Jump to content

Talk:Xiongnu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.199.22.63 (talk) at 00:16, 21 January 2012 (→‎Remember this only about this wiki page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sometimes Asked?

I have changed

Chinese military forces sometimes **asked** the Xiongnu en masse when they feared that their failure to defeat an enemy would get them at risk of punishment.

to

Chinese military forces sometimes **joined** the Xiongnu en masse when they feared that their failure to defeat an enemy would get them at risk of punishment.

based on context and stylistic principle. If this is inaccurate, which seems unlikely, by all means revise it. 99.14.216.43 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Buttocho?

"Buttocho uttered the only phrase that reached us in the Xiongnu native language" according to wikipedia (and these sentences seem turkic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpluskx (talkcontribs) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiongnu language might have been Mongolic

The Xiongnu words "chengli" (Tengri) and "ordo" are found in Mongolic. I don't understand why people automatically assume that the words are Turkic. Because the Mongol people were born in the 13th century and the Turks existed before that? That is not even true, Mongols existed way before. Because Turkic tribes are descended from the Xiongnu? That should be considered after analyzing the words in the first place. The word "kuktu" 孤塗 (child) especially seems to be a distinctly Mongolic word (namely kuktu or "child"). Then there is also the Jie phrase 秀支 替戾剛 僕谷 劬禿當. 秀支 [si̯u-ci̯e] means 軍 “army”; 替戾剛 [tʰei-let/lei-kɑŋ] means 出 “go out”; 僕谷 [bok-kuk/yok] is 劉曜胡位 “Liu Yao's barbarian title”; 劬禿當 [gi̯ou-tʰuk-tɑŋ] means 捉 “capture”. Here it seems that "siucie" would be Mongolic "tsauji/tsuuji" (army). In Khitan we have the word cau.ur for war, in Mongolian the equivalent is tsaur (pronounced tsuur) also meaning war or something related to war. "Teiletkan" would be Mongolic "dailadkun" meaning "going out/invading/attacking/attacked". Bokkuk is a title which can also be Mongolic. "Gioutuktan" would either be the Mongolic imperative "guitegtun" (chase and capture!) or the Mongolic imperative "kaptiktun" (capture!). I don't understand why Ramstedt etc failed to see this very obvious Mongolic possibility. Were they biased? Or did they lack expertise in Mongolic for some reason? I have no idea. (Yastanovog (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Modern Mongolian alternative name

Modern Mongolian alternative name is needless. Mongols appeared in 7th century. Shiwei was not in the Mongolian Plateau. This alternative name had no historical value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this only about this wiki page

It's composed in order to avoid mentioning their Turkish trace (the main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu). Under the disguise of "scientical approach" the connection between the Xiongnu and the Turks is erased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chonanh (talkcontribs) 16:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyun

Turkish word "Kyun" (sheep) is a word used in tribe and dynasty names. As it appears in Ak Koyunlu and Kara Koyunlu. "Kyunnu", "Kyunlu" or a variant is a possible root of "Xiongnu". It should be mentioned in the article.

I also see a continous effort to remove content from the article in order to blur or erase the Turkic origins of Xiongnu people. Especially Persians are keen on revising the history of Turkish people and Turkish culture and appropriate it to Persian/Iranian people and culture. I just wanted to mention that disguising, camouflaging or covering up the facts in the interest of Persians will not lead to anywhere.

Persians/Iranians -especially Persian/Iranian Wikipedia users- are demeaning themselves. That's what they actually succeed in.--98.199.22.63 (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]