02-04-2022, 06:38 AM
Dear Tavie,
There is no issue that I approach with a nationalist point of view. For example, just for this reason, I am not talking about the nationality of the VM author, but a language that he includes in his work. Later, some of your researchers began to understand that VM scripts may not be from the so-called Indo-European languages.
When studying this manuscript in academies, naturally, there was a tendency to compare it with European languages first. This is not wrong. But later on, some scientists took into account even the Chinese language as a candidate by skipping this geography without including a whole Turkic-speaking geography among the possibilities. While I am writing this, I am not saying that all the scientists who researched this topic did this, but the majority ignored Turkish.
You should give up the self-centered point of view in Europe because historically there is no data to justify you doing this. Your archaeologists and historians have attributed many works of art that actually belonged to the Etruscan civilization and some elements of the Turkish civilization to the Greek civilization. Some of your linguists are trying to connect the Hittite language to the Indo-European language family with forced interpretation.
Some of the early European scientists, long ago studying the Hittite and Sumerian languages, and preparing transcriptions and readings for them, made many mistakes. Thus, they put the foundation they had built on all these issues on the wrong ground. Today, you have a pseudo-linguistics that is doomed to collapse on that ground, but which you do not even realize is fake. The methods and workings of modern linguistics are mostly scientific. But not always. When it comes to the transcription mistakes made in the past, they continue to make mistakes in the same details without correcting those old mistakes.
The issue that I have a nationalist approach is actually a matter of your own perception. I'm talking about how you studied the languages of the past in your academies in Europe. This is a criticism. And I don't mean all academics. But I'm talking about linguists who have included anagrammatic, inconsistent, logically made up interpretations in their so-called academic papers. They have created perceptions, especially since the 18th century and in modern times, with plenty of interpretation and inconsistent pseudo-evidence.
Unless you have a single proof that each individual of past great civilization languages disappeared, and the descendants of those who spoke these languages did not continue to next generation, then you cannot claim that this language disappeared completely.
In other words, there is no problem with the linguistic-scientific methods used. But there is a problem with the way the results are announced and explained, the expressions used in doing so and the terminology created.
A government or kingdom may perish, but if the people who speak a language to the last person do not die, that language will not perish. The successors of the Sumerian and Hittite language must be alive today. The misdirection of people can not call as history and linguistics.
Now show a single historian and linguist to prove that the Sumerian people and the Hittite people died or were killed (without continuing their reproduction) to the last member.
In other words, when there is no material evidence of their extinction, on what basis, how you can write that Sumerian language did not survive and change in time?
If you can't prove that the people speaking the Sumerian language did not continue to reproduce until the last individual and therefore disappeared completely, you cannot prove that these languages do not have living successors today.
The Hittite language has nothing to do with the Indo-European languages. It is also an agglutinative language and has some prefixes, but there is absolutely no consistent evidence that it is an Indo-European language. But there is evidence to the contrary.
To see this evidence, I suggest you find, read, and compare articles that explain counter-arguments. Find and read the books of historian, linguist, researcher and writer Arif Cengiz Erman, and you will have a good start. After then I can recommend others.
Thanks
There is no issue that I approach with a nationalist point of view. For example, just for this reason, I am not talking about the nationality of the VM author, but a language that he includes in his work. Later, some of your researchers began to understand that VM scripts may not be from the so-called Indo-European languages.
When studying this manuscript in academies, naturally, there was a tendency to compare it with European languages first. This is not wrong. But later on, some scientists took into account even the Chinese language as a candidate by skipping this geography without including a whole Turkic-speaking geography among the possibilities. While I am writing this, I am not saying that all the scientists who researched this topic did this, but the majority ignored Turkish.
You should give up the self-centered point of view in Europe because historically there is no data to justify you doing this. Your archaeologists and historians have attributed many works of art that actually belonged to the Etruscan civilization and some elements of the Turkish civilization to the Greek civilization. Some of your linguists are trying to connect the Hittite language to the Indo-European language family with forced interpretation.
Some of the early European scientists, long ago studying the Hittite and Sumerian languages, and preparing transcriptions and readings for them, made many mistakes. Thus, they put the foundation they had built on all these issues on the wrong ground. Today, you have a pseudo-linguistics that is doomed to collapse on that ground, but which you do not even realize is fake. The methods and workings of modern linguistics are mostly scientific. But not always. When it comes to the transcription mistakes made in the past, they continue to make mistakes in the same details without correcting those old mistakes.
The issue that I have a nationalist approach is actually a matter of your own perception. I'm talking about how you studied the languages of the past in your academies in Europe. This is a criticism. And I don't mean all academics. But I'm talking about linguists who have included anagrammatic, inconsistent, logically made up interpretations in their so-called academic papers. They have created perceptions, especially since the 18th century and in modern times, with plenty of interpretation and inconsistent pseudo-evidence.
Unless you have a single proof that each individual of past great civilization languages disappeared, and the descendants of those who spoke these languages did not continue to next generation, then you cannot claim that this language disappeared completely.
In other words, there is no problem with the linguistic-scientific methods used. But there is a problem with the way the results are announced and explained, the expressions used in doing so and the terminology created.
A government or kingdom may perish, but if the people who speak a language to the last person do not die, that language will not perish. The successors of the Sumerian and Hittite language must be alive today. The misdirection of people can not call as history and linguistics.
Now show a single historian and linguist to prove that the Sumerian people and the Hittite people died or were killed (without continuing their reproduction) to the last member.
In other words, when there is no material evidence of their extinction, on what basis, how you can write that Sumerian language did not survive and change in time?
If you can't prove that the people speaking the Sumerian language did not continue to reproduce until the last individual and therefore disappeared completely, you cannot prove that these languages do not have living successors today.
The Hittite language has nothing to do with the Indo-European languages. It is also an agglutinative language and has some prefixes, but there is absolutely no consistent evidence that it is an Indo-European language. But there is evidence to the contrary.
To see this evidence, I suggest you find, read, and compare articles that explain counter-arguments. Find and read the books of historian, linguist, researcher and writer Arif Cengiz Erman, and you will have a good start. After then I can recommend others.
Thanks