on-line corpus of Turkic runic inscriptions
Vassil Karloukovski
-> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
VK
Groda
> -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
>
> It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
>
> VK
Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
--
|*/ |\ |\ /|\ |
|/ |/ | \ * |/
| |\ | | | /|
| | \ | | | |
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> > -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
> >
> > It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
> >
> > VK
>
> Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
> am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
There's a couple of pages at the beginning of Györg Kara's chapter in *
The World's Writing Systems* -- a partly alphabetic, partly syllabic
script used for an early Turkic language (early 8th c. C.E.), found at
the Orkhon River in Mongolia (hence the name Orkhon runes). They
resemble Germanic runes in outward form, because of the material written
on, but aren't otherwise connected to them.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Braineater
Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
(or the lack of connections).
http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
.s
--
.cormiac ru
{o\ /o}
Vassil Karloukovski
>> -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
>>
>> It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
>
>Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
>am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
if you click on the links there, you could at least see the images
of these runic inscriptions.
Here is also the summary from one recent books of I. Kyzlasov - "The
runic scripts of the Eurasian steppes".
(I.L. (Igor' Leonidovich) Kyzlasov, Runicheskie pis'menosti
evrazijskih stepej, 1994, Izdatel'stvo "Vostochnaja literatura",
Rossijskaja akademija nauk, Institut arheologii. ISBN 5-02-017741-5)
**************
Summary.
The paleographic analysis of the sum total of old runic inscriptions
of the Eurasian Steppes has led to understanding that all three
scripts do not present the homogenity either in Europe or in Asia.
The conception presented in this book proclaims the existence of two
separate groups of runic writings - the Euroasiatic group and the
Asiatic one - each consisting of several related alphabets.
The Euroasiatic group of runic scripts (see Chapter I) includes five
alphabets which were not presented before and were indicated by the
author. The inscriptions of the Don and the Kuban alphabets were
found in South Russia and on the banks of the Kama river. They
present two distinct, though close to one another, alphabets. These
alphabets don't look like the isza runiform writing (Nagy
Szent-Miklos and Sarvas inscriptions), the signs of Murfatlar and
other runiform scripts of South Europe. It appeared that in
paleographic respect the Don and the Kuban alphabets have
relationship with the South-Yenisei writing of South Siberia, the
Achiktash and the Isphara alphabets of Central Asia. The inscriptions
of the Euroasiatic group of runic writings are presented from the Don
river to the Yenisei and belong to the 8th-10th centuries. The Don
and the Kuban alphabets were used in the Khazar empire, the Kuban one
was also used in several old Bulgarian states, including Bulgaria on
Volga. It's unknown who used the Achiktash and the Isphara alphabets.
The South-Yenisei alphabet was used by old Turks.
The "classic old Turkic inscriptions" present the Asiatic group of
the runic writings. It includes three distinct though close one to
another the Yenisei, the Orchon and the Tallas alphabets and was
spread only within the limits of Asia (from the Selenga river to
Semirechje). Every alphabet has different form of peculiar letters
which are unknown to the others. These peculiar features of the 8th
century Orchon writing had been preserved without any change until
the 10th century. This fact gives an opportunity to conclude that the
8th-10th centuries Yenisei letters which differed from the Orchon
ones had the independent existence.
**************
VK
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter,
> Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
> in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
> (or the lack of connections).
>
> http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
(a) I don't click links (cf. the summary posted by Vassil Karloukovski) and
(b) I have no special knowledge about any of the various runes.
Are you suggesting a connection? What's your evidence *in favor of* a connection?
Do you have examples of same sound/same shape? As well as the cultural pathways by
which knowledge of a particular script could have gotten from one part of the world
to another? And how do you explain that the functional structures of the two
systems are quite different? And why do you assume the Turkic-speakers were too
dumb to come up with the idea themselves? (Since the Latin-alphabet origin of the
Germanic runes is patent.)
