Language Mysteries

quote]Originally posted by Skyfloating
1. Unknown Origins of Languages. Scientists still have some languages they cannot trace back to an origin. One of these is the finno-hungarian language over which there is still a lot of controversy. Could it be that some of these languages are of extraterrestrial origin?
No. just because we have yet to learn the origin of a language of the history of a language is lost forever to prehistory does not mean that a language is of extraterestyal origins.

2. Language Mix-Up by "the Gods". What are ancient accounts referring to when they say that "the Gods" created many diverse languages and created a babylonian mix-up so that the human race could not continue their progress. Is this some kind of cosmic conspiracy to slow humans down?

No. it’s evolution and human nature. Time and space for development mean that over time that new languages will diverge from common ancestors.

4. Language, Reality & Mind-Control: It is known that some concepts do not exist in some languages and can therefore not be experienced by people who do not have words for a certain concept.

An example please.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
There is a theory that Hungarian is oriental but no conclusive evidence. Most linguists still say "origin unknown". I interpret that to mean: Origin not found on terrestrial grounds.

The origin of the bow is not known, by your logic this could imply that it too is of an out of world origin.

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Anyway the fact is. We dont know allot about allot of languages in the east. We know quite a bit about the recent post roman european languages but when we look at turkish there is still allot to be discovered.

Actually we have reconstructed most European languages to PIE (proto indo-European] which in fact spread across much of Europe to India.
As for not knowing a lot about languages of the East,
www.britannica.com...
ublib.buffalo.edu...

yes it is not as comprehensive as European history but the study of ancient Asia and Africa are in their infancy compared to European and near east studies.

Turkish Language and the Native Americans
:: Traces of the Altaic Words "ATA", "APA", "ANA" and Their Derivatives in the Languages of Some of the Native Peoples of Americas ::

by Polat Kaya

This paper is revised from Polat Kaya, "Search For a Probable Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Turkish People of Asia and the Native Peoples of Americas", Belleten, Cilt: L, Sayi 198, Aralik 1986, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara. Also catalogued in Canadiana, Canada's National Bibliography with the same title as above under Comparative Linguistics, 497, P. Kaya, C87-7257-9 MRDS Pt. 1

Abstract

In early 1980s, out of curiosity, I was wondering about a possible existence of an affinity between Altaic Languages and the native languages spoken in the Americas. So I made a research, (although not as a linguist), with the hope of finding some living words presently used in Turkish and also in the languages of the Native Peoples of Americas. After all thousands of years ago, the ancestors of both the Turks and those of some of the Native Peoples of the American continents shared the same geographic area in Central Asia and Siberia. I wrote a paper about my findings through my research entitled "Probable Existence of a Linguistic and Cultural Kinship Between the Altaic Peoples and the Native Peoples of Americas." The following is a rearrangement of the original paper.




www.mediamonitors.net...

Only makes sense to me that they are related. I suspect many languages in this world are related to altaic languages. Especially since now there is evidence that etruscan were turks. If the turks travelled to europe before the time of atilla the hun then it is possible that they travelled to more places in europe than just the area where the etruscans lived.

Howdy Tomcat

Comment on Etruscan are Turks. The Etruscans are probably related to people who lived in asia minor, in particular the western coast of what is now Turkey. The Turkish tribes that came into that area many centuries ago, pushing the Byzantine empire back and conquering the Arabs. The fact that they control Turkey now doesn't mean they are the descendents of the Etruscans, the earlier people there were. There ancestors still populate that area and where not disrupted by the 1923 treaty and exchange of population between Greece and Turkey.

The thing is that 1. We dont know exactly what villages actually were researched. 2. Anatolia was rather sparsely populated back then. 3. There are allot of you could say 100% turkish villages which had very limited contact with the outside world. If we assume that the villages concerned around izmir are like the average turkish village turkish village which has had limited contact with the outside world then it makes sense to consider them to possibly be turkish. 4. I have heared that some scolars knowing ancient turkish can partially read etruscan. Not confirmed though.

Howdy

The biggest problem with the idea of Turks being Etruscans is that the peoples who would become the Turks are believed to have been in Central Asia during the time while the Etruscans were in Italy around 1000-750 BC. They may have come from Asia minor but not from Turkish descent - the Turks not showing up until some 2,000 years later.


So Turkish scholars are claiming to be able to read the Pyrgi Tablets?

reply to post by Hanslune


Just 1.

Yes its believed that the Turks most likely were in central asia at the time but i frequently here nowadays that the amazones who lived above the black sea were most likely of altaic decent. At least there is a close genetic resemblance between skelletons found there and with some people from mongolia. If they were really an altaic or even turkic then having them live even futher west becomes much more propable. The thing is we need more information about the villages themselves. If we find that we can trace the history of the villages and then see if they were being conquered by the turks or vice versa.