--- In nostratic@yahoogroups.com, "Kamil KARTAL" <allingus@...>
> From: Polat Kaya <tntr@...>
> Reply-To: bcn2003-II@yahoogroups.com
> To: bcn2003-II@yahoogroups.com,
> Subject: Re: [[bcn-3]] Fwd: origin of Turkish? """Polat and all,"""
> Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 14:53:47 +0100
> Dave and all,
> Greetings. This paper is in response to Dave's questions directed at
> me. It became necessarily long in order to explain Turkish related
> background which has been blurred by mountains of disinformation.
> since you asked me the questions and I took extra time to research
> answer them, I hope you will also take time to read it thoroughly.
> 1. Dave asked:
> >
> > > Polat and all,
> > > Why is Turkish necessarily the origin of Greek forms and not the
> > > reverse? Is it because the Turkish word formation is more
> ordered?
> > >
> >
> Of course the Turkish word formation is more ordered than most other
> languages. But that is not the reason why Greek is made from
> My answer to your question is lengthy but explanatory and needs to
> carefully read. In this paper I have given a variety of sources
> indicating why Turkish was an earlier language and therefore the
> language. Please read on:
> The maning of this is that Turkish words and phrases are formed by
> adding basic building blocks to each other in an orderly manner.
> Language can be likened to a wall which is made from much smaller
> blocks called bricks or stone blocks. A woven carpet is also made up
> of countless numbers of "knots" which are the building blocks of a
> rug. In the case of an agglutinative language such as Turkish and
> Sumerian, syllables are the building blocks of the language.
> Building blocks in Turkish are, using V for vowel and C for
> in the form of V, C, VC, CV, CVC and VCV. Words and phrases in
> Turkish are combinations of these basic building blocks. V and C
> up the alphabetical buïlding blocks of the language. VC, CV, CVC and
> VCV are the vocalization of basic root words of Turkish. They are
> named as words, verbs, and suffixes for their different functions in
> the language.
> Let me demonstrate this with an example using a Turkish expression
> such as:
> meaning "are you also one of those who do not believe?" This can be
> sectionalized as follows:
> SIZ : you
> DE : too
> INAN : the root of verb "inanmak" meaning "to believe"
> MA : infix which negates the meaning. The MAYA language in South
> America also uses "ma" as a "negation infix. Turkish MA is also the
> postivity infix or suffix. Probably, not many other languages, if
> any, have this "MA" feature of Turkish. I have talked earlier about
> this "MA" feature of Turkish which represents the "duality" aspect
> the Sky-God. Additionally, MA means "magnificent" and is also the
> name of the "moon" that is, MA (Mah).
> YAN : "One who"; thus, INAN-MA-YAN means "one who does not
> believe".
> LAR : plurality suffix,
> DAN : from, one of,
> MI : the suffix that turns the phrase into question form,
> SIN : the verbal suffix for second person singular,
> : i.e., SEN, SIN meaning "you"
> IZ : suffix that makes the 2nd person singular into plural.
> Thus "-iz"
> (-is) is one of the ancient plurality suffixes in Turkish. It is
> used with 1st person plural case. I want to note here that the
> English plurality suffix "-s and -es" are from this plurality suffix
> of Turkish.
> Thus, it is seen that all syllables in this Turkish expression,
> some of the basic building blocks of Turkish language, are named and
> identified. In no way can they be regarded as Greek or from Greek.
> These basic building blocks of Turkish do not change from phrase to
> phrase, except to follow the Turkish "vowel harmony rule". For
> example, observe the following expression in which the dominant
> is "E":
> SIZ DE GEL-ME-YEN-LER-DEN-MI-SIN-IZ? Meaning "are you also one of
> those who are not going to come?
> As can be seen, Turkish is a syllabic language. Greek is not such a
> language. The orderliness present in Turkish is totally lacking and
> broken up in Greek and also in other "Indo-European" languages.
> Because of the vowel harmony rule, there can be "vowel" economy in
> formation of longer Turkish words or expressions. That is to say,
> words can be written with consonants alone providing you give
> vowels at certain positions in the word. Thus, in ancient times, for
> example, this last expression could have been written as:
> With the vowel harmony rule and phonetic reading, this garbled
> expression could be read as SIZ DE GELMEYENLERDEN MISINIZ? In
> present day Turkish vowel economy is not utilized although it was
> in ancient Turkish inscriptions. For example, Prof. Dr. Muharrem
> Ergin, in his Turkish book entitled "ORHUN ABIDELERI" states that:
> "In Orhun inscriptions letters are not joined. Writing is from right
> to left. Words are separated from each other by a colon.
> In Orhun inscriptions, it is found that frequently, vowels are not
> included in the writing. The vowels that are not written are at the
> beginning and within the body of the word, last vowels are generally
> written. It is particularly noted that the vowels "a" and "e" at the
> beginning and in the first syllable of the word are not written."
> This verifies what I said above. Etruscan and Pelasgian inscriptions
> also used a colon to separate words from each other. Word separation
> was the ancient Turanian way of writing clearly.
> This kind of almost mathematical orderliness does not exist in Greek
> or other Indo-European languages. The implication of this is
> with writing economy for the ancient TUR/TURK peoples who wrote
> inscriptions on stones and other hard and/or soft materials. For
> example, for the ancient Tur/Turk MASARIANS, i.e., the so-called
> ancient "Egyptians", when they had to chisel all those hieroglyphic
> writings on stone it meant a lot of energy saved by not writing all
> the vowels. When one chisels out only one or two vowels rather than
> whole bunch of them in a hieroglyphic expression, the amount of
> saved is very significant. This was also done in Orhon inscriptions.
> However when vowels are omitted totally and only consonants left in
> the word, it opens the doorway for multiple readings depending on
> vowels are inserted by the reader.
> Now let me give a supposedly Greek name. Take the name AGAMEMNON. It
> is presented to the world through Homer as the name of the commander
> of Greek forces in the Trojan wars in his epic ILIAD. Now this name
> as it stands does not mean anything except being a name. What does
> AGAMEMNON mean if it has any meaning at all in Greek? Please correct
> me if I am wrong. I have the feeling that they don't know. How did
> Homer or anyone else come up with this name?
