Etymology of Turkish numerals
Bán Csaba
The existence of "yirmi", "otuz", kirk" and "elli" in Turkish, meaning 20,
30, 40 and 50, respectively. Is there any "official" explanation to this?
Also, why 60 and 70 are formed with a -mis/mis suffix, and 80 and 90 are
formed with a -sen/san suffix?
My very vague assumption is that there might have been an ancient
sexagesimal (60-based) numerical system, similar to the one used in ancient
Babilonia (cf: 60 minutes to the hour, 360 degrees to the circle, etc.).
Any ideas?
Csaba Ban,
Hungary
PS sorry, I cannot reproduce the "i" without the dot
Yusuf B Gursey
: This has been puzzling me for a long time:
: The existence of "yirmi", "otuz", kirk" and "elli" in Turkish, meaning 20,
"elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig , in some turkish
speech habits and other turkic languages the intervocalic consonants of
numbers are duplicated, -g drops off in oghuz languages like turkish)
20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
the alphabet change).
: 30, 40 and 50, respectively. Is there any "official" explanation to this?
: Also, why 60 and 70 are formed with a -mis/mis suffix, and 80 and 90 are
-mi*sh* seems to be an uralic (so presumabely an archaic loan) word for
"ten".
: formed with a -sen/san suffix?
the "suffix" is -en / -an (the the -s is just the -z of the original
digits), which is just a sound harmonicized "on" meaning "ten"
(there are some kansu or south siberian turkic langauges that don;t use
the -mi*sh* suffix but use -on / -an etc. throughout (also some that even
use it for the others!)
one notices in the digits 6 and 7 have similar endings (altI and yedi)
and 8 and 9 have similar endings (sekiz and dokuz). so a similar pattern
is for the tens.
: My very vague assumption is that there might have been an ancient
: sexagesimal (60-based) numerical system, similar to the one used in ancient
: Babilonia (cf: 60 minutes to the hour, 360 degrees to the circle, etc.).
: Any ideas?
I don't see that in turkic (apparently old karachay had adopted a system
similar to the french i.e. 80 = 4 X 20, apparently borrowed form
neighboring caucasian languages, which was sexigesimal, but modern
karachay has reverted back to the turkic system).
some have specualted on ana ancient 50 based system, since up to and
including 50 the names are inovative, 60, 70, 80, 90 are multiplicative.
the old turkic versions of these numbers are similar to turkish, except fo
rminor sound changes unergone by turkish.
: Csaba Ban,
: Hungary
: PS sorry, I cannot reproduce the "i" without the dot
I write it in capitlas, for ASCII purposes.
Nigel Greenwood
>
> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
> the alphabet change).
Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
connection with Dört & Üç.
Nigel
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
:>
:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
presumably.
"5" is be*sh* , in chuvash is pilek (l ~ *sh* is regular between common
turkic and chuvash), miller ("jap. and the other altaic languages) has
noted the resemblance with bilek ("wrist" but also "hand" in archaic
turkic).
:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:> the alphabet change).
: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
: of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
: connection with Dört & Üç.
there is no obvious etymology for these terms and cognates among "altaic
languages" (if you believe in the theory) for numbers are hard to come by
(which is an argument against the theory).
100 is yu"z is homophonous with "face" (even with archaic vowel length).
yu"z meaning "face" comes from *nu":r' (mongolian nu":r), it is
not clear which proto-phoneme represents the initial y- of yu"z "100"
one might of course find speculations about these, but very few represent
something conclusive.
: Nigel
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
:>
:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:> the alphabet change).
: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
eren discusses it in his etymological dictionary.
the only speculation (ramsted & nemeth) is that it is is formed by < iki >
"2" and mongolian < arban > "10". nevertheless there is no known form of
iki (or ikki) as yigi . the intial y- in "20" is very old as evidenced by
chuvash s'irem and yakut su":rbe (regular correspondences of common
turkic y-).
iki "2" is related to < ikiz > "twin" in mongolian ikir (i.e. this is old
as well, many see an uralic dual or plural -k)
-z ( <*r') is an archaic suffix found in many collectives.
: of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
: connection with Dört & Üç.
"30" : mahmud al-kashgari (11th cent. lexicograher) says otuz means
"thrice" in the old turkic language of the ya*gh*ma .
also some people speculated invoking korean (po-t-tari "a bundle") etc.
"40" : eren doesn't mention any speculation (except an attempt to connect
it with "do"rt - don't ask me how - whcih he rejects out of hand). I
notice a superficial resemblance with kIrIk "broken", but that is all one
can say on this score.
the qIr*gh*Iz were in old turkic called qIrqIz , i.e. 40 + -z (collective)
i.e. "the 40 tribes" (such nomenclature is common in odl and middle
turkic, also seen among mongols).
: Nigel
Bán Csaba
Yes, my main point was twofold: (1) why there are separate names of numerals
20,30,40,50 (but from 60 up they are linked to 6 and up). (2) the etymology
of the actual words yirmi, otuz, kirk and elli.
The collective suffix -z seems convincing in otuz, sekiz and dokuz (so it
seems that the speculative stems sek- and dok- receive one kind of suffix to
form to mean 8 and 9, and another suffix to mean 80 and 90).
As a native speaker of another Ural-Altaic language (namely Hungarian), I
have to tell you that are some (very vague) similarities between Hungarian
and Turkish numerals. 1-5 are vaguely related to Finnish. There is a
temptation to compare 6 (hat) and 7 (hét) with alti and yedi in Turkish. 8
(nyolc) and 9 (kilenc) are not similar to Turkish, but they both share a -c
ending, which may be linked to the above-mentioned -z suffix in Turkish.
The tens: 20 (húsz) has its own form, not related to 2 (ketto / két). 30
(harminc) has the same -c ending, added to a stem resembling 3 (három). From
40 upwards, tens follow a regular pattern (4-40: négy-negyven, 5-50:
öt-ötven, 6-60: hat-hatvan, 7-70: hét-hetven, 8-80: nyolc-nyolcvan, 9-90:
kilenc-kilencven). Actually, the -van/ven suffix is said to derive from the
Turkic "on".
100 (száz) and 1000 (ezer) are taken from one of the Iranian languages
BTW, "twin" is "iker" in Hungarian.
Turkish 40 / "kirgyz": The story I heard was about forty girls or maidens
(kirk kiz), but kirk+z sounds more convincing to me. Anyway, when I
travelled in Kyrgyzstan last year, in many places I saw a genealogical "map"
of the 40 kyrgyz tribes, and most people actually still know and care about
which of the 40 tribes they belong to.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Thank you for your commentsd so far.
: Yes, my main point was twofold: (1) why there are separate names of numerals
: 20,30,40,50 (but from 60 up they are linked to 6 and up). (2) the etymology
: of the actual words yirmi, otuz, kirk and elli.
there is only a definite consensus on < elli >.
: The collective suffix -z seems convincing in otuz, sekiz and dokuz (so it
: seems that the speculative stems sek- and dok- receive one kind of suffix to
: form to mean 8 and 9, and another suffix to mean 80 and 90).
: As a native speaker of another Ural-Altaic language (namely Hungarian), I
: have to tell you that are some (very vague) similarities between Hungarian
: and Turkish numerals. 1-5 are vaguely related to Finnish. There is a
: temptation to compare 6 (hat) and 7 (hét) with alti and yedi in Turkish. 8
: (nyolc) and 9 (kilenc) are not similar to Turkish, but they both share a -c
: ending, which may be linked to the above-mentioned -z suffix in Turkish.
that's tricky. sinor has an article on plurals in uralic and altaic.
mongoolian has an -s plural and an -r plural. turkic has no -s after the
first syllable. normally the origin of turkic z is *r' . it depends on how
you feel about the origin of the suffix.
: The tens: 20 (húsz) has its own form, not related to 2 (ketto / két). 30
"long-rangers" would note the presence of < k > for "2".
: (harminc) has the same -c ending, added to a stem resembling 3 (három). From
: 40 upwards, tens follow a regular pattern (4-40: négy-negyven, 5-50:
: öt-ötven, 6-60: hat-hatvan, 7-70: hét-hetven, 8-80: nyolc-nyolcvan, 9-90:
: kilenc-kilencven). Actually, the -van/ven suffix is said to derive from the
: Turkic "on".
< van > would be an expected development from < on > in the bulghar turkic
that hungarian massivley borrowed from.
: 100 (száz) and 1000 (ezer) are taken from one of the Iranian languages
: BTW, "twin" is "iker" in Hungarian.
again a regular correspondence to the same language
: Turkish 40 / "kirgyz": The story I heard was about forty girls or maidens
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>"B?n Csaba" <ban....@chello.hu> wrote:
>: This has been puzzling me for a long time:
>: The existence of "yirmi", "otuz", kirk" and "elli" in Turkish, meaning 20,
>
>
>"elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig , in some turkish
>speech habits and other turkic languages the intervocalic consonants of
>numbers are duplicated, -g drops off in oghuz languages like turkish)
>
>20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
>the alphabet change).
>
This seems to derive from "to gather [up]" e.g. referring to gathering
up all the
digits. It shows up clearly as cIy-Ir-ma e.g. c-Turkic version of
y-Turkic yIG-Ir-ma.
Such constructions include: cumduruk (cum-dur-uk) (fist) roughly
etymologizable
as "close-causative-nounSuffix) e.g. that which arises from causing [the
fingers/hand]
to close.
>: 30, 40 and 50, respectively. Is there any "official" explanation to this?
>: Also, why 60 and 70 are formed with a -mis/mis suffix, and 80 and 90 are
>
>-mi*sh* seems to be an uralic (so presumabely an archaic loan) word for
>"ten".
>
>: formed with a -sen/san suffix?
>
The suffix is not -sen, -san, but -on (ten) e.g. sekiz-on (eight-ten),
and tokuz-on (nine-ten).
Assimilation produced seksen, and doksan.
Even more interesting is that 30-60 is irregular, then two regularities
start
i..e on, yirmi, otuz, kIrk, elli, altmIsh.
Then yetmish (e.g. altmIsh, yetmish), then switches to seksen, doksan.
>
>: My very vague assumption is that there might have been an ancient
>: sexagesimal (60-based) numerical system, similar to the one used in ancient
>: Babilonia (cf: 60 minutes to the hour, 360 degrees to the circle, etc.).
>: Any ideas?
>
Yes. I posted this long time ago. It is irregular up to 60. Then starts
to get some regularity.
>
>I don't see that in turkic (apparently old karachay had adopted a system
>similar to the french i.e. 80 = 4 X 20, apparently borrowed form
>neighboring caucasian languages, which was sexigesimal, but modern
>karachay has reverted back to the turkic system).
>
Lots of languages have traces of counting in 20s. It points to the fact
that numbering
systems arose slowly making use of technology that was available.
English "digit" comes from Latin meaning "finger". e.g. for counting.
"Calculus":
comes from "pebble" used in counting. The famous speech "Four score and
seven
years ago..." obviously counts in 20s.
It is easy to see why. People did not have much to count, a cow or two,
a few
chickens. If they had to count bigger numbers, they used their fingers.
Then they
went to their toes or the fingers of the other guy.
If the number got bigger than 40 (both hands of two people talking) it
came to
mean "big number". The number 40 shows up in that context in the Mideast;
Ali Baba and 40 Thieves, 40 years in the desert.
The Babylonian system was natural for those who had barely started to do
arithmetic. They chose 60 because they could represent many smaller integers
as fractions e.g. 1/20, 1/15, 1/12, 1/10, .....1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2.
The concept of division as we know it probably arose out of such early
attempts.
>
>some have specualted on ana ancient 50 based system, since up to and
>including 50 the names are inovative, 60, 70, 80, 90 are multiplicative.
>
That is another way of saying it. 10-50 are innovative. The others
started off some kind
of regularizing.
Indeed if you look carefully, the integer 7 (bone of contention betwen
Semiticists and
IEanists) has a crystal clear etymology in Turkic. It might be
preserving an ancient
idea. In Azeri it is "yetti" (enough, sufficient, end).
H.M. Hubey
Nigel Greenwood wrote:
KIrk is hard to etymologize. But otuz may be contracted form derived
from "oz" (to pass, to
surpass). It could be like the small integers that are constructed in
many languages with the
construction "one-past-X" e.g. "one-more-than-X". Diakanoff thinks
something similar can
be found in Sumerian small integers.
It seems like KIrk should refer to "two people" e.g. two-twenties. It is
possible to forcefully
create one by assuming it was of form "IkIrIk" (like two). The word for
two varies between
iki, eki, IkI. So IkI (could be tw) and the suffix -rak is used in
Turkic for "resembling".
>
>
>Nigel
>
>
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>Nigel Greenwood <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
>
>:>
>:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
>
>: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
>
>presumably.
>
>"5" is be*sh* , in chuvash is pilek (l ~ *sh* is regular between common
>turkic and chuvash), miller ("jap. and the other altaic languages) has
>noted the resemblance with bilek ("wrist" but also "hand" in archaic
>turkic).
>
And that is a good reason to assume that Chuvash did not arise from
Common Turkic by the
change sh >l "in historical times" but that it is a more archaic form
of Turkic.
But it is difficult to talk reason and logic to Turkologists who get
their cues from
historians and make the facts fit the historians' view.
>
>
>:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
>:> the alphabet change).
>
>: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
>: of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
>: connection with D?rt & ??.
>
>there is no obvious etymology for these terms and cognates among "altaic
>languages" (if you believe in the theory) for numbers are hard to come by
>(which is an argument against the theory).
>
>100 is yu"z is homophonous with "face" (even with archaic vowel length).
>yu"z meaning "face" comes from *nu":r' (mongolian nu":r), it is
>not clear which proto-phoneme represents the initial y- of yu"z "100"
>
>
It is also homophonnous with "to swim" and likely related to "to walk"
and "foot".
Notice yu"z = hundred, to swim
yu"ru" = to walk
ura = foot (Chuvash)
du = to walk (Sumerian)
What is likely is that the earliest Turkic verbal suffixes were -rV,
-nV, and -lV. Today
it is -lV, but a smattering of the others exist e.g. oyna, kayna, ku"re,
kura, etc.
The Turkic initial c/y comes from an earlier *d according to Doerfer.
That means that
Turkic yUrU/cUrU were really yU-re/cU-re. That makes the root *du.
But they could go back to an even earlier word.
Back in the ancient mideast there was a sound *D (never mind what it was
exactly). But these
sound changes took place *D--> {r,z,y}.
[Complicating the scene is the existence of another *T --> {l,s/sh,w}}
The root word *paD gave rise to today's common Turkic bar (to go),
Hittie pai (to go), and
among others but (leg), Turkish baldir (thigh).
(This root sometimes gets confused with or is co-derived from *bu (to
grow)). This also
shows up as miya, or mai in Hittite and mu in Sumerian, and bi, or bu"
in Turkic e.g.
bit, bitki, bu"t.... so on. For example, it is hard to tell if buta (to
prune branches) comes from
butak (branch of a tree) and if butak comes from but (leg) or from *bu
(to grow). Words like
neck (boyun), and horn (boynuz) seem to be related to "growth", but then
a "leg" can also
be related to "growth". )
There was likely a protoTurkic *paDak, which gave rise to aDak
(attested) and which
now shows up in common Turkic as ayak. It shows up in Chuvash as ura (foot).
Obvious Latin ped, and English foot seem easily related.
It shows up as PADANU (road) in Akkadian. (see below for morphology).
Turkic nouns end often in -Vn or -Vk. Both of these can be traced back
to an
original *-ng. Thus *ng > n and *ng > g. There was yet another
morphological
characteristic in which sometimes a vowel was added to produce a -gV suffix
("venerable old Turkic suffix" Clauson). Thus there are words in Turkic
such as
karanggu (dark), or karantxa. The -gV also shows up as -kV or -xV. It
is easy
to see that *padanngu takes care of these.
There are many hundreds of such words.
Venneman is still trying to find a word or two in Germanic from Semitic.
.
Here are two more: path (see above), paddle, bud (e.g. flowers)
Thousands of these will be found in the next few years.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>Nigel Greenwood <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
>
>:>
>:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
>
>: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
>
>
>:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
>:> the alphabet change).
>
>: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
>
>eren discusses it in his etymological dictionary.
>
>the only speculation (ramsted & nemeth) is that it is is formed by < iki >
>"2" and mongolian < arban > "10". nevertheless there is no known form of
>iki (or ikki) as yigi . the intial y- in "20" is very old as evidenced by
>chuvash s'irem and yakut su":rbe (regular correspondences of common
>turkic y-).
>
>iki "2" is related to < ikiz > "twin" in mongolian ikir (i.e. this is old
>as well, many see an uralic dual or plural -k)
>
This reminds me of this bogus philosophical question "If a tree falls in
a forest and
nobody hears it, did it make a sound".
Yusuf is a friend of mine, but his view of linguistics resembles that
of above.
If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
seen" I mean
nobody has seen it, written it up, got it past some ding-a-ling (who
also thinks that if
it was not already published in another ding-a-ling journal it does not
exist), and
got it published. OTOH, if it could be found in some 400 year old
dictionary written
by someone who today would know as much about the world as a 7th grade
dropout
then it must be true.
I already gave you the etymology of 20.
It is attested e.g. cIy-Ir-ma and it is constructed just like cum-dur-uk.
>
>
H.M. Hubey
Bán Csaba wrote:
>Thank you for your commentsd so far.
>
>Yes, my main point was twofold: (1) why there are separate names of numerals
>20,30,40,50 (but from 60 up they are linked to 6 and up). (2) the etymology
>of the actual words yirmi, otuz, kirk and elli.
>
A quick summary (my view);
20 is easy. It is attested cIyIrma.
30 is likely from "past [20]" e.g. the root "oz" which likely had a
different form earlier
e.g. *T which gave rise to > s>sh>ch (uch) and also otuz.
40 from two peoples hands (see below)
50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
from which
bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
gave rise
to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
the same
loss of the initial consonant in Chuvash ura and Turkic yUrU, etc.
>
>The collective suffix -z seems convincing in otuz, sekiz and dokuz (so it
>seems that the speculative stems sek- and dok- receive one kind of suffix to
>form to mean 8 and 9, and another suffix to mean 80 and 90).
>
>As a native speaker of another Ural-Altaic language (namely Hungarian), I
>have to tell you that are some (very vague) similarities between Hungarian
>and Turkish numerals. 1-5 are vaguely related to Finnish. There is a
>temptation to compare 6 (hat) and 7 (hét) with alti and yedi in Turkish. 8
>(nyolc) and 9 (kilenc) are not similar to Turkish, but they both share a -c
>ending, which may be linked to the above-mentioned -z suffix in Turkish.
>
Here is where Yusuf's memory will fail. I've already discussed this with
him N times where
N is quite large. It also relates to *D (which might have had /dl/ e.g.
alcaldi (this is to jog
Yusuf's memory :-)))
But here is where you can clearly see *T (which might have in it /tl/
and which changed to
/lt/ (e.g. alti)). You can see its results in Hungarian hat vs Turkic altI.
>
>The tens: 20 (húsz) has its own form, not related to 2 (ketto / két). 30
>(harminc) has the same -c ending, added to a stem resembling 3 (három).
>
Hungarian h (e.g. hamori) seems to come (at least in the initial
position), along with Hittite H (e.g.
Hapalki), and Turkic t (temir) from a *T. But this is still weak and I
won't argue this until
I have much more evidence.
You can see this in:
Atun/Aten (as in Atenakhen)
athar
adhar
azar
pa-aHHur
atro (Atropatis)
(Ahura Mazda has the h like Hittite H).
Of course these are with suffixes. The consonant cluster in Greek
ATropatis was created by Greek.,
The root is
Sumerian ut
Turkic ot
Ghadamsi Berber ofa:
Combined with Hittite fricative H, and Berber ofa: it looks like the
original root had a *T.
One can see this in English "oven" with the required -Vn suffix, just
like "kiln" (which is
shows up in Akkadian "kilin" (heat). Many dozens of related words can be
found
immediately. But all this breaks up the wonderful family tree hierarchy
produced by a
simple heuristic.
> From
>40 upwards, tens follow a regular pattern (4-40: négy-negyven, 5-50:
>öt-ötven, 6-60: hat-hatvan, 7-70: hét-hetven, 8-80: nyolc-nyolcvan, 9-90:
>kilenc-kilencven). Actually, the -van/ven suffix is said to derive from the
>Turkic "on".
>
>100 (száz) and 1000 (ezer) are taken from one of the Iranian languages
>
>BTW, "twin" is "iker" in Hungarian.
>
It must be from Bolgaric branch of Turkic. This could be the root of 40.
There are -k suffixes which are inexplicable in Turkic except via
assimilation.
e.g. tok (ful, satiated) : *toluk --> *tolk --> tok; tik (steep):
*tirik > tirk > tik
Then there is another set but with verbs:
kork (to fear) : *koru-et
kalk (to rise) : kalI-et (kali=high (Clauson), Sumerian gal)
There are others but I don't have my notes.
These are formed with Turkic verb et (to do) which in Chuvash is tu
(e.g. almost
like English do). But this can be found all the way back in Akkadian as
"ep" (to do).
The -Vt can also be a plural.
So kIrk can be from *IkIr-et > *IkIr-ek > ..... kIrk
This would be consistent with the meaning as "two persons [hands]",
or as I wrote earlier "resembling two" or "two-like".
>
>Turkish 40 / "kirgyz": The story I heard was about forty girls or maidens
>(kirk kiz), but kirk+z sounds more convincing to me.
>
I think it is reduplicated kir-kiz (red). It refers to the red-haired
Europoids who mixed with
Mongoloids to form the modern Kyrgyz.
Yusuf B Gursey
: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
not just likely, it actually is.
: from which
: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
: gave rise
: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
(h- is also can be deduced from a old tibetan text, but this is on less
solid ground.
: the same
: loss of the initial consonant in Chuvash ura and Turkic yUrU, etc.
relationship between yUrU= "to walk" is not accepted.
: Here is where Yusuf's memory will fail. I've already discussed this with
memory is not the problem.
: him N times where
:>
:>
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
: This reminds me of this bogus philosophical question "If a tree falls in
: a forest and
: nobody hears it, did it make a sound".
: Yusuf is a friend of mine, but his view of linguistics resembles that
: of above.
: If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
: seen" I mean
I didn't say it has no etymology, I said they have no "obvious" etymology
(like based on known grammar, old or current) or that they have no
"established" etymology, which means having appeared in journals , books,
dictionaries etc. - like it or not. the query was what the "official"
etymology was, and that means either one of the categories I mentioned.
Peter T. Daniels
> : Yusuf is a friend of mine,
Is Hubey a friend of yours?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
>
>not just likely, it actually is.
>
>: from which
>: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
>: gave rise
>: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
>
>
>khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
>
How can you be sure it comes from *padha:q .
I think Turkic suffixes -VgV, -Vg/k, and -Vn come from an original
-Vng. The -Vn suffixes
also show up in variant forms as -Vm, and -Vr. This r/n alternation can
also be seen in
Sanskrit. The -Vn, -Vm, and -Vr suffixes can be found all the way back
in Akkadian.
>
>(h- is also can be deduced from a old tibetan text, but this is on less
>solid ground.
>
>: the same
>: loss of the initial consonant in Chuvash ura and Turkic yUrU, etc.
>
>relationship between yUrU= "to walk" is not accepted.
>
>
>: Here is where Yusuf's memory will fail. I've already discussed this with
>
>memory is not the problem.
>
>: him N times where
>: N is quite large. It also relates to *D (which might have had /dl/ e.g.
>: alcaldi (this is to jog
>: Yusuf's memory :-)))
>
>: But here is where you can clearly see *T (which might have in it /tl/
>: and which changed to
>: /lt/ (e.g. alti)). You can see its results in Hungarian hat vs Turkic altI.
>
>:>
>:>The tens: 20 (h?sz) has its own form, not related to 2 (ketto / k?t). 30
>:>(harminc) has the same -c ending, added to a stem resembling 3 (h?rom).
>:>40 upwards, tens follow a regular pattern (4-40: n?gy-negyven, 5-50:
>:>?t-?tven, 6-60: hat-hatvan, 7-70: h?t-hetven, 8-80: nyolc-nyolcvan, 9-90:
>:>kilenc-kilencven). Actually, the -van/ven suffix is said to derive from the
>:>Turkic "on".
>:>
>:>100 (sz?z) and 1000 (ezer) are taken from one of the Iranian languages
Yusuf B Gursey
:> : Yusuf is a friend of mine,
: Is Hubey a friend of yours?
yes.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:>: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
:>
:>not just likely, it actually is.
:>
:>: from which
:>: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
:>: gave rise
:>: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
:>
:>
:>khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
:>
: How can you be sure it comes from *padha:q .
: I think Turkic suffixes -VgV, -Vg/k, and -Vn come from an original
: -Vng. The -Vn suffixes
becasue as you say "turkic suffixes". their origin is in the realm of
"pre-turkic" (like the dicussion of proto-semitic and pre-proto-semitic
before)
mb
sound".
> If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
> seen" I mean
There is a general law of physics that connect a fallen tree with a
past sound. There is no documented use, known regularities or
_obvious_ counting systems to make the same kind of connection between
your farfetched speculations on yigirmi or kIrk. You still need to
make that connection to go from folk etymology to etymology. As an
example, elli[g/k] has a certain probability because of the clearly
decimal basic system connecting to a handful of tens, the regular
construction and the various correspondences.
Yusuf B Gursey
H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>Nigel Greenwood <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:>: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
:>
:>:>
:>:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
:>
:>: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
:>
:>presumably.
:>
:>"5" is be*sh* , in chuvash is pilek (l ~ *sh* is regular between common
:>turkic and chuvash), miller ("jap. and the other altaic languages) has
:>noted the resemblance with bilek ("wrist" but also "hand" in archaic
:>turkic).
:>
: And that is a good reason to assume that Chuvash did not arise from
: Common Turkic by the
: change sh >l "in historical times" but that it is a more archaic form
: of Turkic.
nobody said anything to the contrary, as long by "historical times" "the
period of written turkic" is understood. though chuvash itself is a recent
survivor of the bulgharic group.
: But it is difficult to talk reason and logic to Turkologists who get
: their cues from
: historians and make the facts fit the historians' view.
:>
:>
:>:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:>:> the alphabet change).
:>
:>: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
:>: of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
:>: connection with D?rt & ??.
:>
:>there is no obvious etymology for these terms and cognates among "altaic
:>languages" (if you believe in the theory) for numbers are hard to come by
:>(which is an argument against the theory).
:>
:>100 is yu"z is homophonous with "face" (even with archaic vowel length).
:>yu"z meaning "face" comes from *nu":r' (mongolian nu":r), it is
:>not clear which proto-phoneme represents the initial y- of yu"z "100"
:>
:>
: It is also homophonnous with "to swim" and likely related to "to walk"
: and "foot".
: Notice yu"z = hundred, to swim
verbal stems are more often than not unrelated to nomianl stems in turkic
(unless there is a specific denominal or deverbal suffix).
: yu"ru" = to walk
: ura = foot (Chuvash)
: du = to walk (Sumerian)
: ...
: The Turkic initial c/y comes from an earlier *d according to Doerfer.
(by c- he means *dj*-)
doerfer only claimed, as everybiody else does, that *certain* initial y-
came from *d- . khalaj is practically unique (and this is the passage of
doerfer you refer to, in his book on khalaj) in that *n-, *y- appear as y-
and *d'- and *c- appear as dervatives of c- . other turkic langauegs have
generalized this as one or the other.
: That means that
: Turkic yUrU/cUrU were really yU-re/cU-re. That makes the root *du.
if it checks out with other things.
Yusuf B Gursey
: "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
: sound".
: ...
:> If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
:> seen" I mean
: etc.
: There is a general law of physics that connect a fallen tree with a
: past sound. There is no documented use, known regularities or
: _obvious_ counting systems to make the same kind of connection between
: your farfetched speculations on yigirmi or kIrk. You still need to
: make that connection to go from folk etymology to etymology. As an
: example, elli[g/k] has a certain probability because of the clearly
ellig "50" is documented, elig "hand" is documented.
so is the habit of doubling consonants of number names in turkic and teh
drop of -g in that position in oghuz.
: decimal basic system connecting to a handful of tens, the regular
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>Nigel Greenwood <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:>: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
:>
:>:>
:>:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
:>
:>: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
:>
:>presumably.
:>
:>"5" is be*sh* , in chuvash is pilek (l ~ *sh* is regular between common
:>turkic and chuvash), miller ("jap. and the other altaic languages) has
:>noted the resemblance with bilek ("wrist" but also "hand" in archaic
:>turkic).
:>
: And that is a good reason to assume that Chuvash did not arise from
: Common Turkic by the
: change sh >l "in historical times" but that it is a more archaic form
: of Turkic.
nobody said anything to the contrary. though chuvash itself is a recent
survivor of the bulgharic group.
: But it is difficult to talk reason and logic to Turkologists who get
: their cues from
: historians and make the facts fit the historians' view.
:>
:>
:>:> 20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:>:> the alphabet change).
:>
:>: Yes, but how has this word come to mean 20? Surely that was the point
:>: of the poster's question. The same applies to KIrk & Otuz: no obvious
:>: connection with D?rt & ??.
:>
:>there is no obvious etymology for these terms and cognates among "altaic
:>languages" (if you believe in the theory) for numbers are hard to come by
:>(which is an argument against the theory).
:>
:>100 is yu"z is homophonous with "face" (even with archaic vowel length).
:>yu"z meaning "face" comes from *nu":r' (mongolian nu":r), it is
:>not clear which proto-phoneme represents the initial y- of yu"z "100"
:>
:>
: It is also homophonnous with "to swim" and likely related to "to walk"
: and "foot".
: Notice yu"z = hundred, to swim
verbal stems are more often than not unrelated to nomianl stems in turkic
(unless there is a specific denominal or deverbal suffix).
: yu"ru" = to walk
: ura = foot (Chuvash)
: du = to walk (Sumerian)
: ...
: The Turkic initial c/y comes from an earlier *d according to Doerfer.
(by c- he means *dj*-)
doerfer only claimed, as everybiody else does, that *certain* initial y-
came from *d- . khalaj is practically unique (and this is the passage of
doerfer you refer to, in his book on khalaj) in that *n-, *y- appear as y-
and *d'- and *c- appear as dervatives of c- . other turkic langauegs have
generalized this as one or the other.
: That means that
: Turkic yUrU/cUrU were really yU-re/cU-re. That makes the root *du.
if it checks out with other things.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>:>Nigel Greenwood <ndsg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>:>: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote
>:>
>:>:>
>:>:> "elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig ,
>:>
>:>: I suppose the idea is that the 5 fingers represent 5 tens.
>:>
>:>presumably.
>:>
>:>"5" is be*sh* , in chuvash is pilek (l ~ *sh* is regular between common
>:>turkic and chuvash), miller ("jap. and the other altaic languages) has
>:>noted the resemblance with bilek ("wrist" but also "hand" in archaic
>:>turkic).
>:>
>
>: And that is a good reason to assume that Chuvash did not arise from
>: Common Turkic by the
>: change sh >l "in historical times" but that it is a more archaic form
>: of Turkic.
>
>nobody said anything to the contrary.
>
I guess this means "not within the last 3 days". OK. Acknowledge.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
I should write P*Turkic from now on where P* means "P zero or more
times" and where
P stands for Proto. That would take care of everything. Indeed, from now
on when I say
Turkic it means P*Turkic, unless for some reason I want to be specific.
The question was how you can be so sure that it comes from *p`a*dh*a:q.
Can you explain what *dh* means? And what is the ` for?
>
>
H.M. Hubey
The concept of physicists or engineers or computer scientists or
mathematicians competing with each other like football players
is foreign to him.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>mb <azy...@mail.com> wrote:
>: "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
>:>"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it make a
>: sound".
>: ...
>:> If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
>:> seen" I mean
>: etc.
>
>: There is a general law of physics that connect a fallen tree with a
>: past sound. There is no documented use, known regularities or
>: _obvious_ counting systems to make the same kind of connection between
>: your farfetched speculations on yigirmi or kIrk. You still need to
>: make that connection to go from folk etymology to etymology. As an
>: example, elli[g/k] has a certain probability because of the clearly
>
>ellig "50" is documented, elig "hand" is documented.
>
>so is the habit of doubling consonants of number names in turkic and teh
>drop of -g in that position in oghuz.
>
The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
so too wil pilek > ilek. Tatar probably has the more correct form. It
probably changed to
elig later. Tatar often has the /i/ and /e/ exchanged.
In any case, there is also pish (cook), hash(la), and ash (food).
