-----
Özgün İleti -----
Gönderme tarihi: 23 Temmuz 2003 Çarşamba 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.
Mr. Turhan Tisinli simply asked you to show why this anagramatizing could
not go in the other direction.
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.
It is unlikely that "acele' is Turkic. It violates the harmony laws and likely
shows up only in Turkish, Azeri, and those very closely
connected with Arabic.
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.
OK. This one you got right e.g. Gilgamesh was originally Bilgamesh and as
we know Bilge is Turkic from the root bil (to know).
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.
I think prototurkic and or its relatives were spoken in Eastern Europe and
Anatolia etc because I think the prototurkic homeland was either in southeastern
Anatolia or in the steppes between the Urals and the Turkmen steppes. But
the rest don't make sense.
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].
These people would be the Hyksos. And they did have a city called Abaris
(Avaris) and they could be connected with the Turkic Apars. But the movement
could have been from the Mideast to the steppes. There is much that is unknown.
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.
No evidence of writing at that time can be found in Central Asia unless the
Soviets decided to eradicate them.
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".
It is possible that "proto" can be connected with words like "primary", prima,
prime, parma, etc and may be connected and thus could be
conneced with "bir" (one).
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@...
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!
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nostratica-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
Mark Hubey
hubeyh@...
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey