Dear Aslam Rasoolpuri,
Hi. With regard to your inquiry where you asked: "According to your
theory where you place the Pakistani languages. In Indo-Aryans family
group or Semitic group."
First of all, I am not a speaker of any of the Pakistani languages
and secondly, I have not researched them as you say you are doing.
Therefore in classifying the Pakistani languages, you may be in a
better position than I am. However, I will say that in classifying
the Pakistani languages, a scholar should also have a working
knowledge of Turkish - without which the classification would be
deficient. Turkish has very much been the ancient model language for
others, hence it cannot be ignored.
I would consider Pakistani languages, at least the URDU language, like
the Ottoman Turkish, which was neither Indo-European, nor Indo-Aryan
nor Semitic, although it used a fair number of "Arabic" and "Persian"
words in its structure. In the same light the Pakistani languages
should not be labelled as Indo-European or Semitic either. Ottoman
Turkish, like Urdu, was used as a common language amongst many groups
who regarded themselves different.
Through my analysis of many words belonging to some of these
Indo-European and Semitic languages, I have found them to be
artificially engineered from Turkish words and phrases, and this
reality has been well disguised. Most likely this artificial word
generation for these languages is still going on since there is
nothing to stop them from doing so. Linguists so far have not studied
these languages in such a light or they don't want to. Evidently those
who knew this reality preferred not to speak up. I readily admit that
my discovery of the true nature of Indo-European and Semitic languages
does not deny their existence. My discovery simply brings to daylight
the fact that they are artificial languages and that they were
manufactured from Turkish. This implies that Turkish was much older
than they are and that Turkish was a highly ordered and developed
language for thousands of years before others were in existence.
URDU is a language that was probably started in India by the Turkiic
Delhi Sultanates since the 12th-13th century, then was further
developed and used by the later Turkish Mughal empire which was again
centered around the city of Delhi. This provided additional period of
development and use, altogether a time span of about five hundred
years, under the ruling of Turkish peoples. Its name being URDU which
is from Turkish "ORDU" meaning "army", is an indication of this fact.
In other words it was initially the language of Turkish armies (ORDUs)
coming into the Indian continent. Bab?h, the founder of the
Mughal Empire, always emphasized his Turkish linguistic heritage and
so did his descendants. However presently Urdu uses a considerable
amount of Persian and Arabic words in addition to Hindi and Turkish.
Evidently this mixture has changed the original character of the URDU
language.
The continent of India has been shared with the Turkic speaking
Turanian peoples since very ancient times. Dravidian, which is an
ancient Turanian language, has been in India from very early times and
has influenced the languages of India.
The very fact that the Indian continent is called "HINDUSTAN" is an
indication that some time in the past this geography was dwelled by
Turkish peoples also. The suffix ISTAN is an ancient Turkish word
which defines the Sky-God (?T-HAN) meaning "topmost Lord" and Sun-God
(ISITAN, IShITAN) describing the ancient Turanian Sky-God. Hence the
name "HINDISTAN" (HINDUSTAN) is very much Turkish. Similarly, the
names Pakistan, Afghanistan and many other "ISTAN" suffixed country
names in that geographical area, like the Turkish Turkistan,
Turkmenistan, Ozbekistan, Kirgizistan, Kazakistan and Tacikistan (many
Taciks consider themselves Turkish despite the fact that they speak
"Persian" now), indicate the presence, in the past and at present, of
Turkish peoples in those lands.
T. A. Raman writes: "the term HINDU refers to the religion of
Hinduism. Also a person who follows Hinduism is called HINDU. They
are divided into many groups, or sects, which have different religious
customs and worship different gods. Some Hindus believe that these
gods are only different forms of the one true spirit of the universe,
or GOD." [1]
The name HINDU is very much like the Turkish word "KINDU" (GUNDI)
meaning "it is the sun". where "K" or "G" is changed to "H". The SUN
has always been at the center of "religion" for most peoples of the
ancient world throughout human history. The SUN is the source or
provider of life and hence is the reason for religion. Also embedded
in the term HINDU is the Turkish word "DIN" meaning "religion". When
the term "HINDU" is rearranged as "DIN-UH", it is found to be a form
of Turkish "DIN-U" (Din o) meaning "it is religion". SUN worshipping
was also practiced in India in the past just like it was in Turan and
among the Turanians everywhere.