Braineater
Sometimes I think you read too much into a post. I was merely asking
for your informed ideas about the different writing systems. I'm
sorry I didn't know that you don't click links. It was a link to
some person trying to read ancient Nordic runestones using the values
of Gok Turkic runes of same shape as the Nordic runes, which is in most
likely cases bogus. I personally don't have any evidence in favor of
or not in favor of a connection. Again, I was asking what you may
know about runes because I assumed that you knew so much.
And secondly, I don't understand where you got the idea that I was
assuming the Turkic-speakers were too dumb to come up with the idea
themselves, but I see the Norse were too dumb and had to get their
runes from the Latin alphabet. Perhaps you'd like to point me in a
direction of something that I can read of why the Latin origin of
Nordic runes should be so firmly established, or do I have to
'buy the book'?
.s
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter,
>
> Sometimes I think you read too much into a post. I was merely asking
> for your informed ideas about the different writing systems. I'm
> sorry I didn't know that you don't click links. It was a link to
> some person trying to read ancient Nordic runestones using the values
> of Gok Turkic runes of same shape as the Nordic runes, which is in most
> likely cases bogus. I personally don't have any evidence in favor of
> or not in favor of a connection. Again, I was asking what you may
> know about runes because I assumed that you knew so much.
So if it was clearly crackpottery, why did you even bring it up?
> And secondly, I don't understand where you got the idea that I was
> assuming the Turkic-speakers were too dumb to come up with the idea
> themselves, but I see the Norse were too dumb and had to get their
> runes from the Latin alphabet. Perhaps you'd like to point me in a
> direction of something that I can read of why the Latin origin of
> Nordic runes should be so firmly established, or do I have to
> 'buy the book'?
Why would you suggest it if you didn't think it made sense?
There are two introductory books on runes: R. I. Page, in the Reading the Past
series (not included in the book reprinting six of them); and Ralph Elliott (who
wrote the chapter in *The World's Writing Systems* on them).
See also Antonsen's chapter in Senner, Origins of Writing.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Peter,
: Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
: in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
: (or the lack of connections).
: http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
It's crackpot. the writter even misreads "tab*gh*a*ch*" "china, chinese"
as something nonsensical (fire - small bull?) which he assigns as "fire
breathing dragon" or "ferociou bull". he is inconsisitent ont he direction
of writing of the turkic script and is erroneous on their sound values. he
tries to read the scnadinavian script by assigning turkic sound values and
interpreting them as turkic. thus supposedly the two scripts ave a common
origin. somehere along the line he implies that "Odin" comes from turkic!
ignore the site.
: .s
: "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
: >
: > Groda wrote:
: > >
: > > > -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
: > > >
: > > > It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
: > > >
: > > > VK
: > >
: > > Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
: > > am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
: >
: > There's a couple of pages at the beginning of Györg Kara's chapter in *
: > The World's Writing Systems* -- a partly alphabetic, partly syllabic
: > script used for an early Turkic language (early 8th c. C.E.), found at
: > the Orkhon River in Mongolia (hence the name Orkhon runes). They
: > resemble Germanic runes in outward form, because of the material written
: > on, but aren't otherwise connected to them.
: > --
: > Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
: --
: .cormiac ru
: {o\ /o}
Yusuf B Gursey
: In article <8dbke4$vsd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Groda says...
: >> -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
: >>
: >> It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
: >
: >Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
: >am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
: if you click on the links there, you could at least see the images
: of these runic inscriptions.
: Here is also the summary from one recent books of I. Kyzlasov - "The
: runic scripts of the Eurasian steppes".
: (I.L. (Igor' Leonidovich) Kyzlasov, Runicheskie pis'menosti
: evrazijskih stepej, 1994, Izdatel'stvo "Vostochnaja literatura",
: Rossijskaja akademija nauk, Institut arheologii. ISBN 5-02-017741-5)
: **************
: Summary.
: The paleographic analysis of the sum total of old runic inscriptions
: of the Eurasian Steppes has led to understanding that all three
: scripts do not present the homogenity either in Europe or in Asia.
: The conception presented in this book proclaims the existence of two
: separate groups of runic writings - the Euroasiatic group and the
: Asiatic one - each consisting of several related alphabets.
