The 'Turkishness' of "pharaoh", "Peru", "spaghetti" ...

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jun 29, 2009 at 08:03

Glafira wrote :

>Dear Ianus Your emotions are really strong but your expertise is obviously below the level needed to discuss the subject.<

Thanks for not telling us that strong emotions on your part aren't involved here at all ! Otherwise the readers might be misled to think you're not immune to them !

It is very clever and cunning of you to start your attack with this strategeme. It facilitates your task a lot , doesn't it?

> Your deliberations look too much like demagogy. You DON'T WANT to get deeply into the subject discussed so as to provide the weighed and reasonable ideas/argumentation.

Sure! It's you that are the authority in the field. I tell you that 'pharaoh' and 'Peru' have well-established etymologies and it's nonsensical to forge instead someTurkish bulls... But you reply that I "DON'T WANT to get deeply into the subject discussed so as to provide the weighed and reasonable ideas/argumentation". Who doesn't want to get deeply into the subject ? Don't fool the readers to think you're attacking just me with all my faults and flaws which I willingly admit ! You are attacking also all the sources I have produced and with them this trick of yours won't work so easily.

What you say is - Egyptian scholars are wrong because some Turks say they know a better etymology of 'pharaoh' , don't they? Chinese historical records are wrong because the Turks say they lie when they show the barbarity of the primitive Turks. Altaic scholars are wrong when they reconstruct the poor spiritual and material world of the proto-Altaic people based on linguistic evidence because the Turks tell us Turks created Sumerian and Epyptian civilizations. It's all wrong and erroneous as long as it doesn't gratify Turkic solipsism.

> You want just to assure everybody that your are an expert in this field - which is far from the reality, - and thus only your point of view (rather aggressive and intolerant) is worth to be accepted .....by whom? Armenian and Jewish people would mostly join you in your passionate tirade. Turkish people would probably take you as a lost cause.

'Turkish people'... ? Spending a holiday in Pamphylia so cheaply makes you think "Turkish people" are so great and knowledgeable, doesn't it ?

What sort of argument is your above-said remark , anyway? It's the way the Turks think for whom no objective reality exists. It's all national, Turkish ... anti-Turkish. Turkish -good , anti-Turkish - bad . And of course, a Turk knows better, a non-Turk doesn't know. To see what stands behind this mentality ask your "Turkish people" to tell you something wrong about Turkey! ... I even suspect that you share the Turkish story of the Armenian genocide, don't you ? Poor Turks were massacred by the Armenians ...

> Slavic people would first divide but finally they would join Turks.

You'll see Bulgarians and Serbians join Turks as you'll them become Kemalists.

If more Russians knew something about what Pan-Turkism stands for, they would stop spending their money with which anti-Russian Pan-Turkic propaganda and activities are being financed so willingly on holidays in Turkey. You'll not read the below, but it's quite an interesting study anyway. It shows that the Turk is the most dangerous of Russia's existential enemies. The threat is hidden behind the hijab of Turkish-Russian friendship.

>All that verbal flow you brought down in your last comment doesn't worth a penny since almost each point shows your ignorance. Because your knowledge is superficial and you are closed to a new one - otherwise your national sense of "chosen by God" will found itself in a threat.

I am an atheist, so choosing by anyone - least of all by you or God - is no concern of mine. As to ignorance I am for the Socratic wisdom of "I know I know nothing". Fascinating to meet a person who proclaims the opposite.

> I'm really sorry to state this since I would be happier to support the bona fide (I like this definition, I admit) and cold-minded discussion. It is obvious that this is not the case.

What sort of 'bona fide cold-minded discussion' are you talking about ? You have quoted at least two nonsensical Turkish etymologies. I have told you why they are nonsensical. Now instead of facing the negative evidence and at least admit the possibility of error you upbraid me for ignorance, demogogy etc. I challenge you and your Turkish friends to refute that 'pharaoh' is a purely Egyptian word and that 'Peru' comes from the name a local ruler! It's your great chance to have a disinterested discussion.

> There's an old Eastern proverb: "The dogs bark but the caravan goes on". You can be passionate in your unacceptance of the objective things – but will this help to understand the nature of things and then show wisdom in adjusting to the new upcoming changes in this real world?

The proverb you quoted implies that the caravan consists mostly of camels. I wish your camels a happy desert trip !

>I'm sure, such position is doomed to failure, both personal and at the ethnic level.<

Good point! You can't see beyond personal and ethnic level. It prevents you to admit e.g. that the Turkish etymologies are simply nonsensical. After all the Turks are for them. So why should you consider the possibility that they may be wrong? You deny and reject the solid evidence and clinge to more and more unverifiable stuff . What a remarkable methodology !

> Re falsifications in history, particularly the European one, I'd recommend to read Uwe Topper's books.

Is he your new prophet ? He seems to make another effort of writing a 'true" history. It's legitimate just as disbelieving him is even more legitimate.

> Re linguistic issues, nobody of the bona fide linguists nowadays considers the vocabulary cited by you as a gospel.

Nobody ??? ... What a queer certainty !... I know not a single Egyptologist who doubts 'pharaoh' is an ancient Egyptian term or anyone interested in teh subject that Peru comes from the name of a local ruler. But you know better ...from your Tukish sources.

> Let me bring to your notice that the well known Slavist, acad. Likhachev (the universally recognized authority in his field) had to agree with Mr. Suleymenov on most of points, finaly.

I would be curious to learn more about the nature of this 'agreement' ? Why did Likhachov reject - if he did - the well-established Indo-European etymology of 'pervyj'? Did he want to do a favour to his angry Turkish colleague ?

> Even on the origin of the name of such a day-to-day thing as spaghetti: it's originated from Turk "yspaghan (ypysken, in Qypchaque) ety". Which means "boiled meat".

Spaghetti, dear friend, is no meat but string-like pasta. It presupposes a rural grain-growing, not nomadic society. Its etymology is again much simpler and totally un-Turkish. It's an Italian diminutive form of "spago" coming from late Latin 'spacus' related to the plant from which ropes were made. Hence "spaghetti" means 'little strings' 'little ropes' and has nothing to do 'boiled meat' either in nature or etymology.

http://www.etimo.it/?term=spago&find=Cerca

> By the way, the German "der Spagat" also came from the same source.

By the way, this is not the case.

[ "Spagat Mittelhochdeutsch mit der Lautvariante 'Spaget' im Bayerisch-Oesterreichischen herrschende Bezeichnung fuer Bindfaden. Lehnwort des 16.Jh. aus dem gleichbedeutenden italienischen "Spaghetto" , wie denn schweizerisch 'spagen' 'Bindfaden' auf italienisches 'Spago' zurueckweist. Beleg fuer Spaget Ostermann 1591 Vocabularium Analyticum I 97b' F.Kluge , Etymologisches Woerterbuch der deutschen Sprache ,Strassburg 1910, S.430 ]

> As well as "der Spigel" (mirror, in German) came from ancient Slavic "zrit' " (to see, to look).

No doubt the long prehistoric Slavo-Germanic community has contributed its due to retaining many common word roots. But, unfortunately, despite this remote community "der Spiegel" comes from Latin "speculum" and not from Slavonic. The genuine Germanic word for 'mirror' was 'scu-tar' ="shadow-keeper" and earlier the Gothic "skuggwa"(Op.cit. , p.433)

> As to Sumeric and Turk identity, there's a vast literature on this and the fact that you ignore this doesn't prevent it from existing.

Nice to learn you do know this vast literature. Are you also aware that in this relevant literature there are plenty of other hypotheses and it's only in Turkey that Sumerian=Turkish identity is a state-sponsored theory and no other hypothesis is allowed ?

A more generally accepted view is that Sumerian due to its queer structure and vocabulary is a language without known historical relatives, a sort of an orphan language.

> In 1869, Jules Opert (who named this languge Sumeric), stated that it relates to the Turk, Finnish and Hungarian (Ugr) languages. In 1874, Francus Lenorment linked the Sumeric language to the Ural-Altay group. This point of view was shared also by Fritz Hommel, Izakar Andreas and Iren Iskender. But the most significant support for this relation was provided by such outstanding sumerologists as Falkenstein, A., Shmekel, Kh. and Kramer, S.

These are all hypotheses countered by plenty of other hypotheses relating Sumerian to Polynesian, Thibetan, Chinese, Dravidian , Kartvelian...

The most significant fact about 'Turkishness' of Sumerian was, however that Ghazi Kemal Ataturk said it was a Turkic language. Now for political reasons all Turks have to prove that just as they prove Quran's 'truthfullness' , i.e. those who doubt it are persecuted and silenced. This is how 'science' works in Turkey.

> It's notable that in all Russian translations of Kramer's works, this idea is omitted. – which reminds to me your position: "Turks can't be before/older/more civilized, etc. than Jewish or any other (Russian, e.g.) ethnos".

What are you insinuating ? Prove it !

It's in Turkey that works which deny the state-sponsored lies are suppressed and publishers jailed or fined.

> Re Khazars – you should read carefully Gumilev's work. He provides the complete reference list of sources on this subject. It's quite clear, from his analysis, that the Khazar quaghanat was the state where the Jewish ethnos acquired the leading role and became the political elite, while the Turks-Khazars became an exploited group. <

You're wrong here. Beside its international dimension, judaisation in Khasaria was an attempt to strengthen the central power greatly weakened by centrifugal forces supported by Khasar paganism. It affected only a small elite around khan Oghili and his entourage in the cities while the provincial aristocracy remained largely pagan with sacral functions and opposed the new state religion that deprived them of their power and privileges. This led to a period of feuds and civil wars in Khasaria. The conflict was essentially not between the Jews who had fled persecutions in dar al-Islam and Byzantium but between the central Judaized power and the provincial aristocracy. It was political in nature.

