Turkish is the first language on Earth

Katip Çelebi'ye göre, "Tarih, ilimlerin zirvelerinde en yüksek bir tepeye benzer." Fakat, hakiki araştırmacı tarihçilerin dışında, tarihi bir kütüphane araştırması olarak görenler onu gayri-ilmi sayabilirler ve diğer aynı tip tarihçilerin yaptığı gibi derlemeler yaparak kitaplarını yazarlar. Eserlerine tamamen hayali bazı yorumlarla ve ön yargılarla başlayan bu derlemeciler için tarih, kendi şahsi veya milli egolarını tatmin etmek için kullanılan bir vasıta ve de bir propaganda malzemesidir.

Antik Türk tarihi ile ilgili çalışmalar, yakın zamanlarda dünya Türkologlarının sayısındaki bariz enflasyona rağmen, hemen hemen mutlak bir hareketsizliğe gömülmüştür. Ben bu uyuyan devi harekete geçirmeye karar verdiğimde, mantık ve ispat unsurlarının geçerli olduğu müspet ilimlerdeki eğitimime güveniyordum. Diğer bir avantajım da, Allaha şükür, profesyonel bir tarihçi olmamamdı. böylece de tarih mevzuunda meslektaşlarımın profesyonel alanlarına tecavüz etmekte herhangi bir korku veya çekingenlik duymadım.

Türkçe-konuşan milletler veya halklarla ilgili tarihi eserler az, çok sathi ve bariz şekilde münazaalı, bilim ve mantık süzgeçlerinden geçmemiş ve de ekseriya tamamıyla tarafgirdir. Mesela, Hun kralı Attila'nın idaresinde aniden büyük bir politik güç ve faaliyetle ortaya çıkıp Avrupa'ya hakim olması ve zamanın en büyük gücü olan Roma'ya meydan okumasının, tarihin normal akışına ve devamlılık ülkesine tamamen aykırı bir manzara arzetmekte olduğu gözden kaçmıştır. bu olay gerekli tarihi destek ve hazırlıktan tamamen yoksundu. Mantığım, Hunların ta Moğolistan'dan çıkıp, birçok dağ silsilerini ve büyük ırmakları aşıp, bu arada Orta Asya'nın İndo-İrani hatta Hint-Avrupalı kabul edilen bir sürü yabancı kavimlerini bertaraf ederek üç bin millik bir yolu katedip, geldikleri ve yendikleri bu Saka ve İskit kavimlerini ikame ettiklerine dair ortaya atılan tezi kabul edemiyordu.

Yine mantık şunu emrediyordu ki bütün bu Hun olayının, bizzat yerinde, Rus bozkırlarının kendi içinde, ve bu bozkırların kendi yerli halkları tarafından yaratılmış olması gerekiyordu. Yani, Hunlar İskitlerin yerine geçmediler, onların kendileri bizzat İskitler'di.

Keza son 1600 yıl içinde diğer Türk devletlerinin Avrasya'da, Orta Asya'da, Hindistan'da, İran'da ve Anadolu'da büyük güçler halinde, önceden hazırlıksız olarak çıkışlarında da tarihi bir anormallik göze çarpar. Tarihçilerin 'göçebe' (nomad) teorisine göre bütün Türk devletleri ve imparatolukları daima 'geçici' kuruluşlardı. 

Türkler memleketlerinde daima 'yabancı' idiler. Orta Asya'ya ancak 8.yüzyıldan sonra, Anadolu'ya da 900 yıl önce, 1071 Malazgirt Savaşı'ndan sonra gelmişlerdir. Diğer bütün milletler antik çağlarda, Avrupa'da almanlar, Anglo-Saksonlar, Vikingler, Galyalılar, Latinler, İspnayollar, Slavlar, Yunanlılar ; Asya'da Hintliler ve Çinliler; Orta Doğu'da Farslar, Gürcüler, Araplar, İbraniler, Mısırlılar hep kendi coğrafyaları içinde veya yakınında yaşamışlardır. Sadece Türkler bu kuralın dışında kalmışlar, yalnız onlar bu hususta bir 'anomali' göstermemişlerdir.

Birinciye bağlı zannettiğim ikinci bir tarihi 'anomali' de 'kayıp diller' olgusudur ki bu 'tarihte devamlılık' açısından kabul edilemez. Sanskritçe, Grekçe, Latince, Anglo-Cermen dilleri, Farsça, Arapça, İbranice, Türkçe gibi büyük diller, ve hatta Arnavutça, Gürcüce ve Ermenice gibi küçük diller, makul bir devamlılık gösterirler. Hepsi eski dil karakterlerini ve ana yapılarını korumuşlar, ancak kelime hazineleri değişikliğe uğramış, dost veya düşman birçok milletlerden aldıkları kelimelerle dillerinde bazı değişiklikler olmuştur.

Eski çağın kayıp dillerinin sahiplerinden olan Sumerliler, Elamlılar, Medler, İskitler, Hititler (Hattiler), Frigler, Lydialılar, Truvalılar, Etrüskler, Partlar ve Aramiler dünya uygarlığının keşfi ve yaradılışında rol oynamışlar, sanat ve kültürde yaptıkları atılımlarla eski yunan rönesansının temellerini atmışlar ve dolayısıyla da bugünkü modern uygarlıklarımızın oluşumunu sağlamışlardır.

Bu eski milletlerin dilleri coğrafyacı Strabon zamanında hala yaşıyorlardı. Öyleyse niçin bu büyük milletlerin dilleri kayboluyor da bugün yaşayan küçük milletlerin bile dilleri kaybolmuyor, ki bu küçük milletler daima o eski büyük milletlerin idareleri altında yaşamışlar, her türlü esarete ve imhaya maruz kalmışlardır.

Öte yandan, mesela koca bir Sumer devleti ve milleti ve dili yok oluyordu ki bu dil, İbrani Tevrat yazarının ifadesi ide 'bütün dünyanın konuştuğu dil idi'. Böylece, mantık yine gösteriyor ki, eğer normal tarihi gelişme ve devamlılık korunacaksa bu eski ve antik dillerin asla kaybolmamaları gerekiyordu.

Eğer bizzat tarihin kendisini düzeltmek istiyorsak, yukarıda birbirine bağlı olduğunu söylediğimiz iki anaomali'nin yok edilmesi, tarih kitaplarından silinmesi gerekiyordu. Burada çalışma alanımız olan 'kayıp diller' genellikle Sami veya Hint-Avrupa dilleri dışında kalan aglutinatif (bitişgen) bir dil grubunu oluşturuyorlardı. Bu şartlara uyan birçok kayıp diller arasında olan ve muhtelif yazarlarca - sanki Asya kıtasında tek bir dil grubu varmış gibi - 'Asyanil' tabiriyle anılan, Sumerce, Elamca, Etrüskçe, Urartuca ve Hurrice gibi denilen Ural-Altay dilleri grubuna bağlanması gerekmekteydi, ki bu grubun Avrasya'daki büyük yegane temsilcisi Türkçe'dir. Böylece iki anomalinin tarih kitaplarından çıkarılması için, bu kayıp dillerin herhangi bir şekilde veya diyalekte Türkçe ile akrabalılıklarının ispatı gerekmekteydi. (...)

