Видео

🇷🇺 только так!! И всё!!

Why is it not possible, there are still Turks

Давайте мы Алтайцы сами будем решать КТО МЫ ЕСТЬ. Алтайцы это тюркоязычный народ, Алтай считается прародиной тюрских народов

@@Altai2356 как все надоели, со своими якобы исключительными народами! Мы все с Африки пришли, как говорят учёные. От одного семени . Живите настоящим. Сила в единстве разных народов и в уважении друг друга. Я уважаю все народы мира, если они уважают меня. Я считаюсь с личными границами человека, если он считается с моими.

@@АлександрИсаев-м1ц где тут про исключительность Алтайцев написал? Это факт, что Алтай считается родиной Тюрков, а Алтайцы носители Тюрского языка. Где тут возвеличивание своей нации написал? Ты вообще читать ушеешь? Просто не говори от имени нашего народа, и нашего земли. Мы сами решим с кем дружить. Турки пишут, пусть пишут. Они тоже вышли с Алтая, имеют права.

GökTürk filmi çekiliyor ve yönetmen Alper Çağlar.

Dede Korkut destanında bile var, av avlamak, kuş kuşlamak. Kuş avına kuşlamak deniyor

Алтай турк хүмүүс шүү.

@@movie9600 харь алладдин д хамаг олноороо уус ч алга болох замыг өөрсдөө л сонгодог

Алтайцы поют

А монгол жуан жуан жымбайлардынса Турик улттарпен еш катысы жок. Слер де монгол болайсыз. Казактарын 70%и Турик емес

Turan ideology rise from Finland as their roots are same with Turks and partially still carry their central asian blood.

​@@astrodas1910, the origin of Finns as well as all other Uralic groups is unknown. We may be Altaic like Turks, Indo-European like our neighbors, we may even predate Indo-Europeans much like basque.

The Ural-Altaic theory has largely been discarded as it doesn't give any plausible clue to where Uralic groups came from. Though granted the theory isn't entirely off the table, just that it's not any more plausible than the rest.

@@ZayZoot Well even the origin of indo-europeans is up to debate and their theories being discarded and changed over time. Uralic is definitely not related with indo-eu that's for certain. Close relation between Altaic - Uralic languages is accepted by all linguistics. They either support common root (Uralic-Altaic family) or say it's Sprachbund (language contact). Those who reject common root simply goes by "Well they're close languages but there isn't 100% proof of where it originated so we reject it, they must have contacted some point in history". Yet they don't explain or even estimate how and when these languages contacted either. For example Turkic had heavy contact with Chinese from ~2500 years ago for a thousand year. They traded, fought, conquered each other, mixed into each other, intermarriage etc. yet there is no relation between languages other than a few loan words yet language structure of Turkic-Finnish is similar. Same goes for Finnish who been surrounded by indo-eu yet their language isn't related. So the relation between Altaic-Uralic dates back to at least ~10.000 years when these languages were in formation to have that much similarities in their root. If that's simply "language contact", then indo-european languages are much more sprachbund because their migration begins ~3.000-4.000 BC and when they migrated natives of those lands already had language, contacted with indo-eu and mixed languages. In that case indo-european languages are also formed by contact with another language, not common root. For example English - Indian languages are much more distant to each other than Turkish - Finnish who don't belong to common language family. They even dare to say Turkic - Mongolian are isolate language families because their root isn't 100% certain. Indo-european root isn't 100% certain either as it changed over time and still coming with new theories. But even if there is no evidence to claim a theory of theirs, if it suports affiliation with indo-european, they simply label it as indo-european and ignore the lack of evidence. This just prooves most of "scholars" are biased especially when they assume languages/cultures that's not part of theirs. Indo-European, Altaic-Uralic, Atalntic-Congo, Sino-Tibetian are all theories exact root no known 100%. Therefore there is no language family init?:) What do Finnish linguistics/historian say about these theories? Because people of a nation tend to research their own roots without biases.

@@astrodas1910, actually most scientists agree that modern Indo-Europeans came from the Yamna culture, which inhabited the plains of the southern Dneiper.