Turkey tries everything to stay out of the EU

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson

Maalesef Varsova cok guzel bir kent degil.

No, it were my teacher's grandparents that emmigrated from Turkey.
Mine grandpa was (officially, as I mentioned, I have some doubts) Armenian. And Polish Armenians used to speak Turkish and are considered Turks by turkologists. That's my only tie to Turkey.
Except for that when I finally become Byzantine Emperor,
my residence shall be Istanbul (Heressonia Magna).

Hey, your Turkish seems fine to me, keep it up! Unless of course you'd want to change the language of the city when you move in to Istan...I mean Heresonnia Magna

How come the Polish Armenians speak Turkish? I assumed they must have emigrated from Turkey some time in history?

What's about this most eastern part, the one that is on New Guinea island?
Was it muslim also before it was added to Indonesia? Or was it added only because it was Dutch as the rest before?
And what's the turmoil going on there?

The easternmost part of Indonesia used to be called Irian Jaya, but is now called Papua. It's an area larger than Germany but with less than 2.5 million people. The natives are of Melanesian stock in contrast to the rest of Indonesia. Indonesia acquired it from the Dutch more than a decade after their independence.

People there used to be predominantly Christian and adherents of tribal religions but after annexing West Papua, hundreds of thousands of (Muslim) settlers were moved to the region (accelerated in the 1990s) to create a local base for the government. The problem (for Indonesia) is that the diplomatic arrangements paving the way for the area's annexation to Indonesia also foresaw a possibility of a vote of self determination and following on that there's an independence movement there mostly by the indigenous people of Papua. It caused some trouble in the past but now it's mostly suppressed, though still active.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Ratzinger is the unofficial spokesman of the Catholic Church. I didn't know they were opposed to Turkey's membership.

Vatican is at the heart of the anti-Turkish movement in Europe. After witnessing the dying off of interest in religion among peoples of Europe, the consequent decline of Christianity and the rise of the secular state, for them accepting into Europe a large and predominantly Muslim country is the final act of the drama.

Not only Islam is a historically theological rival to Christianity (of which Vatican considers itself the depository of true guidence), that such a country can be admitted to Europe will further manisfest the increasing irrelevance of religion (and hence, Vatican) in today's world.

Therefore, for Vatican it's better to see a Muslim country remain where it should be -out of Europe-, in a twisted interpretation of "cuius regio, eius religio" (as in "I rule here so I don't want anybody else to introduce their alien religion in my domain").

Vatican and its legendary parochialism

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

Hey, your Turkish seems fine to me, keep it up! Unless of course you'd want to change the language of the city when you move in to Istan...I mean Heresonnia Magna

It won't be necessary if I will be able to speak good Turkish.
I was supposed to go on a Turkish course this year for a month to Turkey, but couldn't due to a big exam.
My Turkish sucks... really... I just know basic grammar constructions and a couple of words.

How come the Polish Armenians speak Turkish? I assumed they must have emigrated from Turkey some time in history?

Well, originally the eastern Turkey was Armenia, so You may say so

But they used to speak a Turkish language because these were the Armenians of Crimea, which was Turkish-speaking.
They themselves called this language tatarca (it has the -ca ending, like in Turkish ), which means the language of Tatars - of Crimean Tatars.


The story of Papua is sad, but I guess many countries did similar stuff. It should be given autonomy or whatever.

Vatican has no real power to stop Turkey from entering Europe, except for encouraging people to voting against it. And it's an influence You can't just laugh at.
Also, it has reasons to not want Turkey in.
But I think Vatican is commiting a mistake. Turkey will join EU finallym and its people will remember Vatican its opposition. Instead of complaining, RCC should try to convert Turkey if it likes.

