“Analogy Alghtyn” No misfortune knowledge base

“Analogy Alghtyn” No misfortune knowledge base.

Wanted to book a pan Trkystha “Analogy Alghtyn” Bring misfortune and that claims to the top of the Persian language is Turkish.! We looked at the translation of the book into English (Because Jghtayy a dead language is Turkish and Turkish languages (And not accents) Istanbul Turkish and Azerbaijani Turkish are very different).

In this regard, we read Shahrbraz's blog:

nearly 510 years ago (878 AH/1499 AD / 905 A.H) Amir Nezameddin Alisher conformance heravi (which was called "Fani" in Persian and "Nawai" in Turkish), a famous poet, orator and minister of Turkish descent from Herat (Died in 907 AH/879 / 1501 AD)In the last years of his life, he wrote a book in Chaghatai Turkish called "Mahakamah al-Lughtain" which means "arbitration between two languages" in which he tried to prove that the Turkish language is superior to the Persian language.. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of Turkish thinkers and all Turkish thinkers (pan-Turkist) They haven't made any progress in these 500 years and they still repeat the same arguments for Turkish superiority over Persian..

I got an English version of this book thanks to the effort of "Robert Devereaux". (Robert Devereux) Leiden print (Lead) In the Netherlands in 1966 AD/1345 AH. Doro's introduction has interesting points, some of which I will return to Persian:

Any modern linguist who reads Navai's article will conclude that Navai has presented a weak argument because his main argument is that there are words in the Turkish language that do not have exact Persian equivalents and therefore Persian speakers should use the same Turkish words.. This is a weak crutch to lean on because it's really only rare languages ​​that don't have loanwords.. Anyway, the beauty of the language and its superiority as a literary medium depends less on the size of the vocabulary and the purity of the words and their etymology.. But more to good manners, the ability to express and hammer [= flexibility] It is words. [Emphasis from Shahrbraz] In addition, even if we want to accept Navai's opinion as a valid opinion, by using, undoubtedly unknowingly, many non-Turkish words to ridicule the Persian language and the need of Persian speakers to borrow Turkish words, he questions and destroys his argument and claim. he does. The author did not count the words used in the Nawai text, but his conservative estimate is that at least half (۵۰٪) Of the words you say [To write his book] Used in the original are either Arabic or Persian.

Another interesting argument that Navai makes for the superiority of Turkish is that most Turks also speak Persian, but there are few Persian speakers who know Turkish.. It is hard to understand why this matter affected him because one obvious reason is that it was necessary for the Turks to learn Persian. – Apart from these, Persian was the official language of the government – But Persian speakers saw no reason to bother and learn Turkish. The language that they thought was the uncivilized language of the nomadic and uncivilized tribal people.

Thus, it cannot be said that this article is a scholarly and linguistic work as Navai intended. But studying it is not without grace and tension. Its importance for us is mostly due to the fact that this book is a legacy of the early literature of the Chagatai Turkish language. And also an example of extreme praise – And sometimes even nasty – It is natural that Muslim writers were used to it for centuries. For linguists and lexicographers, this book is a valuable source in the field of syntax, vocabulary and semantics of the Chaghatai Turkish language.. For this reason, if for no other reason, every Turkologist and perhaps every Orientalist should get acquainted with this book.

It is also good to bring the English speech of Robert Devereaux to the original language so that there is no excuse:

Any linguist of today who reads the essay will inevitably conclude that Nawai argued his case poorly, for his principal argument is that Turkish lexicon contains many words for which the Persians had no exact equivalents and that Persian-speakers had therefore to use Turkish words. This is a weak reed on which to lean, for it is rare language indeed that contains no loan words. In any case, the beauty of a language and its merits as a literary medium depend less on size of vocabulary and purity of etymology than on the euphony, expressiveness and malleability of those words that its lexicon do include. Moreover, even if Nawai’s thesis were to be accepted as valid, he destroyed his own case by the lavish use, no doubt unknowingly, of non-Turkish words even while ridiculing the Persians for their need to borrow Turkish words. The present writer has not made a word count of Nawai’s text, but he would estimate conservatively that at least one half of the words used by Nawa’i in the essay are Arabic or Persian in origin.

To support his claim of superiority of the Turkish language, Nawa’i also employs the curious argument that most Turks also spoke Persian but only few Persians ever achieved fluency in Turkish. It is difficult to understand why he was impressed by this phenomenon, since the most obvious explanation is that Turks found it necessary, or at least advisable, to learn Persian – it was after all, the official state language –, while Persians saw no reason to bother learning Turkish, which was, in their eyes, merely the uncivilized tongue of uncivilized nomadic tribesmen.

