My observations follow the paragraphs they are made upon.

Richard.

----- Original Message -----
From: "allingus" <allingus@...>
To: "Kanada_Turkleri" <Kanada_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Italya_Turkleri"
<Italya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Isvicre_Turkleri"
<Isvicre_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Isvec_Turkleri"
<Isvec_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Ingiltere_Turkleri"
<Ingiltere_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Hollanda_Turkleri"
<Hollanda_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Fransa_Turkleri"
<Fransa_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Finlandiya_Turkleri"
<Finlandiya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Danimarka_Turkleri"
<Danimarka_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Belcika_Turkleri"
<Belcika_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Avustralya_Turkleri"
<Avustralya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "ABD_Turkleri"
<ABD_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Almanya_Turkleri"
<Almanya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Avusturya_Turkleri"
<Avusturya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Brezilya_Turkleri"
<Brezilya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Cin_Turkleri"
<Cin_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Hindistan_Turkleri"
<Hindistan_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Ispanya_Turkleri"
<Ispanya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Israil_Turkleri"
<Israil_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Japonya_Turkleri"
<Japonya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Macaristan_Turkleri"
<Macaristan_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Meksika_Turkleri"
<Meksika_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Norvec_Turkleri"
<Norvec_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Polonya_Turkleri"
<Polonya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Portekiz_Turkleri"
<Portekiz_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Rusya_Turkleri"
<Rusya_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Arjantin Turkleri"
<arjantin_Turkleri@yahoogroups.com>; "Nostratica"
<Nostratica@yahoogroups.com>; "turkoloji" <turkoloji@yahoogroups.com>; "HRL"
<historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 10:56 PM
Subject: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's...


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b_c_n_2003/


----- Özgün Ileti -----
Kimden: Polat Kaya
Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: 23 Temmuz 2003 Çarsamba 18:38
Konu: [bcn_2003] Re: Fw: [b_c_n_2003] Fw: [Turkoloji - Turkology]
[historical_linguistics] Response to Polat Kaya's...


> Dear friends,

> Mr. Tisinli and Mr. M. Hubey have both directed me with the following:

> "I would like to see Mr. Polat Kaya show me why Turkish "acele eder" --
for the sake
> of argument, I will assume that acele is not a loan word -- is not from
"accelerate"? (If
> "acele eder" can be anagramatized from "accelerate" so as the latter can
be from the
> former). I am requiring this, because, if it turns out that Mr. Kaya
turns is right about
> the possibility of obtaining a language from another by anagramatizing,
some people
> will definitely come forward and claim it is that Turkish that is
anagramatized from
> Latin and not the other way around."

> First of all, if I may say so, this is a distraction from the main topic.
Anyone claiming
> that Turkish is an anagram of Latin has to do his own defending of the
idea as I have
> been defending my claim that Latin and Greek and their derivatives were
> anagrammatized from Turkish. Additionally, I never said that "acele eder"
was
> anagrammatized from "accelerate", I said it was the other way around.

> I shared with everyone in this forum that "accelerate" is an anagram of
Turkish "ecele
> eder" (acele eder). Now the idea is being put forward saying that Turkish
"ecele eder"
> may be the anagram of English "accelerate" and hence Turkish may be
claimed to be
> anagrammatized from Latin. I say this was not the case for Turkish.
First of all,
> one cannot apply mathematics to linguistics so readily. I realize that in
mathematics, if
>A = B and B = C, then we can say that A = C; however this type of thinking
cannot be
> applied to linguistics. The words of a language cannot be likened to the
terms of a
> mathematical equation. Words are the product of deliberate assignment of
names to
> concepts. They are influenced by culture, beliefs, language-lifespan,
history,
> environment and many other factors.

Was not the suggestion that A = B implied B = A? The non-transitivity of
similitude is well known.

> However, if B and C were designed to be totally different from A, which is
very likely,
> then they would have far less loan words from A but far more words and
phrases from
> A anagrammatized into them. Take the modern example of computer languages.
It
> cannot be denied that computer languages like COBOL and C, which were
> developed after Fortran, took much from FORTRAN (and even BASIC).

Is this historically correct?

> In other words, FORTRAN served as the model language for the development
of other > computer languages. This is exactly what I am saying about the
Turkish language in
> relation to other languages.

