# Öküz of Turkish & Ox of English



## cynicmystic

I have always wondered how the English word Ox and the Turkish word Okuz are related. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how these two words ended up in Turkish & English?


----------



## Chazzwozzer

That's because the Turkish word _*öküz *_comes from a Tocharian language. _(IE root: *ûgh-)_


----------



## cynicmystic

Thank you for the reply.

Do you think that is the connecting link between ox and okuz? And, aren't there doubts these days as to whether Tocharian was really an Indo-European tongue? Some argue that it was arbitrarily labelled Indo-European for political reasons than reasons based on solid evidence. (Just as Sarmatians, or Scythians).


----------



## modus.irrealis

cynicmystic said:


> And, aren't there doubts these days as to whether Tocharian was really an Indo-European tongue? Some argue that it was arbitrarily labelled Indo-European for political reasons than reasons based on solid evidence. (Just as Sarmatians, or Scythians).


I haven't heard anything like that, and every recent book on Indo-European I've looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European and uses it as evidence for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. Maybe you're thinking of how most most scholars have concludes that the people who spoke Tocharian aren't the Tocharians (Tokharoi) of Classical literature and that the name is a misnomer. But what do you mean about the Scythians? I thought it was pretty standard to consider them as having spoken an Iranian language.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

cynicmystic said:


> Thank you for the reply.
> 
> Do you think that is the connecting link between ox and okuz?


Well, the database query also confirms that Proto-Turkic root *öküŕ   derives from Tokh. A. I have no doubt about it, considering the influence of Tocharian languages on Turkic languages.


----------



## cynicmystic

modus.irrealis said:


> I haven't heard anything like that, and every recent book on Indo-European I've looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European and uses it as evidence for reconstructing Proto-Indo-European. Maybe you're thinking of how most most scholars have concludes that the people who spoke Tocharian aren't the Tocharians (Tokharoi) of Classical literature and that the name is a misnomer. But what do you mean about the Scythians? I thought it was pretty standard to consider them as having spoken an Iranian language.


 
The reason why you have not heard anything like that, and that every recent book on Indo-European you have looked at considers Tocharian to be Indo-European stems from the fact that, in the West, we have very little access to the extensive research that was carried out primarily by Russian scholars, and secondarily by German, Austrian and Swedish scholars at the close of the last century. 

The reason why such works are not part of the western version of history and timelines is because most of these works are either out-of-print, or have not been translated into English thanks the WWI, WWII & the Cold War eras. Or, more importantly, they fail to support the currently accepted version. Interestingly, some of these works contradict the Euro-centric view. 

The same arrogance declared Sumerian to be a language that is not related to any of the 'known' languages despite undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian. Most of the books that you would find in Western bookshops on the Sumerians do not even make a mention of these facts. Finally, one always has to keep in mind that the Indo-European, particularly the 'proto' aspect of it, is a theory that remains unproven. That is precisely the reason why there is always an * in front of the PIE roots to indicate that the root words are constructed & hypothetical.

Majority of the Russian work I mention do not consider Scythians, Cimmerians, and Sarmatians to speak a 'form' of Farsi. The PIE approach fails to provide any kind of etymology for words, such as TOCHAR, TURFAN, TARIM (Basim), TUER, TAER, TOGARHAN, TOGARMAH (Biblical), TORAMAN, TORE, TULA,THULA, TROJAN (TURHAN), ETRURIA, TARQUIN, TARHAN, TARKHAN, THOR, ODIN/WOTAN, TURINGI (Germanic Tribe) etc etc . 

Quatation from Wikipedia: "According to the theory of former USSR scholar Ü.A. Zuev the Tocharians in the Kidan state in the territory of Manchuria spoke proto-Mongolian language, the medieval Tochars (Dugers) in the future Turkmenia spoke Oghuz, and the Tochars (Digors) in the Northern Caucasus spoke in Alanian, i.e. in Sogdian-Turkic per Biruni. Meanwhile, Zuev concludes, their ideological traditions in many respects remained similar."
Zuev is just one of the Russian scholars who rejected the idea that Sarmatian, Scythians, and Tocharians had clear-cut IE roots. 

