HUNS, HSIUNGNU- AND HUNNISH LANGUAGE
ATTÝLA
Geographer STRABON says that Huns lived in the eastern parts of the
territories of the Kingdom GREK-BACTRİA ....Historian
PLINIUS(his death date 125 B.C) recorded The kingdom in question was
destroyed by Huns..........Chinese chronicles regarding the collapse
of the Kingdom GREK-BACTRİA reveal That Kingdom was destroyed by
HSIUNG-NUS..
The regions where Huns lived in the maps drowen by geographer like
OROSIUS(The ends of 1th century) and PTOLEMAIUS (160-170 B.C) were
expressed by Chinese annals as the lands of Hsıung-nus..
on the eve of the beginning of the great movement,The lands of
ALANS were destroyed by Huns...AMMIANUS MERCELLINUS,famous historian
of that perıod, recorded that These lands belonging to ALANS were
obtained by Huns.. chinese annal named WEI-SHU let us know about the
same topic in this way.. The lands of ALANS were destroyed by
HSIUNG-NUS..
By the light of information given above We can identify the nation
expressed with the names of Hun and Hsıung-nu in both chinese
chronicles with and information geographers and historians gave to
us as the same nation...
As to the meaning of the word Hun ..Linguıstics reveal Hunnish
was an archaic form of Turkic... There is no letter H in old
Turkish.and There is the change K>H in Turkic...... for example,
Hunnish word For WOMAN is KATUN ...This word has turned into HATUN in
Turkey turkic over times... the original word for Hun is Kun..İt
means people,nation and tribes in all turkic icluding Hunnish
Turkic... according to linguistics,,Hsıung-nu comes from the word
Hun and means non-chinese people living in the northern parts of
China...
Let me translate into the article by OMELJAN PRITSAK about the
language of Huns,who is the professor of the universıty of
HARWARD,
There were two bigs Turkish Tribes which had arrived in eastern
Europea in the perioıd following the last quarter of the fourth
century... These were Hunnish-Bulgars Turks(
Hsıung-nus,Onogurs,Kutrıgurs,Volfa and danube Bulgars ,Avars
and propably Pechenegs)..
the second one is that The main Turks ( eastern Turks;
Khazars,oghus,kharakalpacks and kphycaks)
The main Turkish language which would be dominant in eurasian steppes
Until 10th century was Hunnish-Bulgar Turkish..
There were seven original properties which differed Hunnish-Bulgar
Turkic from The main Turkic(eastern Turkic)..
Hunnish-bulgar
eastern Turkic
1.R
Z
2.L
Ş
3.TIA>ÇA>ÇU
TA
4.D
Y
5.ŞI
SI
6.M
N
7.VA
Ö
The examples for 1th and 7th ; Hunnish(jordanes around 500 A.C) VER( =
forThe river DNİEPR)= CHUVAS TURKİC=VAR= The main
Turkic=ÖZ..
Volga Bulgarian ;(The scripts in 13rd and 14th centuries) JÜR=Chuvas
Turkic=Şur= Turkic=Yüz, that is to say =FACE..
The example for 2nd and 3dh; Hsıungnu language (weı-chu 437
year) ÇEŞE (=ÇA'L'Ç)=(= STONE)
Bulgar Turkic ŞAŞ(<*ÇALÇ)=Chuvas Turkic =ÇUL= TURKİC==
TAŞ.=STONE..
One for 4th and 6th Snake= Danube Bulgar
(=DİLOM)=TURKİC(=YILAN)=SNAKE
Cow= Danube Bulgarian(=Şegor) Turkis(=Sığır)=COW
..............
By the light of information given above ,it is comfortably seen The
word Girl in English comes Hunnish-Turkic.... Hunnish word for
GİRL is GIR ..Turkic is GIZ ( The change R>Z)
GIR=GIRL=GİRL.. PLS HAVE A LOOK AT THİS ADRESS FOR
TURKİC LOANS İN OLD-ENGLİSH
Aramaic writing in present-day Georgia appeared in the period
following the Huns' penetration into the Caucuses. This writing was
also used by the Bulgars. It is estimated that this writing was
proto-Turkic and appeared before the Orkhun inscriptions in Mongolia..
