canadian_kor
Thrill Seeker
- 19 Jun 2004
- 225
- 2
gokce said:
The technical ethnic term for Turkish people in Anatolia is Turkish. The name "Turkic" encompasses a whole range of Altaic groups throughout Eurasia.
Are Koreans and Japanese part of Turkish people?
- Thread starter uygurlar
- Start date
The technical ethnic term for Turkish people in Anatolia is Turkish. The name "Turkic" encompasses a whole range of Altaic groups throughout Eurasia.
gokce
後輩
- 2 Apr 2004
- 10
- 0
Canadian kor,
This post will be a lengthy one, but please try to read it till the end, as I believe it is important that we sort out our terminology.
1. Actually, as you can see, "Turkish" is the English name given to us, not the one we use to call ourselves.
We say we are "Tﾃｼrk", or "Turk" in case that you can not view Turkish / (or as we call it Tﾃｼrkﾃｧe) characters of the Latin alphabet.
Therefore, first of all, Turkish could only be the "western" technical term.
2. However, if "Turkish" is the English counterpart of the original Turkish/Tﾃｼrkﾃｧe word "Tﾃｼrk", then "Turkish" (as an ethnical term) can not possibly be a technical term for Turks only in Anatolia as it's counterpart is much more older than any Western technical terminology attached to the subject.
The word Tﾃｼrk/Turk is an old one that was first used in Asia - I will again come to this later in the following paragraphs, not in Turkiye. In contrast, the word "Turkic" has no roots in our history, as none of us Turks used it as a name to describe ourselves in any part of the history until now.
Therefore, I resent and refuse any attempt to distinguish Turkiye Turks from the rest.
My objection proves to be righteous if we go deeper into the subject:
Many different propositions have been made about the meaning of the word Tﾃｼrk, but maybe the most widely accepted one among them is that "Tﾃｼrk" means "strong".
In the ancient times, this word was used as "Tﾃｼrﾃｼk", which later changed into Tﾃｼrk.
In the early years, we used our clan names among ourselves, as Hun, Uygur, Oguz, Kipchak, Pechenek, etc.. (For instance, I am an Oguz, as I descend from Oguz Khan. While Uygurlar is a Uygur.)
The real emergence of the word "Tﾃｼrk" or in its original form "Tﾃｼrﾃｼk" is a mystery. However, the earliest written form of "Tﾃｼrk" dates back to very ancient times. The oldest appearance of the word is in the Chinese Archives in 1328 B.C., when neither Ottoman Empire nor Turkiye did exist. Then who were those Turkish that Chinese talked about?
"Tﾃｼrk" most probably was a word that was used for "all" of the clans, some of which I mentioned above. And again, as I mentioned in the above, we called each other by clan names, but we were known to outside as Turks. Therefore while the Chinese were saying "Tﾃｼrk", they meant which one of them was politically active at the time, that is, the strongest clan to lead the rest of the clans. Because it was actually how things worked at the time. When Uygurs got stronger, they established their own rule and got to rule the rest of us under the flag of the Uygur State, and while we were the strongest, we established our own rule of Oguz Yabgu State and so on...
In addition to this, "Tﾃｼrk" as a state name had found its use again much earlier than Turkiye of the modern times, when the Oguz clan established a new State in Asia and called it the Gﾃｶktﾃｼrk State, meaning Empyreal or Celestial Turk.
One theory says that Tﾃｼrk was just another clan, which later gave its name to all clans, Huns, Oguz etc. I believe there is no soundproof on the existence of another clan named Tﾃｼrk. However, even if it is true, it again arrives at the same point that since the very early times, all the clans called themselves Tﾃｼrk.
And even after a 1000 years since my branch left Central Asia to move to the West, nothing much has changed, we still call ourselves Tﾃｼrk, and in our language, there is no such distinction as Turkish or Turkic among Turks in overall. That's why I do not feel that I need to adopt such a distinction when I'm talking or writing in English, and I believe we Turks should, in fact, avoid adopting such a distinction.
