Fw: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's...II

----- Özgün İleti -----

Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com

Gönderme tarihi: Sunday, July 27, 2003 5:59 PM

Konu: Re: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's...

Dear friends, This is in response to Richard Wordingham's response dated July 24, 2003. My comments are interlaced with his and are in capitals. ----- Özgün Ileti ----- Kimden: Richard Wordingham Kime: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com Gönderme tarihi: 24 Temmuz 2003 Persembe 04:28 Konu: Re: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's... My observations follow the paragraphs they are made upon. Richard. 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. Richard Wordingham said: "Was not the suggestion that A = B implied B = A? The non-transitivity of similitude is well known." Polat Kaya: HOW IS MINE DIFFERENT FROM YOURS? WHY ARE YOU TALKING IN RIDDLES? I WAS TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS NOT SIMILITUDE. > 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). Richard Wordingham said: "Is this historically correct?" Polat Kaya: YES, FORTRAN WAS A MODEL FOR LATER COMPUTER LANGUAGES. GO AHEAD AND CHECK IT YOURSELF IF YOU ARE SO INTERESTED? > 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. Richard Wordingham said: "I don't see anything in the way of anagrams in borrowings between computer languages." Polat Kaya: YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD MY POINT OR, YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY DISTORTING IT. I DID NOT SAY THAT NEWER COMPUTER LANGUAGES ANAGRAMMATIZED FROM FORTRAN. I SAID THAT FORTRAN SERVED AS THE MODEL LANGUAGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LATER 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. Richard Wordingham said: "Calling the ancestor of Turkish of 7000 years ago 'Turkish' is rather extreme, and potentially highly misleading." Polat Kaya: NO! WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE ORIGINAL BILGAMESH AS GILGAMESH. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE PROTO-LANGUAGE NOSTRATIC. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING ANCIENT MASAR/MISIR AS EGYPT. WHAT IS MISLEADING IS CALLING THE MASARIAN NAME "PERU" (BIR-O) FOR THEIR KINGS AS "PHARAOH". ETC. Richard Wordingham said: "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." Polat Kaya: TURKISH IS NOT A MODERN LANGUAGE. IT IS AT LEAST AS OLD AS SUMERIAN AND MASARIAN. IT IS THAT ONE LANGUAGE THAT THE WORLD WAS SPEAKING LONG AGO. YOUR RECORDED HISTORY THAT YOU TALK ABOUT HAS BEEN MOSTLY WRITTEN BY THE CONFUSERS OF HISTORY. THEIR AIM, CLEARLY, WAS TO OBLITERATE ALL EVIDENCE OF TURKISH IN ANCIENT TIMES. THE MODERN MANUFACTURED LANGUAGES CANNOT BE REFERRED TO AS ANCIENT. ACTUALLY WHAT IS RIDICULOUS IS THE FACT THAT EVEN THE TERM "RIDICULOUS", REARRANGED AS "CULDURISI-O", IS AN ANAGRAM OF TURKISH PHRASE "KULDURUCU-O" (GULDURUCU-O) MEANING "IT IS FUNNY" OR "IT MAKES YOU LAUGH". AND THOSE SO CALLED LINGUISTS TEACHING THE WORLD ABOUT LANGUAGES DO NOT EVEN KNOW THIS (INCLUDING RICHARD WORDINGHAM). PROBABILITY WILL NOT REVEAL THIS FACT TO US EITHER. THIS IS NOT ONLY RIDICULUOS BUT TRAGIC FOR ALL HONEST SCHOLARS WHO ARE SINCERELY SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH! > 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. Richard Wordingham said: "Which of the many languages (by Ethnologue's criteria) that are loosely described as Turkish are you proposing as the ancestor of Nostratic? Azerbaijani?" Polat Kaya: FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE NOT MANY TURKISH LANGUAGES. THERE IS ONLY ONE TURKISH LANGUAGE WITH MANY DIALECTS. SECONDLY, I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT TURKISH IS THE ANCESTOR OF NOSTRATIC. THERE IS NOTHING KNOWN AS NOSTRATIC. IT IS JUST A CONCOCTION. I AM SAYING THAT TURKISH WAS THE PROTO-LANGUAGE THAT LINGUISTS TODAY ARE SEARCHING TO FIND. AND BY THE WAY, AZERBAIJANI DIALECT OF TURKISH IS AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE AS THE PROTO-LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT WAS THE LANGUAGE OF THE MIDDLE EAST, SUMERIANS, MASARIANS, MEDE, ANATOLIANS, HURRIANS, ETC., ETC.. >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". Richard Wordingham said: "What about Latin 'accelerat'? Actually, Latin _celer_ 'quick' is more of a problem for your hypothesis." Polat Kaya: I ALREADY TOLD YOU AND THE OTHER READERS ABOUT IT. "ACCELERAT" IS UNQUESTIONABLY AN ANAGRAM OF TURKISH "ECELE EDER" IRREGARDLESS OF WHERE THE TERM "ECELE" CAME FROM. GO AND READ WHAT I WROTE EARLIER ABOUT IT! > 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. Richard Wordingham said: "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." Polat Kaya: IT SEEMS THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST READ. PLEASE READ MY ABOVE PARAGRAPH AGAIN. WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF LOAN WORDS, THE POINT IS THAT TURKS DID NOT ANAGRAMMATIZE THEM. EXAMPLE, THE TURKISH EQUIVALENT OF "RADIO" IS "RADYO". NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO CAMOUFLAGE OR DECEIVE PEOPLE ABOUT ITS FOREIGN ORIGIN. NOW, LET US LOOK AT THE ENGLISH WORD "MAMMALIA" WHICH IS DEFINED AS "THE HIGHEST CLASS OF VERTEBRATES, INCLUDING MAN AND OTHER ANIMALS THAT NOURISH THEIR YOUNG WITH MILK" AND SUPPOSEDLY COMING FROM LATE LATIN "MAMALIS" MEANING "OF THE BREAST" AND FRENCH "MAMMA" MEANING "BREAST". IT IS OBVIOUS THAT "MAMMALIA" IS DERIVED FROM TURKISH "MEMELI" MEANING "WITH BREASTS" AND THAT "MAMMA" IS DERIVED FROM TURKISH "MEME" MEANING "BREAST". BUT, THE DICTIONARY MAKES NO MENTION OF TURKISH "MEME" OR "MEMELI" INSTEAD FALSELY POINTING THE READER OFF TO LATIN OR FRENCH AS THE SOURCE. BY DOING THIS, THEY HAVE OBLITERATED THE ACTUAL TURKISH SOURCE OF THE TERM. THIS IS ONE WAY OF DISTORTING HISTORY. REGARDING THE MANY "FOREIGN WORDS" USED IN ISTANBUL TURKISH, IT IS NATURAL TO FIND THEM IN A COSMOPOLITAN CITY OF ABOUT 13 MILLION PEOPLE. YOU MUST NOTE THAT THOSE "FOREIGN WORDS" ARE STILL "FOREIGN WORDS" AND HAVE NOT BEEN ANAGRAMMATIZED. Richard Wordingham said: "By the same token, though we may have mangled many Turkish words in English, we have not made anagrams of them." Polat Kaya: THIS STATEMENT BY YOU IS ACTUALLY AN ADMISSION OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "MANGLING" A TURKISH WORD THAT IS BEING BROUGHT INTO ENGLISH AND "ANAGRAMMATIZING" A TURKISH WORD INTO ENGLISH. "MANGLING" MEANS "DISFIGURING" OR "MUTILATING" OR "DISTORTING". THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THOSE TURKISH WORDS THAT WERE "MANGLED" ARE NOT RECOGNIZEABLE AS TURKISH ANY MORE - WHICH IS THE SAME AS ANAGRAMMATIZING. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN "MANGLING" THOSE TURKISH WORDS IN THE FIRST PLACE. MANGLING OF THOSE TURKISH WORDS INTO ENGLISH IS A SIGN OF INTENTIONAL ALTERATION. NOT ONLY WERE TURKISH WORDS "MANGLED" INTO ENGLISH, THEIR GIVEN ETYMOLOGIES IN DICTIONARIES WERE ALSO "MANGLED". > Therefore stating that Turkish could be claimed as being anagrammatized from Latin or any other language is not realistic. Richard Wordingham said: "Nor vice versa." Polat Kaya: THERE ARE SO MANY ANAGRAMMATIZED TURKISH WORDS AND EXPRESSIONS IN ENGLISH THAT YOU ARE NOT EVEN AWARE OF. I GAVE A SAMPLE OF 125 OF THEM. THAT SAMPLE OF 125 ENGLISH WORDS THAT I HAVE SHOWN TO BE ANAGRAMMATIZED FROM TURKISH STRONGLY DISAGREES WITH YOUR "Nor vice versa" RETORT. AND THERE'S PLENTY MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. THIS APPLIES TO LATIN AND GREEK AS WELL. > 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. Richard Wordingham said: "Are you saying the Seljuks and Ottomans were intolerant of non-Turks?" Polat Kaya: WHAT YOU IMPLY IS RIDICULOUS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL AND THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, IN NO WAY, IMPLIES WHAT YOU SAID. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY MISREADING AND INJECTING UNWARRANTED IDEAS. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT TURKS WERE, IN THE PAST, AND STILL ARE, VERY TOLERANT PEOPLE. >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. Richard Wordingham said: "Who's 'we'? It's certainly not us." Polat Kaya: "WE" MEANING YOU AND ME AND EVERYBODY ELSE INCLUDING "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. Richard Wordingham said: "I don't understand your argument. If everyone spoke Turkish, then the confusers would be confusing their own language." Polat Kaya: YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD WHAT I SAID. READ IT AGAIN. THE CONFUSERS WERE NON-TURANIANS WHO WERE ENVIOUS OF THAT ANCIENT TURANIAN CIVILIZATION, LANGUAGE AND RELIGION. THE NON-TURANIANS PLOTTED TO USURP THAT GRAND CIVILIZATION. THEY PLOTTED TO CONQUER AND TAKE OVER THAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATION. EVEN THOUGH THE NON-TURANIANS WERE SPEAKING TURKIC IN THAT TURANIAN CIVILIZATION, THE CONFUSERS WANTED TO HAVE THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND TRANSFER MOST EVERYTHING INTO IT. THE "CONFUSION" REFERRED TO IN GENESIS 11 IS AN ADMISSION OF THIS. > 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". Richard Wordingham said: "Anagram? I see no re-arrangement!" Polat Kaya: LOOK REAL CLOSELY AND YOU WILL SEE IT! Richard Wordingham said: "Presumably you would argue that _bir_ 'one' is a back-formation from _birata_?" Polat Kaya: "BIR" IS A VERY IMPORTANT TURKISH WORD MEANING "ONE". IT EXISTS BY ITSELF. HENCE THERE IS NO NEED TO BACK-FORM IT FROM BIRATA. SIMPLE AS THAT! IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS FROM YOUR TERSE AND UNFRIENDLY COMMENTS THAT YOU ARE SOMEHOW BOTHERED BY MY CLAIMS. WHERE IS ALL THIS UNFRIENDLINESS COMING FROM? BEST WISHES TO ALL, POLAT KAYA JULY 27, 2003

"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!