216 replies to this topic

[Shirag]

The contacts between ancient Turkic and Indoeuropean continued after the migration of both ethnic groups from Trans-Caucasia to Eastern Europe. Protoarmenians were the most close neighbours of bearers of the Turkic languages there on the left banks of Dniepr river. Accordingly, the most words of the Tutkic origin were revealed precisely in Armenian language. Through Armenian laguage a part of Turkic words reached even in ancient Greek. The turkisms in Armenian to which can be sometimes found correspondences in Greek are set below:

1. Arm ałtiur “low ground, moist meadow, swamp” - Tur, Tat, Karach, Balk alt “low” a.o.
2. Arm aŕu “canal” - common Turkic aryk “canal”.
3. Arm acux “coal” - common Turkic o:j'ak “stove” (Chuv vučax, Tur ocak a.o.), moreover Turkm čog, Tur şövg, Kaz šok, Uzb čůg “red-hot coal” a.o.
4. Arm alap’-em “plunder” - Chuv ulput “lord”, OT, Tur alp, Tat alyp a.o. “hero”.
5. Arm alik’ “wave”, “billow”, Gr alox “furrow” - Tur oluk - “trough”, Chuv valak - “trough” Karach, Balk uuaq “wavy”.
6. Arm antaŕ “forest” - Gag. andyz “grove, bushes”, Tur andîz “kind of weed”.
7. Arm cŕuk “muzzle, mug, snout”, Gr gorgos “terribble, fearful” - Turkm gorky “fear, fright”, Tur korku “fear, fright”, Gag. korku “fear, fright” a.o.;
8. Arm çup “stick” - extended Turkic čybyk “switch”.
9. Arm gari “barley” - common Turkic dary/tary “millet”.
10. Arm garš-i-m “have an aversion” - Turkm garšy, Gag. karšy, Tur karşi, Chuv xirěs “against”.
11. Arm hełg “lazy, idle” - common Turkic jalta/jalka “lazy, idle” ( Karach, Balk jalk, Chuv julxav, Tat jalkau, Kaz žalkau a.o.)
12. Arm ji, Gr ippos “horse” - common Turkic jaby, jabu “horse” (Turkm jaby, Chuv jupax).
13. Arm kamurj’ “bridge”, Gr gejura “dam, bridge” - common Turkic köpür “bridge” (Chuv kěper, Karach, Balk köpür, Tat küper a.o.)
14. Arm ser “love” - common Turkic sev- “love” ( Tur sevmek, Uzb sevmoq, Chuv sav a.o.).
15. Arm sta-na-m “to buy” - Chuv sut “to sell”, Tur satîn “to buy”, Balk, Karach satyb “to buy” a.o.
16. Arm šeł “slant, curved”, Gr skolios “curved” - Chuv čalaš “slant”, Tat čulak, Tur çalîk “curved”.
17. Arm tarap’ “downpour, gush” - Chuv tapăr “watering place”.
18. Arm teli “place” - Chuv těl “place”.
19. Arm tuk “saliva” - Turkm tüjkülik, Karach, Balk tükürük “saliva”, Gag. tükürmää “spit” a.o.

Not all Turkic loan words were saved in Armenian and some part of them have not be revealed yet, that is why there is a smal group of Turkic roots which exist only in Greek. There is no doubt, that the accordances to part of them can be found in Armenian during some time. A separate group among Turkic-Greek lexical correspondences represent Greek-Chuvashian ones which descended from the latest time. Ancient Bulgars, the ancestors of Chuvashians, stayed in northern coast of Black See during long time and adopted from Greek some amount of words, but Armenian coorespondences for them are not obligatory. Thay are included in the same list.

