History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWho were the TARTARS...?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 20:26
If by your "Kiev Folia" you meant the Kiev Missal then identify it as such, if you care to note I did not italicize and made the general reference to the various folios falling within the Moravian recension. The seven folia that compose the missal are not only referants to the Roman Rite but contradict the essential argument you maintained with regard to "Byzantinization". Little wonder one could be confused as to what was your point of reference. In addition, If one wishes to close the early cycle within the Glagolitic then further specificity is required: Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus, Glagolitica Clozianus, Codex Assemianus, as well as the Psalterium and Euchologium Sinaiticum. In contrast, the Cyrillic with the exception of the Stela of Samuel (AD 993?), consists of but two examples both from the 11th century: the Savina Kniga and the Codex Suprasliensis. One would have thought that the citation previously given  would have sufficed for a thorough read so as to present the underlying points; however, I will not make that mistake again in view of your peculiarities.
 
 
In terms of history no one refers to the Kiev Missal as either the Kiev Folia or the Kiev Leaflets, and it along with other examples of the Moravian Glagolitic are identiified as the Prague Fragments. Yes you can find web sites such as Titus making the distinction because of content, but then one could easily question the dating given the Cyrillic Ostromir Gospel to the 11th century by some and its exclusion by others. If one wishes to go into the nomenclature adopted by Hanka in the 19th century, fine or that of Jagic in Glagolitica wurdigung neuendeckter Fragmente in 1890; however, in both instances we are still addressing the Moravian Recension.
 
Which brings up your citation of a 1950 review and repeats the classifications chosen by Milos Weingart in the 1930s so as to distinguish between all of the surviving fragments of the Glagolitic and again in terms of the Moravian experience. Perhaps incoherence falls somewhere else in the failure to succinctly define, you presented the tone gratuitously and if you want a battle of the literature, a battle you shall receive.
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 20:43
actually we start getting off-topic...
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 20:45
I have meant what scholars mean (how do you have the nerve to say "in terms of history no one refers to" when I brought scholarly references?), it's not my fault your understanding is not synchronized with scholarship. Kiev Missal, Kiev leaflets (Roman Jakobson, for instance, uses both terms, and by the way, the citation from my previous post was from volume VI), and Kiev Folia mean the same thing - a wanna-be scholar of OCS should know that. But regardless of what I have meant by "Kiev Folia", you were wrong all along since you considered the Prague Fragments, a 11th century manuscript the oldest manuscript of OCS. The link which you have now provided does not reflect your previous knowledge, otherwise you have told me Kiev Missal is the oldest manuscript, not the Prague Fragments (actually on a more careful look the links gives: "The Kiev Missal, from the mid 10th cent. This consists of seven folia"; and as I'm here I cannot help laughing on how you have distorted a lot of manuscript names, for some Latin is a hard nut to crack). Makes sense, huh?
 
As for my citations, you display enough ignorance not to notice Lunt's book is recently edited (2001) and uses the term I've already quoted. There's no battle of literature. If you doubt the legitimacy of my terms please check:
and dozens of articles and books, all available via the generous Google.
 
The morale of the story: study first, debate after. You're in no position to debate, mister.
 
Temujin, as far as I am concerned the off-topic is closed. So if anyone wants to talk to me about OCS can open a new thread on it.


Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Jan-2008 at 21:14
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 20:48
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
How are you defining 'ethos', remembering we are talking English here?
 
