Tartaria tablets

Atentie!                                                                                                                                                                  Aceasta postare nu este o o descifrare sau citire a unui presupus continut scris real. Avand in vedere ca semnele nu apartin unui unic sistem de scris ci mai multora, pagina are un caracter pur didactic. Are rolul de a incerca si testa diferite scrieri in idea ca pe tablite s-ar fi folosit unul din ele. Semnele de pe tablite apartin mai multor sisteme de scrisi dintr-larg interval de timp si care au folosite in diferite arii geografice. In niciuna din incercari semnele nu s-au incadrat intr-un singur tip de scriere, totdeauna au ramas semne care au provenit din alte scrieri (sau din necunoscut). Cele mai multe semne provin din cele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.Apoi privind asemanarea, in ordine descrescatoare este aceea cu semnele Linear A/B si cele Anatoliene. Semnele din jumatatea superioara a tablitei rotunde par a proveni din scrierea arhaica greceasca.Cel mai degraba aceasta “adunatura” de semne pare a fi rodul imaginatiei bogate a cuiva.Dupa cum au constatat A.Falkenstein si A.A.Vaiman, (aceasta fiind si parerea mea ferma) autorul nu a fost un scrib, avea doar vagi notiuni privind scrisul in general si nu se stie ce a urmarit. Exista multe elemente de neconcordanta precum si altele care scot tablitele din tiparele si normele uzuale ale  logicii, scrisului si intentiilor oneste. 

======                                                                                                                                                            月氏 Yuèzhī, literal “Clanul Lunii”/ joi 20 iunie 2019, 4.45 a.m. https://wordpress.com/post/tartariatablets.com/2161

**************   ATENTIE !   ****************                                                                                  UN CITITOR NEINITIAT IN PRIVINTA EVOLUTIEI SCRISULUI IN LUME AR PUTEA AVEA DIFICULTATI IN PRIVINTA BAGAJULUI FOARTE BOGAT SI DIVERSIFICAT DE SEMNE. CU RESPECT, SUGEREZ O TRECERE INITIALA IN REVISTA A LOR PE OMNIGLOT.COM                  *********************************************                                                                     PREZENTUL ARTICOL ESTE O IPOTEZA DE LUCRU, SI ARE LA BAZA O SUMA DE ELEMENTE FAPTICE DAR SI OBSERVATII SI ” STRANII? COINCIDENTE”, intamplatoare sau nu, urmeaza sa vedem.

• Tablitele prezinta un grup aparent eterogen de semne folosite pe o lunga perioada de timp si pe largi arii culturale, din Orientul Apropiat pana in Europa.Cea mai buna caracterizare pe care o pot da este accea de COLECTIE DE SEMNE. Spre exemplu unele semne par a apartine perioadei arhaice grecesti.                                              
• Inscriptia gasita la Sannicolau-Mare are litere grecesti, desi este facuta de o populatie asiatica de factura turcica=altaica. Se presupune ca ultimul val al unei asemenea populatii au fost avarii. Daca tablitele de la  Tartaria au fost inscriptionate de aceeasi populatie ca cea de la Sannicolaul-Mare, autoare a “BUYLA INSCRIPTION” !?
• Sumerienii, dupa o ipoteza au origine asiatica, altaica:
                                                                                                                                                           Din pdfs.semanticscholar.org › …                                                                                                  Yet Another Suggestion about the Origins of the Sumerian …
  by I Kenanidis –

  << the Sumerian is not a language isolate, as it is regarded so far, but that it may be classified as an r–Altaic language of the Bolgar branch.>>                                                          

