# Etymology of Turk



## Mahaodeh

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know the etymology of the word Turk (the people).  I was reading a book which claimed that it is of "unknown origin" - how true is that?


----------



## Outsider

Well, to begin with it's obviously from Turkish _Türk_. 

More here:



> c.1300, from Fr. _Turc_, from M.L. _Turcus_, from Byzantine Gk. _Tourkos_, Pers. _turk_, a national name, of unknown origin.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,

Here it's said to be related to Old Turkic _türk_, strong. I tried to doublecheck it in this database, but I couldn't find any results.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ameana7

Vikipedia says that the word "Turk" is first seen in Orkhon Inscriptions as "Göktürk", but the origin is unknown. There are several hypothesis about it. Meanwhile Göktürk means Sky Turk in English and it was a name of ancient society of Turks in Central Asia.


----------



## Asgaard

Hi,
In my own view...

Torgos - Turkish

When I visited Istanbul, 2 years ago, I was impressed among other things, by the stamps on the trash cans. It was an eagle or a vulture with two heads.
The famous Double-Headed Eagle.(or Vulture).(also a famous Hittite symbol, later adopted by the Byzantine Empire )
The word in Greek for Vulture is *Torgos. ( Turkey-Vulture?)*

I don't believe that the "Turkish" people gave the name to their country but rather the Greeks. 

take a look at this:
robinedgar.stumbleupon (dot) com

Other words with the same roots:
stork, gos_hawk, guise, etc...

*[...]*
*Off topic part snipped. (**Frank, moderator)*

Have a nice day
Asgaard


----------



## Mahaodeh

Frank06 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Here it's said to be related to Old Turkic _türk_, strong. I tried to doublecheck it in this database, but I couldn't find any results.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


 
How old is Old Turkic, it should be very old if the name is used since the time of the Greeks.  I'm more inclined to believe that the name was given by the Turks themselves, but this is not always a rule for naming people or nations.


----------



## Asgaard

Hi,
Let's put it this way:
The birds(torgos) taught mankind how to weave ( from nest making to carpets). That's the way I see it.

to weave,to twist; spindle
PIE (a)tor[e]kʷ-, *(a)trēkʷ-
Latin: torqueō, -ēre,
Slavic: tork 
Baltic: tark


Have a Nice Day
Asgaard


----------



## Outsider

Asgaard said:


> I don't believe that the "Turkish" people gave the name to their country but rather the Greeks.


Weren't the Turks originally nomadic? I'm pretty sure they had a name before they had a country.


----------



## sound shift

I agree with Outsider on this. When the Turks were in Central Asia, before they migrated to Turkey, the Chinese called them the Tiu-Kiu. I therefore don't think that "Türkiye", the Turkish word for Turkey, is derived from Greek. "Anadolu", the Turkish word for Anatolia (Asia Minor), is a different matter, because it derives from the Greek for "east".


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Mahaodeh said:


> How old is Old Turkic, it should be very old if the name is used since the time of the Greeks.


Which Greeks (or Greek language phase) do you mean?
The label 'Old Turkic' refers to a Turkic language spoken between the 7th to 13th century. Outsider's quote (here) refers to the _Byzantine_ Greek.



Asgaard said:


> Let's put it this way: The birds (torgos) taught mankind how to weave ( from nest making to carpets). That's the way I see it.


And what does this have to do with Turks? 
Turkish carpets? Symbols on dustbins? Isn't this a bit too farfetched?
Can you please explain what exactly you mean by all this?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## yasemin

Hi to all!
First of all, I'd like to repeat that it is not the case that the Greek named the Turkish land in this manner, since this word was already in use while the Turks were still in Central Asia (Anadolu, on the other hand, is a derivation of anatolé in ancient greek language, meaning kind of 'coming up' with reference to sun, therefore 'dawn').
Infact, this word can be seen at the written documents from approximately 500 A.C.
I could not find a more sophisticated resource, but I'll try to summarize for you what wikipedia says about the subject (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Türk_kelimesi):
There are two hypothesis about the origin of 'Turk'. The former suggests that it is derived from 'tür', the word meaning type, kind, family, sort, species etc. (which is still used in modern Turkey Turkish). The latter, on the other hand, says that it is a compound word and means 'the community belonging to the god/universe'. This explanation carries the traces of the shamanistic belief that the Turks once had.

yase


----------



## dudasd

My *Türkçenin Etimolojik Sözlüğu* says that it comes from _T_*ü tür [viii+ Uy] kök, soy, ırk *(my rough translation: *kök* - origin, root; *soy* - progeny, genealogy; *ırk* - folk, race) *< Tü *tüü- kökten bitmek, kökleşmek* (kökten bitmek - to sprout from one's origin; kökleşmek - to take root). And *[viii+ Uy]* refers to the source: Caferoğlu, _Eski Uygur Türkçesi Sözlüğü_, 1968; Sir Gerard Clauson, _An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish_].


----------



## Asgaard

Hi all,

Coincidence or not a coincidence?

 Hungarian words for _crescent_ and _turk_ are the same* - török*!
 
Mongolian:
_crescent_  -  *хагас тойрог (jagas toirog)*_turk _        -  *тїрэг (Tireg) хїн** (jin)* 

Regaards 
Asgaard


----------



## cemtur

Chinese were calling early nomadic Turkic tribes (突厥) [_twetkjuet_] or Tuujue. Probably they were hearing how Turks call themselves and trying to pronounce it in Chinese, because it has no other meaning in Chinese. 
The first Turk empire in Siberia named themselves Kok-Turk and wrote that word on stones. 
What Turk means nobody can know exactly. It's a question like what Chinese or Greek means?


