Rendahl: Vay, Vay, Vay

Armenians are quick to tell you what a rich language they have, and with good cause. Those 39 letters (or 36, depending on who’s reading this) have a history. There’s a reason why my friends at Manana Youth Center are raising money to create an animated film series of the Armenian alphabet. It’s rich, and it’s relevant.

There’s a reason why my friends at Manana Youth Center are raising money to create an animated film series of the Armenian alphabet
There’s a reason why my friends at Manana Youth Center are raising money to create an animated film series of the Armenian alphabet

There are a few Armenian expressions that stand out from the rest for me. Words that are the only appropriate way to convey something, whether I’m speaking with an Armenian or an American or a Liberian. “You’re speaking from a warm place,” I’ll say in English, explaining that it’s an Armenian expression for someone who is in a convenient position to have a given attitude or belief.

“May you grow old on one pillow,” I say to bewildered newlyweds. “It’s a…nevermind,” I follow, and wave away the words with my hand, “Congratulations.”

Then there are the words that symbolize something deeper than the sum of its letters. Words that are telling of the culture. And words that are hilariously accurate. These are the words that I love in the Armenian language.

If you’ve been to Armenia, you’ll surely agree that “tsavt tanem” deserves to be on my list. Where else in the world are so many people willing to take your pain? You may be skeptical about the authenticity of this offer; nonetheless, the fact that so many passersby, cab drivers, and grandmothers I meet on the street suggest such an arrangement gives me immediate joy. The fact that it is generally followed by terms of endearment rarely used in the English language makes me laugh out loud nearly every time. And so their mission is accomplished. They have eliminated whatever pain I had.

When describing Armenians to people, one of the first words off my tongue is hospitable. Militant hospitality, I say with affection. Hyuraser is such a literal description of this concept—to love guests. I stayed with an Armenian family in Damascus some years ago. Once they’d caught word I was in town, they came and announced that I would stay with them, so I went directly to collect my bags. Sure, I tried refusing the offer a few times, but it was hopeless. Hyuraser people don’t let you off easily. When I left a couple days later, the father took me to the train station where he said in earnest, “We hold guests up here,” raising his hands above his head, and tears came to his eyes.

Unknowingly, my friend Ashot, president of the Fuller Center for Housing in Armenia, was the person who made sure that the word for friend–unker–became one of my favorite words. His parents were Armenian-language teachers, and he learned their lessons well. Ker (eat) is a command that anyone at an Armenian table hears on average 5-10 times per meal. Someone is a true enker, he told me 12 or 13 years ago, when they have come together to eat. His sharing this explained so much about my years of endless eating in Armenia.

Ktamaz is one of the funnier words I’ve learned in Armenian. Used to describe someone incredibly anal retentive, “nose hair” is without a doubt a superior term to its English counterpart. To be sure, I’ve rarely been on the receiving end of this particular description. I’m more likely to be quoted saying Voltaire’s famous words: “Perfection is the enemy of the good.”

Ojakh (hearth, Ed.) is the word for “home,” as juxtaposed with the physical structure of a house or an apartment. On the surface, this isn’t that important of a distinction. But the Armenian view of a home, especially in the rural context, is intensely personal. While talking with women farmers in the region of Kotayk, one woman made a comment that I’ve heard many times over: “We prefer to build our homes with our own hands. Then it is our own.” Ojakh is more than a building in which to reside. It a safe and nurturing place where you grow generations.

Last, and in some ways the least, is the diminutive of most any Armenian word or name, achieved by adding ik (or ig for Western Armenian speakers) to the end of the word. Anushik, Kristik, janik, sirunik, or, like the beloved editor of this paper, Khatchig. On more than one occasion, this little addition has caused me to feel younger and more cherished than reality would normally allow. Having just celebrated another birthday, perhaps I should consider a formal name change to provide this rhetorical fountain of youth.

When I first arrived in Armenia, I was terrified of the language, its alphabet, its utter foreignness. But now, I find comfort in it some days. Its emotional breadth and depth allows me to say things I only felt before, to delight when I once would scarcely have blinked.

So with that, anushik enker, I go. Until we meet in my ojakh or yours, I take your pain, janus. Now go eat. 

Kristi Rendahl

Kristi Rendahl

Kristi Rendahl is associate professor and director of the nonprofit leadership program at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Prior to starting with MSU in 2017, she worked for over 20 years with nongovernmental organizations on several continents, including living in Armenia from 1997-2002. She speaks Armenian and Spanish.
Kristi Rendahl

Latest posts by Kristi Rendahl (see all)

364 Comments

  1. Nice piece, Kristi. Always poetic, always deeper in meaning than the surface might suggest. When one builds their ‘ojakh’ with their own hands, and with the intention for many generations to reside there, then the pain of its loss is all the more poignantly felt. Ojakh is not only home, but foundation.

    • John, you are back with more of your characteristic bs? You failed to explain how “ojakh” derived from the greek “hestia.” You have also failed to show that Armenians used the word “ojakh” before being ruled by the Turks.

  2. In the interests of full disclosure, “ojakh” is a loan word from Turkish (where it’s spelled ocak). A fact that was pointed out years ago by the now deceased linguist Rafael Ishkhanyan to the journalist Zori Balayan in connection with the latter’s novel “Ojakh.” The Russians have borrowed the same word (ochag).
    http://translate.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wT#tr/en/hearth

    • I am not convinced, linguist or otherwise. I seriously doubt that nomads living in traveling tents would bring such a word based on a sophisticated concept into the Armenian Highland. Besides the fact that Turkish has borrowed many Armenian words, it has also borrowed extensively from Arabic and Persian, which Ojakh also exists in. By the time Turkish became a complete language, probably very little (or at least a large minority rather than a majority) of its central Asian original remained, apart from its pronunciation.

    • There is a rather significant difference between Ottoman and modern Turkish, much more than the alphabet. Modern Turkish is a more “pure” language, most loan words have been ‘officially’ replaced with authentic Turkish/Turkic alternatives, though in many cases the Persian/Arabic loanwords are still preferred to the modern Turkish language.
      .
      When it comes to “Ocak”… It is from the Old Turkic language… which Turkish derives from. So technically it can be claimed as an authentic “Turkish” word.

    • Vahagn, you’re back with more mud? The Armenian word “ojakh” derives from the name of the ancient Greek goddess of the hearth, architecture, and the right ordering of domesticity, the family and the state. Her name was Hestia (in Ancient Greek: Ἑστία, “hearth” or “fireside”). Turks were non-existent at the times when ancient Greeks or ancient Armenians inhabited the Earth. Armenian Online Dictionary offers the following definitions for “ojakh”: (1)Քարերից, կավից սարքված կրակարան կերակուր եփելու, չուր եռացնելու համար; (2)Տուն, գերդաստան: That is, (1)fireplace made of stones and clay used to prepare food, boil water; (2)House, kin.

    • May it be known to the commenter posting under an Armenian name “Vahagn” (unless it is too a loan name from Turkish), that many of your comments became analogous to sheer and smelly bs when you exposed yourself in other threads by stating that “NKR is a separatist entity because it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan” or when you demonstrated your absurd tautologous originality by stating that “democracy is a rule by a tiny minority elected by a majority”.

      Noted also is your newest marvel: Armenians “being ruled” by the Turks. As if Armenians voluntarily submitted to Altaic Turkic Seljuks to be “ruled” by them. For a bs-feeding poster, Seljuk invasions and subjugation of Asia Minor-native Armenians and their further colonization under the Ottoman Empire, look nothing but Armenians’ entering under the Turkish rule.

      Since I’m not a linguist to dissect the etymological minutia, the purpose of my comment was not to explain HOW the Armenian word “ojakh” derived from the Greek “hestia.” I only brought up an analogue of “ojakh” with the ancient Greek “hestia” based on what the Armenian Online Dictionary tells us.

      P.S. Did you know that ethnonyms, such as “Greek”, begin with capital letters? And this is not bs…

    • In addition to Armenian, ancient Armenians widely spoke Greek and Latin during Armenia’s pagan (pre-Christian) centuries. When Rome made Armenia a province for a few years in the 2nd century AD, Greek was lingua franca in Armenia. Not to mention the influence of the Byzantine Greek Empire on Armenia in later centuries. I assume this may suggest that Armenians might have borrowed some Greek words at the times when embryonic Turkic nomads were breeding sheep around the Altay Mountains.

    • John, you are back with more of your characteristic bs? You failed to explain how “ojakh” derived from the greek “hestia.” You have also failed to show that Armenians used the word “ojakh” before being ruled by the Turks.

    • To the commenter posting under the foreign name “john”, perhaps you should post under an Armenian name before accusing other Armenians’ ethnicity. Its funny how you have decided to parrot your fellow self-proclaimed “patriot’s” desperate comments. Focusing on single words while ignoring their context and the underlying truth is one sign that you have lost a debate. Most of your diatribe about Greeks and stuff is a pointless rant so I wont even address them. Except this: Armenians are not native to Asia Minor because the Armenian Highland is not in Asia Minor. Equating Asia Minor (i.e. Anatolia) with Armenia precisely serves Turkey’s interests. That is how ignorance can undermine you.

    • If you were able to think deeper, you’d understand that it isn’t your ethnicity but your uncharacteristic, Armenian-unfriendly statements (NKR separatists, etc.), rather, that create havoc.

      You pride yourself with “always advocating free exchange of ideas”, yet here you are upbraiding others that they have decided to parrot “fellow self-proclaimed ‘patriot’s’ desperate comments”, whereas I’m only expressing ideas of my own. Do you need time to find your true position? Be my guest…

      “Focusing on single words while ignoring their context and the underlying truth is one sign that you have lost a debate.” This is the most foolish “underlying truth” that I’ve ever heard. Words carry a meaning, deliver a message, did you know that? When a word “separatist” is used to describe the self-determination struggle of the Armenians of Artsakh knowing that Artsakh never was a part of independent Azerbaijan to stigmatize it as “separatist”, this tells volumes about one’s line of thinking and the message he tries to deliver with the word.

      Too bad you cannot address my arguments about Greeks (thanks for following my advice to capitalize ethnonyms, btw). If you gave it a try, you’d see that for several centuries Greek was lingua franca in Armenia, which suggests that inevitably there might have been linguistic borrowing.

      Allow me to address your newest marvel: “Armenians are not native to Asia Minor because the Armenian Highland is not in Asia Minor. Equating Asia Minor (i.e. Anatolia) with Armenia precisely serves Turkey’s interests.”

      Source: Encyclopedia Britannica. I rest my case.
      “Armenian Highland is mountainous region of Transcaucasia that LIES MAINLY in modern-day Turkey, occupies all of Armenia, and includes southern Georgia, western Azerbaijan, and northwestern Iran. Anatolia, historically called Asia Minor, comprises all of the Asian part of Turkey, Anatolian peninsula, Anatolian plateau, and denotes the westernmost protrusion of Asia, comprising the majority of the Republic of Turkey. Traditionally, Anatolia is considered to extend in the east to a line between the Gulf of İskenderun and the Black Sea. However, since Anatolia is now often considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey, its eastern and southeastern borders are widely taken to be the Turkish borders with the neighboring countries, which are Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and Syria, in clockwise direction. Many great historical people, like the Hittites, Greeks, Persians, ARMENIANS, Romans, Goths, Minoans, and Byzantines, have LIVED IN Asia Minor. The Roman Empire had a province called Asia, which was in Asia Minor. Later people started to call the entire continent Asia, so the peninsula Asia was called Asia Minor (or Little Asia).”

    • You rest your case as in admitting that you are wrong? Your quote actually proves my point. The “traditional” view that Armenia is not part of Asia Minor is the true one that existed before Kemal. The “widely accepted” view is the one that has been advocated by Kemal’s regime to erase the name “Armenia” from Turkey and making the entire territory “Anatolia.” Again, people can surely shoot themselves in the foot through their ignorance.

      When you take words out of context, you distort their intended message, sometimes to your detriment. The “separatist” comment had a specific message in the original specific context. By repeating it over and over, you are actually spreading the “stigma” that you are so persistently whining about.

      Making paranoid assumptions about other’s “intended message” without knowing the person speaks volumes about one’s lack of sophistication, critical reasoning, and mental health. Otherwise, I can make all sorts of assumptions about your “intended message.” For example, what message are you trying to deliver by posting conspiracy theories? Are you trying to tell the world that we Armenians are raving anti-Semites and anti-Americans? What message are you trying to deliver by posting under a foreign name? That Armenians are too self-hating to use their own? What are you trying to tell the world by not capitalizing a proper name such as “john.” That Armenians are all illiterate? Do you see the absurdity that your paranoid assumptions about “intended messages” can lead to?

    • Moi? No. I rest my case as in quoting an authoritative source such as Encyclopedia Britannica, whereas you, so I noted, prefer variations of wikis –- proven unreliable Internet sites. As someone here said, “you have to park your brain before regarding wiktionary, wikipedia, et al, as reliable sources for anything”.

      And, no, the quote from Britannica does not actually prove your point. It proves that Armenian Highland lies mainly in modern-day Turkey; that Anatolia is historically called Asia Minor and is now considered to be synonymous with Asian Turkey; and that many great historical people, such as the Armenians, have lived in Asia Minor.

      Re: “separatist”. You can blow hot air as much and as long as you want. Truth is: hardly any Armenian has ever seen or met or heard a fellow-Armenian using—within or out of context—the word “separatist” when touching upon the self-determination cause of the Artsakh Armenians.

      For the rest of your post, which is a sheer balderdash, do please have a glass of water. I admit that vehement language may be, at some point, a part of a heated debate. However, “lack of mental health” is not a hot word, it’s an insult. You may want to re-evaluate your decency and proclaimed sophistication.

    • The Wikipedia article actually has the quote from Britannica verbatim. So, if the Wikipedia article is unreliable, so is your source. Again, thank you for debunking yourself through rash ignorance. As for “Anatolia,” the fact that Anatolia is not considered synonymous with Turkey is precisely the result of the efforts of the Turkish state to erase the Armenia from Turkey.

      When someone exposes his extreme paranoia by ascribing nefarious intentions to others simply because one does not agree with them, pointing out their mental issues is not an insult but a fact. And a favor. If, however, you feel offended by others’ well-deserved comments, I suggest that you reconsider and modify your behavior.

    • From your unrestrained zeal and overbriming rigor with which you engage in a futile business of imposing your line of thinking on others while tacitly sugar-coating it in “advocacy for free exchange of ideas”, one can assume that you may be either too young or too ill-mannered to point at other people’s “behavior” while conveniently turning a blind eye at your own insult. Reiterating the fact, which many here have pointed out, that no Armenian commonly and typically uses the term “separatist” when he or she describes the self-determination cause of the Armenians of Artsakh, has absolutely nothing to do with the notion of behavior. When one retorts for the sake of nudis verbis retorting, it means that the truth is hard to swallow.

    • (comment by “john”): “hardly any Armenian has ever seen or met or heard a fellow-Armenian using—within or out of context—the word “separatist” when touching upon the self-determination cause of the Artsakh Armenians.”

      This comment, “john,” reeks of self-delusion. Here is another one, made earlier by you.

      (comment by “john”): “no Armenian commonly and typically uses the term “separatist” when he or she describes the self-determination cause of the Armenians of Artsakh”

      There are seven million Armenians around the world (maybe ten, I am just making your job easier). The idea that you know every single one of these seven million Armenians, and the idea that you know for sure that none of those seven million would say what you consider so “inconceivable” is the pinnacle of self-delusion. I tell you what, why don’t you conduct a thorough, representative survey of a sufficiently large and diverse group of Armenians, and ask them whether they would ever use the word with respect to NKR, and then publish the results, and then we can assess your sweeping statement. Here, however, is one example debunking your absolute claim. The interview mentions an Armenian-American professor, R. Panosyan, who has used pretty much the same word. http://www.ardarutyun.org/?p=4330

      Sure, the person interviewed in the article, political scientist Armen Ayvazyan, views prof. Panosyan in negative light, but Ayvazyan is known for his fascist views and cannot be taken seriously.

      As for manners, I generally treat people with respect as long as they behave. Once they cross the line (or once they “habrgum en,” to use an Armenian slang word), they get some good old Vahagn wrath. Remember, my namesake was the god of fire and war.

  3. It’s always fun to read an observant “odar” writers observations of Armenians and Armenia, especially when the perceptions are on the money and say something new. Good job, Miss Rendahl.

  4. I always look forward to reading your articles Kristi. Being a Lebanese Armenian who lived in Armenia during the “Perestroika” years, the words have a different nuance for me. Nonetheless, shad abris for bringing them to life as you share with us your experiences.

  5. Kristi, your article was funny and refreshing, I enjoyed reading it. I wanted to convey a little story which you may also find of interest regarding the Armenian Alphabet, since you mentioned that it has 39 letters. Outside of Armenia we have 38 letters, not 39 or 36. In the original we had 36 then in the Medieval period as Cilician Armenia’s contact and trade increased dramatically with the entire world, it was getting difficult to articulate certain foreign words. Thus we added O and F to make things easier and we call it ‘yev Oh Fe’ (“and Oh Fe”) signifying that the two letters O and F were added later. (Even though we do have those in the original in other form). In the Soviet reform, they modified the spelling of Armenian to make it more “Russian friendly” and additionally converting the word ‘and’ – ‘yev’ into a letter of its own before O and F. That’s why outside Armenia ‘yev’ is rejected as a letter and we have 38 while in Armenia they have maintained 39.

  6. Have you ever this saying? “If you do business with a woman, speak in French; if you do business with a man, use English. If you sing, of course you must sing in Italian. If you give military orders,you give them in German. If you train horses, Arabic is perfect. But be sure to pray in Armenian.

  7. It’s always nice to hear from you Kristi. Thank you for your sincere appreciation of Armenian language and culture.

  8. RVDV:
    .
    {When it comes to “Ocak”… It is from the Old Turkic language… which Turkish derives from. So technically it can be claimed as an authentic “Turkish” word.}
    .
    Can you please explain logically how a word that describes a sedentary lifestyle structure could have been created by people who were constantly moving from place to place, and whose primary shelter was a yurt – something that can be disassembled and moved with ease ?
    Under what conditions a word describing a very permanent structure could have been created by the old nomadic Turkic tribes ?
    I am not a linguist either, so have not researched the origins of that word.
    And it may not necessarily have an Armenian origin: it could be a loan word from ancient languages of other sedentary peoples of the region, including Persians or Assyrians. (ancient in the sense that the origins of the word would have been obscured over millennia).
    In any case, I highly doubt that that particular word could have an ancient Turkic origin.
    On the other hand, many other words in use today by Armenians can definitely have old Turkic language origins: I am guessing ‘kebab’ is one.

    • Indeed, Avery. How could uncouth Turkic tent-living nomads have a distant understanding of a fireplace made of stones and clay used to prepare food, boil water or house that “ojakh” means? No wonder, Uncle Kemal has made up “Sun language theory”, which regarded Turkish as the original human language and claimed that all the previous inhabitants of Asia Minor, such as the Hittites, Phrygians, etc. were Turkic.

    • Avery: “I am not a linguist either, ”

      I’m not a linguist and not being one is definitely a handicap. I think I’ll be taking the analysis of a linguist over your speculation. Your guess is based on a very broad and simplistic view of Turkic culture. Maybe ocak had a different meaning in the past and it shifted.

      Kebab might be Arabic. Just a guess and a hunch. Also lahmajun is based on Arabic words. I believe there is an Armenian equivalent but it’s not used.

    • I’d be most obliged to you, Random “Armenian”, if you define “Turkic culture”. Hint: start with the alphabet. Then, if you will, we will argue as to why this “culture” deserves a simplistic view.

    • Right John: Random ‘Armenian’. as in ‘Armenian’: in quotes.
      .
      This ‘Armenian’ upbraided me a while back, while treating a vile, disgusting Denialist savage Turk (Necati Genis) with kid gloves.
      This vile scum (Necati) had previously insulted Random ‘Armenian’’s Grandmother in the most vile, disgusting, denialist Turk manner imaginable.
      I went after the scum, as I usually do. Beat him over the head for insulting a fellow Armenian.
      But this alleged ‘Armenian’ ignored the vile Denialist Turk who had insulted his Grandmother, and went after me instead: surprise, surprise: said some nasty things directed at me.
      Yeah, he is ‘Armenian’ alright.
      And I am Attila the Hun.

    • John: Alphabet? Some use the Latin alphabet, others use the Cyrillic, others the Persian, and some use Arabic, and most ex-Soviet Turkic states use a combination. Which “Turkic” group were you referring to?

    • “john”, do you mind first defining the Armenian culture.? Before demanding others to define other cultures?
      .
      By the way, its funny when two self-proclaimed “Armenian patriots” posting under foreign names are doubting other Armenians’ ethnicity. Bullying fellow Armenians for exercising their God-given right to express their opinion is one way to self-destruction and thus amounts to treason. Given that, the above-poster’s remark “I am Attila the Hun” could be the only true thing he has written.

    • RVDV: Yeah, alphabet! Any one group that’s using authentically and distinctly Turkic one. Is there such?

    • John: I believe old Turkic had its own alphabet but no Turkic groups today, as far as I know, have their own distinct alphabet. But then again, the west all use the Latin alphabet- not one that they personally created. So if you’re going to make a “civilized or not” observation based on that then you’d have to conclude that Arabs are more civilized than the Swiss.

    • “Vahagn”, actually I was replying to Random’s comment, but since you popped in, be my guest. By the way, if you think that by making a request “I’d be most obliged to you if you define ‘Turkic culture’” I “demanded” something, then I’m afraid you may have fundamental comprehension problems.

      Here are the major aspects of culture. Any culture, Armenian or not. Different sources offer different aspects, but I tried to combine the ones on which almost everyone agrees.

      Language
      Religion
      Art, music, literature, and architecture
      Cuisine
      Commercial practices
      Technology
      National values and ideology
      Social norms, taboos, and etiquette
      Gender roles

      In the case of Turkish culture, I offered to start with the major aspect: alphabet/language. I was re-directed to Armenian alphabet/language. Answer: Armenians have created their unique alphabet and the Armenian language is a unique language in the family of Indo-European languages.

      Shall we proceed to the next aspect of culture?

    • RVDV,

      Could I request that you stick to what posters actually write and refrain from fantasizing? I never made nor am I going to make a “civilized or not” observation. My comment was about defining the “Turkic culture” starting from one of the most important aspects: the alphabet/language. Thank you for accepting that no Turkic groups have their own distinct alphabet. So, Turkic culture lacks distinct alphabet. Shall we proceed to #2, Religion?

      By the way, from what I’ve read, Old Turkic language did not have alphabet in the true sense of the word. Old Turkic is only attested in a number of runiform scripts and inscriptions. Can runiforms be considered an alphabet?

      Also, Latin was personally created in Europe, most precisely, in the Italian Peninsula and Ancient Rome. It originated in the Italian peninsula. Many modern European languages (so called Romance languages) are only continuations of Latin. But the fact remains that Latin originated and was created in Europe.

    • RVDV,

      Like I said, I’m not in the “civilized or not” business, but I’d venture into saying that it’s safe to conclude that in the Islamic Golden Age (8th-13th centuries) Arabs were more civilized than the Swiss given several aspects that define culture of a nation. The invention of a distinct alphabet, language and script, as well as the rise of a distinct religion, Arabs’ notorious contributions to science, arts, music, literature, architecture, philosophy, geography, astronomy, medicine, cuisine, military art and technology, mathematics/algebra, commerce, and education allow us to say almost certainly that in the Middle Ages Arabs showed more civilizational traits as compared to some parts of Europe.

      You may retort ин ыфнштп that Arabs synthesized the knowledge they gained from ancient Roman, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Chinese, Indian, and Byzantine civilizations. And you’ll be right. But Arabs advanced that knowledge so significantly as to develop their unique culture and civilization.

  9. I checked Ajarian’s “Armadagan Pararan” and couldn’t find “ojakh” in it. This doesn’t mean it’s a Turkish word. Will check my other etymology books.

  10. Something that every person from any culture should keep in mind is that their mother tongue, whichever that may be, will inevitably contain loanwords from another language. You can’t prevent people from using foreign words and having them eventually become part of the lexicon. Armenian is no different and words from the ancient Urartuan and other cultures of Asia minor is a reflection of an ancient Armenian lineage and history.

    I know most people understand this, but there will always be some people who simply will not accept odar influence. This isn’t addressed to anyone in particular, but such heated and useless debates always happen and it’s best to keep a cool and open attitude.

    • Yes, Random, most people understand this, but you’re missing the point. In the case of “ojakh” the loanword was most probably borrowed by the Turks and not by the Armenians. A nomadic people, by definition, couldn’t have a hearth or stove or a furnace or a household while wandering from a steppe to a steppe in the search of new pastures, looting and killing sedentary people and stealing their culture in the process.

      Armenian: օջախ (ojakh); Greek: εστία (ostya); Georgian: “ojakhi”; Russian: очаг (ochag); Yezidi (a Kurdish/Zoroastrian religious group): ojekh.

      All of these nations are older than the newcomer Turks: some by thousands of years, others by hundreds. What does this tell us?

    • Nomadic people can have households and families, even when they kill. Its a basic human feature. And a hearth does not have to be made of stone. It can be fireplace in a tent around which a family gathers after killing others. Just look at the movies about American-Indians. Where do you think all that smoke from tbe top of the tent comes from? May be in Armenian “ojakh” means a stone hearth, but it did not have to have the same meaning in Turkish. Words can slightly change meaning when borrowed. Russians have tbe same word, “ochag”, and Russians have been in contact with Turkics for centuries. Given the numbers of Turkic people vs. Armenians, its much likelier that both Russians and Armenians borrowed from Turks, rather than Russians and Turks borrowing from Armenians.

    • Nomadic people never had households, sorry to disappoint you, Vahagn. The combination of words “Nomad-Household” is absurd. Unless, of course, some of them chose to settle down in an area (ordinarily not their native), like Turks.

      To kill maybe a basic human feature, but nomads killed in order to capture the pastures and goodies of other, more developed, peoples.

      And a hearth is a brick- or stone-lined fireplace, sorry to disappoint you again.

      Logically, more ancient Armenians, as compared to newcomer Turks, would have been familiar with the notion of “ojakh”: a stone-and-clay fireplace. It is laughable to suggest that they might have borrowed the idea from Turkic warriors since these nomads appeared in our region only in the 11th Century CE.

    • Borrowing a word is not the same as borrowing a notion. It is laughable to confuse the two. Armenians could have had the notion of a fireplace and yet could have borrowed a Turkish word to replace their own. We borrowed many Turkish words, and clearly we already had notions for these words.

      Hearths do not need to be made of stone. They can be dug in the ground, or have other configuration. Sorry to utterly disappoint you, Yeranuhi.
      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B3

      And nomads, whether Native-Americans or Turks, can have households. Having a family is a basic human feature, and a family in a home, no matter how temporary, equals a household. Again, sorry for truly disappointing you.

  11. The Turks have taken so much from us–lives, country, property, churches, schools, culture, history, language, folklore–that it’s hard for Armenians to concede that Turks have given us (sometimes forcibly) anything other than shish kebab.

    • Jirair, Turks have taken lives and land from us, but they have not and cannot take our culture and history. That is ours. They can try to distort it, but they cannot change the truth. Just because Turks have massacred us does not mean we should deny what’s true. It is true that due to the long rule by the Turks, we have borrowed many words from them. We can accept the truth and then decide what to do about it: either accept a word as our own (as we accepted Jewish Jesus) or get rid of them, both being acceptable options. But lying to ourselves only hurts us. Denial of the truth is what Turkey does, and that is not us!

  12. Most Armenians know quite well that the Armenian language has a rich set of foreign words incorporated from many ancient and modern languages, including Greek, Persian/Farsi, Assyrian, Latin, French, English, Russian, etc.
    And so do most other living languages.
    Languages, including Armenian, are richer for it.
    For example, I don’t know many Armenians who make an issue of the fact that there are quite a large number of Farsi-root words in Armenian.
    I don’t believe most of us give it a second thought.
    However, Turks and Turkish are a special case: every effort by Denialist Turks, their sycophants, and their agents to steal anything Armenian, no matter how ‘trivial’ it may seem, ought to be fought tooth&nail.
    Turks are the singular ethnos that attempted to exterminate Armenians and nearly succeeded.
    Not Persians, Not Greeks, Not Assyrians, Not the Roman Empire, Not Russians: the Turks.
    There is a well organized, well financed and coordinated worldwide campaign to erase the presence of indigenous peoples and replace it with newcomer Turks: the idea being that over time, Turks will be regarded as the natives, and the real natives would have disappeared into oblivion.
    The incongruous insistence that a word such has “ojakh” – a word that is undeniably tied to a sedentary lifestyle – could have been coined by nomadic Turkic tribes constantly on the move, is a subtle manifestation of that campaign.
    Most everything created by ancient Armenian, Greek, Assyrian civilizations is being stolen and presented to the world as “Turkish”.
    For that reason, and that reason alone, Denialist Turks should be confronted on even seemingly ‘trivial’ matters: nothing is trivial when it comes to Denialist Turks.
    When it comes to Turks, everything has to be looked through the prism of the AG: we Armenians have nothing to apologize for in doing so.
    .
    And this isn’t addressed to anyone in particular. But these discussions about what some might consider “useless” serve a very useful, practical, and educational purpose.
    We exchange valuable information and knowledge amongst ourselves and counter misinformation or disinformation disseminated by our Turk, Turkish and Turkophile guests: some of whom who have no evil intent and some who do.
    ArmenianWeekly provides a forum for such exchanges: nobody is compelled to post @AW. Those who do, do so on their own volition.
    In fact AW moderates the posts, so in effect published posts are a subset – a selection – of all posts submitted.
    What does that mean ?
    It means people who post know that some of their posts will not get published by AW, and yet are still willing to put in the time and effort to read comments and post their own.
    .
    So, anyone who does not want to participate in so called “useless” debates – Don’t.
    Those of who do want to participate, will do: we don’t need an overbearing schoolmarm lecturing us children what to do or not to do with our own time.

    • Avery: To answer your question. Well, turns out Old Turkic really isn’t the root of all Turkic languages. It’s mainly the root of eastern Turkic languages but it is the earliest identifiable Turkic language. But, it does still make perfect sense that a word like “ocak” could be, and from what I have read, IS an old Turkic word. You frequently refer to Turks as “central Asian invaders.” This term cannot apply to most other of the 20 or so Turkic groups as they are still in Central Asia- the ancestral homeland for all Turkic groups.
      .
      You all frequently bring up FM Davutoglu’s remarks made to an Uyghur audience, referring to East Turkestan as “our ancestral homeland” or something along those lines. Old Turkic, turns out, is the direct ancestor language of the Uyghur language. So, it is fairly likely that “ocak” was coined by a sedentary people. And those who spoke Old Turkic, I’m guessing, were a sedentary people.
      .
      It should be remembered (speaking generally, not to you directly) that “Turkic” refers to well over a dozen ethnic groups that exist from the Balkans to China. Making sweeping statements about “Turkic tribes” are like making sweeping statements about ALL Slavic people. Unless you can prove that nearly all 20 current Turkic groups were nomadic in their history, you need to modify your beliefs about the “nomadic, savage Turkic peoples.”

    • RVDV,

      “it does still make perfect sense that a word like “ocak” could be, and from what I have read, IS an old Turkic word.”

      Even if it may be an old Turkic word, it is highly unlikely that the Armenians have waited for three millennia for the invasion of the Seljuks in 1071 to borrow the term or the idea from them. I’ve been to several Central Asian nations and nowhere have I seen a fireplace made of stones and clay — the primary meaning of the Armenian “ojakh”. In a traditional Kyrgyz yurt, a tent made of felt, straw mats and carpets, there is indeed a fireplace located in the center, but it’s a plain bonfire. And it just cannot be a sophisticated fireplace because little to no stones are found in the steppes.

      “Central Asian invaders” term cannot apply to most other of the 20 or so Turkic groups as they are still in Central Asia.

      As a matter of fact, in the Middle Ages many of those Turkic groups were actually invaders:

      In the 5th century, the Hun hordes of Attila, who are believed to have been Turkic, invaded much of Europe.

      In the 5th and 6th centuries, the Bulgars invaded areas in between the Caspian and Black Seas. One group of Bulgars settled in the Volga region and mixed with local groups to become the Volga Bulgars in what is today Tatarstan. Other Bulgars settled in Southeastern Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries, and mixed with the Slavic population.

      The Kyrgyz and Uyghurs were making constant intrusions into the Chinese Empire, after which the Kyrgyz ultimately settled in the region where they live now.

      In the 7th and 8th centuries they were toppled by another Turkic group, the Khazars, who converted to Judaism in the 9th century.

      After them came the Pechenegs, who were subsequently taken over by the Cumans and the Kipchaks.

      After the 10th century, the Oghuz and other tribes captured various countries under the leadership of the Seljuk dynasty, such as the territories of the Abbasid dynasty and the Byzantine Empire.

      “it is fairly likely that ‘ocak’ was coined by a sedentary people. And those who spoke Old Turkic, I’m guessing, were a sedentary people.”

      This is absurd. Turkic peoples are proven nomadic peoples historically and linguistically connected with the Tujue, the name given by the Chinese to indicate the NOMADIC people who stretched from what is now Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea.

      “It should be remembered that ‘Turkic’ refers to well over a dozen ethnic groups that exist from the Balkans to China.”

      Chronologically and factually correct is to say: “from China to the Balkans”, which will confirm how the original inhabitants of the Central Asia and northwestern China expanded into Europe, not the other way round.

      “Unless you can prove that nearly all 20 current Turkic groups were nomadic in their history, you need to modify your beliefs about the “nomadic, savage Turkic peoples.”

      All Turkic groups were originally nomadic. This is a fact that doesn’t need elaboration. Yes, some of them (such as Uighurs) moved westward into Uzbekistan, where they forsook nomadic pastoralism for a sedentary lifestyle. But it doesn’t disprove the fact that Turkic peoples were originally nomadic.

    • John: What “ocak” means to Armenians is completely irrelevant IF the word is not of Armenian origin. Maybe that simple bonfire in the yurt is what ocak meant to the people who coined the term, and when other people adopted the term it meant something different to them. Also, in Turkish, ocak can also mean ‘home.’ Furthermore, all languages evolve. It is ridiculous to think that the Armenian language had no word for “fireplace made of stone” until ojakh. Over time it was probably gradually favored over an existing Armenian word. Also, the only references to the word Ocak I have found on the internet say it is a Turkish/Turkic/old Turkic word. THAT is why I say it is a Turkic/Turkish word. If you can disprove this with factual evidence (a legitimate source) I will gladly reverse my position. There are still thousands of authentic Turkish words. One more or less won’t change anything.
      .
      Finally, good start on some of the Turkic peoples. Like I said, there are about 20 modern groups. Prove ALL were nomadic or don’t use sweeping statements, simple enough.

    • Hearths are not necessarily tied to sedentary life. Nomads have families and they have to have a fireplace in a tent to gather around and warm up. For example, in the Oscar-winning movie “Dances with the wolves,” the Native Americans gather around a fireplace INSIDE a tent to talk about Kevin Costner. A hearth does not have to be made of stone. It can be a fireplace surrounded by nothing or by bricks, and bricks can be made of cow dung (as Armenian villagers used to do). Just because in the Armenian language “ojakh” means “stone hearth” does not mean that the original Turcik word “ocak” meant the same. Words can slightly change in meaning when borrowed. Plus, by the 16th century, when Turks conquered Armenia, they were already largely sedentary and living in houses made of stone or clay. The word, just like thousands of other Turkish words that Armenians know well, could havebeen borrowed after that. There is no evidence that Armenians used “ojakh” prior to that.

    • Regarding foreign loans in the Armenian language, nearly EVERY Armenian knows that, just as we borrowed from Iranian and Greek languages, we borrowed heavily from Turkish. One of the most common Turkish words that we use now all the time is “hech” (Hiç), which means “no”. That is the truth, and we cannot deny it. We have the choice to do something about it (accept the words or cleanse them), but we cannot deny the truth.
      .
      We should always engage in debates, and I have always advocated free exchange of ideas, and I am proud for starting a lively debate (yet again). I also agree that we should be aware of Turkish attempts to distort history and geography (e.g. the use of “Anatolia”). But we need to choose our battles wisely. Denying what’s true hurts us two ways. First, it makes us look unreasonable to non-Armenians, and we need their help in our fight for our cause. Second, by suppressing the truth, we engage in self-deception, which can be deadly. One such example is underestimating the enemy. That is what we and our Western allies did in 1920 by refusing to believe that Turks could be skillful fighters. As a result, Kemal defeated us and our allies. The same dangerous attitude is voiced by some of us today, that “Azeris cant fight.”

    • RVDV,

      Lots of factual evidence, unfortunately, all in Armenian. How legitimate are your sources? Authentic Armenian words along wwith “ojakh” are many, all of them existed from pre-Christian era, such as կրակարան, հնոց, վառարան, հալոց, բովոց, փուռն, հրարան, ատրուշան (you won’t understand them anyway, but Armenian posters will). Undoubtedly, there are Turkish loanwords in the Armenian language and incomparably more loanwords from Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Arabic, and Farsi in the Turkish language. But I’m afraid none of us will be able to prove authoritatively who borrowed from whom in terms of the word “ojakh”.

    • Nearly EVERY Armenian knows that Armenians borrowed heavily from Old Persian, less from Ancient Greek, and much less from Turkish. For Armenian loanwords borrowed heavily by the Turks see: Dankoff, Robert. “Armenian Loanwords in Turkish” http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=aFWQTBm35m0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=armenian+loanwords&source=bl&ots=C0wd72Hqh4&sig=ZIOAeFYJnQ8RSKAkYlgdRNfTtSQ&hl=tr&ei=14ItTfSROMjusgaW_4GLCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

      No one argues that there are loanwords in the Armenian language, as in any ancient language.

      “We and our Western allies refused to believe in 1920 that Turks could be skillful fighters. As a result, Kemal defeated us and our allies. The same dangerous attitude is voiced by some of us today, that ‘Azeris can’t fight.’”

      In 1920, after the Ottoman Empire was defeated and cut in pieces in WWI, the Allies were preoccupied with putting their exhausted houses in order. This was the main reason why they offered little resistance to Kemal’s violation of the Treaty of Sèvres. Nascent Armenian Republic, flooded with genocide survivors and affected by diseases and destitution, had done remarkably well under these harsh conditions launching offensives against the advancing Turks. And only after sly Kemal promised Lenin to coordinate his military operations against Armenia with the Bolsheviks’ “fight against imperialist governments” and received 5 million lira in gold, as well as tons of armaments for his forces, was the Turkish army able to advance towards the Armenian territory. If this is considered “skillful fighting”, then yoghurt is black.

      “either accept a word as our own (as we accepted Jewish Jesus) or get rid of them.”

      Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God has no ethnicity.

    • “Turkish words that we use now all the time is “hech” (Hiç), which means “no” ” …lol. Vahagn, you say you want to engage in “productive debate”, and I agree, but how far do you expect to be taken seriously when your sources of Armenian history and culture are questionable to the point that you even took steps to claim “Armenians are not native to Asia Minor”? – As John said, since the Armenian Highland is part of Asia Minor, your statement is directly out of the Turkish genocide perpetrator’s and denier’s handbook. What puzzles me is not that you make these statements, but that you expect to engage in honest debate and be taken seriously after making them instead. You’ve made statements I’ve agreed with in the past, but as I read more of your posts, your ideas are like taking shots in the dark, and it appears you have certain motives in your “honest debates”. Incidentally, ‘hech’ does not mean ‘no’, it is close in meaning to ‘none’, but one has to know Armenian to understand how the word is used within the correct context.

    • How many native Armenians would confuse հեչ with “no”.
      Not looking too good for our ‘Armenian’ buddy.
      .
      Incidentally, no other source-language was chosen from several available (Farsi, Greek,…) for a supposed sample of a loan-word, but Turkish: curious, No ?
      Not looking too good for our ‘Armenian’ buddy.

    • Hagop D, first try to find a Turkish denier’s handbook that says “Armenia is not part of Asia Minor,” then we can discuss whether Armenians can possibly be natives of Asia Minor. You clearly do not know about the Armenian geography or what the Turkish propaganda says about our geography. If you misunderstand my points, it maybe because of your lack of knowledge on a subject, which is fine. You can ask me, and I will explain. However, you will not receive my respect if you make assumptions about my motives.

