View Poll Results: Are Turkish, Korean, Mongolian & Japanese Related? (The Altaic Languages)

Voters
18. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 22.22%
  • No

    14 77.78%
Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 293

Thread: Are Turkish, Korean, Mongolian & Japanese Related? (The Altaic Languages)

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    04-26-2021 @ 02:52 AM
    Location
    Various Cruise ships, Also Agio Pnevma, Serres, Macedonia, Greece.
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Hellenic
    Ethnicity
    Hellenic
    Ancestry
    Greek with a whiff of Bulgarian
    Country
    Greece
    Taxonomy
    A typical Balkan bastard
    Politics
    Strictly Rational.
    Hero
    Θαλής ο Μιλήσιος
    Religion
    Freedom with responsibitities.
    Age
    42
    Gender
    Posts
    16,654
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,566
    Given: 4,506

    2 Not allowed!

    Default Are Turkish, Korean, Mongolian & Japanese Related? (The Altaic Languages)


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    12-08-2018 @ 06:13 PM
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Ancestry
    Oğuz / Turcoman
    Country
    Turkey
    Gender
    Posts
    10,237
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,722
    Given: 1,300

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Nothing will make the Oghuz-Turkmen Ottoman dynasty Byzantine descent little monkey. Now İ understand they brainwash you in Greece with sh!ts like that and you feel you are related with us. LoL. Cypriots, Levantines, Serbs, Wallachs, Alboz etc are people you are related with not Turks. Now unstick, Hellenized Bulgarian you toothless 45 year-old obese retard.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Online
    12-27-2018 @ 11:00 AM
    Ethnicity
    Misanthrope
    Country
    Mongolia
    Politics
    Lefty Alt-right
    Hero
    Angela Merkel
    Gender
    Posts
    2,591
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 1,875
    Given: 2,197

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    The poll needs third option: Other/Possible

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    04-26-2021 @ 02:52 AM
    Location
    Various Cruise ships, Also Agio Pnevma, Serres, Macedonia, Greece.
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Hellenic
    Ethnicity
    Hellenic
    Ancestry
    Greek with a whiff of Bulgarian
    Country
    Greece
    Taxonomy
    A typical Balkan bastard
    Politics
    Strictly Rational.
    Hero
    Θαλής ο Μιλήσιος
    Religion
    Freedom with responsibitities.
    Age
    42
    Gender
    Posts
    16,654
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 5,566
    Given: 4,506

    4 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siyendi View Post
    Nothing will make the Oghuz-Turkmen Ottoman dynasty Byzantine descent little monkey.
    This is where your "Oghuz-Turkmen Ottoman dynasty" comes from:

    Now İ understand they brainwash you in Greece with sh!ts like that and you feel you are related with us. LoL.
    Check again the Y-DNA haplogroup of your "Oghuz-Turkmen Ottoman dynasty"...

    Cypriots, Levantines, Serbs, Wallachs, Alboz etc are people you are related with not Turks.
    Of course, not even the Turks are related to the Turks:

    https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/...urkic-peoples/

    Turkey: Not very Turkic (a genetic history of the Turkic peoples)

    Ironic, isn’t it? The geographic distribution of Turkic languages is amazingly vast-yet-splotchy, extending from the eastern border of Bosnia to the far western end of Siberia, where Russia approaches Alaska: Carte_peuples_turcsOrkhon Valley, which is located smack dab in the middle of Mongolia. Which, you may have noticed, is not today a Turkic-language speaking place. The Mongolian Language family is, ironically, much less widespread than the Turkic-family:
    1024px-Linguistic_map_of_the_Mongolic_languagesAltaic” language family, which makes plenty of geographic sense, but might not make true linguistic sense. Being me, I always root for nice fancy language family trees, but we’re going to have to call this one “just a theory some guys have and some guys oppose” for now. (The difficulty with reconstructing proto-Turkic or proto-Altaic or the like is that there aren’t a ton of old inscriptions in either family, and not many linguists are trained in them.) Languages get complicated because they can contaminate each other in unexpected ways. To use a familiar example, even though English is a Germanic language, our “do” constructions, eg, “Do you walk?” “I do walk!” and “Do walk with me,” appear to come not from Old or Proto-Germanic, but from Celtic languages. When the Anglo Saxons moved to England and conquered the Celtic peoples living there and made them start speaking Anglo-Saxon, the Celts retained some of their old grammatical structures. But Celtic and Germanic languages are not all that different; they’re both Indo-European, after all. Imagine what craziness you could get by combining peoples who originally spoke languages separated by much vaster gulfs of time.
    The English example reminds us of another difficulty in attempting to use linguistics to tell us something about groups and their histories: widely disparate groups can speak the same language. Not only are the English, despite speaking a “Germanic” language, only about 10% German by ancestry (more or less but the US has almost 40 million African Americans who all speak English and aren’t genetically English. Even though most people learn to talk by imitating their parents, people have picked up and promulgated many languages that weren’t their ancestors’.
    We have a similar situation with Turkey, where the majority of the population clearly speaks a Turkic language, but the genetics shows far more in common with their local Middle Eastern neighbors:
    Click for full sizehttps://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...png?w=600&h=82 600w, https://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...png?w=150&h=20 150w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; max-width: 98%; height: auto; vertical-align: middle; display: block; margin: 3.6875px auto 0px;">
    From Haak et al.
    Zooming in on the relevant portion:
    TurkishDNA2fromHaakChechenDNAfromHaak
    I like Turkey’s DNA because it’s always easy to spot in these charts. Turkey has some real variation in the distribution of different ancestral populations–the Japanese population, by comparison, is far more genetically homogenous.
    The really anomalous guys in the Turkish sample are easily explained–they’re just Greeks, (and the anomalous guys in the Greek Sample are Turks.) Turkey ruled over Greece for quite a while, so it’s not surprising that some Greeks live in Turkey and some Turks live in Greece.
    Chechens through Kumyks are all groups from the Caucus Mountains area, which is just north of the Turkish-Iranian border, so it’s not too surprising that all of these groups resemble each other. The Greeks, though, are much closer to their neighbors to the north, like the Albanians.
    The Chechen and Lezgian languages are from the “Northeast Caucasian” language family (aka Caspian language family). Remarkably, this geographically tiny splotch of languages (and the similarly named but apparently not linguistically similar Northwest Caucasian language family, [aka Pontic language family,]) is considered, like Indo-European, one of the world’s distinct language groupings.
    The Adygei (or Adyghe) speak a Northwest Caucasian language.
    The Balkars and Kumyks speak Turkic languages, and the Ossetians speak an Indo-European language, (Indo-Iranian branch.)
    Remarkably, even though these Caucasian groups speak languages from four different language families–one of which may have originated in far-off Mongolia–they are genetically quite similar to each other.
    from Haak et al.Indo-Iranian branch. (Given present politics, it is a bit of a wonder that the Aryan Nation and its ilk are actually named after the Muslim nation of Iran, but there you go, that’s history for you.) So I suspect that Iran got its language due to a small group of Indians conquering the place, imposing their language, and marrying into the local population, but this isn’t really supposed to be a post on the history of Indo-European.
    What about Turkey’s neighbors to the south? How much do Turks resemble them? Here are some folks in the local vicinity (Syria and Iraq border Turkey to the south, but Iraq doesn’t seem to have made it into this dataset):
    purpleDNAfromHaakhttps://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...ng?w=127&h=150 127w, https://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...ng?w=255&h=300 255w, https://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...ng?w=768&h=904 768w, https://evolutionistx.files.wordpres...nafromhaak.png 773w" sizes="(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; max-width: 100%; height: auto; vertical-align: middle;">
    The most noticeable thing here are the big chunks of purple, which reach their maximum in the Bedouins. However, I suspect the purple is (in some manner) related to the dark blue which it replaces; if you glance up at the dataset used for the image at the top of the blog, you’ll note that it shows the same basic ancestral DNA groups for the Middle Easterners as Europeans (albeit in different proportions.) The technical differences between these two data sets aren’t worth getting into; suffice to say that I think the Haak dataset is just showing us a finer grained level of detail, which is why I am primarily leaning on it.
    At any rate, the purple is distinctive. The Turks (and Iranians) have some purple, but not a lot; the Caucasians very little. The Middle Easterners also have a bit of pink (and a touch of blue) which hail from Africa. These colors, interestingly, appear not to have made it into the Turkish samples at all.
    So while the Turks are similar to the Syrians and other neighbors to the south, I hold that they are genetically more similar to their neighbors in Iran and the Caucuses.
    DNA from various Asian peoplesTurkey is located on a plateau and markedly greener than its neighbors to the south. That alone may account for differences between the Turkish people and their southern, more desert-dwelling neighbors.
    What about the other Turkic peoples?
    There are a lot of them:And we don’t have time to run through all of them. We will mention those who are included in Haak’s dataset, though:
    TurkishDNAfromHaakNogai balkar Chuvash Kumyk Kyrgyz Turkmen Altaian yakut
    (Chuvash? Are you sure?)
    These guys have a lot in common–most of them have, at least broadly, similar varieties of DNA–but not enough to be considered a single ethnic group. Like most groups, they tend to be more closely related to their neighbors than to folks far off, and the Turkic peoples are pretty scattered. The especially odd thing about them, though, is that none of these–at least, none of the folks in Haak’s dataset–look like the Mongols, despite the Turkic languages having probably originated somewhere near Mongolia. (And the Mongolian-like DNA they do have might be more easily explained by Mongolian expansions than by Turkic ones.)
    Wikipedia comes to a similar conclusion:
    The physical characteristics of populations of speakers of Turkic language stretch across a range as wide as the land they inhabit. The Turkic peoples in Europe look European – with the exception of some Crimean Tatars and Turkics in the Caucasus (Kumyks, Nogays, etc.) who look European+Northeast Asian, while Turkics in the Middle East resemble the peoples of the Middle East, those in Central Asia mostly look mixed but have mostly northeast Asian features. Turkics in northeast Asia resemble populations in that region. In trying to answer such questions as what “race” were the Proto-Turkic speakers, neither anthropometric nor genetic studies have been of much assistance to date. What few DNA analyses have been done arrive at the problem as an answer: affinity to primarily western populations in the west, eastern in the east, and a mixture on a gradient from east to west or vice versa in between.[2] These biological circumstances suggest that racial evolution over the region is earlier than can be considered in the time of the distribution of languages; i.e., the languages may have evolved among populations that were already mixed.
    The extremes of the Eurasian continent–Europe, India, SE Asia–have wide zones with a fair amount of genetic homogeneity (even where there are multiple ancestral groups.) In between these zones, however, we get a mixing zone, where different groups come together and new ethnicities are born. All of the Turkic groups here have, to greater or lesser degrees, the tri-color pattern typical of Europe (orange, teal, dark blue) and the di-color pattern typical of SE Asia (red and yellow,) though this is greatly attenuated at the extremes of Turkey and the Yakut. Some groups also have the green characteristic of Indo-Iranians, probably due to bordering those zones.
    The Turkic language groups may therefore represent a kind of genetic mixing zone between the large, homogenous zones to their east, west, and south. How long have the steppes (and the mountains to their south) been mixing zones? We don’t know. But the idea that the Turkic peoples were ethnically mixed and heterogenous long before they began speaking Turkic languages at all seems reasonable.
    But if Turks aren’t particularly Turkic, why do they speak a Turkic language at all?
    Surprisingly, the Turks didn’t even exert military dominance over Turkey until about the 1,000. Prior to this, Anatolia, as we may call the pre-Turkic area–was ruled by the Byzantines, eastern successors to the Roman Empire. The local population was Greek-speaking Christians.
    The origins of the Turkic peoples are shrouded in mystery, mostly because of the lack of good written records. There is much speculation, for example, about whether or not the Huns were Turkic, but unless someone can come up with a Hunnic dictionary, we’ll probably never truly know.
    The first confirmably Turkic group we know of was the aptly-named Goturks, who lived in parts of China and Mongolia, beginning around the 500s. They apparently controlled a rather large region.

