| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Proof ataturk was a Yörük Turkmen True Origin
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Proof ataturk was a Yörük Turkmen True Origin

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jul 2011 at 23:26
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:

There were No janisarraies in Ataturk Time Or Ataturk were dressed as janissaray in Bulgaria Clap The Janissaray were killed By Mahumud II "is supporters failed to recapture power before Mustafa IV had him killed, but elevated Mahmud II to the throne in 1808."
Source:a b c Kinross, pp 431–434.
 
Please do not insult our intelligence! Here for your delectation:
 
 
As for appeals to the tourist travel exploiter John Anthony West as an "Egyptologist". Please save that cant for the totally uninformed. I know that WorldHistoria gets its share of narcissists grinding particular axes so as to dress up the turkey they wish to serve at table, but as Suren observed, the spices chosen just do not cook well.


Why you dont understand so much?,
If Janissaray existed in Ataturk time ataturk would dress as janissaray in battle,


Ataturk's Father
does he dressed like janissaray ? No,but he was from Kocacik a Yuruk village in Macedonia,

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 04:03
Dear Turkmenian,
as you will notice by time most members here are History professors, students or lovers. Don't think that views that are not widely accepted from the academic community will convince anyone. Furthermore, some of the members have central Asia as a field of study and some of those have Turkish roots.

In my case, unfortunately for you, I am a native speaker of a Germanic language and I have family members who are fluent in Turkish. You will see what that means soon.

Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:


There is No Such thing "indo-european" falsey Eurocentist theories,



First of all Eurocentrists are a different thing. Nobody in here is a Eurocentrist of Afrocentrist or whatever. The Indo-European group of languages have nothing to do with racial views on people and it is pure a linguistic term.

Now, since my main field of language study is partially on Indo-European languages I will demonstrate you in a very simple way why there is such a thing like Indo-European.

a) Terms related to agriculture, domesticated animals and primitive vehicles have the same roots. That is because  at the time when the wheel was invented and animals were domesticated, the Proto-Indo-European speakers were still gathered all together and had not split up yet.

b) The graves and burials of Proto-Indo-European groups that spread across Eurasia are of the same type, that is to say Kurgan.

c) All Indo-European-Languages follow more or less the same patterns of morphological changes.

d) Because the words across IE languages have the same root, whether that is for 1) counting (English two, Latin duo, Greek duo, Pr. Germanic twai, Sanskrit dvau, Balt. dvi, Hittite dan), 2) animals (Old English hund [dog], Latin canis, Greek kuon, Phrygian kun-, Hittite kuwas, Lydian kan, Carian qan, Albanian qen, Tocharian ku, Lithuanian suns), 3) liquids (English water, Hittite watar, Greek & Phrygian udor, Tocharian war, Sanskrit var, Slavic voda, old German wazzar, old Norse vatn).

Those are just few I can come up with...On request I can compile for you a huge list of words that are common from Ireland to India.


Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:


Etruscan were never "indo-european" their other mythology were called Turan,



The Aryan Persians called their nearest non-Aryan neighbours to the north Turan, and the Aryan Greeks called the Turkic tribe of the Rasenna nearest them Turrhenoi.
books.google.comJames Anthony Froude, John Tulloch, Thomas Carlyle - 1877




No scholar claims that Etruscan is IE. It is a language isolate and has only connection to Lemnian (provided that we do not consider it Etruscan).

Now, a simple way to completely dismiss the theory that Etruscans are Turkic I will give you the example I posted previously in another thread.

Etruscan
Ita tmia icac heramasva vatiehe Unial-Astres, themiasa meh thuta

Turkish
Bu tapinak ve Hermes idolleri kabile uyeleri tarafindan insa edilmis olup Uni-Astre'ye ithaf edilmistir.

English
That temple and these Hermes idols are dedicated to Uni-Astre, built by the people of the clan.



Etruscan
Nac Thefarie Veliiunas thamuce cleva etunal Masan tiur, Unias selace

Turkish
Tiberius Velianas  Masan ayinda  tapinagin heykelini insa ettiginde , Uni bundan hosnut  oldu.