1. Gr aitew “to ask” - Chuv vitěn “to entreat”, Tur ötünmek “to ask, to solicit”, OT ajit- “to ask, to question” a.o.
2. Gr alji “barley”, aljh “barley porrige” - common Turkic arpa “barley”.
3. Gr arshn “man” - Chuv arçyn “man” (late loanword).
4. Gr artaw “to hang” - Chuv urtăn “to hang up”, Tur, Tat, Kaz art- a.o “to hang on”.
5. Gr hqmos “sieve” - Chuv atma “fishnet”.
6. Gr dera “skin, pelt” - common Turkic, everywhere deri “skin, pelt”, Chuv tir “skin, pelt”.
7. Gr dew “to tie, to bind” - common Turkic düv- “knot”, Turkm düvün, Chuv těvě.
8. Gr iama “medicine” - common Turkic em- “medicine”, Turkm, Gag., Tur em.
9. Gr khlhsis “magic power” - Chuv kělě “prayer”. Doubtful.
10. Gr khros “wax, honeycombs” - Chuv karas “honeycombs”. The root is IE. The source of loan in Chuvashian is unknown.
11. Gr palton “spear, lance” - common Turkic balta “axe”.
12. Gr puros “wheat” - Chuv pări “spelt, kind of wheat”. The root is IE. The source of loan in Chuvashian is unknown.
13. Gr colh “bile, gall” - Chuv xăla “light-yellow” . The root is IE. The source of loan in Chuvashian is unknown.

Since 3-d millenium B.C. a part of ancient Turkics, known as bearer of the culture of fightung axes and cord ceramics, migrated on the right banks of Dniepr river and farther till Central Europe. We don’t know how many and which of Turkic tribes moved through Dniepr. It is only reliable known that the most part of them were assimilated among Indoeuropean and pre-Indoeuropean aborigines. Only one Turkic tribe, the tribe of ancient Bulgars, retained its ethnic identity. The first whom Bulgars meeted on the right bank of Dniepr were the bearer of Tripilla culture.Maybe some words of their language retained in language of Chuvashes which are the descendants of Bulgars. Moreover, ancient Bulgars were to have language contacts with ancient Hettites, Italics and Illirians in that period. Giving below Turkisms in Latin descented from that time. It is natural there are Chuvashian words in the list most of all.

1. Lat (Sabinian) teba “hill” - common Turkic (Chuv tüpe, Tur tepe, Kaz töbe ł ďîä. “moutain, top”).
2. Lat amicuc “friend” - Chuv. ami “friend, brother”.
3. Lat bardicium “little axe” - common Turkic balta “axe”.
4. Lat cito “fast, quick” - Chuv xytă “fast, quick”, Karach, Balk qaty “fast, rapid”.
5. Lat codex “stump, trunk” - Tur, Gag. kütük “stump, trunk”.
6. Lat cursarius “pirate” - Chuv xarsăr “bold, courageous”, Karach, Balk og'ursuz “wicked, vicious”, Tur hîrsîz “thief” a.o.
7. Lat farnus “ash tree” - Chuv věrene “maple”.
8. Lat faux “throat” - Gag. buaz Kirg buvaz, Tur, Kaz, Karach, Balk bog'az a.o. “throat”.
9. Lat imber “downpour, gush” - Turkm jagmyr, Chuv çumăr, Tat jan,gyr, Uzb jomg'yr, Tur yag'mur “rain”.
10. Lat ius, iuris 1. “low, justice” - Chuv jărăs “sraight”, Tur yasa “low, regulations”, Karach džoruq “low” a.o.
11. Lat ius, iuris 2. “soup” - Chuv jaška - “soup”, juškăň “slime”.
12. Lat mactare, macto “to glorify”, “to sacrifice” - common Turkic (Turkm magtamak, Chuv muxta Karach, Balk maxtarg'a, Uzb maqtamoq “praise”, Yak maxtan “thank” etc).
13. Lat ordo “row”, “order”, “army”, “detachment” - common Turkic (Turkm, Kaz orda, Chuv urta Tur ordu a.o. “army”).
14. Lat pudis “louse” - common Turkic bit “louse” (Chuv pyjta, rest bit/pit).
15. Lat saliva “saliva” - common Turkic (Chuv sěleke, Turkm selki, Tat silegej etc “saliva”).
16. Lat scopula “broom” - Chuv šăpăr “broom”.
17. Lat sollicitare “shake” - common Turkic (Chuv sille, Turkm selkildemek, Tur silkmek etc “shake”).
18. Lat torta “round brad” - Chuv tărta “to twine, to nest”.
19. Lat torus “” - Chuv tără “top”. Compare with Eng tor “stony top”.
20. Lat usus “use” - Chuv usă “use”. Eng use belongs here too or it is a Latin loan word?
21. Lat vulgus “folk”, “herd”, “crowd”, Lat vulgaris “habitual, customary” - Chuv pulkkă “herd”, “flight, flock”, Bulgar - the old name one of the Turkic tribes, ancestors of Chuvashes. Hither Germ Volk, Eng folk.

[Arpa]

Very interesting Shirag. Thank you.
Where did you find this?
The source may be of importance to understand the permise and the purpose of the (very amateur)study. Ajarian would not know whether to laugh or cry , but I'm sure he is turning in his grave as we speak.
Some of the letters did not reproduce correctly. It seems like the "r" turned up as "?" etc. If you could provide a key as to what some of the unintelligible words would be with the corrected spelling then it would be so much easier to address each as the case may be.
I did notice some inaccuracies and many broad assumptions that may not stand close scrutiny.
I will address a few of them in a sparate post.

[Arpa]

European may have very little interest where these words may have come from. Some dictionaries, even if they claim to have researched the origins will still only scratch the surface and take whatever is offered them. Some of the better dictionaries define "Ottoman" as the descendents of Osman and that it has come to simply mean "Turkish". True. What they fail to say is that Osman/Othman is in fact an Arabic name and that it goes far beyond the time of Osman. Similarly, most, if not all of the words in the list may and have been taken as of Turkic origin since, as above, Europeans have no reason to question it, except that thse words have been in use in the Armenian Highlands, used by people speaking IE for centuries, if not meliinnia before the world had even heard of the Turk/Turkic.

1. Arm a?tiur “low ground, moist meadow, swamp” - Tur, Tat, Karach, Balk alt “low” a.o.
I'm not sure how this word is supposed to be read.

2. Arm a?u “canal” - common Turkic aryk “canal”.
"arou" is a anative Armenian word to mean stream. It is from the protoIE "sru", to flow. To make it short, if anything the Turkish word "arik", ditch is a loaned from the Armenian.

3. Arm acux “coal” - common Turkic o:j'ak “stove” (Chuv vu?ax, Tur ocak a.o.), moreover Turkm ?og, Tur ?övg, Kaz šok, Uzb ??g “red-hot coal” a.o.
"azux" (adzoukh), coal/charcoal is from the native Armenian word "zux/dzoukh", which although commonly is used to mean smoke is in fact meant soot originally, i.e. remnants of a fire.

4. Arm alap’-em “plunder” - Chuv ulput “lord”, OT, Tur alp, Tat alyp a.o. “hero”.
I can't quite make this out.

5. Arm alik’ “wave”, “billow”, Gr alox “furrow” - Tur oluk - “trough”, Chuv valak - “trough” Karach, Balk uuaq “wavy”.

"oluk" may as well be loaned from the Armenian as "alik" is the plural form of the native Armenian word "ali" to mean wave. Consider words such "alekotz", stormy etc. Since we are speaking about "alekodz" let us also look at "aleher" (white haired). "ali" (wave) has in time come to mean white based on the appearance of breaking waves that turn into white froth.
Once again, we have been using these words when Turkish and Turkic was not even heard this side of the Caspian.
We have to take each and every one of them separately and see where we end up, except, we may give them "ojax/ojakh".

Shirag if you could convert the words so we can identify them better then we may be better equipped to analyze them. You don't have to rewrite the whole article, just give us the words and their supposed meanings.

[aurguplu]

dear shirag,

very interesting posting but

1) what are your sources? when i would write something like this, i would include the sources i gatherred the info from as well.

