Combining all Turkic languages into a sin

DerDoc

Hmm it's more likely that to create a single Oghuz language.

And take that as a single language cuz they have the most speakers

+ I'm speak 2 of the dialects hehe

DerDoc

Edited by Bulldog - 03-Apr-2007 at 18:29

anybody ask u persians dialect ?
where is mod this troll must be stoped.

Iran has a different form of governance, it suits her and how a country decide to govern should be respected. There are elections in Iran and their revolution seems to have recieved popular support from the masses.

Originally posted by Bulldog ...    Most Persians and Turks are lovely people, just because one Persian attacks all Turks or one Turk attacks all Persians it doesn;t represent or give the right to respond by attacking entire countries or nations. ...

If you are talking about me:

I am not Persian, I am Hazara. And I have not attacked or insulted Turks in anyway. Saying that modern Anatolian Turks are not descendants of the original Central Asian Turks is not an insult, it is a scientific fact even if some people do not want to accept it. I am a native Persian-speaker, but I do not have to deny my original Mongolian descent. Hazaras are originally a Mongolian people who have adopted the Persian language. That's fact and not an insult.

I do not care if people feel better by attacking Persians, Hazaras, Armenians, Kurds, or whatever. It still won't change the truth.

The Persians and the Persian literary culture do not need my words to defend themselvs, the same way decades of Turkish linguistic dominance in Anatolia do not need your words to defend themselvs.

Persian is the language that gave birth to some of the worlds best and most exclusive literary works and figures, and it is one of the very few languages that deserve to be called "lingua franca" and "language of literature". Persian is the language of Hafiz, Rumi, Saadi, and Ferdousi. The same way, the modern Turkish language gave birth to literary giants such as Orhan Pamuk. Turkish is the language of great poets, such as Fuzuli or Yonus Emre. None of these peoples - be they Turkish-speakers, Persian-speakers, or whatever - need you or me to defend their glories and acheievements.

But if YOU or anyone else feel insulted by the simple scientific FACT that modern Turks have nothing to do with the historical Central Asian Turks except for linguistic factors, then it's your problem.

African-Americans do not become "descendants of Germanic warriors" only because they have adopted a Germanic language. Mexicans and South Americans do not become "descendants of Roman and Spanish conquerors" only because they have adopted a Romanic language. Hazaras do not become "descendants of Persian kings and scholars" only because they have adoted the Persian language. And Anatolian Turks do not become "Central Asian warriors" only because they have adopted a Turkic language. Modern Turks are as much alien to the ancient Central Asian Turks as modern Hazaras to the ancient Persian kings or modern African-Americans to Anglo-Saxon conquerors.

None of this is an insult ... it's simply the truth. Only people with minority-complexes feel insulted. Turkish is a beautiful language and Turkey is - despie all controversies - a beautiful nation. You do not have to propagate romantic nationalism and ethno-fascism in order to be what you are. I admire Orhan Pamuk, because he is one of the very few who stand up against the nationalistic propaganda of certain forces in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk's works will still be excellent even if we all accept the fact that he has nothing to do with historical Central Asian Turks. The same way, Sultan Suleiman of the Ottoman dynasty will still remain one of the famous Persian poets (known for his Div�n), although he was not an ethnic Persian.  His Ottoman Turkish ancestry does not change anything about his beautiful Persian poetry!


Edited by DerDoc - 04-Apr-2007 at 11:03

Originally posted by DerDoc Turkic languages are - like all language families - not "one language". The difference between Uzbek (which belongs to the Chaghatay group) and modern Anatolian Turkish (which belongs to the Oghuz group) is bigger than between German and Dutch.

Not that big, if the alfabet was the same as Turkish i bet i would understand 70% of what is being said on their texts, also Uzbek has 2 dialects => Karluk and Xorazm Oguz (which is much more closer to anatolian Turkish).

I can speak and write Dutch, i can read German (which isnt that tough) but for understanding whats actually written in German i need to study German or must have medium knowledge about that language.

Saying that all Turkic languages are "one language" is like saying that "all Germanic languages are one language with different dialects". Fact is, that a Turkish-speaker does not understand Uzbek or Kyrgiz (the same way a German does not understand English or Danish).