 
What is custom or customary lies at the center of the original meaning of ethos. Even in Rhetoric, ethos identifies the correct or customary manner in which one is to proceed in argument. Within the context of Slavic, long after the vernacular had diversified and differentiated, the Church maintained the unique usages of earlier periods.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 21:12

Before introducing the subject of my talk, I wish to stress that I will not be speaking today about the main topic of the Conference, i.e. the history of Slovene. I could of course ask for leniency and remind you that there was a time when Old Church Slavonic was in fact called »Old Slovenian«; but this took place long ago and would be of little assistance for our present purposes.1

Leaving aside the problem of the different names given to that language even nowadays (in addition to ’Old Church Slavonic’, we find the concurrent terms of ’Old Slavic’ and ’Old Bulgarian’), I prefer to reveal the main argument of my article: despite the fact that Old Church Slavonic is universally recognized as the first literary language of the Slavs, it is very often evaluated from a narrow historical-comparative perspective that does not take into full account its characterizing features as a true literary language. The cause and effect of this state of affairs, as I will try to show, is the lack of historicity (i.e. the lack of a sufficiently historical approach) in a great deal of the scholarship devoted to the Old Church Slavonic language.2

__________

1 Apart from minor changes that have been made to eliminate certain expressions used in the oral presentation of my paper and to add the necessary bibliographic information, this text faithfully reproduces the paper that I gave at the Conference.

2 ’Historicity’ corresponds here to the German ’Geschichtlichkeit’ as defined by P. VON POLENZ in his Die Geschichtlichkeit der Sprache und der Geschichtsbegriff der Sprachwissenschaft, Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung 1, hrsg. W. Besch – O. Reichmann– S. Sonderegger, Berlin – New York, 1984, 1–8.

http://www.centerslo.net/files/File/simpozij/sim20/ziffer.pdf

All I can say with regard to the above quote is to advise that perhaps the reading of a citation is in order before throwing in a link. Perhaps a further quote migh be needed so as to underscore how hollow the quibbling:

The veneration shown to the few »canonical« codices has been accompanied by a neglect of many of those literary works that are certainly not younger than those contained in the »canonical« codices, but that have had the misfortune of being handed down exclusively in younger testimonies. Notwithstanding the fact that we do have some encouraging examples of scholars who have decided to make use of some old works even if they are preserved only in later manuscripts, the overwhelming majority of Slavists still focus their analysis of Old Church Slavonic on the »canonical« monuments.

The appeal to history is apparently not mine alone no matter how some would like to disguise the matter.


Edited by drgonzaga - 25-Jan-2008 at 21:13
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 21:39

I was talking about "unwritten languages". Unwritten means unattested. Unattested mean unhistorical. This applies to proto-Turkic, proto-Slavic or any other language in a similar status.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 12:12
Unattested means ahistorical, without a history, and not unhistorical, which means against history!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 12:25
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
 
How are you defining 'ethos', remembering we are talking English here?
 
 
What is custom or customary lies at the center of the original meaning of ethos. Even in Rhetoric, ethos identifies the correct or customary manner in which one is to proceed in argument.
Why not write in English, since this is an English language forum? I still would welcome an explanation of the original quote.
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

. The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but the language would remain tied to the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic
If by 'ethos', contrary to normal usage, you mean 'the correct or customary manner in which one is to proceed in argument', how is that an attribute of a language? I don't know Old Church Slavonic, since my only qualified Slav language is modern Russian, but I do know some Polish, and I unaware of any way in which Polish is 'tied to' any particular 'ethos' in your sense.
Quote
 Within the context of Slavic, long after the vernacular had diversified and differentiated, the Church maintained the unique usages of earlier periods.
Thereby the Church was perhaps expressing an ethos. It would be reasonable to write that 'The Poles may have adopted the Latin alphabet but they would remain tied to the unique usages of the Moravian Church." I don't think it would be true, but it would at least make sense.


Edited by gcle2003 - 26-Jan-2008 at 12:26
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 15:21
Ethos is a perfectly good noun in English  and your convoluted construct carries none of the meaning behind the phrase "the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic". Perhaps you would like to give English lessons to Anthony Burgess or any other educated individual.
 
"Of course, this concerns an appeal of ethical character, an important and essential appeal for the ethos of the Gospel. We answer that the above-mentioned words are above all an appeal."
Pope John Paul II, Eros and Ethos
 
The "character" (one of the synonyms for ethos) of a language and its form is a valid expression and Polish did maintain the ethos of Old Church Slavonic. After all the original contention attacked was the presupposition that differences in alphabet would produce and result in entirely different constructs and that 10th century Polish diverged from Old Slav because of the Roman rather than Cyrillic alphabet.
 
