Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

... Mongolian Turks ...

Still missing the point, aren't you?

What about Norman French which I also mentioned? What about Turkish Cypriots? ... What is your point?

I was distinguishing between present day Mongolians, that are not a party to the occupation of Cyprus, and those that now form Turkey, who very much are party to the occupation!

BTW... Have you found the reference to linguistic families in yesterday's post of mine yet, Tim?

My point is that you have no point. All you need to do is read and understand the article that you yourself have posted to see that it disproves your hypothesis that Turks are Mongols. There is no need to engage in a general discussion about language families until such time as you can provide a credible source which claims that Turkish and Mongolian belong to the same language family.

[Oracle]

... Mongolian Turks ...

Still missing the point, aren't you?

What about Norman French which I also mentioned? What about Turkish Cypriots? ... What is your point?

I was distinguishing between present day Mongolians, that are not a party to the occupation of Cyprus, and those that now form Turkey, who very much are party to the occupation!

BTW... Have you found the reference to linguistic families in yesterday's post of mine yet, Tim?

My point is that you have no point. All you need to do is read and understand the article that you yourself have posted to see that it disproves your hypothesis that Turks are Mongols. There is no need to engage in a general discussion about language families until such time as you can provide a credible source which claims that Turkish and Mongolian belong to the same language family.

Tim it seems you have lost yourself in your warped thinking.

I posted an interesting article but without a comment. Yet you decided all this, to attribute to me, as you still do:

If you actually read the article, you will see that the author is claiming (correctly) that Turkish and Mongolian languages belong to different families, but that there is evidence that they have influenced one another.

I then asked you to clarify where in the article it pointed out your claim that they had stated the two languages ("correctly") belonged to different families? Simple enough because I may have missed it, even though it was not even on my mind!

But clearly you made out I did not understand it, or had drawn an erroneous conclusion, when it was simply an interesting article drawing together the similarities, with the potential for further research.

Now, you are making quite a habit of putting words and associations into my mouth and that is not very nice, because it seems your mind is one-tracked!

Now here is the post again, either reply to that since you started this exchange, or leave me to my "pointlessness" ... please!:

Thank you growuptcs ... onwards ....

Sound Comparisons
between
Turkish and Mongolian

by
Hugjiltu
Inner Mongolia University

Concerning the sounds, grammars and lexica of Turkish and Mongolian,
there are quite a number of relations, typological similarities and af-
finities. Though the Turkish language has been considerably influenced
by Arabian, Persian and other Indo-European languages, it still keeps
the basic characteristics which the Turkic languages originally had. Un-
til now, scholars like G. J. Ramstedt, B. Y. Vladimirtsov, N. Poppe, Sir
G. Clauson, L. Ligeti, W. Kotwicz e.a. have done descriptive and com-
parative studies on the various relations existing among the Turkic and
Mongolian languages, but it has not been determined if these relations
prove the same genealogy or should just to be considered as typological
similarities. This problem can only be solved by further studying the
common properties of these languages in order to find out which are
results of mutual borrowing and which are results of mutual influence.

For the comparative study of Turkish and Mongolian we can reference the
monographs by G. J. Ramstedt, N. Poppe, P. Pelliot, G. Nemeth, Sir G.
Clauson, E. Hovdhaugen. G. Doerfer, L. V. Clark e.a. In Turkey, the com-
parative study between Turkish and Mongolian is done by native scholars
such as Prof. Ahmet Temir, Talat Tekin, Tuncer G￾lensoy, O. N. Tuna e.a.

Among the Turkic languages, Turkish is in the most western place and far
away from the Mongol Highland. Concerning its objective condition, the
opportunities for cantact with the Mongolian language are rare. During
my learning and studying of Turkish, I have unexpectedly found a great
amount of words common to both Turkish and Mongolian. Furthermore, there
are also many corresponding relations and similarities concerning sound
and grammar.

In order to explore the laws of phonetic correspondences between Turkish
and Mongolian, a lexicon gathered from a few Turkish dictionaries served
as the basis for a tentative comparison between the sounds of the
Turkish language and written Mongolian.

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~corff/im/ ... ugjilt.unx

If you actually read the article, you will see that the author is claiming (correctly) that Turkish and Mongolian languages belong to different families, but that there is evidence that they have influenced one another.

But Tim if you were to read my post, you will see I did not make any comments, but merely presented the findings as they were...

