----- Özgün İleti -----
Kimden: Polat Kaya
Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:07 PM
Konu: Re: [bcn_2003] Digest Number 231

Dear Friends,

Greetings to all.  This is in response to Mark Newbrook's letter below.


Mark Newbrook writes:
>
> I have had my say, and nothing has been said that calls
my criticisms of
> Polat Kaya into question; but it is good to see that
others continue to expose the
> ill-foundedness of his ideas.  And it
is notable that his critics include
> people from a wide range of
backgrounds and opinions: both those who accept
> Nostratic (in some form)
and those who do not, both Hubey and those who disagree
> with him, even
Nyland (who is himself regarded as a fringe figure).
>

POLAT KAYA: I have pointed out earlier and would like to point out
again that those who do not know cannot make judgements.  Mark
Newbrook points out that, in addition to him, others also objected
to what I am saying.  Again, disagreeing with me is their right, but
that really does not change the situation because my analysis of some
of the Greek, Latin and other I-E words speak for themselves. 

Substituting the concept of NOSTRATIC in place of Turkish is a
concoction to divert the attention from the real "proto" language
Turkish to another imaginary language.  Of course, the linguistic
community is not used to dealing with Turkish in such a manner,
that is, it being in the forefront.  If an Indo-European language
was proposed as the "proto" language, that would constitute no
problem.  No imaginary made up name (i.e., Nostratic) would be
required.  Turkish has been intentionally pushed out of the way
for so long that it cannot be allowed back to visibility.  During the
last few days, we have all seen unwarranted censorship by the
Nostratic grooup.


Mark Newbrook writes:
>
>
Polat Kaya is most unlikely ever to accept that he might be wrong; such
>
writers have committed themselves to their pet theories.  But anyone can see that
> his 'theory', while implausible and unsupported, is effectively
immune from
> formal disproof and hence empirically unsound.

POLAT KAYA:  Polat Kaya knows that he is right in what he is saying.
Under the circumstances, no one would give up the idea.  Why should
Polat Kaya?  To accentuate my point, I will explain the morphology of
a term that Mark Newbrook uses often, i.e., "implausible".

This English word "IMPLAUSIBLE", meaning "not believable, not possible",
when rearranged as "PUILABILMES", is seen to be an anagram of
Turkish expression "BU OLABILMEZ"  meaning "this cannot be" or
"this is not possible."  This correspondence itself proves that the
term "IMPLAUSIBLE" was anagrammatized from Turkish phrase "BU
OLABILMEZ".  It is impossible for Mark Newbrook and others like
him, as linguists, to ignore this correspondence?

Additionally, in front everyone, some NOSTRATICS in responding
to my response to JOHN anagrammatized my name "POLAT KAYA"
into "TOPAL AYAK" which shows how skilfull some of these people
are in transforming or anagrammatizing Turkish names into another
form. These people have unquestionably proven that not only do some
of them know Turkish while pretending not to, but also that they are
very capable of anagrammatizing Turkish into any language they wish.
This verifies what I have been saying all along, that is, that the same
game has been played in the past to come up with the so-called Indo-
European and Semitic languages, and most likely is still going on.  As
everyone can see, a deception of unparalled magnitude in human history
involving languages and other fields has been perpetrated during
the last few millennia.  The ancient Turanian religion along with the
Turkish language and the ancient Tur/Turk civilization have been
usurped by others. 

Mark Newbrook writes:
> Note that Nyland
> proposes a similar scenario but with a
different source language!  Why should
> one prefer
either?