English
When Tiberius Velianas had built the statue of the sanctuary in the month of Masan, Uni was pleased.


As you can see it has nothing to do with Altaic or IE languages. In fact except from names you cannot even guess the word order between Turkish and Etruscan.

Also, check your source. It is a magazine from 1877!!! Before 1982 there were people who were claiming that Carian is not an Anatolian language but Semitic. In 1877 we had no clue about Etruscan itself so people could simply assume anything.


Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:


The written Tocharian documents date from the 6th to the 8th centuries, roughly contemporary with the ancient Turkic inscriptions. 
Source:
books.google.comAndrás Bodrogligeti, Miklós Érdy, Gyula Décsy - 1995 



First of all your source is not readable there and from your sentence it doesn't say Tocharian = Turkic, but that the inscriptions appear at the same dates as ancient Turkic inscriptions.

Now, lets have a look at Tocharian...

English: grain
Tocharian: satre
Greek:
sitos/sitira (pl)
O. Slavonic: zito
Turkish: tahil

English: honey
Tocharian: mit
Greek:
meli
Albanian: mjalte
Luwian: melit
Turkish: bal

English: mouse
Tocharian: mascitsi
Greek:
mus
Sanskrit: mus
O. Germanic: mus
Turkish: fare

English: hundred
Tocharian: kante
Greek: hekaton
Albanian: qind
Latin: centum
Old Norse:
hundra
Turkish:
yuz

English: feather
Tocharian: paruwa
Greek: ptero
Pr. German: fethro
O. Slavic: pero
Turkish: tuy


Obviously there's no resemblance at all between Turkish and Tocharian. Again, those are just a quick mockup of words that I collected. I can give you a huge list of examples.




Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:

Germanic:

● » We Germanic People are in Origin Türks, we have not to be ashamed of this fact. The Türks are a very honorable and pride People. « (Prof. Dr. Sven Lagerbring)
-
● » Our ancestors are Turks who are comrades of Oden. We have got enough evidence on this subject. There are people who want to fool you into thinking they are Goths, or Tyrks. I don't care whether it will be discrediting for me or not. Oden and his comrades were Turks. « (Prof. Dr. Sven Lagerbring)

Tirkiar was called in germanic runes

There is another book, written by Prof. Dr. Sven Lagerbring during 18th century, about the fact that Vikings are of Türk Origin. Prof. Dr. Sven Lagerbring says that in old Swedish historical evidence, it is written that Oden is the leader of the tribe called Tirkiar. He explains that Tirkiar, means Türks. İf we study history we will see that many words evaluate theirself in time. So, the differences in the spelling between the words Türk, Tirkiar, Turchia, Turku, Torg and Torgu doesn't mean they aren't from same Origin



The Eurocenism removed those historic source in European School and created own their false theory indo-european :S,


Are you telling me that we shall rely on some Swedish guy that made a statement back in the 18th century while the field of linguistics was not even an academic field yet? Not to mention he couldn't even read runes at that time. First of all, no Swedish professor today would claim the same thing. Second, when I told you I am native speaker of a Germanic language, that is namely Swedish. Not to mention that I am studying Swedish runes which have again no relation to Altaic languages at all.


FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6369
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jul 2011 at 04:41
Turkmenian I suggest you start following up with more than just pretty imagery to support your claims, and by that I of course mean credible source material. 
Your posts are bordering on spamming, and trolling, from a ethnocentric pov.


You can always review our Code of Conduct. 
Back to Top
Tashfin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 07 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 148
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tashfin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 01:55
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

The ethnic roots of Ataturk have always been a subject for discussion amongst Islamist and anti-republican Turks as there are supposed to be some indications that Ataturk might have sabbataist-separdhic roots. To answer that, nationalistic sources, -especially the Turkish army-, try hard to prove that Ataturk was ethnically a Turk, even go further and imply that his ethnicity was pure, a Turkoman, which means he had a direct connection to the central asia.
 
