Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Topic: The Red Jews Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 05:44 |
Originally posted by Khazar Prince
We are not Asians! Some Turkic tribes are Asians (predominantly, but with a heavy white genetic influence).
|
MOST Turkic tribes are Asian people. Only the Turks of Western Turkey are really close to Europeans due to the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans.
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 13:23 |
Originally posted by Ollios
@Khazar, is there any connection between Khazar and Kirghiz? Kirghiz people are also known with red hair in history. |
No relation that I know of.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 13:28 |
Originally posted by TITAN_
"Aryan, Indo-Aryan, Indo-european. same thing!
We are Indp-european white people."
No. Not the same thing. White doesn't mean anything at all. The Japanese are white too. That doesn't make them Indo-European. Skin colour is not everything, apparently.
You really mix up different things. The Jews and the Arabs are Semitic people, and their languages belong to that Semitic family of languages. The Turks have their own family of languages and the Indo-Europeans also have closely related languages.
The Turks invaded Eastern Europe only during the last millenium, making them the last non-European intruder. They brought a non-European culture and language with them. The Turkic languages are completely incompatible to European languages. There is no connection between Turkish or Hebrew or Arabic to languages like Latin, Greek etc. |
Everyone thinks that the turkic people came from China. Yes, Turkic people traveled to china and lived there, but they have wondered from south Sentral to Asia several times and way before that. you are forgetting that Bulgarians, Hungarians, Chivash, Udmurt, and even Finish people are of Turkic origin. YES... FINISH!! Just because some Turkic tribes settled in the Asian part of Russia and mixed with Asians doesn't make Turkic people non Indo-European.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 13:48 |
Titan, I will admit that Turkic language might not be related to Indo-European language group. But the dominant majority of Turkic people were of European in origin, and even thought these groups moved arround between the area that is now Hungary, Bulgaria and surrounding areas all the way to Mongolia, the origins are of Caucasian/European descent. Some of those groups stayed in the Asian part and became Monopolized over time, the ones that moved back to Europe show only a small % of Asiatic features. The tribes of Turkic people who lived to the south of the Turkic speaking area mixed with Arabs. The Eastern tribes mixed with Asians. And the ones in Russian Easter Europe, Hungarians, Bulgars, Chuvash, Udmurt, Khazars, Tatars, Udmurt, and Finish are white looking. Tatar, do show more Asiatic features then the other groups mentioned, but not much.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 13:50 |
Tatar people: https://www.google.com/search?q=tatar+people&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BexqUaqxEMu-0QGg6oHICA&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQsAQ&biw=994&bih=567
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 14:09 |
Originally posted by Khazar Prince
Originally posted by TITAN_
"Aryan, Indo-Aryan, Indo-european. same thing!
We are Indp-european white people."
No. Not the same thing. White doesn't mean anything at all. The Japanese are white too. That doesn't make them Indo-European. Skin colour is not everything, apparently.
You really mix up different things. The Jews and the Arabs are Semitic people, and their languages belong to that Semitic family of languages. The Turks have their own family of languages and the Indo-Europeans also have closely related languages.
The Turks invaded Eastern Europe only during the last millenium, making them the last non-European intruder. They brought a non-European culture and language with them. The Turkic languages are completely incompatible to European languages. There is no connection between Turkish or Hebrew or Arabic to languages like Latin, Greek etc. |
Everyone thinks that the turkic people came from China. Yes, Turkic people traveled to china and lived there, but they have wondered from south Sentral to Asia several times and way before that.
you are forgetting that Bulgarians, Hungarians, Chivash, Udmurt, and even Finish people are of Turkic origin. YES... FINISH!!
Just because some Turkic tribes settled in the Asian part of Russia and mixed with Asians doesn't make Turkic people non Indo-European.
|
Bulgarians, Hungarians and....Finish are not Turkic... They are Europeans with some Mongol/Hun ancestry. You can't deny reality. The Turkic languages are spoken in Asia only (Turkey is not in Europe either).
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 14:11 |
Originally posted by Khazar Prince
Titan, I will admit that Turkic language might not be related to Indo-European language group. But the dominant majority of Turkic people were of European in origin, and even thought these groups moved arround between the area that is now Hungary, Bulgaria and surrounding areas all the way to Mongolia, the origins are of Caucasian/European descent. Some of those groups stayed in the Asian part and became Monopolized over time, the ones that moved back to Europe show only a small % of Asiatic features. The tribes of Turkic people who lived to the south of the Turkic speaking area mixed with Arabs. The Eastern tribes mixed with Asians. And the ones in Russian Easter Europe, Hungarians, Bulgars, Chuvash, Udmurt, Khazars, Tatars, Udmurt, and Finish are white looking. Tatar, do show more Asiatic features then the other groups mentioned, but not much.
