View Full Version : Indo-European and Turkic Interaction - Genetic Explanation?

08-19-2021, 02:05 PM

Turkish / Sakha(Yakut) / Chuvash

1 - Bir / Biir / Perre ---> Prathama(Sanskrit) ---> Mi(Armenian) ---> First(English)
2 - İki / İkki / İkke ---> *Sigi ---> Twegen(German) ---> Erku(Armenian) ---> Second(English) R[d/z/s/h]
3 - Üç / Üs / Visse ---> *Uts? / *Utr? ---> Drie(Dutch) ---> Se(Persian) R[d/z/s]
4 - Dört / Tüört / Tavatta ---> Tetra(Latin) ---> Caturtha(Sanskrit)
5 - Beş / *Bies / Pillek ---> *Pesë(Albanian) ---> Pet(Bulgarian) R[s/sh/l/r/t]
6 - Altı / *Alta / Ultta ---> *Gjashtë(Albanian) ---> Arati(Sanskrit, Six in Arithmetic) R[s/sh/l/r/t]
7 - Yedi / *Sette / Siççe ---> *Shtatë(Albanian) ---> Sette(Italian) ---> Yot(Armenian) R[s/y]
8 - Sekiz / Agıs / Sakkar ---> *Ag? / *Hak? ---> Haktau(Luwian) ---> Okta(Latin) R[s/h]
9 - Dokuz / Togus / Taxxar ---> *Dog? / *Nog? ---> Dévet(Bulgarian) ---> Noch(Cardiganshire) R[d/n]
10 - On / Uon / Vunna ---> *Suon? ---> Zehn(German)
20 - Yi(*gi)rmi / Sü(*h)ürbe / Şi(*hi)rem ---> Yigirmi(Bashkir) ---> Zwanzig(German) ---> Viginti(Latin)
30 - Otuz / Otut / Vatar ---> Triginta(Latin)
40 - Kırk / Tüört Uon / Xerex ---> Karasun(Armenian)
50 - Elli / Bies Uon / Alla ---> Pednadeset(Bulgarian)
60 - Altmış / Alta Uon / Ultmal ---> Vatc'un(Armenian)
70 - Yetmiş / Sette Uon / Sitmel ---> Yot'anasun(Armenian)
80 - Seksen / Agıs Uon / Sakar Vuna ---> Ut'sun(Armenian)
90 - Doksan / Togus Uon / Tahar Vuna ---> Devetnadeseti(Bulgarian)

*That’s incredible!

First of all, I should point out that we don't even know whether a proto-Indo-European language even exists. The accuracy of the numbers is questionable due to incompatibility with Armenian. It may have followed a very different development. For this reason, it is much more reliable to use the evolved word pool that we have available. I will not make the mistake of making an analogy over a non-existent language. But if you want a comparison on the -so-called- proto-languages, I edited the possible proto-Turkic. This way you can see below.

proto-Indo-European / proto-Turkic

1 - *pr̥h₃- / *per
2 - *d(u)wo-, *dwóh₁, *sekw(?) / *sig
3 - *trei-, *tri- / *ut(t?)
4 - *kʷetwor- / *tauart
5 - *penkʷe / *pel(c)
6 - *s(w)eḱs, *arati(?) / (h?)asht(?)
7 - *septm̥ / *set
8 - *oḱtō, *h₃eḱtō / *hek(r)
9 - *newn̥ / *toh(r)
10 - *deḱm̥(t) / *hon
20 - *(d)wīḱm̥t- / *sig(r)(m)
30 - *trīḱomt- / *ut(r)
40 - *kʷetwr̥̄ḱomt- / *kırıh, tauart-hon
50 - *penkʷēḱomt- / *alla, pel(c)-hon
60 - *s(w)eḱsḱomt- / *(h?)asht-mel(c), *(h?)asht-hon
70 - *septm̥̄ḱomt- / *set-mel(c), *set-hon
80 - *oḱtō(u)ḱomt- / *hek(r)-hon
90 - *(h₁)newn̥̄ḱomt- / *toh(r)-hon

The numbers are constructed in possibly archaic form with reference to existing Turkic languages.
(ç > t), (l > sh), (s > h)

In addition;

Turkic pronouns: (epe, ben), (ese, sen), (vol, hol)
Uralic pronouns: (en, mina), (te, sina), (o, han)
IE pronouns: *me, *te, *he
Mongolic pronouns: bi, çi/ta, ter

We can easily see that there is an interaction between pronouns as well. It is essential that there is a carrier language or a language that creates interaction between these languages. We can see that Turkic languages have a higher interaction with Indo-European languages. Both genetically and linguistically. Couldn't the importance of the Scythians be better understood here?

Now, can anyone explain this genetically? I must also admit that I wonder why there is no consensus among linguists and geneticists. Couldn't it be that the Asian branch of haplogroup R formed the Turks, and the branch descending to Europe the Indo-Europeans? Could it be that the Turks with haplogroup R, who remained in Asia, mixed with the Uralic(N) people of the region and formed today's Turkic peoples?

This linguistic interaction also needs to be explained genetically. But if you do it without prejudice and without defending any opinion, it will be true.

08-22-2021, 12:55 PM
This may help.

For more than a hundred years the “Iranists, or more commonly” Indo-Europeanists” on one side, and Turkologists on the other side, completely deny the contribution of the opponent's linguistic group into the Eurasian linguistic landscape in antiquity (from the beginning of our era and older), asserting that in the Europe and Asia was either a continuous “Indo-Iranian” substrate, or conversely continuous Türkic substrate. They do not compromise. Examples are given below.

And the explanation is quite simple. Both sides are right, but on their own half. The two major Eurasian haplogroups, R1a and R1b, diverged (or rather, formed and diverged) 20-16 thousand years ago, evolved linguistically from the common Nostratic languages, respectively into the Pra-Aryan (later called “Proto-Indo-European”) and the Proto-Türkic, and then into Türkic. And because the paths of the haplogroups R1a and R1b carriers in Eurasia significantly transversed in the same territories, often with a gap of a millennia or two (R1a migrations are older in Europe, R1b migrations are older in Asia), they left “substrates” superimposed one on another, and intertwined in many ways. Since the agglutinative Türkic languages are probably less subjected to temporal changes than the flexive Indo-European languages, the Turkologists explain with ease almost all “Iranisms” from the Türkic languages. They are finding in works of the Classical writers many examples of Türkisms, in the proper names and in the names for the objects, and in separate terms. The Iranists in response brush them aside, and cite their own versions, in accordance with which certainly no Türkisms existed in the Eurasia during the past era and even more so before that. Or they ignore it, or undertake repressive measures in science. Any Turkologist can cite many examples of that kind.


11-11-2021, 02:48 PM
It is a pity that no detailed research and analysis has been done on this subject. However, we can see that the Turkic language family has been in close contact with the Indo-Europeans since its early formation. I am sure that much more accurate and interesting results would be obtained if this subject were dealt with instead of the absurd Transeurasian theories. And I say emphatically that the Altaic language family is invalid. We can explain it much more easily with interaction instead of gathering it under the roof of a language family. In the early periods of the Turkic language family interacted with Indo-European and Uralic languages as well as Mongolian.

I'm saying it once again. Drop the prejudices. Forget inconsistent and biased theses.

04-07-2022, 02:01 PM
Not sure about that, but some old Turkic samples had a high European Steppe admixture (though not necessarily from IE expansion).