# Turkish etymology



## ancalimon

Unfortunately it is very difficult to officially show the etymology of many Turkic words.
The reason for this can be disputed.

Turkic languages are agglutinative. Every single consonant can be a whole word, and can have a whole meaning in Turkic languages. When added to other root words, they change the meaning of that word in a "limited" way. The same can be said for vowels. Changing a single vowel can completely create a new word, but those two words are very similar when you take "Turkic culture (in general)" into consideration. That's how new words are formed by adding new root words. This might sound strange to people who are not familiar with Turkic. Let me give an example and talk about the word "Turk".

Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmıymışsınız?

This is a single word, yet when you try to translate it to English, you can not even get close to its meaning. Let me try:

I've heard a rumor that you were among those people, of whom we couldn't make a local of Czechoslovakian people. Are you not?

There are many possibilities when we try to see what Turk means.

1- aT ÜR oK:  "AT" , "AS" and "OK" are three of the most important Turkic Thamgas. (TAM-GA means runes or letter with whole ideas) There are thousands of meaning for AT and especially when used with other "words" the meaning can totally change "within the context"

Let me try to explain the OK thamga. "OK" was an ancient Turkic tribe.

"OK": simply "arrow" in Turkish. But the ancient meanings are much more  than that including one of the "very ancient" Turkic tribes. (probably much older than 10 thousand years)
"OK"U: to read, "you! read"
"ÖĞ"REN: to learn
"ÖĞ"RET: to teach ("OK"-UR- ET) make someone able to read
"OK"UT: to help someone to get education, learn, or read and write, or  to make someone read something, to make someone remove a bad spell
"EĞ"IT: to teach, to bend something (as in bending the will of a dog to obey his master) (ağaç yaş iken eğilir - A person can learn when he is young)
"OK"UL: school ( it could also mean: OK OL meaning "become an OK" 
"OK"UR OL:"become like an OK (arrow)" or "start to "walk", or grow. In English: Become literate.
"ÖK"SÜZ: orphan (someone left without protection, or without parents)  (süz-suz-siz-sız suffix means "left without") (no parents with an arrow to protect the child)
"AK"IL: Psyche, Intelligence (akıl yaşta değil baştadır: intelligence is not in the age, but in the head)
"AK"ILSIZ: vacant, unwise, etc..
"ÜK" "IK" "OK": we are (as a nation, as sharing something important, for example the YÖRÜK: the nomads who keep migrating (comes from the verb yürümek which means to walk)
"OK"ATAN: someone who shots arrows

You should also consider words starting with something else, and  continuing with OK like;

Y"UK"ARI: up, high (as an arrow gets higher, or a human gets longer as he grows)
S"OK": insert, sting (as an arrow enters flesh)
Y"AK": to hurt or burn someone or something.

these are some serious etymological analysis. I have this ability to see  things that can not be seen by others.

Just a small note about AT thamga:

AT: horse
"AT": to throw (as a horse starts moving and reaching a destination)
g"İT": to go
Od: (Od is pronounced as in c"OD"e") This is the ancient Turkic word for  Fire it also means "very hot"
It's also a Turkic Thamga that can be seen in many artifacts around the  world.
Ot: dry plant, or hemp

Ateş: this is fire in modern Turkish. It also means to fire your weapon  (as the bullet starts traveling like a horse (horse is At)

Odun: Fire wood
Budun: tribe, nation, race (old Turkic)
Adam: man or mankind (men means "I", meni means "me" in English (Turkic)  also The pronouncement of "I" means moon in Turkic written as AY)
Atam: my ancestor

At: In modern Turkish: Horse, to throw, to travel fast, to put a thing  on something, to exchange emotions, to carry to another place, to cover,  to fire someone, to let out, to leave from its source, and many many  other meanings all related when used with other words. The thamga  meanings are too much and too deep to write here.

As you saw it's very difficult. But not impossible to find the roots of the word Turk.


