Talk:Turan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turan article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Archives
Archive 1

[edit] Turanian theory vs IE theory

The IE linguistic theory can be compared to the geocentric (Sun going around the Earth) flat Earth belief held during the Middle Ages. It's really a matter of perspective: of course, if one is standing anywhere on the Earth, it does seem like the Sun is going around the Earth, and the Earth does seem relatively flat. However, more thorough observations have revealed that in fact the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Earth is really a globe. So we see that depending on one's point of view, the interpretation of reality may be completely misleading with respect to the nature of reality. Similarly, although it appears that the IE linguistic theory is correct in some cases and under certain conditions, but if one expands the observation paramaters, we see that the IE theory or theories fail to provide rational explanations for certain phenomena, thereby generating nonsense like the unsubstantiated postulate that the Sumerians were an isolated group, and the illogical assumption that even a significantly high number of phonetically and semantically related lexical cognates between and among various IE and non-IE languages are merely the product of coincidence because they do not conform to the IE linguistic theory. In other words, if the facts don't fit the theory, throw out the facts.

If we are going to compare the Indo-European theory and Turanian theory with scientific paradigms, they are rather like evolutionism and creationism respectively. This comparison is not accidental and superficial since the Indo-European theory and the theory of evolution arose in the same intellectual environment and inspired one another (cf. August Schleicher). Both theories realised that the existing species evolved gradually from common ancestors that had a different appearance and specialisation in comparison with their descendants. Creationism and Turanism, on the other hand, project the species of today back on a distant past. Creationists promote their so-called theory as a change of paradigm, but it is in fact a regression to an earlier state in the history of science. Similarly, Turanism is not a renewal, but a regression to an early pre-19th-century state of scholarship characterised by unmethodological arbitrariness and a belief in long-range continuity. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Turanist research I referred to clearly postulates the thesis of convergence and hybridization as the process by which all Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups evolved, with the Sumerian and related Near Eastern peoples playing a significant role: they were the catalysts which generated the process of ethnolinguistic convergence and hybridization which led to the formation of the IE, Uralic, and Altaic groups. This Turanian theory does go far back in time, much further that IE theory, and granted, it still requires a lot of research, but it is most certainly not a regression, in fact, it seeks to go beyond the constraints of IE theory. There isn't anything remotely like creationism involved in this Turanian theory --Hunmagyar 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I do not understand why you need to use the word "Turan" for your purpose. It is so loaded by ethnocentrism and racist prejudices that it does not fit into a scholarly discourse. It is like saying "Aryan" instead of "Indo-European" (this comparison is not accidental either, since Turan and Aryan have been formed in reciprocal opposition both in Iranian and European ethnic ideology). I am confident that you do not share any such prejudices yourself, but the word presupposes a certain continuity between Proto-Turan and its alleged descendants, which is potentially racist.

I guess the use of the terms Turan and Turanian in the context of the research I am referring to is just a convenience, for lack of a better term. Of course, if a more suitable one is found, we could do away with these somewhat misinterpreted terms, although they don't carry the same racist connotation as the term Aryan. The term Ural-Altaic is another possibility, although this one is also questioned, however, the aim of Turanist research is to demonstrate the possible linkages between the Uralic and Altaic groups, as well as the possible relationship between the Ural-Altaic and Sumerian languages. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