    What were a bunch of nomadic herders doing making a bunch of monuments inscribed with a derivative form of the Aramaic alphabet up in the middle of Mongolia in the 700s? For that matter, why weren’t they using something derived from Chinese, who lived much nearer?
    My best guess is that the alphabet arrived with some eastern variant of Christianity, spread by Christian missionaries through the Persian empire and beyond. (Remember, Iran wasn’t conquered by the Muslims until 651; before that, Christianity had a much larger foothold in the East.) This is not to say that the Goturks were Christians in the way that we typically practice it today, (shamanism focused on the sky god Tengri, whom they shared with the Mongols, appears to have been the dominant religion,) but that they may have had contact with Christian missionaries or religious texts.
    At any rate, it looks like the Turkic peoples get on too well with the Chinese, and probably weren’t too keen on the Mongols, (no one was too keen on the Mongols,) which may have inspired them to start migrating. (Or perhaps they were always migrating. They were nomads, after all.) Either way, by the 800s, a Turkic-speaking people called the Seljuqs had pitched their yurts north of the Caspian sea.
    From there they migrated southward, encountering Muslims in Iran, (where they picked up Islam,) and eventually reaching Turkey around the year 1,000. (These migrations probably should not be thought of as single, organized movements of people, but of many migrations, mostly of tribes simply wandering in search of pastures for their animals, conquering neighbors, fleeing conquerors, and generally being a complicated, disorganized bunch of humans.)
    At any rate, the Seljuk Empire, founded in 1037, absorbed the crumbling Persian Empire, and invaded the Byzantine Empire in 1068. By 1092, it stretched from the Bosphorus, down through Palestine, across Iran, around Oman, through several -stans, and up to the far western end of China.