Just to compund this more, there is the problematic division of Tocharian A & B, which represent different time periods, as well as different functions, such as liturgic and colloquial.

These are difficult matters to establish conclusively, as history is a matter of interpretation, and that the scanty evidence that we have about these ancient people makes it possible to construct different versions. The reason why the western version is the orthodox, commonly-accepted, and mainstream history is simply because it has largely been the western scholars who have been 'writing' history from the European perspective primarily based on western resources for the past 500 years or so since the Enlightment. Majority of the work that is perfectly valid as academic studies are often neglected by Western scholars or do not pass vicious peer-reviews, where vicious scholars defend their positions, as well as their 'tenures' at universities & multiple publications in print carrying their names. 

Remember the case of Troy... It is only recently that it has been able to leave the realm of mythology to take a seat in the realm of factual history. Prior to the discovery of its location, the mainstream scholars considered it to be mythological. Another example of this would be the total disregard for Chinese sources when these sources contradict the western version. Chinese & Tibetan sources do not refer to the native Tocharians of Turfan as they refer to the Farsi speaking tribes. The Chinese sources refer to the Central Asian Scythians by the ethnonym Says/Saks, and the Western Turkistan Sakas are referred to as Say Wang, meaning noble Sakas. In the same manner, the 'fact' that Saka is one of the most ancient Turkic ethnonyms, and that one can trace the Turkic Saka all the way up from Siberia to Altai & Yenisei, and then to Northern Black Sea & Eastern Europe is also conveniently excluded from the western perspective.

In fact, every single record that we have about the Scythians from the Greek sources, to the Persian clearly indicate that the Scythians were multi-lingual and mixed. These facts are also ignored. Interestingly, Hekateus of Milett (circa 580 BC) refers to Melanhlens as not Sycthian, whereas Herodotus refers to them as Scythian. (Another discrepancy that is often ignored). 

Anyway, I apologize for drifting in different directions. I just want to add this excerpt from Zakiev:

"
It is important to note, that to the ancient Tochars the German Indo-Europeists assigned a peculiar Iranian language. The matter is that at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries in the oases of the Eastern Turkistan (so called Sintszyan) were found monuments in a special western- Iranian dialect. The German Türkologist in their translation from the Sanskrit text to Uigur found, that the translation was done not directly from Sanskrit, but through _Tohri_. On the basis of that message, the other German scientists named these Persian texts "Tocharian". "They linked the Uigur word "_tohri_" with the name of the "Tochars" people, who were witnessed by the ancients as living in Bactria... The term "Tocharian language” is lingering until now, despite strong protests of many scientists" [Krauze В., 1959, 41, 44]. Here is evident at once the break in the logic: the Uigur text does not say that _Tohri/Tochars_ spoke Persian, most likely they were Türks, if the Uigurs took advantage of their language. Besides, we know that Tochars in the Central Asia in antiquity were closely connected with the Sako-Massagets, who in the 5th-7th centuries are known as Türkic nations among the Türkic Ephtalites and other Türks. M.Kashgarly the Togars (Tochars) also lists as Türks. The root of the word "Tocharistan has survived in the topo- and ethnonymy of the Uzbeks and Kazakhs" [Tolstova L.C., 1978, 10]. The _Tochars_ actively participated in forming the Uzbeks. Such a people as _Tochars_, greatly widespread (from the Eastern Europe to the Central Asia), could not have gone Turkisized so expeditiously, most likely the Tochars from the very beginning were Türks.
Ethnonymycally, the biblical _Togars_ (Togarma) and Scythian _Taures_ are close to Tochars. In the Bible (Genesis) is stated that from the son of _Japheth, Gomer_, were born three sons: _Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah_ _(spelled Dogarma by the author - Translator's Note)_(Ch. 10). This chapter of the Bible is written way before our era. Later, _Dogarma-Togarmah _becomes a usual ethnonym for the Türks in the Hebrew language. The Khazars, who accepted the Judaism religion, also were called _Togarmah_. In this ethnonym is clearly outstanding the part _Togar/Tochar_ with the meaning "Mountain or Forest People" and the part _-ma_, a plural affix of the Hebrew language. Just the fact that the Jews called the Türks by the ethnonym _Togarmah_ way before our era tells about the presence of the Türks in the Near East and in the Europe since the most ancient times."