----------



## sokol

Asgaard said:


> Hungarian words for _crescent_ and _turk_ are the same* - török*!


 
With 'crescent' you are meaning the bread, the type of _croissant _they eat? In this case I'd think that this is no coincidence at all because these crescents were something the Turks left behind (remember, part of Hungary was for quite some time part of the Ottoman Empire, and the Turks twice besieged Vienna).
Austria they also left with our kind of crescents, even though they are _not _named after the Turks, but in case of the Hungarian ones I'd say that they named their crescents after Turks: simple as that.

And therefore, most likely, no connection as you suggested.


----------



## shannenms

In Persian, Etymology of Turk goes as I say below, but it is sometimes said that "Turk" means the tent these people used when they had a nomadic life. According to our dictionary, this word means "not dark"(in Persian, *tarik*(=dark)*,* which seems to be cognate with the English "dark").

There are many instances of Turk in Persian literature, which go back to 2 B.C. In the oldest Persian books and mythology, "Turk" is referred to as "Tur", and this is name of Freydun's son. Freydun is Noah, in a rough guess. He divides his territory, that was from the eastern parts of China to Spain, between his three sons:Iraj, Salm and Tur. From Iraj comes Indo-europeans, from Salm, Semetics, and from Tur, Turks. Salm takes Arabia and some parts of middle east. Tur takes China, central Asia,and... Iraj takes Iran, Hind and maybe some parts of Europe. Salm and Tur conspires to kill Iraj and they committed this and.....[the rest of the story which is very long, for more information read Shahnameh].


----------



## yasemin

Hi everybody,
It's been fun to read certain comments, but please let's try to share concrete information rather than opinions, in an appropriate manner. I won't mention the hole thing, or the _similarity_ between the Hungarian language and Turkish (believe me there is a better explanation for the relation between these two languages, based on linguistics) but crescent needs further explanation. Well, there are few archaeological evidences showing that there was a symbol composed of a crescent and a star (just like the flag of today's Turkey) on _Göktürk_s' coins used in Middle Asia. However, there are also Roman ones having crescent on, so maybe we should accept that the usage of moon was something general, related to pagan religions (Turks in Middle Asia were shamans). Ottomans continued to use crescent in their flag and since they were the head of Muslim world at that time, the usage became wider among muslim countries since then.

On the other hand, it is very interesting what Sokol says, since we do not eat _croissant _at all. It is too French or too Italian for us. You cannot even find somewhere selling it, which is a pity because I love them .


----------



## Tangriberdi

Proper Name of Turkish Nation, Türk derives from Old Turkic Türük (just as in Kök Türük i.d. Göktürk). Türük is an adjective later turned into a noun. It comes from Old Turkic verb türü- (Modern Turkish: Türe- : Türemek) which means "to sprout from one's origin", to take root, to derive, to appear". So Türük means someone took root, someone derived, someone appeared. In a general sense it means the one created, without any reference to the action of creating. Thus we can interpret that it basically means human. Türük>Türik>Türk


----------



## Aydintashar

sound shift said:


> I agree with Outsider on this. When the Turks were in Central Asia, before they migrated to Turkey, the Chinese called them the Tiu-Kiu. I therefore don't think that "Türkiye", the Turkish word for Turkey, is derived from Greek. "Anadolu", the Turkish word for Anatolia (Asia Minor), is a different matter, because it derives from the Greek for "east".


 
There is a widespread confusion about the Turks, as most people think it refers to the "people of Turkey" exclusively. While not all citizens of Turkey are "Turks", it is astonishing to note that the majority of "Turks" are located outside Turkey, starting from China and extending to the Balkans all through the central Asian plains. The total number of Turks in the world are estimated at 300 million, whereas only around 50 million are living in Turkey.
Concerning the etymology of the word "Turk", it is obviously not of Greek origin, as it was initially used in the Orkhun instriptions around A.D. 510, when the Turks could seldom have had any contacts with the Greeks. I think it has its roots in Old Turkic, and its initial form "Turuk" may have been derived from 2 possible roots: _Turmak_ (durmak, _to stand, to rise, to remain steadfast_), and _Türemek _(_to sprout, to multiply, to propagate, to spread_).


----------



## Aydintashar

shannenms said:


> In Persian, Etymology of Turk goes as I say below, but it is sometimes said that "Turk" means the tent these people used when they had a nomadic life. According to our dictionary, this word means "not dark"(in Persian, *tarik*(=dark)*,* which seems to be cognate with the English "dark").
> 
> There are many instances of Turk in Persian literature, which go back to 2 B.C. In the oldest Persian books and mythology, "Turk" is referred to as "Tur", and this is name of Freydun's son. Freydun is Noah, in a rough guess. He divides his territory, that was from the eastern parts of China to Spain, between his three sons:Iraj, Salm and Tur. From Iraj comes Indo-europeans, from Salm, Semetics, and from Tur, Turks. Salm takes Arabia and some parts of middle east. Tur takes China, central Asia,and... Iraj takes Iran, Hind and maybe some parts of Europe. Salm and Tur conspires to kill Iraj and they committed this and.....[the rest of the story which is very long, for more information read Shahnameh].