Personally, (Ancyrean will be angry), I'd be pleased if EU would insist on Turkey to change its policy of denying what happened to Armenians and Syrians (it is a very touchy matter, I'm afraid that EU intervening would just make Turks angry, but not discussing about it would be like saying it is all OK)
Also, I'd like EU to make Turkey open the boarder with Armenia,
promess it won't block Armenian or Georgian membership,
and perhaps to make some little territory exchange so that ruins of Ani, one of former Armenian capitals and at least one slope of Ararat mountain would be inside Armenia.
For Turkey these are just a big mountain and a couple of ruins, that may be touristic attraction, but with none emotional significance. For Armenia they are their holy places.
This is just over the boarder, so it would be just tiny correctures, and would mean a lot.
But again, asking Turkey for it could just make it angry. I know it was proposed before, but without any effects.
Just a dream, unfortunatelly

[Ted Striker]

double

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Firstly, Ted Striker

Secondly, I believe another picture of Azra Akýn, Miss World 2002, would be the best answer to Sir Ralph's misguided comments:

I gotta get back over there and reunite with the fine ladies of Turkey.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Personally, (Ancyrean will be angry), I'd be pleased if EU would insist on Turkey to change its policy of denying what happened to Armenians and Syrians (it is a very touchy matter, I'm afraid that EU intervening would just make Turks angry, but not discussing about it would be like saying it is all OK)

Also, I'd like EU to make Turkey open the boarder with Armenia, promess it won't block Armenian or Georgian membership, and perhaps to make some little territory exchange so that ruins of Ani, one of former Armenian capitals and at least one slope of Ararat mountain would be inside Armenia.

For Turkey these are just a big mountain and a couple of ruins, that may be touristic attraction, but with none emotional significance. For Armenia they are their holy places.

This is just over the boarder, so it would be just tiny correctures, and would mean a lot.

But again, asking Turkey for it could just make it angry. I know it was proposed before, but without any effects.
Just a dream, unfortunatelly

Well, I'm not angry at all, the idea of making a linkage between EU membership and the Armenian issue has already been floated by some in Europe, but it found no significant support as the issue is not as definitive as Armenians would like to believe.

Your reference to territorial concessions would indeed never be likely to happen, as you rightly suggest. Incredulous as it may sound to you, the Turkish public in general and people of Eastern Turkey in particular still vividly remember the atrocities committed by Armenians during their effort to carve a state for themselves there, and that's what would make any territorial correction (however tiny as it may seem) as part an apologetic move towards Armenia an outrage of greater magnitude.

Turkey's border with Armenia remains closed, but Turkey is not engaged in a self-imposed blockade of Armenia. There are regular chartered flights from Yerevan to Istanbul, for example, which is a most valuable link for Armenia. Armenia still does not recognise its border with Turkey, which is in the 21st century the minimum required for normalised relations. The fact that Armenia keeps 25% of Azerbaijan (our ethnic cousins) occupied also doesn't impress anybody in Turkey, hence increasing the already high level state of inter-state distrust.

[Ancyrean]

All the disagreements on the issue aside, I guess if there's a people that the Turks have similarities with more than the Greeks, it's probably Armenians. I had a Greek-Armenian friend in Thessaloniki, and I felt so much at home when I visited her home, her mom would scold me for not coming frequently enough.

You'd similarly feel at home in Turkey, and your Armenian ancestry would only create a favourable impression (as it happens with Greeks), in stark contrast to the stereotypes that many people believe in.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
Your reference to territorial concessions would indeed never be likely to happen, as you rightly suggest.

yes, but that's why I think exchange of territory would be the case

Incredulous as it may sound to you, the Turkish public in general and people of Eastern Turkey in particular still vividly remember the atrocities committed by Armenians during their effort to carve a state for themselves there, and that's what would make any territorial correction (however tiny as it may seem) as part an apologetic move towards Armenia an outrage of greater magnitude.

Part of this memory at least is result of Turkish propaganda.
Very bad propagands, to say the elast. I've already mentioned I've read a passage in Turkish book about it.
It was something like that Armenians were 5% minority in this region (which is misleading, they could be a 5% minority in entire Ottoman Empire), and they, in 1mln number themselves, managed to kill 1 mln Turkish women and children...
Which would mean Armenians would have to kill more people that they counted themselves... Not to mention these grounds were not inhabited by Turks, but Kurds in general.

Oh, I'm sure some Armenians collaborated with Russians, just like I'm sure some Bulgarians did.
I can believe some atrocities were commited, especially that Armenians were massacred earlier and they could "take their revenge" or whatever. But Armenians had no technical possibilities to make atrocities on large scale.

Armenia still does not recognise its border with Turkey, which is in the 21st century the minimum required for normalised relations.

There are reasons for it

The fact that Armenia keeps 25% of Azerbaijan (our ethnic cousins) occupied also doesn't impress anybody in Turkey, hence increasing the already high level state of inter-state distrust.