2) i happen to know a thing or two about ancient turkics, but i don't think you can talk about them in the 3rd millennium BC. most of the current turkic languages (with the exception of chuvash and khalaj) are about 1,500 years old at the most, khalaj perhaps a few centuries earlier and chuvash older still. so a realistic date for common turkic is sometime in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. there can be ancient turks in 3rd millennium bc i and only if turkic is not (or not as closely as thought) related to mongolian, which indeed is a very strong possibility.

3) your postings include many words that are way too similar to have been borrowed from ancient turkic. the forms you cite would be quite different in ancient turkic from the modern forms both in shape and meaning. also, armenian, an indo-european language originally from the balkans, underwent massive transformation when it arrived to eastern anatolia and the caucasus in the 1st millenium bc, where proto-armenians encountered the urartu and other caucasian peoples. to give one example, the armenian word "erku" meaning "two" is of the same root as "two", but it takes quite some linguistic research to figure that one out.

there are i am sure many words in armenian that are of turkic origin, as there are some in some turkic languages that are of armenian origin. but their shapes would be quite different depending on which dialect they were borrowed from/borrowed into and at what time.

one should also note that indo-european began to infiltrate into turkic way back in central asia in the form of tokharian. i know someone who does research on that, and it appears that some very, very basic vocab items are from tokharian. so one should be careful "finding" parallels between turkic and armenian, where the parallels may really be between turkic and other indo-european.

there is also a distinct possibility that turkic and indo-european might be related, but this is a long shot. we can discuss this later on if anyone is interested.

[Twilight Bark]

"Turk" as a distinct identity certainly did not exist before ~500AD or so. As for "related" cultures and ancestors, we can all trace our ancestry back to Lucy in Africa. But that doesn't shed any light on anything. Talking about "cultural" links to other peoples that did not have one's own "cultural identity" is hollow; or as meaningful as Jamaicans fondly remembering their Anglo-Saxon forefathers. As for ancestral (i.e. "anthropological") links, I would cherish the peaceful and civilized, and be ashamed of the warriors and plunderers. You may have other preferences. Your imperial yearnings notwithstanding, there seems to be similar strain of thought in your mind, as revealed by a desperate wish to distance yourself from the Mongolians. Anyway, 500 AD, that's it. No 3000 BC about it.

Nice try, Ali. Try 2nd millenium BC. An indo-european language, yes. From Balkans? Who knows. The formal beginning of a distinct Armenian identity begins with the Hayasa-Azzi "client-kingdom" of Hittites. Khorenatsi, who was completely unaware of the Hittites of 2nd millenium BC, talks about "Haikazian" "dynasty" as the "founding" one, which is nothing but a combination of Hai(k) and Azzi. How much more evidence does one need? Either Khorenatsi had access to a time-machine and forged false names based on 19th and 20th century AD findings, or the Armenian "invaders from the Balkans" had access to a similar time machine that allowed them to materialize in northeastern central Anatolia about 500 years before the Phrygians arrived, of whose "colonists" they are "supposed" to be. Or maybe they flew over the Hittites undetected one dark night, and landed to their east. If they came from the Balkans, they came a lot earlier than the Phrygians (either with Hittites, or more likely before them, in order to remain as a distinct group and not be recorded as an "intruder" group), and were long-time residents of Anatolia when the Urartu kingdom was ravaged by the Scythians and Kimmerians. Reason suggests that the devastated remnants of the Urartian population gradually assimilated into the "Hye" culture immediately to their west, and that by 500 BC, the Medes encountered the "Armenian" culture that had by then assimilated its way to their border. (A digression: It is also an uneliminated possibility that the Urartian language attested in written record was the language of the ruling class/group, and that a good part of the population of the Urartu kingdom already spoke an early form of Armenian from early on. This is of course completely speculative, but only about the timeline of the diffusion of the Armenian language in the lands of Urartu.) It is time we accept the Hayasa-Azzi as the proper, formal beginning of the Armenian nation, instead of waiting for the last inter-cultural marriage to produce an offspring (which was probably today) in a vain effort to precisely define the anthropological composition of Armenians (which already changed since I started writing this article). In any case, a good dose of reason, logic, and consistency is badly needed in the discussion of Armenian origins and the origination of the Armenian nation. That goes for many Armenian historians as well, who swallow the European and Turkish biases hook, line and sinker, mostly because of their desperate wish to be "European", the more recent the better. Sad.

