Ready.
This page is a review of the chapter "2 The concepts-world of Turkish" (pp.45-78) in the section "II The semantic structure and the semantic properties of Turkish" of TüGü.
TüGü (pp.45-47) is as if surprised that in the oldest [remnant] texts of the Turkic tribes (the 8th century Köktürk texts), there were concepts (e.g: pointing at the east/west/north/south direction), and the existence of what TüGü terms as (abstracted) "higher-level elements" (e.g: to make an agreement, or to consult), which TüGü takes as an indicator of a long-past. Why, though? They were living right next to China, and even those Köktürk texts themselves tell of the invasion/corruption which the Chinese committed against them. That means, they might (if not must) have imported/imitated the concepts, and the concept-structure, from the thoroughly established language of the Chinese civilization. Today, the newspeak people also do such, themselves, e.g: tried to import the word database, with the (absurd, although seemingly literal) translation "veritabani."
TüGü (pp.46-49) samples Uygur (a Turkic tribe) words, but does not give a reason to want them. That nostalgia is of no value, and for a müslim, those old words would not rate in the league of the Islam-friendly Istanbul language, at all. Even the T.C.newspeak people do not speak with those words, by the way. In fact, as the later pages exemplify, such herds of various ("alternative") words exist even in villages of today. People need to take this word, or that, if to talk. Mere nostalgia, and almost no remnant text, does not count as values, to support those old words (of Köktürk, Uygur, etc), at all. And, would that not mean a sympathy toward a Chinese-based language? How is that more favorable than Arabic, if the Turkish people were hostile against the Chinese?
The pages 49-50 list a few from later centuries. An archaic suffix/pattern is also mentioned (to mean "want ..."), as the etymology of a verb (to get thirsty, as from "to want water") we know today. That is only a simple agglutination, though. We may only be surprised, about the wonder/surprisedness of TüGü, about such.
TüGü, in the subsection "II.2.b The Old Anatolian Turkish" (pp.50-54), states that the Turkish people built a [relatively?] new literary language, and the Turkish today, is a continuation of that. To stress that (confession), the issue here, is not that the entrance of the Arabic/Farsi words kicked out all those words TüGü was nostalgic about (pp. 45-50). The Turkic people started another set of words, when in Anatolia. Thus, even being tribalist, does not limit the questions to a level they would find easy to manage. For a reason, or another few, the old-timer word-list had been lost, any way. Next, to favor the original Islamic terminology (from Arabic), is only the fine choice, to standardize on, not to have the translation inaccuracies (as when the Turkish word may not exactly tell of what the Arabic word was, or as when various villages would translate with their own word-list).
TüGü (p.55) is negativistic against the Ottoman/Istanbul language. The development of that cosmopolitan language is pointed as if a "culprit" in the non-development of (the tribal) Turkish. Why? Why would I have to talk in your language?!? The Ottoman state has not forbidden any language -- no ban against any Turkish dialect, nor against Kurdish, Laz, Armenian, etc. That is not vice versa, though. When the tribalist Turks get hold of the state, they ban other languages. That occurred in the Saljuk times (when the state army was away, and some people fought and took the capital), and also as the T.C.newspeak sloganists publicly tell of the policies they crave. Such TüGü slogans as when opposing the Istanbul heritage from Arabic/Farsi, is an example, to such.
Not to mention that, the Ottoman State was motivated for feth (that is, to open land, for Islamic interaction, and settlement in a wider/further range). That is how and why, they conquered Istanbul, in the first place. That is, to further the range of geography where Islam was freely communicated, and lived. That does implicate the deep sympathy toward Arabic, as the Quran and the heard from our prophet Muhammed (s.a.s.) is in Arabic. And whatever TüGü or Mr.Nevai would like, the truth was that Rumi (Mevlana Celaleddin-i Rumi) had published in Farsi -- and quite a few other valued text-list were published in Farsi, too. Therefore, these two languages were already the inherited treasuries for an Islamic-minded state. They were the lingua franca of that day, any way.
TüGü (pp.56-57) lists color names. If all those were new words for each color shade, to memorize them would mean the usual need that all of the people who communicate, know what that specific color is, and also, in the first place, that that adjective is a color name. (And if the qualified noun is not mentioned, people need to infer that, that term is mentioned as a color name.) That could also count as an ease, and not a bad point, but next, we may only notice that, such conventions have nothing to do with the language. For example, an English-speaker may also refer to a color, as "dried-rose," "lemon-mold," "aqua," "chestnut," etc. To summarize, if the listener does not know the color of the original (referenced) material, that is not useful. If vice versa, if the color of that material/phenomenon is known, then that is not limited to Turkish -- "listed colors."
The wider list of family-relative linking in Turkish, e.g: in contrast to only the "...-in-law" pattern in English/etc (pp.58-59), is a choice, again, toward the big-word-list direction. Neither necessary (all the time), nor necessarily-sufficient (when full information is wanted), though. For example, the word eniste is used not only for the husband of your sister. That "eniste" word is used by your children, too, to address that man. Therefore, to hear that word, does not really tell the exact family-linking. Further questioning would tell, if wanted.
TüGü (p.42 & pp.58-59) & Mr.Nevai may have thought of the plentiness, as if inherently good. How many people in Turkey know all of the (relatively popular) "relative" categories? elti, yenge, görümce, bacanak, kayinço, etc. (kayin is your "-in-law" suffix, but what is "ço" ?!?)
Next, TüGü (pp.59-62) lists various words and idioms, which mean, or relate to, a few popular categories, e.g: love, fury, etc. To list those, repeat/alternative to mean the meant, again and again, does not tell why we were supposed to leave the Istanbul language, though. That is the vice versa. To keep in mind, foreign-origin wording, is not necessarily more difficult than memorizing those various (supposedly concrete) idioms. If to have a big-list, for alternative wording, was fine, why have they messed against the Istanbul language heritage of centuries? Their only urge was obviously a tribalism, not economy of (mental or published) vocabulary.
Next, TüGü (pp.62-64) lists idiomatic word-coupling (hendiadyonin), e.g: as with the English-language gloom-and-doom, bane-or-boon -- whether really complement/conrast each other, or merely for fancy (alliteration. etc). I (and other people) use the slash for that, for a flexible complementary or alternate word-list. e.g: he/she, him/her, recognize/understand, etc.
The rest of the chapter (pp.64-78) is an attempt to exemplify the richness of Turkish vocabulary, and TüGü tries to mean that as a point against the foreign-origin word-list in the Istanbul language, too. The point is ultimately weak, though. Even that listing of the word@region, after word@region, would tell the reader that, to leave the Istanbul talk, is no way to embrace "all" -- when several of them keep their own alternate words, and people out of that village/region would not easily guess, as most of those words sound only tangential to the exact/full substance of the referred object/concept. A babel!