Burkhan Khalduna nutaglaj, trsn Bat-Cagan ajguu.
 
 
 
 


Edited by blitz - 02-Sep-2006 at 23:20
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
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-Sep-2006 at 03:01
Alright, I don't know. But people like J.J. Sanders who have invested his LIFE in Mongolian Studies, you think he's wrong also? Look:

'Known as Classical, or Literary, Mongolian, the written language generally represents the language as it was spoken in the era of Genghis Khan and differs in many respects from the present-day spoken language, although some colloquial features were introduced into
Classical Mongolian in the 19th century. Though best known for its centuries-old role in the transmission of Buddhistic literature from Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese sources, Classical Mongolian has proved remarkably durable and equal to the task of a modern national language.'

And I said, Modern Mongols seems to be of Tungusic origin.

By the way, what you have written also shows your lack of
politeness.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:04

Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies:

'Historical change in the language is indicated by the fact that reading The Secret History of the Mongols (mid-13th century), the oldest major document written in Mongol, is for the Mongols of today like reading the work of Chaucer for the modern English. Pan-Mongolism, the desire to reunite politically all the Mongols, was always more a romantic than a practical idea, and is now a dead issue.'

He might be wrong also, huh? If he were, anyhow, It wouldn't justify your 'being impolite'...
    

Edited by gok_toruk - 03-Sep-2006 at 03:35
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:15
By the way, about Tatars, there's something interesting that shows they were NOT Mongols:

William Rubruck, along with 3 Christians started a journey. They reached 'Sartak'(Batu's son) camp in 31rd january. Before visiting Sartak, they were warned not to call Sartak, a Christian; because 'he's not a Christian, but a Mongol'. Rubruck explains 'in their idea 'Christianity is the name of a race and they're so much vain that although they might believe some principles of Christianity, they don't want to be called a Christian. They want their own name (Mongol) to be placed above any other name. Also, they don't want to be called Tatar since Tatars are different people.'

The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:21
Well, let me explain in this way. All we know there are different kinds of Mongoloid face. But the most distinct one, is the Tungusic face which very very flat. I've always said you've got to live in these societies to be able to distinguish such faces.

It's not only limited to Tunguses. Also there are lots of Koreans which have got this face, and a lot of Japanese people. Because these two nations are said to be descendant of Tungusic invadors.

Linguists show that Modern Mongolian have got an especial tendency (I mean a similarity which isn't normal, when comparative lingustics is done for old Mongolian and Tungusic language). What's more, most of Modern Khalkha Mongols have got Tungusic faces. This is argued in anthroplogy. That's all I mentioned.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:27

Anyhow,

Kereyits, for sure, were Turks. Their titles and names are Turkic and 'Toghryl' (their Khan) isn't a Mongolian name.

The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders

    

Edited by gok_toruk - 03-Sep-2006 at 03:31
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:28

Onguts were a group of Turkic people.

The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders
    

Edited by gok_toruk - 03-Sep-2006 at 03:30
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:37

Social Organization of Mongol - Turkic Pastoral Nomads -   L. Krader:

The name Tatar first appeared among nomadic tribes living in northeastern Mongolia and the area around Lake Baikal from the 5th century AD. Unlike the Mongols, these peoples spoke a Turkic language, and they may have been related to the Cuman or Kipchak peoples. After various groups of these Turkic nomads became part of the armies of the Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements
took place, and the Mongol invaders of Russia and Hungary became known to Europeans as Tatars(or Tartars).

    

Edited by gok_toruk - 03-Sep-2006 at 03:39
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:40
Social Organizatoin of Mongol - Turkic Pastoral Nomads - L.Krader:

Among the peoples who have been considered possibly Mongol, the most important tribal names are Sienpi (Hsien-pi), who may however have been Tungus (modern Evenk) rather than Mongol, recorded in Han dynasty annals.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:54
Mongolia: A Country Study

It is unfortunate, because confusing, that 19th-century physical anthropologists introduced the terms Mongol and Mongolian as descriptive of racial type. The Mongols exhibit a wide range of physical characteristics and should be considered not as a race but as a group of peoples bound together by a common language and a common nomadic tradition.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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-Sep-2006 at 03:55
Ramstedt:

The rank of khan and the title of Genghis (Chinggis)—a word deriving probably ultimately FROM THE TURKIC 'tengiz', meaning “a large body of water, the ocean”; although this explanation has not convinced all Mongol scholars.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:16
Originally posted by gok_toruk


Anyhow,

Kereyits, for sure, were Turks. Their titles and names are Turkic and 'Toghryl' (their Khan) isn't a Mongolian name.

