Turkey sends tanks in syria

[Kuntantee]

Was Turkish a language invented by some person? Were does the Turkish Language come from?

Incorporation seems like a semantics argument. What is the substantive difference between incorporation and assimilation other than assimilation sounds bad?

Incorporation means host culture is assimilated. Assimilation means target culture is assimilated. Quite a distinction.

[Theodarzna]

That's relevant in what way? But to answer your question, Oghuz branch of Turkic language family, from Altai.

So it came from a place, and has an ethnic group who brought it to Anatolia correct? Thus it is not Esperanto which is an invented language whose history consists of one many inventing it and it having no nationality or history.

More over it bares mentioning that the Turkish language spoken today underwent a significant reform during Ataturk's time in office which actually served to purge Turkish of its Arabic, Persian and Greek loan words. A great book on the subject is The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success by Geoffrey Lewis. Indeed the reforms revived words from previously lost Turkic roots, and invented new words following a strictly Turkic sound structure and derived from other Turkic roots. So actually during Ataturks time the language of Turkish because more like that of the Seljuq Turks, a specific ethnic group.

- - - Updated - - -

Incorporation means host culture is assimilated. Assimilation means target culture is assimilated. Quite a distinction.

And yet the dominate language of the Seljuq Turks remains the language and you do not speak Kurdish or Armenian or Greek. And as a point of fact Ataturk's time saw a reform of the language which purged many of the Arabic and Persian loanwords from the language and replaced them with words derived from Turkic roots.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not really a great argument though. All languages ultimately are invented, especially modern languages that all went through a pretty rigorous process of standardization to foster national unity and all that noise. Turkish was no exception, and went through a pretty substantial reform under Ataturk, including a wholesale replacement of the old Arabic derived script with the Latin alphabet.

Ataturk also saw the purge of Turkish of its many Arabic and Persian loanwords to be replaced by Turkic words derived from Turkic roots.

And actually linguistically no, there is language policy of governments but that does not invent a language.

For example, Esperanto is an invented language, since it can trace its origins to ONE guy and is an actual creation were as theoretically all "Natural Languages," are derived from more distant root languages.

So for example, English from Anglic, Anglic from West German, West German from Primitive Germanic and that from Indo-European.

[Kuntantee]

So it came from a place, and has an ethnic group who brought it to Anatolia correct? Thus it is not Esperanto which is an invented language whose history consists of one many inventing it and it having no nationality or history.

The Turks stepped into Anatolia are Oghus Turks of Seljuk Empire, which were composed of some number of tribes. They "incorporated" quite a lot from Iranians even before forming the Great Seljuk Empire. Turkish states were always big and were composed of several cultures. The purity of culture/genetics/whatever you call it of Turks crushed under the vastness of states they formed, add the migration of Turks Westwards to that, which may force people to be more pragmatic and incorporate efficient methods of any sort. This is how Turkish culture has evolved.

More over it bares mentioning that the Turkish language spoken today underwent a significant reform during Ataturk's time in office which actually served to purge Turkish of its Arabic, Persian and Greek loan words. A great book on the subject is The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success by Geoffrey Lewis. Indeed the reforms revived words from previously lost Turkic roots, and invented new words following a strictly Turkic sound structure and derived from other Turkic roots. So actually during Ataturks time the language of Turkish because more like that of the Seljuq Turks, a specific ethnic group.

This argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. It's just a language cleansing and nothing more and has nothing to do with ethnicity.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the dominate language of the Seljuq Turks remains the language and you do not speak Kurdish or Armenian or Greek. And as a point of fact Ataturk's time saw a reform of the language which purged many of the Arabic and Persian loanwords from the language and replaced them with words derived from Turkic roots.

Greeks still speak Greek, Kurds still speak Kurdish. Why would I speak Kurdish or Greek, I am neither Greek nor Kurd. And as a matter of fact, the official language of Seljuk Empire is Persian.

[Deleted]

Well the Scotts occassionally wear skirts and eat sheep offal cooked in sheep offal.

But that is not part of British culture.

[Theodarzna]

The Turks stepped into Anatolia are Oghus Turks of Seljuk Empire, which were composed of some number of tribes. They "incorporated" quite a lot from Iranians even before forming the Great Seljuk Empire. Turkish states were always big and were composed of several cultures. The purity of culture/genetics/whatever you call it of Turks crushed under the vastness of states they formed, add the migration Westwards, which may force people to be more pragmatic and incorporate efficient methods of any sort. This is how Turkish culture evolved all the time.

This argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. It's just a language cleansing and nothing more and has nothing to do with ethnicity.

It does since we can establish an ethnicity is part of and the reason for the existence of Turkish, thus Turkish represents a distinct specific ethnicity, culture and history. Unlike say Esperanto, whose only purpose was to give people a secondary language to speak and work with between specific communities.

I am not arguing Turks are some genetically pure group, but that Turkish is a specific culture, a specific language. Making the interaction between "Turkish," and say "Armenian," more akin to an English person telling say a Scot, "Lets both be English!" vs. "Let's both be British." The qualitative difference is both the dominate group and the marginalized group are agreeing to uphold an identity that is neither one group or the others, versus what you describe which is an identity of one group being applied to others.

The Turk tells the Greek, the Kurd, the Armenian, "Let us all be Turks!" not "Let us all be Anatolian!" The key difference is the Turk remains a Turk, but the Kurd must become a Turk, the Armenian a Turk, and the Greek a Turk.

As an example, If I, a Scot and an English person get together an all decide to be British, neither of us is asking the other two to become us. If a Turk, a Greek and a Kurd and a Armenian all decide to be Anatolian, neither is really becoming the other, all are agreeing to share something. In theory anyway that would be "Multiculturalism."

Here is another example. Let's say the EU becomes a federal State one day. "You are all now Europeans!" they would say. If they said "You are now all Germans!" that would piss off a lot of the Not-Germans. The Germans might say "What? We have a lot of cross cultural heritages! We are INCORPORATING YOU!" But from the perspective of the French, that seems a lot like demanding everyone just be German. By telling the man in Basque country, the Man in Brittany, the Man in Sicily, The Man in Ulster "Well, can we all also be European?" Well that isn't really anybody, so everyone can hyphenate themselves and live in some degree of peace.

[Kuntantee]

Anyway, I am going to stop here. Defining Turkish culture as a process of incorporation of elements of various other cultures revolving around Turkish language would be quite accurate. So, if you want to define an ethnic Turkish identity, you have to exclude genetics.

Gotta drink that cup of Greek blood before going into bed.

[Theodarzna]

Anyway, I am going to stop here. Defining Turkish culture as a process of incorporation of elements of various other cultures revolving around Turkish language would be quite accurate. So, if you want to define an ethnic Turkish identity, you have to exclude genetics.

Gotta drink that cup of Greek blood before going into bed.

Seriously, that much tzatziki sauce isn't good for your health man.

[Kronik85]

But that is not part of British culture.

I never said it was. Infact that whole paragraph is dedicated to the independent cultures of this Sceptred Isle. The real question is whether you think wearing skirts and eating sheep offal constitutes culture at all though.

[Kellhound]

But that is not part of British culture.

It is not part of English culture, the Brits include the Scots.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said it was. Infact that whole paragraph is dedicated to the independent cultures of this Sceptred Isle. The real question is whether you think wearing skirts and eating sheep offal constitutes culture at all though.

Kilts are superior to trousers in many respects, and yes, kilts and haggis constitute culture.

[Deleted]

It is not part of English culture, the Brits include the Scots.

Yes, but what the scotts do does not equate to being a part of 'British culture'.

[Kellhound]

Yes, but what the scotts do does not equate to being a part of 'British culture'.

I disagree. British culture is the amalgamation of the Scots, Welsh, English, and Irish cultures within the confines of the British Isles. While the English culture dominates, it doesn't set all British culture.

[Theodarzna]

I disagree. British culture is the amalgamation of the Scots, Welsh, English, and Irish cultures within the confines of the British Isles. While the English culture dominates, it doesn't set all British culture.

I would say this is accurate, there is nothing explicitly English about Britishness on its face beside the numeric advantage of the English and the historicity of English dominance on the Island of Britain. One fine day the Welsh language might be dominate, or Kilts might be dominate.

There is also the issue of the tendency of people on the Island of Britain to be either, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Manx, Cornish or British..... but not English, as when I return for visits I find I never can find people who say they are English or it is RARE to find that. WHICH COULD make the identity of British less universal as it becomes a stand in for English.

Perhaps that is one fine thing about the "Hyphenated American," because American's seem uniquely willing to be two things at once.

With Turkey, it seems that you must be a Turk to really belong to the community.

