Hi all,

newbie here. I have been trying to learn "turkmen" from folks in Syria. Generally they seem to understand most Turkish words, what is the difference? Words that are borrowed from English seem to not make as much sense for them. . .

No difference, Türkmens are nomadic Turks aka yörüks from Oghuz family, of course they speak Turkish with a dialect, lots of Arabic and foreign words mixed in their language because they are living with Arabs, Persians and Kurds. As far as I know many of the Turkmens in Syria were subject to assimilation. By the way millions of them are living in North Iraq...

I would say something quite different actually..

We all know that some of the Turkish tribes moved to the west because they were running away from Mongolians. These tribes/clans entered Anatolia and possibly, Ottoman nobles were one of these tribes..

But conquering a land does not make the people of that land from that tribe. What is a common British person got to do with their Royal family for example?

Why are we trying to connect all people who call themsleves Turks in Anatolia (and around Anatolia)  with the Ottomans + Oghuz people?  Normally, a warrior aristocracy comes and establishes themselves as the rulers of the local people..

If we take  100 random pictures of central asian people and compare them with us, then take another random 100 pictures of Greeks/Armenians/Kurds and compare, we will clearly see we have nothing to do with central Asians..

Hi all,

thank you for your responses. Quite interesting...

Would a good rule to follow be to change english borrow words, IE problem and switch it with an Arabic word?

Thanks again,

Johnny

Somebody deceived you then, maybe you are under the affect of Grek statement "Mongolic Turks" . Who said to you Anatolian Turks need to look like the ones in central asia? Afterall Mongols had ruled the remaining Turks who did not migrate to west, so it is expected for them to look like Mongol. By the way according to Arabic sources, at the time when they first met with Turks around 620-650 AC, their depiction of Turks were far from Mongols. Just go and check the portrays of Ertuğrul Gazi or Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey, they surely do not look like a Mongol. In that case we can say Armenians and Greks look like Turks since Turks had ruled them for hundreds of years.

Ha ha

Well sorry to disappoint you. First the language (for C++): when it comes to language, history is full of examples about how people would change their language and their religion if the conditions force them.  Especially during the migrations, occupations, colonization nations easily and quickly switch their language and religion.

People of Haiti speak French but they never think of themselves as French -they are all black-. Mexicans switched to Spanish in 16th century.. But they are not Spanish (I don´t think they say ´they are Spanish´ or I don´t think they ´believe´ they are the actual Spanish people, and people in Spain are assimilated by Europeans   ). People in Anatolia, become Helens after Alexander the great.

The second thing about ´people in Anatolia are the real Turks but not the central Asians´ is the numbers.. We don´t know how many Turks came to Anatolia at 11th and 13th century.. The maximum estimate is around 1 million..But possibly a value between 200.000 and 1.000.000 would be more realistic.. Lets say 500.0000.. But the estimate of the population in Anatolia at the time is around 5 to 15 million. Those people spoke Greek and Armenian. But 200 years later Turkish was the common language in Anatolia..There was not a mass exodus during that time and there is no reason why Turks would make more babies than Greeks and Armenians. Of course a serious chunk of local population become Turks..

But I am sure ´not carrying central Asian genes´ is not a problem for you guys as being Turkish is nothing to do with ethnicity anyway.  

so tell me, why today do we not see a slant-eyed Grek or Armenian since that gene is dominant? According to some sources Turks were far more before in Anatolia than 11th century, as they state even Seljuks recieved help from that Turks in Anatolia. one more info for you when Anatolia were divided into "Türk beylikleri", it is stated that those were close communities and they do not easily mix with other races except elites, still today some "yörük"s reject to marry to other races, i do not know why. But yeah being Turkish has nothing to do with ethnicity but language and culture 

Well. The answer is very simple: Those people carry more genes with Greek/Armenian origins than slant-eyed central Asians.. Gene researchers are telling the same thing: we have more Greek and Armenian genes than central Asian Turkish genes.. Again, in history, there was not a serious immigration from central Asia.. (there was once but hundreds of years ago and we do not know who those people were..They were from Caucasus but not a source saying that they were from central Asia) But, with all being close community etc, somehow, the numbers dont add up, I am afraid (simple number of people came from central Asia is not big enough- half million to 5-to 15 million) .. But as you also mentioned, since being Turkish is nothing to do with ethnicity, it should not bother us being more Armenian and Greek genetically than central Asian.

Bu salak fikirlerinle boy gostermeden once, kendine bir Turkmen bulup kendisini hangi etnik kokden gordugunu sorsana...

Belki de Ingilizim der....