Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

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

Where have I argued such a thing? I have stated that, based purely on the linguistic evidence, the hypothesis that Turkish and Mongolian derive from the same proto-language cannot be tested given our current state of knowledge, and is thus not a valid one. They may well do so, but as the author of the passage you have quoted cautions, it is dangerous to assume that any similarities between the languages point to a common origin, particularly since it is a documented phenomenon that languages influence one another when speakers of those languages interact in shared social space. This does not amount to claiming that "they have nothing in common historically" - I am simply saying that the available evidence is insufficient to prove nor disprove the hypothesis; again anybody with a background in scientific research would understand that. Regardless of whether they are male or female, Greek or Turkish. What does that have to do with anything? You constantly drop hints as to having been a renowned scientist, a claim that I have every reason to doubt. For all I know the claims you make about your sex or nationality could be as equally mendacious. The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

The truth is that language is a cultural and not a biological phenomenon. It is passed on, not through procreation, but through the socialisation process. Linguistic similarity or differences have nothing to do with race. For example, one hundered years ago the native language of people in the Scottish highlands was Gaelic. Now it is English. Various social pressures have resulted in what is genetically the same group of people speaking a totally different language in the course of a few generations. Based purely on the synchronic linguistic evidence, one might erroneously assume that the inhabitants of the Friesan islands and the Scottish highlands were members of the same "race" because they speak a similar language. Yet we know historically that the people who now speak English in the Scottish highlands are the descendants of people who a century ago spoke Gaelic.

Incidentally, Mongolian and Turkish are not at all similar languages.

As a final thought, if the only claim you are making is that modern Turkish has its origins in a language that was once spoken in Central Asia then I have no disagreement with that.

[Oracle]

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.

Really Tim?

Your acussations come fast and thick but without evidence. Well I have bothered to do the search for you, since when I asked you to clarify the last accusation you made of me, of not reading the article properly, you went on a wild goose chase to defame me instead with a hypothesis of your own making!

Until you started accusing me of the above, you YOURSELF were the first to use the term "Turks are Mongols" .... here:

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.

Then you went on to repeat it, not once but FOUR times in your reply to me, here:

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.

BTW ... if part of your hounding is because you think I am a "renowned scientist", would you like to tell me how you formed that opinion? Really, you are a one for reputations!

Now I am happy to discuss migratory routes of different groups of people, their spawning grounds, evidence from language, culture, religion even genetic "traits", their spread and changing histories ... but not with a simple bigot like you, who has proclaimed a personal despising of me for being able to "gloss" which I take to mean, using words according to a context (since you claim to be a linguist!).

[Oracle]

... The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

I beg your pardon?

Kindly apologise right now!

Either way, I am PM-ing Admin to set you straight, because I have had enough of your continual tirade of unfounded accusations!

You have turned an otherwise interesting discussion thread into a vindictive hounding!

[Tim Drayton]

... The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

I beg your pardon?

Kindly apologise right now!

Either way, I am PM-ing Admin to set you straight, because I have had enough of your continual tirade of unfounded accusations!

You have turned an otherwise interesting discussion thread into a vindictive hounding!

Tell me why this Chinese poster did not respond to my challenge to e-mail me so that I could determine whether "he" really was positing from China.

[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.

Really Tim?

Your acussations come fast and thick but without evidence. Well I have bothered to do the search for you, since when I asked you to clarify the last accusation you made of me, of not reading the article properly, you went on a wild goose chase to defame me instead with a hypothesis of your own making!

Until you started accusing me of the above, you YOURSELF were the first to use the term "Turks are Mongols" .... here:

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.

Then you went on to repeat it, not once but FOUR times in your reply to me, here:

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.

BTW ... if part of your hounding is because you think I am a "renowned scientist", would you like to tell me how you formed that opinion? Really, you are a one for reputations!

Now I am happy to discuss migratory routes of different groups of people, their spawning grounds, evidence from language, culture, religion even genetic "traits", their spread and changing histories ... but not with a simple bigot like you, who has proclaimed a personal despising of me for being able to "gloss" which I take to mean, using words according to a context (since you claim to be a linguist!).

Not this old line of argument again. I summarise what I believe is your hypothesis with the aim of dismissing it. You quote this out of context purporting that I am making the very claim that I actually seek to dismiss. Look at what I actually said -

"your hypothesis that Turks ARE Mongols"

Note the words that precede what is highlighted in red.

Strange, this is a style of argument that the famous "Chinese" "gentleman" was also fond of using.

[denizaksulu]

Darwin fails to explain why some apes “evolved” into humans while the rest did not and are still apes!

Is it an evolution of species or an evolution of some individuals of that species? The whole theory falls flat on its face from this alone!

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Read it and all your questions will be answered.

On the other hand Creationism can not be supported with any scientific or logical arguments.

Piratis is not a chimp or a ape, he is a ROBOT. created by man

Funny you should say that, but a current hypothesis is that the highest developed form of mankind, Homo evolutis, which we are expecting to emerge any moment now, and may well be amongst us, will be an evolutionarily controlled combination of man and robot.

