Ready.
This page is a review of the chapter "1 The main semantic properties of the Turkish vocabulary" (pp.41-44) in the section "II The semantic structure and the semantic properties of Turkish" of TüGü.
After the fifteenth-century Turkish-tribal-language-fan, Ali Shir Nevai, TüGü (pp.41-44) tries to endorse the tribal point-of-view. The method of Mr. Nevai to contrast the two languages, is noticed as the word-tally, around a given concept. Thus, neither Mr. Nevai, nor TüGü, seem to subscribe to the opinion that, less is more. That is, instead of a widely-understood, fine-structure in the organization of the vocabulary, they value large lists of specific names -- all at the same time that, they also oppose the entry of a few from foreign vocabularies.
Is that really representative of the text by Mr. Nevai? Even if so, the case may differ than the tribalists of the last two centuries, as Mr.Nevai may have refused only the Farsi, not the Arabic -- if the text-name is "Muhakemet-ul-Lugateyn." That is in Arabic.
In the view of TüGü, the semantic-type of Turkish, is concrete, nature-based, as opposed to abstract (p.42). That ignores the inaccuracies, though. Example. And to lean toward the specific, ignores categorization value.
TüGü (p.44) is referring to the duck-list of Mr.Nevai. (The next chapter and the rest of TüGü, follow that list-dumping method.) What good is to have "more than 70 varieties of duck names" in a language to speak? Is that biology-taxonomy purpose? Does the listener need to know all? And if when needed, the Farsi were already referring to those duck-varieties, with the names that the Turkish "taxonomy" named them (p.44), then how is that a point to leave Farsi? That would only mean that, the people wanted Farsi as the culture language (cf. meaningful categorization), but they also employed the Turkish nature-acquaintance, when with some need to.
That is, how would that friendly attitude, justify the opposition to itself? If Farsi was ready-and-willing to contain the experience of the Turkish people, how would that justify leaving Farsi?
Mr. Nevai is mentioned as a poet. I wonder how he has employed that "strength" of Turkish, 70-duck-varieties, in his own poetical expressivity. :-))
And whatever Mr.Nevai would like, the truth was that Rumi (Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi) had published in Farsi -- and other valued literature had existed, published in Farsi, too. People read to learn, and next, may follow.
medium of exchange? As with the duck names, TüGü lists also the color names. In both cases, the listener must know whatever duck or color variety is mentioned, is a duck or color variety, respectively. And so on, with other such adjective/subcategory lists. Even if these were only adjectives, as in the case of colors, the problem does exist, as people compress the sentence, e.g: the adjective may exist without a noun (e.g: "the red was faster than the blue" instead of tip that, those are "red boat" or "red rabbit"), or the qualifier adjective may exist without the qualified adjective (e.g: "the pistacchio coat" instead of "pistachio-green coat"). That is, if the listener does not know what the word is about, the context may not suffice, either.
After I had reflected about this obvious and quite general problem, there was a puzzlement of the police in the news ("What color is this 'panacotta'?" Oct.10,2005, Zaman). Their problem was that, in the traffic records, the vehicles were listed with color-names (not sample color photo, but only text-label), and the new trend of strange named colors, puzzled them, as when a stolen-vehicle is mentioned with the exotic new color names e.g: "panacotta." What is the main color there? Is that a type of red, or blue, or green, or what? That is, the old Turkish distinction-in-differentiation is the international market-trend recently, and that has puzzled the police.
Although a fine-differentiation of the abstract qualities is really needed, even in that case, we have a relatively healthier exchange, when we talk, to the point we are able to identify to what extent our terminologies fit each other. If feasible, a level-by-level refinement of the abstraction may help. For example, in your culture, if the concept "high rate of employee turn-over" is mentioned, does that entail that (that is, do you surely infer that), the people do not like the job there? That could color the rest of the talk. (In other culture, that could simply mean that, the people only work for what they immediately want, and they are probably thoroughly/extremely happy, after they earned what they wanted. For example, if that MP3-gadget, or that other TV would please them. Or, for a gift to another, in their family, etc.). In summary, although a fine-differentiation of abstract concepts is really far more important than sth. which fits in a picture, we must keep cautious, with that, also. The picture-word case is probably unnecessary risk (or, memory load), to employ that as the main-stream of the language.