However, what is really problematic about the Turanian theory is that it tries to explain too much with a too simple model. In that aspect it is similar to creationism, according to which one single force has made everything in one instance (overlooking the fact that it thereby reduces the infinite omnipotence of God). However, I think you are right in introducing the important concepts of convergence and hybridisation into the prehistory of the Indo-European and Ural language families and the Altaic sprachbund. Yet, I do not think that we can unearth one single, unilineary force behind all these various ethnolinguistic constructions. One shall not underestimate the linguistic multiplicity of the prehistoric era and the variety of situations in which the advance of the large language families may have taken place. Enkyklios 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Turanian theory is still in an early stage of development (as I previously mentioned, it's more a case of scientific research being held back by ideological and political factors). It proposes a model of the ethnogenesis of the Eurasian language groups based on a multidisciplinary approach integrating comparative linguistics, archeology, anthropology, ethnology, and other fields which can shed light on the ancient history of the regions and peoples concerned. Based on the correlation of the various evidence obtained so far, the model postulates that the ancient Near Eastern ethnolinguistic group to which the Sumerians belonged, and which may have evolved at least in part through a process of convergence generated by Sumerian influence, has also exerted a significant influence on the development of the other Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups, over a period from approximately 5000 BC to about 2000 BC. In the opinion of many researchers, some of which I have referred to, there is sufficient evidence to justify further research in this direction. Of course, any scientific research can be misused for ideological or political purposes, but that is not a valid reason to dismiss such research. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence indicating that the Sumerians were not an isolated ethnolinguistic group and there are several reasons which explain their demographic expansion and migrations. The Sumerians were part of an ethnolinguistic group which included the Hatti of Eastern Anatolia, the Hurrians and Subareans of Northern Mesopotamia, and the Kassites and Elamites of Western Iran, among others (Götz, p. 881-2). The Sumerians themselves are thought to have come from Northern Mesopotamia (Götz, p. 701). The development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent led to an unprecedented demographic and economic growth which generated several migratory and colonizing waves originating from the Near Eastern, starting around 6000 BC and continuing for several millennia (Götz, p.815). Artifacts (3000 BC) with Sumerian pictographs were found in the Carpathian Basin (Götz, p.739), Sumerian groups also reached Turkmenistan by 5000 BC (Götz, p.819). After the Akkadian take-over of Mesopotamia in 2455 BC, many Sumerians were forced to flee to neighbouring regions (Götz, p.786).

I do not know if Sumerian is an isolated language or not. Given that logically the number of isolated languages was greater in the Neolithic before the great empires of both sedentary agriculturalists and mounted nomads led to a linguistic convergence ousting the languages of the subject ethnicities. In the Mesolithic era, man lived in small crowds communicating over short distances with a limited range of people; Europe may have had hundred language families at that time (now it has only four: Baskic, IE, Uralic and Turkic). Of course, one cannot exclude that Sumerian did in fact belong to a larger language family. It is simply outside the range of scholarship. At any rate, you cannot use material culture as a testimony of ethnic and linguistic identity. The possible presence of Mesopotamian artefacts in Europe and Central Asia (please cite another source than your idol Götz who seems to be very biased in favour of Turanism!) would not prove that Sumerian-speaking people migrated into those areas. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is therefore incorrect to assume that all the ancient peoples inhabiting Iran were Indo-European. Indo-Europeanists have a tendency to ignore that a large number of words claimed to be of IE origin are in fact of non-IE origin, and this has lead to the incorrect identification of ancient peoples as IE based on incorrect linguistic theory. One such example is the word meaning man or lord in various IE languages - vir (latin), wer (Anglo-Saxon), ir- (as in Iran), ar- (as in Aryan) which is itself of non-IE origin: its roots are in the Sumerian word ur meaning man (Götz, p.556) from which the Hungarian word ur (lord) is also derived. The example of the Medes is also noteworthy: according to the Wikipedia article on the Medes, "An Assyrian military report from 800 BC lists 28 names of Mede chiefs, but only one of these is positively identified as Iranian. A second report from c. 700 BC lists 26 names; of these, 5 seem to be Iranian, the others are not". Most of the claims regarding the IE identity of the Scythians and Parthians are also based on the supposed IE etymology of personal names. Based on such evidence, the claims that the Medes, Parthians, Sakas, Scythians and Sarmatians were originally IE are therefore highly questionable.