Indeed a very strange case occurs (of all places) in Hittite. It has the
worda
parshur, and Hapalzil (both referring to cooked dishes). The rs and rsh
clusters
in Turkic lose the r (e.g. erse > ese) and the rsh seems to have gone at
least
in some cases as far as sh > ch. So obviously it is easy to connect parshur
with *pash > pish. Indeed the vowel change is in the right direction.
Futhermore
it should be noted that parshur has two r's and Hapalzil has two l's.
Now it says
specifically that Hapalzil is a "dish". So the Hap could be Kap or the
Ha is a prefix
thus Hap-palzili or Ha-palzil. Thus we have parshur and palzil. Amazing
but true.
It just so happens that these liquids weigh very heavily in Turkic studies.
Bán Csaba
of flaming each other's opinions.
Just one more comment:
In this discussion, I saw several times references to a Sumerian link. There
is also a "school" of pseudo-linguist who promote the idea of
Sumerian-Hungarian relationship (what's more, they claim that Hungarian was
the most ancient language of all, and all others developed from it.. even
the Bible is claimed to have been written in a proto-Hungarian language).
This is plain BS, and and even the slightest reference to a Sumerian
connection is dismissed by the official linguist community.
While there is some element of truth in linking Uralic and Turkic languages,
any link with Sumerian seems very ungrounded for me (an amateur linguist).
Any comments on this?
Csaba Ban
Peter T. Daniels
Yusuf is a physicist, engineer, computer scientist, or mathematician?
At least now we have an idea of why Hubey seems to have been dropped
onto his head several times too many.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>: And that is a good reason to assume that Chuvash did not arise from
:>: Common Turkic by the
:>: change sh >l "in historical times" but that it is a more archaic form
:>: of Turkic.
:>
:>nobody said anything to the contrary.
:>
: I guess this means "not within the last 3 days". OK. Acknowledge.
it means 30+ years (just using a multiple of 3!)
:>though chuvash itself is a recent
:>:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>mb <azy...@mail.com> wrote:
:>: "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
:>:>"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it make a
:>: sound".
:>: ...
:>:> If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
:>:> seen" I mean
:>: etc.
:>
:>: There is a general law of physics that connect a fallen tree with a
:>: past sound. There is no documented use, known regularities or
:>: _obvious_ counting systems to make the same kind of connection between
:>: your farfetched speculations on yigirmi or kIrk. You still need to
:>: make that connection to go from folk etymology to etymology. As an
:>: example, elli[g/k] has a certain probability because of the clearly
:>
:>ellig "50" is documented, elig "hand" is documented.
:>
:>so is the habit of doubling consonants of number names in turkic and teh
:>drop of -g in that position in oghuz.
:>
: The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
it's not documented at all, but there is strong comparative evidnce for
it.
: so too wil pilek > ilek. Tatar probably has the more correct form. It
: probably changed to
: elig later. Tatar often has the /i/ and /e/ exchanged.
chuvash p- is an internal development from b-, (kazan) tatar vowels are
due to a chuvash substratum, which reflect an internal development in
chuvash. also the p- and b- which didn't disappear and the p- that did
disappear (but appears as h- in khalaj) were seperate phonemes.
: In any case, there is also pish (cook), hash(la), and ash (food).
pi*sh*= is a verb, a*sh* is a noun. such stems are more foften than not
different.
(ha*sh*la= is a denominal verb, to cook food by boiling)
again, the problems with this are:
khalaj does not have ha*sh* (for a*sh*) but a:*sh*
ha*sh*la= appears xa*sh*la= in ottoman script and turkish dialects. it
also appears within turkic only in turkish and related neighboring
variants making it virtually certain to be a loanword from armenian xa*sh*
"to boil".
aside from the "philosophical" objection of making etymological
multiplets.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Daniels swims in the swamp where everyone hates everyone.
: The concept of physicists or engineers or computer scientists or
: mathematicians competing with each other like football players
: is foreign to him.
I am not competing with you. I am stating what is accepted vs. what you
posit. if you distunguish (or in the rare cases you do) the two I
won't (don't) argue with you.
Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:> >: Is Hubey a friend of yours?
:> >
:> >yes.
: Yusuf is a physicist, engineer, computer scientist, or mathematician?
more like the first two, and I do use mathematics. I am also a translator
and interpreter.
: At least now we have an idea of why Hubey seems to have been dropped
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
:>:>
:>:>not just likely, it actually is.
:>:>
:>:>: from which
:>:>: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
:>:>: gave rise
:>:>: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
:>:>
:>
:>: How can you be sure it comes from *padha:q .
:>
:>: I think Turkic suffixes -VgV, -Vg/k, and -Vn come from an original
:>: -Vng. The -Vn suffixes
:>
:>becasue as you say "turkic suffixes". their origin is in the realm of
:>"pre-turkic" (like the dicussion of proto-semitic and pre-proto-semitic
:>before)
:>
: I should write P*Turkic from now on where P* means "P zero or more
: times" and where
: P stands for Proto. That would take care of everything. Indeed, from now
: on when I say
: Turkic it means P*Turkic, unless for some reason I want to be specific.
: The question was how you can be so sure that it comes from *p`a*dh*a:q.
*p`- is more for somewhat "pre-turkic" or a very early stage of
proto-turkic, otherwise, see my posts. hada:q is attested for khalaj
a*dh*aq is attested early middle central asian turkic, besides strong
comparative evidence from current turkic languages. there is strong
comparative evidence for for khalaj h- representing *p`-
: Can you explain what *dh* means? And what is the ` for?
*dh* is the phoneme that in early middle central asian turkic was
pronounced as a voiced interdental fricative, as can clearly be seen from
arabic script (it is also argued old uighur script daleth represents this,
tau representing d / t ; the argument is based on the reconstructed
pronounciation of these in sogdian).
` represents a reconstructed aspiration.
recent theories posit an original threefold distinction (voiced, unvoiced
aspirated) for the stops in "altaic" (or turkic , mongolic, tungusic).
(nostraticists favor this, tying it in with IE; sinor has an article on
it. it is mentioned in the 2nd edition of menges who quotes the russian
nostraticists)
b (b/v) remained stable in initial psoition, initial p (p/b) is preserved
in oghuz and sporadically elsewhere (incl. mongolian), usually it is b-,
p`- became h- in khalaj (and also middle mongolian) and f- in manchu.
simialrly oghuz d- for *d/t , t- for *t- turkic y- (see previous posts
for * *dj*-) for d`- , *dh*-
the rest involves comparisions with uralic, IE etc.
(without getting into actually how the words are related).
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Thank you all for your contributions - I did not expect this to be a place
: of flaming each other's opinions.
my intention was not to partcipate in a "flame". I tell what is generally accpeted
(whose reasoning I can usually reconstruct and I usually believe in), along with soem
other mainstream published material along with my opinion on detail and my opinion
when there is much controversy. others are welcome to have other opinions, including
non-conventional ones, as long as they mention that it is so.
: Just one more comment:
: In this discussion, I saw several times references to a Sumerian link. There
: is also a "school" of pseudo-linguist who promote the idea of
: Sumerian-Hungarian relationship (what's more, they claim that Hungarian was
: the most ancient language of all, and all others developed from it.. even
: the Bible is claimed to have been written in a proto-Hungarian language).
: This is plain BS, and and even the slightest reference to a Sumerian
: connection is dismissed by the official linguist community.
: While there is some element of truth in linking Uralic and Turkic languages,
many uralic langauegs seemed to have borrowed form archaic turkic, especially
hungarian has borrowed in not so distant times. some have tried to link uralic and
altaic (or turkic, mongolic, tungusic and perhaps others) but it seems that these
"long-range" links must be viewed in the context of "long range" groupings like
"nostratic"/ "eurasiatic" which are themsleves controversial. sinor has focused on
uralic and altaic, menges has included dravidian as a sub-branch of "nostratic".
there are of course many other such people (many russian).
: any link with Sumerian seems very ungrounded for me (an amateur linguist).
sumerian as ancestral to turkic was official "dogma" in turkey too. it
still has some controversial adherents like Tuna (BTW the last name is
from the turkish name of the Danube) and Hubey on this list.
I won't reject a scheme embedding sumerian within "long -range" relationships like
nostratic, as done in fred hamori's web-page, << a priori >> (though this does not
mean it is neccessarily correct), sometimes (even more controversially and less
likely) with a close relationship with uralic and altaic. however, most "long
rangers" lump sumerian in the very controversial grouping "dene-cuacasian" (which
some liek ruhlen go so far as to connect with nostratic in "proto-world" schemes,
like). I don't find these <<a priori>> wrong, just extremely hard to prove.
I am personally not really interested in sumerian, and I don't see why all the
enthusiasm for it (though in the case turkey it was consistent with the politics of
the 1930's).
H.M. Hubey
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
H.M. Hubey wrote:Daniels swims in the swamp where everyone hates everyone. The concept of physicists or engineers or computer scientists or mathematicians competing with each other like football players is foreign to him. Yusuf B Gursey wrote:Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote: : Yusuf B Gursey wrote: :> :> H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote: :> : Yusuf is a friend of mine, : Is Hubey a friend of yours? yes.Yusuf is a physicist, engineer, computer scientist, or mathematician?
Yes. Do you see that the words are delimited by a logical-OR.
That is an inclusive-OR not an exclusive-OR e.g., XOR.
And since Yusuf if both an engineer and physicist, that makes it in both
cases. And since I have degrees in both engineering and computer science,
that makes it doubly true for me too.
And since OR does not require both to be true, it is true anyway.
No wonder you never seem to understand anything and can only
thrive on censored lists where the censor (called "moderator")
is dumber and more ignorant than you are.
Now go back to fighting with others. Before morons like even heard
of Internet, we used to have alt.flame for creatures like you.,
H.M. Hubey
Kolmogorov and Arnold. They are classics like the Ali vs Frazier fights.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>:>mb <azy...@mail.com> wrote:
>:>: "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
>:>:>"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, did it make a
>:>: sound".
>:>: ...
>:>:> If nobody has seen a pattern, it does not exist. When I say "nobody has
>:>:> seen" I mean
>:>: etc.
>:>
>:>: There is a general law of physics that connect a fallen tree with a
>:>: past sound. There is no documented use, known regularities or
>:>: _obvious_ counting systems to make the same kind of connection between
>:>: your farfetched speculations on yigirmi or kIrk. You still need to
>:>: make that connection to go from folk etymology to etymology. As an
>:>: example, elli[g/k] has a certain probability because of the clearly
>:>
>:>ellig "50" is documented, elig "hand" is documented.
>:>
>:>so is the habit of doubling consonants of number names in turkic and teh
>:>drop of -g in that position in oghuz.
>:>
>
>: The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
>
>it's not documented at all, but there is strong comparative evidnce for
>it.
>
1. You claimed it.
2. "documented" does not mean "attested".
3. You are big on "documentation".
Read your own posts carefully :-)
>
>: so too wil pilek > ilek. Tatar probably has the more correct form. It
>: probably changed to
>: elig later. Tatar often has the /i/ and /e/ exchanged.
>
>chuvash p- is an internal development from b-, (kazan) tatar vowels are
>due to a chuvash substratum, which reflect an internal development in
>chuvash. also the p- and b- which didn't disappear and the p- that did
>disappear (but appears as h- in khalaj) were seperate phonemes.
>
Here we go again. Did I not show that Tatar seems to be more
conservative in the places
of /i/ and ./e/. And again, you write as if you were there for 6,000
years listening and
recording everything.
>
>: In any case, there is also pish (cook), hash(la), and ash (food).
>
>pi*sh*= is a verb, a*sh* is a noun. such stems are more foften than not
>different.
>
>(ha*sh*la= is a denominal verb, to cook food by boiling)
>
>again, the problems with this are:
>
>khalaj does not have ha*sh* (for a*sh*) but a:*sh*
>
Again, so what? It's something in Turkish left over from who knows who.
>
>ha*sh*la= appears xa*sh*la= in ottoman script and turkish dialects. it
>also appears within turkic only in turkish and related neighboring
>variants making it virtually certain to be a loanword from armenian xa*sh*
>"to boil".
>
>
Yes. Just like Turkish eshek being a borrowing from Armenian, all the
way to Northern China
from a language that is famous in IE for probably having the greatest
amount of borrowings from
other languages (with the possible exception of Albanian). And of
course, it just so happens that
Armenian invented a word that happens to fit right into Turkic morphology.
>aside from the "philosophical" objection of making etymological
>multiplets.
>
>
What the hell is are you talking about? One step forward every 2 years
and 3 backwards in
2 days?
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>"B?n Csaba" <ban....@chello.hu> wrote:
:>: This has been puzzling me for a long time:
:>: The existence of "yirmi", "otuz", kirk" and "elli" in Turkish, meaning 20,
:>
:>
:>"elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig , in some turkish
:>speech habits and other turkic languages the intervocalic consonants of
:>numbers are duplicated, -g drops off in oghuz languages like turkish)
:>
:>20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:>the alphabet change).
:>
: This seems to derive from "to gather [up]" e.g. referring to gathering
: up all the
: digits. It shows up clearly as cIy-Ir-ma e.g. c-Turkic version of
: y-Turkic yIG-Ir-ma.
as a positive note, sounds like as good a guess as any, given that someone
tentativley tried to connect "30" with a korean word for "heap".
H.M. Hubey
happening. For some language
families there is enough written evidence to produce some continuity.
For others there is not sufficient
writing so their prehistory is shrouded in mystery.
However, there is a danger to this. In statistics it is the bias e.g.
the bias in the data produce a bias
in the theory.
It is as if in some planet they only had one kind of fruit, apple. They
come to earth and they see
a pear. So they call it elongated pear. Then an orange, and it becomes
thick-skinned apple...
.... and after a while a banana is a long-apple etc.
This is what happens when the data is biased. There is a snowball
effect. The language family
starts to grow and starts to absorb everything that seems to resemble it.
There is no protoTurkic and no protoHungarian language that has been
constructed. Many don't
even bother to use the words. Others decide that all earlier forms of
Turkic might as well all be
called Turkic. After all, if someone had already constructed a
protoTurkic, then there would be
some reason to compare words to either Turkic or protoTurkic. But if it
does not even exist
why bother? That seems to describe the state of Hungarian and Turkic.
Right now most linguists
in this field spend their time trying to prove the historians were right
e.g. they came from east of
the Altays circa 300 CE and were chasing lizards before the Iranians
taught them to speak.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>: any link with Sumerian seems very ungrounded for me (an amateur linguist).
>
>sumerian as ancestral to turkic was official "dogma" in turkey too.
>
This was done by European linguists, and Turks picked it up. it lasted
probably for a decade or
so under Ataturk's tutelage and died out. But many people like to make
it as if this was Turkey's
big thing for centuries.
>it
>still has some controversial adherents like Tuna (BTW the last name is
>from the turkish name of the Danube) and Hubey on this list.
>
Tuna's works do not in any shape or form resemble any of the others e.g.
sun-language theory etc
which in fact was produced by European linguists and picked up by Turks.
Tuna does impeccable middle-of-the-road historical linguistics. He has a
list of words under
the sound changes with their meanings. All the words are taken from
linguistics publications
all in Europe. Yusuf knows enough not to smear him but hanging around
some linguists
it becomes a habit, I guess.
I do what linguists are proud to show the world that they have
accomplished over the
last 300 years or so. I think their method is insufficient and too
simple. But this is called
being hoisted by/on one's own petard.
If they think what they have done is the intellectual equivalent of
quantum theory then
they have nobody to blame for the results except themselves.
They only problem is that if someone is comparing
Now for the theoretical part. If the changes have elements of
randomness, and can be
described like stochastic processes one can find in books then the
models created by
linguists themselves is faulty. Secondly, for the real part, and this
has been shown
clearly on the Linguistlist RSC (regular sound change) is faulty. It has
been clearly
demonstrated to be false. Bill Wang has shown what he called "Lexical
Diffusion"
(LD) to be the case. That means that either linguists have to give up
touting
RSC as the greatest discovery since the invention of the flush toilet,
or create a
theory that makes both RSC and LD mostly true (e.g. probabilistically or
mostly true).
But instead of constantly attempting to wax eloquently about Kuhn and his
"revolution" (in physics, math etc) they should see if they can now
handle their own
revolution. IOW let them now learn to preach what they claim is revealed
truth (e.g.
Kuhn) as applied to physics as applied to their own domain.
So far, no one has even come close to even claiming to pick up the standard.
The "Language" mailing list is ready and waiting for all those who want
to walk the
walk instead of talking the talk on censored mailing lists. I have even
publicly
invited big talkers to the Language mailing list. So far no one has even
come
close to accepting it.
So for Yusuf to be insinuating (by association) some kind of deliberate
wrongdoing
on the part of those who do not agree with the great masses whose 3 credit
knowledge of linguistics acquired ages ago has run out is a great travesty.
But Yusuf is like that. He likes to read and post it. He worships those
whose books
he reads and those whom he does not know. Grass is greener on the other
side;
even morons seem to have great stature if suited-up; look at Mussolini,
Stalin,
Hitler, Nasser etc.
There was even a retired linguist who claimed Daniels was a superstar.
That is the
tragic level of linguistics.
>
>
>I won't reject a scheme embedding sumerian within "long -range" relationships like
>nostratic, as done in fred hamori's web-page, << a priori >> (though this does not
>mean it is neccessarily correct), sometimes (even more controversially and less
>likely) with a close relationship with uralic and altaic. however, most "long
>rangers" lump sumerian in the very controversial grouping "dene-cuacasian" (which
>some liek ruhlen go so far as to connect with nostratic in "proto-world" schemes,
>like). I don't find these <<a priori>> wrong, just extremely hard to prove.
>
No proof outside of mathematics.
>
>I am personally not really interested in sumerian, and I don't see why all the
>enthusiasm for it (though in the case turkey it was consistent with the politics of
>the 1930's).
>
>
>
Right. In the 1930s, when Ataturk was behind it. Typical liberal Turk
(for the last 50 years or so) was
leftist, in love with the USSR, hated USA, hated Turkish history, made
fun of everything Turkish,
gleefully told everyone how racist Americans were by keeping blacks
separate, but always managed to
get his ass to the USA and at the first chance got himself a blond
girlfriend (not even brunette let alone black).
Even today none of them acknowledge Ataturk's role in the
pseudo-scientific linguistics which
produced things like "sun-language" theory, etc. They are still all in
love with Ataturk and give
the impression that he was basically faultless, and try to insinuate
that it was the rightists
who did all this, all the time somehow associating Ataturk with the left
(intellectual) while clearly
ignoring what he did to leftists in Turkey.
This is all politics and nasty and nothing to pay attention to.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
I am going to do this again. Clearly. Slowly. Agonizingly.
1. There is a Turkic language called Karachay-Balkar.
2. It has about 200,000 speakers in Russia, Turkey, and Syria.
3. There is a dictionary: Tenishev, Siunchev.
4. In the dictionary is a word for twenty:
5. This word is cIyIrma.
6. cIy means "to gather". It is cognate with Turkish yIG (which means
"to pile up, gather).
7. -Ir is a verbal suffix. In this case it functions as a causative
e.g. cIyIr (to cause to gather, pucker up).
8. -ma is a noun suffix. It occurs in words like Turkish dolma
(dolmades), kIyma (ground meat, from kIy=cut/slice).
9. The word for 20 is cIyIrma (cIy-Ir-ma) "the thing created by
gathering together [all the fingers]"
10. Here are some others like, this time from Turkish'
dol-ma (from "dol" (to fill, to stuff) e.g. stuffed pepper
kIy-ma (from "kIy" (to cut, slice) e.g. minced/ground meat)
kav-ur-ma (kav (having to do with heat and cooking, kavur
(to roast), kavurma (roasted meat)
chev-ir-me (from chevir (to rotate) e.g. the stuff sold in
Arabic/Iranian stores as "shawarma")
kIz-ar-t-ma (from kIz (to roast, heat, redden).
bula[r]ma
aktarma
chIkarma
yayIlma
bozulma
Which part are you having problems with?
If you are not having any problems, then what the hell does "as good a
guess as any" mean?
is it as good a guess, say, as "it come from farting". Is that as good?
is it as good a guess as "it comes from the sky, or earth, or worms, or
wolves?"
There are about 50,000 other roots in Turkish. is any one of them as
good as what I said?
Which ones are as good?
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>:>
:>
:>: The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
:>
:>it's not documented at all, but there is strong comparative evidnce for
:>it.
:>
: 1. You claimed it.
hell no! I certainly can't take credit for it!
: 2. "documented" does not mean "attested".
fine.
: 3. You are big on "documentation".
: Read your own posts carefully :-)
:>
:>: so too wil pilek > ilek. Tatar probably has the more correct form. It
:>: probably changed to
:>: elig later. Tatar often has the /i/ and /e/ exchanged.
:>
:>chuvash p- is an internal development from b-, (kazan) tatar vowels are
:>due to a chuvash substratum, which reflect an internal development in
:>chuvash. also the p- and b- which didn't disappear and the p- that did
:>disappear (but appears as h- in khalaj) were seperate phonemes.
:>
: Here we go again. Did I not show that Tatar seems to be more
: conservative in the places
: of /i/ and ./e/. And again, you write as if you were there for 6,000
at any rate, this feature comes from chuvash, not qypchaq (the group to
which tatar belongs).
again, what I wrote reflects the overwhelmingly accepted standard view.
: years listening and
: recording everything.
well, there are written records and reconstructions.
and at any rate what I wrote is the generally accepted view.
argue with the evidenceof others, not with me.
:>
:>: In any case, there is also pish (cook), hash(la), and ash (food).
:>
:>pi*sh*= is a verb, a*sh* is a noun. such stems are more foften than not
:>different.
:>
:>(ha*sh*la= is a denominal verb, to cook food by boiling)
:>
:>again, the problems with this are:
:>
:>khalaj does not have ha*sh* (for a*sh*) but a:*sh*
:>
: Again, so what? It's something in Turkish left over from who knows who.
then not just turkish, but its modern standard form, contradicting its
earlier form, and contradicting the still earlier form in armenian.
the simplest theory, barring any wonderous discovery, is that there was
turkic * a:*sh* and armenian xa*sh*, independent of each other.
:>
:>ha*sh*la= appears xa*sh*la= in ottoman script and turkish dialects. it
:>also appears within turkic only in turkish and related neighboring
:>variants making it virtually certain to be a loanword from armenian xa*sh*
:>"to boil".
:>
:>
: Yes. Just like Turkish eshek being a borrowing from Armenian, all the
: way to Northern China
: from a language that is famous in IE for probably having the greatest
: amount of borrowings from
: other languages (with the possible exception of Albanian). And of
: course, it just so happens that
: Armenian invented a word that happens to fit right into Turkic morphology.
it has never been argued that its "morphology" (the suffix -ek) was
borrowed form armenian, but its stem, which though it sounds unlikely,
could have reflected the prehistoric route of the domestication of the
donkey. incidentally, menges retracted this tentative claim in the 2nd
edition of his book, and argued that the armenian word was turkic,
rejecting the IE origin of it in armenian (from "horse").
the word does seem to be Wanderwort, the resemblence with sumerian ansu
and latin asinus being noted (which sort of brings one back to the
original argument).
:>aside from the "philosophical" objection of making etymological
:>multiplets.
:>
:>
: What the hell is are you talking about? One step forward every 2 years
: and 3 backwards in
: 2 days?
I report standard views.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Competetion amongst those mentioned below has rules. Some are famous e.g.
: Kolmogorov and Arnold. They are classics like the Ali vs Frazier fights.
good for them. I am not competing. I would welcome a point by point
criticism of the material I report (which is not my own anyway).
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>:>"B?n Csaba" <ban....@chello.hu> wrote:
:>:>: This has been puzzling me for a long time:
:>:>: The existence of "yirmi", "otuz", kirk" and "elli" in Turkish, meaning 20,
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>"elli" (50) is an old word for "hand" (mod. el) elig , in some turkish
:>:>speech habits and other turkic languages the intervocalic consonants of
:>:>numbers are duplicated, -g drops off in oghuz languages like turkish)
:>:>
:>:>20 was yigirmi / yig~irmi which survived in written ottoman turkish (until
:>:>the alphabet change).
:>:>
:>
:>: This seems to derive from "to gather [up]" e.g. referring to gathering
:>: up all the
:>: digits. It shows up clearly as cIy-Ir-ma e.g. c-Turkic version of
:>: y-Turkic yIG-Ir-ma.
:>
:>as a positive note, sounds like as good a guess as any, given that someone
:>tentativley tried to connect "30" with a korean word for "heap".
:>
:>
: I am going to do this again. Clearly. Slowly. Agonizingly.
I said you may be right. no problem.
Yusuf B Gursey
: chev-ir-me (from chevir (to rotate) e.g. the stuff sold in
: Arabic/Iranian stores as "shawarma")
"iranian" stores don't use the term. being used in colloquial arabic, it
apears in arab owned stores.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>: any link with Sumerian seems very ungrounded for me (an amateur linguist).
:>
:>sumerian as ancestral to turkic was official "dogma" in turkey too.
:>
: This was done by European linguists, and Turks picked it up. it lasted
: probably for a decade or
: so under Ataturk's tutelage and died out. But many people like to make
: it as if this was Turkey's
: big thing for centuries.
no. the view of the relationship with sumerian is still widely held in
turkey. it certainly outlasted ataturk.
:>it
:>still has some controversial adherents like Tuna (BTW the last name is
:>from the turkish name of the Danube) and Hubey on this list.
:>
: Tuna's works do not in any shape or form resemble any of the others e.g.
: sun-language theory etc
: which in fact was produced by European linguists and picked up by Turks.
: Tuna does impeccable middle-of-the-road historical linguistics. He has a
: list of words under
: the sound changes with their meanings. All the words are taken from
: linguistics publications
: all in Europe. Yusuf knows enough not to smear him but hanging around
: some linguists
: it becomes a habit, I guess.
just which linguists do I "hang around" with? I know none personally,
except a couple of literary historians.
there have been objections to Tuna's work, some aired on this forum.
: I do what linguists are proud to show the world that they have
: accomplished over the
: last 300 years or so. I think their method is insufficient and too
: simple. But this is called
: being hoisted by/on one's own petard.
well, I didn't say so.
: So for Yusuf to be insinuating (by association) some kind of deliberate
: wrongdoing
: on the part of those who do not agree with the great masses whose 3 credit
: knowledge of linguistics acquired ages ago has run out is a great travesty.
: But Yusuf is like that. He likes to read and post it. He worships those
: whose books
I hardly "worship" anything. I even post objections to something I think
is correct. I report.
: he reads and those whom he does not know. Grass is greener on the other
I can't comment on something I don't know so obviously I don't.
: side;
: even morons seem to have great stature if suited-up; look at Mussolini,
: Stalin,
: Hitler, Nasser etc.
???
:>likely) with a close relationship with uralic and altaic. however, most "long
:>rangers" lump sumerian in the very controversial grouping "dene-cuacasian" (which
:>some liek ruhlen go so far as to connect with nostratic in "proto-world" schemes,
:>like). I don't find these <<a priori>> wrong, just extremely hard to prove.
:>
: No proof outside of mathematics.
then read "make a case for".
:>
:>I am personally not really interested in sumerian, and I don't see why
:>all the
:>enthusiasm for it (though in the case turkey it was consistent with the
:>politics of
:>the 1930's).
:>
:>
:>
: Right. In the 1930s, when Ataturk was behind it. Typical liberal Turk
I didn't mean Ataturk specifically. nationalsit ideology was in fashion
and it was felt needed to justify that turks were ancestral to the area.
: This is all politics and nasty and nothing to pay attention to.
well said.
Yusuf B Gursey
: There is no protoTurkic and no protoHungarian language that has been
what "protoHungarian"? the reconstructed language to describe the various
dialects of hungarian?
and yes, many have reconstructed proto-Turkic.
: constructed. Many don't
: even bother to use the words. Others decide that all earlier forms of
: Turkic might as well all be
: called Turkic. After all, if someone had already constructed a
huh? why not, they are after all "turkic".
: protoTurkic, then there would be
: some reason to compare words to either Turkic or protoTurkic. But if it
"turkic" is the name of the language group, and loosely short for
proto-turkic, like "semitic" is loosely used for "proto-Semitic"
: does not even exist
no one in his right mind claims this.
: why bother? That seems to describe the state of Hungarian and Turkic.
: Right now most linguists
: in this field spend their time trying to prove the historians were right
: e.g. they came from east of
: the Altays circa 300 CE and were chasing lizards before the Iranians
: taught them to speak.
untrue, other than 300 CE is quite sufficient to explain proto-Turkic
without chuvash and some centuries earlier to include it.
: Bán Csaba wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: : why bother? That seems to describe the state of Hungarian and Turkic.
: : Right now most linguists
: : in this field spend their time trying to prove the historians were right
: : e.g. they came from east of
: : the Altays circa 300 CE and were chasing lizards before the Iranians
: : taught them to speak.
: untrue, other than 300 CE is quite sufficient to explain proto-Turkic
: without chuvash and some centuries earlier to include it.
rona-tas and o. pritsak articulate this: without chuvash proto-turkic
reconstructs to something dated a little earlier than the runic
inscriptions and to a language something resembling the language of them.
itis thought that the tu"rk empire in putting the language to writing and
using it officially and unifying the tribes under a state established some
degree of linguistic uniformity. somewhat like the romans establishing
latin and thus reducing drastically the input of variosu other italic
langauegs into what became the romance languages.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>: Competetion amongst those mentioned below has rules. Some are famous e.g.
>: Kolmogorov and Arnold. They are classics like the Ali vs Frazier fights.
>
>good for them. I am not competing. I would welcome a point by point
>criticism of the material I report (which is not my own anyway).
>
>
how often?
Do I have to remind you every two weeks for 22 years?
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>:>:>
>:>
>:>: The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
>:>
>:>it's not documented at all, but there is strong comparative evidnce for
>:>it.
>:>
>
>: 1. You claimed it.
>
>hell no! I certainly can't take credit for it!
>
>
Here is your post
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
:>:>
:>:>not just likely, it actually is.
:>:>
:>:>: from which
:>:>: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
:>:>: gave rise
:>:>: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
:>:>
:>
Look carefully at this "khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact
come from *p`a*dh*a:q "
This claims that you have some knowledge of it actually (the phrase is
"in fact") occuring.
If you were not around 4,000 years ago listening to it, then it must
have been documented
someplace for you to write "in fact...".
When I asked you point blank how you could possibly know for a fact it
is true, you got
lost and started going in circles. Now we are back to the begining
again. And we will
go through this circle again and again and again just like on the
mailing list for the next 22
years if I live that long.
Why don't you try writing like a physicist. Choose your words
carefully. Mean what
you write and write what you mean.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
No, you said, "it is as good a guess as any".
Is that equivalent to "you may be right"?
I think what you show in your posts by being so loose is contempt for
linguistics. You would
never do this in physics.
Is accuracy only for physics and engineering and not for linguistics
because the linguists are
all dimwits like Daniels?
Why don't you try thinking of linguistics as budding physics of the
21st century and try
measuring your words.
It will probably be to your advantage in the long run.
>
>
H.M. Hubey
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>:>
>:>: any link with Sumerian seems very ungrounded for me (an amateur linguist).
>:>
>:>sumerian as ancestral to turkic was official "dogma" in turkey too.
>:>
>: This was done by European linguists, and Turks picked it up. it lasted
>: probably for a decade or
>: so under Ataturk's tutelage and died out. But many people like to make
>: it as if this was Turkey's
>: big thing for centuries.
>
>no. the view of the relationship with sumerian is still widely held in
>turkey. it certainly outlasted ataturk.
>
Maybe it is due to Tuna. Or maybe it is due to Samual Kramer.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
:>: Competetion amongst those mentioned below has rules. Some are famous e.g.
:>: Kolmogorov and Arnold. They are classics like the Ali vs Frazier fights.
:>
:>good for them. I am not competing. I would welcome a point by point
:>criticism of the material I report (which is not my own anyway).
:>
:>
: how often?
: Do I have to remind you every two weeks for 22 years?
once is enough, but so far you don't really answer the questions raised.
like why an older form is to be disregarded over a modern form when the
history of a word is concerned, how an attestation of an alleged turkic
word in a language prior its contact with turkic etc. . (the last point is
usually explained as contact with "weird turkic" i.e. turkic recontsructed
by you in prehistric times (but then it's presence in modern turkish
becomes a fluke, not a survival).
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H
>
>there have been objections to Tuna's work, some aired on this forum.
>
Like what?
>: No proof outside of mathematics.