 
While I am not in favour of mythological approach in etymology (well worth the label "etymythology"), I have never seen any traces of the word "Turk" in history dating back to as early as 2 B.C. I am also not familiar with the word meaning either "tent" nor "not dark". I would appreciate if some references are provided by *shannenms*.


----------



## Edguoglitigin

Tangriberdi said:


> Proper Name of Turkish Nation, Türk derives from Old Turkic Türük (just as in Kök Türük i.d. Göktürk). Türük is an adjective later turned into a noun. It comes from Old Turkic verb türü- (Modern Turkish: Türe- : Türemek) which means "to sprout from one's origin", to take root, to derive, to appear". So Türük means someone took root, someone derived, someone appeared. In a general sense it means the one created, without any reference to the action of creating. Thus we can interpret that it basically means human. Türük>Türik>Türk



This etymology is the most widespread one for the Turk word that I agree with as well


----------



## Utu Ana

Mahaodeh said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Does anyone know the etymology of the word Turk (the people). I was reading a book which claimed that it is of "unknown origin" - how true is that?


 

*[Off topic parts snipped]* Turk means *Tanrisini ve Toresini bilen* *person who knows his God and Law*

*[Off topic parts snipped]*
Chinese used to call us, Hiong nu - Huns .. Tujue = Turks (strong men)
Persians call us Turan..
Greeks called us Thhyren=Turan
Latins called us Tusci, Turc


----------



## Frank06

Hi



Utu Ana said:


> [Off topic parts snipped]    Turk means *Tanrisini ve Toresini bilen* *person who knows his God and Law*


Where did you get this information from and how can you back up this claim?

Frank


----------



## ireney

Utu Ana said:


> *[Off topic parts snipped]* Turk means *Tanrisini ve Toresini bilen* *person who knows his God and Law*
> 
> *[Off topic parts snipped]*
> Chinese used to call us, Hiong nu - Huns .. Tujue = Turks (strong men)
> Persians call us Turan..
> *Greeks called us Thhyren=Turan*
> Latins called us Tusci, Turc



Are you referring to "Tyrrhenians" in the part I emphasized in your post?


----------



## sokol

Utu Ana said:


> Chinese used to call us, Hiong nu - Huns .. Tujue = Turks (strong men)


This is not quite accurate.
Hiong nu (Hiung nu, or similar) indeed was the name the Chinese gave to tribes which have been identified by some as Huns - but this is on rather shaky grounds, those Hiung nu might not have been Huns after all.
Whatever be the case - Huns weren't Turks anyway.
(There were Turkic elements in the army of Attila, but that in itself doesn't mean much, Goths too faught for him.)

The etymology of Tujue now seems to be accurate (see Wiki on Göktürks), but Tujue (most likely) is not a cognate of Turk: or if you think it is, please sustain your claim. 



Utu Ana said:


> Persians call us Turan..
> Greeks called us Thhyren=Turan
> Latins called us Tusci, Turc


This thread is not about names by which Turks are called from other nations but about the etymology of Turk.
Which - the one you've given above - sounds quite strange: as Frank already said, where have you got this one, and how can you support your claim?


----------



## Edguoglitigin

According to an article about the word "turk" which I read recently, the name is related to the verb _tür- _(_dür-_ in Moderm Turkish spoken in Turkey) meaning "to roll up, fold up". The first form of the word must have been _türük _which means "rolled up". And the verb referes to be assembled that the turk word has never been used for only one tribe. It has used as the union of Asiatic-Turkic tribes. This approach is very possible than the others and one which I agreed before.


----------



## sokol

Edguoglitigin, could you please give author and title of the article where this etymology was given?

It might be in Turkish, if so then please also indicate wether the author is a scientist or not because it does make a difference wether it was published in a monograph or a scientific periodical or not (even if I couldn't read it, which would be the case when it is written in Turkish).

Also, in your post above you supported the etymology of "türü- = to sprout from one's origin" and now here you say that the one given as "tür-/dür- = rolled up" should be the most likely one - and here I must say that I can't quite see the connection (as you say you supported pretty much the same above): to me those two sound distinctly different.

I must say that so far I have seen way too many speculative theories in this thread alone - so it is only natural that I am suspicious about all of them.


----------



## Edguoglitigin

When I find the book I will tell you the author of the article which I mentioned above 

Yes I have changed my opinion cause the latter is more reasonable.

By the way _türe- _and _tür- _verbs are really different from eachother. They don't have any semantic relation either.


----------



## Edguoglitigin

The Article (_Türk Kelimesinin Aslı _"Origin of the word Türk) is a puplic declaration presented on The Fifth Symposium of Turkish Language (2004). And the owner of it is Zikri Turan. The declaration was published in _V. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri_, TDK, Ankara 2004


----------



## sokol

So an academic source; thanks for the quote, Edguoglitigin. 
That doesn't mean that this etymology is correct but it adds to the theory given - so that at least a specialist in the field could check it. (Which I am not, as said already.)


----------



## olric

Another theory (which I find not very satisfying at all) belongs to Ziya Gökalp, famous pan-Turkist. He claims that the word Türk is derived from _töre_ (law, convention, custom, manners), thus Törük means _someone of or who embraced *töre*_.