The presence of "Persian" words in URDU is not a coincidence.
Throughout ancient history, Turanians, that is, Tur/Turk peoples, who
lived and ruled in Iran also expanded into India. Ancient names such
as TURUKKU of Zagros mountains, the MEDE and PARTHIAN empires were the
empires of Turanian Tur/Turk peoples contrary to the incorrect
"established" views. The White Huns (so-called Afrasiab peoples or
Hephthalites) of Iran were Turkish Hun peoples. The term "Persian",
referring only to the "Indo-European" aspect of the local language and
people of Iran, is a misnomer which ignores the presence of the
Turkish people in Iran. Presently somewhere between 40% and 50% of the
population of Iran is Turkish (Azeri, Turkmen, Avshar, Kashgay, and
others). It seems that the so-called "Persian" language started with
the development of Zoroastrianism in Iran. The names of the main
personalities of this religion indicate that it is a restructured
version of the ancient Turanian Sky-God religion with restructured and
disguised names.
The editors of the TIME-LIFE Books write: [2] "The white Huns took
the Puncap before the year 500, then Kashmir and most of the Ganges
plain. By the middle of the sixth century they had shattered the last
of the resistance."
The present geography of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India has always
been travelled and settled by the Turanian peoples as well. This fact
cannot be ignored.
Due to either not knowing the real truth about the make up of the
Indo-European and Semitic languages or knowing but not admitting that
these languages have been intentionally manufactured from Turkish,
linguists have classified the present day languages without regard to
Turkish being the "father" l;anguage. The present way of language
classification has many untold political sides and is influenced by
many hidden agendas - although the whole process is portrayed as if it
is totally "scientific" and free from politics.
The Turanians did not change the local languages like the Greeks,
Latins and Semitics did. If anything, Turanian Tur/Turk peoples did
not resist the change of their own language when it happened - which
always resulted in their own disappearance. Of cource altering the
language of people both within and without is a sure way of
eliminating and obliterating a people who is targetted for
elimination. Historical evidences show that ancient Tur/Turk peoples
have been the target of such obliteration activity. For example the
great confusion that is referred to in GENESIS 11 is the beginning of
such camouflaged activity. Dividing peoples into artificially created
religious and linguistic cells makes them easy targets to secret
ambitions to conquer and rule. Similar activities go on every day
under the guise of "scientific research and classification".
Britannica World Languages Dictionary, under the entry of TURANIAN,
refers to the Turanian languages as: "a large family of agglutinative
languages of Europe and Northern Asia, neither Indo-European nor
Semitic, specifically known as the Ural-Altaic languages.
Theoretically, one of an unknown nomadic people who antedated the
Aryans in Europe and Asia. [from Persian Turan, a country north of
OXUS River." [3]
In this description of the term "Turanian", the qualifying term
"theoretically" is not truthful and has been used to water down the
truth. The reality is that Turkish was and is an ancient language that
antedated the so-called "Aryan" languages in Europe and Asia. The
Greek sounding name "OXUS" used to identify a central Asian river is a
concoction by the Greeks. The Greek sounding river name OXUS must
have been "OKUS SU" (OGUZ SU) meaning "Oguz water" before it was
altered by the Greeks. The name OGUZ is the ancestor name for the
Tur/Turk peoples and was also the name of the ancient Turanian
Sky-God. After the military invasion of Asia by Alexander the Great, a
full scale linguistic alteration by Greeks took place throughout the
conquered lands. Hence Turkish was changed and oppressed. The Greek
name "ANTIOCHUS" (ANTIOGUS) used by a series of Greek kings clearly
indicates their politically anti-Oguz, that is, anti-Turk nature -
hence many of their activities were aimed at obliterating everything Turkish.
To give you an example how influential Turkish has been in India and
Pakistan, the word "sari" may be mentioned. SARI is a long strip of
cloth wound gracefully around the body by women in India and Pakistan.
T. A. Raman writes the following: [4]
"Most women in India wear "saries". A sari is a piece of cotton or
silk cloth. It is wound around the figure in such a way that it makes
not only a gracefully draped skirt but also an upper garment. Indian
women wear blouses under their saris. There are many ways of arranging
a sari so that it makes a becoming dress. A woman may also drape her
sari over her head. Then it serves as a headdress, too."
The name SARI is unquestionably sourced from the Turkish verb "SARMAK'
the root of which is "SAR" meaning "to wrap a cloth or similar item
around something else". The word "SARI" is a Turkish noun made up from
"SAR" meaning "that which is wrapped around something else" which is
exactly the definition given above by A. T. Raman. Similarly the
headdress "turban" is also a "SARI". In this case, a cloth is wrapped
around the head. Of course most people would not know that the source
of this Indian word is from Turkish. Yet, it is and it shows how
Turkish has influenced the lives of Indian and Pakistani people. This
is just one example. I feel confident that many words of Turkish
origin can be found in Pakistani languages.
About the name "ARYAN", T.A. Raman also writes the following: [5]
"Before 1500 B.C., bands of tall, light-skinned people from
south-western Asia poured onto the Indian peninsula. These people,
known as Aryans, were wandering herdsmen. They came through mountain
passes in the northwest, and spread out over the great North Indian Plain."
Tha name "ARYAN" is very much the restructured and disguised Turkish
word of "ARAYAN" meaning "wanderer". Tur/Turk peoples have also been
labelled as "nomads". Could it be that those light-skinned people
coming into the Indian peninsula through the mountain passes in the
northwest were actually Turanian Tur/Turk peoples rather than the
so-called "Indo-Aryans"? The portrayal of ancient history has been
very lopsided and mostly against the Tur/Turk peoples. In many
occasions in the past, certain non-Turanian groups have illegally
occupied the name-shell of Turanians thereby taking over the
civilization of Turanians and thus claiming the Turanian glory for themselves.
URDU language is said to have many Arabic words in it. But the name
"ARAB" is a questionable name. The following excerpt about SARACENS,
from URL given below, is an eye opener:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/s/saracens.asp
"Saracens, related to Middle Eastern History: term commonly used by
medieval Europeans to designate the Arabs and, by extension, the
Muslims in general, whether they were Arabs, Moors, or Seljuk Turks."
The meaning of this classification is that Europeans do not like to
use the term Tur/Turk in their identification of the Middle Eastern
peoples. Obviously, when they lump Turkish people under the so-called
"Semitic" name "ARAB", then they have intentionally obliterated the
Tur/Turk people from history, and given their history and achievements
to someone else. This alteration of history is a very sneaky way of
discriminating against the Tur/Turk peoples. It must be noted that
the Saracens and the Moors and the Seljuks were pure Turkish peoples -
although they were intentionally pooled together under the name "Arab"
or labelled as "Arabs" or "Moslem". This intentional gameplay on
words melts away the identities of Turkish peoples and gives unjustly
their contribution to human civilization to "Semites". This is a form
of stealing from Turks and giving it to somebody else. Another
important point to note in all this is that the mixed peoples of
"Arabs" are most likely much more "Turkic" than "Semitic". These
points need to be investigated very carefully.
In a different source, Anne Fremantle and the Editors of TIME-LIFE
Books write the following: [6]
"Constantinople, the proud city founded by Constantine, the first
Roman Emperor to become a Christian. Constantine's successors on the
throne of Byzantium had had to cope with all sorts of Asiatic
invaders; the Byzantines called them SARAKENOS, Easterners, and the
word "SARACEN" came to conjure up a warrier of fanatical fighting
skill. The latest and by far the fiercest of these intruders-and
devout Moslems besides-were the Seljuk Turks. In 1071 they routed
thousands of Byzantines at the battle near Manzikert, beginning a
drive deep into Asia Minor in which they stripped Byzantium of more
than half of its realms."
In this excerpt, what the writer or writers do not say is that those
SARACENS or SARAKENOS were Turks (Turkish peoples) and they made up a
major portion of the so-called "Arabic" peoples. And those "SARACENS"
were the Turkish KIPCHAK peoples, the ancestors of the Eastern
Anatolian Turks. They were also the ancestors of the so-called
Turkish "KURDs" who have been alienated against their own Turkish root
by the verbosity of deceptive language generating missionaries.
