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.
Secondly,
who anagrammatized from whom is a function of what language was ahead of the
others. If language A was ahead of B and C, it is very likely that B and C
took a lot from language A. This holds true for loan words and
anagrammatized words. 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). 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. 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.
The Encyclopaedia Brtannica (EB) World
Language Dictionary (1963) says that theoretically Turanians antedated the
Aryans in Asia and Europe. This means that Turkish was being spoken in
Asia and Europe earlier than other languages. An earlier language has no
need to anagrammatize from a later language in order to enrich itself. The
newer languages are the ones that have benefited from the earlier language, not
the other way around. The earlier one language that the world spoke had
nothing to anagrammatize from. It created words for itself over thousands of
years of evolution. It had already named all concepts known at that time. The
people who wanted to confuse that one language that the world spoke took the
easy way out and anagrammatized the existing one language. Anagrammatizing is
much easier, cheaper and less time consuming because all concepts used by humans
at that time were already named and defined. The later languages are
inflected languages because they are cut and paste languages that do not
follow rules. As everone knows, there are no rules in shuffling a deck of
cards. Manufacturing new words by way of anagrammatizing is like shuffling
a new deck of cards which comes in a predefined order. Shuffling confuses
that order. 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.
The English term "accelerate" is a rather modern term expressing
a modern concept in physics. If Turks needed a term like "accelerate" to
express the same concept in Turkish and hence anagrammatized "accelerate", then
the question comes to mind: "how come they did not use "acele eder" as a term in
physics to express the concept? Instead they have used a totally different
term to express it (presently "ivme"). If one is not going to use the
anagrammatized term, then why bother with the "anagrammatizing"? Yet the
Turkish expression "acele et" has been used in many expressions in Turkish
before the invention of the term "accelerate".
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". Point being that "acele", as in
Turkish expressions "acele eder", "acele er o", "acele et", "acele git", "acele
gel", "acele yap", etc., is used in a Turkish context, i.e., as the Turks would
use it.
Critical minds will know that Turks did not gallop out of Central
Asia on their horses to make contact with Latins/Greeks etc., in order to enrich
Turkish by way of anagrammatizing Latin words or Greek words. 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. Therefore stating that Turkish
could be claimed as being anagrammatized from Latin or any other language is not
realistic.
I had given the example of Arabic "TENZILAT" (anagrammatized
from Turkish "AZALTTIN"). If it was the other way around, that is, the
Turks had anagrammatized "AZALTTIN" from "TENZILAT", then why did they keep
using "TENZILAT"? If the Turks had actually anagrammatized
"AZALTTIN" from Arabic "TENZILAT", and thrown away "TENZILAT", and then used
"AZALTTIN" for price reduction, we would never know that such an act had ever
happened. But Turks do use the Arabic loan word "TENZILAT" for price
reduction - without any changes to it - implying that Turks did not
anagrammatize. "AZALTTIN" is a derivative of Turkish word "AZALTMAK".
Hence Turkish can not be claimed as being from Arabic either.
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.
I have
indicated in this forum many times the statement of Sir E. A. Wallis Budge
saying that ancient Egyptians (MISIR/MASAR) were certain invaders from
north-east or Central Asia.
Sir E. A. Wallis Budge was one of the
pioneers who wrote books about the ancient Egyptian language. He is well
famed for his "An EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY". Regarding the
ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge
wrote:
"THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS EXPRESSED THEIR IDEAS IN WRITING BY
MEANS OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PICTURE SIGNS, KNOWN AS HIEROGLYPHICS. THEY
BEGAN TO USE THEM FOR THIS PURPOSE MORE THAN SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO, AND THEY
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 AND THEBES ON THE SOUTH, AND GRADUALLY ESTABLISHED THEIR
CIVILIZATION AND 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 MEROI, A TRACT OF COUNTRY OVER 2,000
MILES LONG."
This statement is extremely important. First of all,
Sir Wallis Budge uses the phrase "CERTAIN INVADERS WHO CAME FROM NORTH-EAST OR
CENTRAL ASIA more than seven thousand years ago." The meaning of this
phrase is: "he knows the identity of those invaders who came from north-east or
Central Asia, but he will not reveal them for some reason". HENCE, THESE
CENTRAL ASIATIC FIRST SETTLERS OF ANCIENT EGYPT HAVE REMAINED NAMELES TO THIS
DAY. Although, Sir Wallis Budge does not indicate the ethnic identity of
those "certain invaders who came from north-east or Central Asia", it is rather
obvious that they were the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk people of Central
Asia. This is evidenced and verified by the king names of ancient Egypt
indicated by himself and is also supported by many Turkic words that appear in
the "EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY" that Sir Wallis Budge repared. [2].
Additionally, this indicates that these ancient Central Asians, before
coming to ancient so-called Egypt, had a language developed to such a degree
that they could invent a writing system for it. This is how advanced they
were some seven thousand years ago. And at that time there was no IE,
Latin, Greek, or Semitic languages. Those Central Asians from some
seven thousand years ago were speaking the TUR (Turkish) language which was the
dominant universal language of that time - like English seems to be today.
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. 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. The term
"confusion" is associated with the name Babylon indicating that the concept of
confusing languages was born there and spread to other places. EB states that
the concept of "anagram" is ancient and was known to the Jews, the Greeks and
the Romans. 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.
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".
Best wishes to
all,
Polat Kaya
Jul 23, 2003
allingus
wrote:
> > Part 1.1 Type: Plain
Text
(text/plain)
>
Encoding: quoted-printable
"Biz Cevirmenlere N'oluyor!" bilgi toplulugu, allingus Profesyonel
Yabanci Dil Cozumleri Ltd. Sti.'nin bir girisimidir.
allingus@... allingus2001@...
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