'Kayıp dillerin' çözümü ile Türkçe-konuşan eski halkların tarihini ortaya döken ilerideki bölümler gösterecektir ki, hiç değilse kayıtlı 5000 yıllık tarih dönemi başlangıcında Proto-Türkler'in ana vatan'ı Anadolu-Transkafkasya-Mezopotamya üçgeni içinde kalan bölgeydi. Kültürel ipuçları ise bu ana vatanın MÖ 7000 yılında bizzat Anadolu olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu deliller, tabidir ki, aynı zamanlarda Avrupa ve Asya'nın diğer bölgelerinde de Türkçe konuşan halkların bulunmadığını göstermez. Fakat, şunu da biliyoruz ki, eski uygarlık batıdan doğuya doğru hareket etmiş ve mesela Sumer uygarlığının emareleri Çin'e (Şang uygarlığı) bin küsür yıl sonra ulaşmıştır. (...)

Türkler bundan 8300 yıl öncesinde Anadolu'da yaşadığına göre ve de o çağda Orta Asya'nın durumunu bilmediğimize göre, bilimsel olarak bütün Türklerin Orta Anadolu kökenli olduklarını söyleyebiliriz. Akdeniz kültürü de sadece Greklerin, Romalıların değil, geniş çapta bu eski Anadolu Türklerinin yarattığını düşünürsek artık ırkçılık ve aşağılık komplekslerine takılmadan kendimizi saf ve yerli Anadolu sayabiliriz.

Diğer tarafta, Balkanlar'da, Kafkaslar'da, Rusya'da, Asya'da, Moğolistan'da ne zaman yerleştikleri bilinmeyen sayısız soydaş milletler Becenler, Gagauzlar, Azeriler, Kırımlılar, Türkmenler, Uygurlar, Kırgızlar, Özbekler, Kazaklar, Yakutlar da kendi coğrafyaları içinde kökleşmişlerdir. Doğu'ya doğru gidildiği oranda da , Asya'nın en kalabalık milleti olan ve uzun zamanlar Türk hakimiyeti altında yaşamış olan Çin ırkının tesiriyle hafif Mongoloid tiplerinin Türk ırkına karışmasını, yani Tatarlaşmamızı, doğal karşılamak gerekir. Yoksa, bazı tarihçilerin Kırgızlar için "Siz Kırgızlar eskiden Avrupalı (yani beyaz, Kafkas tipi) bir ırktınız, Doğu'da Türklerle karışarak Asyalı (Mongoloid) bir ırk oldunuz! kabilinde söylediği yalanlar bilimsellik sayılamaz. Gerçek şu ki, Türkler, Avrasya coğrafyasında yerleşmiş olmakla ve de biraz Tatarlaşma bahasına, bizzat Avrupalıların Tatarlaşmasını önlemişlerdir. Ona rağmen, bugün Kuzey Slavlar'da, Ruslar ve Polonyalılar arasında rastlanan Mongoloid simalar Anadolu Türk halkında olanlardan daha fazladır. Ne yazık ki Batılılar uzun zamandır Türklere bu Mongoloid damgasını vurmakta birbirleriyle yarışmışlardır.

Burada, Anadolu Türklerinin dışında kalan Türklere yanlış olarak verilen 'Türki' tabiri üzerinde durmak gerekir. 11.yüzyıl büyük dil bilgini Mahmut Kaşgari bizzat kendi Orta Asya dilini ve milletini 'Türkçe' ve 'Türk' adıyla belirtmiş, bizimkini ise 'Oğuz' ve 'Oğuzca' olarak tasvir etmiştir. Fakat, Kaşgari bütün Türk ulusları söz konusu olduğu zaman genel anlamda 'Türk' tabirini kullanmıştır.


Selahi Diker
(scribd veya pdf)

TEN THOUSAND YEARS OF THE TURKS AND THE WHOLE EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE

by Selahi Diker / link

Decipherment of Lost Languages Including Etruscan, Scythian, Phrygian, Lycian, Hittite, Hurrian, Urartian, Sumerian, Archaemenid Aramaic & Elamite, Parthian...

Against the observation of Prof. W. F. Albright, “Archaeology proves the correctness of the old philosophical adage, ‘natura non facit saltum’; there is a continuity in all the apparent discontinuity of history,” an obvious artificial anomaly stands apart in history books created by the so-called ‘lost languages.’ There is a reasonable continuity in major languages such as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Germanic languages, Persian, Arabic, Turkish, as well in such minor languages as Albanian, Georgian and Armenian. Lost languages of significance were those of the Sumerians, Elamites, Medes, Scythians, Hittites ( Hattians), Phrygians, Lydians, Trojans, Etruscans and Arameans, great nations of their times, some creating the civilization itself and some making contributions to the arts and cultures that established the foundations of the Greek Renaissance, and through it, made possible our present civilizations. Languages of many of these nations still lived in Strabo’s age. Why then, their languages should be lost while those of the minor nations lived. How could a great nation such as the Sumerians be lost who, in the words of the chronicler, spoke ‘the language of the whole earth?’ ( Gen 11.1-2: “AND THE WHOLE EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE”). Sir Henry Creswicke Rawlinson who became known as “The first successful decipherer of the cuneiform writings”, at first had considered the Sumerian a Turanian language. In any case, logic will rule that these ancient languages could not possibly die out if normal historical process and continuity had to be preserved.

According to scholars, ‘lost languages’ in question were generally non-Semitic, non-Indo-European, and also agglutinative. Languages meeting these conditions, such as Sumerian, Elamite, Etruscan, Urartian (the language of Urartu), and Hurrian, branded vaguely ‘Asian’ must be related to the Ural Altaic group of which Turkish is the only major language spoken today in Eurasia. Thus, the elimination of this anomaly from the history books depended on the proof that these languages were akin to Turkish in some form or dialect. Based on this logical point, the book solves the secrets of the lost languages, and a global distribution and development of the Turkish languages during the last five thousand years has been established.

It may be shown that the culture of 6300 B.C. Anatolia discovered at Çatalhöyük by Archaeologist James Mellaart is Turkish. The Anatolian Mother Goddess represented by two leopards (back cover of the book – above picture on the left; photo by Mrs. Mellaart) found by Prof. Mellaart was also known 6000 years later to the Etruscans (front cover – picture on the right; photo by Editions d’art Albert Skira) who have been shown in this book to have spoken a Turkish dialect.

