INTRODUCTION
In this study, we have prepared a bibliography based on Old Turkic vocabulary to enrich the philosophical terminology of the Turkish language. Our work serves as a starting point for further research aimed at enhancing Turkish’s terminological capacity, better understanding contemporary philosophical terms, and addressing current needs. The scope has been limited to Old Turkic to shed light on this early and relatively unknown written period and to identify words that are free from foreign influence. We begin by outlining the current situation, followed by a list of key reference works.
We undertook this study after observing a serious terminological problem in Turkish thought. A healthy process of thinking requires a strong language. To transform Turkish into a language that fosters thought, we must first examine its terminological structure. Confucius once said, “Without understanding the power of words, one cannot understand people.” He expressed this idea elsewhere as well. For example, when asked, “If you were summoned to govern a country, what would be your first action?” he replied:
“Without a doubt, I would begin by rectifying language.
If language is corrupted, words cannot express thought clearly.
If thought cannot be expressed clearly, necessary actions will not be carried out properly.
If actions are not carried out properly, morality and culture will decay.
If morality and culture decay, justice will stray from its path.
If justice strays, the people will fall into confusion.
When people are confused, they do not know what to do or where to turn.
Therefore, language comes before everything else.”
Thought requires language; human thought is grounded in language. Thinking is a form of communication, and Turkish thought is fundamentally possible through the Turkish language. Oktay Sinanoğlu captures this relationship very clearly:
“Turkey’s salvation depends on the salvation of Turkish. If Turkish is lost, there will be no Turkey, no Turkic world, and no Turks.”
Thus, Turkish existence depends on the intellectual strength of the Turkish language.
The Uighurs, who had a strong awareness of language, developed Turkish terminology in religious contexts. Considering the proximity of religion and philosophy, as well as the cultural advancement of Uighur civilization, it is plausible that philosophical terms were also created during this period. Indeed, influenced by Sogdian, the Uighurs used terms such as nom (doctrine) for dharma and “yedi erdin” (seven virtues) for the “seven jewels.” Expressions like “Tengri yeri” (the realm of the gods), “üç tamgalar” (control your hands, tongue, and heart), “ayıg kılınç” (sin), and “buyan edgü kılınç” (virtue) also emerged in this period.
The presence of land law terminology and the abundance of civil documents suggest that many fields were thoroughly Turkified. Given the intensity of translations from Chinese, it is also reasonable to assume that terminology for abstract thought was developed. Such a study would not only enrich methods for coining new terms but also uncover existing Turkish equivalents for long-standing concepts.
The Old Turkic period is marked by consistency and literary depth. The inscriptions found in Mongolia, Yenisei, and other regions display a stable vocabulary and structured expressions, enabling the formation of coherent terminology. The elegance of Orkhon Turkish and the extensive vocabulary of Uighur Turkish make both periods crucial sources. Especially the Uighurs’ translations of Sanskrit, Chinese, and Sogdian works provided them with both content and terminology, prompting the development of Turkish equivalents.
Today, discussions about terminology in Turkish philosophy and social sciences are often either abstract or disconnected from historical and linguistic research. Efforts must be grounded in historical phases of the language. Old Turkic, as the oldest phase with substantial written sources, offers both insight and continuity.
Therefore, this bibliography serves as a foundational resource for building Turkish philosophical terminology from native elements. It invites linguists, philosophers, and educators to examine Old Turkic in depth and to foster a stronger connection between Turkish thinking and the Turkish language.