    This all helped inspire the Crusades, launched in 1096 to help the Byzantines repel the Seljuks, but that is a story for another day. The Mongols showed up around 1243, but by the 1400s, the Turks were in charge again. In 1453, the Ottomans took Constantinople–now Istanbul (which is really just a slight corruption of the Greek for “to the city,” “εἰς τὴν πόλιν”)–ending the last vestige of the once vast Roman Empire.
    An observer described the looting:
    Nothing will ever equal the horror of this harrowing and terrible spectacle. People frightened by the shouting ran out of their houses and were cut down by the sword before they knew what was happening. And some were massacred in their houses where they tried to hide, and some in churches where they sought refuge. …
    Old men of venerable appearance were dragged by their white hair and piteously beaten. Priests were led into captivity in batches, as well as reverend virgins, hermits and recluses who were dedicated to God alone and lived only for Him to whom they sacrificed themselves, who were dragged from their cells and others from the churches in which they had sought refuge, in spite of their weeping and sobs and their emaciated cheeks, to be made objects of scorn before being struck down. Tender children were brutally snatched from their mothers’ breasts and girls were pitilessly given up to strange and horrible unions, and a thousand other terrible things happened. …
    Temples were desecrated, ransacked and pillaged … sacred objects were scornfully flung aside, the holy icons and the holy vessels were desecrated. Ornaments were burned, broken in pieces or simply thrown into the streets. Saints’ shrines were brutally violated in order to get out the remains which were then thrown to the wind.
    The Wikipedia estimates that 4,000 were killed and 30,000 deported or sold into slavery. 4,000 sounds like a low estimate to me, given the nature of warfare, not to mention reports like Barbaro’s:
    Barbaro described blood flowing in the city “like rainwater in the gutters after a sudden storm”, and bodies of the Turks and Christians floating in the sea “like melons along a canal”.[50]
    As I have mentioned before, I strongly recommend not getting conquered.
    The Ottoman Empire continued to expand, reaching its greatest extent in 1683.

    The few small Turkic-speaking communities in Europe today probably owe their genesis to the Ottoman empire, though some might have arrived on their own, via more northerly routes.

    And as for the guys in Siberia? They probably just decided to try walking north instead of south.

    Now unstick, Hellenized Bulgarian you toothless 45 year-old obese retard.
    I won't unstick until you find some reasonable answers to my points...

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    12-08-2018 @ 06:13 PM
    Ethnicity
    Turkish
    Ancestry
    Oğuz / Turcoman
    Country
    Turkey
    Gender
    Posts
    10,237
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3,722
    Given: 1,300

    2 Not allowed!

    Default

    Sticking excrement, this is J2 distribution for Turkic groups:

    Uygurs 34%[2], Uzbeks %30.4[2, East Turkestan], Azerbaijani Turks 30.6%[20], Crimean Karaites 30%[19], Kumyks 25%[21], Balkars 24%[10], Lithuanian Tatars 18.9[23], Turkmens 17%[11], Uzbeks 16%[9], Kazan Tatars 15.1%[6], Chuvash people 14%[6], Nogays 10.4%[21], Kazakhs 7%[1]
    https://yhaplogroups.wordpress.com/2...oups-in-turks/

    LoL You and me arent related. You put this in your head. İts not my fault your local Orthodox priests brainwash you with stories and make you believe you are related with Turks Lol or that Ottomans were 'Byzantine descent, when it's all the way proved they were Turkic house to the core.