>
>then read "make a case for".
>
Better if you write so. You need to be accurate not me.
>:>
>
>: Right. In the 1930s, when Ataturk was behind it. Typical liberal Turk
>
>I didn't mean Ataturk specifically. nationalsit ideology was in fashion
>and it was felt needed to justify that turks were ancestral to the area.
>
>
>
So what?
Russian linguists (and others) have been trying for centuries to redo
the map based on
who was ancestral to where? Why do you think the Soviets deported the
whole North
Caucasus, and the Crimeans to Central Asia and Siberia?
The Russian linguists (and Soviets) have been in the forefront of making
the USSR (Ukraine,
Baltic etc) the home of the PIEans, and behind the "have horse, will
travel" theory", and behind
most attempts to erase any Turkology that does not meet the approval of
the Iranists who
claim that everything was either IE or Iranian. Nobody who did not
adhere to it could
get published.
Why is nobody making fun of them?
Besides who forced Noah Kramer to claim Turkic is related to Sumerian?
Was he
put in jail by Ataturk? Was Sumer in today's Turkey or Iraq? Did
Ataturk bribe
him or did Kramer hate Iraqis long before Saddam ?
Was Kramer so stupid that he could not see that the great Semitic languages
produced Sumerian and that it could not possibly be related to Turkic?
If Kramer was not a good linguist, was Menges better?
Why are you constantly quoting Menges. He was a very nice man, I heard from
other scholars, but he was no linguist. Why don't you try quoting
Miller? Why
are most Turkologists even today Soviet bred?
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
>
>: There is no protoTurkic and no protoHungarian language that has been
>
>what "protoHungarian"? the reconstructed language to describe the various
>dialects of hungarian?
>
>and yes, many have reconstructed proto-Turkic.
>
name the book and author and give me the names. Beter yet, show me the
morphology of
prototurkic. And don't give me names like Decsy. His production is worse
than an amateur.
He can't even connect obviously related words to each other.
>
>: constructed. Many don't
>: even bother to use the words. Others decide that all earlier forms of
>: Turkic might as well all be
>: called Turkic. After all, if someone had already constructed a
>
>huh? why not, they are after all "turkic".
>
>: protoTurkic, then there would be
>: some reason to compare words to either Turkic or protoTurkic. But if it
>
>"turkic" is the name of the language group, and loosely short for
>proto-turkic, like "semitic" is loosely used for "proto-Semitic"
>
If that was the case there never would be reconstruction. Obviously the
protolanguage is
reconstructed from existent or latter ones. How else can it be done?
>
>: does not even exist
>
>no one in his right mind claims this.
>
>: why bother? That seems to describe the state of Hungarian and Turkic.
>: Right now most linguists
>: in this field spend their time trying to prove the historians were right
>: e.g. they came from east of
>: the Altays circa 300 CE and were chasing lizards before the Iranians
>: taught them to speak.
>
>untrue, other than 300 CE is quite sufficient to explain proto-Turkic
>without chuvash and some centuries earlier to include it.
>
Explain what?
Like most languages or language families Turkic was also probably
constructed of various
layers. Some people from the Mideast (Europoids) went north into the
steppes after some thousands
of years, they met up with Asians (Mongoloids) who had also gone north.
That mixing is what
created the Turkic languages, and Mongolian and Uralic.
Any fool can see that Turkic could have never safeguarded words for
agriculture from the Mideast,
and words having to do with cuneiform, clay working, drawing, and
writing from 3,000 BC if
they had come from the east and had been nomads all along. For what
fucking reason would
nomads need or keep the words for sickle?
>
>
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
I don't give a shit about Rona-Tas or Pritsak. How many times do I have
to tell you this?
How many times did I show you the inconsistencies?
how many times do I have to show the evidence?
H.M. Hubey
around that time and so was Hahn. The wheel is still spinning as
Dylan might have said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 94 14:53:19 EDRe: 5.910 Altaic
From: <a...@zeus.cs.wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: 5.910 Altaic
Victor Golla's posting about the Penutian panel touched a nerve,
because what prompted my suggestion that we discuss Altaic was
my discovery of the rumors that have been circulating at third
or fourth hand about Altaic as a result of the so-called Altaic
panel at Stanford in 1987. Notably, I fear that much damage
has been done by Johanna Nichols' uncritical reliance on the
report of this panel by Unger in the 1990 book ed. by Philip
Baldi, Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology, and by
perhaps by Unger's report itself. (I refer to Nichols because
her ebook has been so widely acclaimed and so presumably many
linguists and non-linguists--it's even been reviewed in Science--who
know little about Altaic will take what is said there as gospel.)
I say "so-called Altaic" panel, because Unger himself begins his
report by saing that the term was inappropriate given the composition
of the group, and Baldi has an editorial note explaining that some
of the invitees who were supposed to make it more Altaic did not
show up. Now, this panel consisted of three experts on Japanese
and Korean, one expert on Uralic and miscellaneous language groups,
and one person whose expertise I have not been able to trace who
gave a presentation to the panel (unpublished in the proceedings)
about not his own but rather Gerhard Doerfer's and Andras Rona-
Tas's objections to the reconstructions of Proto-Altaic by
Ramstedt and Poppe (which date the sixties and earlier!). No
specific works of Doerfer's or Rona-Tas's are cited and ther
is no discussion of the specific issues, and certainly no
mention of the extensive debates that have been going on ever
since Doerfer and Rona-Tas (following the lead of Clauson) started
attacking Altaic some decades ago.
This panel then, which for example did not include anybody who
is an expert on Turkic or anybody who has tried to work on Altaic,
concluded that they liked Doerfer's and Rona-Tas's objections, and
they also were skeptical of efforts by Roy Andrew Miller and John Street
to relate Japanese to the "so-called" Altaic languages. However,
two of the papers by two of the panelists that do appear in the
proceedings (Whitman and Samuel Martin) do in fact take Korean and
Japanese to be related, and Martin's paper, despite a snide remark
about the "Altaicists" appears to endorse the connection of both
these languages to Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic!
Now, I would like at some point in this discussion to address Doerfer's
and Rona-Tas's (and Clauson's) arguments, and Ron Hahn has already
made a beginning in this direction. I would like also to discuss
Nichols proposal that the systematic correspondences between the
pronominal systems of Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic are NOT due
to a genealogical connection but to some kind of areal phenomenon.
BUT, as St. Augustine said in another context, NOT YET.
I would first like to establish once and for all that one should
read and cite the relevant literature if one is going to criticize
a theory, rather that citing a panel report written by a non-specialist
about a panel of nonspecialists' views of an unpublished paper reporting
the work not of its author but those of other people entirely about
this theory, when moreover the views of these other people (Doerfer
and Rona-Tas) have been published in many many places over the
decades and have been the subject of an extended debate, in which
a number of distinguished linguists have in fact taken the other
(that is, the pro-Altaic) point of view (but of course we won't
mention these people or their work in our rush to condemn the theory!).
I would also like to establish once and for all that, whether
Altaic is a valid language or not, it is NOT true that as Nichols
claims "the received view now is that Turkic, Mongolian, and Tungusic
are unrelated (UNger 1990)" (Nichols 1992, p. 4). Even Unger does
not say this, and even his little panel did not conclude this, as
noted. And even if they had, they would not in anybody's estimation
represent the received view on a topic on which, among others,
we have the published works of people like Hamp, Menges, Miller,
Starostin, Vovin, Tsintsius, and many many others.
Moreover, the specific claim that Nichols makes about why these
languages are supposedly now perceived to be unrelated,namely
that there are "very few good potential cognates", aside from
the pronouns, is also factually incorrect. Even Doerfer and Rona-
Tas admit that there are many potential cognates, running into
the hundreds, but what they question is whether these are
cognates or borrowings. Moreover, Rona-Tas at least has
often said that he is by no means sure whether the oldest
layer of this "shared vocabulary" is due to borrowing or to
inheritance!
On the other hand, of course, while there have been four or
so major critics of Altaic, who keep propounding the borrowing
thesis, there are many more experts who have argued cogently
(whether we agree with them or not, an issue I want to leave
to another time!) that these must be cognates, in part because
of the formal and semantic properties of the forms of question
and in partbecause, while one can conceive of massive borrowing
from Turkic into Mongolian, it is less easy to see how these
alleged loan words would have ended up in Japanese, and in
part because it is difficult to see how such basic vocabulary
AND morphology would have been borrowed (unless the sense of the
word "borrowed" is watered down so that it subsumes "cognate").
It should also perhaps be pointed out that the arguments for
borrowing and against a genealogical relationship by Clauson,
Doerfer, and Rona-Tas, whether we accept them or not, are
(as has been pointed out many times, e.g., by Hamp, Miller, and
others) based on very unusual methodological premises, which
are NOT (pace Ron Hahn) shared by comparative linguists working
in any other field, esp. not Indo-European (Hamp I think made
this very clear in the 1970's). Thus, we find the assumption
that in order to be related two language (group)s HAVE to
share numerals. Now, this is certainly NOT something assumdd
by Indo-Europeanists, although it happens tobe true of the
Indo-European languages! Also, Clauson, who started the
whole attack on Altaic, took the very unusual tack of trying
to "prove" that these languages are unrelated (which, as again
noted by Hamp and many others) is not something that can be
done by any standard method of comparative linguistixs, and
as part of his "proof" made the further assumption (which
other anti-Altaicists appear to share) that in related languages
cognate forms should have THE SAME meanings, not merely related
ones (so that if a Turkic word's Mongolian counterpart has a
differetn meaning, then Clauson, Doerfer et al., will accept
that there was a semantic shift but it has to be borrowing
rather than a cognate). Clauson et al. make the further
assumption that in related languages certain terms other
than numerals, specifically body part terms, have to be
shared WITH SEMMLA(that is, with complete semantic) identity, so that Turkic
and Mongolian would have to have related forms for 'head'
or 'hand' to be related. Now, as has often been pointed out,
such an assumption is not made in any other field of comprative
linguistics. The fact that French tete and main are unrelated
to English head and hand is nOT taken as an argument against
these being related languages!
So, in conclusion, before we go any further, I would like to
see if we can at least agree that (a) critiques of Altaic
should not be done on the basis of rumor or third- or fourth-
hands reports, (b) we should not accept the findings of
a panel of nonspecialists, esp. when some of them in their
own work do support part or whole of the Altaic theory, whether
they call it that or not, (c) we should once and for all
stop pretending that there is any kind of consensus of
specialists that Altaic is dead, when in fact only a handful
of people have done the critical work and there are more
people than ever actively working ON Altaic, (d) we should
once and for all stop citing old criticisms of Altaic without
mentioning the extensive literature that has been devoted
to refuting these criticisms, (e) we should also not accept
uncritically critiques of Altaic which are based on methodological
principles which no one in any other area of linguistics seems
to accept WITHOUT A CAREFUL JUSTIFICATION OF THESE SAME PRINCIPLES
AND A CAREFUL REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS given over the decades
by Hamp, Ligeti, Krueger, Aalto, Poppe, Miller, and others.
That is, I have nothing against entertaining the possibility that
Clauson, Doerfer, and Rona-Tas (together with the fourth major
critic of Altaic, Shcherbak) might (a) be justified in using
these new methodologies and (b) be right in using them to
criticize Altaic. Or the possibility that Nichols might be
right that languages get to share pronominal systems as an
areal rather than genealogical phenomenon. Indeed, these
are entertaining possibilities. But if I am going to accept
these possibilities, then I want to get my money's worth.
Instead of relying on Nichols' exaggerated report of Unger's
report of a small panel of nonspecialists' reception of
an unpublished paper by one Larry Clark about the work of
Doerfer and Rona-Tas, I would like to see a response by
Unger or Nichols to the decades worth of work by all the
people mentioned above (Hamp, Krueger, Ligeti, Aalto, Menges,
Poppe, Tsintsius), all the many others I have forgotten to
mention, and (now this would really be entertaining) to
the most recent work on Altaic, by, e.g., Starostin and
Anna Dybo in Russia, or Alexander Vovin in this country.
--
Now just a few responses to specific points:
(a) Ron Hahn is right about the terminology, but 'Turkic'
and 'Tungusic' are already accepted terms. 'Mongolic'
would make a lot of sense, and I will use it in future.
(b) Ron is also right that numerals need not look related
among related languages. Cf. Hebrew and Burji (a Cushitic
language) below:
H B
1 exad d'ekki, micca
2 shtayim lama
3 shalosh fadiya
4 arba foola
5 xamesh umutta
(c) The latest work on Ainu (Alexander Vovin, "The origins of the
Ainu language", Panasiatic Linguistics, II: 672-685, Bangkok,
and his just published book "A Reconstruction of Proto-Ainu")
conclusively, to my mind, refute the idea that AInu might be
Altaic and suggest a relationship with Austroasiatic that is
at least suggestive.
(d) About Jao(I mean, Japanese) and Altaic, the latest work is
Starostin's book Altajskaja problema i proisxozhdenie
japonskogo jazyka, Moscow 1991, and Vovin's survey
article in a recent issue of Diachronica (I am sorry
I don't have reference handy).
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
H.M. Hubey
Message 1: Altaic, Pronouns, Marrism, Leninism
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 07:09:18 EDAltaic, Pronouns, Marrism, LeninismFrom: <a...@jupiter.cs.wayne.edu>
Subject: Altaic, Pronouns, Marrism, Leninism
About Altaic, it seems that the debate is pretty much over. I am tempted to declare victory (as Mary Haas once did in the context of another language grouping) and move on. I was very impressed with Prof. Unger's posting, especially after I had been so very critical of his published work. This posting does make crystal clear that there is NO NEW basis for doubting or rejecting Altaic, and that all there is the (I think discredited) objections of Doerfer, Rona-Tas, Clauson, Shcherbak (and I guess I forgot to add Sinor to the list). These have in any case been responded to in print by various people, so those who are interested can judge for themselves. I myself intend, in the aftermath of this discussion, to write up (if anybody will publish it!) a response to Nichols and Unger, so that there is something in print that can be cited. Prof. Vovin is quite right is pointing out that some of the traditional anti-Altaicists, so called, have adopted the surprising position that only binary comparison (2 languages at a time) is permitted. This point should perhaps be pursued because it seems to be rearing its head in some critiques of Amerind and Nostratic as well. I might add that some of these people also have come up with other even more unlikely "methodological" innovations, which they simply assert without any argument, e.g., that you may not ever compare two reconstructed (i.e., proto-) languages (Doerfer), that the comparative method cannot be applied to situations like Nostratic because the way of life and cultures of people that far back are completely different from anything we know of (Rona-Tas), and so on. About pronouns, I have received some mail (incl. from a senior colleague whose views I respect a lot and who I did not know was following this) about my critical attitude towards Nichols' idea that the similarities among the pronominal systems of Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, IE, Kartvelian, etc., are due to their all coming from the same place but not to their being genealogically related. The mail I got focused on the question of whether a language can borrow its pronouns from another. The answer is apparently yes, since there are well documented cases (such as Copper Island Aleut from Russian, or Shelta which has both Irish and English pronouns). However, my point is not that borrowing is impossible (although it is rare). My point is that borrowing has to be demonstrated, like anything else (although Eric Hamp has argued that borrowing is a weaker hypothesis than relatedness because it is harder to refute). It cannot simply be asserted, as some have done. And the situation with the Altaic pronouns (Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic) is parallel to that in IE. It is just as easy to say that the similarities between Germanic and Indo-Aryan and Slavic, say, are due to borrowing as it is in the Altaic case. It is just that no one would DARE to say such a thing. Which brings me briefly to the political issues. It is very tempting for someone who did not live in Russia during the Soviet period to laugh off the remarks made by Prof. Vovin, but I think it is very true that political analogies such as the ones he drew were unfortunately very real. And we must remember that Soviet Russia was where much much of the fight over Altaic took place. Clauson, a Britisher, and Rona-Tas, a Hungarian, published their early attacks on Altaic in a Russian journal, for example. Moreover, it seems to me that a kind of political analysis is applicable to the situation in the West too. We must realize that the acceptance or rejection of an idea is not a pure ethereal intellectual act, but a political one within the politics of academia. Thus, it is not irrelevant I think that in the case of Indo-European there is a very large (numerically) body of linguists in the strict sense of the term, whereas in the case of many other language groups (including all the Altaic ones) there have traditionally been a few linguists (sometimes one or maybe two in a given country) and a whole lot of philologists or historians. The audiences at the conferences, the reviewers in the journals, one's colleagues in a university dept. all make a great deal of difference, and these have been so very different for the Altaic comparative linguist as opposed to the Indo-Europeanist. I have no doubt that it made a difference that people who were largely untrained in linguistics and not very intersted in its goals were the dominant group in Altaic studies, as indeed were some of the leading critics of Altaic. Sinor describes himself somewhere as a nonlinguist adding that linguists will breathe a sigh of relief to hear him say that. Now, he was actually more of a linguist than he admitted, but certainly not a linguist in the same sense as Poppe or Starostin or Vovin. Finally, at present, it seems to me that politics has much to do with attitudes towards Altaic as well. In particular, it seems that Altaic sometimes gets knocked by people who are really gunning after Nostratic (and after Greenberg). It is also a political fact (or a social one, or whatever) that there is no forum in our field (except perhaps for LINGUIST) where such a discussion as we have just had is possible. Thus, it is perfectly easy to disseminate harsh criticism and mis- information about a theory like Altaic so that many linguists who do not work in comparative ling or on these languages will hear of and assume the worst, but there is no journal which reaches such an audience which would be a forum for a discussion in which the issues can be aired and both sides can be heard. There should be (much as our friends in anthropology have one) but there isn't. That's too bad, but at least we have LINGUIST.
Message 2: Re: 5.929 Altaic
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 16:55:49 ESRe: 5.929 AltaicFrom: <AVV...@MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: 5.929 Altaic
Reinhard Hahn is certainly right that "*everyone* who does not reject the AH
definitely considers Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic to be Altaic" and "not *ever
yone* is totally convinced that Korean and Japanese are related to them or are
closely enough related to them to be called "Altaic". I had no intention to
misinterpret Reinhard Hahn's position, and if I produced such an impression, I
beg to accept my sincere apologies. All I wanted to say is that this *everyone*
/ *not everyone*'s position stands on a very shaky basis. Let me develop
this a little bit further. First of all, as far as I know, majority of us now,
who do reserch on comparative Altaic proper, and not on separate Altaic langua-
ges, and who actively publish during last ten years on the subject, accept the
idea of five-member Altaic family. Sergei Starostin in his book made very solid
lexicostatistical arguments in favour of inclusion of Japanese and Korean on
the same level of relationship. There are also considerations of phonetic
nature (there are no common phonetic innovations and/or archaisms in "classic"
Altaic triade as opposed to Japanese and Korean or vice versa), and morphologic
al nature (Japanese, Korean and M-Tungus share more common morphological mar-
kers than any of them with Turkic or Mongolian). On the other hand, I have
never heard any solid arguments supporting exclusion of Japanese and Korean
from Altaic; as it seems to me, it is rather based on circulating rumours,
like those which were described previously regarding the very nature of Altaic
itself. If anyone can provide such arguments,I will be very willing to hear
them and to discuss them. Otherwise, I believe, the outdated concept of "Clas-
sic" Altaic with only three members as it was held in sixties and seventies
should not be represented as majority's point of view. There is, I believe,
a scholarship problem, too. While it is enough to have reading knowledge of
English, German, and Russian (and more recently Chinese, too) in order to get
access to Turkic, Mongolian, or M-Tungus materials, unfortunately, there was
no access to reconstructed Japanese data until S. Martin's fundamental "THe
Japanese Language through Time" appeared in 1987 for a specialist in Turkic,
Mongolian, or M-Tungus, unless s/he knew the way across piles in written in
modern and Classical Japanese. Using even Kenkyuusya's Japanese-English dictio-
nary would be as fruitful for comparative Altaic purposes, as using modern
Kazakh alone to represent Proto-Turkic. The same situation exists even today
with Korean data. Though Martin's excellent "Korean Reference Grammar" intro-
duces Middle Korean data to a scholar who cannot read Korean, these data are
still quite far from Proto-Korean reconstruction. On the other hand, on the
Japanese-Korean side of Altaic, we find very similar situation. First of all,
only few scholars here are interested in Altaic as such, and many of the
latter cannot read "Sravnitel'nyi slovar' tunguso-man'zhurskikh iazykov",
which is the main source on comparative Manchu_tungus. Comparing Japanese
and Korean with Manchu alone, which is best accessible language for the collea-
gues who do not read Russian, even remotely will not produce the same results
as comparison with Proto_Manchi-Tungus, with reconstruction based on all availa
ble sources. This situation does create a little correlation between the
specialists, and "Inner" and "Outer" Altaic reflect not a linguistic situation
but a major division between specialists.
Let me now briefly stop on the point why I believe that anti-Altaicist
methodology is in contradiction to the comparative method. I, believe, that
some of what follows, was already mentioned before by N. N. Poppe and R. A.
Miller.
1) In his attack on Miller Doerfer accuses the former that he compares
Japanese not with Altaic, but with different Altaic languages. This accusation
does not make sense from standpoint of a comparativist: Indoeropeanist compa-
res , let's say, a certain Greek form, not with IE reconstruction, but with
cognate forms in various IE languages. In the same way, an Uralist compares
Finnish word with its cognates in other Uralic languages, not with PU recon-
struction. And so on.
2) Another odd methodological cornerstone of anti-Altaistics is
a thesis that one cannot compare simultaneously more than two languages. My
question "why?" addressed to one of them was answered "because I think so".IE-
peanists, Uralists, and other specialsts in comparative linguistics usually
earn their bread by comparing many languages simultaneously, and nobody finds
it strange.
3) Anti-Altaicists, if we scrutiny attentively their arguments, tend
to reject certain examples ad hoc, if they do not look alike. Therefore, a
principle of regular correspondences is completely replaced by a search for
look-alikes. Often one can hear something like: "how can you seriously com-
pare J isi "stone" and Turkish tash (sh stands for hushing sibilant approximate
ly as English sh in shame)?" Well, I can since there are regular correspondence
s between the two.
4) Anti_altaicists, with their theory of omnipotent loanwords tend to
disregard the simple fact that very often their proposals do not make any
sense from the historical point of view. Such is, for example, Doerfer's
claim that Manchu-Tungus borrowed its word *moo "tree" from Mongolian
modun. Taking into consideration traditional habitat of the peoples involved,
the M-Tungus word has the same chance to be borrowed from Mongolian as it does
from Martian, not to metion all phonetical difficulties which arise with such
an interpretation.
5) This anti-historical approach further manifests itself
in, for example, such historically irresponsible statements as
"when ancestors of Chuvash lived in Siberia near Mongols". We have zero
evidence for supporting this statement: but it is certainly necessary to place
Chuvash (westernmost Turkic language) near Mongols in order to justify anti-
Altaistic interpretation of zetacism and lambdaism.
Regarding the terminology, I find Reinhard Hahn's additional arguments
for Mongolic quite acceptable. Xalxa, Chaxar, Ordos etc., however, may be
also called Central Mongolian (or East Mongolian, whatever one prefers), as
opposed to West Mongolian (Oirat & Kalmyk), North Mongolian (Buriat) and
Mongolian Outliers (Dahur, Dongxiang, Baoan, Monguor, and Moghol). I agree,
however, that his proposal is more logical. I would, however, strongly
insist on preserving Manchu-Tungus rather then Tungusic, for the followingtwo r
easons: 1) Manchu is farther from the Tungusic languages than Chuvash is from
Turkic (at least on the basis of lexicostatistical results); 2) people are less
aware(for the time being)that Manchu is an early offshot from the rest
of the group than they are aware about the similar situation with Chuvash: ther
e are attempts to group Manchu together with Nanai and other Tungusic langua-
ges of Primor'e region, which are traditionally called South Tungusic", but
to the best of my knowledge all classifications of Turkic except one very
confusing by Baskakov classify Chuvash as a language standing quite separately.
Alexander Vovin
Miami University
H.M. Hubey
SAKALIBA ARE KIPCHAKS, AND BULGARS ARE ONE OF KIPCHAK TRIBES
Mirfatykh ZAKIEV
An article from his book TATARS: Problems of history and language. Kazan, 1995. Pp. 68–81.
1.
§ 1. In the Arabian and Persian Middle Age sources we find rich information on many peoples of East Europe: about Burtases, Khazars, Bulgars, Sakaliba, Badjanaks, Madjars, Russes, Visus, Yuras and others. The Arabs and Persians adopted all ethnonims, except Sakaliba, from the Eastern European peoples, only the ethnonim Sakaliba is in this respect not so clear. V.V. Bartold suggested that the ethnonim Sakaliba (in singular Saklab) is borrowed by the Arabs, probably, from Greek Sklaboi or Sklabenoi, which means the Slavs [Bartold V.V., 1963, 870], he also provides a probability of another etymology: from Persian sek ‘dog’ + leb ‘lip’, this etymology is also based that the Yaphet’s son Saklab was reared by the dog milk [Ibis, 871].
If to focus on the Arabian sources themselves, the Arabian word Saklab (singular) or Sakaliba (plural) designate blond or red haired people, there invariably is emphasized red (or reddish) color of hair or red (reddish) color of skin of the Sakaliba [Ibis, 870]. In the dictionary of Ashraf Ibn Sharaf Al-Muzakkir Al-Farruga, composed in the 1404-1405 in India with a title ‘Danish-nameyi Kadar-Khan’ (“Book of knowledge of Kadar-Khan”), it is noted that SAKLAB is an area in Turkestan, the people there are white [Baevskiy S.I., 1980, 87]. All aforesaid has given the Russian Arabists and Eastern experts an opportunity to identify Sakaliba with the Slavs. In Russian studies of Eastern geographical sources of Middle Ages the ethnonim Sakaliba is not mentioned at all, it is translated by the word “Slavs”. That Sakaliba are Slavs, nobody doubts, though some note that in the Arabian and Persian sources Sakaliba quite often are identified with Turks, Bulgars etc.
§ 2. One thing is clear: Sakaliba is an Arabian name of white, red haired people. The people, who call themselves white-faced, should have also dark-faced relatives.
White-faced one can only be in comparison with non-white faced related peoples. The Slavs, apparently, never were divided into white faced and non-white faced. As all of them were white faced, red haired, they did not have the necessity to name themselves red haired, for there was no appreciable group of non-red haired. As to the name of the Byelorussians (White Russians), it appeared during feudal separation of Old Russian principalities. Besides, the ancestors of the Byelorussians could not be so widely scattered next to the various Turkic speaking people on the extensive territories of Eastern Europe, Near East and Central Asia, East Siberia and Kazakhstan. It is also necessary to keep in mind that in the Arabian and Persian sources the Eastern Slavs are described under the name Russ. By the time the Eastern Slavs have begun to be named Russ, the other part named Slavs did not exist any more. All Eastern Slavs were already Russian. Therefore, if the Arabs wrote about Russ, they meant Eastern Slavs, who at that time were referred to not as Slavs, but Russians or Uruses (in a Turk-Tatar pronunciation).
§ 3. To adequately uncover the meaning of the Arabian ethnonim Sakaliba, which means white faced, red haired people, it is necessary to find populace, the people of which at that time called themselves and introduced themselves to others as white faced or red haired and at the same time lived together with known Turkic speaking peoples in such a close contact, that the visiting Arabs and Persians considered Sakaliba and Turks as one people or considered ones in the community of others. Naturally, at that time these people were Kipchaks.
The word Kipchak etymologically ascends to Turkic ku-chak, which consists of two roots: ku (ku~kub~kuba) ‘red’, ‘pale’, ‘white – red’, ‘light’, and chak, meaning Sak~chak, the ancient name of Turks (instead of Iranian speaking tribes, as is wrongly asserted by some Indo-Europeists). Kuchak ‘White Sakas’, -chak can be identified also with a respectful-diminutive affix -chyk. The word ku is applied also as ‘Swan’, also called ak kosh ‘white bird’. Kuu ‘white’, ‘white bird’ makes another ethnonim with a word kiji~keshe ‘man’, Kuukiji ‘white people’, ‘Swans’ (Russ. ‘Lebedinets’). The word ku~kuu is applied with a word man as Kuman~Kumandy. Compare also men in a word Turkmen. In Western Europe instead of ethnonim Kipchak is applied the word Kuman. The second part of this word -man until now is not yet etymologized unequivocally.
That ku in ethnonim Kuchak~Kipchak (Kuman) means ‘white, red, fair haired’, proves also to be true by the fact that in many Turkic peoples we observe white (yellow) and not white (not yellow) people. Thus, in 5-6 cc. on the territory of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Northwest India and part of East Turkestan the White Huns, who are also referred to as Epthtalites, formed a state. In the history are known White Tatars and Black Tatars, White Khazars and Black Khazars, White Kirghiz and other Kirghiz, Sary Uigurs (Yellow Uigurs) and other Uigurs.
So, in the Turkic fold were peoples who called themselves Fair Haired, White. Further we shall see that these were Kipchaks. That ethnonim Kipchak designates white, light (Turk.: sary chechle ‘yellow haired’), the Turkological scientists noticed long ago. Thus, the Hungarian scientist Yu. Nemet came to this conclusion at the end of 30-es. He wrote, that “pale yellow” names of Kumans (Russ. Polovets) are a copy of their Turkic (self?) names Kuman and Kun, which ascend to Turkic adjective ku (from older kub) ‘pale’, ‘yellow’ [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 116; Nemet Yu., 1941, 99].
In Turkic languages the blond man also frequently is referred to as sary chechle ‘yellow haired’. Therefore it is no wonder that Kipchaks had also another ethnonim from a word sary ‘yellow’. The Western Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets) in ancient Russian sources were called Sorochinets, in that name was reflected the name of the Sary people, which was used prior to the name of the Kun people. (Subsequently this name approached and merged with the European name for Moslems – Saracenes) “ [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 123].
Hence, a very large group of Turks of Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, Afghanistan, Eastern Turkestan, Northeast India, in addition to their local ethnonims, called themselves by a more general ethnonim with a meaning of ‘white faced’, ‘light yellow’. For such ethnonims the words Kukiji, kuman, kumandy, kuchak~kyfchak~ Kipchak were used the most.
§ 4. The most important fact requiring attention is that these peoples knew perfectly the meaning of their common ethnonim and presented themselves to other peoples as white faced, red haired. In turn, the representatives of other peoples copied the ethnonim ‘pale’. On this occasion Dobrodomov I.G. writes the following: ‘Already for a long time it was noted that Kipchaks (Russ. Polovets) in many languages are designated by words made from roots with meaning “yellow”, “pale”: Russ. Polovets (compare: polovyi, obsolete: polovoi); Polish. (from Czech.) plavci (Plawcy, Plauci, Plawci); from here also Hung. Palyczok(ok), taken from East Slavs; Germ. Val(e)we(n) (compare present Germ. fahl and falb ‘pale’, ‘whitish’, ‘light’, Latinized Slavic forms Falones, Phalagi. The same meaning has mentioned the Armenian author Matvei Edessian under 1050/51 in the 75th chapter of the “History”, the name of the people Khartesh (Lit. ‘Light’, whitish’, fair’)” [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 108].
From this quotation it is clear that Kipchaks represented themselves as blond people to Russian, Poles, Germans, Hungarians, Italians and Armenians, and consequently these peoples named Kipchaks in their languages “fair”. Kipchaks also presented themselves as “fair” to Chinese and Persians [Bartold V.V., 1968, 408].
For our theme it is very important that Kipchaks presented themselves as “fair” also to the Arabs, therefore Arabs named Kipchaks Sakaliba, i.e white faced, fair haired.
Thus, in the Arabian and Persian sources ethnonim Sakaliba is the Arabian copy of ethnonim Kuman or Kipchak (Kuchak). It means “Kipchaks”, and not “Slavs”.
§ 5. The leading Russian scientists-Arabists - V.V.Bartold, I.Yu.Krachkovsky, B.N.Zakhoder etc. note that the Arabian geographers frequently were mistaken, mixing Sakaliba (in Arabists’ opinion, Slavs) with Turks, Kirghizes, Bulgars, Khazars. If to recognize in Arabian Sakaliba Kipchaks instead of the Slavs, it becomes understandable that not the Arabian and Persian geographers-eyewitnesses were mistaken, but Russian researchers of the Arabian and Persian sources, translating the Arabian word Sakaliba as “Slavs”. The translation “Kipchaks” removes all apparent contradictions.
