[quote="tavie" pid='60472' dateline='1720638384']
I was going to use quotes but it just became too messy.
[
- A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic. It does not provide proof of a genetic relationship. Languages can change to become more or less agglutinative.
- No, we do not have enough information about Etruscan to establish relationships with today's languages. We have enough information to determine with a high degree of certainty which languages it is not closely related to. But we cannot connect it with any existing language families. We certainly cannot connect it with Turkic languages because written records of Turkic languages are far too modern.
- I don't think you understand how much effort and evidence is required to connect far-flung languages into one macro-family. It's not as simple as saying they are agglutinative, and that you've found similar words. There has to be regular systemic correspondences, showing consistent phonological changes from the ancestor language to the daughter languages. Extensive work was done on this to classify the Indo-European family, including the status of Hittite. Way more extensive effort and evidence would be required to connect Turkic with Etruscan or Sumerian because any common ancestor would be much older than Proto-Indo-European. And again - you don't have any ancient Turkic texts to help you with that problem.
In this thread and that other thread, you rubbished the work done to establish the Indo-European family and Hittite's place within it, yet asserted with far less evidence that Hittite was Turkic. That is pseudolinguistics.
- Let's say somehow someone was able to establish a relationship between Etruscan, Sumerian, and Turkic languages that was taken seriously by a majority of linguists. That would not necessarily make Etruscan and Sumerian Turkic any more than the classification of Indo European makes Russian a Germanic language. They would be cousins in the same macrolanguage family that would be given some name like Eurasiatic.
Your posts display some odd concept about "claiming" languages. I'll repeat. Etruscan (barring links with Rhaetic and Lemnian) and Sumerian are not classed as language isolates because linguists thought "if our Indo European mother family can't have them, then no one can!" (Did they have an off day when it came to Ancient Egyptian?). They are classed as language isolates because there is no even remotely convincing evidence of their relation to current language families. Unlike Ancient Egyptian.
- No, it is not "linguistically highly probable" that the "Paleolithic continuity theory" is true. It is classed as a fringe theory. That means the exact opposite to what you claim. If it were linguistically highly probable, it would be part of academic consensus. But it isn't. It doesn't even have the status of a respectable but unproven hypothesis that divides academics.
- Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what we know about the invention of writing systems. What you are describing - carving marks on rocks - is not what linguists call writing. It is more like proto-writing, and I cannot see the relevance of this at all here.
- Nothing in this thread should be described as being "in the name of science". In the name of Isaac Newton, I beg you to stop saying your approach is scientific. You haven't expressed the slightest doubt about your Voynichese solution being correct nor shown any self-scrutiny around your methodology. This is pseudoscience. ]
Dear Tavie,
A language's classification as agglutinative does not make it Turkic but it shows that language has no direct relationship with IE languages. But it indicates that it is in the same agglutinative structure as Turkish for sure. For this reason, it is important not to confuse the concepts.
Genetic studies, archaeological studies, linguistic studies, and compilation of historical data are separate disciplines carried out by separate experts. However, if all of these point to the same people and language as the closest relative of an ancient language group owner who lived in Central Italy (which is exactly what happened), then ignoring these overlaps is equivalent to leaving the field of science and wandering in the field of faith.
To see the connections found by comparative linguistics between the Etruscan language and the Turkish language, you must first find and read the articles and books of the academics who wrote them. Linguist Prof. Dr. Firudin A. Celilov explains and demonstrates the ties of the Etruscan language with the Turkish language. You can understand this if you obtain and read his book called "Dokuz-Bitik", which consists of 9 volumes covering these subjects. Additionally, linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman has written books on this subject. Linguist Prof. Dr. Çingiz Karaşarlı, Fazıl Latıpov, and Adile Ayla wrote about these topics. Apart from these, other researchers have also shown linguistic overlaps, but if you want to follow the latest scientific developments on these issues, you can start to gain information by reading the research of these people. If you have no time, do not read Prof. Celilov's 9 volumes of related books. Some of these articles are even very short but strong and were also published by the Turkish Language Association such as "ETRÜSK YAZITLARI KONUŞMAĞA BAŞLIYOR" by Çingiz KARAŞARLI.