POLAT KAYA:  Edo Nyland named an earlier form of Basque languages
as the source for all Indo-European languages.  In my response to
Edo Nyland, I conclusively showed that the earlier form of Basque
language was in fact an Oguz language, that is, Turkish, and hence was
no different than Turkish itself.  However, presently, Basque (EUSKARA)
is in an anagrammatized form - like the Indo-European languages.  Thus
using the vague term "a different source language!" for the original
Basque language does not change the fact that it was a dialect of Turkish.
The 52 Basque words that I gave definitely proved that Basque people
were Turkish speaking Turanian people.  Although Edo Nyland did not
know that Basque was a dialect of Turkish, by attacking me, he forced
me to look at the Basque language closely which I had been delaying for
some time.  Under the pressing situation, I was able to show that Basque
indeed had a kinship with Turkish.  Thus any way one cuts it,  the Indo-
European languages were manufactured from different dialects of Turkish
whether Mark Newbrook likes it or not.


Mark Newbrook writes:
> And
> where Polat Kaya talks about non-Turkish
languages he is often badly wrong.
> Look again at what he says about
Greek!

POLAT KAYA: Mark Newbrook likes to make a lot of declarations saying
this is wrong and that is wrong but he never seems to back them up.
Yet I backed up my statements with all sorts of powerful evidence
which are being ignored. Whether Mark Newbrook knows it or just
disagrees with it, Greek is a manufactured language just like the others.
It is most likely that Mark Newbrook and many other linguists were not
aware of this situation.  Evidence indicates that what I have said about
Greek and also Latin is the truth despite denials.  In this regard I shone
a light on the path of those who are studying or will be studying Greek,
Latin, or any other Indo-European and Semitic languages.  It is their
right to know what language is at the root of these languages.  Using
an imaginary language named "Nostratic" instead of Turkish is pure
deception. It seems that the innocent students of these  languages
have been conned and led in a wrong direction while the actual root
language (Turkish) has always been around.  Obviously these manufactured
languages have now become distinct languages which I do not deny.
Many well-intentioned people speak them without knowing what has
has gone on at the root. I showed the root language in a very clear cut
and scientific way saying that it was Turkish. This has somehow
displeased Mark Newbrook and some others.

At this point, I would like to cite a statement from Prof. G. S. Kirk
who writes the following.  [G. S. Kirk, "The Nature of Greek Myths",
Penguin Books, 1974, p. 267]:  

"The very term "Greek" is full of ambiguity.  "Greek" like "Akkadian",
denotes a language rather than a people.  The Greek speaking people
began to enter the Greek peninsula shortly before 2000 B.C., but they
found there an indigeneous population that already had cultural and
perhaps linguistic connections with Asia Minor".

POLAT KAYA: The indigeneous population that Greeks found in ancient
Greece (Yunanistan) were the Turkic speaking Turanians whose culture
and language indeed had connections with those people in Asia Minor,
because people in Asia Minor were also Turkic speaking Turanian
peoples.   In the Trojan wars, the Phyrigians, Thracians, Pelasgians
and many other Asia Minor peoples were on the side of Trojans which is
an indication that they were all from the same Turanian Tur/Turk
peoples.  Even the term "Asia Minor" implies that it was like the Asia
Major, that is, the Continent of Asia, but only on a smaller scale.
It is commonly said that if one knew Turkish, one could travel from
one end of Asia to the other without having any difficulty.  This
indicates that Turkish was a dominant language in Asia.  Of course it
was also the same in Asia Minor where the native population was the
Turkish speaking Turanians.  

In the above statement by Prof. G. S. Kirk, he states that the names
'Akkadian' and 'Greek' did not denote people, but rather each denotes
a language.  There is a peculiarity in this situation.  A serious
thinking will make it clear that there cannot be a language without
people.  It has been said by many writers that ancient Greeks and the
Akkadians were wanderers. So initially there was no Greek or Akkadian
languages. Since there were no Greek or Akkadian languages before, then
how did they get a language of their own later?  The answer must be
that they took it from the already existing Turkish language spoken by
the earlier native Turanians and changed it by way of anagrammatizing
its words and expressions into new words for themselves.  My recent
LYCURGUS (ULU-KÖR-GÖZ) paper shows this clearly.