    • “john”, now you sound like the Azeris, who tell Armenians “you did not defeat us, the Russian weaponry did.” Well, someone still has to be able to use these weapons. Without Kemal’s and his officers’ military brilliance, these weapons would be useless.

      At any rate, most of the military and financial aid from Russia arrived to Turkey after Armenia was defeated. It was primarily used to defeat the Greeks.

      The allies could not enforce the Sevres treaty because it was unenforceable to begin with. Because by the time it was signed, Kemalists were already strong. The fault of the Allies was that they delayed the signing of the treaty by more than a year, allowing the Turkish National movement to form and strengthen. And the reason the allies did it because they thought the Turks could not fight.

      The fault of the Armenian government, as thoroughly explained in prime minister Kajaznuni’s 1923 manifesto, was to engage in skirmishes with the Turks in Oltu without having any idea of the true strength of the Turkish army (basically, again underestimating them).

      Let’s read pro-Armenian british historian Christopher J. Walker:
      “they [the Allies] still clung to the myth that the Turks were incompetent idlers, incapable of organising themselves for a nationalist end. Even in mid-1920 many people who should have known better still dismissed Kemal and his followers as mere ‘brigands’.” http://armenia-survival.50megs.com/Survival_Ch_8.htm

      Let’s read prime minister Kajaznuni:
      “We were not afraid of war because we thought we would win. With the carelessness of inexperienced and ignorant men we did not know what forces Turkey had mustered on our frontiers.”
      http://louisville.edu/a-s/history/turks/Katchaznouni.pdf

  13. RVDV:
    .
    Regarding the 20 Turkic tribes, nomadic, savage, invader, etc: when I write about “savage nomadic invading Turkic tribes”, it should have been clear (or I should have made clear) that I was referring to those Turkic tribes that invaded the homelands of my ancestors: South Caucasus, Armenian Highlands. I do not know much about those other Turkic tribes that stayed put on their own ancestral lands. I have no reason to disbelieve they were not peaceful. In fact, I ran into an interesting story in Hurriyet a while back about just such a tribe. See the link at the end of this post.
    So yes, not every Turkic tribe or group was savage or warlike: if there was a peaceful one, Dukha, there would be others.
    Again, my beef is with those Turkic tribes that invaded our Armenian lands and proceeded to…well, you know what I usually insert here about massacres, pillage, Genocide, etc – no need to repeat.
    And if those tribes cannot be described as nomadic, invading and savage, I don’t know which ones can be.
    .
    Regarding “I’m guessing, were a sedentary people.”:
    They could be, but where is the evidence ? Did they leave any permanent structures to indicate they were ?
    Next door neighbors, the Chinese, created a very advanced 5,000 year old civilization: proof they were sedentary.
    Where is the similar footprint of sedentary Turkic groups in that area ?
    .
    Regarding “ocak” or “ojakh”:
    I understand that what you have researched on the internet indicates “ocak” is of Turkic origin.
    I can also cite various obscure Armenian sources that you cannot check which indicate “ojakh” is of Armenian origin.
    Somebody else can cite an obscure Farsi language source that I cannot check which indicates “ojakh” is of Farsi origin.
    Same with Assyrian and Greek.
    It will become an endless battle of sources.
    My argument is as follows: why would Armenians borrow such a basic word from Turks who appeared in our area (only) about 1000 years ago.
    The Armenian language is at least 5,000 years old: how is it that they would not have coined a word for a structure that would have been part of their everyday life for several thousand years, and had to borrow it from Turkish ?
    Could Armenians have had a unique word for “ojakh” that fell out of use and the Turkish one was favoured, as you say ? Sure.
    But just as likely is the opposite – that Turks borrowed that word from Armenian, or Farsi, or Greek, and now claim it as their own.
    And I know Turks have done that abundantly with lots of demonstrably non-Turkish things.
    So, we just have to agree to disagree on “ocak”/”ojakh”.
    .
    [Dukha, ‘lost Turks’ in Mongolia]
    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/dukha-lost-turks-in-mongolia.aspx?pageID=238&nID=33993&NewsCatID=381

  14. {” By the way, its funny when two self-proclaimed “Armenian patriots” posting under foreign names are doubting other Armenians’ ethnicity. Bullying fellow Armenians for exercising their God-given right to express their opinion is one way to self-destruction and thus amounts to treason. Given that, the above-poster’s remark “I am Attila the Hun” could be the only true thing he has written.”}. (Vahagn)
    .
    You speaking to me, buddy boy ?
    .
    Posting under a foreign or Armenian name, or no discernible name does not make one an Armenian patriot, or pro-Armenian, or pro-Turkish or whatever.
    It is the content of the posts, what one advocates and promotes – that clearly show one’s loyalty to one’s ethnos, to the core causes one espouses, and their true motives.
    Let us take this thread, for example: the fact that you post under ‘Vahagn’ does not obscure the fact that every one of your comments in this thread advocates for a Turkish-centric viewpoint.
    It was none other than ‘Vahagn’ who was the _first_ in this thread to write this: {“ In the interests of full disclosure, “ojakh” is a loan word from Turkish (where it’s spelled ocak).”}
    Out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever.
    Promoting a Turkish view.
    Now if it was someone like RVDV who wrote that at the outset, there would be nothing out of the ordinary or out of place: he clearly identifies himself as a Turk, and has passionately advocated for Turkish-centric viewpoints (excepting Denialist views, of course).
    But when someone who posts under an Armenian name, pretends to be Armenian, yet regularly posts comments that are Azerbaijan-centric, Turkish-centric and are written specifically to create divisions and discord amongst Armenians – there is valid cause for suspicion.
    .
    You inadvertently showed your hand when you libeled (as in defamation) our Artsakhtsi brothers and sisters as “separatists”, a term used by Azerbaijan’s fascist rulers and their Turkish allies to denigrate and delegitimize NKR: we asked you to produce another ‘Armenian’ that calls them that. We are still waiting.
    You again inadvertently showed your hand when you falsely claimed, several times, that Serj Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan were supposedly citizens of Azerbaijan (Not: previously Citizens of USSR, and now citizens of RoA).
    .
    Regarding ‘Bullying’, God-given rights and all that: this is what you advised me a while back:
    {“Avery, buddy, you deal with the Turkic commentators, we will deal with democracy in Armenia.”} ((Vahagn // February 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm //)
    Presumably Avery has no God-given right to post on any subject he chooses: only special people trained and certified in ‘Democracy’ such as you do, buddy ? Bullying ? Neaaah.
    .
    Oh, just to spare us your next vacuous rant:
    {“I am very proud of grandma Gadar, because at a time when more than a million Armenians were being marched to their deaths by the genocidal rulers of Tekin’s ancestors, she and her fellow Zeitountsis — men, women and children — defended themselves valiantly and refused to be slaughtered like sheep”} (Harut Sassounian).
    .
    ‘Bullying’, ‘treason’, ‘Attila the Hun’…oh my: I guess we should just sit back and not counter Anti-Armenian, Anti-RoA, Anti-NKR comments, eh, sonny boy ?

    • Armenians, buddy boy, are much more diverse in their opinions than what pseudo-patriotic simpletons such as you may think. To be useful to his people, an Armenian does not have to repeat the same-old tired slogans like “Turks are savage killers, they eat babies.” We know that, and we have people like you regurgitate these lines, so there is no need for all of us to do it. With my “ojakh” post, I introduced a piece of information that clearly was new to a several people here, and I was able to stimulate a much greater discussion that was way more vigorous and lively than your “patriotic” rants.

      Sometimes truth can be “Turco-centric”, and even if it is, it needs to be voiced. If you think it’s not true, you can present your evidence to the contrary. That is what mature people do. The non-mature bunch whine that it should not be expressed in the first place just because it’s “Turco-centric.”

      Ascribing a “hidden agenda” to others solely based on their views, without knowing these people, clearly shows the assumer’s level of intelligence, paranoia, and mental issues. Again, intelligent people address the content of other’s statements, the simpleton’s cry “hidden motives.” Your assumptions about my motives based on my statements have been so superficial and laughable, that they are no different than making assumptions based on your choice of your username. Let’s have some fun with it, shall we?

      Why would an Armenian choose a foreign nickname, such as “Avery,” all the letters of which are taken from “Azerbaijan” or “Aliyev.” We understand why, for example, singer Googoosh would do it, since she is Azeri. But how many true Armenians do it?

      And why would a true Armenian man choose as his nickname the name of a known promoter of LGTB rights? We understand why an Armenian man would do it, but why would someone pretending to be a real Armenian man choose such a homo-centric nickname?
      http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/why-sean-averys-endorsement-of-gay-marriage-is-important?urn=nhl,wp4424

      And why would a true Armenian blame the victims of the Genocide for what happened to them? (post by Avery: “no wonder we were slaughtered like sheep by Turks. Turks glorify their military, while we glorify our spoiled brats.”)
      http://armenianweekly.com/2013/02/23/a-story-of-defiance-activists-reject-international-observers-assessment-of-election/

    • Exactly. Why take interest in Turkish etymology? If you know Greek, Farsi, Armenian, Arabic, and Assyrian, the combination of these languages will be the Turkish language. Not to forget the Arabic script which was used by the Turks up until the early 20th century.

    • Avery Armenian.
      .
      and I am sure a *gov.tr – as in .TR – website is a definitive source of unbiased information. Like everything else the Turkish State publishes.

  15. Here is more useful trivia. From Wikitionary:

    “օջախ: From Turkish ocak; or from Azeri ocaq. Russian очаг too is borrowed from Turkic.”
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D6%85%D5%BB%D5%A1%D5%AD
    .
    From the Russian Wikipedia (translated from Russian):
    “Hearth – a place or a device for making and maintaining fire. The word is of Turkic origin, (Kazakh “oshak”). … Among the north-Eurasian steppe nomads, there are three kinds of oshaks: made from stone, a hearth dug in the ground, and a tripod”
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B3
    .
    So much for the absurd idea that “there are no stones in the steppes.” Or “Turkic tribes could not have families or hearths because, uh, they killed babies.” Well, they had to cook them somewhere.

  16. We should focus I the annihilation they plan, not the mythical Central Asian culture stuff.

    First, Turks’ genes align far more with indigenous peoples like Armenians and Greeks than with Central Asians. The implication is conversion and inquest, not migration alone.

    This means something interesting: both T nationalists and some of us hold in our minds the image of a bloody Central Asian conqueror as the ancestor of Turks. Both sides are wrong, no matter how much they revere and we revile great great great etc grampa Cengiz.

    Grampa to the nth was Serbian, Armenian, Greek, Georgian or Pontic.

    • Jda,

      Advancement of justice per se is multifaceted. We should focus on anything that confronts and exposes denialist Turks, including their origin in Central Asia and the lack of authentic distinct culture. Otherwise, we’ll be hearing more from newly-cooked “Armenians” on these pages that “Armenians are not native to Asia Minor” or that our view of “Turkic culture is simplistic”.

      It goes without saying that in the course of centuries of intermarriages, forced marriages, abductions to harems, rapes, forced religious conversions, devşirme, and other manifestations of non-simplistic “Turkic culture”, Turks’ genes would align more with indigenous peoples. If we don’t remind them where they have come from, future generations of Turks would honestly believe that their ancestral homeland is Anatolia.

      “Grampa to the nth was Serbian, Armenian, Greek, Georgian or Pontic.” Exactly.

  17. First one has to park his brain before regarding wiktionary, wikipedia, et al as reliable sources for anything. That goes for a lot of Internet content. On some sites, one is invited to edit the text to one’s satisfaction and bias. Now that’s what I call scholarly input.

    • The fact that Wikipedia is editable goes both ways. If you have such reliable sources, you can go there and edit the contents instead of whining about how unreliable Wikipedia is. Perhaps due to generational reasons you have aversion to the internet, but it is commonly used as a source for information. Wikipedia has been used by many posters here, and it is a good place to start. If you have better sources, we can consider them, but until then, Wikipedia articles are presumed as reliable. One must have donated his brain to charity if one does not understand this.

  18. For what it’s worth, I have my own personal non-scientific theories about the Turkish language, whether anyone agrees or not. Most likely when the Turkic tribes started their migrations into historic Armenia, their language was a rough, incomplete language. What made it eventually complete was Armenian, which in my view is the reason that today’s Turkish cannot be understood by the Central Asians. I made this observation based on my limited knowledge of Turkish, yet even with this limited knowledge I started noticing some interesting things. I suspect that as the Armenians in western Armenia started becoming ‘Turkified’ they only gradually changed their mother tongue to Turkish and along the way ‘Armenianized’ the Turkish language instead.
    .
    Putting aside vocabulary for a moment, the structure of Turkish appears to be similar to Armenian. For example if I said ‘Mehmet’s’ (English) it would be ‘Mehmetin’ in Armenian, and in Turkish? ‘Mehmet’in’ (the same). When we say in Armenian ‘I will do such and such’, we end it with the letter -m and in Turkish it is the same. Also this concept of ‘I will do such and such’ does not exist in English, but in Armenian and Turkish the meanings are the same, for example ‘I will spit’ – in Armenian (western) is Bidi Tuknem, but ‘Tuknem’ by itself has a different meaning and in Turkish I am assuming it has the same meaning, ‘Tukurum’. Here even the word ‘tuk’ (meaning saliva) is the same. I don’t know if I am being clear but this word Tuknem in English would be something like between “I would spit” and “I will spit”, so from Armenian to English there is some loss of meaning, but in Turkish there is no loss. I often hear Armenians say “Turkish is such an easy language to learn” – perhaps there is a good reason for it after all.
    .
    In the Ottoman empire, I don’t know if I can say a ‘majority’, but a great many Armenians did not know how to speak Armenian. What always kept them Armenian thus was their religion. Of these Armenians, some did not know the Armenian language, but knew the alphabet instead, which brings us to the next point: the Turkish language can be written in the Armenian alphabet in full and without loss (while the reverse is not true I think), indeed many books were published in Turkish but with the Armenian alphabet during the time.
    .
    Thus this brings me to the point I’m trying to make, and that is that when we are dealing with the Turkish language, things are not as simple as “something is written in Armenian therefore it is Armenian” and “something else is written in Turkish therefore it is Turkish”. In the case of Turkish things are a lot more complicated than that, and that being that Turkish can actually mean Armenian, because the Turkish language changed at the hands of the Armenians and for some was their mother tongue for several centuries. Turks will typically take an Armenian food like dolma and say it is Turkish because the word is. I say not so fast, because Turkish was your language only after 1923.
    .
    Before we get into any etymology, for me, the logic test would first need to pass as well. And here I have another “rough theory” and that being, I ask myself, did something in question exist before the Ottoman empire, i.e. around 1,500 AD? If the answer is yes, then by definition it cannot have anything to do with Turkish. So in the case of etymology, logic would tell me for instance that the word for saliva existed before the Ottoman Turks and thus the Turkish word comes from Armenian. In the case where Armenian borrows from Turkish, the item in question would thus need to be relatively new, or discovered in the past five centuries, and even here that would only qualify the Turkish claim for not being rejected outright: during the Ottoman empire all subjects communicated in a common language, Turkish, thus even newer cultural developments do not mean “of Turkish origin” when named in Turkish.
    .
    I realize the average nationalist Ataturk disciple who believes “Turks were the first humans who started civilization in 10,000 BC” or something to that effect would be mortified at these ideas, but, well facts and common sense cannot be ignored and yet even so, the Turks in denial will not likely admit that they are speaking a language which may have been developed or influenced by Armenians any time soon.

    • Hagop, do please look into Robert Dankoff’s account on Armenian loanwords in Turkish. You’ll be surprised to know (I certainly was) how many Armenian words are now in use in the Turkish language to denote routine subjects, things, or events.

    • ” What made it eventually complete was Armenian, which in my view is the reason that today’s Turkish cannot be understood by the Central Asians.”
      .
      Slovenian and Polish- both Slavic languages are not mutually intelligible either, language families are quite large. Turkish is not mutually intelligible with many Turkic languages, but it IS- to some extent- with the the Oghuz languages within Turkic. While most central Asians speak a Kipchak language. Regardless, the basic language structure in all Turkic languages is the same.
      .
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages#Vocabulary_comparison
      .
      Its wikipedia but it seems unlikely someone would make the whole thing up.
      .
      Finally: “I ask myself, did something in question exist before the Ottoman empire, i.e. around 1,500 AD? If the answer is yes, then by definition it cannot have anything to do with Turkish.”
      .
      1: Turks were speaking Turkish long before 1500 and long before the Ottoman Empire. 2: You seem to assume that if one group were not the first to coin a term for something then that must mean they cannot have made the word up themselves.

    • John, thanks for that link, it would be quite interesting to have that book, but apparently it is not available now… Armenian etymology books tend to be rare and expensive, there are a few I have in mind to get in the future.

      RVDV: Well true about language and people (as in the Slavic case) but in the case of Armenians and Turks, we lived together for centuries, which is where the difference is: our language is Indo-European, Turkish is Altaic, yet Turkish has certain compatibilities to Armenian which another Indo-European language such as English does not as I mentioned earlier. Also I made a reference to the Ottoman empire rather than the Seljuk period, because even when the Seljuks invaded and settled in Armenia, we did not live peacefully amongst them and shared our culture, at least to the extent as in the Ottoman period. And as Boyajian correctly pointed out, Turks tend to think that the Ottoman empire and every aspect within it was “theirs” which they graciously brought from Central Asia, and the truth is in fact the opposite in my opinion.

  19. After failing to find “ojakh” in Ajarian’s “Armadagan Pararan”, I checked Nerses Mgrdchyan’s “Hayerentis Pokharyal Parer Turkereny Parparneroum” (Turk Dialktlerde Ermeniceden Alinmis Sozler”.
    The 320-page books cites many Armenian, Turkish, and European specialists and provides a dictionary of 1,500 Turkish words (not counting onomatopoeias) which are Armenian,including AVANAK and DANGALAK.

  20. Hagop makes sense! Language is, has been, and should be a fluid thing. I have no problem thinking that Armenian was influenced by Turkish and other ‘neighbors’ languages. Of course it was! And vice-versa! My problem is with the tendency of Turkey to declare primacy and supremacy over others—which is at root racist. As an Armenian, I bristle against any attempt by unrepentant Turkey to further erase my people and their impact in the world. It is a matter of identity, history, justice and truth. It is personal.

  21. Kristi would have never guessed that her sweet article would generate such a rich trove of (vigorous) comments.
    The most for any of her articles, as far as I can tell: 60+ and still going strong.
    .
    Իսկականից որ – Վայ, Վայ, Վայ,

  22. We accomplish nothing by castigating Turks’ ancestry or culture. We harm ourselves by underestimating what, to a v large degree, is an enemy.

    • My point exactly, JDA. Underestimating the enemy is the surest path to self-destruction. Thank you.

    • Stating facts, such as place of origin, territorial expansion, military intrusionы, subjugation of native peoples, lack of some authentic cultural aspects, etc. is not castigation. You don’t really think that if we stop doing this Turks will take run to admit their guilt?

    • But Jda, how is affirmation of truth an underestimation of an enemy? If the enemy uses no unique alphabet, language, or script (taken form Arabic/Latin), and snatched arts and music (from Persians, Byzantine Greeks and Armenians), architecture (from Persians, Byzantine Greeks and Armenians), religion (from Arabs), cuisine (from Greeks and Armenians), and we affirm what many know, how is this an underestimation? If the enemy’s ancestral homeland is 3000 miles away from where they have positioned themselves after savagely annihilating the natives, why affirming this is an underestimation, I don’t understand.

    • Yeranuhi, you said it best. My sentiments exactly. This is not about castigating the Turks’ ancestry, it is about reclaiming and protecting our culture and history which has been stolen, misrepresented and damaged.

  23. Several commentators have raised a point that needs to be addressed. The idea that we could not have borrowed a word if we already had the item is a clearly invalid one. There are many instances of Armenian borrowing foreign words for concepts that clearly existed before. There are several reasons, one being that the foreign word is shorter and easier to use. For example, for “thank you,” Armenians prefer to use the French “merci” instead of the clunky “shnorhakalutyun.” For “kiss,” we have borrowed from the Italian “baciare,” using it more often than “hamburel.” And we weren’t ruled by the French or the Italians. When you add the factor of being ruled by another nation (such as the Turks), the process is intensified several fold. So, while we had hearths before the Turks came, it is perfectly possible that we borrowed the short and simple “ocak” instead of our longer versions (such as “krakaran”). Btw, what are the chances that some of our pseudo-“patriots” will be overexcited by my use of “nation” instead of actually focusing on the main point of my comment. So much fun to deal self-assured simpletons.

  24. Several of my compatriots on this page keep advancing the absurd notion that somehow “Armenia is part of Asia Minor” and that therefore “Armenians are native to Asia Minor.” This is a very important point, because these Armenians are unknowingly advancing Turkey’s agenda. Anyone stating that “Armenians are native in Asia Minor” either cannot be a true Armenian or knows very little of the Armenian geography. Asia Minor, or Anatolia, is a peninsula, i.e. surrounded by water. Armenians’ homeland, otherwise known as Armenian Highland or Armenian Plateau, is definitely not surrounded by water. Thus, the Armenian Plateau neighbors Asia Minor (Euphrates being the boundary) but is not included in the Asia Minor. Now, before Kemal’s reforms in 1920’s, the Armenian Plateau was considered a distinct geographic unit separate from Anatolia (i.e. Asia Minor). In 1920’s, however, Kemal, in his attempts to erase any memory of Armenians in eastern Turkey, actively campaigned for extending “Anatolia” or “Asia Minor” to include the territory of the Armenian Plateau, thus making the Armenian Plateau as a non-distinct territory within the larger “Anatolia.” Here is what Wikipedia says:

    “According to Richard Hovannisian, the Armenian Genocide was the “physical elimination of the Armenian people and most of the evidence of their ever having lived on the great highland called the Armenian Plateau, to which the perpetrator side soon assigned the new name of Eastern Anatolia”.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Highland

    Therefore, any clueless Armenian saying that Armenia is somehow part of “Asia Minor” is, through ignorance, playing under the tune of Turkey’s propaganda machine.

    The following article contains the more correct boundaries of Asia Minor in red: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolia

    My fellow Armenians, if we do not know our own geography, how can we ever hope to regain our lost lands?

    • I don’t know what you aim to achieve, but it is clear that you are using technical balderdash to “start” a non-existent argument in order to “prove” how wrong everyone else is. The idea that “we are aiding Turkey” by claiming “we are natives to Asia minor” because “the definition of Asia Minor is such and such” and “we have no clue about geography and the sky is about to fall” is so devoid of value, that it is downright childish. In our every day conversation, we use Asia Minor to be synonymous with Anatolia to be synonymous with modern-day Turkey. That’s it. There are no “tricks” involved.
      .
      That being the case, It would be fun if you could tell us…
      Which source are you using to prove Armenian Asia Minor groups like the Hittites (among many others) were not ancestors to Armenians?
      .
      Which source are you using that ‘Pokr Haig’ (Lesser Armenia) which clearly falls in the boundaries of Asia Minor by your definition of it is not actually part of Asia Minor and that it is not part of the Armenian homeland?
      .
      And seeing this antique map of Asia Minor, published 150 years before wikipedia, we clearly see part of it being “Armenia Minor”…
      http://www.smie.co/pics/general_info/asia_minor_1849.jpg
      I think that makes you *technically* incorrect in your claims.
      Back to the drawing board?

    • I am not sure what your aim is (if you have any), but it is clear that you are desperately trying to minimize the fact that you were proven to be wrong. Squarely. And you are trying to do it by labeling the winning position as “technical.” Which is understandable, it’s a common tactic by losers to avoid embarrassment. Another desperate response typical to a loser is “uh … but … this tiny part of Armenia is in Asia Minor … so there, I won.” The fact that a small edge of the Armenian Highland falls in Asia Minor does not mean that the whole Armenian Highland is in Asia Minor. Just because Armenians are native in the Armenian Highland does not mean that they are native in its western-most edge. We cannot know whether the Armenian ethnos formed in all parts of the Armenian Highland simultaneously or only in some part, then spreading to the rest of the Plateau.

      I do not know who around you “in everyday conversations” uses Asia Minor to denote all of Turkey, because I do not know (but can guess) the intellectual sophistication of your family, but no, in everyday conversations that is not how Asia Minor is used. And if YOU use it in such manner, it only means that you have fallen prey to official Turkish propaganda. It’s nothing to brag about. And if you think that repeating the official line of the Turkish propaganda machine (as in “Armenia is part of Anatolia”) is a “trivial technicality,” then you are clearly serving their interests, either through ignorance, childish arrogance, or intentionally.

    • Jirair, it’s no use. Even if you cite works of Xenophon to Al-Masudi to James Morier, and even if you turn blue in the face restating that in the ancient world Armenian Highlands were the easternmost part of Asia Minor in which such kingdoms and tribal confederations as Thrace, Bythinia, Paphlagonia, Aeloia, Phrygia, Galicia, Pontus, Assyria, Pamphylia, Lycia, Pisidia, Lycanoia, Caria, Mysia, Ionia, Lydia, the city of Troy, as well Urartu, Armenia, and Armenian Cilicia were located, the “Compatriot” will act out the brick wall in the famous saying.

    • “you are desperately trying to minimize the fact that you were proven to be wrong” – Quite the contrary, it was YOU who was proven wrong, in nearly every one of your useless posts in this thread.
      .
      “labeling the winning position as “technical.” Which is understandable, it’s a common tactic by losers to avoid embarrassment.” – Nope, I labeled the LOSING position as being technical and trivial and downright childish and unimportant, and using your own game proved you wrong. You wanted to play “let’s get technical so I can prove you all wrong” – and you fell into your own trap, simple as that. And since you failed to teach us all a geography lesson by being WRONG, and according to your own posts and approach: YOU “are a simpleton and playing into Turkish hands and you have no clue about geography nor your family” (These are your words).
      .
      “this tiny part of Armenia is in Asia Minor … so there, I won.”” – Again, this was YOUR game, remember? Being the wikipedia warrior that you are, you went through great lengths showing us all the technical details about how the Armenian Highland “is not part of Asia Minor” based on its boundary and how we got it all wrong etc, the only thing missing from your thesis were the directions on how to get to the Armenian Highland with degrees, longitude and latitude. Yet, since you are here “to have a conversation in a civilized manner” you failed to answer my questions regarding the ancestors of Armenians and providing your source proving that ARMENIAN tribes INSIDE Asia Minor like the Hittites do not make up the ancestry of Armenians… what’s the matter? You don’t have wikipedia to help you? Yes, I know, The Hittites are a touchy subject for the Turkish wikipedia propaganda machine, which states that the article regarding the Hittites and other “Anatolian peoples” “must not have any reference to Armenians”, so I suggest you actually pick up some real books for a change if you are interested in real history.
      .
      “The fact that a small edge of the Armenian Highland falls in Asia Minor does not mean that the whole Armenian Highland is in Asia Minor.” -No duh Sherlock, we are talking about the Armenian ethnicity here, and I don’t think you will find anywhere in the world anyone writing or claiming “A small part of the Armenian Highland falls in Asia Minor therefore all of the Armenian Highland is in Asia Minor” – This sounds like something straight out of kindergarten.
      .
      “We cannot know whether the Armenian ethnos formed in all parts of the Armenian Highland simultaneously or only in some part” – Wow, aren’t you contradicting yourself here from the above? After all your deranged personal attacks, next you come out acknowledging there is a chance the Armenian ethnicity fell in its western most edge, possibly in the technical borders of Asia Minor? You are a strange one.
      .
      Lastly, seeing that you have made a fool of yourself on this site (and especially this thread) on more than one occasion, I find it surprising you are still sticking around. Are you getting paid for it?

    • I did not respond to some of the trash that you posed as “questions,” Hagop D, because, well they were trash and were totally irrelevant and nonsensical. Hittites were not Armenians, and anyone stating that in a serious academic discussion will be laughed upon. Only a few self-proclaimed Armenian “historians/linguists” make the claim based on some outdated sources, and obviously they are not taken seriously.

      Here is what you stated earlier: “the Armenian Highland is part of Asia Minor.” Hagop D // June 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm //. You were thoroughly proven wrong by me and even by your own maps. If you are unwilling to accept your losing status, that is fine, but at least refrain from making a fool of yourself by thrashing around and repeating that you did not lose.

      And no, when I said that it’s unknown in which part of the Armenian Highland the Armenian ethnos formed, I was not contradicting myself. It is almost an axiom that there is always a chance that Armenians could have formed anywhere, whether it’s Central America or the Moon. That is the beauty of the concept of “chance,” as anything is possible in theory. However, since we do not know which part of the Armenian Highland Armenians formed in, we cannot say that “they formed in that tiny part of Armenia which lies in Asia Minor and therefore they are native in Asia Minor.” Saying “Armenians are native in Asia Minor” suggests that Armenia is in Asia Minor, which would mean that it is not a distinct geographical unit, which is what Turkey has tried to convince the world. Given your long-winded and thrashing diatribe, and your failure to acknowledge your obvious losing position, you clearly have made a total fool of yourself. Which again begs the question why you keep going.

    • While the larger territory of Thrace has historically been in Southeast Europe, one chunk, the Gallipoli peninsula (called the Thracian Chersonese in ancient times), was a part of historic Thrace, and is now a part closely adjacent to Asian Turkey = Asia Minor. Did you know that ancient countries, as well as geographical places, were not demarcated by brickwalls and that they might have extensions and/or protrusions?

      In response to your balderdash: “Armenians are not native to Asia Minor because the Armenian Highland is not in Asia Minor”. Did you know that if a plateau is called “The Armenian Highland”, it doesn’t suggest that an ancient people who gave it a name have been ghettoed within the confines of the plateau and, in fact, lived both within and well beyond its confines?

    • We get your point, john, you are very knowledgable. You know about things like “Thracian Chersonese,” “Gallipoli,” and protrusions. It still does not change the fact that you were mistaken, and that Thrace is not in Asia Minor. Gallipoli is on the EUROPEAN side of the straits, whereas ASIA Minor is on the ASIAN side. You may want to stop digging yourself even deeper, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

      As for Armenians in the Armenian Highland, true, they have lived outside of the Highlands, including Cilicia and Glendale. Does not mean that they were native wherever they lived. The main point is that Armenia is not in Asia Minor but is a distinct geographical unit, as I have educated you, for which you might wish to thank me.

    • Don’t nit-pick. Really. It doesn’t suit a notions-substituting great figure like you. In addition to “Thracian Chersonese”, the closest adjacent area to Asia Minor, several Thracian tribes migrated to and settled in Asia Minor. Did you make an effort to answer for yourself if nations’ locations and geographical places were demarcated by brickwalls or they might have had extensions? Need more time?

      Historic Armenians were native within and beyond the Armenian Highland. Lesser Armenia (Pokr Hayk), portions of Tigran’s Empire, a portion of Bagratunis’ Kingdom, Cilicia, even westernmost Armenian vilayets of the Ottoman Empire extended beyond the confines of the Armenian Highland.

      “Does not mean that they were native wherever they lived”. Do me a favor, tell this to the Turks, will you?

  25. As an additional interesting trivia regarding the title of this article, there is nothing unique about “vay” in the Armenian language. Ancient Romans had a word that sounded EXACTLY the same and had EXACTLY the same meaning (though spelled “vae”). The most famous usage known in history is that of general Brennus, who, when conquering Rome and entering a room full of undressed women, exclaimed “vae victis!” (there could have also been a scale involved in the story or something). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brennus_(4th_century_BC)

  26. To address the never ending “culture” debate.Putting down another’s culture to make your own look better is petty and childish. Also, if you’re going out of your way to show how a 4000 year old (or so) culture is in many ways more evolved in comparison to a 1500 year old (or so) culture, you have an a problem. ITS OBVIOUS. You had a 2 and half THOUSAND year head start. So if you want a Turk to say it.. here: Armenia>Turkey. White flag… I’d like to say “let’s never have this conversation again” but that’s clearly impossible. So can we wait like a week before rehashing this trivial debate again?

    • RVDV,

      Concluding that we “put down another’s culture to make our own look better” is childish, I’m sorry to say. No one attempted to “put down” your culture. I, for one, only tried to get a definition of “Turkic culture” because it is known that this culture lacks authenticity, originality, and distinction. Not that it doesn’t exist, but that it is to a large extent a borrowing of several aspects of other peoples’ cultural traits whom Turkic tribes came to invade and subjugate. You’d be more honest if you stated that it’s not the matter of a culture’s longevity (4000 vs. 1500), but its authenticity and originality. But I still appreciate your hanging out the white flag. Only courageous Turks can do this.

  27. An Armenologist/linguist in Armenia maintains that “ojakh” is an Armenian word. Its root is “chah”, the Armenian word meaning torch, fire, hearth. Over the centuries “chah” became “ochah” and then “ojakh”. Sounds credible to me.

    • I know this Turkish janitor who maintains that Armenians have never existed. Sounds credible to me. So, after looking through your “books” and failing to find a scintilla of evidence that ojakh is of native Armenian origin, you finally come up with this unnamed “Armenologist” and, bingo, you immediately find her credible? Sounds more like desperation to call anything supporting your view as “credible.” Who is this mysterious Armenologist? How old is she? What are her credentials? Is she one of those modern “experts” in Armenia who spew out all kinds of nonsense and make Armenia’s scientists the laughing stock of the world? Like “historian” Artak Movsisyan’s claim that “we inherited Armenia’s coat of arms from Urartu through genetic memory”? Is this unnamed Armenologist more credible than linguist/philologist/historian Rafael Iskhanyan, who stated in the 1980’s that ojakh is of Turkish origin? By the way, Rafael Iskhanyan has an article named after him on both the English and Armenian Wikipedia. Is there any such article about this “Armenologist”? How does she explain that not only Turks, but Russians and Kazakhs have variations of the word “ojakh”? How credible do you think you sound?

  28. Actually, “MEN” is an Armenian word too.

    It was “AR-MEN” before. Over time, “AR” dropped and only “men” left.

    If, Men >> Man >> Hu-man.
    Then, Human is Armenian.

    No wonder, some Turkish people in Turkey was shouting, “we are all armenians..!”

    How did i miss the point before..!

    • Necati,
      I assumed we were having a debate on the origin of the word “ojakh”.
      Your attempt at satire doesn’t make any positive contribution to the discussion. My source for the origin of the word is an Armenologist and linguist who has several books to her credit. If I were to do what you failed to do, Turkey would be the most vulnerable country to mock. There’s the saying about not throwing stones at glass houses, etc. Turkey has no class–sorry for the Freudian slip. I meant glass.

    • Is this the acumen of Turkish humor, Necati? Or its apogee? A riddle for you, if you don’t mind. Which word in the very name of your country (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) is originally Turkish? Allow me to run ahead to save your time and ease your brainpan function. “Türkiye” is a Chinese word derived from “Tujue”, and “Cumhuriyeti” is an Arabic word “Djumhuriye”. How could you miss this living in your genocidal wonderland?

    • necati,with your above comments of ‘avanag’ & ‘dangalak’ you were improving your knowledge.With this comment you ruined what you had improved.Don’t try sudden far too high jumps!Stick to the avanags & the dangalaks.

  29. Necati:
    you missed it, because like all Denialists, you suffer from a serious disease that has been around for a long time, but only recently was given the proper clinical classification: it is called ‘Denialitis’.
    It overwhelmingly affects Turkic peoples.
    (a case was discovered recently in one Crimean Tatar MP).
    However, large numbers of non-Turkic people have the condition too.
    Thankfully, substantial numbers of Turkic peoples have natural immunity to it, and are working with other professional to find a cure: they care.
    It is not contracted by casual contact, but its effects are quite debilitating:
    – clouding of normal judgment and vision: seeing things that are not there; firm, unshakable belief in myths.
    – manifestations of and belief in unsubstantiated Turkic grandeur: a simple mechanism to suppress and hide feelings of inferiority and a mixture of shame & guilt & rage upon realization – sometime in one’s adulthood – the ugly truth of what one’s ancestors really were. (…opposite of the soothing fairy tales told by parents, grandparents).
    – confusion about the order of things in normal Universe the rest of us live in, and an unshakable belief in the alternative Denialverse.
    – delusional belief that Turks are indigenous to Asia Minor and have been there at least 10,000 years.
    – delusional belief that the real indigenous peoples, Armenians, Assyrians, etc were not exterminated by foreign invaders, but the victims themselves killed millions of ‘indigenous’ Turks.
    – delusional belief that misappropriated lands are historic ‘Turkish’ lands.
    – illogical, bizarre, abnormal behaviour – opposite of how normal people would react in similar situations. (Ex: about 50 or so young Turkish Americans singing and dancing outside Embassy of Turkey in D.C. on April 24, 2010: a day of mourning and somber reflection for Armenians).
    – in some severe cases, the sufferer loses all composure during polite discussions about Denialism, starts foaming at the mouth, insults peoples’ dead grandmothers in most vile,sick, degrading manner, professes unabashed, naked hatred for Armenians, etc. Really sad to behold.
    .
    Medical science is working hard to develop remedies. We care.
    Large numbers of Turkish people are risking their comfort, well being, and even lives to find a cure as well.
    Please send your tax deductible donations to CureDenialitis.org
    .
    Finally, here is a non-clinical evaluation of one unfortunate victim who suffers from a virulent form of Denialitis.
    (Note: Ms. Mine Ozcelik Bagrationi is an ethnic Turk woman married to an Armenian man)
    .
    [necati, you definitely Not a Turk, because a Turk does Not purposely demean his own people and represent us all Turks as vicious, uneducated, murderous masses…I am Not, I know you won’t hesitate to behead Christians, especially Armenians. You are the “lowest” low of our people, and we have started to throw thrash like you who belittles the great Turkish people out the window. We are cleaning our country of backward looking, genocidal elements like yourself. That is WHY you are forever condemned to curse our nation and our proud Turkish people. Sad case of ignorant hooligan. PS: I still have to find an Armenian whose name is Mine, and as for my last name Ozcelik, it is pure unadulterated 100% Turkish name. Dear Armenians, I have to apologize Again for this necati, whose Only aim in it’s life is to pile Shame after Shame on our proud people. We are Not as this necati wants you to believe. We are a gentle and loving people, he is a vile and most probably a self hater, ashamed of his Turkish ancestry.] (Mine Ozcelik Bagrationi , 10 May 2012 @TZ)

    • Avery,regarding necati there is another beautiful comment by Mine Ozcelik Bagrationi here below:
      Mine Ozcelik Bagrationi, 21 September 2012 , 22:15
      necati, my simple minded and covertly ignorant brother. I will answer to your “rape” question. It was Not the Armenians who are accusing You for raping the young women and children during the Armenian Genocide, but 128 German military trainers (including generals) for the Ottoman armies, who after seeing the disgusting atrocities of rapes, informed the German high command in Berlin about the savagery of our soldiers. There on the Dardanelle front, Turkish Armenian and Greeks soldiers were fighting valiantly against the British onslaught and holding them in their trenches, back in eastern Turkey, the mothers, wives and daughters of the exact same Greek and Armenian soldiers were being raped, molested and killed. None of my Ozcelik family members took part in the heinous atrocities, however, there are ample proof that the Genis clan engaged in raping, looting and killing of Armenians, and that is where, us two Turks,our paths divurge. The Ozcelik family helped their Armenian neighbors hide and run away, the Genis family actively participated raping and killing their Armenian neighbors. And for that, the Ozcelik family is respected and loved in Turkey and in all places where Armenians and Greeks live. Thousands of Turks helped hide their Armenian neighbors, your family decided to participate in the pogroms. As for your ethnicity, you need to educate yourself better. Maybe we have 5%-10% of our Turkic genes, the rest my friend are of Armenian, Serbian and Greek genes. Good day, if you learn something, however small it may be, every day, you will achieve enlightenment and I assure you that you necati, to be completely free of IGNORANCE.
      http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-292955-how-alevi-victims-became-criminal-offenders.html

  30. The idea that an older civilization is necessarily more advanced or better is a false one. Turtles and crocodiles have been the same for much longer than humans, and yet …. I don’t mean to belittle the Armenian culture. It is indeed rich and commendable. But is it better than the Turkish culture (even if you remove all Armenian borrowings, of which I am sure they have been many)?