• Legatura geto-dacilor cu scitii, saka si KUSAN (Da yuezhi).                                                                                                                                                                                             Din https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/getaewhatsinaname.htm            <<  It is, therefore, not rare to read in Indian scriptures about the Sakas, Kushans (Da Yuezhi), and even the Hunas (White Huns or Ephthalites) being considered as Mlecchas (foreigners, outcastes), Asuras (demons), etc. (Dhillon 1994, 15). Similar perspectives are alluded to in Persian or Chinese texts.                                                       …..  Da (Greater) Yuezhi or in the earlier pronunciation d’ad-ngiwat-tieg, has been seen to equate with the Massagetae who occupied the oases and steppelands of West Central Asia in the time of Herodotus; here Massa renders an Iranian word for “Great,” hence “Great Getae.” … Others have seen in this word an attempt to capture in Chinese the name of a tribe that is rendered in Greek as the Iatioi who are recorded in Ptolemy’s geography. The original pronunciation has been reconstructed as gwat-ti or got-ti or gut-si, which opens up distant lexical similarities with the Goths (the German tribes of northern and eastern Europe), the Getae (the Dacian, i.e., Balkan, tribes northwest of the Black Sea), the Guti (a people on the borderlands of Mesopotamia), the Kusha (our Kushans), the Gushi (a people mentioned in Han texts and regarded as brigands along with the peoples of Kroran), or a combination of some but not all of the above (Mallory and Mair 2000, 98-99).
  
  This comparison of like-sounding tribal names, although merely a paragraph in length, could potentially generate volumes of discussion and can help us understand more definitively the nature of the barbarian invasions in ancient Rome, the powerful Kushan Empire in India, the possible origins of the Guti people, the Guti kings of Mesopotamia, and the similarity between the Goths, Getae, and the Yuezhi. Moreover, this opens up the possibility that at least some of the people termed “Scythians” were a single tribe — the Getae. So could there have been a nation of nomads who knew themselves as Gets, Gats, Guts, or Yuts?                                 ==============================                                                                                         Dupa mine tablitele nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi pe cat s-a apreciat, in special in urma cu ani de zile.Situl de la Tartaria-Lunca se prezinta ca sediul mai multor culturi succesive.Una din cele mai recente este o fortificatie dupa cat se pare a tatarilor. 
•   Din TĂRTĂRIA-GURA LUNCII. FORTIFICAȚIA MEDIEVALĂ TIMPURIE CARE TAIE TELLUL PREISTORIC Zeno-Karl Pinter
•                                                                                                                                                             << În momentul de faţă, raportat la actualul stadiu al cercetării, suntem nevoiţi să avem în vedere două ipoteze de lucru privitoare la originea şi funcţionalitatea puternicei fortificaţii (Fig. 15 –conturarea tellului și fortificației) de la Tărtăria-Gura Luncii:
  • 1. O fortificaţie a tătarilor, un loc de adunare a cetelor tătărăşti înainte de atacul asupra centrului de

    putere de la Alba-Iulia.

  2. O fortificaţie a populaţiei din zonă, un punct de apărare şi în acelaşi timp de control al Văii

  Mureşului, în punctul cel mai bine plasat strategic, punct de control folosit încă în perioada hallstatiană şi apoi în secolele VIII-IX, aşa cum demonstrează descoperirile mai vechi, dar extrem de relevante, de la Blandiana şi Tărtăria.Pentru această ipoteză avem şi susţinerea singurului izvor scris: Carmen Miserabile în care clericul Roger (Rogerius) relatează în capitolul XL (40) despre existenţa unei populaţii numeroase în Transilvania, populaţie ce a ridicat numeroase fortificaţii după prima trecere a tătarilor spre vest, fortificaţii distruse însă, în cea mai mare parte de tătari, la întoarcerea lor spre Asia „…                                                                       ….. Dacă fortificaţia de la Tărtăria face parte dintre cele multe ridicate: „castra plurima preparata”, atunci este foarte probabil că este şi dintre puţinele nepustiite: „exceptis castris quibustam”, deoarece urme ale unei incendieri sau ale unui conflict armat nu au fost surprinse arheologic. Aceasta ar fi putut, de asemenea, să fie rezultatul „cruţării” fortificaţiei de la Tărtăria, în scopul folosirii ei drept loc de reşedinţă, drept centru de putere al noii forţe militare ce se impune, pentru foarte scurt timp în Transilvania, într-un loc apropiat de centrul ecleziastic şi politic de la Alba Iulia, un loc dominant şi un excelent punct de observaţie şi control.>>