: The Euroasiatic group of runic scripts (see Chapter I) includes five
: alphabets which were not presented before and were indicated by the
: author. The inscriptions of the Don and the Kuban alphabets were
: found in South Russia and on the banks of the Kama river. They
: present two distinct, though close to one another, alphabets. These
: alphabets don't look like the isza runiform writing (Nagy
: Szent-Miklos and Sarvas inscriptions), the signs of Murfatlar and
the nagy szent-miklos inscription was deciphered by nemeth in terms of the
talas script. the signs seemed similar enough and the decipherment made
sense. I know there have been soem objections, but I couldn't find a
detailed critique.
: other runiform scripts of South Europe. It appeared that in
Yusuf B Gursey
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Braineater wrote:
>>
>> Peter,
>> Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
>> in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
>> (or the lack of connections).
>>
>> http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
>
>(a) I don't click links (cf. the summary posted by Vassil Karloukovski)
>and
>(b) I have no special knowledge about any of the various runes.
>
>Are you suggesting a connection? What's your evidence *in favor of* a
>connection?
>Do you have examples of same sound/same shape? As well as the cultural
>pathways by
>which knowledge of a particular script could have gotten from one part of
>the world
the previous poster had the misfortune of stumbling on an internet article
with no leg to stand on and perhaps figured there must be at least
something behind it (there is none). it is best to disregard virtually
anything said in that article. the authors have no understanding of
either the alphabet or the language of the turkic runic inscriptions. even
the appelation "skyturkish" is wrong, should be blue (eastern) turks.
there description of vowel representation is wrong. they come up with
non-sensical words or anachronistic interpretations.
they say "our novel method of read-ing ancient Turkish scripts" (with
the peculiar hyphen!) and it is indeed "novel"!
>to another? And how do you explain that the functional structures of the
>two
>systems are quite different? And why do you assume the Turkic-speakers
>were too
>dumb to come up with the idea themselves? (Since the Latin-alphabet
>origin of the
>Germanic runes is patent.)
the author of the website, (unfortunately for turks) turkish, disregards
this completely and tries to prove influence in the opposite direction,
even trying to interpret scandinavian runes as if in the turkish language.
Braineater
Turkic runes.
.s
Jörg Knappen
>
> Braineater (hjerne...@yahoo.comNOSPAM) wrote:
> : Peter,
> : Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
> : in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
> : (or the lack of connections).
The similarity in the runic shapes is best explained by the writing
technology:
If you scratch glyphs in wood, strokes parallel to the texture of the
wood
tend to become invisible. You are left over with vertical and diagonal
strokes, and horizontal ones are rules out (choosing a natural
orientation of the wooden tablet on which you write).
Hans Jensen (Die Schrift) already notes this fact. However, even scolars
tend to mystify runes instead of looking at them rationally.
--J"org Knappen
> : http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
>
> It's crackpot. the writter even misreads "tab*gh*a*ch*" "china, chinese"
> as something nonsensical (fire - small bull?) which he assigns as "fire
> breathing dragon" or "ferociou bull". he is inconsisitent ont he direction
> of writing of the turkic script and is erroneous on their sound values. he
> tries to read the scnadinavian script by assigning turkic sound values and
> interpreting them as turkic. thus supposedly the two scripts ave a common
> origin. somehere along the line he implies that "Odin" comes from turkic!
>
> ignore the site.
>
> : .s
>
> : "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> : >
> : > Groda wrote:
> : > >
> : > > > -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
> : > > >
> : > > > It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
> : > > >
> : > > > VK
> : > >
> : > > Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
> : > > am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
> : >
> : > There's a couple of pages at the beginning of Györg Kara's chapter in *
> : > The World's Writing Systems* -- a partly alphabetic, partly syllabic
> : > script used for an early Turkic language (early 8th c. C.E.), found at
> : > the Orkhon River in Mongolia (hence the name Orkhon runes). They
> : > resemble Germanic runes in outward form, because of the material written
> : > on, but aren't otherwise connected to them.