    Nor does making your own alphabet makes one superior. Look, I could get together with my family and make up our own letter, and dedicate ourselves to keeping it the same for generations. How does that make me better than my neighbor? Maybe in terms of stubbornness and just ritualistic obsession? Sure. But definitely not as a sign of intellectual superiority.

    I think by resorting to such extreme claims to superiority to others (and yet in the same very breath you somehow manage to accuse the other side of racism and bigotry), you in fact show a complex of inferiority, and are seen by others as overcompensating for something, which is understandable, given how bad and, to some extent, ashamed you must feel for having ancestors that allowed themselves to be in a historical predicament where they were slaughtered in a Genocide.

    Now take the culture that made the Turkish ancestors capable of coming and conquering Armenian “ancestral land.” Why could they do it? It is not like there were a bunch of wild animals that came and took over. There was discipline, military industry, social cohesion, engineering, strategy, communication, etc, etc. You cannot say we lost because they conquered us. For example, the author of the famous book on such subjects of cultural comparison (Jared Diamond) would say, why stop there in your explanation? What was it about the Turks that made them the winner and you the losers?

    And don’t go there by denigrating the military capabilities metric … After all, you gleefully keep talking about your victories in Karabak … So you can be great because of such a small victory, but Turks cannot be after taking over your WHOLE “empire”?

    Again, I don’t think it is productive to talk which, Turks or Armenians, have a better culture. My point is that the other side has pretty much good arguments too (and some say, much better). And as a side note, out of curiosity … Armenians claim the same historical prominence and cultural longevity as Greeks, Romans, Persians, etc. And yet … your achievements pale in comparison with theirs, to say the least. Where is your Aristotle? Where is your Cicero? All I keep hearing is dolma and some silly fights over words. As they say in Azeri: Ayagini yorganina gore uzat! (Stretch your legs only according to your blanket’ length). I am sure we stole this saying from you too.

    PS I know I had promised to never return to AR. But this discussion was just too much :) This change of mind of course has no bearing on the content of the above.

    • Oh, geez, what did I start here?

      Anyway, I will let my fellow Armenians to respond to the rest of Karim’s points (engaging in psychological/internet/feudal warfare is a thing of past for me), but I will quickly address an important point. Turks were able to conquer all those lands because of horses. Before the invention of gunpowder, settled populations were always sitting ducks for the nomads and horse-riders. The Goths conquered Rome, the Mongolians conquered, well, everything, and so forth. Those who lived in the steppes had more experience with horse-riding, which translated into advantage over others. Only after the invention of gunpowder were the Chinese able to defeat the so far undefeated Mongolians. The Ottomans were able to hold on to power because they adopted guns and cannons and combined them with horses, which was a deadly combination.

    • Kerim,

      Do not please attempt to twist one of the subjects that came up in this discussion. However hard you try, you will fail to cite a single phrase in this thread that mentioned the “older-newer or better-worse civilization” issue. There was none. Please stop divertive tricks.

      In fact, one subject dealt with the definition of culture, not civilization. Turkic culture, in particular. And it dealt with examining if Turkic culture bears the necessary aspects of any culture, such as unique alphabet/language/script, unique religion, unique art, music, literature, and architecture, unique commerce, unique cuisine, etc. We never went further that the alphabet after determining that the Turkic culture lacks the authentic distinct one. As trivial as it may sound, but determining something doesn’t mean belittling something.

      The point is not whose culture is older or newer or better or worse. The point is whose culture has developed its distinct authentic aspects and whose culture only borrowed the cultural achievements of other nations. And whether you like it or not, Turkic culture, testified in its current alphabets, language, scripts, religion, arts, architecture, etc., did heavily borrow from other nations. Whereas the Armenian culture, and I’m saying this with no hint of supremacy, has largely—not exclusively—largely developed its own, unique aspects of culture that are testified in our alphabet, language, script, religion, arts, music, architecture, commerce, cuisine, etc.

      Stating the fact doesn’t presuppose any belittlement. Nor does it demonstrate any primacy or supremacy. It’s just that: a fact.

      Comparing older civilizations with turtles and crocodiles is foolish, I’m sorry to say. Also, a civilization is commended not based on its longevity but for its contributions to the mankind.

      Cheers.

    • Karim,
      Your “turtles and crocodiles analogy” is illogical at best and nefarious at worst. Please spend more time on polishing your flights of literary fancy.

      “Now take the culture that made Turkish ancestors capable of coming and conquering Armenian ‘ancestral land’. Why could they do it?” you wonder,
      The Turks did it in Armenia and in the Middle East the same way the Barbarians defeated the Roman Empire. A brutal and backward people vanquished an empire which was the top civilization around the Mediterranean. Yes, despite Ovid, Virgil, Terrance, et al, the Romans were defeated by backward brutes. The urban and urbane Armenians’ settled communities were no match for your bloodthirsty and animalistic ancestors. Despite the cliche, the sword–I mean the yataghan–is stronger than the pen. According to your logic, a goon carrying a sub-machine is more civilized than a scholar.
      That you put quotes around Armenia being the ancestral land of Armenians disqualifies you from participating in this debate. Go peddle your ignorance elsewhere.

  31. Vahagn, actually it is your posts that brought me back  It is refreshing to read posts that go against the crowd mentality. So I am not sure if you an Armenian or not, but I think it is wrong to assume that an Armenian is incapable of being a rational contrarian.

    I did not engage in any warfare (but just killing time, I guess) and do not plan to continue it much. I hope what I say has at least some value in terms of showing how you guys are seen by the other side. I personally value such insights, assuming they are not insults. I myself have learned a thing or two from (even) Avery. But one sometimes has to wade thru the typical reflexive hatred to find some worthy things, which is not usual worth the time. But you do make good points about why Turks were successful. I am not sure if you are factually correct, and I do not care about the subject enough to go and research as to when Mongols learned horses-riding. But on the face of it, it makes sense. But then the question is why had Armenians been unable to tame horses through discipline? After all, horses are good not just for conquest but also for agriculture, etc. The same about canons, which are good not just for conquest but also defense. Were they too busy guarding their alphabet to forget the gates?

    • Great, even the Azeris doubt my ethnicity.

      Well, thank you for the kind words, Karim. I appreciate you acknowledging that I was the one bringing you back. Now my fellow Armenians will really trust me (benign sarcasm inserted).

      Regarding your question about Armenians and horses, Armenians have used horses for thousands of years and have been known in the ancient world for their mastery of the horses. Ancient Greek commander Xenophone wrote about the quality of Armenian horses, and the Armenian cavalry often played a key role in defeating the Romans several times (sometimes alone, sometimes with another great horse-riders, the Parthians).

      However, the people of the steppes had an advantage in horse-riding because that is what they primarily did and taught their children from an early age. This gave them the extra edge over the sedentary people. A well-trained archer on a horse was the attack helicopter of the era. They could attack, kill from a distance, and leave faster than their victims realized what was going on. The rise of guns clearly diminished this advantage. Here is from Wikipedia:

      “The rise of gunpowder reduced the importance of the once-dominant heavy cavalry … For the first time in millennia, the settled people of the agricultural regions could defeat the horse peoples of the steppe in open combat. The power of the Mongols was broken in Russia and, no longer threatened from the east, Russia began to assert itself as a major force in European affairs. Never again would nomads from the east threaten to overrun Europe or the Middle East. … The one exception to this was the Ottoman Empire, which had been founded by Turkish horsemen. Arguably the world’s greatest power for almost the entirety of the early modern period, the Ottomans were some of the first to embrace gunpowder artillery and firearms and integrated them into their already formidable fighting abilities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_warfare

  32. Rafael Ishkhanyan, who was a very patriotic linguist and philologist, was not wrong in his comment about Armenian օջախ/օճախ (also օջաղ) [օjakh]. To the very least, he had surely checked the first comprehensive dictionary of the Armenian language, Stepanos Malkhasiants’ 4 vol. magnum opus (1944-1945) (entirely available at http://www.nayiri.com). See օջախ/օջաղ in vol. 4, p. 609: “[from] Turkish ogak, վառարան [stove].” Whether Malkhasiants (an accomplished linguist and philologist, 1857-1947) and his source have been proven wrong in the past 70 years, that’s stuff for professional linguists.
    By the way, whoever that “Armenologist/linguist from Armenia” is, օ+ջահ = օջախ is as amateurish as it may be; s/he would have to explain how ջահ became օջահ and not աջահ or ուջահ, and what is the function of that օ (perhaps the entire word օջահ means “oh, torch”…).

    • At the same time, Vartan, Hrachia Adjarian, who is by far greater authority in the definitive study of history and origins of word roots in Armenian than Malkhasiants, has not even included the word “ojakh” in his 7 vol. magnum opus “Armenian Etymological Dictionary” (Հայերեն Արմատական Բառարան), which suggests that Adjarian didn’t even consider օճախ-ojakh as a word with foreign roots.

    • Letter ‘o’ was added to the Armenian alphabet during the late Middle Ages (c. 1400-1500 CE) to write loan words from foreign languages, mainly European, whereas Seljuk nomads intruded the Caucasus and Asia Minor in the 10th-11th centuries CE. If Armenians borrowed օջախ from Seljuks, then our linguists and etymologists would have spotted this word somewhere in pre-late medieval manuscripts written as ոջախ (vojakh) because Armenians used ‘ո’ (vo) before ‘o’ was introduced. Has anyone heard of the word ոջախ (vojakh) in written Armenian?

    • Yeranuhi:
      “. . .which suggests that Adjarian didn’t even consider օճախ-ojakh as a word with foreign roots.”
      As you seem to have looked into Adjarian’s dictionary, you may have noticed that he included SEVERAL THOUSANDS of words with FOREIGN roots (say, one of the variants of the word երան “yeran” — unrelated to your name — which he lists as coming from Pahlavi (Iranian language), following Hubschmann, vol. II, p. 38 of the Yerevan 1973 edition). Thus, your abovementioned suggestion looks unwarranted.
      Nevertheless, he didn’t list օջախ/օճախ in his extraordinary etymological dictionary. Why?
      1) The word is not listed in the Mekhitarists’ “New Haigazian Dictionary” of 1836-1837, which compiled the entire (or so) wealth of Armenian classical literature.
      2) Since in 1926-1935 available dictionaries (Adjarian lists 14 dictionaries published between 1695 and 1910, including Haigazian Dictionary, as his key sources) had only collected in full the words of fifth-century and post-fifth-century Armenian, “I was forced to limit myself to the Armenian vocabulary of the first two (Golden Age and later) periods” (p. 7, Yerevan reprint, vol. I, 1971)).
      3) And because Adjarian noticed that those dictionaries had not entirely collected that vocabulary, “this circumstance forced me personally to read *the entire ancient Armenian literature* from cover to cover with special attention and to collect newly discovered words” (p. 8; “the entire ancient Armenian literature” is emphasized).
      4) I infer that Adjarian didn’t include օջախ/”ojakh” among the 11,000+ roots he listed because “ojakh” didn’t appear in Armenian ancient literature (if it appeared, it would have been *աւջախ/”aujakh” and turned into օջախ after 11th-12th century due to the replacement of աւ by օ, as you know). So, it must be a later addition.
      5) Of course it was. The word does not appear in the entries of the Classical Armenian (krapar)/Modern Armenian (ashkharhapar) dictionary included in the second vol. of the “Haigazian Dictionary” published by the disciples of Mekhitar of Sepastia in 1769. But it appears as an entry in the Modern Armenian/ Classical Armenian reverse dictionary included in the same volume (p. 692) as the word օճախ (Western Armenian pronunciation), with seven different explanations in Classical Armenian. So, it IS a modern word.

      5b) However, Simon Kapamajian’s dictionary of 1910, published in Constantinople, which was considered the best dictionary of the Armenian dictionary available at that time, does not include օջախ or օճախ. Why?
      6) But the word existed. Did Adjarian know that? Indeed he did. See vol. II, p. 679, under կրակ (krak/grag, “fire,” which is a word that has remained without etymology). He lists two borrowings from Armenian: Georgian kera, keraki, kerakani «օջախ, վառարան», Laz kera «օջախի քարը», and refers to an article of himself… of 1911.
      7) I wouldn’t be surprised if any reference to օջախ came up in the text of the entry of any related Armenian word, but I’ll leave it to you to search through the four printed volumes of 1971-1979 or the seven mimeographed volumes of 1926-1935, if you wish so.
      8) . . . “After all this, I consider my duty to add that there are wrong those who think that they must find any and every Armenian word in my dictionary. This is an Etymological Dictionary, and any word that is a root or has the appearance of being a root, yes, it must necessarily be in my dictionary. If it is not, it is a flaw. But the non-root words, be them derived or compound, only have room here in important cases. Their integral collection is the work of the Haigazian and Malkhasian dictionaries” (Adjarian, introduction, vol. I, p. 10).
      8a) Malkhasiants was already preparing his dictionary and Adjarian was aware of that. Indeed, what Adjarian was for Armenian etymology, Malkhasiants was for Armenian lexicon, and both crossed their paths in their knowledge of lexicon and etymology, respectively. If the OED is the supreme reference source for the English language, Adjarian + Malkhasiants were for the Armenian language, old and new, respectively (they still are, even if new updates have come up in the past six or seven decades). And if օջախ is a modern word, then you may see how Malkhasian (who deferred to Adjarian in ancient words) has a certain authority here.
      9) The simple fact that Armenian կրակ has replaced հուր as the word for “fire” in common written and colloquial use (you don’t go around saying “Հուրը մարէ՛” when you want someone to turn off the stove), when հուր is a word with Indo-European origins and then part of the original Armenian vocabulary and the origin of կրակ is still unknown (according to Adjarian), serves as an example to explain why and how “ojakh” might have come into the Armenian language at some late time and replaced/competed with the use of, say, վառարան, բուխերիկ or similars. With Turkish as the source? The 1769 dictionary of Modern Armenian by the Mekhitarists included hundreds of words in Turkish that were probably used in the grammatically and lexically non-cleansed Modern Armenian of the time, which was in its infancy. A century later Raffi, the great Armenian novelist of the nineteenth century, still used the verb փոշմանել (փոշման + ել, compare with Turkish pushman) “to repent” in his novel “David Bek” when he had զղջալ available, a verb (փոշմանել) that Eastern Armenians still use until this day (as singer/poet Rouben Hakhverdian does in one of his songs).
      10) In any case, one may still hold to the idea that both Armenian and Turkish borrowed the word from a common source. Or that Armenian invented the word — independently from Turkish — sometime in the post-classical/Modern period, and then loaned it to Georgian, for instance (as it did with կրակ). S/He should prove it conclusively and not with ջահ/օջահ/օջախ style concoctions.
      I hope these comments, despite their excessive length, may help shed some light on the issue.

    • VTiger:
      Thank your for pointing out ջախ. However, Malkhasiants doesn’t say that ջախ is the origin of օջախ. That’s your inference from what is says there. Again, if that were the case, we would need to explain wwhat is the meaning of the օ, or, at least, point out another case where a prefix օ (which means???) comes before a noun.

    • Yeranuhi,
      I never said that Armenians borrowed this word from Seljuks.
      If Armenians had transcribed the word as ոջախ at any time, it would have remained as ոջախ “vojakh” until this moment. That’s why I said that if the word had been created in classical times, it could have only been *աւջախ to become օջախ today.
      According to scholarship, the letter “o” was first attested in Armenian writing in 1046 (see Հայկական Սովետական Հանրագիտարան). It first appeared as part of the alphabet in a book written at the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century.

    • Vartan,kav litsi & I’m not a linguist.However why can’t the root of օջախ be ջախ?As said ջախ is an Armenian word which means a tree branch.Out of ջախ we have chakhchakel,chakhoumn,chakhchakhank,chanchkhnats(sorry I do not have the Armenian fonts),which all mean to hit violently,destroy… with of course the ջախ being the root of all chakhchakel,chakhoumn,chakhchakhank,chanchkhnats.
      How the prefix ‘o’ came into ջախ to make it oջախ could have a very simple explanation which has to do with the expression of ‘oh’ when the burnt ջախ gave warmth & satisfaction with which eventually we have the oջախ.
      This is the beauty of the Armenian language where we can go to the roots & find combinations.

    • VTiger:
      I don’t claim to be a professional linguist either, and I had suggested, as a joke, “օ ջահ” myself (now I realize that I used the word “prefix” for օ, before Yeranuhi did). However, allow me to make some comments:
      1) According to Adjarian, ջախել “to strongly hit, to destroy, to make into pieces” is similar to a group of Caucasian (Georgian and Laz) words, “but the relationship of these has not been ascertained.” He doesn’t mention ջախ, which might originally be (this is my assumption) derived from ջախել (with the meaning of “piece of wood” or something similar).
      2) Forgetting for one second that Adjarian has said (thanks to Yeranuhi’s research) that օջախ belongs to a list of three dozen words entering the Armenian modern language from dialects and which “are, in part, intermediary borrowings of Persian and Arabic,” I think that some explanation of the kind of “oh, jakh” (օ, ջախ), as you suggest, may fall within the category of what linguistics call “Volksetymologie,” in German, or “popular etymology” in English, namely, words that are popularly explained in a way that isn’t in agreement with scholarly findings (say English cockroach Armenian ովկէանոս or Armenian ով Աստուած = oh God). So, today we would have either ովջախ, perhaps ոջախ (with a flight of fancy), but not օջախ.

    • Vartan,on the contrary Adjarian mentions that ‘polori barz armadn e ջախ’ see:Հայերէն Արմատական Բառարան
      Հրաչեայ Աճառեան։ Երեւանի Համալսարանի Հրատարակչութիւն, Երեւան, 1926,Հատոր 4, Էջ 119.

    • VTiger:
      You’re right, but it corresponds to ջախ-ել (the entry) “to strongly hit, to destroy, to make into pieces.” (Actually, it’s vol. 4, Yerevan 1979, p. 119; the 1926-1935 is seven volumes and has different pagination.) Nowhere Adjarian makes reference to ջախ, as Malkhasian does, who marks ջախ with a + (a symbol that reveals it to be “provincial [= dialectal] word or meaning.” On the second column of the same page, Adjarian has a list of “provincial” words under ջախ(ել) and Malkhasian’s ջախ is not there either. (You understand that I’m making these comments for the benefit of other readers, who may not be able to look these dictionaries by themselves.)

    • I have just realized that some part of my penultimate comment to VTiger was garbled between what I typed and what it was posted.
      It was posted:
      “I think that some explanation of the kind of “oh, jakh” (օ, ջախ), as you suggest, may fall within the category of what linguistics call “Volksetymologie,” in German, or “popular etymology” in English, namely, words that are popularly explained in a way that isn’t in agreement with scholarly findings (say English cockroach Armenian ովկէանոս or Armenian ով Աստուած = oh God). So, today we would have either ովջախ, perhaps ոջախ (with a flight of fancy), but not օջախ.”
      Someone might be perplexed about the relation between cockroach, ովկէանոս and ով Աստուած! There is none, indeed! Except that I wanted to say that English cockroach, whose origin is from the Spanish word “cucaracha,” has been popularly etymologized as derived from “cock” and “roach” (a bird and a fish). And that if “oh jah” had ever been used by Armenian speakers who had discovered the warmth of a piece of kindled wood, they would have said ով ջախ (since in ancient times long o was written as ով, from which we have Greek okeanos = Armenian ովկէանոս), in the same way that they used (we still use) to say, for instance, ով Աստուած = ov Asdvadz = oh God.

    • Vartan,at least we agree that ջախ (chakh/jakh) is an Armenian word.
      Now let us dismember the Turkish oçak, if it has anything to do with fire or home:
      o is a pronoun/conjunction …that,he,she,her,him,it
      çak means knife
      oç means revenge,nemesis,revenge,retaliation,vengeance
      ak means white
      From the above we see that oçak has nothing to do with fire nor home.
      If you combine the above four meanings,doesn’t it remind you of a typical race which is very well described in the European literature let alone the Armenian literature?

    • VTiger: I don’t know whether ջախ (jakh), the root of ջախջախել, is Armenian or not. As I quoted above, Ajarian compares it with Georgian and Laz words and says that the relation between the three has not been clarified. However, let’s not forget that Ajarian is a giant of Armenian linguistics, but it doesn’t mean that Armenian linguistics died with him and his masterworks. For instance, another valuable etymological dictionary by his disciple, Gevork Jahukyan, appeared posthumously in 2009 in Yerevan (I haven’t seen it).
      Regarding your analysis of ocak, you may decompose, say, “cockroach” into “cock” and “roach” (as I showed before), but doesn’t mean that cockroaches are derived from the crossing of a bird and a fish. Someone like me who isn’t an expert in Turkish may point out, nevertheless, to the word çakmak, “lighter” (which I mentioned before) and tell you that the root çak in that word seems to show a relation to “fire.” Therefore, to avoid this kind of remarks, I would suggest you to stay aside from dismembering words in any language; the conclusions may contradict your premises.

    • RVDV,your line ‘You can claim that Turkey stole your lands, that argument will fail with Kurdistan.’
      Could you clarify & why will it fail with Kurds/Kurdistan?Where are the boundaries of Kurdistan?

    • Vartan,we agree that the root of ջախջախել is ջախ & I had seen that Adjarian compares is with Georgian & Laz but relation with it is not clarified.However we are 100% sure ջախ the root of ջախջախել is not Turkish.
      Regarding cockroach,most probably it has to do with the English not being able to pronounce cucaracha.It is a very poor example.
      As for çakmak meaning hrahan or lighter, çak is knife & mak has no meaning & knife’s association with fire is far too far fetching.
      Dismembering words is the right way to find its roots & origins plus its correct meaning & above all its dictation & specially in Armenian as one word can have several meanings.
      This is how we were taught at Armenian schools in Lebanon.
      As for your comment of “Whether the ultimate origin of օջախ (ojakh) is Persian or Turkish, it doesn’t matter,…” I find it absurd as this whole process of researching & commenting is to prove that it is not Turkish.

    • VTiger:
      Indeed, we are 101% sure that the root ջախ > ջախջախել is not Turkish. Nobody ever doubted about that. What I said before is that I don’t know whether there’s a relation between this ջախ (within the semantic field of “hit, destroy”) and the dialectal ջախ used in relation with “dry wood.” Adjarian doesn’t list the latter, as you know. Its origin is unknown.
      Re “cockroach”: tell someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the word in English to understand what “cockroach” means and s/he would come up with “cock + roach”. Do these names have anything to do with the insect? This is the meaning of the “poor example” I gave to you.
      (In this regard, Armenian is much more precise. Analysis of compound words to reach or understand their meaning is, indeed, very useful, as you and I were told in our Armenian school years).
      When you today dismember those Turkish words, as you did (and I’m not qualified to discuss your knowledge of Turkish), still someone else may argue that there’s Turkish ot “fire” or mention cakmak. You say that cak means “knife.” I wonder how Turks used the concept of “knife” to get to “lighter.” Perhaps “cakmak” has nothing to do with “light” or “fire” then (like “cockroach” is unrelated to “cock”).
      “As for your comment of “Whether the ultimate origin of օջախ (ojakh) is Persian or Turkish, it doesn’t matter,…” I find it absurd as this whole process of researching & commenting is to prove that it is not Turkish.” You’re entitled to your opinion, indeed, which prompts me to explain my rationale. The comment is related to Adjarian’s statement that there are a bunch of words (which are partially of Persian and Arabic origin) which have come into Armenian in modern times through Turkish, including օջախ. I only added that “it doesn’t matter…” because proven that it isn’t Turkish and it’s Persian, still the immediate source of Armenian has been Turkish. (I believe that my example of “pomidor” was enough clear: the French origin of the word doesn’t matter, as the immediate source of (Eastern) Armenian has been Russian.) And if someone needs it to prove that Turks were uncultured nomads and they couldn’t have such a word of their own, and then they borrowed it from Persian, 1) the borrowing into Armenian happened at a time when they were already settled in the Ottoman Empire and adjacent areas (modern times), 2) I have suggested to check a Persian Etymological Dictionary. As Adjarian did with with Armenian words, I would hope (and expect) that such a dictionary would say which languages borrowed the word from Persian. At least, we would discuss facts and not opinions.

    • Vartan,in your 1st post you had correctly mentioned about Rafael Ishkhanyan & Malkhasiants who in his Հայերէն Բացատրական Բառարան page 609 mentions օջախ (ochaKH) & օջաղ (ochaGH).
      You wrote:
      Quote
      What I said before is that I don’t know whether there’s a relation between this ջախ (within the semantic field of “hit, destroy”) and the dialectal ջախ used in relation with “dry wood.” Adjarian doesn’t list the latter, as you know.
      Unquote
      Malkhasiants clarifies this point.
      Re օջախ (ochaKH) he puts the sign of ‘+’ which means kavaraparpar (dialect) & gives its meaning as ջախ-i (chakhi) or oջխ-i (ochkhi).
      You had not noticed this very clear point.
      From օջախ as a root word, the Armenian language has so many composed words similar to օջախashen, օջախazourg,օջախasal & so on…which takes centuries for it to be composed.
      As for օջաղ (ochaGH),Malkhasiants clearly says dadjgeren-Turkish,which I personally am convinced that it has been taken from the Armenian օջախ.

  33. Vartan,
    Your “amateurish” tag to the Armenia linguist’s claim that “ojakh”is derived from the Armenian “chah” is subjective and amateurish. As well, the fact that Malkhasyants compiled the first comprehensive Armenian dictionary in modern times is insufficient reason to take his word for the origin of ojakh or for any other word.
    As to the inane claim by the atlas-deprived “geographer” on this thread, it seems indigenous Armenians have to take geography-history lessons from the issue of Central Asian barbarians about the location of Armenia. Perhaps a Tai-Mur or an Attila can confirm to us whether there ever was an Armenia. Perhaps Armenian Mount Ararat is a figment of our imagination and no different from the mythological mountain of Prometheus.

    • Jirair,
      I’m surprised that, instead of replying to my post with some facts that proved the function/meaning of “o” before “chah” to turn it into “ojakh” (that isn’t an amateurish question, if you asked some professional linguist, s/he would start from there; if you don’t believe me, just enlighten yourself about tackling etymological matters by reading some scholarly literature from Armenia on the issue: Adjarian, Jahukian, Aghayan, or the like), you just take recourse to the “subjective and amateurish” tag. You may pile as many adjectives as you want, but that won’t turn your argument into something… objective.
      Second, I stated an objective fact: Malkhasiants gave an etymology for օջախ. He happened to have compiled the first comprehensive Armenian dictionary too. I also added that, if Malkhasiants’ etymology had been questioned or was questionable (he published his work in 1944, so there’s room for new discoveries), I’d leave that to professional linguists. If you are one or if you have information from a professional one, be my guest and give us those facts. I, for once, will only welcome them.

    • As an addition, ջահ (chah) means բոցավառ մարխէ ձող, վառուած լոյս (approximately “enlightened pole, burning light” = torch excuse the approximate translation = torch) and կանթեղներով կախովի մեծ ճրագ (“big hanging light with candles” = chandelier), according to Adjarian’s dictionary, in Classical Armenian. Neither “fire,” nor “hearth.” Today, in Modern Armenian, when I lighten up a ջահ, it is a torch or, in a particular context, a chandelier, never a fire nor a hearth. And a ջահակիր is only a torchbearer, nothing else. So, ջահ and օջախ are not even similar in their meaning, either in the past or in the present.

  34. My Iranian friend just told me that there is a word اجاق (ojagh): stove, hearth in Farsi and Old Persian. This effectively puts this whole discussion to rest, because everyone, even Turks, know to what large extent they borrowed from the Persians in terms of language, arts, architecture, etc., when in the 10th century CE they migrated from Central Asia and made their first stop in mainland Persia, the province of Khurasan. I guess this shows that even IF Armenians borrowed the word (although I’ve counted two dozen words in Armenian for stove, hearth), they would, chronologically, have done this from the Persians, our ancient civilized cousins, not from newly-popped Turks. But I still think jah-ojah transformation has validity.

    • Yeranuhi:
      As I said before, Armenian and Turkish might have borrowed the word from a common source. If Farsi ojagh (“hearth,” “family,” “race,” according to Vardan Harutiunian’s Farsi-Armenian dictionary) is that common source, first we need to prove that Turkish borrowed the word from Farsi and not vice versa. The argument that Turks first stopped in Persia and borrowed words is incomplete; Persian also borrowed words from Turkish over time in the same way that, over a thousand years, Turkish borrowed words from Armenian, but Armenian also borrowed words from Turkish. Therefore, before jumping to guesses and conclusions, the next step would be to open a Persian Etymological Dictionary and found out whether “ojagh” is:
      1) A native Persian word;
      2) A borrowing.
      If it’s a native Persian word, it would mean that its origin is Indo-European. (There should be another Indo-European language with which “ojagh” is cognate, and both should be derived from a Proto-Indo-European root.) Therefore, we would be sure that the word was in the Persian language before the 10th century A.D. in order to become a loan into Turkish.
      If it’s a borrowing, it could be any language with which Persian had contact throughout its history.
      On the other hand, if you still think that “jah-ojah” transformation has validity, you’re entitled to your opinion. I’ll be looking forward to your arguments.
      And before someone else jumps to any ludicrous conclusion, I just would like to add that I didn’t enter this debate out of any patriotic duty, or to prove anything to any denialist — there are other meanings to do that –, but simply to bring about some scholarly sources to a linguistic debate.

    • “first we need to prove that Turkish borrowed the word from Farsi and not vice versa.“ Yes, please go ahead and prove to yourself that a sedentary people might have borrowed the name for hearth, a brick-, flagstone-, or cement fireplace, from a tent-living, horse-breeding, and steppe-wandering uncultured nomads.

    • Yeranuhi:
      I’m just showing how linguistics works. I don’t need to prove anything to myself, and above all, I don’t intend to prove anything to you either, especially since you seem to dismiss whatever I have mentioned in the previous postings (from Adjarian and various others).
      1) ***If*** Armenian borrowed the word from Turkish, that evidence shows that this didn’t happen at the time when the different Turkish invading waves were “tent-living, horse-breeding, and steppe-wandering uncultured nomads.” At that time (10th-14th century), the word “ojakh” IS NOT RECORDED in the Armenian language. The borrowing may have, hypothetically, happened later.
      2) ***If*** Armenian borrowed the word from Farsi, you just need to check a Persian Etymological Dictionary, find the word “ojagh” and see what it says. The same as Adjarian pointed out the parallels of Armenian words in many languages and their relation or non-relation with Armenian, it is likely that a similar dictionary for the Persian dictionary will do the same. And then you will have an answer to the question.

  35. It is very revealing to observe in this thread how some Armenians and ‘Armenians’ go out of their way to prove that something that could logically be either/or, is absolutely, positively not Armenian – but definitely Turkish.
    I guess Armenians feel embarrassed to claim ownership of something that we cannot conclusively, 100% prove is ours.
    Must be because we have been victims of massive theft for so long, so don’t want there to be even a hint of theft.
    Or could be the residue of centuries of Ottoman subjugation: claiming anything Armenian could be dangerous, even deadly: better not anger your Ottoman masters.
    .
    Denialist Turks have no such scruples: they slap “Turkish” on anything and everything, and let Armenians, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians etc spend time and effort to prove it is not. Everything is “Turkish”: words, food, dance, song, ancient architecture, the Moon…
    Read Turkish web sites sometimes: see if you can find anyone Turkish arguing there that something is not Turkish.
    Read AzeriTatarTurk websites sometimes: see if you can find anyone there arguing that something is even remotely Armenian.
    Even Armenian churches are not Armenian: they were designed and built by the Christian “ancestors” of “Azeris”.
    Both Azerbaijan and Turkey have massive, well funded campaigns to manufacture and publish “research” that proves nothing is of Armenian origin: it is allegedly either Turkish or AzeriTurkish.
    .
    It is clear that the star of this thread – օջախ – can go either way, at the minimum.
    There are just as many reasonable arguments and sources for it being of Armenian or non-Turkish origin, as there are for it being of Turkish origin.
    Yet some Armenians just _have_ to argue that it is definitely of Turkish origin.
    What do you hope to achieve ? A pat on the head from your Ottoman Turkish overlords ? A Certificate of Achievement from ATA ?
    Pretty soon there will be an Armenian arguing here @AW that Armenians borrowed Church building technology from Seljuk Turks.
    How about we start playing their game for a change: it is not Turkish, unless they can definitely prove it is Turkish.
    It is Armenian, Persian, Assyrian, Greek. Not Turkish. They have to prove it is: Not us.
    .
    When are Armenian people going to realize that we are in a struggle for survival vs denialist Turks.
    We are not in an Ivy League University genteel discussion class with friendly Turks.
    When Denialist Turks stand down, and the account is paid up in full – we can have that friendly discussion.

    • Avery!

      Just because someone does not agree with does not make them blind, embarrassed of being Armenian, or somehow conditioned somehow from centuries of second-class status from Ottoman days. What you’re doing is insulting and frankly a form of bullying. Lately you have assigned yourself the role of online guardian of everything Armenian and trying to herd people into your way of looking at things. While I agree with a lot of what you have to say, I find your style to rub things the wrong way.

      I did not want to continue this discussion after my initial comment because I’m tired of how these discussions usually go, but I felt I had to say something after your condescending and insulting attitude.

      I will say this, yes, Turks are very proactive in claiming things their own and hiding and erasing things Armenian. This has been artificially infused by the Turkish government into Turkish society. We see that. At the same time, I want to get things right, even if it’s not flattering for us Armenians. And frankly, we also make claims that are not exactly correct. And this is natural (as apposed to the artificial/political/ideological motivations). It is natural to assume things that you’ve grown up with as part of your culture to have originated by your ancestors.

      “I guess Armenians feel embarrassed to claim ownership of something that we cannot conclusively, 100% prove is ours.”
      This is a straw man argument.

    • Random, don’t worry, he is just a name on the screen, and most of his posts are crap, easily debunked. Keep posting your views, they are always valuable, and do not feel discouraged. As long as we, reasonable Armenians do it, a few loud simpletons will not be able to present their dogmas as the “official” Armenian view.

  36. I think Yeranuhi and Avery have good closing remarks.

    I checked Persian online dictionaries and, since I read Arabic, I was also able to read Persian. There IS a word “ojagh” (in Persian: اجاق) in the Persian language translated as “hearth”. End of story. Since Persians and Armenians are two ancient, native-to-the-region, sedentary, and intimately related nations, the likelihood that any one of them might have borrowed from the other in the course of millennia is incomparably greater than from the alien uncouth Turkic nomads who appeared in our region as a result of military invasion only in the 11th century AD. And I’m proud that the Armenian language enriched itself with words from Persian, a language spoken by an ancient, noble, and civilized people.

    As Avery has suggested, prove to us that almost everything “Turkish” is not authentically Armenian, Persian, Arabic, Latin, Assyrian, and Greek. Good luck!

  37. The Persian “ojakh” is from Turkish. Here is from Wikitionary:

    اجاق: “From Turkish ocak.”
    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%82

    The Russian “ochag,” as attested in the RUSSIAN Wikipedia, is of Turkic origin, too:
    http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B3

    If the above entries were incorrect, the Russian and Persian users would flock the Wiki sites and would immediately change the entry, as they are allowed to edit wiki sites too.

    The Russians had prolonged contact with the Turkic tribes, and so did the Persians, so clearly they could have borrowed the word.

    So, we have multiple sources stating that “ojakh” is of Turkic origin, including two Armenian giants in linguistics, Ishkhanyan and Malkhasyan. From the opposing side we have what? Someone’s unnamed Persian friend and some unnamed and unknown modern “Armenologist” from Armenia with the most ludicrous idea? It is indeed settled, and it is settled in favor of truth: that the word is indeed of Turkic origin.

  38. I checked Sevan Nisanyan’s “Modern Turkish Etymological Dictionary” and the word “ocak” is said to be of Old Turkic origin. However, it is noted that the word “ocak” does not appear in any Old Turkic text but rather the old Turkic “ot”- fire, was combined with the suffix -çak, and that’s how the word evolved into the modern Ocak. It also says that the word first appeared in the Uyghur language prior to 1000 CE.
    .
    To me, the question has nothing to do with a sedentary or nomadic lifestyle. It comes down to whether Armenian and Persian were using the word “ojakh” or “ojagh” before the 11th century OR whether they had a different word with the same meaning and later adopted a Turkic word to replace their own. The word appears in Persian dictionaries? Ok, well it also appears in Turkish dictionaries. Persian doesn’t automatically win out because you’re biased against Turkish.

    • Persian automatically wins without anyone’s bias towards anything, RVDV, because Persian was one of the ancient languages native to Near East, whereas Turkish is originally alien language to the region.

      Stating facts that may not soothe your ears is not indicative that anyone is biased towards something.

      To me, the question has much to do with a sedentary or nomadic lifestyle, because a fireplace extending into a room and paved with brick or stone is not at all characteristic to the tent-living nomadic lifestyle.

    • I’ll take the word of a Turkish-Armenian linguistics expert with degrees from Yale and Columbia over an online Persian dictionary.
      .
      Also, John, you still fail to see what has been mentioned over and over again. You say it is of Persian origin. I say Turkish. Neither of us says Armenian origin. Therefore, I could care less what the word means to Armenians in Armenian. It is irrelevant. It may have meant simple fireplace/bonfire in the past, and when adopted to Armenian from whatever language its meaning may have changed.
      .
      Also, you stated no facts. You said you read something on some Persian online dictionary. Like I said, give me a legitimate source from a credible person on the matter and I will gladly accept that the word is not of Turkic origin. Until then, I will go by the various sources online that I have found, all stating that the word is of Turkish origin.
      .
      Finally, quite interesting that you referred to said Persian online dictionary and said “end of story”, meanwhile, a few days ago, you had this to say: “But I’m afraid none of us will be able to prove authoritatively who borrowed from whom in terms of the word “ojakh”.

    • I said: “But I’m afraid none of us will be able to prove authoritatively who borrowed from whom in terms of the word “ojakh” before we all found out that there is a word اجاق (ojagh) in Persian. Are you polyglot? I’m not.

    • “before we all found out that there is a word اجاق (ojagh) in Persian”
      .
      Right. And I can provide equally if not more credible sources saying the word is Turkish. Back to square one then.

  39. Random !
    .
    I am deeply hurt: and all this time I thought you admired me greatly.
    Ah well: I have many other admirers @AW, so the hurt will heal in time with their kind support and understanding.
    .
    Allow me to retort then – in my usual insulting and bullying manner:
    .
    {“ Lately you have assigned yourself the role…”}
    Well actually not lately and not self assigned.
    I have not changed my role much since the day I was elected to this position by a unanimous vote about 2 years ago by my admirers @AW.
    Too bad you were out of town that week and missed it.
    .
    {“ I find your style to rub things the wrong way.”}
    This is not the first time you are complaining about my style.
    As I wrote before: too bad.
    Don’t read my posts; nobody is forcing you.
    If you see my name, skip over it.
    There lots of Armenian posters whose writing style gives me a headache: I am not conceited enough to advise them how or what to write; when I see the name, I go to the next post.
    There are lots of other Armenian and non-Armenian posters I look forward to reading.
    Some for enjoyment, some for the challenge.
    .
    {“ I’m tired of how these discussions usually go”}
    Then don’t participate: nobody is forcing you.
    .
    {“ I felt I had to say something after your condescending and insulting attitude.”}
    It is quite revealing that of all the condescending and insulting posts and posters, you make a point of singling me out.
    Proves my point, donnit ?
    btw: your pal Necati Genis has made several appearance lately @AW.
    quite curious you keep silent about a real insult.
    Proves my point, donnit ?
    .
    The rest of your gibberish has been addressed by me many times on previous occasions.
    Most of my comments have a purpose , which you are clearly incapable of understanding.
    Again: if my posts give you indigestion – don’t read them.
    Simple.