Thus, the essay cannot be said to be the scholarly linguistic dissertation that Nawa’i intended it to be. Yet, it is not without merit and interest. It is, perhaps most interesting as a heritage of early Chagatai literature, as well as an amusing example of the extravagant, even fulsome, praise which Muslim writers for many centuries were in the custom of bestowing upon themselves. To philologists and linguists, it commends itself as a valuable source on Chagati syntax, vocabulary and semantics. For this reason, if for no other, it is a work with which every Turcologist, if not every Orientalist, should be acquainted.

He also mentions words that he claims do not exist in Persian. But in fact, the information of Nawai was only from Persian of his time in his place. Otherwise, there are Persian equivalents or equivalents in Persian dialects and other Iranian languages ​​for each of the Navai words.. Here we bring the Persian equivalent of these words with the English translation:

Quruqshamaq To dry up, To wither up


Jijaimak (The meaning of this word can no longer be found due to the death of the Joghatai language)

ongeydemek- To Raise up, exult

Raise - raise - praise-

Umunmaq – to become hopeful

become hopeful

Tivramak- to spin, bend, pierce

rotate- bending-tightening

Ingrenmek – to moan


It is interesting that Turkish verses are full of Persian words. For example, to show the superiority of the Turkish language, Nawai describes a few verses of his poems.

Some words related to espionage and government system are also mentioned by Nawai, which are not used in Persian language today.. بسیاری از واژگان نیز مربوط به زندگی کوچ​نشینی است که باز در زبان فارسی تهرانی وجود ندارند ولی در گویش/زبانهای نزدیک و وابسته به فارسی برای نمون گویش بختیاری این واژگان وجود دارند.

در کل هر زبانی واژگان مخصوص خود را دارد که شاید در زبان دیگر ترجمه​ای برای آن نباشد. برای نمونه در ترکی هرچقدر سعی کردند نتوانستند واژگانی مانندنماز” And “آب​دستو غیره را تغییر دهند.

A clear example of this phenomenon can be seen in this news:


Ilunga means “a person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time”.

Aylunga (In an African language) IE:

کسی که اولین بار هرگونه جفایی را ببخشد، دومین بار در روی هر جفایی بردبار باشد، ولی سومین بار دیگر نتواند از آن بگذرد

برای نمونه معادل (با مفهوم) برای بیش از صدواژه که در فارسی بادل” It does not have the same special meaning in other languages.

There are many combinations in Persian and these combinations are one of the primary advantages of Persian. See about the word “دل” You will find this combination, lovely, lovely, charming, enchanting (instrument) Heartwarming (Buxar Lam) دل شیر(Buxar Lam) دل تکان، دل خون، دل پرخون، نازکدل، دل نازک، دل خراب، کار دل، بــــاد دل، دلرو، دلدرد، دلکلان، دل آویز، راز دل، درد دل، دل پاره، کور دل، دو دل، بند دل، دل آسا، دلپذیر، دلیر، دلگزید (Tajik term)cold hearted In thinking, hard-hearted(Hard hearted Arabic), simple-hearted, sweet-hearted, possessive-hearted, fair-hearted, kind-hearted, knowing-hearted, big-hearted, heart-hearted (Heart means fake and bad), big heart, sad heart, heartbreaking, foam heart, black heart, black heart, etc

For example, Shirdel becomes lion heart in English, and in the same sense it means courage and bravery. But Cordel or Deldade cannot be translated with the same concept without reducing the meaning.

Here's a look at this book “Analogy Alghtyn” It indicates that the language is unknown. Because according to the linguist of Altaic languages ​​Professor Gerhad Dorfur:

Even when Chaghatay authors deliberately set out to write in Turkish they were not able to avoid using Persian words. For example, when the vizier and poet ʿAlī- Here Navāʾī (844-906/1441-1501), encouraged by Sultan Ḥosayn Bāyqarā, wrote Moḥākamat al-loḡatayn in order to prove the superiority of Turkish over Persian (See CENTRAL ASIA iv. HISTORY UNDER THE MONGOLS AND TIMURIDS), he used a language that contained 62.6 percent Persian and Arabic words (sample: 122 of 195 words).

So approx 63% The words of this work are in Farsi and Tazi. The words of Tazi in this work are all Persianized in Iranian culture and in fact they had a Persian meaning and then they were imported from Farsi into Joghtai Turkish..

The result is that Navai was not a linguist, and neither linguists consider his work as scientific. و در نهایت زبان جغتایی امروز یک زبان مرده است و آن را تنها زبانشناسان در دانشگاه​ها یاد میگیرند و دیگر یک پدیده​ی زنده نیست.

(Gerhard villages, “Chagatay” in Encyclopedia Iranica)


2 Reply to “Analogy Alghtyn” No misfortune knowledge base

  • amir says:

    با درود . I need the full text of the introduction of Robert Dureau in the book Trial of the Language. Can I ask for your help to access it? It goes without saying that the realization of this action will be a source of immense gratitude.

    • admin says:

      Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this article, and I don't have access to the author of the article, Azargshansep, to ask him, but Robert Doro's article is here, and you can buy it, or ask the libraries with the same specifications of the book.