# Turkish influence on your language



## robbie_SWE

Hi!

Inspired by this thread and francois_auffret, I've decided to open this thread. 

It has struck me that many people in Eastern Europe still hold a grudge against the historic Ottoman domination of the region. They sometimes even refuse to acknowledge the linguistic and cultural influence of the Turkish language and culture. 

I've always thought that the Romanian people (maybe it's just me) have gotten over it and now accept that the Ottoman rule was a part of their history. The most significant example is the abundant presence of Turkish words in everyday vocabulary. 

So my question is; how has the Turkish influence affected your language and do people still hold a grudge? 

 robbie


----------



## sokol

As far as *Serbian/Croatian *is concerned, there was a strong movement at the times of the civil war for a *Bosnian *standard language variety where many Turkish loans not accepted neither in Serbian nor Croatian (but still used in dialects) were revitalised.

However, as far as Bosnian is concerned I am not up to date, unfortunately; I would be interested very much in statements of people living in this region about the course standard languages are taking down there.
It would be interesting too if there was a new Anti-Turkish loan word 'movement' either in Serbian or Croatian induced by the Bosnian movement towards turcisms: as far as I am aware Turkish loans didn't cause much upset any more in pre-civil-war-times, and one of the most common Turkish loans - *sat* - certainly still is widely used (although with different connotations for Serbs and Croats, I think).


----------



## Outsider

A few words from Turkish are common in various languages, such as *kiosk* (_quiosque_ in Portuguese). I've only just found out about *zapato/sapato* in the other thread.


----------



## Athaulf

I would recommend this old thread in which some of these issues were discussed in much detail for South Slavic languages.




sokol said:


> As far as *Serbian/Croatian *is concerned, there was a strong movement at the times of the civil war for a *Bosnian *standard language variety where many Turkish loans not accepted neither in Serbian nor Croatian (but still used in dialects) were revitalised.
> However, as far as Bosnian is concerned I am not up to date, unfortunately; I would be interested very much in statements of people living in this region about the course standard languages are taking down there.



[As a side note, some people would dispute the designation of this war as "civil", but let's not get sidetracked. ]

As far as I know, this movement in Bosnia never took much root. Today's official Bosnian language is pretty much identical to the variant of Serbo-Croatian that was used for formal purposes in Bosnia-Herzegovina during Yugoslavia. In formal Bosnian documents that I've read during the last decade, I don't remember seeing any of the colloquial Turkish words that were considered as substandard when I was a school kid in Bosnia in the 1980s. 



> It would be interesting too if there was a new Anti-Turkish loan word 'movement' either in Serbian or Croatian induced by the Bosnian movement towards turcisms: as far as I am aware Turkish loans didn't cause much upset any more in pre-civil-war-times, and one of the most common Turkish loans - *sat* - certainly still is widely used (although with different connotations for Serbs and Croats, I think).


In each of the three variants of the old Serbo-Croatian standard that are now officially considered as separate national languages, one might say that there are three levels of Turkish loanwords:

(1) Those that are so ancient and well-entrenched that they have become part of the standard language, often without any native synonyms, and people generally don't recognize them as loanwords at all unless they're educated about their etymology. 

(2) Those that are used in informal spoken language, but considered as substandard in the formal standard language. Among these, there are different levels of formal unacceptability: some of them are commonly used in informal contexts even by educated people, while others can be perceived as markers of uneducated rustic speech.

(3) Those that sound archaic and obscure to modern speakers, or even outright foreign since they've never been used in their particular region. These often have footnoted explanations when used in print.


The number of Turkish words in each category varies across different BCS variants, although the words in categories (1) tend to be shared between Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, since they often don't have any surviving native equivalents (_sat_, _boja_,_ čizma_, _kutija_...). The number of words in category (2) and (3) is minimal in most Croatian dialects, much larger in Serbia, and by far the largest in Bosnia, which is understandable given the history of Ottoman conquests in the Balkans and their later withdrawals.

Generally speaking, the criteria used to classify the Turkish words into categories (1)-(3) are nowadays pretty much the same as those that were used in former Yugoslavia. As far as I know, since 1991 there haven't been any significant attempts at language reforms in Serbia, while the nationalist purism pursued in Croatia and the attempts at Turkish/Arabic word revival in Bosnia in the 1990s have never been taken too seriously by most people, so they didn't end up leaving a very significant mark either. 

In particular, I'm not aware of any recent anti-Turkish word campaigns in either Serbia or Croatia, but these wouldn't make sense anyway, since as I've already noted, those Turkish words that are recognized by the standard are so well-entrenched and domesticated that it requires specialized linguistic knowledge to even recognize them as Turkish.


----------



## francois_auffret

robbie_SWE said:


> Hi!
> 
> 
> I've always thought that the Romanian people (maybe it's just me) have gotten over it and now accept that the Ottoman rule was a part of their history. The most significant example is the abundant presence of Turkish words in everyday vocabulary.
> 
> So my question is; how has the Turkish influence affected your language and do people still hold a grudge?
> 
> robbie


 
It is difficult to say for languages which never were in direct contact such as French and English... It is possible though that a number of Arabic or Persian loanwords in these languages have come through the Turcs and the Turkish...  Remember that in the 17th / 18th century in France the word Turc was used a a generic name for Muslims and that the Ottomans were seen with great respect and with great awe in Western Europe too... 

*Thanks Althaulf* for your very long, detailed and scholarly posting... We would like to know more...

Robbie, what about Romanian? Could you be a bit more specific? Could you give examples and how much the Turkish language has affected Romanian???


----------



## Mahaodeh

In Arabic there are quite a lot of Turkish loanwords, most are colloquial but some have found their way to standard Arabic.  I don't think people hold a "grudge", I don't believe they ever did; but they did reject Turkinisation (I think I spelled it right), which was a movement around the end of the Ottoman Empire to replace local languages with Turkish.  For Arabs loan words was one thing, wiping out their language was another.

Examples that come to mind are: _basha_, _agha_, _takht_, _haramlak_, _doulma_, some prefixes such as _siz_ (as in adab_siz_, meaning "mannerless") and _chi_ (as in qahwa_chi_, meaning "the coffeeshop owner").


----------



## MarX

I just found out that the Indonesian word for "shoe", *sepatu*, originated from Turkish (made its way into Indonesian through Portuguese).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


MarX said:


> I just found out that the Indonesian word for "shoe", *sepatu*, originated from Turkish (made its way into Indonesian through Portuguese).


Which means that Portuguese got the word from Turkish... which is not really sure. Dicionário etimológico da Língua portuguesa:


> *sapato:* calçado [...] De origem *duvidosa*. *Talvez* (=maybe) do turco çabata.


 
Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Frank06

*I really think that we should not start listing any Turkish loan word in any language. **A Turkish word in language X on the other side of the planet doesn't really qualify as 'Turkish influence'.  **So, let's keep it at 'direct Turkish influence' in this thread. Before we know it, we'll be discussing which of the 6400 languages did or did not borrow the words yoghurt and baklava.*


*I hope we can concentrate upon the original question and look at situations where people still hold a grudge against the historic Ottoman or Turkish domination of the region and where people even refuse to acknowledge the linguistic influence of the Turkish language for historical (or political) reasons.*

*Groetjes,*

*Frank*
*Moderator EHL*


----------



## sokol

Athaulf said:


> The number of words in category (2) and (3) is minimal in most Croatian dialects, much larger in Serbia, and by far the largest in Bosnia (...)


Interestingly, this is exactly what I thoght would be the case but never expected (as I thought my knowledge is very much out of date) - at first, the distribution of loans (as is well known Croatian standard is more purist than Serbian, and more Turkish loans in Bosnia would be just as well natural if you take in the historical background).

So my feeling that there was no real (newer) Anti-Turkish movement in Croatian/Serbian is confirmed.




Athaulf said:


> [but let's not get sidetracked. ]


*[Comments snipped, let's not get sidetracked, indeed.*
*Frank*
*Moderator EHL]*


----------



## robbie_SWE

francois_auffret said:


> ...
> Robbie, what about Romanian? Could you be a bit more specific? Could you give examples and how much the Turkish language has affected Romanian???


 
Keeping in mind that Frank06 has asked us not to publish long lists with Turkish words in our languages; I'll keep this post strictly connected to the initial question. 

In Romanian it is estimated that only 0,73 % of the Romanian vocabulary can be traced back to the Turkish language. Taking in consideration that Romanian (according to DEX) has over 363 000 words, the Turkish lexis is appr. 2650 (not much, taking in account that the Greek lexis amounts to appr. 6200 words). These words are most often encountered when people talk about food, commerce, clothing and merchandise. 

I have discussed this subject with people I know, who come from South Slavic speaking countries in the Balkans and I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference in mentality depending on history and ethnicity.

The people I talked to still feel some kind of hatred towards the Turks, blaming them for their own demographic problems (something like "if it wasn't for the Ottoman Empire then we wouldn't have religious problems in Bosnia and Croatia"). I'm not saying this is true for every single person from Bosnia, Croatia, Albania or Serbia. But this type of mentality doesn’t seem to occur in Romania. 

Hope this didn't upset anyone, because it really isn't my intention. 

 robbie


----------



## Athaulf

robbie_SWE said:


> In Romanian it is estimated that only 0,73 % of the Romanian vocabulary can be traced back to the Turkish language. Taking in consideration that Romanian (according to DEX) has over 363 000 words, the Turkish lexis is appr. 2650 (not much, taking in account that the Greek lexis amounts to appr. 6200 words).



However, if these two numbers (0.73% and 363,000) are coming from different sources, you can't derive any meaningful conclusion by multiplying them. Both the "size of the lexicon" and the "percentage of vocabulary" satisfying this or that condition are very inexactly defined notions. The numbers for either of them can vary wildly if you change the arbitrary definition of what exactly counts as a single "word".


----------



## robbie_SWE

Athaulf said:


> However, if these two numbers (0.73% and 363,000) are coming from different sources, you can't derive any meaningful conclusion by multiplying them. Both the "size of the lexicon" and the "percentage of vocabulary" satisfying this or that condition are very inexactly defined notions. The numbers for either of them can vary wildly if you change the arbitrary definition of what exactly counts as a single "word".


 
I completely agree Athaulf. I just had to publish the official numbers to answer francois_auffret's question. 

 robbie


----------



## Alijsh

I'm not sure whether it's off-topic but since it's related to the Ottoman Empire I write it and leave the decision to the moderators. 

I don't think Ottoman lingual (_excluding other cultural aspects_) influence was confined to vocabulary. There must have been literary influence too and mainly via Persian literature. Persian was, so to speak, the literary language (_not to consider court, etc. language that is unrelated to our topic_) of the Ottomans and even some Ottoman kings have composed Persian poems. Ottomans brought Persian language and literature to Balkans. I just found a Persian article titled "Persian language in Balkans", which apart from some Persian vocabulary passed to these languages via Ottoman Turkish, mentions several Albanian and Bosnian poets who have composed Persian poets. So Ottomans must have brought some literary influence to the literature of the languages spoken in Balkans. Unfortunately, the name of the poets is in Persian and I can't directly write you their names but if you are interested, I can try to find how their name is written in their native language and write them for you.


----------



## Athaulf

robbie_SWE said:


> I completely agree Athaulf. I just had to publish the official numbers to answer francois_auffret's question.
> 
> robbie



Regarding the concrete numbers you cited, even though I don't speak Romanian, I would still bet that with any reasonable measure, Turkish words account for much more than 0.73% of the vocabulary of the everyday spoken language, whereas on the other hand, one could hardly compile a list of over 2,500 separate Turkish words that are still in effective circulation.  As for the comparison with Greek words, in most European languages, their number is artificially inflated by obscure technical terminology.


----------



## Mahaodeh

Alijsh said:


> I'm not sure whether it's off-topic but since it's related to the Ottoman Empire I write it and leave the decision to the moderators.
> 
> I don't think Ottoman lingual (_excluding other cultural aspects_) influence was confined to vocabulary. There must have been literary influence too and mainly via Persian literature. Persian was, so to speak, the literary language (_not to consider court, etc. language that is unrelated to our topic_) of the Ottomans and even some Ottoman kings have composed Persian poems. Ottomans brought Persian language and literature to Balkans. I just found a Persian article titled "Persian language in Balkans", which apart from some Persian vocabulary passed to these languages via Ottoman Turkish, mentions several Albanian and Bosnian poets who have composed Persian poets. So Ottomans must have brought some literary influence to the literature of the languages spoken in Balkans. Unfortunately, the name of the poets is in Persian and I can't directly write you their names but if you are interested, I can try to find how their name is written in their native language and write them for you.


 
OK, this is a little confusing to me, I thought the Ottomans and Persians (of the time, I think they were Safavids?) were archenemies?


----------



## vince

interesting about sapato / zapato = shoe

because French chaussure (= shoe) is clearly related to calçado


----------



## Forero

I once mentioned to a Bulgarian girl that "yoghurt" is Turkish, and she said with a horrified look that yogurt cannot be Turkish because it is obviously Bulgarian.  Perhaps she thought I thought Turkish yogurt was better?  I have never tasted anything but American and Western European yogurt, so I don't have an opinion, but isn't "yoghurt" a Turkish word?


----------



## OldAvatar

robbie_SWE said:


> Keeping in mind that Frank06 has asked us not to publish long lists with Turkish words in our languages; I'll keep this post strictly connected to the initial question.
> 
> In Romanian it is estimated that only 0,73 % of the Romanian vocabulary can be traced back to the Turkish language. Taking in consideration that Romanian (according to DEX) has over 363 000 words, the Turkish lexis is appr. 2650 (not much, taking in account that the Greek lexis amounts to appr. 6200 words). These words are most often encountered when people talk about food, commerce, clothing and merchandise.
> 
> I have discussed this subject with people I know, who come from South Slavic speaking countries in the Balkans and I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference in mentality depending on history and ethnicity.
> 
> The people I talked to still feel some kind of hatred towards the Turks, blaming them for their own demographic problems (something like "if it wasn't for the Ottoman Empire then we wouldn't have religious problems in Bosnia and Croatia"). I'm not saying this is true for every single person from Bosnia, Croatia, Albania or Serbia. But this type of mentality doesn’t seem to occur in Romania.
> 
> Hope this didn't upset anyone, because it really isn't my intention.
> 
> robbie



It is interesting that in Romania, recent research says that some of the words known as having Turkish origins could have, in fact, Cuman origin, see Neagu Djuvara.
It is also good to notice that Turks were not really invaders for Romanians, as presented in history books. They were seen more like partners; Romanian countries, unlike other Balkan regions, were not being Ottoman provinces but vassal states. Apart the local princes which were, sometimes, imposed by „the Gate”, Turks always respected religion and local habits of Romanians and they never liked the idea of raising the domination in these lands. The reason was mainly an economic one, since Romania always provided lots of grains and soldiers for the mighty empire.