And, as to this day, the region that the Tocharians supposedly occupied is still occupied by Turkic speaking groups. It is very likely that the Tocharians were a very mixed merchant community that controlled one of the most important spots on the Silk Route.


----------



## HKK

cynicmystic said:


> The same arrogance declared Sumerian to be a language that is not related to any of the 'known' languages despite undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian. Most of the books that you would find in Western bookshops on the Sumerians do not even make a mention of these facts.



To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:

_For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries those few linguists who studied these language families [the Altaic family] regarded them as members of the so-called Ural-Altaic family, together with the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic languages, based on features such as vowel harmony and agglutinative_ grammar. While the Ural-Altaic hypothesis can still be found in encyclopedias, atlases and similar general reference works, it has not had any adherents in the linguistics community for decades ("an idea now completely discarded" – Starostin et al. [2003:8]).


----------



## Frank06

Hi


cynicmystic said:


> The same arrogance declared Sumerian to be a language that is not related to any of the 'known' languages despite undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian


Could you pleae give some references to sources which give "undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian" and which can be considered non-idiosyncratic. 



> Most of the books that you would find in Western bookshops on the Sumerians do not even make a mention of these facts. Finally, one always has to keep in mind that the Indo-European, particularly the 'proto' aspect of it, is a theory that remains unproven. That is precisely the reason why there is always an * in front of the PIE roots to indicate that the root words are constructed & hypothetical.


Could you please give some reasons for this skepticism? 



> Majority of the Russian work I mention do not consider Scythians, Cimmerians, and Sarmatians to speak a 'form' of Farsi.


You mean 'Iranian', I presume? A 'form of Farsi' in this context doesn't really make sense.



> The PIE approach fails to provide any kind of etymology for words, such as TOCHAR, TURFAN, TARIM (Basim), TUER, TAER, TOGARHAN, TOGARMAH (Biblical), TORAMAN, TORE, TULA,THULA, TROJAN (TURHAN), ETRURIA, TARQUIN, TARHAN, TARKHAN, THOR, ODIN/WOTAN, TURINGI (Germanic Tribe) etc etc .


What do you mean by 'the PIE approach'?????



> In fact, every single record that we have about the Scythians from the Greek sources, to the Persian clearly indicate that the Scythians were multi-lingual and mixed.


In fact, 'Scythians' can mean anything in the Greek sources, through history it has been used to refer to any group of people coming from the 'east'. Even Huns and Goths have been called 'Scythians'. So, what's your point?

I don't mind skepticism, but please give us better arguments. I don't mind critique against the theory of PIE and IE languages, which is 250 years old and supported by 10.000s of scholars. But in order to undermine that theory, better and more coherent comments are needed.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## cynicmystic

Does your database say anything about which one of the Tocharian languages it came from? Is it from Tocharian A or B? Plus, Tocharian is a controversial topic and not all agree with the conclusion that it is IE. Keep in mind that one of the so-called Tocharian languages has not even been deciphered properly yet just like the Elamite language. 



Chazzwozzer said:


> Well, the database query also confirms that Proto-Turkic root *öküŕ derives from Tokh. A. I have no doubt about it, considering the influence of Tocharian languages on Turkic languages.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

cynicmystic said:


> Does your database say anything about which one of the Tocharian languages it came from? Is it from Tocharian A or B? Plus, Tocharian is a controversial topic and not all agree with the conclusion that it is IE. Keep in mind that one of the so-called Tocharian languages has not even been deciphered properly yet just like the Elamite language.