• ===============================================
• Foarte multi cercetatori nu au stiut ce interpretare sa dea semnului/semnelor “D” din tablita rotunda de la Tartaria.                                                                            Imaginea, http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html
• 
• Unii au afirmat ca reprezinta Luna. Dar langa el, in tablita rotunda sfertul stg-sus avem acel semn care culmea, in scrierea veche chineza reprezenta in diferite perioade soarele sau luna.                                                                                                                     Din http://www.sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/Rabbit.html
• 
• M-am gandit ca poate avem Soarele si Luna !? Nota. Culmea este ca acest semn “H” in greaca este Heta/Eta si ma asteptam sa fie monograma lui Helios/ Elios, dar nu am gasit deloc asa ceva !

…..daca articolul postat in urma cu numai 2 zile l-am intitulat “Divertisment curios-dubios” acum zau ca nu mai stiu ce titlu sa dau articolului.                                            Acolo faceam referire la o inscriptie gasita in Romania la Sannicolau-Mare, care are semne asemanatoare celor de pe tablitelor de la Tartaria (cel putin in ceea ce o priveste pe cea rotunda).Articolul acesta se refera tot la o inscriptie gasita la Sannicolau-Mare. Harta, http://www.maplandia.com/romania/timis/timisoara/accommodation/sannicolau-mare/                                                                                                                                                       De fapt la Sannicolau-Mare sau descoperit mai multe inscriptii aflate pe mai multe artefacte.Pentru acestea exista lucrarile unui grup de cercetatori, ca de exemplu: VEKONY, András; Róna-Tas /Ungaria,                                                                                          Eugene HELIMSKY/ Hamburg si                                                                                                    José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)                                                             

ACUM ESTE VORBA DE INSCRIPTIA BUYLA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós (preliminary communication) Eugene Helimski (Hamburg) Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5 (2000) Kraków 2000 http://www.kroraina.com/hungar/helimski.htm

“1.1. The famous treasure of Nagy-Szentmiklós was found exactly two hundred years ago, in 1799. It consists of 23 gold bowls, dishes, jars, and cups, and belongs now to the exposition of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was found in Banat, near the village of Nagy-Szentmiklós (today Sînnicolau Mare, to the north-west of Temesvár-Timişoara). The detailed description of the treasure and the history of studies is given in László, Rácz 1983; see also an ample bibliography compiled by Mária Ivanics (in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995: 59-77).

There are no direct indications for dating and attribution of the objects. Most estimates place them in the period between the 5^th and the 10^th centuries, the first half of the 9^thcentury being the most wide-spread (and still, rather likely then proven) dating, see Róna-Tas 1990: 9; in his more recent publication András Róna-Tas (1997: 110) gives however preference to the second half of the 8^th century . Therefore the treasure is usually referred to as “Avar” or “Late Avar”, sometimes also as “Protobulgarian” (e.g. Mavrodinov 1943 as well as later literature from Bulgaria). This, however, does not necessarily characterise its provenance: as far as analogues to goldsmiths’ work, vessel forms, pictorial representations, and ornamental motives are concerned, references has been made to the Carpathian basin and to the entire Eurasian steppe zone, to Byzantium and to Southern Europe, to the Caucasus and to Iran.

1.2. The objects belonging to this treasure have inscriptions of three kinds which received recently a detailed palaeographic analysis in Göbl, Róna-Tas 1995. An inscription in Greek (the reading of which remains non-unproblematic, see Vékony 1973) is repeated twice on two paired bowls. The famous “Buyla inscription” (Inscr. 17 on buckled bowl [Schnallenschale] XXI) is written also with Greek letters, but in a non-Greek language.13 objects have short inscriptions written with an unknown script of the “runiform” type.

It has been confirmed many times and by various study methods that the Nagy-Szentmiklós inscriptions differ not only in language and script, but also were not made by the same hand and therefore may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops – as well as the gold objects themselves. “ ……………………………………………………………………….

However, this circumstance could not be taken into consideration in the numerous attempts to decipher the text: the Turkic languages do not know an ending like –Vgi in systematic grammatical use.