Not to mention the "nice and civilized" Scythians (i.e the Saka). The two groups (as well as all the "nice" tribes up there in the steppes) must have exchanged notes extensively.

[ June 27, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[aurguplu]

dear tb,

1) you have quoted and answered the wrong paragraph; but at any rate, i had stated clearly that i could not envisage turks existing as turks at 3,000 bc (for that matter, hardly any nation alive today directly goes that far back IMO).

2) i am not trying to distance myself from the mongols or anyone else. all recent research (mostly linguistic) tells that we are not as close to the mongols as everyone - including us - once thought. the languages are much more distantly related - if at all related - than previously thought. all turkic languages are known to be genetically related, and with the exception of chuvash, they were one language at about the time of christ or at best very slihgtly earlier. chuvash, probably, is more distant.

3) it should have been clear by now that i have no imperialistic tendencies. in fact i think that if the ottoman empire had come up with the idea of a controlled downsizing - like the british and more successfully the russians - the lot of the turkish peasants would have been a lot better today. we would not have died in places we had never heard of for centuries .

4) i have much more economical explanations for early armenian history. one must beware of the differences between identity of names and identity of ethnicities. for instance, the word "roman" and its derivations meant at various times - and sometimes at the same time - an inhabitant of the city of rome, a latin speaker, a greek under roman rule, a byzantine greek, anyone subject to the roman empire regardless of ethnicity, and later on, even the anatolian turks had called their country - and sometimes even themselves - "rum".

a similar phenomenon can be observed regarding turkish history. outsiders who had no knowledge of the language, customs or ethnic origins, at different times called all nomadic groups who used bows and arrows in warfare "türk". many turkic-speaking ethnic groups did not call themselves "türk" until fairly late: in the case of oghuz turks, for instance, a difference between the oghuz and turks was observed until the 12th century. some turkic nations today are known to have had ancestors who spoke languages other than turkic: the kirghiz and the yakut are two examples.

in anatolia, the people whom we call "hittites" called themselves "the people of (ka)nesha, and their language "neshumnili". the "hittites" were the hatti, the original inhabitants of anatolia. the indo-european speakers that spoke languages of the anatolian type (hittite, luwian, lydian, lycian, carian, palaic, cappadocian, and possibly sidetic) are thought to have come into anatolia at around 2,000 bc or slightly earlier. they took over the name of the nation they conquered, just like the turks had done with the name of "rum" later on.

the "sea peoples" which included the phrygians, came to anatolia 1,200-800 bc and might have something to do with the destruction of one of the layers of troy. now these were thraco-phrygians, and to the best of my knowledge the equation moesian=mysian=muski (in hittite documents)=(sa)mekhi (georgian appellation of armenians) is a favoured one amongst archaeologists, and not turkish ones. there might indeed have been a dynastic name that survived and became the national name of another ethnic group. you have that sort of thing everywhere, especially europe. for instance, the french claim descent from the gauls, have a germanic name, and speak a romance language, in an area which was originally inhabited by non-indo-european speakers! the term "german, germanic", the basis of "german" in english, is a celtic word thatthe celts used to describe their neighbours, meaning "the loud ones".

so in brief, no, i don't think anyone made up any fictitious dynasties or anything, and since those days territorial disputes were settled by the sword rather than arguments about who came first, no-one had any incentive to do so. i do not doubt that those guys related what they knew to be true.

there is an argument that armenian was spoken in anatolia probably around 1,200 bc, on the grounds that there are hittite words in armenian. this may be true, but a) hittite, or its descendants, survived long after the dissolution of the empire in about 800 bc, b) there are hittite words in some turkish dialects, either through greek, kurdish or armenian. i am not trying to downplay armenian antiquity in anatolia, but only trying to show the pitfalls of rashly equating names and people. the armenians, at any rate, have been in anatolia so long that they don't need to resort to any tricks to further antiquate themselves. and it would be equally absurd to attempt to deny their rights to exist in anatolia on the grounds that they are, strictly speaking, "outsiders" (at least linguistically) who came from the thraco-balkan region in 1,200-800 bc.

5) yepp, the scythians. i had forgotten to include them.

hope this clarifies.

regards,

[aurguplu]

i forgot to add: there is a recent theory, in fact probably a revamping of an old theory, by colin renfrew and cyril babaev that the home of indo-european was eastern anatolia. there is evidence both in favour and contrary to the argument. do you know about it and what do you say?

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

I answered the part that piqued my interest.

Maybe not consciously. But otherwise ...

I didn't say "tendencies"; I said "yearnings". As in lamenting on lost empires. I want to hear "good riddance", "phew, what a stupid, mean-spirited thing we had done", "let's repent and make up for the violence of our cultural forebears". Not "Oh darn, how did we lose our empire?". That's just me, of course.

Economical? I'll settle for logical. The information you quote is mostly and reasonably accurate. However, it does not address any of the points I made. Good reading nonetheless. As for the "dynastic" names in Khorenatsi, they are not really dynastic, although he portrays them as such. They rather obviously represent different groups that melted into the Hye nation. Even the mode of contribution is sometimes suggested for the sufficiently imaginative. For example, a "king" named "Skayorti" is obviously "Skayi-orti", literally meaning "offspring of Scythians", probably alluding (knowingly or unknowingly) to the result of widespread raping that must have gone on during the Scythian invasions. I don't know if Khorenatsi romanticized the history on purpose, or was simply conveying the folk memory as it was transmitted at the time. This example can also shed some more light into the "Turkish-Armenian" connections.

Twilight Bark
P.S. I still have not received any offers from you for the bridge or divvying up Georgia. You only buy these things from Mr. Nubar?

[ June 29, 2002, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ]

[joseph]

VERY INTERSTING AURGUPLU,AS AN ARMENIAN BORN IN JORDAN AND SPEAKING BOTH LAGUAGES,A GOOD CHUNK OF THE MODERN TURKISH LANGUAGE HAVE ARABIC WORDS,IS THERE ANY EXPLANATION BESIDE THAT THE TURKISH LANGUAGE WAS INFLUENSED BY THE KORAN ?

[MosJan]

Hovsep This is the 3rd time I’m asking you ->
can you please stop using CAPS !!!

MOvses

[joseph]

Sure i will stop,but believe me this is the first time i see your request,it want happen again,i promiss,

[aurguplu]

yes and no. it was influenced by the koran like all good muslim languages were supposed to do (and are). but since islam in practice is way more than just the koran, it borrowed vocabulary from most parts of the arabic linguistic heritage. also, islamic culture was a common theology, philosophy (mostly greek, partly iranian, and partly indian derived, with traces of chinese stuff maybe), law, everyday life (buildings,food, clothing etc), arts & crafts etc.; in short, practically all walks of life were dire ctly affected by it, and arabic vocabulary flowed into turkish not always in koranic contexts.

also, with islam came the aruz ('arood in arabic) metre into turkish poetry, which is said to have derived from the gait of camels. to the best of my knowledge, all literatures of the central islamic languages (arabic, pesian and turkish) use it. now aruz requires long and short vowels, and the oghuz dialect which became standard in turkey (istanbul) did not have long vowels (its ancestor did). so there was a need for arabic and persian words to make the metre match.

then there is the fact that turks tend to brush under the carpet, namely that there indeed were arabs in southeastern anatolia (as there still are) and we have also mingled with them (as we have with others).

hope this helps.

cheers,

[aurguplu]

tb,

i'll answer the rest later, but you'll have to sell the bridge to someone else i am afraid. we are in deep sh*t economically speaking here and it's getting deeper by the day (and at the tender age of 34, we are not getting any taller). i might have an offer: i have several buildings and bits of buildings from central anatolia that once were greek or armenian churches and other stuff (inscriptions). since turkey does not regard post-byzantine non-muslim stuff as "of historical value" and frankly speaking, would rather see it go, it is quite easy for us to get them out of the country. i can furnish you with most of a small provincial church if you want. you will have saved both the church and me. what do you say?