----------



## Aydintashar

The word can be related to the old form "Tirik", which means "alive", and whose modern form is "diri". Needless to say that the ancient form "tirik" is derived from Sumerian. This is also related to "türemek", "töremek" which imply "to come to life", "to cherish", "to multiply" etc. This word, like the word "tengri", is one of strongest lexical links between the Turkic languages and the Sumerian. I do not use this argument right away, in support of the idea of kinship of Turkic and Sumerian, of which I am not convinced, but the common vocabulary and the agglutinative nature of both languages must be explained some day in some way.


----------



## Black4blue

sokol said:


> This is not quite accurate.
> Whatever be the case - Huns weren't Turks anyway.


 
Lol, Hun Empire was the first state that Turks founded.


----------



## Frank06

Black4blue said:


> Lol, Hun Empire was the first state that Turks founded.


I don't know how to interpret the green smiley. 
But if this comment wasn't meant as a joke, could you please explain and elaborate?

Frank


----------



## DenisBiH

Well the Wikipedia entry for Huns does go into this, and it seems there are theories that at least a part of Huns were indeed Turk*ic*. Not Turk, though.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


DenisBiH said:


> Well the Wikipedia entry for Huns does go into this, and it seems there are theories that at least a part of Huns were indeed Turk*ic*. Not Turk, though.


But there is also a theory that the Huns were the result of the intercourse of Gothic witches and unclean spirits ;-).

But you're right, obviously, in two ways: 
1. Turk(ish) isn't the same as Turkic (a common mistake made far too often), 
2. and there are theories indeed. 

But none of the theories your implicitely are referring to come even come close to the rather bold statement made in this forum that the "Hun Empire was the first state that Turks founded", whether that was meant as a joke or not. And oh, I do realise, Denis, that you're not defending the rather explicit statement I reacted to.


----------



## WadiH

What is the difference between Turk and Turkic anyway?


----------



## Abu Rashid

wadi hanifa said:
			
		

> What is the difference between Turk and Turkic anyway?



I don't think there's any real difference. Although usually Turkish refers to a Turk from Anatolia, whilst Turkic usually refers to anyone from any of the Turko-nations.

I think it's much like the difference between Arabic and Arabian today, no difference, although Arabic could refer to anything related to the greater Arab-world, whilst Arabian usually refers to something related to the peninsula itself.


----------



## ancalimon

I think the word "Turk" was not used to define a nation but it represented some upper identity. Something like "mankind" with similar culture and language. It might be the reason why we see the word much later in history in written form.

In my opinion the word Türk consists of 3 root sounds that has three different meanings.

ÖT : The make sound, to shout. (The ability to reason and convert an idea into a sound); MIND or BODY (not sure)
ÜR : To reproduce. ( When two "1"s are added, we have 3 (ÜÇ); the ability to love; SOUL or BODY (not sure)
ÖK : Maker, God, Tengri, Mother, We are (we communicate, we interact with each other) ; OF GOD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

I think the word could have a meaning close to: "The ability to reason and create and the wisdom of understanding the God and/or each other)

All in all I think the word could have some connection with "trinity" & "three" ===>

And to have a broader understanding, *"three" is "üç" in Turkish & haç is the cross in Turkish*. It is "said" that the word "haç" is borrowed from Armenian. But it's also "said" that the Armenians took the the cross and Baptism from Turks when Turks shared their knowledge of Tengri (God) with Armenians before they allied themselves with Armenians and defended Armenians against Persians & after Armenians opened the gates of Derpent in order to help Turks.

===> A cross is the combination of two Gammas. Two Gammas combine to create the + sign and it gains a different meaning (three, ÜÇ)
A gamma is ÖK in Turkic Tamga System according to Kazım Mirşan

UÇ:to fly
kUŞ: a bird (when a bird is flying with wings open, it's a cross) a bird also represents the highness of Tengri in Mongolian culture.
UÇ: the + sign at the uppermost portion of Turkic tent (yurt) (search for "yurt roof" pictures on Google to see countless crosses)
UÇ: the furthest, the highest, the edge
AÇı: angle (to create an angle, you pull two lines from each other. You open them and when they reach 90 degrees, you have a Gamma at hand)
AÇmak: to open
AŞmak: to ascend, to get better, to succeed
yAŞ: age
yAŞlı: elder, very old, ancient
yAŞamak: to live, "blessed"
AT: a holy death (some kind of ancient martyr I think), a journey, to reach God (all of these meanings are derived from the meaning horse)
ağAÇ: a tree (also remember the tree of life)

Also;

When ş sound is used at the end of some words: (remember that two Gammas (same shape but different directions) combine to form a new idea.)

yoldAŞ: (comrade-s) two similar people sharing a similar goal (the binding point is that they share the same ideology)
arkadAŞ: (friend-s) two similar people protecting each other (the binding point is that they share the same tastes)
adAŞ: (namesake) two people with the same name. (the binding point is that they share the same name)
eşdEŞ: (equal, isotope) to very similar things
EŞ: equal, wife or husband, the other half (that fits)

there are countless words like these. Two different objects are like each other. (We also see something similar in English.   "ish" : white- whitish)

(the "d" sound gives them a "binding strongly" meaning)

To summarize, whoever honors the cross, gains success according to "Turkic" etymology of HAÇ. The cross is science, culture, understanding, holiness, life and death, God, wisdom and many other things. It has a very holy (in an unreligious way) place among ancient Turks. They honored it by placing it on the edge of their yurts, they slept looking at it. It probably was the collective symbol of humanity and "good". And I have strong evidence to believe that Turks in general would rather think of "HAÇ" as a bad thing "today".