Webmaster - hunmagyar.org

I will not claim that all people inhabiting ancient Iran were necessarily Indo-European. They were probably not at first, but now most of them are, even though almost a third of the population speak a Turkic language (Azeri and Turkmen) if one is going to believe the figures given in the wikipedia article on Iran. As a matter of fact, I would say that the linguistic multiplicity of prehistoric Iran was the very reason of the success of Iranian in establishing itself as the natural means of communication in Iran, leading to an increasing Iranisation of the area between the Indus and the Tigris (which the figures given in the wikipedia article on the Medes would indicate very clearly, if one is allowed to infer that people carrying non-Iranian names spoke a non-Iranian language as well). A similar situation probably played a role in the Indo-Europeanisation of Bronze Age Europe.[1]

Götz's derivation of Latin vir / OEng. wer "man" and Indo-Iranian ārya- "noble, Aryan" from Sumerian ur "man" is a good example of the arbitrariness of the Turanic theory. Indo-Iranian has a noun which is more readily compared with vir, namely vīra- "hero". In other words, ur gives both vīra- and ārya- in Indo-Iranian. It is of course conceivable (Latin cadentia gives both cadence and chance in English), but makes the burden of proof even higher on behalf of Turanists. Why is u replaced by wi or wī in some IE languages? Why is it replaced by a or ā in other languages? Are these replacements conditioned or arbitrary? And if they are arbitrary, why not derive Greek anthrōpos or even English man from Sumerian ur? As soon as you give up the fundamental principles of comparative linguistics, anything goes and nothing matters. Enkyklios 07:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Götz did follow the fundamental principles of phonetic and semantic correlation, so he did not try to derive Greek anthrōpos or even English man from Sumerian ur. He proposes several possible explanations for the linguistic phenomena which the rigidity of the IE sound-change theory cannot account for: since many words in IE languages are of non-IE origin, they may not necessarily follow the prescribed IE sound-change patterns. Also, phonetic variants from a common root may not only reflect variations in time, but be a result of the need to produce and differentiate nuanced meanings of a basic concept (man, lord, noble, etc). Therefore far from being unmethodological, Götz seeks to improve on the methodological shortcomings of the IE linguistic theory. --Hunmagyar 03:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if you want to compare two words from two different languages, you have to establish very carefully first that the sounds of the two do in fact correlate. Even if the two words are completely identical in form and meaning, it doesn't follow necessarily that they are also related genetically if the sounds in question do not correspond. I know it sounds rigid, but that's how scholarly linguistics works. Without this rigour, the risk of comparing superficially similar forms increases infinitely, and logically, the explanatory force of the comparison decreases not less infinitely.

You see, an r is not just an r even if it is pronounced more or less identically in two languages (which it is often not). It is part of a larger structure. It is the great achievement of 19th-century comparativ philology to realise this important fact, which made it possible to make solid comparison instead of intuitive and chaotic juxtapositions of similar words.