1) “From Pechenegs to Sakaliba ten days of travel by forests and difficult roads. Sakaliba are numerous people, they live in forests on plains. Sakaliba have city V.b.nit” [Zakhoder B.N., 1967, 109]. This distinctive feature of Sakaliba habitation can be attributed both to Kipchaks and to Slavs. The name of city is spelled differently: VA.I, VABNIT, VANTIT, and it also becomes clear that the name of city is not deciphered from the standpoint of Slavic languages. It is essential to make an attempt to read it as Turkic word. The name of the second city Khurdab or Khudud is also not deciphered. As to the expression that some Sakaliba resemble Russes, it is possible to say the following: Kipchaks on appearance really quite often resembled Russes, and other Slavs already did not exist there any more.
For additional clarification of the question who were Sakaliba, – Slavs or Kipchaks, we shall cite the information about Sakaliba assembled by B.N.Zakhoder in the second volume of his book “Caspian collection of information on Eastern Europe”. We have replaced here the word “Slavs” with the original word “Sakaliba”.
2) “Sakaliba use honey instead of grapes, they have developed beekeeping” [Ibis, 110]. This attribute is typical both to the Slavs and to Kipchaks. But the specific contents of the reports of the Eastern geographers allow identifying Sakaliba with Kipchaks. Hence, Sakaliba make a drink of honey, “which they name sudjuv” [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 132].
Even D.A.Khvolson, analyzing this word, transcribed as AS-SJ, tried to explain it, using Croatian ulisce for ‘beehive’, A.P.Kovalevsky and B.N.Zakhoder identify it with a word “soty” (Russ. “beehive”) [Zakhoder B.N.; 1967, 110-111]. In reality it is Turkic word sudji (soje~toche), which was used in Old Turkic texts as “vine” or “sweet drink” and is used till now in the Tatar and Bashkir languages in the meaning “sweet”, “luscious”.
3) “Sakaliba have pigs as numerous as Moslems have sheep” [Zakhoder B.N., 1967, 112]. Here B.N.Zakhoder consciously amended the text, adding a word “Moslems”. Actually it was said that Sakaliba have herds of pigs and herds of sheep, or herd of pigs similar to sheep herds. It is known that Kipchaks originally bred both pigs and sheep. The Kipchaks-Christians continued this tradition, and Kipchaks-Moslems, naturally, have abandoned pig breeding.
4) “ When Sakaliba dies, his corpse is burned, together with the deceased his wife is thrown into fire, thus making funeral and having fun “ [Ibis, 112]. It is known that Guzes and part of Burtases burned their dead, and nobody doubts their Turkic native tongue.
5) “Sakaliba worship fire (or bull) “ [Ibis, 114]. Here B.N.Zakhoder for some reason has missed to note that Sakaliba also are idolaters. This connects Sakaliba with Kipchaks more than with the Slavs.
6) “Sakaliba sow millet; at approach of the harvest time they put grain in a sieve and, addressing the sky, make a pray” [Ibis, 115]. So could act both Slavs and Kipchaks. But facing the sky (Tengre) connects Sakaliba with Kipchaks
7) “Sakaliba have different musical instruments: lutes, tambours, flutes” [Ibis, 116]. With this attribute it is possible to link Sakaliba with both Kipchaks and Slavs.
8) “At Sakaliba there is few burden livestock, horses; they wear shirts and peltry boots on feet; their arms are: lance, shield, peaks, sword, mail chain armor;... Sakaliba leader eats milk of burden animals (kumys)... “ [Ibis, 119]. Kipchaks, as all other Turks, used horses for riding, therefore there were few cargo horses. The peltry boots were known at Turkic Bulgars, who were collectively called Kipchaks, kumys was national Turkic drink. Sakaliba leader was called subanych SUBANJ and suidj SUIJ, in Turkic suchi, where su is an army, -chy is an affix of trade. It is possible that the word Subashi ‘the head of the army’ is distorted when written with Arabian letters.
Some Arabists-Russists the inscription SUIJ MLK would like to read as SUITPLK (Russian name “Svyatopolk”), and with that to prove that the head of Sakaliba is the head of Slavs Svyatopolk. But, as notes B.N. Zakhoder himself, MLK is malik ‘king’, as a whole it is Suchi Malik ‘king, head of the army’. The other words given here as Sakaliba toponims require additional research from the standpoint of Kipchak language.
9) “Sakaliba build underground structures, in which they hide in the winter from a strong cold (or from attacks by Magyars) “ [Zakhoder B.N., 1967, 121]. This neutral expression given by B.N. Zakhoder does not allow determining an ethnic affiliation of Sakaliba. But further in the text the speech goes about the ancient bath-house (Eastern European sauna), which was characteristical of Kipchaks and modern western Turks.
10) “Sakaliba King takes tribute by dress” [Ibis, 124]. By this we cannot determine an ethnic affiliation of Sakaliba.
11) “Sakaliba subject the guilty of larceny and adultery to a severe punishment” [Ibis, 124]. This custom, described by Ibn Fadlan, is characteristical for Bulgar-Sakaliba, i.e. as a whole for Kipchaks, and in particular for Bulgars.
It should be noted that B.N. Zakhoder, apparently, picked the statements of the Eastern geographers with deliberation. He skipped data that gives reasons to consider Sakaliba as Kipchaks. He, naturally, could not fail to note that per Ibn Fadlan, Bulgars are akin to Sakaliba people. But he has noted this fact in own way: Ibn Fadlan would constantly confuse Bulgars with Sakaliba, i.e. with the Slavs [Ibis, 125].
As we have already noted, Ibn Fadlan names Almas Shilki-khan as king of Sakaliba, he was, apparently, from Bulgar people, and therefore is referred to as a Bulgar king. It is understandable that on Middle Volga the Sakaliba country was later referred to as a Bulgar state. It should be noted that the historian Ahmed Zeki Validi Togan stated the opinion that Sakaliba designates light skinned Turks back in 1939 [Zeki Validi, 1939, XXXIV]. But it has received sharp criticism by A.P. Kovalevsky [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 80].
V.V.Bartold remarks that Sakaliba are noted by the red color of hair, but “despite of this distinctive physical attribute, Sakaliba as descendants of Yaphet (Arab. Yafas) are united with Turks” [Bartold V.V., 1963, 870]. Abu Khamid Al-Garnati, telling in 1150 about the travel from Bulgar to Hungary, wrote, that he arrived in the city of the Sakaliba country, which is called Gur kuman, where the people look as Turks, speak Turkic language and shoot arrows as Turks [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 128]. Here it is needless to explain, who were Sakaliba.
So, Sakaliba are Kipchaks, the word Sakaliba (Saklab in singular) is a loan translation of the Turkic ethnonim of Kipchaks.
§ 6. Some can object to this conclusion by that in official Turkology the “arrival” of Kipchaks from Asia to Eastern Europe would occur in the 11 c., and the Arabian and Persian geographers already knew about Sakaliba in the 8 c. In fact, many Turkologists consider a misunderstanding that the first Turks came to Eastern Europe in the 4 c. under the name of Huns, that they “disappeared” approximately in one hundred years, that their place was taken by Avars arrived from Asia; that then Avars “disappeared”, that their place was taken by arrived from Asia Turks, that then in the 7 c. they were replaced by Khazars, that in the 8 c. appeared Pechenegs etc. In the 11 c. Kipchaks (Kumans) supposedly came to Eastern Europe. It is “a fairy tale for children”, not for the serious scientists. Turkic speaking peoples lived in the Eastern Europe in Cimmerian, Scythian and Sarmatian times, and they continue to live there now. There was no change of the peoples, varied only ethnonims, for in different periods of history the ruling group among a multitude of Turkic peoples was at times one, at times another group. From there came changes in a common ethnonim for Turks.
The traces of Kipchaks (in Arabic: Sakaliba) are found in deep antiquity. So, ethnonim Komanchies we meet among American Indians. [Mine Read, 1955, 32; Languages..., 1982, 162]. Considering that ancestors of the American Indians crossed from Asia to the American continent 30-20 thousand years ago, there is a reason to assert that this ethnonim has come to America from Asia at that time. Hence, ethnonim Koman~Komanche existed in Asia 30-20 thousand years ago.
The Chinese sources of the 3 c. BC contain information about Kyueshe which spoke Turkic language. M.I.Artamonov thinks that this is the first mentioning of Kipchaks [Artamonov M.I., 1962, 420]. In our opinion, Kyueshe is a typical Chinese reduction of the ethnonim Kukiji.
Per Chinese data, before our era Huns lived south of the Altai Mountains, north of it lived So people. They then separated into 4 parts: Kuman or Kuban, Kyrgyz, Chu-kshi and Turk [Aristov N.A., 1896, 279-280; Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 155-162].
In the opinion of some scientists, the ethnonim Kipchaks~(Kybchak~Kyfchak) appears in the second half of the 8 c. for designation of people who were called before by an ethnonim Sir, which represents, it seems, another Chinese abbreviation of a word Sarir (Sary ir ‘yellow people’). In the monument of Tonyukuk (726 AD) the dominating peoples are called Turks and Sirs, and in the monument of Eletmish Bilge Kagan in the Shine Usu (760 AD) the dominating peoples are called by ethnonims Turks and Kybchak [Klyashtorny S.G., 1986, 160]. It is important to note that in the first Arabian list of the Turkic peoples, made in the VIII c., is given ethnonim Khyfchak~Kybchak [Ibis, 160]. But later in the compositions of Arabian and Persian geographers instead of the ethnonim Kybchak (Kuchak) begins to be applied its Arabian copy Saklab, and only from the 11 c. again appears the ethnonim Kipchak, and instead of the name “steppe of Guzes”, used by the geographers of 10 c., appears the term “Kipchak steppe” (in Persian: Deshti Kipchak) [Bartold V.V., 1968, 395].
It should be said, also, that in the (Russian – Translator’s note) official historical science, and hence, both in the Russian, and in the West-European Turkology, the question about the appearance and origin of Kipchaks (under self-names: Kukiji, Kuman, Kuchak) is studied in connection with image of the alleged movement of Turks from the area of Far East to the Western Asia and Eastern Europe [Ibis, 393]. Such a standpoint is deeply erroneous, there was no such movement. Since the prehistoric times Turks lived alongside the ancestors of other peoples in Western and Eastern Europe, in Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, in Western Asia and in the Far East, i.e. in those regions, where they were recognized in the historically known times and where, basically, they continue to live now. That Kuman (Kums, Kuns) lived in the Western Europe before our era is proved by the presence before our era of cities Kum at Etrusks (and later of city Kuman in Hungary), and the city Kumanovo in Macedonia.
Thus, Kipchaks (Kukiji, Kuman, Sary, Sir) from the most ancient times pictured their ethnonim as blond, fair haired people, therefore they presented themselves to the neighbors as blonds, and these neighbors in their languages called them blonds: the Slavs Polovets, Arabs and Persians – Sakaliba , the Armenians – Khartesh etc.
The word Kipchak (Kuman, Kukiji) was a more general ethnonim. In the Kipchak group were notable smaller peoples or tribes, as noted by Eastern geographers, the Kirghiz, Huns, Bulgar, Khazars etc. Per Ibn Fadlan, in the Middle Volga in the Sakaliba (Kipchak) group are listed Bulgars, Barandjars, Suars, Suases, Skils (Scyths ~Scyfs), Khazars. Undoubtedly, it is possible to add, that in this group were also Bigers (Biars-Bilyars), Ases-Alans (Bulgars in another way were called Ases), Nukhrats (Silver Bulgars), Temtuzes, Chelmats, Sobekulyans, Burtases, Bashkirs, Mishars etc.
2.
§ 1. So, Bulgars are one of the Kipchak peoples. The objective analysis of the “Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan” witnesses an eloquent testimony of it.
As it is known, in 921 AD the king of Sakaliba of Bulgarian descent, Almas son of Shilka (the name, written in Arab letters as ALMS, the Russian Orientalists translate as Almush, apparently, so that this name was not identical to the widespread Turkic name Almas), asked the Baghdad Khalif to send an embassy to the country of Sakaliba for an official adoption of Islam, with an objective to be liberated from the submission to Khazars, who adopted Judaism.
The Arabian embassy under a leadership of Susan ar-Rasi arrived in 922 AD in the country of Sakaliba, Bulgaria. The secretary of the embassy was Akhmed Ibn Fadlan, who run detailed travel records with the description of the country and Sakaliba people – Bulgars. In these records, which were published with a title of “The Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan”, the country and the people are referred to in a basic term Sakaliba, and also the king Almas son of Shilka is presented mainly as a Sakaliba king. After the arrival of the embassy, after a personal acquaintance with Almas son of Shilka, and after he has learned that even before his arrival on Almas minbar a khutba was already proclaimed from his name: “Oh, Allah! Save king Yiltuar, King of Bulgars!”, and after Almas son of Shilka has accepted the Arabian name Djafar, after he has given his father a name Abdulla, Ibn Fadlan, at last, himself made a khutba: “Oh, Allah! Save [in prosperity] your slave the king Djafar Ibn Abdulla, emir of Bulgars, the vassal of the emir of faithful” [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 132-133]. And later, describing the country, Ibn Fadlan again used the expression “Sakaliban King”.
So, for Ibn Fadlan there are two identical names of the same country, same king: Sakaliba and Bulgar. It is understandable, since Bulgars are one of Sakaliba – Kipchak peoples. Therefore we doubtlessly can state that Bulgars (and Proto Bulgars) spoke an ordinary Kipchak language.
§ 2. As the question of lingo-ethnic affiliation of Bulgars in the (Russian – Translator’s note) official historical science and in the (Russian – Translator’s note) Turkology is properly tangled, it should be set right.
In all medieval sources the Bulgars and Khazars are shown as Turks, speaking a common Turkic language of Kipchak type.
Only in the middle of the 19 c., when the scientific research of the problems of a lingo-ethnic affiliation of Volga and Danube Bulgars and the Proto Bulgars of Kubrat Khan Great Bulgaria began, other diverse positions have appeared.
The first researchers considered Volga Bulgars to be Türks speaking Kipchak, i.e. Huns, and later Bulgaro-Tatars. Some researchers classified them as Finno-Ugrians. Those who mostly engaged in the problems of history of Danube Bulgars, presented a theory of a Slavic origin of both Proto Bulgars, and Danube and Volga Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F., 1993, 3-13; Kakhovsky V.F., 1993, 31-33].
In 1863 Kh.Feyzkhanov found some Chuvash words in the Bulgar epigraphs, and came to a conclusion about influence of the Chuvash language on the language of epitaphs of the Volga Bulgars [Feyzkhanov Kh., 1863, 404]. A notorious missionary N.I.Ilminsky, not troubling himself by a detailed study of epitaphical language and the history of the local area, made from this “discovery” of Feyzkhanov a conclusion that Volga Bulgars spoke not a Türkic language of Kipchak type, but a Chuvash language [Ilminsky N.I., 1865, 80-84]. Then this idea was picked up by a (Russian – Translator’s note) imperial censor N.I.Ashmarin and the subsequent Chuvashelogists, by the Russian and West-European lingo-historians and ethno-historians [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. 1993, 4-7].
Later not only in the Bulgar epigraphy, but also in the composition of Ibn Fadlan, in the Slavic-Bolgarian name list, in the ancient Balkarian writings of Caucasus, in the Turkic borrowings of the Hungarian language, in the language of Volga Finno-Ugrians, the scientists tried to locate, and “found” Chuvash words, and, thus, “was proved” the Chuvash-linguality of Huns, Khazars, ancestors of Volga and Danube Bulgars and Proto-Bulgars. For the Chuvash historians and philologists there are no other researches, except the works identifying Bulgar, Khazars, Huns with Chuvashes. In the later years they do not distinguish Bulgars and Chuvashes at all, for them Bulgars are Chuvashes, and Chuvashes are Bulgars.
I critically reviewed the main works in which the identity of Bulgars and Chuvashes “is proved” in the book published in Tatar language in 1977 [Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 116-151].
Later in my articles I tried to illuminate this problem in more detail and brought fresh findings of other scientists about ordinarity of the Turkic language of Huns, and Khazars, and Proto Bulgars. In 1993 together with the expert in the Chuvash history and language Ya. F. Kuzmin-Yumanadi we issued a special book, in which we subjected to an analysis all basic works written to prove the Chuvash-linguality of Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. 1993].
Above, in the first part of this article, on the basis of new, more objective analysis of the known to history facts about Sakaliba I endeavored to prove that Bulgar people are cognate with Kipchaks. Now I need to acquaint the readers with the objective data, based on which the Chuvashes both by the language, and by all other parameters could not belong to Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., 1982, 93-99; Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F., 1993, 9-12].
1. If Chuvashes were formed mostly of Volga Bulgars, if the Bulgar language historically was transformed into Chuvash language, such continuity, certainly, would be visible, first of all, in the anthropological type of Bulgars and Chuvashes. However specific craniological studies provide completely opposite results. “Even a superficial morphological description makes it is visible, – wrote V.P.Alekseev, – that craniologically Chuvashes are similar to their Finnic speaking neighbors and that, hence, their anthropological type was formed with intensive participation of combination of characteristics typical for Finnic speaking peoples of the Volga basin, which has received the name of Sub Uralian” [Alekseev V.P., 1971, 248].
As to the complex of attributes characteristical for Bulgars, in the Chuvash type it is not found [Ibis, 249]. This Bulgarian complex of attributes was a basis of the formation of the Volga Tatars anthropological type. A low foreheaded Mongoloid component representing one of the variants of the Sub Ural type, and a high foreheaded Mongoloid type connected, probably, with Kipchaks, arelayered on it [Ibis, 241-246]. Hence, on the craniological data, the historical continuity between Bulgars and Tatars is more obvious, than between Bulgars and Chuvashes.
2. The Bulgar-Chuvash theory does not also prove to be true in the ethnographical correlation. The known ethnographers N.I.Vorobev and K.I.Kozlova note that the ethnographic features of Bulgars were basically preserved first of all among the Kazan Tatars [Vorobev N.I., 1948, 80; Kozlova K.I., 1964, 20-21]. So, for example, among Bulgars were spread a maturely developed tanning manufacture and the commerce, which then were passed on to the Kazan Tatars, but in the Chuvash society the development of these crafts and occupations is not noted.
3. The culture of literacy was conveyed from Bulgars to Kazan Tatars, but Chuvashes up to 19 c had not have a such culture. The same we can say about Muslim religion. The traces of Bulgars are not preserved in the Chuvash mythology and folklore, but in the mythology and folklore of Kazan Tatars the Bulgarian contents are usual subjects [Boryngy..., 1963, 17-51].
4. Chuvashes never called themselves Bulgars, but Kazan Tatars believed that their villages were founded by the descendants from Bulgaria, that their grandfathers, great-grandfathers were Bulgars, and often, down to the 20 c., called themselves Bulgars, counter to the name “Tatars”. The name “Tatars” was externally imposed from three sides: by Mishar-Tatars who joined the population of the Kazan Khanate, by the Russians, who called almost all their Eastern neighbors Tatars, and by those who called themselves “Tatars” to show their greatness. Kazan Tatars persistently called themselves Bulgars almost up to the 20 c. without any political connotations. Nobody taught this to the people, there were no history textbooks, no instruction manuals. The native language or the history of the people were not studied in then in medrese, the studies were limited to the Arabian, Persian or Turkish languages and the common Muslim history. The (Russian – Translator’s note) official propaganda was deeply interested in the spreading of the ethnonim “Tatars”. Consequently, the recollections of the fact that Kazan Tatars are, basically, former Bulgars, were preserved only in the memory of the people. Unfortunately, this fact and other evidence that in the base of the ethnic composition and language of the Kazan Tatars lay the Bulgarian substrate and Bulgarian language, the supporters of the Bulgar-Chuvash theory previously did not consider at all, and also now they silently avoid it.
5. The Bulgar-Chuvash theory territorially also does not prove to be true. Archeological excavations show that on the territory of Chuvash settlement the Bulgarian archeological monuments of both Pre-Mongolian and Golden-Hordenian (Ak Urdu, Kipchac Khaganate – Translator’s note) time are absent, except for Eastern and Southeastern part of Chuvashiya in the basin of Sviyaga river [Fakhrutdinov R.G., 1975, 86]. It would be possible to suggest that the ancestors of Chuvashes at first lived in the territory of the Bulgarian state, and then someone displaced them, for example, Mongolo-Tatars, as it is implied sometimes. However history knows no such facts.
6. Consider one more fact. If the ancestors of modern Chuvashes had a close affiliation to Bulgars, they necessarily would inherit a statehood. There are no reasons to think that the ancestors of the modern Chuvash people in the social development at one time were on a level of creating a state, and then rejected such form of political organization. The history, it seems, does not have a case that an ethnic group had its state, formed as a nation, and with the time lost all of it. Consequently, it is clear, that the ancestors of Chuvash people did not have a statehood, and they had no close affiliation to Bulgars. Bulgarian state developed into Kazan Khanate, and the Kazan Tatars inherited a statehood from Bulgars.
7. As it is known, the Bulgaro-Chuvash theory has arisen and was developed as a solely linguistic concept. However even in this respect it is quite inconsistent. For instance, Makhmud Kashgari in 11 c. had noted affinity of Bulgarian, Suvarian and Oghuz (Russ. Pecheneg – Translator’s note) languages [Kashgari Makhmud, 1960, 66-68; Kononov A.N., 1972, 14]. As it is known, the Oghuz language was not characterized by the Chuvash features, and was the language of Oguzo-Kipchak type. M. Kashgari, marking affinity of Bulgarian, Suvarian and Kipchak languages, writes, that “the sound d, present in the language of Chigils and other Turkic peoples, in the language of Kipchaks, Yamaks, Suvars, Bulgars and others peoples, who are spread to Romans and Russians, is replaced with a sound z”. Besides that here the languages of Kipchaks, Yamaks, Suvars, Bulgars are listed as identical by a given feature, another side of this message deserves an attention: here the so-called rotation of the initial d or z, characteristical for Chuvash language, is not noted. The comment is only about the interchangeability of d-z which is observed until now in Turkic languages of the ordinary Oguzo-Kipchak type. Consequently, it should be concluded, that Bulgar language was not characterized by this rotation. If it is found in the language of Bulgarian epitaphs, it is possible to explain it by the influence of the language of Chuvash ancestors on the language of Bulgarian epitaphs.
8. We shall bring one more witness account of the Bulgar’s contemporary. In the 1183 prince Vsevolod of Vladimir before a raid on Bulgars apprised the prince Svyatoslav of Kiev: “I do not want to call Polovets (Russ. Kipchaks), for they are with Bolgars one language and lineage” [Tatischev V.N., 1964, 128]. Thus, history has two authentic evidences on the affinity of Bulgarian language with Oghuz and Kipchak languages. Besides, it should be noted that these two accounts, without a territorial connection with each other, coincide.
9. It is impossible not also to notice the following. How to explain that modern Tatars and Bashkirs, on the one hand, and Balkars on another, have almost the same language, at any case, they understand each other well. In fact after the split in the 7 c., i.e. the separation of common ancestors into three groups, Balkars and Kazan Tatars had no territorial or economic connections. From the standpoint of the Bulgar-Chuvash theory it would be possible to explain it like this: their common ancestors Proto Bulgars were “Chuvash speaking”, and Kazan Tatars’ and Balkars’ languages would became alike under the influence of arriving later Kipchaks. It is clear now that Kipchaks were not newcomers. That Kazan Tatars’ and Balkars’ languages so are close to each other is because, obviously, of the common historical roots ascending to the Oguzo Kipchak language of Proto Bulgars.
10. Further, if Bulgarian and Khazarian languages were Chuvash-Turkic, the appreciable traces would remain in all of the huge territory occupied at one time by Huns, Bulgars and Khazars. Moreover, even if to presume that in the deepest antiquity they spoke a Chuvash-Turkic language, during a centenary domination of them by the Turks of the Turkic Kaganate (6-7 cc.) their language would undergo the influence of Oguzo-Kipchak type language.
11. At last, if Bulgars spoke a Chuvash type language, they would have a self-name Palkhar, which would be also preserved in historical sources. But in the history there is no such a phenomenon. In fact propagated an ethnonim Bulgar (Bolgar), specific for the common Turkic type languages.
Thus, the Bulgar-Chuvash theory is fraught with deep contradictions, and therefore for the solution of glotto- and ethno genetic problems of the Bulgars, Khazars, Huns, Turks, Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs it is not acceptable.
***
Consequently, Bulgars were not Chuvash-lingual, and spoke a Turkic language of Kipchak type. Moreover, Bulgar people belonged to the Kipchak’s fold. It is proved by the Arabian and Persian sources of the 9-11 cc., which associate Bulgars with the larger Turkic alliance of Kipchaks (in Russian: Polovets, in Arabic: Sakaliba).
LITERATURE
Alekseev V.P. A sketch of an origin of Turkic peoples of Eastern Europe in light of the craniological data // Questions of ethnogenesis of Turkic lingual peoples of the Middle Volga. Kazan, 1971. (In Russian).
Aristov N.A. Notes about ethnic structure of Turkic peoples and nations and information of their number // Live antiquity. Periodical edition of ethnography branch of. Russian Imperial geographic society. Issue III and IV, – SPb., 1896. (In Russian).
Artamonov M.I. A history of Khazars. M.-L., 1962. (In Russian).
Baevskiy S.I. The geographical names in early Persian lexicographical dictionaries // Countries and peoples of East. Issue XXII. M., 1980. (In Russian).
Bartold V.V. The Slavs // Works, Vol. II. 4.1. M., 1963. Pp. 870-872. (In Russian).
Bartold V.V. New work about Kipchaks // Works, Vol. V. M., 1968. Pp. 392-408. (In Russian).
Boryngy... – Ancient Tatar Literature. Kazan, 1963. (In Tatar).
Vorobyev N.I. The origin of Kazan Tatars on the data of ethnography // Origin of Kazan Tatars, Kazan, 1948. (In Russian).
Dobrodomov I.G. About Polovets ethnonims in ancient Russian literature // Turkological collection. 1975. M., 1978. Pp. 102-129. (In Russian).
Zakiev M.Z. The contradictions of the Bulgar-Chuvash theory // Theoretical problems of Eastern linguistics. Part 5. M., 1982. (In Russian).
Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. Volga Bulgars and their descendents. Kazan, 1993. (In Russian).
Zakhoder B.N. Caspian collection of information on East Europe. Vol. II. M., 1967. (In Russian).
Zeki Validi Togan A.. Ibn-Fadlans Reisebericht // Deutsche Morgen-landische Gesellschaft. Leipzig, 1939. (In German).
Zekiev M.Z. Genesis of the language of Tatar people. Kazan, 1977. (In Tatar).
Ilminsky N.I. About the phonetic relations between Chuvash and Turkic languages // News of Imperial archeological society. Vol. V.-SPb. 1865. (In Russian).
Kakhovsky V.F. The review of the theories of an origin of ancient Bulgars // Bulletin of Chuvash National Academy 1993. No 1 Pp. 31-43. (In Russian).
Klyashtorny S.G.. Kipchaks in Runic records // Turcologica. 1986. To eighty years of Acad. A.N. Kononov L., 1986. (In Russian).
Kovalevsky A.P. Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan about his travel to Volga in 921-922 AD. Kharkov, 1956. (In Russian).
Kozlova K.I. Ethnography of the peoples of Volga. M., 1964. (In Russian).
Kononov A.N. Makhmud Kashgari and his “Divanu lugat it-turok” // Soviet Turkology. 1972.- No 1. (In Russian).
Kashgari Makhmud. Turkiy suzlar devoni. Vol. I. Tashkent, 1960. (In Uzbek).
Nemeth J. Die Volksnamen quman und qun // Korosi Croma Archivum. Budapest, 1941-1943. Pp. 95-109. (In German).
Read M. Rider without a head. M., 1955. (In Russian).
Tatischev V.N. Russian History. Vol. III, M.-L., 1964. (In Russian).
Fakhrutdinov R. Archeological monuments of Volga-Kama Bulgaria and her territories. Kazan, 1975. (In Russian).
Feyzkhanov Kh. Three Bulgar gravestone inscriptions // News of archeological society. Vol. IV.-SPb., 1863. (In Russian).
Languages... Languages and dialects of the world: the prospectus and dictionary. M., 1982. (In Russian).
Translated by N. KISAMOV
Peter T. Daniels
>
> [S]ince I have degrees in both engineering and computer
> science,
> that makes it doubly true for me too.
Too bad you didn't study any linguistics before paying a vanity press to
publish your books on "mathematical linguistics."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
:>: : the Altays circa 300 CE and were chasing lizards before the Iranians
:>: : taught them to speak.
:>
:>: untrue, other than 300 CE is quite sufficient to explain proto-Turkic
:>: without chuvash and some centuries earlier to include it.
:>
:>rona-tas and o. pritsak articulate this: without chuvash proto-turkic
:>reconstructs to something dated a little earlier than the runic
:>inscriptions and to a language something resembling the language of them.
:>itis thought that the tu"rk empire in putting the language to writing and
:>using it officially and unifying the tribes under a state established some
:>degree of linguistic uniformity. somewhat like the romans establishing
:>latin and thus reducing drastically the input of variosu other italic
:>langauegs into what became the romance languages.
:>
:>
:>
: I don't give a shit about Rona-Tas or Pritsak. How many times do I have
: to tell you this?
then don't give a shit. others do. I satisfy their curiosity.
you don't "have" to do anything.
: How many times did I show you the inconsistencies?
forget me, you may have still have left questions unanswered to others.
: how many times do I have to show the evidence?
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H
:>
:>there have been objections to Tuna's work, some aired on this forum.
:>
: Like what?
:>: No proof outside of mathematics.
:>
:>then read "make a case for".
:>
: Better if you write so. You need to be accurate not me.
:>:>
:>
:>: Right. In the 1930s, when Ataturk was behind it. Typical liberal Turk
:>
:>I didn't mean Ataturk specifically. nationalsit ideology was in fashion
:>and it was felt needed to justify that turks were ancestral to the area.
:>
:>
:>
: So what?
thewre is no "so what", it was just the situation then.
Yusuf B Gursey
: I've seen it in a shop in Boston.
then he is pandering to american habits acquired from arab owned stores.
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>:>:>
:>:>
:>:>: The loss of initial p is also documented e.g. padhak> adhak> ayak.
:>:>
:>:>it's not documented at all, but there is strong comparative evidnce for
:>:>it.
:>:>
:>
:>: 1. You claimed it.
:>
:>hell no! I certainly can't take credit for it!
:>
:>
: Here is your post
: : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
: :>:>
: :>:>
: :>:>: 50 also likely from elig, which is likely derived from the same source
: :>:>
: :>:>not just likely, it actually is.
: :>:>
: :>:>: from which
: :>:>: bilek/pilek is derived. I wrote in another place where the *paDaN[u]
: :>:>: gave rise
: :>:>: to *paDak and later aDak (attested) and gave rise to ayak. You can see
: :>:>
: :>:>
: :>:>khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact come from *p`a*dh*a:q
: :>:>
: :>
: Look carefully at this "khalaj hada:q is attested, which does in fact
: come from *p`a*dh*a:q "
OK, badly phrased.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Why is nobody making fun of them?
I am not making fun of anybody. they weren't the topic of discussion.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H.M. Hubey <hhu...@nj.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:>: There is no protoTurkic and no protoHungarian language that has been
:>
:>what "protoHungarian"? the reconstructed language to describe the various
:>dialects of hungarian?
:>
:>and yes, many have reconstructed proto-Turkic.
:>
: name the book and author and give me the names. Beter yet, show me the
: morphology of
: prototurkic. And don't give me names like Decsy. His production is worse
: than an amateur.
: He can't even connect obviously related words to each other.
clauson for one, the russian altaicists more recently.
Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:>untrue, other than 300 CE is quite sufficient to explain proto-Turkic
:>without chuvash and some centuries earlier to include it.
:>
: Explain what?
extant forms.
: Like most languages or language families Turkic was also probably
: constructed of various
: layers. Some people from the Mideast (Europoids) went north into the
such a time depth is not required to explain the similarity of turkic
langauges. it does not mean that the language did not have a history
before the usually accepted dates of "prototurkic".
: steppes after some thousands
: of years, they met up with Asians (Mongoloids) who had also gone north.
: That mixing is what
: created the Turkic languages, and Mongolian and Uralic.
two or more waves of migration is found in say ruhlen's scenario as well,
it may well be true, but that is not what is usually meant as
"proto-turkic". it goes under different names.
: Any fool can see that Turkic could have never safeguarded words for
: agriculture from the Mideast,
: and words having to do with cuneiform, clay working, drawing, and
: writing from 3,000 BC if
: they had come from the east and had been nomads all along. For what
: fucking reason would
: nomads need or keep the words for sickle?
anthropologists generally agree that nomadism came after agriculture.
