Turkish Language
Murat Kalinyaprak
I do often participate in discussions on Turkish languge
here and I argue for the need to cleanse it from foreign
influence (to the point of being accused of things ranging
from rejecting the Ottoman past to Turkish nationalism).
Unfortunately, the discussions rarely reach the maturity
of exploring the questions of why such a cleansing may be
necessary and why is it so important, which I will try to
address from my view.
Humans are the only creatures that have externalized their
knowledge to a point that without proper ways of conveying
and receiving this information, they can no longer survive.
Even though some other animals are able to learn externally
through direct observation, none are capable of acquiring
knowledge indirectly through clay tablets, books, pictures,
sound recordings, etc. This enables humans to perceive and
understand their universe through millions of other (past and
present) sets of eyes, ears, noses, etc. It also enables them
to accumulate and convey amounts of knowledge that would be
impossible to pass through genes in a single life-cycle. The
drawback is that, this externalized knowlege is very prone
to both innocent errors and intended mischief.
For example, while other animals inherently know what plants
are poisonous to them, human do not. Anyone who goes mushroom
picking without a book in his hand (at least the first time),
would be risking his life. But the book does not neessarily
eliminate this risk either. What if there is an intentional
or an innocent error in the book, or he just misunderstands?
What is worst, is that one can never correct such an external
error for himself (or for others for that matter). By the time
he eats the poisonous mushroom, it would be too late for him
to go back and correct that error in the book for his or others'
further well-being. The only way we can avoid the consequences
of such errors is by direct observation, like seing someone else
die from eating a poisonous mushroom said to be harmless. Even
then we cannot completely prevent others from doing the same
mistake (because if one were to warn everybody here on SCT for
example, he could not keep a sick person from posting an article
saying that he eats it all the time and nothing has happened to
him yet)...
Of course, this does not need to be a willful mischief. What if
the mushroom we are talking about is not lethal but only causes
color blindness. After he eats the mushroom, if you show him a
red and a green apple, he will genuinely argue that he sees two
green apples. Especially if he evaluates this phenomenon as
having "seen" the truth, nothing can keep him from recommending
it to others in all good-will. But, the problem with inability
correct the error for oneself or others is still there. Once one
eats that mushroom, he will never see a red apple again...
In survival, there is no room for trust. Yet, it is impossible
for any human to validate all information before ingesting. It
all boils down to taking educated, calculated risks based on
analysis and synthesis. Laguage (any from of it, including the
traffic signs) being the tool used in conveying the external
knowledge, deserves all the importance that can be attributed
to it through proper approach.
Now, let's reduce the subject to the Turkish language as a tool
used by its speakers. The two problem areas I want to explore
are the hindrances caused to its speakers in accessing knowledge
and in being able to make use of that knowledge. I often read
articles in SCT about the lack of cirtical thinking in Turkish
students but I never see anyone even remptely linking it to the
language (as believe they are)...
The first problem arises from the need of the noble and educated
to differentiate between themselves and the common folks, using
language. This happens in every society. In the west, for example,
inventions like "telephone" have been given names that are often
Latin/Greek rooted/sounding rather than names like "remotevoice"
using words that common folks would use. The elite in societies
less advanced in science/arts/literature, have a harder time
trying to feel superior to the common fols while feeling inferior
to others... Thus, they have no choice but borrow foreign words
they themselves were not even capable of inventing to begin with.
Unfortunately, times change and common folks learn that language
out of necessity. Then the cycle repeats moving from Persian to
Arabic, to French, to English... A Turkish villager watching TV
today, may hear somebody crack a joke and then grin and say that
he was making a "pun", using the word "pun" as though it was a
Turkish word. The villager will eventually feel bad about not
being able to laugh like everyone else and learn what "pun" means.
He will know that the only section of the newspaper addressed to
him is the "coupon" section offering him pots and pans. Yet he
will have no choice but learn the newspaper's language in order
to understand the conditions of the giveaway. And finally when
each willage has a hamburger stand and villagers are fluent in
English, the elite will perhaps move on to Japanese...
The second problem is what this does to the people's ability of
analysis and synthesis. Some people claim that foreign words in
Turkish just makes it richer. That is utterly nonsense. We could
not make Turkish one bit richer by even including all the words
from all other languages of the word. Just like borrowing or
printing money without a corresponding production results in
inflation (decreased buying power of money), borrowing words
from other languages (instead of producing words) results in
nothing but an inflation in the language (decresed expressing
power of words).
People learn a language by pointing at objects and pictures
first. Then they learn more complex words all the up to the
ones we call "abstract". In fact, humans are incapable of
"purely" abstract thinking and cannot conceive anything not
related to the physical world. The words describing their
physical world are the first ones they learn and thus consist
an essencial part of any language. Even though they may come
to understand the meaning of many foreign words, the linkage
between the physical world and the abstract is broken.
Let's take the word "freedom" as an example. No human being
can comprehend that word without visualizing some sort of
physical objects such as chains, prisons, flying birds, etc.
A Turk may understand words like "freedom", "liberte" or
"hurriyet" from other languages, he will never link those
words to his world as the word "ozgurluk". Because of the
fact that he would have learned the meaning of the words
"oz" and "gur" earlier in life (related to the physical
world), the word "ozgurluk" will evoke a different concept
in his head. The word "oz" may perhaps make him find the
source of freedom in himself and see it inseparable from
his "oz". The word "gur" may perhaps evoke images of a
gushing river or a fully grown tree versus a trimmed and
trained bonzai tree made to live in a small pot. Who knows
what those words may evoke...? One thing that is certain,
is that they will give him a different understanding more
in tune with "reality".
Today in Turkey, the head of a school starts out being
"basogretmen", then becomes "mudur" in highschool and
gets promoted to "rector" in university. What does "mudur"
mean to a Turk? The important guy who sits in the corner
office? What kind of thoughts the word invokes, "muhur"?
As in "that guy who stamps documents"...? When bragging
or praising somebody, he is often said to be the "mudur"
of an institution. But when an unhappy citizen enters an
establishment, he is more likely to yell: where is the
"yonetici" or the "sorumlu" of this place? Here we have a
word completely detached from any concrete notions such as
responsability, duty, direction, function, accountability,
etc. Anyone in Istanbul's streets can give you directions
to "Bosphorus University" or to "Fine Arts Academy". But
how many can tell you the difference between a university
and an academy? These are all words that the Turks parrot
without understanding simply because they do not relate
to their world through the core of their language. Those
words just float in their heads without being attached
to reality and fill their heads like worthless devalued
money fill their wallets. It looks like a lot but does
not buy them buch...
To me it is clear that Turks need to "produce" words, not
just "borrow". One remaining obstacle is that inferiority
complex that makes them think producing words is "sun'i"
or ridiculous. Most Turks are happy changing the "buji's"
(spark plugs) of their cars without feeling anything funny
about using that word. How many Turks do you think knows
what that word may mean in another language? If someone
told them that it is French for "candle", do you think they
may feel a little funny for changing the "candles" in their
cars...? Even being only half as lazy, if they borrowed the
analogy only and called "buji" by an existing Turkish word
for a similar object, would they not feel funny? How about
calling it with simple words like in English "spark plug"
and saying something like "kivilcim tikaci"...? And what if
you invent a new word like "kivilcak"...?
As long as the inferiority complex and mental laziness is
there, they will feel funny and reject anything but "buji".
Once somebody eats that inferiority complex or mental
laziness causing mushroom, is there any hope for a cure...?
I know I tried to fit too much into one article and got a
little carried away. But if anyone can find a single word
of "spark" in all this, it may have been worth it.
MK
Mustafa Soysal MS57
;) HocanIn dediGi ile yediGi misali, niye TUrkCe yazmadIn lan orrospu
CocuGu?
In article <4svheh$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net>,
Cluster User
MK:
really, why did you write in english? this discussion seems to be more of
interest to speakers of turkish, some of whom might not know english.
your preamble is worthy of a brief presented to the supreme court (!),
I'll be more succinct. I am also surprised that you say you are "accused"
of being a turkish nationalist. you deny it? your posts in turkish are full
of nationalist imagery.
although I would agree with a plea of clarity and, when called for,
simplicity of language, your absolutist stand grossly underestimates the
linguistic capabilities of human beings. moreover you automatically equate
clarity with etymological "nativeness". this is not neccessarily true.
again, you seriously underestimate the ability of people to assimilate
words from other languages, other languages and other cultures. furthermore,
you refuse to entertain the possibilty that this might be something
desirable. a good portion of the population of turkey, including so callled
"uneducated" people, knows at least one other language, including kurdish
and arabic.
moreover, your contention that all lexical borrowing is due to "snobbery"
is untrue. lexical borrowing is even found in the prehistory of languages,
these are before the written language, formal education, and even class
society itself. they represent neolithic or bronze age "high tech." just as
words like "telephone" are common to modern languages, one finds the names of
domestic animals, plants, foods etc. common to otherwise unrelated languages.
if MK's absolutist "purification" project led to the optimum it claims to
lead to it would have occured spontaneously without constantly requiring the
intervention of the language policymakers. in turkey, even after such a long
period of indoctrination and linguistic intervention, new lexical borrowings
have crept in to replace the old ones. furthermore, few, if any countries
have taken language reform to the extremes in turkey. if it were such an
optimum, it would certainly have been more widespread. many countries have
undertaken some form of language reform, but that has generally meant
"simplification" not "purification". even when colored with a nationalist
tinge, common sense and prudence have generally prevailed. in fact,
'simplification" generally means a relaxing of rules rather than imposing
them. this has been the language policy of the turkic republics under the
power of the soviets. in turkey on the other hand, the language policy has
meant changing even native words and replacing them by rare archaicisms
(often with the original meaning distorted). the newspaper language of 1930-
late 60's or 70's turkey was already "simplified" (with some nationalistic
"purification"), changes after that reflect only a desire to brandish
adherence to turkish bonapartist nationalism, i.e. kemalism.
MK's post also raises the question of the coinage of technical terms in
general, which I will address later.
RK
Cagri Yazgan
On Jul 24, 1996 00:55:38 in article <Re: Turkish Language>,
'meg...@pitt.edu (Mehmet Gulsen)' wrote:
>
> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
>folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
>words.
>
> birim my (dear) 1.
> durum stopping point?
> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
> ozet real meat
> soyut something about ancestary? or something from
> "soymak"
> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is
> "bagamak"?
>
> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>
>
> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
>
> Mehmet GULSEN,
>
>
>
--Sen bu kelimeleri boyle anliyorsan senin aklindan sasmak gerek,
birseyler yanlis calisiyor senin beyninde anlasilan.
Cagri Yazgan
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
> folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new
> "real" Turkish words.
>
> birim my (dear) 1.
> durum stopping point?
> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
> ozet real meat
> soyut something about ancestary? or something from "soymak"
> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is "bagamak"?
> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>
> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
I appreciate your sharing whith me what kinds of
thoughts the words you picked evoked in your mind.
Now, I would like to ask a small favor from you.
Would you be please kind enough to translate the
following sentences to "your" Turkish (replacing
the above words that you don't seem to like with
any other words that you like better)...?
- "Ozet olarak, soyut ve somut sozcuklerini ilginc
bulmadigini soyledi".
- "Bu durum karsisinda birim olarak ne kullanmamiz
gerekir diye sordu".
Then, I would like you to take each of the words
you used for "birim, durum, ilginc, ozet, soyut,
somut" and tell me about what kinds of thoughts
each of those words evoke in your mind (just as
you did above).
That will give me a fair chance to make fun of
the words you will use... After that, we can come
back and make fun of "birim, durum, ilginc, ozet,
soyut, somut" together. And I will do my best to
answer your question then, as best as I can too.
Do you think you can handle it...? :)
> Mehmet GULSEN,
MK
PS. I couldn't use the word "baganti" in a sentence
because I don't know what it means. But you are
welcome to include it in your response, telling
what it supposed to mean also.
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <4t470b$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Cagri Yazgan <iz...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 1996 00:55:38 in article <Re: Turkish Language>,
>
>
>
|>
|> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
|>folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
|>words.
|>
|> birim my (dear) 1.
|> durum stopping point?
|> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
|> ozet real meat
|> soyut something about ancestary? or something from
|> "soymak"
|> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is
|> "bagamak"?
|>
|> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
|>
|>
|> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
|>
|>
|>
|>
>--Sen bu kelimeleri boyle anliyorsan senin aklindan sasmak gerek,
>birseyler yanlis calisiyor senin beyninde anlasilan.
Ben bu kelimeleri boyle anlamiyorum. Turkiye'deki egitim
surecinden gecen her hangi bir kisinin de, yukaridaki kelimeleri yazdigim
sekilde anladigini zannetmiyorum. Zaten tartisilan konu da bu degil.
Lutfen MK'nin orijinal mesajini bir daha okuyun. Saniyorum, o zaman,
konunun ne oldugunu anlarsiniz.
Mehme GULSEN,
>Cagri Yazgan
Mustafa Soysal MS57
al birini vur Otekine...
In article <4t470b$s...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Cagri Yazgan <iz...@usa.pipeline.com> wrote:
>On Jul 24, 1996 00:55:38 in article <Re: Turkish Language>,
>'meg...@pitt.edu (Mehmet Gulsen)' wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
>>folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
>>words.
>>
>> birim my (dear) 1.
>> durum stopping point?
>> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
>> ozet real meat
>> soyut something about ancestary? or something from
>> "soymak"
>> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is
>> "bagamak"?
>>
>> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>>
>>
>> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
>>
>> Mehmet GULSEN,
>>
>>
>>
>--Sen bu kelimeleri boyle anliyorsan senin aklindan sasmak gerek,
****************************
>birseyler yanlis calisiyor senin beyninde anlasilan.
>
>Cagri Yazgan
Mehmet Gulsen
......
: Let's take the word "freedom" as an example. No human being
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t34v2$i...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> MK:
> really, why did you write in english? this discussion seems
> to be more of interest to speakers of turkish, some of whom
> might not know english.
In SCT, we switch between the two quite often and I might
have gotten stuck in my English track. You are right. But
by the time I noticed it, I was too far into the article
to go back and rewrite in Turkish. I may seek consolation
in hoping that most readers here understand English...
> I am also surprised that you say you are "accused" of being
> a turkish nationalist. you deny it? your posts in turkish
> are full of nationalist imagery.
I do not feel a need to deny anything. If you define your
ideas of nationalism, and can show that my ideas fit that
definition, I will just have to say "so be it"...
> although I would agree with a plea of clarity and, when called
> for, simplicity of language, your absolutist stand grossly
> underestimates the linguistic capabilities of human beings.
I am not saying that humans cannot learn many languages.
I am arguing that the usage of these capabilities (as in
knowing Persian, Arabic, English, French at the level of
being able to think in them, just to understand Turkish)
is not commonly observed among the general population...
> moreover you automatically equate clarity with etymological
> "nativeness". this is not neccessarily true.
Show me some foreign words in a Turkish dictionary (except
names for objects that can be pointed at) that are defined
without ultimately using "native" words...
> again, you seriously underestimate the ability of people to
> assimilate words from other languages, and other cultures.
I hope that I don't. I am arguing that one's measure for
assimilation cannot exceed its meaning (the one you used
here). Otherwise, you may have to use its other meaning,
in which nations/languages/cultures willfully attempt to
swallow/alter/erase others. In that case, one should not
underestimate people's ability to resist such unwelcomed
assimilation either...
> furthermore, you refuse to entertain the possibilty that
> this might be something desirable. a good portion of the
> population of turkey, including so callled "uneducated"
> people, knows at least one other language, including
> kurdish and arabic.
It looks like we may eventually get to discover why you
keep digging Turkish nationalism... There is no Kurdish
influence on Turkish to speak of it as such (in fact a
lot of people would argue that there is not one Kurdish
language and/or they are merely Persian dialects). Also,
it is not a foreign language thought in schools. So, the
effect of Kurdish in understanding what you call Turkish
is almost nil and irrelevant to the subject. Mentioning
it as the language of a minority in Turkey (which is said
to be trying to free itself from Turkish "assimilation":)
may eventually lead you to cut the branch you are sitting
on... (ie. non-political linguist who hates nationalism:)
As for the Arabic, outside the religious circles, Ottoman
studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
or used either.
> moreover, your contention that all lexical borrowing is due
> to "snobbery" is untrue.
Of course not. But you added the word "all", not me...
> lexical borrowing is even found in the prehistory of languages,
> these are before the written language, formal education, and
> even class society itself. they represent neolithic or bronze
> age "high tech." just as words like "telephone" are common to
> modern languages, one finds the names of domestic animals,
> plants, foods etc. common to otherwise unrelated languages.
I agree and I am not necessarily arguing that some
occasional words like "samurai" or "papaya" should
not be borrowed as is (at least out of respect for
their uniqueness to cultures they come from). What
I have problem with is bastardizing of a language,
by borrowing twice as many foreign words as there
are "native" words in a language, in a very short
time, and borrowing foreign words for even simple
words like "think" without no apparent need...
> if MK's absolutist "purification" project led to the optimum
> it claims to lead to it would have occured spontaneously
> without constantly requiring the intervention of the language
> policymakers.
If you are talking about reaching a natural optimum
through evolution, I have already argued that it is
not possible in humans (a creature with tri-layered
brain, who externalized a great deal of knowledge).
You will not find a human baby who will not spit a
spoonful of alcohol fed to him. But lots of humans
will develop a taste for alcohol later on in life.
Talking about the "optimum" in humans, advertizing
industry seems to be way ahead of linguists...
> in turkey, even after such a long period of indoctrination
> and linguistic intervention, new lexical borrowings have
> crept in to replace the old ones.
Unfortunately yes. Children learn four letter words
despite the concern of their parents too.
> furthermore, few, if any countries have taken language
> reform to the extremes in turkey. if it were such an
> optimum, it would certainly have been more widespread.
Does widespread mean optimum..? Widespread crimes..?
Widespread war..? Widespread religions..? Widespread
nationalism..? :)
> many countries have undertaken some form of language
> reform, but that has generally meant "simplification"
> not "purification". even when colored with a nationalist
> tinge, common sense and prudence have generally prevailed.
> in fact, 'simplification" generally means a relaxing of
> rules rather than imposing them. this has been the language
> policy of the turkic republics under the power of the soviets.
Do you mean after the fall of USSR...? I doubt
that they had much policymaking "power" "under
the soviet power".
> in turkey on the other hand, the language policy has meant
> changing even native words and replacing them by rare
> archaicisms (often with the original meaning distorted).
I would be very interested to learn more about this.
Could you give some examples? (BTW, I am arguing for
the need for cleansing and not defending any policy
implementation or the success of any given efforts.)
> the newspaper language of 1930- late 60's or 70's turkey was
> already "simplified" (with some nationalistic "purification"),
> changes after that reflect only a desire to brandish
> adherence to turkish bonapartist nationalism, i.e. kemalism.
So far I do not remeber mentioning Kemalism in any
context. In my previous article, I have used even
the word Turkish sparingly as I believe the views
I asserted could apply to speakers of any language.
You keep stepping on this "laguage nationalism" to
get to "Turkish nationalism", "Kemalism", etc... I
know that even if you could disregard the language
issue completely, Turkish nationalism and Kemalism
would still bother you... And I don't even care to
know why.
> MK's post also raises the question of the coinage of technical
> terms in general, which I will address later.
