Talk:Mongolian literature

Mongols High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MongolsWikipedia:WikiProject MongolsTemplate:WikiProject MongolsMongols articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Mongolian literature is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

How is[edit]

"the Mongolian fragments of the Alexander romance are reflective of Mongolian influence in the Muslim West" to be understood? My impression is that the Alexander Romance is a work from the west, so while the existence of themes from the Alexander romance in Mongolian literature shows that there has been contact between Mongolian and Muslim literatures, it does not show that Mongolian literature influenced Muslim literature. It looks more like it is the other way'round, actually. Yaan (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was Mongolia had political influence in the West, i.e. actual physical presence there. This was what made the cultural influence FROM Islam possible. Mongolian literature had, of course, almost no influence on Muslim literature. I've changed "Mongolian influence in" to "Mongolian contact with" for the sake of clarity.Yastanovog (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danzanravjaa and(?) Injinashi[edit]

"criticising Buddhist establishment" -- does this mean the Khutughtu Danzanravjaa criticised Buddhism or some of the clergy who broke their vows? Does this statement pertain to Injinashi as well? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Buddhism weakened Mongolia, why didn't it weaken China, Korea and Japan? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When people say Buddhism weakened Mongolia, I think they mean it in the sense that material progress (i.e. industrialization, science and population growth) was hampered. In Mongolia, one cannot deny that a superstitious approach to Buddhism and widespread celibacy had a negative effect on development. China, Korea and Japan are nations that are located in "civilization areas", that is, places with warm climate and fertile soil where material progress can be made regardless of the dominant religion. This is my objective evaluation.Yastanovog (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People say that Buddhism saved the Mongol nation by strengthening unity and preserving tradition. But one must not forget that Mongolia was undergoing serious Tibetanization in the 19th century on the cultural level. I sometimes think that the only thing that saved Mongolian cultural independance was its geographical isolation as well as the Manchu policy of preventing massive Chinese immigration. Anyway, these are interesting questions.Yastanovog (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the connectin between Tibetization and Manchu policy of isolation from Chinese immigration? It turns out the climate saved China, Korea and Japan. Thus it turns out that the climate weakened Mongolia, not the religion.

Mongolia approached the stage of the second division of labour (division between agriculture and craft) by the 16th century however could not accomplish it. And this is not due to the religion. It could only be accomplished if they were to abandon the nomadic system. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetisation--it seems to have been a two-way process--Tibetisation of the Mongols and Mongolisation of the Tibetans. I mean influence of the Mongolian language, culture and way of thinking on the Tibetans. The brightest example is the name of the Jamtso Lama in Mongolian -- Dalai Lama. When I'm having a quick look into my Tibeto-Mongolian dictionary, I see a lot of words have been loaned by the Mongolian language from Tibetan, and as many words have also been loaned by the Tibetan language from Mongolian. Looks like a mini-globalisation or bi-globalisation between the two nations. Gantuya eng (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't really blame Buddhism for weakening Mongolia. It is much more the way it was practised by certain people. Injanashi and Danzanravjaa criticized in this sense. They were attempting reforms not revolution. Much like the way reformers in Europe criticized the Catholic Church.

I would rather prefer Mongolians preserved their language in relative purity, to as great an extent as possible. It just seems a bit funny that an Altaic language should allow so much Sino-Tibetan loanwords to enter its system as if it had no power itself. This shows a weakness on the part of the Mongols. Intellectually, they were the "servants" of the Tibetans, and materially they were the "servants" of the Chinese. One can borrow of course, but one should also be confident of oneself and negotiate as equals. By the way, could you give me some examples of Mongolian loanwords in Tibetan? Are they really that many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yastanovog (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mongolia remained exclusively nomadic for so long. It's true that infighting between the nobles was a major cause of weakness. An ineffective military and foreign policy was also largely responsible. Maybe if Mongolia had pursued an expansionist policy like the Europeans of the Age of Discovery, with guns and advanced technology, then probably it would not have sunk so low.Yastanovog (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Gantuya eng (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian words in Tibetan[edit]

a'chur -- alchuur; o'mo'su -- oims; em'ci -- emch; sag'ri -- sair; su'rug -- sureg; Gantuya eng (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duration of Renaissance[edit]

Why do we continue Renaissance up to 1921? For almost half a millenium!!! What do we mean by Renaissance? Is it rebirth? Then why should it continue for so long? Should some other stage of development not come after it? Gantuya eng (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian Renaissance lasted from the 1300s till the invasion by France. More than 150 years. It was a restoration or rebirth of Greco-Roman humanist learning and science, a movement away from theology and irrational learning. In the case of Mongolia one might say that the Renaissance was a restoration of the Yuan dynasty's ideas of unified statehood and promotion of learning (the best of Chinese, Tibetan and Indian learning). But in the case of Mongolia its Renaissance wasn't (I think) followed by a higher stage like the Age of Reason in Europe. It remained rather static, because Mongolia was an isolated region within an isolationist Manchu Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yastanovog (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Gantuya eng (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20st[edit]

language literature of Mongolian 210.185.177.210 (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]