----------



## Athaulf

Mahaodeh said:


> OK, this is a little confusing to me, I thought the Ottomans and Persians (of the time, I think they were Safavids?) were archenemies?



The idea that military conflict between states automatically implies mutual hatred or aversion towards each other's language and culture is an invention of relatively recent times. As recently as during the First World War, the highest German military decoration still had a French name -- Pour le Mérite. 

The Ottoman Empire wasn't a nation-state in the modern sense like the present Republic of Turkey (and neither were any other states before modern times). Unlike most modern wars, the wars at that time were not seen as ethnic conflicts, and nationalism in the modern sense didn't exist. Thus, it was nothing unusual that Persian was the language of high culture in the Ottoman Empire, despite its numerous wars with Iran.


----------



## francois_auffret

vince said:


> interesting about sapato / zapato = shoe
> 
> because French chaussure (= shoe) is clearly related to calçado


 
 I know it is not directly the topic, but let me digress a little bit...

In French, we have the word *savate* which is the equivalent of sapato/zapato
My French dictionary (Le Petit Robert) says:



> form Turkish _çabata_ through Italian _Ciabatta_


 
Just to tell you....


----------



## robbie_SWE

OldAvatar said:


> It is interesting that in Romania, recent research says that some of the words known as having Turkish origins could have, in fact, Cuman origin, see Neagu Djuvara.
> It is also good to notice that Turks were not really invaders for Romanians, as presented in history books. They were seen more like partners; Romanian countries, unlike other Balkan regions, were not being Ottoman provinces but vassal states. Apart the local princes which were, sometimes, imposed by „the Gate”, Turks always respected religion and local habits of Romanians and they never liked the idea of raising the domination in these lands. The reason was mainly an economic one, since Romania always provided lots of grains and soldiers for the mighty empire.


 
This is very interesting OldAvatar, because it supports my initial presumptions that Romanians don't have the same picture of the Ottoman Empire as the other inhabitants of the Balkans. 

This kind of leads me into thinking that this might explain why Romania always felt misplaced in Eastern Europe (hope this doesn't step outside the scope of this thread Frank06 ). 

 robbie


----------



## sokol

robbie_SWE said:


> This kind of leads me into thinking that this might explain why Romania always felt misplaced in Eastern Europe (hope this doesn't step outside the scope of this thread Frank06 ).



Here, Robbie, and no offense, I think you *do *stay on topic for one simple reason: the Romanian feeling of 'being misplaced on the Balkans' as a national myth due to the national renaissance of Romanians in the 19th century.
In this period of their history the Romanians 'cleansed' (to use a now popular word) of 'Balkanic' influence (Turkish included here, of course).
But this part of the discussion would be better placed in this thread.

Despite of that Romanian still is very much a language of the Balkans (postponed articles and other signs of the "Balkanbund"), even though the Romance parts of the language are surprisingly close to Italian.
As for the postponed article in Balkan languages, this obviously is one of the influences in the *"Balkansprachenbund"* (sorry, guys, this only could be translated to English _Balkan sprachbund, _no 'proper' English word available for that one) which could be put down to *Turkish *influence, nevertheless this is a much disputed point.
(And in fact, a postponed article very well also could have developed from other influences or even autonomously; however, much of the discussion about the Balkan sprachbund seems to be hindered by national attitudes towards Turkish influence.)

---> Now, just wait, Robbie: does now Romanian have a postponed article? After a quick google search I'm not so sure anymore ...


----------



## robbie_SWE

sokol said:


> ...
> ---> Now, just wait, Robbie: does now Romanian have a postponed article? After a quick google search I'm not so sure anymore ...


 
Hi Sokol! 

It actually depends. What do you mean with "postponed articles"? The Romanian articles are *enclitic* and they're added at the end of the noun. Similar tendencies can be seen in many languages including Latin. 

 robbie


----------



## modus.irrealis

As for Greek, Turkish has had a lot of influence on the language, but it's almost entirely on the vocabulary. (This is true of the standard language -- there were dialects in Anatolia for example that had vowel harmony and all sorts of other Turkish-like elements). Even though there are fewer Turkish words in the language now than a hundred years ago (because of efforts to "purify" the language), there are still a lot of them, and a lot of names of places and people also have Turkish roots. And not just loanwords but a number of productive suffixes have been borrowed, like -τζης _-dzis_ which is the same as the -chi Mahaodeh mentioned (Greek has also borrowed that word as καφετζής _kafedzis_).

But I'm surprised by how little influence outside of vocabulary there is, though -- at least, how little obvious influence -- there may be some that's more subtle. Even in terms of phonology, I can't think of any sounds that Greek adopted -- in loanwords, for example, Turkish c and ç become τζ _dz_ and τσ_ ts _in standard Greek (I would assume the Greek dialects that had the Turkish sounds borrowed them with the Turkish sound but I couldn't confirm)_._ And grammatically, I can think of only a few things which may be due to Turkish influences: adverbs are doubled σιγά σιγά - yavaş yavaş "slowly", constructions like θέλει δε θέλει - ister istemez "whether he wants to or not".

I've always wondered how the vocabulary influence could be so great seemingly without any other influence. Perhaps Turkish was different enough that people could not make parallels between it and their language, except in the cases where the Turkish influence was so great that you basically got Turkified versions of the language. Or maybe, only small percentages of the population became fluent in Turkish and so only vocabulary items got passed around.



sokol said:


> As for the postponed article in Balkan languages, this obviously is one of the influences in the *"Balkansprachenbund"* (sorry, guys, this only could be translated to English _Balkan sprachbund, _no 'proper' English word available for that one) which could be put down to *Turkish *influence, nevertheless this is a much disputed point.


Why Turkish influence in this case? I ask because Turkish has no article.


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> As for the postponed article in Balkan languages, this obviously is one of the influences in the *"Balkansprachenbund"* (sorry, guys, this only could be translated to English _Balkan sprachbund, _no 'proper' English word available for that one)



Actually, I think the English term for "Sprachbund" is "linguistic area", although the German one is also used frequently in English literature.


----------



## robbie_SWE

modus.irrealis said:


> ...
> Why Turkish influence in this case? I ask because Turkish has no article.


 
Exactly! Why would it be a Turkish influence if the Turkish language lacks this grammatical trait? 

Modus.irrealis' post also made me wonder if the Turkish influence on the Romanian language also stayed strictly tied to the vocabulary. I can’t seem to recall any Turkish grammatical traits present in Romanian. Please correct me if I'm wrong!? 

 robbie


----------



## Spectre scolaire

robbie_SWE said:


> Modus.irrealis' post also made me wonder if the Turkish influence on the Romanian language also stayed strictly tied to the vocabulary. I can’t seem to recall any Turkish grammatical traits present in Romanian.


 This is probably true. But there may be some productive morphemes in use (if you would call that “a grammatical trait”).

The main lexicographical tool for turkisms in Romanian is still Lazăr Şăineanu: _Influenţa orientală asupră limbei şi culturei române._ I-II-III, Bucuresci 1900 – unfortunately a _liber rarissimus_.




modus.irrealis said:


> But I'm surprised by how little influence outside of vocabulary there is, though -- at least, how little obvious influence -- there may be some that's more subtle. Even in terms of phonology, I can't think of any sounds that Greek adopted -- in loanwords, for example, Turkish c and ç become τζ dz and τσ ts in standard Greek (I would assume the Greek dialects that had the Turkish sounds borrowed them with the Turkish sound but I couldn't confirm).


 A notable exception is _Pontic Greek_ which has code-copied several Turkish phonemes, f.ex. *ü* which is historically ironic as this sound existed in Greek some two thousand years ago. Many other Greek dialects which are now extinct exhibit stunning examples of Turkish influence on all levels. Very recently it turned out that _Cappadocian Greek_ was “not as extinct as we thought”, so to say – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocian_Greek_language. For the study of Turkish influence on Greek this discovery is most definitely “gefundenes Fressen”!
 ​


----------



## sokol

robbie_SWE said:


> Hi Sokol!
> 
> It actually depends. What do you mean with "postponed articles"? The Romanian articles are *enclitic* and they're added at the end of the noun. Similar tendencies can be seen in many languages including Latin.
> 
> robbie



Robbie, and modus.irrealis,
sorry, obviously I am wrong about the enclitic article being an obvious Turkish trait, please excuse my ignorance. 

Nevertheless the enclitic article still is very interesting in regards to the Balkan sprachbund where (it seems) both in Romanian (I read this between your lines, Robbie) and in Slavic languages (I know these theories from other sources) the 'intrinsic' explanation for development of an enclitic article is emphasised - with Romanian, via Latin, with Slavic languages, via Old Church Slavonic.
But in fact it seems natural for Romanian and Bulgarian and Macedonian (and probably some Greek dialects too?) developing _in unison _the enclitic article, it would be rather strange for all of them developing this article on 'intrinsic' language change only. (But I'll have to drop this unless I could come up with a good reason for Turkish influence here.)


----------



## latinsporean

See Before Turkish influenced anyone, The Mongols influenced Europe, now Turkish is an Altaic language which comes from Altai mountains where the Mongols are from, I mean even Hungarian is an Altaic language, eg
Hungarian : Cabimda Alma war
Turkish: Cebimde Elma var. 
This wasn't from the influence of the Turks, it was the Mongols that did this, Without the help of the Mongols the Turks would have never entered Anatolia. I am studying the Linguistic aspect of Altaic Languages, I am first year and I do not have alot of information however minor, we were confirmed that Altaic language family went to Europe by the Mongols, back from the Huns and Genghis khan etc. I may be wrong, Need to research more, I don't like everything lecturers tell us lol.


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,*

*Triggered by the previous post, I opened **a new thread** in which the (alleged) 'Altaic' status of Hungarian, and the notions 'Altaic' and 'Uralic' and 'Ural-Altaic' (thanks Spectre scolaire!) can be discussed.*

*Groetjes,*

*Frank*
*Moderator EHL*


----------



## aleCcowaN

Everyday words in Spanish, loans from Turkish

As said, zapato (from _zabata_) [shoe]
chaleco (from _yelek_) [sleeveless jacket, coat or pullover; vest]
latón (from _altln_, gold ) [brass]
yogur (from _yoğurt_) [yoghurt]


----------



## cute angel

Hello;

I live in North Africa and you know that this area was  a part of the Turkish Kingdom

It has a great influense in my country till now we still use words of Turkish sources like shatrenj which was a thread had been put here few weeks ago.

Regards


----------



## Forero

Isn't _shatrenj_ of Persian origin?  I think the "sha" part is the same word as "shah", which, I believe, is from the same Indoeuropean root as in "kshatriya" and "Xerxes".


----------



## Outsider

Recent thread about _shatranj_.



aleCcowaN said:


> latón (from _altln_, gold ) [brass]


_Latão_ in Portuguese. I had no idea it came from Turkish.


----------



## modus.irrealis

sokol said:


> Nevertheless the enclitic article still is very interesting in regards to the Balkan sprachbund where (it seems) both in Romanian (I read this between your lines, Robbie) and in Slavic languages (I know these theories from other sources) the 'intrinsic' explanation for development of an enclitic article is emphasised - with Romanian, via Latin, with Slavic languages, via Old Church Slavonic.
> But in fact it seems natural for Romanian and Bulgarian and Macedonian (and probably some Greek dialects too?) developing _in unison _the enclitic article, it would be rather strange for all of them developing this article on 'intrinsic' language change only. (But I'll have to drop this unless I could come up with a good reason for Turkish influence here.)


The strange thing is that if you take a look at the more widespread features of the Balkan languages (for example in the  Wikipedia article), it's hard to trace any of them to Turkish influence. I'm still scratching my head over this apparent lack of influence on the grammar of the languages. 

But I don't think having intrinsic reasons and developing in unison are opposed. My guess would be that there were high levels of bi- and even multilingualism and that people used the same linguistic patterns in all the languages they spoke, and so even weak tendencies in one language could be reinforced by stronger tendencies in another one, and there would be pressure for different languages to have the same constructions. And at the same time, if there was nothing to work on, there'd be no change -- I haven't come across anything talking of enclitic article in a Greek dialects, but that makes sense since Greek has had a proclitic definite article for a long time.


----------



## sokol

modus.irrealis said:


> The strange thing is that if you take a look at the more widespread features of the Balkan languages (...) it's hard to trace any of them to Turkish influence. I'm still scratching my head over this apparent lack of influence on the grammar of the languages.
> 
> But I don't think having intrinsic reasons and developing in unison are opposed. My guess would be that there were high levels of bi- and even multilingualism and that people used the same linguistic patterns in all the languages they spoke, (...)



Suggesting Turkish influence in case of the Balkan languages would be the first joice for a simple reason - it's the only thing these languages belonging to different language families had in common.
But I'm not the expert concerning Turkish, and if you can't find any reason here concerning the _sprachbund _which should be traced back to Turkish 
the logical explanation would be the one you already gave, above: a contact phenomenon.

All the supposedly 'intrinsic' tendencies* (if *these theories  e. g. for enclitic article *never *lead to an enclitic article to *any *of the Slavic or Romance languages outside the Balkans area.
Therefore it is only logical to conclude that the *contact *of all these languages lead to certain developments (like enclitic article, and avoiding of infinitives) which manifested themselves in all languages in the region no matter how closely related they were (or if they were related at all).

In this case it would be interesting too if the Turkish dialects on the Balkans (as there still live significant Turkish minorities there, especially but not only in Bulgaria) share the same traits.
Probably even Turkish could have played a role in developing the enclitic article - I am not sure if I should write this (as I can't offer any proof), but take it as speculation only: it *would *be possible that the subjugated Slavic and Rumanian population confronted with Turkish language (where many suffixes determine the meanings of nouns) slowly came to putting their (independently developped) article at the end rather than before the noun.