---
3. *** Most importantly, in continuation of my analysis of your sentence:
So, now even if we say after all this that the word "Turkish" can not really be an English counterpart of the word "Tﾃｼrk", as its meaning is narrowed down for some purposes only to mean Turkiye Turks, we would still have a problem in the word "ethnic" here.
Because when you exclude Turks living outside of Turkiye, the word "Turkish" can not go beyond a political term and can not possibly be an "ethical" one. Because as far as ethnicity goes, you can not give different labels to Turks in Turkiye or Turks in, let's say, Turkmenistan.
Any such attempt would be a clear sign of ignoring the fact that all these people in Turkiye, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Tatarstan, Western Thrace, Northern Cyprus, Northern Iraq, Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan (Northern Iran), East Turkestan and in the most extreme end Yakutstan (and yet many more I couldn't mention) are all sharing the same culture, same tradition, same history, same ancestry, same language. For God's sake, we are all of the same ethnicity. If you admit that Turkish is an ethnical term - which you just did with your above post, you come to admit that Turkish then should apply to all of these people.
-
As for the subject line goes, do you now mean that Japanese and Koreans are Turkic as their language is also classified as an Altaic one?
____________________
Gﾃｶkﾃｧe
This post will be a lengthy one, but please try to read it till the end, as I believe it is important that we sort out our terminology.
1. Actually, as you can see, "Turkish" is the English name given to us, not the one we use to call ourselves.
We say we are "Tﾃｼrk", or "Turk" in case that you can not view Turkish / (or as we call it Tﾃｼrkﾃｧe) characters of the Latin alphabet.
Therefore, first of all, Turkish could only be the "western" technical term.
2. However, if "Turkish" is the English counterpart of the original Turkish/Tﾃｼrkﾃｧe word "Tﾃｼrk", then "Turkish" (as an ethnical term) can not possibly be a technical term for Turks only in Anatolia as it's counterpart is much more older than any Western technical terminology attached to the subject.
The word Tﾃｼrk/Turk is an old one that was first used in Asia - I will again come to this later in the following paragraphs, not in Turkiye. In contrast, the word "Turkic" has no roots in our history, as none of us Turks used it as a name to describe ourselves in any part of the history until now.
Therefore, I resent and refuse any attempt to distinguish Turkiye Turks from the rest.
My objection proves to be righteous if we go deeper into the subject:
Many different propositions have been made about the meaning of the word Tﾃｼrk, but maybe the most widely accepted one among them is that "Tﾃｼrk" means "strong".
In the ancient times, this word was used as "Tﾃｼrﾃｼk", which later changed into Tﾃｼrk.
In the early years, we used our clan names among ourselves, as Hun, Uygur, Oguz, Kipchak, Pechenek, etc.. (For instance, I am an Oguz, as I descend from Oguz Khan. While Uygurlar is a Uygur.)
The real emergence of the word "Tﾃｼrk" or in its original form "Tﾃｼrﾃｼk" is a mystery. However, the earliest written form of "Tﾃｼrk" dates back to very ancient times. The oldest appearance of the word is in the Chinese Archives in 1328 B.C., when neither Ottoman Empire nor Turkiye did exist. Then who were those Turkish that Chinese talked about?
"Tﾃｼrk" most probably was a word that was used for "all" of the clans, some of which I mentioned above. And again, as I mentioned in the above, we called each other by clan names, but we were known to outside as Turks. Therefore while the Chinese were saying "Tﾃｼrk", they meant which one of them was politically active at the time, that is, the strongest clan to lead the rest of the clans. Because it was actually how things worked at the time. When Uygurs got stronger, they established their own rule and got to rule the rest of us under the flag of the Uygur State, and while we were the strongest, we established our own rule of Oguz Yabgu State and so on...
In addition to this, "Tﾃｼrk" as a state name had found its use again much earlier than Turkiye of the modern times, when the Oguz clan established a new State in Asia and called it the Gﾃｶktﾃｼrk State, meaning Empyreal or Celestial Turk.
One theory says that Tﾃｼrk was just another clan, which later gave its name to all clans, Huns, Oguz etc. I believe there is no soundproof on the existence of another clan named Tﾃｼrk. However, even if it is true, it again arrives at the same point that since the very early times, all the clans called themselves Tﾃｼrk.
And even after a 1000 years since my branch left Central Asia to move to the West, nothing much has changed, we still call ourselves Tﾃｼrk, and in our language, there is no such distinction as Turkish or Turkic among Turks in overall. That's why I do not feel that I need to adopt such a distinction when I'm talking or writing in English, and I believe we Turks should, in fact, avoid adopting such a distinction.
---
3. *** Most importantly, in continuation of my analysis of your sentence:
So, now even if we say after all this that the word "Turkish" can not really be an English counterpart of the word "Tﾃｼrk", as its meaning is narrowed down for some purposes only to mean Turkiye Turks, we would still have a problem in the word "ethnic" here.
Because when you exclude Turks living outside of Turkiye, the word "Turkish" can not go beyond a political term and can not possibly be an "ethical" one. Because as far as ethnicity goes, you can not give different labels to Turks in Turkiye or Turks in, let's say, Turkmenistan.
Any such attempt would be a clear sign of ignoring the fact that all these people in Turkiye, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Tatarstan, Western Thrace, Northern Cyprus, Northern Iraq, Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan (Northern Iran), East Turkestan and in the most extreme end Yakutstan (and yet many more I couldn't mention) are all sharing the same culture, same tradition, same history, same ancestry, same language. For God's sake, we are all of the same ethnicity. If you admit that Turkish is an ethnical term - which you just did with your above post, you come to admit that Turkish then should apply to all of these people.
-
As for the subject line goes, do you now mean that Japanese and Koreans are Turkic as their language is also classified as an Altaic one?
____________________
Gﾃｶkﾃｧe
Last edited:
bossel
後輩
- 28 Sep 2003
- 1,485
- 45
Since we use English to communicate here, it's obviously the English terminology we should adopt. Everything here would become a bit complicated if we all used the terminology of our own languages.gokce said:
Interesting, do you have any sources for this 1328 BC? For what I know, from those times we have only some (well, quite a lot, actually) Chinese oracle bones, no archives.
If you're talking of the Tujue (突厥), they appeared in Chinese history only in the 5th century AD, AFAIK.
Well, in language not much is really as easy as it seems. If you take a look at M-W you will see that Turkish & Turkic are partially interchangeable. But for what I know Turkic is mainly used as a linguistic term for the language family & sometimes people who belong to that language family, while Turkish mostly refers to the country, its people & national language.
Ethnic is not as clearly defined as you seem to think, it can denote "groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" (from M-W).
BTW, what is actually with the Kurds (edit: not to forget Zaza & some other smaller minorities)? They are Turks, but their mothertongue is not Turkish. Their language is Kurdish, which belongs to the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages.
lexico
後輩
- 22 Dec 2004
- 2,584
- 155
Hi, Uygurlar!
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but I would assume they (Koreans, Japanese) were talking about the common cultural heritage, more than land ownership. And since there's so much talk about ancient peoples, their culture, civilzation, and language contacts, it is hardly surprising that they show interest in what they believe to have made a difference in their particular history. I hope this is what you're talking about, right?uygurlar said:
I'm a little surprised that Turkey has territorial ambitions to conquor other countries. I hope I misunderstood you. If having a hig regard for Turks and considering one's heritage as essentially Altaic means what you just described, I think the Altaicists will hesitate to continue their study, won't they? I mean I'm very surprised that a language theory could mean war eventually for some people, or all countries involved. Or are you talking about something parallel to the NAFTA, EEC, or G20? ☝uygurlar said:
stupidumboy
先輩
- 26 Jun 2004
- 126
- 6
@Canadian korean
i.e., fatty facial covering, very thin eyes, wide faces, short forehead, etc.)
I think you obviously have not seen many koreans' looking,
Those physical features can be found many Koreans because Koreans were heavily mixed with Mongolian during the Koryo dynasty.(for nearly 100 years under Mongolian reign)
Especially the wide face feature.
i.e., fatty facial covering, very thin eyes, wide faces, short forehead, etc.)
I think you obviously have not seen many koreans' looking,
Those physical features can be found many Koreans because Koreans were heavily mixed with Mongolian during the Koryo dynasty.(for nearly 100 years under Mongolian reign)
Especially the wide face feature.
miwasatoshi
青春しています
- 27 Feb 2007
- 41
- 2
What's interesting is the completely different attitudes towards land-bound tradition between the Turks and Japanese.
The general consensus:
Turkey came into being after an Altaic people (the Oghuz) came from central Asia to Anatolia, interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples, from the 9th century onwards. There is little claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing kingdoms (ie the Hittites), in fact, as Okan's response suggests, there seems to be a cultural aversion to the idea.
Japan came into being after a possibly Altaic people (the Yamato) came from central Asia to the Japanese islands (with some Korean admixture), interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples (the Jomon); from the 5th century BCE onwards. There is PLENTY of claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing peoples.
Japanese culture seems to have more of a syncretic tradition than Turkish culture. Very interesting.
The general consensus:
Turkey came into being after an Altaic people (the Oghuz) came from central Asia to Anatolia, interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples, from the 9th century onwards. There is little claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing kingdoms (ie the Hittites), in fact, as Okan's response suggests, there seems to be a cultural aversion to the idea.
Japan came into being after a possibly Altaic people (the Yamato) came from central Asia to the Japanese islands (with some Korean admixture), interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples (the Jomon); from the 5th century BCE onwards. There is PLENTY of claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing peoples.
Japanese culture seems to have more of a syncretic tradition than Turkish culture. Very interesting.
ogenkidesuka
後輩
- 4 Jun 2009
- 2
- 0
Korean and Japanese are not related
Korean sounds to me like a mix between Turkish and Chinese languages. In contrary, Japanese sounds like a Pacific distinct language with some European-sounding elements. Japanese people are NOT of Turkic origins although Japanese genome has originated in Tibet, Central Asia, China and... Japan.
Sincerely,
Gaijin Kusaijin
Korean sounds to me like a mix between Turkish and Chinese languages. In contrary, Japanese sounds like a Pacific distinct language with some European-sounding elements. Japanese people are NOT of Turkic origins although Japanese genome has originated in Tibet, Central Asia, China and... Japan.
Sincerely,
Gaijin Kusaijin
Trollhattan
Swedish town of trolls
- 17 May 2009
- 117
- 1
lol ... It's just a internet hype fanned out like wildfire since 2006.There is no truth to it.
Greeks & Armenians & Kurds are the closest kins of contemporaryTurkish popupation
Greeks & Armenians & Kurds are the closest kins of contemporaryTurkish popupation
Hello there, sorry to reply late to this. I am very interested in
There are common mistakes about Turkish origin and about the history...
first, I will explain this and get over the answer. why Are Koreans and Japanese part of the Turkish
first of all, I will explain what (Turk) mean
oldest Chinese charter for Turk 窶愿銀┐ﾃ (tūjué) means : strong, a warrior...
as you google about Turk ethnic groups, we are huge... and many clans.
wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_halklar%C4%B1 you can translate this to English..
wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
not so many details about the history...
as you know that Turkish people build many empire and many countries, I will name some of them and get over with it
great Xiongnu hun empire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
so this was when the Chinese wall build for Turkish occupations
west hun empire famous man Attila
concurred Hungary, Romania, to walls of Italy.
that is why people call now hungry came from hun
Selcuk empire
ottoman empire...
and last time I search from INTERNET that people from America native Americans came to America in iceage from Bering from Turkish side...
even some of the native talk Turkish dialect such as we call fire ates, they call atas.
