24 Haziran 2014 Salı


The students of Mimar Sinan, Mehmet İsa Efendi and Mehmet İsmail Efendi , built the Taj Mahal between 1632-1652, in order of (Şah Cihan/Babür İmparatorluğu) - Shah Jahan/Mughal emperor, a Turkish Şah and second Turkish Imperium after Delhi Turkish Sultanat in India.

UNESCO World Heritage sinds 1983.

Koca Mimar Sinan - Architect Sinan, Mimar Sinan, (pronounced as me-maːɾ see-nan) was the Chief Royal Architect of Ottoman Turkish Empire and civil engineer for Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan Selim II, and Sultan Murad III... 

He was responsible for the construction of more than three hundred and seventy four major structures and other more modest projects, such as his Islamic Primary Schools (Sibyan Mektebleri) in Ottoman Turkish Empire. 

His apprentices would later design the Sultan Ahmed Mosque (also known as the Blıe Mosque) in Istanbul, Stari Most in Mostar in Bosnia and to help design the Taj Mahal in the Mughal Empire in India...

Sinan was not a Greek, but a Christian Turk... Sadly they use always another nationality for non muslim citizens. The Turks did accept all the religions in the Khazar Turks- Jewish , the Kipchak Turks- Christians and the Turks who accept the Budisme. English.  Mimar Sinan


A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian 
Or South-Indian Family 
of Languages by Robert Caldwell

....My own theory is that the Dravidian languages occupy a position of their own between the languages of the Indo-European family and those of the Turanian or Scythian group- not quite a midway position, but one considerably nearer the latter than the vii

.... In some particulars- as-might be expected from the contact into which the Sanskrit-speaking race was brought with the aborginal races of India-Sanskrit appears to differ less widely than the other Indo-European tongues from the languages of the Scythian group. 

One of these particulars- the appearance in Sanskrit of consanants of the cerebral series- will be discussed fruther on in connection with the Dravidian system of sounds. Mr.Edkins in his "China's Place in Philology" has opened up a new line of inquiry in regard to the existence of Turanian influences in the grammatical structure of Sanskrit. He regards the inflexion of nouns by means of case endings alone without prepositions in addition, as the adoption by Sanskrit of a Turanian rule.

He thinks alsı the position of the words in a Sanskrit prose sentence is Turanian rather than Aryan.

It is an invariable law of the distinctively Turanian tongues that related sentences precede those to which they are related. It is another invariable law that the finite verb is placed at the end of the sentence. In both these particulars Mr.Edkins thinks that Sanskrit has yielded to Turanian influences.

This certainly seems to be the case with regard to the vernaculars which have been developed out of the old colloquial Sanskrit; but in so far as the Sanskrit of literature is concerned, the Turanian rule is far from being universally followed. Mr.Edkins himself gives an illustration from a Sanskrit prose story (p315) which shows that a relative clause sometimes succeeds, instead of preceding, the indicative clause , and that the position of the finite verb is not always at the end of the sentence. Perhaps all that can be said with certainty is that in Sanskrit prose and in prosaic verse related sentences generally precede, and the finite verb generally comes last. Up to this point, therefore, it may perhaps fairly be held tahat Turanian influences have made themselves felt even in Sanskrit.

We are safer, however , in dealing with facts than with causes; for on this theory it might be necessary to hold that LATIN syntax is more TURANIAN than GREEK, and GERMAN more TURANIAN than ENGLISH.... page: 56

...I described the conclusion I arrived at as similar to Rask's, not the same, because I did not think it safe to place the Dravidian idioms unconditionally in the Scythian group, but preffered considering them more closely allied to the Scythian than to the Indo-European. 

In using the word "Scythian", I use it in the wide, general sense in which it was used by Rask, who first employed in to designate that group of tongues which comprises the Finnish, the Turkish, the Mongolian, and the Tungusian families. 

All these languages are formed on one and the same grammatical system and in accordance with the same general laws. They all express grammatical relation by the simple agglutination of auxiliary words or practicles ; whilst in the Semitic languages grammatical relation is expressed by variations in the internal vowels of the roots, and in the Chinese and other isolative, monosyllabic languages, by the position of words in the sentence alone.

The Indo-European languages appear to have been equally with the Scythian agglutinative in origin; but they have come to require to be formed into a class by themselves, through their allowing their agglutinated acuwiliary words to sink into the position of mere signs of inflexion.

The Scythian languages have been termed by some the Tatar family of tongues, by others the Finnish, the Altaic, the Mongolian, or the Turanian; but as these terms have often been appropriated to designate one or two families, to the exculision of the rest, they seem too narrow to be safely employed as common desgnations of the entire group.

The term Scythian having already been used by the classical writers in a vague, undefined sense, to denote generally the barbarous tribes of unknown origin that inhabited the northern parts of Asia and Europe, it seemed to me to be the most appropriate and convenient word which was available.

Professor Raski who was the first to suggest that the Dravidian languages were probably Scythian, did little more than suggest this relationship. The evidence of it was left both by him and by the majority of succeeding writers in a very defective state. General statements of the Scythian relationship of the Drabidian languages, with a few grammitaical illustrations, occupy a place in Prichard's "Researches" and have been repeated in several more recent works.

Prichard himself wished to see the problem, not merely stated, but solved; but I believe it can never be definitely solved without previously ascertaining by a careful, intercomparison of dialects, what were the most ancient grammatical forms and the most essential characterstics of the Dravidian languages and of the various families of languages included in the Scythian group respectively.

It was not till after I had commenced to carry the first edition of this work through the press that I became acquainted with Prof.Max Müller's treatise : éOn the present state of our knowledge of the Turanian Languaes" included in Bunsen's "Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History". Notwithstanding the great excellence of that treatise, I did not find my own work forestalled by the Proffesor's. His was a general survey of the whole 65

...An excellent beginning has been made in Boller's treatises: "Die Finnischen Sprachen" and "Die Conjugatşon in den Finnischen Sprachen" , Schott's treatise: "Über das Finnish-Tatarische Sprachengeschlecht" and Castren's "De Affixis Personalibus Linguarum Altaicarum" ; in addition to which we have now Professor Hunfalvy's paper "On the Study of the Turanian Languages" in which he carefully compares the Hungarian, Vogul, Ostiak and Finnish and proves that the vocabularies of those four languages are of a common origin, and that their grammars are closely 66

...It is also to be remembered that the Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian and Japanese languages though in many particulars distinctively Turanian, have become still more inflexional than the 68

Professor Oppert holds that the people by whom this language was spoken were Medians, but agrees with Mr.Norris in considering the language Scythian- that is 69

A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian 
Or South-Indian Family of Languages , 
by Robert Caldwell