Other lost languages including Sumerian, Scythian, Phrygian, Trojan, Lycian, Hittite (Hattian), Hurrian, Urartian, Pelasgian (Oghur Turkish, the ancestor of the Hungarian – Finnish, Chuvash and perhaps the ancient Cimmerian language), Achaemenid Aramaic (official language of the Achaemenid Persians, translated partly by R. A. Bowman), Elamite (also an official language of the Persians, phonology and morphology of which is well investigated by Herbert H. Paper), Median, Parthian (the language of the super power of the East that challenged the Roman Empire), and several languages of Central Asia including that of Sakas (Yueh-Chih), Sogdians (considered by Richard N. Frye and others as Iranian), White Huns (Hephtalites) have been deciphered in this book through translations of existing texts, using normally accepted phonetics of the Aramaic-Phoenician alphabet or applying a modified ‘filtered’ cuneiform reading in which according to Hincks (transmitted by Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer) ‘one and the same cuneiform sign could stand for more than one sound or value’, and / or through translation of local geographical names and of personal names of kings and nobles. All these languages are thus proved to be basically Turkish. It has also been established that Turkish-speaking peoples had important roles in the founding of the ancient Chinese civilization as well as Egyptian civilization.

Again, in this long period, Turkish languages have not changed very much in their basic structures. Even the border-line languages such as the Hungarian language and the Finnish language which have apparently borrowed large amounts of foreign words from neighbouring nations to swell their vocabulary, have preserved the character, the structure and the grammar, all undoubtedly Turkish, of their basic languages.

Through re-translation of part of 8th century Gokturk (Göktürk) inscriptions a contemporary Turkish Buddhist Kingdom on the Silk Road has been discovered, a kingdom that may go back at least to the beginning of the first century.

It has been further shown that 13th century Mongol language and present Chuvash language are not independent Ural Altaic languages but are essentially Turkish in their structure and vocabulary. Along with this, a Turkish-speaking world of Marco Polo is also discovered and some of Polo’s Turkish words and expressions are explained in this work for the first time.

The Issyk inscription found recently in a fifth-century B.C. royal tomb in Central Asia near Lake Issyk (ıssik Gol) belonging to a royal person dressed in a magnificent gold attire, have been re-translated correctly and it is discovered that the man and relatives accompanying the dead royal persons in Turkish tombs were doing so ‘voluntarily’.

It has been shown in Chapter 6 that the smallpox inoculation, the first important break-through in the medical history, was invented in the Ottoman Empire.

The book is divided into four parts. First part (Chapter 1 thru 6) discusses and re – discovers Turkish languages and civilizations of the last fourteen hundred years. Part II (Chapters 7 thru 29) covers the main subject, deciphering of lost languages. Part III (Chapters 30 thru 32) discovers the effect of ancient Turkish dialects on the other language groups. Here, it is shown that ancient Greek language was most likely first built on the language of the Pelasgians who inhabited Greece before the Greeks, and that the majority of the names of the Greek gods and goddesses can be explained in Turkish dialects. Finally Part IV (Chapter 33) is devoted to analysis end decipherment of ancient and modern geographical names. The work ends with an epilogue.


BIOGRAPHY
Dr.Selahi Diker, born in Trabzon, Turkey, finished Istanbul Erkek Lisesi, attended Istanbul Technical University for two years, graduated from King’s College, University of Durham as a mining engineer. He completed his graduate work in Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado, and received a Doctor of Science degree majoring in geophysical engineering.

In 1952, he joined the Institute of Mineral Research and Exploration in Ankara, he held from 1955 to 1958 the position of chief geophysicist. From 1958 to 1962 he was employed by the Empire Geophysical in U.S.A., where he was made Assistant Chief Geophysicist. In 1962, he joined Pure Oil Company where he helped set up Pure’s Dallas (Exploration) Center in Texas and was instrumental in the discovery of some of Pure’s oil and gas fields in West Texas and Southern New Mexico. After Pure’s merger into Union Oil Company of California, he spent three years in the Middle East in the company’s exploration efforts in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. After spending a year in Union’s Los Angeles office, he returned to Turkey in 1968 to work for Turkish Petroleum Company as exploration advisor. In 1969 he set up a consulting office and helped several oil companies including; Hamilton Brothers and Turkish Petroleum Company, in their petroleum exploration activities in Turkey. He also held, for a few years, a part – time teaching position in Middle East Technical University’s Graduate School in Ankara.

His main hobby; history and languages, had started back in his school years in Istanbul Turkey, and continued in England and U.S.A. His new findings and original discoveries reached such a stage that he retired from his professional work in late nineteen eightees to spent his full time to put them into a scientific form. Result was the book; AND THE WHOLE EARTH WAS OF ONE LANGUAGE, with a second title, Ten Thousand Years of the Turks. 

*

N. Kisamov: Turkic substrate in English

N.Kisamov: The Hunnic Oracle 

KISAMOV, Norm

Born and educated in Moldova, Mr. Kisamov spent a 40-year carrier as an industrial automation engineer. He emigrated from Russia to the USA in 1978, when the USA patronized immigration of educated people from Russia. For the last 15 years, he was the webmaster of the site "turkicworld.org", which serves as a non-commercial, educational publishing outlet for the Turkologists who could not propagate their studies in Russia and whose works were unknown to the Western world. He has translated a number of Turkological books to English, most of them were posted at that site, a few were published in Russia, in post-Soviet countries, and one was supposed to be published in Germany. Mr. Kisamov was assisting the writers as a volunteer. In his 15 years of working with various aspects of Turkology, he has amassed a significant collection of Turkisms cited by various authors, who were pointing out Turkisms in English and/or Germanic languages. Tracing and verifying etymologies of the cited lexemes, he encountered numerous other cognates, which led him to assemble a draft of the article that is published abridged in this issue, and unabridged as Supplement. By that time, the volume of the lexicon far exceeded accepted criteria formulated to discern random borrowings from genetic kinship. Mr. Kisamov is not a linguist, nor does he pretend to be a scholar. However, with some kind help from the sites contributors, he was able to systemize and organize his collection, and prepare etymological comments. His interest in Turkic history arose quite accidentally, but it quickly riveted him, he was growing into it for the last 25 years, and still, after a quarter century of reading and translating, he has only scratched the surface. Previously, he has authored a couple of articles on Turkological subjects related to the Scythian history.

