Latvian-Turkic Connection-Galina Shuke-2010.pdf

76 pages

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 76
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Home Back In Russian Contents Huns Contents Tele Contents Alans Sources Roots Tamgas Alphabet Writing Language Genetics Geography Archeology Religion Coins Wikipedia Ogur and Oguz Mario Alinei Kurgan Culture Ethnic Affiliation Scythians Scythians and their descendents Sarmat Synopsis Burgund Synopsis Burgund Dateline Ephthalite Dateline E.N.Shipova 2000 Turkisms in Russian Alan Dateline Avar Dateline Besenyo Dateline Bulgar Dateline Huns Dateline Karluk Dateline Khazar Dateline Kimak Datelin
  HomeBack In RussianContentsHunsContents TeleContents AlansSourcesRootsTamgas AlphabetWritingLanguageGeneticsGeography ArcheologyReligionCoinsWikipediaOgur and OguzMario Alinei  Kurgan Culture Ethnic Affiliation ScythiansScythians and their descendentsSarmat SynopsisBurgund SynopsisBurgund DatelineEphthalite DatelineE.N.Shipova  2000 Turkisms in Russian  Alan Dateline Avar DatelineBesenyoDatelineBulgarDatelineHunsDatelineKarluk DatelineKhazarDatelineKimak DatelineKipchak DatelineKyrgyzDatelineSabirDatelineSeyantoDateline Türkic Languages Galina Shuke  Were the Latvians Türks? Phenomenon of Türkic substrate's presence inBaltic Languages Daugavpils, 2010, ISBN 978-9984-49-046-5© Galina Shuke, 2010 Линки Были ли латыши тюрками- - Галина Шуке - Google<oops> Введение Постинга Humanity has an unstoppable drive to learn or invent where we came from. It startedwith inventions, and now is transitioning to learning. Linguistics was circling the subjectlike Mercury is circling the Sun, too hot to approach, too bright to look at. This postingoffers analysis that posits that Latvian and Russian languages grew out of Türkiclanguages, and thus identifies Balto-Slavic proto-language with Türkic language. GalinaShuke expresses an opinion that “Türkic language stands closest to the mankind's cradlethan any other language”, elaborated in her work. In essence, that assertion equates thehypothetic Nostratic language with Türkic languages, and by extension with the Germaniclanguages. Holistic approach by the researcher bears fruits flung by partial studies.The offered citation from the work of Galina Shuke is a work of practicing polyglotlinguist that does not trail the formulaic family tree model that ascribes all phoneticchanges to internal development, and instead approaches languages with fullunderstanding that life was intermixing languages and people, and different peoplemutually shaped genetics and communications in largely stochastic evolutionary process.That the ethnically Russian natively Latvian author gained a special appreciation of theTurkish language is certainly noteworthy, it gives a credence to her objectivity andopenness of her mind, and adds a dimension of unencumbered creativity to her study. Theprocess of abandoning the family tree model is promising to be protracted and painful, notany easier than was the abandoning the Aristotle's universe, and for many years we aregoing to see the rear ends of the crouched linguists peeking to see what lays beyond therim of the world; but the tools in their disposal fall far short from the orthodox pundits whoresorted to proclaiming anathema to the unbelievers. The family tree model, which took Eurasia as some remote isolated island in the World Ocean, will probably cloister inlinguistic convents and ultimately survive, regurgitating with nostalgia the old asterisked*reconstructions that were once sold as canonic knowledge.The miracle of the current European etymology is not less amazing than walkingbarefoot on water. The etymological blinds limit horizon to Latin and Greek like they wereNoah's children, and from there start the Biblical-like asterisked *reconstructions servingas linguistic Adam and Eve. The Russian etymology follows the epitome, but stops at thelimit of Slavic records, something around the 10th c., with strenuous efforts to get to the  holy Sanskrit against all odds. In most cases, the flexive nature of the European languages,and the peculiar variety of the srcinal local vernaculars create variations remote enoughfrom the underlying superbly rigid Türkic root morphemes, allowing the blinded and lessinquisitive not to see the obvious substrate. The etymological house of cards, however, canbe easily disturbed by an innocent observer, and it would suffice to detect a singlesubstrate of a single European language to bring the whole Eurocentric linguisticscrushing down. Where the etymological definitions ended hanging up in the air, like wasthe case with the Germanic branch, the blanks can be filled with the substrate Türkiclanguage, closing the loop without any tentative *reconstructions. This amazing miraclecan be easily rationalized by simply dropping the mental blinds. Instead of the slew of deadends and pranks, we follow the guidance of genetics, and in an instant, etymology becomesas rational as a palm of our hand.This linguistic work requires some understanding of the basics used in the discourse. Lexis is all meaningful word forms and grammatical functions of the language. Lexicon isa set of words in the language. If lexis is a building with all its distinction and beauty,lexicon is a pile of various bricks that built that building, irrespective of the mortar,interconnections, and ornaments. A study of lexicon to understand language is like a studyof a brick pile to understand building. It is customary in Eurocentric linguistics to ignorethe morphology as as whole, and meaning-carrying suffixes in particular. Morphology  is apractice of forming words, for example in English morphological suffixes produce differentmeanings and different grammatical functions: teach (v.) => teach er  (n.), teach (v.) =>teach ing (n.), teach (v.) => teach er  less (adj.); the suffixes carry standard function, -er/-armakes a person (and so does -er/-ar in Türkic), -ing produces verbal noun (and so does -inin Türkic), -less produces negation (and so does -siz in Türkic). The stem “teach” can bereplaced with another stem, the grammatical result would be the same: kick, kick  er  ,kick  ing , kick  er  less . Not all suffixes in English are Türkic, some came from Romance group,some were innovations. With stable suffixes, coming up with