Why do you look at a much bigger perspective? Look at the history of those languages, did the English-man understand what a German said 500 years ago? I highly bet no but that's NOT the case by Turkic dialects.
Ottoman didnt used Russian or English to communicate with other Turkic peoples, they mostly used Turkish.

ANd also you dont know that the soviet's did supported small local dialects as a national language of those Turkic country's and did go further by giving them other kind of cyrilic alphabets.

Yet, certain groups within a language family have strong similarities, and people might understand each other. The Oghuz languages are all dielects of the same language, the same way Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are dialects of the same Scandinavian language. Yet, Scandinavian and English are not "dialects of High German" - the same way Uzbek and Qazaq are not dielcts of Turkish.

They are all under Turkic dialects,

Persian - for example - has a dozen of different dialects, and the language has different names in different regions: Farsi, Dari, Tajik, Hazaragi, etc etc etc. Yet, these are all local dialects of the same language, and the written standard is the same in all regions. Luri, for example, is closely related to Persian (the same way Azeri is closely related to Turkish), and a it's not different for a Persian or a Luri to understand each other, but Luri is still sometimes classified as a different language, though some scholars categorize it as a dialect of Persian. Kurdish, on the other hand, through having the same root as Persian, is a totally different language. The difference between Kurdish, Persian, and Pashto is as big as between Turkish, Uzbek, and Yakut.

Look DerDoc for comparing Turkish - Uzbek and Yakut you must know those languages or dialects. I assume you know Persian and have heard of Pashto and Kurdish dialects, the what you understan from a big text written in those two languages is almost zero, but what i understand of Uzbek is much more then you imagined. After i've read some Uzbek texts i can see some differences such as in Turkish "f" changes to "p" in Uzbek, "v" to "b" etc and that's all.

Why should people be interested to unite different languages under one language, even claiming that "one dialect is superior to another one". Believe me: an Uzbek would never accept the claim that "Turkish is more developed than Uzbek". After all, Uzbek the rightful successor of Chaghatay Turkish, the first literary Turkic dialect and the language of Navai and Babur.

we do also belong in that "chagatay" Turkish but that classification is now outdated. Ottomans did understand what navoi (Suleiman the magnificent had a copy of his works in his personnal libary) and babur wrote and did say, why we couldnt understand that right now? Btw i heard from an Uzbek friend that the original works of Alisher navoi is been translated to the "national" Uzbek dialect. IIRC Navoi was from Xorazm region, Xorazm Oguz dialect was the official language of the Uzbeks then, now it's somehow changed from Xorazm to another local small dialect.

And by saying Turkey's Turkish is more developped I meand that language remained independent and as the only officiall language of Turkey for a long period, CA and Azerbaijani didnt. They use many unnessesary Russian words which can be easily replaced by Turkish words.

Why should a Pashtun accept the alledged superiority of Persian?! This is as stupid as the claim of Muslim fundamentalists to unite the entire Islamic world under the Arabic-Muslim identity and language.

Pashtun accepting "superioty" of Persian is whole different thing, youre mixing apple's with peers.

And that "unitinng Islamic world under arabic-muslim identity" is arabic chauvinism and does exist for a long period. It's interesting topic but it doesnt belong in here, open a topic about and i can tell you more about this.

As for the EU: the European union has more than 20 official languages, and every politician is allowed to speak in his own language (using translators). The EU does not even have a national anthem - their national anthem is only a melody composed by Beethoven. It has no text

Good, in Belgium we dont learn those 20 official languages but English and French (german is an option).

The case in Turkey and Iran, for example, is totally different. In Iran, the large Turkic-speaking minority is oppressed and not allowed to use Azeri-Turkish (ironically, the leaders of Iran are Azeris themselvs). In Turkey, using Kurdish or some other language is also strictly prohibitted. Using another language than Turkish in parliament will be punished.

Using Kurdish is ok but promoting someones flag who is responsible for killing more then 35 thousand people is (now it WAS) strictly prohibited.

Originally posted by The Hidden Face So DayI, you are saying to us that you would understand %70 of Ozbek texts in Latin in forum.arbuz.com?

Yes if we used the same latin script, the one they use now is confusing.

So you can understand %80 or higher of Uygur, then?