Türkic borrowings in English

Bikkinin Irek: Türkic borrowings in English

Türkic Substrate in English - Appendix to Türkic borrowings in English

Yusipova R.: Türkic suffixes in English (Turkish angle)

Stetsyuk V.: Germanic-Chuvash Türkic Parallels 

Toth A.: German Lexicon

Ekholm G.: German Ethnology

Mc Callister R.: Non-IE substrate vocabulary in Germanic languages

Toth A. :Turkic and English

Adji Murad: English Kipchaks

Stevens C.: Germanic-Türkic traits

Rassokha I.N.: Ukrainian pra-motherland of Indo-Europeans

Türkic and Slavic

R.Harding: Genetic distances of European language families

G.Shuke: Türkic substrate of Slavic and Baltic

Drozdov Yu.: Turkic European History

R.Mc Callister: Non-IE Germanic

V.Stetsuk: Türkic, Slavic and Iranian

P. Tzvetkov: Origin Of Bulgarians

E.N.Shipova :2,000 Türkic words in Russian

S.Pletneva: Kipchaks (Sect. Badjanaks/On Slavic migration)

P.Tzvetkov: Origin Of Bulgarians

F.Fattahov: Prosthetic V in Slavic-Türkic words

E.R.Schena :Russian Monetary system

I.Nigmatullin: Bulgarian Toponymy

Z.Miftakhov: Pre-Russian E. European Toponymy

Turkic/E.Iranian (Ossetic, Pamir) Phonological Correspondences

Red book of endangered Türkic languages in Russia

Türkic and Chinese

M.J.Hashimoto: Altaicization of Northern Chinese  

Hadji Murad: Yiliuf Türkic-Chinese lexical parrallels

N.A.Baskakov: Chinese loanwords in Türkic languages   (PDF in Russian)

A Lubotsky: Turkic and Chinese loanwords in Tocharian (i.e. Kucha)  

Türkic in Romance

Alans in Pyrenees

Türkic and Sumerian

Türkic and Amerindian

Akkadian & Turkish

Dravidian & Turkish

Latin & Turkish

Korean & Turkish

Ancient Turkic words, in non-Türkic languages
Gahraman Gumbatov (link in Russian L.)

"Turkish is the first language on Earth"

Dr.Phil Herman Kvergic, had sent to Atatürk a copy of his work "La Psychologie de Quelques Éléments des Langues Turques", and this was presented at the Third Language Congress in 1936.

DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE

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 former....page 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 field....page 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 related....page 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 Dravidian....page 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 Turanian....page 69

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

link

K.Gajendra Singh
CONTRIBUTION OF TURKIC LANGUAGES IN THE EVOLUTION AND 
DEVELOPMENT OF HINDUSTANI LANGUAGES

1. The term Hindustan has been used consciously so as to include Pakistan in it, by which name the Sub-continent was known before its partition in 1947. This paper concentrates mainly on languages as spoken by the masses, with their natural variations and not so much the written and the literary forms. We will consider the two major languages, Hindi and Urdu, which are widely spoken in Hindustan, although claims have been made that Urdu evolved out of Hindi and that Hindi is only Urdu written in Devanagari script. But the fact of the matter is that both Urdu and Hindi have evolved from the same colloquial base of Hindustani which was the lingua franca of Hindustan till its partition. As the well- known scholar and outspoken historian Khushwant Singh says, since then the Indians have made Hindi more Sanskritised and Pakistanis Urdu more Persianised, with the result that it is difficult for a common man to understand either Hindi or Urdu, specially their Radio and TV broadcasts. However, in spite of politically motivated and necessary corrective measures which new ruling elites usher in to change the complexion of the official language, if not the language itself, as has happened both in India as well as in Pakistan, the lingua-franca spoken by the common man in Hindustan, specially those who are illiterate or semi-literate has not changed that much since 1947.

The best proof of this is the language employed in Hindustani films made in Bombay (India) which really represents the spoken language of the masses in most of India, and which also remains equally popular in Pakistan. Whenever the film language became too Sanskritised, the films have not been very popular. At the same time, when a film on 'Razia' (a Turkish Queen of Delhi) utilised too Persianised Urdu, its lack of popularity could in some ways be attributed to the difficulty of the masses in understanding it. Hindustani with its vast vocabulary, form and literary variety provides the lyric and dialogue writer all the richness, elegance and nuances to express himself. Incidentally, according to Encyclopedia Britannica (1990 Edition), more than 35 million Indians declared Urdu as their mother-tongue while in Pakistan the number was less than one- fifth i.e. 6.7 million. (The compilation is old and estimates conservative.) Various forms of Hindustani are spoken or understood by over 70% of Indian population. The Bombay films have played a major role in spreading Hindustani in non-Hindi/Urdu speaking areas of South India and North-East.

2. The name Hindustani written as Hindoostanee was coined by an Englishman, Mr. J. B. Gilchrist (1759-1841), who was the first President of the Fort Christian College, Calcutta which trained British Civil Servants for service in India. Mr. Gilchrist also wrote a dictionary of Hindustani and its grammar. As mentioned earlier, from Hindustani have emerged two literary languages, Hindi in Devanagari script with literary and vocabulary borrowings from Sanskrit and Urdu in modified Arabic script with borrowings from Persian. Hindustani is much older form than Hindi or Urdu and many times it referred rather to the region and not so much to the race or religion. As a matter of fact before the advent of Muslims and others in India, the languages spoken in Hindustan were known as various Bhashas or Bakhas. Hindustani evolved out of a score of dialects which are inter-related among themselves and to it. Some of these dialects and languages are Hindwi, Khariboli, Brij Bhasha, Awadhi, Bagheli, Chhatisgari, Bundeli, Kanauji, Bhojpuri, Maithili, Gujari, Rajsthani and when it was spoken in South it was known as Deccani That these languages are dialects of Hindi as claimed by some is not strictly true.

Brij Bhasha was an important literary medium in 15th to 17th century. Both Brij Bhasha and many other dialects are genetically of different Prakritic origin than Khariboli. All earlier Hindi literature is in dialects other than Khariboli which became standardised and popular by the end of the 17th century and language of literature only in 19th century. Brij Bhasha continued as a medium of poetry till late 19th century. Thus, strictly speaking, the language of modern Hindi literature is different from that employed in earlier period. The same can be said about the Urdu which came to be written in the present form from 19th century onwards, although Urdu poerty flourished much earlier.

3. One of the earlier writers of Hindustani was Amir Khusarao (1253 - 1325) a remarkable scholar of Persian and Arabic but of Turkish origin. He is claimed both by the Hindi as well as Urdu protagonists. His dictionary, Khaliq-bari, in verse, of, Persian, Arabic and Hindi words helped spread Persian and Arabic words and development of Hindustani. In recent times, writers like Premchand have been claimed both by Hindi protagonists as well as Urdu spokesmen. The only difference was that the same writer wrote some times in modified Arabic (Persian) script and some times in Devanagari script. In this paper we would use the word Hindustani to include Hindi, Urdu and the other forms like Khariboli, Hindvi, etc.