It is Tungus-Manchurian that fits this demand: here one of the most frequent, wide-spread and archaic verbal forms of 3Sg. is reconstructed as *-ra-gī (with harmonic variants like *-re-gī and with variants determined partly by the assimilation of the initial consonants and partly by the conjugation class like *–da-gī,                               …………………………………

3. It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work. The entire philological experience proves, however, that assumptions of that kind (and they occur, regretfully, too frequently) signalise only the inadequacy of interpretations – not of the texts in question. ============================                                                                                                  Desi am citit cel putin unul din studiile care se refera la aceasta inscriptie, acum cativa ani, doar ieri “mi-a picat fisa”, respectiv mi-au atras atentia cateva lucruri, ca de exemplu acestea doua:                                                                                                                                        Primul :     avem in inscriptia de la Sannicolau-Mare cuvantul:                                                 “4.3.3. ΗΤΖΙΓΗ.

The participial aorist of TM *iče– ‘to see, to observe’ should be probably reconstructed as *ičeregī or (if the stem belonged to the conjugation classes II or III, see Benzing 1955: 123-128) resp. *ičesegī or *ičedegī. However, the consonantal stem in Even ič– and Orok it-, as well as the variation of vowels in the second syllable in the derivatives of other TM languages (cf. Evenki ičulī– ‘to check, to investigate’, Nanai ičuči– ‘to show’, Solon isȫ– ‘to appear’, see TMS 2: 334-335)/”

Acest ΗΤΖΙΓΗ mi-a sunat al dracului de asemanator cu IZIGI, ICIGI, YAZIGI !                                  Al 2-lea:

Am gasit in alta lucrare referitoare la aceasta inscriptie, ca in familia limbilor altaice, mai precis in subfamilia limbilor tungusice, in limba OROK, exista o structura gramaticala (sufix) -DDoo. Adica exact cum avem pe tablita rotunda de la Tartaria !          De data asta avem DDoo numai daca folosim literele grecesti

Din  https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/gengo1939/1956/30/1956_30_77/_pdf                            by J IKEGAMI

INFLECTION OF OROK.   The substantive endings are as follows.
-ba•san object which is subjected to motion .•t
-la•sa place, with some extension in space or time, where motion
occurs or a state exists.•t
-ndoo•sa co-agent.•t
-ddoo•s’as (something) designated for someone.’•t                                                                    …the simple designative case-ending -ddoo can appear as a word. 

Din https://www.academia.edu/16685926/Manchu_Etymological_Dictionary_-_HANDOUT    urchen †dedu-           to sleep

Daca folosim alfabetul khazar, avem DDoo=”jjmb”? “jjmm=iimm“?

Din khazarian culture and its inheritors – Jstor   https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23682777  by A ZAJĄCZKOWSKI –

ATENTIE,                                                                                                                                     TEORETIC SI PRACTIC, TABLITA SE POATE CITI FOLOSIND ALFABETUL KHAZAR SAU ALFABETUL GREC, ORI ARHAIC GREC, ASA CUM ACESTA DIN URMA S-A FOLOSIT CU PRECADERE PE INSCRIPTIILE DE LA SANNICOLAU-MARE.     

Din https://www.omniglot.com/writing/khazarianrovas.htm

INSA CRED CA ORICINE REALIZEAZA SI ESTE O CHESTIUNE DE LOGICA SI BUN-SIMT CA NU SE POT FOLOSI AMBELE SIMULTAN !                                                                                                     ======================

In postarea trecuta, am identificat in semnele  folosind alfabetul runic khazar, literele CS(Ci) respectiv J(i).In acest caz am putea avea,citind de la dreapta la stanga ICsI (ICI) si de la stg. la dreapta “CsI ” .(Vezi mai sus in Even, ič  , iar in TM(tarim-manciurian?) *iče :”a vedea, observa“)                                                                                       Nota.                                                                                                                                                        Nu este momentul sa ma grabesc afirmand cu certitudine ca aceasta portiune are scrisul de la dreapta la stanga, ori invers, atata timp cat rezultatul este asemanator (ICI visa Ci), nici in privinta citirii ; In fond nu ma fugareste nimeni!

chiar componenta denominarii triburilor  ičigi=  ICIGI, IZIGI, YAZIGI.