cheers,

[Twilight Bark]

Dear Ali Suat,

I say "subconscious is a powerful thing". Trying to get rid of things Armenian, eh? I am not that surprised, after seeing earlier that you could only imagine Armenians in their homeland "100 years after reconciliation". I understand your intelligently nationalistic position of acknowledging the genocide and moving Turkey onto better and greater things. I also understand your clever desire to see an "enlightened" Turkey that in the end loses nothing from the exercise but gains absolution, acceptance, and the freedom to be fully civilized. I understand the desire for an "accept the crime but not its consequences" solution. But I do not like it. I may not be alone in that.

I know I digressed. And I know I am being slightly unfair. But I feel compelled to dissect the fundamental, human motivations. You will have completed your cultural enlightenment when you actually want the Armenians back, with their full, cultural, local autonomy. The mock "diplomatic negotiation" was fun, but I do not think anyone important is going to listen to us and borrow from our positions. What the "important" people will be attuned to is the general sympathy level of the two peoples. And playing the role of amateur diplomats stops being productive after a while, as in our case. Of course, if many many Turks and Armenians engage in this much dialog, the real diplomats' job will be a lot clearer and easier. We have reached our depth, and are unlikely to engage in discussions that make us grow. I hope other Turks and Armenians dive in a bit more, and engage "the other side". I wish I were more optimistic about a widespread engagement anytime soon, though.

Cheerio,
Twilight Bark

[aurguplu]

dear tb,

1. subconscious: if i were that sort of guy, then what am i doing here trying to establish a dialogue with you?

2. what i said earlier: it wasn't an exercise in wishful thinking, it was (i believe) a coldly realistic position: suppose we admit to the genocide tomorrow, before it has sunk into the population, and armenians come back (assuming that you will actually find any armenians who would want to return to live side by side with the turks, and in eastern anatolia of all places). there will inevitably be brushes between the two peoples. as i have stated numerous times in this forum, the overwhelming majority of the turkish (and kurdish) population enuinely believes that there was no genocide, and that the armenians behaved just as atrociously as the turks and kurds (meanwhile again most do not deny the killings themselves). the armenians believe the diametrical opposite with equal passion. and since this is not an intellectual exercise but a tragedy that affected every turk and armenian directly or indirectly, it is extremely likely that eruptions here and there will occur. therefore i would frankly speaking be wary of any large scale settlement of the places concerned before both peoples (as opposed to states) actually reached common ground.

3. my intelligently nationalistic position. well, i am nationalistic (but not the kind that says we are the best and destined to rule everyone else). and i take "intelligently" as a compliment, thank you. i am sure you understand that i am a turk after all and my position will always be a turkish one (as you are an armenian after all and yours will be an armenian one). we have to accept that there is no suc thing as "objective truth" in these matters, and i am afraid the same thing goes for "justice". i do genuinely think that armenians have been wronged and something must be done to right it, but that something will have to stop short of actually ceding territory or any other steps that will eventually lead to it. look at the middle east now and tell mre whether it is at all realistic in that poitical environment to allow any large-scale armenian resettlement in anatolia and not expect a separatist warfare in a few decades' time at best. i have people whose interests have to be defended, and if we don't, then who will?

4. accept the crime but not the consequences: no. but don't forget that no-one who took part in the crime is alive today (unless they are past 100). so we are not the criminals ourselves. you might argue that we are their descendants. true, and so are the americans, the australians and anyone else who is in a country that was invaded by his ancestors. and so are you, after all, you (or rather your language) came here from somewhere else (the balkans). the fact that it was three thousand years ago does not make it any different: imagine we hold on for another two thousand years: we'll be just as native as you guys are now. ). no, i am not saying acknowledge the crime but not the consequences: the consequences, such as compensation, should eventually be paid and will amount to a hefty bill.

