tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post4785479360897029183..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: How Turkish are the Anatolians? (new Alu insertion polymorphism study)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56695462669383415802013-09-28T14:06:14.978+03:002013-09-28T14:06:14.978+03:00Dienekes, why are we understanding Turkish Languag...<i>Dienekes, why are we understanding Turkish Language much easily which are being spoken up in North of us more than East of us? The people in Turkey are able to communicate easily with the people speaking Turkish in Russia and Ukraine including Balkans but not the people in Middle or inner Asia who are speaking Turkic.</i><br /><br />I think you are referring to Crimean Tatars, and not to the other Tatar groups, whose language is as distinct from Turkish as the Central Asian Turkic languages in general are. The Crimean Tatar language is relatively closer to Turkish because of the centuries-long Ottoman rule (whether direct or indirect) in Crimea, which had a strong impact on the language of Crimean Tatars. As for Balkan Turkish, it is nothing but a dialect or rather a group of dialects of the same language (=Turkish) that includes Anatolian Turkish, as Turkish spread to the Balkans from Anatolia under the Ottoman rule.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15703963208717861882013-09-26T21:41:30.718+03:002013-09-26T21:41:30.718+03:00Dienekes, why are we understanding Turkish Languag...Dienekes, why are we understanding Turkish Language much easily which are being spoken up in North of us more than East of us? The people in Turkey are able to communicate easily with the people speaking Turkish in Russia and Ukraine including Balkans but not the people in Middle or inner Asia who are speaking Turkic.ÜNTAÇ GÜNERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04769460446335230736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77535614424895152692011-01-06T12:18:56.059+02:002011-01-06T12:18:56.059+02:00It's interesting how EB3 in Greeks has not bee...<i>It's interesting how EB3 in Greeks has not been interpreted as "African", but some of the Asian-shared Markers in Turks are decisively 'mongoloid', even though they have their origins in the paleolithic.</i><br /><br />If the Mongoloid markers had their origin in the Paleolithic it would be peculiar that they ended up in one group (Turks) and not particularly in their neighbors (e.g., Armenians).<br /><br />The simpler explanation is that the Mongoloid markers came to Turkey from Central Asia, as both history and linguistics tell us that is where Turks came from to reach Anatolia.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64164892694024061112011-01-06T06:31:55.802+02:002011-01-06T06:31:55.802+02:00It's interesting how EB3 in Greeks has not bee...It's interesting how EB3 in Greeks has not been interpreted as "African", but some of the Asian-shared Markers in Turks are decisively 'mongoloid', even though they have their origins in the paleolithic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11566494589399073241noreply@blogger.com