REFERENCE LIST
| Arat, Reşit | Rahmeti: Eski Türk şiiri, TTK Yayınları,2007. |
| Divitçioğlu, Sencer: | Orta Asya Türk İmparatorluğu, İmge Yayınları, 2005. |
| Ercilasun, Ahmet Bican: | Türk Dili Tarihi, Akçağ Yayınları, 2007. |
| Hare, Rom: | Felsefenin Bin Yılı, İzdüşüm Yayınları, 2003. |
| İbn Fazlan: | Seyahatname, Çev. Ramazan Şeşen, Bedir Yayınevi, 1975. |
| Kant , Immanuel: | Gelecekte Bilim Olarak Ortaya Çıkabilecek Her Metafiziğe Prolegomena, , T.Felsefe Kurumu,2002. |
| Konfüçyüs: | The Analects, (web kaynağı) http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.4.4.html 4. bölüm, 10 Haziran 2015. |
| Ölmez, Mehmet: | “Türkçede Dinî Tabirler Üzerine”, Türk Dili Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15, 2005, s. 214- 213-218. |
| Sinanoğlu, Oktay: | Bye Bye Türkçe, Bilim Gönül Yay., 2010. |
| Sözer, Ali Nazım : | Türk Harflerinin Kabulü ve Tatbiki Hakkında Kanun, Eğitimde Birlik Hakkında Kanun ve Günümüzdeki Durumları, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt.7, Sayı.2, ss.84-107. |
| Tezcan, Semih: | En Eski Türk Dili ve Yazını, Bilim Kültür ve Öğretim Dili Olarak Türkçe içinde, Ankara: TTK Yayınları, 1994. |
| Tokyürek, Hacer : | Eski Uygurca Metinlere Göre Budizmin Manihaizme Etkisi, Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic. Volume 7/4, Fall 2012, ss. 2890- 2898. |
[1] İstanbul Üniversitesi öğrencisi
[2] Konfüçyüs, The Analects, (web kaynağı) http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.4.4.html 4. bölüm, 20. fıkra. 10 Haziran 2015.
[3] Ali Nazım Sözer, Türk Harflerinin Kabulü ve Tatbiki Hakkında Kanun, Eğitimde Birlik Hakkında Kanun ve Günümüzdeki Durumları, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt.7, Sayı.2, ss.84-107. s. 85.
[4] Oktay Sinanoğlu, Bye Bye Türkçe, Bilim Gönül Yay., 2010, s. 190.
[5] Mehmet Ölmez, “Türkçede Dinî Tabirler Üzerine”, Türk Dili Araştırmaları Dergisi, 15, 2005, s. 214- 213-218.
[6] Hacer Tokyürek, Eski Uygurca Metinlere Göre Budizmin Manihaizme Etkisi, Turkish Studies – International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic. Volume 7/4, Fall 2012, s. 2890- 2898.
[7] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, Türk Dili Tarihi, Akçağ Yayınları, 2007, s. 467.
[8] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, a.g.e., s. 128.
[9] Sencer Divitçioğlu, Orta Asya Türk İmparatorluğu, İmge Yayınları, 2005, s.17.
[10] Rom Hare, Felsefenin Bin Yılı, İzdüşüm Yayınları, 2003, s. 123.
[11] İbn Fazlan Seyahatnamesi, Çev. Ramazan Şeşen, Bedir Yayınevi, 1975, s. 30.
[12] Immanuel Kant , Gelecekte Bilim Olarak Ortaya Çıkabilecek Her Metafiziğe Prolegomena, , T.Felsefe Kurumu,2002, s.5.
[13] Ümit Hassan, Türkiye Tarihi 1, Osmanlı Devletine Kadar Türkler, s.161.
[14] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, a.g.e., s. 187.
[15] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, a.g.e., s. 135.
[16] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, a.g.e., s. 140.
[17] Reşit Rahmeti Arat, Eski Türk şiiri, TTK Yayınları,2007 s. 1.
[18] Semih Tezcan , En Eski Türk Dili ve Yazını, Bilim Kültür ve Öğretim Dili Olarak Türkçe içinde, Ankara: TTK Yayınları, 1994.
Yayınlarıs. 318.
[19] Reşit Rahmeti Arat, a.g.e. s. 47.
[20] Ahmet Bican Ercilasun, a.g.e, s. 258.