  40. The “ojakh” debate is symbolic of the Armenian/Turkbeijan (I’ve coined the word since Azeris are Turks and have merged their forces to obliterate anything Armenian)conflict. Beneath the ojakh debate is the Turkbeijan campaign to whitewash itself and erase Armenian presence in the homeland of Armenians now occupied by Turkbeijan.
    Since Turkbejain plays it dirty with its distortions, Armenians are faced with a dilemma similar to police fighting crime: Do we play dirty because Turkbeijanis play dirty or do we abide by the rules of science and scholarship and hope for the best? Will the world appreciate our efforts and agree with us or will the Turkbeijan wave of falsehood and systematic propaganda become the accepted “truth”? Is “doner” a Turkish sandwich or is it food which Turks “borrowed” from the Greek gyro or Arab shawarma?
    As Turkbeijan has launched a global campaign to cover up its traditional image of extreme violence, barbarity, corruption, backwardness, and racism in addition to the negative press it will get during the centenary of the Genocide of Armenians by Turkbaijanis, Armenians have to decide whether to play fire with fire–like the Turkbaijanis–or stick to facts and hope that the quiet truth will eventually overcome the loud lie?

    • I’m replying to this dilemma only because I hope that some readers don’t think with their feet and, indeed, may share these thoughts. 1) The answer is very easy:
      — You DON’T play dirty when they play dirty. It means that you’ve come down to their level, e.g., you’re them. Truth will always set you free; whether it sets them or not, that’s their problem.
      2) But it has several complex consequences:
      — You DO CRUSH them with the sheer force of facts and impeccable scholarship when your FACTS are stronger than their lies. For example, the “Italian” nationality of the Balian family or the “Great Calamity” translation of “Medz Yeghern.”
      — You DON’T discuss any issue of cultural history (such as the origin of doner), unless you have facts that may prove that you’re right beyond any doubt. Otherwise, it’s a pointless discussion. A borrowing (of words, artifacts, food, etcetera) may work both ways when the lines are blurred, unless you prove decisively with your FACTS that one way is the only logical way.
      — You DON’T become a laughing-stock when you don’t have that double force on your side and still insist that you’re right because you (your reasoning) say so. (See how many times denialists have become laughing-stocks.) Your reasoning may be faulty too, if you don’t have all the necessary facts.

    • Exactly, Jirair. One manifestation of such campaign is that in this debate, which looks etymological at first glance but bears an underlying message, there are point-heads who think with a body part that represents north end of a horse going south, who attempt to advance the idea that “Armenians are not natives to Asia Minor”. Proves your point. These are attempts—laughable and unavailing—to erase Armenian presence in our ancestral homeland.

  41. Ultra-nationalism is a bit understandable. But, this man, Avery, has some problems beyond nationalism. You can see it in his posts, especially to the other Armenians.

  42. How interesting ! some ill TurKILL and ill AXErbajanis come to this Armenian Weekly forum and belligerently criticize and insult Armenian Pen Warriors for educating them. Your ill denial of Armenian Genocide propaganda is doomed.
    Kristi, your article as always is educational. Thank you.

  43. “The Wikipedia Warrior” writes: “Hittites were not Armenians, and anyone stating that in a serious academic discussion will be laughed upon.”
    .
    Thanks, I was waiting for something like that. Now here is some history for you, which you will not find on wikipedia or google translate. In the 19th century presumably because the land of the Hittites was in Ottoman Turkey, some researchers were attempting to connect Hittites to Central Asians and Turkic people through language. One German researcher, Peter Jensen, took another approach and wrote a book entitled “Hittiter und Armenier” – “Hittites and Armenians” showing how they were connected through language. Sure enough, when the Hittite language was later deciphered it was revealed to be Indo-European, and not Altaic.
    .
    Excerpt from Kurkjian:History of Armenia (1958): “The Hurri-Mitanni kingdom of Armenia kept close contact with its western neighbor, Hittite or Hatti land. Masses of population were often transplanted from one country to the other… This age-long relationship, sometimes friendly, at other times hostile, brought about mixtures in language and blood, creating the “Hittite” type among the Armenians, and a store of words common to the two peoples; also a similarity in architecture, sculpture and the crafts.”
    .
    Its nice to see that a ultra-modern, super-intellectual, Wikipedia Warrior armed with a devastating computer is laughing at researchers and writers who published their works by the outdated and amateurish book publishing method, but now comes the “I am a Human thus I can think without wikipedia” part: Where are the Hittites today, can you tell us? Perhaps… their blood flows through the veins of … ARMENIANS? Your argument is similar to something like the Germans never existed, because they never formed Germany until the late 19th century.
    .
    “Here is what you stated earlier: “the Armenian Highland is part of Asia Minor.” You were thoroughly proven wrong by me and even by your own maps.” – Huh?? My own map showed you a map of Asia Minor in which the word -ARMENIA- was clearly visible, how is that not a **PART** Of Asia Minor??
    .
    “Saying “Armenians are native in Asia Minor” suggests that Armenia is in Asia Minor, which would mean that it is not a distinct geographical unit, which is what Turkey has tried to convince the world” – The rambling of an amateur who has confused himself and has no idea what he’s talking about. The Armenian Highland is the Armenian Highland, and it makes up a part of Asia Minor, regardless of how small. That is geography. The ARMENIANS, are native to the Armenian Highland *AND* Asia Minor, period. That is ethnicity. A native on a land is one that settles it. There is no doubt in my mind our ancestors have settled Asia Minor in ancient history, and when our people and country got its core identity, the Armenian Highland became distinct. Clearly you are confused between geography and ethnicity. No where in history was it ever written that our Armenian extent of country was NOT outside of the Armenian Highland. This term has gone to your head.
    .
    “If you are unwilling to accept your losing status…” – Unlike you, I am not here to “win” or “lose”, nor get my ego massaged. I am simply here to explore and discuss ideas about my heritage and history which I admire greatly, sometimes pointing things out to people who might appreciate it, and sometimes learning something new, while other times protecting my history and culture against those “non-natives” who think they can steal my history and make their fairy-tales believable.
    .
    As you have left a bad taste in my mouth, whoever you are you have a lot of growing up to do, because I don’t appreciate the way you address and talk AT your fellow Armenians (if you are one) calling them simpletons and whatnot. It is OK to get angry and become passionate once in a while, I get like that sometimes, but there is something suspicious about the way you do it, and it is not adding up. For example, above you make a comment… “there is nothing unique about “vay” in the Armenian language. Ancient Romans had a word that sounded EXACTLY the same and had EXACTLY the same meaning” – its not what you said, its the way you said it that catches my attention. Almost as if you are gratified that you found the word that the Romans also use. One who is interested in discussing history productively would not use such a tone. And btw, there is nothing unique about it being Roman either – we know that the Etrauscans were another Armenian tribe that settled ancient Italy which came from Urartu and Asia Minor and they significantly impacted Roman civilization, and for all we know vay is an Armenian Etruscan word which the Romans borrowed.
    .
    Now I will tell you an important Roman-Italian word which just may be unique: CIAO.

    • {“… the way you address and talk AT your fellow Armenians (if you are one)}:
      .
      “if you are one”: highly unlikely. But then again, many ethnic Armenians have been known to work for the enemy.
      Many are known to work for the enemy now: just a few days ago 3 Armenians were arrested in RoA and NKR, charged with working for Azerbaijani Special Services. (Good job RoA & NKR NSS).
      As was said before: it is not one’s name or ethnicity that matters as to the comments on the pages of AW.
      It is what one advocates.
      It is crystal quite clear what these ‘Armenians’ advocate on these pages.
      .
      {“…and it is not adding up.”}
      Right: it is not adding up.
      .
      Historical note: there was another ‘Armenian’ frequenting the pages of AW some time ago.
      He/She/They was/were posting under a genuine Armenian name.
      Very knowledgeable about things Armenian.
      Same language: “proud to be Armenian”, ” ‘our’ glorious history”, etc
      BUT, there was an incessant subtle tone of praise for Turkey and the ‘idyllic’ life of Armenian “citizens” under the Ottoman Turk yoke.
      If you read the comments of these ‘Armenians’ long enough, eventually they make a mistake and show their true self.
      Sure enough, this one did too. A couple little slipups and his/her/their true Turkophile loyalty became obvious.

    • Hagop D, there is alot of ranting and little substance in your post, but I will address a few points. Don’t be surprised if you are minorly offended, as your points are, well, balderdash (as you put it). Hittites are related to Armenians, as we are both Indo-European people. It does not mean that Hittites are Armenians. Same with Etruscians. You are related to your mother, but (I hope) you do not view yourself as your mother. And Hittites have been assimilated into the later Anatolian peoples, including Lydians and Phrygians, who themselves were assimilated into Greeks in the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, who in turn were assimilated into the Turks. So the Hittites reside in the Turks. Which is why they are white, not Mongolian. Some Hittities may have assimilated with Armenians, but that does not mean that the Hittites and Armenians were the same people. It is an illiteracy to claim that.

      Your map of Asia Minor did not include Armenia, it included Armenia Minor, i.e. a tiny portion of Armenia. So, just because a tiny portion of Armenia is in Asia Minor does not mean that the whole Armenia is in Asia Minor. And the Armenian Plateau did not become a distinct geographical unit after Armenians formed. It became such millions of years ago, when tectonic forces raised it far above its neighboring areas, including Anatolia (i.e. Asia Minor) and the Iranian plateau. I am hoping you are keeping my educational lessons in mind, as they may help you avoid embarrassment in the future.

      And yes, Armenians have settled outside of the Armenian Highland, be it Cilicia or Glendale. Does not mean that they are native there.

      As for bad taste in your mouth, as I advised another poster, if you do not wish to have a bad taste in your mouth, I suggest that you watch your mouth and your behavior. I can be respectful and patient, but when you misbehave too long, you will be treated accordingly. All in the spirit of the god of war and fire (i.e. my namesake).

    • The Wikipedia Warrior strikes again: “Hittites are related to Armenians, as we are both Indo-European people. It does not mean that Hittites are Armenians.” – Yes, because at that time the “Armenians” were not defined by the west yet. By the same token it also does not mean the Hayasa, Armen, Armani, Mitanni, Hurrian, Urartean, Nairi, etc etc etc tribes are Armenian either, because the western “Armenian” term came about only AFTER these tribes above, including the Hittites and possibly even as far west as Lycians and Lydians completed the ethno-genesis of the Armenian people. With subsequent Hellenization and later Roman invasion the core lands of the Armenians came to fruition.
      .
      And the Etruscans are definitely Armenian, unless you reject the notion that the Urarteans had any part of the ethno-genesis of the Armenian race: Etruscan and Urartean art is alike and Urartean artifacts have even been found in Etruscan tombs. Just like you don’t undestand the difference between ethnicity and geography, you also don’t understand that the term “Armenian” – a western description – did not come about until, miraculously, all those “Anatolian Peoples”… “disappeared”.
      .
      Talking about illiterate, what part of the concept of the Hittites and Hurri-Mitanni (of Armenia) “brought about mixtures in language and blood” don’t you understand?? I see you quickly changed your MO and brought in Turks out of left field into the discussion. Get real.
      .
      “And Hittites have been assimilated into the later Anatolian peoples, including Lydians and Phrygians, who themselves were assimilated into Greeks in the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods, who in turn were assimilated into the Turks. So the Hittites reside in the Turks.”
      .
      Spoken like a true propagandist mouthpiece for the Turkish government or Museum of “Anatolian Peoples”. Like Avery said, what ‘Armenian’ IN HIS RIGHT MIND would utter this garbage? You talk about being supposedly “educated” – and here questioning whether Hittites and Armenians are related (“Some Hittities may have assimilated with Armenians”) then claim “So the Hittites reside in the Turks” – wow, a tribe which “disappeared” 1500+ years before the the first nomads stepped into Armenia, miraculously reappeared inside the “Turks” according to the “educuated wikipedia scholar”. So how come the French don’t also reside inside the Turks too, after all the Turkish harems were full of French, among many other, women giving birth to future generations of Turks.
      .
      I understand your attempted interpretation of history is impotent, because wikipedia does not teach you how to think, but by uttering the above trash, you actually also indirectly denied the Armenian Genocide. The Greeks and Armenians did not assimilate naturally with Turks, “buddy boy” – they were forced to give their children in the yeniceri jeze for several centuries, forced to change their religions, and some were oppressed into becoming Turks, and ultimately given a genocide. In contrast, the ethno-genesis that occurred in Anatolia was a natural progression of a race and culture which ALREADY WERE RELATED.
      .
      “And the Armenian Plateau did not become a distinct geographical unit after Armenians formed. It became such millions of years ago, when tectonic forces raised it far above its neighboring areas” – lol… are you for real? You are further and further venturing into your dementia here “warrior”, did you just pop a screw or something?
      .
      “I am hoping you are keeping my educational lessons in mind, as they may help you avoid embarrassment in the future” – No, actually I am concerned that you may need help, and I hate to think that I may be causing you stress on top of your condition. Having an interest in real books rather than wikipedia, I really don’t need you “educate me” with your illogical and not to mention baseless claims coming straight out of looney tunes.
      .
      “And yes, Armenians have settled outside of the Armenian Highland, be it Cilicia or Glendale. Does not mean that they are native there.” – WRONG. When Armenian tribes made their settlements in antiquity they were presumably the first who settled the land and developed it. That’s what qualifies one for being a native. The Armenian race may have been born in the Armenian Highland, but there was no law that said they could not settle outside their birthplace and become ‘natives’. The ‘native’ American Indians came from Asia, yet they are considered ‘natives’ of America because they were the first, or at least among the first to settle the land. Armenians going to Glendale is a ridiculous comparison – with the mention of “Glendale” I smell another ‘non Armenian’.
      .
      “I suggest that you watch your mouth and your behavior. I can be respectful and patient, but when you misbehave too long, you will be treated accordingly. All in the spirit of the god of war and fire” – With this childish rant, you obviously have an ego problem, and I will close by saying that you are indeed FULL OF IT.

    • Hagop D,

      Can you provide some references on the Etruscan-Armenian connection? Finding Urartuan artifacts in Etruscan tombs, on its own is not enough. Those could have reached the Etruscans through long distance trade.

  44. What about PIE * ai-dh ‘flame, hearth’ + eak => ajak http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html
    ai has underlying heui laryngeal => o ?

    *medh-i => Arm. mej մէջ so there’s parallel for dhy=> j

    eak, iak, yak is a fairly common Armenian suffix – oteak, janeak, maneak,

    There is also PIE * āt(e)r- for fire – whence Armenian ayrel այրել, Lat. atrium, atrocious Perhaps a source through borrowing for Turkish ot- ‘fire’

    http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean.html

    • Thank you for the intriguing and valuable suggestions. I would like to put a few comments that some professional linguist would raise and some other would perhaps be able to answer:
      1) The parallels to PIE *ai-dh in other I.-E. languages, according to the source (Pokorny’s Indo-European Dictionary, which was also used by Adjarian, updated online), all show ai, ae, e, or i. Nothing close to aw (>o), which is what the Armenian word should have originally shown (աւ > օ). If they accept the laryngeals theory, then perhaps *[h]eui would yield *aw, dropping the *i. (I don’t know about etymologies of those same parallels according to the laryngeals theory, and if *[h]eu[i] would really yield *aw).
      2) Does *dh > j work even if they don’t accept the laryngeals theory and, hence, *heui > *aw?
      3) How we can adduce that եակ (eak) turns into ակ (ak)? By assimilation, as we know, եակ becomes եկ in compound words (ժանեակ > ժանեկագործութիւն janeak > janekagortzutiun), but what about root words?
      4) How the suffix *(աւջ/օջ)ակ (*[awj/oj]ak) would become ախ (akh) or աղ (akh) in Armenian, as in օջախ/օջաղ? (*օջահ is not attested anywhere, so we don’t take it into account). This supposes that there was a suffix -ak in Proto-Armenian that was different from Iranian -ak, from which almost all words ended in -ak derive (npatak, napastak, and the like).
      I don’t have any answer to all these questions. I’m merely raising them, as any scholar would do.

  45. I want to thank Vartan for his very valuable input. I am again very proud for being an Armenian. As I have always said before, we are a great people, and this thread proves it. We have many reasonable, intelligent, and free-thinking individuals who will seek the truth and express their views despite the attempts of a few pseudo-“patriotic” simpletons. I suspect these reasonable Armenians are the majority, because it is the human nature and the Armenian nature to seek knowledge and never to tolerate dogmas (that is why we have never had an absolute monarchy, as observed by historian Christopher Walker). The reason that many of these reasonable Armenians do not voice their views may be because they do not want to deal with the annoying noise of the few loud pseudo-patriots. But we have to, because if these simpletons have their way, we Armenians are going to keep having more disasters, just as we did in 1920, when we lost our republic because of self-deceiving bravado.

    Take, on the other hand, “Avery’s” following comment: “I guess Armenians feel embarrassed to claim ownership of something that we cannot conclusively, 100% prove is ours … could be the residue of centuries of Ottoman subjugation.” The self-hatred in this comment is obvious. I have often noticed that our pseudo-“patriots” who try to impose their dogmas on others show this kind of self-hatred: that we Armenians are somehow (genetically/culturally/psychologically) “damaged” from the centuries of Turkish rule, that we are slave minded and other nonsense. Nothing could be of course further from the truth, since, as I have said many times, we are a great, freedom-loving nation. It is as if these people are taking their cues from self-hating websites such as theriseofrussia.blogspot.com. It is interesting how these simpletons are unwittingly (or perhaps intentionally) harming our nation.

    Our “patriots” propose that we act like the Turks, who distort history. But these Turks look stupid in the process. Shall we also follow their example and become the laughing stock of the world?

    The idea that we should engage in self-deception just because we are in a struggle with the Turks is as nonsensical and dangerous as the Turks’ denialist campaign. Sure, we are in a struggle, but we are not going to win by engaging in self-deception and trying to deceive others. If we do that, we lose our credibility in the eyes of the world. We cannot afford to be isolated and look unreasonable. By deceiving ourselves, on the other hand, we are building our actions on fake assumptions, which will crash on us as it did in 1920.

    In addition, attempts of self-deception by the few simpletons among us will not succeed because it is natural to seek knowledge and truth, and many of us will keep doing so. The only thing that these attempts may accomplish is creating divisions and alienating Armenians from anything Armenian, which is the true danger of these pseudo-“patriots.” Which is all the more reason to refuse to be subjected to their desperate attempts at controlling our free exchange of ideas.

    • OK buddy boy: let us see about that “self hatred” thing.
      .
      [Precisely. And since the NKR is not even recognized by Armenia, Robert and Serzh are Azerbaijani citizens. Call me biased, but I would rather have a U.S. citizen president of Armenia than an Azeri citizen.] (Vahagn March 11, 2013 @AW)
      .
      Well, No: Serj Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan were citizens of USSR. Clear ? Sonny boy.
      Now they are citizens of RoA. Clear ? Buddy.
      .
      And just to spare us your next vacuous rant:
      {“I am very proud of grandma Gadar, because at a time when more than a million Armenians were being marched to their deaths by the genocidal rulers of Tekin’s ancestors, she and her fellow Zeitountsis — men, women and children — defended themselves valiantly and refused to be slaughtered like sheep”} (Harut Sassounian).
      .
      Now, regarding that “self hating” thing again: why don’t you tell us about the self hating libel (defamation) of “separatist” you keep throwing at the heroic native inhabitants of Artsakh ?
      Go ahead, give me the same rant about “secessionist” (as in not “separatist”) you gave John above: I have got your regularly scheduled smackdown prepared.
      Buddy.

    • Buddy boy’s alittle sore from being debunked by me over and over? Here is some education on what self-hatred entails. When one ridicules the corrupt and criminal “president” of one’s country, it’s not hatred against one’s own people, it’s simply a well-deserved criticism of the corrupt official. On the other hand, when you make negative generalizations regarding your own people, such as suggesting that they have become somehow “damaged”/”inferior” due to the Ottoman rule (as you usually do), that is classic self hatred.

      Here is another classic self hatred by you, blaming Genocide victims for the Genocide, and suggesting that they somehow deserved it: (post by Avery: “no wonder we were slaughtered like sheep by Turks. Turks glorify their military, while we glorify our spoiled brats.”)
      http://armenianweekly.com/2013/02/23/a-story-of-defiance-activists-reject-international-observers-assessment-of-election/

      Speaking of being educated by me (again), it is nice to see you adopting things that I do, such as using the dots (.) to separate paragraphs in the recently redesigned AW, something that I pioneered doing on this site. Here is another tip, kiddo. You can drop the dot already. AW has long fixed the issue.

  46. {“….controlling our free exchange of ideas.}.
    .
    that’s a good one, buddy boy.
    let us see how that works:
    {“Avery, buddy, you deal with the Turkic commentators, we will deal with democracy in Armenia.”} ((Vahagn // February 26, 2013 at 4:26 pm //)
    .
    Avery being advised by the “champion of democracy” and “free exchange of ideas” to stick to certain subjects, and not interfere in their dissemination of disinformation and agitprop.
    I guess we should just sit back and not counter Anti-Armenian, Anti-Armenia, Anti-NKR comments @AW, eh, sonny boy ?

  47. I want to thank (not in any particular order):
    John, Hagop D, Yeranuhi, Jirair for their spirited defense of our heritage and history in this thread.
    (did I forget anyone ?)
    (btw: great new word Jirair – Turkbeijan. Pretty good companion for Sella’s Axerbaijan: shall use both henceforth)
    .
    Though each one of us is more than capable to holding their own against _their_ multitudes, we are stronger and more effective when working together.
    One Armenian nation, One Armenian people, Indivisible, under God.

    • The real question is how this simple debate went this far. Whether the Turkish word “ocak” is of Turkic, Persian, or Armenian origin makes no difference for me. I literally do not care at all about it. Thousands of other words in Turkish are of foreign origin, who cares about one more? The typical rhetoric on nomadic savage Turkic peoples up, disregarding the fact that the word may have had a somewhat different meaning to the Turkic peoples if it is in fact their word. (This is the 3rd or 4th time I mention this, yet there are those still claiming that nomads could not have had stone hearths). Note: this does not mean I do not acknowledge that if the current meaning of the word has NEVER changed, then it would make more sense of it being a word coined by a sedentary people.
      .
      How the issue of Armenia being or not being in Asia Minor came up, I don’t know, how it relates to the debate, I’ll never know. I understand there are more personal issues between posters here, however, an Armenian defending something that has considerable indication of being Turkish doesn’t make them “Armenian” in quotations. Nor does it mean the Armenians saying it is NOT a Turkish word are acting like denialist Turks.
      .
      For me, this thread has shown, once again, some are reluctant to accept anything in Armenian language or culture or otherwise, as of Turkish origin, without indisputable, 100% evidence. Which is fine by me, so it should be as well by the Armenians here saying ocak is a Turkish word. Of all the lengthy debates I have been a part of here, this one has to be the most pointless, drawn out, and ridiculous of them all. I end by saying this: does anyone REALLY care which language this word comes from? If so, why?

    • [I literally do not care at all about it.]

      You either contradict yourself or are insincere. Wasn’t it you who entered this thread by writing the following: “When it comes to “Ocak”… It is from the Old Turkic language… which Turkish derives from. So technically it can be claimed as an authentic “Turkish” word.”

      Then I guess, the question you have to answer for yourself is: do you or do you not care at all about it?

    • [How the issue of Armenia being or not being in Asia Minor came up, I don’t know]

      Why, RVDV, you were in the vicinity of the remark made on June 23, 2013 at 6:32 pm: “Armenians are not native to Asia Minor because the Armenian Highland is not in Asia Minor. Equating Asia Minor (i.e. Anatolia) with Armenia precisely serves Turkey’s interests.” How it relates to the debate, you may want to ask the issue-hopping author himself. Caution: this time do please ask him to use sources other than wiktionary, wikipedia, or wikiarmenophobia.

  48. Nice.

    When it comes to Turkic ‘ocak’, the phonetic transformation, so we are told, from ‘ot’–fire to ‘ocak’ wherein ‘ot’ was combined with the suffix –çak, is quite acceptable, even though the word ‘ocak’, we hear, doesn’t appear in any Old Turkic text (btw, RVDV, text is a written or printed work, therefore, it cannot be used to describe primal Old Turkic runiform inscriptions). But when it comes to a possible transformation of Armenian words ‘ǰah’ (torch, light) or ‘ǰakh’ (dried tree branches collected for fire) to ‘ojah’ or ‘ojakh’, we are required to explain what the function of that ‘օ’ is. We are told that three letters suffixed to ‘ot’, namely: ‘c’, ‘a’, and ‘k’, represent how the linguistics works, but when one letter ‘օ’ might have been prefixed to ‘ǰah’ or ‘ǰakh’, this does not represent how the linguistics works.

    Then we have “someone” (and I’m returning Vahagn’s “courtesy” for his condescending phrase: “someone’s unnamed Persian friend”), who appears to be obsessed with the most untrustworthy sources of information, such as Wiktionary and Wikipedia, and who downplays a Persian native-speaker who kindly informed us that the word ‘ojagh’ exists both in modern Persian and Old Persian. Otherwise, how would Vahagn copy and paste the word اجاق (ojagh) in Wiktionary? While no one here ever heard that “nomadic people can have households” and that “a hearth can be fireplace in a tent” as asserted by “someone” (likely taken from Wikipedia), the ‘ocak’–a primitive nomadic bonfire is being advanced as an equivalent to a sophisticated brick- or stone-lined fireplace, usually with an oven, that’s been used for heating and cooking with sedentary nations.

    Then we again have RVDV who, as a Turk, would take the word of a Turkish-Armenian linguistics expert “with degrees from Yale and Columbia” over Persian dictionary. But, again, as a Turk, he’s hardly ever able to take the study by the Armenian linguistics/etymology giant Hrachia Adjarian (btw, born in Constantinople, a genocide survivor) with degrees from Sorbonne and Strasbourg Universities who in his monumental study “Armenian Etymological Dictionary” doesn’t even mention ‘ojakh’ as a word with foreign roots. Whether he would’ve or could’ve included the word or whether he knew about it but inferred something else, as we are told in a June 28, 2013 12:10pm extensive lecture by Vartan, the fact remains that it is NOT in the Dictionary.

    Moreover, in his “History of the Armenian Language”, Yerevan, 1951 (part B, p. 602), Adjarian writes (rough translation mine): “In the modern literary Armenian language, over three dozen loanwords are used, which have arrived from [various Armenian] dialects and are, in part, intermediary borrowings of Arabic and PERSIAN origin.” These are (note ojakh-krakaran at the end):
    ալոճ – հատապտուղ (crataégus)
    աղութ – հակինթ
    արխ – առու
    բաբան – պարսպաքանդ
    բեղ – ընչացք
    բեկ – իշխան, ամիրա
    բիճ – ապօրինի զավակ
    բուխարի – ծխաքար
    դդմաճ – մակարոն
    դում – բթամիտ
    ելակ – հատապտուղ
    երշիկ – աղիքի մեջ լցված համեմված միս
    զիլ – բարձր ձայն
    զմրուխտ – թանկարժեք քար
    թաղար – ծաղկաման
    թոզ – փոշի
    թուման – թիվ, որ համարժեք է հայկական բյուրին (10,000)
    խաթուն – տիկին
    խամաճիկ – տիկնիկ
    խամութ – ձիու թամբման օժանդակ սարք (Rus.: упряжь)
    խանութ – վաճառատուն
    խոտոր – ծուռ, շեղ
    խորոտ – գեղեցիկ
    ճոթ – ծայր
    մասուրա – մաքոք
    յարդ – հարդ
    յոլա – յոլլա գնալ
    չոբան – հովիվ
    չոլ – անբնակելի տարածք
    չոքել – ծնկել
    ջիգր – քեն
    վառոդ – բարութ
    տոպրակ – մախաղ
    փուր – կեղև
    քութեշ – վարակիչ հիվանդություն (streptococcus)
    օջախ – կրակարան

    • The fact that Adjarian doesn’t specifically mention the word is somewhat problematic but as he doesn’t mention it under foreign words it leads us to a very basic assumption. This study you mention is of course a credible source. A Persian dictionary still isn’t. So basically what I’m seeing is 2 linguistics experts: both Armenian, both offering something different. I can’t say who is right or wrong, nor can I say who is more credible. So I retract my first post saying “it is old Turkic and therefore Turkish”.
      .
      John: I thought it wasn’t going to be much of a debate at first, but it appears this word is quite complicated. But yes, I really don’t care about one less authentic Turkish word. So even though I have yet to see conclusive evidence on either side, I will accept the word as of Persian or Armenian origin, whichever you prefer.

    • Yeranuhi,
      You will excuse me if this becomes another “extensive lecture.” Facts of knowledge, you know well, don’t come in pills.
      1) Your frustration about the unjustifiable preference to “ot + çak” over “o + jah” may be remedied if you remember that
      a) “Three letters suffixed to ‘ot’, namely: ‘c’, ‘a’, and ‘k’” are the same as four letters suffixed to “krak,” namely “a,” “r,” “a,” and “n,” which compound the word… “krakaran” (կրակարան) and THIS REPRESENTS HOW LINGUISTICS WORKS. I haven’t chosen the word կրակ (krak, “fire”) by chance, as perhaps you may notice. You’re surely very familiar with the suffix -արան; you will agree with me that has a meaning of place and that կրակարան means “fireplace” and other similar things. Perhaps the suffix “çak” is; has/had a similar meaning (if it wasn’t originally a noun; cf. Turkish “çakmak”, lighter) and I defer to Turkish speakers on that issue.
      b) If you agree with me that suffixes must have a meaning, such as արան has, then prefixes must have it, such as ան (an), for instance, that indicates lack or deprivation, as in անիմաստ (animasd, “meaningless”).
      Therefore, please kindly explain what the suffix օ (< աւ) (o < aw) may have meant or means today in Armenian (my grammar books do not list it among Armenian suffixes).
      2) I’m thankful for your useful quote of Adjarian’s wonderful book, which I don’t have at hand:
      "Moreover, in his “History of the Armenian Language”, Yerevan, 1951 (part B, p. 602), Adjarian writes (rough translation mine): “In the modern literary Armenian language, over three dozen loanwords are used, which have arrived from [various Armenian] dialects and are, in part, intermediary borrowings of Arabic and PERSIAN origin.” These are (note ojakh-krakaran at the end)"
      What do we conclude from this?
      1) “Ojakh" is among the three dozen “loanwords” you quote “in the modern Armenian literary language.” Therefore, IT IS NOT an ancient Armenian word.
      2) Adjarian "doesn’t even mention ‘ojakh’ as a word with foreign roots" in his etymological dictionary because IT IS NOT an ancient Armenian word.
      3) As I had said in my “June 28, 2013 12:10 pm extensive lecture,”
      “I infer that Adjarian didn’t include օջախ/”ojakh” among the 11,000+ roots he listed because “ojakh” didn’t appear in Armenian ancient literature (if it appeared, it would have been *աւջախ/”aujakh” and turned into օջախ after 11th-12th century due to the replacement of աւ by օ, as you know). So, it must be a later addition.
      Of course it was. The word does not appear in the entries of the Classical Armenian (krapar)/Modern Armenian (ashkharhapar) dictionary included in the second vol. of the “Haigazian Dictionary” published by the disciples of Mekhitar of Sepastia in 1769. But it appears as an entry in the Modern Armenian/ Classical Armenian reverse dictionary included in the same volume (p. 692) as the word օճախ (Western Armenian pronunciation), with seven different explanations in Classical Armenian. So, it IS a modern word.”
      4) If it is a loanword and has FOREIGN ROOTS, where does your "I still think 'jah-ojah' transformation has validity" argument and the "suffix o" stand? It is a pity, because after mocking it with the exclamation “oh,” which was probably among the reasons for the qualifiers “amateurish” and “subjective” I received, I had just thought of a lost Armenian term for “water,” miraculously preserved in the French word eau; thus… “ojah” = firewater! (cf. the Native American term).
      Therefore, I stand for my initial opinion that the word is a modern loanword (I NEVER said from which language; I only quoted other reputed linguists opinions and I said that I didn't know whether there were rebuttals in the past 70 years) and, according to Adjarian, appears in a list that “are, in part, intermediary borrowings of PERSIAN and Arabic.” If you analyze this phrase, it means that there is a language that may have served, in part, as intermediary between Armenian and Persian and/or Arabic, which were the ultimate source. I’ll leave to other interested people to reflect on that.
      In the end, I don't care a bit whether Armenian was the source of this word for all peoples from the Urals to Kamchatka or vice versa. I only care about setting the record straight, and that people use the two elements that are central to any serious discussion and to serious knowledge: FACTS and RATIONALITY.

    • Assuming Yeranuhi’s quote of Ajaryan is correct, the important word in the quote is “in part.” As in “In the modern literary Armenian language, over three dozen loanwords are used, which have arrived from [various Armenian] dialects and are, *in part*, intermediary borrowings of Arabic and PERSIAN origin.”

      The quote does not say that all of the three dozen loans are of Arabic or Persian origin. Only a “part” of them. So, he does not say that “ojakh” is among those loan words of Arabic or Persian origin. In sum, Malkhasyan’s and Iskhanyan’s (two giants of Armenian linguistics) statements regarding the Turkic origin of “ojakh” remain undisputed by any reliable source.

      Now, of course whether Yeranuhi’s rough translation is reliable is up to question. What makes it suspicious is that the quote (as translated) states that over dozen Armenian words in modern Armenian are loans. It is well known that THOUSANDS, not merely dozens, of modern Armenian words are loans. Perhaps a better translation would state that these three dozen loanwords are specifically those which are borrowed from Armenian dialects into the Armenian literary language. Still, in either case, the “in part” renders the quote irrelevant with respect to “ojakh.”

    • “Someone” like you, Vahagn, can assume all that he wants. And be suspicious about reliability of something as much as he wants. Strange thing is that these assumptions and suspicions only pertain to what others say but not to the nonsense of your own, such as “nomadic people can have households” and that “a hearth can be fireplace in a tent.”

      Adjarian wrote: “In the modern LITERALY Armenian language, over THREE dozen loanwords are used.”
      “Someone” like you has [mis]quoted: “over dozen Armenian words in modern Armenian are loans.” Reading difficulty or deliberate twist?

      Fresh nonsense: “THOUSANDS, not merely dozens, of modern Armenian words are loans”.
      “Thousands” represent wordROOTS, mostly from Persian, not loanWORDS. Study of history and origins of word roots in Armenian was the primary research objective in Adjarian’s “Armenian Etymological Dictionary”.

    • Dear “someone” (or “yeranuhi” or whatever the hell your name is), words consist of roots, and therefore if Armenian has over thousands of foreign roots, it must have over thousands of foreign words. Which, again, makes your quote suspicious, as the Armenian language contains thousands and not merely dozens of foreign words. Of course, the issue could be due to poor translation by you, and so I suggest that you use your smartphone to take a picture of the original Armenian text and let more knowledgeable people here do the translation. As for “thousands” versus “dozens,” in comparison with thousands, there is little difference between “over three dozen” and “over dozen.” Your act of bending out of shape was thus pointless.

      The main point, which you amusingly avoid, is that your quote debunks your earlier position that “ojakh” is an Armenian word, as Ajaryan states that it is foreign. More importantly, in your quote, Ajaryan does not say that “ojakh” is of Persian origin. He only states that only a part, not the whole, list of the words are of Persian or Arabic origin. So, the claim that “ojakh” is of Turkish origin stands undisputed by a reliable source. And I suggest that, before critiquing others’ statements, you consider the sheer nonsense of relying on your Persian housecleaner’s opinion for an academic discussion.

    • “Now, of course whether Yeranuhi’s rough translation is reliable is up to question… It is well known that THOUSANDS, not merely dozens, of modern Armenian words are loans” – oh look now the wikipedia warrior who demonstrated he may not even speak Armenian became an Armenian linguistics expert. A guy who uses google translate for all his info is calling Yeranuhi’s sourced “rough translation” unreliable. Also, since you praised Vartan’s suggestions, perhaps you could also follow them and be scholarly in your approach… for one, at least provide some evidence of the drivel you type, like “it is well known”. First of all no, it is not “well known” thousands of Armenian words are loan words, it is well known Armenians accepted Christianity in 301AD, it is NOT well known “thousands of words in Armenian words are loan words” even if that was true. Sure thousands, can you at least provide the wikipedia link here? And what is your interpretation of “thousands”? Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, perhaps tens of thousands? I know it is difficult for you, but why don’t you do some thinking before posting nonsense and wasting everyone’s time.

    • Re Hagop D’s request to Vahagn: “First of all no, it is not “well known” thousands of Armenian words are loan words, it is well known Armenians accepted Christianity in 301AD, it is NOT well known “thousands of words in Armenian words are loan words” even if that was true.”
      I assume that Vahagn’s expression “it is well known” referred to the fact that Armenian professional or amateur scholars or educated readers may know — as trivia, if you want — some or all of the figures quoted below from armenianlanguage.org/etymology/etymology.html:
      “The core element of the vocabulary of a language is the root words. Hratchia Adjarian’s etymological dictionary of Armenian reveals the following:
      – Indo-European origin: 964*
      – Loan words: 4015**
      – Etymologically undetermined origin: 3680
      – Etymologically uncertain: 2224
      ______________________
      * Since Adjarian’s compilation this number has been revised and currently stands at 1040 words.
      ** For a perspective on the ratio of loan words, the percentage of loan words in Modern English is 98%.

      The significant number of root words classified as “uncertain” or “undetermined” is only a challenge of attribution since they do not belong to the vocabulary of the Indo-European or other neighboring languages. They reflect and testify to the itinerary of the speakers of Armenian in a larger landscape that was the birthplace of many civilizations.
      A close scrutiny of the loan words in the Armenian language is essentially a demonstration of the close contacts between Armenians and their neighboring peoples.
      The greatest lexical borrowing is from Sanskrit/Persian, amounting to 1405 root words. Here, de Lagarde was able to capture the essence of the borrowings and recognized the three layers of influence in a span of over 15 centuries, whereas earlier linguists, omitting the possibility of the loan-words, thought of Armenian as an offshoot of Old Persian.”
      The rest of the world may or may not know this, indeed. But we assume that, when we say “it is well known,” we usually talk about us, Armenians, not the rest of the world. (Otherwise, it is not even well known that Armenians adopted Christianity as state religion in 301 AD.)
      Incidentally, the fact that roughly 10% of the Armenian roots is of Indo-European origin (ergo, native Armenian words derived from the Indo-European protolanguage) does not mean anything in particular. The classification of a language into a linguistic family is defined by its *grammar,* not the vocabulary, and the grammar of the Armenian language defines it as a member of the Indo-European linguistic family, and therefore, Armenians are among Indo-European speaking peoples (which doesn’t mean “Armenians are Indo-Europeans,” since it has been exhaustively shown that “Indo-European,” the same as “Semite,” is just a linguistic and not a racial/ethnic category).

    • Basically what I got from your post was: “I’m here to defend the wikipedia warrior’s honor, Yeranuhi’s statement was correct, and here’s a monkey wrench at your 301 theory”.
      .
      ““it is well known” referred to the fact that Armenian professional or amateur”… sorry, but for me a person with a computer reading websites does not make him/her a “professional”. And besides. I’d much rather read interesting or creative opinions rather than regurgitating wikipedia content in a manner when one puts oneself “on a higher educated level” as has been demonstrated here.
      .
      “when we say “it is well known,” we usually talk about us, Armenians, not the rest of the world.” – that being the case, my statement is especially true. Armenians always discuss our Christian heritage, and etymological discussions rarely come up.
      .
      “(Otherwise, it is not even well known that Armenians adopted Christianity as state religion in 301 AD.)” – disagree when it comes to readers who have learned about Armenians… whenever an Armenian related article is published, and the Armenians are being introduced, this statement normally comes up to give the readers some “background info” normally as a contrast to them being surrounded by Muslim nations. In contrast, I cannot name *ONE* article where the Armenians are being discussed and they say something like “Armenians adopted Christianity in 301AD and they have thousands of “loan words” form other languages”.
      .
      In making this statement, my intent was to show an analogy, and not get into a beat the dead horse scenario. But if you had trouble grasping this message, I can put it in simpler terms… for example you can replace that passage you are having trouble with, with this: “It is well known if you put your hand into an open fire your hand will get burned.” – and I hope you don’t beat this dead horse either.