----------



## Rallino

ancalimon said:


> Turkic languages are agglutinative. Every single consonant can be a whole word, and can have a whole meaning in Turkic languages.



Every single consonant can be a word...Like how? Which consonant in the alphabet is also a word?



> *Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdanmıymışsınız?*
> 
> This is a single word...



No it is not. And I'm tired of seeing this example all the time. Lately I have had this vague idea that more than half of the Turks don't know how to spell correctly... This so-called one word should be spelt in two parts:

_Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdan mıymışsınız?_ 

And by the way why did you even give this word? What's the relation between _Turk_ and this?




> 1- aT *ÜR* oK:  "AT" , "AS" and "OK" are three of the most important Turkic Thamgas.



Is this your idea or do you have a reference for this? And by the way what about *ÜR* ? And where did _AS _come from ?





> "OK": simply "arrow" in Turkish. But the ancient meanings are much more  than that including one of the "very ancient" Turkic tribes. (probably much older than 10 thousand years)
> 
> "OK"U: to read, "you! read"
> "ÖĞ"REN: to learn
> "ÖĞ"RET: to teach ("OK"-UR- ET) make someone able to read
> "OK"UT: to help someone to get education, learn, or read and write, or  to make someone read something, to make someone remove a bad spell
> "EĞ"IT: to teach, to bend something
> "OK"UL: school ( it could also mean: OK OL meaning "become an OK"
> "OK"UR OL:"become like an OK (arrow)" or "start to "walk", or grow in English.
> "ÖK"SÜZ: orphan (someone left without protection, or without parents)  (süz-suz-siz-sız suffix means "left without") (no parents with an arrow to protect the child)
> "AK"IL: Psyche, Intelligence (akıl yaşta değil baştadır: intelligence is not in the age, but in the head)
> "AK"ILSIZ: vacant, unwise, etc..
> "ÜK": we are (as a nation, as sharing something important, for example the YÖRÜK: the guys who migrate (comes from the verb yürümek which means to walk)
> "OK"ATAN: someone who shots arrows



Again, what source did you use to come up with these words? I highly doubt these words derived from _OK_. Except of course for _Okatan_. By the way is this word spelt together?



> You should also consider words starting with something else, and  continuing with OK like;
> 
> Y"UK"ARI: up, high (as an arrow gets higher, or a human gets longer as he grows)
> S"OK": insert, sting (as an arrow enters flesh)
> Y"AK": to hurt or burn someone or something.



I admit, _yukarı _could be related to _OK_, though I couldn't find it in my etymological dictionary. Still it's plausible but seriously, do you believe that "yak" and "sok" are related to _OK_?



> these are some serious etymological analysis. I have this ability to see  things that can not be seen by others.



Right...



> There are many possibilities.



So, what are the other possibilities?  By the way does it mean that: in your opinion, Turk  = Horse + arrow ?



> Ateş: this is fire in modern Turkish. It also means to fire your weapon  (as the bullet starts traveling like a horse (horse is At)



The syllable separation of _Ateş_ is *a-teş*. I think it would at least be: at-eş, if it were related to At (horse)




> As you saw it's very difficult. But not impossible to find the roots of the word Turk.



We never said impossible.


You have some interesting point of views, but I'd like you to give us the sources you use.


----------



## ancalimon

Rallino said:


> Every single consonant can be a word...Like how?  Which consonant in the alphabet is also a word?



I was actually talking about Proto-Turkic (Proto-Turk meaning times when  the notion of Turk didn't exist) language and the "TAMĞA" system.  Tamgas like "OK" "ON" "AT" "UÇ" "OW" "UW" "OĞ"

These tamgas have a meaning on their own. You might be able to find  books of "Kazım Mirşan" (which I highly doubt, as 50 of his books can  only be bought from himself by phoning, and they can not be found  anywhere else including libraries. I still haven't got them) and "Haluk  Tarcan"

Those Tamgas all start with vowels. Words can't start  with some consonants if a consonant is to be used after another  consonant. This is the reason why in modern Turkish, a vowel is put in  front of foreign loan words (like station>istasyon (st),  spirit>ispirto (sp)).