Hunnish sentence which has survived to the present-day is the
following..
sio^g-tjeg-t'iei lid-ka^ng ( the form of the sentence in chinese
language)
b'uok-kuk g'ju t'uk-ta^ng
( sügiti tılıkang buguk(k)u tuktang ; its explanation in
Turkish)
its meaning is following..
Bring out the army
Capture the leader
Yusuf B Gursey
: The weak link in the chain is whether the Hsiung-Nu can be identified with
: the Huns - the impression I have is that there were altogether too many
: other peoples in the way.
the crucial thing is whether the xiong-nu spoke turkic. an alternate
hypothesis is that it was Yeniseic, which begs the question as to why the
only survivors -isolated linguisticaly as well, if the language was that
of a mighty empire, are just arctic fishermen. nevertheless some siberian
turkic languages have yeniseic words in them, perhaps the two
intermingled previously.
the ditty is a transcription in chinese characters. the overall meaning is
given, and also the rough meaning of what teh groups of characters is. the
problem is reconstructing th old chinese pronounciation, what teh chinese
pronounciation represents in the original language and finally how to
reconstruct the original language. several turkic possibilities (and a
few speculations with mongol and tungus) and a couple of yeniseic ones
have been given. it has been mentioned previously in sci.lang. chinese
historians, and it seems the Tu"rk themselves, regarded the Tu"rk as
related to the xiong-nu whereas some other tribal confederations were
not. finally qun is an early old turkic tribal name.
the linguistic and historical affiliation of the european huns with other
later (divergent) turkic people is much less problematic. this branch of
turkic is thought by some to have close connections with yakut, which may
add another puzzle to connecting them with the xiong-nu.
my gut feeling is that the xiong-nu were turkic (thus tying them to the
european huns) or at least mostly (i.e. with appropriate qualifications).
justifying this in more detail is beyond me, otherwise then feeling that
the objections are not insurmountable.
: "ATTÝLA" <rua...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:e56ba549.03072...@posting.google.com...
:> HUNS AND HSIUNG-NUS
: lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=tr&selm=19990707145947.08263.00009246%40ng-fe1.aol.com&r
: num=24
:>
:>
:> Aramaic writing in present-day Georgia appeared in the period
Tak To
So> The weak link in the chain is whether the Hsiung-Nu can be identified with
So> the Huns - the impression I have is that there were altogether too many
So> other peoples in the way.
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
YG> the crucial thing is whether the xiong-nu spoke turkic. an alternate
YG> hypothesis is that it was Yeniseic, which begs the question as to why the
YG> only survivors -isolated linguisticaly as well, if the language was that
YG> of a mighty empire, are just arctic fishermen. nevertheless some siberian
YG> turkic languages have yeniseic words in them, perhaps the two
YG> intermingled previously.
YG>
YG> the ditty is a transcription in chinese characters. the overall meaning
YG> is given, and also the rough meaning of what teh groups of characters is.
YG> the problem is reconstructing the old chinese pronounciation, what the
YG> chinese pronounciation represents in the original language and finally
YG> how to reconstruct the original language. several turkic possibilities
YG> (and a few speculations with mongol and tungus) and a couple of yeniseic
YG> ones have been given. it has been mentioned previously in sci.lang.
There is another problem. The Chinese historical text identified the
transcribed language as <Jie2> (big5:羯, u+7faf, reconstructed as "Kiet",
"Ket", etc), _not_ Xiongnu. Thus we are talking about the reconstruction
of the Jie/Kiet language, not the Xiongnu/Hun language. It was a sentence
uttered to a Xiongnu king by his advisor who came from India, and why he
chose to use that language is anybody's guess.
How close is the Jie/Kiet language to Xiongnu is also anybody's guess.
Chinese historical texts treated the Jie/Kiet's as distinct from
Xiongnu, hence a different name for the language. OTOH, the old texts
also stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a "branch" of the Xiongnu's.
Again, the meaning of "branch" is subjected to interpretation.