Please spare us from botanical and chemical names :)
> RK
MK
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <4t57m0$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net>,
Murat Kalinyaprak <mu...@cyberport.net> wrote:
>In <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
>
>> folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new
>> "real" Turkish words.
>>
>> birim my (dear) 1.
>> durum stopping point?
>> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
>> ozet real meat
>> soyut something about ancestary? or something from "soymak"
>> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is "bagamak"?
>> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>>
>> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
:I appreciate your sharing whith me what kinds of
:thoughts the words you picked evoked in your mind.
:
:Now, I would like to ask a small favor from you.
:Would you be please kind enough to translate the
:following sentences to "your" Turkish (replacing
:the above words that you don't seem to like with
:any other words that you like better)...?
:
:- "Ozet olarak, soyut ve somut sozcuklerini ilginc
: bulmadigini soyledi".
:
:- "Bu durum karsisinda birim olarak ne kullanmamiz
: gerekir diye sordu".
I just asked you how do you relate those
"real" Turkish words to the "core of your language".
It seems that you can't relate those words to any
part of your Turkish (forget the core).
Mehmet GULSEN,
:Then, I would like you to take each of the words
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t6fsj$6...@odin.cc.pdx.edu> "j.aksu" wrote:
> a foolow up to murat comment ;
> As for the Arabic, outside the religious circles, Ottoman
> studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
> or used either.
>
> i think you should re-evaluate your knowledge on the history
> of your language.. Arabic influence was not in the circles of
> religon only as you claim, but more so on poetry and literature.
It looks like you either have a problem reading English
or have a problem understanding what you read...
My above response was to the following statement of the
previous writer:
"...a good portion of the population of turkey, including
"so callled "uneducated" people, knows at least one other
"language, including kurdish and arabic."
As you can see, we were talking about "today". You may
consider reading more carefully before rushing to post
an irrelevant response next time...
> [... snip ...]
> 4) the notion that arabic influence is only religous is
> a kemalist compaign to alliagnet turks from arab.
Aha...! Maybe you were a little too anxious to provide
support to another anti-Kemalist, eh...?
MK
PS. You don't think that Turks started calling their sons
and daughters Mehmet, Ali, Osman, Emine, Shaziye, Raziye,
because of their admiration for Arabic poetry, do you...?
Cluster User
In article <4t7cqd$3...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>
>Aha...! Maybe you were a little too anxious to provide
>support to another anti-Kemalist, eh...?
actually I am not an anti-kemalist at all. I am a *non-kemalist*. in other
words "kemalism" is simply not a reference point for me. it's not even a
consistent political philosophy anyway (in fact m. kemal specifically said
that he did not claim to be a political theorist).
RK
>
>MK
>
>...
Emre Berk
>
> birim my (dear) 1.
> durum stopping point?
> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
> ozet real meat
> soyut something about ancestary? or something from
> "soymak"
> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is
> "bagamak"?
>
> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>
>
> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
1) Birim
Turkce'de miktar belirtmek icin bazen o maddenin kullanildigi bir eylemden
yararlanilir. Ornegin, bir tutam ot; bir tasim kaynatmak. Ayni sekilde,
bir sIkImlIk limon, bir atimlik barut orneklerinde de miktar eyleme bir
kez yetmeklik olarak tanimlanir. Bu kullanim guzellik belirtmek icin
kullanilan "bir icim su" deyisinde de vardir.
Turkce'de "birim" sozcugu iste bu miktar belirtme kullanimindan
esinlenilerek turetilmistir. Sozcuge orneklik eden de Avrupa dillerindeki
"unit" sozcugudur ki bu da "uno-bir"den turetilmistir.
2) Durum
Turkce'de -m ekiyle fiilden isim uretilir. Bu isim ya fiili ya da fiilin
sonucunda olusani belirtir: Almaktan alim, ata kosmaktan kosum.
Durum sozcugu 'durmak'tan turetilmis bir isimdir; arapca "hal" ya da
ingilizce "situation" karsiligidir. Durum sozcugu "esyanin su anki hali,
esya su an durdugu gibi" anlamindadir. Boylesi bir kullanimi, "manzara"
karsiligi kullanilan "gorunum"de buluruz: Gorunum = esya su an gorundugu
gibi.
Diger sozcuklere bir baska zaman deginmek uzere.
eb
Cluster User
MK:
you are talking about language policy. as you said you are interested in
what *ought* to take place. so inevitabely you have to raise a political
argument. in fact you do just that when everything is said and done you end
up by asserting that "foreign" words in a language are "bad". you make
that value judgment when you compare "foreign" words to war, swear
words etc. trying to prove your point otherwise, you are on very shaky
grounds at best. for example you would have to prove that english and
japanese speakers (languages with many words with very different etymologies)
are having cognitive difficulties! now, since you are dealing with language
policy, there is nothing wrong with giving a political argument for it. that
was what you were doing anyway in the beginning of the discussion in turkish.
if you give a political argument, nobody can say that you are "wrong" and you
will be on much firmer ground. all that people might say is that they do not
share your viewpoint. actually you should consider this advice as a favor.
as for myself, I do not claim to be apoltical, but I had hoped that there
would be an exchange of *information* regardless of one's viewpoint.
evidently MK is not interested in this.
RK
Cluster User
In article <4t6fsj$6...@odin.cc.pdx.edu>, j.a...@realtiy.sucks says...
>
>a foolow up to murat comment ;
>As for the Arabic, outside the religious circles, Ottoman
>studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
>or used either.
>
>i think you should re-evaluate your knowledge on the history of your
>language.. Arabic influence was not in the circles of religon only as
>you claim, but more so on poetry and literature.
actually most of the arabic origin words came through persian.
even islam was introduced to the turks through persian intermediaries.
note that most of the basic religious terms are persian in origin: namaz,
peygamber, oruc (< ru:z) etc. in terms of pronounciation, usage and meaning
arabic origin words in turkish are generally closer to their usage in
persian.
>
>1)In poetry for example up to the 19 century turkish poetry and persian
>poetry(until today) was written on basis of the metric and phrasing
>system of Arabic poetry,,with variations on theme(after all the word
the aruz sysytem is arabic in origin but turkish divan poetry prefers the
specific meters and images employed in its persian form. outside divan poetry
turkish also employed native forms.
>Sair is arabic).
>
>2)in prose and style on any kind of literature up to 19 centurey is
>almost identical to arabic prose and style,
see above. prose? except for an occassional arabic or persian phrase in
documents, prose was mostly in fairly plain turkish, except during the late
19th century. this later style was not arabic in origin, but sought in part
to imitate pedantic european styles.
>
>3) i can list another ton of evidence that proof that Arabic language
>influce was not merly religous on turkish or arabic,,so i guess realty
>sucks ha.
>
>4)the notion that arabic influence is only religous is a kemalist
>compaign to alliagnet turks from arab.
anti-arab chauvenism is an important motif in kemalist discourse and the
language "reform" movement in particular. strictly speaking though, your
claim is incorrect.
RK
>
>
>thanks
>
>
Cluster User
In article <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, meg...@pitt.edu says...
...
>
>
> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
>folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
>words.
> ...
> Mehmet GULSEN,
*ya$am* kelimesi ne tedai yapIyor?
bir gazeteden:
"seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
bir eksik var mI?
RK
j.aksu
a foolow up to murat comment ;
studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
or used either.
i think you should re-evaluate your knowledge on the history of your
language.. Arabic influence was not in the circles of religon only as
you claim, but more so on poetry and literature.
1)In poetry for example up to the 19 century turkish poetry and persian
poetry(until today) was written on basis of the metric and phrasing
system of Arabic poetry,,with variations on theme(after all the word
Sair is arabic).
2)in prose and style on any kind of turkish literature up to 19 centurey
is almost identical to arabic prose and style,
3) i can list another ton of evidence that proof that Arabic language
influce was not merly religous on turkish ,,so i guess realty sucks ha.
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t8ess$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>*ya$am* kelimesi ne tedai yapIyor?
Bir aclik mi cekiyorsun...? "Tedai"yi birak da "tedavi"
ol istersen...
>bir gazeteden:
>
> "seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
Duslerine girdikce de kalkip "tespih" mi cekiyorsun...?
> bir eksik var mI?
Bir onceki sozumu geri aliyorum. Disi olabilecegini de
dusunmek gerek. Oyle ise eksik coook, yeter ki iste...
Tartismayi bu duzeye dusurebilecegini beklemezdim. Ama
nasil istiyorsan oyle veririz karsiligini...
Once Allah'in selami uzerinize olsun diye baslayayim.
Bak "Kemalist" Ataturk de ne demis:
"Seyyal T.'nin yasami var oldukca, Araplar'in hamami,
"imami, imami azami, islami, merami, bayrami, kivami,
"makami, munzami, muazzami, muntazami, huzzami, nami,
"sadrazami, izdihami, evhami, nizami, cuzami, endami,
"kiyami, rakami, ithami, harami, istirhami, intizami,
"ilhami, ikram, ahkami... Turkleri ilgilendirmez!"
Ben de diyorum ki dil "dusmanlari" Arab'in kelamlarini
ne kadar agizlarinda yagliyarak, balliyarak getirip
Turkceye yamamaya calissalar da "tenezzul" etmeyecegiz.
Turkler eksiklerini kedileri tamamlayarak dillerinin
yasamini surdurmesini saglayacaklardir...
MK
PS: Artik agzindan cikani anlayarak yazarsin umarim...
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t8t01$3...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> MK:
> ...........
> as for myself, I do not claim to be apoltical, but I had hoped
> that there would be an exchange of *information* regardless of
> one's viewpoint. evidently MK is not interested in this.
Exchange of information...? Like talking about somebody's
"yasam"...?
> RK
PS: For the ones who do not understand Turkish: "yasam"
means "life", but it also looks and sounds like two
other words in Turkish, "yas=wet" and "am=cunt". I
had made the argument that, in the minds of Turkish
speakers, etymologically Turkish words would evoke
different ideas/feelings than foreign borrow words.
In response, he demonstrated to us how the Turkish
phrase for "men who entered somebody's life" could
be heard as "men who entered somebody's wet cunt"...
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t5doq$k...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
>In <4t57m0$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net> Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>>In <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
>>> Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
>>> folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new
>>> "real" Turkish words.
>>>
>>> birim my (dear) 1.
>>> durum stopping point?
>>> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
>>> ozet real meat
>>> soyut something about ancestary? or something from "soymak"
>>> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is "bagamak"?
>>> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
>>>
>>> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
>>
>> I appreciate your sharing whith me what kinds of
>> thoughts the words you picked evoked in your mind.
>>
>> Now, I would like to ask a small favor from you.
>> Would you be please kind enough to translate the
>> following sentences to "your" Turkish (replacing
>> the above words that you don't seem to like with
>> any other words that you like better)...?
>>
>> - "Ozet olarak, soyut ve somut sozcuklerini ilginc
>> bulmadigini soyledi".
>>
>> - "Bu durum karsisinda birim olarak ne kullanmamiz
>> gerekir diye sordu".
>
> I just asked you how do you relate those "real" Turkish
> words to the "core of your language".
Not so, my friend...! You did more than "just ask"...
> It seems that you can't relate those words to any part
> of your Turkish (forget the core).
I can! And I will! (insaallah!:) Just as soon as you can
bring yourself to tell me what words you would have used
instead...
> Mehmet GULSEN,
MK
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.96072...@mead2.u.washington.edu>,
Emre Berk <em...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
!>
!> birim my (dear) 1.
!> durum stopping point?
!> ilginc what is ilgelemek anyway?
!> ozet real meat
!> soyut something about ancestary? or something from
!> "soymak"
!> baganti I know "baglanti" <- "baglamak", but what is
!> "bagamak"?
!>
!> somut "som"?, or "sommak"?
!>
!>
!> How do do you relate those words to "core of your language"?
>
>1) Birim
>
>Turkce'de miktar belirtmek icin bazen o maddenin kullanildigi bir eylemden
>yararlanilir. Ornegin, bir tutam ot; bir tasim kaynatmak. Ayni sekilde,
>bir sIkImlIk limon, bir atimlik barut orneklerinde de miktar eyleme bir
>kez yetmeklik olarak tanimlanir. Bu kullanim guzellik belirtmek icin
>kullanilan "bir icim su" deyisinde de vardir.
Dikkat ederseniz, yukarida verdiginiz orneklerin hepsinde,
-im eki fiil sonuna geliyor. Bu size bir ipucu veriyor mu?
Benim bildigim Turkce'de ``BIRMEK'' diye bir fiil yok.
>Turkce'de "birim" sozcugu iste bu miktar belirtme kullanimindan
>esinlenilerek turetilmistir. Sozcuge orneklik eden de Avrupa dillerindeki
>"unit" sozcugudur ki bu da "uno-bir"den turetilmistir.
Saniyorum haklisiniz. Ne yazik ki, ``ulusal dil'' adina,
yuzyillardir kullanilan Arapca ve Farsca kelimeler ``Turkce''
olmadiklari gerekcesiyle atilmis, ama bunlarin yerlerine bati
dillerinden ozenilerek kelimeler uretilmistir (ogretmen, okul,
onur, terim, evrensel, vs).
>2) Durum
>
>Turkce'de -m ekiyle fiilden isim uretilir. Bu isim ya fiili ya da fiilin
>sonucunda olusani belirtir: Almaktan alim, ata kosmaktan kosum.
``Durum'' yukaridaki birim kelimesinde kullandiginiz orneklerden
farkli bir sekilde mi turetilmis?
Saniyorum, ``duyum'', ``devrim'' gibi kelimeler de sizin
verdiginiz tanima uyuyor. Fakat, Turkce'de fiil koku olan ``devri''
veya ``duyu'' yok. Acaba, ``birim'' ve ``durum'' ayni ekle turetilmis
olamaz mi? Bir dusunun.
>Durum sozcugu 'durmak'tan turetilmis bir isimdir; arapca "hal" ya da
>ingilizce "situation" karsiligidir. Durum sozcugu "esyanin su anki hali,
>esya su an durdugu gibi" anlamindadir. Boylesi bir kullanimi, "manzara"
>karsiligi kullanilan "gorunum"de buluruz: Gorunum = esya su an gorundugu
>gibi.
Tekrar tartismanin basladigi noktaya donelim. Farzedelim
1930'lardasiniz, ve radyoda daha once hayatinizda hic duymadigiz
durum kelimesini duydunuz. Akliniza ilk ne gelir acaba?
>Diger sozcuklere bir baska zaman deginmek uzere.
>
Bekliyorum.
Selamlar,
Mehmet GULSEN,
>eb
>
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t9sh4$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
>In <4t8ess$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>>
>> bir gazeteden:
>>
>> "seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
>
> Turkce'de yasam var, yasanti var, yasayis var, yasama var.
> Oyle gorunuyor ki, kelime uretirken ipin ucunu iyice kacirmislar.
Iyi, sen siki tut da kacmasin...
> Nede olsa "oz" Turkce degil mi? uydur uydur soyle. Hadi
> diyelim, eski bildigimiz hayat "yasanti"ya karsilik
> geliyor. O zaman, Seyyal T.'nin "yasam"i ne olsa gerek?
Git yakinlarindan, cok ama cok yakinlarindan
birisine sor bakalim ne diyecek...?
> Basit bir surc-i lisan mi? Yoksa.....?
Kaymakam diyenlerin dili Arab'in bir tarafina
kaymis olmuyor mu...?
> Mehmet GULSEN,
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4t9sh4$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> Mehmet Gulsen wrote:
>In <4t8ess$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>>
>> bir gazeteden:
>>
>> "seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
>
> Turkce'de yasam var, yasanti var, yasayis var, yasama var.
> Oyle gorunuyor ki, kelime uretirken ipin ucunu iyice kacirmislar.
Iyi, sen siki tut da kacmasin...
> Nede olsa "oz" Turkce degil mi? uydur uydur soyle. Hadi diyelim,
> eski bildigimiz hayat "yasanti"ya karsilik geliyor. O zaman,
> Seyyal T.'nin "yasam"i ne olsa gerek?
Sen RK'ye sor, o sana sorsun, sorusun durun...
> Basit bir surc-i lisan mi? Yoksa.....?
Kaymakam diyenlerin dili Arap'in bir "tarafina"
kaymis olmuyor degil mi...?
> Mehmet GULSEN,
Cluster User
In article <4t525r$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
> ...Mentioning
>it as the language of a minority in Turkey (which is said
(kurdish)
>to be trying to free itself from Turkish "assimilation":)
>may eventually lead you to cut the branch you are sitting
>on... (ie. non-political linguist who hates nationalism:)
see the official line of the TR at work. once you mention "kurdish" you must
mean...
the political ideology of the kurdish movement is beyond the scope of this
discussion and is not appropriate for this newsgroup. whatever the political
ideology of the kurdish movement, the issue is TR policy.
by analogy, I am an atheist but that certainly does not mean that I support
*forced* conversion or religious persecution.
RK
ci...@d0sb01.fnal.gov
In article <4tb503$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User) writes:
>... yani lisanda
>normal olarak kullanIlan masdarlar mevcutken bu masdarI kullanmakta Israr
>etmek "oztUrkceci" oldugunu ilan etmek icindir. bu da bir siyasi bir "kulUbe"
>aza olmayI gostermek icindir.
yani dilde normal olarak kullanilan sozcukler varken, bu sozcukleri
kullanmakta direnmek "Osmanlicaci" oldugunu belirtmek icindir. Bu da
politik bir kulube uye olmayi gostermek icindir.
[...]
>RK
--
Madalyon binbir yuzlu..
Emre Berk
Bu orneklere gecmeden once, ben "birim" yerine eski dilde ne
kullanildigini bilmiyorum. Bir bilen yazarsa sevinirim. O zaman, hangi
sozcuk neden nicin turetilmis sorusuna da daha iyi yanit bulabiliriz.
>
>
> >2) Durum
> >
> >Turkce'de -m ekiyle fiilden isim uretilir. Bu isim ya fiili ya da fiilin
> >sonucunda olusani belirtir: Almaktan alim, ata kosmaktan kosum.
>
> ``Durum'' yukaridaki birim kelimesinde kullandiginiz orneklerden
> farkli bir sekilde mi turetilmis?
>
> Saniyorum, ``duyum'', ``devrim'' gibi kelimeler de sizin
> verdiginiz tanima uyuyor. Fakat, Turkce'de fiil koku olan ``devri''
> veya ``duyu'' yok. Acaba, ``birim'' ve ``durum'' ayni ekle turetilmis
> olamaz mi? Bir dusunun.
>
Fiil koku olarak 'devir' ve 'duy' var. Alim-satim ornegindeki gibi
soneklere kaynastirici harf de eklenebilir.
'devir-i-m' deki ortadaki 'i' harfi de dusurulmus ve 'devrim' yapilmistir.
>
> >Durum sozcugu 'durmak'tan turetilmis bir isimdir; arapca "hal" ya da
> >ingilizce "situation" karsiligidir. Durum sozcugu "esyanin su anki hali,
> >esya su an durdugu gibi" anlamindadir. Boylesi bir kullanimi, "manzara"
> >karsiligi kullanilan "gorunum"de buluruz: Gorunum = esya su an gorundugu
> >gibi.