So if you are equating Piratis with being a thinking (since he niggles you, and you get upset by the thinking process ), feeling (since he distinguishes between right and wrong, and it bothers you) robot, you are paying him a compliment.

I wish I was robotic ....

...............are you calling Piratis a 'Mutant'? Oracle, how could you?

[Oracle]

... The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

I beg your pardon?

Kindly apologise right now!

Either way, I am PM-ing Admin to set you straight, because I have had enough of your continual tirade of unfounded accusations!

You have turned an otherwise interesting discussion thread into a vindictive hounding!

Tell me why this Chinese poster did not respond to my challenge to e-mail me so that I could determine whether "he" really was positing from China.

How should I know?

I take it I should not expect an apology; so I will resign myself to having over-estimated you once again!

I have PM'ed Admin, so hopefully he will make an appropriate post .... then I would appreciate an end to this infernal round of useless exchanges with you.

[Oracle]

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.

Really Tim?

Your acussations come fast and thick but without evidence. Well I have bothered to do the search for you, since when I asked you to clarify the last accusation you made of me, of not reading the article properly, you went on a wild goose chase to defame me instead with a hypothesis of your own making!

Until you started accusing me of the above, you YOURSELF were the first to use the term "Turks are Mongols" .... here:

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.

Then you went on to repeat it, not once but FOUR times in your reply to me, here:

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.

BTW ... if part of your hounding is because you think I am a "renowned scientist", would you like to tell me how you formed that opinion? Really, you are a one for reputations!

Now I am happy to discuss migratory routes of different groups of people, their spawning grounds, evidence from language, culture, religion even genetic "traits", their spread and changing histories ... but not with a simple bigot like you, who has proclaimed a personal despising of me for being able to "gloss" which I take to mean, using words according to a context (since you claim to be a linguist!).

Not this old line of argument again. I summarise what I believe is your hypothesis with the aim of dismissing it. You quote this out of context purporting that I am making the very claim that I actually seek to dismiss. Look at what I actually said -

"your hypothesis that Turks ARE Mongols"

Note the words that precede what is highlighted in red.

Strange, this is a style of argument that the famous "Chinese" "gentleman" was also fond of using.

Carry on making up your own "arguments" and discuss them with your Mr Hyde.

I will now accuse you of being MAD! ... !

.... and the evidence is all around this thread!

[Tim Drayton]

... The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

I beg your pardon?

Kindly apologise right now!

Either way, I am PM-ing Admin to set you straight, because I have had enough of your continual tirade of unfounded accusations!

You have turned an otherwise interesting discussion thread into a vindictive hounding!

Tell me why this Chinese poster did not respond to my challenge to e-mail me so that I could determine whether "he" really was positing from China.

How should I know?

I take it I should not expect an apology; so I will resign myself to having over-estimated you once again!

I have PM'ed Admin, so hopefully he will make an appropriate post .... then I would appreciate an end to this infernal round of useless exchanges with you.

Gosh I am SOOOO afraid. I have the guts to post under my own name and with a link to my website which includes scanned copies of some of my academic qualifications. I am being threatened by somebody who is so insecure that they need to post under multiple identities to rustle up support for themselves - remember admin once told us that you had decided to depart and closed down you accounts (plural). How pathetic is that. You can imagine ther state of petrification I am in.

[Oracle]

... The fact that you once apparently invented another persona and masqueraded on this forum as a man posting from China only add to such suspicions.

I beg your pardon?

Kindly apologise right now!

Either way, I am PM-ing Admin to set you straight, because I have had enough of your continual tirade of unfounded accusations!

You have turned an otherwise interesting discussion thread into a vindictive hounding!

Tell me why this Chinese poster did not respond to my challenge to e-mail me so that I could determine whether "he" really was positing from China.

How should I know?

I take it I should not expect an apology; so I will resign myself to having over-estimated you once again!

I have PM'ed Admin, so hopefully he will make an appropriate post .... then I would appreciate an end to this infernal round of useless exchanges with you.

Gosh I am SOOOO afraid. I have the guts to post under my own name and with a link to my website which includes scanned copies of some of my academic qualifications. I am being threatened by somebody who is so insecure that they need to post under multiple identities to rustle up support for themselves - remember admin once told us that you had decided to depart and closed down you accounts (plural). How pathetic is that. You can imagine ther state of petrification I am in.

Congratulations on your academic qualifications, of which you seem to be so proud, and I am sorry I have not had the inclination to peruse them.

I have never had to rustle support, because I do not need approval, which sadly, is all too apparent as a character flaw in your make-up.

When I had other accounts, I always disclosed them, and since they remained open, because they were part of an open display for fun, then I asked to have them all closed!

Now, I realise you are just making more attempts at accusations to keep me posting in my defence, so I shall log off until Admin makes a post to clear your false accusation, which you are not man enough to apologise for.