> But when we consider it as a composite name made up of Turkish root
> words, that is, its building blocks being in Turkish, it starts
> a lot of sense. I will tell you what it is as presented in Homer's
> Iliad:
> AGAMEMNON, when separated into its building blocks as "AGA-ME-MN-
> it becomes Turkish expression "AGA MA MeN AN" meaning "I am the
> Magnificent Lord of Sky". The Turkish words are: AGA (Lord), MA
> (magnificent), MEN (I am) and AN (sky). By this Turkish explanation,
> Agamemnon becomes a personification of the Turanian Sky-Father-God,
> the LORD of Sky, or the King of sky. Agamemnon is legendarily
> described by Homer as the king of Mycenae. In this capacity, he
> have been the king of a place in ancient Greece Yunanistan).
> But the name MYCENAE, when decrypted as "MACYNEE", is an anagram of
> Turkish expression "MA KUN EiE" (Ma Gün öyü) meaning "Home of
> Magnificent Sun" or "Home of Moon and Sun". Turkish words: MA (also
> (mah) means Moon, and KUN (GÜN) means Sun. In both cases, the home
> these deities is "sky". This again makes AGAMEMNON the king of sky
> defined by the Turkish expression "AGA MA MeN AN" meaning "I am the
> Magnificent Lord of Sky". Thus, in Homer's language, it seems that
> most if not all character names are personifications of concepts.
> On the other hand, if indeed there was such a real personality at
> as the king of Mycenae in ancient Greece, this name would be a
> king title formulated in Turkish as it was done by all other kings
> ancient times. I personally doubt that such a named Greek king ever
> existed. It was a personification of a Sky deity whose origin was
> Turkic rather than Greek. It is interesting to note the following
> writing by G. S. Kirk: [2]
> "Homer came near the end of a long oral tradition. He made something
> spectacularly new out of the poetry assimilated from his
> yet the fact remains that much of his material, including much of
> mythical content, goes back long before the eighth century B.C.,
> of it to close to the time of the Trojan War itself, and odd details
> to long before that. The war seems to have taken place in the middle
> or later part of the thirteenth century, and was one of the last
> ventures of the Achaean Greeks - those that lived in the Late Bronze
> Age palaces and fortresses of Mycenenae, Tiryns, Lacedaemon, Pylos,
> Corinth, Thebes, Orchomenus, Athens, Calydon, Iolcus. Much of the
> content of Iliad and Odyssey is a poetical and imaginative
> of those times. Whether Agamemnon and Menelaus, Achilles, Diomedes
> and Odysseus, Paris, Andromache and hector were in origin actual
> people is infinetely debatable. On the whole it seems probable that
> the more important characters in political terms, Agamemnon of
> and Priam of Troy at least, were historically based, the less
> important ones often not so. What matters for the study of myths
> this is why I called Homer 'ambiguous') is that these figures are
> historizing if not actually historical: characters of legend rather
> than of myth in this wider sense."
> In this writing, G. S. Kirk also puts doubt not only on the
> of these names but also on their being real names of people.
> Additionally, we have seen that a Greek name such as AGAMEMNON or
> other similarly composite long words cannot be building blocks for
> Turkish. Hence Greek cannot be the source for Turkish.
> Regarding the Mycenaean culture and Mycenaeans, Prof. H. D. F. Kitto
> writes the following: [3]
> "Who were the people who made this Mycenaean culture? Artists and
> craftsmen who abondoned a Crete in decay and settled in a new home,
> among rude Hellenes, and made art for them? Or have we (as seems
> likely) a predominantly non-Greek population, already deeply
> influenced by Crete, and possibly akin to the Cretan people, but
> having over them a newly arrived, charioteering Greek aristocracy?
> it possible, if latter supposition is true, that Herodotus is right,
> and that the mass of the 'Mycenaeans' were Ionians, whether already
> Hellenized or not? - These are questions that may be answered, some
> day."
> My answer to H. D. F. Kitto's above question is that they were the
> Turanian Turkic peoples contrary to disinformation. Even the two
> lions standing up on either side of a post on the top of the so-
> "Lion Gate at Mycenae" [4] represent the trinity Sky-God of ancient
> Tur/Turk peoples. The Post standing upright between the lions is the
> symbol of numeral "ONE" (Turkish "BIR") representing the
> Sky-Father-God, and the two lions are the representations of the SUN
> and the MOON, that is, the major Sky deities of ancient Tur/Turk
> peoples.
> This is verified by the fact that the single stone monuments of
> ancient Masarians (Egyptians), so-called "OBELISKS" were also the
> representation of the "Sun (ER/RE/RA) - the Sky-God". An "obelisk",
> tapering four sided monolyth, ending with a pyramid-shaped top, is a
> stylized "ONE" symbol. The name in ancient Masarian is given as
> "TEKHEN" [5] . This is a Turkish expression in the form of:
> a) "TEK HAN" meaning "ONE Lord" (Only Lord). An obelisk is a symbol
> of "ONE" and the Masarians did believe in one Sky-god embodying the
> Father (ATA), the Sun (KUN) and the Moon (AY);
> b) "TIK HAN" meaning "upright Lord". The Sky-God is regarded as the
> only true "upright" entity.
> c) "TIKHEN" (tiken, diken) meaning "needle". An obelisk looks like a
> needle. That is probably why they call it "Cleopatra's Needle".
> (DIKEN) is also the needle-like thorn of a thorny plant.
> In ancient Masar (MISIR) so-called "Egypt" when they coined this
> for "obelisks", evidently Turkish was there.
> In the above citing, Prof. H. D. F. Kitto explains that most of the
> "Mycenaeans" were Hellenized Ionians. This is an eye opener meaning
> that Ionians (I-Ons / Ay-Hans) were not Greek but rather Tur/Turk
> peoples contrary to historical disinformation. The name Ay-Han is
> name of one of the six sons of OGUZ KAGAN in Turkish OGUZ-KAGAN
> Greeks would Hellenize only those who were not Greek or Roum. Ions
> (Ay-Hans or Yunans) were not Greek. The name Yunanistan indicates
> they were Tur/Turk peoples. Thus, the so called Mycenaean
> civilization, which is regarded wrongly by westerners as the Greek
> civilization, was mostly a creation of Turkic peoples, i.e.,
> Tur/Turk people in origin before they were Hellenized. These huge
> contributions of Turkish speaking Turaninan Tur/Turk peoples to the
> so-called "Greek" civilization has been ungraciously denied to the
> Turkish world by history writers. Perpetrated disinformation has
> snipped this Ay-Han (Ion) connection to the Turks and reconnected it
> to the Greeks. This is pure and simple usurpation and changing the
> ancient history. Similar usurpation has been done in other parts of
> the Middle East.