Prof. G. S. Kirk shows that there are others who also have their doubts
about the Greek and the Greek language.  Perhaps Mark Newbrook
would like to have a think about that. 

These facts either have not been recognized by scholars, or if they
have, they have been very lull about it.  Thus in this regard the world
public has been put into a long and deep sleep since ancient times.
Incidently, for the information of those who do not know, the word
"LULL" is an anagram of the Turkish word "LAL" of the same meaning. 


Mark Newbrook wrote:
> I suggest that groups like this, containing some very scholarly
people, have
> more fruitful things to discuss than theories like Polat
Kaya's.
>

POLAT KAYA: So far I have yet to see any scholarly response from Mark
Newbrook.  He insists that what I say is "implausible" without
explaining any of the 125 words that I offered him.   He evaded them.
But yet they were powerful evidence for what I am saying.

Evidently Mark Newbrook cannot see clearly what I am talking about.
Actually, the concept I presented was not outrageously difficult to
grasp. His disagreeing with me is one thing, but his going out of his
way and recommending censorship for my writings is another.  First
of all, Mark Newbrook, being in an institution where free discussion of
ideas are permitted, knows the value and importance of free diuscussion.
His recommending censorship of my ideas now cannot be regarded as
a feather of distinction in his cap.  Secondly, as an academician, he
should know that once an idea is born it cannot be suppressed readily.
Ideas are like seeds in the ground, they have ways of overcoming
barriers. 

In concluding and in response to Mark Newbrook's very first statement,
that is, "I have had my say, and nothing has been said that calls my
criticisms of Polat Kaya into question", I say, on the contrary, it is the
other way around.  Mark Newbrook is just trying to turn the table around.
While he was always evasive, I did not shy away from discussing
anything.


Best wishes to all,

Polat Kaya

August 14, 2003

=============

Mnewbroo@... wrote:
>
> Re: Polat Kaya
>
> I have had my say, and
nothing has been said that calls my criticisms of
> Polat Kaya into
question; but it is good to see that others continue to expose the
>
ill-foundedness of his ideas.  And it is notable that his critics include
> people from a wide range of backgrounds and opinions: both those
who accept
> Nostratic (in some form) and those who do not, both Hubey and
those who disagree
> with him, even Nyland (who is himself regarded as a
fringe figure).
>
> Polat Kaya is most unlikely ever to accept that
he might be wrong; such
> writers have committed themselves to their pet
theories.  But anyone can see that
> his 'theory', while implausible
and unsupported, is effectively immune from
> formal disproof and hence
empirically unsound.  Once one allows for covert
> manipulation and
conspiracy on a massive scale, all bets are off.  Note that Nyland
>
proposes a similar scenario but with a different source language!  Why should
> one prefer either?  There are other such people too (Ior
Bock, Oak, etc).  And
> where Polat Kaya talks about non-Turkish
languages he is often badly wrong.
> Look again at what he says about
Greek!
>
> I suggest that groups like this, containing some very
scholarly people, have
> more fruitful things to discuss than theories
like Polat Kaya's.
>
> Mark Newbrook

"Biz Cevirmenlere N'oluyor!" bilgi toplulugu, allingus Profesyonel Yabanci Dil Cozumleri Ltd. Sti.'nin bir girisimidir.
allingus@...
allingus2001@...


Kurulus Bildirisini 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b_c_n_2003/ bolgesinde okuyabilirsiniz.  Mayis 2001

Önemli Not:

Toplulugumuza  gonderilen iletilerdeki gorusler, bcn yoneticilerini ve uyelerini baglayici degildir. Her uye bcn'ye gonderdigi veya baska kisi ya da topluluklara yonlendirdigi iletilerden kendisinin sorumlu oldugunu kabul eder. Bilgi toplulugumuzdan ayrilmak istediginizde ileti gonderiniz: b_c_n_2003-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com


TURKCE KORUNACAK!