> : > --
> : > Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
Yahya M
"The oldest Turkic literary monuments, the Jenisej and Orxon inscriptions,
showed considerable resemblance in style to the Old Norse inscriptions, and
were therefore called 'Runic'. The Jenisej inscriptions--the majority from the
valley of the present-day TaNnu-Tuva or UraNxai, where the source rivers of the
Käm, the upper Jenisej, gather--probably date largely from the 7th century,
which would make them a century older than those of the Orxon and other parts
of Northern Mongolia. The script consists of single letters in disjointed
composition which evidently acquired their Runic shape for the same reason as
the Old Norse runes. They go back to a Semitic alphabet of the Aramaic type,
very likely Aramaic itself, with which the Türküt--probably the Western
Türküt--first became acquainted on the steppes north of the T`ien-shan through
SoGdian-speaking Christians of the Nestorian creed who lived in that area.
Inscriptions in the Ancient Turkic language have been found there in the region
of the TaLas valley; however, nothing which might be compared for size and
content with the Jenisej or Orxon inscriptions has so far been found."
--The Turkic Languages and Peoples, p. 67.
Peter T. Daniels
Did he (or anyone) provide charts of correspondences? The latest relevant item in his
bibliography (p. 214) is 1896 (except one item in Turkish, which appears to be on the
monuments rather than the script).
Kara, WWS p. 536, says "Non-cursive Sogdian script inspired the runiform alphabet of
the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region." Sogdian ultimately
goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like Armenian is "inspired"
by Greek, without similarity in shape.
Yusuf B Gursey
: >
: > --The Turkic Languages and Peoples, p. 67.
: Did he (or anyone) provide charts of correspondences? The latest
: relevant item in his
: bibliography (p. 214) is 1896 (except one item in Turkish, which
: appears to be on the
: monuments rather than the script).
: Kara, WWS p. 536, says "Non-cursive Sogdian script inspired the
: runiform alphabet of
: the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region."
: Sogdian ultimately
: goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like
: Armenian is "inspired"
: by Greek, without similarity in shape.
(I think Golden repats this).
this was the best I had read on the subject of the origin of the script. I
had also seen some superficial comparisions to parthian (probably the
non-cursive sogdian is related to it). I assume what is menat is
similarity in shape. the system itself is rather complicated, the vowel a
/ a" is normally part of the consonantal sign, there is also a vowel
letter a and and an a" (in some forms also an e) used for plene writing
and to indicate long a: (turkic at that stage had long vowels, now
consistently preserved in few turkic langauges) etc. tehre are also some
syllable signs. of these some are obviously local inovations. at / ta / t
looks somewhat like a horse viewed from the rear (at is horse in turkic),
oq / qo / qu / uq is shaped like an arrow (oq is arrow in turkic). so
whatever the first model for the script was its inventor did considerable
inovating. that is why I presume the term "inspired" was used.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Peter T. Daniels
But look at Iberian, which also includes some syllabic signs: it's very clear which
letters relate to the Phoenician model and which are free inventions (or are
imitated from some system of which no trace survives??). That doesn't seem to be the
case for the Turkic. (The inherent a/ä presumably relates to the Indic scripts that
weren't so far away.)
Why would someone use a horse's *rear* for a depiction of a horse?
H.M. Hubey
"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>
> Kara, WWS p. 536, says "Non-cursive Sogdian script inspired the runiform alphabet of
> the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region." Sogdian ultimately
> goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like Armenian is "inspired"
> by Greek, without similarity in shape.
They probably resemble each other because smoothly curving letters were hard
to carve on stone.
> --
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
--
Regards, Mark
/\/\/\/\/\....I love humanity. It's people I can't stand...../\/\/\/\/\
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==
hub...@mail.montclair.edu =-=-=-=-=-= http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
Yusuf B Gursey
: >
: > Peter T. Daniels (gram...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > --The Turkic Languages and Peoples, p. 67.