> Because of the fact that Tur Ions (Ay-Hans or Yunans) were much
> earlier inhabitants of what is presently called "Greece", therefore,
> Turkish was an earlier language in time than Greek was in that
> geography. In other words, Turkish antedated Greek. Therefore
> cannot be regarded as a language having been generated from Greek.
> Such an assumption would be a deceptive one trying to alter history
> once again.
> A picture of the same Lion Gate of Mycenae is also shown in another
> book entitled "Mysteries of the Past" prepared by a group of
> [6] On the Lion Gate is superimposed in white letters a writing
> supposedly in Linear B script of Mycenaes. There is no explanation
> the authors of the book for this superimposition. What does it mean?
> Why did the authors put that label on that picture?
> My rendering of this inscription gives, as it is read from right to
> left, the Turkic expression "I HAN KOZ". This Turkish expression is
> again a description of the ancient Turanian Sky-God such that:
> a) "I HAN KOZ" (BIR HAN KOZ) meaning "One Lord Oguz" where "I" is
> "one" (bir), "HAN" is "lord", and "KOZ" has the meanings of "OGUZ",
> "fire" and "eye".
> b) "I HAN KOZ" (BIR HAN KOZ) meaning "One Lord Fire" referring to
> Sun;
> c) "I HAN GOZ" (BIR HAN GOZ) meaning "One Lord Eye" referring to the
> Sun as the eye of Sky-God. The Sun was regarded as the "Right Eye"
> Sky-Father-God in the understanding of ancient Tur peoples.
> d) "I HAN GOZ" (AY HAN GÖZ) where "I" is also Turkish "AY" meaning
> "Moon-Lord is Eye" referring to the Moon as being one "eye" of the
> Sky-Father-God. The Moon was regarded as the left Eye of
> Sky-Father-God in ancient Turanian religious understanding.
> As I said above, walls do not make bricks, bricks make the walls.
> Turkish words and expressions provide the building bricks for the
> Greek language and other Indo-European and Semitic languages. When
> compared to Turkish, Greek and all other Indo-European languages
> become the confused languages as their manufacturers intended them
> be. As in the above example of AGAMEMNON, a meaningless name
> becomes extremely meaningful by means of Turkish. In another words,
> when the name AGAMEMNON was coined, Turkish was there.
> As a side effect of this explanation of the name AGAMEMNON, its
> meaning in Turkish shines a totally different character to the
> wars. After my reading of Homer's Epic Iliad, I get the feeling that
> the Trojan wars probably never happened. Homer's Epic story ILIAD
> just like other Turanian epic stories, for example, the KIRGIZ
> MANAS Epic. In the magnificent story of ILIAD, like in MANAS, it
> seems that sky deities were personified as if they were human beings
> and were separated into two groups fighting amongst themselves.
> Homer (OMER) divided up his characters into two camps, on one side
> TURS of Anatolia, Thracia, Pelasgians, Aegian islands, ancient
> Yunanistan (Greece), Phrygians, etc., that is to say the TURS/TURKS
> namely TUR-I-HANS, i.e., the TROJANS, and on the other side the
> as the opposing force. It was most likely an imaginary fight
> portrayed as a real one that affected both sides for ten years or
> more. Among the personified concepts were not only the ancient
> Turanian sky god deities and Greek deities, but also many concepts
> such as justice, peace, war, drought, flood, disease, lying, wisdom,
> etc.. For example, the Turkish expression "O KIZ HANDIR"
meaning "That
> girl is lordly" and "O KAZANDIR" meaning "it is cauldron" were
> personified and anagrammatized as "CASSANDIRA", that is, the name of
> one of the daughters of Trojan King PRIAM who represented the
> Turanian Sky-Father-God on one hand, and the King of Troy on the
> other. His name was from Turkish expression "BIR-MA" meaning "ONE
> Magnificent". Prince and princess personalities are "lordly"
> characters. On the other hand, the name "CASSANDIRA" represented a
> "cauldron" in the temple of Troy. It was looted and it was so large
> that the looter could not carry it but had to drag it on the ground.
> Legendarily, the camps in ILIAD, as is the case in MANAS, are
> portrayed as enemies of each other most likely due to religious
> beliefs. But that is the essence of the mythological story.
> Let me give you another example; The name MINOS of the ancient Crete
> civilization. MINOS is said to be legendary king of the so-called
> "Minoans". When the name MINOS is separated to its components as
> "MIN-OS", it becomes the Turkish "MIN OS" ("Men Os", "Men Uz", "Men
> OGUZ", "Os Men" (Osman)) meaning "I am OGUZ", that is, "I am
> which identifies their OGUZ ethnic origin. It is also the anagram of
> Turkish "MIN AS" meaning "I am One", "I am alone" which also refers
> the ancient Turanian Sky-God. At the same time, MINOS is a title fit
> to a KING of ancient Crete. The title MINOS is made from Turkish
> that it refers to ancient Turanian Sky-God OGUZ. This elevates the
> king to the level of the Sky-God.
> This also identifies the presence of Turkish language in the so-
> "MINOAN" civilization. In fact the ancient Minoan civilization still
> lives on in Kazakistan, Azerbaijan, Dagistan and in Central Asian
> Turkish ISTAN countries. For example, we find the so called "Minoan
> Goddess" statue holding snakes dating from 1600 B.C. found at
> still living in Kazakistan, with her exquisite dress, of course
> without baring her breasts, and with a bird of prey at the top of
> headdress, presently called "BERKUT" meaning "falcon" (sahin). The
> snakes held by this goddess must be the representation of "AL-AN"
> ("the red one of sky", i.e., the sun) and 'ALA-AN" ("the spotted one
> of sky", i.e., the moon), together forming the Turkish word "YILAN"
> meaning "snake". Thus behind the Turkish name "YILAN" is hidden the
> names of the sky deities Sun and Moon of the ancient Turanians.
> Falcon was another animal symbol of the Ancient Sky-god Sun in MISIR
> (MASAR). All Oguz people had a "bird of prey" as their emblem. The
> ancient Masarians called the Sun-God by the name "HOR" (Greek Horus)
> mos likely from Turkish word "KOR" meaning "FIRE" which is the sun.