Turkic are an ethnic group,() in the sense of sharing a common Turkish culture, descent, and speaking the languages of the Turkish linguistic family as a mother tongue we call, and it is from a group of language is Altay language family
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages
inc Turkish language talking people are
including turkey Turkish, there are 25 dialects...
Gagauz language
Karaim language
Azerbaijani language etc
tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_dilleri
so in this time of period, Turkish people came to est Asia to west Asia Europa, Mesopotamia, Africa, Malaysia etc.
tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_tarihi
in the japan Kofun period, many Altaic horse warriors cross from China to Korea to Japan. And made clans.. system.
So many historians believe that the Japanese old language came from the Altaic language family, but it is not being proved.......
and Korean language/
so another theory is that Japanese life and culture style resembles to Turkic people like family bonds. honour, and even shoes out in the house etc. so maybe that is why Japanese and Turkish people and Korean people call themself resembles
There are common mistakes about Turkish origin and about the history...
first, I will explain this and get over the answer. why Are Koreans and Japanese part of the Turkish
first of all, I will explain what (Turk) mean
oldest Chinese charter for Turk 窶愿銀┐ﾃ (tūjué) means : strong, a warrior...
as you google about Turk ethnic groups, we are huge... and many clans.
wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_halklar%C4%B1 you can translate this to English..
wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_peoples
not so many details about the history...
as you know that Turkish people build many empire and many countries, I will name some of them and get over with it
great Xiongnu hun empire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu
so this was when the Chinese wall build for Turkish occupations
west hun empire famous man Attila
concurred Hungary, Romania, to walls of Italy.
that is why people call now hungry came from hun
Selcuk empire
ottoman empire...
and last time I search from INTERNET that people from America native Americans came to America in iceage from Bering from Turkish side...
even some of the native talk Turkish dialect such as we call fire ates, they call atas.
Turkic are an ethnic group,() in the sense of sharing a common Turkish culture, descent, and speaking the languages of the Turkish linguistic family as a mother tongue we call, and it is from a group of language is Altay language family
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages
inc Turkish language talking people are
including turkey Turkish, there are 25 dialects...
Gagauz language
Karaim language
Azerbaijani language etc
tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_dilleri
so in this time of period, Turkish people came to est Asia to west Asia Europa, Mesopotamia, Africa, Malaysia etc.
tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_tarihi
in the japan Kofun period, many Altaic horse warriors cross from China to Korea to Japan. And made clans.. system.
So many historians believe that the Japanese old language came from the Altaic language family, but it is not being proved.......
and Korean language/
so another theory is that Japanese life and culture style resembles to Turkic people like family bonds. honour, and even shoes out in the house etc. so maybe that is why Japanese and Turkish people and Korean people call themself resembles
Well, of course from the beginning, we all are children of Adam...
as far as know that if we can pinpoint our DNA and combine our historical documents together, we can create a huge history system for each nation. but. right now is many historical details are written in big lies so it is not so easy to revert such acts/...
Behnamr
Registered
- 7 Aug 2021
- 1
- 0
Yes, my friend, I'm from Iran, a Turkic group named Kashkayi, it's true. We also think that way. You may ask why? Because we think that Chinese annoy uygurler and they are not friendly at all, by the way, they eat everything that we hate. They have low self-esteem and very weak cultural points. We also have Uygur people in our tribe in Iran that once came from China under heavy pressure. So why we love Chinese? We love Iranian people for being very kind to us and having good attitudes. That's why we hate them.
She means ignorant of what the Chinese did to you. That means there's no zeal and self-esteem in you. I hope I could clarify.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 14 Mar 2002
- 21,057
- 18,915
I beg to differ. The last post was just a decade ago.
And I'd like to reiterate that we have abolished our necroposting restrictions.
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