: >
: > : Did he (or anyone) provide charts of correspondences? The latest
: > : relevant item in his
: > : bibliography (p. 214) is 1896 (except one item in Turkish, which
: > : appears to be on the
: > : monuments rather than the script).
: >
: > : runiform alphabet of
: > : the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region."
: > : Sogdian ultimately
: > : goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like
: > : Armenian is "inspired"
: > : by Greek, without similarity in shape.
: > (I think Golden repats this).
: >
: > this was the best I had read on the subject of the origin of the script. I
: > had also seen some superficial comparisions to parthian (probably the
: > non-cursive sogdian is related to it). I assume what is menat is
: > similarity in shape. the system itself is rather complicated, the vowel a
: > / a" is normally part of the consonantal sign, there is also a vowel
: > letter a and and an a" (in some forms also an e) used for plene writing
: > and to indicate long a: (turkic at that stage had long vowels, now
: > consistently preserved in few turkic langauges) etc. tehre are also some
: > syllable signs. of these some are obviously local inovations. at / ta / t
: > looks somewhat like a horse viewed from the rear (at is horse in turkic),
: > oq / qo / qu / uq is shaped like an arrow (oq is arrow in turkic). so
: > whatever the first model for the script was its inventor did considerable
: > inovating. that is why I presume the term "inspired" was used.
: But look at Iberian, which also includes some syllabic signs: it's very
: clear which
: letters relate to the Phoenician model and which are free inventions
: (or are
: imitated from some system of which no trace survives??). That doesn't
: seem to be the
: case for the Turkic. (The inherent a/ä presumably relates to the Indic
: scripts that
: weren't so far away.)
yes, most people acknowledge this.
: Why would someone use a horse's *rear* for a depiction of a horse?
well, perhaps not (or scribes tended to fall behind!).
t. tekin (in his pamphlet on turkic scripts through the ages)
mentions oq (arrow) Eb (home, house, in the shape of a tent), Er (man), ay
(moon - quarter or crescent shaped letter). "moon" however is written
(according to tekin) as a (a/E) - ay (ay, ya, y) because it had a
proto-turkic long vowel, as indicated by kashghari (11th cent.) in arabic
script. t. tekin in his book on primary long vowels in turkic (in turkish)
tackles the tricky problem of vowel indication and when plene script
represents genuine long vowels.
{ at by itself is "horse" a - at is a:t "name" }
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
tekin gives thomsen "inscriptions de l'orkhon dechifrees" (1896),
clauson "turkish and mongolian studies" (1962) p. 78,79 for the "iranian /
aramaic" hypothesis. tekin says 15 signs are well explained (form and
sound), about a dozen signs are not, as well as vowel signs (I could
imagine an iranian / aramaic origin for them without much stretch) and the
signs for the consonantal combinations nt, lt, n*ch* and the syllable
signs are unaccounted for by the iranian / aramaic hypothesis. tekin also
rejects the view that diagraphs were involved (the signs don't seem
to indicate that).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > Kara, WWS p. 536, says "Non-cursive Sogdian script inspired the runiform alphabet of
> > the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region." Sogdian ultimately
> > goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like Armenian is "inspired"
> > by Greek, without similarity in shape.
>
> to carve on stone.
O?
Wood, not stone.
Peter T. Daniels
> t. tekin (in his pamphlet on turkic scripts through the ages)
Ref.? Not in Kara.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> tekin gives thomsen "inscriptions de l'orkhon dechifrees" (1896),
I have that from Thomsen's collected papers, where it seems to be in an edited form.
I think the library didn't have the original publication. I don't recall he had any
suggestions about origins.
> clauson "turkish and mongolian studies" (1962) p. 78,79 for the "iranian /
> aramaic" hypothesis. tekin says 15 signs are well explained (form and
> sound), about a dozen signs are not, as well as vowel signs (I could
> imagine an iranian / aramaic origin for them without much stretch) and the
> signs for the consonantal combinations nt, lt, n*ch* and the syllable
> signs are unaccounted for by the iranian / aramaic hypothesis. tekin also
> rejects the view that diagraphs were involved (the signs don't seem
> to indicate that).
Yusuf B Gursey
: > t. tekin (in his pamphlet on turkic scripts through the ages)
: Ref.? Not in Kara.
perhaps because the chapter on runic is not very detailed. anyway it is a
book designed to cram a lot of scripts into a small book, hence the lack
of detail and reference by kaya. nevertheless t. tekin is a competent
linguist.
it's "tarih boyunca tUrkcenin yazImI" t. tekin, simurg pub. ankara, 1997.
: --
: Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
Yusuf B Gursey
: I have that from Thomsen's collected papers, where it seems to be in an edited form.
: I think the library didn't have the original publication. I don't recall he had any
: suggestions about origins.
jensen says it is on p. 47f of the book mentioned,
also "Samlede Avhandl", 3, p. 76, Note 1. Cp. Vernadsky in "Journ. Amer.
Or. Soc. 56, p. 454.
he also references (this is in "sign symbol and script" p. 424 -425)
Gauthiot "Essai de grammaire soghdienne" paris 1914-23.
I looked at clauson, he tries to be detailed, but lack of illustrations
makes for ploddy reading and difficulty in giving a critical judgement. he
also references Otto Donner "Sur l'origine de l'alphabet Turc", in Journal
de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne XIV, 1, Helsingfords, 1896.
clauson also throws in a "Greco-bactrian" origin for some of the signs.
: > clauson "turkish and mongolian studies" (1962) p. 78,79 for the "iranian /
: > aramaic" hypothesis. tekin says 15 signs are well explained (form and
: > sound), about a dozen signs are not, as well as vowel signs (I could
: > imagine an iranian / aramaic origin for them without much stretch) and the
: > signs for the consonantal combinations nt, lt, n*ch* and the syllable
: > signs are unaccounted for by the iranian / aramaic hypothesis. tekin also
: > rejects the view that diagraphs were involved (the signs don't seem
: > to indicate that).
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels (gram...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>
> : Ref.? Not in Kara.
>
> perhaps because the chapter on runic is not very detailed. anyway it is a
> book designed to cram a lot of scripts into a small book, hence the lack
> of detail and reference by kaya. nevertheless t. tekin is a competent
> linguist.
>
> it's "tarih boyunca tUrkcenin yazImI" t. tekin, simurg pub. ankara, 1997.
Or perhaps because it hadn't been published yet.
Groda
> Braineater (hjerne...@yahoo.comNOSPAM) wrote:
> : Peter,
> : Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm
interested
> : in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic
runes
> : (or the lack of connections).
>
>
> It's crackpot. the writter even misreads "tab*gh*a*ch*" "china,
chinese"
> as something nonsensical (fire - small bull?) which he assigns
as "fire
> breathing dragon" or "ferociou bull". he is inconsisitent ont he
direction
> of writing of the turkic script and is erroneous on their sound
values. he
> tries to read the scnadinavian script by assigning turkic sound
values and
> interpreting them as turkic. thus supposedly the two scripts ave a
common
> origin. somehere along the line he implies that "Odin" comes from
turkic!
>
> ignore the site.
So it's a Runic Edo, ej?
Sinan Ozel
I believe that Hungarian and Finnish are both among the "Ural-Altaic" group. As
Turkic is also part of that group, it might be suggested that they use similar
runes. In case German languages "borrowed" some runes from these languages, this
might explain a possible similarity.
Sinan Ozel
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> Braineater (hjerne...@yahoo.comNOSPAM) wrote:
> : Peter,
> : Since you seem to be such the expert on writing systems, I'm interested
> : in your comments on the connections between Turkic and Germanic runes
> : (or the lack of connections).
>
> : http://www.antalyaonline.net/futhark/
>
> It's crackpot. the writter even misreads "tab*gh*a*ch*" "china, chinese"
> as something nonsensical (fire - small bull?) which he assigns as "fire
> breathing dragon" or "ferociou bull". he is inconsisitent ont he direction
> of writing of the turkic script and is erroneous on their sound values. he
> tries to read the scnadinavian script by assigning turkic sound values and
> interpreting them as turkic. thus supposedly the two scripts ave a common
> origin. somehere along the line he implies that "Odin" comes from turkic!