To contend that language is incapable of possessing an ethos is nonsensical. The limpid attempt at claiming a "normal" usage is rather unflattering.
 
"In effect, his entire speech is an attempt to increase the respectability of the ethos of literature, largely accomplished by tying it to Cicero's own, already established, public character."
 
Gideon Burton, BYU
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 17:00
Quote Unattested means ahistorical, without a history, and not unhistorical, which means against history!
Ridiculous!
Unhistorical means "not historical". Un- is a prefix which can mean opposition or negation. The negation valence is the Germanic form of a IE prefix *n- which came in Latin as in-, in Green as an- or a- (all of them are inherited in English via various paths, e.g. untold = not told, untruth = not truth, unattested = not attested, inappropriate = not appropriate).
Unhistorical is an adjective which I've encountered especially in modern philosophy, e.g. Nietzsche's triad: historical, suprahistorical (an obsession for the past) and unhistorical (the ignorance of the past). But this word came into English as a regular word, for instance, in Oxford's Dictionary of Current English (edited in 1998) for "unhistorical" the entry gives a blunt and clear definition: "not historical".
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 26-Jan-2008 at 17:01
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 19:57
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Ethos is a perfectly good noun in English  and your convoluted construct carries none of the meaning behind the phrase "the ethos expressed by Old Church Slavonic".
Then you tell me what the sentence means. That's all I was asking.
Quote  
Perhaps you would like to give English lessons to Anthony Burgess or any other educated individual.
Seems just as good an option as you giving lessons to the dictionary compilers.  However I don't think I need to: I'm sure they use the word the same way most English-speakers (or French or German speakers) do.
Quote
"Of course, this concerns an appeal of ethical character, an important and essential appeal for the ethos of the Gospel. We answer that the above-mentioned words are above all an appeal."
Pope John Paul II, Eros and Ethos
John Paul was undoubtedly using the word in the modern sense of an ethical system. That's obvious from the quote itself, so you're changing definitions in midstream. What I'm looking for, and not getting, is an explanation of how a language can express an ethical system, if that is what you are now taking 'ethos' to mean.
Quote
The "character" (one of the synonyms for ethos) of a language and its form is a valid expression and Polish did maintain the ethos of Old Church Slavonic.
Roget lists 'ethos' under six headings - 501.6 (belief), 642.3 (culture), 957.1 (ethics), 479.8 (ideology), 5.3 (nature) and 525.5 (pervading attitudes). Each of those keywords has respectively 45, 22, 25, 8, 48 and 12 alternative synonyms. Of those 160, one section, 5.3  (nature), includes 'character'. So you would be technically correct, in a rather rare way.
 
On the same basis, however, 'ethos' can also be taken to mean 'Weltanschauung', 'point of view', 'moral climate', 'folkways', 'culture drift', 'ethical system', 'Ten Commandments', 'legal ethics', 'body-build', 'fiber', 'dharma', 'vein', or 'stripe'. It would therefore seem reasonable to ask which of the 160 possibilities you had in mind.
 
Much more reasonably, the fact that word A and word B both can appear in some circumstances as a synonym of word C, does not indicate that A and B mean the same thing.
 
It would certanly have been a lot simpler had you not chosen such an unusual meaning for the word - or rather such an unusual word to convey that meaning, sinde it was pretty well doomed to fail.
Quote
 After all the original contention attacked was the presupposition that differences in alphabet would produce and result in entirely different constructs and that 10th century Polish diverged from Old Slav because of the Roman rather than Cyrillic alphabet.
Polish was already a different language from the language that was later called 'old Church Slavonic' before it had any alphabet at all.
 