However, do please show me where the linguists concluded that Turkish and Mongolian belong to different families, as my impression is that is still up for determination:

This problem can only be solved by further studying the
common properties of these languages in order to find out which are
results of mutual borrowing and which are results of mutual influence.

You seem pretty sure they should "correctly" be placed in different families without further research.

Of notable interest is how they point out Mongolia's relative isolation (geographical), which may indicate a very close association in any probable early common ancestor between these two languages:

Concerning its objective condition, the
opportunities for contact with the Mongolian language are rare.

But the opening statement is quite defining of a need for further research:

Concerning the sounds, grammars and lexica of Turkish and Mongolian,
there are quite a number of relations, typological similarities and af-
finities.

Such extensive morphological similarities, may throw some more light towards tracing pathways of migrations.

[Oracle]

The "derogatory" feelings are in your own sick psyche, because you actually believe you are racially superior ....

I don't blame you, I blame your government for making you believe you are so special by violently cleansing other "races" from their lands and gifting them to her people. then continuing to violently up-keep those lands by shooting the original, rightful inhabitants when they stray back.

Yes the Mongolians might feel ashamed to be associated with Turks, not the other way around! ... but I do not hold the present day Mongolians responsible or in any way associated with present day Turks, and apologise to them that they are dragged into this unfortunate link when they probably hoped they had seen the last of you.

Not at all, I could not possibly EVER believe that there is such a thing as a "superior race" as we are all part of the one and only HUMAN RACE, and no different from each other.

We all fight for survival and hope to do good things for OUR RACE, generally working from relatives, friends, fellow citizens and outwards towards fellow religions and nations that share your own cause which might in return increase the survival chances of your own relatives, friends, citizens and so forth.

This is only natural and what drives evolution.

But it is bad politics mixed by the mentality you portray that make our paths cross violently and oppress others from doing what everyone wants to do. Just live, which has worse consequences.

You on the other hand, as much as you might or might not accept this, CHOOSE to separate people as opposing "races" even if we are fellow citizens of the same country and use the term Mongolian as derogatory in every given opportunity (which as a matter of fact is nothing but a sly and bitchy way of attacking, very sad) to show that some of the people on this island do not belong here.

This is no different than saying "the blacks dont belong in America or the Pakis in the UK" and it is pure racism, which is probably a crime anywhere else but here, and it should be!

Nonsensical rubbish! ... Let me help you with what you are trying to say and justify: ....

"We superior, special people, the Turks, who were spontaneously created without slurs to any associations with others, and placed in a ready made special place, just for us Turks, now deserve another bit, indeed any bits we desire, whenever we want to expand; and any new Turkish acquired territory must be made (by violent means since natives will resist) into an ethnically cleansed, racially segregated territory, presently on Cyprus, from which all GCs will be shot if they displease us!"

[Tim Drayton]

... leave me to my "pointlessness" ... please!:

By and large I am happy to do that, but the way that you try to put a gloss of respectability on the vile racist views you peddle by claiming to have a serious academic background gets on my nerves. The spuriousness of this claim is made clear by the way you handle evidence. As you correctly say, the text simply states that it is unknown whether Turkish and Mongolian belong to the same language family or not. I would suggest that in the absence of texts of sufficient antiquity in these languages, this is an untestable and therefore invalid hypothesis to begin with. However, you quote this text in support of your hypothesis that Turks ARE Mongols. It would have been easy to find a quote from a text arguing for the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian are both argued to be members. With the availability of so much material making this argument, the fact that you chose to copy and paste a quote arguing that such a common heritage has yet to be scientifically established is surely a serious gaffe on the part of one who alleges to have a serious academecic background. Even if for a moment we were to accept the hypothesis of the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian were members, this would still not prove your hypothesis. You are falling into the trap of those who summarise Darwin's theory of evolution as "man is descended from the apes", where in fact according to this theory humans and apes share a common ancestry. Similarly, if we were able to demonstrate conclusively that Turkish and Mongolian belonged to a putative Altaic language family, this would still not mean that "Turks are Mongols", or that "Mongols are Turks"; it would mean that the languages spoken by these two peoples originate from a common proto-language. Thus, even if this hypothesis which is intrinsically untestable were proven to be true, it still would not serve as evidence for the claim that Turks are Mongols. The flawed reasoning that you have demonstrated here does not appear to me to be consistent with your claim that you were a renowned scientist.