It seems to me that if one accepts the line of argument that
since
(a) Chinese history books stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a branch
of Xiongnu; and
(b) there is a reasonable Turkic reconstruction of (the transcription
of) a Jie/Kiet utterance
thus
the Xiongnu language is Turkic
then one ought to accept the following line of argument as well:
since
(c) Chinese history books stated that the Tu:rks were a branch of
Xiongnu
thus
the Xiongnu language is Turkic
The latter is just as valid, and less circuitous. In other words,
the transcription of the Jie/Kiet utterance in a Chinese history
book does not really give any (additional) credence to the theory
that Xiongnu is Turkic.
YG> chinese historians, and it seems the Tu"rk themselves, regarded
YG> the Tu"rk as related to the xiong-nu whereas some other tribal
YG> confederations were not. finally qun is an early old turkic
YG> tribal name.
Yes. See above.
YG> my gut feeling is that the xiong-nu were turkic (thus tying them to the
YG> european huns) or at least mostly (i.e. with appropriate qualifications).
YG> justifying this in more detail is beyond me, otherwise then feeling that
YG> the objections are not insurmountable.
Btw, what do linguists make of <Shanyu:>, the Xiongnu titular word for their
kings?
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.edu.-
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the .- to get my real email addr
Yusuf B Gursey
turkologists have found ket among turkic tribal names as well.
if the Tu"rk are said to be (branch or whatver) of the xiong-nu and
another branch turkic as well, it would say soemthing significant about
the xiong-nu. like all of the steppe confederations it probably composed
various ethnicities.
: Chinese historical texts treated the Jie/Kiet's as distinct from
: Xiongnu, hence a different name for the language. OTOH, the old texts
: also stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a "branch" of the Xiongnu's.
: Again, the meaning of "branch" is subjected to interpretation.
: It seems to me that if one accepts the line of argument that
: since
: (a) Chinese history books stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a branch
: of Xiongnu; and
: (b) there is a reasonable Turkic reconstruction of (the transcription
: of) a Jie/Kiet utterance
: thus
: the Xiongnu language is Turkic
: then one ought to accept the following line of argument as well:
: since
: (c) Chinese history books stated that the Tu:rks were a branch of
: Xiongnu
: thus
: the Xiongnu language is Turkic
: The latter is just as valid, and less circuitous. In other words,
: the transcription of the Jie/Kiet utterance in a Chinese history
: book does not really give any (additional) credence to the theory
: that Xiongnu is Turkic.
pushing back turkic further is interesting in itself, it also woudl add
credence to the 2nd claim.
(this was discussed by iu before)
: YG> chinese historians, and it seems the Tu"rk themselves, regarded
: YG> the Tu"rk as related to the xiong-nu whereas some other tribal
: YG> confederations were not. finally qun is an early old turkic
: YG> tribal name.
: Yes. See above.
:
: YG> my gut feeling is that the xiong-nu were turkic (thus tying them to the
: YG> european huns) or at least mostly (i.e. with appropriate qualifications).
: YG> justifying this in more detail is beyond me, otherwise then feeling that
: YG> the objections are not insurmountable.
: Btw, what do linguists make of <Shanyu:>, the Xiongnu titular word for their
: kings?
according to some it may represent the later title jabgu / yabgu used the
hephthalite, Tu"rks and later turks. j = *dj* may be older in than [y] in
this case. read /g/ as *gh*
clauson sees also a reference to the title qagan amongst teh xiong-nu.
: Tak
Yusuf B Gursey
this may of interest soc.history.ancient as well.
: In soc.history.medieval Sollers <sol...@pemmaddison.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in <bfmgj6$tkl$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>:
Inger E Johansson
wouldn't it be good if you discussed the thread from correct information
instead of false dates given from refered Historians?
First of all Orosius Paulus was a Spanish priest living in 5th century AD
during the first part of the Migration Age.
He is best known due to the fact that King Alfred the Great, King of
West-Saxon from 871, translated his book into 'English' thus adding new
information and personal opinions. Orosius himself wrote several Historic as
well as Theologic works. Best known is the book which translated into
English is called: Seven books against Pagans. Nothing in that book nor in
King Alfred's Orosius support any of the claims and assumptions made in the
discussion.