>
> Tekrar tartismanin basladigi noktaya donelim. Farzedelim
> 1930'lardasiniz, ve radyoda daha once hayatinizda hic duymadigiz
> durum kelimesini duydunuz. Akliniza ilk ne gelir acaba?
>
1930larda diyelim Pera Palas'a girdim; ayakyolu ariyorum. Bir baktim
karsimdaki kapinin uzerinde "tuvalet" yaziyor. Ne anliyorum? "Tuval"in
resimle bir iliskisi var, acaba icerisi "resim studyosu" mu? Yoksa
duvar reimleriyle suslu bir oda mi? Girmeden etrafta dolanip cikiyorum.
Amerikan Kutuphanesi'nde belki ayakyolu vardir diye giriyorum. Bir
koridorda buluyorum bir kapi, uzerinde levha: WC. Kutuphane mudurunun
makam odasi midir nedir dusunuyorum. Amerikan harfleriyle ismini yazmislar
diye. Oradan da cikiyorum.
Disimi sIkIp Tunel'e yuruyorum. Los ve serin. Bakiyorum ileride
kapinin uzerinde bir levha: Hela - Memurine mahsustur. Al sana sizofren
bir levha! Hem he diyor hem de arapca olumsuzluk eki la- almis. Gel de cik
isinden!
Biniyorum metroya, Galata'dayim. Kopru'yu yarilamisken, yandaki
merdivenden asagiya iniyorum. Demirden kasasinda demirden bir kapinin
uzerinde boyali: 00. Hoppala! Kapilari da numaralamislar. Kim
calacak Kopru'nun demir kapisini?
Gerisin geri cikiyorum merdivenden, Kopru'yu geciyorum. Iskele'de bekleyen
vapura biniyorum. Makine dairesinin yanindan gecip - ne de sicak su komur
atesi - Ikinci Mevki'ye varmadan bir kapidaki levha gozume ilisiyor. Bir
erkek ayakkabisi resmi. Kundura tamircisine de kim ihtiyac duyar su
vapurda?
Koca sehirde bir ayakyolu yok. Yaziklar olsun!
Geciyorum, Ikinci Mevki'nin icinden. Geminin kicina cikiyorum. Pufur pufur
Bogaz ruzgari. Dumani da bir savuruyor. Uskur sulari cevirdikce de bir
kopuk yagmuru, bir damla cumbusu mavi sularda. Serin serin.
Koca sehirde bir ayakyolu yok. Serin sulara bakiyorum. Akip giden sulara.
Elim pantolon dugmeme gidiyor.
Kimi sozcugun kaynagini ve kokunu bilmeden de kalip olarak ogreniyoruz.
"Hela" sozcugunun arapca yokluk anlaminda "hala"dan geldigini bilmeden de
hacetini goren milyonlar vardir. Tuvalet sozcugunun Avrupa dillerindeki
kokeninden de habersiz su doken. Fransizca numarasizdan 00 simgesinin
kokenini bilmeden de yuzlerine bir gulumseme gelenler vardir. Ingilizce
"su dolabi"ndan geldigini bilmeden WC'ye kosanlar da olmustur. Erkek kadin
ayakkabi resimleriyle cinsiyete ayrildigi belirtilen odanin adinin dahi
anilmaya deger gorulmediginin farkinda olmadan kapidan dalanlar da.
Diyecegim, sozcukleri ilkin islevsel olarak ogreniyoruz. Kokleri,
cagrisimlari ise zamanla ve merakla geliyor.
Vaziyet veya hal sozcuklerinin koklerinin daha kolay anlasildigi iddia
edilemez herhalde. Zamanla bu sozcuklerin de neden turedigi kuskusuz
ogrenilir; ayni sey durum icin de gecerlidir.
eb
Cluster User
>It looks like we may eventually get to discover why you
>keep digging Turkish nationalism... There is no Kurdish
>influence on Turkish to speak of it as such (in fact a
>lot of people would argue that there is not one Kurdish
>language and/or they are merely Persian dialects). Also,
does every mention of kurdish need a justification? I gave examples of the
linguistic skills that TR citizens share with other human beings.
the claim that kurdish is a dialect of persian does not merit discussion.
now, if a claim is made that the various forms of kurdish spoken in turkey
(the great majority are kurmanji speakers, with a dImIli, i.e. zaza, minority
and in fact a handful of gorani, which is close to dImIli, speakers) are
seperate languages, then certainly the various forms of turkic, including
azeri, must be considered seperate languages, (so many people in northeastern
turkey must be thus considered bilingual in turkish and azeri, azeri
being in the qarapapaq dialect). furthermore, one can argue that words and
suffixes in turkish of eastern turkic origin, which are numerous among
tdk neologisms, are foreign words! thus according to tdk logic they should
be purged! "similarity" is not a sufficient argument. for example, russian
and ukranian are also quite similar, yet for russian and ukranian
nationalists the differences are what they pride themselves in. however,
what I had said about the words from other turkic languages does not at all
reflect linguistic policy in turkey. thus, one most give a different
explanation. as I said before, this means in the final analyses, a political
choice.
(the other turkic languages are indeed seperate languages)
RK
Cluster User
laalettayin -m (-im ile degil) ile kelime i$tikak etmek kullanIldIgI
cUmleleri yalnIz "tUrkce" degil "oztUrkce" yapmak icindir. yani lisanda
etmek "oztUrkceci" oldugunu ilan etmek icindir. bu da bir siyasi bir "kulUbe"
aza olmayI gostermek icindir.
devrim kelimesine gelince, bu kaideye aykIrI olarak i$tikak edilmi$tir, zira
"devirmek" kelimesindeki i sesi icabInda kaybolan bir yardImcI ses degildir,
kaideye gore i$tikak edilmi$ $ekli "devirim" olmalI. belki bu kelimenin
mucidinin aklInda arapca men$eli "devir" de vardI. bu kelimdeki i sesi
bir yardImcI sestir. ama tabii kaideye gore bundan "devrim" cIkmaz.
bence, maalesef "inkIlap" kelimesinin yerini alacak bir kelimeye ihtiyac
vardIr, zira her sathi reforma "inkIlap" deniliyordu. $imdi bu sathi
reformlara da "devrim" deniliyor. anvcak "ihtilal" ciddiyetini muhafaza
ediyor.
RK
te...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <4t8gfg$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User) writes:
> In article <4t6fsj$6...@odin.cc.pdx.edu>, j.a...@realtiy.sucks says...>
> >
> >sucks ha.
> >
> >4)the notion that arabic influence is only religous is a kemalist
> >compaign to alliagnet turks from arab.
Do you think we Turks needed Kemalists to feel alienated from Arabs? Please
remember that the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans before Kemalism was on
the scene. Remember the history of WWI; i.e. the Arabs ganging up against the
Ottomans. In fact, the rise of Kemalists was, in part, facilitated by the
disappointment with the Arabs. Please place the blaim where it belongs. There
are a lot of issue areas where you could level criticism against Kemalism, but
your present choice is pretty unfair.
Kemalists are part and parcel of Turkish history. Weaknesses were many but
overall they have done a good job as putting Turks in the right track with the
natural development of history as it regards to building a nation state. This
included a pretty powerful emergence of Turkish language. The world has seen
the rise of two institutions out of Western Europe since the 16th century:
markets and nation states. You cannot avoid them, have to live with them.
Kemalists mastered state building but failed to realize the concept of market.
The latter in turn undermined the former from time to time. You should take
the language reform from this perspective. What other alternatives did they
have?
This is not to suggest that Arabs must be avoided. Their own nationalism
against the Ottomans/Turks and into the hands of the British was a
phenomenon of historical currents of nationalism. And that is understandable.
But, do not rush to assume that Arabs miss us but we spare them family visits.
Hopefully, Arab elites will soon come to their senses and these nations will
acquire the pride they really deserve.
>
> anti-arab chauvenism is an important motif in kemalist discourse and the
> language "reform" movement in particular. strictly speaking though, your
> claim is incorrect.
Would you please provide us with some evidence of anti-Arab chauvenism in
Kemalist discourse and language reform?
Cluster User
MK writes:
>As for the Arabic, outside the religious circles, Ottoman
>studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
>or used either.
arabic is the third most commonly spoken language in modern turkey. in
addition to ethnic arabs it is spoken as a second or third language by many
kurds, syriacs and turks. in addition some degree of knowledge of written
arabic is obtained in religious schools and quran courses.
RK
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <4t8ess$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, meg...@pitt.edu says...
>
>...
> >
> >
> >folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
> >words.
>
> > Mehmet GULSEN,
>
>*ya$am* kelimesi ne tedai yapIyor?
Acikca soylemek net edebine ters duser.
>bir gazeteden:
>
> "seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
>
Turkce'de yasam var, yasanti var, yasayis var, yasama var.
Oyle gorunuyor ki, kelime uretirken ipin ucunu iyice kacirmislar.
Nede olsa "oz" Turkce degil mi? uydur uydur soyle.
Hadi diyelim, eski bildigimiz hayat "yasanti"ya karsilik
geliyor. O zaman, Seyyal T.'nin "yasam"i ne olsa gerek? Basit bir
surc-i lisan mi? Yoksa.....?
Mehmet GULSEN,
Cluster User
your ideas about sex correspond very well to your macarthyite politics. one
should save one's bodily fluids, huh?
actually I found the newspaper title very succinct: all systems function
normally, everyone had a good time. one wonders if there was anything missing
or if something extra might not be even better. as for your suggestion for
using a rosary, well a muslim rosary has 33 beads, 2 too many.
this is becoming a fun thread, but perhaps alt.sex would be more
appropriate.
RK
Cluster User
back to bussiness.
now about MK's kemal "quote".
evidently MK is trying to prove just how racist he himself is.
the original quote is racist as well, but I believe it is at least not such
a hodgepodge of words. by the way, "nam" not in the original quote, is of
persian origin.
actually it is the modern day kemalists who seem to enjoy giving m. kemal a
bad image. for example, the importance of cromwell in history is well known.
but who likes to remember him for is illdeeds in ireland?
RK
Cluster User
In article <4t9lei$n...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>Exchange of information...? Like talking about somebody's
>"yasam"...?
well, its better than reading your racist crap. too bad, wrong newsgroup.
make love, not war.
RK
Mustafa Soysal MS57
In article <4t8ess$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <4t3saa$g...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, meg...@pitt.edu says...
>
>...
> >
> >
> > Let's look at some other examples, and see what an ordinary
> >folk(or anybody) would think, when he/she heards these new "real" Turkish
> >words.
>
> > ...
> > Mehmet GULSEN,
>
>*ya$am* kelimesi ne tedai yapIyor?
>
>
> "seyyal t. ya$amIna giren erkekleri anlattI"
>
>
>RK
>
Heceleme ve kelime aralarInI doGru koyduGunu kabul edersek eksik olup
olmadIGInI ancak TanrI bilebilir...[hecelemem ve kelime aralarI doGru!]
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb98p$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4t525r$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>> ...Mentioning
>> it as the language of a minority in Turkey (which is said
>
> (kurdish)
>
>> to be trying to free itself from Turkish "assimilation":)
>> may eventually lead you to cut the branch you are sitting
>> on... (ie. non-political linguist who hates nationalism:)
>
> see the official line of the TR at work. once you mention
> "kurdish" you must mean...
Take your anti-Turk glasses off, and you may see what
I really meant. You stressed the "assimilation" power
of people as it related to "absorbing foreign words"
from other languages. In response, I said that people
can also "assimilate" a minority completely (language
and all)...
You portray Turkish resistance (i.e. mine) to foreign
wrods as "nationalism". I just gave you a fair warning
that, just in case you would later argue "for" Kurdish
resistance to "assimilation", those words of yours may
work against yourself... :)
> the political ideology of the kurdish movement is beyond
> the scope of this discussion and is not appropriate for
> this newsgroup. whatever the political ideology of the
> kurdish movement, the issue is TR policy. by analogy,
> I am an atheist but that certainly does not mean that I
> support *forced* conversion or religious persecution.
So, by anaogy, you don't beieve in God but you would
tolerate others believing in God. To me it sound like
you are preparing the ground for saying that you are
"anti-nationalist" but you will tolerate others being
"nationalists" (when it comes to certain folks :)...
If this is the case, then you better drop those words
(nationalism, racism, etc.) out of this thread (which
is supposed to be about language?) right now...!
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb8ep$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4t525r$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>> It looks like we may eventually get to discover why you
>> keep digging Turkish nationalism... There is no Kurdish
>> influence on Turkish to speak of it as such (in fact a
>> lot of people would argue that there is not one Kurdish
>> language and/or they are merely Persian dialects). Also,
>
> does every mention of kurdish need a justification?
Of course not. Just trying to understand its relevance
to the discussion here...
> I gave examples of the linguistic skills that TR citizens
> share with other human beings. the claim that kurdish is a
> dialect of persian does not merit discussion.
Would you give us an example of how close they are (i.e.
French and Italian?)...
> now, if a claim is made that the various forms of kurdish
What do you mean "if a claim is made"...? Since you are
a linguist, you can tell us just as it is, can't you...?
> spoken in turkey (the great majority are kurmanji speakers,
> with a dImIli, i.e. zaza, minority and in fact a handful of
> gorani, which is close to dImIli, speakers) are seperate
> languages, then certainly the various forms of turkic,
Sure there are. The etnologue lists 6 different Kurdish
languages (Herki, Kurdi, Kurmanji, Shikaki, Surchi and
Judeo-Kurdish). It also lists 35 Turkic languages, one
of which is Turkish. Even Turkish itself is divided into
Turkish, Gagauz, Balkan-Gagauz and Khorasani. Now, are
you going to say that etnologue "is making claims"...?
> including azeri, must be considered seperate languages,
They are considered as such.
> (so many people in northeastern turkey must be thus
> considered bilingual in turkish and azeri, azeri being in
> the qarapapaq dialect). furthermore, one can argue that
> words and suffixes in turkish of eastern turkic origin,
> which are numerous among tdk neologisms, are foreign
> words! thus according to tdk logic they should be purged!
Aren't you getting a little carried away? Suffixes or
whole words of "Turkic origin" cannot be foreigh to a
"Turkic language"... According to TDK's or my logic,
they would not need to be purged but maybe they would
be according to your logic.
> "similarity" is not a sufficient argument. for example,
> russian and ukranian are also quite similar, yet for
> russian and ukranian nationalists the differences are
> what they pride themselves in. however, what I had said
> about the words from other turkic languages does not at
> all reflect linguistic policy in turkey. thus, one most
> give a different explanation. as I said before, this
> means in the final analyses, a political choice.
By reducing everything to politics, I think you are
grossly overlooking the mutual feelings amongst the
Turkic peoples...
> (the other turkic languages are indeed seperate languages)
Yes, just like the different Kurdish languages. I
can be perfectly happy without calling all Turkic
languages Turkish and without a "Turan" (a nation
state made of all Turkic peoples). Now, would you
say that all of the different Kurdish languages
should not be called just Kurdish, and all of the
different Kurdish peoples (tribes?) should not be
united under a single Kurdish nation state...? :)
> RK
MK
Cluster User
In article <4tcin3$n...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>In <4tb98p$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>
>>In <4t525r$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>>
only "kerhen".
>you are preparing the ground for saying that you are
>"anti-nationalist" but you will tolerate others being
>"nationalists" (when it comes to certain folks :)...
nope... and I am not a kurdish nationalist. I just support kurdish demands
against turkish nationalism.
>If this is the case, then you better drop those words
>(nationalism, racism, etc.) out of this thread (which
> is supposed to be about language?) right now...!
it's about language policy, not language.
>
>> RK
>
>MK
Cluster User
ask your questions about kurdish and kurds in soc.culture.kurdish and I will
try to participate in the discussion.
In short french and italian are much much more similar than are persian and
kurdish.
gagauz and turkish are seperate languages. what you call xorasani is a
dialect of turkmen (or uzbek, I'll have to check it out).
read my post again. it says "eastern turkic" origin (should have been
eastern or northeastern), not "turkic origin".
RK
Cluster User
"nation state" as identified with the nationalist ideology of an ethnic
group arose much later, in the 19th century, in order to cover up class
struggles and also to justify colonial policies of "democratic" countries. a
nationalist linguistic policy came into being in only a few cases and mostly
not in the extreme form as in turkey.
"kemalist" does not neccessarily mean m. kemal. it mostly refers to recent
interpretations of m. kemal. linguistic policy during m. kemal's time was
more prudent, but it prepared the ideological framework for fairly recent
extremism.
if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
RK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb5q3$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> MK writes:
>
>> As for the Arabic, outside the religious circles, Ottoman
>> studies and maybe few minorities, it's not widely thought
>> or used either.
>
> arabic is the third most commonly spoken language in modern
> turkey. in addition to ethnic arabs it is spoken as a second
> or third language by many kurds, syriacs and turks.
I acknowledge that my comments were based on
personal observation. (not on any dependable
numbers) Do you have the numbers...? I would
be especially interested in learning how do
they overlap.
> in addition some degree of knowledge of written arabic is
> obtained in religious schools and quran courses.
I wouldn't make too much out of "quran courses".
Singing "elif, be, te, se
"hoca girdi kumese
"tavuklari yemese...
can not be quite considered "speaking Arabic" :)
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb1e1$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> your ideas about sex correspond very well to your
> macarthyite politics.
"Macarthyite sex"...? You are really starting to make
me wonder...
> one should save one's bodily fluids, huh?
Then one's life ("yasam") would be pretty dry, wouln't
it "Mr. punster"...?
> actually I found the newspaper title very succinct:
In a different conversation it could have been. You
used it here to make fun of a Turkish word, which as
a "professional linguist" you dare call "fabricated".
(BTW, would you mind telling me what was the date of
that newspaper?)
> all systems function normally, everyone had a good time.
Oh wow! What a party...!
> one wonders if there was anything missing or if something
> extra might not be even better.
It sure does make one wonder. Like I wonder whether
some people are missing a couple of their screws...
> as for your suggestion for using a rosary, well a muslim
> rosary has 33 beads, 2 too many.
Too bad, the last 2 beads don't get much use then...
(Whoever said "tesbihte hata olmaz"?)
> this is becoming a fun thread, but perhaps alt.sex would
> be more appropriate.
Hey, I responded to your article in Turkish without
using one single sex related word... :) And here, I
explained your "pun" to non-Turkish speakers. I bet
your article would attract more response in alt.sex
than it did here...
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb503$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> laalettayin -m (-im ile degil) ile kelime i$tikak etmek
Bu yazarin "Laalettayin, istikak" gibi sozcukler
kullanmasini Turkce ogrenmeye cabalayan bir Arap
olabilecegine vererek artik ustunde durmuyorum...
> kullanIldIgI cUmleleri yalnIz "tUrkce" degil "oztUrkce"
> yapmak icindir. yani lisanda normal olarak kullanIlan
> masdarlar mevcutken bu masdarI kullanmakta Israr etmek
> "oztUrkceci" oldugunu ilan etmek icindir. bu da bir
> siyasi bir "kulUbe" aza olmayI gostermek icindir.
Turkler'in Turk olduklari ve Turkce konustuklari
duyurmaya gerek kalmadan bilinen bir sey. Senin
nasil bir "siyasi kulubeden" oldugunu da kolayca
goruyoruz...
> -m masdarInIn manasI bir fiilin bir defa yapIlmasIdIr.
