AngloJew Embraces his partial Turkish-Jewish (Karaite or Khazar) Heritage

[Proto-Shaman]

Ut & Odi are not the same words and they do not stem from a single root, so you can throw this funny theory of yours into the trash bin.
Geddit?
Also, I am still waiting for a rebuttal regarding the grammatical discrepancies.

Again:

aga(3): diadem, circlet, crown (of legitimate kingship); turban [TUN3 archaic frequency: 96; concatenates 3 sign variants].
Source: http://www.sumerian.org/sumvcv.htm

آغا (ağa)

lord, master
eldest brother
eldest paternal uncle
head of household
head male servant
agha, an honorific title of address; Mr., sir
agha, a title of various military and civil officers

No semantic sound correspondence, no regular sound change: EPIC FAIL.

I asked you to give me your best, not your worst.

Again:
Sumerian aga = crown (of legitimate kingship)
Turkic ağa = lord, master

Cool story, and what are these 29 "grammatical points" Sumerian shares with Turkic?
Care to provide a list so as to review the relevance of these "points"?

Oh, and the PCT is a nonsensical theory, I'd drop it altogether if I were you: It contradicts most of what you say (such as the fact you acknowledge that Turkic branched off from Altaic c. 4500 BCE).

Again:

Source: Chicago Journals, Current Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 2, Apr., 1971, Sumerian-Ural-Altaic Affinities, p.215

The fact that Sumerian shares the most close linguistic similarities with Hungarian and Turkic clearly indicates the common origin of the last mentioned groups, and makes possible to state a genetic and linguistic based corroboration of the connection to the Pelasgians of pre-Homeric Greece and Etruscans (based on Alfréd Tóth's work "Etruscans, Huns and Hungarians", 2007), and hence confirms PCT in this case.

Here they are, sweety:

ud, u4: n., sun; light; day; time; weather; storm (demon) [UD archaic frequency: 419].
prep., when; since.

I have yet to see any convincing Turkic cognate fitting with the aforementioned semantic significations.

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...7&d=1392813170
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...8&d=1392813170

http://sumeroaltaic.wikia.com/wiki/Sun-ud-%C5%8Dt%60a

So you acknowledge the fact that your sources don't support what you're saying?
Great, we're making progress once more.

Hannibal Hannibal Hannibal:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/att...4&d=1392984866

If you weren't asking for my opinion, you simply wouldn't answer me.
You know full-well I will answer any of your posts regarding this issue, as long as they contain ridiculous claim directly contradicted by the data.

The problem is that the data and your own words is contradicting you.

Why do you use Wiktionary as a source in order to make a point?
What do you hope to achieve?
Are you trying to tell us that, unlike Wiktionary, you are "omniscient"? Is that it?
Either way, if Wiktionary assumes that there is no connection between "Teuton" and "Tudun", it's pretty safe to say that no such connection exists (as indicated by the lack of regular sound correspondences between these words).

Thanks for the laughs BTW, I seriously needed someone to make me laugh today.

This is what the quote you posted suggested: That Germans and Turkic tribesmen shared "racial" commonalities.
But I can see we're making progress, since you're finding the claim ridiculous (and indeed it is) which is why you're in denial.

I have to disappoint you, the only one who is in the position to laught is me. That's the sad truth. At the end at least you see the connection between the Old European substrate word Teuton/þeudan and Turkic Tudun.

Yes, I contradict what you're saying, and first of all I'd like you to tell me where you found the reconstructed *hir lexeme.
I'm having a hard time finding this reconstructed form, sort it out.
Either way, it is not listed as a cognate, since it does not obey to regular sound correspondences.

Here is reality Hannibal:

Simple: The Sumerian term went through a *d to *t sound change while the Turkic term stems from Old Turkic otag, itself from Old Turkic ōta- so there has been no sound change from an older odag form which is what you'd expect if these two words were cognates.

Geddit? The sound change only came later on in Turkish: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oda#Etymology_4

Which goes on to prove that Turkic is both much younger than Sumerian, as well as being unrelated to it.
The semantic meaning fits, but the sounds do not correspond = Coincidence.

The only thing that doesn't correspond are your brain cells

If "IE was invented when the Brits travelled to India", you'd expect a lot of mutual intelligibility between IE languages which is not what we're seeing.
If that's what you meant, your contention is moronic.
Moreover what you say is utter nonsense, there is no semantic relationship between the verb "to be" and personal pronouns in PIE.
Have a look:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...-Indo-European
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...7%B5h%E2%82%82

Does it look like "h₁es-" (to be) stemmed from "*méǵʰye ~ moy" to you?
If so, I'm afraid you'll need to buy yourself a new pair of glasses.

In the same way, "to be" in English stems from Proto-Germanic "*beuną", itself from PIE "*bʰuH-" which gave us " *h₁es-" and *h₂wes-.
Sources: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...-Indo-European
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/be#Etymology

Does it look like these terms stem from pronouns?
I think not.

The only fact you propose that a basic PIE verb derives from a personal pronoun goes on to prove how retarded you are.

You also don't know the next thing about historical linguistics and the genesis of the IE problem.

I am really fed up with your filthy claims, word twisting games and your hypcrite behavior. Now you even want to discredit historical linguistics?

Epic fail. Just epic fail.

If that were the case we would've found R1b in several Kurgans by now, something which has yet to be observed. Actually, you're the one subscribing to dogmas, such as the "R1b-Kurgan" theory even though no R1b has been found in a single Kurgan to this very day.

You clever dick If the opposite were the case we would've found R1a in several Kurgans by now, something which has yet to be observed.

IE is not a sprachbund, if that's what you're trying to say.
Saying that just goes against everything we know about regular sound correspondences and long-term divergence (as opposed to convergence, which is not something we observe in this particular case).
Oh, and you don't subscribe to Altaic anymore?
I guess this means that "sumeroaltaic" doesn't exist either, then.
Thanks for contradicting yourself once more.

You don't actually seem to understand the french quote you posted, it actually acknowledges IE and Altaic as mere "branches" of a greater macro-family of languages (l'indo-européen lui-même, ainsi que les langues altaïques, par exemple, ne pourraient n'être finalement que des branches rattachées à une super-famille).
It actually acknowledges the validity of these families as "branches", even though I disagree with the premise (which is a mere copy-paste of the Nostratic hypothesis, relying on sketchy methodology).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...tinuity_Theory

I agree: The same counts for Turkic speakers.

Äääähm no, not really because of the simple reason that the whole horse-related diverse and fractured lexicon of the Indo-European languages ascends to the Turkic vocabulary. (http://www.federatio.org/joes/Eurasi...ies_0413s1.pdf)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...se_terminology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B...B0%D0%B4%D1%8C
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...a#Proto-Slavic
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...1wos#Etymology
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen...%B1-#Etymology

Cool, any evidence that he spoke a Turkic language or are you just claiming stuff without any proof whatsoever, as usual so to speak?

Yes, archeology and antrhopology is the evidence you clever dick.

Etruscans (who were Uralic according to the PCT, but hey let's just claim they were Turks ) and Scythians at the same time.
The true Übermenschen... Or is it Türklermenschen? I keep forgetting...

OMG mental illness at its best

"PCT reassigns the Kurgan culture to a people of predominantly mixed Uralic and Turkic stock."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleol...reconstruction

So... You think you can counter a peer-reviewed study by showing a map?
This is just hilarious, no comment ROFL
Thanks for the laughs!

16,000 year old "Turkic"? So you deny the fact that Turkic branched off only during the 5th millenium CE?
Interesting, you keep contradicting yourself, very interesting indeed.
You seem to suffer from a very rare, unknown mental illness compelling you to contradict yourself endlessly.

