# Distinguishing Arabic, Persian, Turkic words



## ancalimon

I am trying to find out about some words (some of these words are 3 or even sometimes 2 letters) And because Persian, Arabic and Turkic languages are so much mixed up, I sometimes have difficulty in finding out about some words.

Are there rules when trying to determine which word belong in which culture?

For example I'm trying find about the word HAÇ which we use for "the cross" in Turkey.

UC is the + sign with a circle that can be found on the roof of Yurts (some kind of tent home) This sign also means something "strong", it also symbolizes the four directions of the word and four Turkic colours (North:Black  South:Yellow  West:Red  East:Blue or Green) It also symbolizes Tengri, Eternal Blue Sky (but it doesn't bring Tengri to mind on its own because it's only a symbol)

This sign: http://www.karakalpak.com/images/yurt15.jpg  Turks slept looking at this sign since they built the first shelter for themselves.

UC, UÇ also means tip, edge, ...
Also these things http://www.seslisozluk.com/?ssQBy=0&word=u%C3%A7

It can even be used for "to die and ascend and fly back to Tengri". (uçmağa varmak, uçmağa ermek)  (ER:soldier  ER-MEK:To ascend and become OZ (higher human))  (this brings to my mind: Jesus dying on the cross, ascending and flying to God)

AÇI: angle
AÇ-MAK: spread out. (like the Yurt roof you can see from the link I've given. The four lines spread out to look like a sun)

Now how do I know if HAÇ is a Turkic rooted word or not?
Or how do I know if HACI (Hajji, Pilgrim) HACCA GİTMEK (to go on a pilgrimage) are derived from HAÇ or not.

This is too complicated.
It still seems like HAÇ is a word that is derived from AÇ, UÇ


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Now how do I know if HAÇ is a Turkic rooted word or not?
> Or how do I know if HACI (Hajji, Pilgrim) HACCA GİTMEK (to go on a pilgrimage) are derived from HAÇ or not.


I guess you would know, if you found a pre-Islamic Turkic text using HACI in the meaning of Pilgrim. Otherwise the only reasonable assumption is that it is an assimilation of the Arabic word (حجى).


----------



## 0m1

And while I do not deny that both Turkish and Persian have greatly enriched the Arabic lexicon (and perhaps even culture, in their own ways), I have the feeling that the vast majority of words that appear identically in Arabic and Turkish/Persian are more often than not derived from the Arabic, what with it being the language of the Quran


----------



## Abu Rashid

ancalimon said:
			
		

> I am trying to find out about words (some of these words are 3 or even  sometimes 2 letters) And because Persian, Arabic and Turkic languages  are so much mixed up, I sometimes have difficulty in finding out about  some words.



Turkish might well be quite mixed up, since it is largely a mish-mash of Arabic and Persian loans, which formed the Ottoman Turkish language that modern Turkish is a revised edition of. But the same cannot be said for Arabic and Persian, which are largely untouched by other languages, except for the obvious occasional loans.



			
				ancalimon said:
			
		

> Now how do I know if HAÇ is a Turkic rooted word or not?
> Or how do I know if HACI (Hajji, Pilgrim) HACCA GİTMEK (to go on a  pilgrimage) are derived from HAÇ or not.



The Arabic word Hajji is derived from the common Semitic root H-g-g which means to hold a religious festivity or feast or gathering. It appears in the Hebrew Old Testament well over a millenium or two before the Arabs (or other Semites) even knew who the Turks were. So it's definitely not derived from the Turkish word.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> I am trying to find out about words (some of these words are 3 or even sometimes 2 letters) And because Persian, Arabic and Turkic languages are so much mixed up, I sometimes have difficulty in finding out about some words.


The first thing one should do is to leave the Scrabble mentality where it belongs (i.e. at a game of Scrabble). Linguistics is not a word or letter game. Juggling with letters isn't to be taken too seriously.

Secondly, it takes some actual _studies_ rather than _guesses_ on the basis of superficial similarities and a preconceived notion that "everything is Turkish".
This idea, viz. that "everything is Turkish", doesn't do any service to the Turkish language, Turkish linguistics, this very forum or historical linguistics in general. We can do without it, thank you.

One could start looking at what actually is attested in texts, comparing texts, looking for attestations, dating the words you're talking about, and actually *studying* historical linguistics instead of inventing "links". 
But I admit, this takes a bigger effort than playing around with letters, fanciful  explanations and preconceived "theories" based on glorifying nationalistic sentiments.

Frank


----------



## ancalimon

Could someone tell me the Arabic translation of the cross?  
or this sign: http://www.karakalpak.com/images/yurt15.jpg


----------



## 0m1

Why... why would there be a translation of that symbol in Arabic?