> devrim kelimesine gelince, bu kaideye aykIrI olarak
> i$tikak edilmi$tir, zira "devirmek" kelimesindeki i
> sesi icabInda kaybolan bir yardImcI ses degildir,
Su -m, -im eki diye sayikladiklarini gecelim...
Turkce'de yalniz yardimci sesler duser diye bir
kural mi var?
> kaideye gore i$tikak edilmi$ $ekli "devirim" olmalI.
Cok bildigine gore bilginden yararlanalim biraz.
Turkce'de nasil oluyor da
"ayirmak" -> "ayirilmak" degil de "ayrilmak"
"cagirmak" -> "cagirilmak" degil de "cagrilmak"
"devirmek" -> "devirilmek" degil de "devrilmek"
"kavurmaK" -> "kavurulmak" degil de "kavrulmak"
"kivirmak" -> "kivirilmak" degil de "kivrilmak"
"savurmak" -> "savurulmak" degil de "savrulmak"
"siyirmak" -> "siyirilmak" degil de "siyrilmak"
"yogurmak" -> "yogurulmak" degil de "yogrulmak"
deniyor...? Neden
"ayirilik" degil de "ayrilik"
"cagiri" degil de "cagri"
"devirik" degil de "devrik"
"kavuruk" degil de "kavruk"
"kivirim" degil de "kivrim"
"savuruntu" degil de "savruntu"
"siyirik" degil de "siyrik"
"yogurum" degil de "yogrum"
deniyor...? Butun bu sozcukleri de "Bonapartist",
"Kemalist", "siyaset kulubu" TDK mi uretmis...?
Burda Turkce'ye (Turkler'in dili) saldirman neyse
de, hic olmazsa bilmedigin seylere burnunu sokma.
> belki bu kelimenin mucidinin aklInda arapca men$eli
> "devir" de vardI.
Senin "aklindan" cikmiyor diye hepimizin "aklinda"
olmasi gerektigini saniyorsundur belki...
> bu kelimdeki i sesi bir yardImcI sestir. ama tabii
> kaideye gore bundan "devrim" cIkmaz.
Devrim degil, "inkilap", "ihtial" bile cikmaz :)
> bence, maalesef "inkIlap" kelimesinin yerini alacak
> bir kelimeye ihtiyac vardIr, zira her sathi reforma
> "inkIlap" deniliyordu. $imdi bu sathi reformlara da
> "devrim" deniliyor. anvcak "ihtilal" ciddiyetini
> muhafaza ediyor.
Iyi olurdu ama o kadar kaygilanmaya gerek yok.
Dis fircasi bile devrim yaratan (revolutionary
design) diye satilirken, o sozunu ettiklerine
devrim denmis cok mu...?
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tb2p8$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> back to bussiness.
> now about MK's kemal "quote". evidently MK is trying
> to prove just how racist he himself is.
MK is doing nothing of the sort...! He is just
defending his mother tongue (Turkish) against
attacks that he perceives to be Ottomanist and
Ummatist (race/nation of God).
BTW, when labeling somebody (i.e. racist based
on the above mentioned quote), it may be proper
to at least cite a section from his words that
lead you to pass such a judgement. Just in case
some readers haven't read the previous articles,
they may agree with you point better... :)
> .....
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tdhv7$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4tcin3$n...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>>
>>In <4tb98p$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>>
>>> the political ideology of the kurdish movement is beyond
"Political-ideological-movement"...? Doesn't even
sound anything near "nationalism", does it? If it
was based on being right-handed or left-handed, it
would be either. But what if it is based on being
Kurdish...? I am curious to see how this guy will
dance these words.
>>> the scope of this discussion and is not appropriate for
>>> this newsgroup. whatever the political ideology of the
>>> kurdish movement, the issue is TR policy. by analogy,
>>> I am an atheist but that certainly does not mean that I
>>> support *forced* conversion or religious persecution.
>>
>> So, by anaogy, you don't beieve in God but you would
>> tolerate others believing in God. To me it sound like
>
> only "kerhen".
Say what? A bad giveaway... :)
>> you are preparing the ground for saying that you are
>> "anti-nationalist" but you will tolerate others being
>> "nationalists" (when it comes to certain folks :)...
>
> nope...
Well, I am glad to hear that.
> and I am not a kurdish nationalist.
We already knew that, since you declared that you were
anti-nationalist from day one...
> I just support kurdish demands
Ahhaa...! (like we didn't know it from day one also :)
So what are those "demands" that you support...? And I
assume that they are just "non-nationalistic-political-
ideological-Kurdish-movement-demands...", right?
> against turkish nationalism.
>
>> If this is the case, then you better drop those words
>> (nationalism, racism, etc.) out of this thread (which
>> is supposed to be about language?) right now...!
>
> it's about language policy, not language.
Including the Kurdish linguistic nationalism? (Or are
we supposed to call it just linguistic "demands"...? :)
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tdiq0$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> ask your questions about kurdish and kurds in
> soc.culture.kurdish and I will try to participate
> in the discussion.
Thanks, but I prefer to stay here and participate
in discussions about Turks, Turkish and anything
else as it relates to them...
> In short french and italian are much much more
> similar than are persian and kurdish.
I'm sorry but I won't be able to take your word for
it... Previously you had said:
"now, if a claim is made that the various forms of kurdish
"spoken in turkey (the great majority are kurmanji speakers,
"with a dImIli, i.e. zaza, minority and in fact a handful of
"gorani, which is close to dImIli, speakers) are seperate
"languages, then certainly the various forms of turkic,
Clearly, by saying "if a claim is made", you infer
that those languages should all be called Kurdish.
Etnologue lists the Kurdi (600,000) and Kurmanji
(12-15,000,000) as sparate languages among others
in the Kurdish family. It lists Dimli (1,000,000)
Kirmanjki (1,500,000) and Hawrami (?) as separate
languages of the Zaza-Gorani family. It does also
explicitly state that Dimli is neither a Kurdish
language nor is it intelligible to Kurmanjis. The
Kirmanjki (not Kurmanji) is also explicitly said
to be a separate language (70% lexical similarity
to Dimli).
As to the closeness issue, etnologue categorizes:
"Indo-European, Romance, Italo-Western,
Western, Gallo-Romance, North, French"
"Indo-European, Romance, Italo-Western
Italo-Romance, Italian"
"Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Western,
Northwestern, Kurdish"
"Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Western,
Northwestern, Farsi"
After "Italo-Western", French and Italian take quite
different paths compared to Kurdish and Farsi, which
start the divergence themselves. It is very difficult
for me to believe that Kurdish and Farsi are further
apart than French and Italian...!
Furhermore, when I once stated that Arabic was not
widely thought or spoken in Turkey, you said:
"arabic is the third most commonly spoken language
"in modern turkey. in addition to ethnic arabs it
"is spoken as a second or third language by many
"kurds, syriacs and turks.
This would be true only if one includes (as you did:)
Kurmanji and Dimli as Kurdish, and only talking about
"native" speakers of those languages. Even so, Arabic
would be third after Turkish (82%) and Kurdish (10%,
with Kurmanji 8.2% and Dimli 1.8%) with a skimpy 1% of
the population...! Therefore, I consider your stating
that Arabic is the third most commonly spoken languge
in Turkey as nothing but *distorting the truth*...!
Also, Syriacs numbering a mere 25,000 are hardly worth
a mention among dozens of other minorities with each
outnumbering them by far... Of course, at this stage,
it is not too difficult to guess why you squeezed them
in... :)
> gagauz and turkish are seperate languages. what you call
> xorasani is a dialect of turkmen (or uzbek, I'll have to
> check it out).
I had mentioned both as separate languages within the
"Turkish" branch...
> read my post again. it says "eastern turkic" origin
> (should have been eastern or northeastern), not "turkic
> origin".
As long as it says "Turkic origin", how does it matter
whether it is Eastern, Northeastern, Northern, Western
or Martian Turkic origin...?
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tdjfc$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> ........
> if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
> RK
I do not read nor post to any Arabic culture's newsgroup.
Neither do I nurture nor pursue any anti-Arabic ideas...
But, two-faced Ottomanist, Ummatist people in SCT do get
under my skin and I do/will respond to them with "anti-"
arguments to defend my own views. Since they try to sell
heavily on Arabic/Persian language and Islamist/Ummatist
ideologies, my "anti-" comments will "necessarily" sound
anti-Arabic and anti-Islam. I hope readers can see that.
I am definitely "anti-you"! Not because of whether you
are Arabic or not, but because of what you write here.
I don't like nor agree with your views. I would counter
them even if you were the God of Arabs, let alone being
an Arab (or whatever else)...
MK
Cluster User
this deserves a seperate thread. however, for the moment:
In article <4tb5br$c...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, te...@vms.cis.pitt.edu says.
>...Please
>remember that the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans before Kemalism was
>on
what's the problem with that. the people of turkey abolished the sultanate,
so the arab people did not wish to ottoman rule either. while claiming to be
anti-ottoman yourselves, you are pro-ottoman vis a vis other nationalities.
>the scene. Remember the history of WWI; i.e. the Arabs ganging up against
please read "a peace to end all peace" for starters. learn about this
history from independent sources before speaking. also read "arab
nationalism" by bassam tibi. the author like me, takes a dim view of
nationalism in general. he also explains the obsession of nationalists about
language, and refers to the ideology of ziya gokalp.
>the
>Ottomans. In fact, the rise of Kemalists was, in part, facilitated by the
faysal's troops and the ankara government cooperated against the french in
syria. it is in that way the arabs helped the kemalists.
>disappointment with the Arabs. Please place the blaim where it belongs.
>There
>are a lot of issue areas where you could level criticism against Kemalism,
>but
>your present choice is pretty unfair.
>This is not to suggest that Arabs must be avoided. Their own nationalism
well, stop avoiding their language for starters. then you will be able to
communicate with them.
>against the Ottomans/Turks and into the hands of the British was a
>phenomenon of historical currents of nationalism. And that is
>understandable.
>But, do not rush to assume that Arabs miss us but we spare them family
why should the arabs miss anti-arab chauvenists!
>visits.
>Hopefully, Arab elites will soon come to their senses and these nations
hopefully the elites in turkey will come to their senses.
>will
>acquire the pride they really deserve.
why should their pride be dependent on other people. it is not.
RK
Cluster User
MK wrote:
>
> > ........
> > if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
> > RK
>
> I do not read nor post to any Arabic culture's newsgroup.
very likely. you seem to live in your insular little world
of turkish nationalism and don't care to learn about anything
else.
> Neither do I nurture nor pursue any anti-Arabic ideas...
!!!
>
> But, two-faced Ottomanist, Ummatist people in SCT do get
actually I take a very dim view of the ottoman empire politically,
however, it is a non-issue since it doesn't exist anymore and
there are no serious movements to revive it. even reactionaries
in turkey do not take it as a model. their model comes from
contemporary political islam.
as for ummatism I am against it for the people it *excludes*
(atheists and people of different religions or religous
backgrounds). you on the other hand seem to be against it
for the people it *includes* (people of different nationalities
and states). in other words, because it is "unnational", because
it is in a way "the internationalism of the fool."
> under my skin and I do/will respond to them with "anti-"
> arguments to defend my own views. Since they try to sell
the arguments against ummatism don't neccessarily have to be
from the racist point of view that you have.
> heavily on Arabic/Persian language and Islamist/Ummatist
> ideologies, my "anti-" comments will "necessarily" sound
> anti-Arabic and anti-Islam. I hope readers can see that.
be anti-islamic as long as you are consistently against
religous beliefs in general. as far as I am concerned,
there is no excuse for being anti-any nationality.
one should not substitue nationalism and racism for
religion.
>
> I am definitely "anti-you"! Not because of whether you
that's a compliment!
> are Arabic or not, but because of what you write here.
> I don't like nor agree with your views. I would counter
great!
> them even if you were the God of Arabs, let alone being
so you believe a god can have access to a workstation?
> an Arab (or whatever else)...
yes. it doesn't matter what my nationality or citizenship is
in any case I would hold the same views.
>
> MK
>
>
this answer deserves a seperate thread which wraps up
the discussion, which I will write in turkish.
RK
Deniz Akkus
In article <4tb503$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
> laalettayin -m (-im ile degil) ile kelime i$tikak etmek kullanIldIgI
>normal olarak kullanIlan masdarlar mevcutken bu masdarI kullanmakta Israr
>etmek "oztUrkceci" oldugunu ilan etmek icindir. bu da bir siyasi bir "kulUbe"
>aza olmayI gostermek icindir.
Bu tartismaya girmedim ama epeydir izliyorum, sunu soylemeden
gecemeyecegim: RK yabanci oldugunu, profesyonel dilbilimci oldugunu,
Turkce'yi bir yabanci dil olarak konustugunu soyluyor. Bu tip
insanlarla tanistim, bu kadar rahat Turkce konusan, anadili gibi
yazabileni ile hic karsilasmadim. Yabanci Turkce gramer uzmanlarinin
bile bu sekilde Turkce konustuklarini dogrusu gormedim. Ne gerek var bu
sekilde yalan soylemeye???
Esen kalin,
Deniz Akkus
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tjc00$p...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>MK wrote:
>
>>> ........
>>> if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
>>> RK
>>
>> I do not read nor post to any Arabic culture's newsgroup.
>
> very likely. you seem to live in your insular little world
> of turkish nationalism and don't care to learn about anything
> else.
Most of my day is spent living a real life in a real world.
Then I spend an hour or two in the virtual world. I have no
time to interest myself with the history, culture, language
of all other nations or peoples, with all political, sports
events, with all scientific developments, etc. Thus I limit
my newsgroup reading to a few non-soc.culture.?? groups and
soc.culture.turkish. I think you may be projecting your own
image unto others a little too much...
>> Neither do I nurture nor pursue any anti-Arabic ideas...
>
> !!!
>
>> But, two-faced Ottomanist, Ummatist people in SCT do get
>
> actually I take a very dim view of the ottoman empire
> politically, however, it is a non-issue since it doesn't
> exist anymore and there are no serious movements to revive
> it. even reactionaries in turkey do not take it as a model.
> their model comes from contemporary political islam.
There may not be a desire to revive its mechanics but
the idea of Ottomans is very much alive in the minds
of many Turks and non-Turks (at least here in SCT)...
Talking about "political Islam", "contemporary" rings
more like "bringing back the past"...
> as for ummatism I am against it for the people it
> *excludes* (atheists and people of different religions
> or religous backgrounds). you on the other hand seem
> to be against it for the people it *includes* (people
> of different nationalities and states). in other words,
> because it is "unnational", because it is in a way "the
> internationalism of the fool."
In my previous postings, when I mentioned "ummatism"
I expressed my view of it by putting (nation of God)
next to it in parentheses... Maybe you don't notice
these things because of your constant need to label
me as a nationalist.
>> under my skin and I do/will respond to them with "anti-"
>> arguments to defend my own views. Since they try to sell
>
> the arguments against ummatism don't neccessarily have to
> be from the racist point of view that you have.
What you can't get through your head is that Arabic
people don't post "ummatism selling" articles under
Arabic names here in SCT and/or I am not responding
to them with any expression of racism...
There aren't many Japanese or Mexican posters here,
and/or I don't respond to them with racism either.
I wouldn't even be against Arabs' selling ummatism
to Turks, if those Arab nations themselves strived
for ummatism (let alone being anywhere near coming
close to achieving it)...
What I'm doing here, is reacting to so called Turks
begging to kiss Arabs' rear while Arabs aren't even
offering their rear to them... And for that, I don't
give a hoot about you calling me nationalist, racist,
or whatever else.
>> heavily on Arabic/Persian language and Islamist/Ummatist
>> ideologies, my "anti-" comments will "necessarily" sound
>> anti-Arabic and anti-Islam. I hope readers can see that.
>
> be anti-islamic as long as you are consistently against
> religous beliefs in general. as far as I am concerned,
> there is no excuse for being anti-any nationality.
> one should not substitue nationalism and racism for
> religion.
It's neither an issue of a specific religion (Islam)
nor a specific nation (Arab)... If it were Italians
banging on Turkey's door selling Christian ummatism,
I would react the same way. Can't you see that...?
>.....
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tj7v6$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>> This is not to suggest that Arabs must be avoided.
>
> well, stop avoiding their language for starters.
> then you will be able to communicate with them.
Trying to cleanse Turkish from Arabic infestation
has nothing to do with avoiding their language...
Arabs and Arabic language have absolutely nothing
special over other people and languages. Being an
anti-nationalist, I'm sure you already know that.
Turks/Turkish has absolutely nothing more to gain
from Arabic than from other neighboring languages
such as Bulgarian, Greek, Armenian, Russian, etc.
Turks/Turkey has absolutely nothing more to gain
from communicating with Arabs than communicating
with its other immediate neighbors and with more
distant nations/peoples.
How about you ask Arabs to make a minimal effort
to learn a little Turkish so they can communicate
better with the Turks...? :)
>> Their own nationalism against the Ottomans/Turks
>> and into the hands of the British was a phenomenon
>> of historical currents of nationalism. And that is
>> understandable. But, do not rush to assume that
>> Arabs miss us but we spare them family visits.
>
> why should the arabs miss anti-arab chauvenists!
They shouldn't. But I guess you missed his point
about "Arab nationalism against Ottomans/Turks".
He is saying that the "Arab nationalism" doesn't
miss the Turks. This being the case, the question
you asked should have been: "why should the Turks
miss anti-Turkish Arab nationalist chauvenists?".
>> Hopefully, Arab elites will soon come to their senses and
>
> hopefully the elites in turkey will come to their senses.
>
>> these nations will acquire the pride they really deserve.
>
> why should their pride be dependent on other people. it is not.
I don't see that the writer meant to say what you
understood. But let's assume for a moment that he
did and that you are opposing his view. Would you
mind telling us: "What do you believe that Arabic
pride should depend on...?" (when answering, just
remember that you are an anti-nationalist... :)
> RK
Cluster User
deniz:
soylediklerim dogru, ama tUrkiye'de genc ya$tayken epeyi kaldIm. tUrkcemi
begendigin icin te$ekkUr ederim.
RK
Mehmet Gulsen
In article <Pine.A32.3.92a.96072...@mead2.u.washington.edu>,
Emre Berk <em...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
......
:> Saniyorum haklisiniz. Ne yazik ki, ``ulusal dil'' adina,
:> yuzyillardir kullanilan Arapca ve Farsca kelimeler ``Turkce''
:> olmadiklari gerekcesiyle atilmis, ama bunlarin yerlerine bati
:> dillerinden ozenilerek kelimeler uretilmistir (ogretmen, okul,
:> onur, terim, evrensel, vs).
>
>Bu orneklere gecmeden once, ben "birim" yerine eski dilde ne
>kullanildigini bilmiyorum. Bir bilen yazarsa sevinirim. O zaman, hangi
>sozcuk neden nicin turetilmis sorusuna da daha iyi yanit bulabiliriz.
>
Muhtemelen "birlik".
:>
:>
:> >2) Durum
:> >
:> >Turkce'de -m ekiyle fiilden isim uretilir. Bu isim ya fiili ya da fiilin
:> >sonucunda olusani belirtir: Almaktan alim, ata kosmaktan kosum.
:>
:> ``Durum'' yukaridaki birim kelimesinde kullandiginiz orneklerden
:> farkli bir sekilde mi turetilmis?
:>
:> Saniyorum, ``duyum'', ``devrim'' gibi kelimeler de sizin
:> verdiginiz tanima uyuyor. Fakat, Turkce'de fiil koku olan ``devri''
:> veya ``duyu'' yok. Acaba, ``birim'' ve ``durum'' ayni ekle turetilmis
:> olamaz mi? Bir dusunun.
:>
>
>Fiil koku olarak 'devir' ve 'duy' var. Alim-satim ornegindeki gibi
>soneklere kaynastirici harf de eklenebilir.
Burasi oldukca enteresan. "Devrim"deki ikinci "i" ve "duyum"daki
ikinci "u"ya KAYNASTRICI HARF diyorsunuz. Oncelikle, bunu hangi dilbilgisi
kitabindan okudunuz bilmiyorum, fakat bunun mantiksizligini anlamak icin
zaten fazla kafa yormaya gerek yok.
Iddia ettiginiz gibi, Turkce'de -m eki oldugunu varsayalim, ve
bu ekin, sesizle biten fiil koklerine geldiginde araya "kaynastirici" harf
aldigini kabul edelim. Peki, o zaman, bu kaynastirici harfin ne oldugunu
nasil tespit edecegiz? Yani neden
duy + m -> duy(u)m oluyor, fakat
duy + m -> duy(a)m olmuyor
duy + m -> duy(I)m olmuyor.
>'devir-i-m' deki ortadaki 'i' harfi de dusurulmus ve 'devrim' yapilmistir.
>
:>
:> >Durum sozcugu 'durmak'tan turetilmis bir isimdir; arapca "hal" ya da
:> >ingilizce "situation" karsiligidir. Durum sozcugu "esyanin su anki hali,
:> >esya su an durdugu gibi" anlamindadir. Boylesi bir kullanimi, "manzara"
:> >karsiligi kullanilan "gorunum"de buluruz: Gorunum = esya su an gorundugu
:> >gibi.
:>
:> Tekrar tartismanin basladigi noktaya donelim. Farzedelim
:> 1930'lardasiniz, ve radyoda daha once hayatinizda hic duymadigiz
:> durum kelimesini duydunuz. Akliniza ilk ne gelir acaba?
:>
>
>1930larda diyelim Pera Palas'a girdim; ayakyolu ariyorum. Bir baktim
>karsimdaki kapinin uzerinde "tuvalet" yaziyor. Ne anliyorum? "Tuval"in
>resimle bir iliskisi var, acaba icerisi "resim studyosu" mu? Yoksa
>duvar reimleriyle suslu bir oda mi? Girmeden etrafta dolanip cikiyorum.
>
>Amerikan Kutuphanesi'nde belki ayakyolu vardir diye giriyorum. Bir
>koridorda buluyorum bir kapi, uzerinde levha: WC. Kutuphane mudurunun
>makam odasi midir nedir dusunuyorum. Amerikan harfleriyle ismini yazmislar
>diye. Oradan da cikiyorum.
>
>Disimi sIkIp Tunel'e yuruyorum. Los ve serin. Bakiyorum ileride
>kapinin uzerinde bir levha: Hela - Memurine mahsustur. Al sana sizofren
>bir levha! Hem he diyor hem de arapca olumsuzluk eki la- almis. Gel de cik
>isinden!
>
>Biniyorum metroya, Galata'dayim. Kopru'yu yarilamisken, yandaki
>merdivenden asagiya iniyorum. Demirden kasasinda demirden bir kapinin
>uzerinde boyali: 00. Hoppala! Kapilari da numaralamislar. Kim
>calacak Kopru'nun demir kapisini?
>
>Gerisin geri cikiyorum merdivenden, Kopru'yu geciyorum. Iskele'de bekleyen
>vapura biniyorum. Makine dairesinin yanindan gecip - ne de sicak su komur
>atesi - Ikinci Mevki'ye varmadan bir kapidaki levha gozume ilisiyor. Bir
>erkek ayakkabisi resmi. Kundura tamircisine de kim ihtiyac duyar su
>vapurda?
>
>Koca sehirde bir ayakyolu yok. Yaziklar olsun!
>
>Geciyorum, Ikinci Mevki'nin icinden. Geminin kicina cikiyorum. Pufur pufur
>Bogaz ruzgari. Dumani da bir savuruyor. Uskur sulari cevirdikce de bir
>kopuk yagmuru, bir damla cumbusu mavi sularda. Serin serin.
>
>Koca sehirde bir ayakyolu yok. Serin sulara bakiyorum. Akip giden sulara.
>Elim pantolon dugmeme gidiyor.
>
>Kimi sozcugun kaynagini ve kokunu bilmeden de kalip olarak ogreniyoruz.
>"Hela" sozcugunun arapca yokluk anlaminda "hala"dan geldigini bilmeden de
>hacetini goren milyonlar vardir. Tuvalet sozcugunun Avrupa dillerindeki
>kokeninden de habersiz su doken. Fransizca numarasizdan 00 simgesinin
>kokenini bilmeden de yuzlerine bir gulumseme gelenler vardir. Ingilizce
>"su dolabi"ndan geldigini bilmeden WC'ye kosanlar da olmustur. Erkek kadin
>ayakkabi resimleriyle cinsiyete ayrildigi belirtilen odanin adinin dahi
>anilmaya deger gorulmediginin farkinda olmadan kapidan dalanlar da.
>
>Diyecegim, sozcukleri ilkin islevsel olarak ogreniyoruz. Kokleri,
>cagrisimlari ise zamanla ve merakla geliyor.
>
>Vaziyet veya hal sozcuklerinin koklerinin daha kolay anlasildigi iddia
>edilemez herhalde. Zamanla bu sozcuklerin de neden turedigi kuskusuz
>ogrenilir; ayni sey durum icin de gecerlidir.
>
Bu baslikta gonderilen yazilarin ne kadarini okudunuz bilmiyorum,
fakat benim yazdiklarim, "ozturkce" olarak nitelendirilen kelimelerin,
dogal olarak anlamli oldugu iddiasina cevaben yazilmisti.
Kelimelerin "anlamliligini" kokenle ilgilendirmenin herhangi bir
dayanagi olduguna inanmiyorum. Saniyorum, bu tip sacmaliklar dili
cok basit bir seviyede algilamaktan kaynaklanmakta.
Mehmet GULSEN,
>eb
:>
:> >Diger sozcuklere bir baska zaman deginmek uzere.
:> >
:>
:> Bekliyorum.
:>
:> Selamlar,
:>
:> Mehmet GULSEN,
:>
:> >eb
:> >
:>
:>
:>
:>
>
Cluster User
In article <4tk789$d...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>In <4tjc00$p...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>
>>MK wrote:
>>
>>>> ........
>>>> if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
>>>> RK
>>>
>>> I do not read nor post to any Arabic culture's newsgroup.
>>
>> very likely. you seem to live in your insular little world
>> of turkish nationalism and don't care to learn about anything
>> else.
>
>Most of my day is spent living a real life in a real world.
>Then I spend an hour or two in the virtual world. I have no
>time to interest myself with the history, culture, language
>of all other nations or peoples, with all political, sports
>events, with all scientific developments, etc. Thus I limit
>my newsgroup reading to a few non-soc.culture.?? groups and
>soc.culture.turkish. I think you may be projecting your own
>image unto others a little too much...
you touch upon subjects that involve the relationship of turks with other
peoples, whether you have direct conversations with individuals from those
nationalities or not. yet you have little direct knowledge concerning them
and you don't seem to be willing to find out. furthermore, the policies you
want to have implemented are designed to discourage others from finding out
also. whether you specifically use the medium of USENET is irrelevant.
>
>>> Neither do I nurture nor pursue any anti-Arabic ideas...
>>
>> !!!
>>
>>> But, two-faced Ottomanist, Ummatist people in SCT do get
>>
>> actually I take a very dim view of the ottoman empire
>> politically, however, it is a non-issue since it doesn't
>> exist anymore and there are no serious movements to revive
>> it. even reactionaries in turkey do not take it as a model.
>> their model comes from contemporary political islam.
>
>There may not be a desire to revive its mechanics but
>the idea of Ottomans is very much alive in the minds
>of many Turks and non-Turks (at least here in SCT)...
the level of discussion in sct is rarely a good example for anything and not
that much important.
turks may refer to this or that version of the ottoman past among themselves
but it is mostly rhetoric. between non-turks and turks the issue comes up
because even most "anti-ottoman" turks defend the past actions of the ottoman
state aganist non-turks.
>
>Talking about "political Islam", "contemporary" rings
>more like "bringing back the past"...
political islam certainly impedes social progress and the rhetoric is
frequently that of an idealised past but it is not real "ottomanism".
>
>> as for ummatism I am against it for the people it
>> *excludes* (atheists and people of different religions
>> or religous backgrounds). you on the other hand seem
>> to be against it for the people it *includes* (people
>> of different nationalities and states). in other words,
>> because it is "unnational", because it is in a way "the
>> internationalism of the fool."
>
>In my previous postings, when I mentioned "ummatism"
>I expressed my view of it by putting (nation of God)
you are clearly distressed by the fact that it includes nationalities other
than turkish.
>next to it in parentheses... Maybe you don't notice
>these things because of your constant need to label
>me as a nationalist.
it's not a need. if you insist on not being a nationalist then you are in
"bad faith," as sartre would say (in a nutshell: you are fooling yourself).
if you are sincere in your desire in not being a nationalist than you would
take heed of what I say and correct yourself. what you are saying is
nationalist, although it may not be the precise slogans of parties that enjoy
labeling themselves as nationalist in turkey.
>
>>> under my skin and I do/will respond to them with "anti-"
>>> arguments to defend my own views. Since they try to sell
>>
>> the arguments against ummatism don't neccessarily have to
>> be from the racist point of view that you have.
>
>What you can't get through your head is that Arabic
>people don't post "ummatism selling" articles under
>Arabic names here in SCT and/or I am not responding
>to them with any expression of racism...
however, you exploit and encourage the ethnic hatred and rivalry and
the racist feelings of some turks. you justify the use of inflamatory
rhetoric.
>
>There aren't many Japanese or Mexican posters here,
>and/or I don't respond to them with racism either.
>I wouldn't even be against Arabs' selling ummatism
>to Turks, if those Arab nations themselves strived
>for ummatism (let alone being anywhere near coming
this just sounds like rhetoric, or else you are confused.
ummatism is OK if it is sincere?
>close to achieving it)...
>
>What I'm doing here, is reacting to so called Turks
it's the way you react, and the extraneous issues you involve.
>begging to kiss Arabs' rear while Arabs aren't even
just take a look at the imagery you are using.
>offering their rear to them... And for that, I don't
>give a hoot about you calling me nationalist, racist,
*you* might not care but there are people who do care about being or being
called a nationalist / chauvinist / racist but out of ignorance use the same
rhetoric as you. I write in the hope that some of them are reading this
thread.
>or whatever else.
>
>>> heavily on Arabic/Persian language and Islamist/Ummatist
>>> ideologies, my "anti-" comments will "necessarily" sound
>>> anti-Arabic and anti-Islam. I hope readers can see that.
>>
>> be anti-islamic as long as you are consistently against
>> religous beliefs in general. as far as I am concerned,
>> there is no excuse for being anti-any nationality.
>> one should not substitue nationalism and racism for
>> religion.
>
>It's neither an issue of a specific religion (Islam)
>nor a specific nation (Arab)... If it were Italians
>banging on Turkey's door selling Christian ummatism
>I would react the same way. Can't you see that...?
then you would be judged on how you react towards italians and christianity.
>
>>.....
>> RK
>
>MK
I'll continue in turkish. enough "examples" from MK
RK
Cluster User
In article <4tk2vg$d...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
(I am not carrying a private conversation with MK. rather being so typical he
provides me with appropriate examples)
>
>In <4tj7v6$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>
>>> This is not to suggest that Arabs must be avoided.
>>
>> well, stop avoiding their language for starters.
>> then you will be able to communicate with them.
>
>Trying to cleanse Turkish from Arabic infestation
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
NB the characterisation.
>has nothing to do with avoiding their language...
!!!
>
>Arabs and Arabic language have absolutely nothing
>special over other people and languages. Being an
>...
*you* have decided to single out the arabs and arabic language lately.
>How about you ask Arabs to make a minimal effort
>to learn a little Turkish so they can communicate
>better with the Turks...? :)
>
I already know arabs that have made the effort to learn
turkish. besides, again, this is the wrong newsgroup to talk
about this.
>>> Their own nationalism against the Ottomans/Turks
>>> and into the hands of the British was a phenomenon
>>> of historical currents of nationalism. And that is
>>> understandable. But, do not rush to assume that
>>> Arabs miss us but we spare them family visits.
>>
>> why should the arabs miss anti-arab chauvenists!
>
>They shouldn't. But I guess you missed his point
>about "Arab nationalism against Ottomans/Turks".
>He is saying that the "Arab nationalism" doesn't
>miss the Turks. This being the case, the question
actually the whole metaphor, as well as the language of the original post is
confused. why not write in turkish?
>you asked should have been: "why should the Turks
>miss anti-Turkish Arab nationalist chauvenists?".
I am not an arab nationalist. however, I feel that
"anti-ottoman" turks should sympathise with the arab
desire for independence in that period.
>
>>> Hopefully, Arab elites will soon come to their senses and
>>
>> hopefully the elites in turkey will come to their senses.
>>
>>> these nations will acquire the pride they really deserve.
>>
>> why should their pride be dependent on other people. it is not.
>
>I don't see that the writer meant to say what you
then he should rewrite his sentence.
>understood. But let's assume for a moment that he
>did and that you are opposing his view. Would you
>mind telling us: "What do you believe that Arabic
>pride should depend on...?" (when answering, just
*you* seem to have the answers for "national" pride.
pride is an individual matter.
te...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
In article <4tdjfc$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu (Cluster User) writes:
> "nation state" as identified with the nationalist ideology of an ethnic
> group arose much later, in the 19th century, in order to cover up class
> struggles and also to justify colonial policies of "democratic" countries. a
> nationalist linguistic policy came into being in only a few cases and mostly
> not in the extreme form as in turk
The beginnings of nation state goes as far back as the 16th century. But it
starts to dominate, as a concept, after the French revolution. You say
nationalism was a cover up for class struggles and colonialism. For one thing,
nationalism appeared together with the birth of capitalism in Europe, it even
preceded capitalism. It was not invented to cover up class struggles. People
do not just invent ideologies to cover up this and that. There is a historical
process at work. Secondly, nationalism --note that it is not tribalism to which
you seem to allude-- is the anti-thesis of colonialism, not a justification for
it. The Sevr, the document of colonial wishes, was placed with Lausanne via
the tenets of Turkish nationalism. Like it or not, M. Kemal and other
nationalist did it, not the Sultan.
> "kemalist" does not neccessarily mean m. kemal. it mostly refers to recent
> interpretations of m. kemal. linguistic policy during m. kemal's time was
> more prudent, but it prepared the ideological framework for fairly recent
> extremism.
First sentence I agree with. Recent interpretations of Kemal? Are there some?
Why don't you give u we are talking
about. What is the basis of your assertion that lang. policy of Kemal era was
more prudent than "fairly recent" times?
Cluster User
just as a sidenote I would like to add this comment:
MK says:
>
>By reducing everything to politics, I think you are
>grossly overlooking the mutual feelings amongst the
>Turkic peoples...
well, you didn't mention what type of feelings.
when nationalism reared its ugly head 6 years ago
there were riots in uzbekistan against the turks settled
there from georgia. now this is not mentioned, and
just as well that more animosity is not created. however, it shows how
"mutual feelings" can be manipulated poltically.
RK
be
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tlm7p$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> In <4tk2vg$d...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>> Trying to cleanse Turkish from Arabic infestation
> ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> NB the characterisation.
I handpicked those words. I am glad you noticed and
highlighted them for others who had possibly not yet
noticed. Thanks for the help...
>> has nothing to do with avoiding their language...
>> ...
>> Arabs and Arabic language have absolutely nothing
>> special over other people and languages. Being an
>> ...
>
> *you* have decided to single out the arabs and arabic
> language lately.
In my original article that started this thread (183
lines), I mentioned the word Arabic only once in the
sentence "Then the cycle repeats moving from Persian
to Arabic, to French, to English...", and never even
talked about Arabs. I have also given examples based
on words mostly borrowed from Western languages.
For the excessive influence from any foreign language
I would use the analogy of a pasture's being infested
with weeds that choke out the native grass... However
if anyone (like yourself:) drags the focus to Arabic,
I have no problem with dwelling on it either.
We also know exactly why certain people react to the
subject of "cleansing" Turkish from Arabic more than
from French and English. It is because Arabic is the
so called "language of God and Islam"...
Can you imagine millions of people having had to pray
to their God in words that they could not understand
nor pronounce correctly...? This has been the perfect
tool for making people swallow any mambo-jumbo trash
as "*interpretation*" (even then in only 20% Turkish)
of the "*holy words of un-understable depths*"...
Their concern might be well justified. What if Turks
read the Kuran and its ad nauseam interpretations in
Turkish and really start to understand them...? What
if they discover that, among the most used words are
punishment, hell, fire, flame, burn, etc... and find
the theme terrorizing their souls with an invincible
fear of God more than soothing it with God's love...?
>> How about you ask Arabs to make a minimal effort
>> to learn a little Turkish so they can communicate
>> better with the Turks...? :)
>
> I already know arabs that have made the effort to
> learn turkish.
Good, now they can start praying in Turkish then... :)
>> you asked should have been: "why should the Turks
>> miss anti-Turkish Arab nationalist chauvenists?".
>
> I am not an arab nationalist. however, I feel that
> "anti-ottoman" turks should sympathise with the arab
> desire for independence in that period.
Some probably already do and maybe others should too.
But self-declared anti-nationalists should NOT! feel
sympathy for independence movements based on national
identities... :)
>> understood. But let's assume for a moment that he
>> did and that you are opposing his view. Would you
>> mind telling us: "What do you believe that Arabic
>> pride should depend on...?" (when answering, just
>
> *you* seem to have the answers for "national" pride.
> pride is an individual matter.
Are you saying that it is wrong for people to share
an element of pride within a family, a community, a
nation, an ummat or the whole humanity...? Are you
saying that there is no such thing as an "Islamic"
or an "Arabic pride" going beyond individual pride
and acting as a political force...? Hah!
>> remember that you are an anti-nationalist... :)
>>
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tlprp$l...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4tk789$d...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>>
>> There may not be a desire to revive its mechanics but
>> the idea of Ottomans is very much alive in the minds
>> of many Turks and non-Turks (at least here in SCT)...
>
> the level of discussion in sct is rarely a good example
> for anything and not that much important.
I somewhat agree. Nevertheless we are discussing in SCT
and adressing the SCT...
> turks may refer to this or that version of the ottoman
> past among themselves but it is mostly rhetoric. between
> non-turks and turks the issue comes up because even most
> "anti-ottoman" turks defend the past actions of the
> ottoman state aganist non-turks.
Some may do that but I don't think you can claim that
all do. You also need to consider that this may occur
especially in cases where distinctions between Turkey
and Ottoman Empire are purposefully blurred, and when
the present Turks are identified as the representants
and/or reponsibles of the Ottoman past...
>> Talking about "political Islam", "contemporary" rings
>> more like "bringing back the past"...
>
> political islam certainly impedes social progress and
> the rhetoric is frequently that of an idealised past
> but it is not real "ottomanism".
I had responded to your following comment:
"even reactionaries in turkey do not take it as a model.
"their model comes from contemporary political islam."
in two separate paragraphs. Why would you think that I
couldn't distinguish between the two ideas? Especially
when we know who is behind the current Islamic/ummatist
ideologies/movements, how can we expect them to be real
Ottomanists at the same time...? :)
>> In my previous postings, when I mentioned "ummatism"
>> I expressed my view of it by putting (nation of God)
>
> you are clearly distressed by the fact that it includes
> nationalities other than turkish.
I wouldn't be bothered at all that it would include the
Albanians, Croatians, Chechens, etc. What bothers me is
the efforts of Arabicizing other's cultures by imposing
Arabic as the "untranslatable" language of God, etc...
BTW, I believe that Arabic is deficient in something as
basic as referring to a "so called" genderless God with
a genderless pronoun...!
>> next to it in parentheses... Maybe you don't notice
>> these things because of your constant need to label
>> me as a nationalist.
>
> it's not a need. if you insist on not being a nationalist
> then you are in "bad faith," as sartre would say (in a
> nutshell: you are fooling yourself).
As long as I am not fooled by you, I will be fine... :)
> if you are sincere in your desire in not being a nationalist
> than you would take heed of what I say and correct yourself.
I might have even heeded your advice, if only you didn't
redefine you words every other day... :)
> what you are saying is nationalist, although it may not be
> the precise slogans of parties that enjoy labeling themselves
> as nationalist in turkey.
Once we start saying "it is, although it is not...", the
coverage of definitions expand beyond their limits...
>> What you can't get through your head is that Arabic
>> people don't post "ummatism selling" articles under
>> Arabic names here in SCT and/or I am not responding
>> to them with any expression of racism...
>
> however, you exploit and encourage the ethnic hatred
> and rivalry and the racist feelings of some turks.
> you justify the use of inflamatory rhetoric.
Do you ever get the impression that I exploit/encourage
ethnic hatred towards all of the dozens of minorities
in Turkey or neighboring nations? Why not...? Could it
be that your own subjectivity colors your impressions?
>> There aren't many Japanese or Mexican posters here,
>> and/or I don't respond to them with racism either.
>> I wouldn't even be against Arabs' selling ummatism
>> to Turks, if those Arab nations themselves strived
>> for ummatism (let alone being anywhere near coming
>
> this just sounds like rhetoric, or else you are confused.
> ummatism is OK if it is sincere?
Not "ummatism" but the act of "selling ummatism" (see
my above words please). I would say "selling ummatism"
would be bad enough, but I really despise it when the
"merchant" does not even believe in what he sells...!
>> close to achieving it)...
>>
>> What I'm doing here, is reacting to so called Turks
>
> it's the way you react, and the extraneous issues you
> involve.
My argument has been consistently quite simple: Turkish
needs to be cleansed of excessive foreign influence, so
that Turks can better relate to their universe and even
to their God...! When you start poking around searching
for nationalism, racism, etc. beyond my words, I surely
will respond in any "way" that I deem "*situationally*
appropriate"...
>> begging to kiss Arabs' rear while Arabs aren't even
>
> just take a look at the imagery you are using.
>
>> offering their rear to them... And for that, I don't
>> give a hoot about you calling me nationalist, racist,
>
> *you* might not care but there are people who do care
> about being or being called a nationalist / chauvinist
> / racist but out of ignorance use the same rhetoric as
> you. I write in the hope that some of them are reading
> this thread.
What a coincidence...? I feel I am doing the same to
keep others being fooled by you and your likes. You
want the Turks to stop wanting to cleanse and enrich
their language by calling it linguistic-nationalism.
You want them to stop being proud of what makes them
different by calling it chauvenism. You want them to
not react when a religion, revealed to a chosen race
(nation?) is shoved down their throats in the chosen
language of God, by calling it racism...
I don't find anything wrong with any self-promoting
ideas or feelings as long as they are not abused to
degrade others. Regardless of how eloquent my style
is and regardless of the labels it attracts because
of it, I will continue to expose the "*manipulative
self-degrading ideologial propaganda*" on SCT...!
>> It's neither an issue of a specific religion (Islam)
>> nor a specific nation (Arab)... If it were Italians
>> banging on Turkey's door selling Christian ummatism
>> I would react the same way. Can't you see that...?
>
> then you would be judged on how you react towards
> italians and christianity.
Exactly! But "*only if*" and "*only then*"...!!!
> I'll continue in turkish. enough "examples" from MK
>
> RK
MK
Cluster User
In article <4tmp3v$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says... >> ...
>...
>> what you are saying is nationalist, although it may not be
>> the precise slogans of parties that enjoy labeling themselves
>> as nationalist in turkey.
>
>Once we start saying "it is, although it is not...", the
>coverage of definitions expand beyond their limits...
>
>...When you start poking around searching
>for nationalism, racism, etc. beyond my words, I surely
>will respond in any "way" that I deem "*situationally*
>appropriate"...
>MK
no, I am not stretching definitions beyond their limits, and the label
"nationalist" is very appropriate. I will show this in my posts in turkish. I
have no particular interest in labeling someone I do not know one way
or the other unless tehre is a very good reason. anyway, you have never
explicitly denied that you are a nationalist.
Cluster User
the language of god? I am afraid I cannot help the readers on this matter!
if someone did the impossible and proved the existence of god and got
verifiable linguistic samples from god then one could give a definite answer.
pending that, one has to take the word of the theologians, who seem to be in
disagreement based on religion. similarly on questions of god's psychological
make-up, like whether god is "loving" or not, whether god has biological sex
etc.
I'll leave theological matters or matters of nationalist myths to those who
make them up.
MK has gone on auto-pilot. "nationalized religion" was the only aspect of
nationalist ideology not explicitly mentioned so far, only alluded to by him.
now we have that too. the origin of this will be explained in my turkish
posts.
RK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4toi4b$o...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> .......
> I'll leave theological matters or matters of nationalist
> myths to those who make them up.
No, he won't leave it to anybody. He likes the subject
too much to do that...
> MK has gone on auto-pilot. "nationalized religion" was
> the only aspect of nationalist ideology not explicitly
> mentioned so far, only alluded to by him.
MK did nothing of the sort! He advocated that people
can better relate to their God and religion in their
own language (or any language they *understand* for
that matter). Let's take the people who are reading
this article in English right now (who may be Turks,
Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc...) Assuming that
they believe in some God, if they wanted to pray and
if we restricted their choices to the following:
a - "God, please forgive my sins"
b - "Vellehu-m yev'mil rahmat'en"
Which one would they prefer? Bilingual readers who
understand both may pick either one. But I would
bet that a good majority of the readers who only
understand English would pick the first one...
Anyone who sees this as alluding to "nationalized
religion", must have something bothering them in
their head...
> now we have that too.
You have nothing but the excuse you needed to bring
up the subject. Go ahead, knock yourself off...
> the origin of this will be explained in my turkish posts.
Just a minute ago he said he would "leave theological
matters or matters of nationalist myths to those who
make them up"... But he has too much interest in the
subject to be able to do that. Now he will explain it
to us all. Open your ears and really hear this guy!!!
I mean it, if you know what I mean...
> RK
MK
Cluster User
tekin, using the computer between his ears, wrote:
>
> In article <4tdjfc$j...@news.ycc.yale.edu>, cluste...@yale.edu
>(Cluster User) writes:
>> "nation state" as identified with the nationalist ideology of an ethnic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> group arose much later, in the 19th century, in order to cover up class
^^^^^
>> struggles and also to justify colonial policies of "democratic"
>> countries. a
>> nationalist linguistic policy came into being in only a few cases and
>> mostly
>> not in the extreme form as in turk
>
> The beginnings of nation state goes as far back as the 16th century.
> But it
one could go on indefinitely about the meanings of the words "nation",
"nation state" etc.. however, I believe I have qualified it sufficiently
to make my statement true. perhaps using "was established" instead of "arose"
would have been more prudent.
> starts to dominate, as a concept, after the French revolution. You say
I call the ideals of the french revolution "patriotism" not "nationalism".
the book I recommended by b. tibi discusses these using slightly different
terminology.
> nationalism was a cover up for class struggles and colonialism. For one
> thing,
> nationalism appeared together with the birth of capitalism in Europe,
> it even
> preceded capitalism. It was not invented to cover up class struggles.
there were other factors involved as well. perhaps saying "among other
things it arose out of the dynamics of covering up..." is better.
> People
> do not just invent ideologies to cover up this and that. There is a
> historical
I will discuss some of the historical processes later.
> process at work. Secondly, nationalism --note that it is not tribalism to
^^^^^^^^^
that term is generally reserved for something else. but please let us stop
quibbling about terminology, else the discussion will sound too much like
poli sci 101.
> which
> you seem to allude-- is the anti-thesis of colonialism, not a
anti-colonialism is a patriotic demand based on the ideals of the
french revolution. anti-colonial movements as a whole on the other
hand, are composed of diverse elements with diverse demands. don't
ask me to judge things in too much detail. I am not st. peter with
the keys of heaven looking into people's "souls".
incidentally, *the officially sanctioned version* of nationalism by
the ankara government was, in terms of discourse, more what MK terms
"ummatism". some turks might disagree with this, but it is a fact.
> justification for
> it. The Sevr, the document of colonial wishes, was placed with Lausanne
> via the tenets of Turkish nationalism. Like it or not, M. Kemal and other
you are barking up the wrong gum tree.
> nationalist did it, not the Sultan.
the istanbul government had pre - french revolution goals, i.e.
the continuation of the dynasty.
I must add though, that the ottoman dynasty is no longer a real political
issue in turkey.
the effective historical role played by the movement in anatolia is a
seperate matter.
>
>> "kemalist" does not neccessarily mean m. kemal. it mostly refers to
>> recent
>> interpretations of m. kemal. linguistic policy during m. kemal's time
>> was
>> more prudent, but it prepared the ideological framework for fairly recent
>> extremism.
>
> First sentence I agree with. Recent interpretations of Kemal? Are there
> some?
m. kemal rejected political philosophy, so there is no reliable method to
guess what his policies might have been today. basicaly all groups in the
political establishment of turkey could legitimately call themselves
kemalist. more specifically I refer to bonapartist groups like the various
"left" and "right" factions in the military since 1960 and their civilian
supporters.
> Why don't you give u we are talking
> about. What is the basis of your assertion that lang. policy of Kemal era
> was
> more prudent than "fairly recent" times?
>
good opporunity to switch to turkish in a new ("inonU" hi, hi) thread.
>
>> if you want to see anti-arab discourse, read MK's posts.
>> RK
>>
>
RK
Cluster User
> ...
>> the origin of this will be explained in my turkish posts.
>
>Just a minute ago he said he would "leave theological
>matters or matters of nationalist myths to those who
not in terms of theology, but why this has been adopted as a political
stance.
RK
>make them up"... But he has too much interest in the
>subject to be able to do that. Now he will explain it
>to us all...
>
>> RK
>
>MK
Cluster User
In article <4tpvd5$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>
>Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc...) Assuming that
>they believe in some God, if they wanted to pray and
>if we restricted their choices to the following:
>
>a - "God, please forgive my sins"
>b - "Vellehu-m yev'mil rahmat'en"
>
>Which one would they prefer? Bilingual readers who
>understand both may pick either one. But I would
well, maybe some would pick abacadabra. just as well
too, the second sentence vaguely resembles arabic, but
the writer is so confused that one could hardly make
any sense out of it.
BTW, compulsory use of turkish in *prayer* (not "call to prayer") was never
instituted. however, if one wants to pray in turkish there is nothing to stop
one from doing so. one has a free choice already.
RK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tooe6$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> In <4tmp3v$a...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>> ...When you start poking around searching for nationalism,
>> racism, etc. beyond my words, I surely will respond in any
>> "way" that I deem "*situationally* appropriate"...
>
> no, I am not stretching definitions beyond their limits, and
> the label "nationalist" is very appropriate. I will show this
> in my posts in turkish. I have no particular interest in
> labeling someone I do not know one way or the other unless
> tehre is a very good reason.
My advice to you is this: claim that you have a right
to label somebody based on a few simple observations,
and leave it at that...
If you go into proving things (especially about people
you admit you don't know), you will need to go through
an ardous task in order to be fair and accurate.
In this case for example, you will need to give us the
defining elements of your version of nationalism. Then
you will need to quantify your measure of qualifiying.
At that stage, if I fall short of qualifying resulting
in my exclusion from a certain ideal, I myself may ask
for a waiver and volunteer for the label...
For your work to be compleat, you would of course need
to define other political ism's and measure me against
them as well. After that, you can start processing the
results while properly considering any overlapping and
contrasting elements, and arrive to some conclusions.
I guess at that point, you may opt to use the ism that
is most dominantly characterizing me as your label (ie
nationalist or xyzist) or opt to use a composite label
(ie abcist-xyzist-nationalist).
Better get going. You have a long ways to go...
> anyway, you have never explicitly denied that you are
> a nationalist.
I do not see any benefits in confirming or denying
simplistic labels. Once you enumerate the defining
elements of nationalism, I may be able to confirm
or deny them individually...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4trcc1$r...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4tpvd5$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
>>
>> Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc...) Assuming that
>> they believe in some God, if they wanted to pray and
>> if we restricted their choices to the following:
>>
>> a - "God, please forgive my sins"
>> b - "Vellehu-m yev'mil rahmat'en"
>>
>> Which one would they prefer? Bilingual readers who
>> understand both may pick either one. But I would
>
> well, maybe some would pick abacadabra.
Not if we restricted their choices to "a" and "b",
as indicated by my above words. Anyway, my simple
point is: if they are given a choice between what
they understand and what they don't, I claim that
most people would opt for what they understand...!
> just as well too, the second sentence vaguely resembles
> arabic, but the writer is so confused that one could
> hardly make any sense out of it.
I purposefully made it up to demonstrate that, for
the ones who do not understand that "abracadabra",
it really does not matter what it says...! Got it?
> BTW, compulsory use of turkish in *prayer* (not "call
> to prayer") was never instituted. however, if one wants
> to pray in turkish there is nothing to stop one from
> doing so. one has a free choice already.
Not quite mister...! In Islam for example, prayers
consist of and/or include the recitation of Kuran.
And the mullahs will tell you that Allah revealed
the Kuran in Arabic (so that the Arabs whom He was
adressing would understand it!) thus it can not be
recited in any other language without loosing its
meaning... Therefore, Turks, Americans or Russians
have no choice but recite it in Arabic!
This plays enourmously into Arabization of other
languages, at the expense of causing millions of
people to talk to their Gods in a "gobbledygook"
that they don't understand. And I don't believe
that this is something anyone would/should wish
for nor defend...
> RK
MK
Cluster User
religion) is that one can expect to rationalise something that is inherently
irrational, i.e. religion and the nature of god. god is an irrational concept
to begin with, so trying to argue by reason how god would expect behavior
from humans is futile. if MK were making a purely theological argument then
the suggestion would be that he declare his prophethood and try to convince
believers. if succesful, the new religion should then recieve the same
treatment politically as other religions. however MK (and other kemalists)
try to tie in this new view of religion with politics.
most people follow religion not to express "meaningful" ideas, but simply to
find irrational comfort in rituals. truly meaningful ideas can only be found
outside religion anyway.
the only reason religion should be tolerated at all is for pragmatic
reasons. people inevitably have an irrational side and it is prudent not to
alienate these people whose rational side would otherwise be receptive to
your politics. if you try to change the rituals, you cannot erase the
irrationality of religion, yet you risk alienating people who would otherwise
support you.
RK
Cluster User
PS
personally I consider that religous rituals in a different language may give
the positive and rational benefit of promoting language learning.
also:
how about expressing love of god through certain "pagan" "rituals"?
the people who do not know turkish aren't interested in this thread. those
that do not know english might be. why are the linguistivc nationalist turks
continuing in english?
RK
MITHAT
ilhan Arsel'in yeni kitabi "SERIAT'TAN KISSALER" Kaynak yayinlari
tarafindan
yayinlandi. (ISBN-975-343-126-0). Bu kitabi ilginc bulacaginizi umarak
sct'ye
gecmeye karar verdim. Bu kitap da digerleri gibi
http://freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/ilhan_arsel sayfasina
gecirilecektir.
SERIAT'TAN KISSALAR -1- ONSOZ
Seriat (dort kaynaktan cikan hukumlerin tumu olarak tanimlanabilir. Bu
dort
kaynak sunlardir: Kur'an, Hadis, Icma-i Umet ve Kiyas-i Fukaha) dedigimiz
sey, bir bakima masallar ve hikayeler yiginidir. Dinciler bu masallara
"Kissa" adini vermislerdir ki "Tanri'nin anlattigi hikayeler" anlamina
gelir.
Yusuf suresinde belirtildigine gore guya bunlar "ibret" olsun, ya da
"insanlar dogru yolu bulsunlar", diye anlatilmistir. (K.Yusuf 111) Imran
Suresinde de kissalarin 'gercek olaylar" olduguna deginilmistir (K. Ali
Imran
62). oysa ki aslinda bunlarin cogunu Muhammed, Yahudilerin ve
Hristiyanlarin
"Kutsal" bildikleri kitaplarindan, ozellikle Ahd-i Atiyk'tan (ki Tevrat'i
kapsar) ve Incil'den aktarmistir. Aktarirken de bu kitaplarin, Tanri
nezdindeki ana kitaptan alinma seyler oldugunu soylemistir.
Kuskusuz ki bu isi yaparken Tevrat, Zebur ve Incil gibi kitaplari iyi
bilen
kimselerden yararlanmistir: bunlar arasinda Selman-i Farisi, Yesar,
Bahira,
Veraka, Hibr, Abdullah Ibn-i Selam, vs... gibi din bilgisi genis olan
kimseler vardi. Ote yandan Muhammed katiplerini genellikle Yahudilikten ya
da
Hristiyanliktan donme ya da Ibranice ve Suryanice bilen kisilerden
secerdi;
bu dillere vakif degil iseler, ogrenmelerini isterdi. ornegin hicretin 4.
yilinda katiplerinden Zeyd bin Sabit'e Yahudi yazisini ogrenmesini
emretmistir.
Fakat soylendigine gore en ziyade yararlandigi kimselerin basinda,
Hristiyanliktan donme Selman-i Farisi ile Yahudilikten donme Abdullah
Ibn-i
Selam gelirdi. Siyer yazarlari Ibn-i Ishak, Ibn Hisam ve Tabakat yazari
Ibn-i Sa'd gibi (ya da benzeri) kaynaklarin bildirmesine gore, Selman-i
Farisi, Iranli bir "Mecusi" iken cok genc yasinda Hristiyanligi kabul
ederek
Suriye'ye gelmis, daha sonra Bedeviler tarafindan esir alinip bir Yahudiye
satilmis ve onun tarafindan Medine'ye getirilmistir. Kolelikten kurtulmak
icin Muhammed'e basvurup da onun tarafindan satin alinmasi uzerine Islam'a
girmis ve azad olmustur. Hristiyan ve yahudi dinlerine en iyi vakif
olanlardan biri olarak Muhammed'e sadece din konusunda degil fakat yonetim
ve
savas konularinda da yardimci olmustur. Hendek Savasi diye bilinen savasta
Muhammed'e hendek kazilmasi tavsiyesinde bulunarak savasin kazanilmasina
sebep oldugu soylenir.
Abdullah Ibn-i Selam'a gelince, o, Tevrat'i en iyi bilen Yahudi
bilginlerinden biri olup Muhammed'in Medine'ye hicretinden sonra Islam'a
girmistir. Tevrat konusunda Muhammed'e en fazla bilgi verenlerin basinda
geldigi kabul edilir; o kadar ki, Muhammed onu, muhtemelen bu
yardimlarindan
dolayi, "Cennetlik olan on kisinin onuncusu" olarak tanimlamistir. (Bkz.
Sahih-i ...c.IX, s.81; ve c.X, s.25 ve d.).
Kur'andan ogrenmekteyiz ki, bircok kimse, Yahudi ve Hristiyan kaynaklarini
iyi bilen kimselerden bilgi aliyor diye Muhammed hakkinda "Muhammed'e
elbette
bir insan ogretiyor" (K. Nahl 103) seklinde konusurlar ve hatta onun
"Belletilmis bir deli" (K. Duhan 12-15) oldugunu soylerlerdi. Bazilari da
Kur'an ayetlerini "oncekilerin masallari" (K 68 el-Kalem 15) olarak
tanimlardi. Neccar ogullarindan biri, (ki Hristiyanliktan Muslumanliga
gecip
Muhammed'e katiplik yapmistir): "Muhammed bir sey bilmez. Yalniz benim
kendisine yazdigim seyleri bilir." diye konusmustur. (Bu konudaki hadisler
icin bkz. Sahih-i...c.IX.s.308-309, Hadis No. 1477)
Bunlar arasinda Ebu Cehl, As Ibn-i Vail, Mugiyra ogullari (ornegin mugiya
oglu Velid), el-Ahnes Ibn-i Seriyk, Abd-i Yegus ogullari, Sureyk ogullari
vs.. gibi Muhammed'e muhalefet edenler vardi. Onlarin bu sekilde
konusmalari
uzerine Muhammed de, Tanri'nin bu kisileri azarladigini, ornegin: "Biz
yakinda onun burnuna damga vuracagiz 9kibirini kirip rezil edecegiz)" (K.
el-Kalem 16) seklinde konustugunu soylerdi. Bununla da yetinmez fakat bir
de
kendisinin okumasiz oldugunu belirterek Tanri'dan "(Kur'an'i) okuyup
yazmasi
olmayan...Muhammed'e uyanlara yazacagiz" (K. A'raf 156-158) seklinde
ayetler
geldigini one surerdi.
Her ne olursa olsun gercek su ki, Seriat'ta yer alan KISSA'lar (masallar
ve
hikayeler), biraz ileride belirtecegimiz gibi, cok buyuk bir cogunlukla
Yahudi ve Hristiyan kaynaklardan, ozellikle Tevrat'tan alinma seylerdir.
Fakat Muhammed, bu kaynaklardan aktardiklarini, bircok hallerde kendi
gunluk
siyasetine uyduracak sekilde degisikliklere sokmustur. Ancak ne var ki,
bunu
yaparken, "Kissa"lari (masal ve hikayeleri) bir teviye ya da belli bir
sira
ve silsile esasina gore degil, fakat Kur'an'in cesitli surelerine ve bu
surelerin cesitli ayetlerine dagitmis olarak ve cogu kez hadis seklindeki
hukumlere baglayarak is gormustur. Bundan dolayidir ki, Yahudi ve
Hristiyan
kaynaklarindaki asillarini incelemeden ve Islam bilginlerinin bu asillara
dayali olarak ortaya vurduklari gorusleri bilmeden, Seriat "KISSA"lari
hakkinda fikir edinmeye imkan yoktur.
Her ne kadar "Kissa"dan maksadin "dogru yolu gosteren hikayeler" oldugu
kabul
edilirse de, akilci egitimden gecmemis kimseler icin bu masallarin ve
hikayelerin dusunme gucunu gelistirici bir niteligi yoktur; aksine insan
zekasini torpuleyici sonuclari vardir ki asagiya bunlardan bazi ornekler
alinmistir.
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u0bpj$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <4tpvd5$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
> the fallacy in MK's argument (and in the kemalist argument for nationalized
>religion)
"Nationalized religion" seems to have worked well for Northern
European countries wouldn't you say ? I think the real fallacy is
pretending that concepts of God are somehow universal and not formed
by a person's race,nationality,economic background,physical
environment,profession,etc.
Sincerely,
>RK
>
--
*****************************************************************************
Zeki Uluc Gunay
zug...@mailbox.syr.edu
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u0cbo$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>PS
>
> personally I consider that religous rituals in a different language may give
>the positive and rational benefit of promoting language learning.
If God is universal as you claim, why should God be addressed
using one language only ? Can't He understand different languages ? You
contradict yourself.
>that do not know english might be. why are the linguistivc nationalist turks
>continuing in english?
Maybe it's because you are writing in English. As far as linguistic
nationalism goes, I have yet to see a linguistic nationalistic Turk claim
that only Turkish is spoken in heaven, but I have seen Arabs who claimed
that Arabic was the language spoken in heaven, language of God. Same with
the Jews and Hebrew. In your haste to attack Turkish nationalists
you have ended up supporting Arabic ultra-nationalism.
Hakki Kocabas
> Kuskusuz ki bu isi yaparken Tevrat, Zebur ve Incil gibi kitaplari iyi
> bilen
> kimselerden yararlanmistir: bunlar arasinda Selman-i Farisi, Yesar,
Hehh..heh..heee...madem oyle siz de benzeri kaynaklardan
yararlanip Kuran'daki surelere benzer bir sure getirseniz,
nasil olur diyorum??!! Adiniz insanlik tarihine Allah'in
resulunu yalanci cikarmaya en azindan te$eebbus edenler
olarak gecebilir, diiiiiii mi;->RO(T/F)L
1300+ yil gecmi$, hala cav-cavdan ba$ka bildiginiz yok;->
|-| /-\ |-< |-< |||
MITHAT
SERIAT'TAN KISSALAR -3-
MAGARA'YA SIGINMIS GENCLERIN (VE KOPEKLERININ) 309 YIL BOYUNCA UYKUDA
KALDIKLARINA DAIR KEHF SURESINDE ANLATILAN "KISSA" (MASAL)
(K. 18 Kehf 9 ve d.)
Kur'an'in Kehf Suresinde Tanri'ya tapmayan bir toplumun (ve hukumdarinin)
zulmunden kurtulmak uzere, kopekleriyle birlikte bir magaraya siginan
Hristiyan genclerin, Tanri tarafindan bilinen bir sure boyunca orada
uyuyup kaldiklari hikaye edilir. Hikayenin asli Hristiyan kaynaklarinda
bulunur; Muhammed onu kendisine gore bir sekle sokmus ve Tanri tarafindan
kendisine nakledilmis gibi Kur'an'a almistir.
Kur'an'da anlatilan sekliyle hikayenin, hristiyanligin baslangic
tarihlerinde, daha dogrusu Imparator Dekyanos (Decius) zamaninda gectigi
anlasilmaktadir. Su bakimdan ki magarada bulunanlar, onun zamanina ait bir
parayi kullandiklarini ve orada uyuyakaldiklari surenin 309 yil oldugunu
soylemislerdir. (K.18 Kehf 25).
Kehf suresindeki "Kissa" (Masal): "Yoksa sen, bizim ayetlerimizden
(sadece) Kehf ve Rakim sahiblerinin ibrete sayan olduklarini mi sandin?"
(K.18 Kehf 9) seklindeki sozlerle baslar. (Bkz. Marmara Universitesi
Ilahiyat Fakultesi Kur'an cevirisinden), guya Tanri, Muhammed'e bu sekilde
hitap etmistir. Ancak ne var ki "Kissa" (masal), daha bu ilk baslangicta
birtakim karisikliklarla, anlasilmazliklarla (muglakliklarla)
karsimizdadir. Cunku ayette gecen "Kehf" sozcugu, dagda bulunan genisce
"magara" anlaminda olmakla beraber "Rakim" sozcugunun ne anlama geldigi
pek bilinmez. Bunu, "magaranin bulundugu dag", ya da "vadi" olarak
belirleyenler yaninda, magaradakilerin adlarini iceren "levha" ya da
magaraya konulan "kitabe", ya da magaradaki "kopegin adi" olarak
tanimlayanlar da vardir. Bundan dolayidir ki yukaridaki ayeti: "Yoksa sen,
Ey Muhammed! Magara ve Kitabe ehlini sasilacak ayetlerimizden mi
zannettin?" seklinde ya da "Yoksa sen Kehf ile levha sahiplerini, Bizim
hayret verici ayetlerimizden mi sandin?" seklinde cevirenler de vardir.
Ancak ne var ki anlasilmazliklar ve karisikliklar, masal boyunca bu
sekilde surup gider. Bunlari goz onunde tutmaya calisarak masali soyle
ozetlemek mumkun:
Rablerine inanmis birkac genc: "Rabbimiz goklerin ve yerin Rabbidir. O'nu
birakip baska bir tanriya yalvarmayiz, yoksa and olsun ki batil soz
soylemis oluruz. Su bizim milletimiz Allah'i birakip O'ndan baska tanrilar
edindiler...Allah'a karsi yalan uydurandan daha zalim kimdir?" (K18:
13-15) diye konusurlar ve "Rabbimiz! Katindan bize rahmet ver ve isimizde
basarili kil" diye yalvarirlar (K18:10).
Tanri onlarin konusmasini duyar ve: "Siz onlardan ve Allah'tan baska
taptiklarindan ayrildiniz, bunun icin Magaraya girin ki, Rabbiniz, size
rahmetini yaysin ve size isinizde kolaylik gostersin" (K.18:16) der.
Neden tanri bu gencleri ille de magaraya tikip orada rahmetine kavusturmak
ister? Neden isi gencler icin daha kolay, daha etkili bir yoldan yapmaz?
Bilinmez! Her ne kadar ayette, "Magaraya girin ki, Rabbiniz size rahmetini
yaysin ve size isinizde kolaylik gostersin" diye yazili olmakla beraber,
birazdan gorecegimiz gibi ortada oyle kolaylik saglayan bir durum yoktur,
cunku Tanri bu gencleri orada 309 yil boyunca uykuya yatiracaktir.
Gercekten de Tanri'nin yukaridaki sozleri uzerine gencler magaraya
girerler ve Tanri onlari uzun bir uykuya yatirir. magaraya alinan
genclerin yaninda bir de kopek bulundugu anlasilmaktadir, cunku
Muhammed'in soylemesine gore Tanri soyle konusmustur: "Kopekleri
dirseklerini esige uzatmisti. Onlari gorsen icin korkuyla dolar, geri
donup kacardin" (K18:18).
Kopek nasil ve ne munasebetle girmistir magaraya? Dirseklerini uzattigi
esik nedir? Pek bilinmez; bu konuda birbirinden farkli gorusler vardir. Bu
gorusleri nakleden Beyzevi ve Celaleddin gibi unlu Kur'an yorumcularina
gore, genclerin magaraya siginmak uzere kacmalari sirasinda bir kopek
peslerine takilmis ve fakat gencler onu kovmak isteyince Tanri kopegi su
sekilde konusturmustur: "Tanri'nin sevgili kullarini severim; siz magarada
uyurken ben de sizlere bekcilik ederim". Fakat bazi goruslere gore kopek
bir cobana ait olup onu takip etmis ve uyuyan ve uyananlardan olmustur. Ve
iste Kur'an'da gecen "Rakim" adi, bu kopegin adidir.
Fakat her ne olursa olsun, Kur'an'in soylemesine gore gencler magaraya
sigindiktan sonra gunes dogdugu zaman magara sag tarafa, battigi zaman ise
sol tarafa meyletmeye baslar ve icindekiler magaranin kuytu bir yerinde
kalirlar ki, bu, guya Allah'in mucizelerindendir (K18:17). Cunku Tanri
onlari, uykularinda iken bu sekilde saga ve sola dondurur. Kur'an'da soyle
yazili: "Magara ehli uykuda iken sen onlari uyanik sanirdin. Biz onlari
saga ve sola dondururduk...Onlari gorsen icin korkuyla dolar, geri donup
kacardin." (K. Kehf 18).
Bir aralik Tanri, uyumakta olan bu Hristiyan gencleri, "birbirlerine
sorsunlar diye" uykularindan uyandirir. Iclerinden biri "Ne kadar
kaldiniz?" diye sorar digerlerine. Digerleri de: "Bir gun veya daha az bir
muddet kaldik" derler ve eklerler:" Ne kadar kaldigimizi Rabbiniz daha iyi
bilir". Fakat karinlari acikmis olmalidir ki, aralarindan birini kente
gonderip yiyecek icecek aldirmak icin birbirlerine soyle derler:
"Paranizla birinizi sehre gonderin, en iyi yiyeceklere baksin ve size
getirsin. Orada nazik davransin, sakin sizi kimseye duyurmasin. Zira
onlarin sizden haberi olacak olursa, ya taslayarak oldururler veya
dinlerine dondururler ve bu takdirde asla kurtulamazsiniz." (K Kehf 19).
Magaradaki gencler bu sekilde konusurlarken kent halki da onlar hakkinda
cekisip durmaktadir. Kimisi "Onlarin magaralarinin onune bir bina kurun"
derken digerleri de "Onlarin magaralarinin onunde mutlaka bir mescic
kuracagiz" demektedirler. (K. Kehf 21).
Tanri, kent halkini haberdar ederek magaradaki bu gencleri bulmalarini
saglar; cunku boylece onlari, Tanri sozlerinin dogru olduguna ve kiyamet
gununun gelecegine inandirmis olacaktir (K. 18:21).
Bununla beraber halk, magarada bulunanlarin sayisi ve bunlarin kimler
oldugu hakkinda birbirleriyle tartismaktadirlar: Kimisi "Magara ehli
uctur, dordunculeri kopekleridir" derler. kimisi "Bestir, altincilari
kopekleridir" derler. Kimisi de "Yedidir, sekizincileri kopekleridir"
derler (K18:22). Onlarin bu sekildeki tartismalari vesilesiyle Tanri
Muhammed'e soyle der:
"De ki: -'Onlarin sayisini en iyi bilen Rabbimdir. Onlari pek az kimseden
baskasi bilmez.-' Bunun icin, ey Muhammed! Onlar hakkinda bu kisaca
anlatilanin disinda kimseyle tartisma ve onlar hakkinda kimseden bir sey
sorma. Herhangi bir sey icin, Allah'in dilemesi disinda: 'Ben yarin onu
yapacagim'- deme. Unuttugun zaman Rabbini an ve soyle de:-'Insallah Rabbim
beni dogruya daha yakin olana eristirir.." (K18:23-24).
Muhammed'in soylemesine gore Tanri, bu sekilde konusmakla beraber halktan
kisiler, yine de magarada kalma suresi hakkinda tartisarak soyle
demektedirler:
"-'Onlar magaralarinda uc yuz dokuz yil kaldilar' derler. (Ey Muhammed!)
de ki:-'Onlarin ne kadar kaldiklarini en iyi Allah bilir. Goklerin ve
yerin gaybi O'na aittir. O ne mukemmel Goren'dir! O ne mukemmel
Isiten'dir! Insanlarin O'ndan baska dostu yoktur. O hic kimseyi
hukumranligina ortak kilmaz'...." (K18:25-26).
Bir yoruma gore magaradaki genclerden biri, aralarinda kararlastirildigi
sekilde, yiyecek tedariki icin sehre gittiginde, alisveris yaparken
taninir. Cunku kullandigi para eski imparatorlardan Dekyanos zamanina ait
bir paradir. Kendisini o mahallin reisi olan Prens'e gotururler. Prens
Hristiyan dininden biridir. Huzuruna getirilen kisinin hikayesini
dinleyince, adamlarini magaraya gonderir. Prensin adamlari magaradakilerle
konusurlar, fakat onlarla birlikte uykuya dalip olurler. Prens olenlerin
gomulmelerini ve gomuldukleri yere bir mescid yapilmasini emreder.
Yukardaki "kissa"nin (masalin) ne maksatla Kur'an'a alindigi ve ne anlam
tasidigi hususunda yorumcularin gorusleri doyurucu degildir. Guya bu masal
"iman" sahibi kisilerin (yani Hristiyan genclerin), zamanin hukumdarinin
zulmunden kacmak icin magaraya sigindiklarini anlatmak icin alinmistir
(Golpinarli'nin kur'an cevirisine bkz.). Kimine gore de Hristiyan
genclerin din yuzunden baskiya ugrayarak bir magaraya siginip orada 309
yil kaldiklarini ve sonra uyanip kendi halklarini imana cagirdiklarini,
bunun da "Allah'in kudretinin ifadesi" oldugunu anlatmak icin konmustur.
(Bkz Omer R. Dogru'nun Kur'an cevirisi -s.353).
Her ne olursa olsun durum su ki, akla ve mantiga ters dusen seyleri
"Kissa" (masal) yolu ile anlatmaya calismak, kisileri fikren gelismez
kilmaktan baska ise yaramaz.
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4u0bpj$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In <4tpvd5$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net> mu...@cyberport.net says...
> the fallacy in MK's argument (and in the kemalist argument
> for nationalized religion) is that one can expect to
> rationalise something that is inherently irrational, i.e.
> religion and the nature of god.
MK's (my:) middle name is not "Kemal". Neither have I
tried to nationalize nor rationalize religion or God.
You seem to be obcessed with nationalism and Kemalism
to the point of being unable to approach the subjects
from any other angle.
In my previous posting, I argued the point that Turks
do not understand the Kuran thus they rely on hearsay
and interpretations of middlemen (so called religious
scholars). I even stressed (with examples) that, had
they understood Kuran, their impressions of Islam may
have been different. In my opinion, this fits nicely
with your idea of religion being irrational. If they
understood the words, they would be in a much better
position to decide whether it was rational or not...
In fact, unless you have read and understood what the
Kuran says, it would be absurd for you to assert that
it is irrational. You just would not know, would you?
The only sense I can make out of your above argument,
is that since you have already discovered that Islam
is irrational, it does not matter whether Turks do or
don't understand Kuran because understanding it would
not make it rational... If that's what you are saying,
here is a text in a language I am sure that you won't
understand:)
"Tingfe klink proquey emclax ru jhif zatork."
Please tell me whether what it says is rational or not!
> god is an irrational concept to begin with, so trying to
> argue by reason how god would expect behavior from humans
> is futile.
Who is doing that...?
> if MK were making a purely theological argument then the
> suggestion would be that he declare his prophethood and
> try to convince believers.
What is this with "if MK make were making..." stuff? MK
is arguing that Turks would perceive Kuran (thus Islam)
differently through Turkish (which they understand) than
through Arabic (which they don not understand)! Why does
a "linguist" has such a hard time understanding it...?
> if succesful, the new religion should then recieve the same
> treatment politically as other religions. however MK (and
> other kemalists) try to tie in this new view of religion
> with politics.
Your mind is too preoccupied with Kemalism... Obviously
nothing else matters, eh?
> most people follow religion not to express "meaningful"
> ideas, but simply to find irrational comfort in rituals.
Is this sentence part of your "meaningless" ritual...?
Whether they are spoken or not, rituals have meanings.
I challenge you to give us an example of a meaningless
ritual in a generally known religion. The "irrational"
comfort you are talking about is searched or obtained
through an imaginary communication. Even when uttering
words they don't understand, people attach meanings to
them. For example, somebody may be told to recite:
"Abduhu yeklemun kulli huven tekriba ila mutabi"
forty times to get rid of an ailment. When they recite
it, they will attach some sort of meaning to it, even
if they don't understand the true meaning of the words.
But if they knew that those words really meant:
"Abdullah got on his camel and rode for ten miles"
the meaning they attach to "this ritual" would most
likely be "slightly":) different...
In each of my postings, I am making an effort to pull
the focus back on language, stressing that it is one
of the most important tools humans use in relating to
their (real or imaginary) universe. By now, it should
be obvious to the readers that your interest lies not
in "language", as much as in "linguistic nationalism,
nationalized religion, Bonapartism, Kemalism, etc..."
> truly meaningful ideas can only be found outside religion
> anyway. the only reason religion should be tolerated at
> all is for pragmatic reasons. people inevitably have an
> irrational side and it is prudent not to alienate these
> people whose rational side would otherwise be receptive
> to your politics.
I'm not a politician. So, I'm not worried about it.
I don't believe people can be knowingly irrational.
Humans are capable of, and do rationalize (deceive
themselves). Although the difference may be small,
I would prefer to speak of tolerating people, not
acts, ideas, beliefs, etc.
> if you try to change the rituals, you cannot erase the
> irrationality of religion, yet you risk alienating people
> who would otherwise support you.
Your statement may be true for some people but not
universally. Changing the rituals (ie changing the
language of the ritual) do indeed alter or disable
the process of rationalizing for some people. This
is why I believe that the Islamists do themselves
a disfavor when they dare people to read the Kuran
in a language that they understand. Language does
make a difference...!
> RK
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4u0cbo$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> .....
> why are the linguistivc nationalist turks continuing in english?
Hmm, good question... Why do "you" think...?
Could it possibly be that they may not be as
much of a linguistic nationalists as you say
they are...?
> RK
MK
Cluster User
In article <4u15uj$4...@newstand.syr.edu>, zug...@forbin.syr.edu says...
>
>In article <4u0bpj$k...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
>Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4tpvd5$c...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>> the fallacy in MK's argument (and in the kemalist argument for
> nationalized
>>religion)
>
>European countries wouldn't you say ? I think the real fallacy is
more profound changes took place in france, without a "nationalized
religion".
I'll get into specifically germany in my turkish posts. protestantism, that
is what you are getting at, was intepreted as a *national* movement by the
german romantics and this was taken over later by many nationalist movements
elsewhere. actually it was a result of class struggle. protestantism took
place at an era of history in which a universe without god was inconcievable
and political changes needed religous justification. that is a time of the
past, before the enlightenment and the french revolution.
>pretending that concepts of God are somehow universal and not formed
>by a person's race,nationality,economic background,physical
^^^^
you mean it's in the genes!! now it is the concept of god that's racial,
what next?!
>environment,profession,etc.
the common denominator is that it is an irrational concept.
RK
>
> Sincerely,
>
>>RK
>>
>
>
>--
Cluster User
I am not claiming that there is a universal conception of god, but any
concept of god or gods but that unless one is playing word games ("god is
nature" and the like), it is an irrational concept. if it weren't so, then it
no longer forms part of religion.
a 'politically correct" heaven, in which all languages are given there due,
is no more rational than a heaven in which there is linguistic uniformity,
simply because "heaven" is imaginary. in this age, it is possible to justify
"political correctness" without recourse to religion, and there exists
political forces that can justify there existence without the need of the
opium of religion. those forces that justify themselves using religion,
whether in the vernacular or not, are reactionary forces.
anyway, you are addressing a non-issue politically for several reasons:
- "nationalized religion" exists, particularly throughout the middle east,
anyway, though not in the mechanistic way that you outlined.
- in turkey m. kemal himself abandonded this mechanistic form of nationalized
religion. he was an intelligent man and I am sure he saw the absurdity of it.
- no political party advocates it (the mech. form), politicians who even hint
at it are rare.
- it has no appeal beyond a handful of ex "left" kemalists turned mystic.
people in turkey either practice some foem of islam, are effective atheists
or atheists.
RK
Cluster User
a point about m. kemal and changing the language of religion:
not only must he have realised it was absurd, but also politically futile.
other absurd notions of that period had a certain measure of political
utility. only the language of the ezan was changed, and that measure was
recinded afterwards, with the participation of a large portion the CHP
deputies.
some notes about religion (particularly islam) and language:
the "language of heaven" issue in religion (protestants pray in the
vernacular, but many believe the language of heaven is hebrew), use of
private prayers in the vernacular (it's almost always done), use of ritual
prayers in a specific language, translating holy books (religous people, for
example in sct have no objections to it, jews used to have aramaic targums
but kept the hebrew for ritual purposes) and ritual recitation are seperate
issues both theologically and in practice.
RK
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u31vs$i...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
> not only must he have realised it was absurd, but also politically futile.
The real absurdity arises when people utter prayers in a foreign
language to a supposedly universal god. You keep missing the point about
the Reformation: Rise of Protestanism was made possible by the
development of capitalism and the rise of the merchant class. Turkiye is
going through such a stage *today*. Therefore what was impossible 70 years
ago may not be impossible today or a decade from now.
Sincerely,
MITHAT
In article <4u17m8$5...@newstand.syr.edu>, zug...@forbin.syr.edu (Zeki U.
Gunay) writes:
>
> Maybe it's because you are writing in English. As far as
linguistic
>nationalism goes, I have yet to see a linguistic nationalistic Turk claim
>that only Turkish is spoken in heaven, but I have seen Arabs who claimed
(M) One of those Arabs is Mohammed himself.
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4u31vs$i...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
> some notes about religion (particularly islam) and language:
>
> the "language of heaven" issue in religion (protestants pray
> in the vernacular, but many believe the language of heaven is
> hebrew), use of private prayers in the vernacular (it's almost
> always done), use of ritual prayers in a specific language,
> translating holy books (religous people, for example in sct
> have no objections to it, jews used to have aramaic targums
> but kept the hebrew for ritual purposes) and ritual recitation
> are seperate issues both theologically and in practice.
By trying to separate language from religion, you are
missing out on the effect of language on religion and
to some degree the effect of religion on language (or
maybe you are deliberately ignoring it)...
For example, almost all current religions promote and
preserve "male dominance". From the story of Adam, to
complete hyerarchies of priesthoods, to God "HIMSELF"
there is a very obvious male dominance. With a whole
vocabulary of religious terms, language does in fact
help perpetuate this male dominance.
As the result of women's movement, we are withnessing
the usage of genderless nouns and adjectives, as well
as double usage of pronouns. (in the forms he/she, he
or she, etc.) There are even propositions to create a
genderless pronoun to replace he/she/it in English...
When one reads the Bible, referring to God using both
pronouns as "he or she", one's concepts about God and
religion are drastically altered...! Once God becomes
"he or she", it gets even easier for the rest of the
dominant "fathers" to become "he or she" figures and
the whole religion acquires a different appearance...
The same is true of Islam and Arabic. A few days ago
I made a comment about the Arabic's insufficiency in
referring to Allah with a genderless pronoun and you
just shrugged it off. Yet, to most people it may not
be a trivial subject. Especially for the speakers of
a genderless language such as Turkish, learning that
Kuran refers to Allah as "HE/HIM" is a disappointing
experience... Although expressions like "Father God"
(Allah Baba) is used with children, Turkish speakers
would probably be more able to conceive a genderless
God without need for linguistic rationalizations (ie
saying "we call God HE but HE is not really a HE" as
in trying to "*unring the bell*"...)
My argument is not for using a "certain language" in
order to modify a "certain religion", but to stress
the importance of the difference that language makes
in understanding our real and imaginary universes...
My main subject of concern is the effect of religion
on language. This would not be much of a concern, if
language was used exclusively in relating to God and
religion. But humans also used it to relate to their
real universe and religion has quite a power to make
this "tool" less effective... Especially if religion
imposes a certain un-understable language on people!
> RK
MK
Cluster User
zeki wrote:
>>
>
> The real absurdity arises when people utter prayers in a foreign
you cannot pass judgement by logical or empirical means on the nature of
something that doesn't exist! all you can say is that you find the
propagation of a certain image of god to be politically desirable.
I am not advocating that liturgy has to neccesarily be in a specific
language. such a proposition is just as absurd. for that matter, why argue
for liturgy at all?!
> language to a supposedly universal god. You keep missing the point
> about
> the Reformation: Rise of Protestanism was made possible by the
> development of capitalism and the rise of the merchant class. Turkiye is
the rise of the bourgeoisie did not result in the formation of a new sect,
it did not result in the use of the vernacular in liturgy, but it
resulted in the erosion of religion in general. recourse to religion by
the bourgeoisie means that it is either unsophisticated intellectually,
it is weak, it is in alliance with a reactionary class or it is threatened
by revolution.
in addition to other factors, the intellectual sophistication of the
european bourgeoisie increased dramaticaly between the reformation and
the enlightenment. conditions today are not the same as during the
reformation.
> going through such a stage *today*. Therefore what was impossible 70
> years
> ago may not be impossible today or a decade from now.
>
"it may not be impossible." however, I believe it is unlikely. although I
have a dim view of many aspects of the turkish bourgeoisie, in this
respect I am more optimistic (ironic, eh?). one of the positive aspects,
consistent with the ideals of the enlightenment, of m. kemal's policy, is
the erosion of religion, at least among the bougeoisie. how much was
deliberate may be debated. coming up with a new sect now would be a step
backward. the main advocates of what you are proposing just don't make
convincing enough believers to initiate a new sect.
RK
Cluster User
MK:
you are repeating yourself and this is getting boring. the sex or gender or
any other characteristic of god is irrelevant when religion itself is
removed. any system built upon the existance of god is absurd to begin with
and one does not have to bother with chicken shit details to refute it. I
could go into some historical or grammatical points, but I will save those
for posts in turkish. "language influencing or reflecting one's world view"
is exagerated. I will not even bother to answer the comment on "an
undesirable language" people are able to judge for themselves the mentality
behind it.
RK
Cluster User
it's irrelavent if zeki or MK call themselves nationalist or not. my
articles are directed against an ideology and a mode of discourse. at least
zeki seems to be more specifically a "social chauvinist".
RK
Cluster User
din hakkInda son olarak:
tUrkiye'de herkes $ovenizm ve bonapartizm illetine kapIlmamI$tIr, bazIlarI
da hatalarIndan ogrenmektedir.
bazI hatalarIna ragmen tUrk asIllI olup tUrkiye solunun bUyUklerin birinden
iktibas edeyim:
<< ateistin dinle problemi olmaz >>
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u5frc$g...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
You appear to be a Jacobin, you know the ones that advocated
worship of a naked lady they had called "Goddess of Reason". The same
people whose excesses resulted in the restoration of the monarchy under
Napoleon. Contrast your unrealistic stance towards religion with those of
the Founding Fathers and you'll see why *USA* not France has been the real
source of inspiration for freedom lovers around the world.
rk is a typical Turkish entel, ignorant of Anglo-Saxon
conservative thought, obsessed with petty French statism and centralist
mode of thinking. Trapped in a world of 4 dimensions by his knee-jerk
atheism while even the soviets use psychic spies. Oblivious to racial
realities, hopes he can outwit nature with his half-baked egalitarianism.
In short, an anomaly in an institution that gave us the likes of
George Bush and William Buckley Jr.
Zeki U. Gunay
Cluster User wrote:
>
> zeki wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > The real absurdity arises when people utter prayers in a foreign
>
> again, the absurdity to begin with is suppossing the existence of god.
We need an absolute coordinate system, don't we ?
> read my posts. I said class struggle was the cause. however, in france,
> the rise of the bourgeoisie did not result in the formation of a new sect,
France, France, France. Forget your Turkish entelness for a
moment and take a look at Holland, England, Scotland, and other North
European countries.
> it did not result in the use of the vernacular in liturgy, but it
> resulted in the erosion of religion in general.
And the accompanying erosion of morality, human rights and the
eventual Reign of Terror. With no absolutes to base them on, concepts
like human rights lost their meaning.
recourse to religion by
> the bourgeoisie means that it is either unsophisticated intellectually,
> it is weak,
Founding Fathers were more or less burgeousie and they were
neither weak nor were they "reactionary". They spoke of "inalienable
rights given by a Creator" whereas the Jacobins made the State
all-Supreme and derived individuals' rights from the State. And what the
State gives, it can take away, and it did.
> deliberate may be debated. coming up with a new sect now would be a step
> backward. the main advocates of what you are proposing just don't make
> convincing enough believers to initiate a new sect.
What about the Muslim bourgeoise ? Similarities between the
Church of England vs the Dissenters and Diyanet vs Tarikats exist, do
they not ?
Cluster User
I take it back you are a nazi, not a social chauvinist.
what you say about yale though is true. it stinks.
RK
Zeki U. Gunay
Cluster User Wrote:
> I take it back you are a nazi, not a social chauvinist.
Observe rk's primitive Communist propaganda. While such comments
are sure to win you adoration in left-wing Turkish cafes, they just won't
work in United States. Your primitive statist and centralist mentality
makes you a true reactionary, especially here in the US.
> what you say about yale though is true. it stinks.
Well, there is always the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow for
reactionary Communists like yourself. That way you'll be closer to Lenin's
tomb and won't miss a single issue of Pravda.
Sincerely,
p.s. Stop sending me copies of your articles.
Cluster User
first of all I am not turkish.
the "goddess of reason" was not an essential part of the enlightenment or
the french revolution either, it was a conservative measure to prevent
further radicalization. it was quickly forgotten.
napoleon did not restore the monarchy but bureaucratized the revolution. the
"empire" was a step backward but not counterrevolution.
the "founding fathers" of the USA were in the tradition of the
enlightenment, although more conservative.
the rest of the post is crap.
I don't have racial conciousness? you must call the gestapo!
RK
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u6726$q...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Thank God.
> the "founding fathers" of the USA were in the tradition of the
>enlightenment, although more conservative.
>the rest of the post is crap.
Crap for a primitive Communist, *Truth* for the rest of the world.
> I don't have racial conciousness? you must call the gestapo!
Topics such as race are way over your head. You have already
displayed profound ignorance of *mainstream* conservatism. No doubt you
are equally uninformed of matters relating to race. I suggest you stick to
reading Pravda for your daily dose of fiction and historical revisionism.
Sincerely,
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4tcd62$n...@cpmt.cyberport.net> Murat Kalinyaprak wrote:
>In <4tb1e1$n...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>
>> actually I found the newspaper title very succinct:
>
>..... would you mind telling me what was the date of
>that newspaper?
I guess you won't answer... Makes me wonder why...? :)
MK
Cluster User
In article <4u65q4$p...@newstand.syr.edu>, zug...@forbin.syr.edu says
> What about the Muslim bourgeoise ? Similarities between the
>Church of England vs the Dissenters and Diyanet vs Tarikats exist, do
>they not ?
>
out of curiosity: what do you have in mind?
the tarikats are more reactionary.
robespierre lost his head because of a parliamentary vote.
although the "founding fathers" espoused theism, there is no explicit
endorsment of a specific religion in what you just quoted. besides, slavery
continued at that time (allaince with a reactionary class) and the american
bourgeosie was indeed afraid of radicalisation, much more so than the french.
Cluster User
PS. during cromwell's time the bourgeoisie was, among other things,
unsophisticated intellectually and the radical forces were weak. religion and
the subsequent policy on ireland were the most negative aspects of cromwell,
which I already have referred to.
RK
Cluster User
In article <4u71nj$p...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>>..... would you mind telling me what was the date of
>>that newspaper?
>
>I guess you won't answer... Makes me wonder why...? :)
>
>MK
milliyet, late 70's, when the lady in question was popular.
RK
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u83e4$e...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>In article <4u65q4$p...@newstand.syr.edu>, zug...@forbin.syr.edu says
>
> > What about the Muslim bourgeoise ? Similarities between the
> >Church of England vs the Dissenters and Diyanet vs Tarikats exist, do
> >they not ?
> >
> the tarikats are more reactionary.
First you have to give me your definition of several labels
you've been tosssing around quite liberally like "reactionary",
"radical", etc. Jacobins might have been "progressive" in the 18th
Century but today their ideas are seen as "reactionary".
As for the Protestants, they were no doubt just as "reactionary" as
the Catholics, if not more so. Nevertheless, Protestant countries today are
more "progressive" than the Catholic ones.
> robespierre lost his head because of a parliamentary vote.
The point being ?
> although the "founding fathers" espoused theism, there is no explicit
>endorsment of a specific religion in what you just quoted.
Quite right. I put the quotation to show the differing origins of
human rights in the American and French revolutions. One being derived
from an infinite Being the other from the State, with predictable results.
besides, slavery
>continued at that time
And the Confederate States of America was a more democratic state
than the Republic, when it came to freedom of press, illegal search and
seizure,i.e. rights of its *citizens* (don't write back telling me "Well
what about slaves rights?"). Haiti likewise was the pearl of the
Caribbean until Jacobins destroyed that prosperous island, like
everything else they touched.
(allaince with a reactionary class) and the american
>bourgeosie was indeed afraid of radicalisation, much more so than the french.
All of your terms "reactionary", "radical" are so outdated, they
really do not apply to the situation in USA. "Radicals" have been a very
small minority in the USA, even during the Depression they never posed a
serious threat to the bourgeuoise.
Zeki U. Gunay
In article <4u83r0$e...@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Cluster User <cluste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>PS. during cromwell's time the bourgeoisie was, among other things,
>unsophisticated intellectually and the radical forces were weak.
Who are these "radical" forces you keep on referring to ?
Street-rabble like the ones that were used by the French bourgeoisie ?
Hitler's barroom brawlers, the SA ? All of them have been called
"radical" at one time or another.
religion and
>the subsequent policy on ireland were the most negative aspects of cromwell,
>which I already have referred to.
London bourgeoisie was able to do 100 hundred years ago what
the French bourgeoisie could only dream of: Raise a *regular* army and
fight a prolonged civil war against the Royalist forces.
Sincerely,
p.s. Please do not send a copy of your articles to my account.
Thank you.
Murat Kalinyaprak
In <4u815k$d...@news.ycc.yale.edu> Cluster User wrote:
>In article <4u71nj$p...@cpmt.cyberport.net>, mu...@cyberport.net says...
>
>>> ..... would you mind telling me what was the date of
>>> that newspaper?
>>
>> I guess you won't answer... Makes me wonder why...? :)
>
> milliyet, late 70's, when the lady in question was popular.
I knew it had to be from some years back, but I had no
idea it would be from almost 20 years ago...
My point in asking was not really to know, but to show
that there was no spontaneity in your mentioning it as
a pun or joke. That sentence must have made an imprint
on your mind for some reason, enough for you to still
remember it so many years later...
Every time there is an occasion for it, some people in
SCT will use certain new words like "ogretmen", "okul",
"kural", etc to attack efforts made to clean and enrich
Turkish. And "yasam" is often listed among those words.
I have a feeling that you probably used and keep using
that line as "ammunition" (pun intended:) whenever you
get a chance to attack Turkish...
MK