    • I was able to find Adjarian’s citation in the original Armenian, with Soviet Armenian orthography, which reads (the capitalization is mine):
      «Ժամանակակից գրական հայերենում գործածվում են մոտ երեք տասնակ թուրքական փոխառություններ , որոնք գրական լեզվին են անցել բարբառներից: Ընդ որում այդ բառերի որոշ մասը միջնորդավորված փոխառություններ են և արաբական ու պարսկական(հիմնական ուշ շրջաններում) ծագում ունեն.»
      My translation: “Close to three dozens of Turkish loanwords, which have gone into the literary language from the dialects, are used in the contemporary Armenian literary language. Moreover, a certain part of those words are mediated loanwords and have Arabic and Persian (basically in late periods) origin.”
      For comparison, here’s Yeranuhi’s translation: “In the modern literary Armenian language, over three dozen loanwords are used, which have arrived from [various Armenian] dialects and are, in part, intermediary borrowings of Arabic and PERSIAN origin.”
      As I had mentioned in a previous posting, “If you analyze this phrase, it means that there is a language that may have served, in part, as intermediary between Armenian and Persian and/or Arabic, which were the ultimate source. I’ll leave to other interested people to reflect on that.”
      For one reason or another, the previous translation had omitted the name of that language, which we have now. Adjarian’s conclusion is, therefore, that there are 37 terms in the Armenian contemporary language (we should remember that Adjarian wrote his history of the Armenian language before 1940; some of these words are not currently used) that are loanwords from Turkish through Armenian dialects. However, part of these words are միջնորդաւորուած փոխառութիւններ (mediated loanwords; I’ve just learned this technical term thanks to this translation), namely, Turkish was the intermediate source between the ultimate source, Arabic or Persian, and Armenian, which means, by deduction, that the rest are direct loanwords from the Turkish source.
      Whether the ultimate origin of օջախ (ojakh) is Persian or Turkish, it doesn’t matter, technically speaking: when a language borrows a word from another, the latter becomes the source, regardless of the actual origin. To make it clear, let’s take պոմիդոր (pomidor), the term currently used in Eastern Armenian for “tomato” (the Western Armenian լոլիկ/lolig has also started to be used in Armenia). The word comes from Russian, which borrowed it from French pomme d’or (“golden apple”) (see Malkhasian, vol. IV, պոմիդոր), but from the standpoint of Armenian, it is a Russian and not a French loanword. The first user in Armenian may have not even known that it was a French word.

    • Excellent translation, Vartan. I knew that Yeranuhi’s translation didn’t quite sound right. For some reason it omitted a “trivial” detail: that these three dozen loanwords were of *Turkish* origin.

      Regarding intermediate loans of words, I used to think that the Armenian colloquial word for “to kiss” (“pachel”) was from Russian “potseluy.” Until I heard on an Italian show the phrase “baciami” (“kiss me”), which almost sounded like the person said it in Armenian. Now, “kiss” is “bacio,” again, very close to Armenian. I wonder whether we borrowed it from Italian directly or through the Russian intermediary.

    • Vahagn, I don’t think that պաչել (pachel/bachel) is a borrowing. Adjarian has the word պագ/pag (“kiss”) in Classical Armenian (պագանել/paganel “to kiss”), of which today we have պագնել/baknel in Western Armenian as synonym (much more literary) of համբուրել. Both are less colloquial than պաչիկ ընել, which the New Haigazian Dictionary already noted in the early 19th century together with Italian “baciare” (cited by Adjarian under պագ). I found that Latin “basium” means “a kiss,” from the verb “basiare,” and this verb was probably the source of “baciare,” as well as of French “baiser” and Spanish “besar.” Since Latin (> Italian), Russian, and Armenian are all Indo-European languages, one would assume that the word had a common Indo-European origin for all three languages (even if Adjarian does not give an etymology for պագանել, but perhaps someone after him did).

    • Vahagn, rude fellow, go on devaluing yourself by calling people names. By doing this you sure “contribute” to an academic discussion. At least appreciate that the Persian “housecleaner” gave you a chance to copy-paste Persian word اجاق (ojagh) in your gargle factory Wiktionary. The Persian “housecleaner”, by the way, happens to be a Rudaki researcher.

  49. RVDV:
    {“ The real question is how this simple debate went this far.”}
    .
    How it got this far is that someone decided to claim, out of the blue, for no obvious reason whatsoever that – “ojakh” is of Turkish origin.
    And we were off to the races.
    .
    Q: why would anyone make a point of asserting that some particular word mentioned in _this_ particular article had some origin or other.
    Was the author discussing etymology ? No: she had written a very light hearted, pleasant article about her positive experiences in Armenia and with Armenians.
    Again, why would an ‘Armenian’ rain on that parade, so to speak ?
    When that question is answered in retrospection, then the reason things went this far will become clear.
    .
    As to “nomadic savages”: I understand you find that phrase disagreeable, maybe even hurtful.
    But as I explained before – and gave a counter example from Hurriyet of a very peaceful, nomadic Turkic tribe – when I use that phrase, it refers to vile denialist Turks, who not only committed the AG, but are proactively denying it to this day, and attacking anyone and anything accepting its historical truth.
    We could discuss “invading”, “conquering”, “nomadic”, “sedentary”, etc in a more neutral atmosphere if it weren’t for something that changed everything for us: when Turks decided on the ‘final solution’ for their Armenian ‘problem’.
    (well, _they_ were the real problem in our life and our lands: but let’s not quibble).
    Everything changed when Turks committed the Armenian Genocide.
    Everything.
    How else would you label that category of Turks, other than “savage nomadic invaders” ?
    If it weren’t for the AG, Armenians in Western Armenia alone would be approximately 9-10 million today. (natural growth of the approx 2 million murdered).
    At the minimum, we would be in a similar situation as Kurds are today: oppressed, marginalized, but slowly gaining equality – despite the resistance of the Turkish State.
    The Armenian Genocide changed everything.
    .
    And I personally appreciate your efforts on the pages of AW of _proactively_ and unequivocally confronting the AG denialists.
    And I believe many readers and posters @AW appreciate that also, and by and large treat you with fairness and respect.
    Your “best offer” (from another thread) as a hypothetical chief negotiator for Turks to Armenians went further than any Turk – as far as I know.
    (some serious issues in the “offer” for me, but a good faith offer nevertheless: good chance of a win-win closure).
    And I also understand your passionate defense of things Turkish: you are a Turk – no contradiction there.
    But someone like you is a rare, minority Turk.
    The denialists are the super-majority.
    Until people like you (…and Ragıp Zarakolu, and Ayse Gunaysu, and…) become the super majority and overwhelm the denialists,
    we Armenians cannot afford to let our guard down.
    Some of the phrases we use to do battle with the denialists in our infowars will unfortunately and unintentionally hurt reasonable Turks like you.
    We try to be specific in referring to denialist Turks, but sometimes we miss.
    Sorry.
    But as I have written before: we are in a struggle for our very survival.
    Physical survival supersedes hurt feelings.

  50. Reply to Avery.
    Abetting a criminal is a crime in law. Turks who deny that their parents and grandparents committed genocide are abetting the truth about a vast crime. In my book, they are criminals.
    In addition, Turks who glorify the murderous Seljuks (they committed numerous massive massacres of Armenians)and take pride in the 500 plus years of corrupt, racist, oppressive, barbarous Ottoman rule, are similarly abetting criminals.
    For “rightous” Turks to recognize the Genocide of Armenians is insufficient response. They have to take the next–and natural–step and demand the return of Armenian lands and property, as well as financial compensation for the slaying of 1.5 million Armenians and driving out 500,000 to the desert. And, of course, there’s that little matter of the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were either killed by the Turks or died of famine and disease while fleeing to tiny Armenia. One can add to that Kemal’s unprovoked final attack to erase Armenia from the map. Many more innocent Armenians were killed by the Turks in those genocidal attacks.

  51. As an Azeri, I’d rather have Avery (and those like him) as the enemy than Vahagn, Random Armenian, et al. It is much better if your enemy’s eyes are clouded by overconfidence and blind hatred, than have someone who can think straight. E.g., no one doubts that Armenians can fight well, but to think that this would negate all and every other consideration (e.g., Azerbaijan spending billions on advanced weapons) is actaully a great thing for Azeris to hear. Yes, have your enemy overestimate you. That is where you want them.

    If I understand Avery correctly, loving one country requires you to “defend” it against everything, even against rationality (and, frankly, a majority of Azeris probably think this way too). To think that Armenians would be above adopting words or food from Turks is frankly silly. Some words are just easer on the tongue and more efficient in terms of packing meanings and connotations, and people adopt them. E.g, Azeris have adopted tons of words from Russians, like “uzhe”, “srazu”, etc … because their Azeri equivalents are just too verbose, etc. The truth is all the adjacent cultures and civilizations interact and borrow from each other. And they are all the better for it.

    As to others borrowing more from Armenians than the other way, this is a bit of an anachronistic claim. According to genetics, the regional people are essentially the same or very similar (many of the Turks you love to hate are actually probably just former Armenians). It is now an established scientific fact that the Turkic/Mongolian invasion contributes extremely little to the local gene pool. Instead, the language was adopted thru elite domination (e.g., and the others copying them to look Elite, a la what was already happening in Azerbaijan during USSR days … 200 more years of Russian rule, and we’d be all speaking Russian … and being later accused of having come from Siberia). The point is, the dolma and all the other stuff is the possession of the local Middle Eastern group of peoples … and no one has stolen anything from anybody else. Take me, my Y- chromosome haplogroup is T (which tracks male ancestry), and it is an ancient Middle Eastern one (probably somewhere near the lake Van), which has had nothing to do with Mongolia. To say that your ancestors ate dolma before mine did is unscientific 

    • Kerim’s farewell post from March 23, 2013. Towards the end of comments section.
      Quite interesting reading.
      Particularly this: {“ I must say though that I hate Armenians now much more than I did before reading AW.”}
      At least he is honest.
      Just so that it is crystal clear: _before_ reading AW, Karim already hated Armenians.
      After reading comments of the likes of me @AW, he now hates Armenians _much more_.
      I feel deeply ashamed that I have contributed to this epidemic of Anti-Armenian hatred.
      And, Karim, your praise of ‘straight thinking’ posters Vahagn, Random Armenian, et al is duly noted in light of your open and refreshingly honest admission that you hate Armenians.
      .
      btw: what exactly did a 75 year old Azerbaijani writer do to earn the savage hatred of some of his fellow Azerbaijanis ?
      [The leader of Azeri pro-government party Muasir Musavat (Modern Equality) told Reuters on Tuesday the party was offering 10,000 manats, nearly $13,000, for anyone who cut off Aylisli’s ear.]

  52. Avery, are you telling me that you do not hate Azeris? Every word you use in relation to Azeris is dripping with nasty hatred. Let’s be honest, ok. Our respective nations are de facto enemies. Let’s not pretend that we are taking the high ground. And you are taking my quote above out of context. It was in response to getting pure hateful comments to a good number of my comments, regardless of the content. E.g., I’d say something like, I do believe we Azeris should give up the Karabak proper to Armenians. The typical response from you guys: “Of course, you AzeriAxerblahBlah zombie blah, hate, hate, blah. We will come and take even Baku.” What I was observing was that me being an Azeri is all many of you needed to know when responding, without any nuances. That is what I meant when I told Vahagn that he brought me back (not that my return is any big deal of course … I am just another schmuck killing time) … because it is very refreshing to see nuanced positions from the other side of the divide. I don’t necessarily agree with what he says, but the pleasure of reading someone like him and your anti-Azeri/Turkish posts (most not all of course) is like the difference between playing chess with someone who respects the rationality of the game versus someone who just gets up and starts tossing the pieces at your face.

    So, yes, hatred meets hatred. Who starting hating whom first? That is a tricky question. But I can tell you this. I do not hate Armenians qua Armenians (in fact, I still have a few friends and co-workers). First, it cannot be possibly be because looks, for all look very similar (So I find it amusing when you guys accuse us of racism). It has everything to do with the war we have had. So, yes, if a country has taken over 20% of your INTERNATIONALLY recognized land (regardless of what they use as their “justification”) and have made 600k refuges … then, yes, I hate that country because of those results. Come tomorrow, if there is a fair peace between the two countries, I will have no reason for that hatred.

    • Karim,

      Have you looked at a map recently? What *you* claim to be over 20% is more like 16%. I’ve even read one Azeri representative mention 16% instead of the official PR based 20%.

  53. Karim,
    Enough of the laborious feints. Throw away the fluff and you come to the core of most of the above discussions, arguments:
    Armenians have lived in Armenia for at least 4,240 years, according to Naram-Sin Sumerian inscriptions.
    In the Middle Ages Armenia was invaded from the west (Byzantium) from the south (Arabs), from the east and northeast by various Turkic/Tatar barbarian tribes who were skillful fighters and were far too numerous compared to the Armenian population. They vanquished Armenia. Turks, Azeris, Tatar, and other turkic people who reside in Turkbeijan are descendants of these violent newcomers.
    Some members of the Turk faction of Turkbeijan claim the Hittites as their ancestors. Amazing fantasy, but there you are. The Azeri faction of Turkbeijan has another phantom roots. It claims to be descended from the Caucasian Albanians, Alans, Adropene… yup, they are ur-indigenous to Azerbaian.
    Meanwhile, everybody who knows the history of the region knows that Azerjbaijan, originally part of Iran, was invented by the Russians in relatively recent years. The Russians sliced part of northern Iran and stuck the Azerbaijan name (after the northern province of Iran) to the new colonial entity.
    The Russians also gave the name Nagorno-Karapagh to ancient Artsakh of Armenia. The Soviets gave Artsakh and Nakhichevan of Armenia to Turkey as a bribe to Mustafa Kemal not to invade the Soviet Union.
    Ergo… Artsakh was and is Armenian, no matter how many claims Baby Ilham makes. Re the Turks, there can’t be peace between them and the Armenians unless Turkey admits the Genocide and returns land, particularly Kars, Ardahan, Mount Ararat, and adjacent areas.
    Most discussions–etymological, culinary, religious–have the above facts as their platform.
    Karim, I hope you keep your word and not post irrelevant info and untruths anymore.

  54. Why don’t we ask what Kristi thinks? And what she thinks about her article probably breaking all records in terms of number of comments?

  55. Jirair — Listening to you blabber about how the ancestors of Azeris/Turks were nomads, etc, etc, is like listening to an ignoramus who has not yet heard the “latest” scientific news: Now we know that Earth is not flat! All you say is self-serving grandmothers’ tales. According to DNA analysis, the people of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Caucasus and region in general, are all local people, not much different from their ethnic neighbors, whose gene pool has been affected almost non-existently by the Mongolian (now, did the Russian change the Caucasus gene pool to any meaningful extent?). Only the names have changed. Don’t take my word for it, amigo. Just to a basic Google search on DNA, Caucasus, or Turkey, and you will find the same stuff, including scientific articles written by Armenian scholars. So please spare us the sporting of your ignorance! 10-20 years ago, one could get away with such empty talk, but no more. The science has been out. But then again, to date, there are still people out there who think Earth is flat!

    • By stating that the ancestors of Azeris/Turks were not nomads you made yourself a laughingstock, Karim. Even Turks wouldn’t go that far as to assert that their origins were not amongst the nomadic peoples inhabiting Central Asian steppes and the Altay Mountains.

      Sedentary people normally don’t wander in the steppes in search of new pastures for their sheep and horses, and don’t cross lands stretching for about 3000 miles in order to settle in the lands of other peoples.

      Seljuk Turks, who appeared in Persia and Asia Minor in the 10th-11th centuries AD, were who? Highly developed sedentary people? Where are the traces of their civilization that they left behind? And where did they come from? Don’t tell me they were natives to the region. You’ll insult our intelligence.

  56. Karim,
    Of course you prefer to believe we are one big maw of mixed races, nations. Of course a member–like you–of the civilization which has contributed almost nada of benefit to humanity, you would like to believe you and Armenians come from one homogenized melting pot. After all, when they asked the mule who was its father, the mule said: “My mother was a horse”.

  57. Jirair,
    Of course you prefer to descend into ad hominem, given that there was nothing else you could come back with. Yes, Armenians, Azeris, Turks, Georgians are all descendents of the same local proto people. This is NOT my opinion. It is a fact, my friend. Just do a quick research on regional genetics. To deny science, well, is to be a Jirair. Besides, what exactly is it that the Armenian civilization has contributed to world heritage? Besides dolma and the alphabet that anyone could make? I don’t mean we Azeris are a great nation, but you Armenians think this about yourself. So the onus is on you: What extraordinary thing is it that you have accomplished in the 500000 year of your existence as a nation? Where is your Bhagavat Gita? Where is your Plato? Or Omar Khayyam? And don’t tell me, We were first to adopt Christianity. To many modern educated people, adopting an organized religion as a state religion is not a sign of either intelligence or superiority, but a collective dogma.
    And there is this huge hole in your reasoning, which one could drive a whole Mount Ararat through it … You arrogantly imply that the pre-Armenian proto overall regional culture derives its worth from the fact that you guys are one of the shoots descending from it, and Azeris laying claim (backed by science) to that ancient heritage is somehow to appropriate the Armenian culture in some form of “We wanna be Armenians too” logic. With all due respect, why would anyone want to be Armenian (but, of course, once born it, you should be proud of it)? Just think about it. I for one would never wish to be a member of a nation that could not help itself but be the victim of a Holocaust! I am not saying it was your fault, or that the poor Armenians caught living during those tragic days somehow deserve blame for those events (by the time they were born, it was already too late to do anything about their predicament). But still a truly historically-great nation would never have been in that predicament to begin with. I am sorry, it is a harsh thing to say, but that is how it looks. Overall, you guys are just an average nation, with nothing special about you, especially today, when your only form of independent existence is thru dependence on Russia. Trust me; back by science and history, I lay claims to the ancient regional culture in spite of (and not because) of Armenians having been a part of the same. I laugh every time I hear, “Turks stole Armenian music.” The thing is Turkish music is just your generic Middle Eastern music, with minor local modifications. Are you saying Armenians are a source of the entire Middle Eastern Ethos? Please do.

  58. Kerim,
    Although by now you should know that after reading your ignorant-at- best comments I should have little respect for your bank of knowledge, you still presume recklessly upon my generosity. It would take me months–if not years–to list the contributions Armenians have made in the past 4,250 years (not 500,000 years, as you wrote) to humanity. Sorry, I don’t have the time to educate a lost cause.

    However, I will give you one example from the history of the Armenian Diaspora (forget Armenia)since your people tried to exterminate us.
    Although forced to live far from our homeland–thanks to the Turkish sword–we have predictably given to the world far, far more than US/NATO-subsidized Turkey: William Saroyan, Michael Arlen, Chris Bohjalian, Mike Connors, Trevanyan, Cher, Howard Kazanjian, Gov. George Deukmejian of California, Kirk Kerkorian, far-too-many-to-list Armenian-American inventors, opera singers, Charles Aznavour, Michel LeGrand, Georges Garavarents, Saprich, and countless Armenian-French artists, writers, designers, painters, politicians, industrialists, inventors, sportsmen… likewise in Canada, Australia, Lebanon, Egypt, Romania, Bulgaria… in fact everywhere they have settled in the past century, Armenians have reached the top through talent, brains, and determination. The 5 million homeless Diaspora has produced more geniuses than 75-million Turkey. And it has done so without the financial aid of anyone, starting from nothing. I am sure Turk Azerbaijan must have given birth to geniuses, but other than the Aliyevs, who have demonstrated a singular genius for crime, I can’t think of any.
    Besides, why should I give my time to someone who said “farewell” but returned, at least twice, to spread falsehood and ignorance. What part of “farewell” don’t you understand, Kerim?

    • Jirair,let me add few of those Armenians to your list:
      The self-wringing sponge named Quickie was invented by PETER VOSBIKIAN…
      LUTHER SIMJIAN invented the ATM, military flight simulator, and the postage meter… ALBERT KAPIKIAN invented the Rotravirus vaccine injector…
      ROGER ALTOUNIAN invented the pressured inhaler and sodium therapy…
      PETER TER-POGOSSIAN was one of the fathers of positron emission tomography (PET) scanner, It was the first functional brain imaging technique…
      RAYMOND DAMADIAN invented the MRI machine…
      JIRAYR TEZEL invented the hair transplantation device…
      VARAZTAD KAZANJIAN is the father of plastic surgery…
      HAMPAR KELIKIAN invented the limb restoration surgical technique…
      ARA and BARON DARZI co-invented the minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery…
      Cybernetic communication expert HAIG KAFAFIAN designed aircraft control and missile guidance systems…
      EMIK AVAKYAN invented the text to speech to microfilm…
      ALEX MANOOGIAN is responsible for the single-faucet design (Delta)…
      ARDASHES AYKANIAN invented the bendy and spoon straw, the firm form of Tupperware, the blue strip on car windshields…
      RUEN ESKERJIAN invented an anti-aircraft gun during WWII…
      SEMYON KIRLIAN is the inventor of high-voltage photography…
      HARRY TOROSSIAN invented the ice cream cone and the Melba toast…
      HARRY K. DAGHLIAN Jr. was part of the Manhattan Project during WWII.

      OSCAR H. BANKER (ASADOOR SARAFIAN) of Chicago is one of the most prolific American inventors. He invented helicopter controls for Sikorsky helicopters and the first practical car automatic transmission. His design is now the standard worldwide…
      Armenian MELIK TANGIEV of the Soviet Union designed the first oil platform in open sea (the Caspian)…
      In 1916 STEPHAN STEPANIAN of the US designed the first ready-mix concrete trucks…
      ED ISKENDERIAN invented (1963) the hydraulic racing camshaft…
      BORIS BABAYAN is the father of the Soviet superconductor…
      ARTHUR H. BULBULIAN invented the oxygen mask (A-14) for the US Air Force in 1914…
      ARDEM MIKOYAN, the younger brother of Soviet politician ANASTAS MIKOYAN, is the co-inventor of the MiG fighter…
      Mathematician LEONID KHACHIYAN invented the system which solved linear programming problems—considered intractable until then.
      Armenia-based astronomer VICTOR HAMPARTSOUMIAN was one of the founders of theoretical astrophysics. He did most of his work at the Pyuragan Observatory in Armenia…
      GIACOMO LUIGI CIAMICIAN, an Armenian-Italian scientist who was nominated nine times for the Nobel Prize, is the father of the solar panel and a number of solar energy applications…
      In 1954 Dr. EDWARD KEONJIAN, microelectronics guru, designed the first solar-powered, pocket-sized radio transmitter…
      AVEDIS TEVANIAN was the chief software technology officer and senior VP of software engineering at Apple Computers. He was a pioneer in creating cross platform development environments used worldwide…
      ALEXANDER KEMURDZIAN, founder of space transport engineering, designed the first Moon and Mars Rovers. In the 1940 he also designed the first remote vehicle.
      CHRISTOPHER DER-SEROPIAN was given the first claim patent for the color of the US dollar in 1954…
      In 1949 RICHARD DONCHIAN developed the trend-timing method of futures investing and introduced the mutual fund concept in money management…
      HOVHANNES APKAR ADAMIAN made significant improvements to the principles of B/W and color TV broadcasting…
      The world’s first and most-sophisticated radio-optical telescope was built by Paris Herouni in 1960. It was named the Herouni Mirror Radio Telescope…
      GREGOR GURZADIAN of Armenia was a pioneer in the construction and use of small space telescopes—20 years before the Hubble. He made UV and X-Ray observations on the sun through his space telescope…
      Dr. ARA MIRZOYAN, formerly of the Pyuragan Observatory in Armenia and now director of the Galaxy Company there, led a team of Armenian scientists in 2012 to make the largest Cherenkov telescope in the world. The 560-tonne HESSE II (High Energy Cosmic Gamma Ray Astronomy) telescope has 875 mirrors and every one of them has the word ARMENIA written on it. The telescope has an area of 600 square metres. The observatory was located in Namibia because atmospheric conditions are most advantageous in that region of South Africa.

    • Wonderful. Now … imagine if all these Armenians made these inventions in Armenia. Imagine how fast we would fulfill our national aspirations. Would there even be Azerbaijan? Probably north of Kura, province of Russia. That is what our future will be like, if Armenia becomes a democracy.

  59. Karim:
    .
    During the Soviet rule, all 15 republics were given equal access to higher education, technology, etc.
    There was no discrimination against any nationality to go to Moscow and attend the best universities.
    For about 70 years both Armenia SSR and Azerbaijan SSR were on a level playing field.
    Same education system, same access to whatever was available in USSR technology-wise, same everything.
    Plus Azerbaijan had a larger population.
    I will list just 4 Soviet Armenians below: see if you can come up with a single Soviet Tukbeijani of their caliber.
    .
    Marshal of the Soviet Union Hovhannes Baghramyan.
    Bagramyan was the first non-Slavic military officer to become a commander of a Front during WW2.
    .
    Artem Mikoyan
    Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau.
    World famous MiG fighter jets.
    .
    Viktor Hambardzumyan
    A Soviet Armenian scientist, and one of the founders of theoretical astrophysics.
    .
    Alexander Kemurdjian.
    Designer of Soviet Lunokhod programme.
    Lunokhod was the first roving remote-controlled robot to land on another world.
    Lunokhod and Kemurdjian are considered the pioneers of robotic space exploration.(long before Americans)
    .
    btw: all that accomplishment despite having lost some of our best educated intellectuals and about 2 million of our human capital base at the hands of the Turks.

  60. Jirair and Vtiger – First, thank you for taking the time to enumerate all these worthy individuals of Armenian descent. I never doubted that you had such individuals. But you have missed the point of my question. These people, although undeniably commendable representatives of your nation, are not the world class contributors that one should expect from the kind of a great nation you seem to take yourselves to be. Recall that I asked, where is you Plato, etc etc. The nations in whose leagues you seem to put yourselves (Romans, Greek, Persians, etc) have many many such individuals, especially the Greek. These are the 1st grade contributors to world or regional heritage. Armenians, which have been around for a comparable period of time, has nothing comparable to show for it. So, forgive me for sounding facetious, but you are just ok but not great. As for the individuals you mention, whose accomplishments I myself could never hope to match, many if not most of them are the products of their diasporan countries. If you deny this, then you are saying that the US has not made any contributions but only the Irish, German, etc Americans have. I’d even say that an Armenian American’s contribution is 95% America’s credit, and only 5% Armenia’s. Culture and civilization is a collective, societal platform, and Armenia has not been a fertile one for great world-class figures. Neither has Azerbaijan, to be fair. But I am more than ready to admit that, and feel no emotional or psychological pain in doing so.

  61. “unless Turkey admits the Genocide and returns land, particularly Kars, Ardahan, Mount Ararat, and adjacent areas.”

    I like the sense of humor of my sweet ermenians. I really do.

    Wait..! No joke? Then, crazy..!

    • I hope I convinced Azeri Karim that “farewell” means farewell. But we still have Necati, the aspirational “humorist” on hand.
      Mister Nekati, your people planned, for years, to eliminate us. You organized a systematic genocide and even used code language within the country when your authorities sent telegrams to give the green light (I mean red light) for the elimination of unarmed Armenians, including women and children.
      Yet three years later there was a Republic Armenia–rising like Phoenix–after the loss of our kingdom in 1375 to your fellow Baibar the Turkish Memluke.
      You thought you had resolved the Armenian Question. What was it psychotic Talaat said–“No Armenians, no Armenian Question”? And almost a century later, here are the grandchildren of your innocent victims battling successfully around the globe against Ankara and demanding justice from your genocide-denying ridiculous government.
      We, Armenians, believe in miracles. That we have survived the various butchering waves of Seljuk, Ottoman, Young Turk, Kemalist killers is a miracle.
      My anxiety is that before we accomplish the miracle of recovering Ararat, the Kurds will grab all of “Eastern Turkey”. Your homicidal chiefs wanted to create a homogenous Turkey. “Impurities” had to be removed with the yataghan and the German machine guns. Your mad fantasy failed. There are close to 30 million Kurds, Alevis, Hamshens, and other “impurities” in homogenous Turkey. You made a syphlitic drunk the Father of the Turks and stuck his statue and portrait at every corner to “unify” the country under a one Turkish god. Now we learn the man was a deunmeh Jew from Salonika. I understand that many Turks, in racist flight, have nicknamed him “Sheep” because they believe Jews look like sheep and Mister Atta Turk’s profile does remind one of an ageing ewe.
      Despite your best racist-criminal efforts to invent a fabricated country, Turkey is wobbling. We will be there when the racist turkic construct is put on the table for dissection.

    • I was wrong! Karim Farewell is ba-a-a-ck! Apparently, his promised Farewell Tour was no go. By popular demand, he’s BAAACK to upchuck his greatest hits. What surprises me is that people on this site continue to respond to his inanities. You couldn’t have missed Mr. Farewell’s tinie oldies. Surely.

    • “My anxiety is that before we accomplish the miracle of recovering Ararat, the Kurds will grab all of “Eastern Turkey”.”
      .
      Exactly. Kurdistan will not be a successor state to the Ottoman Empire, they will not be liable to the Armenian Genocide, and western Armenia may be lost for good.
      .
      And I’d take a syphilitic drunk over a man of “God” anyday.

  62. RVDV. Are you are recreational vehicle?
    The Armenian argument with potential Kurdish occupiers of Western Armenia would be almost identical to our argument against Turkey: The land belongs to Armenians; Kurds were extremely active in the Genocide of Armenians. They–Kurdish bandits and “ordinary” Kurds–worked hand in hand with the Turks even before the Genocide. Most of Bloody Sultan Abdul-Hamid’s Hamidiyeh regiments were Kurdish bandits, irregulars, released prisoners. In the novels of Raffi, the Kurds are often the main villains, ahead of their Turkish masters at the Sublime Porte.

    • Kurdistan will not be a successor state to the Ottoman Empire, unlike Turkey. Kurdistan will not be liable to the crimes of the Ottomans, unlike Turkey. Kurds played a role in the Armenian genocide, but Kurdistan will not liable to the crimes of Kurds living in a different state (to which they are not the successor state if) at the time of the crime. You can claim that Turkey stole your lands, that argument will fail with Kurdistan.

    • RVDV,your line ‘You can claim that Turkey stole your lands, that argument will fail with Kurdistan.’
      Could you clarify & why will it fail with Kurds/Kurdistan?Where are the boundaries of Kurdistan?

  63. To Random Armenian re his query to Hagop and the Etruscan/Armenian connection. In 1860 Robert Ellis, a British scholar/linguist published a book titled “Etruscans were Armenian”. The book is impossible to find in hard print, I’ve been told, but its photocopy can be purchased through the Internet. Google might help direct you. I’ve read some pages of the book, but am not sufficiently knowledgeable to assess its scholarship. There’s also a book–or a long article about the Armenian/Basque connection. Fantasy or fact? I don’t know.

    • Robert Ellis’ book, “The Armenian Origin of the Etruscans” (1861), is available on Google Books and other places. The fact that Ellis has gone unmentioned, other than a curiosity, in Armenian linguistics for the past hundred years may say something about the currency of a book published 150 years ago. Here is one recent assessment by serious scholarship:
      “Attempt to connect the Etruscan language with Albanian, Armenian, Aztec, and a long series of other languages are based on the so-called ‘etymological’ method now in disgrace among serious scholars” (p. XII).
      “The so-called ‘etymological method,’ which involves a comparison of Etruscan with other languages, living or dead, was widely used until about 1885, but gave little or no results. Though now generally abandoned by scholars, a naïve brand of it continues to flourish in amateur circles. There is hardly any language in the world that has not at some time be compared to Etruscan: Greek, Armenian, Turkish, Hittite, Aztec, and many others. Aside from that of the inscription of Lemnos, there is no other known language to which Etruscan can be related” (p. 73).
      Both quotes are from Giuliano Bonfante and Larissa Bonfante, The Etruscan Language: An Introduction, revised edition, Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press, 2002. Giuliano Bonfante (1904-2005) was a noted Italian linguist who also published serious articles on Armenian linguistics.

  64. To add a P.S. to Vartan’s letter about pomidor/tomato.
    When the fruit was taken from the New World to Europe, it was yellow (It’s later that agronomists (?) turned it into red.) So the Italians called it pomodoro (golden apple). Arabs saw it the fruit in the Italy and imported it and named it “bandora”. To this day, many Armenians from the Middle East call the fruit bandors. “Lolig” is a Persian word. It means shiny. Armenians got the fruit and name from Persia.

    • Thank you for your interesting point, Jirair. It gives an excellent example of what Adjarian meant by “mediated borrowing”: spoken (am I allowed to I say that I have never seen the word in writing?) Armenian, in the Middle East, has incorporated the Italian word “pomodoro” via Arabic “bandora.” Thus, the origin of the word in Armenian is Arabic and not Italian. In the same way, the origin of “pomidor” in Eastern Armenian is Russian, even though the word comes from the French.

  65. I tried my best to read all comments and found out how pathetic the diasphora Armenians are. It is really easy for you wasting time on rubbish things.The reality is that Armenia is suffering financially and more and more Armenians are migrating Turkey for better life due to consequences of your so-called smearing campaigns.

    • was your Denialitis addled brain able to comprehend any of it,
      Haluk ?
      .
      and more and more Armenians are not migrating to Turkey for better life.
      what better life ? is it because life is better in Turkey that millions of Turks migrated to Europe and live there ?
      If EU opened its doors, half of Turkey would empty into Europe in a month.
      Your country’s PPP is almost half of completely broken down Greece.
      what better life ?
      .
      Life is better in Turkey, is that why Turkish leadership is practically begging to be admitted into EU ?
      Germans are openly telling Turkey to go away: “you do not belong in EU”. Still supposedly ‘proud’ Turks will have none it. They are desperate to get into EU, because they know the truth about the ‘miracle’ of the Turkish economy. They know what’s coming.

    • To Haluk,
      It’s always gratifying to read the heartfelt advice of Armenian-hating Turk re what Armenians should and shouldn’t do. For you to talk sympathetically of the suffering of people in Armenia when Turkey is partly the cause of it takes the prize. By the way, Haluk, it’s not spelled “diasphora”.

  66. Jirair and Random: As the drivel above posted by the resident self-proclaimed “scholar” we see one who is not interested in learning, protecting or sharing what they know of our history, but one who is preoccupied with proving others “wrong”, even at the risk of looking like an amateur himself, introducing this same word “amateur” into his carefully selected passages to supposedly seem “credible” or “scholarly”.
    .
    The Etruscans may not be well researched, but there remains important circumstantial evidence that simply cannot be ignored. Robert Ellis’ book was a good starting point, and he was a learned linguist who apparently knew many languages. His book “The Armenian Origin of the Etruscans” is not an easy read, as it requires the reader to learn his spelling system and maybe even know some languages, but in his introduction, I found some passages worthy of study. This passage in particular has some interesting possibilities: “The Armenians, like the Celts, are now few in number. It will be my endeavour to prove that the race to which they belong once occupied a much greater extent of country and were spread westward from Armenia to Italy under the names of Phrygians, Thracians, Pelasgians, Etruscans and other designations”.
    .
    The important point with regards to this book is that “it did not get any support among scholars” – and this in no way means that Ellis’ work was conclusively ‘refuted’. It could just mean that such people simply found the read too difficult or cumbersome to approach and lost interest. In fact we can safely assume that all of Armenian history is downplayed, and downright ignored, perhaps even deliberately. In studying world history in the west, anything not of the Greek or Roman sphere is “probably not worthy of study”.
    .
    Now assuming that we do not use any linguistic evidence and ignore it completely, there is another aspect, perhaps more important, and that is the fact that there seems to be kinship between the Etruscans and Urarteans. This is mentioned in Kurkjian’s book (1958): “Some scholars see in Urartean art, architecture, language and general culture traces of kinship to the Etruscans of the Italian peninsula”. In another book which goes into more detail by Chahin – ‘The Kingdom of Armenia’ (1987) – it is also mentioned that Etruscan art is of Urartean origin. In this book there is a surprisingly in-depth discussion of Urartu and its influence on the west (an example of how Armenian history is downplayed). Here is one passage: “It is this very part of Asia Minor, Armenia and the north-east that Sir Gavin De Beer finds the high percentage of the blood-group A which differentiates the present inhabitants of Central Italy from other Italians. Moreover, within this Italian A-group area there is a smaller one almost exactly covering Etruria [Etruscan settlement] where there is a high-proportion of B-group of the same value as that of the inhabitants of Anatolia. This characteristic, therefore, did not come to Etruria in the 13th and 12th centuries with the Teresh from Lydia, but in the 8th and 7th centuries with the influx of what we know as ‘Etruscan’ and of the Urartean bronzes. It must have been not only an intrusion of some art influence but also of a large movement of population to have altered the blood.”
    .
    In discussing art, Chahin writes: “Even in the sixth century BC, when Etruscan metal-smiths were producing magnificent objects with relief decorations influenced by Greek art, Urartian techniques were still used.”. This is an important detail, as it suggests that when considering that the migrations took place in the 8th and 7th centuries, by the time of sufficient assimilation where their art changed (6th century) they still had not forgotten their techniques of manufacture that they brought with them.
    .
    Admittedly this field is still under research, but the evidence in my opinion seems to be there. Lastly, there is something funny about a “scholar” who would try to discredit a published work because it is 150 years old. Well, the works of Leibnitz and Newton are twice as old, and their theories and formulas are still in use today. This is not to say that mathematics can be compared to history, but that just because a work is old, it does not mean it is not valid. When Armenians explore their ancient history, the bigots are ready with the term “Armenian Nationalism”, yet in Italy there is a movement to make the Etruscans an indigenous group, and that is not supposed to be “Italian Nationalism”? I am quite certain that if I were to read such books dubbed by the “scholar” as “recent assessment by serious scholarship”, I would merely be reading the rants of a couple of related ticked-off Italians. No thanks, to me that is not “serious scholarship”.

    • {“In fact we can safely assume that all of Armenian history is downplayed, and downright ignored, perhaps even deliberately.”}
      .
      Indeed, deliberately.
      .
      During the centuries of subjugation, it would have been very difficult to publish and promote scholarly work about Armenia and Armenians.
      Even then, monumental works were completed, but remained unknown in the West.
      During the 70 years of Soviet rule, similarly, work that promoted a particular nationality’s history was expressly discouraged by Moscow.
      Soviet Armenian scholars did a lot of work anyway, but it remained inside Soviet Union, unknown in the West.
      Fortunately, after the Independence, a lot of that work, and new work by Armenian scholars is becoming publicized, as much as possible.
      Just the same, there is a concerted effort by the usual suspects in the West (guess who ?) to denigrate the work of those Armenian scientists and scholars.
      (I have seen one of the ‘Armenians’ on the pages of @AW disparage a couple of those scholars by name)
      .
      And not only Armenophile work was deliberately ignored, but there is and was concerted effort to create doubt about anything that is Armenian: roots, history, culture, language, root words….anything.
      And the purpose of that effort should be obvious.

    • “D,” still the same amateur and angry ranting that we have been increasingly seeing from you. Now, let’s slice and dice a few of your “ideas.” There is a major difference between circumstantial evidence that there might be an Etruscan-Armenian connection, and stating flatly that “the Etruscans are definitely Armenian” (by Hagop D // July 2, 2013 at 6:15 pm //). It is the difference between being an intellectual and an unthinking simpleton. The fact that a few scholars may have claimed that such connection may exist does not make it true. Your comparison of Newton and your Robert Ellis again demonstrates your lack of intellectual depth. Newton’s ideas still hold true (in non-relativistic setting) and have been proven over and over, while your Ellis is an almost forgotten curiosity. And this Chahin person is so “well-known” that a simple google does not even give his first name. And by the way, Chahin’s approach of blood groups is outdated, as nowdays science uses DNA comparisons.

      Your puerile attempts to discredit Vartan remind one of a mouse trying to bite an elephant. Vartan has clearly demonstrated, through his clear logic and masterful use of good sources, that he is indeed a scholar. You, on the other hand, have only demonstrated your abysmal lack of knowledge of Armenian matters and thinking. Nonsensical statements such as “the Hittites and Etruscans are definitely Armenian” and “Armenians are a Western concoction” speak for themselves.