Exactly because the superficial similarity is insignificant and the structural identity is crucial, it is often so that related words are not similar at all. I know it may sound like an odd paradox for the layman. Eeven between closely languages like the Germanic languages, the relationship of which is readily felt by native speakers learning the different languages, cognates have often become very different indeed both in form and meaning: e.g. Dan. ['ønsg̊ə] "wish" = Eng. ['wɪʃ] or Dan. ['kʰø:ʊ] "buy" = Eng. ['tʃi:p] "cheap". Accordingly, the gap between English and Greek, which is something like 5,000 years deep, has made most cognates irrecognisable by most native speakers: e.g. Gk ['tɛsarɛs] "four" = Eng. ['fɔ:] or Gk ['çina] "goose" = Eng. ['gu:s]). One must admit that the unconcerned comparison of Ancient Sumerian and Modern Hungarian words, separated by four millennia, looks rather bold in that light. Enkyklios 10:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Studies of the Hungarian language have shown that it has changed relatively little over the past 1000 years in comparison to the IE languages. A Hungarian text from approx. 1000 AD written in latin characters shows an earlier form of the language which is still easily understandable today. Studies of the Sumerian language have also revealed that this language seemed to change relatively little over the millennia from which Sumerian cuneiform tablets have been deciphered. Therefore, it does not seem too bold or unconcerned to compare Sumerian and Hungarian, particularly if one takes into account their respective evolution. --Hunmagyar 17:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, it doesn't seem impossible that vir and ur could have a common origin. According to a recent theory (I wish i could recall the reference) the IE urrheimat (or however you spell that anyway :) ) could have been in the Middle East, in the wider area of the Caucasus range. That article seemed fairly convincing too, especially in that it was very succesfull in explaining similarities between IE, Sumerian and FinoUgric languages. Early interaction could well explain that similarity as a loan from one language to the other. What I utterly fail to see is the link between Sumerian and Hungarian. If Hungarian ur is of the same origin as Sumerian ur, it is more likely than not that Hungarian acquired the word indirectly, through IE intervention. The fact is, that contact between proto-FinoUgric tribes and Sumerians, while possible, is not too likely. Even if it occured, however, it hardly means that there exists some sort of a continuum between Sumerian and Hungarian, as some would have us believe. Note, btw, two striking examples of utterly unrelated lexical similarities. English 'so', Japanese 'so'. Same form, exact same meaning. *gasp* The Japanese built the Stonehenge!! Or maybe Shogun Tokugawa was born in Derbyshire. Nahuatl 'teo', Greek 'theos'. Both mean 'god'. *gasp* The Greeks colonised all of America!! Note that the second view (Greeks colonising America) has been seriously proposed by some people. I can see, of course, that there are more similarities than that between Sumerian and Uralic languages. However, lexical similarities can be explained through indirect, or maybe even direct, borrowing, and systemic similarities need be nothing more than a coincidence. Not all aglutinating languages are related. Swahili is also aglutinating, for instance. 'Turanist' views are over-simplifications. It is fine and well to point out the shortcomings of IE theories. They are indeed numerous. But you cannot base assumptions involving languages spanning 7000 years of history and two continents worth of territory on simple observations like 'so' means the same thing in Japanese and English. (or 'ur' means *almost* the same thing in Hungarian and Sumerian) (and that is, of course, presuming that our assumptions about Sumerian pronunciation are correct). Lastly, please do note that Sumerian ur was used 7000 years ago, Hungarian ur is used today. It is quite possible that 7000 years ago, the notion of 'lord' was expressed quite differently by the speakers of what later became the Magyar tongue. And dont even think of claiming that Hungarian hasnt changed, because it has, and it has changed a lot. And I'm talking since 1000 AD, let alone 5000 BC. Druworos 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Druworos's comments are grossly misleading. This individual is falsifying and distorting my statements, and also attributes opinions to me which I have neither expressed nor do I have:

Example No. 1:
- Druworos states that I am attempting to claim that the Hungarian language hasn't changed at all during the past 1000 years: 'dont even think of claiming that Hungarian hasnt changed, because it has, and it has changed a lot.' This is false. I stated: 'Studies of the Hungarian language have shown that it has changed relatively little over the past 1000 years in comparison to the IE languages.' The two statements are different. If Druworos thinks that they mean the same thing, he is mistaken.

Example No. 2:
- Druworos claims that 'Hunmagyar would likely have us believe that Jesus was also a Parthian (which for him means Hungarian) Prince, and that Celts were a first wave of Hungarian colonists, as the name Celt is clearly, according to them, related to the Hungarian word Kelet (East).' I haven't made any such claims. Druworos has a vivid imagination.

Druworos also makes the mistake of lumping all Hungarian research which does not agree with his point of view under the same label of 'Hungarian extreme nationalism'. This is sheer nonsense because there is a wide range, from the lunatic fringe (origin theories involving lost continents) all the way to the most thorough objective and scientific research, such as that of Götz which I have referred to in earlier comments. I strongly urge him to read some of this more serious stuff before jumping to erroneous conclusions.

As I have stated previously, the Turanian theory is not merely based on a few linguistic parallels which might be due to chance, but on a correlation of a multitude of factors: thousands of potential lexical cognates, significant grammatical similarities, as well as on archeological, anthropological and ethnological evidence, and on historical written sources. Götz clearly explains this in his theory which is based on the facts established by hundreds of researchers he cites in his book. Götz's theory of the formation of the various Eurasian ethnolinguistic groups (Semitic, IE, Uralic, Altaic) through a process of convergence and hybridization in which the Sumerian group played a key role is certainly much more advanced, objective, comprehensive, and scientific than the dominant IE single origin and family-tree evolutionary theory, or the official Hungarian Finno-Ugrian origin theory which is based on the IE model. --Hunmagyar 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)