That is my only point. Be my guest, enjoy many hours of happy pointlessness.

[YFred]

... leave me to my "pointlessness" ... please!:

By and large I am happy to do that, but the way that you try to put a gloss of respectability on the vile racist views you peddle by claiming to have a serious academic background gets on my nerves. The spuriousness of this claim is made clear by the way you handle evidence. As you correctly say, the text simply states that it is unknown whether Turkish and Mongolian belong to the same language family or not. I would suggest that in the absence of texts of sufficient antiquity in these languages, this is an untestable and therefore invalid hypothesis to begin with. However, you quote this text in support of your hypothesis that Turks ARE Mongols. It would have been easy to find a quote from a text arguing for the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian are both argued to be members. With the availability of so much material making this argument, the fact that you chose to copy and paste a quote arguing that such a common heritage has yet to be scientifically established is surely a serious gaffe on the part of one who alleges to have a serious academecic background. Even if for a moment we were to accept the hypothesis of the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian were members, this would still not prove your hypothesis. You are falling into the trap of those who summarise Darwin's theory of evolution as "man is descended from the apes", where in fact according to this theory humans and apes share a common ancestry. Similarly, if we were able to demonstrate conclusively that Turkish and Mongolian belonged to a putative Altaic language family, this would still not mean that "Turks are Mongols", or that "Mongols are Turks"; it would mean that the languages spoken by these two peoples originate from a common proto-language. Thus, even if this hypothesis which is intrinsically untestable were proven to be true, it still would not serve as evidence for the claim that Turks are Mongols. The flawed reasoning that you have demonstrated here does not appear to me to be consistent with your claim that you were a renowned scientist.

That is my only point. Be my guest, enjoy many hours of happy pointlessness.

Tim, leave oracle to her broken pencilness. I learned that very early on this forum.

[Oracle]

... leave me to my "pointlessness" ... please!:

By and large I am happy to do that, but the way that you try to put a gloss of respectability on the vile racist views you peddle by claiming to have a serious academic background gets on my nerves. The spuriousness of this claim is made clear by the way you handle evidence. As you correctly say, the text simply states that it is unknown whether Turkish and Mongolian belong to the same language family or not. I would suggest that in the absence of texts of sufficient antiquity in these languages, this is an untestable and therefore invalid hypothesis to begin with. However, you quote this text in support of your hypothesis that Turks ARE Mongols. It would have been easy to find a quote from a text arguing for the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian are both argued to be members. With the availability of so much material making this argument, the fact that you chose to copy and paste a quote arguing that such a common heritage has yet to be scientifically established is surely a serious gaffe on the part of one who alleges to have a serious academecic background. Even if for a moment we were to accept the hypothesis of the existence of an Altaic language family of which Turkish and Mongolian were members, this would still not prove your hypothesis. You are falling into the trap of those who summarise Darwin's theory of evolution as "man is descended from the apes", where in fact according to this theory humans and apes share a common ancestry. Similarly, if we were able to demonstrate conclusively that Turkish and Mongolian belonged to a putative Altaic language family, this would still not mean that "Turks are Mongols", or that "Mongols are Turks"; it would mean that the languages spoken by these two peoples originate from a common proto-language. Thus, even if this hypothesis which is intrinsically untestable were proven to be true, it still would not serve as evidence for the claim that Turks are Mongols. The flawed reasoning that you have demonstrated here does not appear to me to be consistent with your claim that you were a renowned scientist.

That is my only point. Be my guest, enjoy many hours of happy pointlessness.

As you say, all the things you attribute to me, are because you perceive me as putting a "gloss" on things through being "academic".

Well that is your petty mindedness which I have experienced many times either through being female or through being Greek in an English environment. So your uncomfortableness is not news to me, or that my ability to present arguments, strikes discord with you.

As for why I presented the article .... you still don't get it!

It is a work in progress, initial interesting findings, which I posted without comment. And now you are kicking yourself for jumping in and exposing your OWN conclusions from the article. Indeed I did not need to say anything ... you have been arguing with yourself as to how similar the Mongolian and Turkish languages are.

Everyone is free to draw their own conclusion from research presented without comment. And yours were to immediately link the present day Turks with Mongols and struggle to support your view that they have nothing in common historically; not because you had any real evidence against that possibility, but jut simply because you have some warped view that finding traces of migratory routes and evidence for Man's descent into different territories, may be too damning and difficult to handle ... Or perhaps it's not the evidence that is flawed as you say, but the fact it was presented by someone who you personally do not like, because she can "gloss" (linguistically) and only white males should be allowed to do that!