The History of Mongol Conquests - J.J. Sanders 
 
Of course I hold Sanders in esteem. But Khereit means in Mongolian "Ravens" (khere - raven, khereid-ravens) and toghru(l) means "crane".
 
 
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:19
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Ramstedt:

The rank of khan and the title of Genghis (Chinggis)a word deriving probably ultimately FROM THE TURKIC 'tengiz', meaning a large body of water, the ocean; although this explanation has not convinced all Mongol scholars.
 
Why is Tengiz/Tengis a turkic word? In the oldest primary source concerning Genghis Khan  there are two different words "Tengis" and "Chingis".   
 
And in addition the title "khan" was used first by Joujans, who are regarded by many historians as proto-mongolian.
 
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 04:46
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Alright, I don't know. But people like J.J. Sanders who have invested his LIFE in Mongolian Studies, you think he's wrong also? Look:

'Known as Classical, or Literary, Mongolian, the written language generally represents the language as it was spoken in the era of Genghis Khan and differs in many respects from the present-day spoken language, although some colloquial features were introduced into
Classical Mongolian in the 19th century. Though best known for its centuries-old role in the transmission of Buddhistic literature from Tibetan, Sanskrit, and Chinese sources, Classical Mongolian has proved remarkably durable and equal to the task of a modern national language.'
I couldn't find in your quote that Sanders asserted, mongolian was some sort of tungusic language.  
 
 
Another example:
Inscription of Stone of Genghis(written about 1225)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transcription:
Cinggis qan-i sartaGul irgen daquliju baGuju xamuG monGol ulus-un arad-i Buqa Sociqai xurigsan-tur Esunke QonGodorun Gurban jaGud Gucin tabun alda-tur ontudluGa.
 
Modern Mongolian:
Chingis haanii sartuul irgen dagulj buuj hamag Mongol ulsiin ardiig Bukha Sochigai hursand Yesunkhe Khongodorun gurvan zuun guchin tavan aldad onolo.
 
Translation:
While all the mongols were celebrating the victory of Genghis-khan over the Sartool people in Buqa Sociqai, Esunke Qongodorun shot an arrow up to the 335 fathoms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Well I don't think that the above inscript is written in turkic or tungusic. It's old mongolian but still mongolian language. The situation is same with many turkic dialects: The spoken and written language of the 13th century turks is different than today's turk dialects. There is no language which stayed unchanged during 800 years. North Mongols(Khalkhas, Buriads, Oirads etc) used the old writing system till 1945, south mongols(inner mongols) use it still today. Of course there is difference between spoken and written language. Some examples:
 
Written - Spoken
 
bagatur - baatar
abu - aav
eji - eej
ulagan - ulaan
shibagun - shuvuu
chilagun - chuluu
erke - rk
jagun - zuun
minggan - myanga
 
Originally posted by gok_toruk

And I said, Modern Mongols seems to be of Tungusic origin.
 
Don't you give reasons for it?

Originally posted by gok_toruk

By the way, what you have written also shows your lack of politeness.
 
Oh, don't be girlish my friend! I am very sorry If I hurt your soul. Please forgive me!


Edited by blitz - 03-Sep-2006 at 04:51
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
Back to Top
blitz View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 02-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 103
  Quote blitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 05:07
Originally posted by gok_toruk


Introduction to Mongolian Comparative Studies:

'Historical change in the language is indicated by the fact that reading The Secret History of the Mongols (mid-13th century), the oldest major document written in Mongol, is for the Mongols of today like reading the work of Chaucer for the modern English. Pan-Mongolism, the desire to reunite politically all the Mongols, was always more a romantic than a practical idea, and is now a dead issue.'

He might be wrong also, huh? If he were, anyhow, It wouldn't justify your 'being impolite'... 
 
Well I can only say that the <Secret History of Mongols> was written in old mongolian but still in mongolian and not in tungusic or turkic.  No serious researcher can deny it.
 
gok_toruk, how old are you? Your quotes have nothing to do with your assertion that mongolain language and people are of tungusic origin.
 
I know the Canterbury tales  by Geoffrey Chaucer. It is old english but still english.
 
I quote again from SHM. See the difference and similarity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcription:
17. Tein atara, Dobun-Merķan uķai bolba. Dobun-Merķan-i uķai boluqsano qoina, Alan-ğoa, ere uķaiui boet, ğ urban kout toreulbi. Buğu-Qadaği, Buqatu-Salĵi, Bodončar-muŋqaq nere ten bulee.
 
Modern Mongolian:
Tiin atal Dobun-Mergen gi bolov. Dobun Mergeniig gi bolsnii khoino Alan Goo er gi bgd gurvan khvgd trlev. Bugu-Hatagi, Bukhatu-Salji, Bodonchar munkhag nerten bilee.  


Edited by blitz - 03-Sep-2006 at 05:15
Road to wisdom: err, err and err. But less, less and less!
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-Sep-2006 at 12:36
Originally posted by blitz


 
 
And in addition the title "khan" was used first by Joujans, who are regarded by many historians as proto-mongolian.
 
 
I agree with you that the Mongolian in Chengiz time was surely not close to Turkic, as I couldn't understand a word from the transcript, Although I can understand much earlier Turkic monuments pretty much.
 
But as for the Jurjans, historians are still have dispute about them. Remember the Wei (Tuoba Xianbei origin, who are Proto-Mongol) claimed them to be Hunnic in nature. They had Xianbei element though. So the word Khan to be proto-Mongolic is questionable.  
Either make a history or become a history.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Sep-2006 at 17:38
Originally posted by gok_toruk

Alright, I don't know. But people like J.J. Sanders who have invested his LIFE in Mongolian Studies, you think he's wrong also? Look:
 
Mr Gok turk.. Seems like you have History of Mongol Conquest by J.J.Sanders. I have too.
 
If you quote from his book- please put page number and lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I found that he clearly explained how Mongol tribes assimilated to Turkic. His book was actually very much pro-mongol
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: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:32
I couldn't find any relationship with the arguement when you asked my age.

Jourchens were not completely Mongolian. And it's almost totally accepted worldwide that 'Khan' is Turkic, rather than Mongolian. In fact, some people argue that Chengiz Khan wasn't completely a Mongol; because his title was a Turkic one.

And I didn't say Mongolian is a Tungusic language. All I mean is, modern Mongolian is more closer to Tungusic than the old one.

Languages do differ by time. But just to some extent. Turkic is, yes, a bit different from the old version; but just a bit. But let me quote a Mongol's saying about old Mongolian:

Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:33
By Baras-aghur Naran (qairatai@aol.com):

1- The official language of modern Mongolia is a dialect called Khalkhan. This dialect supposedly had its roots in Ghengis Khan's original tribe. Old Mongolian is very
different from this.

2- The old language used to write Old Mongolian is very different from the Modern language . Spoken Mongolian has three major periods. The earliest form of Mongolian is called Ancient Mongolian and was used up until the 12th century. Ancient Mongolian was characterized by an
intervolic consonant "g" (pronounced gh in English) proceeding a long vowel and a vocalized "h" proceeding an opening vowel. The second period for Mongolian is called Middle Mongolian, found in use up to the 16th century. Middle Mongolian was characterized by the replacing of
the intervolic consonant before the long vowel with something similar to a glottal stop and the retention of the vocalized "h". It is this version of Mongolian that gave birth to the English word "horde". This word comes from the Middle Mongolian word "(h)Ordu, meaning
'camp'. Modern Mongolian, or Khalkhan, has lost the vocalized "h" and dropped some final consonants and medial vowels, which makes it read and sound totally different from Middle Mongolian.

3- The language used to write Mongolian in period is an 11th or 13th century dialect that kept the intervolic "g" of Ancient and Middle Mongolian, but dropped the vocalized "h" proceeding opening vowels.
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
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: 04-Sep-2006 at 01:35

Just go to the part (at the end of book) as 'notes of chapters'. I haven't got the book in front of me, for the time being. But as I remember, these are in 'notes of the chapter 4' or 'notes of chapter 6'.

Let me check it back and be sure about it.
 
 
Well, yeah, J.J. Sanders is actually, rather on Mongols' part Wink. But he explainex about most of those tribes; even mentioning about William Rubruck and what Sartak says (that Tatars are different from Mongols).


Edited by gok_toruk - 04-Sep-2006 at 03:17
Sajaja bramani totari ta, raitata raitata, radu ridu raitata, rota.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

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 0.082 seconds.