One thing I'm totally sure of is that the word Turk is a religious word and it's connected to "at least" all of the monotheistic religions.

Still we are in no man's land when we are talking about the word Turk. I might be totally wrong.


The most important thing that shouldn't be ignored when working with Turkish is to take the Turkic dualism into consideration. Unfortunately most of the people are not aware of this situation. There is no evil in ancient Turkic culture. There is no unholy thing; everything is holy (ulu - kutlu). It's all about balance and each end of that balance is holy. There is no translation of unholy, or undead or undo into Turkic languages. Because there can not be a bad holy thing or a bad dead thing. The culture can not understand these things without a paradigm shift in thinking.

PS: I have written all about HAÇ so that I could make myself more clear about why I connect the word Turk to Trinity. And Trinity is connected to Christianity and the cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/jts/pdf/JTS_SL_09.pdf
http://ethnikoi.org/tengrianism.htm


----------



## berndf

Wadi Hanifa said:


> What is the difference between Turk and Turkic anyway?


The way linguists use terms, "Turkish" is a language and "Turkic" is the group Turkish belongs to, like "English" is a language and "Indo-European" is the group English belongs to. I don't think that "Turk" is a term commonly used term when referring to language(s).


----------



## DenisBiH

To add to Huns, Turks, Turkish vs Turkic line of discussion:

To be able to call some Turkic people (historical or modern) "Turks" I guess you'd first have to establish that they indeed use(d) that name to refer to themselves. I don't think this can be established for most historical Turkic or partially Turkic peoples, so thus Turkic is the more appropriate name, although it tells us nothing definitive of their actual ethnic affiliation, only of the linguistic one.

On the other hand, I can also imagine some in Turkey seeing the above argument as splitting hairs, especially if the name (Gök)türk is attested historically as some claimed earlier here, i.e. if this quote below from Wikipedia can be understood to mean that "Turk" or a variation thereof is explicitly used in that inscription to designate a people.



> The Orkhon monuments are the oldest known examples of Turkic writings; they are inscribed on obelisks and have been dated to 720 (for the obelisk relating to Tonyukuk), to 732 (for that relating to Kültigin), and to 735 (for that relating to Bilge Kağan). They are carved in a script used also for inscriptions found in Mongolia, Siberia, and Eastern Turkistan and called by Thomsen "Turkish runes".[6]* They relate in epic language the legendary origins of the Turks, the golden age of their history, their subjugation by the Chinese, and their liberation by Bilge.*[6]


One should also bear in mind that even if various Turkic tribes/peoples had a certain historically attested tribal name, e.g. Pechenegs, that does not imply that they did not know of and use other, wider ethnic designations (possibly such as Turk).

However, given how in modern times "Turk(s)" refers specifically to the people mostly living in Turkey, one should tread with caution when trying to apply the name "Turk" to other historical peoples, even if it is attested for some. A parallel situation would be Germans using "Deutsch" (German) to refer to historical people of Netherlands (Old Dutch Diets, both from Proto-Germanic _*þeudiskaz_). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> I think the word "Turk" was not used to define a nation but it represented some upper identity. Something like "mankind" with similar culture and language. It might be the reason why we see the word much later in history in written form.


This sounds plausible. After all, a lot of tribal names mean "man(kind)", (we, the) people, etc. But I don't see a shred of evidence for this in the rest of your post.



> In my opinion the word Türk consists of 3 root sounds


What are "root sounds" in this context?



> that has three different meanings.


So, root sounds with three different meanings. And you are the one who assigns the meaning to those "root sounds" on basis of what? Vague similarities, wild associations, creative thinking and... 



> [...]snipped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology


... and numerology???



> [... lots of stuff snipped](the "d" sound gives them a "binding strongly" meaning)


A what?



> Still we are in no man's land when we are talking about the word Turk.


Agreed.

Frank


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06 said:


> This sounds plausible. After all, a lot of tribal names mean "man(kind)", (we, the) people, etc. But I don't see a shred of evidence for this in the rest of your post.
> 
> 
> What are "root sounds" in this context?
> 
> So, root sounds with three different meanings. And you are the one who assigns the meaning to those "root sounds" on basis of what? Vague similarities, wild associations, creative thinking and...
> 
> ... and numerology???
> 
> A what?
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Frank



- Root sounds are like colors. They have a meaning of their own and they change within the same context when combined with other colors.

-I use numerology because I'm talking about a primitive word. And numerology is a primitive science. I can not guess about a word such as Turk by using modern sciences because they don't have the necessary equipment to explain this. They can at best tell me that the word Turk was first seen in written form around 6th century.


-By root sounds I mean sounds that are the most important in Turkic languages. We always use them inside words, when combining sentences, to differentiate tenses.

-I don't assign any meaning to root sounds. Most of them are still used in the same manner. They always have their vowel dropped or changed because it's always like that in Turkic languages. Also a "Ç" may turn into a "Ş" or "G" into a "K,Q,Ğ" as they are basically the same sound.

- I say the "d" sound is a connection. It connects two different objects ideas, people, etc... "D" sound have some kind of specificness and being determinant in it. Yes that's true we can see it in many different Turkic languages in many different forms even in many single words that consist of documented or undocumented roots. It might even be a universal thing.