new words is a child's play,they keep appearing daily, as the life requires new names for new realities. A differentstory is with phonetics, or sounds of speech. Sounds are fluid, they change with time, withgeography, with migrations and admixtures, and who knows what else. Moskov becomesMoscow, tomato becomes tomeito, New York becomes New Yok. Some trends in phoneticalchanges can be formalized, but most don't fall into any pattern, making the discovered“phonetical laws” nothing more than gut-feel trends. The flimsiness of the “phoneticallaws” is manifested by the fact that they are unidirectional looking backwards; nothing inthese laws (lately renamed to “rules”) tells what would happen in 100 years underconditions unrestricted by media, print, and standardized broadcast, i.e. none of thefounders could have written a phrase in the native language in 1870 that would havepredicted how the phrase would sound by the year 2010 AD. And without predictivecapacity, it is forensics, not some laws.Comparing lexicons and trying to get to the prehistoric level is fraught with lots of noise,like in signal-to-noise relationship. To keep enthusiastic linguists from free flight,linguistics has devised a system of checks and balances that help to put brakes on the flightof fantasy. With the growth of computer literacy grows acceptance of the mathematicalmethods in linguistics, abhorred by the old linguistic schools. For the lexicon, the Swadeshmethod, which is equally applicable to the Genetic Tree and Wave models, is used forqualitative analysis of the established kinship, reasonable criteria for establishing kinshipwere formulated by G.Doerfer , and evaluation of statistical chance resemblances isoffered by M. Rosenfelder . These criteria do not apply to the morphology, but withconsistent transparency in application and similarity in function, it would take a sly idiot todeny continuity between the English dimen sion and Latin dimen sione , or Türkic baiy  ar  ,Russian boy  ar  , and Indian  Boy  ar  (caste).The author is analyzing the modern Russian language, with an eye to commonalitiesbetween the Latvian and Russian that have baring on their common past, when neither  Latvian, nor Russian have yet existed. Thus, the references to Russian before the 10th c.should be understood as Slavic, before the 6th c. as a branch of Balto-Slavic, and prior tothe new era as Baltic. In the work, Russia and Russian are at times also used asgeographical terms, referring to the territory of the modern state before the decompositionof the USSR, and accordingly in such cases they include the linguistic areas of Belorussiaand Ukraine. The term Latgal/Latgalian refer to the ancestors of the modern Lats(Latvians), and their form of the Latvian language.Transcriptions [piʃmek] Yellow highlight - problemsTables in alphabetical orderSemantical disconnects - explanationsBorrowings into Turkish - criteriaTranslate for DrozdovThe posting follows the srcinal English-language publication, with minor typing,semantical and stylistic corrections. The Turkish -in hali case is genitive, possessive,genitival, genitive case, loosely rendered as “genitive case” in this posting. In square-bracketed Latvian phonetizations j stands for y, as in York, so soya would be phonetized[soja]. The Turkish c stands for j like in jet and is transcribed as j, Turkish ç/č stands for chlike in church and is transcribed as ch, Turkish ğ is silent like gh in light.Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page. Posting notes and explanations,added to the text of the author are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blueboxes , or highlighted by blue headers . Contents Introduction41.Hypothesis on the Origin of the Eastern EuropeanSubstratum71.1. The Role of Asia in the History of Europe71.2. Who Were Ancient Inhabitants of Asia Minor?81.3. Ancient Inhabitants of the Territory of the modernLatvia91.3.1. Testimony of the Folklore Symbols101.3.2. Language of Ancient People in the territory of themodern Latvia112.Geographical Names of Türkic Etymology112.1. Türkic Toponyms and Hydronyms on the World Map162.2. Türkic Toponyms and Hydronyms of Latvia182.3. Baltic Hydronyms on the Map of Europe, or the“Problem of Pan-Baltic”203.Discovery of the Türkic Substratum in the Latvianlanguage233.1. Ancestors, Gods, Names of People, Symbols233.2. Man, Earth, Water253.3. Home, Parents, Holidays273.4. Parts of Human Body, Objects, Actions28  3.5. Animals, Plants, Nature303.6. Abstract Objects314.Türkic Grammatical Rudiment in the Latvian language344.1. Phonetics344.1.1 Changes in the System of Vowels344.1.2. Changes in the System of Consonants354.2. Word Formation354.3. Morphology394.4. Syntax405.Türkic roots of the Russian language435.1. Türkic Word-Forming Models in the Russianlanguage435.2. Türkic Origin of Russian Suffixes445.3. Phonetic Correspondences496.Comparison of Substratum Lexicons in the Latvian andRussian Languages516.1. Early Substratum Lexis of the Latvian language516.2. Early Substratum Lexis of the Russian language536.3. Similar Substratum Lexis of the Latvian andRussian Languages546.4. Parallel Development of the Latvian and theRussian Languages on the Türkic Basis556.5. Substratum Lexis of the Latvian Language of thePeriod of Demarcation566.6. Substratum Lexis of the Russian Language of theLater Period576.7. Conclusions of the Comparative Analysis597.Polyethnonyms “Aesti”, “Slavs”, “Ruses”, and OtherEthnonyms60Conclusion61 Galina Shuke  Were the Latvians Türks? Phenomenon of Türkic substrate's presence in Baltic Languages To researchers, free from political bias and ambition, who serve Her Majesty the truth, I dedicate this . 2 Introduction The world's languages, are they related and how? Scientists divide them into families andgroups, but haven't found the common denominator yet.What was the first language of humanity, that basic mother tongue? The answer to thisquestion seems to be the most important for solving the great number of linguisticmysteries.Progressive scientists of the world have develop a theory of monogenesis. According toit, humanity is one and the same species, and human races are subdivisions within thespecies that sprang as a result of human's life in different geographical zones of the world.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks