| Revision as of 11:13, 17 November 2006 editE104421 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,783 edits Turkic refers to language group!← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:32, 17 November 2006 edit undoSikandarji (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,758 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. ] 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. ] 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::How can a dynasty belong to a linguistic family? In any case by the time of Akbar the Timurids only spoke and wrote in Persian (Akbar had to have Babur's memoirs translated from the Chaghatai because he couldn't read them). If you must give them an ethnic label (and I think that's a bad idea) then call them Turco-Mongols, but they represent such a mixture of ethnicities and languages that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's an elite identity, not a national or ethnic one. That's the point. I suggest you read Beatrice Forbes Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) ''Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change'' (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, plus the relevant articles in the ''Encyclopaedia of Islam''. ] 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:32, 17 November 2006
confusion
Turkic refers to a language group; Turkish refers to an ethnic group. the Timurid dynasty was formed by Mongols from central asia but over time they began to speak the Turkic language, hence the Turkic designation. They shouldn't be confused with Turkish (people in turkey) Steelhead 03:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the Timurids were not "Turkish".--Zereshk 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oh Christ, not here as well. See the dispute on the Talk:Babur page - you can't describe the Timurids as "Turkish", that's simply idiotic. There seems to be no limit to the number of nationalist morons out there who feel it incumbent upon themselves to "claim" important historical figures for one nationality or another in an entirely anachronistic way. Stop it! Sikandarji 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- As far as i understood from the protected version, it does not describe as Turkish but Turkic. I checked the source, now directly copying the paragraph from Britannica here:
- Oh Christ, not here as well. See the dispute on the Talk:Babur page - you can't describe the Timurids as "Turkish", that's simply idiotic. There seems to be no limit to the number of nationalist morons out there who feel it incumbent upon themselves to "claim" important historical figures for one nationality or another in an entirely anachronistic way. Stop it! Sikandarji 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Timurid Dynasty: (fl. 15th–16th century AD), Turkic dynasty descended from the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane), renowned for its brilliant revival of artistic and intellectual life in Iran and Central Asia. After Timur's death (1405), his conquests were divided between two of his sons: Miranshah (d. 1407) received Iraq, Azerbaijan, Moghan, Shirvan, and Georgia, while Shah Rokh was left with Khorasan. ...
You see, if this is wrong you should correct and provide sources rather than accusing. This is not a mental problem of anyone. Furthermore, in my opinion, Turkic refers to the language family not the nationality. Regards. E104421 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- How can a dynasty belong to a linguistic family? In any case by the time of Akbar the Timurids only spoke and wrote in Persian (Akbar had to have Babur's memoirs translated from the Chaghatai because he couldn't read them). If you must give them an ethnic label (and I think that's a bad idea) then call them Turco-Mongols, but they represent such a mixture of ethnicities and languages that it doesn't make a great deal of sense. It's an elite identity, not a national or ethnic one. That's the point. I suggest you read Beatrice Forbes Manz "The Development and Meaning of Chaghatay Identity" in Jo-Ann Gross (Ed.) Muslims in Central Asia. Expressions of Identity and Change (Duke University press) 1992 pp27-45, plus the relevant articles in the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Sikandarji 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)