Re: Dear John Halloran, (4) - Re: Part-1: "Turkish-Sumerian kinship"

From: allingus (kamil.kartal_at_gmail.com)
Date: 02/13/05 

Date: 13 Feb 2005 15:19:09 -0800

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bcn_2004/message/932

From: "TIMUR KOCAOGLU" <tkocaoglu@KU.EDU.TR>
Date: Sun Feb 13, 2005 2:43 am
Subject: [bcn2004] IS THERE A NEED FOR A "ROOT LANGAUGAE"?

ADVERTISEMENT

IS THERE A NEED FOR A "ROOT LANGAUGAE"?
BIR "ANA/KOK DILE" GEREK VAR MI?

So much discussion still continues to find a root language for
all the past and present five to six thousand languages of
the world! In the past we have seen, attempts by various
people to argue that one of the following languages are,
indeed, the very root language of all languages:
Some tried to prove that Hebrew is, others rejected Hebrew by
proposing either Latin, Greek, Hungarian, Chinese,
Sanskrit, Turkish, so on...
But, now it is time to think of an opposite fact: Is there a
need for a "root language" for all the languages of world?
The language instinct, i.e. ability and creativity, exists
in all species from all animals to the human beings.
The humans, however, possess more complicated and the
most developed "language ability" than the animals.
As Chomsky proposes, the humans are born with a distinct
language ability that differs from that of the animals.
The humans are born with a "universal grammar" frame.
Therefore, all human groups and societies have inborn
"universal grammar frame"s that they can easily create
a specific language for their own close communities.
Thus, we had in the past and still have at present several
thosands of different languages. In the historical development
of the societies and their languages for the last ten to fifthy
thosand years we can trace three different linguistic currents
running side by side:
1. Separation: the development of different branches and even
seperate languages from the same "root or mother language"
2. Merging: the increase of close relations between two or
more different communities and their languages, so that in the
long run these two or more languages merge into a new language.
3. Death and new Births: In history, several languages died (actually
the communities who were speaking these languages went into very
tragic social and political changes that they lost their
mother-tongues)
and several new languages which are not related to any other
languages were born (actualy created by their communities).

Personally, I prefer and keenly follow the theory that there is no,
as well as there shouldn't be any need for, a single "mother" or a
single "root" language for all of the five to six thousand languages
of the past and the present. I strongly believe that there are at
least more than two hundred or more "root languaes" for all
languages of the world! If we believe in the inborn linguistic ability
and creativity of each
human being and also for the sociological fact of a need for a language
for each human group and community, then why we try to limit
this ability of human beings by claiming that seperate languages
can not be created and all languages must have to go back to a
single "mother" or a single "root" language?
Thus, I believe it is very logic that a member of each different
language can natuarally claim that his/her mother-tongue is the root
language of all six thosand languages! This is pure nationalism and
racism, nothing else! I am currently working on this theory that all
the past human groups
and communities have created seperate languages of their own and
in the long historial proccesses these seperate languages have gone
through at least three different current of "separation, merging, and
the death and new birth" in both pre-hisory and the historical times.
This is actually at least one or two hundred thousand years of
linguistic history of the human beings by even disregarding more
distant
centuries of the humans that we know very little information about it.
I have done a large study of the phonosemantics that all of the
seperate
and unrelated languages of the past and the present have a unique
linguistic feature of naming various material objects and more
complicated human conditions with very similar contrasting sound pairs
(consonants). This is especially true for the names of pronouns of "I &
we" and "me & us"
contrasting with the names of pronouns of "thou & you" and "yours" in
various
languages! I found that all languages tend to use "labial" and "glotal"
consonants ("m" and "g, k") for first person pronouns in contrast with
"dental" consonants
of ("s" and "t") for the second person pronouns. This is almost a
universal
feature and it can't be ascribed to a single "root language" of the
past and
present. In my study, I am curently working on other words for
different motions such
as the contrasting motions of "to pull" and "to push"; "to throw" and
"to take
in": "to love" and "to hate"; "lip and mouth" and "tooth" etc., in a
sample of more
than six hundred unrelated major languages and language families.
I will attempt to prove that these phonosemantic similarities between
these many
languages do not lead us toward a genetic bound between these
languages, but to
the "universal grammar frame" that we all humans were born with it.
I am a Turkish and Turkologist who knows and studies more than 21
different
Turkic languages and some respects I'm very nationalistic on my
country's
national interests and for the all Turkic groups in the world (more
than 200 million
Turks that presently leave in all parts of huge Eurasia streching from
the Pacific
Ocean in the East to the Baltic Sea in the West, the North Sea
(Siberia) in the north
to the Mediterrainian Sea in the South who have created and ruled many
different states
and empires in China, Mongolia, India, Afganistan, Persia, Anatolia,
northern
Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Caucasus, many parts of the Eastern Europe and
the Balkans.
Yet, I don't believe that my mother tongue "Turkish" or more acurately
"Turkic"
is the mother tongue or the very single root language of all other
languages! I
don't share the arguments and the very naive and unscientific
etymologial attempts
of my several Turkish colleagues who say that "Turkish" is the root
language for
Sumerian and all other languages of the world! They haven't proved it
scientifically, their linguistic etymological attempts are
un-acceptable and very artificial!
I state again that there wasn't and isn't a single "root" (mother)
language for
all five to six thousand languages, but there could be more than
several "root
languages," because all humans were born with a language instinct
(ability and
creativity) and a "universal grammar frame" that the human groups and
communities are able to create their own communicative language! Yes,
there
are similar and some times identical words between Turkish (Turkic) and
Sumerian, Old Indo-European, Sanskrit, Ethruscian, Dravidian (also
Tamil), Chinese and
several of the American native languages, but these only show the
"language
contact" between these different languages, not a genetic bound!
Sincerely,
Timur Kocaoglu
Koc University, Istanbul
tkocaoglu@ku.edu.tr

>>> ulagankmy@yahoo.com 02/13/05 5:00 AM >>>

Dear VR

Thank-you. Amidst a fervent attempt to prove that Sanskrit is the root
language
from which all languages of the world developed and Vedas the
foundation of all
religions in the world, tracing the roots of world culure and religions
to the
Sumerian-Dravidian and Nubian-Kemetian appears to be a feeble voice
despite the
fact that it is the truth. But I am sure this view will gain strength
in the
coming decades. It was at one time a taboo even to mention blacks in
connection
with civilizations but it is no more. The world and largely to the
untiring
efforts of mostly white archeologists and anthropologists, it is
becoming quite
acceptable that all human beings deep inside are blacks and that they
were the
people who began various kinds of civilizations in the ancient times
and which
have been highjacked by some late comers who called themselves Aryans
and so
forth.

The problem we face is that of breaking down this Aryan syndrome and
irrationalily with studies that are immensely rational. In our groups
with
support of scholars like yourself and amny others , we are
accomplishing this
and making some progress

It is in this context that such 'new' linguisitic disiplines like Uri
Linguitics
and Viri Linguistics have been forged. Now there is one more dimension
to this
and which can be called Veer Linguistics ( veer: root) and which .
fortunately
for us. has already been developed by Pavanar in his book length
studies.

THe Veer Linguisitcs deals with the etymological roots of words - it
traces the
'roots' of words and with that determines the language identity of the
lexical
items of a language. There can be lexical diffusion and languages
branching
off like Rigkrit and so forth from Archaic Tamil but in all these the
ROOTS
remain the common stock.

The roots of Sumerian related languages like Turkish Siraiki Rigkrit
Pali and so
forth may have the SAME roots and differ only in the manner in which
they glue
together to generate various words. All are agglutinative but they go
about it
differently

Now as you have observed all these are parts of Generative Linguistics
such as
is available in Tolkaappiyam. We are just developing further what are
available
as 'seeds' in Tol.

Here may I offer a suggestion in your studies (and that of Dr Sastry)
that when
we read and provide alternatives to the various Sumerian sentences, we
have to
keep in my mind the various constraints already there?

We have to remember that the Sumerian sentences we are studying are
DECIPHERMENTS of actual cuneifornm script and the alternatives we
suggest must
also be consistent with the decipherment. There are SIGNS that are read
as say.
'am-an' and the alternative we suggest e.g. amman must be a possible
alternative reading of the cuneiform sign read and which may occur in
many other
places. Here we have to enlist the expertise of the Sumeriologists and
even
embark upon our own studies of the cuneiform script.

We cannot read any thing Sk there as Sk was NEVER written in any script
including the cuneiform. It became a written language only very late ,
perhaps
around 3rd cent BC or so.

