Language/Culture of the Mughalic Court
I Support Operation Infinity Justice
1500 - 1857 AD) were the descendants of altaic speaking people such as
tamerlane and genghis khan (altaic:mongolian). to this day, there are
many loan words in india from the altaic family of languages:
paneer - from "peynir" - means cheese
duniya - from "duniye" - means world
urdu - from "ordu" - means camp, army, or horde
however, i've read that the court language of northern india at that
time spoke farsi. moreover, i heard that most of the mughalic army
were persians and/or ethnic afghanis.
why weren't there more altaic-speaking (turkic speaking) people in
india at the time, given that there were many turkish empires within
india: turkish sultanates, lodhi dynasty, and the mughals? why and
how did persian and/or pastho supplant altaic (turkic) culture,
language, and population within india at the time (assuming that *if*
persion and/or pashto supplanted altaic)? finally, given that there
has been very many turkic incursions in india, did this leave a turkic
influence on india?
Yusuf B Gursey
: i realize with 100% certainty that the mughals of india (from around
: 1500 - 1857 AD) were the descendants of altaic speaking people such as
: tamerlane and genghis khan (altaic:mongolian). to this day, there are
timur was quite turkified, though from an originally mongolian tribe (that
by the time of timur had become turkified).
during the timurids, tajiks (persian speaking) formed the bureaucracy, so
persian was used in the adminstration, alongside some turkic.
: many loan words in india from the altaic family of languages:
: paneer - from "peynir" - means cheese
: duniya - from "duniye" - means world
: urdu - from "ordu" - means camp, army, or horde
pani:r is persian for "cheese" and a lw. in turkish as peynir.
dunya: is arabic, found as a lw. in persian and many turkic languages
urdu from ordu is turkic.
: however, i've read that the court language of northern india at that
: time spoke farsi. moreover, i heard that most of the mughalic army
: were persians and/or ethnic afghanis.
: why weren't there more altaic-speaking (turkic speaking) people in
: india at the time, given that there were many turkish empires within
perhaps because india wasn't attractive enough for turkic speaking
pastoralists and nomads.
: india: turkish sultanates, lodhi dynasty, and the mughals? why and
Romanise
Is there sense 'pure' attached to the word.
Nusrat Rizvi
Urdu had little to do with the Mughals since our great Amir Khusro was
writing poetry 400 years before the Mughals arrived on the scene.
Furthermore Turkish influence on our language or culture is far too
minute to have made any inroads or difference on us.
Maurice KRAIT
I Support Operation Infinity Justice a écrit:
As far as I know, the word order in sentences in hindi is similar to the
word order in turkish, contrary to many other languages in Indic family
where the order is different.But there is no language of turkish family
spoken in India.
Maurice
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com> wrote
: Is there sense 'pure' attached to the word.
no. it means "camp" (whether the place or people associated with it).
hence also "group of tribes" or "army". english "horde" or also derives
from it.
in the context of "Urdu" it means (language of the) "(imperial) camp"
Yusuf B Gursey
: Urdu had little to do with the Mughals since our great Amir Khusro was
in terms of the name and the present form it does.
: writing poetry 400 years before the Mughals arrived on the scene.
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey
I Support Operation Infinity Justice
> perhaps because india wasn't attractive enough for turkic speaking
> pastoralists and nomads.
but was iraq or anatolia attractive enough for the altaic-speaker's?
iraq is just a desert.
also, it seems to me that people have implied that the altaic-speakers
(turks and mongols) would migrate *back* to central asia after a few
years in whatever country that they ravaged. another words, after
they altaic-speakers razed baghdad and anatolia, they went back to
central asia. this is reason why you don't see many mongolic/eastern
asian features in turkey, iraq, and india.
Yusuf B Gursey
> Yusuf B Gursey,
>
> > perhaps because india wasn't attractive enough for turkic speaking
> > pastoralists and nomads.
>
> but was iraq or anatolia attractive enough for the altaic-speaker's?
very much so. the central anatolian plateau resembles central asia
very much.
> iraq is just a desert.
hardly. portions are steppe and mesopotamia (and I might add anatolia)
is one of the cradles of the earliest agriculture. besides, only in
certain portions of iraq are turkic people concentrated. besides, a
steppe climate is what they were used to and had adapted to
culturally.
>
>
> also, it seems to me that people have implied that the altaic-speakers
> (turks and mongols) would migrate *back* to central asia after a few
> years in whatever country that they ravaged. another words, after
> they altaic-speakers razed baghdad and anatolia, they went back to
that was not the case in general. only in individual cases.
> central asia. this is reason why you don't see many mongolic/eastern
> asian features in turkey, iraq, and india.
that's because of other factors (the relatively small size of the
arriving population and in the case of anatolia its ability to
assimilate linguisitcally and culturally the native population.
David Thomas
writes:
>also IIRC "Infinite Justice" not "Infinity Justice"
A silly, unculturally-aware name to pick!
I wonder how many Arabs that pissed off?
Sleep, Fate, Death, and I sat one sunday down at tea.
Fate offered up his Ziggy mug before I poured,
Sleep yawned in his PJs, seeming mildly bored,
And Death politely asked, "Another pirouline?"
- Vae