arslan76 发表于 2009-4-16 17:36


Mirfatyh Zakiev
Origin of Türks and Tatars
Part one

where shown, indicate pages in the book publication. The offered copy of the printed edition contains typos and misspellings, for which I apologize and intend to correct them with time.

The spelling of the Greek-based quasi-Cyrillic-Tatar letters, occasionally used by the author to signify a Türkic phonetics inexpressible by the mandated Cyrillics, is transcribed from the quasi-Cyrillic to English, with the following conventions:

quasi-Cyrillic "ъ" ( ' - stop-guttural consonant ) with " ' ", like in "sъkъd" => "S'k'd"
quasi-Cyrillic "н1" ( n + guttural consonant "g") with "ng", like in "дин1гезе" => "Dinggeze"
Cyrillic "ë" (yo) "ë"
Other conventions:.
"a" - as "a" in arch, "j" - as "j" in jealousy, "kh" - as "h" in hug, "ü" - as "u" in munitions, "y" - as "Y" in York or as "i" in if

Third chapter
Ancient Türkic-speaking areas

26. The role of Türkic language in the detection of ancient Türkic areas.

In the official (Russian - Translator's Note) Eurocentric historical science, Türks were classed as the so-called young, unhistorical peoples. The time of separation the Türks from the Altai community was considered the 6th millennium BC. Against those scientists who tried to detect more ancient ethnic roots of Türks (in Russia - Translator's Note) was conducted an official "struggle" which was called the "Struggle Against Antiquating the History of the Small Nations".

Some Türkologists, who could not agree with the official viewpoint about the age of Türks, made confident attempts to find more ancient traces of the Türks in the languages of the American Indians, who left of Eurasia 20-30 thousand years ago, and also in the Sumerian language, which was using cuneiform writing still in 4th millennium BC. In these languages was found a whole system of the Türkic designations for some concepts belonging to the different spheres of the human activities.

The supporters of the traditional Türkology, the fighters against antiquating the ethnic roots of Türks, very bravely opposed by the scientists who found Türkic words in some languages of the American Indians, and in the language of the Sumer cuneiform writings. They, coming from the features of the Indo-European languages, said that the Türkic words for the five - fifteen thousand years would have changed so much that they should not coincide with the modern Türkic words in any way, therefore ostensibly antiquators of the Türkic history would try vainly to find the Türkic words in the above languages, it would be lost efforts....

Comparing the development of the inflectional (expressing grammatical relations by changes in vowels or consonants - Translator's Note) and agglutinating (expressing grammatical relations by stringing together component morphemes that retain their form and meaning in the process of combining - Translator's Note) languages, at once is evident a huge difference between them. In the inflectional languages, and in particular in the Indo-European, a root of a word is unstable (i.e. undergoes grammatical change), it undergoes phonetical changes. For example, (Russian - Translator's Note) words khodit and khojdenie have the same root, but are phonetically different. The words chado in Russian and kind in German (Eng. child and kid - Translator's Note) also go back to the same root. This is also a result of the changes of the roots of words in the inflectional languages. Precisely this feature of the inflectional languages results that eventually the words in inflectional languages can accept a different phonetic form. Therefore in many cases the modern voicing of a word does not coincide with its ancient voicing. Hence, the modern condition of an inflectional language is of little use in the studies of the ethnical roots for the carriers of the language. To learn the ancient sounding of many words in the inflectional languages, a deep comparative-historical research of these languages has to be performed.

In the agglutinating languages the roots of words almost do not change with time, for during their application (i.e. at grammatical changes) they do not lose their initial phonetical form. In the ancient written sources can be also found the modern phonetical form of the words in the agglutinating languages (hence, also in the Türkic language). Therefore also in the languages of some American Indians, in spite of the fact that they departed the Türks of the Eurasia 20-30 thousand years ago, we find the Türkic words little different from the modern words of the Türks. The Sumerian cuneiform texts are also rich with the Türkic words similar to the modern Türkic. These facts are not perceived by the traditionalists Türkologists who only understand the specifics of the inflectional languages.

Thus, understanding the stability of the Türkic lexical units would ease the understanding of the huge value of this feature in the detecting the traces of the most ancient ethnic roots of the Türks, hence, in the location the ancient Türkic-speaking areas...

The Ü.V.Knorozov's research makes it obvious that the Maya social system reminds the conditions in Sumer and Egypt: there and here the clan society is combined with the slaveholding society .


28. Bright traces of the Türks in the Sumerian language.

In the southern regions of the Bi-fluvial between the rivers Tiger and Euphrates in the 5th-3rd millenniums BC was located the country of Shumers/Sumers (see map). By the I.M.Diyakonov's data , the country before the end of the 3rd millennium up BC was settled mostly by the Sumerians and to a lesser degree, by eastern Semites-Akkadians who managed to take control in their hands, and from the middle of the 3rd millennium BC country began to be called "Sumer and Akkad". In the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC there emerged the state Babylonia, which preserved its independence until the 6th century BC. The Babylonians had to repeatedly repulse the attacks of the Kassites, Assyrians and Elamites, who nevertheless mixed up with the local Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians. In that boiling pot the Sumerian language, apparently, was assimilated. But the examples of the original language remained in their cuneiform texts. The cuneiform writing of the Sumerians was then adopted and developed by the Akkadians, Elamites, Hurrites, Hetto-Luvians and Urartians.

The Sumerian system of the cuneiform writing was deciphered by a number of the scientists at the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th centuries. And precisely this deciphered from the cuneiform writings Sumer language turned out to be rich with the Türkic lexicon.

With the a hope to reveal their ancient ancestors the Sumerian language initially was studied by the Indo-Europeans, who searched for parallels and similarities to their languages. Among them was F.Hommel who in the Sumerian texts found 200 words coinciding with Türkic words , for which he was laughed at and satirized.

A Russian scientist I.M.Diyakonovhas devoted a lot of time to the study and decoding of the Sumerian texts. He could not even imagine an idea about any affinity of the Sumerian language with Türkic. Comparing the Sumerian words with the Indo-European, he does not find a single case of coincidence and comes to a conclusion, that the poor Sumerian language was isolated from the others . Generally, this conclusion is strange from the scientists viewpoint, for on the globe there are no and can not be isolated languages.

In the book of I.M.Diyakonov, who happened to have no clue about the affinity of the Sumerian and Türkic languages, Olyas Suleymenov observed 60 Sumerian words similar to the Türkic words: ada "father", ama "mother", tu "to give birth", ere "man", "soldier", ugu "arrow", tag "fasten", zag "side", bilga "wise, ancestor", me "I", ze "you", ane "here, now", gud "bull", gash "bird", kir "dirt, soil", ush "three", u "ten", ken "wide", uzuk "long", tush "descend", ud "fire", udun "tree, firewood", dingir "god, sky", tengir "god, sky", etc. O.Suleymenov subjects each word to research, proves the Sumero-Türkic concurrences and comes to a conclusion that:

a) convergences are systematic, so they are real;

b) Sumerian and Türkic languages influenced each other for many years ;

c) These languages are not related genetically, but as a result of the cultural influences.

页: [1]
查看完整版本: (转帖)探索突厥语最初的起源(国外资料、仅供参考)