Loga

burningflame <vraghavan26@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- Dr.Loga
You are right in saying Sumerians and Dravidians are of the same Lot.
I have an Article from The Times of India Where Shri Bal
Patil,Connects Rshaba Deva the First Tirthankar of Jains mentioned
in Yajur Veda And Bhagavata Purana Connecting to lord Shiva A
PreAryan Diety.Now Aryan is to be split to Two Meanings one the
conventional Sanskritist approach of being a Race Distinct from the
Indigenous Lot.Second The Orginal Meaning of the Tamil Populace who
called amongst themself Arya the people who were Enlightened ,The
kings etc.See also today Telugus call the language "Tamil"
as "Aravam" there are proponents who misinterpret this beautiful
word "Aravam" as Half-Knowledge.
I Feel strongly that the way migrations have been taking place right
through, the Medditeranians came Ahead of the Fair skin Aryans into
India ,Much earlier may be 10000 years earlier .There are evidence
of this found in Andamanese, Nicobarites who are Negroid and yet
retained primitivity.They might have spread across the world Once
before the development of caucasians which should have been between
5000Bc to 1000Bc and by the Time they came to INDIA it may have been
1500BC and if we are to believe that the epics Ramayana and
Mahabharata involved Aryans (Fair skinned )then they cannot be
beyond 1000Bc.
With the fact that now sufficient work is being attempted in this
group to prove that sanskrit is a varient of Tamil and a coded way
of expression among the select group it can be said with certainity
that Indus Valley was once occupied with by Dravidians .Brahui an
accepted Dravidian Language is Now spoken by Caucasians of this
region is an evidence that language issues should be dealt with
separately .This group has also sufficiently dealt with sumerian
language and read the same as Tamil.
It is however unfortunate that still there are a large group that
will not accept ,the least, the theory evolved in this group even as
a proposition.
One question definitely arise did the Aryans(Fair skinned)not have
developed language of their own when it is depicted that they were
the conquerers.I believe they had dialects but not in written form
the stabilised civilisation of the Indus would have accepted them on
as is where is basis and they took the language in return with their
flexations which Tol appropriately recognises as "Vadaintha tamizh
chorkkal".
Now one can definitely say that between Archiac Tamil varients in
indus and mesopotomia (Which are preTol languages)there developed
Sanskrit heavily a varient of Tamil with flexations in the form
of "Ha thiruththam".

In Tolkaappiyar@yahoogroups.com, "K. Loganathan" <ulagankmy@y...>
wrote:
> The Indus and Sumerian connection of the Dravidian folks are
slowly spreading. Read below on Sumerian connection where I am also
mentioned along with Dr A.Sathasivam who studied the phonology of
Sumerian and Tamil
>
> The full article at :
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5180/tamil.html
>
> Loga
>
>
> 3. The Dravidian Hypothesis about the people of the Indus valley
Civilization.
>
> The Tamils have legends that their ancient history extends up to
about ten thousand years, sea swallowing up their lands twice and
kings establishing new capitals and fostering Tamil in three
successive academies. The legend is first mentioned in the
commentary of kaLavijal, which is assigned to about 8th century AD.
This legend is one of the reasons- one of the excuses- for
connecting up the Tamil civilization with some prehistoric ancient
civilizations, whose identity and continuity poses special problems.
>
> The records of the Indus Valley Civilization have not been
satisfactorily deciphered. Material remains have been interpreted by
archeologists. There cannot be finality, till a satisfactory reading
of the records. Material remains are generally interpreted in the
light of elements in the later Hinduism. Siva worship in the form of
pacupati and NadaRajA, Sakti worship and some other deductions are
made. In the 1950s, Father Heras argued for the Dravidian identity
of the Indus Valley people. In the 1960s, the Scandinavian Institute
of Asian Studies issued many announcements, trying to establish this
identity. This hypothesis is still defended seriously by Japanese
Professor Noboru Karashima, President of the International
Association for Tamil Research in 1994.
>
> 4. The Dravidian Identity of the Sumerians.
>
> This is another hypothesis that is strongly advocated by certain
scholars. The Sumerian records have been deciphered and material
remains have been interpreted satisfactorily. Linguistic and
cultural affinities between the Sumerians and the Tamils, separated
by much more than a millennia, are pointed out. The late Professor
A. catAcivam (A.Sathasivam) from Sri Lanka and Dr. ulakaNAtan
muttarAjan (Loganathan Muttarayan) from Malaysia are examples.
Eminent historians of the caliber of K.A. Nilakanda cAttiri
(Nilakantta Sastri), have pointed out similarities in temple
worship. A hypothesis, connecting the ancestors of the Dravidians,
if not the Tamils. to the Mediterranean area, is still advocated by
certain scholars.
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Serbian - contemporary of Sanskrit
    ... Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed ... that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. ... that contains over 100 000 root words. ... it can be deduced by an Arabic-speaker. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Serbian - contemporary of Sanskrit
    ... Slavic tongues are some of the oldest and least changed ... that Sanskrit is NOT the mother of Indo-European languages. ... that contains over 100 000 root words. ... it can be deduced by an Arabic-speaker. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: French pronunciation
    ... a single word -- a feature of Dravidian languages, ... languages, and various other families. ... "The root is the primary lexical unit of a word, ... Dravidian languages (Tamil at least) certainly have compound words ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Nostratic
    ... > look the same in a dozen of unrelated languages. ... The more the root is attested, the more the "coincidence" theory ... The Jewish People's Liberation Organization ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Relationship between Dravidian and Sumerian languages ?
    ... if you are not experts or interested in sumerian, ... About Dravid and Sumer relationship, here are links about what I ... Those languages are agglutinative and are "candidate" to be related to ... I have already done the comparison with old Tamil and didnt get many ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading