Túrk

Túrk (plural Túrks)

1. Obsolete spelling of Turk.
   • 1847, Edward Thomas, “Art. IX.—On the Coins of the Kings of Ghazní”, in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, volume the ninth, London: John W. Parker, published 1848, page 287:

     This may have been effected by the Túrks; but it is more probable that the Brahmans recaptured the city, as, on attaining supremacy, and speedily becoming a powerful and conquering dynasty, and having also in view the prestige attaching to the ancient metropolis, which has formed the subject of remark of the Mohammedan authors now cited, their early endeavours would naturally be directed to the re-acquisition of so desirable a possession.

   • 1857, Mountstuart Elphinstone, “Book V. From the Commencement of the Arab Conquests to the Establishment of a Mahometan Government in India”, “Chapter I. Arab Conquests”, in The History of India. The Hindú and Mahometan Periods, 4th edition, London: John Murray, “Túrks in Transoxiana”, page 266:

     The Túrks of Constantinople and Persia have so completely lost the Tartar features, that some physiologists have pronounced them to belong to the Caucasian or European, and not to the Tartar, race. The Túrks of Bokhára and all Transoxiana, though so long settled among Persians, and though greatly softened in appearance, retain their original features sufficiently to be recognisable at a glance as Tartars.

   • 1877, Journal of the United Service Institution of India, page 293:

     The only two contented and prosperous provinces of Persia are Azarbaiján, where rulers and people are alike Túrks, and Karman, which though the the Governor is of a Túrkish tribe, is not interfered with by the central Government at Tehrán

Túrk (comparative more Túrk, superlative most Túrk)

1. Obsolete spelling of Turk.
   • 1846, Edward Thomas, “Art. VI.—On the Coins of the Dynasty of the Hindú Kings of Kábul”, in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, volume the ninth, London: John W. Parker, published 1848, page 183:

     Samanta’s renown as a king, whether he were a conqueror or not, was probably connected with the progress of Brahmanism, in opposition to Búddhism, the former of which is shown by Colonel Sykes to have made such important advances just about this period: at the same time there is evidence sufficient, aided by that afforded by Albírúní, to justify us in supposing that the Túrk kings of Kábul were Búddhists.

   • 1857, Mountstuart Elphinstone, “Book XII. Successors of Aurangzib”, “Chapter II. To the Departure of Nádir Sháh”, in The History of India. The Hindú and Mahometan Periods, 4th edition, London: John Murray, “General Indignation against the Sciads”, page 609:

     This chief (whom, anticipating the title, I shall henceforth call Asof Jáh, and whose descendants are known to Europeans as Nizáms of the Deckan) was of a respectable Túrk family, and was the son of Gházi u dín, a favourite officer of Aurangzíb, under which emperor he also distinguished himself.

   • 1877, Journal of the United Service Institution of India, page 292:

     The seven Kazilbash tribes, Túrks, placed the Safari dynasty on the throne, and in token thereof were granted the exclusive privilege of wearing a red cloth cap encircled with sheep’s skin, whence the name Kazilbash, red head, by which the so called Persian, but really Túrk colony, at Kabul, is still known—Nadir Sháh who expelled the Afghans from Persia and invaded India was a Kazilbash of the Afshar tribe.

• Kurt, Truk