Kalem benDE : I HAVE the pencil (the pencil and I am bound right now)
Kelem benDE İDİ: Kalem benDEyDİ: I HAD the pencil. (a connection of a different time with an situation)
O kalem benDE DE var: I TOO have that pencil. (He has that pencil? I am the second person who also have that pencil)
BenDE DE kalem var: I TOO have a pencil.

~DE in Turkic carry within itself meanings "TWO", "TOO", "TO" (English)

They are basically the same things. But we find them in a different roles in Turkish and English. (any many other languages)

My point is that if we want to understand an ancient word like "Turk" we have to connect different languages and sciences together, and the most distinctive connections between languages are primitive ones. (because languages are bound together. They all come from the same source.)

SavaşTA oraDA vuruldu: He was shot in the war there. (The situation of him being shot is connected to him being in the war, and him being there)

O DA kötü biri: He TOO is an evil one. (He his evil. -and there is another person who is evil just like him. DA loads the situation of being evil to that other person too.)

I'm not making this up, nor I am having some kind of enlightenment  I just think in Turkish and try to show the clearest examples.


----------



## ancalimon

Wadi Hanifa said:


> What is the difference between Turk and Turkic anyway?



Turk when used without any suffixes means a person who is a Turk in all Turkic cultures. A Kazakh usually would say that he is a Kazakh before he admits that he is a Turk. Turks living in Turkey would probably be saying that they were Anatolian if the French ideas (nationalism) didn't reach Turkey during the times Ataturk lived.

We see the word Turkic as "language of any person that speaks a Turkic language"

We call our language Türkçe which translates into English as: "like a Turk". We also call English language as: İngilizce meaning "like an English"
the ÇE suffix gives the meaning "exactly the same like a Turk" in Türkçe. Not "resembling a Turk" meaning.

So language and ethnicity are connected in Turkic culture. That's probably why Turks usually don't understand why people who aren't Turks divide Türkçe into two (Turkish and Turkic) and show them as different languages.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> - Root sounds are like colors. They have a meaning of their own and they change within the same context when combined with other colors.


In short, "root sounds" are anything one wants them to be. Convenient.


> -I use numerology because I'm talking about a primitive word. And numerology is a primitive science. I can not guess about a word such as Turk by using modern sciences because they don't have the necessary equipment to explain this. They can at best tell me that the word Turk was first seen in written form around 6th century.


This is almost the same as saying that we cannot talk about the movements of planets and stars prior to the 16th century without taking the "primitive science" astrology into account.
May I do another guess? Do you need to resort to this kind of "primitive science" since, contrary to linguistics, numerology leaves the door open for wild speculations?


----------



## er targyn

The ethnonym looks like non-Turkic.


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06 said:


> In short, "root sounds" are anything one wants them to be. Convenient.
> This is almost the same as saying that we cannot talk about the movements of planets and stars prior to the 16th century without taking the "primitive science" astrology into account.
> May I do another guess? Do you need to resort to this kind of "primitive science" since, contrary to linguistics, numerology leaves the door open for wild speculations?



I can not delve deep into Turkish words unless I use things like numerology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Pythagorean
http://www.astroset.com/bireysel_gelisim/ancient/a1.htm

I don't actually care much about writers that much. It's the information that's important for me and I try to filter out inconsistencies and leave the concrete information because truth can be found at least expected places.

Because I have reached the conclusion that Turkic languages have half of their roots in ancient Rome and even before that, and at least monotheistic religions have their "roots" in Tengrism. I think there were individual Turkic people living in Greece that spread the idea of Tengri in form of philosophy (together with words related to technologies and culture within Tengrism and mythology of ancient Asia which most definitely formed the basis of Greek mythology) which later resulted in Christianity and a divide in Christianity (ex: Armenians against Roman Empire)

Alexandria was a center of many of these knowledge. (Unfortunately it was burned either by Caesar or Arabs deliberately because of a religius&political reason or less possibly accidentally)

I can only find written sources in the West, because it was unpractical for the Middle Asian people to carry written documents with them while they were trying to stay alive, moving from place to place after the great cataclysm that destroyed the great inner sea in Middle Asia. They could have simply left stone monuments in places they passed through.

I agree with you about the "wild speculations" part. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do at this point because there is actually nearly no one that's trying to find the roots of a word like Turk. I simply take the available information and try to reach a consistent result. If for example I find 5 situations in which D sound gives the word "binding together in a similar situation" meaning, I try to find more and when I reach 30 or more similar situations, I start to suspect.

Turkic language science is very new compared to Western one. Scientist don't try to delve deeper into words. For example European languages have PIE roots. They are extremely deep. Turkish scientists haven't found such a tool. They stop at a certain point. The only difference is what I do leads to wild speculations "that are not yet established"

Because I have strong evidence that people who talked a Turkic language came to contact with rest of world many thousands of years ago contrary to the belief that they reached Anatolia in 1071 Battle of Manzikert, I try to compare similar words in other languages "in the same context" in a very successful way. It's seldom I reach a dead-end.

While comparing words, I usually suspect and try to find other evidence such as symbols used and their meanings, city names, geographical names, architectural design, design of objects found and I find myself astonished because of the similarity.

Language is a disputable issue. It always should be. But when it's supported by archeological, cultural, symbolic evidence and toponymy (and it usually is as far as I can see in cases I suspect) it raises a question.