Such 'area linguistics' phenomena are very well known for Indian languages; there are communities with mixed Dravidian and Indoaryan languages where the grammar of both languages levelled out against each other (i. e. even though both languages originally had rather different grammar features there were adaptions which made it easier to produce near-1:1-translations from one language into the other one). The british linguist John J Gumperz has done some work on such phenomenons in the 1960ies. (If someone is interested I'll search for the source and will give a quote.)

But as stated, I am only speculating here.


----------



## modus.irrealis

sokol said:


> Suggesting Turkish influence in case of the Balkan languages would be the first joice for a simple reason - it's the only thing these languages belonging to different language families had in common.


Not the only thing. The Balkans had been ruled by the Roman Empire before that and had had Latin and Greek as prestige languages for a long time. There was a common religion with texts translated from the same source which may have allowed influence to go through. But I suspect there were high levels of bi- and multilingualism that allowed all these convergences to take place -- the various populations were until modern times very intermingled.



> But I'm not the expert concerning Turkish, and if you can't find any reason here concerning the _sprachbund _which should be traced back to Turkish
> the logical explanation would be the one you already gave, above: a contact phenomenon.


I'm not an expert either but from the little Turkish I know, I have to say that Turkish just doesn't share these convergences.



> All the supposedly 'intrinsic' tendencies* (if *these theories  e. g. for enclitic article *never *lead to an enclitic article to *any *of the Slavic or Romance languages outside the Balkans area.
> Therefore it is only logical to conclude that the *contact *of all these languages lead to certain developments (like enclitic article, and avoiding of infinitives) which manifested themselves in all languages in the region no matter how closely related they were (or if they were related at all).


But Romanian certainly inherited the circumstances to develop an article (as _ille_ became an article in most of the Romance languages) and the flexibility of Latin certainly means that it coming after its noun is plausibly intrinsic. But often, there's a lack of information - with Albanian for example, we don't seem to know that much of what it looked like earlier. Just to be clear, I do think that the contact played an important role, but I don't see that as conflicting with the idea that they are also intrinsic development, but with the various tendencies in the various languages feeding off of each other, instead of their necessarily being some sort of borrowing going on.



> In this case it would be interesting too if the Turkish dialects on the Balkans (as there still live significant Turkish minorities there, especially but not only in Bulgaria) share the same traits.
> Probably even Turkish could have played a role in developing the enclitic article - I am not sure if I should write this (as I can't offer any proof), but take it as speculation only: it *would *be possible that the subjugated Slavic and Rumanian population confronted with Turkish language (where many suffixes determine the meanings of nouns) slowly came to putting their (independently developped) article at the end rather than before the noun.


Ah -- but that shouldn't be too hard to test if the evidence is there. For example, do the earliest Romanian texts have more flexibility in the placement of the article? What about the other languages?



> Such 'area linguistics' phenomena are very well known for Indian languages; there are communities with mixed Dravidian and Indoaryan languages where the grammar of both languages levelled out against each other (i. e. even though both languages originally had rather different grammar features there were adaptions which made it easier to produce near-1:1-translations from one language into the other one). The british linguist John J Gumperz has done some work on such phenomenons in the 1960ies. (If someone is interested I'll search for the source and will give a quote.)


I would say that Western European languages form a sprachbund, although that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion (although there is the broader concept of Standard Average European). But the level of shared characteristics there seems to be the as in the Balkans and I would suspect that the causes are roughly the same, whatever they may be.


----------



## sokol

modus.irrealis said:


> Not the only thing. The Balkans had been ruled by the Roman Empire before that and had had Latin and Greek as prestige languages for a long time.


Greek - yes, but Latin - no: when the Slavs came Latin speaking tribes were driven away to deep forests and high mountains (the so-called Valachians), Latin wasn't a prestige language any more but a minority language. But as for Greek you certainly have a point.



modus.irrealis said:


> But Romanian certainly inherited the circumstances to develop an article (...)


Well yes, certainly - but should it *really *be coincidence that of all Slavic languages (where too there are reasons to believe in intrinsic development of an enclitic particle - with determined vs. not determined adjective endings) _only _the Balkan branch (Bulgarian + Macedonian) and of all the Romance languages _only _the Balkan branch (Rumanian) should develop an enclitic article?

Way too much coincidence for my money.
As for Turkish influence, this needn't be the case, of course, even the speculative theory which I posted above (and as stated there), but that the enclitic article developped in Slavic and Romance languages *only *in the Balkan regions surely could only be explained as a contact phenomenon.

I *don't* speak of borrowing here but of the _development of new features_ (of which the enclitic articel is but one, the avoidance of infinitives another one) in a mixed linguistic area where it isn't clear if only some or many or even all of the languages present in the area did contribute to this development.
The *only *thing we can be sure of is that these features did develop only *there *- on the Balkans.



modus.irrealis said:


> (...) do the earliest Romanian texts have more flexibility in the placement of the article? What about the other languages?


I'm sorry, but I can't be of help here.
As for Romanian we can only speculate as to what the article did look like between the Latin period and when Romanian surfaced again, which seems to have been in the 16th century only. There's a gap of well over 1.000 years to bridge. The oldest known text seems to be a commercial letter dated 1521 (Valachia was a tributary of the Osman Empire since 1396/1460; and anyway there's a historical dispute going on since the 19th century even - I believe - as to wether today's Romanians 'always' that is since Roman times lived in Valachia or if they did emigrate from today's Serbian and Bulgarian region to today's Romania).
I don't know for sure but I'd say that Romanian already had the 'Balkan' features in 1521, otherwise I probably would have found references to the point that this were not the case.

As for the other languages, especially Slavic languages: I am not familiar at all with Old Church Slavonic texts of the Balkan regions (nor with Old Church Slavonic texts in general, for that matter) but I would think that the older texts still were rather conservative (i. e. non-balkanic) even in the Bulgarian region because this is what usually happens with liturgic languages. So I do not know if there are definite clues as to the time when Bulgarian adopted the Balkan features.
Old Church Slavonic certainly had *no *article (but determined/indetermined adjective endings) and did not avoid infinitive constructions.



modus.irrealis said:


> I would say that Western European languages form a sprachbund, although that doesn't seem to be a popular opinion (...)


I agree with you here in principle; English as a world language is enforcing the ties European languages have nowadays, French did play this role some time ago. Still there are 'sub-regions' *if *one would suggest such a sprachbund, for example the Nordic region (Skandinavian languages), the Mediterranean, and so on.


----------



## Athaulf

modus.irrealis said:


> The strange thing is that if you take a look at the more widespread features of the Balkan languages (for example in the  Wikipedia article), it's hard to trace any of them to Turkish influence. I'm still scratching my head over this apparent lack of influence on the grammar of the languages.



Turkish has had a few small, but still interesting influences on the morphology of Bosnian speech. Specifically, the Turkish suffixes -ci/ and -lik have been borrowed in the form _-džija_ and _-luk_, and are actually productive in this role (or at least were productive for a certain period -- using them with modern nouns and adjectives usually sounds a bit funny ). Some of the nouns derived this way have entered even the standard language, though they're not productive in it.


----------



## Spectre scolaire

sokol said:


> In this case it would be interesting too if the Turkish dialects on the Balkans (as there still live significant Turkish minorities there, especially but not only in Bulgaria) share the same traits.
> Probably even Turkish could have played a role in developing the enclitic article – I am not sure if I should write this


 As long as you can’t substantiate such a _hypothesis_, I think I agree with the blue part of your statement.  In fact, it would be pretty farfetched to suggest such a thing. 


modus.irrealis said:


> The strange thing is that if you take a look at the more widespread features of the Balkan languages [...], it's hard to trace any of them to Turkish influence. I'm still scratching my head over this apparent lack of influence on the grammar of the languages.


 I think there is a common agreement on Turkish not belonging to the Balkan _Sprachbund_, and the reason can be read in this thesis, especially p.26 ff., and in p.31 the author makes a 12 item list of _morphosyntactic features_ which could be called “Balkan features”. Turkish is not a _member_, as it were, of this Sprachbund, and the reason is that it does not share these features.

One interesting exception is nr. [taken from the mentioned Chase Faucheux thesis] 6. future tense expressed analytically (often using “want” as an auxiliary), but the exception is limited to _Turkish in the Balkans_ – see this thread.The example being admittedly a “Balkan feature in Turkish” – it can also be found in very colloquial Turkish, especially among (recent) refugees from Bulgaria and perhaps in villages near Dörtyol (Hatay prov.) where people still speak Albanian following the Population Exchange – it doesn’t qualify for membership, so to say, in the Balkan _Sprachbund_. 

Two factors may have excluded Turkish from ever “acquiring membership”:

*1*) Turkish is _typologically_ a very different language from Romanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Greek and Albanian. In fact, it is so different that these Balkan Sprachbund “full members” could easily be considered – typologically*!* – as “dialects of one language”.

Don’t misunderstand me, the great linguistic interest in the Balkan _Sprachbund_ is precisely due to the fact that these languages belong to four different branches of Indo-European languages! And yet, they are like languages of another world compared to Turkish – or (indeed) vice versa.  

*2*) Lexical influence counts little when it comes to language typology. And it is in the domain of _code-copying_ Turkish words and idioms that Balkan languages have been heavily influenced by Turkish. (Greek in Anatolia seems to be an exception to this “superficial” lexical influence - see last part of post #28 of this thread).

The obvious question is then why the _code-copying_ is limited to one way. A plausible answer is that Turkish was the _prestige language_ in the Balkans during several centuries. Again – don’t get me wrong! I am now talking about _oral language_, _not_ written. There were three _liturgical languages_ reigning supreme in local communities in the Balkans: Latin, Greek and Church Slavonic, catering for everybody including the Albanians whose language did not even exist as a written (standard) language until very late.

Functionally, one could say the same thing about other languages of the _Sprachbund_: Vernacular Greek was deeply frowned upon by the Greeks themselves. This non-standard oral reality of our _Sprachbund_ members made them wide open to Turkish lexical influence. The proof is found in the languages themselves, but the reason for this – puristically seen – “dreadful state of affairs” is very much disputed. 

If one should sum up Turkish linguistic influence on Balkan languages, it is basically a lexical influence, _not_ a typological one. On the other side, most Balkan languages were typologically so similar – at least compared to Turkish – that whatever influence they were subjected to throughout Ottoman rule, they all received more or less the same impact. No language was “immune” to Turkish lexical influence. Hence, it is a Greek illusion – when talking about such alleged immunity – to think that Greek language was in any way different from the other Balkan languages. 

_Popular_ culture in the Balkans had a distinctive Turkish stamp, _official_ culture had a theocratic one, one which was regulated by the _millet_ system.
 ​


----------



## Athaulf

sokol said:


> Greek - yes, but Latin - no: when the Slavs came Latin speaking tribes were driven away to deep forests and high mountains (the so-called Valachians), Latin wasn't a prestige language any more but a minority language.



I think this is actually an understatement. The word _Vlach_ (and its various forms in different languages and dialects) is a slur (of varying offensiveness) in most places in Central and Southeastern Europe. What is especially interesting is that its meaning is totally different in various places and among different ethnic and religious group. The fact that this word root has been a basis for so many offensive terms suggests that the image of Vulgar Latin speakers in the eyes of other ethnicities was pretty bad.

Of course, Church Latin was the language of highest prestige among Catholics, but I doubt that many people saw any connection between it and the languages descended from Vulgar Latin back then.


----------



## OldAvatar

Athaulf said:


> The fact that this word root has been a basis for so many offensive terms suggests that the image of Vulgar Latin speakers in the eyes of other ethnicities was pretty bad.



I agree with that idea. The main reason of such an image is the occupation of these people. These guys were shepherds, with male population migrating every year from mountain to mountain with their sheeps (the so-called transhumance), avoiding cities, in general, and coming down to towns only when needed to sale their products. These guys were probably uneducated in comparison with the ones living in cities.
The word „_cioban_ - *shepherd*”, for example, still has derogatory conotations in Romanian, meaning a person with bad manners.
Also, the term _Vlach _was initially used to name the barbarians living at the border of the Roman empire, but speaking a form of a Latin language. They were probably considered as some sort of outlaws, strangers having their own rules, their own habits etc., different from the ones of Slavic or German populations, for example.


----------



## Athaulf

OldAvatar said:


> I agree with that idea. The main reason of such an image is the occupation of these people. These guys were shepherds, with male population migrating every year from mountain to mountain with their sheeps (the so-called transhumance), avoiding cities, in general, and coming down to towns only when needed to sale their products. These guys were probably uneducated in comparison with the ones living in cities.
> The word „_cioban_ - *shepherd*”, for example, still has derogatory conotations in Romanian, meaning a person with bad manners.



Yes, the exact same word is used as an insult (nowadays somewhat comical) for uncultured people in former Yugoslavia.  However, I'd say that it's probably due to animosity of settled farmers against nomadic and semi-nomadic shepherds; there wasn't that much townsfolk in medieval Balkans. 



> Also, the term _Vlach _was initially used to name the barbarians living at the border of the Roman empire, but speaking a form of a Latin language. They were probably considered as some sort of outlaws, strangers having their own rules, their own habits etc., different from the ones of Slavic or German populations, for example.



I'm not sure if this explanation for the word origin is reliably correct. I've read several different accounts of its history and its possible connection with "Welsh", but none of these seem to be conclusively proven. Certainly, one of the most interesting _wanderworts_ in existence.


----------



## OldAvatar

Athaulf said:


> I'm not sure if this explanation for the word origin is reliably correct. I've read several different accounts of its history and its possible connection with "Welsh", but none of these seem to be conclusively proven. Certainly, one of the most interesting _wanderworts_ in existence.



As far as I know, the term Walch > Wlach was first used by German tribes to name some of the Romanized Celtic populations and then by Slavics to name any sort of Romanized population. I assumed that, because Celtic tribes were definitely different than Germanic and Slavic ones. However, Celtics had little to do with actual Romanian people.



> However, I'd say that it's probably due to animosity of settled farmers against nomadic and semi-nomadic shepherds; there wasn't that much townsfolk in medieval Balkans.