Turkey can not punish Armenia for its politics in Azerbeydzan.
Btw, I was on a meeting with an Azerbeydzan representative.
My friend told me to miss my lessons, because it will be fun.
Ineed it was.
He told us that Armenians "are just like Jews"
and that it was Russia placed them between Turkey and Azerbeydzan to make both angry.
When I told Him that they lived there before Azers and Turks came there, He told us that the Armenians of modern Armenia are in fact Armenians of modern-day Turkey who, expelled from it, settled on Azer territory
Later on, He described Armenians as cockroaches and warned us that He's seen them here already and that they will claim Poland as a part of historical Armenia soon
It was fun indeed. But the guy was OK except for that

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
You'd similarly feel at home in Turkey, and your Armenian ancestry would only create a favourable impression (as it happens with Greeks), in stark contrast to the stereotypes that many people believe in.

You know, there was a 50% discount for people with Turkish ancestry. Joking, I asked a friend (a Pole, but a Muslim convert and importer of Turkish stuff to Poland) whether if I told them that I do have Turkish - Armenian, that is - descent, they'd give me this discount.
He's said it'd be like if a person in Ukraine would like to be repatriated to Poland due to Polish roots, and would say "yeah, my grandpa was a Pole... Moses Blumstein the name... He owned several buildings in Warsaw..."

Somehow it seemed very funny

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Part of this memory at least is result of Turkish propaganda.
Very bad propagands, to say the elast. I've already mentioned I've read a passage in Turkish book about it.
It was something like that Armenians were 5% minority in this region (which is misleading, they could be a 5% minority in entire Ottoman Empire), and they, in 1mln number themselves, managed to kill 1 mln Turkish women and children...
Which would mean Armenians would have to kill more people that they counted themselves... Not to mention these grounds were not inhabited by Turks, but Kurds in general.

Oh, I'm sure some Armenians collaborated with Russians, just like I'm sure some Bulgarians did.
I can believe some atrocities were commited, especially that Armenians were massacred earlier and they could "take their revenge" or whatever. But Armenians had no technical possibilities to make atrocities on large scale.

Part of the memory is propoganda? My grandfather is from the town of Van, and that town has seen its share of suffering under Armenians.

Well a dubious passage in a book you read should not stop you from trying to learn what the Turks are in fact saying. Of course 5% is a low number, but they were by no means anywhere near an overall majority in Eastern Turkey.

Armenian agitations were far more and better organised than you seem to give them credit for. They were hoarding weapons inside and outside Turkey for years, and when they finally found the opportunity they rose up in revolt, dealing significant damage to the supply of Turkish army, at the same time engaging in their own ethnic cleansing in order to "rectify" the injustice of "barbarians" having settled in "their" land for centuries. Their actions were quite deliberate, and in the absence of state authority Turkish people atttacked their Armenian neighbours in return and this created a vicious circle. You can add to that the Armenian regiments introduced to the region under the Tsarist army. That the government was forced to attempt a wholesale relocation is a testimony of the success of the damage they had done.

Originally posted by Heresson
Turkey can not punish Armenia for its politics in Azerbeydzan.

Well, Armenia's invasion of Azerbaijan is not the cause but just one of the reasons that the relations between the two countries are not normal.

Originally posted by Heresson
Btw, I was on a meeting with an Azerbeydzan representative.
My friend told me to miss my lessons, because it will be fun.
Ineed it was.
He told us that Armenians "are just like Jews"
and that it was Russia placed them between Turkey and Azerbeydzan to make both angry.
When I told Him that they lived there before Azers and Turks came there, He told us that the Armenians of modern Armenia are in fact Armenians of modern-day Turkey who, expelled from it, settled on Azer territory
Later on, He described Armenians as cockroaches and warned us that He's seen them here already and that they will claim Poland as a part of historical Armenia soon
It was fun indeed. But the guy was OK except for that

Sure that guy was ridiculous, at least as far as his ideas go.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean


Part of the memory is propoganda? My grandfather is from the town of Van, and that town has seen its share of suffering under Arqmenians.

