ТОТАЛЬНО САКРАЛИЗОВАННЫЙ ТЮРКСКИЙ

It is known that in literary studies, comparativism is the historical/compa-rative method of understanding folklore, mythology, literary similarities, migration routes and patterns of historical development of different nations. In linguistics it’s a method of preserving and restoring the correspondence between ancient related languages. I emphasize the words "relative" and "different" on purpose. This is precisely where I see a problem in the stereotypical linguistic approach of defining "related languages.‖ Some languages are called Indo-European languages-- thus they are defined by their geographical origin-- and other languages are called agglutinating because of their ability to take affixes, specifically agglutinative prepositions, word combinations and conjunctions —thus they are defined by grammatical indicators (for example, Turkic and Uyghur-Fin languages). Linguistics does not claim a priori any relationships between Turkic languages and ancient Greek, Latin or modern European languages. There is simply no research conducted in this field of study to reveal the existence of relative relationships of languages. Even today the strongest stereotype in comparativism allows comparisons of the themes and characters in different forms of literature, but only allows analysis of the similarities between related languages. Why not compare different languages? Or is it simpler to determine intentional similarities between intentionally related languages? We must note that we think, use and speak in stereotypes because they act as a vaccine to protect us from such dangerous diseases as the desire for knowledge, a curious mind, independence, and courage. Linguistic and literary stereotypes lead us around in circles like a horse wearing blinders. So let us try, based on our experience, a posteriori, to remove those blinders. We will analyze semantics and grammar in various languages. We will compare the morphology and syntax of: a) dead Latin and live Turkish (with a text of Ovid Nazon). b) Ancient Greek and ancient Turkish (in a dictionary and with texts of the Iliad) c) Egyptian (ancient hieroglyphic), Russian, Turkish and English (according to Runes and hieroglyphic writing) d) Sumerian and Chinese, Sumerian and Turkish, Sumerian and Russian (according to the "Enki and Ninhursag" text ) Possibly we will find not only similarities, but also identity. Perhaps we will understand that many nations participated in the historical development of the greatest human gifts, speech and writing. Perhaps today when the deep desire is awakened within every nation to prove itself the most ancient, or at least one of the most ancient languages, we will come to understand not the uniqueness of our language, but our linguistic unity. One example is ―paean,‖ baian. Now I pronounce the word ―Baian.‖ A good Arab scholar will tell you the meaning of the word as ―content," "explana-tion", and will give you examples of the usage of this word in ancient texts. Opening the dictionary of literary terms, we learn that this word (from the Greek paian) is a genre of ancient Greek lyric poetry; that "paean" originated in ancient Greece and is connected with the cult of Apollo. This word was also used in Homer as a propitiatory sacrifice and song of victory (Iliad I, verse 472, Iliad XXIII, verse 33). First – it is explained as a laudatory song, thanksgiving, or appeal for help to Apollo, Artemis and other gods. Second - as a fighting song, performed in an attack on the enemy after the victory. The literary structure of paian is revealed in a dictionary, from the "Outlines of Greek Antiquities," ch 2, St. Petersburg, 1889, or from the work of the Frenchman A. Croiset, or from the Greek texts themselves. If you read them, you learn that even in the 7th century BC they arrived (at the command of an oracle) having been sent from the island of Crete to Sparta, and the paian was formulated as a genre. Well-known paians were those of Alkimen (7th century BC), Bakhilid (first half of the 5th century), Pindar (end of the 6th century BC), and those of other poets of Ancient Greece. However, you will not find in any literary dictionary or scholarly work that in the ancient Turkic literary epos Kitabi Dede Qorqud, the Oghuz heroes sang these songs before or after battle (as in the Song of Khan-Tural and others), and request that their comrades-in-arms to sing as well, saying ―Beyanin meni, beyanin!‖—meaning, praise me, support me, say that I am strong and able to win, and also thank and praise God for victory. Not only in Russia, but in all world literature, the historic origin of any literary form is considered to be from Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece. And all the other languages either do not notice, or submit themselves to be doomed to obscurity- borrowing, that is, another stereotype. Of course, the question arises: Who has taken from whom? I will answer this question will full responsibility: only those from whose languages the words have not yet disappeared. If something is understandable to a good Arabic scholar, written on an Egyptian manuscript no later than the 14th century and saved in Cairo, it is understandable to any Azeri even now. ―Biz beiyanirik ya beiyanmirik‖–-we are approved or not approved, we are admired or not admired, we are known or not known, we are praised or not praised. And now, did this word disappear from the Greek language or does it remain today? I will say openly that I do not know. The Turkic word beiyan literally means glory, praise, honour, fame. Like its prototype, it has meaning both in the form of an imperative verb and as a noun.