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>H
:>
:>there have been objections to Tuna's work, some aired on this forum.
:>
: Like what?
read the archives.
:>: No proof outside of mathematics.
:>
:>then read "make a case for".
:>
: Better if you write so. You need to be accurate not me.
huh???
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>: I am going to do this again. Clearly. Slowly. Agonizingly.
:>
:>I said you may be right. no problem.
:>
: No, you said, "it is as good a guess as any".
: Is that equivalent to "you may be right"?
I wanted to point out that tehre was no consensus, yet you may be right.
OK?
: I think what you show in your posts by being so loose is contempt for
: linguistics. You would
untrue.
: never do this in physics.
: Is accuracy only for physics and engineering and not for linguistics
: because the linguists are
: all dimwits like Daniels?
: Why don't you try thinking of linguistics as budding physics of the
: 21st century and try
: measuring your words.
:>
:>
H.M. Hubey
http://sophistikatedkids.com/turkic/26Kipchaks/SakalibaEn.htm
If you do not use a newsreader that can render Arabic
script you can check the above site with your
browser which will display the original. The writer shows the original writings
and the distortions it
went through in the hands of "linguists" in the USSR. All of this is was
propagated in the west thinking
they were reading accurate renderings. So it is not only some Lysenko-type
linguistics in the USSR
but all of Turkology that is infected with deliberate falseshoods but all
of Turkology. Even today
there are professional Turkologists who still probably not read these. I
assume that the author is
not deliberately misrepresenting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirfatykh Zakiev
TATARS
Problems of history and language
Kazan 1995
Pp 68-81
SAKALIBA ARE KIPCHAKS, AND BULGARS ARE ONE OF KIPCHAK PEOPLES
Bolgar patshsy echen Sekalibe patshasy din atalgan?
Miras. 1994 No 5-6.Pp. 102-109.
1.
§ 1. In the Arabian and Persian Middle Age sources we find rich information on many peoples of East Europe: about Burtases, Khazars, Bulgars, Sakaliba, Badjanaks, Madjars, Russes, Visus, Yuras and others. The Arabs and Persians adopted all ethnonyms, except Sakaliba, from the Eastern European peoples, only the ethnonym Sakaliba is in this respect not so clear. V.V. Bartold suggested that the ethnonym Sakaliba (in singular Saklab) is borrowed by the Arabs, probably, from Greek Sklaboi or Sklabenoi, which means the Slavs [Bartold V.V., 1963, 870], he also provides a probability of another etymology: from Persian sek ‘собака’ + leb ‘lip’, this etymology is also based that the Yaphet’s son Saklab was reared by the dog milk [Ibis, 871].
If to focus on the Arabian sources themselves, the Arabian word
Saklab (singular) or Sakaliba (plural) designate blond or red haired people,
there invariably is emphasized red (or reddish) color of hair or red (reddish)
color of skin of the Sakaliba [Ibis, 870]. The dictionary of Ashraf Ibn Sharaf
Al-Muzakkir Al-Farruga, composed in the 1404-1405 in India with a title ‘Danish-nameyi
Kadar-Khan’ (“Book of knowledge of Kadar-Khan”), notes that (
- SAKLAB) are in Turkestan area, the people there are white
[Baevskiy S.I., 1980, 87]. The above gave the Russian Arabists and Easternists
an opportunity to identify Sakaliba with the Slavs. In Russian studies of
the Eastern geographical sources of Middle Ages, the ethnonym Sakaliba is
not mentioned at all, it is translated by the word “Slavs”. Nobody questiones
that Sakaliba are Slavs, though some note that in the Arabian and Persian
sources Sakaliba quite often are identified with Türks, Bulgars etc.
§ 2. One thing is clear: Sakaliba is an Arabian name of white, red haired people. The people, who call themselves white-faced, should have also dark-faced relatives.
White-faced one can only be in comparison with non-white faced related peoples. The Slavs, apparently, never were divided into white faced and non-white faced. As all of them were white faced, red haired, they did not have the necessity to name themselves red haired, for there was no appreciable group of non-red haired. As to the name of the Byelorussians (White Russians), it appeared during feudal separation of Old Russian principalities. Besides, the ancestors of the Byelorussians could not be so widely scattered next to the various Türkic speaking people on the extensive territories of Eastern Europe, Near East and Central Asia, East Siberia and Kazakhstan. It is also necessary to keep in mind that in the Arabian and Persian sources the Eastern Slavs are described under the name Russ. By the time the Eastern Slavs have begun to be named Russ, the other part named Slavs did not exist any more. All Eastern Slavs were already Russian. Therefore, if the Arabs wrote about Russ, they meant Eastern Slavs, who at that time were referred to not as Slavs, but Russians or Urus (in a Türk-Tatar pronunciation).
§ 3. To adequately uncover the meaning of the Arabian ethnonym Sakaliba, which means white faced, red haired people, it is necessary to find populace, the people of which at that time called themselves and introduced themselves to others as white faced or red haired and at the same time lived together with known Türkic speaking peoples in such a close contact, that the visiting Arabs and Persians considered Sakaliba and Türks as one people or considered ones in the community of others. Naturally, at that time these people were Kipchaks.
The word Kipchak etymologically ascends to Türkic ku-chak, which consists of two roots: ku (ku~kub~kuba) ‘red’, ‘pale’, ‘white – red’, ‘light’, and chak, meaning Sak~chak, the ancient name of Türks (instead of Iranian speaking tribes, as is wrongly asserted by some Indo-Europeists). Kuchak ‘White Sakas’, -chak can be identified also with a respectful-diminutive affix -chyk. The word ku is applied also as ‘Swan’, also called ak kosh ‘white bird’. Kuu ‘white’, ‘white bird’ makes another ethnonym with a word kiji~keshe ‘man’, Kuukiji ‘white people’, ‘Swans’ (Russ. ‘Lebedinets’). The word ku ~kuu is applied with a word man as Kuman~Kumandy. Compare also men in a word Turkmen. In Western Europe instead of ethnonym Kipchak is applied the word Kuman. The second part of this word -man until now is not yet etymologized unequivocally.
That ku in the ethnonym Kuchak~Kipchak (Kuman) means ‘white, red, fair haired’, proves also to be true by the fact that among many Türkic peoples we observe white (yellow) and not white (not yellow) people. Thus, in 5-6 cc. on the territory of Central Asia, Afghanistan, Northwest India and part of East Turkestan the White Huns, who are also referred to as Epthtalites, formed a state. In the history are known White Tatars and Black Tatars, White Khazars and Black Khazars, White Kirghiz and other Kirghiz, Sary Uigurs (Yellow Uigurs) and other Uigurs.
So, in the Türkic fold were peoples who called themselves Fair Haired, White. Further we shall see that these were Kipchaks. That ethnonym Kipchaks designates white, light (Turk.: sary chechle ‘yellow haired’), the Türkological scientists noticed long ago. Thus, the Hungarian scientist Yu. Nemet came to this conclusion at the end of 30-es. He wrote, that “pale yellow” names of Kumans (Russ. Polovets) are a copy of their Türkic (self?) names Kuman and Kun, which ascend to Türkic adjective ku (from older kub) ‘pale’, ‘yellow’ [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 116; Nemet Yu., 1941, 99].
In Türkic languages the blond man also frequently is referred to as sary chechle ‘yellow haired’. Therefore it is no wonder that Kipchaks had also another ethnonym from a word sary ‘yellow’. The Western Kipchaks in ancient Russian sources were called Sorochinets, in that name was reflected the name of the Sary people, which was used prior to the name of the Kun people. (Subsequently, this name approached and merged with the European name for Moslems – Saracenes) “ [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 123].
Hence, a very large group of the Türks of the Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, Afghanistan, Eastern Turkestan, Northeast India, in addition to their local ethnonyms, called themselves by a more general ethnonym with a meaning of ‘white faced’, ‘light yellow’. For such ethnonyms the words Kukiji, Kuman, Kumandy, Kuchak~Kyfchak~ Kipchak were used the most.
§ 4. The most important fact requiring attention is that these peoples knew perfectly the meaning of their common ethnonym and presented themselves to other peoples as white faced, red haired. In turn, the representatives of other peoples copied the ethnonym ‘pale’. On this occasion Dobrodomov I.G. writes the following: ‘It was noted for a long time already that Kipchaks in many languages are designated by words composed of the roots with a meaning “yellow”, “pale”: Russian Polovets (compare: polovyi, obsolete: polovoi); Polish. (from Czech.) рlаvсi (Рlаwсу, Рlаuсi, Рlаwci); from here also Hungarian Раlусz(оk), taken from East Slavs; German Val(e)we(n) (compare present Germ. fahl and falb ‘pale’, ‘whitish’, ‘light’, Latinized Slavic forms Falones, Phalagi. The Armenian author Matvei Edessian mentioned the same meaning under year 1050/51 in the 75th chapter of the “History”, the name of the people Khartesh (Literary, ‘Light’, whitish’, fair’)” [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 108].
From this quotation it is clear that Kipchaks presented themselves to Russian, Poles, Germans, Hungarians, Italians and Armenians as blond people, and consequently these peoples named Kipchaks in their languages “fair”. Kipchaks also presented themselves to Chinese and Persians as “fair” [Bartold V.V., 1968, 408].
For our theme it is very important that to the Arabs Kipchaks also presented themselves as “fair”, therefore Arabs named Kipchaks Sakaliba, i.e white faced, fair haired.
Thus, in the Arabian and Persian sources the ethnonym Sakaliba is the Arabian copy of the ethnonym Kuman or Kipchak (Kuchak). It means “Kipchaks”, and not “Slavs”.
§ 5. The leading Russian scientists-Arabists - V.V.Bartold, I.Yu.Krachkovsky, B.N.Zakhoder etc. note that the Arabian geographers frequently were mistaken, mixing Sakaliba (in Arabists’ opinion, Slavs) with Türks, Kirghizes, Bulgars, Khazars. If to accept that in Arabian Sakaliba means Kipchaks instead of the Slavs, it becomes clear that not the Arabian and Persian geographers-eyewitnesses were mistaken, but the Russian researchers of the Arabian and Persian sources, who translate the Arabian word Sakaliba as “Slavs”. The translation “Kipchaks” removes all perceived contradictions.
1) “From Pechenegs to Sakaliba ten days
of travel by forests and difficult roads. Sakaliba are numerous people, they
live in forests on plains. Sakaliba have city V.b.nit” [Zakhoder B.N., 1967,
109]. This distinctive feature of Sakaliba habitation can be attributed both
to Kipchaks and to Slavs. The name of city is spelled differently: VA.I (
) , VABNIT (
), VANTIT (
), and it also becomes clear that the name of city is not deciphered
from the standpoint of the Slavic languages. It is essential to make an attempt
to read it as a Türkic word. The name of the second city Khurdab or Khudud
is also not deciphered. As to the expression that some Sakaliba resemble
Russes, it is possible to say the following: Kipchaks on appearance really
quite often resembled Russes, and other Slavs already did not exist there
any more.
For additional clarification of the question who were Sakaliba, – Slavs or Kipchaks, we shall cite the information about Sakaliba assembled by B.N.Zakhoder in the second volume of his book “Caspian collection of information on Eastern Europe”. We have replaced here the word “Slavs” with the original word “Sakaliba”.
2) “Sakaliba use honey instead of grapes, they have developed beekeeping” [Ibis, 110]. This attribute is typical both to the Slavs and to Kipchaks. But the specific contents of the reports of the Eastern geographers allow identifying Sakaliba with Kipchaks. Hence, Sakaliba make a drink of honey, “which they name sudjuv” [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 132].
Even D.A.Khvolson, analyzing this word, transcribed as AS-SJ (
), tried to explain it, using Croatian ulisce for ‘beehive’,
A.P.Kovalevsky and B.N.Zakhoder identify it with a word “soty”(Russ. “beehive”)
[Zakhoder B.N.; 1967, 110-111]. In reality it is Türkic word sudji (soje~toche),
which was used in Old Türkic texts as “vine” or “sweet drink” and is used
till now in the Tatar and Bashkir languages in the meaning “sweet”, “luscious”.
3) “Sakaliba have pigs as numerous as Moslems have sheep” [Zakhoder B.N., 1967, 112]. Here B.N.Zakhoder consciously amended the text, adding a word “Moslems”. Actually it was said that Sakaliba have herds of pigs and herds of sheep, or herd of pigs similar to sheep herds. It is known that Kipchaks originally bred both pigs and sheep. The Kipchaks-Christians continued this tradition, and Kipchaks-Moslems, naturally, have abandoned pig breeding.
4) “ When Sakaliba dies, his corpse is burned, together with the deceased his wife is thrown into fire, thus making funeral and having fun “ [Ibis, 112]. It is known that Guzes and part of Burtases burned their dead, and nobody doubts their Türkic native tongue.
5) “Sakaliba worship fire (or bull) “ [Ibis, 114]. Here B.N.Zakhoder for some reason has missed to note that Sakaliba also are idolaters. This connects Sakaliba with Kipchaks more than with the Slavs.
6) “Sakaliba sow millet; at approach of the harvest time they put grain in a sieve and, addressing the sky, make a pray” [Ibis, 115]. So could act both Slavs and Kipchaks. But facing the sky (Tengre) connects Sakaliba with Kipchaks.
7) “Sakaliba have different musical instruments: lutes, tambours, flutes” [Ibis, 116]. With this attribute it is possible to link Sakaliba with both Kipchaks and Slavs.
8) “At Sakaliba there is few burden livestock,
horses; they wear shirts and peltry boots on feet; their arms are: lance,
shield, peaks, sword, mail chain armor;... Sakaliba leader eats milk of burden
animals (kumys)... “ [Ibis, 119]. Kipchaks, as all other Türks, used horses
for riding, therefore there were few cargo horses. The peltry boots were known
at Türkic Bulgars, who were collectively called Kipchaks, kumys was national
Türkic drink. Sakaliba leader was called Subanych (SUBANJ - 
) and Suidj (SUIJ - 
), in Türkic Suchi, where su is an army,
-chy is an affix of trade. It is possible that the word Subashi ‘the head
of the army’ is distorted when written with Arabian letters.
Some Arabists-Russists the inscription SUIJ MLK (
)would like to read as SUITPLK (
) (Russian name “Svyatopolk”), and with that
to prove that the head of Sakaliba is the head of Slavs Svyatopolk.
But, as notes B.N. Zakhoder himself, (
) is malik ‘king’, as a whole it is Suchi Malik ‘king, head
of the army’. The other words given here as Sakaliba toponyms require additional
research from the standpoint of Kipchak language.
9) “Sakaliba build underground structures, in which they hide in the winter from a strong cold (or from attacks by Magyars) “ [Zakhoder B.N., 1967, 121]. This neutral expression given by B.N. Zakhoder does not allow determining an ethnic affiliation of Sakaliba. But further in the text the speech goes about the ancient bath-house (Eastern European sauna), which was characteristical of Kipchaks and modern western Türks.
10) “Sakaliba King takes tribute by dress” [Ibis, 124]. By this we cannot determine an ethnic affiliation of Sakaliba.
11) “Sakaliba subject the guilty of larceny and adultery to a severe punishment” [Ibis, 124]. This custom, described by Ibn Fadlan, is characteristical for Bulgar-Sakaliba, i.e. as a whole for Kipchaks, and in particular for Bulgars.
It should be noted that B.N. Zakhoder, apparently, picked the statements of the Eastern geographers with deliberation. He skipped data that gives reasons to consider Sakaliba as Kipchaks. He, naturally, could not fail to note that per Ibn Fadlan, Bulgars are akin to Sakaliba people. But he has noted this fact in his own way: Ibn Fadlan would constantly confuse Bulgars with Sakaliba, i.e. with the Slavs [Ibis, 125].
As we have already noted, Ibn Fadlan names Almas Shilki-Khan as king of Sakaliba, he was, apparently, from the Bulgar people, and therefore is referred to as a Bulgarian king. It is understandable that in the Middle Volga the Sakaliba country was later referred to as a Bulgar state. It should be noted that the historian Ahmed Zeki Validi Togan stated back in 1939 the opinion that Sakaliba designates light skinned Türks [Zeki Validi, 1939, XXXIV]. But it received sharp criticism by A.P. Kovalevsky [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 80].
V.V.Bartold remarks that Sakaliba are noted by the red color of hair, but “despite of this distinctive physical attribute, Sakaliba as descendants of Yaphet (Arab. Yafas) are united with Türks” [Bartold V.V., 1963, 870]. Abu Khamid Al-Garnati, telling in 1150 about the travel from Bulgar to Hungary, wrote, that he arrived in the city of the Sakaliba country, which is called Gur kuman, where the people look as Türks, speak Türkic language and shoot arrows as Türks [Dobrodomov I.G., 1978, 128]. Here it is needless to explain, who were Sakaliba.
So, Sakaliba are Kipchaks, the word Sakaliba (Saklab in singular) is a loan translation of the Türkic ethnonym of Kipchaks.
§ 6. Some can object to this conclusion by that in the official Türkology, the “arrival” of Kipchaks from Asia to Eastern Europe would occur in the 11 c., and the Arabian and Persian geographers already knew about Sakaliba in the 8 c. In fact, many Türkologists consider a misunderstanding that the first Türks came to Eastern Europe in the 4 c. under the name of Huns, that they “disappeared” approximately in one hundred years, that their place was taken by Avars who arrived from Asia; that then Avars “disappeared”, that their place was taken by arrived from Asia Türks, that then in the 7 c. they were replaced by Khazars, that in the 8 c. appeared Pechenegs etc. Supposedly, Kipchaks (Kumans) came to the Eastern Europe in the 11 c. This is “a fairy tale for children”, not for the serious scientists. The Türkic-speaking peoples lived in the Eastern Europe in the Cimmerian, Scythian, and Sarmatian times, and they continue to live there now. There was no change of the peoples, varied only the ethnonyms, for in the different periods of history the ruling group among a multitude of Türkic peoples was at times one, at times another group. From there came changes in the common ethnonym for the Türks.
The traces of Kipchaks (in Arabic: Sakaliba) are found in deep antiquity. So, ethnonym Komanchies we meet among American Indians. [Mine Read, 1955, 32; Languages..., 1982, 162]. Considering that the ancestors of the American Indians crossed from Asia to the American continent 30-20 thousand years ago, there is a reason to assert that this ethnonym has come to America from Asia at that time. Hence, ethnonym Koman~Komanche existed in Asia 30-20 thousand years ago.
The Chinese sources of the 3-rd c. BC contain information about Kyueshe who spoke Türkic language. M.I.Artamonov thinks that this is the first mentioning of Kipchaks [Artamonov M.I., 1962, 420]. In our opinion, Kyueshe is a typical Chinese reduction of the ethnonym Kukiji.
Before our era, per Chinese data, the Huns lived south of the Altai Mountains, north of it lived So people. They then separated into 4 parts: Kuman or Kuban, Kyrgyz, Chu‑kshi and Türk [Aristov N.A., 1896, 279-280; Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 155-162].
In the opinion of some scientists, the ethnonym Kipchaks ~ (Kybchak~Kyfchak) appears in the second half of the 8 c. as a designation of people who were called before by an ethnonym Sir, which represents, it seems, another Chinese rendering of a word Sarir (Sary Ir ‘yellow people’). In the monument of Tonyukuk (726 AD), the dominating peoples are called Türks and Sirs, and in the monument of Eletmish Bilge Kagan in the Shine Usu (760 AD) the dominating peoples are called by the ethnonyms Türks and Kyb-chak [Klyashtorny S.G., 1986, 160]. It is important to note that the first Arabian list of the Türkic peoples, made in the 8-th c., gives the ethnonym Khyfchak- Kybchak [Ibis, 160]. But later in the compositions of Arabian and Persian geographers instead of the ethnonym Kybchak (Kuchak) begins to be applied its Arabian copy Saklab, and only from the XI c. again appears the ethnonym Kipchak, and instead of the name “steppe of Guzes”, used by the geographers of Х c., appears the term “Kipchak steppe” (in Persian: Deshti Kipchak) [Bartold V.V., 1968, 395].
It should be said, also, that in the (Russian – Translator’s note) official historical science, and hence, both in the Russian, and in the West-European Türkology, the question about the appearance and origin of Kipchaks (under self-names: Kukiji, Kuman, Kuchak) is studied in connection with image of the alleged movement of Türks from the area of Far East to the Western Asia and Eastern Europe [Ibis, 393]. Such a standpoint is deeply erroneous, there was no such movement. Since the prehistoric times Türks lived alongside the ancestors of other peoples in Western and Eastern Europe, in Near East, Middle East and Central Asia, in Western Asia and in the Far East, i.e. in those regions, where they were recognized in the historically known times and where, basically, they continue to live now. That Kuman (Kums, Kuns) lived in the Western Europe before our era is proved by the presence before our era of cities Kum at Etrusks (and later of city Kuman in Hungary), and the city Kumanovo in Macedonia.
Thus, Kipchaks (Kukiji, Kuman, Sary, Sir) from the most ancient times pictured their ethnonym as blond, fair haired people, therefore they presented themselves to the neighbors as blonds, and these neighbors in their languages called them blonds: the Slavs Polovets, Arabs and Persians – Sakaliba , the Armenians – Khartesh etc.
The word Kipchak (Kuman, Kukiji) was a more general ethnonym. In the Kipchak group were notable smaller peoples or tribes, as noted by Eastern geographers, the Kirghiz, Huns, Bulgar, Khazars etc. Per Ibn Fadlan, in the Middle Volga in the Sakaliba (Kipchak) group are listed Bulgars, Barandjars, Suars, Suases, Skils (Scyths ~Scyfs), Khazars. Undoubtedly, it is possible to add, that in this group were also Bigers (Biars-Bilyars), Ases-Alans (Bulgars in another way were called Ases), Nukhrats (Silver Bulgars), Temtuzes, Chelmats, Sobeculyans, Burtases, Bashkirs, Mishars etc.
2.
§ 1. So, Bulgars are one of the Kipchak peoples. The objective analysis of the “Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan” witnesses an eloquent testimony of it.
As it is known, in 921 AD the king of Sakaliba of Bulgarian descent, Almas son of Shilka (the name, written in Arab letters as ALMS, the Russian Orientalists translate as Almush, apparently, so that this name was not identical to the widespread Türkic name Almas), asked the Baghdad Khalif to send an embassy to the country of Sakaliba for an official adoption of Islam, with an objective to be liberated from the submission to Khazars, who adopted Judaism.
The Arabian embassy under a leadership of Susan ar-Rasi arrived in 922 AD in the country of Sakaliba, Bulgaria. The secretary of the embassy was Akhmed Ibn Fadlan, who run detailed travel records with the description of the country and Sakaliba people – Bulgars. In these records, which were published with a title of “The Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan”, the country and the people are referred to in a basic term Sakaliba, and also the king Almas son of Shilka is presented mainly as a Sakaliba king. After the arrival of the embassy, after a personal acquaintance with Almas son of Shilka, and after he has learned that even before his arrival on Almas minbar a khutba was already proclaimed from his name: “Oh, Allah! Save king Yiltuar, King of Bulgars!”, and after Almas son of Shilka has accepted the Arabian name Djafar, after he has given his father a name Abdulla, Ibn Fadlan, at last, himself made a khutba: “Oh, Allah! Save [in prosperity] your slave the king Djafar Ibn Abdulla, emir of Bulgars, the vassal of the emir of faithful” [Kovalevsky A.P., 1956, 132-133]. And later, describing the country, Ibn Fadlan again used the expression “Sakaliban King”.
So, for Ibn Fadlan there are two identical names of the same country, same king: Sakaliba and Bulgar. It is understandable, since Bulgars are one of Sakaliba -Kipchak peoples. Therefore we doubtlessly can state that Bulgars (and Proto Bulgars) spoke an ordinary Kipchak language.
§ 2. As the question of lingo-ethnic affiliation of Bulgars in the (Russian – Translator’s note) official historical science and in the (Russian – Translator’s note) Türkology is properly tangled, it should be set right.
In all medieval sources the Bulgars and Khazars are shown as Türks, speaking a common Türkic language of Kipchak type.
Only in the middle of the 19 c., when the scientific research of the problems of a lingo-ethnic affiliation of Volga and Danube Bulgars and the Proto Bulgars of Kubrat Khan Great Bulgaria began, other diverse positions have appeared.
The first researchers considered Volga Bulgars to be Türks speaking Kipchak, i.e. Huns, and later Bulgaro-Tatars. Some researchers classified them as Finno-Ugrians. Those who mostly engaged in the problems of history of Danube Bulgars, presented a theory of a Slavic origin of both Proto Bulgars, and Danube and Volga Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F., 1993, 3-13; Kakhovsky V.F., 1993, 31-33].
In 1863 Kh.Feyzkhanov found some Chuvash words in the Bulgar epigraphs, and came to a conclusion about influence of the Chuvash language on the language of epitaphs of the Volga Bulgars [Feyzkhanov Kh., 1863, 404]. A notorious missionary N.I.Ilminsky, not troubling himself by a detailed study of epitaphical language and the history of the local area, made from this “discovery” of Feyzkhanov a conclusion that Volga Bulgars spoke not a Türkic language of Kipchak type, but a Chuvash language [Ilminsky N.I., 1865, 80-84]. Then this idea was picked up by a (Russian – Translator’s note) imperial censor N.I.Ashmarin and the subsequent Chuvashelogists, by the Russian and West-European lingo-historians and ethno-historians [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. 1993, 4-7].
Later not only in the Bulgar epigraphy, but also in the composition of Ibn Fadlan, in the Slavic-Bolgarian name list, in the ancient Balkarian writings of Caucasus, in the Türkic borrowings of the Hungarian language, in the language of Volga Finno-Ugrians, the scientists tried to locate, and “found” Chuvash words, and, thus, “was proved” the Chuvash-linguality of Huns, Khazars, ancestors of Volga and Danube Bulgars and Proto-Bulgars. For the Chuvash historians and philologists there are no other researches, except the works identifying Bulgar, Khazars, Huns with Chuvashes. In the later years they do not distinguish Bulgars and Chuvashes at all, for them Bulgars are Chuvashes, and Chuvashes are Bulgars.
I critically reviewed the main works in which the identity of Bulgars and Chuvashes “is proved” in the book published in Tatar language in 1977 [Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 116-151].
Later in my articles I tried to illuminate this problem in more detail and brought fresh findings of other scientists about ordinarity of the Türkic language of Huns, and Khazars, and Proto Bulgars. In 1993 together with the expert in the Chuvash history and language Ya. F. Kuzmin-Yumanadi we issued a special book, in which we subjected to an analysis all basic works written to prove the Chuvash-linguality of Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. 1993].
Above, in the first part of this article, on the basis of new, more objective analysis of the known to history facts about Sakaliba I endeavored to prove that Bulgar people are cognate with Kipchaks. Now I need to acquaint the readers with the objective data, based on which the Chuvashes both by the language, and by all other parameters could not belong to Bulgars [Zakiev M.Z., 1982, 93-99; Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F., 1993, 9-12].
1) If Chuvashes were formed mostly of Volga Bulgars, if the Bulgar language historically was transformed into Chuvash language, such continuity, certainly, would be visible, first of all, in the anthropological type of Bulgars and Chuvashes. However specific craniological studies provide completely opposite results. “Even a superficial morphological description makes it is visible, – wrote V.P.Alekseev, – that craniologically Chuvashes are similar to their Finnish speaking neighbors and that, hence, their anthropological type was formed with intensive participation of combination of characteristics typical for Finnish speaking peoples of the Volga basin, which has received the name of Sub Uralian” [Alekseev V.P., 1971, 248].
As to the complex of attributes characteristical for Bulgars, in the Chuvash type it is not found [Ibis, 249]. This Bulgarian complex of attributes was a basis of the formation of the Volga Tatars anthropological type. A low foreheaded Mongoloid component representing one of the variants of the Sub Ural type, and a high foreheaded Mongoloid type connected, probably, with Kipchaks, arelayered on it [Ibis, 241-246]. Hence, on the craniological data, the historical continuity between Bulgars and Tatars is more obvious, than between Bulgars and Chuvashes.
2) The Bulgar-Chuvash theory does not also prove to be true in the ethnographical correlation. The known ethnographers N.I.Vorobev and K.I.Kozlova note that the ethnographic features of Bulgars were basically preserved first of all among the Kazan Tatars [Vorobev N.I., 1948, 80; Kozlova K.I., 1964, 20-21]. So, for example, among Bulgars were spread a maturely developed tanning manufacture and the commerce, which then were passed on to the Kazan Tatars, but in the Chuvash society the development of these crafts and occupations is not noted.
3) The culture of literacy was conveyed from Bulgars to Kazan Tatars, but Chuvashes up to 19 c had not have a such culture. The same we can say about Muslim religion. The traces of Bulgars are not preserved in the Chuvash mythology and folklore, but in the mythology and folklore of Kazan Tatars the Bulgarian contents are usual subjects [Boryngy..., 1963, 17-51].
4) Chuvashes never called themselves Bulgars, but Kazan Tatars believed that their villages were founded by the descendants from Bulgaria, that their grandfathers, great-grandfathers were Bulgars, and often, down to the 20 c., called themselves Bulgars, counter to the name “Tatars”. The name “Tatars” was externally imposed from three sides: by Mishar-Tatars who joined the population of the Kazan Khanate, by the Russians, who called almost all their Eastern neighbors Tatars, and by those who called themselves “Tatars” to show their greatness. Kazan Tatars persistently called themselves Bulgars almost up to the XX c. without any political connotations. Nobody taught this to the people, there were no history textbooks, no instruction manuals. The native language or the history of the people were not studied in then in medrese, the studies were limited to the Arabian, Persian or Türkish languages and the common Muslim history. The (Russian – Translator’s note) official propaganda was deeply interested in the spreading of the ethnonym “Tatars”. Consequently, the recollections of the fact that Kazan Tatars are, basically, former Bulgars, were preserved only in the memory of the people. Unfortunately, this fact and other evidence that in the base of the ethnic composition and language of the Kazan Tatars lay the Bulgarian substrate and Bulgarian language, the supporters of the Bulgarо-Chuvash theory previously did not consider at all, and also now they silently avoid it.
5) The Bulgar-Chuvash theory territorially also does not prove to be true. The archeological excavations in the territory of Chuvash settlement show that the Bulgarian archeological monuments of both Pre-Mongolian and Kipchak Khaganate time are absent, except for the Eastern and Southeastern part of Chuvashiya in the basin of Sviyaga river [Fakhrutdinov R.G., 1975, 86]. It would be possible to suggest that the ancestors of Chuvashes at first lived in the territory of the Bulgarian state, and then someone displaced them, for example, Mongolo-Tatars, as it is implied sometimes. However history knows no such facts.
6) Consider one more fact. If the ancestors of modern Chuvashes had a close affiliation with Bulgars, they necessarily would inherit a statehood. There are no reasons to think that the ancestors of the modern Chuvash people in the social development at one time were on a level of creating a state, and then rejected such form of political organization. The history, it seems, does not have a case that an ethnic group had its state, formed as a nation, and with the time lost all of it. Consequently, it is clear, that the ancestors of Chuvash people did not have a statehood, and they had no close affiliation to Bulgars. The Bulgarian state developed into the Kazan Khanate, and the Kazan Tatars inherited a statehood from Bulgars.
7) As it is known, the Bulgaro-Chuvash theory has arisen and was developed as a solely linguistic concept. However, even in this respect it is quite inconsistent. For instance, Makhmud Kashgari in the 11-th c. noted the affinity of the Bulgarian, Suvarian and Oghuz languages [Kashgari Makhmud, 1960, 66-68; Kononov A.N., 1972, 14]. As it is known, the Oghuz language was not characterized by the Chuvash features, and was the language of Oguzo-Kipchak type. M. Kashgari, marking the affinity of the Bulgarian, Suvarian and Kipchak languages, writes, that “the sound р, present in the language of Chigils and other Türkic peoples, in the language of Kipchaks, Yamaks, Suvars, Bulgars and others peoples, who are spread to Romans and Russians, is replaced with a sound z”. Besides that here the languages of Kipchaks, Yamaks, Suvars, and Bulgars are listed as identical by a given feature, another side of this message deserves an attention: here the so-called rotation of the initial р or z, characteristic for the Chuvash language, is not noted. The comment is only about the interchangeability of р-z which is observed until now in Türkic languages of the ordinary Oguzo-Kipchak type. Consequently, it should be concluded, that the Bulgarian language was not characterized by this rotation. If it is found in the language of Bulgarian epitaphs, it is possible to explain it by the influence of the language of Chuvash ancestors on the language of the Bulgarian epitaphs.