You do not have to tell me about the common ancestor part ... I have no problem with common ancestors and their many branches .... I just don't like them trimmed and pruned to suit the arguments of those that want to bury the past for present day political expediency.

Historical interactions between different people left their mark in the surviving languages. Usually as similar sounding morphemes, symbols script and grammar ... which is what the article was examining between these two languages. That cannot happen without interaction unless you find lots of unrelated coincidences and prefer to base beliefs on that. I am not the one saying "Turks are Mongols"; that is what you are saying! If there are migrationary routes, evidenced by amongst other things linguistic sharing, branched from a common ancestor, why should it be ignored? So carry on purveying your dogmatic beliefs and stop all research because you want to suggest that Turks and Mongols could never have possibly met!

Since we are admitting our problems; the problem I have is with bigots like you who jump to conclusions and thwart the progress of research because it may show up something you do not like.

So remember next time, it's not what I say that bothers you, it's what spin goes on in your own mind which bothers you!

[shahmaran]

The "derogatory" feelings are in your own sick psyche, because you actually believe you are racially superior ....

I don't blame you, I blame your government for making you believe you are so special by violently cleansing other "races" from their lands and gifting them to her people. then continuing to violently up-keep those lands by shooting the original, rightful inhabitants when they stray back.

Yes the Mongolians might feel ashamed to be associated with Turks, not the other way around! ... but I do not hold the present day Mongolians responsible or in any way associated with present day Turks, and apologise to them that they are dragged into this unfortunate link when they probably hoped they had seen the last of you.

Not at all, I could not possibly EVER believe that there is such a thing as a "superior race" as we are all part of the one and only HUMAN RACE, and no different from each other.

We all fight for survival and hope to do good things for OUR RACE, generally working from relatives, friends, fellow citizens and outwards towards fellow religions and nations that share your own cause which might in return increase the survival chances of your own relatives, friends, citizens and so forth.

This is only natural and what drives evolution.

But it is bad politics mixed by the mentality you portray that make our paths cross violently and oppress others from doing what everyone wants to do. Just live, which has worse consequences.

You on the other hand, as much as you might or might not accept this, CHOOSE to separate people as opposing "races" even if we are fellow citizens of the same country and use the term Mongolian as derogatory in every given opportunity (which as a matter of fact is nothing but a sly and bitchy way of attacking, very sad) to show that some of the people on this island do not belong here.

This is no different than saying "the blacks dont belong in America or the Pakis in the UK" and it is pure racism, which is probably a crime anywhere else but here, and it should be!

Nonsensical rubbish! ... Let me help you with what you are trying to say and justify: ....

"We superior, special people, the Turks, who were spontaneously created without slurs to any associations with others, and placed in a ready made special place, just for us Turks, now deserve another bit, indeed any bits we desire, whenever we want to expand; and any new Turkish acquired territory must be made (by violent means since natives will resist) into an ethnically cleansed, racially segregated territory, presently on Cyprus, from which all GCs will be shot if they displease us!"

You can read what ever you would like to read in my words.

But if your understanding of the Cyprus problem or world history, is THIS black and white then I seriously think you are in the wrong forum.

Maybe you should stick to the Jokes and Enigmas section since it seems to be more in line with your view of the world.

[Oracle]

... But if your understanding of the Cyprus problem or world history, is THIS black and white then I seriously think you are in the wrong forum..

It's as BLACK and WHITE as your support of the racist/ethnic segregation which your foreign invasive, expansionist government has instilled in my country!

[shahmaran]

... But if your understanding of the Cyprus problem or world history, is THIS black and white then I seriously think you are in the wrong forum..

It's as BLACK and WHITE as your support of the racist/ethnic segregation which your foreign invasive, expansionist government has instilled in my country!

Not your country!

When we came 500 years ago it was not your country and it still isn't your country.

Many cultures and civilizations lived here and you are just another one of them.

You never managed to rule the island and you never will, not by your self anyway.

[Tim Drayton]

I am not the one saying "Turks are Mongols"

I have heard of denial, but this takes it to fresh limits. This is a point that you have explicitly made several times in the course of this thread. I am not even going to waste my time going back and quoting them all.