The armies of the Turkish MUSUL ATABEYS were SARACENS (SARI CANLAR)
and so were the armies of SELAHADDIN EYYUBI who himself was a SARICAN
(Saracen) Turk. The Turkish Saracens fought against the invading
Crusaders and expelled them from the Middle East. Of cource in the
tongue of the West, all of these Turkish armies changed name and
became a "Semitic Arab" people. This shows how powerful "language"
is. "Language" has been used as a tool to eliminate a nation out of
history and as well, put on the map those who were not there at all.
Turks have been subject of this kind of verbal abuse and elimination.
"Language" can also be used effectively, as it has been done in the
past, to set one part of a nation against the other (e.g., Kurds vs Turks).
The name SARACEN is the distorted form of Turkish word 'SARI CAN"
meaning "yellow people". Turkish "SARI KIPCAK" people are those
"SARICANs". The Greek "SARAKENOS" is again the distorted Turkish name
"SARI CANUZ" meaning "we are blond people". Additionally, it is the
Turkish "SARI K??" meaning "we are yellow sun" referring to their
"sun worshipping" religion. All ancient Turks were sun worshipping
people and they took names indicating their sun religion. Of course,
in above given excerpt, Anne Fremantle and the Editors of TIME-LIFE
Books describe the "TURKS" without giving the name "Turk". Such
omissions of identities changes history and obliterates people.
Much earlier "Arabs" were the remnants of the Tur/Turk Masarians, by
another name "BERBER TUAREGS" of North Africa, coming from the
"BARBAR" attribution that ancient Greeks affixed to the Turanian
Tur/Turk peoples by turning the tables around 180 degrees. Ancient
"MASARIANS" were the ancient Tur/Turk peoples who had the longest
living Tur/Turk empire in human history in MISIR (MASAR). These
ancient TUR people have been falsely called "EGYPTIANS". This is
another obliteration of Turs/Turks by means of deceptive verbose
classifications. To put it simply, renaming the Tur MISIR/MASAR
people and their country into "EGYPT" artificially gives that ancient
and magnificent Turanian civilization to some peoples.
Now since there were so many Turks who were also artificially called
"ARABs", then there must have been some Turkish words or restructured
Turkish words in "ARABIC" as well. In fact that was and is the case.
When ARABS took Islam to India there must have been a lot of Turkish
speaking Turks among them as well. And hence the Arabic armies most
likely used a Turkish mixed "ARMY language" (ORDU language). So there
can be no denying that there was a "Turkish" presence in spreading
Islam into Iran and India although this act has been attributed to the
name ARAB only. Similarly, there was "Turkish" presence in the
formation of the URDU language.
Thus it is seen that language is a very powerful alteration tool, and
it can be used to changes a lot of things for people. As I have
demonstrated, by way of name changes, suddenly the Turks disappear and
some other group comes in their place. In the hands of non-friendly
groups, language can be used to divide one people into several smaller
groups and used them against one another. It is the old divide,
conquer and rule policy.
What I have written here may or may not answer your specific
questions. But in an accompanying posting I will give a listing of
Turkish words against a selection of "FARSI" words. This was referred
to you by David L. You will see that about 50% of "Farsi" words are
found to be akin with the corresponding Turkish ones. Claiming that
Turks borrowed these words from "Indo-European Persians" is not
convincing nor is it truthful. This commonality should not be
forgotten. In the field of linguistics, who got what from whom is
usually portrayed incorrectly as I have demonstrated with many
examples in my previous writings. Without knowing Turkish, linguistic
classifications will not be correct or complete.
REFERENCES:
[1] T. A. Raman, "INDIA", The Fideler Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1964, p. 156.
[2] "The Empires Besieged (TimeFrame AD 200-600), By the Editors of
TIME-LIFE Books, p .101.
[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica World Languages Dictionary, 1963, Vol. 2,
p. 1353.
[4] T. A. Raman, "INDIA", The Fideler Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1964, p. 77.
[5] T. A. Raman, "INDIA", The Fideler Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
1964, p. 26.
[6] Anne Fremantle and The Editors of TIME-LIFE Books, "AGE OF FAITH",
Time Incorporated, New York, 1965, p. 54.
Best wishes to you in your studies,
Polat Kaya
04/12/2004