Hm...
Tell me his entire story

Also, I remember there was an Armenian uprising in Van... Even if the rebels did some harm, this is no excuse for eliminating entire Armenian population of the city after it was captured

And it's not just "one passage".
It's a general attitude. A Turkish friend of mine actually tried to prove me Turks were there before Armenians...
Armenian or Greek sounding names of cities were changed...
(btw, I've heard a film about them is a major hit in Turkey)
Up till recently, Kurds were officially Turkish Highlanders, and their language, though of completely different language group, was considered a "Turkish dialect"
And no minority officially existed except for in Constantinople
Bah, Ataturk even had his Sun Theory which claimed that Turkish is the mother of all the other languages in the world...
It makes me doubt that in Armenian case, Turks are being objective

Well a dubious passage in a book you read should not stop you from trying to learn what the Turks are in fact saying. Of course 5% is a low number, but they were by no means anywhere near an overall majority in Eastern Turkey.

Hm... Surely the number dependa on which grounds do we mean, really; but even if Armenians weren't a majority, just a big minority on most of the claimed theritory, they should get part of it or at least get some autonomy.
Also, still, Turks weren't a majority on many of these lands too.

Armenian agitations were far more and better organised than you seem to give them credit for. They were hoarding weapons inside and outside Turkey for years, and when they finally found the opportunity they rose up in revolt, dealing significant damage to the supply of Turkish army, at the same time engaging in their own ethnic cleansing in order to "rectify" the injustice of "barbarians" having settled in "their" land for centuries. Their actions were quite deliberate, and in the absence of state authority Turkish people atttacked their Armenian neighbours in return and this created a vicious circle. You can add to that the Armenian regiments introduced to the region under the Tsarist army. That the government was forced to attempt a wholesale relocation is a testimony of the success of the damage they had done.

I may argue about blaiming partisants, but even if their activity is true (they'd have to be mad to attempt a cleansing while being behind the front line), the response to that activity (which itself may be treaten as a response to earlier Turkish/Kurd activity), was much worse than what some of the Armenians did.
Even in Your story, it weren't Armenians as a whole that did the harm. And, after all, the result is that Armenians were ethnically cleansed, not the other way round.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
Also, I remember there was an Armenian uprising in Van... Even if the rebels did some harm, this is no excuse for eliminating entire Armenian population of the city after it was captured

I know some of the stories that Armenians tell of Turks, and stories I heard from the Turkish side is equally unpleasant. Rather than trying to detail some of them (and thereby risk flaming an already sensitive issue), I'd just say my point was to draw attention to thefact that the acts of violence in the beginning were both ways.

Originally posted by Heresson
And it's not just "one passage".
It's a general attitude. A Turkish friend of mine actually tried to prove me Turks were there before Armenians...
Armenian or Greek sounding names of cities were changed...
(btw, I've heard a film about them is a major hit in Turkey)

Well forget about him. It's a useless way to try to show "ownership rights" like that, it tries to avoid the real tragedy we have to talk about.

I don't remember hearing about the movie though.

Originally posted by Heresson
Up till recently, Kurds were officially Turkish Highlanders, and their language, though of completely different language group, was considered a "Turkish dialect"
And no minority officially existed except for in Constantinople
Bah, Ataturk even had his Sun Theory which claimed that Turkish is the mother of all the other languages in the world...
It makes me doubt that in Armenian case, Turks are being objective

Turkey's attitude regarding Kurds have improved light years forward since then. It was of course ridiculous to try to brand them "mountain Turks" and such, and I'm happy this charade came to an end

Wow you know about Ataturk's Sun Theory? You impressed me know Yes, it's a theory he put forward and diligently wished proved true, but alas, it did not survive his death.

On objectivity, how much credit would you yourself give to Armenians?

I may argue about blaiming partisants, but even if their activity is true (they'd have to be mad to attempt a cleansing while being behind the front line), the response to that activity (which itself may be treaten as a response to earlier Turkish/Kurd activity), was much worse than what some of the Armenians did.

Well I would be ready to admit that Armenians suffered tremendously in the end. But I would also note that the act of relocation was in reaction to a certain action and was a desperate rather than a planned act. There were quite a few Armenians who thought like you, that it's all madness, but they had no power in the face of nationalist agitants.

I guess it is also admittable enough that the local governors on the way of relocees failed miserably to provide for such numbers on the road.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean
I know some of the stories that Armenians tell of Turks, and stories I heard from the Turkish side is equally unpleasant. Rather than trying to detail some of them (and thereby risk flaming an already sensitive issue), I'd just say my point was to draw attention to thefact that the acts of violence in the beginning were both ways.

Even if they were,
You can't put an = between Armenian violence and Turkish one. Turks had a state, Armenians did not. Armenians were not an equal partner in this confrontation
Also, the final result shows, which one was more hurt.

Turkey's attitude regarding Kurds have improved light years forward since then. It was of course ridiculous to try to brand them "mountain Turks" and such, and I'm happy this charade came to an end

But it proves Turkey was a bit mad about national affairs, doesn't it...

Wow you know about Ataturk's Sun Theory? You impressed me know Yes, it's a theory he put forward and diligently wished proved true, but alas, it did not survive his death.

I remember one Turkish professor, asked about why did He stop lecturing the Sun Theory, said "How can we teach it after the Sun (Ataturk) went down?"

I went succesfully through Turkology studies entrance exam after all...

On objectivity, how much credit would you yourself give to Armenians?

You mean, what they are to be blamed?
First of all, lack of realism. Secondly, rushness or how to call that;
until they were sure Russians would take Armenia, they should've acted completely calm, all of them, no matter what.
If they just got through the reign of that Comitee of (don't know English words, Progress and something), they would have been fine probably, and today they might have an autonomy or independance on part of those lands. Turkish actions can't be pardoned, though.
Even if they really just wanted to relocate them, which was a crime itself, they should've done that in a better way then just forcing them out to go hundreds miles in severe conditions without possibility of doing that and without protection from local Kurdish tribes.
Also, still, I remember foreign accounts of Armenian railway workers in Mesopotamia or Syria who disappeared one day, or were just put inside a wagon to die of thirst and heat - and these are not Armenian stories, but of passing Europeans
That doesn't mean that such actions had to be planned by the gouverment itself

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Heresson
You can't put an = between Armenian violence and Turkish one. Turks had a state, Armenians did not. Armenians were not an equal partner in this confrontation
Also, the final result shows, which one was more hurt.

Actually, there appears to me a lot of converge of opion on the issue, although our conclusions yet differ.

I'm not saying they were equal and that they had a state. Of course they did not.

Originally posted by Heresson
But it proves Turkey was a bit mad about national affairs, doesn't it...

My main contention is that Armenians brought on the relocation onto themselves. I'm not saying they deserved such an end, but I'm not saying that the government suddenly acted on nationalist impulses. Actually, in the Ottoman times there was a region Kurdistan by name, Kurds were not considered as Turks at all. Your example while has some truth in and by itself detracts from the Armenian issue.

You mean, what they are to be blamed?
First of all, lack of realism. Secondly, rushness or how to call that;
until they were sure Russians would take Armenia, they should've acted completely calm, all of them, no matter what.
If they just got through the reign of that Comitee of (don't know English words, Progress and something), they would have been fine probably, and today they might have an autonomy or independance on part of those lands. Turkish actions can't be pardoned, though.
Even if they really just wanted to relocate them, which was a crime itself, they should've done that in a better way then just forcing them out to go hundreds miles in severe conditions without possibility of doing that and without protection from local Kurdish tribes.
Also, still, I remember foreign accounts of Armenian railway workers in Mesopotamia or Syria who disappeared one day, or were just put inside a wagon to die of thirst and heat - and these are not Armenian stories, but of passing Europeans
That doesn't mean that such actions had to be planned by the gouverment itself

I agree with your analysis of their tactical mistake they made.

Everything you say here in fact quite detracts from what Armenian activists are trying to push through. They insist on the intention and put the Ottoman Turkey of 1915 on the same league with Nazi Germany. What you're doing now is a more constructive approach in fact, because once I accept that Armenian sufferings were as a result of neglicence and lack of better planning once the decision to relocate is made, the issue of "genocide" is largely settled. Once the nature and reason of their suffering is such established, quoting the death of people from thirst and heat on the road assumes a different character than as proofs of genocide.

You say such actions need not to be planned by the state, which is correct, but then if it's not planned by the government, and if it's not intended as such, then that's a whole lot of different ball game than genocide. If you would still insist the government indeed deliberately planned a genocide to take place through neglicence on the road, then the case remains that there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of such a scheme, in the absence of such evidence, it would be induction rather than deduction.

I went succesfully through Turkology studies entrance exam after all...

Wow You're the first person I met who showed some interest in Turkology

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ancyrean

My main contention is that Armenians brought on the relocation onto themselves. I'm not saying they deserved such an end, but I'm not saying that the government suddenly acted on nationalist impulses.

I think we agree, though there's a slight difference of accents. I think Turkish gouverment panicked and took unappropriate measures that resulted in a horrible tragedy. I do not think it intended to just kill Armenians, but certainly it didn't care much if they did die or not.

But I still think Armenia would not exist at all if it was up to this gouverment, if it captured Erewan. Not because they hated Armenia, but because they wanted a Pan-Turk state, and Armenia is placed between Turkey and Azerbeydzan.

Everything you say here in fact quite detracts from what Armenian activists are trying to push through. They insist on the intention and put the Ottoman Turkey of 1915 on the same league with Nazi Germany.

Well, they've lost their families, their property, their homeland, and of dream of Greater Armenia crumbled to the size of the smallest probably Soviet Republic that even didn't get its finest capital's ruins and holy mountain that's just on the other side of the river to their capitol. C-mon. That's cruel.
Armenia had bad luck. Consider Byelorus. They even didn't know they are Byelorussians. Bah, most of them didn't get to know that up to today. And this state never existed - and except for Smolensk and Bielsk Podlaski, it got everything it could ever dream of. The same to Slovakia... and other countries.

You say such actions need not to be planned by the state, which is correct, but then if it's not planned by the government, and if it's not intended as such, then that's a whole lot of different ball game than genocide. If you would still insist the government indeed deliberately planned a genocide to take place through neglicence on the road, then the case remains that there's absolutely no proof whatsoever of such a scheme, in the absence of such evidence, it would be induction rather than deduction.

I say that it probably wasn't a genocide, according to a definition that a genocide has the goal of destroying entire nation; according to that definition, there was just one genocide, by Hitler.
I do not know if there's an evidence. I've heard about Talat letters, but I also heard they aren't original. I've read about that German representative sent a message to his gouverment that the Turkish one wants to annihilate Armenians, but it's still just his impression.
People of the west perhaps have seen this act as a (planned) extermination, because it seems it did turn into extermination (probably unplanned) and the gouverment didn't care to stop it.

That's the impression I have today.
Perhaps if I'll discuss it with some Armenian He'll change my mind.

Wow You're the first person I met who showed some interest in Turkology

I think it is a good direction, and I have some regrets I've chosen Arabic studies after all. I was definitely more interested in Turkey,
Turkish language came easier for me originally (though I must say Turkish grammar is one of the weardiest things I've ever seen. Even Arabic one is more similar to indo-european ones. Or just I got used to it.), and at least Turkey is something which can be called a modern democratic state, while the Arabs... oh well.
Even the part of Arabic history that I found the most interesting, Mamluk sultanate, it's an Arab state ruled by Turks
Still, my Turkish sucks now. Just like my Arabic. I've spent entire holidays on learning to another exam and have forgotten everything, everything
Hic bir sey unuttum. Ders calismam lazim
Actually, I could stop learning Turkish last year, but I was afraid to pass the exam. I took a mock writing exam, and did suprisingly well (also thanks to that a Turkish friend of a friend of mine helped me in learning), and I think I could pass the writing part, but I am damn afraid of speaking any foreign language, even English.
this can be wrong, but
Derslerimde cok Turkiye(den?) hakkinda konusuyoruz, ama lehce, turkce degil....
I guess You'll figure out what I mean...
But as You see, it's not good.
For example, I never remember, if hakkinda goes without anything, or with -den or something. or if I can say turkce degil in this case or not. What I ment was "Polish, not Turkish".
i feel ashamed, because it's a long time since I started the lessons.
I learned one year (just 2 lessons a week at a university course, which is never really intensive). After this year, I was actually better than I am today. Then there was a year pause, and again a year, but actually up till the last weeks, I didn't learn a THING. The lady tells great stories about Turkey, but we end up talking Polish and sometimes we didn't say a single word in Turkish.
Not that I'd mind. I had the lessons in two days a week I started lessons at 8.00 and Turkish was my last lesson, 18.00-19:30.
I was already tired.
OK, it's too long post already