These tamgas when used alone, have a  meaning. when they are used in a sentence, they highly retain their  meaning and pronunciation. And the next tamga would have a vowel that's  more suitable to the consonant of the previous tamga in order to make it  easier to say the word.

Every tamga is a syllable that can be  spoken in one move of the mouth, and also a word that means a different  notion. Old Turkic dialects consisted of syllable words, in time they  merged, became words and syllables were changed.

For example the  ÖG tamga is what we today know as the Gamma sign (simply put the line on  the bottom of L letter to the top)

ÖGÜL-UKUS meant people who  had high degree of thought.

ÖGÜL:  the ability to think,  philosophy, dignity, to own, majesty (most probably AKIL which translates to (PSYCHE) in today's Turkish but usually used a intelligence (zeka) or mind (bilinç)
UKUS: writing, inscribe

the  ancient swastika (four Gammas) that can be found all around Middle Asia  and rest of the world contains the meaning "very high degree of thought". (not the one used by the Nazis though) 



> No it is not. And I'm tired of seeing this example all the time. Lately I  have had this vague idea that more than half of the Turks don't know  how to spell correctly... This so-called one word should be spelt in two  parts:
> 
> _Çekoslovakyalılaştıramadıklarımızdan mıymışsınız?_
> 
> And by the way why did you even give this word? What's the relation  between _Turk_ and this?


That is a new rule only used in today's Turkish. It is a single word- A Single "IDEA". I  just wanted to give an example of how words change the meaning of a  single word. Fortunately , it has nothing to the with the word Turk 



> So, what are the other possibilities?  By the way does it mean that: in  your opinion, Turk  = Horse + arrow ?


I'm afraid I can only make assumptions with my knowledge right now.

*ÖK*:  We definetely know the exact meaning of this tamga. 
"surface, earth  individual"
Extension of Tengri (God)
existance on Earth by the  will of Tengri.

The OGHUZ tribe probably was: etiher "OKUZ: We are the OK" or OKOZ-OKAS     or    OĞUZ: We are the wise (or white as in AK) or OĞOZ-OĞAS" 

when used in sentences, it gains new meanings  being one of the most important of tamgas.

for example:

*GÖK'teki  TANRI'dan gelip YERYÜZÜ'nde varolma*

To come from the God in  the Heavens, and exist on the surface of Earth.

*YERYÜZÜ'nde  ölerek UÇARAK, GÖK'teki TANRI'ya dönme*

To die (fly) on the  surface of Earth and return to God in the Heavens.

This "coming  and going" is related to the Fire Cult of Turks.

To become OZ and  descent on Earth (YER YÜZÜ, ARZ (ground's face, Earth), become an individual (OK), the the highest  OK becoming BUĞ (BEY) and serve his people. and in return him being  burned, being turned to OZ and being sent back to KOZMOS, to God (UÇ-  fly, tip, top) in the Heavens.

*ESI EM, ESI EN, ESI*: I exist, you exist, he/she/it exists (I don't know about exact etimology of this. But I think it has something to do with AT (tamga), OD (fire), ES (to blow, wind, to exist as an Etherial body, to be without any burden, weightless),AZ-AS (the AS people, high people, * I probably need to know more about the lost meanings of Azeri,  Kazak, Bashkir,Khazar, Kyrkyz, Qashqai, Gagauz and the Uzbek Turks more  as their names have the AS, AZ tamga. The name of the continent being AS  ÖYÜ (as in köy (village in Turkish probably coming from OK ÖYÜ) and the  connection**))*, ET (flesh, meat, do, to be, to exist as material) and OZ (own, essence, pure) (us: meaning to have a mind on its own, acting sensible). And in the context, all of these are "highly" related to the Fire Cult of the Turks.  1-)EM: men, ben (I, me)  2-)EN: sen (you) 3-) you don't have to use he,she,it with verbs.) 