 
This proves the childnessness of both sides of the debate. So if he was a green man from Mars would than make anything he done less impressive?
Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

 

The indications of his sabbataist background are:

His elementary school, which was a secular private school at that time (Yeah, really rare, maybe the only secular elementary school for "Muslim" children in the entire world at that time), was for Sabbataist children only. The founder of the school was also Ataturk's teacher, Shemsi Efendi, was a decrypted Jewish, whose real name was Simon Zwi. One of Simon Zwi's direct grandsons was Ismail Cem, a former foreign minister of Turkey (The other wellknown grandsons: Abdi Ipekci, a wellknown Turkish journalist, and Cemil Ipekci, a gay fashion designer for Turkish celebrities.) 

Nationalists explain that Ataturk was the only Turkish muslim in that school. Sabbatists somehow allowed him in.
 
First of all it was a grand tradition for Ottoman civil servant families and the rich to teach their children in missionary schools or private schools (secular or not) rather than the schools of the Ottoman ministry of education. Such schools were abundant in the Arab provinces which don't come close to european provinces in wealth. Here in Saudi Arabia the oldest school, Al-Falah, was built around the time Attaturk was born and almost all the first generation of civil servants here were educated there. For Attaturks family to have sent their kid to one such school was expected not exceptional.
 
And the fact that there were alot of jews in that school comes from the well known fact that 58% of Selanik's population at that time were jews and in the Ottoman empire education was a favourite occupation for them (indeed some schools in Damascus and elsewhere were run by jews too).
Originally posted by The Hidden Face The Hidden Face wrote:

His wife's family was also thought to be a Sabbatist family, Usakizade, a Smyrnian Family known for their wealthiness and political powers. 

Other than that, his long time friends were either Freemasons or Sabbataists, or even both. The reason for this is that Ataturk was a member of Young Turk movement, which was formed mainly by Freemason Turks, Sabbatist crypto Jewish-Turks, and Ottoman Jews.

 
 
So if he was a freemason whats the problem? Freemason clubs are gentleman's clubs where people go and have a good time. The idea that people came and planned and conspired to do this and that proves how small the brains of the people who believe this crap. I used to see freemasons behind everything thing wrong under the sun until I grew up and knew better.
 
As for the young Turks, Ataturk's role and involvment with that organisation was very tiny (bloated by propaganda after his death, I read books and newspapers from that era and Ataturk's name came only in Libya) until the Libyan war when he became wildly popular across the Ottoman empire (there many Arabic poems of that era praising him). In any case the principal players in the Young Turks were all full blooded muslim bastards who lead Turkey into ruins first in the balkans and then in WWI for no good reason.
 
 

Al-Jassas
 
 
Just a point on freemasons. Whilst their impact is certainly overplayed by conspiracy theorists, these clubs were not just attended by gentlemen wanting to have a good time/recreation, since fundamentally  freemasonry provide a space where its members mostly drawn from political/intellectual elites) could meet and establish contacts without scrutiny or accountability, hence the possibility that freemasons were able to influence political events  has to be considered. The Young Turks had freemason connections certainly which they established in Berlin prior to their coup in 1908.
Agree with the point on the Young Turks and ataturk, he did not play a major role with them, it was the Pasha- Triumvirate (led by Enver) that led the Ottoman state into the WW1 disaster, but they certainly had been schooled in the same secular/nationalist paradigm (though within the bounds of the Ottoman state)  that ataturk eventually took towards a final conclsuion post WW1 in the destruction of the Caliphate.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2011 at 08:19
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:

Flipper

The Turkic Nomadic (Yörük) were settled in Balkan 13th or 14th by Mehmed II and Other ottoman sultans,
Also Cumanians Settled in Eastern Europe (Balkan,Romania.Hungary)

Tocharian were Uyghur Peoples because The Indo-europeanist call them as Tocharian?

why i join in This Forum? because Im here for against Eurocentist/Westernist and Other Propagandaist

Slavic? and Ataturk was faired and blue eyed and u call him a slavic because he Look like that?
I have mostly Slavic Friends in Real life all of them are not Blonde nor blue eyed,

Yörük are more White than south slavs and Albanians

"Thus she liked to think that she had in her veins some of the pure fair blood of the Yuruks, those nomadic descendants of the original Turkish tribes who still survive in isolation among the Taurus Mountains"




First of all lets make it clear that I do not claim Ataturk was Slavic or Albanian. I just mentioned some absurd claims made about him. I see Ataturk as a Turk and I will not bother if one of his ancestors were something else or if he was from a specific Turkic tribe.

