I have always wondered how the English word Ox and the Turkish word Okuz are related. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how these two words ended up in Turkish & English?
I haven't heard anything like that, and every recent book on Indo-European I've looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European and uses it as evidence for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. Maybe you're thinking of how most most scholars have concludes that the people who spoke Tocharian aren't the Tocharians (Tokharoi) of Classical literature and that the name is a misnomer. But what do you mean about the Scythians? I thought it was pretty standard to consider them as having spoken an Iranian language.And, aren't there doubts these days as to whether Tocharian was really an Indo-European tongue? Some argue that it was arbitrarily labelled Indo-European for political reasons than reasons based on solid evidence. (Just as Sarmatians, or Scythians).
Well, the database query also confirms that Proto-Turkic root *öküŕ derives from Tokh. A. I have no doubt about it, considering the influence of Tocharian languages on Turkic languages.Thank you for the reply.
Do you think that is the connecting link between ox and okuz?
The reason why you have not heard anything like that, and that every recent book on Indo-European you have looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European stems from the fact that, in the West, we have very little access to the extensive research that was carried out primarily by Russian scholars, and secondarily by German, Austrian and Swedish scholars at the close of the last century.I haven't heard anything like that, and every recent book on Indo-European I've looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European and uses it as evidence for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. Maybe you're thinking of how most most scholars have concludes that the people who spoke Tocharian aren't the Tocharians (Tokharoi) of Classical literature and that the name is a misnomer. But what do you mean about the Scythians? I thought it was pretty standard to consider them as having spoken an Iranian language.
To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:The same arrogance declared Sumerian to be a language that is not related to any of the 'known' languages despite undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian. Most of the books that you would find in Western bookshops on the Sumerians do not even make a mention of these facts.
Could you pleae give some references to sources which give "undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian" and which can be considered non-idiosyncratic.The same arrogance declared Sumerian to be a language that is not related to any of the 'known' languages despite undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian
Could you please give some reasons for this skepticism?Most of the books that you would find in Western bookshops on the Sumerians do not even make a mention of these facts. Finally, one always has to keep in mind that the Indo-European, particularly the 'proto' aspect of it, is a theory that remains unproven. That is precisely the reason why there is always an * in front of the PIE roots to indicate that the root words are constructed & hypothetical.
You mean 'Iranian', I presume? A 'form of Farsi' in this context doesn't really make sense.Majority of the Russian work I mention do not consider Scythians, Cimmerians, and Sarmatians to speak a 'form' of Farsi.
What do you mean by 'the PIE approach'?????The PIE approach fails to provide any kind of etymology for words, such as TOCHAR, TURFAN, TARIM (Basim), TUER, TAER, TOGARHAN, TOGARMAH (Biblical), TORAMAN, TORE, TULA,THULA, TROJAN (TURHAN), ETRURIA, TARQUIN, TARHAN, TARKHAN, THOR, ODIN/WOTAN, TURINGI (Germanic Tribe) etc etc .
In fact, 'Scythians' can mean anything in the Greek sources, through history it has been used to refer to any group of people coming from the 'east'. Even Huns and Goths have been called 'Scythians'. So, what's your point?In fact, every single record that we have about the Scythians from the Greek sources, to the Persian clearly indicate that the Scythians were multi-lingual and mixed.
Well, the database query also confirms that Proto-Turkic root *öküŕ derives from Tokh. A. I have no doubt about it, considering the influence of Tocharian languages on Turkic languages.
Like I said, it is Tocharian A.Does your database say anything about which one of the Tocharian languages it came from? Is it from Tocharian A or B? Plus, Tocharian is a controversial topic and not all agree with the conclusion that it is IE. Keep in mind that one of the so-called Tocharian languages has not even been deciphered properly yet just like the Elamite language.
To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:
For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries those few linguists who studied these language families [the Altaic family] regarded them as members of the so-called , together with the and the l, based on features such as and grammar. While the Ural-Altaic hypothesis can still be found in encyclopedias, atlases and similar general reference works, it has not had any adherents in the linguistics community for decades ("an idea now completely discarded" – Starostin et al. [2003:8]).
Hi
Could you pleae give some references to sources which give "undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian" and which can be considered non-idiosyncratic.
Could you please give some reasons for this skepticism?
You mean 'Iranian', I presume? A 'form of Farsi' in this context doesn't really make sense.
What do you mean by 'the PIE approach'?????
In fact, 'Scythians' can mean anything in the Greek sources, through history it has been used to refer to any group of people coming from the 'east'. Even Huns and Goths have been called 'Scythians'. So, what's your point?
I don't mind skepticism, but please give us better arguments. I don't mind critique against the theory of PIE and IE languages, which is 250 years old and supported by 10.000s of scholars. But in order to undermine that theory, better and more coherent comments are needed.
Groetjes,
Frank
And the citation?Like I said, it is Tocharian A.![]()
To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:
For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries those few linguists who studied these language families [the Altaic family] regarded them as members of the so-called Ural-Altaic family, together with the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic languages, based on features such as vowel harmony and agglutinative grammar. While the Ural-Altaic hypothesis can still be found in encyclopedias, atlases and similar general reference works, it has not had any adherents in the linguistics community for decades ("an idea now completely discarded" – Starostin et al. [2003:8]).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExonymI would be delighted to hear the IE etymology of the word Tochar. Care to expand on that?