-- Adji Murad link removed; we do not accept pseudo-linguistic 'evidence' -- (sokol)


----------



## Frank06

Maybe this is an issue for another thread, I mean, the usage of pseudo-science and pseudo-linguistics to explain a series of figments of the mind. In other words, what you present here has hardly anything to do with linguistics. It's pseudo-science, from the beginning to the end.

Let's have a look at it, step by step:

*1. Numerology*


ancalimon said:


> I can not delve deep into Turkish words unless I use things like numerology.


In previous messages, there could have been some doubt whether or not you said that the ancients used "numerological principles" to come up with words (in itself a dubious claim), but here you take away all doubt: _you_ are using numerology in a linguistic endeavour. Numerology, which is one of "many systems, traditions or beliefs in a _mystical_ or _esoteric_ relationship between numbers and physical objects or living things." The terms "mystical" and "esoteric" don't strike me as incredibly scientific, nor as linguistic. Have you ever considered that other option besides "things like numerology" that one could choose to "delve deep into Turkish words": linguistics?

*2. Me, myself and I*


> I don't actually care much about writers that much.


You'd be surprised how much those "writers" care about you and your theories...

Another feature of pseudo-science is the complete disregard for mainstream literature. We might have the rather romantic idea that some/most/all great scientific theories poofed into existence all of a sudden through the mind of one single genius-scientist-loner. But that rather romantic idea disregards in most cases the history of science/linguistics. 

As an example: William Jones' insight _was_ brilliant, but claiming that this insight wasn't based upon previous insights, is an incredible and unwarranted simplification of the history of (historical) linguistics. 

A lot of pseudo-scientists claim that it is "I" who come up with a completely novel theory. "I" know the truth, "I" have seen the light. Quite often, it's the reflection of a radiant ego much too bright that blinds them. A lot of pseudo-scientists have come up with "brilliant" ideas that go against all what is commonly know about the scientific field. 
There is nothing wrong with "brilliant ideas", but as one well-known scientist put it: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Numerology, whether Pythagorean or Neo-Pythagorean doesn't really qualify as a method to get evidence.



> I agree with you about the "wild speculations" part. Unfortunately there's nothing I can do at this point because there is actually nearly no one that's trying to find the roots of a word like Turk.


Apart from the undoubtedly 100s of Turkologists?

*3. Reaching conclusions vs confirmation bias*


> Because I have reached the conclusion


I have the very strong impression that your conclusion is your _starting_ point, and that you use your neo-pseudolinguistic method "numerology" to retrofit the so-called data, that your "numerology" is an excellent tool to confirm your biases. Otherwise said, you're putting the carriage in front of the horse.

*4. Intermezzo*


> that Turkic languages have half of their roots in ancient Rome and even before that, and at least monotheistic religions have their "roots" in Tengrism. I think there were individual Turkic people living in Greece that spread the idea of Tengri in form of philosophy (together with words related to technologies and culture within Tengrism and mythology of ancient Asia which most definitely formed the basis of Greek mythology) which later resulted in Christianity and a divide in Christianity (ex: Armenians against Roman Empire)


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Go for it! Convince us (but with something else than numerological pseudo-scientific methods).

*5. Vagueness, an example*
The quote below takes 3.5 lines on my screen. And yet, those 3.5 lines are so stuffed with more vague claims than can be stomached. Makes me think of a major Gish Gallop. 


> I can only find written sources in the West, because it was unpractical for the Middle Asian people to carry written documents with them while they were trying to stay alive, moving from place to place after the great cataclysm that destroyed the great inner sea in Middle Asia. They could have simply left stone monuments in places they passed through.


A few questions:
(a) About which cataclysm exactly are you talking? Where did it take place and when?
(b) It would also be unpractical to carry around written documents when one cannot read nor write. I really have no clue when your "Middle Asian people" (whoever, whenever and wherever they were, see point d) started to get literate. Again, a date is crucial here. 
(c) Any evidence that "Middle Asian people" started a nomadic life after or (as you seem to imply) because of that cataclysm? Or did I misunderstand?
(d) Do you mind using a slightly more precise term than "Middle Asian people"?  Do these "Middle Asian people" happen to include Turkic nomads, were they only Turkic people, ...?
(e) What do you mean by "the West"? Anything western from Middle Asia (see above)?

I have more questions, but 5 is enough for the time being. Could you please provide us with a clear, documented and coherent answer? Preferably with an equally coherent and documented timeline (in order to take away the impression that your "theory" is an anachronistic stack of one event upon the other).

*6. Mind the gaps*


> Turkic language science is very new compared to Western one. Scientist don't try to delve deeper into words. For example European languages have PIE roots. They are extremely deep. Turkish scientists haven't found such a tool. They stop at a certain point. The only difference is what I do leads to wild speculations "that are not yet established"


"_*Not yet*_ established?" I am sorry for not sharing your optimism: I strongly doubt if it will _ever_ get established. 
Any which way, a message board isn't the most common way to "establish" a theory (see below). 

I leave the description of the state of "Turkic language science" to you. I have quite strong doubts whether your description coincides with reality, but anyway. 
I am more interested in your "argument out of ignorance". 

I'll explain, but mind you, I am *not* calling you "ignorant". If your description above would be correct, then it means that the linguists-Turkologists haven't found any evidence yet and hence they don't know, they are ignorant (about that specific aspect), they have a gap in their knowledge. Happens all the time in every scientific field.