  67. Reply to Vartan’s reply to Hagop D’s post:
    .
    {“I assume that Vahagn’s expression “it is well known” referred to the fact…..”}
    Why would you assume that ? Based on what ?
    Vahagn’s posts uniformly drip with praise and adulation for anything Turkish: so why would you assume he was talking about ‘us’, Armenians.
    { But we assume that, when we say “it is well known,” we usually talk about us, Armenians, not the rest of the world.}
    Again, assume based on what ? The entirely neutral expression “it is well known” can go either way.
    Isn’t your biased, unsubstantiated assumption unscholarly ?
    You claim to be the scholar amongst us, who does not think with his feet, Yes ? Yes.
    In fact, a neutral expression such as “it is well known”, with no specific qualifier, would be referring to the general population as a first choice by default, and not some specific subgroup.
    .
    Since etymology is a specific, narrow specialty, and furthermore, etymological specialization of Armenian even more so, [Hagop D]’s comparative ranking between which of the two – as to Armenian root/loan words vs Christianity – as being (more) “well known” for the latter is correct.
    .
    Is there any argument that Armenians adopting Christianity is far more “well known” than that there are N-number of foreign loan words in Armenian, whether the sample base is amongst Armenians or non-Armenians ?
    How many randomly queried Americans would know anything about root words in Armenian ?
    How many randomly queried Armenians would ?
    How many randomly queried Americans would know at least something about the fact that Armenians are Christian and some will even know about 301AD ?
    How many randomly queried Armenians would know much more about 301AD than about root/loan words ?
    I don’t have the answers to these questions either: I am merely raising them.
    And I am not even a scholar.

    • (post by “Avery”): “Vahagn’s posts uniformly drip with praise and adulation for anything Turkish.”

      Such an inference, buddy boy, could only be a result of a mind of an anti-intellectual simpleton, or a Turko-Azeri pretending to be an Armenian (just to create an impression that Armenian’s can’t think). My posts have uniformly reflected my pride in Armenians, and my adherence to truth and reason. And Vartan can assume what he states because it is supported by common sense. “Known,” as in “It is well known,” suggests knowledge by knowledgeable persons amongst us and therefore excludes the ignorant and the non-intelligent.

      The fact that our adoption of Christianity is more well known does not mean that it is not well known that Armenian contains thousands of foreign words. While the average educated Armenian may not know the exact number of foreign words, we know that at least a thousand are from foreign sources, given our rich vocabulary and lengthy history.

  68. Reply to Vartan’s reply to Yeranuhi:.
    .
    «Ժամանակակից գրական հայերենում գործածվում են մոտ երեք տասնակ թուրքական փոխառություններ , որոնք գրական լեզվին են անցել բարբառներից: Ընդ որում այդ բառերի որոշ մասը միջնորդավորված փոխառություններ են և արաբական ու պարսկական(հիմնական ուշ շրջաններում) ծագում ունեն.»
    .
    There are a couple of subtle peculiarities in the paste above of what is being claimed as having been written by Adjarian.
    These very same peculiarities appear in the blogosphere: so it is more likely the above quote was copied and pasted from the web, and not transcribed from the original source.
    To be absolutely sure what exactly was written by Adjarian, we need to see the scanned page (link) where that sentence appears.
    Nevertheless, we will proceed as is for the time being.

    As to the particular word in question օջախ: Vartan writes; {“Whether the ultimate origin of օջախ (ojakh) is Persian or Turkish, it doesn’t matter,…”}
    Well, No, it actually does matter, and matters a great deal: this whole thread grew to its present length precisely because it matters.
    .
    {“… technically speaking: when a language borrows a word from another, the latter becomes the source, regardless of the actual origin.”}
    Says who ? Let us see the etymological rule or reference that says that specifically. From a reputable source. One we can verify.
    And if that assertion were true, why would Adjarian specifically note that some number of those loanwords were themselves loanwords from Arabic or Persian.
    Since supposedly technically there would be no point in specifically noting that particular detail. Right ?
    Or maybe there is no such rule – technically speaking or otherwise.
    How do we know you are not making it up.
    .
    After dozens of posts on the subject, absolutely no conclusive proof has been presented that that particular word is of Turkish origin.
    Per Adjarian, there certainly are Turkish loanwords used in ‘contemporary’ literary Armenian: less than 37 (some of that 37 being of Arabic and Persian origin).
    Did Adjarian _specifically_ write that օջախ _is_ of Turkish origin ? Yes or No ?
    Maybe օջախ (ojakh) is of Turkish origin, maybe it isn’t: but in the absence of positive proof, we will assume it is not of Turkish origin.
    For the reasons and sources given previously: that the word օջախ is more likely to have a Persian origin, rather than Turkish.
    When in doubt, assume it is not Turkish. Technically speaking.

    • Vartan’s unabridged, uncut, un-“ellipsed” sentence, buddy boy, makes it clear what he meant by “it does not matter”: (quote by Vartan) “”. Just because the ultimate origin of “ojakh” matters to the intellectually curious and the fanatical simpletons is not the same as “it does not matter in a technical sense.” Ajaryan confirms, as has been stated by other reliable sources, that we borrowed “ojakh” from the Turks. Whether the Turks themselves borrowed the word from the Persians or Martians does not change the fact that we got it from the Turks. One does not need an “etymological rule” to understand this, it is dictated by common sense: you get something from someone, that someone is your source.

      And after hundreds of posts on the subject, we have two undeniable giants of the Armenian linguistics, Malkhasyan and Iskhanyan, stating that ojakh is of Turkish origin. After hundreds of posts, this has not been refuted by a single reputable sources. Even Ajaryan does not deny it, in fact he confirms that we directly borrowed the word from the Turks. As things stand, the evidence overwhelmingly points to the Turkish origin of the word.

      (post by Avery): “in the absence of positive proof, we will assume it is not of Turkish origin.” This, buddy boy, reflects the kind of anti-intellectual and self-destructive thinking that is rejected by reasoning Armenians.

    • Errata: (quote by Vartan): “Whether the ultimate origin of օջախ (ojakh) is Persian or Turkish, it doesn’t matter, technically speaking: when a language borrows a word from another, the latter becomes the source, regardless of the actual origin.”

  69. To Avery;
    You should not see Greece lately I think; otherwise you haven’t had compared her with Turkey.I have been to many counntries in the EU.Their situation is really dire and need more austerity measures.But Turkey is flourishing and many Turkish decent migrants are returning to their homeland.On the other hand when you visit south of Turkey you will see lots of Europeans are vying each other to buy properties in Turkey and settle here.
    Have you visited Turkey recently? Come and see with your own eyes…

  70. I want to wish my fellow Armenian-Americans a happy Forth of July, and Happy Birthday to the greatest country on earth. May our homeland eventually become the greatest as well. And it will, if it becomes a democracy, and if we all do our part towards that goal.

    It is interesting to see how my short post on the Turkish origin of “ojakh” spawned a discussion that exploded to over 200 posts. I think it demonstrates that there are still facts that while the educated and the intellectuals among us deem known and acceptable, the less educated and sophisticated in our midst find new and shocking. Which is the whole point of having such discussions: education, enlightenment, and national empowerment.

    So, what y’all say? On to the 300 mark?

    • May our homeland become anything that its rightful owners, The People, wish it to become. If any form of government in Armenia will satisfy the basic needs of the people, provide for their well-being, security, and development, it shouldn’t be of anyone’s business whether it’s monarchy or aristocracy. God forbid if Armenia becomes a western-type democracy, which would inevitably mean that she will be controlled at the top by a small ruling oligarchy. Recognizing that the choice is the people’s, I personally wish Armenia to become a constitutional republic, as the Founding Fathers have originally envisioned for the United States, but which failed to materialize and consequently shot into the extremes of democracy in which, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, “real liberty is not found”.

  71. As much as I’m interested in etymology, I think we have exhausted the “ojakh” origin topic. All those who agree with me, raise your hands, even if an Irishman claims the word is derived from “O’Jack”–a Celt lantern.
    A collateral benefit of the debate has been the lively exchange regarding Armenian and Turk relations. “Thank you” to all who added to our knowledge, excluding Karim Farewell and recreational vehicle RVDV whose mind often wanders off the road.
    Jirair

  72. And I guess someone by the name “Vahagn” does a hell lot of “national empowerment” when he insults a woman (“yeranuhi or whatever the hell your name is”)? In what uncultured surroundings were you brought up, Sir? In the Mongolian steppes? Fyi: “pachel”. Armenians might have borrowed the word from the Latin “basio” [to kiss], “basium” [a kiss], a language that Armenians spoke and wrote in long before the Italian or Russian languages had emerged.

    Re: Adjarian. It is amazing how the Vartan-Vahagn duo reads the same sentence and comes out with three different interpretations. Assuming everyone here reads Armenian with ease, except for “someone” who apparently has blonde moments of armenophobia, Adjaryan does not “confirm” that we borrowed “ojakh” from the Turks. And the whole discussion was not about whether “we got it from the Turks”. The bulk of the discussion was about whether the word was originally Turkic. Therefore, it does matter whether “the Turks themselves borrowed the word from the Persians or Martians” or not. If they did, then it is not of Turkic origin.

    “Ժամանակակից գրական հայերենում գործածվում են մոտ երեք տասնակ թուրքական փոխառություններ, որոնք գրական լեզվին են անցել բարբառներից: Ընդ որում այդ բառերի որոշ մասը միջնորդավորված փոխառություններ են և արաբական ու պարսկական (հիմնական ուշ շրջաններում) ծագում ունեն.”

    There is nothing in this Adjarian’s statement that suggests that 30+ loanwords that are used in the literary Armenian language are of authentically Turkic origin. Adjarian clearly states that some of these 30+ words have arrived from the Armenian dialects and are, in their turn, intermediary borrowings of Arabic and Persian origin. Which words, he does not specify. “Ojakh” may well be one of them since it exists in the older Persian language.

    I agree with Jirair that we have exhausted the topic.

  73. Anyone who does not want to go on in this thread is obviously free to do so.
    It’s an open, freeflowing forum: anybody and everybody can come and go as they please – at the discretion of AW moderators, of course.
    I choose to stay.
    And the reason should be obvious: behind all the fireworks regarding the ethnic roots of the word “ojakh” is the proverbial Elephant in the room: the ongoing White Genocide of Armenians: I choose to confront and counter it for as long as necessary and as long as I am able.

  74. Avery,
    No argument there about the White Genocide, the threat of assimilation, and other challenging issues. My comment pertained to the continuance of the debate on the origin of ojakh.

    By the way, way up on this thread, I mentioned a recent scholarly book which lists hundreds of Turkish words and their Armenian original counterparts side by side. When you look at the Armenian words, you can tell we originated them; they sound Armenian and have other clues (prefixes, suffixes, etc.) which prove that the words were of our invention. When you look at the Turkish words, it’s a child’s play to see where they came from.

    • Jirair had mentioned a book in English by an American Turkologist, Robert Dankoff, very well-reviewed at his time (1984). I would like to add the name of Khachig Amirian, an Armenian from Turkey, who emigrated to Armenia in the early 1960s and wrote several scholarly articles (you can find some of them via the Internet) and a book about borrowings of Armenian into Turkish (in Armenian). He passed away in Los Angeles in the late 1990s.

    • Why, RVDV, the fact that there are Turkish loanwords in Armenian is not shocking, but the fact that there are Armenian loanwords in Turkish is shocking? You write as if it was the Armenians who intruded the Mongolian steppes where Turkic nomads had wandered about. Since it was the Turkic warriors who invaded our region, why are you shocked that they borrowed almost everything—language, script, alphabet, religion, arts, architecture, cuisine, etc.—from the locals? What exactly is shocking?

    • ” the fact that there are Turkish loanwords in Armenian is not shocking, but the fact that there are Armenian loanwords in Turkish is shocking?”
      .
      Yes, yes it is. Exactly, John. Glad we’re on the same page here.

    • {“Jirair had mentioned a book in English by an American Turkologist, Robert Dankoff,….”}
      .
      It was John who fist mentioned Dankoff (john // June 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm //).
      .
      And by the phrasing – “There are Armenian loanwords in Turkish? SHOCKING” – I will make a $1 wager that RVDV was being facetious.
      My experience reading his posts is that he, being a Turk, is more fair than the putative ‘Armenians’ pushing a Turkophile agenda in this thread.
      .
      to wit: {” I can’t say who is right or wrong, nor can I say who is more credible. So I retract my first post saying “it is old Turkic and therefore Turkish”.”} (RVDV // June 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm //)

    • Yes, Vartan. And Dankoff does admit that “[T]o this point, the single most important work dealing with the subject of Armenian loanwords in Turkish is, without doubt, Adjarian’s […] etymological dictionary […], a monument of humanistic scholarship. In each entry of his dictionary, Adjarian gives, not only the etymology and history of the word in question, and the dialectal forms and their distribution, but also the forms borrowed into other languages.
      –Dankoff, Robert. “Armenian Loanwords in Turkish”, p. 4.

    • When we weigh the conservative corpus of 806 Armenian loanwords in Turkish (Anatolian and Azerbaijani), as per Robert Dankoff (ibid. p. 8), against some 36 Turkish loanwords used in literary Armenian, some number of which, according to Adjarian, is of Arabic and Persian origin, this testifies to who has borrowed to a larger extent from whom.

    • Sorry, RVDV, if I misinterpreted your latest post. I came to admire your courage to admit obvious things as opposed to the prevailing number of Turks and some “Armenian compatriots” posting here. Cheers, friend.

    • Sorry, John, for not checking back. I had forgotten that you had provided us with that useful information first.

  75. “Turkish loanwords in ermenian”

    50% of the ermenian surnames are in Turkish.

    Nishan-yan > Nişan
    KHACHI-YAN > Hacı (!)
    Bulbul-yan > Bülbül
    Demirci-yan
    Kuyumcu-yan
    Ekmekci-yan
    Terzi-yan
    Altoun-yan

    Avery, what is your surname ?

    • Necati: Maybe its because many thousands of Armenians left Turkey after the surname law forcing Turkified names onto them.

    • 50%, Necati? Did you do the math or someone more intelligent helped you? If your Turkic nomads did not intrude Asia Minor, all native peoples would retain their original surnames. For example, Calouste Gulbenkian’s surname would remain “Vart Badrik”, a noble Armenian surname which his ancestors had to replace under pressure from Ottoman Turks in the 17th century for Turkish “Gulbenkian”. Your ancestors have done a lot of bad things to many nations. Make no mistake: we will never forget.

    • Careful Necati. Nishan (sign) is an Armenian word, as is Khatch (cross). My new pet name for you is Nishan Khatchikian since you so kindly demonstrate the Turkish tendency to claim for themselves what they have taken from others.

  76. Necati, since you’re a Denialist Turk, we, Armenians, know we have to ask the same question at least twice. Hence, I repeat: Which word in the very name of your country (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti) is authentically Turkish? When you come up with an answer, do please convert it to percentage for us. Thanks.

    • John,
      Do you mind if I help out Nekati with Turkiye Cumhuriye?
      “Turkiye” is the Arabic for Turkey.
      “Cumhuriyet=” (or whatever way they spell it in Ankara) is the Arabic Jumhuriyeh.
      0% Turkish; 100% Arabic.
      By the way, most major Turkish newspapers have Arabic names: Zaman (time), Cumhuriyet (republic), Sabah (morning)… many more.

  77. John,
    I agree, Turkish none existence literature heavily influenced by Persian civilization as well, especially in Asia Minor, where old Persian and Armenian names had same Iranian family roots, names such as Mihrdad, Tirdad, Rostom, Nargiss, Anahita, Mariam, Surena, Dareh and many more…and eventually adopted by invading Turkic tribes as well, where their newly adopted alphabets were Arabic. Persians also lost their old Pahlavi literature and alphabets, due to Arab attack and religion change from Zoroastrianism into Islam, Arabic words effected and influenced on modern Persian literature, as we see today!!
    FYI Turkish prime minister full name is complete Arabic, where Turkish President first name is Arabic and last name means “flower” (Gul) is Persian!!

  78. “Maybe its because many thousands of Armenians left Turkey after the surname law ”

    Law making date : 1934

    I think it is because families/tribes used to be named with agnominal/epithet as it is still possible to see even today in Turkey.

    Like; Seferoğulları , Tellioğulları, Osmanoğulları, Karamanoğulları…

    Is it not interesting they dont want to change their Turkish surnames ?

    I think they have a hidden love in their deep heart towards us.

  79. I see that it is futile to take part in the debate going on here,coz hatred against Turks made all of you,diaspora Armenians, blind.You cannot talk in a logical way due to your stance against the facts.When you are cornered,you just insult the others with expletives.If I say the truth ,I do not consider you as real Armenians.You have been assimilated into the races you are subjected to.

    • Don’t confuse hatred against lies with hatred against Turks. I do not hate Turks.

    • I could put it the other way around, Haluk.

      “I see that it is futile to debate facts with Turks because they see any disagreement with the Turkish world view as anti-Turkish hatred.”

      Do you really want to have an open discussion with Armenians? Are you willing to put aside your anti-Armenian prejudice? Can you put aside paranoia and over-defensiveness? Broaden your perspective and try to open your mind to a world view that isn’t a whole-cloth invention designed to resurrect Turkish nationalism concommitant with the birth of the modern Turkish Republic.

  80. I honestly do not get the passion of many Armenians regarding these “our word vs their word” debates. Ok, you win. You invented 99% of the modern Turkish words. And then what? Nothing is going to change the fact that you have been a subjugated nation for over 1500 years! It is like a house-servant claiming (at least some) sense of superiority over the masters simply because the lords took the word ‘broom’ from them, and oh yes, they are better cooks and flute-players. No matter though. History is history. You were not the only nation Turks had conquered. No big deal. Look at Russia. How far they have come since their defeats at the hands of Mongols. And look at yourselves. Don’t you think your nation (and its capabilities) deserve any blame for what has happened to you? Or your culture? What good is your civilization if … well. Just think about national character. 1500 years of rule, and not even a peep? Where have been your MAJOR uprisings, resistance, rebellions? (note, this is not a trap question regarding 1915).

    We Azeris have been no better. Ruled by Persians, Russians, Arabas, whatnot. But compared to Armenians, we don’t go around claiming some kind of a supreme nation status. And yet you are no better than us. The main difference is this: we have been ruled as subjects with changing names, you, with the same name. What a big difference indeed! Yes, you invented ‘ojak’. But you have been serving at the Turkish ocak for 1500 years! If I were you, I would keep quiet when it comes to questions of superiority vis-a-vis Turks.

    Having said that, I actually like seeing you Armenians waste your time like this. Of course, it is much easier to sit in Glendale or wherever and prove your Armenian-ness by fighting on the internet with some loser Turks or Azeris. Davud the Commenter! It is much more difficult to make real contributions to your country. I am glad that, instead of these wasteful ocak debates, you are not instead discussing the details about, e.g., creating an investment fund for Armenia, or setting up democratic NGOs for Yerevan, or finding ways to oppose your Armenian government in their rush to sell Armenian strategic assets to Russia, etc, etc. Yes, keep fighting over words. That is much better (and easier).

    And I cannot resist making this side comment about RVDV. As a Kurd, it is easy for him to concede points disfavoring Turks. So, keep that in mind. Nothing personal. It is just that what irritates me, is his implicit sense of self-congratulations when he concedes anti-Turkish things. I, too, am not a Turk and it is easy for me to concede such things as the Armenian Genocide. But I don’t pat myself on the back for it or look for other to do so.

    • “As a Kurd, it is easy for him to concede points disfavoring Turks”
      .
      I think you meant to say: RVDV, as an educated and reasonable Turk, recognizes that the truth, no matter if it is hard to swallow and castes a shameful light on Turks, is the truth. Denying it won’t change reality, yet accepting it and trying to spread the word about the truth about Turkish history is the least he can do.
      .
      Also, it is not RVDV’s fault that “anti-Turkish” more often than not= reality.

    • Turkish and Azeri denialists and trolls will never understand why we “keep fighting over words.” Regardless of the fact that this discussion should have never been so long — but we learn about our language on the go and we still have a few things to say about the “wasteful ocak debate” –, you completely forget (or choose to forget) that this particular article was a beautiful piece about certain words used in Armenia. There are plenty of articles that discuss all the other subjects you mention, and plenty of discussions in the past and plenty to come in the future.
      Moreover, I’m still surprised that you have the guts to say “you have been serving at the Turkish ocak for 1500 years,” and none of the gatekeepers here has jumped at your throat to let you know that the Turks were still in Central Asia in the sixth century A.D., and Armenia was an independent state from 886-1045, and again from 1080-1375 (Cilicia was called Armenia in all Medieval sources). So it is advisable that you go and read some (non-Azerbaijani/non-Turkish) reliable history books before coming to talk nonsense about the past.

    • “Nothing is going to change the fact that you have been a subjugated nation for over 1500 years!”

      Karim, you know what I’m always astonished at when dealing with the Denialist Turks and their newly-created AXErBEYjani extension? Their heavy-mindedness. No matter how many times you’re presented with facts that Armenians were not a “subjugated nation” for over 1500 years, you’ll continue to repeat the mantra you WISH to believe in.

      1500 years makes it year 513 AD or early 6th century AD. Let’s take a look at the background first.

      Just two centuries passed after the Armenians became the first nation in the world to adopt Christianity as state religion. Less than a century passed from the “Golden Age of Armenia”, rich in cultural and intellectual achievements. The Bible was translated into the Armenian language by that time. The earliest known historical account on Armenia, “The History of Armenia” was written by that time. The Armenian alphabet was created by that time.

      Politically, in the early 6th century, Armenia was a semi-independent nation with largest autonomy under the Persian rule. Several functions of an independent state have been preserved: the local administration existed, the ministry of war existed, the army and the military command existed.

      In three centuries, in 884 AD, an independent state, known as Bagratid (or Bagratuni) Kingdom of Armenia, was established following two centuries of Arab domination. The Kingdom existed until mid-11th century.

      Afterwards, from mid-11th century to late 14th century, a principality and then the Kingdom of Cilicia was established.

      In 1918, the first Democratic Republic of Armenia was established but existed for only two years.

      And in 1991, the modern Republic of Armenia was established.

      How, just how, does this make Armenia a subjugated nation for over 1500 years? Can you explain?

      To me, it’s better to be one of the oldest nations inhabiting the Earth and in several episodes experience inevitable periods of statehood loss, then to be an artificially created “nation” whose name existed as a name for an ancient Persian province and only from 1918 designates an independent “nation” of Azerbaijan.

  81. “I, too, am not a Turk”

    what ***** !!!!

    There is no “azeri” as a race/ethnicity. People living in Azerbaijan are Turks.

  82. Dear Boyajian (boyacı-yan),

    I just checked the word “”nişan” with tdk.gov.tr . It says the word is Persian originally.

    • Not that it will matter to you, because “TDK says so,” but Armenian խաչ (khach) is of Indo-European origin (I.E. kheyd > Arm. khach, originally “wood, pole,” lately “cross”), which also gives I.E. kheyd > Persian xada “wood.” Thus, both Armenian and Persian words are cognates, as they have a parallel birth from the same source, but not from each other.
      Additionally, Adjarian lists from Lazar Budagov’s Comparative Dictionary of Turk-Tatar Language (Moscow, 1869-1871, vol.1, p. 524) the words xac (or hac) “cross,” xacvari “cruciform,” xac itmek “to seal,” xaclamaq “to crucify,” xaclanmes “crucified” as borrowings from Armenian into Turkish.
      (All this information, in Adjarian, Etym. Dictionary, vol. 2, p. 333-335).
      By the way, in case you’re not familiar with it, there is not such word as “Ermenian” in the English modern language. You may want to check your source and stop using it.

  83. Necati, Karim, Haluk, Resoman and RVDV: Turkey and Azerbaijan are one nation in two states, according to their respective Foreign Ministers, Davutoglu and Mammadyarov. So are you Turk? Beware: Pan-Turkic propaganda pitfall ahead.

  84. Boyajian, I don’t believe in Panturkism. It is an ideology invented by Turkish politicians to expand expand their export markets, and for Azeri politicians to TRY to oblige Turkey to take our side more often. At the end of the day, we Azeris are culturally and genetically more similar to Iranian culture than Turkey. To call Azeris and Turks the same nation is like calling Mexico and Nicaragua the same nation simply because they speak the same language, Spanish, thanks to the effect known as Elite Language Domination theory of ethnogenesis. Nor am I a blind fan of everything Turkish. We do appreciate their alliance. But if we could, we could exchange it for Russian alliance any time of the day. The thing is, due to complex reasons, Russia knows that Armenia is a more reliable (or cornered, if you wish) ally than us. So, here we are … stuck with Turkey. Better something than nothing at all, I guess.

    • Karim,

      We know that the Azeri government and culture today treats the concept of Armenians and Armenia about the same way Hitler and his helpers treated the concept of the Jew: propaganda of both actively portrays the defamed group as avaricious, liars, conspirators, murderers of children etc.

      Although I disagree with much of what you say, I can also see fairness and better still, independence of thought in your posts.

      What do average Azeris think, when they are with family members? Do they remember with fondness their Armenian neighbors? What do they think of the massacres in places like Sumgait and Baku? Do they think these were orchestrated by their government or Russia? What do they make of the ancient Churches and Vanks dotting their landscapes?

      So far as genetic distances go, I believe the shortest distance in the area is between Az and Armenians.

      Finally, if you live in the US, where are the voices of anti-racist Azeris and Turks who should detest ATAA and its overt racism?

  85. Karim, far from his roots, is either a Turk assimilated by iranians or an agent of ermenians.

    Just notice, Boyajian asked a question somehow seemingly like she/he had known the answer to.

    I will not bother myself trying to prove that there is no azeri but Oğuz Turks.

    Kerim,

    Ermenians here in AW always make hateful/insulting speeches towards us Turks. I never cared about them. But you disappointed me much.

    You are a traitor. Shame on you…!

    • To say that Turkey committed genocide against Armenians is not hateful or insulting speech. To say that Turkey should pay for this crime is not hateful or insulting speech. To ask for compensation for what was taken from my ancestors is not hateful or insulting speech. It is merely a quest for justice.

  86. It is interesting to see how some of us try to deny the connection between the Armenian and Turkish cultures. We can decide to cleanse our culture from Turkish influences, but we cannot deny the fact that the connection exists. Many Armenians use Turkish words and phrases all the time. Many listen to Turkish-style music and dance under it in our banquet halls. Our elderly watch Turkish movies and Turkish channels (as shown on the recent movie “Lost and Found in Armenia”).

    How can any Armenian not feel a bittersweet sense of kinship to the Turkish and Ottoman culture when listening to the opening music and seeing the opening images of Çalıkuşu, which was greatly enjoyed by many Soviet Armenians?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0U22odwPOI

    We were part of that culture and world. In fact, we built part of it.

    • What is your point Vahagn with this comment?A new discovery?For me Turkish represents only killing & Genocide & nothing else.Turkish is the language of Genocide as K.Mouradian had written it.Search the article in the AW pages & read it.

    • The point was stated in the post itself. That there is a connection between the Turkish and Armenian cultures, and that many Armenians enjoy aspects of the Turkish culture, which is their right. In the words of British historian Christopher J. Walker:

      “In a quite different sphere, that of culture, Armenians were also prominent in the nineteenth century Ottoman capital, and their activities showed the way Turko-Armenian relations might have developed had they not been strangled by despotism and ideology. Armenians shone in two fields, those of architecture and the theatre.”
      http://armenia-survival.50megs.com/Survival_Ch_4.htm

    • As much as I don’t want to do it, because some posters understand the issue of defining Turkish culture as demonstration of Armenian supremacy (which is not) or a hint at “civilized-or-not” aspect (which is far from it), but should we go back to defining “Turkish culture”? No one can deny the connection between the Armenian and Turkish cultures, because the Armenian element in the Turkish culture is so apparent (language, music, architecture, cuisine, etc.). But for those who nothing but juxtapose the Armenian and Turkish cultures, I say: after determining the language/alphabet/script aspect of the Turkish culture, which lacks distinction, uniqueness, and originality, shall we proceed to other aspects, such as religion?

      Some our elders, who were born or raised in Western Armenia, watch Turkish movies and Turkish channels. Just like Armenians born and raised in Georgia watch Georgian movies and Georgian channels. Just like Armenians born and raised in the USSR watch Russian movies and Russian channels. Just like Armenians born and raised in the USA watch American movies and American channels. Just like Armenians born and raised in the Middle East watch Arabic and Persian movies and Arabic and Persian channels. Many Armenians use Russian words and phrases all the time. Many Armenians use English words and phrases all the time. Birthplace, customs, and the knowledge of a foreign language oftentimes leave unalienable mark on a person. But being born and raised in a particular birthplace doesn’t suggest that the culture of a host-nation must be similar to the culture of a nation that a given person represents. By and large, it’s a power of habit.

    • What’s the “Compatriot’s” point, VTiger?

      I see it as an attempt to juxtapose a distinct culture with a made-up one. To show “kinship” to the Turkish and Ottoman culture forgetting that this “kinship” manifests itself because Greeks, Europeans, Persians, Armenians, Assyrians, and Arabs fetch out many things genuinely Greek, European, Persian, Armenian, Assyrian, and Arabic in the Turkish and Ottoman culture. In other words, this “kinship” is only adherence to elements of a foreign culture that one recognizes as being one’s own.

      The point’s broader purpose, as I see it, is to attempt to equalize an autochthonous nation with an alien one. To attempt to mind-tilt the Armenians in that they and the Turks come from one homogenized melting pot. Same old fake primitive arguments made by Turkish Denialists and their AXErBEYjani extension.

    • Wrong as always, john. Noone is juxtaposing anything here. Nor did anyone forget that many elements in the Turkish culture came from the Armenian and other cultures. That does not mean that there is no Turkish culture. Nor did anyone suggest that Armenians and Turks came from one homogenized pot. How you drew these conclusions shows how an excessively paranoid mind works. Nonetheless, the Turkish culture did result from a pot in which we contributed, and they in turn influenced us. There lies the connection. Read Hakob Paronyan’s works, and you will see.

      Finally, the point is not to mind-tilt (a paranoid phraseology), but to give you the truth. How we use the truth is up to us.

  87. Necati, as an Azeri, I do value Turkish-Azeri friendship. I am just realistic about its roots and prospects. And what a funny thing … a Turk and Azeri arguing with each other on a website called Armenian Weekly. I have said it again and not because I am kissing up to get thru the moderators … AW rocks for making such oddities come true . I wish we had Azeri Weekly too.

    Jda, thanks for seeing at least some positivity in my comments. I am not surprised that you see me biased. I’d actually be shocked if I was without any bias. No matter what, I have been immersed in the Azeri perspective and would never fully escape its orbit. But still … As for your question about how Azeris feel about Armenians. I dare to say that the hatred is not fully symmetrical. We do not hate you as much as (I think) you hate us. Not because we are better than you, but because you have a secondary and BIG element in that hared. The Armenian Genocide. Most Armenians transfer that hatred to Azeris. We don’t have an equivalent of that hatred. The “only” thing for us is the land dispute. Upon a fair resolution, we’d have no more cause. Azeris have lived with Armenians for many years. Yes, they do know that the bad things happened in Sumagayit (just as in Khojali) and they do know that Safarov was a psychopath. But they would deny all this (to themselves and to you) out of spite – like sticking it to the enemy. I think that is why Aliyev partially pardoned him (to personally aggregavate Sarkissian after difficult negotiations). See, being fair and rational to the other side is one of the first casualties of a conflict. It is almost like a courtesy that is taken away. And I hope you don’t rush to think that Armenians are much better in this regard. Denying to the other side any scintilla of being the right one at least in some regard is utterly unpatriotic. It is like herd-mentality (for both sides) in turbo-drive. E.g., anyone like Vahagn who dissents (probably just for the sake of dessenting from the crowd) gets ganged upon as a representative of the Other (quite literally). I’d probably get treated even harsher on Azeri Weekly.

    Many Azeris older than 25 today still remember having Armenian friends. And people still think of Armenians as very hard-working smart people. Everyone was like, of course Kasparov was a champion, he was half Armenian and half Jewish (“a perfect combo”). A curious random thing to mention … a vast majority of high-skilled carpenters and architects in Azerbaijan used to be Armenian. If you needed to build a house, you’d hire Armenian. One sad thing is that people young than 25 don’t have these memories, and it will make things harder to eventually have peace, because all they have heard (on both sides) is the demonized Other. Compromise is a dirty word – especially in our machoistic part of the world.

  88. Karim, I would like to ask you a question. You suggest that Armenians and Azeris are genetically basically the same. I will not get into whether that’s true or not. But do the average Azeris feel that way? I am asking this because I saw the Azeri cartoon “Cavanşir” about the NKR war, and what was interesting was the way the Azeris and the Armenians were portrayed. The Azeris had slightly Asian/Mongoloid features, such as almond-shaped eyes and slightly protruded cheekbones, while Armenians had clearly Caucasian features (e.g. round eyes), to the point of exaggeration:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLuzvsr4F8

    Is that how the Azeris view themselves vis-à-vis the Armenians?

  89. Vahagn,

    I hope you are not talking for most of Armenians. I grew up in Armenia, had no exposure to Turkish culture, language or simply put anything Turkish. I do not like Turkish-style music either.

    “How can any Armenian not feel a bittersweet sense of kinship to the Turkish and Ottoman culture when listening to the opening music and seeing the opening images of Çalıkuşu, which was greatly enjoyed by many Soviet Armenians?”

    Nothing bittersweet just bitter.

  90. The clause form Christopher Walker shows no “connection” between the Turkish and Armenian cultures. On the contrary, it shows that Armenians were prominent in culture. No word on Turkish culture to establish a “connection”.

  91. From my very vast Armenian circle & family, nobody enjoys anything Turkish or any aspects of Turkish style culture,whether where I live now in Europe,in US where I have a very big family,nor in Lebanon where I was born & raised.None of the elderly that I know,watch any Turkish channels nor Turkish films,as that generation has already passed away.
    In Lebanon,I was part of the campaign to stop our elderly from speaking Turkish.I was part of a gang which occasionally attacked cinema Gommone Palace with stinking bombs to disrupt the show of Turkish films where our elderly ladies (very few in fact) went to watch.
    The Turkish style music & dance that you are talking about is more Arabic & to be specific more Egyptian than Turkish & that is the connection that exists & specially for those with Arab countries background who have migrated to the US or other places.
    As for Christopher Walker,personally I know him very well & have been active in translating articles into English from Armenian sources that a certain Armenian gentleman’s library provided him.Quoting this paragraph of his, has nothing to do with the present.
    Anything Turkish reminds us of only of Genocide & of our pain.

    • Avery,

      Your remarkable chivalry for Yeranuhi – by the way, one of the loveliest names in any language – is misplaced. My comments about the tactical, historic and unChristian mistake we make by referencing T’s in general, or the fascists among them, as primitive or nomadic was not aimed at her. These are comments I have made many times over the years in these pages.

      However, you have definitely attacked specific T fascists with such language, and I took you on for it at that time. Then I figured they had it coming, so who cares.

      I think it feeds into victim mentality to describe the enemy this way. I think it also references a model of the Turk which our grandparents may have seen in times past, but it is not the Turk of today. Unfortunately, the higher poverty and illiteracy is not found
      in Turks as such, but Kurds.

      If you speak to the very eldest of our survivors, many speak fondly of Turks who helped them, and disparagingly of those who were backwards. But starting with their fascist murderer demi-God Ataturk, they have improved education.

      I see no basis to use these words against them. I think we delude ourselves by underestimating them when we do so.

      But, let’s inquire of Quisling how the conference in Tbilisi went. Now, that is worrisome.

  92. Vahagn,

    Exactly which part of that movie tells you that our cultures have many similarities? Oh, I think I know. A cousin marries a cousin. FYI, Armenians do not intermarry.

    • Nothing in Çalıkuşu (which is a TV series btw) says anything about Armenians. But there is something in the music and in the beginning images that makes me feel like we Armenians had our part in that world. The events take place before, during, and after the Genocide, and the original play was written in 1922. Armenians in Soviet Union quite enjoyed it.

  93. VTiger,

    I disagree with your attitude about Turkish culture for two reasons.

    The Turkish language, music, etc. did not murder and steal. Turks and Kurds did.

    My grandparents spoke Turkish. Before I knew what it was, so did I.

    Moreover, Armenians were cultural and sometimes social leaders of Ottoman society. We were a stable, productive, modernizing and humanizing force. So if we act as if we weren’t there, we deny the lives of our ancestors and their contributions.

    My grandmother would have liked Turkish movies, or Vietnamese movies, or John Wayne movies. She and her sisters don’t need busybodies like you telling us what we can see, say or enjoy.

    Let Turkish fascists corner that market.

    • Armenians were also 2nd class _subjects_: do you dispute that ?
      Up to 300,000 of whom were massacred by Ottoman Turks in 1895 and 30,000 in 1908 as a “thank you” for their ‘…productive, modernizing and humanizing…’ contributions.
      How many Moslems did Ottoman Turks massacre ?
      Whatever Armenians contributed to Ottoman Turkey was despite their status as 2nd class subjects, not because of any benevolence of their rulers.
      Ottoman Turks needed the productivity, creativity, talent and wealth producing ability of their Christian subjects to keep their decrepit, creaking empire going.
      They were parasites living off of the wealth of their Christian subjects, while they developed martial skills to better kill & steal.

    • jda, no one here argues that it wasn’t the Turkish language, music, etc. that murdered and stole. The major argument that’s being made in this segment of the debate is that presenting Turkish language, music, etc. as a distinct, unique and genuine culture is absurd. It is NOT. Scores of scholars have written on the subject. It is largely an amalgamation of many cultural traits borrowed or outrightly stolen from many sedentary peoples inhabiting the Near East, Middle East, Asia Minor, and Southern Europe, i.e. almost in every place where a Seljuk or an Ottoman came to invade, colonize, oppress, and mass murder.

      I wanted to discuss aspects that define culture of any nation, but some Turks and “THE Compatriot” here frantically saw in this a demonstration of Armenian “supremacy” and/or “civilized-or-not” attitude. Far from it. So I repeat: what is it in the Turkish culture that is originally and authentically Turkish? Note: I’m not saying the Turkish culture does not exist. I’m saying: what is it comprised of? We determined that the most important aspect of their culture—unique language/alphabet/script is absent. Would you like to look further into the determinants of a nation’s culture, such as religion, architecture, cuisine, etc.?

      Right on the spot: “our ancestors’ contributions to the Turkish culture”. Exactly! A Greek would say the same, and rightfully so. A Persian would say the same, and rightfully so. An Arab would say the same, and rightfully so. An Assyrian would say the same, and rightfully so. A Latin-speaking European would say the same, and rightfully so.

      Isn’t it much easier to borrow and steal from the four winds than to create your own?

    • Jda,ignore the following from the first line of my above comment “Turkish but with Armenian alphabet/writing & from Genocide sur,”

    • I think this is a discussion we have had many other times in these pages, so please excuse me if I repeat what I said before.

      1.Those of us who describe Turks in negative essentialist terms [barbarous, nomadic, primitive] actually are criticizing alleged characteristics which the most retrograde elements of the T society hold dear. The Grey Wolves and their ilk cherish these titles, just the way Hitler discussed the barbarous nature of the supermen he would unleash upon the peaceful civilians of the world. So, you embolden our worst enemies and alienate our potential advocates among them.

      2.It is preposterous to think we are being accurate or accomplishing anything with such epithets. Turkey is a rising power, granted much of her wealth is stolen from Christians, but who, exactly is our audience for these diatribes? Will a moderate European or Turk join our ranks when we discuss a modern society based upon these labels? When Turks are brutal or genocidal, it is not because they are inherently or genetically nomadic, barbarous etc. It was because, the men and the society who did these things were evil, covetous, and they were armed with the weapons and means of the modern state. We know that genocide can occur in states which are thought to be highly civilized, and those which are relatively primitive.

      3.As to Ottoman culture, which is not synonymous with T culture, we should be proud of the role we played, just as Jews can be proud of what they gave Germany and Europe until 1933.

      4. The idea that Turkish culture is not authentic is ridiculous. The same thing might be said of all the cultures of the western hemisphere, with their mixtures of indigenous and waves of slaves, servants, and immigrants. That they derive much from others is not a criticism of authenticity. Aren’t we proud of how we have adapted to every culture where we live? Are we therefore not authentic? They have a culture, it works for them, much of it comes from us, so what?

      4. Declaring war on modern Turkish culture is ridiculous. When we make an accord and reach full and just peace with these people, common artistic ground will be one of the avenues of our approach.