4. The general perception is that Hindustani and its earlier forms evolved out of interaction, since 11th century AD, between Muslim invaders, rulers, traders and religious men and others who had come and settled in Hindustan from the north-west and the local Indian population. Persian was then the language brought by sophisticated Muslim ruling elite from abroad, which was used for administration, courtly intercourse, etc. Thus the main interaction was between Persian and the Apbhramsa variation of Prakrit in North and West India, in particular the Suraseni variety spoken around Delhi and later with the Dravidian languages in Deccan, out of which Hindustani evolved and developed slowly and unevenly. Many of the books on the evolution and development of Hindustani were written by the Englishmen in 18th/ 19th century, who learnt and used it for administration as officers of the East India Company and the British Empire. It is doubtful if any of them knew Turkish as by the time they arrived on the scene, the pre-ponderence of Persian during the latter stages of Mughal empire was well established, although some Turkish was still taught in some Medrasas and households. Persian and Arabic continued to be taught at universities and schools during the British rule. Therefore, no credit at all except for some vocabulary is given to Turkish languages in the history of development of Urdu, Hindi or Hindustani.

It is, of course, conceded that the word Urdu (Ordu in Turkish) itself is of Turkish origin and it means army or military establishment, which was inducted into Persian by 9l -Khanid historians and accepted in India by Sayyed ruler Khizr Khan for use by his army and the Court, under the Timurid influence. By 17th century, during the Mughal rule, the term, Urdu was generally applied to the imperial camp. The language Urdu/Lashkar Bhasha/Hindustani perhaps started developing seriously as a means of communication from end-12th century AD between the incoming Muslim rulers, soldiers, traders etc. and local population, for use in administration, for trading with native shop-keepers, in harems, where women and attendants were mostly of Hindustani origin. While Turks yielded to Persian words in matters of administration, poetry and social intercourse, they retained many Turkish words for military titles, weapons, military commands and organisations. Turkish derivations also exist in the hunt and hunting, also in terms expressing relationships and conduct in court among the ruling classes. We must not overlook the role played by Sufi saints in spreading Islam among the masses by using the new evolving Hindustani. Even today, tombs of Sufi saints are revered equally among Hindus. The objective of the paper is to advance the view that the Turkic languages apart from vocabulary, have contributed much more than is acknowledged, both in the basic structure as well as in the development of Hindustani languages.

5. The vast stretch of area comprising Central Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, north-west Hindustan, Anatolian Turkey, Northern Iraq etc. has seen intermingling of various races, cultures and languages throughout history. At least since the days of Mauryan Empire in India (4th century BC) many rulers with their capital in Hindustan had Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia in their domains. Therefore, the language of these rulers and their religion spread into Afghanistan, Central Asia and Eastern Iran. Mauryan Emperor Ashoka and others sent Buddhist preachers up to Central Asia and many of the tribes there became Buddhists. Turkic tribes like Sakas, Kushanas, when they settled on India's borders and inside it also adopted languages and religions of Hindustan. They also adopted Indian scripts which were also transferred to Central Asia, specially Eastern Turkistan. The way for exchanges was well-known, through the valley of Kabul river, Peshawar, Jalalabad and through well known routes to Tarim basin. 

As a matter of fact this area provided links for commercial, cultural and political exchanges between China on one hand and India, Central Asia and Western Asia on the other, where intermingling of people with diverse culture, race, ethnicity, religion such as Indians, Turks and others took place. In this area, Budhist stupas and shrines, a large number of Bhudhist writings in Prakrit and writings in Sanskrit as well as in local languages of Central Asia, in Indian scripts like Brahmi and Devanagari have been discovered, apart from a large number of secular documents, written on wooden tablets, leather, paper and silk. There are also translations from Sanskrit in Kharosti script. Translations include astronomical and medicinal subjects. Documents discovered in 10th & 11th century from Turfan region which can be seen in Berlin cover subjects like medicines & calendar based on Indian sources. Of course, the Turkish in these documents is quite different from the present day Turkic languages (Uighur and Cagtai group) spoken in Eastern Turkistan i.e Kazakhstan, Kyrghystan, Uzbekistan and the Sinkiang region of China. As many philosophical, spiritual and religious terms of Bhudhism and even Hinduism did not exist, they were inducted from Pali & Sanskrit into Turkish. Thus Turkish acquired many words of Pali and Sanskrit origin, some of which have even gone into other languages; Ratan becoming Ardhani is an example. An example how words change is illustrated from the Budhist word Dhyan (meditation), which became Jhan in Chinese and Zen in Japanese.

6. Although the influence of the Turkic languages on Indian languages began in all seriousness from 11th century AD onwards to which we will come to later, various Turkic tribes began their interaction with Hindustan much earlier than that. After the collapse of Mauryan Empire in 3rd century BC, a number of Central Asian Turkic tribes, known as Sakas in India and Scythians in West, came to Hindustan and settled down there. Sakas were actually forced towards Hindustan by Central Asian tribes, Yueh-chih, who also later entered Hindustan. Sakas ruled from Mathura (South East of Delhi) and their well-known Kings in 1st century BC were Rajuvala and Sodasa. They then shifted west to Rajasthan and Malwa. Yueh-chih's chief, Kujula-kara Kadphises conquered North India in 1st century AD. He was succeeded by his son Vima, after whom came famous Kanishka. Kanishka's tribe is known as Khushanas in Indian history. Their kingdom based with Peshawar as capital extended as far as Sanchi in Central India and Varanasi in East and also included large parts of Central Asia. Not surprisingly, administrative and political terms from north and west India influenced similar terms in Central Asia. Kushanas became Budhists and Kanishka spread this religion in Central Asia and elsewhere. 

Other major tribe which entered later in 6th Century AD were Huns, a branch of Hephthalis or white Huns, whose first king came to be known as Toramana in early 6th century and whose son Mihirakula was a patron of Shavism, a branch of Hinduism. It has been said that these and other tribes which had come earlier moved into Western and Central India i.e. in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Western Madhya Pradesh, especially after the break-up of the Gupta Empire. Many historians claim that by virtue of their valour and other qualities, these tribes were able to get themselves incorporated into the hierarchy of the Hindu caste system i.e. Khatriyas and are known as Rajputs (sons of Kings). It is no wonder that the Mongols and other Turkic speaking people were able to form relationships with Rajputs so very easily. It is possible that some words of Turkic languages might have been then absorbed in dialects or languages spoken in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Central India, where these tribes settled. A common word is 'kara' which in Turkish means 'black' and used for the same colour in West India and as 'Kala' in the rest of the country. It is a moot point whether the word 'bai' which is written in Turkish as 'baci' and pronounced as 'baji' which means sister or elder woman has persisted from those days. But it was in areas of Rajasthan and nearby, closer to Delhi where the seeds for the development of Hindustani languages were sown.

7. After the expansion of Islam into Iran this religion soon spread to Central Asia. The Turks as they advanced towards Anatolia and Hindustan via Iran and Afghanistan were also Islamised. Being a simple but hardy people from the Eurasian steppes, where life was austere and without frills, once the Turks acquired kingdoms, they also acquired along with it symbols and ways of culture and civilisation, including the use of more sophisticated Persian (and Arabic), the language of the people they conquered. (To begin with Omayands had also taken over Byzantine system lock stock and barrel in Damascus). It is noteworthy that except in Central Asia, which remains the home of Turks and Anatolia i.e. Republic of Turkey (and Azeri areas), in most of the other areas they ruled, the Turks adopted the language of the ruled, albeit they introduced some of their own vocabulary and influenced the grammar of the language of their subjects.