I don't recall anyone saying that Polish diverged from Old Church Slavonic because of the alphabet. For a start it would imply that Polish was at one point the same language as Old Church Slavonic (which is not to deny they share a common heritage at some point: but they weren't the same in the tenth century).
Quote
To contend that language is incapable of possessing an ethos is nonsensical. The limpid attempt at claiming a "normal" usage is rather unflattering.
 
"In effect, his entire speech is an attempt to increase the respectability of the ethos of literature, largely accomplished by tying it to Cicero's own, already established, public character."
 
Gideon Burton, BYU
Quoting someone else's equally impenetrable sentence doesn't help very much. What on earth is the 'respectability of the ethos of literature' supposed to mean, even if you take 'ethos' to mean no more than 'character'? All literature had the same 'ethos'? Homer and Lucretius, Catullus and Virgil, Herodotus and Caesar? And that ethos was disreputable at one point and reputable later thanks to Cicero?
 
I'm not terribly surprised that someone who could write
Quote
Our early leaders did not divorce the concept of literature from that of achieving Zion, and this meant not short-changing literature's potential to help saints both teach and learn. ... These church leaders saw the reading and producing of literature as a tool to help saints grow to the level of intellectual vitality a Zion society required and to approach the full breadth of truth that a Zion world would embrace.
is capable of talking about the 'ethos' of literature, but it's pretty sure that, like John Paul in the earlier quote, he was including religious, ethical and moral beliefs in his characterisation of 'literature'.
 
Of course any particular work of literature can embrace or advocate a particular ethos (in any usual sense of the term) but that's very different from talking about the ethos of literature or the ethos of a language.


Edited by gcle2003 - 26-Jan-2008 at 19:57
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jan-2008 at 20:07
What have I run into, the pundits of ponderous pedantry? When something is unattested it means there is no evidence and if it is with reference to your statement on proto-languages then usage demands ahistorical--there is no evidence attesting its usage or original development. To claim proto-languages are unhistorical is, to employ a popular descriptive here, absurd. Ahistorical means that which is unconcerned with history, historical development or tradition: e.g. All of this is totally ahistorical. There is virtually no evidence in the historical record to support any of it"  [ http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/ahistorical ]
 
In contrast the simplest meaning of unhistorical puts forth that which takes little or no account of history; for example: The Chanson de Roland is, essentially, unhistorical for its narrative is more fictional than factual.
 
If anything, the devising or surmising of proto-languages is intimately concerned with the history of language and its only limitation is its unattested characteristic drawn from surmises based upon solid analysis.
 
As for Ursprung, Herkunft, and Entstehung in the conceptualizaton of wirkliche Historie, let us just leave matters until you realize that an appropriation of vocabulary has taken place and been turned against those using it [pace, Foucault].


Edited by drgonzaga - 27-Jan-2008 at 12:24
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 00:54
Perhaps one should tell the people behind Oxford dictionary that their entry on "unhistorical" is wrong or misleading. Or tell some reputable linguists they use the wrong term "unhistorical" (e.g. when dealing with synchronic phenomena as opposed to diachronic ones), when we have/had schools of thought like the structuralist one. Or maybe forbid people like me to employ this term when they intend to describe things which cannot be studied historically. An unattested language is a language for which we have no evidences but also no evolution and consequently no history. In some cases there are attempts to reconstruct its hidden history, but it's often an entirely theoretical approach which does not have and probably not hope for direct evidences. 
 
I have nothing to add on Nietzsche, only that it's shameful to brag with pretentios terms and at the same time to torture their spelling (there's a troubling pattern in distorting non-English terms which suggests at least unfamiliarity).
 
Anyway, this thread seems to lose more and more the focus on Tartars, Turkic people, Turkic language and become a playground of drgonzaga. Thus, I will cease my contributions here until this thread will regain its topic or these long off-topics will be splitted.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 27-Jan-2008 at 01:24
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 12:00

What Nietzsche has to do with this I have no idea. Or Foucault. If you want to discuss such things then open up a thread in the Academy forum, or possibly Intellectual Discussions.