> Alternatively, Masarian "HOR" (HORUS) could be from Turkish "HUR"
> meaning "FREE". Birds of preys are free in the sky, so is the Sun.
> The bird-headed, lion-bodied pair of griffins found in the throne
> of the palace of Knossos, are nothing but the Turanian griffins
> representing the ancient Turanian sky-gods Sun and Moon. The throne
> itself is for the Sky-Father-God, i.e., the King.
> We find the Minoan double-edged "axe" in the coat of arms of the
> Ottoman Empire indicating that Ottomans knew that the native peoples
> of the island of Crete was Turkic in origin. The name KNOSSOS is
> surely fashioned after the name of the Sun in Turkish, that is,
> Name KNOSSOS can be seen in a number of ways, but one of them is
> definitely the Turkish expression "KUNES OS" meaning "Sun is OGUZ"
> which I have been explaining in my writings. Additionally, KNOSSOS
> when read phonetically as "KuNOSSOS", with SS = Sh, it becomes the
> Turkish expression "KUNEShUZ" meaning "we are sun people",
i.e., "sun
> worshippers".
> Even the city name MALLIA to the east of Knossos in ancient Crete is
> from Turkish name "BALLI ÖY" meaning "home with honey". Ancient
> was famed for its honey production. [7] Famed "Bee" pendant found at
> Mallia, Crete is a verification of this fact. [8] This again shows
> the presence of Turkish language in ancient Creete before Greeks
> existed there. Even the Greek word "MELI" for 'honey" is an anagram
> of Turkish "BAL" for "honey".
> I mentioned in one of my earlier papers, saying that the LINEAR-A
> writing carries the insignia of ancient Turkish writing system, that
> is, it has the colon symbol (:) being used as word separator. [9]
> This colon symbol is a pure Turkish and Turanian identity. That
> symbol is lacking in Linear-B writing. The words in picture writing
> on the so-called "Phaistos Disk" from Phaistos, Crete, are separated
> from each other by lines. Thus the words are clearly visible which
> present in all ancient Turkic inscriptions. The picture writing
> carries one of the earliest symbols of Turanian Sky-God SUN symbol,
> that is, the DINGIR (TENGIR, TENGRI) symbol at its center, i.e., the
> star symbol which represents the sun. It also carries the Turkish
> double-bent "BOW" symbol at its periphery. The double bent "bow" is
> Turanian invention and insignia belonging to the ancient Tur/Turk
> eoples.
> Thus it can be said with great confidence that the ancient Minoan
> civilization was Tur/Turk civilization with a writing system. This
> civilization antedated the Greek civilization. When all the above
> mentioned names were coined Turkish was there.
> Lionel Casson writes in his book entitled "The Greek Conquerors",
> p.13: [10]
> "Neither gold or silver nor anything at all precious was to be found
> in the baggage of the Greeks when they made their first appearance
> history. They arrived in the peninsula that was forever after to be
> their home some time about 2200 or 2000 B. C., as immigrants from
> southern Russia or even further east. Their villages were
> of dwellings, mud brick huts with barest of furnishings. They buried
> their dead in mere shallow pits with either no gifts to help them in
> the next world or but a few objects of clay."
> All of these make sense because they were the wanderering Roums
> Garachies) of their time. They were most likely not from Russia or
> even further east but rather from the Indian sub-continent as most
> other wanderers were also from ancient India.. Their culture was
> of a wanderer until they settled down in the lands of the Turanian
> Pelasgians from whom they learned everything that is credited to the
> Greeks. In the process, the Greeks also manufactured their language
> from Turkish inorder to become an identity.
> Lionel Casson also wrote on the same page:
> "In Crete, however, just an easy sail across the water to the
south, a
> people now known as Minoanans (because of MINOS, their legendary
> were enjoying a remarkably rich and sophisticated way of life. They
> had grown wealthy supplying overseas customers with Minoan jewels,
> Minoanan fabrics, Minoan ceramics, and other products. The network
> trade reached as far as Italy and Sicily to the west, and the Levant
> to the east. At Knossos, Phaistos, and other sites, Minoan nobles
> lived in vast palaces with dozens of rooms filled with handsome
> pottery and magnificently decorated with wall paintings. These
> paintings record a life of luxury and elegance. Minoan women in
> revealing clothes loll about or, along with the menfolk, watch what
> appears to be an early version of bullfighting. "Bull-dancers,"
> clad young men and women, vault over the horns with apparently
> fearless ease."
> "For centuries all this splendor to the south meant little to the
> primitive Greeks. They continued in their plain and bare existence.
> Then, certain of these erstwhile frugal farmers took a giant step
> an age of gold."
> Evidently ancient Minoans were fond of "bull" in many ways one of
> which was sporting with the "bull". "OKUZ" (Ox, bull) in Turkish was
> the symbol of the Sky-God OGUZ. Another ancient Turkish name for
> "bull" was "UT". Sumerian Sun-God's name was "UTU". This is also the
> Turkish "UT U" meaning "it is fire". At the same time, UTU is also
> Turkish "UT U" meaning "he is bull". Thus in the Turkish of ancient
> times, the Sky God had the names of OGUZ and UTU both of which are
> also the name of "BULL" in Turkish. While the TUR/TURK name comes
> the trinity Sun-God's name "UTU", name OGUZ comes from the trinity
> Sun-God's name OGUZ. Having so much affinity through their religion,
> to the sacred animal "bull", ancient Turs/Turks evidently also
> developed sports that were related to "bull". The present day "bull
> fight" is a degradation of the sacredness of "bull".
> The ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples in ancient Central Asia also
> an economy that was based on horse, cattle and sheep farming. On the
> back of horse that they had tamed they could go further than anyone
> foot in any direction. At the same time they could take along their
> cattle, horse and sheep herds with them. Of course in their animal
> based economy, "bull" had a special place as well. Thus the ancient
> Turanians had many relationship with the name OGUZ (OKUZ) and UTU
> U) in Turkish for "bull'. Of course the mythological Minoan bull is
> related to this Turanian concept.
> It must be noted that the names OGUZMAN and OTOMAN which are names
> Turkish peoples, are coined in relation with the Turkish names of
> Sky-God and bull. Please note that, when I use the term "Turkish" I
> do not mean just the Turkish language and civilization in Anatolia
> Middle East, but rather in all over the Turkic world.
> The citing above once again shows that while the Tur/Turk natives of
> the island of Crete were living a fantastic civilization, the Greeks
> comparatively had very little to offer.
> So again this shows that Tur/Turk language is much earlier than the
> Greek language. Only the Earlier language can be a model for a later
> language. Not the other way around.
> The following text is from the introduction of Chapter I of a book
> Sir E. A. Wallis Budge entitled, "Egyptian Language" written in 1910
> in British Museum. He writes: [11]
> "The ancient Egyptians expressed their ideas in writing by means of
> large number of picture signs, known as hieroglyphics. They began to
> use them for this purpose more than seven thousand years ago, and
> were employed uninterruptedly until about 100 BC, that is to say,
> until nearly the end of the rule of the Ptolemies over Egypt. It is
> unlikely that the hieroglyphic system of writing was invented in
> Egypt, and evidence indicates that it was brought there by certain
> invaders who came from north-east or Central Asia; they settled down
> in the valley of the Nile, somewhere between Memphis on the north
> Thebes on the south, and gradually established their civilization
> religion in their new home. Little by little the writing spread to
> the north and to the south, until at length hieroglyphics were
> employed, for state purposes at least, from the coast of the
> Mediterranean to the most southern portion of the Island of Meroë, a
> tract of country over 2,000 miles long."
> Sir E. A. Wallis Budge is a pioneer who studied the ancient Egyptian
> hieroglyphic writings and wrote books about so-called ancient
> "Egyptian" language and a famed dictionary of the ancient Egyptian
> hieroglyphic writings. The above cited statement by Sir E. A. Wallis
> Budge is an eye opener. Budge names these ancient Egyptian people as
> coming from a place "north-east or Central Asia". Surely this refers
> to the ALTAI MOUNTAINS AND BAYKAL LAKE area and the rest of Central
> Asia which are known as the homeland of Turkish peoples. He calls
> "certain invaders" indicating that their identity was known but he
> chose not to name them. Surely it is time to name them as "THE
> Ancient MASARIANS (MISIR), erroneously and intentionally called
> "EGYPTIANS" were actually Turkic peoples from Central Asia. Turkish
> OGUZ-KAGAN Epic names them as "MASAR". [12] They settled in North
> Africa earlier than 3000 B.C. around the River Nile This was far
> earlier in time than the Greeks were ever in the picture of history.
> They brought their writing system with them, invented in Central
> as Sir Wallis Budge very clearly notes. When a people invent
> it means that they are not only very advanced in civilization but
> their language is so well developed that it can be put into writing.
> Evidently, the Tur/Turk peoples did this historical event of
> "writing" while they were in Central Asia. An agglutinative,
> and phonetic Turkish language is the reason for inventing writing
> contrary to all kinds of disinformation.
> Like the name MINOS of Tur/Turk Minoans, the ancient Masarians also
> had a king by the name MENES (MANAS) of ancient MASARIANS. Lionel
> Casson writes the following about MENES: [13]
> "Then suddenly, within a few centuries between 3200 and 3000 B. C.,
> the scattered tribes that lived along the Nile were united under one
> head, ruled by a formal government. The man who was tribal leader of
> Upper Egypt (tradition calls him MENES (also MENI), perhaps another
> name for a king --NARMER) founded the first of Egypt's 30 dynasties,
> extended his control northward and united the country."
> "MENES founded the city of MEMPHIS, 20 miles south of the apex of
> Delta, near where the regions of Lower and Upper Egypt meet, and
> established it as his capital. The city was destined to become the
> greatest in the land. MENES and his immediate successors- some 18
> kings of two successive dynasties that spanned about 400 years -
> from here, built tombs for their afterlife and knit together the two
> disparate parts of the kingdom, Lower and Upper Egypt."
> The Masarian name MENES is the same as the Minoan MINOS and also
> KIRGIZ Turkish MANAS. Even the the Greek word MONOS meaning "single,
> alone" or "one" as in "MONO" is an usurped version of these Turkic
> words and titles. When these Turkic titles were used by ancient
> Turanian Tur/Turk peoples for their kings in MASAR / MISIR, Greeks
> the Greek language were not around yet. Hence, it is seen that
> urkish language could not be from Greek. Rather it is the Greek that
> has been artificially made up from Turkish.
> "MENES" is also given as "MENI" from Turkish "MEN I" [14] (MEN BIR)
> meaning "I am One", "I am alone". This meaning is the same as the
> so-called "Greek" word "MONOS".
> The name "EGYPT" is a concoction giving the name of the ancient
> wandering Greeks to this ancient Tur/Turk State. The native
> were not Gypsies. In this regard also, history writers have not been
> truthful. History has been manipulated for the benefit of certain
> wandering groups, and the history of the ancient Turanians has been
> looted and obliterated.
> The name of one of the kings of ancient Egypt (MASAR) is so-called
> "AKHENATEN" who supposedly declared the SUN as the sky-God. First of
> all this "assumption" on the part of the historians is wrong and
> misleading and intentionally perpetrated. The Sun has always been
> Sky-God of ancient Turanians including the ancient Masaraians
> (Egyptians). It was not started by AKHENATEN as these historians
> like us to believe. Secondly, the title "AKHENATEN" is a
> stuck-together Turkish expression in the form of:
> a) "AK HEN ATa AN" (Ak Han Ata An) meaning "White-Lord-Sky-Father"
> referring to the Sky-Father-God;
> b) "AK-HEN OT AN" (AK HAN OT AN) meaning "White-Lord-Sky-Fire"
> referring to the SUN.
> The so-called King "AKHENATEN" being the representative of sky-God
> earth, declares himself as the Sky-Father-god and also the Sun-God.
> That is what his title represents. But contrary to all the
> information pumped to the people at large, all the titlings of
> kings were done in Turkish - meaning that Turkish was their
> Even the name of the Tur/Turk Masarian king so-called "TUTANKHAMUN"
> has been misrrepresented. It should have at least been presented as
> "AMENTUTANKH" from Turkish "O MEN TUTAN-HAK" meaning "I am that who
> holds power and gives justice" again referring to the Sky-God whom
> is representing on Earth.
> Similarly, when the great King Ramses II says "OZYMANDIAS" [15] he
> speaks in Turkish saying "ÖZÜM ANDI AS" (Özüm Handi As) meaning "I
> one peerless Lord" and that he was.
> The so-called ancient "Egyptians" (Masarians) were neither Semitic,
> nor Hellenic, nor Indo-European but Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. Their
> language was Turkish. The names of their founding kings were Turkish
> and the Masar state was the longest lived Tur/Turk state in human
> history. As I have pointed out earlier even the name of Tutankhamun
> was transliterated wrong in order to alienate the name from Turkish.
> In pre-Hellenic times, this ancient and magnificent Tur civilization
> was intact. After the Hellenic invasion, everything was dismantled
> restructured so that all links to Tur/Turk peoples were obliterated.
> On top of it, this artificial "Egypt" (Gypsy) label was attached as
> name to this ancient land. Now everybody knows this ancient
> civilization by the incorrect name of "Egypt" and nobody makes any
> connection to the Turs/Turks including historians, scholars,
> Egyptologists, linguists, etc..
> With all of this background information, it is evident that Turkish
> was a far older language than "Greek", just like the Turkish
> civilization was. When Greeks arrived in so-called Greece, they had
> nothing accountable to their name. They were wandering ("ariyan",
> "aramaci" in Turkish) peoples of no place of their own just like the
> other wandering peoples of Arabistan peninsula. By cunning
> they were all able to usurp anything and everything Turkic,
> people, that is, by way of "Hellenization".
> Turkish is as old as Sumerian. The fact that the original name of
> Epic story of "GILGAMESH" was "BILGAMESH" which is a pure Turkish
> expression indicates that when this name was coined by the ancient
> Turanian peoples of Sumerians, Turkish was there and in full
> form. Turkish was their language. John L. Hayes, in his book
> "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", indicates that the
> form of GILGAMESH was BILGAMESH. [16]
> Even though the name "GILGAMESH" is an altered version
> by changing the first letter B to G, it is still a Turkish
> with only the front vowel "A" missing.
> When we install missing vowel "A" in front, the name becomes Turkish
> word "AGILGAMESH" (akilgamish) which is exactly the same as
> in meaning but uses the word "agil" (akil) meaning "mind, wisdom,
> knowledge".
> The name "BILGAMESH" means "one who has become a learned person".
> name is made up of three Turkish components: root word "BIL" from
> Turkish verb "BILMEK" meaning "to know". Additionally "BIL" means
> "knowledge". With the Turkish suffixes -GE/GA and MESH/MISH, the
> becomes "BILGAMESH".
> Similarly, the Turkish word "AGILGAMESH" means "one who has become a
> learned person". It is made up of Turkish word "AGIL" (AKIL) and the
> Turkish suffixes -GE/GA and -MESH/MISH.
> Thus both the names BILGAMESH and AGILGAMESH are Turkish in origin
> have nothing to do with Semitics. This Turkic connection to the
> Sumerians in the name of Epic story BILGAMESH (AGILGAMESH) takes
> Turkish to the ancient time that this epic story was composed.
> Evidently, the Turkic name BILGMESH after being stolen was coated
> a non-Turkic looking appearnce. The usurpers did the same by
> the Turkish name "HAN O" (HANO) and Sumerian "ANU" meaning the
> "Sky-Lord' to the name "NOAH".
> Samuel Noah Kramer, in his book entitled, "THE SUMERIANS" states:
> "The correct naming of the non-Semitic people who invented the
> cuneiform script we owe to the genius of Jules Oppert, whose
> contributions to all facets of Assyriology, and especially to the
> study of the syllabaries, were outstanding. On January 17, 1869,
> Oppert delivered a lecture before the ethnographic and historical;
> section of the French Society of Numismatics and Archeology in which
> he declared that these people and their language should be called
> Sumerian. . . . . . Oppert even went on to say in his lecture that
> an analysis of the structure of the Sumerian language had led him to
> conclude that it had close affinities with Turkish, Finnish, and
> ungarian."
> "In the course of the centuries the Sumerian sages evolved a faith
> creed which in a sense "gave unto the gods what was the gods". [18]
> "Sumerian resembles no little such agglutinative languages as
> Turkish, Hungarian, and some of the Caucasian languages. In
> vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands
> and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead."
> C. J. Gadd, in his book, "A Sumerian Reading - Book", writes the
> following: [20]
> "It is not possible to fix with much accuracy the date at which
> Sumerian ceased to be a living, spoken, tongue, but it is clear that
> for certain purposes, especially religious, its importance continued
> undiminished long after its use as a vernacular had disappeared.
> Sumerian was recited, studied, glossed, and even to some extent
> written, by priests and professional scribes, until the latest days
> of Babylonian importance under the successors of Alexander the
> The comparison with the mediaeval and modern use of Latin is
> This is very interesting, indicating that Sumerian was still in use
> until after the days of Alexander the Great. Soon after when the
> Greeks took over the Middle East, things started to change even more
> drastically. The name of Babylon again comes into the picture which,
> according to most sources, is associated with the confusion of
> languages. A place filled with a lot of busy-bodies churning out
> concoctions to con the world. Evidently there were plenty of
> so-called Chaldian priests involved in reading, writing and
> manipulating the Sumerian language. Peculiarly, the word Chaldian
> reminds us of the old Turkic word "CHALDIAN" (chaldilar)
meaning "the
> stealers". The "-an" suffix at the end of Chaldian is the ancient
> plurality suffix of Turkish corresponding to the present "-ler/lar"
> suffix.
> Additionally, it is curious that C. J. GADD also notes Sumerian
> comparison with the Latin language. Yet I have been saying all along
> that both Greek and Latin are made up languages from Turkish. Since
> Sumerian and Turkish are very similar languages (if not the same),
> since GADD compares Latin to Sumerian, it is perfectly logical to
> compare Latin with Turkish. This puts additional light on my finding
> Turkish origins for many Latin words. They cannot be due to
> coincidences.
> Furthermore I have also been saying that Sumerian language is not
> dead, but still alive and well in Azerbaijan and Eastern Anatolian
> dialects of Turkish. That again makes Turkish the oldest living
> language in the Middle East including ancient Mesopotamia. It is
> my view that the language of the ancient Masar (so-called "ancient
> Egyptian") was like Azerbaijan Turkish. The name "AZER" in
> AZERBAIJAN, is very related to the name of the God "OSIR" of MASAR.
> Many ancient MASAR king names and even the name MASAR had the
> name "ASER" meaning "PEERLESS MAN" or "ONE MAN" referring not only
> the Sky-God, but also to the Pharoah as well. The name Pharoahs is
> from the Turkish phrase "PER-O/BIR-O" referring to the Sky-God.
> After all these explanations and references, if still there are some
> who may be saying that: "We dont know that Turkish was ever present
> with the Sumerians, Minoans, Masarians and with the other ancient
> peoples. History tells us nothing about Turks and their language at
> the times of Homer or earlier. According to known information, Turks
> are just recent comers to Middle East and Anatolia."
> My answer to this kind of objections is: history is full of lies
> into it by those who wanted to obliterate the ancient Turanian
> We have been presented a world which has been described in a very
> loaded manner. Books are full of references to only a few certain
> names, e.g., Greek, Jew, Persian, Latin, and few others. The ancient
> Turkic world is colored into ambiguity by way of cunning verbosity.
> Disinformation pumped to the public as ancient history is very
> lopsided when it comes to the ancient Turanian world. The name
> Tur/Turk never mentioned as if it never existed. While the
> non-Turanians took most everything from the ancient Sun-Moon
> worshipping civilization of the Turanian world, they also wanted to
> erase them from history. For example, they obliterated the whole
> history of ancient Turanian world by artificially creating a new
> reference point to history (Year 0) starting some 2000 years ago.
> founders of the Judeo-Christianity religion advocated a new date for
> humanity ordering them to not remember anything that happened
> In this regard, ISAIAH; 65.17 says:
> "For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former
> things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into
> heart."
> This religious command strongly advocates forgetting the ancient
> ever existed. The intention of this religious conditioning demand
> to obliterate the ancient Turanian civilization from which
> Judeo-Christianity took all of its tenets, just like they took the
> Turkish language as a linguistic data base for manufacturing their
> anguages.
> 2. Dave you asked me:
> >
> > Polat, do you think as I do that language mixing and linguistic
> > diffusion was widespread? If so then how do we know that Turkish
> did
> > not acquire Greek forms?
> >
> >
> First of all with all of the above citings, I have shown that
> was a much earlier world language then Greek. Therefore it could not
> have been influenced by the later language of Greek which was a
> manufactured language from Turkish.
> Secondly, we need to define the terms "language mixing" and
> "linguistic diffusion" so that we may be talking about the same
> In my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, "language mixing" is
> activity in which there are, say, languages A, B, C, etc., from
> of which people take words and mix them into their own language.
> happens without changing the structures of the borrowed words. For
> example, there are presently English words imported into Turkish and
> are used without changing their structure. One can sense their being
> alien to Turkish. In my understanding that is mixing languages.
> In the case of "linguistic diffusion", languages A, B, C, etc,
> beyond their normal territory but does not get mixed with others. A,
> B, C still stay the same but now new islands of a language, say, A
> appear in the domain of B and C languages. To me this would be the
> linguistic diffusion. This can happen when people migrate from one
> geography into another and retain their language.
> However, we must note that in these definitions, Languages A, B, C
> retain their identity.
> Contrary to this picture of independent languages of A, B, C, etc,.
> believe that the ancient world was not like this. There was a widely
> spoken Turanian Turkic language with some dialectal variations, say,
> X, Y, Z, etc. They were mutually understandable to each other.
> Dialects X, Y, Z, etc. did borrow words from each other but there
> no need for anagrammatizing or manipulating words into different
> shapes. Those dialectal variations would diffuse among each other
> readily.
> Anagrammatizing started by non-Turanians who started to have new
> religions of their own, and new languages to support their new
> religions. Then came in the intense anagrammatizing activity that
> took place in the 1st millennium B. C. until probably to the present
> times.
> As I have discussed over and over again, anagrammatizing from
> language is a totally different concept. The anagrammatizer takes
> an established and widely used language and changes it in a
> sophisticated way to make a language for himself that is distinct
> from the original language. This is neither mixing nor diffusion of
> languages. It is misappropriating. As you can see Dave, my view of
> things is different than yours.
> 3. You said:
> >
> > As I read Brittanica, it notes that as Turkish developed it
> > Arabic words and Persian words, but there is no mention of
> > Greek words. But then are the other Turkic languages related to
> > Greek? Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic languages loose
> > their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and subsequent
> > linguistic diffusion?
> >
> >
> Turkish absorbed so-called Arabic and Persian words because Turkish
> has also been the source language for them. The Arabs in a way
> inherited the ancient Tur/Turk Masarian civilization. The identity
> the word "Arab" has to be well understood. The Persians took over
> ancient Turanian civilization in Iran contrary to disinformation.
> This sort of mixing has taken place in Turkish with the so-called
> "Arabic" and "Persian" words because Turkish have been present in
> and Arabistan since very ancient times. Presently, there are more
> than thirty-million Azeri Turks in Iran. They are not just due to
> Seljuks, or Ottomans. Their ancesstors go way back into history to
> the time of Sumerians, Masarians, Hurrians, Turukkus, Medes and
> although historians conveniently would like to wet-sponge over them.
> The Turkish name "ARABISTAN" has not been coined for nothing. The
> so-called "Semitic Canaan" is not "Semitic" and comes from the
> "KAN-HAN/KUN-HAN" name. When they say the word "Canaanite", the
> "ite" is the Turkish word "ITI" (IDI) meaning "were".
> Even in modern day understanding, wherever there are Turks, so-
> historians would love to lable them with an artificial religious
> such as "moslem'. This dishonesty immediately obliterates Turks into
> an unknown entity. This clever trick is still being used. No
> religious adjective should be used to change the ethnic identity of
> person. Using religion as a means of identifying people is
> intentional. This makes brothers who may believe in two different
> concepts not only alien to each other but also against each other.
> This trick has been used with evil intentions to play peoples
> one another and then control them.
> Please do not misunderstand me when I show the Turkish source
> for the Greek names and words that I have been discussing. By those
> analysis, I do not say that Turkish is related to Greek or Turkish
> absorbed Greek into its structure. Nothing can be further from the
> truth. Similarly other dialects of the Turkish language have nothing
> to do with Greek. Turkish has no linguistic relation to Greek. When
> Turkish was in full bloom, as a world language, Greek was not even
> around as I have pointed out throughout this writing and in
> occasions. Greek is a language artificially manufactured from
> source material. That is the only way that it is related to Turkish.