The Italian linguist, whose books and articles I have previously recommended, is not the only person writing on these subjects. Many linguists present these overlaps with evidence, and ignoring them is not a solution.
The oldest known English inscriptions, the Ruthwell Cross and the Franks Casket were written in the 8th century CE. The oldest known German inscriptions, the Pietroassa inscription and the Bergakker inscription, date back to the 4th or 5th century CE. The oldest known "French" (if there is any proof it is French) inscriptions, the Gallo-Latin inscriptions, were written in the 1st century BCE. Based on "well-known European academic sources", the oldest known Turkish script is the Orkhon script, which was used in inscriptions from the 6th century CE in Central Asia (even if you say that the Sumerian, Etruscan, and the Cyprus K. syllabic Runes are not Turkish). However, The inscriptions found on the Golden Man statue, also known as "Altın Elbiseli Adam", are thought to date back to the 5th century BCE and have been found in the Turkish Runes inscription in the same kurgan.
The civilization in question is the Hatti Civilization, and the name Hittite was given by Westerners in modern times, and/or triple and quadruple word repetitions are known in their writings. Hatti language is not an Indo-European language.
The exact number of words and inscriptions found in Sumerian writing tablets is difficult to determine as it encompasses a vast number of artifacts, but it is estimated that there are thousands of inscriptions with a lexicon of thousands of words.
Linguist and historian Arif Cengiz Erman has shown more than 1300 words common between the Sumerian language and Turkish, including organ names, verb words, and nouns. But as I said, the field of history and linguistics is dominated by politics, apart from being scientific, and for this reason, your academies tend to ignore contrary findings. Of course, it can be thought that this trend has some kind of racism and hatred at its roots.
Saying that writing is most likely the product of nomadic cultures flies in the face of what you know about the invention of writing systems for sure. Yes, we are describing - that carving tamga and rune marks on rocks is what linguists must call writing.
We showed that we read VM manuscripts with our reading methods and the results of comparative linguistics studies to linguist Turcologists in academies and international symposiums. Our articles were published in the journals and booklets of relevant organizations.
All these studies were carried out under the supervision of academic scientific committees. We have already shown the evidence, and the evidence does not need to be proven again. There is no Turkish language expert yet who claims that what we present as evidence cannot be linguistic evidence. I don't think it will happen in the future.
Those who think that the Etruscan language does not have much written material to match it with other languages are either completely ignorant or completely uninformed. Because the Etruscan writing corpus contains approximately 13,000 different words recorded in around 10,000 different archaeological findings. And Etruscan writing dates back to around the 8th century BCE.
However, how old are the oldest known writings of the most prominent civilizations known in Europe today? And how many words have your “Super Mario Linguists” read and recognized as, say, French, English, or German? (It is not often possible to come across anyone who questions whether they read it correctly, anyway!)
The oldest known English inscription, the Ruthwell Cross contains around 120 words, whereas the Franks Casket has several shorter runic inscriptions, totaling around 80 words. The oldest known German inscription, the Pietroassa inscription contains approximately 15 words, while the Bergakker inscription has around 20 words only. The oldest known French inscriptions are the Gallo-Latin inscriptions (specific word counts on these inscriptions vary) but some notable ones contain as few as 5 to 10 words only. However, the "academically" oldest known Turkish script is the Orkhon scripts with the longer inscriptions containing several hundred words, typically ranging from around 700 to 1,000 words.
Now, if you want to say that "there is not enough material to compare Turkish and Etruscan inscriptions". Of course, we can only laugh at these prejudice-filled and poorly-informed thoughts. If you don't mind, talk about how the findings and evidence I put forward between VM and Turkish can be refuted. Or maybe you might want to answer the questions I asked, I don't know.