|
No person on Earth can seriously claim that Hungarians, Bulgarians and Finish are actually Turks. Perhaps you think the Greeks are also Turks
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 14:57 |
Originally posted by TITAN_
No person on Earth can seriously claim that Hungarians, Bulgarians and Finish are actually Turks. Perhaps you think the Greeks are also Turks |
Tatars had another name before they were called Tatars: Volga Bulgars Hungarians were called Magyars and are mostly closely related to Khazars, Chuvash, and Bulgars. Magyars, Udmurt, and Finish speak languages common to each other: Finno-Ugric And Magyar language is in a small way similar to Turkic language: In Uralic studies it is usually taken for granted that the uniqueness of the Finno-Ugric node, and therefore the existence of a unique Finno-Ugric fam- ily, was established in the final decades of the 19 th century using system- atic, scientific methods of analysis. This is based on supposedly compelling linguistic evidence, mainly from J. Budenz, a German linguist active in Hungary in the last decades of the 19 th century. J. Budenz is generally believed to have been the scientist who established the existence and uniqueness of the Finno-Ugric node and family beyond doubt. Much of the Uralic literature is based on this belief. However, there appears to be little discussion in the literature actually referring to the original works of J. Budenz. The purpose of this paper is to review this original work critically. As we shall see, there are two problems with the evidence put forward by J. Budenz. Firstly, although J. Budenz claims to have adopted a systematic method of analysis (based on the Comparative Method), in fact he does no such thing. For example, he does not state the phonological criteria that are adopted for establishing the correspondences, so that it is not possible to ascer- tain their validity. In fact, 81% of a significant sample of his correspondences are no longer considered valid in the modern literature. Secondly, even if J. Budenz’ conclusions had been supported by a testable method of systematic analysis, the reported evidence is in fact at variance with the modern assump- tion that the Finno-Ugric node is unique. In fact, J. Budenz recognises a signifi- cant number of Turkic / Hungarian correspondences, and concludes that some of these are indicative of a genetic relationship between Hungarian and Turkic!
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 15:26 |
Finno-Hungric is not a Turkish dialect! What are you talking about?
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
Khazar Prince
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2013
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 18
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 15:47 |
http://www.kirj.ee/public/va_lu/l37-2-1.pdf
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 16:09 |
''Tatars had another name before they were called Tatars: Volga Bulgars''
An over generalisation. That cant necessarily be viewed as the position of the Crimea-Lipka or Astrakhan-Siberian-Baraba-Dobruja. As vast majorities reject it.
It is however often found in association with Tatar/Volga Bulgar efforts as a nationalistic/nationalism identity/association effort with the Bulgar. ie. Bulgarism.
Still in contention. Versus the contention that their ancestry is Kipchak, Cumans and Mongol based.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings
Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Apr-2013 at 17:42 |
C.V,Volga is river!It is very disputed Grimm brothers history of Balkan nations&"Slavs"!Why do only Harry Potter's people fly on brooms?!?
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 03:59 |
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
Ollios
Chieftain
Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 06:51 |
I think Khazar is talking about Ural-Altaic Language Family which was very popular. In Turkey, we are still learning in this way. However, people have started to divide this family as Ural and Altaic, but now there are other theories too. Macrofamily theories have started to get important. One of the recent theory is "Eurasiatic languages" theory
Edited by Ollios - 15-Apr-2013 at 06:53
|
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 08:25 |
Eurasiatic? That's way too broad to call it a family of languages. As a matter of fact, even the Indo-European family is just too broad! Indian and Persian are very distinct and more distant to European languages.
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|
Bulldog
Caliph
Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 12:36 |
Originally posted by TITAN_
Originally posted by Khazar Prince
We are not Asians! Some Turkic tribes are Asians (predominantly, but with a heavy white genetic influence).
| TITAN
MOST Turkic tribes are Asian people. Only the Turks of Western Turkey are really close to Europeans due to the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. |
This is common belief but not the entire truth.
The vast majority of Turks are Oghuz Turks who look for the most part pretty similar and number 110-130+ million stretching a region from Northern Afghanistan to Kosovo.
By Asian if you mean Mongol it was be because the area where Turks are first believed to have come from is present day Mongolia. But Mongolia in that era was not inhabited by Mongols, the proto-Mongols Xianbei lived in Manchuria, the proto-Turks live in Western Mongolia/Central Asia - Xiongnu.
Turks are incorrectly mixed with Mongols.
Turks and Mongols are members of Altaic languages but Korean is as well
Turks show Caucasoid and Mongoloid traits
|
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Apr-2013 at 20:04 |
Originally posted by TITAN_
Eurasiatic? That's way too broad to call it a family of languages. As a matter of fact, even the Indo-European family is just too broad! Indian and Persian are very distinct and more distant to European languages. |
Yeah, if Eurasiatic was originally one language, how come I can't speak Chinese?
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
TITAN_
Baron
Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2013 at 02:44 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
Originally posted by TITAN_
Eurasiatic? That's way too broad to call it a family of languages. As a matter of fact, even the Indo-European family is just too broad! Indian and Persian are very distinct and more distant to European languages. |
Yeah, if Eurasiatic was originally one language, how come I can't speak Chinese?
|
|
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
|
|