8) We shall bring one more witness’ account of the Bulgar’s contemporary. In the 1183 the Prince Vsevolod of Vladimir, before a raid on Bulgars, apprised the Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev: “I do not want to call Polovets (Russian for Kipchaks), for they are with Bolgars one language and lineage” [Tatischev V.N., 1964, 128]. Thus, history has two authentic evidences on the affinity of Bulgarian language with Oghuz and Kipchak languages. Besides, it should be noted that these two accounts coincide without a territorial connection with each other,.
9) It is also impossible not to notice the following. How to explain that modern Tatars and Bashkirs, on the one hand, and Balkars on another, have almost the same language, at any case, they understand each other well. In fact after the split in the 7 c., i.e. the separation of common ancestors into three groups, Balkars and Kazan Tatars had no territorial or economic connections. From the standpoint of the Bulgar-Chuvash theory it would be possible to explain it like this: their common ancestors Proto Bulgars were “Chuvash speaking”, and Kazan Tatars’ and Balkars’ languages would became alike under the influence of arriving later Kipchaks. It is clear now that Kipchaks were not newcomers. That Kazan Tatars’ and Balkars’ languages so are close to each other is obviously because of the common historical roots ascending to the Oguzo Kipchak language of Proto Bulgars.
10) Further, if the Bulgarian and Khazarian languages were Chuvash-Türkic, the appreciable traces would remain in all of the huge territory occupied at one time by the Huns, Bulgars and Khazars. Moreover, even if to presume that in the deepest antiquity they spoke a Chuvash-Türkic language, during a centenary domination of them by the Türks of the Türkic Kaganate (6-7 cc.) their language would undergo the influence of Oguzo-Kipchak type language.
11) At last, if Bulgars spoke a Chuvash type language, they would have a self-name Palkhar, which would be also preserved in historical sources. But in the history there is no such a phenomenon. In fact, propagated an ethnonym Bulgar (Bolgar), typical for the common Türkic type languages.
Thus, the Bulgar-Chuvash theory is fraught with deep contradictions, and therefore for the solution of glotto- and ethno genetic problems of the Bulgars, Khazars, Huns, Turks, Chuvashes, Tatars, and Bashkirs it is not acceptable.
***
Consequently, Bulgars were not Chuvash-lingual, and spoke a Türkic language of Kipchak type. Moreover, Bulgar people belonged to the Kipchak’s fold. It is proved by the Arabian and Persian sources of the 9-11 cc., which associate Bulgars with the larger Türkic alliance of Kipchaks (in Russian: Polovets, in Arabic: Sakaliba).
LITERATURE
Alekseev V.P. A sketch of an origin of Türkic peoples of Eastern Europe in light of the craniological data // Questions of ethnogenesis of Türkic lingual peoples of the Middle Volga. Kazan, 1971. (In Russian).
Aristov N.A. Notes about ethnic structure of Türkic peoples and nations and information of their number // Live antiquity. Periodical edition of ethnography branch of. Russian Imperial geographic society. Issue III and IV, -SPb., 1896. (In Russian).
Artamonov M.I. A history of Khazars. M.-L., 1962. (In Russian).
Baevskiy S.I. The geographical names in early Persian lexicographical dictionaries // Countries and peoples of East. Issue XXII. M., 1980. (In Russian).
Bartold V.V. The Slavs // Works, Vol. II. 4.1. M., 1963. Pp. 870-872. (In Russian).
Bartold V.V. New work about Kipchaks // Works, Vol. V. M., 1968. Pp. 392-408. (In Russian).
Boryngy... - Ancient Tatar Literature. Kazan, 1963. (In Tatar).
Vorobyev N.I. The origin of Kazan Tatars on the data of ethnography // Origin of Kazan Tatars, Kazan, 1948. (In Russian).
Dobrodomov I.G. About Polovets ethnonyms in ancient Russian literature // Türkological collection. 1975. M., 1978. Pp. 102-129. (In Russian).
Zakiev M.Z. The contradictions of the Bulgar-Chuvash theory // Theoretical problems of Eastern linguistics. Part 5. M., 1982. (In Russian).
Zakiev M.Z., Kuzmin-Yumanadi Ya. F. Volga Bulgars and their descendents. Kazan, 1993. (In Russian).
Zakhoder B.N. Caspian collection of information on East Europe. Vol. II. M., 1967. (In Russian).
Zeki Validi Togan A.. Ibn-Fadlans Reisebericht // Deutsche Morgen-landische Gesellschaft. Leipzig, 1939. (In German).
Zekiev M.Z. Genesis of the language of Tatar people. Kazan, 1977. (In Tatar).
Ilminsky N.I. About the phonetic relations between Chuvash and Türkic languages // News of Imperial archeological society. Vol. V.-SPb. 1865. (In Russian).
Kakhovsky V.F. The review of the theories of an origin of ancient Bulgars // Bulletin of Chuvash National Academy 1993. No 1 Pp. 31-43. (In Russian).
Klyashtorny S.G.. Kipchaks in Runic records // Türcologica. 1986. To eighty years of Acad. A.N. Kononov L., 1986. (In Russian).
Kovalevsky A.P. Book of Akhmed Ibn Fadlan about his travel to Volga in 921-922 AD. Kharkov, 1956. (In Russian).
Kozlova K.I. Ethnography of the peoples of Volga. M., 1964. (In Russian).
Kononov A.N. Makhmud Kashgari and his “Divanu lugat it-turok” // Soviet Türkology. 1972.- No 1. (In Russian).
Kashgari Makhmud. Türkiy suzlar devoni. Vol. I. Tashkent, 1960. (In Uzbek).
H.M. Hubey
You can find these at
www.turkicworld.org
GENETIC MAP
INTRODUCTION
In most cases I have a record where the page came from. It is possible that the source site moved or does not exist any more. All of the maps are accessible from their original source, and no credit is clamed here. This map comes from the Internet, http://home.att.net/~eugenics/GeneMap.htm, and is duplicated here because it is a rare (up until now) illustration, and it puts in a proper perspective the anthropological findings of the last century, helping to explain why there is so much sincere confusion and intentional misrepresentation in the attribution of the archeological monuments. In a way it is unique for today’s science in placing the North Turkic breed on the human genetic map. There could be different maps, using different selection of the criteria, different coordinate system, or differing scale, and they would carry a somewhat different message. They will enlighten the different genetic faucets of the similarities and differences inherent to the group identified as Turkic, and its various components. We may not share the notions of the authors of the page, and admit that there may be varying interpretations of the statistical facts, but the purpose of the illustration is to show the genetic relationship of the Türkic people within the human diversity :
Human Genome Diversity Project
Following is a graphic representation of the genetic differences between 42 population groups. This data is from The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza. Gypsies, Jews, Samaritans and a few other population groups have not been considered because of their complex histories, but research is progressing on their racial make-ups. Also note that there are four major races, not three, and that northeastern Asians are closer genetically to Caucasians than they are to southeast Asians. We unfortunately tend to lump all Asians together, but they are genetically very different. Northeast Asians tend to have superior intelligence, given that they survived the Wurm glaciation about 10,000 years ago, similar to northwest Caucasians or Aryans. Below the following figure descriptions of some of the cryptic racial categories as used by Cavalli-Sforza. Also note that if you are interested in Caucasians, they are again broken down into 26 racial groups (See the above book). Theoretically, racial groups can be broken down all the way to the individual (except for identical twins) to make up about 6 billion racial groups. See Jensen, chapter 12 at this web site for an explanation of racial groups and what they mean.
H.M. Hubey
|
Tikhonov A.G. THE NEW DATA FOR ANTHROPOLOGY OF KOBANIAN CULTURE POPULATION (ULLYBAGANALY BURIAL MATERIALS)
INTRODUCTION
It is not a secret for anybody that Northern Caucasus is seen by archeologists, and also by paleoanthropologists, as a rather mysterious region. Despite apparent abundance of a material, its interpretation meets a number of difficulties. In fact, the paleoanthropological materials represent territory of Northern Caucasus extremely mosaically. Especially it relates to Scythian-Sarmatian time, that is 7 c. BC to 1 c. AD. The number of series dated by this epoch does not exceed several skulls, and, though the material covers almost all territory of region, the whole set of problems remains unsolved. First of all, there is a problem of the physical build of the population, people of the Kobanian culture so well studied archeologically. There is little anthropological data and obviously insufficient for a solution of the question about origin and dynamics of the period for a complex of attributes traditionally ascribed to the population of Kobanian culture. (I shall notice, however, that the definitive components of this complex are not yet determined finally and are equivocal enough). That is why there is a clear necessity of scrupulous study of any, even most numerically insignificant materials, for extraction of all possible information: each detail here is important. Actually, the reasons mentioned above have caused to this work. From an anthropologist’s point of view the Ullybaganaly burial, located 30 kilometers west from Kislovodsk, and dated 7-6 cc. BC (Kovalevskaya, 1984), gave insignificant material.
Suitable for measurement were 6 male and 2 female skulls, and 6 male and 4 female skeletons. However, the archeological uniqueness of this burial requires a careful study of the paleoanthropological materials. In the opinion of the author of excavation V.B. Kovalevskaya, the burial artifacts and the burial ritual clearly display contacts of the local (Kobanian) and newcomer (Scythian) traditions. Thus we deal with an archeologically proved contact between steppe Scythian and local mountain peoples. Possibly, we will fill with anthropological contents the fact of contacts between two large cultural communities in Northern Caucasus.
CRANIOLOGICAL AND OSTEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE SERIES
The craniological and osteological average values of traits are presented in the Tables 1 and 2. Considering the importance of the material, we did not limit this case only to the analysis of averages, however. A study of each skeleton was performed and a detailed description produced. With these results we can not only present our series in a numerical format, but also locate the characteristic features, which determine the common structure and form of the skulls and the postcranial skeleton. Male skulls. Skulls of medium sizes with some prevalence of a longitudinal diameter. The skulls are characterized by dolichocrania, frequently on the border with mezocrania, and also by a significant height. Vertically the skulls are close to oboid (oval? - - Translator’s note) form. In cross section and in posterior view the skulls are pentagonal. Forehead is medium sloped, narrow or medium width. Forehead hillocks are medium developed. Laterally the nape is angular and with a high length of arc. Nape hillocks often reach a significant development. 75 Occiput is widish, slightly prominent. Occipital tuber is lightly developed. The face skeleton is characterized by very small cheekbone width; a small width of the middle and middle top face. Noted is some incline of cheekbones to the front (“klinognatia”). The face seems shortish. In a horizontal plane, the top portion of the face skeleton is profiled weakly, the middle part is profiled strongly. In a vertical plane the face is orthognatial. Nose bridge impresses as well profiled, medium high. A nose is large in height and medium in width, with mezorinnal index. As far as possible to judge visually (to measure appear impossible), the nasal bones stood out considerably. The bottom ledge of a nose foramen is antropinal, fossae prenasalae is marked only in one case. Frontal prosess of maxilla bone is developed above average. Orbits are fairly large, wide, and medium high, chameconic by the index, quasi-rectangular or oval form. The jaw is characterized by large size, fairly high bulkness and elongated shape (large values of the longitudinal dimensions and medium cross dimensions). In whole the male skulls can be characterized as Europoid dolichocranial, high, with strongly profiled face in a horizontal plane and very narrow. A nose is large and prominent. Certainly, the small number in the series does not allow to unequivocally determine all traits; however, the complex of attributes allow easily tell the basic features of the Mediterranean type of Southern Europoid race.
Female skulls. It is necessary to specifically address two female skulls excluded from further consideration. Despite of considerable difference in size (the skull from the burial 6 is much larger), both skulls have a number of common features: both are brachycranial, sphenoid, medium profiled in the top portion of the face and strongly in middle, with noted alveolar prognatism and a large lower jaw. As a whole, with some exceptions, the female complex of skull attributes is similar to male. Such features as brachycrany and alveolar prognatism with insignificant quantities in a series (2!) does not allow to talk about essential differences of female skulls, exceeding the framework of sexual dimorphism and, especially, to make from this fact far-reaching conclusions.
Table 1. Median values of male scull signs in burial Ullybaganaly (7 - 6 cc. BC.). Table 2. Mean values of osteometric parameters of bones from Ullubaganaly burial 7c. BC.
|
||
|
Fig. 1. Comparison of Ullubaganaly burial sculls with Kobanian culture sculls and with sculls of Scythian-Sarmatian time from North-Western Caucasus.
Ullubaganaly - Уллубаганалы Kobanian culture -
Кобанская культура Scythian-Sarmatian
- Скифо-сарматы 1 8 8:1 17 45 48 55 54 54:55 51a 52
|
||
|
Osteological characteristics. The group analysis of long bones of men does not allow deducting authentically any characteristic common features: all skeletons are different enough. However a thorough comparison of skeletons allows to note some details. First, the lower limb is somewhat lengthened in relation to the upper limb, with the length of the body on the border of larger sizes (length of a body, in fact, varies considerably from 162 to 174 sm). Secondly, long bones’ diaphysis tend to small bulkiness (relative or absolute gracility is characteristic for almost all skeletons). In the female series is noted a definite degree of shortness, medium bulkiness of bones and a significant width of shoulders, reconstructed by the length of clavicles. Thus it is possible to note some dolichomorphism of the men and brachymorphism of the women. It is impossible to tell precisely by virtue of small number in series how real are these differences.
Table 3. Index of Proportions THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.
To find possible analogies to our materials, we carried out comparison of our series with groups of approximately of same time interval from the territory of Northern Caucasus. Two group collections are chosen for comparison: skulls of Kobanian culture, including 5 male skulls from Koban (Shantr, Debets), 5 skulls from Upper Rutkha (Debets), 2 skulls from Manych (Ginzburg), 2 skulls from Mozdok (Bunak) and series for Scythians-Sarmatians, including skulls from Mozdok, Voronezh, Elizavetinsk, and Nikolaev burials (Bunak, 1953, Debets, 1948, Gerasimova, 1976). The numerical data is presented in the Table 3, graphics on Figure 1. It is easy to note that all three collections are characterized by a group of common features. They are united by dolichocrany, small cheekbone diameter, and a significant height of a skull. At the same time it is necessary to also note some differences of a series from Ullybaganaly. The skulls of this group clearly display a rather large size of noses and orbits. As far as these differences are real it is difficult to tell due to small number of our series. Thus, it is possible to ascertain that the skulls from Ullybaganaly do not cross beyond the framework of the forms characteristic for Northern Caucasus 7c. BC to 1 c. AD. As we already noted above, the fact of cultural interaction between Scythian and Kobanian peoples does not leave a doubt. However how deep it was, whether there were conjugal contacts, is not determined yet. To approach in any measure to the answer to this question we performed a comparison of a series from Ullybaganaly with Scythians of N Pontic and Dniepr basin. We choose two composite groups for comparison: a series from Nikolaevka-Kazatskoe and Zolotaya Balka burials, from the 1 c. BC to 3 c. AD (Konductorova, 1979), and composite series of Nothern Pontic and Dniepr basin Scythians of the 7 to 3 cc. BC (Konductorova, 1972). T.S.Konductorova in her works proved the soundness of combining various series into one. The results, presented in the Table 4 and on Figure 2, appeared rather unexpected. We observe clearly the extremely great similarity of the series from Ullybaganaly with the Scythian skulls, even on Caucasian scale.
Table 4. Comparison of Ulubaganaly burial sculls with Kobanian culture sculls and with sculls of Scythian-Sarmatian time from North-East Caucasus (men).
|
||
|
80 Fig 2. Comparison of Ulubaganaly burial series with Scythian series from East European Steppes.
Ullybaganaly
burial Nikolaevka-Kazatskoe
and "Zolotaya Balka" burials N
Pontic and Dniepr Scythians 1 8 8:1 17 9 45 54:55 52:51 <Nm <Zm
|
||
|
The similar outcome also results from the comparison of long bones. However, in this case the large thigh and smaller shoulder massiveness in the series from Ullybaganaly can reflect enough truthfully the definitive distinctions in productive and cultural type (Table 5).
Table 5. Comparison of long bones from Ulubaganaly burial with Scythian (Konductorova, 1979). Men.
CONCLUSIONS
So, the summary. We noted that the series from Ullybaganaly burials belongs to the North Caucasian circle of the forms, with characteristic dolichocrania and a narrow strongly profiled face. A large protruding nose. At the same time was found a high similarity of our series to the Scythian groups of the Dniepr basin and the Northern Pontic, and a superior similarity with the North Caucasian groups. There can be two probable explanations to this: the anthropological contact between Scythian and Kobanian peoples was so close, that the initial anthropological type of the Koban culture population simply dissolved in the mass of the Scythian peoples, or there was an inherent uniform anthropological layer in the nomadic population of steppe and the settled population of Northern Caucasus. The first suggestion seems improbable anthropologically and poorly supported historically. Really, on the data of an archeology and witness of the written sources the Scythian influence in the Northern Caucasus was limited to sporadic events of the military activity (Scythians crossed the Northern Caucasus during the military campaigns in the Near East). Naturally, in such conditions an active genetic exchange by conjugal ties could not discussed seriously (Krupnov, I960). Therefore we are inclined to think that in the Scythian time there was a uniform anthropological layer, with distinctive features of dolichocrany, high skull, a narrow strongly profiled face, and а large prominent nose.
LITERATURE. 1. Bunak V.V. A skull from mountain Caucasus crypts in comparative anthropological light // Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography Collection, Vol. 14, M.-L., 1953. 2. Gerasimova M.I., Rud N.Kh., Yablonsky L.T. Anthropology of antique and medieval population of Eastern Europe. U., 1987. 3. Debets G.F. Paleoanthropology of USSR/Sc. Works of Ethnography Inst.,Vol. 4, M.-L., 1948. 4. Kovalevskaya V.B. Caucasus and Alans (Centuries and peoples). M., 1964. 5. Konductorova T.S. Anthropology of ancient population of Ukraine. (1 millennium BC - middle of 1 millennium AD), M., 1972. 6. Konductorova T.S. Physical type of people in the Lower Dniepr basin in the beginning of new era. M., 1979. 7. Krupnov V.I. Ancient history of Northern Caucasus. М., 1960. |
H.M. Hubey
Historical linguists should judge for themselves what the raw material shows instead of reading
snippets written by people representing only one side (and possibly political motives).
This version has much better English than another version that is floating around on the Internet.
Apparently the person(s) behind this are getting their act together. There is no longer any need
to skim secondary and tertiary sources.
This and others can be found in turkicworld.org. The articles are well worth reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETHNIC ROOTS of the TATAR PEOPLE
Mirfatykh Z. ZAKIEV
An article from his book
TATARS: PROBLEMS of the HISTORY and LANGUAGE
Collection of articles on problems of lingohistory; revival and development of the Tatar nation. Kazan, 1995. Pp.12-37.
§ 1. Modern official historical science about ethnic roots of the Tatar people. The ethnic roots of the Tatar people are connected with its language bearing components, Türkic tribes. The (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science asserts that the first Türks came to the Eastern Europe from Asia only in the 4 c. AD under a common name of Huns (in Türkic: hen or sen), allegedly in their movement from Asia to Europe, when the so-called Great Movement Of Peoples began.
A popular belief of historians is that before the Great Resettlement Of The Peoples the Iranian-speaking tribes basically populated the Eastern Europe, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan, Middle East, partly the Central Asia, and also Near East. Such opinion is based on the premise that described by the Greek historians Scythians, who lived in these regions in the 9-3 cc. BC, and also the Sarmatians, who in the 3 c. BC replaced the Scythians and lived until the 3 c. AD, were supposedly only Iranian-speaking.
Indo-European linguists came to such conclusion based on exclusively Indo-Iranian etymology of Scythian and Sarmatian words given in the sources, persistently without considering other languages in these linguistic operations, especially Türkic languages. In the unstoppable desire ‘to prove’ the Iranian linguality of these populations these scientists completely dismissed those researches done before them, in which Scythians and Sarmatians were recognized to be basically Türkic speaking.
Historians enthusiastically took the conclusion of the Indo-European linguists about exclusively Iranian-lingual Scythians and Sarmatians. They began to search for other historical evidence proving the adequacy of this theory. The Indo-European archeologists also gladly assigned all archeological cultures of the Scythians and Sarmatians period in the mentioned regions to Iranian-lingual tribes. And Indo-European linguists, holding Scythians and Sarmatians as Iranian-lingual, refer to the archeological data for the proof of the conclusions. The vicious circle is closed: archeologists, guided by the opinion of the linguists, the archeological cultures of the Scythians and Sarmatians period allocate to Iranian-lingual tribes, and the Iranian linguists for confirmation of the theory refer to the conclusions of archeologists. And so the Indo-European linguists, historians, archeologists orient their work in the direction of expansion of their ancestral territory.
As to the region of Volga and Urals, here again lived Scythians and Sarmatians, but near the Finno-Ugrian tribes, who basically were occupying a woodland zone. Therefore the archeological cultures of this region related to the period before the ‘arrival’ here of Huns in the 4 c. are recognized as Iranian, and some as Finno-Ugrian [Khalikov A.H., 1969, 3, 373]. The Türkic archeological cultures, naturally, are not found, for, before the arrival of Huns in Eastern Europe, there were no Türks at all.
The (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science holds on to a disputed question about the time of the so-called Türkization of the Middle Volga and Urals. Some state that the first Türks penetrated this region as Huns after their arrival in Eastern Europe in the middle of the 4th c. Other scientists hold to the opinion that Türkization of the Middle Volga and Urals took place presumably only in the 8 c. in connection with the arrival here of the first Bulgars from the collapsed country of Great Bulgaria of Northern Caucasus and Northern littoral of the Black Sea.
There are also differing opinions about the continuity between the Bulgars and Tatars. Some, mostly Tatar scientists, believe that Bulgars spoke a common Türkic language and were a language-bearing component of the Tatars. The others believe that Volga Bulgars spoke not a common Türkic, but a Chuvash-like language and that their arrival formed only the Chuvash people, and as to the Tatar people, they officially formed mostly from those Tatars who came to the Volga and Urals together with the Mongolian armies in the beginning of the 13 c., and naturally, subsequently were absorbed as part of the Chuvash speaking Bulgars and the local Finno-Ugrians. This view limits the roots of the Tatars in the Volga and Urals region to the 13 th century. We cannot miss to also note the presence of such scientists, who, based on superficial study of Bulgar epigraphy are asserting that a part of Bulgars, under the influence of Kipchaks, separated from Chuvash-speaking Bulgars only in the middle of the 14 c. and thus started the formation of the Tatar people. There are even such scientists, who connect the formation of Tatar people with the arrival and fertility of Kipchaks after a plaque decimated Bulgars in the middle of the 14 c. The Bulgaro-Chuvash words allegedly disappeared from the Bulgar epigraphy after the mass extinction of Bulgars in the middle of the 14 c.
Thus, there are various opinions on the time of the development of the Tatar people’s roots in the Volga and Urals: it is attributed to the 4 c., and to the 8 c., and to the 9 c., and to the 13 c., and to the 14 c.
The study of the beginning and the process of formation of the Tatar people or its language-carrying components are further complicated by some scientists trying to place the so-called Magna Hungaria (Great Hungary) in the Middle Volga and Urals.
It is known that Arabian and Persian travelers of the 9 - 10 c. wrote about Magyars (Madjars, Majgars etc.) in the descriptions of Middle Volga and always noted that Madjars speak Türkic language. In spite of the fact that Volga Madjars unequivocally were Türkic speaking, some scientists of the 19 and 20 c., based on equivalency of the Türkic ethnonym Madjar (variants: Majgar, Mojar, Mishar, Mochar) with the Hungarian self-name Magyar, associated them with Hungarian speaking Magyars and begun to assert that on the Middle Volga and Urals in the 4-8 c. lived Hungarians who formed ‘Great Hungary’ [Erdeyi I., 1961, 307-320]. The supporters of this point of view came to a conclusion that Türkic-speaking Mishars and Bashkirs were formed by a Türkization of those Hungarians who remained in our region after their main part left to the West in the 8 c.
In spite of the fact that Hungaro-Mishar and Hungaro-Bashkir theories were rejected completely in the beginning of the 20th c., and so was proved the inadequacy of the point of view about the presence of ‘Magna Hungary’ in the Middle Volga and Urals area in the 6-8 c., our local archeologists have persistently searched for the traces of the Hungarians in this region and, at last, ‘found’ them in the region of the lower Kama and Belaya rivers. It is Bolshie Tigany sepulcher in lower Kama [Khalikova E.A., 1976, 158-178] and Kushnarenkovo archeological cultures in the basin of the river Belaya [The Hungarians, 1987, 236-239].
The theory of the Hungarians on the Middle Volga and Urals is fouled by the fact that neither in Tatar, nor in Bashkir languages there are any Hungarian borrowings. It would be possible to explain it by a late arrival of the Türkic-speaking ancestors of Tatars and Bashkirs, only after the Hungarians already left to the West at the turn of the 8-9 centuries.. But then how to explain the complete absence of Hungarian toponymy in the study region? Our opinion is that the Hungarians did not live in the Middle Volga and Urals regions, and that there was no ‘Magna Hungary’ there. Hence, the Eastern travelers, who with one voce all pointed to Madjars as Türkic-speaking, were writing about Türkic speaking Mishars, instead of Hungarian-speaking Magyars. Therefore the travel notes of the Arabian and Persian travelers do not provide a basis for the existence of the Hungarians in the Middle Volga and Urals region. Observing the similarity between the Bolshie Tigany and Kushnarenkovo burials with the sepulchers in Hungary, it would be possible to explain that the sepulchers in Hungary belong to the Türkic people, who were somehow connected with Türks of our region.
As to Scythians and Sarmatians, who lived in the Volga and Urals area before the ‘arrival’ of Huns here, we shall see below that they, in this region, were not Iranian-lingual at all. If they were Iranian-lingual, we should have in the Middle Volga and Urals a mass of Iranian toponyms. But we do not see such a phenomenon here.
So in the (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science, which arose and developed only based on the Indo-Europeanism, there is no uniform opinion until today on the beginning of the formation in the Volga and Urals region of the basic, language bearing component of the Tatar people.
§ 2. The historians about Scythians and Sarmatians. In modern (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science the Scythians and Sarmatians are recognized as Iranian-lingual (in particular, Ossetian speaking), but in the historiography of this problem we also meet other points of view.
In the second half of the 18 c. the Russian scientists began to be interested in the Greek historical sources. At first from German, then directly from Greek to Russian is translated Herodotus ‘History’, which attracts the attention of the Russian historian Andrey Lyzlov, who knew well Russian and Western historical works. He was also familiar with Türkic world, for he translated to Russian the work of S. Starovolsky ‘Court of Türkish Caesar’, published in 1649 in Polish in Krakow. In 1692 Andrey Lyzlov finished a manuscript ‘Scythian history’. This work was published by a renowned public figure and a writer N.I.Novikov, partially at first in 1776, and then completely in 1787.
In his work A.Lyzlov in the beginning proves his thesis that Türks (in his terminology: Tatars and Türks) descend from Scythians. In the subsequent sections of ‘Scythian history’ the author tells a history of mutual relations of the European peoples and Russians with Tatars and Türks, i.e. descendants of Scythians [Lyzlov A., 1787]. The historiographer of Herodotus ‘History’ A.A.Neukhardt from this deducted that “the name ‘Scythian history’ thus has appeared rather conditional” [Neukhardt A.A., 1982, 9]. The other expert on Scythians, S.A.Semenov-Zuser considers the work of A.Lyzlov ‘as the first composition, known to us, in the domestic literature’ [Semenov-Zuser S.A.,]. In the beginning of the 18 c. the interest to Scythians grows. At the request of Peter I, who was interested in the problems of an origin of the Slavs, the Viennese scientist G.W. Leibniz begins to study strenuously the history of the Slavs and in one of the letters in 1708 he writes: ‘Under Sarmatians I mean all Slavic tribes, which ancient named Sarmatians, before a name of Slavens or Slavs was known’ [Leibniz G.W., 1873, 211].
Further, Gotlib Ziegfrid Bayer, invited from Germany to the Petersburg Academy of Sciences in 1725, addressed the Scythian-Sarmatian problem. He reasons: Scythians are people from Asia, and Slavs are autochthonous, therefore Scythians can’t be considered as ancestors of the Slavs. In his opinion, descendants of Scythians were Finns, Livs and Ests [Neukhardt A.A., 1982, 12].
The Russian historian of 18 c. V.N.Tatischev considers the word Scythian as a collective name. He writes: ‘... The name Scythian covered many different peoples, as Slavs, Sarmatians and Türks, Mongals, or all North-Eastern- end of Asia and Europe, including Germans, Persians and Chinese, and this name, evidently, died away at about 10-th hundred after the Christ, when the awareness about peoples began to be more distinct: however, those peoples did not disappear, but have remained somewhere under other names till today... in third on tenth century after the Christ for the Europeans the name Tatars has become famous, and these both instead of Scythians began to be used’ [Tatischev V.N., 1962, 232-233].
M.V.Lomonosov believed that from Scythians were formed Finns, and from Sarmatians came Slavs [Neukhardt A.A., 1982, 17-18].
In the end of the 18 c. N.M.Karamzin begins to take interest in Scythian history and expresses an idea that in Herodotus times all peoples of Eurasia were referred to under a collective ethnonym Scythians and Sarmatians [Karamzin N.M., 1818, 5-12].
In the 19 c., archeological excavations give scientists an opportunity to prove that Herodotus and others Old Greek historians reflected adequately the history of the Eurasian peoples. Were published the Russian translations of the works of other Greek historians. Were created conditions for a wide study of the ancient history of the land.
In 1838 the academician E.I.Eichwald, who earlier worked in Kazan and Vilnius universities, performs research of Herodotus ‘History’ and, based on it, he tries to reconstruct the history of the Slavs, Finns, Türks, and Mongols. He comes to a conclusion that the Scythians were not a uniform people, and the name Scythians meant those peoples who live now on the so-called Scythian territories [Eichwald E.I., 1838, Vol. 27].
In the first half of the 19 c. the German historian B.G.Niebuhr views Scythians as Mongols, this then included Türks [Niebuhr B.G., 1847].
In a work published in 1837 in Munich, K.Zeiss began a new stage in the study of Scythian history. For the first time he begins to identify Scythians with Iranian-lingual tribes. In favor of this opinion speak, in his opinion, the religion, territory of Iranians, and the common Scythian and Persian words. [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 47].
In 1855 another German scientist K.Neumann, coming from the same religious and linguistic considerations, asserts that Scythians were Türks, and Sarmatians were Slavs [Ibis, p.50].
P.I.Shafarik considers the Scythians as Mongols, who then included Türks; the Sarmatians as Persians, the Budins and Nevres as Slavs [Shafarik P.I., 1948; Dovatur A.I., 1982, 48].
In 60 es of the 19 c. K.Mullenchoff analyses from the point of view of Indo-European languages the Scythian and Sarmatian words and comes to a conclusion that Scythians were basically Iranian-lingual, that Iranian-lingual tribes earlier lived far to the north of Iran, and from them descended today’s Ossetians. [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 53].
After K.Mullenchoff the Scytho-Iranian theory attracts many linguists and historians, who found additional materials in its favor. The theory became attractive, apparently, because it allowed expanding an ancestral home of Indo-European peoples. A distinctive feature of scientists of this orientation was their unity against dissidents, they aggressively criticized dissidents, even discounted them as not competent, insignificant scientists.
But, despite of it, at all times there were scientists who criticized the Scytho-Iranian theory and were proving the Slav, Türkic, Mongol or Finno-Ugrian linguality of Scythians.
§ 3. What is the basis for Scytho-Iranian theory? If this theory reflects the reality, it should be based on all pertinent data: linguistic, religious - mythological, ethnographic and archeological data.
The noted expert on Scythian history L.A.Yelnitskiy, on the basis of the comprehensive analysis of historical works and factual materials, comes to a conclusion that the vestiges of Scythian culture for a long time and persistently languished in the cultures of Türko-Mongolian (and in a smaller degree in Slavic and Finno-Ugrian) peoples [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 243]. Archeological materials, especially the so-called animal style art, also neither confirm nor deny the affinity of Scythian and Türko -Mongolian cultures. As to the religious attributes, it is possible to state the following: if Scythians were Iranian-lingual, they would have had a common deity with Persians, and would not be fighting them as long and persistently as described by Herodotus. Further we shall see, that the names of the Scythian gods can be explained based on the Türkic language.
The body of archeological material gives L.A.Yelnitskiy a basis to affirm that in the body of Scythians were few of the Iranian elements. He writes: ‘It inclines to think, besides, that it is possible to speak about Iranism of Cimmerians and Scythians only with reference to some components of these collective names’ [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 241].