>
> ignore the site.
>
> : .s
>
> : "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> : >
> : > Groda wrote:
> : > >
> : > > > -> http://www.orient.ru/resour/runica/collection/
> : > > >
> : > > > It is on the server of the Russian "Institut Vostokovedenija, RAN".
> : > > >
> : > > > VK
> : > >
> : > > Could someone please tell me what "Turkic Runic inscriptions" are? I
> : > > am very curious, but I don't know Russian.
> : >
> : > There's a couple of pages at the beginning of Györg Kara's chapter in *
> : > The World's Writing Systems* -- a partly alphabetic, partly syllabic
> : > script used for an early Turkic language (early 8th c. C.E.), found at
> : > the Orkhon River in Mongolia (hence the name Orkhon runes). They
> : > resemble Germanic runes in outward form, because of the material written
> : > on, but aren't otherwise connected to them.
> : > --
> : > Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
>
Patrick Chew
> I believe that Hungarian and Finnish are both among the "Ural-Altaic" group. As
> Turkic is also part of that group, it might be suggested that they use similar
> runes. In case German languages "borrowed" some runes from these languages, this
> might explain a possible similarity.
The Ural-Altaic family theory seems to have been debunked and is
generally no longer a valid theory amongst most linguists - both are
considered to be separate language families now. As such, removing
Turkic from the Uralic context would more than likely preclude the above
conclusion...
cheers,
-Patrick
Yusuf B Gursey
: I believe that Hungarian and Finnish are both among the "Ural-Altaic" group. As
: Turkic is also part of that group, it might be suggested that they use similar
: runes. In case German languages "borrowed" some runes from these languages, this
: might explain a possible similarity.
: Sinan Ozel
Yusuf B Gursey
: I believe that Hungarian and Finnish are both among the "Ural-Altaic"
: group. As
as others have stated "ural-altaic" is no longer regared as a valid
language family. one has uralic and altaic (for those that accept altaic).
at any rate scripts don't neccessarily follow language families. the
old hungarian script is medieval and seems to be ultimately related to
turkic runes, but that is because the magyars were ruled by a royal house
of turkic origin. germanic runes are much earlier and unrelated.
Dienes István
to put down texts in Hungarian and other languages in the X-XI Century in
Hungary. Runa was declared forbidden by I Stephen the Saint.
I.
Yusuf B Gursey <y...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:Ftwx9...@world.std.com...
Yahya M
>There are texts which seem to indicate that various runa systems were used
>to put down texts in Hungarian and other languages in the X-XI Century in
>Hungary. Runa was declared forbidden by I Stephen the Saint.
Akira Nakanishi gave a sample of 16th century Hungarian runes in Sekai no moji
(Writing Systems of the World). I have heard that the Székelys continued to
write with these runes until modern times.
H.M. Hubey
They're probably hard to carve on wood too, especially stone.
> Peter T. Daniels gram...@worldnet.att.net
--
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >
> > H.M. Hubey wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kara, WWS p. 536, says "Non-cursive Sogdian script inspired the runiform alphabet of
> > > > the ancient Turks, a highly original writing system of the region." Sogdian ultimately
> > > > goes back to Aramaic, but "inspired" could mean "inspired" like Armenian is "inspired"
> > > > by Greek, without similarity in shape.
> > >
> > > They probably resemble each other because smoothly curving letters were hard
> > > to carve on stone.
> >
> > O?
> >
> > Wood, not stone.
>
> They're probably hard to carve on wood too, especially stone.
It took you a week to come up with that??
As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about. There is no difficulty carving round
shapes in stone, as shown by any Roman (or Greek or Phoenician or Aramaic) inscription, every
one of which contains circular letters, such as O, and letters with smoothly rounded
components.
The runic scripts have their shape because they were devised for carving on wood, where
rounded shapes are quite difficult.