This sentence probably contains earth, water,air and fire within itself. This is a beautiful art piece. A monument

This ancient Turkic phrase reached India from Middle Asia probably also passing through current Iran and it became: *ASMi, ASi, ASTi*

ARZ: YER YÜZÜ (face of the ground) - EARTH

AT- ARZ (OZ? ES? ...) OK

Let me take a wild guess that will probably sound funny, gothic and satiric in a stupid way: Extension (or gift?) of God on Earth, that will go back to God again and become a soul again, or God gimself.   

As I said it is very difficult to understand what the word Turk really is. As it's very ancient, highly primitive, and probably older then anyone can imagine. My guess probably sounds funny.

I could talk about these things  more. But it gives me headache just to think about them, and how  everything became to mixed up today.



> The syllable separation of _Ateş_ is *a-teş*. I think it would  at least be: at-eş, if it were related to At (horse)


You are right. Syllable seperation of Ateş is a-teş in Turkish  dialect of Turkic languages. Because these are corrupted today.  Languages changed a lot.

People who don't know about the fire  cult of ancient Turks usually don't understand why that is the case. AT  tamga is connected to soul being thrown back to God (as At-mak is "to  throw" in Turkic, or when a Turk take a taxi, he says "Beni şuraya at"  meaning take me to that place). AT means a place, a horse, a movement,  an idea being thrown.

When the "+" plus sign in a circle (the  journey of the soul back to Tengri) is seen anywhere on Earth, it is  related.
Od is fire in ancient Turkic
At is related to "God"
At is related to Irish Aidan (see wikipedia) (somehow. and not as a single word, but as a GOD! really interesting)
At is related to Áed see wikipedia entry Áed (given name)
At is related to Odin
Compare the different variations of AT and UÇ tamgas (especially those that can be found in Turkic carpets) to horse of Odin: Sleipnir see wikipedia. The most recent AT tamga is "A"
At and As are related to Asgard

AS ÖYÜ: The place where AS people live (Asia).  (ÖYÜ: place. like in Turkish word KÖY (village) (probably derived from OK ÖYÜ meaning place belonging to OK) Also, IYA,ÖYÜ, IA contains "belong to us" meaning in Turkic languages.

Any all of these things are related to Fire cult of Turks, then Tengri, and Turkic dialects

BOOK (English): Probably a way to teach how to read the OK tamga. (BU OK: This is OK (second tamga in Etruscan Marsiliana tablet) 



> We never said impossible.


Unfortunately I fear it is in current state of Status-Quo of politics and science and capital.



> You  have some interesting point of views, but I'd like you to give us the  sources you use.


I keep finding sources "after" I have the idea. Most of these  sources are amateurs like me. I'm waiting for Kazım Mirşan's books which  I learned about after some surfing. I thought I was very intelligent  (LOL) until I found out a 100 years old man found about these things and  wrote 50 books on this subject. Then I found many web sites talking  about things similar to my research.

Other than that, I can't post links yet.


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> BOOK (English): Probably a way to teach how to read the OK tamga. (BU OK: This is OK (second tamga in Etruscan Marsiliana tablet).


Do you want to tell us you consider "book" to be a Turkic loan in English? You can't be serious. I hope I misunderstood you.


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> Do you want to tell us you consider "book" to be a Turkic loan in English? You can't be serious. I hope I misunderstood you.



I never said I am sure. There is just a possibility. Only if what I have written above are true, and if Turks entered Anatolia and Europe much (a couple of thousand years or more than 10 thousand years, making them not TURK but AS, OK, TUR) before 1071.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> Unfortunately it is very difficult to officially show the etymology of many Turkic words.
> The reason for this can be disputed. Turkic languages are agglutinative. Every single consonant can be a whole word, and can have a whole meaning in Turkic languages.


How do you mean?



> When added to other root words, they change the meaning of that word in a "limited" way. [...]
> The same can be said for vowels.


So, every single sound means something, but can change its meaning according to ... to something. Something what? Does it coincidentally change in the way you want it to change? Does it coincidentally have the meaning you want to have?
This sounds like a recepe for pseudo-linguistic analysis.



> these are some serious etymological analysis. I have this ability to see  things that can not be seen by others.


Then, before going on, one should seriously wonder why that is.



> As you saw it's very difficult. But not impossible to find the roots of the word Turk.


This is a completely ad-hoc way of "explaining" etymologies. This definitely is not linguistics.



berndf said:


> Do you want to tell us you consider "book" to be a Turkic loan in English? You can't be serious. I hope I misunderstood you.





ancalimon said:


> I never said I am sure. There is just a possibility. Only if what I have written above are true, and Turks entered Anatolia and Europe much before 1071.


Which possibility? Is the probability bigger or smaller than the probabilty that Turkish originated on Mars?

Frank


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> Do you want to tell us you consider "book" to be a Turkic loan in English? You can't be serious. I hope I misunderstood you.



Hi berndf, 
This reminded me of something I saw last month, here's the link.
Do you agree with that?


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> There is just a possibility.


No it's not. The etymology of the word and its cognates in Germanic languages is very well understood and is derived from the Germanic word for _beech_ (the tree) which was OE _boc*_ or _bece_ and in OHG _puocha_ (modG _Buche_).
____
*_boc_ (feminin) meant_ book_ in OE and _boc_ (neuter) meant _beech_.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> Hi berndf,
> This reminded me of something I saw last month, here's the link.
> Do you agree with that?


Sorry, I read this only after I prepared my previous post. Obviously I do agree.


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> Sorry, I read this only after I prepared my previous post. Obviously I do agree.



derived from an old Germanic word bōks which means 'beech' - *as the only writing the ancient Germans knew was done on rune-sticks made from beech*, they simply transferred the word when 'real books' as we know them came in

WOW

I don't know. There doesn't seem to be anything extreme in what I wrote about book according to this. When you take my explanation about the OK tamga, or "rune" to consideration

As I said BU OK: This is OK


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> There doesn't seem to be anything extreme in what I wrote about book according to this. *When* you take my explanation about the OK tamga, or "rune" to consideration.



*Dear Ancalimon,

There is really no reason to take your explanation into consideration. It's  methodologically unsound and unproductive. What you present has nothing to do with linguistics. 
We're teribly sorry, but it is definitely not the purpose of EHL to become a place where ideosyncratic pseudo-linguistic theories are presented.


Frank
Moderator EHL
*


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> I don't know. There doesn't seem to be anything extreme in what I wrote about book according to this. When you take my explanation about the OK tamga, or "rune" to consideration
> 
> As I said BU OK: This is OK


And how is this related to a beech tree?


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> And how is this related to a beech tree?



Simply see my other post about Odin, and the deciphered Viking stone here:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=824218&page=6

Then, think about "OK" and "OKU - read" and how it could be shown on a runestone (or runewood?)
Then take AT tamga into consideration and how OD means fire in both ancient Turkic and Irish. and how OD and AT are related due to the Fire Cult of Turks, even today.

sorry, can't say anything else about this as this blurs my mind.


----------



## 0m1

Have you actually bothered to read any of the links the users on here have very helpfully provided you with? Really, just try actually reading through something Frank06 posted, say, http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm, and then come back- just glance at it, for heaven's sake! Think of the probability that these resemblances are by chance, then think about how incredibly implausible any attempt to ahistorical link the two cultures as intimately as is required for your hypotheses to make sense...

And of course it's blurring your mind, look at the wild circles you're going around in... as regards "BU 'OK'", which itself, as I take it you're trying to say, means "This is [OK] (more than a little ludicrous, but we'll persevere)- you then leap onto the fact that runes are mentioned in the English etymology of the word book And that theyre two entirely distinct separate etymologies doesn't seem to concern you in the slightest...

- **[BU-OK], "this is '[OK]'", with [OK] meaning, you say, indvidual... or read... (or whatever suits the purpose of the moment, it seems)
- PrGmc *bokiz, meaning beech; then referrng to beechwood tablets onto which runes are carved, and finally becoming "book"

That the two sounds develop into the same meaning is in no way any sort of indiciation of similarity, and rather proves the very opposite, chance formation. And then there is of course the dubiousness of the formation BU OK in the first place.


----------



## Alxmrphi

berndf said:


> And how is this related to a beech tree?



I had a thought, if_ book _goes back to that root, is it the same for _bark_ (i.e. tree skin) ? When I read the Germanic root, 'b' and 'k' with a long-O, it reminded me of _bark_, which obviously also refers to a tree, do you know if they are from the same thing?


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> sorry, can't say anything else about this as this blurs my mind.


I imagine.

Please don't take it as an offence, but your posts give me the impression you've been reading too much chauvinistic nonsense recently obscuring your common sense.

Don't get me wrong, I admire your country and its culture. And the only reason, why I don't say I admire your language is because I know too litle about it. But I do know someting about IE languages in general and Germanic languages in particular. I can assure you that Germanic languages have their own logic, their own history, their own morphological rules and their own sound shifts. While your analysis method might have some validity when looking at Turkic languages, I assure you, you get nothing but non-sense when you try the apply the same agglutinative logic you are familiar with from Turkish to Germanic languages.

And, Germanic languages underwent significant sound shifts since PIE times. Even if there were a pre-PIE proto-language linking PIE and Turkic languages you would not expect to find the same sound patterns in both languages even if they were cognates. Let me give you an (admittedly extreme) example of how sound shifts can lead you astray: In German there is a verb _haben_ which means _to have_. The Latin verb _to have_ is _habere_. In German _-en_ is an the infinitive suffix and in Latin _-ere_ is an infinitive suffix as well. It seems totally logical to assume that _haben_ and _habere_ are the same word but they are not! the Latin cognate of German _haben_ is the verb _capere_. If you know the sound shifts, this is totally logical: PIE /k/ became /h/ in Germanic languages and PIE /p/ became /b/. Another example is Greek _hippos_ which is cognate to Latin _equus_; a similarity you only see when you know that PIE /kw/ became /p/ intervocalically in Greek (some time between Mycenaean and classical Greek) while it was represented by "qu" in Latin.

Why am I telling you this? Because there are two traps you have to be aware of: firstly, just "collecting" coincidences is treacherous, the likelihood is high they are by chance. Secondly, unless you know the sound shift history of the languages you look at, you will never know what is a true resemblance and what is not.


----------



## berndf

Alxmrphi said:


> I had a thought, if_ book _goes back to that root, is it the same for _bark_ (i.e. tree skin) ? When I read the Germanic root, 'b' and 'k' with a long-O, it reminded me of _bark_, which obviously also refers to a tree, do you know if they are from the same thing?


To my knowledge, _bark _is related to _birch tree_, not to _beech tree_. Cf. e.g. German _Borke (bark)_ and_ Birke (birch)_.


----------



## ancalimon

The problem with Turkic languages is the simplicity and primitiveness of  the style and the sounds of thoughts they try to vocalize. But these  thoughts are extremely deep and carry many meanings within a single sound. I really feel sorry for people who cannot understand these. I'll try my best to explain.

It's not possible even for native speakers of  Turkish to understand many of the underlying thoughts in these words let alone scientists who know much more about Turkic languages.

In our education, we are not taught many of the things I presented to  you (in an amateur way), and probably not many people are interested in learning about these anyway due to our culture being forgotten day by day.

The beauty of the Turkic languages lies in the fact that not everything used are really documented or official, and people create new rules continuously when they speak. This makes it extremely complex, adaptive, efficient and highly flexible.