    • jda,

      I suspect the motives for most of your points are explained by a phrase found in your earlier post. You said: “My grandparents spoke Turkish. Before I knew what it was, so did I.” If your grandparents were Bolsahayers (Armenians from Constantinople), they would, as a rule, tend to be more leveled down with respect to the Turks. After all, they lived amongst them as local bourgeoisie and were largely spared during the genocide for the purpose of throwing dust in foreigners’ eyes. It is known that living amongst others deadens one’s perception. How many times should Armenians be mass murdered to understand the intolerant nature of the Turks? How many times?

      1. No one here describes Turks in negative essentialist terms. Only when it comes to AG, the term “barbarous” is used. Were they not? Only when it comes to their origin, the term “nomadic” is used. Were they not? Only when it comes to describing a bonfire in a Seljuk tent in contrast to a hearth, the term “primitive” is used. Was it not?

      2. If Turkey is a rising power, it implies she cannot be a denialist, distortionist, and fascist power? It means killings of Catholic priests aren’t happening there? It means open-minded people such as Dink aren’t killed or imprisoned there? It means the humiliating Article 301 of the Penal Code doesn’t exist there? Our audience may not represent a rising power, but should it necessarily be a corresponding “rising power” to demand justice? I don’t think so. Israel in the 1970s was no match to Germany, yet Jews advanced justice and were able to secure retributions. Will a moderate European or Turk join our ranks when we discuss Turkish society? Well, one such European, an Austrian MP, would. One such Turk, RVDV, never denied that Turks can be brutal or that their origins were nomadic. Whether genocide occurs in states which are civilized or in states which are primitive, in both cases their actions are barbaric. Genocide of the Armenians by Turks was a barbaric act. Genocide of the Jews by Germans was a barbaric act.
      I’m struggling to believe that Turks are inherently or genetically barbarous. I really am. But if in 1915-1918 there were evil, covetous Turks armed with the weapons and means of the modern state who mass murdered, and then in 1922 there were evil, covetous Turks armed with the weapons and means of the modern state who mass murdered, and yet before, in 1894-96, there were evil, covetous Turks armed with the weapons and means of the modern state who mass murdered, and then in 1909 there were evil, covetous Turks armed with the weapons and means of the modern state who mass murdered, and then in 2007 there were evil, covetous Turks who still murdered, then what does this tell about Turks in general? Either their nation has too many evil, covetous men or…?

      3. Armenians are proud of the role we played in the Ottoman culture. And so are the Turks who borrowed it heavily and now portray Ottoman culture as their own.

      4. That some cultures derive much from others is not a criticism of authenticity, it’s a statement of the lack of authenticity. Criticism emerges when Turks portray their culture as uniquely their own. THIS is ridiculous.

      5. An attempt to define Turkish culture is not an attempt to declare war on it. If we ever agree to define it, we will see that this culture lacks many aspects of authenticity, read: is largely borrowed or stolen. I said this before and I say this again: statement of fact is not declaration of war.
      “Making an accord”, “reaching full and just peace” are politico-military terms. But Armenians were not and are not involved in any politico-military dealings with the Turks. We were subjected to genocidal extermination. Therefore, by definition, we don’t “make an accord” or “reach full and just peace” with the mass murderer. As victims, we are to receive recognition, retribution, and restitution.

    • “genocide can occur in states which are thought to be highly civilized, and those which are relatively primitive.”

      yes, jda, but it is the ability to repent and compensate that at the end makes a state highly civilized or primitive.

    • “They [Turks] have a culture, it works for them, much of it comes from us, so what?”

      They have innocent people mass slaughtered, it worked for them, most of them come from us, so what?

      They have eastern provinces, it works for them, most of them come from us, so what?

      They have wealth, it works for them, much of it comes from us, so what?

      They have Christian cathedrals, churches, and monasteries converted to mosques or sheepcotes, it works for them, many of them come from us, so what?

      They have Christians forcibly converted to Islam, it works for them, many of them come from us, so what?

      They have the denial of genocide, it works for them, much of recognition efforts come from us, so what?

      Right, jda?

    • Wrong, Yeranuhi.

      We need to concentrate our work and arguments where they will result in persuasion and justice. Nobody on Earth will agree that Turkish culture is illegitimate, or that such alleged illegitimacy supports our arguments and experiences. Calling Turks, who may well be college educated, moderate and live in a big or moderate City, Yurt-living nomads is silly.

      It may interest you to know that these arguments about real vs. illegitimate cultures is exactly what Hitler thought. In one piece he said Armenians were the sad product of Persians who intermarried with Jews, and in another he said Turks were a mongrel race. Is this the intellectual company we should be keeping?

      This is the way Turkish fascists think. Let’s celebrate what is good in every person, and culture, as Our Savior Jesus Christ would lead us.

    • Yeranuhi,

      It makes no sense to waste our time with fights we can not, and should not win. Attacking the human or cultural legitimacy of our enemies is a fool’s errand.

      Attacking their historic and current genocide of Christians, their theft, and their denial is worthwhile and for those of us who are the descendants, it is required we do so.

      But pretending that they are primitive, stupid, etc. underestimates a common enemy among the T nationalists, and I prefer we be ready to meet a clever, resourceful and wealthy enemy, not a caricature or a cartoon.

    • I agree in part, jda. Other part being that all of us know that in addition to Turks’ historic and current genocide of Christians, their theft, and their denial, they also committed a cultural Genocide of Christians having stolen many of our cultural achievements.

      When “someone” here shamelessly lies that Armenian medieval architectural style “is heavily derived” from Byzantine and early Christian Roman styles, I wish to see you retort to him just like you retort to me. Fair?

      I know that Denialst Turks are sly and clever enemies. I don’t expect to meet a caricature or a cartoon. That’s why I fight them on many fronts, including the cultural one. This is where we branch off.

    • {“But pretending that they are primitive, stupid, etc. ..”}
      Classic strawman, JDA.
      .
      I searched for the word ‘primitive’ in this thread.
      The only instance of its use by Yeranouhi is this: {“…..a primitive nomadic bonfire….. “}.
      So where is the problem ? Yeranouhi is clearly describing something centuries if not millennia past, not modern Turks.
      Do you dispute that a ‘bonfire’ is in fact primitive compared to “…a sophisticated brick- or stone-lined fireplace, usually with an oven, that’s been used for heating and cooking with sedentary nations.” ?
      .
      Next I searched for the word ‘stupid’ in this thread: Yeranouhi never used it.
      .
      And I doubt very much that Armenian posters here – and I do mean _Armenian_ posters here – consider modern Turks, quote, ‘stupid’ or ‘primitive’.
      Today’s Turks are many things, but certainly neither primitive, nor stupid.
      So your objection is overruled, counselor.
      .
      Regarding {“ It makes no sense to waste our time with fights we can not, and should not win”}
      You consider it a waste of time, others don’t.
      You think something or other cannot be won, others don’t.
      Nobody is being forced to waste their time: for those who see things differently, it’s our time to ‘waste’.
      There are very good reasons for what you call ‘attacking’ Turks’ cultural legitimacy: we call it countering denialist Turks’ attack on our own Armenian cultural legacy.
      .
      As to what can and cannot won: when Karabagh struggle started around 1988, nobody could predict that a bunch of guys with shotguns and old hunting rifles would eventually morph into a professional fighting force that massively defeated a far superior invading army.
      When George Washington and his handful of disorganized forces took on the greatest military power in the world at the time, nobody could have predicted the outcome.

    • Jda, I believe your heart is in the right place, but I have to disagree with some of what you said, and with your point number 4 I will especially disagree. We as Armenians are not concerned about whether Turkish culture is “authentic”, it can be as authentic as it wants to be, but not at the expense of ours. The problem we have here is, “Turkish culture” is analogous to a person murdering another then wearing their uniquely identifiable clothes in public. That is not, and cannot be, an authentic culture, but yet one more step in their denial campaign against the Armenians.
      .
      “That they derive much from others is not a criticism of authenticity. Aren’t we proud of how we have adapted to every culture where we live?”
      I hope you don’t really believe this. Let’s face it: there is no in-between when it comes to both of our cultures, it is merely a one-way street of theft. When Armenians in the USA sit down every Thanksgiving for a family dinner, they don’t proclaim it is their “authentic culture and tradition”, but rather a respect for the country in which they live. Did the Turks do this when they migrated into our lands? Their ultimate act of Genocide and their current attitude tells me everything I need to know about “Turkish culture”, because as far as I as an Armenian am concerned, The imposition of anything Turkish in our midst offered not one shred of anything “authentic” and which would be considered a “plus”, and quite frankly, the opposite.
      .
      Is this wrong? Well I am willing to hear out any convincing evidence of what we ever needed from the Turks, which today is a part of our culture and tradition. And as I pointed out before, anything seemingly “Turkish” in our culture is a result of our own cultural progression of the last five centuries or so before the Genocide by having Turkish as our ‘native’ tongue.
      .
      You post implies that the country of Turkey headed by its Genocide defending government is “on the cutting edge of Human values” – when was the last time any such Turkish institution came forward and admitted how their ‘Anatolian culture’ is basically that of the former Christian subjects of the empire? According to them, Armenians and their culture are ‘marginal’ when in fact, the opposite is true, and this is yet one more important aspect of attempting race-murder and taking their lands and ultimately resuming their “culture” with a new sinister facelift based on lies and deceit.

  94. “I was part of a gang which occasionally attacked cinema Gommone Palace with stinking bombs to disrupt the show of Turkish films”

    Now, i have right to do the same here against everything ermenian. Even worse..

    • Necati
      If you continue to spell our name “Ermenian” (despite a correction from at least one of the writers here), I will spell your phoney name No-Catty, Neck-Tie. Whatever.

      Re several writers’ comments that there are some similarities between the cultures of Armenians and Turks…WOW! STOP THE PRESSES! Turks violently imposed themselves on us for more than 500 years. For 500 years they appropriated the culture of Armenians, Arabs, Persians, Jews, Serbs… So what if there are some cultural similarities? Do we embrace denialist Turkey and say it’s all forgotten and forgiven.
      Are you so naive as not to observe the game Turkey–and many Turks–are playing? Now that they have stolen so much from us(lives, land, property), they are declaiming that we are cultural brothers/sisters, meanwhile official Turkey is spending countless millions portraying the contribution of Ottoman minorities (Arab, Armenians, Greeks, Jews, etc.) as Turkish. I call it the Anatolian Con Game. Ankara is organizing cultural events, food festivals, etc. in Europe and in North America and calling it Anatolian Heritage –hint, hint; nudge, nudge to most Westerners who are suckered by the deliberate misnomer and leave these ersatz PR events under the impression that what they experienced was Turkish. After all, one would be blind not to notice the huge, blood-red Turkish flag festooned everywhere at these shell games.
      You call for understanding, appreciation, amity, cultural exchange while Ankara insinuates cultural hegemony over the contributions of our people. Not satisfied with stealing our millennia-old cultural contributions, contemporary Turkey steals even recent Armenian songs and even our “Voghp Giligia” and “Adana”–the dirges about the usurpation of Cilicia and the massacre of Adana Armenians by… (uh…) yes, our cultural brethren. Bah! To paraphrase the Armenian saying: “If I had two stomachs, one of them would have exploded.” Hey, this might be a Turkish saying, which Armenians (as is there custom) have taken from …you guessed it. Teshakoor edarim, arkhadash.

    • Listen, Necati or whatever your cursed penname is. Armenians did not mass murder the Turks. Armenians did not forcibly deport the Turks to deserts to die of starvation. Armenians did not gang-rape Turkish virgins. Armenians did not rip off pregnant Turkish women’s’ wombs. Armenians did not squash Turkish newborns’ heads against the walls. Your barbarian savage Turkish ancestors did all these and beyond to the Armenians. So, if an Armenian disrupts the show of Turkish films it’s the least he or she can do, being a civilized Armenian and not barbarous Turkish Denialist, in retaliation for the genocidal extermination of a whole nation.

      Make no mistake: time WILL come for Turkish Denialists to pay the price for your ancestors’ monstrosities.

    • Hamshen necati,we all know about your heroics.Now go & start stink bombing your Ankara surrounding to improve the air quality.

    • Avery,
      Sure Turks celebrate the Genocide of Armenians. After all, we are “blood brothers”.

    • You are showing a clip of a Neo-Nazi far-right extremeist. Do you support Neo Nazis, Avery?

    • An intolerant Austrian? I feel like I’ve heard of one before… had a stylish mustache.
      .
      That said, I agree with everything he said. It’s why I choose to exclude myself from my local Turkish community.

    • RVDV, I live in the USA and the USA Turkish Communities are not ghetto like to communities in other countries. But what happened was is that the European Corporate Oligarchs should have hired cheap labor in their own countries instead of other countries like the Middle East and North Africa. So the companies are to blame, not the innocent laborers. I think it is hypocritical for politicians to whine and squeal about “multiculturalism” and whatnot.

    • Rifat,

      Ьost readers here, including myself, are unaware whether or not Austrian MP Stadler is a Neo-Nazi far-right extremist. But we do know as fact that killings of Catholic priests happen in Turkey. And here you are not attempting to condemn these practices in your country and the mentality of some Turks that drives them to kill even in the 21st century, but to put the blame on some unsubstantiated “European Corporate Oligarchs”. This is what we, Armenians and others, deplore about your state. Instead of admitting guilt, people like you dodge about finding unrelated, made-up excuses to justify many of your nation’s crimes.

  95. Turkish but with Armenian alphabet/writing & from Genocide surJda,which part of my attitude about Turkish culture you disagree?
    Is it because a)I do not enjoy it & it reminds me of Genocide & pain?Or because b)of the stink bombs?
    I believe it should be point (b) that you disagree & it needs clarification.
    My grandmother as well spoke only Turkish & read her Bible in vivors whose grandparents did not only speak Turkish?No need for me to further elaborate about the turkification process that had started mid 19th century & continued after the Genocide in the Armenian refugee camps of Aleppo,Damascus,Baghdad,Basra,Beirut & other.These only Turkish speaking grandparents & their sons & daughters wherever they ended up fought to survive & fought against turkification by establishing schools,churches,daily/weekly/bi-weekly,monthly newspapers & magazines,clubs,political parties,organizations of so many different sorts & so on.
    In Lebanon & after the commemorations of the 50th Genocide anniversary,the fight against tukification got stronger with ‘hayeren khosir'(speak Armenian) campaign.It is at this precise period of time that pop Armenian songs replaced the Turkish songs in the Armenian refugee camps & other & the grandchildren of of these Turkish speaking survivors encouraged for all Turkish speakers to speak Armenian instead.Hence,all methods were used to achieve this target including the stink bombs of teenage boys.
    It is always preferable to ask for clarifications instead of jumping into wrong conclusions & by the way what does it mean busybodies? Please clarify.

  96. Some of my Armenian compatriots here confuse “uniqueness” with “purity.” A culture derived of multiple elements (such as the Turkish culture) is unique because it is not identical to any of its elements (such as the Armenian or Greek elements). The color green is a unique color, albeit derived from mixing red and blue. All cultures have elements of other cultures and are still unique. The fact that the Turks arrived at this mixture through massacres and conquests does not render their culture non-unique, it only makes the manner of their culture building different. For instance, “Chalikushu,” the TV miniseries which was shown in USSR under the title “korolyok, ptichka pevchaya (“Wren, the singing bird”) is uniquely Turkish because it cannot be equated with any other culture). While it has elements of other cultures, it is imbued with Turkish flavor.

    We Armenians too derived parts of our culture from others and imbued them with Armenian flavor. Our medieval architectural style is heavily derived from Byzantine and early Cristian Roman styles. Look at the similarities of our pictures in our manuscripts and the Byzantine frescoes. The Powell library in UCLA looks similar to an Armenian church, yet its style is based on Romanesque architecture, which originated from late Roman/early Christian Roman architecture, which influenced Byzantind and Armenian medieval styles.
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Powell_Library,_UCLA.jpg

    • There is no such a thing as a “pure” culture, you are totally correct about that, Vahan. Because each culture influences each other with their food, customs, dances, architecture, music, clothes, religion and many other things. We as human beings need to be open minded about things more, if you ask me.

    • A new flight of fancy from the “compatriot”: “A culture derived of multiple elements (such as the Turkish culture) is unique because it is not identical to any of its elements (such as the Armenian or Greek elements).”

      In other words, only if the Turkish culture were an exact copy of the Armenian or Greek or Persian cultures could we assert that it lacks uniqueness. But since it stole from the four winds, muddled all together, and now presents itself as “unique” then, we are led to believe, it is unique indeed. The definition of “plagiarism” comes to mind: “presenting as original a product derived from existing sources.” Yeah, the hell with the fact that Turks arrived at this muddle through intrusions, massacres, conquests, forced conversions, and theft. See, some nations build their culture throughout millennia of hard work. Others intrude, scorch, and steal what nobler nations have built. But, in the best schemes of juxtaposition, we are invited to admit that intrusion into, destruction of, and theft from other nations does not render Turkish culture non-unique. In other words, when Turks capture Constantinople, slaughter its inhabitants, and convert the magnificent Christian Byzantine Cathedral of Hagia Sophia into a mosque by desecrating its wonderful frescos and erecting ugly-looking minarets around it, we are to accept that it is “only the manner of their culture-building” that is different not the fact that other people’s shrine was stolen and is now presented as Turkish.

      Uniqueness is not confused with purity. There are certain things belonging or connected to a particular person or a national group (read: unique). A style of architecture can be unique to the Armenians. As such, it was never “heavily derived” from Byzantine or any other style. Only a couple of Armenian churches built in the 6th-7th centuries, such as St. Hripsime, bear a similarity in style with the Byzantine churches. Most of our churches and monasteries are uniquely Armenian in their architectural style. Most scholars agree that it is the Armenian medieval churches that influenced Western church architecture, not the other way around.

    • [Because each culture influences each other with their food, customs, dances, architecture, music, clothes, religion and many other things.]

      And exactly what “other things” did Turkic nomads bring with their intrusion into Near East and Asia Minor in the 10th-11th centuries AD that influenced the culture of the native peoples, Rifat? Please enlighten us. Do please refer us the structures and artifacts of the Turkic Seljuk culture that they left behind in the vast area stretching from the Mongolian steppes and the mountains of Altay to Persia and Asia Minor. Thank you.

    • John@ The picture of the campus building you showed me is very similar to many Orthodox Churches in the Balkans, Middle East and the Caucasus. I have seen many Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Greek, Coptic, Greco-Arab, Assyrian and other Orthodox churches that look like the UCLA structure. There is differences between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant structures. If you think this structure is exclusively “Armenian” then I would like to see some proof, then!

    • Rifat, I was the one who posted the picture of the UCLA Powell Library. And my point was not that it was exclusively Armenian, but that it is similar to Armenian churches (like the Church of Hripsime), since they both derived from Early Christian Roman architecture. Meaning that cultures borrow from each other.

  97. VTiger says: “Karim,read these 2 articles & see how your AXEbeijan …”

    Vtiger, and why exactly would I listen at all to someone who starts with such a hateful way? By the way,. this Axerbaijan thing … ok, it was clever at first … I get it. But by now, it is a pretty lame attempt at wittiness, stale and self-congratulatory. Move on, guys. Think of something fresh with which to insult your “enemy.” By the way, it is pretty easy to do the same with Armenia’s name … Not that I would descend into such bigotry. And if you are so repulsed by Safarov’s hero treatment AND if you are someone who shuns hypocrasy, why do you forget your own Safarov: Varoujan Garabedian, a terrorist who killed 8 and wounded 55 civilians at a French airport. Just search the internet on how well he was treated in Armenia. Of course, two wrongs don’t make it right. But the first one should not rush too much to condemn the second.

    • Karim,when your sultan honors the axe murderer then I call his sultanate with a name that it deserves.
      What does Varoujan Garabedian to do with AXEbaijan?On the other hand the axe murderer is an Azeri.Varoujan was the grandson of Genocide survivors born in Syria,not in Armenia nor in Artsakh.
      I do not consider AXEbaijan as an insult as long as the axe murderer stays honored & free.

  98. 1.
    Returning for the last time to a segment of the debate left behind without conclusion, facts (=Hrachia Adjarian’s etymological dictionary) have rendered moot the preconceived argument that the word օջախ/օճախ “ojakh,” which indicates sedentary lifestyle, couldn’t have been borrowed from the language of Turkish nomads, as the word didn’t exist in the Armenian language at the time when Turkish tribes were wandering in the steppes or elsewhere. I had logically argued, following Adjarian’s dictionary, that it should have entered the Armenian language, from whatever source, Turkish or Persian, after the Middle Ages.
    Adjarian wrote in his History of the Armenian Language that he had gathered in a study of 1902 all the Turkish words used in the Armenian popular speech of Constantinople, compared with the dialects of Van, Gharabagh, and Nor Nakhichevan (Nakhichevan-on-Don, today part of the city of Rostov-on-Don). Those loanwords in the Constantinople dialect amounted to 4,000, in the Van dialect, 2,000; in the Nor-Nakhichevan dialect, 1170; and in the Gharabagh dialect, 800. He added that these numbers didn’t include specifically Tatar words in the Nor-Nakhichevan dialect and specifically Azeri words in the Gharabagh dialect, by which the total numbers in Nor Nakhichevan would come to 2,000 and in Gharabagh to 1,000, and noted that the Yerevan dialect might have up to 800 Turkish loanwords (Հայոց լեզուի պատմութիւն, Yerevan, 1951, ol. 2, p. 270).
    These are, of course, figures about dialects, not about the literary language. By 1902, Armenian modern literary language, flooded with Turkish words in the first half of the nineteenth century (time of birth of modern Armenian), had already cleaned its act. On the eve of the genocide, Armenians had a modern written language where the number of Turkish loanwords didn’t pass, in the most extreme hypothesis, the three dozen (Adjarian’s list quoted by Yeranuhi). We didn’t have a state and a one-party ruler (cf. Turkey and Kemal Ataturk) to decree and enforce such a cleansing, but just the commitment of our intelligentsia.
    Adjarian’s study on Turkish loanwords into Armenian is entirely available on the web in digitized form. He wrote there: «Մեր աշխատութեան մէջ հաւաքեցինք ուրեմն բոլոր այն բառերը՝ որ Պօլսոյ հայերէն ժողովրդական բարբառը փոխ է առած թրքական լեզուէն, այս անուան տակ իմանալով ո՛չ թէ զուտ թուրքերէնը, այլ օսմանցոց լեզուն, որ կազմուած է զուտ թուրքերէնի, պարսկերէնի եւ արաբերէնի խառնուրդով» (“We collected in our study, therefore, all those words that the Armenian popular dialect of Constantinople borrowed from the Turkish language, understanding under this name not pure Turkish, but the Ottoman language, which is composed by a mix of pure Turkish, Persian, and Arabic) (Հրաչեայ Աճառեան, Թուրքերէնէ փոխառեալ բառերը Պօլսի հայ ժողովրդական լեզուին մէջ համեմատութեամբ Վանի, Ղարաբաղի եւ Նոր-Նախիջեւանի բարբառներուն, Էմինեան ազգագրական ժողովածու, հատոր Գ., 1902, p. 13-14). Adjarian was born in Constantinople (but wasn’t a survivor of the Genocide, as he left the Ottoman Empire forever in 1895 to go to study in France) and that’s why this 400-page early work was written in Western Armenian in 1900 in Echmiadzin. Here we find what Adjarian had to say about the origin of “ojakh.”

  99. 2.
    Here’s a verbatim sample from pages 368-369 of Hrachia Adjarian’s 1902 study, except for the Turkish words in Arabic script that I can’t transcribe (all words with ellipsis have Turkish roots). Note օճախ and օճախճի on page 369.

    P. 368
    […]
    + Օխա, «թանաքաման, կաղամար. encrier» = արաբ. hokka
    Օխա, «քաշ, օխա (չափ ծանրութեան. oque)» = թրք. okka = արաբ. okkeye […]
    + Օխախալէմ, «գրիչ եւ կաղամար. plume et encrier» = արաբ. hokka-kalem
    Օխլավու […]
    Օխշամիշ ընել […]
    P. 369
    Օկկապազ «ձեռնածու, աճպարար. escamoteur» = պրս. hokkabaz
    Օղլում […]
    Օղուլ […]
    Օղուլլուխ […]
    Օղռամիշ ըլլալ […]
    Օղռաշմիշ ըլլալ […]
    Օճախ Ն., օջախ Վ., օջաղ Ղ. «վառարան, foyer. 2. հայրենի յարկ, maison paternelle» = թրք. oĵak
    Օճախճի, «ծխան մաքրող. ramoneur» = թրք. oĵakjǝ
    Օմուզ Ն., «ուս. epaule» = թրք. omuz
    […]
    Here is my translation of the օճախ entry:
    Օճախ [օchakh] N[or Nakhichevan], օջախ [օjakh] V[an], օջաղ [օjagh] Gh[arabagh]. “hearth; 2. paternal home.” = Turk[ish] oĵak.
    Additionally, the օճախճի entry:
    օճախճի [ochakhchi] “chimney sweep” = Turk[ish] oĵakjǝ
    Besides words of Turkish origin (such as օմուզ “shoulder” = Turkish omuz), we find out that Adjarian notes:
    1) Those words that are direct loanwords from Persian or Arabic (i.e., these languages are origin AND source), for instance, Armenian օկկապազ okkabaz “juggler” < from Persian hokkabaz, without mentioning the corresponding Turkish word, which perhaps was the same Persian word.
    2) Those words that are “mediated” loanwords (i.e. they are words of Persian or Arabic origin, but of Turkish source into Armenian): for instance, Armenian օխա okha (weight measure) < from Turkish okka < from Arabic okkeye. If the origin AND source of the Armenian word were Arabic, Adjarian would haven’t had any need to mention the Turkish intermediary. It is clear that in this case, the Turkish word, which has Arabic origin, is the source (the “mediator”) of the Armenian.
    Therefore, following what Adjarian says, we understand that ojakh and ojakhji (the second is not used in literary Armenian) are words of Turkish origin borrowed by the dialects of Constantinople, Nor Nakhichevan, Van, and Gharabagh. We may assume that Adjarian would have noted the Persian word ojakh IF it had been either the origin of the Turkish word or the actual source of the Armenian word. Since he did not, we have to concede that օճախ/օջախ, being part of the 37-word list that Yeranuhi had quoted, IS NOT one of the words of partially Arabic or Persian origin entered into Armenian dialects and from here into literary language.

  100. 3.
    Օջախ must be a word of Turkish origin. Why? Because Hrachia Adjarian says so, the same as he says (and gives the entire list) that from 170 Turkish-Tatar loanwords in his etymological dictionary—slightly over 1,5% of the total of Armenian roots (10,996)–20 words are found in modern literary language, the better known being զիլ, ելակ, տոպրակ, թաղար, չոքել, երշիկ, and բուխերիկ (Հայոց լեզուի պատմութիւն, vol. 2, p. 275-279). These 20 words are part of the list of 37 quoted by Yeranuhi, where բուխերիկ (bukherik) appears in the variant բուխարի (bukhari) = «ծխաքար».
    Again, whether 21 or 37, the existence of two or three dozen Turkish loanwords in the Armenian literary language isn’t and shouldn’t be earth-shattering for anyone.
    Բուխերիկ «ծխնելոյզ», according to Adjarian’s Etym. Dict., «պատի մեջ շինված վառարանն է, որ համապատասխանում է ֆրանսերեն cheminée-ին (ռուս. камин)։ Հնագետների գործն է ապացուցանել, թե հին հայոց վառարանը թոնիրն է, որ վառվում էր սենյակի մեջտեղում եւ որտեղից ծուխը բարձրանում էր դեպի երդիկը. իսկ բուխերիկը մտաւ թուրքերի միջոցով. շինված էր պատի մեջ եւ ծուխը բարձրանում էր պատի մեջ շինված անցքով» (“. . . is the stove built in the wall, which corresponds to French cheminée (Russ. kamin). It is the task of archeologists to argue that the old Armenian stove is the tonir, which burned in the middle of the room and from where the smoke rose to the chimney. But the bukherik entered through the Turks; it was built in the wall and the smoke rose through a passage built in the wall.” Հայոց լեզուի պատմութիւն, vol. 2, p. 284). According to Adjarian, there’s an Armenian word բուխար “vapor” directly derived from Arabic buxar [bukhar] “vapor” (Etym. Dict., vol. 1, p. 481), while բուխերիկ comes from Turkish buxari [bukhari] “stove, hearth” (< Arabic buxar "vapor"), which was the source for Georgian, modern Syriac, and Albanian. There are dialectal forms: բխերիկ, բուխարիկ, բուխերիկ, բուխուրիկ, բուխերի (Etym. Dict., vol. 1, p. 481).
    Therefore, if the Armenian language borrowed բուխերիկ in the Middle Ages from Turkish, it could have borrowed օջախ in modern times from the same language. We are allowed to understand this much from Adjarian’s information.
    Our alternative linguists are free, of course, to reject, criticize, or condemn Adjarian's view (= Armenians borrowed the concept of and the word բուխերիկ from Turks), and to find more “scientific” hypotheses, say բուխ (dialect bukh “smoke,” from Malkhasian’s dictionary, no origin given) + եր (plural in Modern Armenian) + իկ (diminutive), or Arabic բուխար “vapor” + իկ. Then, բուխերիկ would mean “little smokes” or “little vapor.” However, a giant of linguistics like Adjarian knew his science far better than we do and should have had weighing reasons to not take such hypotheses – never suggested by previous authors — into consideration.
    By the way, now it becomes clear on what authority Stepanos Malkhasian, the foremost Armenian dictionary writer and philologist, wrote that օջախ is a Turkish loanword into Armenian: on the authority of the greatest Armenian linguist of all times, Hrachia Adjarian.
    If someone still believes that օջախ is old Persian (e.g. it was in the Persian language before the Turks appeared), I will repeat: please check a Persian Etymological Dictionary or any similar authoritative source, and, facts in hand, share your knowledge with us and refute Adjarian’s views. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is nothing worthwhile left to be said in this (linguistic) regard.

    • Hooka is one of the words for the Arabic hubble bubble. Hooka produces smoke. “Hooka” and “ojakh” have some similarity in sound. I don’t the origin of hooka.

    • Vartan, it wasn’t you who “followed Adjarian’s dictionary”. At the outset, you followed Malkhasian’s dictionary. Please.

      The argument, which you labeled as “preconceived”, is not preconceived at all. Is anyone here, except for “someone” who advances a wacky hypothesis that “a hearth can be fireplace in a [nomadic] tent”, not aware of the fact that nomads by definition have no fireplace extending into a room and paved with brick or stone? What exactly is “preconceived” here? Yes, those nomads who settled, like Ughurs, might have had hearths as part of their adopted sedentary lifestyle. But it is pathetic to suggest that Seljuks, galloping from the Mongolian steppes to Near East and Asia Minor, might have brought brick- or stone-lined hearths with them to uncultured Persians, Armenians, and Byzantines. Therefore, it is your argument that the word ‘ojakh’ “should have entered the Armenian language after the Middle Ages” that’s preconceived. It’s only an assumption.

      Obviously, you had a chance to look into Adjarian’s “Հայոց լեզվի պատմություն”, but, again, the figures we’re presented with are about dialects, not about the literary language.

      Noted is a passage in Adjarian’s “Թուրքերենից փոխառյալ բառեր” in which he confirms that the Ottoman Turkish language “is composed by a mix of pure Turkish, Persian, and Arabic”. Thank you for bringing the fact in for those who have eyes but don’t see. Also, as far as I know, Adjarian left the Ottoman Empire in 1895 for France when witness accounts reached him of the massacres of the Armenians by Sultan Abdulhamid.

      In your verbatim sample from pages 368-369, you mention: “all words with ellipsis have Turkish roots”. Is this what Adjarian indicated? And then you write: “Note օճախ and օճախճի on page 369.” OK, noted. But I see no ellipsis after the word “օճախ”. I do see an abbreviation թրք. (turk.), but how do we know it is not a mediated loanword? Maybe Adjarian was able to mention the origin and source in cases when he was certain, but left the origin blank in cases when he was uncertain? If ‘ojakh’ entered the literary Armenian language from the Nor Nakhichevan, Van, and Gharabagh dialects which, as you assume, borrowed the word from Turkish ‘oĵak’, then why is it absent in Adjarian’s Armenian Etymological Dictionary, a dictionary of word roots in the literary Armenian language?

      Also, we haven’t determined that there is “two or three dozen” Turkish loanwords in the Armenian literary language. And their existence was never earth-shattering. Everyone here agreed that there are Turkish loanwords in the Armenian language. And incomparably more Armenian loanwords in the Turkish language.

      I’ll ask my Iranian friend, who is a literary critic, to look into the Persian Etymological Dictionary.

    • Yeranuhi:
      You had already followed Adjarian’s dictionary. I followed you to say that ojakh was not ancient or medieval Armenian, as per Adjarian, and I brought Malkhasian’s dictionary’s mention (perhaps not in that order, but this is how people learn when they’re discussing something.) By the way, it appears that Malkhasian wasn’t so wrong after all: he seems to have followed Adjarian after all.
      The preconceived part is that the Armenian language couldn’t have borrowed it from the Turkish language in its nomadic stage; it is preconceived, because actually the word didn’t appear in Armenian at all at that time. Because Turks were originally nomad, then it comes that if Armenian borrowed something of sedentary life, it couldn’t have done it at that stage; of course it couldn’t, because it didn’t.

      “Therefore, it is your argument that the word ‘ojakh’ “should have entered the Armenian language after the Middle Ages” that’s preconceived. It’s only an assumption.”
      An educated assumption (or guess, if you want) based on the fact (brought by you) that Adjarian’s dictionary doesn’t mention “ojakh” as a root, so if it doesn’t, it means that it wasn’t in the language in ancient and medieval times. This leaves one option: AFTER THE MIDDLE AGES. It’s an assumption? So be it. But it is a logical one, you have to admit.
      “[…] The figures from Adjarian’s “Հայոց լեզվի պատմություն”, but, again, the figures we’re presented with are about dialects, not about the literary language.”
      Please reread what I wrote. Didn’t you quote a list of 37 words entered through dialects in the Armenian literary language entered from dialects, etc. etc.? I took that for granted, and I assumed that, at least, TWENTY words entered the Armenian literary language, as per my quote from Adjarian, and, at most, THIRTY-SEVEN. Isn’t that enough?

      “Also, as far as I know, Adjarian left the Ottoman Empire in 1895 for France when witness accounts reached him of the massacres of the Armenians by Sultan Abdulhamid.”
      I don’t have Adjarian’s memoirs at hand right now, but I always knew that he wanted to go to study at the Sorbonne with Antoine Meillet from the time he finished Guetronagan School in Constantinople. Even if he left Constantinople because of witness accounts of Hamid’s massacres, I believe that doesn’t make him a survivor of the Armenian Genocide.

      “In your verbatim sample from pages 368-369, you mention: “all words with ellipsis have Turkish roots”. Is this what Adjarian indicated?”
      No, Adjarian didn’t indicate that. He mentioned one by one the Turkish roots of those words. I just eliminated that mention to avoid quoting something that was superfluous to our discussion. And quoted a word immediately after օճախճի, which was also irrelevant, except to show the context of the quotation and, also, how he explained that word in the exact same way as օճախ and օճախճի.
      “But I see no ellipsis after the word “օճախ”.”
      You see no ellipsis, because there is none. Of course, you’re most welcome to go and check by herself. The entire source is digitized and uploaded on the Internet, as I said before. Since I couldn’t paste the picture here, you will pardon me for retyping it.

      “I do see an abbreviation թրք. (turk.), but how do we know it is not a mediated loanword?”
      Because Adjarian doesn’t say so. I’m following him, the same as you do. I’m not a linguist. If you know more than him, feel free to bring the facts.

      “Maybe Adjarian was able to mention the origin and source in cases when he was certain, but left the origin blank in cases when he was uncertain?”
      Nobody is perfect, Adjarian included, but a “maybe” doesn’t replace a fact. You think that because he didn’t mention anything other than the Turkish word, he was uncertain about the origin of the word? That suits perfectly your argument, but you have nothing to prove that. If he knew the Persian word (and I’m sure he did) and he was uncertain about the origin, he would have surely mentioned that the origin may be either Turkish ojak or Persian ojak. The same as he mentioned Armenian okha = Turkish okka = Arabic okkeye. This is why I brought the latter: to make sure that a question like yours was answered by itself.

      “If ‘ojakh’ entered the literary Armenian language from the Nor Nakhichevan, Van, and Gharabagh dialects which, as you assume, borrowed the word from Turkish ‘oĵak’,[…]”
      Did *I* assume? Please reread Adjarian’s quote. HE SAYS SO. He doesn’t say anything more.

      “[…] why is it absent in Adjarian’s Armenian Etymological Dictionary, a dictionary of word roots in the literary Armenian language?”
      I will say it once again: ín my “lecture” of a few weeks ago (please reread), I brought quote from Adjarian that indicated that his dictionary was a dictionary of roots in the literary ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL Armenian language. (If you disagree, please bring your facts.) This is why I assumed — following THIS quote by Adjarian and what I have read of the dictionary itself — that the word had entered the language AFTER the Middle Ages. THAT’S WHY THE WORD IS ABSENT FROM THE ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY.

      “Also, we haven’t determined that there is “two or three dozen” Turkish loanwords in the Armenian literary language.”
      Adjarian already said that there were TWENTY (over 175 loanwords in his etymological dictionary). The limit, as per your citation/list, would be THIRTY-SEVEN. Between both numbers, I think it’s fair to say that there are two or three dozens. Maybe there are 21, maybe there are 37 (although in the list of 37, ignorant of linguistics as I am, the word զմրուխտ seems to me to be Persian (the word ուխտ “pact, alliance” itself is Persian) and խանութ, Arabic.

      “And their existence was never earth-shattering. Everyone here agreed that there are Turkish loanwords in the Armenian language. And incomparably more Armenian loanwords in the Turkish language.”
      I said: it *shouldn’t* be earth-shattering. And I didn’t discuss the Armenian loanwords in the Turkish language, which is not a surprise for me; I have Khachig Amirian’s book (which I mentioned a while ago) and I have also read other articles on the issue. Sometimes, when you write, you also think of people who may be reading, who are not participating, and who may not know this stuff.

      “I’ll ask my Iranian friend, who is a literary critic, to look into the Persian Etymological Dictionary.”
      That’s a great idea.

  101. I forgot to mention that բուխերիկ («ծխնելոյզ») is translated as “chimney” in English.

  102. I think it is an established fact in history and ethnology that all cultures are mixtures. the quest for the original and “Our own” is a mistake when it does not refer to a shared idea of a common fate, and a shared perception of future aims. — And rememer, anybody can opt for leaving a community….

    • Geert Hofstede, a renowned Dutch professor in the fields of national and organizational culture, would disagree with you, ragnar naess.

      Hofstede conceptualizes national culture as “collective programming of the mind distinguishing the members of one group or category of people from others”. He argues that collective programming develops as a result of the experiences shared by inhabitants of a nation and includes values transferred by the educational, government and legal systems, religious preference, arts, literature, architecture and scientific theories.

      Hence, paraphrasing Hofstede, my question again. What are the values (aspects) that shaped the collective programming of the Turkish mind, which distinguish Turkish culture from others?

      Language/alphabet/script? No.
      Religion?
      Arts?
      Music?
      Architecture?
      Cuisine?
      Commercial practices?
      Technology?

      What?

    • Ok, john, you literally raped us with your list. Here are the answers:

      Language/alphabet/script? Turkish, written in Arabic and then Latin script.

      Religion? Islam

      Arts? This painting:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turkishpaintings14.jpg
      Plus Çalıkuşu (“Korolyok, ptichka pevchaya” in USSR), a sweet miniseries about the love story between a beautiful woman and her first cousin.

      Music? Much of the music played at Armenian weddings. Plus the music from Çalıkuşu.

      Architecture? The minarets around Hagia Sophia, and every palace built by Sinan and the Balian family (e.g. Topkapi palace). Plus, they build skyscrapers in Istanbul:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul

      Cuisine? Shawrma. It was featured in the post-credit of the Hollywood comics-superhero blockbuster “Avengers”

      Commercial practices? They do a booming trade with Europe and the U.S, our ally Russia, and Armenia (through underground channels). Plus, Dr. Oz’s show.

      Technology? Their missiles pointed at us. And Dr. Oz’s medical science.

      Now, the collection of all this is what makes the Turkish culture distinguishable from others.