Secondly there is Ptolomaios/Ptolomy(other spellings occur as well) don't
mix him up with an Egyptian before Christ. Klaudios Ptolemaios year of birth
is uncertain. Between 127 and 141 AD he lived in Alexandria working with
astronomical calculations. Ptolemaios was a Mathematician, Physician,
Geographer and and Astronomic specialist scientist of his days. His best
known work today is "Geografike' Hyfegsis."
Other historians and geographers who have worked with his material in
Medieval Age are: Muhammed Khuwâtozmis, Masudi, Ahmad ibn-Muhammed
ibn-al-Tayyib Savakhsi, Al Marwazi and Ibn Khurdachbik.
Neither they nor Ptolomy/Ptolomaios supports any of the assumptions
presented in the thread.
Inger E
"Yusuf B Gursey" <y...@TheWorld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:bft5ug$dag$2...@pcls4.std.com...
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B, Sollers and "ATTÝLA",
: wouldn't it be good if you discussed the thread from correct information
: instead of false dates given from refered Historians?
you may very well be correct concerning the historians below whcih were
mentioned by "Attila" and not by me. the discussion concerning the chinese
sources is on firm ground as regards to what was said.
the linguistic conclusions, which is realy the crux, are modern and could
not have been made earlier.
: First of all Orosius Paulus was a Spanish priest living in 5th century AD
Yusuf B Gursey
In sci.lang Inger E Johansson <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in <xtqUa.17682$mU6....@newsb.telia.net>:
: wouldn't it be good if you discussed the thread from correct information
: instead of false dates given from refered Historians?
you may very well be correct concerning the historians below whcih were
mentioned by "Attila" and not by me. the discussion concerning the chinese
sources is on firm ground as regards to what was said.
the linguistic conclusions, which is realy the crux, are modern and could
not have been made earlier.
: First of all Orosius Paulus was a Spanish priest living in 5th century AD
Yusuf B Gursey
turkologists have found ket among turkic tribal names as well.
if the Tu"rk are said to be (branch or whatver) of the xiong-nu and
another branch turkic as well, it would say soemthing significant about
the xiong-nu. like all of the steppe confederations it probably composed
various ethnicities.
: Chinese historical texts treated the Jie/Kiet's as distinct from
: Xiongnu, hence a different name for the language. OTOH, the old texts
: also stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a "branch" of the Xiongnu's.
: Again, the meaning of "branch" is subjected to interpretation.
: It seems to me that if one accepts the line of argument that
: since
: (a) Chinese history books stated that the Jie/Kiet's were a branch
: of Xiongnu; and
: (b) there is a reasonable Turkic reconstruction of (the transcription
: of) a Jie/Kiet utterance
: thus
: the Xiongnu language is Turkic
: then one ought to accept the following line of argument as well:
: since
: (c) Chinese history books stated that the Tu:rks were a branch of
: Xiongnu
: thus
: the Xiongnu language is Turkic
: The latter is just as valid, and less circuitous. In other words,
: the transcription of the Jie/Kiet utterance in a Chinese history
: book does not really give any (additional) credence to the theory
: that Xiongnu is Turkic.
pushing back turkic further is interesting in itself, it also woudl add
credence to the 2nd claim.
(this was discussed by iu before)
: YG> chinese historians, and it seems the Tu"rk themselves, regarded
: YG> the Tu"rk as related to the xiong-nu whereas some other tribal
: YG> confederations were not. finally qun is an early old turkic
: YG> tribal name.
: Yes. See above.
:
: YG> my gut feeling is that the xiong-nu were turkic (thus tying them to the
: YG> european huns) or at least mostly (i.e. with appropriate qualifications).
: YG> justifying this in more detail is beyond me, otherwise then feeling that
: YG> the objections are not insurmountable.
: Btw, what do linguists make of <Shanyu:>, the Xiongnu titular word for their
: kings?
according to some it may represent the later title jabgu / yabgu used the
hephthalite, Tu"rks and later turks. j = *dj* may be older in than [y] in
this case. read /g/ as *gh*
clauson sees also a reference to the title qagan amongst the xiong-nu.
: Tak