5. re regarding the return of the armenians as "cultural enlightenment": i checked the genocide posting "turkish misinformation" today (2 august 2002) and saw hagarag's and other guys' postings there. and you want me to trust those returning armenians? would you if you were me?

i am still an optimist, and i think in 100 years' time there will hardly be any borders left in the region, as is the case with europe. but our descendants will be very different from us and will have acquired other notions of morality, humanity, courage, patriotism etc., mind you. they will persist as turks and armenians, but these will mean very different things to them than they do to us now. think about it.

cheers,

[khodja]

Aurguplu,

I know that you are not so naive to believe that I am the only Armenian who believes that certain parts of present-day Turkey rightfully belong to Armenia. Kars and Ardahan provinces were part of Armenian provinces under the Czars. Ownership of these provinces adjacent to the Armenian Republic can even be found in the Armenian constitution. So my comments should not alter your trust or lack of trust of Armenians one iota.

Given what you have related in the past about your family, I have no doubt that our families knew each other. It is probable that they had business and governmental dealings with each other and may even have sat together over dinner at each other's homes. These Amiras did not want to rock the boat, for they had too good a life in what was then Constantinople. I know that my family members tried to talk sense into various groups of Armenian agitators but to no avail. They were not part of the movement. Their fate was in no part a result of their actions as their operations were an integral part of the Turkish economy. Please seperate one issue from the other.

[nairi]

Dear Ali,

you might argue that we are their descendants.

Modern Turks continue the tradition of denial and genocide that their ancestors started. In fact, instead of slowing the denial down, they are learning to master it as the years go by (I'm sure you read this is in yesterday's TDN: "The Committee for the Coordination of the Struggle Against
Baseless Genocide Claims has issued a written statement to announce that a museum will be constructed to house and display documents related to the so-called Armenian genocide claims..."). That's what distinguishes Turks from, for instance, Germans. Modern Germans do everything they can in their power to stop denial of the Holocaust and destruction of evidence.

the consequences, such as compensation, should eventually be paid and will amount to a hefty bill.

I wish you had written "pleading for forgiveness" instead of "compensation".

Nairi

[THOTH]

Hey Ali - I know its slightly off topic but have you gotten married yet? If not when is the date. Just curious - and wondering if I just happened to be in town do I get an invite - LOL! Its a long shot but I thought I'd at least inquire...I promiss not to get too drunk and start calling the party guests nasty names & such...

I must warn you however that my gag wedding gifts have got more then one new wife not talking to me (and trying to convince her new hubby - my [ex?]friend - not to do so either...LOL)

[ August 02, 2002, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[khodja]

Nairi,

My grandfather was born in the 1870's and killed by the Turkish troops in 1915. He was important enough to warrant a bullet. Given the family history on that side of the family, he would have not lived past 70. He would have been dead by 1945. My other grandfather was born in the 1860's and would have lived until his 80's had he not been killed in 1915. He too would have been dead by 1945. My grandmothers both lived into their 80's. I would not have known my grandfathers irregardless.

You are saying that Ali and other Turks should ask for forgiveness. Forgiveness for what? Did the Turks of today conduct a Genocide? NO! If a father kills a neighbor and steals his property, do you try his son in court for the crime? I don't think so. Do you compel the son of the killer to give the loot back to the family of the murdered one? Yes, you do.

How can you blame the "Turk in the street" today for believing that a Genocide did not occur when for 80-odd years their government has been telling them that the Armenian losses were war losses?

[nairi]

YES! Turks of today are not only conducting physical genocide, but also, political, academic, journalistic and commercial genocide.

Maybe it's easier for you to accept the genocide and its consequences because your grandfathers were killed in it. I, on the other hand, as a non-Turkish Armenian, who has never had a single ancestor in Turkey or the Ottoman Empire, cannot accept why even I, four generations later, have to feel the pain of genocide whenever I open up a newspaper, watch a documentary or leaf through my 1250-page high school history book. You tell me why I should forgive a people who have never even asked for my forgiveness?

Hagarag jan, I assume you don't live among young modern Turks, because if you did you wouldn't call them innocent products of their government's propaganda.

Nairi