> But this relation has been so well disguised that it is not even
> visible, i.e., by way of encrypting the source material. That is why
> it has not been detected for so long.
> Most likely there are some so-called Greek words that were
> manufactured from Turkish which are presently imported back to
> Turkish, but generally they stay the same as in Greek. For example,
> the so-called Greek name APHRODITE is an anagram of Turkish
> "AVRAT-IDI" meaning "She is wife" or "She is woman" but presently,
> some Turks will refer to this name as AFRODIT without actually
> realizing what it is and where it came from.
> Your question saying: "Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic
> languages loose their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and
> subsequent linguistic diffusion?" is misleading and is based on
> assumption. It gives the wrong impression that Greek was a much
> language and sonehow contacted Turkish languages of Central Asia and
> formed the bases for Turkic languages, but later on Turkish
> lost their Greekness. This is not so. In my writings I never gave
> impression that Greek could be a base for Turkish languages. I have
> said and I will say it again that Greek is an artificially
> manufactured language from Turkish. Its structure and manufacture is
> extremely well done making sure that it does not resemble the
> source material. When Greeks came into the historical picture, they
> did not even have a language of their own. They were non-Turanian
> Turkic speaking wandering peoples. Evidently, their "sophisticated"
> salesmanship was far superior to that of Turks. Please read the
> following by Arthur Cotterel who has written many books about the
> ancient Indo-Europeans: [21]
> "Instead of imagining Greek-speaking people entering the mainland
> between 2200 B.C. and 1900 B.C., as some scholars propose, we prefer
> to believe that the Greek language did not exist before 2000 B.C.,
> was formed in Greece by the mixture of the indigeneous population
> invaders who-spoke another Indo-European language."
> I wish to add to this that, there was no Greek language and neither
> was there any other Indo-European language by the time that Greeks
> entered into ancient Ay-Hanistan (Yunanistan) so-called "Greece".
> Greeks were wandering peoples who were called Garachi in Turkish and
> they spoke Turkish wherever they went. While they were not Tur/Turk
> peoples, they were Turkish speaking peoples. Together with other
> wanderers, they wanted to overthow the dominance of the ancient
> Turanians who had developed fantastic civilizations all over world
> with their ancient Sky-God Oguz religion and Oguz language.
> I hope this will help to clear some of the misunderstanding
> the Turkish language and its ancient past.
> [1] Prof. Dr. Muharrem Ergin, "Orhon Abideleri", Bogaziçi
> Yayinlari,
> Istanbul, 1988, p. 147-148.
> [2] G. S. Kirk, "The Nature of Greek Myths", Penguin Books, 1974,
> p. 96.
> [3] H. D. F. Kitto, The Greeks", Penguin Books, 1957, p. 22.
> [4] Esmond Wright (General Editor), The Ancient World", Chartwell
> Books, Secaucus, New jersey, p. 104.
> [5] E. A. Wallis Budge, "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary",
> Dover
> Publications, Inc, New York, p. 843.
> [6] Joseph J. Thorndike (Editor), "Mysteries of the past",
> American
> Heritage Publishing Co. Inc, New York, 1977, p. 64-65.
> [7] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
> Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, p. 36.
> [8] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
> Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, 6th picture after p. 96.
> [9] Peter Green, "A Concise History of Ancient Greece", Thames And
> Hudson, 1981, p. 10, Figure 2.
> [10] Lionel Casson writes in his book entitled "The Greek
> onquerors",
> p. 13.
> [11] Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "Egyptian Language", London and
> Henley:
> Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications Inc,
> Fourteenth Impression, 1977.
> [12] Resit Rahmeti Arat, "Makaleler Cilt I", Türk Kültürünü
> Arastirma
> Enstitüsü yayinlari, : 65, Seri IV - Sayi : A. 20, Hazirlayan
> Osman
> Fikri Sertkaya, Ankara, 1987; Oguz-Kagan Destani, s. 631,
> Line 301.
> [13] Lionel Casson and the Editors of TIME-LIFE Books", TIME
> Incorporated, New York, 1965, p. 51.
> [14] Encyclopaedia Brittaniaca World Language Dictionary, 1963,
> Vol. 1,
> p. 795.
> [15] Lionel Casson and The Editors of TIME-LIFE Books, "Ancient
> Egypt", Time Incorporated, New York, 1968, p. 27.
> [16] John L. Hayes, "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts",
> Undena
> Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 132.
> [17] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
> Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London,
> 1972,
> p. 20-21.
> [18] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
> Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London,
> 1972, p. 4.
> [19] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
> Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London,
> 1972, p. 306.
> [20] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading - Book", Oxford at the
> Clarendon
> Press, 1924, p. 14.
> [21] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
> Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, p. 77.
> Best wishes to all.
> Polat Kaya
> November 20, 2003
> ===================
> >
> >Kamil KARTAL wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, "David L"
> > > <djleonar@...> wrote:
> > > Polat and all,
> > > Why is Turkish necessarily the origin of Greek forms and not the
> > > reverse? Is it because the Turkish word formation is more
> ordered?
> > >
> > > You have been showing us word formation in Turkish, and Greek
> > > another word formation (morphology). I know Latin and Greek are
> > > fusional languages (which means they have fused suffixes or
> afixes,
> > > which are suffixes that give two grammatical senses to words).
> > > far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) there are no fussed
> afixes
> > > in Sanskrit. There are usually none in regular agglutinative
> > > languages. This is a minor point, appart from the general
> question.
> > >
> > > I would argue that though Sanskrit word formation is more
> > > than Latin and Greek, that it is only because of a reformation
> that
> > > occured in the development of Sanskrit from Latin and Greek.
> > >
> > > Polat, do you think as I do that language mixing and linguistic
> > > diffusion was widespread? If so then how do we know that Turkish
> did
> > > not acquire Greek forms?
> > >
> > > As I read Brittanica, it notes that as Turkish developed it
> absorbed
> > > Arabic words and Persian words, but there is no mention of
> absorbing
> > > Greek words. But then are the other Turkic languages related to
> > > Greek? Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic languages
> loose
> > > their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and subsequent
> > > linguistic diffusion?