    • Oh, no, no, Vahagn, my list is no match to your panegyrics of democracy and copy-pastes from wikipedia seen wherever your name pops up.

      Allow me to retort with what the prevailing scholarly argument is made about the components of Turkish culture:
      1. Language: Synthesis of Old Turkic and, to a larger extent, Persian and Arabic
      2. Alphabet: Arabic, Latin
      3. Script: Perso-Arabic, Latin
      4. Religion: Islam, originally Arabic
      5. Arts: Largely Perso-Byzantine
      6. Music: Largely Perso-Armenian
      7. Architecture: Largely Perso-Armenian. And I guess erecting minarets around a Christian cathedral is one hell of a culture, right?
      8. Cuisine: Largely Perso-Greek-Arab-Armenian. Shawarma (شوارماا‎), for your knowledge, is a Levantine Arab meat dish.
      9. Commercial practices: Largely and traditionally Jewish-Greek-Armenian. When Turks got rid of these industrious nations, Turkey was in shambles commerce-wise.
      10. Technology: Mostly Western European

    • john, you realize that our religion is Jewish-derived, right?
      And that our language is a synthesis of old Armenian and Greek and Persian (as shown by the earlier-posted number of loanwords).
      And that our technology is mostly Russian and Western.

      Yes, yes, I know we didn’t steal these, we just borrowed. But still.

      By the way, you also realize that “the Arabic word shawarma comes from the Turkish word çevirme [tʃeviɾˈme] “turning”, and Shawarma has origins in Anatolia, Turkey.” And that this fact was stated by someone named M. T. Al-Mansouri Ph. D., which I would guess is an Arabic name.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawarma

      But of course, if you have definitive evidence to the contrary, feel free to update the Wikipedia article.

    • Vahagn, I don’t know about your religion or the lack thereof, but ours is derived from the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Both Christianity and Judaism recognize the events, laws, and prophets appearing in the Old Testament. Jesus himself says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” ~Matthew 5:17. He has fulfilled them by paying for our sins.

      Our language is a not a “synthesis” of old Armenian and Greek and Persian. Armenian and Persian languages have mutually enriched each other, as their speakers lived and created side by side throughout millennia. In the Armenian language there are many Persian loanroots not loanwords. Greek was spoken in Armenia alongside not at the expense of Armenian.

      Armenians pride themselves with contributions they’ve made to the development of Russian/Soviet and Western technology. Spare me from typing the long list of Armenian engineers, physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and inventors.

      I don’t look into Wikipedia for evidence, it’s below me. But you go on depreciating yourself by wandering in it.

      The point about “shawarma” (شوارماا‎) wasn’t about its etymology, but the fact that shawarma is an Arab meat dish from the Eastern Mediterranean region.

    • [I suppose Shah Abbas’ dislocation of the entire Eastern Armenian population was the ultimate demonstration of peacefulness.]

      When the Ottoman rule was established in Armenia, there grew up such a cruel regime that Armenians appealed to Shah Abbas I of Persia to reoccupy their land and put an end to their sufferings under the Turks. The Shah seized this opportunity and captured parts of Armenia, but his advances were stopped by the Turks. As a result, the Shah had to give up Armenia and ordered the Armenians to emigrate to Persia. The entire population of Eastern Armenia was thus deported to the Persian city of Isfahan, where an Armenian town, New Julfa was established. As soon as Armenians had settled in their new home, Shah Abbas granted religious liberty and high degree of autonomy to them.

      How this demonstrates dislocation and violence, only Vahagn knows. We, on the other hand, know what dislocation means when your nation is forced to leave their lands in order to die of starvation in desserts and be murdered en route. We also know what violence means when your nation is mass murdered, buried and burnt alive, gang-raped, and slaughtered. Both monstrosities have been amply demonstrated by the Turks.

  103. {“ I think it demonstrates that there are still facts that while the educated and the intellectuals among us deem known and acceptable, the less educated and sophisticated in our midst find new and shocking.”} (Vahagn // July 4, 2013 at 9:57 pm //).
    .
    {“ The color green is a unique color, albeit derived from mixing red and blue”} (Vahagn // July 14, 2013 at 8:00 am ).
    .
    Wow ! the level of education and sophistication of our ‘compatriot’ is simply breathtaking.
    On what planet is the primary color Green derived from mixing Red and Blue ? Perhaps on the uniquely Turkish planet Moon ?
    In our Universe, on Earth, there are 3 _primary_ colors: Red, Green, and Blue.
    In our Universe, on Earth, when you additive-mix Red and Blue, you get…… Purple.
    .
    Now that you have been schooled in basic Physics, let us proceed to debunk your Turkophile propaganda, again.
    {“ A culture derived of multiple elements (such as the Turkish culture) is unique because it is not identical to any of its elements (such as the Armenian or Greek elements).”}
    What ?
    The supposedly unique culture was not derived from multiple elements: it stole and misappropriated ‘elements’ from unwilling donors.
    What is unique about this culture is that it wholesale murdered the unwilling donors after the misappropriation.
    What is even more unique about this culture is that it continues the white Genocide of erasing any links to the donor cultures from whom it stole and misappropriated, to create the myth that this or that is uniquely ‘Turkish’. It is accomplished, in part, by erasing any traces of the indigenous populations, and simultaneously laying claim to the creations of the same under the label ‘Turkish’.
    .
    Purity ? humor us by pointing to one or two posts by Armenian posters who claim Armenian culture is, quote, ‘pure’.
    On the contrary, Armenian posters here wrote about, with admiration, that Armenians have borrowed much from our genetic cousins Persians/Iranians, for example.
    And Persians have borrowed from us. Win-Win.
    Two peaceful, creative, sedentary, multi-millennial neighbor civilizations enriching each others’ culture.
    The rest of your unsubstantiated assertions about Armenian architecture, etc have as much validity as your confused assertion that primary color Green is derived from Red and Blue.
    .
    btw folks: it appears our ‘Armenian compatriot’ has dropped all pretense, and is now unabashedly engaged in naked Turkophile propaganda.
    How many ‘Armenians’ would keep promoting some obscure Turkish TV miniseries – post after post ?
    How many have even heard of it ?
    How many give a hoot ?
    And how did the mention of some obscure Turkish miniseries get maliciously injected into a thread about Armenians and Armenia ?
    Oh yes: now I remember; the same way the false assertion that “ojakh” is Turkish was injected.

    • post by Avery: “when you additive-mix Red and Blue, you get…… Purple.”

      So, the primary point of our self-proclaimed “patriot” was to set the record straight on color-mixing. When he puts so much focus on the issue of colors, you know that the rest of the post is probably just nonsense. Let’s debunk a few of our “patriot’s” non-arguments.

      Ok, so red and blue makes purple, and yellow and blue makes green. So what! The point is that the produce of a mixture is still unique. The rest of our “patriot’s” post is the same neurotic regurgitation that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Ok, so Turks stole and murdered. And they derived a culture from multiple elements. Which by definition is unique as it is not identical to any other culture.

      Post by Avery: “… Armenians … Persians … Two peaceful, creative, sedentary, multi-millennial neighbor civilizations…”

      This must be the joke of the day. Yes, Persians have been really peaceful, from the Achemenids to the current nutjobs ruling the country. I suppose Shah Abbas’s dislocation of the entire Eastern Armenian population was the ultimate demonstration of peacefulness.

      Post by Avery: “the false assertion that “ojakh” is Turkish”

      The Turkish origin of “ojakh” has been proven over and over on this post. Of course, difficult to admit for someone who claims that Persians are a peaceful civilization.

    • {“ The color green is a unique color, albeit derived from mixing red and blue”} (Vahagn // July 14, 2013 at 8:00 am ).
      .
      The point was to demonstrate with provable facts that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is not “so what”: you have no clue about basic stuff, and are spewing Turkophile gibberish concealed with a lot a chaff.
      .
      Here is a sample of your Turkophile propaganda: {“a sweet miniseries about the love story between a beautiful woman and her first cousin.”} (Vahagn // July 16, 2013 at 3:28 pm //)
      Now,how many Armenians think marrying one’s first cousin is ‘sweet’?
      I can’t think of too many other things that are more alien to our Armenian culture than that.
      The fact that you consider it ‘sweet’ proves what we have been saying.
      .
      Regarding “ojakh”: after dozens of posts by V&V, nothing is proven. You guys could have spared us the ‘education’.
      Here is what I wrote above:
      [Reply to Vartan’s reply to Yeranuhi:.
      «Ժամանակակից գրական հայերենում գործածվում են մոտ երեք տասնակ թուրքական փոխառություններ , որոնք գրական լեզվին են անցել բարբառներից: Ընդ որում այդ բառերի որոշ մասը միջնորդավորված փոխառություններ են և արաբական ու պարսկական(հիմնական ուշ շրջաններում) ծագում ունեն.»
      .
      There are a couple of subtle peculiarities in the paste above of what is being claimed as having been written by Adjarian.
      These very same peculiarities appear in the blogosphere: so it is more likely the above quote was copied and pasted from the web, and not transcribed from the original source.
      To be absolutely sure what exactly was written by Adjarian, we need to see the scanned page (link) where that sentence appears.] (Avery // July 4, 2013 at 10:38 am // Reply).
      .
      Where are the scans of the pages being quoted from the supposed sources ?
      How do we know they are authentic ?
      How do we know what is being pasted is in the book ?
      How do we know something is not being deliberately left out ?
      I already pointed out that a least one ‘quote’ attributed to Adjarian is suspect: if there is one, there can be more.
      .
      What is known and proven fact is that Green is a primary color: you don’t get Green mixing Red and Blue.
      What is unknown and just a conjecture is the origin of the word “ojakh”.

    • The fact that I wrote “green” instead of another color only proves that I did not care about the exact colors because it is irrelevant in light of the larger point about the mixing and uniqueness of cultures. The fact that you focused on the colors proves that you have no valid arguments to counter my larger point.
      The fact that I used “sweet” and “married her first cousin” in the same sentence proves that I have a sense of humor. The fact that you failed to note the sarcasm in my post proves that lack sense of humor. Since sense of humor is a key feature that we Armenians take a pride in, it makes you less of an Armenian than me.
      The fact that I am not focusing on your ridiculous statements such as “Persians are a peaceful nation” proves that I do not need to focus on secondary and tertiary issues to debunk you.

      Your quote of Ajaryan’s quote was originally posted not by Vartan but by Yeranuhi. Vartan posted a corrected version, and Yeranuhi re-posted the quote, which agreed with Vartan’s quote. If you claim that the quote is wrong, it is your job to find the original and post it. Anyone can conjure up an accusation out of his rear. And since you are in the business of taking out irrelevant questions out of your rear, here are some questions for you.

      Where is the explanation for the choice of a foreign username, such as “Avery,” for an “Armenian” poster?
      Where is a scanned copy of this poster’s birth certificate, to prove that he is in fact Armenian?
      Where is a scanned copy of his passport, to prove his identity?
      Where is a photographic proof that he is not circumcised, so we be sure that he is not Muslim?

  104. Is there a phonetic relationship between “ojakh” and “hooka”? The latter is the Arabic word for hubble-bubble or shish. Both words are related to smoke/vapor.
    As well, “ji” is not a Turkish suffix. Iranians, Afghans, Indians… use it also.
    Jirair

    • Jirair,
      Semantically, there seems to be no relation between Arabic > Urdu “hukka” (“casket, jar”) > English hookah and “ojakh,” even if one functionally has a relation with vapor and the other with fire. Phonetically, it’s hard to say there is any resemblance either.
      I was intrigued by your comment about “ji,” and I tried to learn something about those other languages. I found online a book by Abdul Jamil Khan, “Urdu/Hindi: An Artificial Divide” (2006), who writes: “In Urdu/Hindi grammar, a common suffix, “chi,” is Turkish: its English equivalent is “er,” e.g., miller, killer, etc.[…] (p. 175). An online paper by Karine Megerdoomian, “The Structure of Persian Names” (2008), gives a list of Persian suffixes and says: “-chi: of Turkish origin, indicating geographic location or profession [Maragheh chi, Chayi chi, Golabchi, Ahanchi, Gheitanchi” (p. 4).
      By the way, I came across an article by Geoffrey Lewis, “The Ottoman Legacy in Language” (L. Carl Brown, ed., The Ottoman Imprint on the Balkans and the Middle East, New York, Columbia University Press, 1996), where it says, discussing Ottoman influence over the subject languages (he acknowledges that Arabic and Balkanic peoples got rid of almost everything, p. 214-215), that the Turkish agent suffix -ci is still alive in the Arabic words ajzaji “pharmacist,” qahwaji “coffeemaker,” sufraji “waiter,” and ‘arbaji “driver of an araba” (p. 215). The Balkan peoples have also kept some words; for instance, Greek has tembelis for “lazy,” Turkish tembel; tzaki for “hearth,” ocak; tsopanis, “shepherd,” for “coban” (p. 215)(since Greek doesn’t have “j” or “ch,” they use “tz” or “ts” to represent those sounds, as many Greek Armenians know from the case of their surnames).

    • Most probably, the suffix “ji” is originally Indian/Sanskrit. Persians use it extensively, as in “kaman”–“kamanji”–“kaman(j)cha”

    • “Most probably, it is Sanskrit/Indian.” Most probably?
      How and why? “Persians use it extensively, as in “kaman”–“kamanji”–“kaman(j)cha.”
      [For the sake of argument, let’s add: “Armenians use it extensively, as in թալան – թալանչի, խոպան – խոպանչի, թոռնօ – թոռնոճի”…]
      Thus, “kamanji” means “kaman player” and “kamancha” means…?
      “The kemençe consists of two words in Persian. Keman and Ce: Keman means violin and ce is small, then we can consider the Kemence as a small violin and it held the place of the violin in classical Turkish Music” (Cihat Akin, http://www.turkishmusic.org). If this is true, though perhaps Turks actually borrowed the word from the Armenians together with the instrument and not from the Persians, and “ce” is a diminutive in Persian, how does “player” in “kemanji” turned into “small” in “kemancha”?
      (My apologies for not sparing the “education.” Everyone should feel free to skip these posts.)

  105. Hi John, I am not sure Hofstede and I disagree so much. My expression ” a shared idea of common fate” is not so different from Hofstede’s “experiences shared by inhabitants of a nation”. But when Hofstede says “develops as a result” I would emphasieze that the experiences also are interpreted according to hegemonic ideas and these need not be historically correct. They may be national myths. About the Turkish mind I believe it is still very much shaped by the historical experiences of the last Ottoman century, above which is a layer of the Kemalist experience. This deals with ideas of how societies and Turkey as a society work, not music,arts, etc. Neither would I consider religion as a formative element. Islam is very flexible in practice. But the idea of being humiliated by the West (and Russia) and the idea of minorities as subversive agents are fairly widespread in turkey. These ideas partly reflects actual experiences, partly mythologized experiences, myths. These are to my mind a challenge to the democratization of Turkish society.
    My main point was that to look for the “genuine” Turkish or Armenian identity, beyond loanwords and cultural imports (the so to speak “pure” and “actual” national identity), is a futile search. My views here are influenced by Benedict Anderson: Imagined Communities. But the force of shared historical experiences is needless to say extremely important in most nations.

    • ragnar naess, you said the quest for the original national culture was a mistake. I replied with what a distinguished researcher in the field of national culture thinks, namely: that national culture is what distinguishes the members of one group from others based on values transferred by the educational and government systems, religious preference, arts, literature, architecture and scientific theories. You may disagree. I’m not in the business of persuasion.

      Religion IS a formative element of any culture, whether you like it or not. 100 years ago, it played no less important role (not major) in the Turkish national culture and psyche during the genocide of the Armenians.

      The ideas of being humiliated by the West (and Russia) and the idea of minorities as subversive agents that exist in Turkey are mostly myths. Was it the West’s fault that Turks reached the gates of Vienna? Or it was the West’s fault that the Ottoman Empire had deteriorated to be called “Sick Man of Europe”? Or it was the West’s fault that the Ottoman Empire had colonized and mistreated its minorities for centuries? Or was it Russia’s fault that the Ottoman Empire had attacked the Russian naval installations on the Black Sea thus voluntarily entering the WWI on Central Powers’ side?

      All the minorities in the Ottoman Empire couldn’t possibly be “subversive agents”, could they? Yet, Turks employed widespread oppressive measures against, literally, every minority: Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Montenegrins, Greeks, Assyrians, Armenians; even their fellow-Muslim Arabs and Kurds. It indicates that something must have been fundamentally wrong with the Turks, not with the alleged “subversion” of the minorities.

  106. As I predicted about a week ago, we have now passed the 300th mark on this article page. An important number for our nation, the year we became the first Christian state. While such an explosion in the number of comments was beyond anyone’s wildest dreams in the beginning, it is a result of opening ourselves to a free and vigorous exchange of ideas, an essential feature of a democracy. To me, this kind of explosive expansion is symbolic of what could be the future of our homeland, if we help it become a democracy, modeled after a successful democracy. It will open the creative potential of our nation beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, leading to an explosive expansion in population growth, economic prosperity, military power, and territory. This is what the future holds for a democratic Armenia.

  107. John, really? What is the point of your clearly rhetorically intended question? Are you denying that Turks have a distinct culture? Guess what, 99% of the world population would say Yes. No one would much weight on what their arch-enemy Armenians have to say on the subject. And while on the topic … you mention religion … I always hear Armenians mention the fact they were first to adopt Christianity as THE state religion. This has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Culture! If anything, many educated people would count this as a sign of lack of culture. Otherwise Taliban would be the numerous Uno Culture! Why exactly do Armenians love to mention this trivia then? The answer is pretty clear. To earn favors with the Christian West … per bigotry and xenophobia (Turks vs. the First Christians). Nothing wrong with that. Use whatever you can to earn whatever favors you can get. All should be doing that. But don’t get confused in the process and think this to be a sign of culture. Ignorance, on which all religions are based, is no proof of culture.

    • Karim,

      There is also a more practical reason to estate the official year of adoption of Christianity by Armenians. That is to avoid anti-muslim racism. Given the region that our roots are from, those who are not familiar with Armenians might assume we’re muslim. And we don’t exactly look like sun-deficient Europeans either.

      Once on a plane ride, a passenger next to me was inquiring about my background and then asked if Armenians are muslim. While I can understand why one would asked that and certainly not offended by it (some would be unfortunately), in the back of my mind I was wondering if this person held negative feelings towards muslims and would they be targeted at me?

      But I would have to agree, that making a big deal about being the first about things, including first genocide of 20th century is silly. In fact, asserting the Armenian genocide as being the first in the 20th century, might not be accurate.

      But … there is also another very good reason to mention when we adopted Christianity, and that is to establish our long history. And that goes for the alphabet as well. The conversion and the establishment of the Armenian alphabet occurred before Islam was founded and before Turks arrived in Asia Minor. Given the Turkish government’s policy of covering up Armenian history, not just the genocide, it’s important to mention these pivotal events in early Armenian history. It counters the lies the Turkish government has been spreading since it’s founding.

    • Karim, whatever you think doesn’t really affect the fixed definition of culture: a combination of characteristics of a particular group of people defined by language, alphabet, script, religion, architecture, cuisine, social habits, music, arts, technology, etc. This is an academic debate, and bringing “99% of the world population” into it is childish. There has always been a serious scholarly argument that the Turkish culture is largely non-authentic. Instead of bringing in silly 99%, you’d be better off if you could bring in an authentically Turkish, distinct cultural characteristic.

      You can be an atheist until you turn blue, but religion IS an important component of a nation’s culture.

      Also, if the fact that Armenians were officially first Christians was aimed at “earning favors with the Christian West”, the same Christian West wouldn’t allow Ottoman savages to mass slaughter the whole Christian nation.

  108. My Iranian friend is telling me that she was able to track the Persian word اجاق (ojagh) to the Pahlavi language (aka Middle Persian language), a branch member of IE language family spoken by Persians (Parthians) until the advent of Islam in the 7th century.

    The word is ātaxš – ‘fire’, ‘flame’. As Aram has confirmed, āt [(e)r] – is PIE for ‘fire’, likely the source through borrowing for Turkish ot – ‘fire’.

    I revere Adjarian and trust that he had reason to mention the Turkish source for the word in the Armenian dialects, but might it be that he hadn’t gone too far into PIE and IE languages to discover the origin of the word?

    We know that after intruding Persia, the Seljuks used the Persian language as the official language of their government and adopted the Persian culture. “Logical assumption” suggests that through this they might have also borrowed and Turkified many Pahlavi-Persian words, including ātaxš-ojagh.

    • Yeranuhi:
      You have surely noticed that, after insistent calls that Persian ojakh “hearth” is an “old Persian” word, the best we have come across is Pahlavi ātaxš “fire; flame.” I revere Adjarian too, but between 1926-1935 and 2013, there were many improvements and modifications to Adjarian’s etymologies, both in Armenian and non-Armenian bibliography. I expected that your information would bring such an improvement.
      Now we are left to “logically assume”: 1) Pahlavi ātaxš “fire; flame” or any other Iranian cognate (see below) yielded Turkish ojak “hearth”; 2) Pahlavi ātaxš “fire, flame” yielded modern Persian ojakh “hearth.”
      An actual logical assumption or educated guess entails that one may have proof to back up. In this case, those logical assumptions need to be proven with the following: 1) Pahlavi or cognates’ āt- rendered Turkish oj- and Modern Iranian oj-; 2) Pahlavi or cognates’ “fire; flame” was borrowed by Turkish and became “hearth” on arrival, because it was not “hearth” on departure; 3) Pahlavi or cognates’ “fire; flame” became “hearth” in Modern Iranian, independently of Turkish. I’m no Turkish or Persian expert; perhaps your scholar friend may help you.
      I will just allow myself to quote Adjarian again, Etym. Dict., vol. I, 88. Under the word աթաշ (at’aš), which he quotes from Sebeos (7th century Armenian history), he writes as its etymology: “Persian ātaš, պազ. [it’s the name of an Iranian language whose English I couldn’t identify] ātaš, Pahlevi ātaxš, Zend ātarš (-š singular nominative), Parsi ātaš, Turkish āteš “fire,” etc.– Hubschmann 92.” And adds: “First correctly interpreted by Hubschmann Persische Studien, p. 5.”
      From Adjarian’s quote, I understand:
      1) He was aware of the existence of ātaxš – “fire.”
      2) He was aware that Iranian ātaš or ātaxš (“fire”) had yielded āteš “fire” in Turkish (it still goes on today; compare the last name of the Patriarchal Vicar of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, Atešyan, whose source is Turkish, not Persian, despite the Persian distant origin of the word), but he didn’t include here (nor Heinrich Hubschmann, his source) Turkish ojak “a fireplace, heart; a chimney; a family; a dynasty; a corps […]; a colony [….]; [….]” (James Redhouse’s “An English and Turkish Dictionary,” London, 1856, p. 500; the dictionary is on Google Books, and about Redhouse’s authority as the source for many Turkish-English dictionaries, I think it’s enough, to have a faint idea at least, to read Wikipedia’s article on him). And we know that Adjarian’s second language from birth was Turkish, so it’s hard to believe that the possibility of a relation between ātaxš and ojak didn’t cross his mind. He could have corrected his source on this, if he had thought the possibility had any linguistic ground.
      Adjarian was also aware that Pahlavi ātur “fire” yielded Armenian *ատր (*atr, unknown as a single word, but found in words like ատրճանակ “revolver” and others) (Etym. Dict., I, p. 289).
      Nothing seems to show that he suggested/thought that Pahlavi at- could have yielded Armenian oj- (օճ), besides at- (ատ) or at’ (աթ). Let’s put aside the – axš > ախ (?) part, for Adjarian says that Pahlavi *axšāt > Armenian աշխատ (ašxat), Pahlevi xšadr/xšahr > Armenian աշխարհ (ašxarh) (Etym. Dict., I, 216, 218), so Pahlavi xš > Armenian շխ (šx) and not խ (kh). I’m noting all these only in case someone else may come up with this last suggestion.
      The Pahlevi ātaxš “fire; flame” (or any other cognate word with the same meaning) > Turkish ojak “hearth” assumption does not show anything at first sight that relates both words, neither phonetically nor semantically, except the middle “a” in both and the fact that a hearth comes from a fire. Do we have to suppose that Persians loaned the hearth to the Seljuks without having a word to name it (āta(x)š only meant “fire,” as you confirm with the Pahlavi example), or that the Seljuks borrowed the word “fire,” which they didn’t know until their invasion of Persia (or it replaced an unknown Turkish word, unless they didn’t know what fire was), and applied it to their use of the hearth?
      As fodder for thought, I will offer another logical assumption with one comparative example attached. Given that Turks loaned Iranian ātaš or ātaxš “fire; flame” (Hubschmann and Adjarian say so), is it possible that they could have “returned the favor,” so to speak, at a much later time, and loaned ojak “hearth” to the Persian language, as they loaned buxari “stove, hearth” to the Armenian language (after borrowing buxar “vapor” from Arabic!) as բուխերիկ/բուխարիկ, which Adjarian found recorded in Grigor Daranaghtsi’s (1576-1643) Օրագրութիւն (Etym. Dict., I, 481)?

    • Based on some of my encounters with Persians and Iranian Armenians, I would not be surprised, Yeranuhi, if your Persian friend tracked his own origin to the Shah’s palace. Meaning, based solely on what you typed, your Persian friend is not a reliable source. What would help your argument would be some authoritative, printed, verifiable Persian source stating that “ojagh” is of Persian origin, and not just an amateur word-comparison between “ātaxš” and “ojagh” done by your friend. So far, your friend’s claim has been contradicted by every source posted here.

  109. Vahagn, not to join the crowd, and I hate to agree with Avery … but I too think that you are at least a partial Turk. Otherwise, I cannot understand why you feel this urge to take the Turkish perspective, without being prompted or provoked to do so. If my ancestors had been nearly exterminated by another nation, I would be reluctant to GRATUITOUSLY advocate a pro-They interpretation of anything. True, as an Azeri I like reading what you are saying … but at some point it is like … what is he trying to prove? But of course, it is also possible that you are someone (Armenian or not) who likes being contrarian and agitating for disagreement. Still, quit being pro-Turkish, would you please? :) Let us do that.

    • Wonderful, I have done the impossible–I united the Armenians and Azeris (albeit against me).

      I will address your point, Karim, without getting into too many details trying to explain my opinions (something that nobody should have to do). I am not pro-Turkish, I am pro-truth and pro-reason. If sometimes truth and reason happen to be pro-Turkish, that is not my problem. Truth and reason are powerful weapons, and I am not going to abandon them just because my compatriots were massacred by Turks.

      I would like to renew my question to you, which probably got buried in earlier posts. You suggest that Armenians and Azeris are genetically basically the same. I will not get into whether that’s true or not. But do the average Azeris feel that way? I am asking this because I saw the Azeri cartoon “Cavanşir” about the NKR war, and what was interesting was the way the Azeris and the Armenians were portrayed. The Azeris had slightly Asian/Mongoloid features, such as almond-shaped eyes and slightly protruded cheekbones, while Armenians had clearly Caucasian features (e.g. round eyes), to the point of exaggeration:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLuzvsr4F8

      Is that how the Azeris view themselves vis-à-vis the Armenians?

  110. Vahagn, when you say “The Azeris had slightly Asian/Mongoloid features, such as almond-shaped eyes and slightly protruded cheekbones, while Armenians had clearly Caucasian features (e.g. round eyes), to the point of exaggeration” … this is such an anecdotal observation! Not to be facetious, I am not referring to cartoons (as you seem to be doing) when saying that the Azeris are genetically a local Caucasian people, as Armenians, Georgians, etc are, but per genetics studies based on DNA samples. I have cited a few of these articles here before. Please Google DNA and Azerbaijan, and you will find many such articles, some of them written actually by Armenian scholars.

    But for the fun’s sake, I actually think Armenians are somewhat less Caucasian looking than Azeris (not that there is anything wrong with the either way). Why? First, you guys yourself call Eastern Turkey (Ararat and all) you heartland, which is way to the south. Think on the other hand how to the North that Azb extends vis-à-vis Armenia. I think the anecdotal tendency among Armenians to think of themselves more Caucasian/European than Azeris is based on religion, as if being Christian makes them more White. Also, at least Azerbaijan geographically has a small northern part in Europe (see CIA Factbook, etc), whereas Armenia is fully and unequivocally in Asia. Again, none of this is important and says nothing about anyone’s superiority. Off the topic, I think this Whiteness subaltern topic or inferiority complex if you wish (dare to call a Baku or Yerevan youth that he/she is not European) is a product of Russian rule and overall Western domination. The Middle Eastern look is nothing to be ashamed of, no matter how different it looks from the Russian look, which was the look of our rulers and elites.

    Also, again, for fun’s sake, I pride myself for telling Armenians, Georgians, Azeris apart (don’t ask why … let’s say, it is not very scientific). How come? Well, even two cousin families can be told apart easily. Even though all of these people derive from the same proto-group of people, they have each evolved separately since.

    As for what Azeris think about similarities with Armenian, frankly, one would have to be be blind (by hatred or stupidity) to deny the overall similarity. Again, not to try to take the higher ground, I think we hate you less than you hate us (because of the Genocide being a factor too, whereas for us it is all about land-dispute, while for you it is more visceral, existential, and nation-defining, especially for diaspora – to be an Armenian is to hate Turks/Azeris for what they have done to us.).

    • Karim, you made your point about what you think. What do your compatriots think? Do they think they are more Caucasian than Armenians? If yes, why does the cartoon portray Azeris as more Asian?

    • I am surprised that no one be it the Azeris,Turks or Turkophiles have commented on this example of stealing an Armenian song.

  111. John, yes, let us agree to disagree whether a quest for original national culture is a mistake or not. By the way I think it MOSTLY is a mistake but not always. But my frame of reference is mainly our discussions in my country on the “Norwegian culture” today which I think lead nowhere, and do not solve any problems.
    You write:
    Religion IS a formative element of any culture, whether you like it or not. 100 years ago, it played no less important role (not major) in the Turkish national culture and psyche during the genocide of the Armenians.
    Comment:
    I agree with you, and I see that I formulated mnyself mistakenly. My point is that nothing definitely follows from “Christianity”, “Islam” etc as such because of the richness of the sacred texts which allows for so many divergent interpretations and institutionalizations.

    No, I don’t subscribe to the explanation that there was “something fundamentally wrong with the Turks”. In historical and social anthropological research you will never find such explanations which both are moralistic and mono-causal. Reality is more complex than that. The scenario of a crumbling empire with a number of subjects belonging to ethnicities represented in the hostile neighbour states was a recipe for a humanitarian disaster. This is an explanation not any excuse for the ittihadist crimes against the Armenians. Turkey today has to answer for it. but the question of whether a nation is inherently bad or not is something else.

    • [The scenario of a crumbling empire with a number of subjects belonging to ethnicities represented in the hostile neighbour states was a recipe for a humanitarian disaster. This is an explanation not any excuse for the Ittihadist crimes against the Armenians.]

      Many scholars will disagree with you, ragnar naess.

      1. [The scenario of a crumbling empire]. The empire wasn’t actually crumbling when its Christian minorities were suppressed to the point which prompted many European states to raise voice about their miserable and perilous existence, demonstrated, for instance, in the resolution of the Congress of Berlin in 1878. The empire wasn’t actually crumbling in 1894, when up to 300,000 Armenians have been butchered by Abdul Hamid II.

      2. [a number of subjects belonging to ethnicities represented in the hostile neighbour states]. During the Hamidian Massacres, there certainly was no hostile neighbour states in which a number of subjects belonging to ethnicities were represented.

      In 1914 they emerged, but was it not the Ottoman Empire that declared war on Russia and entered it oo the side of the Central Powers? In other words, who has taken the initiative, so to speak, of creating those very “hostile neighbour states”?

      Armenians were represented in Russia, because Eastern portion of the historic Armenia existed as a guberniya in the Russian Empire. Consequently, there were several small battalions in the Russian Army, but this force was uniquely established from Armenians that were neither Russian subjects nor obliged to serve. But, then, what do you do with an ethnicity represented in Ottoman Empire’s hostile neighbour state? Get rid of it? Can you imagine Ottoman Armenians not serving in the Ottoman Army? But a great number served with excellence on the Turkish fronts only to discover that their families have been slaughtered when they got back home.

      3. [a humanitarian disaster]. Mass murders, forced deportations, and imposition of conditions upon Armenians that were knowingly unsafe for life and personal security did not represent “an internal or external conflict that usually occurs throughout a large land area” (definition of humanitarian disaster). It was the result of a centrally-planned, government-instigated, deliberate effort aimed at emptying Eastern provinces of the Ottoman Turkey of a native people.

      4. [the Ittihadist crimes against the Armenians]. Great Assassin Sultan Abdul Hamid II was not an Ittihadist in 1894-1896. Neither did he turn Ittihadist in 1909 during the Adana massacres of the Armenians. Nor was Mustafa Kemal an Ittihadist during the burning of the Greek and Armenian quarters of Smyrna in 1922.

      Every crime has its specific name.

  112. @Random Armenian, great points as to why you would use the point about Armenians being the first Christian state. No rebuttals there. The only think I would mention is that, still, being the first in this regard is not a valid point to chald to someone’s cultural superiority or authenticity (after all, you did not invent Christianity but adopted/stole it).

    @Vtiger, you got us. We stole that song! I mean I find these “you stole this or that” argument so tiring. Take dolma for example. As Karl Popper would phrase it, the statement that Armenians had it first is essentially a meaningless statement because it is not falsifiable. Doesn’t the world have enough real problems for us to determine the nationality of the person who was crazy (or high) enough to say: “Hmm, grape leaves! I am gonna stuff that with something!” Who cares! Fine, he was an Armenian. It is a yummy food, and my granddaddy’s grandadd … thought, I will have some too then. Why does that make you, VTiger, superior to me now and today?

    @Vahagn, I think it is pretty obvious as to what an average Azeri would thinkg vis-a-vis an Armenian (or vice versa). We are much better looking, whatever that means, Caucasian or whatnot. I am sorry … it is not an interesting point for me.

    • Karim,nobody is superior to anybody & that is never my worry nor intention.
      My main basic worry & intention is that I need my home back & I want to live in peace.Genocide has taught me never to trust the Turks & the pogroms of 1918 & 1988 Baku,Sumgait,Kirovabad & other places had taught me never to trust the Azeris,even if genetically they are identical to us.
      In your posts you repeat that we hate the Azeris.NO & NO.You got it very wrong.Defending our basic human rights is not hatred.Not a single day passes that your sultan & his cronies spew hatred towards us which makes us more & more determined never to share our lives with you.
      Why blame us always?
      The only superior person around here is your sultan,his family & his mafia.Not you nor me.

    • Ok, Karim, so then why did the cartoonist for that cartoon choose to portray Azeris with more Asian features than Armenians? Remember that I brought you back here, so you owe me.

  113. John, I do not mainly disagree with the facts you present, but with the implicit assumption that “there is something wrong with the Turks”. Very few scholars would agree with this. There are always opposite forces at work in a historical settting. Many countries were able to develop towards the type of democracy we cherish today, but some time democracy was destroyed, but nearly always from a combination of outer and inner conditions. The unfair Versailles peace conditions imposed on Germany after WW1 paved the way for Hitler, to mention one example. Defeat in war produced the Russian revolution. And if we put ourselves in the shoes of the Turkish intellectuals and young officers born after 1870, what did they learn about methods accepted internationally considering that 1) the Christian powers intervened against massacres of Ottoman Christians, but never against massacres of Ottoman (or Russian) Muslims, 2. The Empire experienced that when it broke the signed treaties Christian powers threatened to enforce them with war, but when the Christian powers broke agreements nobody reacted. When the sultan was toppled and there was a chance of a democratic development, Austria at once illegally seized Bosnia and Bulgaria seized the southern part of the country which was nominally still Ottoman. When the Empire showed a tendency towards real parliamentarian democracy when the CUP was ousted from the government in 1912 and the opposition formed the new government, the Balkan states interpreted it as a sign of weakness and attacked. What lesson did the young Turkish officers learn? Was it not that it is a world where only military power counts and where all methods are allowed? If you tell people in this stuation: “There is something wrong with you! Step down from your position!” what will they do? This is part of the Turkish legacy and one of the reasons why Turkey also today in times of crises predominantly chooses violence. And outsiders proclaiming your kind of view (“there is something wrong…”) certainly contribute to cement this reactionary and unfruitful Turkish attitude.

    • What I mean by “there is something wrong with the Turks” is their centuries-long, proven intolerance and indescribable brutality towards the non-Turkic peoples of Asia Minor, Southeastern Europe, and the Middle East.

      You bring in “opposite forces at work” in several historical settings, yet conveniently omit the cause for the historical setting involving the Turks: they were rightly considered outsiders, intruders, and colonizers. And history knows no other method of throwing a colonizer out but by means of an armed freedom-fighting.

      I don’t think that Turkish intellectuals and young officers born after 1870 were concerned about Christian powers’ “intervention” in the Ottoman Empire more that they were concerned (initially) about the need of introducing reforms in the Empire.

      Please explain:
      1. What massacres of Ottoman Muslims have been instigated and by whom were they perpetrated? Please avoid wars and military conflicts in which loss of live is an unavoidable tragic consequence.
      2. Except for verbal appeals and occasional condemnations, as well as articles in international treaties all of which remained on paper, how did the Christian powers “intervene” in the Ottoman Empire?
      3. What signed treaties with the Ottoman Empire were broken by the Christian powers?
      4. When the sultan was toppled and there was a chance of a democratic development, did it actually materialize afterwards? Was it not the same CUP that has become the most undemocratic, chauvinistic, Turkic-centric and genocidal political force?
      5. Austria illegally seized Bosnia and Bulgaria which was nominally still Ottoman, meaning that Ottoman Turks’ seizing Southeastern Europe was a legal act?
      6. The Balkan states attacked in 1912 because there was already a widespread nationalist movement involving all colonized peoples of the Ottoman Empire, which started with the Greek War of Independence. The Balkan states attacked the Ottoman intruders, subjugators, and colonizers to free their respective nations of the much loathed Turks.

      Even without telling Turks “There is something wrong with you” they were intolerant, xenophobic, and brutal. The fate of native Christian and Muslim peoples in the hands of the Turks is one manifestation of their intolerance and brutality.

    • Ragnar Naess, as a Turkophile, you seem to have lost objectivity. You may exercise boundless sympathy and deep understanding for the factors that ‘cemented’ the ‘reactionary and unfruitful Turkish attitude,’ but you fail to ask yourself how it came to be that the empire evoked such disdain from others (minorities, Ottoman Christians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Arabs, Christian Europe, etc.) Did the Ottoman Empire, the seat of it’s contemporary Islamic world, not earn this disdain by it’s own actions toward it’s subjugated peoples? Perhaps you find yourself in a ‘chicken and egg’ quandary, but I assure you that history provides much evidence to demonstrate that Ottoman brutality came before the freedom struggles of oppressed subjects.

      Does this mean that there is something wrong with the Turk? Not with the individual perhaps, but certainly the collective society has yet to develop a culture of democratic values that promote equality and freedom for Turk and non-Turk alike. Facing the past honestly is crucial to reshaping this collective identity.

  114. I just read a couple of your pieces for the first time because my dad passed away and his Weekly(s) are being forwarded to me. OK, I’m reaching for positives in a big negative. I also worked in Armenia for a few years and came across many non-Armenians, and I am married to a Peace Corps volunteer. I’m impressed with your insight. You get us – probably better than most diasporans. But here are a couple of observations on your last sentence, although Armenian is not my best language.
    So with that, anushik enker, I go. Until we meet in my ojakh or yours, I take your pain, janus. Now go eat.
    One probably wouldn’t say anushik enker. The two words have different degrees of familiarity. One would probably say anushik dughas or aghtchigs or lav enger. Until we meet in my ojakh or yours is a little off because ojakh doesn’t work with the singular. I don’t think one can have an ojakh alone. Ojakh implies a family and you touch on it in the piece. Our ojakh is much better. OK, I take your pain, janus works. Go eat ? – never. Come eat – much more Armenian.
    I am your new best reader.

  115. Dear Kevork,

    Thanks for sharing your observations and kind words. I’m very sorry to hear about the loss of your father. I wish you peace during a difficult time.

    Kristi

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*