I don't see anything in the way of anagrams in borrowings between computer
languages.

> Turkish was the most ancient language. Why? Because Turkish was present
at least with the Sumerian and the so-called ancient "Egyptian" languages
some 7000 years ago. The name "BILGAMESH" (so-called GILGAMESH) is one
giant testament to that.

Calling the ancestor of Turkish of 7000 years ago 'Turkish' is rather
extreme, and potentially highly misleading.

To say one modern language is more ancient than another is ridiculous. With
a few exceptions (creoles, pidgins, artificial and revived languages), one
cannot say one lnguage is more ancient than another. You can compare the
antiquity of the recorded history of a language, but by that measure,
Turkish is hardly ancient.

> And today, to further bury that ancient one language (Turkish) deeper into
the ground,
> the so-called name "NOSTRATIC" has been coined as the "proto-language" -
as if it
> represents a language different from Turkish.

Which of the many languages (by Ethnologue's criteria) that are loosely
described as Turkish are you proposing as the ancestor of Nostratic?
Azerbaijani?

>Turkish "acele" could not have been derived from Latin or English to
express the
> concept of "accelerate". It is a native Turkish word of long standing. In
Turkish, when
> one has an urgent message to deliver to a destination, probably the first
thing that
> comes to mind is to say to the messenger: "acele et" meaning "hurry up",
"be quick",
> "run", "don't drag your feet", etc. Here, "acele" is not alone. It is
accompanied with
> Turkish "et" meaning "do" or "make". "Accelerate", however, is a modern
term
> claimed to be from Latin "accelero". Yet Latin "accelero" is very much
from Turkish
> phrase "acele er o" meaning "he is a fast man".

What about Latin 'accelerat'? Actually, Latin _celer_ 'quick' is more of a
problem for your hypothesis.

> Turks are not in the habit of confusing,
> or anagrammatizing other languages. Even in the most recent Turkish
Ottoman
> empire, all ethnic groups were allowed to keep and maintain their
languages. The
> Ottoman Turks did not confuse or obliterate their languages. The most they
did was to
> take some loan words and retain them in their original format, i.e., not
> anagrammatized.

Rather a lot, I understand. My informant from Tarshish (a farmer's son,
studying atomic physics in Britain) told me that the Turkish of Istanbul has
so many foreign words that he felt more at home linguistically talking to
Azerbaijanis.

By the same token, though we may have mangled many Turkish words in English,
we have not made anagrams of them.

> Therefore stating that Turkish could be claimed as being anagrammatized
from Latin or any other language is not realistic.

Nor vice versa.

> The question may come to mind: "Why are there many so-called Arabic and
Persian
> loan words in Turkish?" The answer must be that the Selcuks and Ottomans
knew
> that their TUR ancestors were in what is presently called Iran, the Middle
East, so-
> called Egypt, Anatolia etc., far earlier than themselves and that they
were talking an
> earlier form of Turkish (despite the fact that modern Turks do not seem to
know this).
> The Selcuks and Ottomans readily accepted loan words from these Middle
Eastern
> peoples because they probably regarded them as the mixed-up remnants of
their
> ancient TUR ancestors in that region.

Are you saying the Seljuks and Ottomans were intolerant of non-Turks?

>Additionally, Genesis 11 admits that the world was speaking "ONE LANGUAGE".
It is
>understood that that one language was neither Semitic, nor Greek nor Latin.
If it was
>any one of them, they would have named it and we would all know about it;
and we
>would probably be speaking it today.

Who's 'we'? It's certainly not us.

> Furthermore, if it was their own language, they would not want to confuse
their
> language or themselves. It must be understood that the confusers were
secretly
> confusing somebody elses language. <Snip> So the Turs/Turks were not
doing the
> confusion. They would not want to do such a thing to their own language
and to
> themselves.

I don't understand your argument. If everyone spoke Turkish, then the
confusers would be confusing their own language.

> To conclude, I say that Turkish words are not anagrams of words or phrases
from
> other languages because Turkish was the proto language itself where even
the term
> "PROTO" is an anagram of Turkish "BIR-ATA".

Anagram? I see no re-arrangement!

Presumably you would argue that _bir_ 'one' is a back-formation from
_birata_?

Richard.