  6. #6
    Inactive Account Pahli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Last Online
    03-26-2020 @ 09:32 PM
    Location
    Parthia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Iranic
    Ethnicity
    Kurdish
    Ancestry
    Chalcolithic Iran, Medes, Parthians, Persians
    Country
    Iran
    Y-DNA
    J-M267
    mtDNA
    L3d1-5
    Taxonomy
    West Asian / Med
    Hero
    Böri the Tocharian ginger
    Gender
    Posts
    7,222
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6,165
    Given: 10,233

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Kek

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    07-18-2020 @ 08:01 PM
    Ethnicity
    prehistoric peoples
    Country
    Kyrgyzstan
    Gender
    Posts
    3,322
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,839
    Given: 341

    3 Not allowed!

    Default





    A pan-Turkist bullcrap.

  8. #8
    завсегдатай black hole's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Online
    03-24-2024 @ 09:44 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Balto-Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Russian
    Ancestry
    Eastern Europe
    Country
    Russia
    Taxonomy
    East Europid
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Gender
    Posts
    2,874
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 2,002
    Given: 332

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Siyendi View Post

    Uygurs 34%[2], Uzbeks %30.4[2, East Turkestan], Azerbaijani Turks 30.6%[20], Crimean Karaites 30%[19], Kumyks 25%[21], Balkars 24%[10], Lithuanian Tatars 18.9[23], Turkmens 17%[11], Uzbeks 16%[9], Kazan Tatars 15.1%[6], Chuvash people 14%[6], Nogays 10.4%[21], Kazakhs 7%[1]


    myths about Turkic world. The true Turkic world is in Central Asia.

    Azerbaijani Turks are not Turkic, they are culturally and historically Iranic peoples.
    Turkmens also are Turkic-Iranic mixed folk.
    Kazan Tatars are closer to Finno-Ugric world, the same applies to Chuvash people.
    Kumyks are Turkified native East Caucasian folk.
    Karachays and Balkars (the same folk, but the name is different) are native Caucasian folks speaking Turkic language.
    Anatolian Turks are Pontic greeks mixed with Armenians, Levantines and Balkan peoples.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member Seya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    02-28-2024 @ 02:57 PM
    Location
    Izmir
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Eastern Romance
    Ethnicity
    Romanian
    Ancestry
    Vlacho-Cuman
    Country
    Romania
    Y-DNA
    I2 (I-S17250)
    mtDNA
    T2b
    Gender
    Posts
    10,359
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 14,320
    Given: 7,523

    6 Not allowed!

    Default

    belonging to the same language group doesn't make u genetically related to those people. turkish people and central asians are obviously very different ..not only different ethnicity but also different race. central asians are either mongolian or mongolian/persian mix..others have siberian admixture. turlish people are a mix of ME+caucasus+balkans..depends on the region.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Online
    04-12-2019 @ 11:40 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Romance
    Ethnicity
    Cuman
    Ancestry
    Cuman.
    Country
    United States
    Region
    Sardinia
    Y-DNA
    CUMANS
    mtDNA
    CUMANS
    Taxonomy
    atlanto-med + cm
    Politics
    CUMANISM
    Gender
    Posts
    11,151
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 11,911
    Given: 19,658

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seya View Post
    belonging to the same language group doesn't make u genetically related to those people. turkish people and central asians are obviously very different ..not only different ethnicity but also different race. central asians are either mongolian or mongolian/persian mix..others have siberian admixture. turlish people are a mix of ME+caucasus+balkans..depends on the region.
    Sure for the most part, but some Turkish do definitely display the traits of those Mongol/Siberian language carrying ancestors. Harun Yahya for example.

Page 1 of 30 1234511 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Tungusic and Mongolian races
    By Grab the Gauge in forum Anthropology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-16-2021, 08:37 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-02-2020, 06:29 AM
  3. "Tungus Altaic" component on MDLP K23b
    By Voskos in forum Autosomal DNA
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 04-24-2017, 08:29 PM
  4. Mongolian Nazi Pop
    By Grab the Gauge in forum Music
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-12-2016, 04:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •