The Editor's view on Dr David NEIMAN's lectures on Cradles of Civilization:
Scientific Logic: The Laws of Thermodynamics profess that energy cannot be lost, it just transforms through entropies.
Well, CARE TO APPLY this same scientific, syllogistic argument to he evolution of languages. The AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGE of SUMER is a dot on a time continuum and yes, it had many ANCESTORS but equally it STILL has many LIVING sister and daughter languages around the world. Yes, it has evolved through endogenous and exogenous entropies to become Turkish, Hungarian, Dravidian Languages of India and many Amerindian and other AGGLUTINATIVE languages.
From Dr. David Neiman’s lectures on Cradles of Civilization: “The Sumerian language is a language that has a structure we call agglutinative, there are several languages that have that feature, one is Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish, Mongolian, and uh, maybe, probably Japanese, I’m not certain about that, but we are certain about Mongolian, Sumerian, and Turkish” Also from Dr. David Neiman’s lectures on Cradles of Civilization:“The Sumerian civilization flourished from its beginning, probably before 4,000 BC, until about 2,700 or 2,800 BC when a new population came into, or a new population became dominant in the country…by 2,700 BC, a group, we call them the Akkadians, the Akkadians are already in the country, they speak an entirely different language…the Akkadians speak Akkadian, which we call Babylonian…Babylonian is a Semitic language, it’s related to Hebrew”“The earliest versions we have of the Gilgamesh Epic in Sumerian dated from about 2,500 BC” "From Sumer to Jerusalem" by John Sassoon (Intellect Books, 1993, 128 pages)."Tradition says that the Jews are part of the Arab family of nations, but this is now disputed. Archaeology has revealed a very early civilisation in the land known as Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, now southern Iraq, and this beautifully illustrated book argues that the Jews are not Semitic at all but the descendants of this culture, the earliest civilization in recorded history. Indeed, some Jewish practices hitherto considered to be entirely religious can now almost certainly be explained as strategy for national survival after the destruction of the original homeland."
Larry Butchins Author Answered December 11, 2017 · Author has 139 answers and 56K answer views Yes; and probably the Assyrians, and Nabateans, and even Egyptians, Phoenicians, Israelites, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Russians, Poles, Indians, Magyars, Italians, French, English, Germans…you name it, we’ve probably got some in us. There is little doubt that modern day Jews are descended from a mix of all nations some of whose members decided to adopt the Jewish faith; either through marriage or for other expedient reasons. The one thing that Jews NEVER did was forcefully convert or proselytize. In fact anybody wishing to convert to Judaism was usually initially discouraged, and given the most compelling reasons NOT to…and if they still wanted to, then it was proof that they really had a love of Judaism in their hearts.
Scientific Logic: The Laws of Thermodynamics profess that energy cannot be lost, it just transforms through entropies.
Well, CARE TO APPLY this same scientific, syllogistic argument to he evolution of languages. The AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGE of SUMER is a dot on a time continuum and yes, it had many ANCESTORS but equally it STILL has many LIVING sister and daughter languages around the world. Yes, it has evolved through endogenous and exogenous entropies to become Turkish, Hungarian, Dravidian Languages of India and many Amerindian and other AGGLUTINATIVE languages.
From Dr. David Neiman’s lectures on Cradles of Civilization: “The Sumerian language is a language that has a structure we call agglutinative, there are several languages that have that feature, one is Turkish, Hungarian, Finnish, Mongolian, and uh, maybe, probably Japanese, I’m not certain about that, but we are certain about Mongolian, Sumerian, and Turkish” Also from Dr. David Neiman’s lectures on Cradles of Civilization:“The Sumerian civilization flourished from its beginning, probably before 4,000 BC, until about 2,700 or 2,800 BC when a new population came into, or a new population became dominant in the country…by 2,700 BC, a group, we call them the Akkadians, the Akkadians are already in the country, they speak an entirely different language…the Akkadians speak Akkadian, which we call Babylonian…Babylonian is a Semitic language, it’s related to Hebrew”“The earliest versions we have of the Gilgamesh Epic in Sumerian dated from about 2,500 BC” "From Sumer to Jerusalem" by John Sassoon (Intellect Books, 1993, 128 pages)."Tradition says that the Jews are part of the Arab family of nations, but this is now disputed. Archaeology has revealed a very early civilisation in the land known as Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, now southern Iraq, and this beautifully illustrated book argues that the Jews are not Semitic at all but the descendants of this culture, the earliest civilization in recorded history. Indeed, some Jewish practices hitherto considered to be entirely religious can now almost certainly be explained as strategy for national survival after the destruction of the original homeland."
Larry Butchins Author Answered December 11, 2017 · Author has 139 answers and 56K answer views Yes; and probably the Assyrians, and Nabateans, and even Egyptians, Phoenicians, Israelites, Kurds, Turks, Arabs, Russians, Poles, Indians, Magyars, Italians, French, English, Germans…you name it, we’ve probably got some in us. There is little doubt that modern day Jews are descended from a mix of all nations some of whose members decided to adopt the Jewish faith; either through marriage or for other expedient reasons. The one thing that Jews NEVER did was forcefully convert or proselytize. In fact anybody wishing to convert to Judaism was usually initially discouraged, and given the most compelling reasons NOT to…and if they still wanted to, then it was proof that they really had a love of Judaism in their hearts.
- SEMANTIC ENIGMAS
- Regarding Turkish and Hungarian one should read the paper "Turkish material in Hungarian" by John Dyneley Prince, Columbia University. Not all the so called Turkish "loan words" can be considered borrowed. Some fundamentals are never borrowed and point to a common, cognate linguistic connection . Example the followings are not loan material: Turkish "Çok var", Hungarian "Sok van", "There are many". The cognates Çok, Sok; var, van are clear. Furthermore the relationship between Turkish ol (to be) and Hungarian volt is obvious. Same can be said about Hungarian oly, olyan and Turkish öile "Thus so"; Hungarian jó , Turkish iyi, eyi ("good"), Hungarian and Turkish öl ("kill and die"). Same is true for the Hungarian verbal suffixes 1.p -m 2.p -sz and Turkish -m, s(en), personal pronouns Hungarian én, Turkish ben "I", Hungarian ő, Turkish o "He/She" , Hungarian te, Turkish sen "You", Hungarian Ki, Turkish Kim "Who". The first person possessive affix -m in Turkish and Hungarian çocuku gyerek child çocuğum gyerekem my child çocuklarım gyerekeim my children One can point from the basic Hungarian vocabulary to family words. Hungarian words like anya ("mother") , apa, atya ("father") Turkish ana, anne and ata. These were just some from the many simmilarities between Hungarian and Turkish. I end with a sentence in Turkish and Hungarian: Cebimde çok küçük elma var. Zsebemben sok kicsi alma van. I have many little apples in my pocket. As a native Hungarian my point is that Hungarian is distantly related to Turkish, but I would not deny any distant relationship with Finnish either.
- SOME MORE POSTS in the topic
- I love how every answer on this forum, and indeed, the internet, relies on some or other preferred theory, which in Salla Koivisto's own words, "best suits them" (that's rich). The fact of the matter is that whatever theory you choose to subscribe to, they are all just that - theories. Until 100% solid, irrefutable, concrete evidence is provided to answer this question, then nothing that you read online can be taken as more than conjecture. I am no academic, nor am I a linguist, but I find it incredible how so many of the academic community online and elsewhere, can make final and conclusive claims about common ancestors between the Hungarians and the Finns, but in their next sentence they make extensive usage of such words as "might", "probably", "most likely", "presume" etc., regarding many important factors such as locations, timelines and links to other groups and peoples. If you make a decisive statement about a widely debated topic, back it up with concrete evidence, not guesswork which is likely sprinkled with a healthy dose of personal bias. Finally, I couldn't care less what people like Salla Koivisto happen to think of I. Halasz's answer to the question. If Salla is so convinced about the common ancestor to both Finnish and Hungarian languages, then why not expand on some of the other commonly named language similarities - e.g. Hungarian and Turkish, Hungarian and Mongolian, Hungarian and Sumerian, to name but a few? Again, I am no linguist, but I do not subscribe to any one theory. Rather, I see that there are many theories around, and I do not necessarily think that the most commonly known one (i.e. Finno-Ugrian), is the correct one. After all, there was once a time when people believed the earth to be flat. We now know, only thanks to SOLID EVIDENCE, that it is, in fact a sphere.
- This is not an answer but a reminder: Sumerian and Sythia connection which has many words and solid grammar in common with Turkish. Under time constrain I cannot write more.
- There are a lot of Turkish words(loanwords) in modern day Greek language. Does this prove that the two languages share a common ancestor? No, we all know where Greek came from. But it indicates that the two people lived together for a long of time. I will presume that the same happened between Hungarian and Turcic.
- There can be innovations that completely change the structure of a language. Germanic invaders seemed to have introduced the concept of "The" into Latin - all Romance languages are neurotic about articles which simply didn't occur in old languages. That doesn't mean that Latin is related to proto-Germanic. The relationship is because the amount of similar words is far higher than 200 monosyllabic babbles that have similarities even as far away as China (Baba v. Papa). The sounds are deliberate and non-coincidental; for instance, the comparison of hunt v. canine; I can think off the top of my head of hundreds of related German and Latin cognates. And that's without thinking. In Finnish-Hungarian, there are 200 words. Some of which are cited as pronouns. But Finnish pronouns are highly similar to Latin-perhaps just as close to indo-European as they are to Hungarian in fact. I would defer this scholarship to two parts: The desire of the Hungarians to explain their singularity in Europe, and to find common peoples, and the European need, especially 200 years ago, to cast out non-indo-European languages as non-European (see the origins of the word "Anti-Semitism")- The linking of Finnish and Hungarian might be racism in the same way Jews and Tartars were not considered Europeans. After all, the amount of blondes in Finland in Estonia would suggest, to Europeans, a European ancestry, not an Asian ancestry, no? Reconstructing a proto-Uralic language is about as logical therefore as reconstructing Klingon. There is no reason to believe eye can not be a loanword any more than half of the English vocabulary is loaned from Latin