I am posting this the 4th time Hannibal: Anatole A. Klyosov, The Academy of DNA Genealogy, Newton, USA, Advances in Anthropology 2012. Vol.2, No.2, 87-105.

IF you are still not able to understand, you are truly mentally ill. Very sad, really, very...

This is the actual etymology of the Ki-En-Gir, a composite word: Not a Turkic word.
If you have nothing to add you might as well refrain from making stupid comments, sweety.

It isn't a Sumerian proper noun:

"ĝir15 means "native, local", in some contexts is "noble"(ĝir NATIVE (7x: Old Babylonian) from The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary). Literally, "land of the native (local, noble) lords". Stiebing (1994) has "Land of the Lords of Brightness" (William Stiebing, Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture). Postgate (1994) takes en as substituting eme "language", translating "land of the Sumerian tongue" (John Nicholas Postgate (1994). Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. Routledge (UK).. Postgate believes it likely that eme, 'tongue', became en, 'lord', through consonantal assimilation.)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#cite_note-1

Ki-En-Gir (composite word) ≠ "keŋer" (non-composite term)

It's that simple.

ki-en-ĝir, approximately "land of the civilized kings" or "native land".

1. Sumerian ki = "lands" or "places"

Proto-Altaic: *ĭ̀k`i, "to live, settle, home, dwelling (of a family, kin)".
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

Proto-Altaic: *ki̯aǯur ("sand, steppe, earth")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...oding=utf-eng#

Proto-Turkic: *Kaŕ- ("to dig, to scrape, scratch, plane")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

Proto-Altaic: *ki̯umo ("sand, dust")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

Proto-Altaic: *kòt ("village, locality")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

Proto-Altaic: *ki̯úne (" person; people, country")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

hence Proto-Turkic *kiĺi (“person, people”)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ki%C5%9Fi#Etymology

This word is a base to following Turkic words...

kara ("dark soil, earth")
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kara#Etymology_2

kent ("city")
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kent#Etymology_2

konut ("housing, dwelling")
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/konut

kaya ("rock"), from Proto-Turkic *K(i)aja
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaya#Etymology

related to Sumerian kur ("a myth. locality/mountain; land, country; east, easterner, east wind")

This word is also found in Ancient Greek γῆ (gē), Pre-Greek/Pre-Indo-European word
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B...#Ancient_Greek

kon ("to settle down, to perch"), koy ("to put, to lay down, to place"); from Proto-Turkic *ko-.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/konmak
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/koymak

HENCE Sumerian ku to place, lay (down)
http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/epsd/e3113.html

hence Sumeroaltaic ga(-r) ("to put, place")
http://sumeroaltaic.wikia.com/wiki/Place-%C4%9Dar-ga
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

Hence Mongolian *ger ("house").

2. Sumerian en = "lord; master; ruler"

Proto-Turkic: *ēn-čü ("fief, land and vassals presented by the ruler; gift, dowry"), from Proto-Altaic: *ā́ni ("to hold, present")
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...33&root=config
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...75&root=config

Sumero-Altaic: en = "to hold, possess"
http://sumeroaltaic.wikia.com/wiki/L...F%C3%B3%C5%8Bi

3. Sumerian ĝir = "native, local"
related to Sumerian kur ("a myth. locality/mountain"), and hence Proto-Turkic *Kuŕ ("Northern slope"), ultimately from Proto-Altaic *k`i̯ŭ́jŕo ("cold wind, fog, North"; cf. Old Japanese kiri). Another possibility also includes either Middle Turkic qɨr ("mountain top, mountain ridge; steppe, desert, level ground") or South Siberian Turkic and Eastern Turki qor-am/qor-um ("rock, cliff, heap of stones"), from Proto-Turkic *Kor-um, ultimately from Proto-Altaic *k`ori ("hill; embankment, boundary"; cf. Middle Japanese kùró, Middle Korean kòráŋ and Tungusic xurē).
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/res...coding=utf-eng

And again Hannibal:

"Also important is the following. In the more recent literature the name of Kangers (Kangars) is also mentioned in the course of an explanation of Sumero-Turkic parallels: kenger or keŋer is regarded as a "Sumerian proper noun," while Šumeru is seen as a garbled Akkadian rendering of this same name."