We generally use صلیب (ṡalīb) for "cross".


----------



## berndf

I agree. Why? That an Islamic culture shoul use Arabic loans for religious terms is absolutely straight forward. Why Quranic expressions should be Turkic loans need a very good explanation.


----------



## DenisBiH

> Turkish might well be quite mixed up, since it is largely a mish-mash of Arabic and Persian loans, which formed the Ottoman Turkish language that modern Turkish is a revised edition of. But the same cannot be said for Arabic and Persian, which are largely untouched by other languages, except for the obvious occasional loans.




Some interesting ideas. Could someone please explain to me where I could find the definition of this linguistic term "mish-mash"?


----------



## ancalimon

0m1 said:


> And while I do not deny that both Turkish and Persian have greatly enriched the Arabic lexicon (and perhaps even culture, in their own ways), I have the feeling that the vast majority of words that appear identically in Arabic and Turkish/Persian are more often than not derived from the Arabic, what with it being the language of the Quran



Are every word in Holy Quran clear? I mean are there disputed explanations among Arabic speaking people?


----------



## Abu Rashid

ancalimon said:
			
		

> Are every word in Holy Quran clear? I mean are there disputed  explanations among Arabic speaking people?



The word hajji is clear, and is quite obviously a Semitic word. If you wanted to check if a word in Arabic is a loan from Turkish or not, then the best way would be to follow these steps:

1) Is it in Qur'an or other early Islamic texts? If yes, then it's most probably not Turkish, since Arabs never even interacted with Turks until around the Abbassid period.

2) Does the word exist in Biblical Hebrew also? If so, then it's most likely either a common Semitic word, or it's use at least predates the Turkish influence on the region.

3) Do other Turkic languages, which had little interaction with Arabic, also have a cognate word?

If you followed similar steps to these, you would've eliminated hajji being from Turkish immediately.



			
				DenisBih said:
			
		

> Some interesting ideas. Could someone please explain to me where I could  find the definition of this linguistic term "mish-mash"?



It is a slang term not a linguistic term, you can find it's definition here.



			
				berndf said:
			
		

> That an Islamic culture shoul use Arabic loans for religious terms is  absolutely straight forward. Why Quranic expressions should be Turkic  loans need a very good explanation.



Many Islamic cultures use non-Arabic words for religious expressions. Usually hajj is said in Arabic though, since it's a very specific ritual. But words for prayer, ablution etc. are often referred to by their native Turkish/Persian/Urdu etc. equivalents.

But you ask a good question about the Qur'an, but it should not be why, but how? How could the Qur'an contain Turkish words if the Arabs never even came in contact with the Turks until well after the time of the Qur'an.


----------



## DenisBiH

> It is a slang term not a linguistic term, you can find it's definition here.



Thanks!  Should one regard the rest of your opinions on the nature of Turkish as non-linguistic?


----------



## Abu Rashid

DenisBih,

My statements were a reaction to ancalimon's outlandish claims, they are not my opinions about the Turkish language.


----------



## DenisBiH

Abu Rashid said:


> DenisBih,
> 
> My statements were a reaction to ancalimon's outlandish claims, they are not my opinions about the Turkish language.




Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## ancalimon

Abu Rashid said:


> But you ask a good question about the Qur'an, but it should not be why, but how? How could the Qur'an contain Turkish words if the Arabs never even came in contact with the Turks until well after the time of the Qur'an.



Maybe they did come into contact with people who spoke a different dialect of Turkic (which is very very likely) that is extinct or something else and both cultures were enriched from both languages? 
This doesn't necessarily mean these people called themselves Turks. They might have used their family names, or they might have had a totally different name they used to define themselves. After all, "Turk" is an upper identity. If you go higher from the Turk identity, you reach the "human" identity. (ie I call myself a Turk, but probably my ancestors have been living in Anatolia for tens of thousands of years and they didn't call themselves a Turk)

PS: Sorry if you think this is off topic. But I think it's related to question I asked. Will stop carrying this discussion forward as it reached a dead-end.
*<deleted>*http://books.google.com.tr/books?id...&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## berndf

Abu Rashid said:


> Many Islamic cultures use non-Arabic words for religious expressions.


Sure. As in Christian cultures, too. There are words for religious expressions of Germanic origin (Easter), Latin origin (Corpus Christi), Greek origin (Pentecost) and Hebrew origin (Pâques). My point was that you expect to find Arabic loans in religious vocabulary not that term always have to be of Arabic origin.


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Maybe they did come into contact with people who spoke a different dialect of Turkic (which is very very likely) that is extinct or something else and both cultures were enriched from both languages?http://books.google.com.tr/books?id...&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false


Still very far fetched. Arabic has only few loans from cultures they had very close contact with, like Greek.


----------