[Kellhound]

I would say this is accurate, there is nothing explicitly English about Britishness on its face beside the numeric advantage of the English and the historicity of English dominance on the Island of Britain. One fine day the Welsh language might be dominate, or Kilts might be dominate.

There is also the issue of the tendency of people on the Island of Britain to be either, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, Manx, Cornish or British..... but not English, as when I return for visits I find I never can find people who say they are English or it is RARE to find that. WHICH COULD make the identity of British less universal as it becomes a stand in for English.

Perhaps that is one fine thing about the "Hyphenated American," because American's seem uniquely willing to be two things at once.

With Turkey, it seems that you must be a Turk to really belong to the community.

With America, we are all generally new comers and a mix of many cultures and ethnicity. Thats why you have the "German-American", "Polish-American", "Italian-American", etc. We have to look back to the "Old World" to tap into heritage more than a few centuries old.

[Theodarzna]

With America, we are all generally new comers and a mix of many cultures and ethnicity. Thats why you have the "German-American", "Polish-American", "Italian-American", etc. We have to look back to the "Old World" to tap into heritage more than a few centuries old.

I being a duel citizen and not born here is a poor example for sure.

But I do think its an interesting development that might be a way to have a stable multicultural society. People have to be able to be two things at once.

As with all things dealing with nationality and identity its an imperfect project.

[Kellhound]

I being a duel citizen and not born here is a poor example for sure.

But I do think its an interesting development that might be a way to have a stable multicultural society. People have to be able to be two things at once.

As with all things dealing with nationality and identity its an imperfect project.

The key is to embrace the legal construct of the state as the prime identifier, then embrace one's history without it becoming the core of your identity.

[Theodarzna]

The key is to embrace the legal construct of the state as the prime identifier, then embrace one's history without it becoming the core of your identity.

The issue is the State would have to avoid playing favorites in terms of Cultural identifiers, otherwise the new identity loses its theoretical neutrality.

One area this will be difficult, and I am sure I will get shit rained down upon me for saying it, but this somewhat becomes tricky when it comes to Language Policy and Education. Do you favor one Language over others? Is that the language of the dominate or largest ethnic group?

In Turkey that is the case, Turkish and to be a Turk are intertwined. America is an oddball since legally English isn't the official language as America has no official Language though because English was predominate in its founding population it became a majority language.

Language is inseparable from culture. Turkey's decision to be a Turkish speaking political body was a statement of favoritism of one ethnic identity over others.

[Kuntantee]

Language is inseparable from culture. Turkey's decision to be a Turkish speaking political body was a statement of favoritism of one ethnic identity over others.

This is normal. Turkey is a nation-state. However, Turkish ethnic identity is multicultural and involves various ethnicities.

[Kellhound]

The issue is the State would have to avoid playing favorites in terms of Cultural identifiers, otherwise the new identity loses its theoretical neutrality.

One area this will be difficult, and I am sure I will get shit rained down upon me for saying it, but this somewhat becomes tricky when it comes to Language Policy and Education. Do you favor one Language over others? Is that the language of the dominate or largest ethnic group?

In Turkey that is the case, Turkish and to be a Turk are intertwined. America is an oddball since legally English isn't the official language as America has no official Language though because English was predominate in its founding population it became a majority language.

Language is inseparable from culture. Turkey's decision to be a Turkish speaking political body was a statement of favoritism of one ethnic identity over others.

Language is a key glue, one is always better than multiple. You should use the most common one within the State as the only official language and you should promote it as the primary language of every day use. However, it should also be acceptable to use loan words regularly.

- - - Updated - - -

This is normal. Turkey is a nation-state. However, Turkish ethnic identity is multicultural and involves various ethnicities.

Turkey is not a nation-state. It is a state that includes the Turkish people.

[Kuntantee]

Turkey is not a nation-state. It is a state that includes the Turkish people.

Nation state means the state is formed by a nation. Unless you claim Turks aren't a nation, it is a nation state.

[Theodarzna]

Language is a key glue, one is always better than multiple. You should use the most common one within the State as the only official language and you should promote it as the primary language of every day use. However, it should also be acceptable to use loan words regularly.

Turkey is not a nation-state. It is a state that includes the Turkish people.

Then either every ethnic and linguistic community needs its own State, OR we need to commit to an open policy of ethnic cleansing and violating our own stated international values.

- - - Updated - - -

This is normal. Turkey is a nation-state. However, Turkish ethnic identity is multicultural and involves various ethnicities.

There is no such thing as an ethnic identity that is multicultural, that is more aptly just political spin.