Source: Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, Bände 29-30, M.E. Sharpe Inc., 1990, p.35

Shumer's etymology has nothing to do with "Subars", the sound changes do not fit.

Actually it has you clever dick. But hey, your brain cells....

Your etymological fraud is nowhere to be found. ...
I'm asking you to quote Al Biruni, not some illustrious stranger.
Also, you provide nothing to back up the claims you put in the mouth of Flavius Josephus, might as well assume you were lying.
...
"Other than the astronomical terms used by Biruni, our other sources of Khwarezmian include Zamakhshari's Arabic–Persian–Khwarezmian dictionary and several legal texts that use Khwarezmian terms to explain certain legal concepts."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khwarezmian_language

"Zamakhshari and the Khwaresmian Language
The greater part of the surviving vocabulary of the now extinct Iranian Kwaresmian or Chorasmian language is found in the form of interlinear glosses throughout a single manuscript (of ca. 596/1200) of Zamakhshari's Arabic-Persian dictionary, the Muqaddimat al-adab (Zamakhshari may himself have been a native speaker).[3] Some other manuscripts of this work also contain a few such glosses. Thus the Muqaddimat al-adab is a very important primary source for the study of this extinct language."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamakhs...smian_Language

In other words, Khwarezmian isn't "presumed as an Iranian language", it really is an Iranian language.
Moreover, it is closely related to Sogdian, for which there is extensive textual evidence.

Either way, no serious linguist will claim that these languages are "Turko-Persian" mixes, and if they do then you can be sure they're making fun of you.

That's all that matters, because it gives the lie to your "Turko-Persian" mixes since Turks simply hadn't expanded in the area yet.

"Dissecting this ethnonym into semantical components following the Türkic model of ethnonyms, in the variations Hvarizm, Horasm, Horezm we shall see two roots, Huar and As, and a personal case singular affix of belonging -м (-ым). Huar is in another way Suar, which consist of two roots su (hu > khu) "water" and ar, the most ancient Türkic ethnonym meaning "people, men": Huar as a whole is "River People". The presence of the ethnonym Suar in the ethnonym Huarasm indicates that Huarases to some extent are the descendants of the Subars (Suars) of the Near East. Besides, the ethnonym Suar (Huar) was actively used in the Caucasus, in the Ural-Itil region, and apparently, also in the Central Asia. The second part of the ethnonym Huarasm is As, it is also the most ancient Türkic ethnonym. The Huaras means Ases, but from a tribe of Suars. The Huarases created their state, and it, and the country were called not simply the Huaras, but with a love were called Huarasm "My Huaras". Eventually, the name Huarasm of the country began also be applied with a meaning of the ethnonym Huarasm > Horezm. That the first part of the ethnonym Huaras consist of the Türkic ethnonym Suar (Huar) tells the variation Horamni, with no ethnonym As, but is an affix of belonging -м (ni-, apparently, a later formation under the influence of the Iranian). In the single root (suar/huar) in the two ethnonyms, Sumer (Sumer/Sumar/Subar) and Horezm (ѕuar-as-m) we see visible traces of the ethnic kinship of the Sumerians and Khwarezmians. Besides, we also observe that Sumerians had their endoethnonym as Kangar, and the Khwarezmians were called by the other peoples Kangha or Kangüy [Tolstov S.P., 1948, 341]. One primary ethnonymic root kang/kang "primogenitor" is the base of all these three ethnonyms. With the Horasmians (Khwarezmians) were closely connected to Pards (Parthians). A weighty argument for the Khwarezmians (Horasmis), Sakas, Sogds (Sakady), Parthys (Rus. Parfyane), Kushans to be from the very beginning Türkic-speaking is that these peoples also preserved their ancient ethnonym. If they were Iranian-lingual from the very beginning, and under the influence of the "newcoming" Türks they switched to the Türkic language only in the 4th-7th cc., they would have accepted a new ethnonym during their assimilation among the Türks, namely the ethnonym of the "newcoming" Türks. Usually the assimilated people, if it did not create a state and does not rule it, always accepts the ethnonym of assimilator people. A certain part of the Sumerians - Kangars, apparently, migrated to the Central Asia, where they merged with the Khwarezmians, in addition passing on to them the ethnonym Kangar, which became the reason for naming the Horasm(s) by the ethnonym Kangha/Kangüy/Kangar. In an official historical science it is recognized that Khwarezmians from the very beginning were Iranian-lingual, only in the 6th-7th centuries, under the influence of the nomad Türks they switched from the Iranian language to Türkic. As it was already said above, this viewpoint does not bear criticism. Actually, the Khwarezmians from the very beginning were Türkic-speaking, and in that condition joined the body of the modern Türkic-speaking peoples of the Central Asia and Kazakhstan."

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...is76-124En.htm

Cool, and now look at this...

Turkmen and neighboring Turkic R1b:



No Iranian R1b

There actually is an IE substrate in Proto-Turkic, on the other hand there is no Turkic substrate in either Sogdian, Bactrian, Khwarezmian or Tokharian.
But you wouldn't know about it of course. ...
You still don't get it, do you?
Whether this language is labeled "Tokharian" or "Martian", it makes absolutely no difference:

Again, Tokharians are not an Indo-European, but a Turkic tribe! “Tocharian” is a misnomer euphemism for Agnean (Tocharian A) and Kuchanian (Tocharian B). Keep searching for IE substrate in Proto-Turkic btw..

I don't understand what you're trying to do here, quite frankly.
R1a-Z94 is found at high frequencies in upper castes, and throughout Central Asia (it is also found in Kurds and other Iranian speakers).
But if you want to know what haplogroups Indo-Aryans carried, we'll need aDNA to tell for sure.
My guess, though, is that they had G2a-P303 as well as J2a-M530 in sizeable amounts (probably acquired them in the BMAC horizon).

Anatole Klyosov's genetic research has shown that the R1a basehaplotype 13 25 15 10 12 12 10 13 11 31 -- 15 14 20 12 16 11 23 (with a common ancestor of 3400+/-505 ybp, the likely times for the Aryans coming to India) is reasonably close to the Bashkir Turkic and Kyrgyz Turkic base haplotypes (both R1a-L342.2). A common ancestor of all the reported Indian (Tamil) haplotypes and Bashkir and Kyrgyz haplotypes lived around 5000 ybp, which fits the timespan to R1a-L342.2 common ancestor.

source: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-12/1356088114

IE languages were being spoken throughout the steppe until the 6th century AD.

"Actually, the hypothesis about Iranian-linguality of the Eurasian steppe cattlemen, built on the comparative analysis of linguists between the languages of ”Avesta” and modern European languages, is a fruit of the Eurocentrism theories. According to that theory the Türkic-lingual cattle breeding tribes of the Eurasian steppes were declared to be Iranian-lingual." (A.Askarov, The Aryan problem: new approaches and views, Tashkent, 2005)

[Longbowman]

God's wounds, he's been banned and you're insane. Would you let it drop?

[Proto-Shaman]

God's wounds, he's been banned

I didn't realized it on time. nonetheless, he desrved it.

[Longbowman]

I didn't realized it on time. nonetheless, he desrved it.

What, for disagreeing with you?

[Proto-Shaman]

What, for disagreeing with you?

No, because of his lunatic regular sound correspondence à la Hannibal.

[Anglojew]

I call on my Turkish brothers to revert to Judaism. PM me to find the true religion.

[Proto-Shaman]

I call on my Turkish brothers to revert to Judaism. PM me to find the true religion.

lol, why don't you convert to Tengrism?