I wasn't reffering to the Medieval ages but to the early middle ages, when Eastern Roman Empire was still under the influence of Latin language, somewhere until 600 AD. There were lots of cities arround.


----------



## sokol

Moved by myself to this other thread as it's more on topic there!


----------



## goksuc

Outsider said:


> A few words from Turkish are common in various languages, such as *kiosk* (_quiosque_ in Portuguese). I've only just found out about *zapato/sapato* in the other thread.




I hope I understood your sentence correctly. Kiosk is not used in Turkish at all. It must have German root. And I don't know any word as "zapato". I know ciabatta though, which means slippers in Italian. 

Shoe = ayakkabı (or outdated word "pabuç, must be from Per.)

In Greece some Turkish words are also used by Greeks of Asia Minor background but not necessarily by Greeks. For example düdüklü (ntountouklou) for pressure cooker whereas in everyday Greek it is hitra tahititas. And some old Turkish words (that we even don't use today) just remained in Rebetika songs. Another example is the word Kahpe, which means prostitute (informal) is used only in some islands like Lesvos.


----------



## Outsider

goksuc said:


> I hope I understood your sentence correctly. Kiosk is not used in Turkish at all. It must have German root.


I have no idea if it's used in modern Turkish, but according to the dictionaries where I've looked it up, it's a word of Turkish origin (via French).


----------



## goksuc

Outsider said:


> I have no idea if it's used in modern Turkish, but according to the dictionaries where I've looked it up, it's a word of Turkish origin (via French).



Interesting. The word "kiosk" is not used in modern Turkish, we prefer to use the word "büfe" to talk about a newsstand, kiosk. 

I also saw that kiosk apparently derived from the Turkish word (via Persian) "köşk" (kioshk) which means mansion, villa (in today's Turkish). The word "kiosk" with today's meaning (a place with an open window where cigarettes, newspapers, gums are sold) is not used in Turkish, instead we use another French word "buffet" (büfe)


----------



## Maya-the-smile

Hello from Bulgaria, 

About what *Ferrero* wrote...I am not sure of the origin of the word YOGHURT but...it is claimed that the yoghurt itself is "discovered" by Bulgars...something with goats' skin...
We don't use the word "yoghurt" to call the product yogurt - we call it "kiselo mliako". *[Bulgarian yoghurt ad snipped, Frank, moderator]*

And now...about the influence of Turkish over Bulgarian - BIG INFLUENCE, really! Of course this has much to do with the fact that Bulgarians have been held in slavery by the Turks for 5 centuries... 
There are may be...if not hundreds, than thousands of word we use and are Turkish... 
- abdal, hayvan, acaba, hava, adaş , örnek, demek, meydan, muhabbet, akıl, kafa, şişe , tersine...and sooo sooo on...If I gotta give more examples I wouldn't feel any difficulty, because a big part of our vocabulary is influenced by Turkish. 
Another interesting thing is that in some local dialects there are really a lot of Turkish words and phrases...


----------



## goksuc

Maya-the-smile said:


> Hello from Bulgaria,
> 
> About what *Ferrero* wrote...I am not sure of the origin of the word YOGHURT but...it is claimed that the yoghurt itself is "discovered" by Bulgars...something with goats' skin...
> We don't use the word "yoghurt" to call the product yogurt - we call it "kiselo mliako". *[Bulgarian yoghurt ad snipped, Frank, moderator]*
> 
> And now...about the influence of Turkish over Bulgarian - BIG INFLUENCE, really! Of course this has much to do with the fact that Bulgarians have been held in slavery by the Turks for 5 centuries...
> There are may be...if not hundreds, than thousands of word we use and are Turkish...
> - abdal, hayvan, acaba, hava, adaş , örnek, demek, meydan, muhabbet, akıl, kafa, şişe , tersine...and sooo sooo on...If I gotta give more examples I wouldn't feel any difficulty, because a big part of our vocabulary is influenced by Turkish.
> Another interesting thing is that in some local dialects there are really a lot of turkish words and phrases...




Interesting approach...I meant "slavery for 5 centuries". Even invasion would have sounded better.

Anyway, every etymology dictionary I know says yogurt (yoğurt in Tr) is a Turkish word. It may be actually Mongolian-Turkish as it makes sense that it is "nomad" invention. But I know there's a Greek claim that it is Greek invention too (as we all know everything is Greek invention)   lol


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Maya-the-smile said:


> I am not sure of the origin of the word YOGHURT but...it is claimed that the yoghurt itself is "discovered" by Bulgars...


It is claimed that the world is flat.

Can you please back up your claim about the _word_ yoghurt being Bulgarian in a *serious*, non-pseudo-linguistic way? We need slightly more data on the alleged Bulgarian connection. Hear-say (or 'I have read somewhere') won't do at all. And whether or not your Bulgars "discovered" yoghurt itself, that doesn't say a thing about the origins of the _word_ yoghurt.

Thanks in advance.

Groetjes,

Frank
50% member, 50% moderator, 100% fed up with those tribal quarrels every time the word 'Turkish' pops up in an EHL thread.


----------



## Maya-the-smile

Frank06, I've never claimed that yoghurt is a Bulgarian word...as u can see it yourself. I wanted to explain to Ferero about the YOGHURT as a product. 
That's all!
*
Frank06: " And whether or not your Bulgars "discovered" yoghurt itself, that doesn't say a thing about the origins of the word yoghurt."* ---> I'm happy that you finally understood the aim of my post.

PS. Never claimed the word is Bulgarian. Read my post more carefully, please!


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Maya-the-smile said:


> Frank06, I've never claimed that yoghurt is a Bulgarian word...as you can see it yourself.


Then I must have misread and misintrepreted your highly suggestive post. My apologies.


> I wanted to explain to Ferero about the YOGHURT as a product.
> That's all!


And what's the point of that on a *language* board?


> *Frank06: " And whether or not your Bulgars "discovered" yoghurt itself, that doesn't say a thing about the origins of the word yoghurt."* ---> I'm happy that you finally understood the aim of my post.


Then I must have missed that aim too.

Any which way, thanks for the useful second part of your post, about the Turkish loans in Bulgarian. 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## MarcB

English words of Turkish and Turkic origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Turkic_origin


----------



## Sennin

Forero said:


> I once mentioned to a Bulgarian girl that "yoghurt" is Turkish, and she said with a horrified look that yogurt cannot be Turkish because it is obviously Bulgarian. Perhaps she thought I thought Turkish yogurt was better? I have never tasted anything but American and Western European yogurt, so I don't have an opinion, but isn't "yoghurt" a Turkish word


I think she was shocked because many believe ( me included ;p ) that yogurt as a product originates in Bulgaria. There is some  justification for this claim,  but I think it is still controversial. The word "yogurt" obviously has noting to do with her reaction, I very much doubt that she would be affected so deeply by the etymology of a random English word . But that's a bit off-topic.

*

You might be interested to know that in 19h century there was a widespread movement among Bulgarian intellectuals, who were often called "Чистоезичници" (Ones that stand for a pure language). They were trying to purge the language of any Turkish and Greek vocabulary by reviving archaic Bulgarian words or creating new compounds. I should probably mention Ivan Bogorov,  who has been a medic by profession but also the most prominent member of this movement.

The initiative was quite popular and successful, though it didn't really produce a pure language with 0% loanwords. Nowadays Bulgarian still has a noticeable amount of Turkish words, some of which have become completely "transparent" and native speakers are not aware of their origin. The modern literary language uses many of the words created in this period, but in some remote areas and small villages you can still get a taste of the more "Turkish" version.


----------



## goksuc

Sennin said:


> The initiative was quite popular and successful, though it didn't really produce a pure language with 0% loanwords. Nowadays Bulgarian still has a noticeable amount of Turkish words, some of which have become completely "transparent" and native speakers are not aware of their origin. The modern literary language uses many of the words created in this period, but in some remote areas and small villages you can still get a taste of the more "Turkish" version.




Isn't kocani (cab of a corn) a Bulgarian word? Or maybe Serb. Who is aware of the origins of the words in their language anyway? And I dont think it matters much to most as long as they are not into etymology.


----------



## Sennin

Well, at that point of history it did matter for many people. The independence of the country was finally a fact and language was perceived as one of the principal tools for maintaining this independence and building national identity. Using the words of the former oppressor still felt like a treachery for many.


----------



## Edguoglitigin

About these undefined words has discussed on whether they are origined Turkish or not:

-sepatu~sapato~zapato,
-shatrenj,
-kiosk,
-yoghurt.

*sepatu~sapato~zapato: 
*
Firstly I have to say that this word doesnt seem a Turkish word and I think it doesnt exist in other Turkic languages either. It must be a wrong approach on the word in French Dictionaries.

*shatrenj:

*This word is borrowed from Persian. It means this is a word which is origined Indo-European. 

*kiosk:*

Form of the word in Turkey is _köşk _meaning "Mansion, Manor". I doubt on this word. If it is not an Arabic or Persian loanword that i looked up Persian,Arabic-Turkish(Turkey) dictionary and I could not come across it so it must be origined Turkic or another language. 

However, I found out a verb in Divanu Lugatit-Turk of El-Qashgarî which is rest from 11th century _köşi-_ "to close, obscure". It is possible to make a noun with formation suffixe _-k _on the word: köşi-k and then vowel -i- might fall down because its not difficult to pronounce double consonants "-şk" end of any word. Meanwhile _köşik _exists in the dictionary-book with "curtain, shadow" meanings.

*yoghurt:*

Noone can claim that this word is not Turkish! It is quite a Turkish word that is really easy to be proved. Thats some words which are derived from *yog- "to be dense": 

yog-u-n: dense.
yog-ur-: to make dense. 
yog-ur-t: It is the food.
yog-ur-t-: to get someting to dense.
yog(u)r-u-ş-: to make dense together.
yog-ur-guç: rolling pin.

These instances were quoted from El-Qashgarî's Divanu Lugati't-Turk


----------



## avok

Edguoglitigin said:


> *sepatu~sapato~zapato: *
> 
> Firstly i have to say that this word doesnt seem a Turkish word and i think it doesnt exist in other Turkic languages either. It must be a wrong approach on the word in French Dictionaries.


 
"Bugger" does not seem a Turkic word as well but it is so, according to the list of English words of Turkic origin. If there are more than one (one is from the Spanish Academy, it seems a feasable source to me) dictionary which state that sapato is of Turkic origin at least there should be some doubt about the Turkic-ness of the word. No smoke without fire


----------



## Edguoglitigin

> Sabot from Old French _çabot_, alteration of _savate_ "old shoe", probably of Turkish or Arabic origin.



I have just looked up the list and I have to say that the list contains some words which are supposed Turkish. However a large number of them are Turkish. But the list lacks etymological approach on the words. For instances the savate word doesnt exist in some etymogological dictionaries ( Drevnetyurskiy Slovar, An Etymological Dict. of Pre 13th century Turkish).


----------



## goksuc

Sennin said:


> Well, at that point of history it did matter for many people. The independence of the country was finally a fact and language was perceived as one of the principal tools for maintaining this independence and building national identity. Using the words of the former oppressor still felt like a treachery for many.



Sorry for the late reply. Well we have many many Greek words in our language (Turkish) and Arabic and Farsi. Still today, in many Balkan countries Turkish words are used...as well as Latin, Greek. I don't see it as a result of invasion but more as interaction.


----------



## Lugubert

robbie_SWE said:


> So my question is; how has the Turkish influence affected your language and do people still hold a grudge?


Trying to address the OP question, I think that, despite the adventures of our king Karl XII in Turkey, extremely few people know the origin of the very few Turkish words we've incorporated, so there are no hard feelings whatsoever. I'd say that not one Swede in a thousand will know that _kofta_ for a cardigan is a Turkish import, or that the stuffed cabbage roll, rather a Swedish national dish, is a transfer of the Turkish vine leaf _dolma_.


----------



## SuryaArya

goksuc said:


> Isn't kocani (cab of a corn) a Bulgarian word? Or maybe Serb. Who is aware of the origins of the words in their language anyway? And I dont think it matters much to most as long as they are not into etymology.



A very good question. Kočan/kočanje could be explained in Serbian through kolac (pale, stick), diminutive kočić (from kolčić), Bul. klečka (stick), klin (peg). 

For instance, Serbian *odaja *cannot be a turcism (Turk. oda "room"), because it clearly comes from _odeljenje_, _odeljak _(room. a part of smtg; Ger. Teil, Abteil); from deljenje (Ger. Teilung, division)... 

Or *tavan* (attic), which is in a direct connection to tamnica/tavnica (dungeon); from the Serbian adjective taman (dark, obscure); ultimately from _dubina_ (deepness; PIE **dheub-*; cf. Irish _dubh _black)

The fact is that there are a lot of so called turcisms in Serbian/Bulgarian, which in reality are Slavic words borrowed into Turkish language. It seems that nobody takes seriously a possibility that Turkish has been influenced by Slavic too...

D. Vukotić


----------



## Kanes

That is true, especially if you keep in mind that millions of muslims, some of them not knowing any Turkish were forced out or escaped to Turkey after the liberation of the Balkans. Plus the empire fell, the Turkish language changed very much. Despite that there are probably thousands of Turkish words in Bulgarian, many even have Persian or Arabic origin that came through the empire.


----------



## Vurguncu

latinsporean said:


> See Before Turkish influenced anyone, The Mongols influenced Europe, now Turkish is an Altaic language which comes from Altai mountains where the Mongols are from, I mean even Hungarian is an Altaic language, eg
> Hungarian : Cabimda Alma war
> Turkish: Cebimde Elma var.
> This wasn't from the influence of the Turks, it was the Mongols that did this, Without the help of the Mongols the Turks would have never entered Anatolia. I am studying the Linguistic aspect of Altaic Languages, I am first year and I do not have alot of information however minor, we were confirmed that Altaic language family went to Europe by the Mongols, back from the Huns and Genghis khan etc. I may be wrong, Need to research more, I don't like everything lecturers tell us.



Now that's gonna be a veeeery late answer but I laughed when I read this post. First and foremost, Huns were not Mongols, the first Hunnic people are believed to have originated in Central Asia and many scholars think that they had no connection with Turks and Mongols in terms of ethnicity and language of course. They probably spoke a different language and Turks and Mongols were under the dominion of Hunnic Empire.

On the other hand if we are talking about the Huns who conquered Europe under the leadership of Atilla the Hun then sorry buddy, but these so-called Huns are highly believed to be of Turkic origin or Turkicised Huns, because they spoke a form of a Turkic language.

Mongol Empire is also called Turko-Mongol Empire because from military commanders to state officials, that empire had many many Turks. Even I would say more Turks than Mongols. Apart from that Chenghis Khan used Uighur script (which was Sansk. but then again shows the influence of Turkic) also designed a series of laws called Yassa or Yasa, which is believed to come from the Turkic verb "yay-", "to spread".

The modern day Mongolia was the first dwelling place of the Turks, but back then it was not called Mongolia, in fact Turks established their "first" empire long before Mongols did, back then Mongols were under the control of the Gokturk Empire. Even the word Altai comes from Turkic (Al+Tay = Golden Mountain)

And one more note on that Turkic and Mongolic languages share many similarities but there are also claims that they are not connected to each other like other linguistics say(Altaic Language Family)

Well seeing as your post is 1 year old, I am not gonna say anything, but study harder. 

Sorry for the long post, now back to the point:
I know that Turkish has influenced many Eastern European languages but there's also a reverse effect on this I think. I mean in Turkish there are NUMEROUS Greek words that people do not even realize(e.g. *"efendi"* which is an Old Greek word *"authéntēs"* meaning *"Mr."* in modern day Turkish)

I'm sure there are also many other examples.. hmm now that I think about it I know *"patika"* which is a small road usually used by shepherds and their animals. Though the Turkish equivalent is used a lot, too, this word has become a part of Turkish so you can hear many people using this. It is originally Greek but came to Turkish via Bulgarian.

So, many Eastern European people may despise Turks because of their influence on their language, but Turks never seem to address that although they have their share of Greek words like every other language Then again maybe the direction is eastwards, Turks do not like Arabic and Persian words in their language, hence the reforms in early 20th cent. but like in the case of Eastern European languages having Turkish influence after their reforms, Turkish has Arabic and Persian influence, too But which language does not have any loanwords from the languages it had connection with? That's pretty normal and I can't understand people getting angry because of that


----------



## arsham

In the previous posts, some spoke about the impact of Persian on Turkish, but Turkish and more specifically Azeri Turkish has also lexically influenced Persian, even though the amount of Turkish loanwords in Persian is far lesser than the number of Persian words Turkish has borrowed! 
Here are few examples with Azeri/Persian pronounciation:

chāqū, chelīk, chante, galan-gadan, gazme, dārūghe, ghūrbāqe, qī, qerqī, qāqem, bošqāb, qāšoq (ironically the Persian word chamche is now obsolete in Iran but has superseded qāšoq in Turkish), āchār, īl, ālāchīq, yeylāq, qešlāq, ordak (used only when speaking of completely white or black ducks, otherwise the general term is the Persian word morgh-ābī), qūš, ghāz, qāch (a division of any thing, especially a (cut) piece of fruit), qošūn, -bāšī (in hakīmbāšī principal physician of the royal court, āšpazbāšī chef (cook) of the royal court), tūp (ball; cannon), qālpāq, qāltāq, doqolū, xān (nobility title; xān meaning house is Persian), xānom, āqā, xātūn, bībī, nane, belderchīn etc.


----------



## Faylasoof

In Urdu there are still some Turkish words left:

aaqaa آقا ; aafendii  آفندی- now a family name; ailchii ایلچی; bahaadur بہادُر , beg / baig بیگ ; begam /baigam بیگم -now a family name; beebee  بی بی ; chaaqoo  چاقو ; daarughah    داروغہ; khazaanchii  خزانچی ; khaan خان - title but also a  family name; khaanam خانم ; tapanchaa    تپنچہ; top توپ  = cannon / field gun; topchii توپچی= gunner; qaab قاب  and of course URDU اُردو !

(Apart from these, there are also the combinations _khanbahadur_ خانبہادُر- another princely title, and the Turko-Persian word _khanzadeh_ خانزادہ- also a princely title.)

The name Urdu اُردو is short for _zabaan-e-urdu-e-mu’allah_ = the language of the exalted camp - the camp of the Mughal Emperors of India, who were bilingual Turkish-Farsi speakers.


----------



## SuryaArya

Vurguncu said:


> So, many Eastern European people may despise Turks because of their influence on their language, but Turks never seem to address that although they have their share of Greek words like every other language Then again maybe the direction is eastwards, Turks do not like Arabic and Persian words in their language, hence the reforms in early 20th cent. but like in the case of Eastern European languages having Turkish influence after their reforms, Turkish has Arabic and Persian influence, too But which language does not have any loanwords from the languages it had connection with? That's pretty normal and I can't understand people getting angry because of that



Sorry man,
I can't see anyone being angry about Turkish loanwords; it is quite normal. Serbian has a large number of Turkish loan-words. In some cases we can not find the adequate Slavic replacement; for instance, the Serbian verb 'ašikovati' (to be in love with). Everyone believes that this word is of Turkish origin (Tur. aşık; from Arab. asheq) and no one cares about it. Although the Serbs were for hundreds of years under the Turkish rule you can hardly find any Serb who despise or hates the Turks. On the contrary...

D. Vukotić


----------



## Frank06

*Hi,

It's not bad to give examples, but this thread is not the place to discuss individual words in detail. (In which case it's never a bad idea to consider opening a new thread and make a link to the original discussion).


Groetjes,

Frank
Moderator EHL



*


----------



## Zsuzsu

Vurguncu said:


> Mongol Empire is also called Turko-Mongol Empire because from military commanders to state officials, that empire had many many Turks. Even I would say more Turks than Mongols. Apart from that Chenghis Khan used Uighur script (which was Sansk. but then again shows the influence of Turkic) also designed a series of laws called Yassa or Yasa, which is believed to come from the Turkic verb "yay-", "to spread".


 
Hi there,

Although this is a quite old post, I've just read the above and would like to rectify it: it is true that in Chinggis's time, the Mongols borrowed the Uygur script, which was used by Uygurs and other Turkic-speaking peoples, but it was never Sanskrit but the Semitic (Aramic) alphabet delivered to the Uygurs by the Sogdians (an Iranian speaking people).


----------



## 2x2isnot4

And I don't know any word as "zapato". I know ciabatta though, which means slippers in Italian. 

Shoe = ayakkabı (or outdated word "pabuç, must be from Per.)

Also Re:
Which means that Portuguese got the word from Turkish... which is not really sure. Dicionário etimológico da Língua portuguesa:
Quote:
sapato: calçado [...] De origem duvidosa. Talvez (=maybe) do turco çabata.

----------------

EVREKA! At least, I think... After a year that the original question has been posted, yet another digression:

Çarık: a type of sandal

sapato>ciabatta (IT)>çarık(TR)  Note that Italian cia sound is exactly the same as Turkish ç. Furthermore, if history is any guide, my guess would be that the word might have been introduced into Italian by Venetians who would use "ciabat" ( Anyone from Serenissima here to confirm this?

Accordingly: sapato>ciabatta>ciabat (?)>çarık

I rest my case

Seriously, is this possible?


----------



## Encolpius

First, we have never been taught the Ottoman domination was something bad, maybe because after there were other (maybe worse) dominations. As mentioned above they did not tend to destroy cultural heritage. 

The Turkish influence on Hungarian happened twice, the first one, much older, many years before the Ottoman Empire, before 10th century. What's more we have been taught some linguists search for Turkish-Hungarian language relations. 

I won't list all the words here now, because they are quite a lot. *About 70 words* before 1000 and *about 60 words *during the Empire era. The former words lost their typical Turkish-like form and no one would believe thy are really of Turkish origin, they sound like typical Hungarian words (bátor, kapu, sátor, kis, bölcs, torma) and some of the latter ones sound more Turkish-like (like: basa, bég, hodzsa, mecset).


----------



## Abu Rashid

Mahaodeh said:


> Examples that come to mind are: _basha_, _agha_, _takht_, _haramlak_, _doulma_, some prefixes such as _siz_ (as in adab_siz_, meaning "mannerless") and _chi_ (as in qahwa_chi_, meaning "the coffeeshop owner").


A few more are beik (title), effendi (title), abla (sister/miss), oda (room), dulab (wardrobe). Not sure if they're used beyond Egyptian though. And also the suffix you mentioned I've heard used in a few words like ikhwanji (Islamic activist) and niswanji (womaniser).

Also I don't think agha is Turkish, it is Persian. May have come through Turkish though.


----------



## mugibil

SuryaArya said:


> A very good question. Kočan/kočanje could be explained in Serbian through kolac (pale, stick), diminutive kočić (from kolčić), Bul. klečka (stick), klin (peg).
> 
> For instance, Serbian *odaja *cannot be a turcism (Turk. oda "room"), because it clearly comes from _odeljenje_, _odeljak _(room. a part of smtg; Ger. Teil, Abteil); from deljenje (Ger. Teilung, division)...
> 
> Or *tavan* (attic), which is in a direct connection to tamnica/tavnica (dungeon); from the Serbian adjective taman (dark, obscure); ultimately from _dubina_ (deepness; PIE **dheub-*; cf. Irish _dubh _black)
> 
> The fact is that there are a lot of so called turcisms in Serbian/Bulgarian, which in reality are Slavic words borrowed into Turkish language. It seems that nobody takes seriously a possibility that Turkish has been influenced by Slavic too...
> 
> D. Vukotić



I'm afraid this is an extremely fringe opinion. These words are universally accepted by linguists to be Turkish loans. Just because you can come up with some "native" explanation by arbitrarily changing a few sounds in a word doesn't mean it's correct. And Serbian taman has nothing to do with Serbian dubina, these are completely separate roots in Slavic/ IE.


----------



## er targyn

Abu Rashid said:


> Also I don't think agha is Turkish, it is Persian.


Your proof? I think different.
On topic, Kazakh word egemen 'independent, sovereign' may be from Turkish.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

For me, it looks rather like a grecism - "hegemon", where the initial "h" in the source language possibily is mute - somewhat corrupted by the Turkic languages' tendency to vocal harmony - ...

The hypothese of the Turkish or maybe Arabic origin of the word "savate", "zapato", "ciabatta" is reinforced by the presence of a similar word with a similar meaning in Russian: it's "чобот" "(chobot"). I strongly suspect the existence of a similar word in Ukrainian, although I don't know the correct Ukrainian term.
I see no other possible source for such a word to appear in so distant areas as Portugal and Russia.


----------



## Awwal12

Well, speaking about Russian, the Turkish influence is comparatively low, but Turkic one is very noticeable. Some Turkic loanwords exist in the basic vocabulary, for example:
туман (tum*a*n) - fog
кулак (kul*a*k) - fist
хозяин (hozy*a*in) - owner, master
лошадь (l*o*shad') - horse
деньги (d*e*n'gi) - money
алый (*a*lyi) - adj. vermilion, crimson (bright red)
карий (k*a*riy) - brown (about eyes)
The source languages are numerous.


----------



## Lars H

About "kiosk"


goksuc said:


> I hope I understood your sentence correctly. Kiosk is not used in Turkish at all. It must have German root.



Swedish sources say also that the origin is Turkish, at first meaning "garden pavillon". Which is a bit closer to "villa", "mansion" that a newspaperstand.

Other words in Swedish - and numerous other languages:
"Kaviar", "kosack (through Russian) and "sorbet"

Perhaps "hord" meaning "herd of warriors", should be on the list, but this last word might be originating från Tatarian. A herd of animals would be "hjord".
"Hord" and "hjord are in deed very similar but still of different origins.

A more recent loanword said to be Turkish is "guss", slang for girl, a word that came to our country with immigrants and is becoming increasingly frequent.

And no grudge between Turkey and Sweden, what so ever


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Awwal12 said:


> Well, speaking about Russian, the Turkish influence is comparatively low, but Turkic one is very noticeable. Some Turkic loanwords exist in the basic vocabulary, for example:
> туман (tum*a*n) - fog
> кулак (kul*a*k) - fist
> хозяин (hozy*a*in) - owner, master
> лошадь (l*o*shad') - horse
> деньги (d*e*n'gi) - money
> алый (*a*lyi) - adj. vermilion, crimson (bright red)
> карий (k*a*riy) - brown (about eyes)
> The source languages are numerous.



Turkish-Russian "false friends":

Bardak=glass (of water)
Бардак=mess
Durak=(bus)stop
Дурак=fool, idiot
Kulak=ear
Кулак=fist

Хозяин, as for all I know, is not Turkish, but Chuvash.

It would be very good to give the source word in addition to the loanword, so we can better compare.

Between Russia and Turkey, no grudge, but then, Russia was never tributary, vassal or province of the Ottoman Empire. Rather, Russia (re-)conquered territory which is now part of Russia itself or some of its Southern and Southwestern neighbours, some of which even appealed to Russia for protection or joined the Russian Empire.


----------



## Rallino

Angelo di fuoco said:


> Bardak=glass (of water)
> Бардак=mess
> Durak=(bus)stop
> Дурак=fool, idiot
> Kulak=ear
> Кулак=fist



I don't think those count...They're only words that happen to have the same pronunciation.

I can even give you 2 more:

Barış = Peace
Бариж = Black (illicite) money

Durdum = I stopped
Дурдум = Psychiatric hospital


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

I corrected my precedent message by indicating those words as false friends.

Now to your additions: the first is дурдом and has two clear components: "дур" (the same as in "дурак") and дом", which means "house", and it's rather informal language.
"Барыш" (stressed on the first syllable) isn't black money, it's just a less formal word for "gains".

However, "кулак" appears not to be a genuine Russian word (nor Ukrainian or Bielorussian, where it also exists). The genuine Russian word should be пясть (запястье=wrist), which has cognates in nearly all other Slavic languages except possibly Bulgarian and Macedonian.

"Кулак" appears to be related to the Turkish "kol" (arm) and the Hungarian "ököl" (fist)


----------



## Rallino

Angelo di fuoco said:


> I corrected my precedent message by indicating those words as false friends.
> 
> Now to your additions: the first is дурдом and has two clear components: "дур" (the same as in "дурак") and дом", which means "house", and it's rather informal language.
> "Барыш" (stressed on the first syllable) isn't black money, it's just a less formal word for "gains".
> 
> However, "кулак" appears not to be a genuine Russian word (nor Ukrainian or Bielorussian, where it also exists). The genuine Russian word should be пясть (запястье=wrist), which has cognates in nearly all other Slavic languages except possibly Bulgarian and Macedonian.
> 
> "Кулак" appears to be related to the Turkish "kol" (arm) and the Hungarian "ököl" (fist)



Hmm Кулак is interesting indeed. Sorry for the misspellings by the way, I have no knowledge of Russian except for its alphabet.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

Бардак also appears to be a Turkish loanword: in Southern Russian dialects it signifies or used to signify "(clay) jar". Later its meaning became confused with the word "бурда" (from Tatar), which means "cloudy beverage".


----------



## ancalimon

There is a guy that uses a form of Caesar Ciphering to decipher words. He claims every word in every language was created by anagrammatizing Turkic words and that this still happens.

I think sometimes he goes too far, but nevertheless, there seems to be some truth in what he does, I have been doing it for a long time too, and discovered his work, I was surprised to see other people are doing it too.

For example: POLIS (as in city) in Turkish BOLUZ means: we are many, we are abundant.

an example from his article:*ANCIENT TURS/TURKS OF TURAN AND THEIR LEGACIES TO THE WORLD*

"It is clear that extensive falsification of ancient Sumerian language, history and culture and similarly the Tur/Turk language, history and  culture have been made in the hands of perpetrators of forgery in the so-called ancient "BABYLONIA." Even the name BABYLONIA is a misnomer because it is an anagrammatized form of the ancient Turkish phrase "BABa-ULU-HAN-ÖYÜ" meaning "The House of Great Sky-Lord Father" referring to the ancient  Turanian Sky-Father God. "

search in google for: polat kaya turanians part1  the first link is one of his articles.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> There is a guy that uses a form of Caesar Ciphering to decipher words. He claims every word in every language was created by anagrammatizing Turkic words and that this still happens.
> I think sometimes he goes too far, but nevertheless, there seems to be some truth in what he does, I have been doing it for a long time too, and discovered his work, I was surprised to see other people are doing it too.


There is as much truth in Kaya's work as there is an active ingredient in homeopathic dilutions beyond 14C: none whatsoever.

He's one of the many examples of pseudo-linguists to be found on the internet with a huge political agenda. This political agenda is so important to him, that he disregards any form of intellectual honesty. (Strange, that's the second time this week I had to write this in EHL. It must be spring.)
He basically perverts the already pervert Kemalist "Sun Language Theory". The adjectives "inane" and "absurd" don't even come close to describe his output.

There is no trace of a method in his work, all his explanations are ad hoc and driven by his political (basically Kemalist) agenda. 
A few examples:
- He uses anagrams, a dubious 'method', but every letter which doesn't fit, he calls a "bogus letter". This means, among a lot of things, that he doesn't even have a clue about *sounds*.
- In his anagrams, he uses *modern* Turkish phrases to explain Sumerian words. How anachronistic can one get?
- He basically states indeed that every single language on this planet is corrupted Turkish, from Latin, English, to Greek, Sumerian and the languages of the native Americans. 'Turkish' has been corrupted by quote "Benictine monks" (probably monks with time travel machines), or at least by people who had scripts. If you want to have a laugh, one should ask Kaya personally  where Turkish comes from (on one of his many message boards, worth a visit, excellent comic relief). 
- Everybody who diasgarees belongs to a world wide, centuries old anti-Turkish conspiracy or is misguided, or is a misguided anti-Turkish conspiracist.

This retired engineer (at least, that's how he presents himself, I have my doubts about his identity) isn't hindered by even the most basic knowledge of the most basic concepts in linguistics.

In short, since this dubious pseudo-linguistic clown doesn't deserve more WR bandwith: 
1. Logic, intellectual honesty, reasoning, clear thinking _and_ linguistics aren't really his fortes. 
2. Polat Kaya's outrageous fringe theories are a disgrace for linguistics in general _and _for Turkic/Turkish linguistics in particular.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06: I agree some of the things are really funny. But some of the things start to make sense if you know about ancient (very ancient) Turkic culture and theories with evidence but no proof about where Turks went and took their culture with them.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> Frank06: I agree some of the things are really funny. But some of the things start to make sense if you know about ancient (very ancient) Turkic culture and theories with evidence but no proof about where Turks went and took their culture with them.


None of Kaya's theories make sense if you know _[*edit* = generic 'you', hence one knows]_ about linguistics.

*It's really not opportune to discuss Kaya's theories over here: this thread is not about politically inspired fantasies, it's about Turkish influence on other languages.

I also like to quote form the rules of EHL:* 


> *15. Novelty theories*
> 
> This forum deals with (firmly) established historical linguistic peer reviewed theories.
> 
> EHL is not a venue to launch or expand on private pet theories, pseudo-linguistic ponderings, idiosyncratic and fringe ideas. This also includes theories based upon random lists of similarly looking words, chance coincidences, wild speculations or associations and other pseudo-linguistic and pre-scientific methods.
> Novelty theories on the perceived relations between two languages (let's say Sumerian and Japanese), on the 'First' or 'Original language' (let's say Hebrew) or similar(ly) idiosyncratic theories, folk-etymologies etc. are outside the scope of this forum.
> These include pseudo-scientific authors as Isaac Mozeson, Edo Nyland, Zoltan Simon, Barry Fell, Joan Leaf, *Polat Kaya*, and, alas, many many many more.


*It's really not a coincidence that we mentioned Kaya in the rules. From the start of EHL on, we wanted to prevent pointless discussions about pointless psuedo-linguistic theories.

Frank
Moderator EHL
*


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06: Then I guess the status-quo is defined here.Sorry for mentioning --beeep--'s name. I didn't know he was so (in)famous.


----------



## ancalimon

Possible Turkic influence on English
ABİL EBİL in Turkic: to be able to in English  (abil is pronounced as something very close to scrABBLE)
(BİL: know  BİLmek: to know)
(ABİL, EBIL: To know how)
example: 
Turkish: Savaş sırasında her attığını "vurabiliyordu".
English: He was "able to hit" all of the people he shot at during the war.

I don't know how this is possible.

------
Possible Turkic influence on the word Torah and the word history in English

töre: "cultural law passed from generation to generation" in English (ancient Turkic word originated in Middle Asia)
tarih: "history" in English
Torah: Tevrat in Turkish


----------



## 0m1

I'm afraid those seem a little implausible



ancalimon said:


> Possible Turkic influence on English
> ABİL EBİL in Turkic: to be able to in English  (abil is pronounced as something very close to scrABBLE)



Online Etymology Dictionary gives:
mid-14c., from O.Fr. (h)able, from L. habilis "easily handled, apt," verbal adj. from habere "to hold" (see habit). "Easy to be held," hence "fit for a purpose." The silent h- was dropped in Eng. and resisted academic attempts to restore it 16c.-17c., but some derivatives acquired it (e.g. habiliment, habilitate), via French



ancalimon said:


> töre: "cultural law passed from generation to generation" in English (ancient Turkic word originated in Middle Asia)
> tarih: "history" in English
> Torah: Tevrat in Turkish



Tarih almost certanly comes from Arabic تاريخ (taariikh), meaning history also (itself from root A-R-KH), and as does Tevrat from Arabic *توراة* (tawraa[t]), both mentioned in the Quran and thus clearly predating any realistic Arabic-Turkish ineraction; so they can't really be considered Turkish cognates for töre, whch itself I magine might be a coincidence, or a later development from Torah/Tawraat/Tevrat, and either way unlikely to have been much of an influence on either Semitic or Englsh developments of "Torah"


----------



## ancalimon

0m1 said:


> I'm afraid those seem a little implausible
> 
> 
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary gives:
> mid-14c., from O.Fr. (h)able, from L. habilis "easily handled, apt," verbal adj. from habere "to hold" (see habit). "Easy to be held," hence "fit for a purpose." The silent h- was dropped in Eng. and resisted academic attempts to restore it 16c.-17c., but some derivatives acquired it (e.g. habiliment, habilitate), via French



Thanks for showing those!
Let me remind you that AL means (take) and also (hand, arm in Turkic) EL means (hand) in Turkish. KOL means (arm) in Turkish

There certainly is an undeniable similarity!


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> There certainly is an undeniable similarity!


And similarity has nothing to do with etymology. This is a frequently encountered layman's misconception. If you build etymological theories on similarities you can explain anything with anything and therefore explain nothing.

Etymological theories must be more specific to be serious. They should explain how the word changed based on laws (e.g. loss of "h" in Romance languages) and in case of a loan from a different language (as distinct of a word inherited from a predecessor language) should contain a plausible explanation of the channel of interaction which made the loan possible.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> There certainly is an undeniable similarity!


My apologies to all EHL members for posting this two times in two days.
Once again a link to Donald Ringe's publication _On calculating the factor of chance in language comparison_ and Rosenfelder's essay _How likely are chance resemblances between languages? _The short answer: more likely than the average fringe linguist dares to imagine.

Frank


----------



## ancalimon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ed_%28given_name%29

Irish word: Áed

Turkic word and Tamga: Od

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateş

Both mean fire (no similarity, they are the same)

At also means horse in Turkic among many other things.

Also compare these as they seem to be related: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aidan

Aydın in Turkish means light emitting, very wise, sunlit, moonlit 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Both mean fire (no similarity, they are the same)


And why should this mean that the Irish word is of Turkic origin. Why not, e.g. the other way round or maybe both dereived from a third source or...............


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> And why should this mean that the Irish word is of Turkic origin. Why not, e.g. the other way round or maybe both dereived from a third source or...............



Either way without proving Irish lived a nomadic life and migrated to Middle Asia or North East Asia, or the the Turks lived a nomadic life and migrated to Ireland, it's difficult to determine the origin of OD or GOD.


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> Either way without proving Irish lived a nomadic life and migrated to Middle Asia or North East Asia, or the the Turks lived a nomadic life and migrated to Ireland, it's difficult to determine the origin of OD or GOD.


Well, the title of this thread is "Turkish influence on your language". You might want to present cases here where you do have reason to believe that a particular word or expression in a different language has something to do with Turkish or Turkic influence.


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> Well, the title of this thread is "Turkish influence on your language". You might want to present cases here where you do have reason to believe that a particular word or expression in a different language has something to do with Turkish or Turkic influence.



I don't have the notion of believing anything at all. I either know, or I suspect. If I know I never argue, if I suspect I argue. Here I suspect there was an influence. Does this mean because I don't believe, I have no right to speak my mind? I have shown you my reasons on the other thread about Turkic etymology. I'm sure people don't want hear another "Kebap" influence.


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> I have no right to speak my mind?


We do require people to talk to the topic of the thread. And you did not present any argument that "Áed" or "Odin" should have anything whatsoever to do with Turkic influence.


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> We do require people to talk to the topic of the thread. And you did not present any argument that "Áed" or "Odin" should have anything whatsoever to do with Turkic influence.



-  Prof. Sven B. F. Jansson, Runinskrifter i Sverige, AWE / Gebers 1963, English Edition Runes in Sweden Royal Academy of Letters ... GIDLUNDS  Warnamo / Sweden 1987

I'm sorry Odin has this resemblance, as far as I can read.

www.antalyaonline.net/futhark

Odin can be read as "Bilge" on the stone. Meaning Wise, also we know the Turkic leader (or God as the written text talks about him being like a God (in a very complex way)) "Bilge Kağan" from the Orkhon (Orhun) Inscriptions.

Furthermore whole Kylver stone (any many others) can be read in Turkish using the *same system*, with a high level of intelligibility. Also hundreds of other writings can be read. they were read by Kazım Mirşan, and I'm waiting for his books to arrive.

when read according to the rules of Göktürk language,

*bilke ış inydi ök oknça öt akisn goydo pu kosütüg *
bilke : bilge, bilgi sahibi ulu kişi (mutlak akıl-mutlak bilinç)
wise

ış : Işık (bilge ışığı = bilgi veren ışık, melek - tanrı elçisi )
light, to emit light, knowledge

inydi : İndi (gökten indi)
descended (from his horse? sky?)

ök : bizzat kendisi ,
he himself

okunça : ok unun ucuyla (silahının ucundan çıkan .... ile )
with the tip of his arrow, with ... from the tip of his arrow)

öt : ötmek konuşmak
speak 

akisn : ağızın ( öt akisn = ağzından çıkan sözleri )
with his mouth

goydo : oydu – koydu
put

pu : Bu
this

kosütüg : ok sütun (dik sütun- dik taşa)
arrow stone, erect stone, standing stone

See www.antalyaonline.net/futhark  for the original page and English translation.

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

Some of writings are not magic or anything like that like scientists accept. This is a Turkic sentence, and I can clearly read it while eating a donut.

Another thing to point is the book written by Prof. Sven Lagerbring in 1764
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Lagerbring
http://www.tulumba.com/storeItem.asp?ic=zBK335988FG570

In his book Prof. Lagerbring wrote that Odin was a Turk.

Also notice the several "OK"s n the writing.


----------



## 0m1

ancalimon said:


> Also notice the several "OK"s n the writing.


 
Yes, in fact, almost as common as the you'd expect the word "and" to be... What was the Old Norse word for "and" again? Oh yes, that's right... "_Ok" _. What language was spoken even on the same _continent _as the runestones, never mind locale? Oh yes, Old Norse. 

 Can you really not see how ludicrous it is to use as evidence a monosyllabc word like "Ok" linking languages across the globe, where the same word exists in the very language that makes more than the tiniest bit of linguistic sense to attribute these stones to, where it is common and has a basic meanng?


----------



## ancalimon

0m1 said:


> Yes, in fact, almost as common as the you'd expect the word "and" to be... What was the Old Norse word for "and" again? Oh yes, that's right... "_Ok" _. What language was spoken even on the same _continent _as the runestones, never mind locale? Oh yes, Old Norse.
> 
> Can you really not see how ludicrous it is to use as evidence a monosyllabc word like "Ok" linking languages across the globe, where the same word exists in the very language that makes more than the tiniest bit of linguistic sense to attribute these stones to, where it is common and has a basic meanng?



I agree. What about other information on my last post? (between the lines) (by the way, the runes can be read by applying Turkic pronunciation to the runes. Quiet astonishing I'd say, and disturbing that it's still not properly documented)

Also how do I present Turkic resemblances? What will happen if I can not talk about tamgas since they are "ALL" monosyllabic? It can point more light on the migration of nations and how nations came to be what they are!


----------



## berndf

ancalimon said:


> I'm sorry Odin has this resemblance, as far as I can read.
> 
> www.antalyaonline.net/futhark
> 
> Odin can be read as "Bilge" on the stone. Meaning Wise, also we know the Turkic leader "Bilge Kağan" from the Orhun Inscriptions.
> 
> Furthermore whole Kylver stone can be read in Turkish, with a high level of intelligibility. Also hundreds of other writings can be read. they were read by Kazım Mirşan, and I'm waiting for his books to arrive....
> See www.antalyaonline.net/futhark for the original page and English translation.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylver
> 
> Some of writings are not magic or anything like that like scientists accept. This is a Turkic sentence, and I can clearly read it while eating a donut.


We have no evidence of the Göktürk script being used before the 8th century. The graphical similarity between Runes and Göktürk letters is indeed remarkable but it shows nothing, in particular not that Runes should be derived from the, as far as archeological evidence is concerned, considerably younger Göktürk script.
 
So far, this doesn't seem to be anything more than one of those "shift it around until it fits" exercises. The guy changed everything, the phonetic values assigned to letters and the reading direction and sometimes fused two letters into one. The inscription it most likely what it appears to be: a listing of runic letters in their collating sequence, nothing more. It would be very strange to have a meaningful 24-letter text with no single letter appearing twice.
 
The connection to the name Odin is also very far fetched, especially if you take into consideration the funny spelling, Dagaz instead of Thurisaz, Isaz missing and Yngvi instead of Naudiz, i.e. Odal is the only correct letter.


ancalimon said:


> Another thing to point is the book written by Prof. Sven Lagerbring in 1764
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sven_Lagerbring
> http://www.tulumba.com/storeItem.asp?ic=zBK335988FG570
> 
> In his book Prof. Lagerbring wrote that Odin was a Turk.
> 
> Also notice the several "OK"s n the writing.


This sounds absolutely absurd. But also the most absurd claims can be true once in a billion times. Can you give a reference to Lagerbring's writings where he writes this?


----------



## ancalimon

Mahaodeh said:


> OK, this is a little confusing to me, I thought the Ottomans and Persians (of the time, I think they were Safavids?) were archenemies?



When you don't take ancient relations of Turks with other cultures (*not race or ethnicity*), "which are disputed as scientists claim that Turks didn't exist before around 500AD" into consideration, what you said makes perfect sense.


----------



## Lars H

Hej



berndf said:


> Can you give a reference to Lagerbring's writings where he writes this?



Actually he is on the internet:
http://books.google.com/books?id=sM...DjS6jOEJfszASz4tGGCg&cd=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

More than 600 pages of Swedish 18th century text in Fraktur... Knock yourself out  
Written in 1783. A little Nordic background to clear out the mist on this.

After the Thirty Years War, Sweden ended up with newly acquired territories in Germany, an abundance of looted valuables and a boosted self confidence. There was then an urge to "explain" the great history of a great nation. Thus a professor Olaus Rudbeck (1630-1702) wrote about Atlantis, namned Atland, that he said was nothing less than the ancient Sweden, from where all human civilization originated. So, if you didn't know yet, all the world's light of culture do come from Sweden 

Unfortunately Prof. Rudbeck was believed! So a number of later Swedish historians, among them Professor Sven Lagerbring, had to spend their lives to fight his foolish ideas. 
As opposed to Prof. Rudbeck, Prof. Lagerbring has a reputation in Sweden as a meticolous and objective historian, but for good reasons nobody has taken any notice of what was written about Odins Turkish background, although innumerable texts has been written on the Norse sagas and the origins of Sweden since 1783.

The only possible source that Prof. Lagerbring could have had, was from the Icelandic author and historian Snorre Sturlasson (1178?-1241?). 
Snorre was a baptized Christian, but he still wanted to write down for future generations the old Norse sagas about gods, dragons, dwarfs, king and heroes (And we are most grateful that he did!). But he had to give the first named king of the Swedes, Odin, a non divine explanation. So Snorre simply wrote that the gods of Asgård, came from Asia. 

Fascinating sagas but there is no evidence, what so ever, that Odin was a Turk, or Scyth, or Hunn or Mongol or that he even existed. My guess is that Prof. Lagerbring wouldn't care much to be part of this thread...

Finally, Prof. Rudbeck is highly appreciated for what he did in the field of anatomy. Among other things, he is said to be the man who discovered the lymphs and lymph nodes of he human body.


----------



## berndf

Lars H said:


> More than 600 pages of Swedish 18th century text in Fraktur... Knock yourself out


Yeah, I tried to comb through it. Since my Swedish is *ehm* not so brilliant, I had to give up after a while (_fraktur _is not the problem, it's essentially the same as German Fraktur). If you can point me at least to the right book and chapter it would be much appreciated.


----------



## Lars H

berndf said:


> If you can point me at least to the right book and chapter it would be much appreciated.



Wrong book, my apologies. This is the right one: "Swea rikes historia: Rikets öden, ifrån des början till år 1060". This book was printed in 1769. The link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tE...jS8yfDYSuzASOj_HxCQ&cd=14#v=onepage&q&f=false

Look at bottom Page 52 and further. "2 Kapitlet. Om Odens ankomst till Swerige" 

Swedish:
Medan (king) Gylfe delte sin tid mellan sjöfarten oah andra sysslor, nalkas småningom mot wår Nord, en srodrin? (I cannot read out this word) wandrande Scyther under sin rythriara? (ridande?) Höfding och anförare Oden. Sedan han tågat genom Ryssland, Preussen och några av de tyska orterna anländer han ändtligen til Fyn i Dannemark.

English:
"As (king) Gylfe shared his time between seafaring and other duties, a "shodrin?"  of wandering Scyths are approaching our North, under their riding? chief and leader Odin. After they have marched through Russia, Prussia and some of the German settlements they will finally/at last arrive to (the island) Fyn in Denmark". 

How on earth could Prof. Lagerbring know anything of this? What king Gylfe did? That Scythians were coming during his reign? How can he say they first passed through Prussia? Are there any preserved credit card slips from Post Hotel in Marienburg? I don't think he has a clue. In this parts he is a storyteller, not a historician.

If you read on and get stucked, please send me the Swedish words and I can translate them for you, hopefully


----------



## ancalimon

berndf said:


> We have no evidence of the Göktürk script being used before the 8th century. The graphical similarity between Runes and Göktürk letters is indeed remarkable but it shows nothing, in particular not that Runes should be derived from the, as far as archeological evidence is concerned, considerably younger Göktürk script.
> 
> So far, this doesn't seem to be anything more than one of those "shift it around until it fits" exercises. The guy changed everything, the phonetic values assigned to letters and the reading direction and sometimes fused two letters into one. The inscription it most likely what it appears to be: a listing of runic letters in their collating sequence, nothing more. It would be very strange to have a meaningful 24-letter text with no single letter appearing twice.
> 
> The connection to the name Odin is also very far fetched, especially if you take into consideration the funny spelling, Dagaz instead of Thurisaz, Isaz missing and Yngvi instead of Naudiz, i.e. Odal is the only correct letter.
> This sounds absolutely absurd. But also the most absurd claims can be true once in a billion times. Can you give a reference to Lagerbring's writings where he writes this?



The news article says Swedish linguist *Strahlenberg* and *Prof. Munthe* supports *Prof.  Sven Lagerbring.

*According to news artice, Prof. Sven  Lagerbring wrote in his book: Our ancestors are Turks who are comrades of Oden. We  have got enough evidence on this subject. There are people who want to  fool you into thinking they are Gots, or Tyrks. I don't care whether it  will be discrediting for me or not. Oden and his comrades were Turks.

There is also a strange story about this book and the Ottoman Viking Gustaf Nuring (who later changed his name to Ali Nuri)

I'm not sure if the book was translated into any other language (considering Prof. Sven Lagerbring didn't lose his credibility) But it's available in Turkish thanks to Gustaf Nuring who photocopied the book from Swedish royal library.
I guess there are books like these all around the word waiting to be translated.

(Ps: I'll translate the full article later.)


----------



## berndf

Lars H said:


> Wrong book, my apologies. This is the right one: "Swea rikes historia: Rikets öden, ifrån des början till år 1060". This book was printed in 1769. The link:
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=tE...jS8yfDYSuzASOj_HxCQ&cd=14#v=onepage&q&f=false
> 
> Look at bottom Page 52 and further. "2 Kapitlet. Om Odens ankomst till Swerige"
> 
> Swedish:
> Medan (king) Gylfe delte sin tid mellan sjöfarten oah andra sysslor, nalkas småningom mot wår Nord, en srodrin? (I cannot read out this word) wandrande Scyther under sin rythriara? (ridande?) Höfding och anförare Oden. Sedan han tågat genom Ryssland, Preussen och några av de tyska orterna anländer han ändtligen til Fyn i Dannemark.
> 
> English:
> "As (king) Gylfe shared his time between seafaring and other duties, a "shodrin?" of wandering Scyths are approaching our North, under their riding? chief and leader Odin. After they have marched through Russia, Prussia and some of the German settlements they will finally/at last arrive to (the island) Fyn in Denmark".
> 
> How on earth could Prof. Lagerbring know anything of this? What king Gylfe did? That Scythians were coming during his reign? How can he say they first passed through Prussia? Are there any preserved credit card slips from Post Hotel in Marienburg? I don't think he has a clue. In this parts he is a storyteller, not a historician.
> 
> If you read on and get stucked, please send me the Swedish words and I can translate them for you, hopefully


Thank you very much for the link. And thank you for the offer, I might come back to you by PM.


> ...en srodrin? (I cannot read out this word) wandrande Scyther


_... en swaerm _[the "e" is on top of the "a"_; _modern spelling _svärm_]_ wandrande Scyther..._
_... a swarm of wandering Scyths... _



> rythriara? (ridande?)


_ryktbara_
_famous_


----------



## Lars H

berndf said:


> ... en swaerm [/I][the "e" is on top of the "a"_; _modern spelling _svärm_]_ wandrande Scyther..._
> _... a swarm of wandering Scyths... _



Makes perfectly good sense. "Svärm" is today mainly used to describe a mass of mosquitos or other insects, but is also alive in this context in military terms;
"skytte-svärm" (advancing infantry in irregular formation as opposed to "skytte-linje" infantry advancing in line formation.



berndf said:


> _ryktbara_
> _famous_



Yes, of course. I must have been really tired yesterday. Please let me know if there are any German expressions I can help you with, it appears that you master Swedish better than me


----------



## robbie_SWE

I'm astonished at the quite unexpected turn of this thread! Since I opened this discussion, I feel the need to step in and direct this thread back on track. 

The discussion about a hypothetical connection between Turkish people (language, culture, history etc.) and Scandinavian Gods is to me ludicrous. As Frank06 has pointed out, no substantial linguistic proof has been provided to substantiate the claims made by Ancalimon. 

I've always been skeptical towards so called "proof" in a linguistic discussion authored by historians, since it doesn't fulfill the basic needs for an intellectual discussion about languages and their development. Taking into account that it (Lagerbring) was written some time ago (more correctly two hundred years ago) it should be considered a curiosity and not the basis of a discussion anno 2010. 

If this thread continues to pursue this path of discussing Scandinavian folklore, I hope the moderators would be so kind and open a new thread. 

PS: for anyone who is interested please read this article (even if it is from Wikipedia) about Oden/Odin and the etymology of the name.  

robbie


----------



## berndf

Lars H said:


> ...it appears that you master Swedish better than me


I am probably just more used to reading _Fraktur_ than you are. I think we kept it longer (until 1941). As I student I frequently had to read books in _Fraktur_.

So depicts Odin as a Scythian tribal chief. In §2, does he say who he thinks the Scythians were ethnically (Turks, Iranians, Siberians, ...)? I got lost. trying to understand it.


----------



## Lugubert

Lars H said:


> Other words in Swedish - and numerous other languages:
> ... "sorbet"


I vote for Arabic as the origin; from the root ShRB 'drink', then possibly via Persian (and/or Turkish). The initial is preserved in English 'sherbet'.


----------



## pera_palas

Forero said:


> I once mentioned to a Bulgarian girl that "yoghurt" is Turkish, and she said with a horrified look that yogurt cannot be Turkish because it is obviously Bulgarian. Perhaps she thought I thought Turkish yogurt was better? I have never tasted anything but American and Western European yogurt, so I don't have an opinion, but isn't "yoghurt" a Turkish word?


 
Yes it is totally turkish. Most probably it derives from the verb "yoğur-", which actually means "knead" (like kned dough). So what you do by "kneading" (yogur-) is to turn something in a more liquid form into more solid form. So basically you turn milk into more solid form. As you do in dough. 

So yes, it is fully totally definetely Turkish.


----------



## seyif

One point about Turkish influence for words puzzles me. Let's get a word used in Serbian: kutija. Sources adress that it is from Turkish. But the word is etymologically Greek. Now is the word from Turkish or from Greek? Most could say it is via Turkish but originally Greek. But there could be some words which we can not follow its entrance to the language. I mean maybe one word comes from Greek to that language before Ottoman Turks came there, then that Turks also used same Greek word and that word became common known from Turkish. How would we determine if it is Turkish influence or Greek influence?

Let's get Bosnian sevda/sevdah. It is originally Arabic but its actual meaning, I mean love, not found in Arabic. It goes to Balkans via Tuks in meaning love.

Maybe for sevdah we can say it is Turkish influence but for kutija or such words I puzzle for a criteria.


----------



## Orlin

seyif said:


> One point about Turkish influence for words puzzles me. Let's get a word used in Serbian: kutija. Sources adress that it is from Turkish. But the word is etymologically Greek. Now is the word from Turkish or from Greek? Most could say it is via Turkish but originally Greek. But there could be some words which we can not follow its entrance to the language. I mean maybe one word comes from Greek to that language before Ottoman Turks came there, then that Turks also used same Greek word and that word became common known from Turkish. How would we determine if it is Turkish influence or Greek influence?


 
In Bulgarian we also use кутия and I've always known that it was a Turkish word (Turkish kutu) and that it's originally Greek is something new for me. Meanwhile, many words in Bulgarian considered of Turkish origin are in fact Arabic, Persian etc. but came to Bulgarian via Ottoman Turkish.


----------



## Forero

How would one write кутия in Greek?


----------



## berndf

Forero said:


> How would one write кутия in Greek?


Provided Turkisch _kutu_ is the correct immediate origin: κουτί (Source).


----------



## apmoy70

berndf said:


> Provided Turkisch _kutu_ is the correct immediate origin: κουτί (Source).


Originally it derives from the Classical Greek «κύτος» ('kŭtŏs, _neuter noun_) which described any hollow container, later any vessel, jar; in Hellenistic Greek it was used mostly in its diminutive form, «κυτίον» (kŭ'tĭŏn, _neuter noun_) a word that has survived in Byzantine/Modern Greek as «κουτίον/κουτί» (ku'tion [katharevousa]/ku'ti [demotic], both _neuter nouns_). Some philologists suggest that the spelling of the word as «κουτίον/κουτί» is a remnant of the Classical pronunciation of the _'upsilon_, as French u or German ü. In Modern Greek, with «κουτί» we describe the box (any box) except  for the carton which is «κούτα» ('kuta, _feminine noun_).  
The ancient «κύτος» ultimately derives from the verb «κύω» ('kŭō)-->_be pregnant with, conceive_.
«Κύτος» & «κύω» from PIE base *(s)keu-, _to hide, wrap, cover_. 
In Modern Greek, with «κύτος» ('citos, _neuter noun_) we mostly describe the hollow part of a ship/boat.

The Modern Greek [c] is a voiceless palatal plosive.


----------



## ancalimon

goksuc said:


> Interesting. The word "kiosk" is not used in modern Turkish, we prefer to use the word "büfe" to talk about a newsstand, kiosk.
> 
> I also saw that kiosk apparently derived from the Turkish word (via Persian) "köşk" (kioshk) which means mansion, villa (in today's Turkish). The word "kiosk" with today's meaning (a place with an open window where cigarettes, newspapers, gums are sold) is not used in Turkish, instead we use another French word "buffet" (büfe)



köşk is not a Persian loan. According to Turkish Etymology Dictionary I have:

http://i53.tinypic.com/1z3cc2t.png

It's also easy to see the compressed Turkic roots inside the word.

By the way, we still use kiosk in Turkish but in a different form. We say "KöşeBaşı" meaning "Best corner". For example "köşebaşı büfe": "the kiosk on the best corner".

The dictionary does not try to explain the structure of word, but I can see the roots of the word clearly without needing the etymology.


----------



## itreius

It entered Turkish language, but it's originally Persian.


----------



## ancalimon

itreius said:


> It entered Turkish language, but it's originally Persian.



These are my ideas over the given etymology by tdk gov Etymology Dictionary.

Probably köşk> g*ös-*göz (eye) > gösteriş (aspect, luxury) 

özlük: being in charge
as: to lead over common people, (as in astsubay in army)
aş: surpass, exceed
uç: edge, top, (also ruler)
uçbeyi: margrave

thus, 

köşk: a place which is deluxe, posh. Which have protection of tree shadows, which is high, which probably houses elites, etc.

Also related to ÜÇ (3) UÇ (fly, lead) and UC (edge, top, corner) as the runes in Orkhon Inscriptions are related to the words themselves as well.

the etymology I've given before also shows it as Turkic in origin.


----------



## Frank06

Hi Itreius,



itreius said:


> It entered Turkish language, but it's originally Persian.


We shouldn't forget that every single Persian word -- or any word from from any language on any planet for that matter -- comes from Turkish.
We should realise by now that we can answer almost every single EHL question in the same way: It's Turkish.

Turkish is the alpha and omega of historical linguistics, both 'alpha' and 'omega' being related to magic Turkish compressed roots, obviously (also 'obviously' is ultimately a Turkish word, just like 'also', 'is', 'ultimately', 'a', and 'word').

So, we can only conclude that the topic of this thread is slightly misleading: "Turkish influence on your language" should be changed into "Your language IS Turkish".

We can go one step further: We could change the name of EHL into PTL: Pan-Turkish Linguistics.

To be honest, I think that we can even close EHL as a forum: what's the point in spending energy on looking things up in linguistic sources, consulting etymological dictionaries, searching the historical-linguistic literature, posting arguments and counter-arguments, discussing them etc. when the answer always is: "It's Turkish".

We don't need arguments for that, we don't need to spend time on that, we don't have to let ourselves be hindered by something as ephemeral as historical linguistics. We don't even have to know what we're talking about: "It's Turkish".

Frank
[A name, by the way, which at this moment has more compressed sarcasm than compressed Turkish roots in it, go figure!]


----------



## 0m1

Hahahaha! Oh wow, did he have that coming!


----------



## ancalimon

I was only talking about this word. Because I know Turkish. I have also showed the etymology from Türk Dil Kurumu. What did I do wrong now?

If it's originally Persian, then the roots should have been Persian too, or Turkish should have been renamed to Persian to make everything easier for us.


----------



## itreius

ancalimon said:


> These are my ideas over the given etymology by tdk gov Etymology Dictionary.
> 
> Probably köşk> g*ös-*göz (eye) > gösteriş (aspect, luxury)
> 
> özlük: being in charge
> as: to lead over common people, (as in astsubay in army)
> aş: surpass, exceed
> uç: edge, top, (also ruler)
> uçbeyi: margrave
> 
> thus,
> 
> köşk: a place which is deluxe, posh. Which have protection of tree shadows, which is high, which probably houses elites, etc.
> 
> Also related to ÜÇ (3) UÇ (fly, lead) and UC (edge, top, corner) as the runes in Orkhon Inscriptions are related to the words themselves as well.



A Google query for "köşk" offers a result in _Turkish_, one that claims the origin to be _(Farsça) kuşk_, which I assume means _Farsi_ aka Persian.

Could you give us some explanation as to how köşk is related to ÜÇ, UÇ, UC? Also, how did you establish a relationship with the words gösteriş, özlük, as, aş and all the others? Is there even a method behind it, at all?


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> I was only talking about this word. Because I know Turkish.


So what? It's not because I eat on a daily basis that I am a dietitian. It's not because my heart beats fairly regularly, that I am a cardiologist. It's not because you speak Turkish that you are a Turkologist.



> I have also showed the etymology from Türk Dil Kurumu. What did I do wrong now?


"Türk Dil Kurumu"? Is that the same dictionary or website, to be found here, which indicates at least two times, that the word comes from Persian?


> köşk    Far. kuşk
> a. Bahçe içinde yapılmış süslü ev, kasır: “Bozuk ve tozlu yollardan tam bizim köşkün önüne geldik.” -Ö. Seyfettin.





> köşk
> (< Far. kûşk) köşk





> If it's originally Persian,


As your own source indicates (together with almost every other source).


----------



## ancalimon

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oOmya7ZFL74/S1hpJgPSzPI/AAAAAAAAD5w/J2ecspf8W18/s320/orhunyazitlari3.jpg


First of all I can not know the first form of Kiosk that was used. It could have changed a lot over time. I can only guess from phonetic resemblance.

In Turkic languages, ö,ü,i,e are interchangeable.

sounds like ç, ş, j, z are also open to changes. Because they sound almost the same and even among different Turkish dialects in Turkey, there are many different variations of how the words are spelled.

for example kazık (stake) is pronounced as gassıh, gassuq, kazığ, etc in the Eastern part of Turkey

UÇ ÜÇ UC are essentially related to ruling, a higher power.

For example AĞAÇ, YIŞ (a tree) can be depicted as Ş or Ç (from the picture) and they also look like a tree.

For example AŞ, can be depicted as Ş (from the picture) meaning to pass a certain point to reach the deities, to grow an age (YAŞ). You can see the V sign on top of a T sign. Think of _ on top of T as the ground (or the median)

For example EŞmek (to dig), can be depicted again as Ş (from the picture).

For example EŞ (equal, pair, wife or husband) can be again depicted as Ş which would make perfect sense.

ÜÇ is tree and it has three lines and three angles. It's also related to trinity in Tengrism which are the sun, moon and sky.

Those ÜÇ UÇ and UC words are related.

They are very similar in Orkhon script as you can see.

For example UÇmak can be to pass your ability to sustain the luxury you want. It's also to fly.

KUŞ: bird   

UÇMAK as a noun means: heaven (think of gardens in heaven)

UÇMAĞA ERMEK: to die and go to heaven, Tengri.


I don't know how to show köşk is a Turkish word apart from that. I thought only saying that köşk is from Turkish wouldn't be enough as the sources that say the word is Persian didn't give any reasons why apart from their sincerity.

Köşk is the house of the ruler, who is the ruler by the will of Tengri according to how Turks thought.

My source (Türkiye Türkçesindeki Türkçe Sözcüklerin Köken Bilgisi Sözlüğü - Prof. Dr. Tuncer Gülensoy ISBN:978-975-16-1971-6) (Etymologies of Turkish Words Inside Turkey Turkish) says it's wrong to say that it entered Turkish through Persian. It says that it's the other way around.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> My source (Türkiye Türkçesindeki Türkçe Sözcüklerin Köken Bilgisi Sözlüğü - Prof. Dr. Tuncer Gülensoy ISBN:978-975-16-1971-6) (Etymologies of Turkish Words Inside Turkey Turkish) says it's wrong that it entered Turkish through Persian. It says that it's the other way around.


Can you please quote the relevant part?

And what happened to the previous source which you refered to: is Türk Dil Kurumu not good anymore now that it counterspeaks your theory?



> I don't know how to show köşk is a Turkish word apart from that.


"That" being "phonetic resemblance" with interchangeable phonemes or letters (it's not very clear) and a bit of of the usual numerological höküs pöküş (it's all interchangeable, no?).



> I thought only saying that köşk is from Turkish wouldn't be enough as the sources that say the word is Persian didn't give any reasons why apart from their sincerity.


And in stead of looking for a reason yourself, you decided to open the magic box?
By the way, you did doublecheck your own sources, didn't you?


While waiting for the quote, here's the widely accepted etymology of Persian _kiosk_. 
Persian _kiosk_ (کیوسک) entered Persian via French _kiosque_.
French _kiosque_ is a loan from Italian _chiosco_, which is a loan from Turkish _köşk_, which is a loan from Persian _kušk_. _Kušk_ is already found in Pahlavi.
But, as usual, I'll happilly change my mind on the basis of decent information.


F


----------



## ancalimon

http://i53.tinypic.com/1z3cc2t.png

This is the quote.

It shows the word as also being used among other Turkic dialects.

Other than that my ideas are from reconstructed Proto Turkic roots (just like PIE roots etymonline shows) that are researched by Kazım Mirşan who is an expert on Turkic languages. Actually he is the only person I know who can speak all Turkic dialects and he says that without knowing all Turkic dialects, Latin and Indo-European languages researching Turkic is in vain because Turks carried their rootwords with them to other languages and took Indo-European words as well.


----------



## Frank06

ancalimon said:


> http://i53.tinypic.com/1z3cc2t.png
> This is the quote.


It says that it's a mistake, but I don't find a lot of arguments for that in the quote.

And no, this is not an argument:


> It shows the word as also being used among other Turkic dialects.


"Televisie" is used in all Dutch dialects, but that doesn't make it a Dutch word etymologically. "Wall" (and variants) is used in most Germanic languages, but that doesn't make it less Latin, etymologically speaking. 



> Other than that my ideas are from reconstructed Proto Turkic roots (just like PIE roots etymonline shows) that are researched by Kazım Mirşan who is an expert on Turkic languages. Actually he is the only person I know who can speak all Turkic dialects and he says that without knowing all Turkic dialects, Latin and Indo-European languages researching Turkic is in vain because Turks carried their rootwords with them to other languages and took Indo-European words as well.


LOL... in short: "You don't know Turkish, so shut up"?


----------



## itreius

ancalimon said:


> I can only guess from *phonetic resemblance*.
> 
> In Turkic languages, ö,ü,i,e are *interchangeable*.
> 
> sounds like ç, ş, j, z are also open to changes. Because they *sound almost the same* and even among different Turkish dialects in Turkey, there are many different variations of how the words are spelled.


Could you translate this into linguistic terms?


----------



## ancalimon

itreius said:


> Could you translate this into linguistic terms?



I mean because Turkic languages are spoken among diverse ethnics, and because those ethnics kept migrating (there were many nomads among them), Turkic languages became intermingled. a,ı,o,u and e,i,ö,ü are usually mixed within themselves among many different words. So it's extremely hard to find etymologies of words among different Turkic dialects for native Turkic speakers let alone people who don't know Turkish.

It's perfectly normal for someone to miss a word like köşk among Turkic dialects.

For example the loanword şarj (charge) could be pronounced as şarj, şarz, çarj, çarz, şarc among different people even just in Turkey.


----------



## itreius

But those dialects evolved from something. Other than in cases of analogy or coincidence, most if not all differentiation can be attributed to some sort of systematic change. Sound changes that give different reflexes in different dialects don't make those sounds _interchangeable_. It just makes them different reflexes.

Furthermore, before one claims that köşk evolved from gös-göz, one would also need to provide plausible (granted, along with quite a number of other things), linguistically sound evidence of gös-göz being able to evolve into kuşk in the context of Farsi sound shifts.


----------



## ancalimon

Frank06 said:


> It says that it's a mistake, but I don't find a lot of arguments for that in the quote.
> 
> And no, this is not an argument:
> "Televisie" is used in all Dutch dialects, but that doesn't make it a Dutch word etymologically. "Wall" (and variants) is used in most Germanic languages, but that doesn't make it less Latin, etymologically speaking.
> 
> LOL... in short: "You don't know Turkish, so shut up"?



Of course not! I mean that I'm not making up things. They are already there and more were researched by Kazım Mirşan.

If the word "köşk" was madeup during the time Turks were ruling Persia, it's plausible to think it could have derived from Turkic roots.


----------



## er targyn

Here you can find some Turkic loans in Persian. http://iranica.com/articles/turkic-loanwords


----------