Din https://dictionary.hantrainerpro.com/chinese-english/translation-zhi_classifier.htm      English translations : classifier, single, alone, odd number

之 (of) , 支 (to support) , 枝 (branch) , 汁 (juice) , 知 (to know) , 织 (to weave)

Din (PDF) Origin of Yuezhi Tribe | Adesh Gurjar – Academia.edu   https://www.academia.edu/31033336/Origin_of_Yuezhi_Tribe                                               ” In Chinese , Tocharians were mentioned are Yue–chi, which means Moon –Tribe“

Din https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yuezhi                                                                 ” Etymology From Mandarin 月氏 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Clan”) or 月支 (Yuèzhī, literally “Moon Branch”).                                                                                                         Yuezhi pl (plural only)                                                                                                                        1.An ancient Indo-European people who originally settled in the arid grasslands of the eastern Tarim Basin area, in what is today Xinjiang and western Gansu, in China, before migrating to Transoxiana, Bactria and then northern South Asia, where one branch of the Yuezhi founded the Kushan Empire.                                                            Synonyms Rouzhi ”

Din https://alchetron.com/Yuezhi

————————————————————

Apoi mai ramane de vazut ce rol are, cum se interpreteaza acea structura -DDoo.           

Din http://aplaceofbrightness.blogspot.com/2008/11/moonlight-in-romania-tartaria-tablets_21.html

                                                                                                                             Din lucrarea de mai jos,                                                                                                                   <<Language   Ending      Description                    Reference                                                                      Orok     –ddoo–    + POSS.REF.Partitive    Petrova (1967: 51–52) >>

 José Andrés ALONSO DE LA FUENTE (Vitoria/Barcelona)

TUNGUSIC HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS ANDTHE BUYLA (A.K.A. NAGYSZENTMIKLÓS) INSCRIPTION* https://www.academia.edu/14286788/Tungusic_Historical_Linguistics_and_the_Buyla_a.k.a._Nagyszentmikl%C3%B3s_Inscription

                                                                                                                                                                  “1. Introductory remarks

In a series of articles, the late Eugene Helimski (2000a, 2000b, 2003, 2004)argued that an aberrant form of Tungusic could have entered the Carpathian basin during the Avar period,the only evidence of which is preserved in the Buyla(or Boyla/Boila) inscription and a handful of words found in the classical sources on the Avars. Moreover, it is possible to infer from the wording of the author that the Avar confederation could have been constituted, among many other un-known nations, by a small contingent of Tungusic individuals (Helimski 2000b:

53 fn. 12). It was the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription that led him to

this conclusion.Tungusic is one of the many indigenous ethnolinguistic groups of the Asian continent, its current habitat covering most of Eastern Siberia and Manchuria.Speakers of the Northern Tungusic languages can be found in Central and Northeastern China, whereas the bulk of the Southern Tungusic speakers concentrates in the Amurian region and the Northernmost part of the Sakhalin Island.

Manchuric speakers aside, about which we know a great deal thanks to Chinese

sources, the Siberian Tungusic were first reported at the very beginning of the17

th century. The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)

The Avar-Tungusic theory is indeed a bold proposal. If it turns out that

Helimski is right, then the Buyla inscription would instantly become the oldest linguistic monument in any Tungusic language, washing away even the earliest Jurchen records. In spite of the apparent relevance of such a statement, Helimski’s proposal was passed over in silence in the Tungusic specialist literature. No less surprising is to nd out that critics from other areas disregard the Tungusic na-ture of the Buyla inscription without discussing its substance. They are usually

Turcologists believing that the only possible reading of the inscription has to be

Turkic. The most explicit statement was made by Erdal: “[…] the hypothesis is,

however, arrived at by some arbitrary stretching of Tungus data, [it] is far-fetched

 by itself and is therefore rather unlikely” (2007: 79).Erdal did not go into great

detail in order to explain the reader what the “stretch of the Tungus data” involved.Therefore, the general opinion is that the Tungusic reading of the Buyla inscription is wrong,but no one can explain why that is so.

The main goal of this paper is to provide the reader with an evaluation of

Helimski’s hypothesis based on the Tungusic data. Neither the geopolitical scenario

set up by Helimski (or by any other author for that mater) nor the paleographicalanalysis of the inscription shall be discussed at large in the present contribution.The former issue seemingly depends in its entirety on the linguistic hypothesis thateach of the author endorses.As for the latter, the topic has been approached by specialists much more qualied than the present author (see

i.a. Róna-Tas 2001)

                                                                1.

From the viewpoint of European history, the so-called Asian Avars are traditionally identified as the Ruanruan (402–555). The term Avars refers to the European Avars (567–822), i.e. the Asian Avars that entered Europe in 555 AD (see i.a. Pohl 2002).

The Nagyszentmiklós treasure to which the Buyla inscription belongs (see §2 below)

is associated with the last remnants of the European Avar culture, i.e. the one whichspread over the Carpathian basin during the 8th –9th centuries.                    Good summaries withadditional literature of the two major competing interpretations regarding the ethno-linguistic afinities of the Ruanruan can be found in Golden (1992: 76–79), who presents the traditional position that the Ruanruan were actually a Mongolic language population, and Janhunen (1996: 190), who believes that the linguistic core of the Ruanruan was Turkic. Beckwith (2009: 390–391) points out that “[c]areful study of

the Jou-jan [= Ruanruan] names in the Chinese sources could shed light on the eth-nolinguistic afinities of the Jou-jan; until that is done, speculation on the subject is

 premature.” In the same vein, see Vovin’s remarks (2007: 180, 184–185). Incidentally,

the hypothetical connection between the ethnonyms ruanruan and ju(r )cen ‘Jurchen’

echoed by Helimski (2000b: 137) is most likely false and should be abandoned (for the

etymological intricacies of the term ju(r )cen, see Janhunen 2004).

 As is custom in recent specialist literature on Tungusic linguistics and in agree-

ment with some of the ideas by Janhunen on phonological transcription (1987, 1996:

xiii–xiv), Helimski’s ‹e› has been replaced with ‹ä›, ‹j› with ‹y›, ‹ʒ & ǯ› and ‹c & č›

merged in ‹j› and ‹c›, respectively, vowel length is written with double-vowels. Other

conventions: Northern Tungusic (= Northwestern: Ewenki, Ewen, Solon, Negidal,

Arman, Udihe), Southern Tungusic (= Amurian Tungusic: Oroch, Nanay, Kilen, Kili,

Ulcha, Orok), with Udihe and Oroch serving as a bridge between one branch and the

other, Manchuric (Early and Late Jurchen, Written Manchu [= WM], Spoken Manchu

and Sibe), Common Tungusic [= CT] (all languages but Manchuric, i.e. NorthernTungusic + Southern Tungusic), and Proto-Tungusic (= Pan-Tungusic = CommonTungusic + Manchuric). “Lit.” stands for “Literary”, and ‹-n› for (lightly) nasalized

nal vowel. The difference between Proto-Tungusic and Pan-Tungusic is that the latter

does not make any claims regarding the (genealogical) inheritance of a given word,

i.e. it may refer to both inherited and borrowed terms (see for instance the presence of

English loanwords across entire linguistic families: they are common, pan-elements, but not proto-elements; the former emphasizes the synchronic distribution, the latter its diachronic depth).It may be worth noting that the Middle Amur region is commonly identified as the most likely Urheimat for the parental language from which all the Tungusic languages descend (see general discussion in Janhunen 1996: 167–172, and also Janhunen 1985, 2012,2013: 27–28; for further details on the Northern Tungusic expansion, see Atknine 1997and, for the larger Altaistic perspective, see Miller 1994).       4 Berta/Róna-Tas (2011: 1163) claim that both Helimski’s hypothesis and Futaky’s Hungaro-Tungusica (see Excursus below) have been refuted somewhere else (Kara 2002 and Róna-Tas 2003). Unfortunately, the references provided by the authors concerns only Futaky’s work, with no mention whatsoever to the work of Helimski on the Buyla inscription. As shall be shown, Helimski’s and Futaky’s works require the adoption of different approaches, put another way, the conclusions of criticizing one, while having an impact to certain degree, cannot be uncritically applied to the other. This opinion is echoed in one of the obituaries about Helimski (Janhunen 2009:368–369, see also Janhunen 2013: 55 and Szalontai/Károly 2013: 367). Stachowski (2004) has spoken in support of Helimski’s hypothesis, at least as far as the possibility of identifying a Tungusic substratum in Europe is concerned, and made what seems best use of it by proposing a new etymology of English sabre (← French ←German ← Hungarian ← Avar? ← Manchu seleme ‘a dagger carried at the belt’ and other Tungusic related terms). However, there is no harm whatsoever in removing the Tungusic substratum element of the equation. This etymology can be judged in its own merits assuming, for instance, that sabre is a Kulturwort/Wanderwort. There is a causal relationship between linguistics and geopolitics. This fact apparently renders them incompatible with each other: if one claims that the Buyla inscription reflects a Turkic language, then it cannot be argued that the Tungusic were to be counted among the (Asian) Avars, and vice versa. But since the Avars were a multiethnic state, the idea that both Turkic and Tungusic populations may have been a part of it cannot be rejected out of hand. Be that as it may, it is necessary to highlight that Helimski’s hypothesis is coherent from the geopolitical, historical and linguistic viewpoints: it is theoretically plausible that (1) a fraction of the original Ruanruan population was Tungusic, (2) that fraction might have fled westwards to Europe after the attack of the Turkic-Chinese alliance in 552, (3) a linguistic substratum may have survived in the languages of the Carpathian basin region. The plausibility of this scenario set up by Helimski is what makes it unique: although everything sounds perfectly logical, it is totally indemonstrable unless very convincing linguistic evidence is presented. In the discussion below, it will be shown that the linguistic evidence actually does not stand up to serious scrutiny.                                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACUMA SE PARE CA CEATA GROASA CARE INVALUIA TABLITELE DE LA TARTARIA INCEPE SA SE RISIPEASCA                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     O SERIE DE ASPECTE NEELUCIDATE SI PARTICULARITATI ALE SCRISULUI SE LAMURESC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ASUPRA PROBITATII DESCOPERITORULUI N.VLASSA NU A FOST NICI-O INDOIALA, TOTUSI TABLITELE AU PARUT A PROVENI DIN NEANT.

ORIGINEA SI PROVENIENTA LOR NU A PUTUT FI NICI PE DEPARTE LAMURITA                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1, Tablitele sant autentice si gasite de Vlassa cu echipa.                                                                 Este firesc sa fi fost derutat in privinta scrisului, nefiind specialist in epigrafie.                       Ce sa mai zic de altii; puteti constata cum specialisti de varf (asirologi si specialisti in proto-scriere s-au incurcat in hatisurile propriei lor specialitati)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     2. Nu sant nici pe departe atat de vechi.  Sant departe de orice estimare de vechime.          Par a fi opera unui membru al valurilor de popoare migratoare de factura altaic-mongolica.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3.Scriitorul nu stapanea prea bine scrisul.                                                                                           ” It is almost universally assumed that the engraver – poor devil! – knew neither the Turkic language nor the Greek script, and that nobody possessing this knowledge cared to control his work.”                                                                                                                           In acest moment inca nu pot afirma daca este vorba de litere provenind din alfabetul arhaic grecesc ori din alfabetul khazar.                                                                                          “may originate from different (geographically as well as chronologically) artisan shops -”   Oricum nu facea parte din popoarele cu mare si indelungata traditie de scris, altfel traditia culturala este o cu totul alta chestiune.

4. Fiind relativ noi si provenind de la populatii care au “maturat” o arie extrem de larga, se explica “achizitia” atator semne provenind din diferite locuri si timpuri.                     Cercetatori de marca (A.Falkenstein, Aisic Abramovici, Rumen Kolev si altii) s-au incurcat si pacalit incercand sa faca citiri folosind semnele sumeriene proto-cuneiforme.

5.Intamplarea face ca este vorba chiar de populatiile unde s-a inventat samanismul

6. Cred ca realizati ca exista o legatura (asa cum de zeci de ani au supozitionat cercetatorii) intre populatiile Kushan/ Samara/SAKA/ YUE-ZI (citeste yue-tchi=yue-ci), YAZIGI si DACI !                                                                                                                                Ca sa nu mai spunem ca pecenegii,bulgarii,cumanii, avarii erau diferite ramuri si populatii care secole la rand au venit din Asia in Europa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YuezhiThe Yuezhi (Chinese: 月氏; pinyin: Yuèzhī; Wade–Giles: Yüeh⁴-chih¹, [ɥê ʈʂɻ̩́]) were an ancient Indo-European^[5][6][7][8] people first described in Chinese histories as nomadic pastoralists living in an arid grassland area in the western part of the modern Chinese province of Gansu, during the 1st millennium BC. After a major defeat by the Xiongnu in 176 BC, the Yuezhi split into two groups migrating in different directions: the Greater Yuezhi (Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏) and Lesser Yuezhi (Xiǎo Yuèzhī 小月氏).

The Greater Yuezhi initially migrated northwest into the Ili Valley (on the modern borders of China and Kazakhstan), where they reportedly displaced elements of the Sakas. They were driven from the Ili Valley by the Wusun and migrated southward to Sogdiaand later settled in Bactria, where they then defeated the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. The Greater Yuezhi have consequently often been identified with Bactrian peoples mentioned in classical European sources, like the Tókharioi (Greek Τοχάριοι; Sanskrit Tukhāra) and Asii (or Asioi). During the 1st century BC, one of the five major Greater Yuezhi tribes in Bactria, the Kushanas(Chinese: 貴霜; pinyin: Guìshuāng), began to subsume the other tribes and neighbouring peoples.

7. Altfel daca este vorba de influenta Mongola si chineza:”

“The time depth of the Tungusic language family is very shallow,

with Manchuric being the most aberrant group (specialists consider this condition

to be the result of Mongolic and Chinese influence)”,                                                               am putea lua in considerare si ipoteza ca semnele

 au reprezentat la Chinezi stralucire/ soarele (Ri) si Luna (Yue)

https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml https://news.softpedia.com/news/Chinese-Writing-is-8-000-Years-Old-55180.shtml#sgal_0

Din http://emeld.org/school/case/tofa/tree.html

See an interactive family tree on Linguist List.

Din https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic

Proto-Altaic: *ĕ̀r a
Nostratic: Nostratic
Meaning: to be
Russian meaning: быть
Turkic: *er-

Mongolian: *ere-

Tungus-Manchu: *eri-

Din http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp › article › gengo1939 › _pdf                                                                      1. In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives are …

by J IKEGAMI – ‎1956 

                                                                                                                                                                   [ In Orok (Orokko), a dialect of Tungus,(1) substantives endings:                                                                       –ddoo    <”as. (something) designated for someone’> ]

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *irg[ü]

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning: 1 brain 2 head

Russian meaning: 1 мозг 2 голова

Evenki: irge 1

Even: irgъ 1

Negidal: igge / ijge 1

Spoken Manchu: uǯu 2 (1)

Literary Manchu: uǯu 2

Jurchen: (h)u(i)ǯew (492) 2

Ulcha: iǯe 1

Orok:īde1

Nanai: īge 1

Oroch: igge 1

Udighe: igi 1

Solon: igge, irge 

Proto-Tungus-Manchu: *sē

Altaic etymology: Altaic etymology

Meaning:year, age

Russian meaning: год, возраст

Spoken Manchu: sē (2725)

Literary Manchu: se

Jurchen: sejŋ-ŋer (82)

Ulcha: sē

Nanai: sē

Oroch: sē

Udighe: se

This entry was posted on June 20, 2019 at 2:24 am and is filed under Tartaria tablets. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.