Hence, the Scytho-Iranian theory cannot be with certainty based on ethnographic, religious - mythological and archeological materials. The (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science surmises that it is based on linguistic data, which has a decisive significance for the interpretation of ethnic ancestry of ancient tribes.
Emergence of the Scytho-Iranian theory begins with ‘finding’ of the Iranian roots in Cimmerian, Scythian and Sarmatian words preserved in various sources. K.Mullenchoff begins this etymological research, and Vs.Miller and M.Fasmer continue it. After them the Scytho-Iranian theory for (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science becomes axiomatic.
In the Soviet time, V.I.Abaev was working persistently and purposefully on Scythian etymology from the point of view of the Ossetian language, and he invented a distinct Scythian or Scytho-Sarmatian language in the Indo-European language group. In his work, ‘Dictionary of Scythian Words’ are 353 Scythian words found in the sources, which by phonetical transformations are converted into Old Ossetian lexical units [Abaev V.I., 1949, 151-195].
Before the analysis of Abaevan etymologies, let’s address the V.I.Abaev’s statement about the value of his studies: ‘I subjected to an analysis the undoubtedly Iranian elements and I hope that this ends the light-weighted and irresponsible speculations on Scythian material which do not have anything common with a science ‘ [Ibis, 148]. When a scientist plunges on potential opponents with such zeal, it already tells about the weakness of his position. The Abaev’s etymologies in reality suffer an unsystematic character and many semantic disconnects.
V.I.Abaev and his predecessors begin the Scytho-Iranian etymology with personal names of the Scythian progenitor Targitai and his sons Lipoksai, Aripoksai, Kolaksai.
Targitai, in the opinion of the supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory, consists of two parts: darga and tava. In Old-Iranian darga ‘long’ or ‘sharp’, tava ‘power, force’, Targitai is thus ‘Longostrong or Arrowstrong’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 163; Miller Vs., 1887, 127].
From the positions of Türkic language the word Targitai consists from targy or taryg - Old Türkic ‘farmer’ and soy~toy - Türk. - ‘clan’; as a whole it is ‘Clan or Ancestor of the Farmers’. Besides, the name Targitai is met not only in Herodotus, it also appears with Avars as a Türkic name. Theophilact Simocatta (the historian of the 7 c.) informs, ‘Targitiy is an outstanding man in the Avar tribe’ [Simocatta Th., 1957, 35]. Menandr the Byzantian informs that in 568 the Avar leader Bayan has sent Targitai to Baselius requesting a concession [Byzantian Historians, 1861, 392]. In 565 Avars sent the same Targitai as an ambassador to Byzantium [Ibis, 418]. In the 2 c. Polien informs that Scythians, living at Meotian (Azov) Sea, had a famous woman named Tirgatao [Latyshev S.V., 1893, 567]. Hence, these Scythians were also Türkic speaking.
Lipoksai is a senior son of Targitai. The etymology for this word Abaev borrows from Fasmer. The second part, in his opinion, consists of a root ksaia~khsai ‘to shine, to sparkle, to dominate’, Ossetian. - ‘queen, dawn’; the first part is not clear, there can be a distortion instead of Khoraksais: compare Old Iran. hvar-xsaita ‘sun’, Pers. Xorsed [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].
Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. Türk. soi ‘clan, family, relatives, ancestors, generation, offspring, stock, origin’; ak ‘white, noble, rich’; aksoi ‘ a noble, rich clan; sacred clan, forefather’ etc. For Türkic peoples the names with an element soi is a usual phenomenon: Aksoi, Paksoi, Koksoi. The first part is lip~lipo~lep is ‘border’. As a whole, Lipoksai ‘Sacred Clan with (or Protecting) Borders, i.e. its Country’.
Arpoksai is a middle son of Targitai. The first part Abaev at once transforms in apra and ‘water’ and deduces from the Iranian roots ap ‘water’ and Ossetian ra, arf ‘deep’; apra ‘water depth’; ksaia ‘possessor’; apra-ksaia ‘Possessor Of Waters’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189].
Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. We already know about the second part: aksoy ‘a sacred clan, noble clan’. The first part - arpa ‘ barley, grain, product ‘; arpalyk ‘possession of land’; Arpaksai ‘Head of a Clan Possessing Land, Territory, or Clan of the Farmers’.
Kolaksai is a younger son of Targitai. Per Fasmer and Abaev, the second part ksaia ‘shine, sparkle, dominate’, in Ossetian khsart ‘valour’, khsin ‘princess’, khsed ‘dawn’ etc.; the first part is not clear, maybe, it is a distortion instead of Khoraksais, compare Old. Iran. khvar-khshaita ‘sun’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 189]. The supporters of the Scytho-Iranian theory sometimes lead this name to the phonetic form of Persian Skolakhshaia and announce Kolaksai as a king of the Persian clan Skol (Skolot) ~ Scythians [Dovatur A.I., 1982, 207-208].
Let us compare it with the Türkic etymology. The second part of a word Kolaksai - aksai ‘a noble, sacred clan’; the first part - kola-kala ‘city, capital’; Kolaksai ‘Noble, Sacred Clan Of a (Protecting) Capital, Country’.
If we arrange in order the Iranian etymologies for the names of the father Targitai and his three sons Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai, we receive: Targitai ‘Longostrong’, Lipoksai ‘Shine Of The Sun’, Arpoksai ‘ ‘Possessor Of Waters ‘, Kolaksai ‘ Shine Of The Sun or Skolakhshaia’. There is no etymological, semantical and lexico-structural system.
Let us consider the system in the Türkic etymology of the names of the father and his three sons. Targitai ‘Farmers Clan Noble Ancestor’, Lipoksai ‘Border Protecting Noble Clan’, Arpoksai ‘Protecting Possession Noble Clan’; Kolaksai ‘Protecting Capital (i.e. Kingdom) Noble Clan’. The last, the younger son, as relayed by Herodotus, accepts the kingdom from his father after he brought home the golden tools fallen from the sky: the plough, yoke, hatchet, and cup [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 5].
Another word, the etymology of which serves as a proof of correctness for the Scytho-Iranian theory, is ethnonym Sak~Saka. As the ethnonym used by Persians for Scythians, it is considered to be a Persian word. But at the same time Persians could take it from the non-Iranian Scythians themselves. In the opinion of Abaev, Old Persian saka (with the meaning of Scyth) belongs to the totem of deer [Abaev V.I., 1949, 179]. Ossetian sag ‘deer’ from saka ‘branch, limb, deer horn, antler’. Many historians think that sak is a name of one of Scythian tribes, accepted by Persians as an ethnonym for all Scythians. None of the ancient authors notes the meaning of the ethnonym sak~saka in the sense ‘deer’, and Stephan Byzantian informs, ‘Saka are the people, so are named Scythians of ‘armor’ because they invented it’ [LatyshevV.V., 1893, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 265]. Here the word Saka approaches Türkic sak~sagy ‘protection, guard, cautious’. Besides, it should be noted that in Türk. sagdak ‘quiver’, i.e. ‘case for weapon of defense’. Sagai - ethnonym of Türkic people between Altai and Yenisei, part of Khakass people, Saka - ethnonym of the Yakuts. Thus, sagai~saka~sak is a Türkic word, which has passed into the ethnonym of one of Scyth tribes, and was accepted by Persians as their common ethnonym.
Ababa (Hababa) is the name of the mother of the Roman emperor Maximin, she was, apparently, an Alanian. Thinking that Alans are Iranian-lingual, Abaev etymologies this word thus: Iran. khi ‘good, kind’; vab ‘to weave’; thus, Khivaba ‘Good Weaver’. In Türkic ab ‘hunt’, eb~ev ‘home’, aba ‘father, mother, sister’, Ababa ‘Mother Of Hunt or Mother Of House’, i.e. ‘Fairy’ in a good sense.
Sagadar, per Abaev: saka- + - dar ‘having deers’ is the name of a tribe near Danube [Abaev V.I., 1949, 179]. In Türkic: saga - Türkic ethnonym, -dar-lar is the plural affix; Sagadar is ‘Sags’.
To prove the certainty of Ossetian speaking Scythians, Vs. Miller counted that in Scythian words the Ossetian plural affix -ma is repeated twenty times [Miller Vs. 1886, 281-282]. A more attentive analysis shows that -ma in words given by Miller may be identified with Türkic affixes of plural -ma (-la in Balkarian), or possession -my (-dy-ly), or similarity -mai.
So, all the Scythian words assembled by V.I.Abaev in his ‘Dictionary of Scythian words’ would be possible to re-etymologize with those languages, whose carriers lived and continue to live in the so-called Scythian regions. Rather, it is necessary to do it, and with the subsequent comparison of the results of the Iranian, Türkic, Slavic and Finno-Ugrian etymological studies. Only on completion of this operation it would be possible to definitely tell what ethnoses lived under the common names of first Cimmerians, and then Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans-Ases. As the given here comparisons of the Iranian etymology with the Türkic show, the Scythians most likely were not Iranians, or among them were very few Iranian-lingual; basically they were Türks, it could be expected, and Slavs, and Finno-Ugrians, for the last also have not fell from the sky, and have lived in their (ancient ‘Scythian’) regions from the most ancient times.
§ 4. What the Scytho-Türkic etymology tells? Because the Scythian etymology of Herodotus from the point of view of the Iranian languages does not prove to be true, until now he is considered to be a frivolous linguist, even though he is recognized as an outstanding historian and ethnographer [Borukhovich V.T., 1972, 482, 493]. There are no doubts that if Herodotus etymologies were subjected to research from the polyethnical point of view of the Scythian tribes, the scientific conscientiousness of Herodotus and the soundness of his linguistic descriptions of the Scythian peoples will prove to be true.
Now consider some Herodotus etymology of the Scythian words, which do not find confirmation in the Iranian languages. For example, Herodotus informs that Scythians call Amazons by the name eorpata, which in Hellenic means ‘husband killers’: Scythian eor means ‘husband’, and pata means ‘to kill’ [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 110]. Here is observed a rather transparent Türkic etymology: eor~ir~er ‘husband’, pata~eata~wata ‘breaks, beats, kills ‘. As a whole, eorpata in this sense coincides with Türkic ervata ‘kills husband’.
Herodotus informs that Scythian word enarei means ‘womanlike man’ [Ibis, IV, 67]. And the Greek doctor Hippocrates (5 c. BC) explains, that ‘between Scythians there are many eunuchs, they are engaged in female works and speak like women; such men are called enarei’ [Latyshev V.V., 1893, 63]. V.I.Abaev gives this word an Iranian etymology: Iran. a ‘not, without’, nar ‘man’, and a-nar-ia ‘not a man, halfman’ [Abaev V.I., 1949]. This word almost coincides with Türkish ineir-anair, that is translated, as in Herodotus, ‘womanlike man’.
Per Herodotus, the Scythian word arimaspi means ‘one eyed people’. Scythian arima ‘one’, and spu ‘eye’ [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 27]. Assuming that one eyed people meant half closed eyes, then arima can be determined as Türkic iarym ‘half, semi’, and spu~sepi’ slightly open eye’. Thus, Scythian arimaspi and Türkic iarymsepi ‘half blind, half open, half sighted’ almost coincide.
Herodotus connects the city Kizik with festival [Herodotus, IV, 76]. This city, located on the Asian coast of the Sea of Marmora, later began to be called Tamashalyk, which means ‘show’. The same meaning is transferred by a Türkic word kizik~kyzyk.
In the first legend about an origin of Scythians Herodotus names as their primogenitors Targitai and his sons Lipoksai, Arpoksai and Kolaksai. As we have already seen above, these names are etymologized in Türkic more convincingly than in Iranian.
The second legend about an origin of Scythians says that Heracleus, driving the bulls of Herion, came to uninhabited country. Here he run into bad weather and cold. Wrapped in a pork hide, he has fallen asleep, and at that time his horses disappeared. Waking up, Heracleus started to search for horses. In one cave he found a certain creature - half maiden, half snake. She told Heracleus that she had the horses, but she would not give them back until Heracleus makes love to her. They had born three sons. She named them Agathirs, Gelon, and younger Scyth. On advice of Heracleus, the mother arranged a competition between sons. Only Scyth could pull a bow of his father and put on his belt, therefore he remained in the country. From this Scyth, son of Heracleus, descended all Scythian kings [Herodotus. 1972. IV, 8, 9, 10].
Türkic j (dj) freely alternates with y, which in Greek is usually conveyed as g. Heracleus in Türkic Jirakl-Iirakl ‘earthly wit’; the clever wins all others, hence, he is a giant, hero. In Greek Heracleus is ‘famed hero, giant’.
The first son of Heracleus is Agathirs, more correctly, Agathiros. Here -os is a Greek name ending; ir ‘man, male, people’; agad-agas-agach ‘tree, forrest ‘ (interdental d~th was written in Russian through Greek symbol theta and sounded as ‘f’: Theodor-Feodor, Skif-Scyth, Agathir-Agafir, etc.). Agathir is ‘forrest people or people with tree totem’. Later we meet this ethnonym in the forms akatsir-agach eri with the same meaning. In Türkic language with the same semantics we have also ethnonyms Burtas (burta-as ‘forrest people’), Misher (mish-er ‘forrest people’).
The middle son of Heracleus is Gelon, in - Türkic jelon-jylan-yilan ‘snake’. This is a natural name of the son of the mother - half snake.
The younger son of Heracleus is Scyth, more correctly, Skyth-Skyt. Scyth in Iranian is not deciphered. In Türkic the word skyth consist of ski-eski-iski and -t-ty-ly. Last affix is an affix of possession in Türkic languages; the first part eske ascends, apparently, to the word ishky, i.e. pychak ‘knife’. Isky-t, Isky-ly ‘with knife, man with knife’ [Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 35, 37, 38; Smirnova O.I., 1981, 249-255]. Remarkable fact is that Türks used the part eski (eske - ishky) as an independent ethnonym [Kononov A.N., 1958, 74]. Besides, it is necessary to keep in mind that the name of Scythians arises in Assyrian documents of the 7 c. BC as Asguza-Iskuza-Ishguza [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 25]. Here appear clearly the ancient name of the Türkic tribes as-ash and guz-oguz (ak-guz).
Skolot is a self-name of Scythians, its etymology could not be explained through the Iranian languages. In Türkic skolot consists of the part isky-sko, -lo is an affix of possession, -t is a second affix of possession. Skolo is skyty-skyt-skit, Skolot is ‘people mixed with Scythians’.
Alongside with ethnonym Scyth Herodotus gives still another ethnonym Savromat, applied to the people related to Scythians. Later its changed form Sarmat begins to be applied instead of Scyth. Per Abaev, Savromat ~Sarmat is an Ossetian word with a meaning of ‘black armed or dark armed’ [Abaev V.I., 1949, 184]. To name one black armed, next should be others, for example, red armed or white armed. Therefore etymology of Abaev does not convince at all. In Türkic sarma ‘bags from calf fur with hair on outside’. A rope braided from the horsehair was pulled through the ears stitched to the top edge of such a bag and attached to the saddle. In it were transported bagged provisions [Khozyaistvo, 1979, 142]. Sarma-ty, Sarma-ly is ‘man with sarma’.
Herodotus talks of Argrippeas, that they eat tree fruits. The name of the tree with fruits used for food is pontik. A ripe fruit is squeezed through a fabric, and the extracted black juice is called askhi. They lick juice and drink it mixed with milk. From the thick of askhi they prepare bread [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 23]. Many historians identify Argrippeas with Bashkirs. It is quite probable, as the Bashkirs when meeting Greeks could introduce themselves with pride as irat ‘real men’, in their attempt to translate it to Greek translated only the second part - at (horse in Türkic) - gippei. So could appear the word Argrippei.
In this message there are words pontik and askhi, which can be etymologized as pontik - bun-tek - bunlyk, where Old Türkic word bun is ‘soup, broth’, and pontik means ingredients for soup; and as askhi-asgy, i.e. suitable for food (as-ash ‘food’). The Türks today are in fact making from the askhi dried pulp a pastille.
The etymology of the Scythian word Kaukas (Caucasus) is interesting. The first part - kau - in Türkic means ‘gray-yellow-white’, it is used in ethnonym kyuchak~kyfchak~kypchak ~kyu~kiji etc.; kyu swan ‘swan’. The fact that in the word Caucasus kau-kyu expresses the meaning of ‘whiteness’ is proved by another Scythian name of Caucasus - Kroukas. Pliny Segund (1 c. AD) writes that Scythians call the Caucasian mountains by the name Kroukas, i.e. ‘white from snows’ [Latyshev V.V., 1896, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, 185]. In Türkic kyrau is ‘frost, frozen dew, snow’. The second part of words Caucas and Kroukas is -kas, it means ‘rock, rocky mountain’. Compare: in the Altai language kaskak ‘steep slope’, common Altaic kad~kaz ‘bluff, cliff’.
An interesting Scytho-Türkish material is present in the Scythian mythological words.
Gestia - the Goddess of the home hearth - in Scythian is Tabiti, apparently, from word tabu ‘find, swindle’.
Zeus - the Supreme God, king and father of the gods and people - in Scythian is Papei, in Türkic babai ‘primogenitor’.
Geia - impersonation of the Earth, she gave birth to Uranium (sky), Mountains, Pont (Sea); Geia in Scythian - Api, in Türkic Ebi ‘primogenitor mother’ [Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 27].
The Scytho-Türkic etymologies given above show that among Scythians, certainly, were Türkic tribes. Therefore the opinion codified in the (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science that there is only one Scythian language, that it is solely of the Iranian group, that allegedly the first Türks came to Europe only in the 4 c. AD under an ethnonym of Huns, that there was Türkization of Volga and Urals population that began only in the 4th or 7th century AD - all this, naturally, does not correspond to the reality.
§ 5. A general view of the historians on ancient Türks. In the postulates of the (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science, the Türkic tribes are considered rather young, diverging only 6-8 thousand years ago from the Türkic -Mongolian genus. And in the world historical science they find a place only from the 4-3 centuries BC, as Huns of Central Asia. In this sad state of affairs are guilty first of all the Türkologists, who until today have no scientific forces for the detailed study of the ancient Türks. Even the not too wealthy data available on Huns is extracted not by Türkologists [Gumilev L.P., 1960], and therefore it is no wonder that the Mongolian scientists have begun to identify Huns with Mongolian tribes [Sukhbaatar G., 1976].
In the 19-century scientists found that the languages of the American Indians have many lexical units with the semantic system reminiscent of Türkic words. In the 20 c. these similarities were established for many parameters, and the scientists made a conclusion that in the languages of American Indians the traces of the Türkic languages were preserved very clearly [Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 32-35]. If to note that these Indians came from Asia to America 20- 30 thousand years ago and had no links with Türks any more, the presence of the traces of the formed Türkic language in the Indian languages, left by the Türks 20-30 thousand of years ago, shall be recognized.
The bright and uncontestable traces of Türkic language are preserved in the cuneiform texts of Sumerians, who lived in the Mesopotamia between Euphrates and Tigris 6 thousand years ago [Suleimenov O., 1975, 192-291; Zakiev M.Z., 1977, 36]. Zaki Validi Togan in his works, written in 20-es of the 20 c., was the first in Türkology to state an opinion that bright traces of Türks were kept in the languages of American Indians, Sumerians, and Elamites [Validi Z., 1981, 10-17].
Per the Assyrian and other Eastern ancient written sources the name Udy (Kuty) is traced from a deep antiquity, namely from the III millennium BC; they can be connected with Caspian Udy, later Udyns, Bodins, Budins [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. We believe that Udy is later Uzy (Türks), more so because the sounds d-z in various Türkic dialects easily replace each other.
The Indian and Chinese written sources of the turn between II and I millenniums BC name the tribal names of the Eastern Asian nomads: Dai, Se (Ti), and Unu etc. Later they can be found among Cimmerians and Scythians, and some of them as Sai, Dai, Huns, Unns, are recorded in the most Western part of Eurasia, down to borders of Northern Italy [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. So and Huns are famed Türkic tribes. Consequently, long before our era the Türks lived in both Europe and Asia, and they, naturally, were both among Cimmerians, and among Scythians-Sarmatians.
There is a justified opinion of the scientists that Etruscans who lived in the 1-st millennium BC in the North Western part of Apennine peninsula and who created an advanced Pre-Roman civilization were also Türkic in their origin. The genetic ancestry of Etruscan language in the (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science has not been established yet, but there are detailed studies, including by a Türkish scientist - a daughter of Sadri Maksudi Adilya Aida, proving a Türkic character of Etruscan inscriptions [Adilya Aida, 1992, 390].
Thus, Türks formed 20-30 thousand years ago and lived in different regions of Eurasia under various ethnonyms. Ethnonym Türk by itself is known in history only from the 5-8 c. AD, prior to that it was an ordinary cognomen alongside with other Türkic ethnonyms. Scientists begun to apply it as a common name to designate all Türkic peoples only since the 19-20 centuries.
The historians living in time much closer to Scythians and Sarmatians quite often identified them with Türkic tribes. At the same time in no case they identified Scythians and Sarmatians with Iranian-lingual tribes. So, Philostogori (4 c. AD) has noted, that ‘these Unns are probably those people, who ancients named Nevrs’, i.e. Scythians [LatyshevV.V., 1900, 741].
Theophan the Byzantian (5 c.) renders Huns as Scythians. He writes: ‘Meanwhile Scyth Attila, son of Omnudiy, brave and proud man, removed his senior brother Vdela, assumed sole authority over Scythians, which also are named Unns, and attacked Thracia’ [Theophan the Byzantian, 1884, 81]. On the other side, he depicts Türks as Massagets: ‘East from Tanaid live Türks, in antiquity called Massagets. Persians in their language call them Kermikhions’ [Byzantian Historians. SPb., 1861, 492]. In this record of Theophan deserves an attention the fact that he knew well both Massagets (one of the Scythian tribes), and Persians. If Scythians-Massagets spoke Persian, he would inevitably note this detail. But Theophan identifies Massagets with Türks, not the Persians.
In the second half of the 5 c. Zosim expressed some confidence that Unns are Royal Scythians [LatyshevV.V., 1890, 800].
In the 6 c. Menandr Byzantian writes, ‘Türks, in antiquity called Sakas, sent to Justinian an embassy with peace offers’ [Byzantian Historians. SPb., 1861, 375], and about Scythian language he says ‘Türkic barbarous language’ [Ibis, 376]. In other place Menandr Byzantian writes: ‘...So all the Scythians from the tribes of the so-called Türks gathered up to a hundred six men’ [Ibis, 417].
Procopii Caesarian (6 c.) one of Scythian tribes - Amazons - identifies with Huns and Sabirs [Procopii Caesarian, 1950, 381]. Also he under Cimmerians means Türks-Huns, Utigurs, Kutrigurs ‘This swamp flows into Euxine Pont. The peoples, who live there, in antiquity were called Cimmerians, now they are called Utigurs’ [Procopii Caesarian, 1950, 384-385].
Agathii (6 c.) also calls Huns of Azov Sea as Scythians [Agathii, 1953, 148].
Theophilact Simocatta (7 c.) also marks that eastern Scythians usually are called Türks: ‘Expelled from the empire, he (Khosrov) left Ktesifon and, crossing river Tigris, hesitated, not knowing what to do, since some advised him to go to Eastern Scythians, which we habitually call Türks, others advised to go to Caucasus or Atropine mountains and to be saving his life there’ [Simocatta Th., 1957, 106].
Theophan Confessor (8 c.) under the name Khazars also means Scythians: ‘this year Basileus Leo married his son Constantine to the daughter of Khagan, master of Scythians, having converted her to Christianity and re-naming her Irena’ (before baptism her name was Chichak) [Chichurov I.S., 1980, 68].
The message in the ‘Russian Primary Chronicle’ (12 c.) also deserves an attention, that Scythians, Khazars and Bolgars are the same people: ‘When the Slavs, as we already spoke, lived in Danube area, came from Scythians, i.e. Khazars, so-called Bolgars and stayed on Danube’ [Russian Primary Chronicle, 28].
We have seen above that in the initial Russian history the Scythians and Sarmatians were considered to be Türks, for example, A.Lyzlov, V.N.Tatischev etc. This view had at first the Western historians also. So, the English historian of the 19 c. V.Mitford in the ‘Histories of Greece’ writes: ‘There are places in the world where inhabitants differ strongly from other people in customs and lifestyle. Among them it is worth to note those called Scythians by the Greeks, and by the contemporaries - Tatars’ [V.Mitford, 1838, 419]. Here it is necessary to note that in the West then under the name Tatars were understood almost all Eastern peoples, but the Moslem Türks were nevertheless considered as real Tatars.
In the middle of the 19 c. the Russian historians and geographers were convinced that Scythians were Türkic speaking. So, R. Latama wrote in 1854 in the Bulletin of Russian geographical society: ‘The Türkic origin of the Scythians now days... does not require any special proofs’ [Latama R., 1854, 45].
Thus, there were scientists, who considered Scythians as solely Türkic speaking, i.e. they created Scytho-Türkic theory, whereas others adhered to the Scytho-Iranian theory.
In our opinion, neither is adequate. Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, certainly, were polyethnical, among them were ancestors of those peoples, who occupy now the so-called ancient Scythian territory - Eastern Europe, Siberia (except for Far East), Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Middle and Near East. Among all peoples of this extensive region the Türks have a significant place. This important factor, and that Scythian ethnological, mythological and linguistic traces were mostly preserved among Türkic peoples, incontestably proves that among ancient Cimmerians, Scythians and Sarmatians were many more Türks than ancestors of the Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, and even Iranian-lingual Ossetians (if the last belonged to Scythians at all).
§ 6. Which ancient peoples of Eurasia were Türkic speaking? The (Russian - Translator’s note) official historical science asserts that first Türks came to Europe only in the 4 c. AD under a name of Huns, and in Asia BCE they were known only as Huns . If the Türkic language existed 20-30 thousand years ago (considering its traces in the languages of American Indians), there are no reasons to think that they lived somewhere outside of Eurasia. Therefore it is surely reasonable to look for Türks among the first Chinese, Indian, Assyrian, and Greek written sources.
In North Iranian, Caspian, and Caucasus ethnonymy and toponymy, and also per Assyrian and other ancient Eastern written sources as far back as the 3 millennium BC there were known people Udy, which correspond to Caspian Udy, later Udyns, Bodins, Budins [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. The Indian and Chinese sources of the turn between II and I millenniums BC give the tribal names Dai, Se (Ti), Unu, names found among Scythians as Sai, Dai, Huns, their territories extend to the borders of northern Italy [Yelnitskiy L.A., 1977, 4]. In the post Scythian period these tribes are found as Uzes-Guzes, So, As, Unnu-Gun-Sen.
Tochars are Türkic people, who lived in the 3-2 millennium BC in Eastern Europe, not later than the middle of the 1-st millennium BC they lived in Central Asia [BSE, Vol. 26, 126]. In the 2 c. AD Ptolemy still places Tagars (Tochars) in Western Europe, near Dacia [LatyshevV.V., 1893, 232].
It is interesting to note that German Indo-Europeists bestowed the ancient Tochars with a unique Iranian language. At the end of the 19 and the beginning of the 20-century in oases of Xinjiang were found monuments with writing in a distinct Western-Iranian dialect. When checking a text translated from Sanskrit to Uygur, a German Türkologist found that the text was translated to Uygur not directly from Sanskrit, but through Tochri. Based on this message the other German scientists named the Iranian texts ‘Tocharian’. ‘ They connected the Uygur word ‘Tochri’ with the name of ‘Tocharian’ people, who, on the evidence of the ancients, lived in Bactria.. The name ‘Tocharian language’ survived until now, despite of the vigorous protests of many scientists’ [Krauze V., 1959, 41, 44]. Here the breach of logic jumps into the eyes at once: the Uygur text did not say that Tochri spoke an Iranian, most likely they were Türks, if Uygurs used their language. Besides, we know that Tochars in Central Asia in antiquity were closely connected with Saka-Massagets, which in the 5-7 centuries are known as Türkic people among Ephtalites-Türks and Türks. Mahmud Kashgari also regards Tagars (Tochars) as Türks. The root of the word ‘Tocharistan endured in topo- and ethnonymy, connected with Uzbeks and Kazakhs’ [Tolstova L.S., 1978, 10]. Tochars took an active part in the formation of the Uzbeks. Such people as Tochars, very broadly widespread (from Eastern Europe to Central Asia), cannot undergo Türkization so quickly, and, most likely, Tochars were Türks from the very beginning.
And from the standpoint of etymology the ethnonym Tochar (tokh~tog~thag ‘mountain, tree, forrest’, ar ‘people, man’, Tochar ‘mountain and forest people’), Tochars should be classical Türks, which does not exclude other tribes among them, for example, ancient Iranian-lingual tribes.
Ethnonymically close to Tochars are biblical Togars (Togarma) and Scythian Tavrs. In the Bible (in Genesis) story, son of Yaphet, Homer had three sons: Askenaz, Rithat and Dogarma (Ch. 10). This Bible chapter was written well before BC. Later, Dogarma~Togarma becomes a usual ethnonym for Türks in Old Hebrew language. Khazars, who accepted Judaism, were also called Togarma. The part Togar-Tochar is clearly visible in this ethnonym, meaning ‘mountain or forest people’; -ma, maybe, is an interrogative particle, compare: sin Togarmo? ‘Are you Togar?’; or a truncated indicator of the adjective affix of the 1-st person singular: Togarmyn - Togarmy ‘I am Togar’. The fact that the Jews gave Türks an ethnonym Togarma way before our era tells about the presence of Türks in Europe from the most ancient times.
Tavr is the other dialectal pronunciation of the same ethnonym Togar-Tochar: tav-tau ‘mountain, forrest, tree ‘, er ‘people, man’, Tauer-Tavr ‘forrest or mountain people’. We know them well among Cimmerians and Scythians: they lived in Tavria. Herodotus regards this territory as Scythian native, a mountainous country, which begins from the mouth of Ister (Danube) and reaches up to the Kerch strait [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 99]. Stravon calls the Crimean peninsula Tavrian and Scythian [LatyshevV.V., 1890, 122]. Eustaphy (12 c. AD) writes, that ‘the tribe of Tavrs received its name, reportedly, from the animal ox’ [Ibis, 195]. From the standpoint of Türkic language the name of an animal ox, Tavr, most likely came from tuar (tal-tuar) ‘an animal’, or ox was brought to Greece from Tavria, and therefore was referred to as Tavr.
The Tavrs were members of the Scythian confederation. When Scythians had to fight the advance of Darius army, the peoples of confederation called a meeting, which included ‘kings of Tavrs, Agathirs (Agathir-Agacher - M.Z.), Nevrs, Androthags, Melanchlens, Gelons, Budins and Sauromats’ [Herodotus, 1972, IV, 102]. If these tribes were Iranian-lingual, they would not battle with Iranian-lingual army of Darius, and Darius would not pursue his kinfolk that shared Iranian deity and language. There is a reason to deem that among the listed Scythians everyone was Türkic speaking.
Before proceeding to the description of the Scythian people, here are a few words about Sogdians, proclaimed by Indo-Europeists as Iranian-lingual. The Indo-Europeist scientists attribute a some Indo-European language to almost all peoples whose names are known from the sources, but whose languages are not described. So, ‘one of the literary languages, in which the documents and fragments of works of the religious literature were found at archeological explorations in Central Asia, was named Sogdian’ [Bartold V.V., 1964, Vol. 2, Part 2, 461]. In the Chinese history Sogdians are regarded as Türks. In their origin they are closely associated with Sakas, who we also deem as Türkic speaking. Later Sogdians became Uzbeks, and in the opinion of Indo-Europeanist historians, they also became Tadjiks.
M. Kashgari classifies the Sogdak people as Türks. And the etymological ethnonym sounds Türkic: -dak~dyk~lyk is a Türkic adjective affix; Sag ‘health, wit’, Sog ‘milking’, Su ‘water’, Sogdak ‘healthy, clean, milker - milking, or ‘ healthy, or water, river people’.
Chinese historians identified Sogdians with Aorses (aor-auar-avar) or Alans, whose Türkic language is noted by the ancient authors themselves. V.V.Bartold, traditionally considering Aorses and Alans as Iranian-lingual, writes: ‘Chinese at that time knew a name Suy or Sude for the country of Aorses or Alans, which, in the opinion of the late Sinologist Khirt, was a word Sogdak or Sugdak. Türks called so the area and Sogdian people in Zeravshan’ [Bartold V.V., 1964, Vol. 2, Part 1, 550]. V.V.Bartold is inclined to reason that allegedly Sogdian language of the Iranian type has turned into Türkic [Bartold V.V., 1964, Vol. 2, Part 2, 467]. We know that languages do not alter into other languages. Therefore it is more reasonable to admit that Sogdians (Sogdak) were Türkic speaking from the beginning.
The Kushans created in the 1-2 c. AD a Kushan empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India and Eastern Türkestan (called by the today’s Chinese ‘New Territory’ Xinjiang - Edit). They are also consigned as Iranian-lingual, but the fact that at the same time many historians identify Kushans with Ephtalites-Türks [Procopius Caesarian, 1876. The comment of G.Destunis, 60] and that they later transformed into Türkic people tells about Türkic speaking of Kushans. But, unfortunately, Kushans are very poorly studied, and their ethnic accessory is not affirmed.
Let us proceed now to Scytho-Türkic people. First of all it is important to say about so-called Agathirs. As this was already said in the 4-th paragraph, this ethnonym in Türkic means ‘forest people or people with tree totem’. Later this ethnonym is met as Acatsir (Acats ‘tree, wood’) and Agach Eri with the same meaning.
Acatsir were in closest relationship with Frakians, more correctly pronounced Thracians, i.e. Thracs. The Indo-Europeists traditionally strapped an Indo-European type language for the Thracs (Thracians). Therefore it is impossible to recognize as a correct opinion that they spoke on one of the Indo-European languages, they also were not studied from the standpoint of Türkic languages [Budagov B.A., Geibullaev G.A., 1988, 126].
Melankhlen is ethnonym translated to Greek, apparently, from Türkic, for only Türks have Black Hats (Karakalpaks), who explained to Herodotus their ethnonym as Black Hatters, but Herodotus has understood it as ‘Black Coaters’ and has translated to Greek as Melankhlen.
We already discussed Gelons, Tavrs and Budins (Ud-Uz) as Türkic speaking tribes; Philastorgiy identifies Nevrs with Huns.
Herodotus also knew, in the Scythian times, the former ethnonym of Kangars (Russ. Pechenegs). Herodotus wrote: ‘This horse mail the Persians call angareion’ [Herodotus, 1972, VIII, 98]. This word comes from Türkic ethnonym Khangar-Kangar. Among Persians Kangars served as the couriers, and consequently in the Persian language ‘courier’ was linked with the word khangar.
About Scythians and Sarmatians, whose ethnonym for Greeks became a general political name, we already spoke and recognized them as Türkic speaking people. We also learned above about Massagets (Tissagets, Thissagets) and Ephtalites (White Huns ) as Türkic speaking people.
Among Sarmatians in the end of the 1 c. BC are Aorses, ethnonym of which ascends to Auar-Avar with the Greek ending -s, -os. Later, Auars-Avars are a known Türkic ethnos.
About Alans-Ases it is possible to say the following. They are considered Iranian-lingual by mistake or based on a tradition of recognizing all Scythians and Sarmatians as Iranian-lingual. As recognized by their contemporaries, and by their traces, and also based on the ethnonymy Alans-Ases should be recognized as Türkic speaking people [Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 40-43; Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 97-113; Miziev I.M. 1986, 78-94; see also below ‘Alans: Who are they?’].
Naturally, the hypotheses about Türkic people among Scythians and Sarmatians require additional thorough researches. But already now it is possible to tell with confidence that Türks among Scytho-Sarmatians occupied a significant place.
Summarizing, it is possible to tell with confidence that in Europe and in Asia the Türkic people lived from the most ancient times. Opinion about the beginning of Türkization of Eastern Europe, Volga and Urals only from the 4 c. with the arrival of the first Türks-Huns from Asia, is incorrect and fantastic. If in the 4 c. there was a mass movement of peoples from the periphery of the Roman empire to its center, it was not a great resettlement, but a liberation movement, in which Huns were actively participating.
§ 7. Ethnic components and ethnolinguistic continuity of development of the Tatar people in the Middle Volga and Urals. Türkic language of Middle Volga and Urals region (i.e. Volga-Kama region) was formed by consolidation of various, first of all, of Türkic speaking, but partly also of Türkisized Finno-Ugrian speaking components. As with other peoples, for external relations it carried the ethnonym of the dominant component. Today one, tomorrow another group dominated this region, and therefore in different periods of history the Türkic speaking people of Volga-Kama region carried various common ethnonyms.
We can reconstruct the names of the Türkic components of the ancestors of the Tatar people, starting with the ethnonyms of the tribes that became the ingredients of the local Bulgar and Tatar Türkic speaking people, and also from the Volga-Kama region ethnotoponymy.
The first Türkic ethnonym of this region reaching us was Biar (versions: Biger, Biler, Buler), the root of which is bi ‘rich, owner, hero’; the second part ar is from a word er ‘people, males’, Biar is ‘rich people, owners’. Biler (local pronunciation Buler) is formed from the same word Bi, but with a plural ending. Variations of the word bi is bik-bek, from this root came ethnonym Biger (Bik-er), with which our ancient Udmurt neighbors, following ancient tradition, still call Tatars.
We meet in Herodotus an ethnonym of the same meaning, but in different Türkic phonetic shell. Next to Argippeans (Ar-gippei is Türkic ir-at, the part at is translated by Herodotus to Greek by the word gippei) it marks Iyrks, ethnonym of which consists from iyi~iye, that corresponds to the word bi: iyi~iye ‘owner, good, rich’, erk ‘man, male’. The scientists have established that Argippeans (irat) are the ancestors of Bashkirs, and iyrks are ancestors of Biars (Bilyars). So, the Türkic speaking tribes - ‘rich owners’ (Iyrk, Biar, Biler, Biger) already lived in the Volga-Kama region in the 9-8 c. BC. And their ethnonym in the form Biger has reached our days as one of the Tatar names, and in the form Biar it was the name of the historically known state Biarm (mine Biar), in Russian - Biarmia, in European - Biarmlanda.
It is probable that among Biars already dwelt Türkic tribes Kipchaks, whose ethnonym means ‘fair faced, fair haired’ (kyu-kyf-kyp ‘white, yellow - white’, chak ‘exact, just’; Kipchak ‘Whites’; Chak~Sak can be an ethnonym of one of Türkic tribes: Kyp - Sak ‘White Saks’). The Slavs translated this ethnonym in their language and instead of ethnonym Kipchak applied a word Polovets, from an adjective polovyi ‘pale yellow’.
That Kipchaks already occupied not a last place among Biars tells the presence of the meaning of this ethnonym also in the Bulgarian time. The Bulgar State began to develop on the territory of Biarm, where Kipchaks occupied a notable place.
As writes Ibn Fadlan, when the embassy of the Ruler of the Faithful Al Muktadir arrived to Bulgars, a more common ethnonym of these people in Arabic was Sakaliba ‘fair, pale yellow’. Hence, Kipchaks then understood well the meaning of this ethnonym and have translated this meaning to Arabs (as they translated it to Slavs), from this meaning ‘fair faced’ the visiting Arabs formed Arabic ethnonym Sakaliba. Therefore it is possible to assert that the translation in the historical literature of the Arabic word Sakaliba as Slavs does not withstand criticism neither from the standpoint of ethnonymy, nor from a standpoint of mutual relations between tribes: if Sakaliba were Slavs, the Bulgars among the Slavs could not remain Türkic speaking.
The first king of Sakaliba, Almas Shilki, was of the Bulgar people, and the state created by Almas Shilki was referred to as Bulgaria, therefore this name gradually superseded the common ethnonym Sakaliba - Kipchak. It is supported, additionally, by the fact that Bulgars from the very beginning were Kipchak speaking.
The various historical sources point to the presence near Sakaliba-Kipchaks of the tribes Eskele, who in the 9-7 c. BC occupied a prevailing position among others Türkic tribes, and had relations with ancient Greeks, passing their ethnonym to the Greeks as the common name for all Türks, and not just for the Eurasian Türks. Eskele ~ Eskethe ~ Eskete in the Greek pronunciation sounded as Skythai-Skyths, in West-European - as Skyts, and in Russian - as Skif…
One of most ancient Türkic ethnonyms was a word As-Az-Oz-Uz~Ud, met in the Assyrian sources as the name of tribes living in the 3-rd millennium BC. We know, that Bulgars in another way were called Ases (the wife of Anrey Bogolubsky, a Bulgar, was called ‘Yass princess’). Next to Bulgars-As lived tribes Su-As ‘river As’. Mari, the ancient neighbors of Tatars, until now traditionally call Tatars by the ethnonym Suas, and call the modern Chuvash (historical Veda) - Suaslamari.
The ancestors of Perm Tatars carried an ethnonym Ostyak, which was formed from Os-As and an affix -lyk-tyk-tak; ostyak~ostyk ‘weighty’.
As was established by the scientists, the other name for Ases was Alan. As relayed by ancient authors, Alans spoke Türkic-Kangar language, the ethnonymic data also supports that they were Türkic speaking [Zakiev M.Z., 1986, 41; Miziev I.M., 1990, 73-96; Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M., 1993, 97-113]. But, trusting the statements of Indo-Europeists about exclusively Iranian linguality of Alans, the Hungarian scientist Yu.Nemet, having found an Iranian-Ossetian text in Hungary, attributed it to the local Alans. Thus appeared an ‘incontestable proof’ of Ossetian linguality of Alans, who in all other attributes are close to the Hungarian Kuns, i.e. Kumans-Kipchaks [Nemet Yu., 1959, I960].
As the ethnotoponymics of Tatarstan shows, the Alans-Asses also joined the make-up of the Tatar people as Alans.
One more ethnonym, formed with a word As, is Burtas ‘forest As’, who lived between Bulgars and Khazars on the coast of Volga. Burtases joined the make-up of Tatars as their significant component.
The other component of Tatars, with ethnonym meaning ‘forest people’, is Mishars (Majgars, Mochars, Mojars, Magyars). Judging by the semantics of the ethnonym and by the Mishar’s pronunciation of the root Agach as Akats, the Mishars historically ascend to Akatsirs (Agathirs, in Russian depicted as Akafirs), which were in Scythian time quite noted tribes in the Northern Black Sea area.
Ethnonym Bulgars themselves means ‘river people’, we meet ethnonym with the same meaning, Suar, who lived next to Bulgars.
On the ethnotoponymy data in the component mix of the Tatar people also joined ancient Kangars, who later (in Russian. - Edit.) were referred to as Pechenegs. The ethnonym Khangar was known in the time of Herodotus, i.e. in 6-5 c. BC, now as Kungur it is known as the name of the city in the Perm area. There is also a city of Osa, which name comes from the ethnonym Os~As. This opinion is supported, in addition, by the fact that the former ethnonym of Tatars, who were living in the vicinity of this city, was Ostyak, i.e. Os-tyk~Os-lyk, meaning ‘of Oss, Ossian’.
In the formation of the ancestors of Tatars also took part Huns, i.e. tribes Sen in the Tatar pronunciation, this word Bashkirs pronounce as Hen, from it come both Hun and Gunn. About it tells the presence of ethnohydronym Sen in the territory of Tatarstan .
In the component composition of the ancestors of the Tatar people were also Türks, who in the 6 c. created the Great Türkic Kaganate, and the Khazars, from whom split the Volga Bulgars. Apparently, here we should also list Sarmatians and Kumans, who also fused into the mix of the Tatar ancestors. We surmise that ethnonym Sarmat, as ethno-hydronym and ethno-ononym Sarman, and also the family name Sarman ascend to the same root sarma - the ‘hide bag’. Ethnonym Kushan, found in Central Asia, and ethnotoponym Kashan (a perished city on Kama river) is the same word: Kashan~Koshan is the pronunciation of Volga Türks, Kushan - is the pronunciation of Central Asian Türks.
A special word about the Tatar component that came to Volga-Kama region from Central Asia with the Mongol army and joined the make-up of the Bulgaro-Tatar people. The arriving Tatars, which spoke Central Asian Türkic dialect, were so insignificant in numbers, that they were very quickly absorbed among local Türks.
The ethnonym Tatar does not come directly from these Central Asian Tatars. It was first spread in the Western and Eastern Europe as a political and geographical term to designate all eastern peoples, only later it began to apply to designate all Moslem Türks, and only in the 19 c. the ethnonym Tatars was accepted as the self-name of Bulgaro-Türks-Moslems of the Volga-Kama region.
Thus, the ancestors of Tatars of Volga and Urals were formed by a long consolidation of various ancient Türkic tribes, some Chuvashes - former Veda, naturally, entered the mix, Türkicized Maris, Mordvas and Udmurts also joined in. But ethnolinguistic customs of the Volga - Kama region developed long before our era, and the ancestors of Tatars never lost these basic traditions, i.e. in this region a developing ethnolinguistic continuity existed from the most ancient times until now.
It is recognized that language is a determining attribute of an ethnos, therefore the ethnolinguistic problems of continuity or discontinuity in the development of the people first of all are studied based on the language data. The Tatar language belongs to Türkic languages, but together with Bashkir it represents an original language, distinct from the Türkic languages of other regions.
Linguists have determined that an original language union formed in the Middle Volga and Urals area from the Türkic ancestors of the Tatar, Bashkir and Chuvash languages, and from the Finno-Ugrian ancestors of the Mari, Udmurtian and Mordovian languages [Serebrennikov B.A., 1972; Zakiev M.Z., 1987, 176 - 182]. It means that specific features of some languages gradually penetrated into others in a long mutual influence. As a result the Türkic language of the Volga and Urals region under the impact of local Finno-Ugrian languages received some lexical, phonetical and grammatical features that distinguish it from the Türkic languages of other regions. Precisely as well the Finno-Ugrian languages of this region under the influence of the local Türkic languages received such features that distinguish them from Finno-Ugrian languages of other regions. Hence, the Türkic language of the Volga - Kama region (i.e. the language of the ancestors of Tatars, Bashkirs and Chuvashes) was formed in this region with colloquial features, versus of being introduced from other regions, for example, from Near East, from Middle East or from Central Asia etc. If to appraise that mutual influence of different groups of languages at the phonetics and grammar level gives appreciable results only after millenniums of contacts, it is compelling to recognize that the Volga - Kama language union of the Türkic and Finno-Ugrian languages was formed in the deep antiquity in the Scythian or pre-Scythian times. Since then remained the ethnolinguistic continuity in the development of the Tatar people in the Volga-Kama region , referred to differently in different time, because different tribes were leading in different times. To state it in other words, the ethnolinguistic structure of the Tatar people remained stable, despite of the repeated changes of the ethnonyms, though at different times it accepted in its fold a part of the new coming tribes, and assimilated among local Türks: at first the Common Türkic-speaking Bulgars, and then Tatars with Central Asiatic attributes of the language.
LITERATURE
Abaev V.I. Ossetian language and folklore. M.-L., 1949. (In Russian.)
Agathii. About a reign of Justinian. Book. 5. M.-L., 1953. (In Russian.)
Adile Ayda. Etrüskler (Tursakalar) Türk idiler. Ankara, 1992. (In Türkish.)
Aristov N.A. A note about ethnic structure of Türkic tribes and people and information about their number // Jivaya Starina. A periodical edition of the branch of ethnography of Russian geographical society. Issue III and IV. SPb., 1896. (In Russian.)
Bartold V.V. Works. Vol. 2. Part 1. M., 1963; Vol. 2. Part. 2. M., 1964. (In Russian.)
A.Battal-Taymas. Kazan Türkleri. Istanbul, 1925.
Borukhovich V.T. Scientific and literary value of Herodotus works // HERODOTUS History in nine volumes. L., 1972. (In Russian.)
Budagov B.A., Geibullaev G.A. Questions of Türkic ethnonymy in works of M.Z.Zakiev // News of Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan SSR. A series of sciences about Earth. 1988, 3. (In Russian.)
Zeki Velidi Togan. Umumi Türk Tarihine giris. 3-baski. Istanbul, 1981.
The Hungarians, 1987. - Hungarians in East Europe // Archeology of USSR. Finno-Ugrians and Balts in epoch of Middle Ages. M., 1987.
The Byzantian Historians. SPb., 1861. (In Russian.)
Herodotus. A history in nine books. L., 1972. (In Russian.)
Gumilev L.N. Khunnu, M., L., 1960. (In Russian.)
Dovatur A.I., Kallistov D.P., Shishova I.A. The peoples of our country in ‘Herodotus Histories’. Ì., 1982. (In Russian.)
Yelnitskiy L.A. Scythia of the Eurasian steppes. Historico-archeological notes. Novosibirsk. 1977. (In Russian.)
Zakiev M.Z. Study of a problem of occurrence and development of Volga Kama language union // Essence, development and functions of language. Ì., 1987. (In Russian.)
Zakiev M.Z. Problems of language and origin of Volga Tatars. Kazan, 1986. (In Russian.)
Zakiev M.Z. Genesis of the language of Tatar people. Kazan, 1977. (In Tatar.)
Karamzin N.M. A history of the Russian state. Vol. 1. SPb., 1818. (In Russian.)
Kononov A.N. A family tree of Türkmen: The compositions of Abu-l Gazi Khan of Khiva. M.-L., 1958. (In Russian.)
Krause S. Tocharian language // Tocharian languages: Coll. of Articles. M. 1959. (In Russian.)
Laipanov K.T., Miziev I.M. About an origin of Türkic peoples. Cherkessk, 1993. (In Russian.)
Latama P. About early coming in some parts of Europe of Türkic tribes // Bulletin of Russian geographical Society. Vol. 10 SPb, 1854. (In Russian.)
LatyshevV.V. News of the Greek and Latin ancient writers about Scythia and Caucasus.
Vol. 1, Issue. 1. SPb., 1893. (In Russian.)
Vol. 1, Issue. 2. SPb., 1896. (In Russian.)
Vol. 2, Issue. 1. SPb.. 1900. (In Russian.)
Vol. 2, Issue. 2. SPb., 1906. (In Russian.)
Leibniz G.W. The collection of the letters and materials of Leibniz, concerning to Russia and Peter the Great. SPb., 1873. (In Russian.)
Lyzlov A. Scythian history composed and written in the year 1692. M., 1787. (In Russian.)
Miziev I.M. Steps to sources of an ethnic history of central Caucasus. Nalchik, 1986. (In Russian.)
Miziev I.M A history beside, Nalchik, 1990. (In Russian.)
Miller Vs. Epigraphic traces of Iranism in the south of Russia // JMNP. October 1886. (In Russian.)
Miller Vs. Digression about Scythians // Ossetian studies: researches, Part 3. M., 1887. (In Russian.)
Mitford W. 1838. The History of Greece. Vol. 1-8. London, 1838. Vol. 1. (In English.)
Neukhardt A.A. Herodotus Scythian history in domestic historiography. L, 1982. (In Russian.)
Nemeth. J. 1959, 1960. Eine Worterliste der Jassen, der Ungarlandischen Alanen. Berlin, 1959. (In German.)
Nemeth. J. The list of words in As language, Hungarian Alans: Translated by V.I.Abaev. Ordjonikidze, 1960. (In Russian.)
Niebuhr B.G. Vortrage liber alte Geschichte. Berlin, 1847. Bd. the 1. Story of temp years // For Russian Land. Monuments of the literature Ancient Rus XI-XV cc. M., 1981. Postmortem edition. (In Russian.)
Procopii Caesarian. War with Goths. M., 1950. (In Russian.)
Procopii Caesarian. A history of Roman wars with Persians, Vandals, and Goths. SPb., 1876. Book. 1. (In Russian.)
Semenov-Zuser S.A. Scythian problem in domestic science // Experience of historiography of Scythians. Part. 1. Kharkov, 1947. (In Russian.)
Serebrennikov B.A. About some distinctive attributes of Volga - Kama language union // Language contacts in Bashkiria: Scientific Notes. Of BashkGU. Philological Sciences Series. Ufa, 1972. Issue. 50. Simokatta F.A. History, Ì., 1957. (In Russian.)
Smirnova O.I. About the name of Almysh, son of Shilka, king of Bulgars// Türkological Collection of 1977. M. 1981. (In Russian.)
Suleimanov O. Asia. Alma-Ata, 1975. (In Russian.)
Sukhbaatar. To a question on ethnic ancestry of Hunu (Sünnu) // Far East Problems. 1976. (In Russian.)
Tatischev V.N. Russian history, VOL. 1. M.-L., 1962. (In Russian.)
Tolstova L.S. Reflections of early stages of ethnogenesis of the peoples of Central Asia in its historical onomastics // Onomastics in Middle Asia. M., Science, 1978. (In Russian.)
Theophan Byzantian. Annals of Theophan Byzantian. // Readings of Society of Russian history and antiquities at the Moscow University, 1884. 3-rd book. (In Russian.)
Khalikov A.H. Ancient history of Middle Volga, Ì., 1969. (In Russian.)
Khalikova E.A. Bolshie Tigany burial // Soviet Archeology. 1976. #2. (In Russian.).
Economy and culture of Bashkirs in the 19-beginning of 20 c. M., 1979. (In Russian.)
Chichurov I.S. The Byzantian historical compositions. M. 1980. (In Russian.)
Shafarik P.I. Slavic antiquities: Trans. by O.Bodyansky. Ì., 1948. Vol. 1-3. (In Russian.)
Eikhvald E.I. About most ancient locations of all Slavic, Finnish, Türkic and Mongolian tribes in Southern Russia per Herodotus // Library for reading. 1838. Vol. 27. (In Russian.)
Erdeyi I. ‘Great Hungary’ // Acta archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 13. Budapest, 1961. . (In Hungarian.)
Mikael Thompson
"H.M. Hubey" wrote:
> Now for the theoretical part. If the changes have elements of
> randomness, and can be
> described like stochastic processes one can find in books then the
> models created by
> linguists themselves is faulty. Secondly, for the real part, and this
> has been shown
> clearly on the Linguistlist RSC (regular sound change) is faulty. It has
> been clearly
> demonstrated to be false.
Nope, not at all.
> Bill Wang has shown what he called "Lexical
> Diffusion"
> (LD) to be the case.
Most of the evidence he has offered for lexical diffusion has been shown to be due to
borrowings from literary Chinese or (in the case of Atayal) due to very fine phonetic
conditioning combined with age grading. Wang has himself accepted the first of these
at least, by the way (he might even have been the one who reported it).
> That means that either linguists have to give up
> touting
> RSC as the greatest discovery since the invention of the flush toilet,
> or create a
> theory that makes both RSC and LD mostly true (e.g. probabilistically or
> mostly true).
Among others, Labov has done just that.
> But instead of constantly attempting to wax eloquently about Kuhn and his
> "revolution" (in physics, math etc) they should see if they can now
> handle their own
> revolution. IOW let them now learn to preach what they claim is revealed
> truth (e.g.
> Kuhn) as applied to physics as applied to their own domain.
Linguists certainly have; it's a major point of contact between historical linguistics
and sociolinguistics.
> The "Language" mailing list is ready and waiting for all those who want
> to walk the
> walk instead of talking the talk on censored mailing lists. I have even
> publicly
> invited big talkers to the Language mailing list. So far no one has even
> come
> close to accepting it.
Why should anyone subscribe to a mailing list with Hubey as moderator? As I've told
Hubey in private email, he's never shown the integrity for it, or the necessary reading
or reasoning skills.
Mikael Thompson
Mikael Thompson
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
> >H
> >
> >there have been objections to Tuna's work, some aired on this forum.
> >
>
> Like what?
Such as the following, well worth quoting in full.
**************************************************
From: Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (m...@wxs.nl)
Subject: Re: Regularity (Re: Amazing Coincidences
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Date: 1999/08/28
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:47:02 -0400, "H.M.Hubey"
<hub...@mail.montclair.edu> wrote:
>Do I understand this to mean that you think that comparative linguistics
>is NOT done the way Trask says it is?
>
>IOW, is or is not comparative linguistics as is practiced not
>dependent on REGULAR SOUND CHANGE/CORRESPONDENCE (RSC)?
>
>ARe you claiming that there is more?
Sure. RSC is only part of the story.
In the first place, if you want to compare a set of languages,
it's not enough to be able to pull words from a dictionary. One
has to know as much as possible about the phonology, grammar,
history, writing systems, etc. of the languages in question.
Then it's also important to be able to handle simple logic. To
take an example from the list of words from Tuna that you
re-re-re-re-posted, it simply won't do to compare a single
Sumerian word (ud: "sun; day, time") with two different
Turki[c|sh] words (o"d and kun).
And then of course the regular correspondences must be really
regular. You said:
>There is nothing wrong with Tuna's works. I pointed out that if
>false cognates occur via chance their distributive form can be
>computed. Here are the numbers of cognates according to sounds in
>Tuna's little book.
>A.
>I. Sum D=Tk y .......16 examples
>II. Sum g = Tk 0, y ........15 examples
>III. Sum. m = Tk K ......10 examples
>IV. Sum n = Tk. y .....7 examples
>V. Sum S=Tk y,0 ....... 13 examples
>VI. Sum Sh= Tk. ch ....... 8 examples
>VII. Sum u = Tk kV/n ....... 13 example
>B.
>I. Sum d = Tk d ...... 12 examples
>II. Sum d = Tk n ...... 10 examples
>III. Sum VmV = Tk. VKV .......5 examples
>IV. Sum r = Tk z .......9 examples
>V. Sum sh = Tk l ....... 7 examples
>C.
>I. Sum. ae = Tk. An .......4 examples
>II. Sum. g = Tk ng .......7 examples
>III. sum. m = Tk K .......9 examples
>IV. Sum. CVr/z = Tk Cr/chV .......3 examples
>D. 52 examples of almost exact matchings
That's not the set of numbers I get comparing the 87 examples in
your re-re-re-re-post:
Sum. b = Tur. g ....... 1 example
= Tur. m ....... 1 example
= Tur. p ....... 1 example
= Tur. b ....... 3 examples
Sum. p ....... 0 examples
Sum. d = Tur. ng ....... 1 example
Tur. 0 ....... 1 example
Tur. y ....... 6 examples
Tur. t ....... 3 examples
Tur. d ....... 6 examples
Tur. n ....... 5 examples
Sum. t = Tur. 0 ....... 1 example
Tur. y ....... 2 examples
Tur. t ....... 2 examples
Sum. g = Tur. k ....... 4 examples
Tur. 0 ....... 7 examples
Tur. ng ....... 5 examples
Tur. g ....... 12 examples
Sum. k = Tur. k ....... 8 examples
Sum. h = Tur. k ....... 2 examples
Sum. s = Tur. s ....... 2 examples
Tur. 0 ....... 1 example
Tur. y ....... 2 examples
Tur. ch ....... 2 examples
Sum. sh = Tur. ch ....... 1 example
Tur. sh ....... 4 examples
Tur. l ....... 5 examples
Tur. t ....... 1 example
Tur. s ....... 4 examples
Tur. y ....... 2 examples
Sum. z = Tur. ch ....... 2 examples
Tur. y ....... 1 example
Tur. s ....... 3 examples
Tur. z ....... 1 example
Sum. m = Tur. n ....... 1 example
Tur. k ....... 11 examples
Tur. m ....... 6 examples
Tur. p ....... 1 example
Tur. g ....... 3 examples
Sum. n = Tur. y ....... 4 examples
Tur. n ....... 8 examples
Sum. l = Tur. l ....... 5 examples
Sum. r = Tur. z ....... 7 examples
Tur. r ....... 19 examples
Sum. a = Tur. i ....... 1 example
Tur. 0 ....... 3 examples
Tur. e ....... 5 examples
Tur. I ....... 6 examples
Tur. a ....... 24 examples
Sum. e = Tur. n ....... 2 examples
Tur. e ....... 5 examples
Tur. a ....... 1 example
Sum. i = Tur. u ....... 1 example
Tur. I ....... 3 examples
Tur. e ....... 3 examples
Tur. i ....... 21 examples
Tur. a ....... 2 examples
Sum. u = Tur. o" ....... 2 examples
Tur. e ....... 1 example
Tur. a ....... 2 examples
Tur. I ....... 1 example
Tur. u" ....... 1 example
Tur. o ....... 8 examples
Tur. 0 ....... 2 examples
Tur. u ....... 29 examples
Sum. 0 = Tur. k ....... 8 examples
Tur. y ....... 2 examples
*****************************************
Mikael Thompson
H.M. Hubey
H.M. Hubey
Ask a specific one and see if you can concentrate on the question for a
few days let alone
until it is resolved.
H.M. Hubey
Better yet, why don't you write a 1o page coherent paper on any aspect of
Turkic languages regardind historical linguistics. See if you can
concentrate that long.
It would be good exercise.
I don't want you to write a book. That certainly is a gigantic
undertaking, however it
would teach you a lot.
H.M. Hubey
just had Sashimi
at a French restaurant in NYC and I don't care about that either.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
You have to learn to give up when it is time.
In that case: Was Ataturk around when it started or not.
Go ahead. Make my day.
H.M. Hubey
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
Another ridiculous answer.
I hereby declare it now to be the topic of discussion.
Go ahead now. No need to duck.
H.M. Hubey
As for ot vs kun it is much more complex than can be handled in a simple post.
Especially with dimwits around who have not yet understood how ignorant they are.
H.M. Hubey
when you don't
see the big picture.
Write 10 coherent pages on the topic and post it here. I will forgive
you for not writing
a 400 page book.
There is simple reason why I have lost patience (the same reason I lost
patience with
that mentally retarded ignoramus).
H.M. Hubey
I still have my xeroxed copy of Clauson. Which part of it is reconstructed?
H.M. Hubey
Brian M. Scott
wrote:
[...]
>As for ot vs kun it is much more complex than can be handled in a simple
>post.
>Especially with dimwits around who have not yet understood how ignorant
>they are.
s/with/by
And you'd think that someone who claims a degree in computer
science could learn to turn off HTML.
H.M. Hubey
direction of html and that graphics, sound, special characters cannot
be handled by old-time newsreaders.
Yusuf B Gursey
: What question?
see what I wrote.
: Ask a specific one and see if you can concentrate on the question for a
I just had.
: few days let alone
: until it is resolved.
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Then you should write accurately.
I just do this for fun, so all this is on deaf ears.
: Better yet, why don't you write a 1o page coherent paper on any aspect of
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
: Another ridiculous answer.
tell me who to boo or cheer, I am not familair with the milieu you are or
may be refering to.
Yusuf B Gursey
:>
:>:>:>
:>:>
:>:>: Right. In the 1930s, when Ataturk was behind it. Typical liberal Turk
:>:>
:>:>I didn't mean Ataturk specifically. nationalsit ideology was in fashion
:>:>and it was felt needed to justify that turks were ancestral to the area.
:>:>
:>:>
:>:>
:>: So what?
:>
:>thewre is no "so what", it was just the situation then.
:>
:>
: You have to learn to give up when it is time.
: In that case: Was Ataturk around when it started or not.
: Go ahead. Make my day.
yes, he was. what do you expect from me, go off against him?
I said what was written wasn't scientific but I *understand* the reasons
why it was promoted nevertheless. it is not the place to say "good" or
"bad" here (a sci.* forum) but come up with explanations.
Brian M. Scott
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 03:42:04 GMT, "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
wrote:
>Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 00:36:19 GMT, "H.M. Hubey" <hhu...@nj.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>>As for ot vs kun it is much more complex than can be handled in a simple
>>>post.
>>>Especially with dimwits around who have not yet understood how ignorant
>>>they are.
>>s/with/by
>>And you'd think that someone who claims a degree in computer
>>science could learn to turn off HTML.
>Someone with PhD in math should know that Internet is going in the
>direction of html and that graphics, sound, special characters cannot
>be handled by old-time newsreaders.
Ah, my apologies: I forgot that I was dealing with a mannerless
barbarian.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Bullshit.
: I still have my xeroxed copy of Clauson. Which part of it is reconstructed?
the main entries, together with the comments put in paranthesis after
them. there is some more discussion in his book "turkish and mongolian
studies".
Yusuf B Gursey
: You have to either (1) learn enough to see the big picture or (2) quit
: see the big picture.
I don't "have" to do anything.
mike
> Someone with PhD in math should know that Internet is going in the
> direction of html and that graphics, sound, special characters cannot
> be handled by old-time newsreaders.
hey!! we use the internet for recreation, not for computation! math isn't
about precipitation into color and light. that's physics.
mike
news:3da113b4....@enews.newsguy.com:
you mean "mannerist" barbarian, i think. barbarians cannot have manners,
but the can strike a pose.
Peter T. Daniels
Imagine not knowing where his own books are published!
Lincom Europa, you dodo. Both of them. (According to their catalog. I've
never actually seen either one, but I've been told by someone who's read
at least one of them that it's as absurd as your newsgroup postings.)
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
Yup, that's really how "friends" interact.