Let me try to give an example:

For example not many people know what is hidden inside the simple word  "OĞLAN" or "OGLAN" or "OKLAN" (depending on the Turkic dialect which are  spoken on many places on Middle Asia, some of them not even recognized  as a Turkic language) which means (boy) in English (Boy means length, height and tribe in Turkic languages. It just brings the OK tribe and the OKLAN word to my mind).The word may become OĞUL and people don't know the difference as well.

Let me give you a reason: We have a national (among all Turkic nations and most of Middle Asia) character called "Dede Korkut" (according to legend, he doesn't exist as one person, but many (just like the Keyser (Hızır) character). . 
There are things in his stories (which are usually extremely Gothic, dark and strange but full of flowers and colors) of him that would seem strange to many native Turkish speakers because sometimes nouns become verbs, or verbs become adjectives without any change in the sentence itself! And many similar absurd things. Sometimes a single word in a sentence becomes both verb, adjective, noun and I don't know how to describe the strange feeling one gets from that.

In this context, I'll try to create a situation and a picture in your head in which a man just had a boy baby, and he lifts the baby in the air and tells him these:

EY OĞUL! OKLANASIN, OĞLANASIN, BÜYÜK İŞLER BAŞARASIN

O' (HEY?') SON! (I HOPE) I LET IT BECOME POSSIBLE SO THAT YOU BECOME STRONG (or acquire an arrow, or etc.), (I HOPE) I LET IT BECOME POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVE BECOME TO HAVE A MIND WISE AND FREE OF ALL DOUBTS, (I HOPE)  I LET IT BECOME POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN ACCOMPLISHING GREAT DEEDS

In this sentence, the noun OĞLAN becomes an adjective and verb at the same time (OĞLANAN). I know it's difficult to express how as I couldn't even translate it to English. Maybe I wouldn't even be able to explain this to a native Turkish speaker.

Here "I HOPE" should be used if you said "OKLANIRSIN", but it becomes "I LET IT BECOME POSSIBLE" (like a GOD) when you say "OKLANASIN".

The difference between OĞUL and OĞLAN is this:
OĞUL: son (according to tamgas I talked about earlier, this means among other things: "BECOME WISE" and "BECOME WISE and you're HOLY", OR BECOME AN OK (ADULT)  (OL means:BE, BECOME)

OĞLANAN: this is the hope or expression of a will for him to grow up. (*The single L loads the WILL meaning to the word which is both a noun, adjective, and a verb*) this is both "OĞ OLAN", "OĞLANAN" and "OĞLAN"

Notice that I translated "OKLANASIN" as "I LET IT BECOME POSSIBLE SO THAT YOU BECOME STRONG"
This Strong part is probably why it's usually officially accepted that the word Turk means "strong". That's wrong, The only part that means strong is the fourth letter in the word TURK. This is because OK tamga have many meanings when used in different words and/or in sentences.
In the TURK word OK may mean strong if the ÜR part comes from ÜREMEK (to reproduce)  but also if the first letter is AT tamga, the combined ATÜR gains a different meaning. TÜREMEK means "to descend" or "coming to existance" or "becoming many out of one" among these things: http://www.seslisozluk.com/?word=t%C3%BCremek

AT part might be ÖT (which means sing, speak, a sound of an animal). In this case the word will be: ÖTÜROK
This would mean singing, existing.+ the last tamga which is OK would become something closer to "HUMAN" (or even "EXTENSION OF GOD" due to it being used together with AT thamga which carries within itself the meaning (to be thrown to GOD) if you take the context of the sentence (which is also a word in itself) into consideration.

If the last part of the word is not OK but was ÜK, it would load the meaning of belonging to a group sharing similar things (US-WE in English) as in YÖRÜK (the people who walk) YÖRÜRÜK (We are the people who walk) 

(I hope my high school Turkish teacher don't see these. He'll probably either beat me to death or give me a medal)

Maybe I should start writing a book in a more organized fashion... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dede_Korkut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hızır


----------