> The children from mixed marriages were not equal in their rights and future: those from mothers-Jewish had a lot of options to choose from, they were taught in Jewish schools by rabbis and then took the leading positions in the power hierarchy. The fate of Khazars born from Khazar mothers was quite poor. But one can find this in the book mentioned above.

This was part of the central policy of the khan and aimed at weakening the Khasar nobility. It was a political struggle and not as you are suggesting an ethnic conflict between the exploiting Jews and the exploited Khasars. The Jews themselves were no warriors at all. The Khasars were killing each other and accidentally the Jews too. This way khan Obadya and his two sons Ezekya and Manasya were all murdered by their Khasar political opponents.

> The immorality of the Khazar quaghanat was exactly in its structure. Gumilev also stresses that the Jewish state didn't leave ANY traces of material culture and their civilization.<

This is an impossible conclusion. "At present more than a thousand monuments have been revealed and investigated of all sorts - temporary and permanent settlements , fortresses, graves"

[ ' Памятники на основной территории каганата (Равнинный Дагестан, Нижнее Поволжье, Подонье, Крым) связываются с Салтово-маяцкой археологической культурой. Её исследования начались на рубеже XIX-XX вв. и приобрели систематический характер в советское время. В настоящее время в научный оборот введено более тысячи памятников всех типов: стационарных и временных поселений, крепостей, могильников.]

The high morality of the Kasars is evdient by the role they played in stopping the Arab invasions through the Caucasus in the 8th century. They saved Europe from Islamisation no less than Charles Martel and Leo III Isaurian did. Had there been no Khasars on their ways the Arabs would have imposed shariah on the Dnieper and the Vistula just as they imposed it in Spain and North Africa.

> Just because their principal wealth was money and money exchange. They even didn't coin money – they used the Arabic dirhams which are found a lot between Caspian and Black seas.

The view that they didn't coin money is an obsolete one. The so called Arabic dirhems found in Khasaria and Eastern Europe are unlike the Arab ones. Instead of the inscription "Muhammed Prophet of God" they have "Moses prophet of God". They were coined in Itil, the capital of Khasaria (the city is being excavated now by Russian archaeologists). Even Arab sources admit the fact. The Khasars' currency was called "sheleg'('silverling') . You can see two Khasar coins here.

> Doesn't this remind one the current situation in the world, particularly in Russia, where nothing is manufactured – last week I bought in our supermarket radish which was planted and brought from Israel…. ?

Are there no markets in your city where Russians sell their fruits and vegetables ?

> As to knowing in depth Gumilev's works, you show the same ignorance, unfortunately.

Thanks for an expert's assessment.

> But, maybe it's not your fault. The relation between Turk and American Indians' languages can be found in such work as "The Ancient Russia and Great Steppe" – which can be not available in English or German – you're the victim of the policy of those people who share your own approach to ignore everything that affects your/their sense of superiority. But it's your choice, of course.<

Of course. As a loose conjecture this can work. To adopt it as a hypothesis requires plenty of proof and more than a few disconnected words that seem to look alike. You can prove two languages are related if and only if their syntaxis/grammar is similar. Unless you can do that you may as well prove that Korean is a Chinese language because most of its words have a clear Chinese etymology. The problem is though that the syntaxis of the two languages is quite unlike.

> I won't comment your attempts re genetic analysis since it's quite obvious that your at zero level their.

Thanks for your expertise so much. You told me about the similarity between Slavonic and Altaic hyplotype. I told you a few historical facts and expressed some legitimate doubts. You respond now that "it's quite obvious that your at zero level their". If this contemptuous remark is your usual way to respond to legitimate doubts and rational crticism , then I congratulate you very much for your high level of dogmatism and inability to face negative evidence which you have shown on other occasions as well.

> To resume, please, don't keep yourself busy and comment my comment to your comment – I won't waste my time anymore to read them due to the reasons above.

I haven't followed your incomptent advices so far. Nor am I going to do it now. I have addressed the points you have raised. I notice you didn't address the points in question at all. You either omitted them or raised a number of other claims and questionable points.

> But thank you for revealing your nature – it helps to understand the nature of such phenomenon as a global national intolerance in general, and the everyday nationalism, in particular. It's the militant ignorance in it plus deep inferiority complex.

Thanks for telling me why you're unable and unwilling to face any matter-of-fact criticism (e.g. on your trumped-up etymologies ). Just like your Turkic friends you see too many things in national terms. True, it makes your propagandistic task much easier. Why bother about medieval Mongolian and Turkic invasions? It's better to pronounce the striking similarity of the genetic haplotype! Why bother to learn about the established and well-documented etymologies ? It's so much easier to declare it all fake to pronounce a new nonsensical etymology heard from some self-styled Turkish 'scholar' .

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".