Now, a second thing you should know that I am not here to carry and Iranian propaganda or anything. I have no interest of supporting any nationalistic view here related to central Asia.

Originally posted by Turkmenian Turkmenian wrote:



The Scythian were Turkic Origin but they were not iranian because Iranian were against Scythian ;)




and The Iranism propaganda Stolen Turkmen History called Afshar and Qajar and safavid as "persian" empire?
because The Turcoman saved Iran against Pashtun,Kurdish,Ottoman,Mughals.



You claim of Scythians being not Iranic because Persians turned against them is not valid at all. In the same sense Spartans were not Hellenic people because Athenians fought against them. Kaskas and Luwians were not Anatolians because they were fighting the Hittites. Israelites were not Semitic because Egyptians were hunting them.

As you can see your point has no relevance. You don't understand the basic meaning of the term "Iranic". It doesn't mean Persian... Iranic is used to denote a group of people speaking Iranic languages such as Persian, Ossetian, Kurdish etc.

Scythian and Tocharian are Indo-European languages, the first belonging to the group of Iranic languages and the second forming a group of itself. 

If you have any objection to Scythian and Tocharian being Indo-European, please post academic references and not somekind of youtube homgrew "TRUTH" videos. I am sure you cannot even find a single Turkish academic that makes such a claim.



"Around 700 BC "royal Scythians" came firstly. Later "Sarmatians"
migrated from the regions of the Caspian Sea to the southern steppes.
They were of Parthian origin, they wore Parthian dresses with wide
trousers and a flowing robe. They spoke as the Parthians, a Turkic
dialect. Soon after that there appeared further Turkic tribes from Asia,
[...] The Sarmatians were the bravest and most powerful tribe of the
Turks. Soon all the Turkic invaders were called Sarmatians. Around the
birth of Christ the Turkic horsemen have advanced to the Vistula
(Poland), their power handed from the Caucasus to the Vistula."

(Anton Barański, and the prehistoric times in the light of the pet culture,
M. Perles, 1897, page 278)
___________________________________________________________

"Heredot already knows the Turks, although under a different name, in
their old home country beyond the Oxus River - a name which itself is
Turkish, and means white water (Turkish: Aksu) - in the plains, which
were crossed by tribes of the same stock, such as the Turkman and
Kirgiskaisak. The father of history called them Scythians - [...]."

(Karl Friedrich Neumann, the peoples of southern Russia in its historical evolution, BG Teubner, 1855, p.11)
___________________________________________________________

"Refering to the telling indication of the Byzantines, the Turks called
themselves Saka. During the invasions of Persia the sources of all
Persian-report stories were telling from the Turks, while Herodotus
mentioned from the Sakas."

(Joseph Hammer Purgstall, History of the Golden Horde in Kipchak, CA Hart's life verlag, 1840, p.7)
___________________________________________________________

"Thus, both the faces and figures of the Scythians are showing clear signs of
Turko-Tatar togetherness. There is clear evidence of Scythian customs
and rites."

(Peisker Johann, The older ties of the Slavs to Turko-Tatars and Germanic peoples and their socio-historical importance, W. Kohlhammer, 1905, p. 40 f.)
___________________________________________________________

"Thus Francis V. Schwarz is not succeeded in constructing a prehistoric
Aryan horseman nomadism, and the Turko-Tatar horseman nomadism of
Turkestan is probably as old as the nomadic use of the salt steppes itself."

(Peisker Johann, The older ties of the Slavs to Turko-Tatars and Germanic peoples and their socio-historical importance, W. Kohlhammer, 1905, p. 22)
___________________________________________________________

"The three sons of Targitais in Herodotus (IV.5.) are Leipoksain,
Arpoksain and Kolaksain. The "-oksain" that these three names have in common are appearing not to be different from "Ghus" or "Oghuz Khan" (see turkic mythology)."

(Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, History of the Ottoman Empire, 1834, p.4)
____________________________________________________________

'The explanation of the Scythian words by the Iranian language is often full of
contradictions and is greatly exaggerated. However it is assumed that
there is an Altaic upper class, which gave orders to the Greek and
Iranian artists [...]'

(Karl Bouda, Contributions to the Caucasian and Siberian Linguistics, Volume 24, Kraus Reprint, 1966, p. 66)
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 02:07
The dredging up 19th century academics working out their own prejudices hardly represents the conclusions of contemporary scholars and the invocation of Karl Bouda--he of the Caucasian/Basque etymology thesis from the mid-20th century [1930s through 1950s Germany]--is little other than glorification of the definitely archaic in Lingusitics. What next the comparative musings of Sergei Starostin and his conjectural macrofamily of Dene-Caucasian?
 
This unfashionable debate has only gasped for air in the 21st century solely through the Internet as a forum for the preservation of discredited musings. To now bring forth such muttering as postulates with respect to ethnicity and present them in a historical tureen is nothing more than an invitation to indigestion.


Edited by drgonzaga - 28 Jul 2011 at 05:12
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2011 at 04:17
You are absolutely right Dr Gonzaga. First of all 80% of the scholars of the 19th century had no academic idea of what applied linguistics are. Everyone of them could make his own assumption, not to mention those romantic ones who created their own stories about ethnies that they had absolutely no source material for.

It also reminds me once I got shocked by a desperate attempt of Bonfante (!!!) who tried to declare the Palestinians as an Illyrian tribe based on the name ending -inoi (Palestinoi) rendered in Greek. Dead

In any case, Turkmenian abandoned the well documented Tocharian and jumped on Scythian were he is safer with those prehistoric sources (Although I doubt a scholar would call Herodotus as Herodot - smells like a make up there).

So, for you Turkmenian you should start with an expert in linguistics, namely Alexander Lubotsky. His paper on "Scythian elements in old Iranian" should be a good start.

http://azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/indoiranianscythianelements.pdf

Now, another great linguist would be David Antony who in his book "The horse, the wheel and language" (Princeton 2007) says the following:

Unlike Mycenaean Greek, Old Indic does have a known sister language,
Avestan Iranian, which we must take into account. Avestan is the oldest of
the Iranian languages that would later be spoken by Persian emperors and
Scythian nomads alike, and today are spoken in Iran and Tajikistan.

Later on he mentions

About 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian "warrior graves" on the lower Don and lower Volga contained females dressed for battle as if they were men, a phenomenon that probably inspired the Greek tales about the Amazons. It is at least interesting that the frequency of adult females in central graves under Yamnaya kurgans in the
same region, but two thousand years earlier, was about the same. Perhaps
the people of this region customarily assigned some women leadership
roles that were traditionally male.


Note that  the Yamnaya region is the area where most probably the Palaeobalkan indoeuropeans split up with the Indo-Iranian indoeuropeans.

Last but not least J.P Mallory in his book "In search for the Indo-Europeans"

Reading from est to east we can inclde as Iranian speakers the major Iron Age nomads of the Pontic-Caspian steppe such as the Kimmerians(?), Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans.



Now, except from those secondary sources why not reading primary sources? For example Herodotus gives some Scythian words that have IE cognates, while Hesychius provides an even greater amount of words.

When you comprehend all this, you will understand why Scythian was probably more close to Ossetian than it was to Turkic.


I am still struggling with my connection, but next time I will be back with some examples of Scythian words and their equivalents in Indo-European and Turkish. Smile



FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2012 at 17:11
This is all I need to know.

Back to Top
Mamal View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 98
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mamal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2012 at 17:45
Back off dude. No one likes your racial campaign against Turks. If I am not mistaking you are the same pissed off Greek guy.
Back to Top
Woofer View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Woofer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Sep 2013 at 02:08
Ataturk is one of my great heroes from History. I couldn't give a damn where his genetic roots are.

Just more Nationalistic drivel masquerading as History.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.