However, what you do is filling that gap with wild, unverifiable, unsubstantiated claims based upon a pseudo-scientific method (numerology). 

*7. Politics*


> Because I have strong evidence that people who talked a Turkic language came to contact with rest of world many thousands of years ago contrary to the belief that they reached Anatolia in 1071 Battle of Manzikert, I try to compare similar words in other languages "in the same context" in a very successful way. It's seldom I reach a dead-end.


This is the standard, highly political Pan-Turkish ideological view upon history. So, what you're doing is taking a political, ideological claim (rather than a historical one), reach a conclusion and _then_ use some dodgy "method" to provide "evidence".
Now, that's what I call a dead end.

I really wonder if linguistics of the Turkish/Turkic languages is helped by this kind of fantasies. I even dare to wonder if the Pan-Turkish movement is helped with this kind of unverifiable statements. It gives me the impression that they are more concerned about their ideology than about history.


----------



## Frank06

Continued from previous post

*Bad news/good news*
The bad news is that I don't buy any of your statements. The methodology is unscientific, unaccepted and unacceptable in historical linguistic. Your "theory" is to linguistics what astrology is to astronomy, flat-earthism to geology, creationism to (evolutionary) biology.

If what you have posted on these boards so far is an illustration of that "numerological" method, then I think I can summarise it as following
"If word y from language A, B, C up till Z, looks the same (even if only vaguely) as word x from language A, B, C up till Z, with a slight preference for language T, then they are related, and certainly if I stretch the semantics".


The good news is that I might be wrong. That the accepted, mainstream  methodology in Historical linguistics is wrong. Completely, incredibly, terribly, utterly, wrong. Basically, that's even my starting point, every single time again and again.

But this means that you'll have to convince me on the basis of rational arguments that mainstream historical linguistics (and related fields) is wrong. You cannot pull the equivalent of a white rabbit out of your magical hat (or head?) yelling "Tadaaa". As far as I know, only good ol' Tommy Cooper had success with his "tadaaas".

The things you'll have to do to convince me (and probably a lot of other people) are quite simple:
1. describe your methods more acurately (instead of the vague "numerology) [one could open a new thread devoted to numerology: "numerology as a method in linguistics", for example]. The point being is that other people would reach the same conclusions as you do (or at least within the same range). If other people don't reach the same (or similar) conclusions based upon a clear description of your numerological methodology, then something might be wrong with either that description, or the methodology. 
2. make your methods acceptable to the linguistic community (mind you, contrary to popular internet-lore, peer-reviewed journals are still a slightly better way than a message board);
3. describe your theory in terms less vague;
4. make your theory acceptable to that same linguistic community.



That's it, that's all. 

Frank


----------



## ancalimon

I am sorry for not being methodical. I will try to be more clear in the future.

@Frank06: The cataclysism is recorded on the Orkhon Inscriptions.

This is from the Orkhon Inscriptions:                     Türük Oguz begleri, budun eşiding. Üze tengri basmasar, asra yir  telinmeser, Türük budun, ilingin törüngin kim artatı udaçı erti ? Türk budun ertin, ökün

In Anatolian Turkish this is the closest I get get:     Türk Oğuz beyleri, milleti işitin. Üstte gök _basmasa_, altta yer delinmese, Türk milleti, ilini töreni kim bozabilecekti? Türk milleti vazgeç, pişman ol

Trying to translate to English: Rulers (princes?) of Oghuz Turks, and nation of Ozhuz  Turks. Hear me now. If the Heavens didn't fell on Earth (a great flood? or Tengri becoming angry), and  if the land didn't fell underground (if the land wasn't ripped open? ,disappearance of the inner sea in Asia and changing into desert?), who could have corrupted your il (social life, laws, religion, language, cities (country)) and  your Töre (social rules that came from Tengri). Turkic nation, give up, repent...

I think BUDUN, BOD does not have a proper translation into any language. It means different people living that are connected to each other culturally and linguistically and who liked the idea of living together. There were different races among them and they lived in a vast geography with different names. They were strongly connected to each other and the leader khan.

individual>couple>family>boy>horde>nation>state>bod

I can't tell when this cataclysm happened. I'll try to find more information about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkhon_inscriptions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Turkic_script


----------



## sokol

I don't see what the argument seems to be here, ancalimon.
The Orkhon Inscriptions date back to approximately the first half of the 8th century A.D. (you wouldn't call it AD in Turkish though but you're using Western era counts too, in Turkey).

So they appeared long after the name of "Turk" for Turkic tribes developed. I don't see how those inscriptions, and the one you quoted specifically, should be relevant concerning the etymology of "Turk". This quote only shows, and is proof of, its use as a name for ethnic Turks.


----------



## Karatai

In my opinion, _Turk _comes from _*türük*, *törük* _just like _yürük, yörük_. In modern and old Turkish, *tü- *means _spring up, be derived, be reproduced. _As Turkish people are consist of many nomadic groups, this word explains how they become a big community and they called the big community as _*Törük, Türük *_or ultimately _*Türk*_. From the root *tü-*, al lot of words has been founded. 
_*tü-r*: _kind, sort, type, species 
_*tü-ne*: _means settle, roost
_*tü-m*: _all, entire, total, overall, undivided
_*tü-z, diz*: to _align, to arrange, to combine
_*tü-z-gü, di-z-gi*: _combination

In Hungarian Language, _Török _means _Turk._ 

This is my theory. It may be wrong.


----------