8. In the medieval history of Hindustan, the Turkic tribes played a major role among the Muslim conquers and rulers who came and made India their home. The Turkic raids began in the first half of 11th century starting with Sabuktgin and the process of establishment of their kingdoms in North & West of Hindustan started from late 12th century. Although Sindh was conquered by the Arabs, soon after the establishment of the Abbassid Khalifate in 8th Century AD, this played directly only a marginal role in influencing the culture and civilisation of Hindustan. It is interesting that in Malayalam (language of Kerala), Hindustani is known as Tuluk Bhasha and the word Tulukan used for Muslims and Tulukachi for Muslim woman. The languages spoken by the people of Turkey is called Tuluk Bhasha. This is interesting because the relations between the Kerala coast and the Arab world predate Islam and there has been constant interaction between the Malabar coast of Kerala and the Arab world but still the word for a Muslim is Tulukan.

9. The impact and embedding of Islam and Islamic and Turkish culture into Hindustan took place during the Turco-Afghan period of India's history from end-12th century to early l6th century (and continued during the Mughal period). Even if some of the Sultans and rulers claimed Arabic or Afghan descent, the majority of the elite consisted of people of Turkic & Turanian origins ( not many of these tribes and individuals came from the Rumi Seljuk or Ottoman territories.) Many of them came as simple soldiers and some period chieftains. From the very early days of the Islamic history (second half of Abbassid period), many non-Turkish kings and Sultans maintained Turkish households of slaves brought over from Central Asia which provided them loyal soldiers and military leaders. Many of them rose by hard work and merit and reached the top ranks of the ruling elite and King makers. Some even became Sultans.

10. Some of the prominent names of Turkish rulers in Hindustan are Mahmud of Ghazni, Muhammad Gori, Kutubuddin Aybak, Iltutmish, Balban, and of course, Khiljis (known as Halach, in Turkish kh becomes h) and Tughlaks. According to some estimates, the Turks comprised up to 60% or more of the ruling elite during the medieval period of Indian history. It should also be noted that Timurid King, Babar, founder of the Mughal dynasty, was a Cagtai Turk and wrote his Babarname in Ca tai and not in Persian. So did his sons Humayun and Kamran write poet in Turkish. However, by the time of Akbar's reign the percentage of Turkish chieftains in the ruling elite had been reduced to one-fourth. It was a conscious political decision, as Turks and specially Mongols, nomad by life style, are more independent by nature and believe in equality and freedom. The Turanian/Mongolian concept of rulership is vested in the family and not in an individual. Humayun and Akbar had great trouble in subduing and disciplining their Turanian/Mongol origin nobles. Preference was given to Persians, Afghans & converts.

11. It has been rightly claimed by many scholars in South India that a considerable process of development and even preservation of Hindustani took place in Deccan where it came to be known as Deccani, although the seeds of the birth of the language had been sown in North India from where it was taken to Deccan by Muslims conquers starting with Turkish Khilji (Halac) rulers and later Tughlak (again Turkish) rulers; Muhammed Tughlak even shifted his capital to the South for some time. Later a large number of kingdoms by Turkic tribes, in which they formed a fairly large proportion of the elite, were established in South India, i.e Bijapur, Golcunda, etc. When Allaudin Khilji conquered Deccan, the appointed Turks as chiefs for each villa e to look after its security, safety and administration. Most of them called their relatives to assist them. Thus both in the beginning of the evolution of Hindustani in the North and later in its further development in Deccan, a majority of the elite was of Turkic origin who while using Persian for administration must have used Turkish at inter-personal level and thus helped continue evolution of Hindustani in its various forms. The Deccani period also saw influx into Hindustani of not only Dravadian words but also its influence on its grammar and syntax and vice versa. We might even say that the Deccani period probably saved Hindustani from becoming totally Persianised as perhaps happened to it at many places in North India,

12. It has been estimated that Hindustani and Turkish have thousands of words in common, mostly from Persian and Arabic, Some estimates put them around three to four thousand, with over five to six hundred words of Turkish origin in Hindustani. The comparison is basically with the Republic of Turkey's Turkish (of Oguz family), which since 1930s has been purged of many Arabic and Persian words. Perhaps the number of common words between Hindustani and Turkish as spoken in East, i.e. Uzbekistan and East (Uighur and Cagtai family) could, perhaps, be more. Some examples of Turkish words in Hindustani are: Top, Tamancha, Barood, Nishan, Chaku, Bahadur, Begum, Bulak, Chadar, Chhatri, Chakachak, chikin (embroidery), Chamcha, Chechek, Dag, Surma, Bavarchi, Khazanchi, Bakshi (accountant), Coolie, Kanat, Kiyma, Kulcha, Korma, Kotwal, Daroga, Koka, Kenchi, Naukar, etc. Obviously, the number of Turkigh words in Hindustani is not as large as that of Persian and Arabic, because, the latter was the language of the Holy Koran (although Seljuk Turk rulers in Asia Minor and Iran had discouraged use of Arabic except for religion), which exercised influence over all believers and the former was the language of administration and aristocracy. I presume studies on the influence of Turkish on the Persian language and Arabic, have been done.

13. Hindustani has surprising similarity in Grammar and Syntax structure with Turkish, though origins of both the languages are from different language families. For example, normally both in Hindustani and in Turkish first comes the subject, then the object etc. and finally tie verb, i.e. SOV order unless emphasis is to be given, with somewhat similar stem endings. There are considerable resemblances in the declensions of the verb in Turkish and Hindustani. But, Turkish has only one gender while Hindustani has two. As I know soma Arabic, I can say that there appears no similarity at all between Hindustani and Arabic syntax and grammar. I know little Sanskrit or Persian grammar, but both languages belong to the same family of Indo-Iranian group and my feeling is that their syntax is also closer to Hindustani. While Persian like Turkish has one gender, Sanskrit has three, i.e. male, female and neuter. Sanskrit also allows more flexibility in the placing of subject, object, etc. It may be admitted that human beings while evolving speech patterns did not have much choice in shuffling subject, object, verb, etc. Still that Sanskrit/Persian syntax is somewhat similar to Turkish, is a somewhat strange coincidence, the latter belonging to the Ural-Altay group of languages. With Hindustani the similarity is further accentuated. It may also be noted that the areas from where Turkish and Indo-European languages emerged in Central Asia were not far from each other.

Some similarities with Sanskrit are: dvihyrdaya (carrying two hearts, pregnant), in Turkish "iki canli" means, the same, two lives. In Hindi/Sanskrit, we have Chitrakar (painter), Murtikar. In Turkish we have "Sanatkar" (Artist), Curetkar (courageous). Sun in Sarhskrit/Hindi is Dinesha, while in Turkish it is "Gunes." First segment in both "din" and "gun" means day - perhaps linked with sunrise in cold climate. We may also note that the syntax of Germanic languages is quite different from Sanskrit and Persian, which are supposed to belong to the same family of Indo-European languages. We may now look at more similarities between Hindustani and Turkish. (Please note that in Turkish C is pronounced as J and C as Ch, G is silent when placed between vowels, which it accentuates. H: stands for Hindustani and T: for Turkish.)

14. There are no articles or declensions in Turkish or Hindustani; the relationship of the words are expressed through 'case endings' as well as post-positions. (It would be interesting to study if Turkish helped speedy change-over from declensions to post-positions from Apbhramsh to Hindustani). The infinite noun functions as nominative and as indefinite. The accusative has thus two forms: the definite (with accusative ending) and the indefinite (the same as the nominative). Thus, "call a girl" - H: "ek larki bulao" T: "bir kiz çagir" but "call my servant", H: "mere naukar ko bulao"- T: "Benim hizmetciyi çagir". The word order in Turkish and Hindustani is same (This is also so in the following examples).

15. The genitive comes before the agent e.g. 'the son of the teacher' T: 'ustanin oglu' H: 'ustad ka beta'. The genitive also expresses possession: 'whose house is this?' T. "Bu ev kimindir?", H: 'Woh ghar kiska hai?'. If a noun is in present, it goes into the genitive. It must therefore be constructed as: 'the man(he) has a house', T: "Adamin bir evi var", H: "Adami ka ek ghar hai". Also 'to have' as incidental possession is similarly expressed: "I have a book", T: 'Ben de bir kitab var', H: 'mere pas ek kitab hai'. The ablative is also used to express the comparative case: 'the elephant is larger than the horse' T: 'Fil attan buyuktur', H: 'Hathi ghore se bara hai'. For emphasis both languages use the Arabic adverb 'ziada' - for more. 'In addition it can be rendered as in T: 'daha' or in H: 'bhi'. The adjective is before the active or passive voice and does not change except in the case of (in H) adjectives ending with a. "The/a good girl, T: "iyi kiz", H: Achhi lardki". The adjective can be strengthened in both languages through simple repetition as well as through the adverb "very much " T:( pek çok); H:( bahut).In H:' Ahista ahista' (slowly), T:' yavas yavas'. Quickly becomes, T: "çabuk çabuk", H: 'Jaldi Jaldi'( not used in Arabic and Sanskrit perhaps). Sometimes alliteration is used, for example, H: 'ulta multa' mixed up. The alliterations are found especially in the passive or active voice (substantive) e.g.;. H: "kitab mitab" - books and suchlike and "bartan wartan"- dishes and suchlike, "Hara bhara"(Green), "Chota mota"(small). In Turkish, 'kötü mötü' (so-so), 'çocuk mocuk'(children etc), 'tabak mabak', (plates and suchlike). Popular in both languages are doubled substantives: Turn by turn or "again and again", becomes in T: "dizi dizi" and in H: 'bari bari'.

16. Distributive are also thus expressed: "each man", T: "bir bir (or tek tek) adam," H: "ek ek adami", the interrogative further contains the meaning of the indefinite: "whoever", T: "kim kim", H: "jo jo". With number it is, T: "iki defa" H: "do dafa" (twice); 40 doors, in H: "Chalis darwaza", T: kirk kapi. In both languages numbers are preferably expressed without 'and/or' e.g. 'five or ten', H: panch das, T: bes on. Post positions are characteristic in both languages; 'for the dog'in H: 'kutte ke vaste', T: 'köpek için'; and towards the house', H: 'ghar ke taraf', T: 'evin tarafina'. As mentioned earlier, the verb is always found at the end of the sentence. The normal sentence structure SOV is illustrated as follows: 'I give this thick book with pleasure to that good child', T: ben sevincle, o iyi çocuga bu kalin kitabi veriyorum, H: 'main khushi se us achhe bacche ko yeh moti kitab deta hun'.

In Turkish, verbs are often used with a Substantive or Participle e.g. 'etmek' to make and 'olmak' to be, in H: 'karna'- to do, and 'hona' -being. For 'search' T: 'telaş etmek', H: 'talas karna'. Or 'be present', T: 'dahil olmak' H: 'dakhil hona'. Factual verbs are also similarly constructed. H: 'bana' (made), 'banana' (make), 'banwana' ( have it made); in T: 'Yapmak' (make), 'yaptirmak'( have it made), ;yapilmak'(to bo made); H: 'Badalna'(to change oneself), 'badlana'(changing), badalwana (to have it changed) becomes in T: 'degismek' (to change onself), 'degistirmek' (to change) and 'degistirtmek (to have it changed).

17. Indirect speech is made direct 'tell him to come here', H: 'Idhar ao usko bolo', T: 'buraya gelsin diye ona söyleyin'. The verb root ending - ip in Turkish and the simple verb root in Hindustani attached to the principal verb show the order of occurrence of an event. For example, 'they saw the thief and held him fast', H: 'chor ko dekh umon ne usko pakra', T: 'Hirsizi görup yakaladilar'. The constructed verbal form (in Turkish)- arak and (Hindustani)-kar, -arke serves in the rendering of Subordinate or dependant clauses - 'in which, during' e.g. 'taking a vessel, he went to the well' H: 'bartan lekar kuan par gaya, T: 'Canak alarak kuyuya gitti'. Also common adverbial expressions such as 'he came running', T: 'Kosarak geldi', H: 'daurkar aya'.

As in Turkish the twice repeated verb root plus e shows repeated or continuous action, as does the twice repeated verb of the present participle, H: 'main tairte tairte thak gaya', T: 'Yuze yuze yoruldum'. Both languages have a number of vowel compositions, (in Hindustani) as when the root as well as the (in Turkish) root plus a are set together with the declenated infinitive e.g. 'to be able to speak' T: 'konusabilmek', H:'bol sakna', 'he began to say' H: 'woh bolne laga', T: 'Söylemege basladi'. Some similarities in idiomatic expressions are: the showing of suffering is pointed out through the expression of 'eating'- e.g. H: 'lakri or mar khana'; T: 'Sopa yemek' - to eat the stick - to get a beating. Endure suffering or to grieve, becomes in T: 'Gam yemek', H: 'gham khana'. (Note: Many of the above mentioned examples have been taken from a 1955 article by Otto Spies on the subject - the only paper on the subject I have come across since I published my earlier paper on 1.6.1994.)

18. The examples quoted above on the similarities of syntax, vocabulary, etc. Between Turkish and Hindustani are based on comparison with the Ottoman and the present- day Turkish i.e. Oguz branch as spoken in the Republic of Turkey. Syntax etc. of Turkish is quite similar to Eastern Turkish i.e. Uighur branch although there are variations. But certainly the Eastern Turkish must be closer to Hindustani as most of the Turkic tribes who came to Hindustan belonged to that area. It may also be mentioned that of the common words in Turkish and Hindustani, whether of Turkish origin or otherwise, 20% have quite different meanings and nuances when used in Hindustani. This, of course is, true of even languages which have developed and evolved in separate regions and are influenced by the environment and other factors and become quite different from the original. Even in Turkic countries, the same words have different meaning e.g. in Turkey or say in Sinkiang, Kazakhstan or Kyrghystan. It is for this reason that the Turkic governments have set up Commissions consisting of scholars from Turkic speaking countries of Central Asia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to prepare a comparative dictionary and grammar. (last such attempt was made by Mahmud AI Kashghari in the 11th century AD.) The newly independent countries in Central Asia feel that they must harmonise the syntax, grammar and vocabulary of their languages. This has been the objective of many get togethers of Turkic people, scholars and academicians, which have started taking place. Perhaps some Sanskirt, Hindustani and Persian scholars could also join and discover further resemblance between Turkish and Hindustani languages.

19. We will leave it to linguists and philologists to work out how Hindustani languages evolved and developed but to a layman it is clear that people learn or try to learn the ruler's language or of a dominating power. It is for this reason that we see the dominance of English and French in their former colonies and the lasting influence of these languages on the languages of the latter. And it is for this reason alone that English continues to dominate international communications, earlier because of the British influence and now on account of ths USA. I believe that even whene languages were imposed, it is not as such the movement of races, as claimed, but only of the powerful elites; military, political or economic. There were Copts and Berbers in North Africa when the Arabs came and Byzantine Christians when Turks entered Asia Minor. Turkey sent over 1.5 million Christians to Greece in 1920s out of a population of over 11 million, in exchange for Muslim Turks; this was after 6 centuries of Islamisation and Turkification. (Ironically, these included many thousand Christian Turks, who had come to Asia Minor earlier than the Muslim Turks and had remained Christians.) Moldova's Turks called Gagaoz are Christians. Thus the languages and religions of the ruled do not change quickly and continue to interact and affect each other. So was the case in Hindustan and elsewhere.

20. According to linguists the evolution of Hindustani or any other language is a result of contact situation in which more than two languages interact on the basis of belonging to the ruler and the ruled. The socio-linguistic forces give power and prestige to the languages of the ruler with the result that it begins to exercise linguistic influence on the language of the ruled. First in the field of vocabulary and later on in some vulnerable areas of syntax. But linguistic resemblance, apart from common parentage, can also be based on geographical and physical proximity. Essentially different but geographically and physically proximate languages are often known to exhibit shared linguistic features. This probably explains similarities in Sanskrit and Turkish as these languages originated around Central Asia. This also explains the similarities between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages or Persian, Turkish and Hindustani. This feature was studied in detail by Mr. Emeneau, which led him to develop the concept of linguistic areas. perhaps Central Asia, Anatolia, lran, Afghanistan and North Hindustan could be said to belong to overlapping linguistic areas, where languages belonging to different families have acquired common traits following interaction, as a result of which, this vast area shows shared linguistic features like word-order, reduplication, inter-relations, negations, compound words etc. This also explains similarities between Deccani Hindi and Telgu in certain areas of syntax.

21. It is noteworthy that except for some inscriptions near Orhon river, which are in Turkish Rhunic script, which itself was derived from Aramaic (a fact contested by many experts) [[We do not agree, and it is not true!-SB]], the mother script of Semitic languages, Turkish has been mostly written in the script of the ruled people. Brahmi, Kharoshti and Devanagri scripts, though not of the ruled, are perhaps the earliest of scripts used for writing Turkish as spoken by Uighur Turks in Eastern Turkistan. They were used in spite of many difficulties in expressing the Turkish vowels (not easier to write in Persian or Arabic script either) which do not exist in Hindustani languages. Brahmi script is of Indian origin; it might have been inspired by the Aramaic script, but is not related to it and was used widely in Hindustan even before the Budhist era and was used by Mauryan King Ashoka for inscriptions in India and elsewhere. It was taken to Central Asia and other neighbouring countries. Out of Brahmi have evolved most other North Indian scripts like Devanagari, Bengali, Gujarati etc. Apart from the modified Arabic script, the other scripts used for writing Turkish are Cyrillic, introduced by the Russians in what are now Central Asian Republics, although at one time it was written in the Latin script. This change-over to Cyrillic perhaps took place both because the Turkish Republic had adopted it in early 1930s and for reasons of state, i.e. maintaining a scriptal cohesiveness. The Russians wanted its citizens in Central Asia to use the same script as of the dominant Russian language for easy switch over. It has been alleged that during the Soviet days, differences in meanings of Turkish words in different republics were encouraged. 

Thus Turkic languages have evolved differently in Eastern Turkistan, i.e. Uzbekistan, Kyrghystan Kazakhstan etc. Sinkiang Turkish with reduced contacts has perhaps developed peculiarities of its own. To remedy the situation, the Government of Turkey has granted tens of thousands of scholarships to students and teachers from Turkic Republics. A large number of Turkish teachers have also gone to teach at schools and universities in these countries. Students coming from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrghystan, etc. take a few months before they can fully master the Turkish as spoken in the Turkish Republic. The Turkic Republics have considered the question of change over from the Cyrillic to the Latin script. Azerbaijan has already done so after adding three more alphabets to the script used by Turkey. Turkmenistan had decided to switch over to the Latin script with some modifications from 1st January 1995. Others have not decided yet. The choice is not easy as switch-over to Latin script while opening a window to Turkey and all that Turkey has done through translations and assimilation of knowledge from the West, would cut these Republics from their immediate past, written in the Cyrillic script. Switch over to the Arabic script would be a political decision, as it will make access to the Persian-Arab Islamic world easier. Those responsible for the decision for the change-over have to consider political, cultural, religious, economic and other ramifications. ...

***

"... Founders of ancient İndian civilization, from the year 4000 BC, are the Dravidians who migrated from the borders of today's Turkmenistan. Their language is in the Turan language group. The Aryans have entered İndia more in the later time and drove the Dravidies southward." 
Begmyrat Gerey - Turkmenistan 

"...Eski Hint medeniyetinin kurucuları M.Ö. 4000 yıldan itibaren bu günkü Türkmenistan’ın sınırlarından oraya göç eden Dravidiler olmuştur. Onların dilleri Turan dil grubuna dahildir. Aryanlar ise daha son dönemlerde Hindistan’a girerek Dravidileri güneye doğru sürmüşlerdir. " 
Begmyrat Gerey - Türkmenistan

Turks in İndia by Murad Adji 

The Saka/Scythians are Turkish tribes

_______________________________