Follow-up Comment #3, patch #2776 (project freeciv):
There's no reason why Chuvash couldn't descend from any other old Turkish
language. It's well established that there were Turkic peoples in the region
less than a century after the Huns, so that would explain for the supposedly
archaic characteristics of Chuvash.
>From what I know about the claim the Huns are Turkic is that it is mostly
based on etymologies for Hun personal names, and a lot of those claims are
rather spurious. I mean, basing Atilla on the Turkish word for 'father' as is
often claimed is rather silly, the word for father is something like atta or
papa in every human language, for the same reason mother is mama or nana, it's
just the first sounds babies make. Furthermore, one can just as easily make up
Uralic or Iranian etymologies for Hun names.
>From what I remember from my medieval history classes, ethnic designations in
this era are notoriously fuzzy anyway. To begin with, most barbaric empires or
kingdoms were political rather than ethnic anyway, so it's likely the Huns
were multi-ethnic. Plus several peoples using the same name doesn't mean they
are the same people; many Roman and Byzantine authors were too lazy to
distinguish between ethnic groups so they just called everything that came out
of the steppes 'Scythians' or 'Huns' or whatever. Also it often happened that
a nation adopted the name of an ancient people they don't have any connection
with for prestige reasons.
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list