Like I said, it is Tocharian  A.


----------



## cynicmystic

I am not really sure I understand your post? There is a lexicon of around 250 words that are shared by Turkish, Hungarian and Sumerian languages. Aside from that, I do not understand why people take Wikipedia as some kind of authority with the final say. Has it not occurred to you that it is people like you and I that write the articles on Wikipedia. 



HKK said:


> To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:
> 
> _For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries those few linguists who studied these language families [the Altaic family] regarded them as members of the so-called , together with the  and the  l, based on features such as  and _ grammar. While the Ural-Altaic hypothesis can still be found in encyclopedias, atlases and similar general reference works, it has not had any adherents in the linguistics community for decades ("an idea now completely discarded" – Starostin et al. [2003:8]).


----------



## cynicmystic

I suppose your post represents the 'coherent' kind of post that you are referring to as needed.

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you counted those '10,000s of scholars', or better phrased, where is the citation for the statistical figure of '10000s of scholars'? Are you sure it wasn't 100,000s or millions?

Regarding the lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian, I am afraid you will have to google your way out. Start with the word for 'god' in Turkish and Sumerian. That's a good start.





Frank06 said:


> Hi
> 
> Could you pleae give some references to sources which give "undeniable lexical similarities between Hungarian, Turkish and Sumerian" and which can be considered non-idiosyncratic.
> 
> Could you please give some reasons for this skepticism?
> 
> You mean 'Iranian', I presume? A 'form of Farsi' in this context doesn't really make sense.
> 
> What do you mean by 'the PIE approach'?????
> 
> In fact, 'Scythians' can mean anything in the Greek sources, through history it has been used to refer to any group of people coming from the 'east'. Even Huns and Goths have been called 'Scythians'. So, what's your point?
> 
> I don't mind skepticism, but please give us better arguments. I don't mind critique against the theory of PIE and IE languages, which is 250 years old and supported by 10.000s of scholars. But in order to undermine that theory, better and more coherent comments are needed.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


----------



## cynicmystic

Chazzwozzer said:


> Like I said, it is Tocharian A.


 
And the citation?


----------



## cynicmystic

Altaic languages are still coherent to its speakers regardless of what Wikipedia says. As a native speaker of Turkish, I do see the similarities between my tongue, Korean, Mongolian, and Japanese. Whether the Altaic branch is related in any way to the Uralic branch is surely speculative, but that is not what I am talking about.

My irritation is with the identification of Tocharian as an IE language. As far as the records are concerned, the language that is spoken in the are is a lingua franca for the purposes of trade. This region was the heart of the Silk Route, and there was a mixture of different ethnicities. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Tocharian A was actually spoken by the inhabitants as there is absolutely no evidence that the so-called Tocharian B, which remains undeciphered is related to Tocharian A. On top of that, the region itself is Turkic today, and Turkish is the only language that can offer a satisfactory etymology for the word 'Tochar'. 

I would be delighted to hear the IE etymology of the word Tochar. Care to expand on that?



HKK said:


> To select a little part of your long post: would you cite any resource on the connection between Hungarian and Turkish? Wikipedia (Altaic languages, e.g. Turkish) says this about it:
> 
> _For much of the 19th and early 20th centuries those few linguists who studied these language families [the Altaic family] regarded them as members of the so-called Ural-Altaic family, together with the Finno-Ugric and the Samoyedic languages, based on features such as vowel harmony and agglutinative_ grammar. While the Ural-Altaic hypothesis can still be found in encyclopedias, atlases and similar general reference works, it has not had any adherents in the linguistics community for decades ("an idea now completely discarded" – Starostin et al. [2003:8]).


----------



## HKK

cynicmystic said:


> I would be delighted to hear the IE etymology of the word Tochar. Care to expand on that?



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


----------



## cynicmystic

I am still awaiting a logical etymology for the word...


HKK said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym


----------