Otherwise I agree with Chilbudios.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 13:03

The unmitigated gall of the gratuitous commentary that derailed the discusion on the Tatar is obvious in the thread itself. That some have taken it upon themselves to repeatedly make personal attacks in a false rhetoric is most amusing. It brings to mind petulant children in a sandbox. Some should actually take the time to Ask Oxford:

unhistorical--not in accordance with history or historical analysis.
 
As for pretentiousness, the attempt to subvert the meaning behind Nietzsche so as to sustain the unsustainable is evidence in itself of where conceit lies; particulaly as underscored by the diversion on Saussure, semiology, and Structuralism.
 
By the way all study is an exercise in History. That conclusion is inescapable.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 15:28
You're confusing Historie (as in wirkliche Historie) with Geschichte (as in 'wie es wirklich war').
 
The idea that there is any meaning behind Nietzsche is somewhat pretentious in itself. But that as Temujin and Chilbudios have already pointed out, is a subject for another thread.
 
Otherwise we could be discussing the philosophy of history on every single thread.
 
Why don't you start one?


Edited by gcle2003 - 27-Jan-2008 at 15:36
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2008 at 17:57
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You're confusing Historie (as in wirkliche Historie) with Geschichte (as in 'wie es wirklich war').
 
The idea that there is any meaning behind Nietzsche is somewhat pretentious in itself. But that as Temujin and Chilbudios have already pointed out, is a subject for another thread.
 
Otherwise we could be discussing the philosophy of history on every single thread.
 
Why don't you start one?
 
Yes, exactly.
 
Dear drgonzaga, with all due respect it seems that you are trying to avoid further discussion on the real topic of this thread. As soon as another member finds another flaw in your new intellectual agrument, you throw into discussion another unrelated stuff like Nietzsche and Foucault. You started all this by claiming that Kypchaks=Oguz.
 
This thread is dedicated to Tatars. If you want to share with us your knowledge on this subject, please do. But if you want to discuss another area of your vast intellectual interests, please kindly open a new thread in a related subforum.
 
Many thanks.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 14:13
For all involved. Continue a repsectful dialogue with your fellow members. Even though you may have different perspectives look at the historical possibilities before you criticize one another. If you have disagreements then share them in a way that is inviting instead of demeaning.   
 
As Sarmat12 has also said, let's keep to the topic at hand.
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Points: 1919
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 17:20
tatars are basicly Kypchaks

The Term tatar at the time of marco polo was given to all the Turks & mongols except the Seljuks(turks)


Sorry for replying so late but what babar ment was

That Uigur = Eastern Branch of Turkic

kpychak & Oghuz western branch

kypchak = North western
Oghuz = south western


one thing that cought my attention is that modernday kypchak dialects aren't that close to the old cuman dialect wich is mutual understandable for oghuz & kypchaks speakers
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2008 at 21:13
Thank you xi_tujue. Within the historical parameters of the 13th century, contemporary sources identify what is more commonly called the Golden Horde, as the Khanate of the Qipchak, for it was this nomadic group that composed the majority of the peoples loyal to the Mongol dynasts descending from Batu Khan. Within modern Chinese historiography the clarification between the dynasts and the actual populations are usually kept distinct, and in the instance of individuals such as Batu, whom the Latin chroniclers called Bathy Rex Tartarorum, Chinese chroniclers employed the nomenclature Qincha hanguo and recognized not only that the principal military contingents were drawn from the Kypchak but that the Turkic of the Kypchak became the military and commercial language of this empire. Yet, it was not until Ozbeg Khan (1313-1341) that this empire accepted Islam although individual elements had done so earlier, for example the Kumuk (another Qipchak tribe) of the North Caucasus did so in the 11th century. It was this conversion to Islam that would further facilitate in addition to language affinity Ottoman expansion north of the Black Sea as Kipchak political power declined consequent to the "Black Death" epidemics of the 14th century and early 15th centuries. It is in this context that the term Tatar must be understood rather than in the often contradictory devises of linguistics.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.064 seconds.