Konu: Re: [bcn_2003] Re recent material (Mark Newbrook)
Dear friends,
This is in response to Mark Newbrook's
input dated 24 July 2003.
Mark Newbrook said:
"It is almost
certainly impossible in principle for Polat Kaya to satisfy the criteria I
have previously outlined."
Polat Kaya: Mark Newbrook keeps
referring to an imaginary criteria that he thinks he gave. So far, contrary
to his claims, he has outlined absolutely nothing. His expressions are vague,
confused and surely no guidance at all. All this time he has been
adding verbosity and big talk while trying to call it "definition". For
the benefit of all, I will summarize what happened. Mark Newbrook
offered to look at a set of 30 to 50 English words that are not known as
being from Turkish if I would provide them. I provided 125 such words and
after that, Mark Newbrook has been playing the dodge game. He has
avoided touching any one of them.
He keeps referring to
something vague like "historical linguistics". I really do not care
much about his so-called "linguistic history". His "historical linguistics"
has painted an incorrect picture of languages. This incorrect picture has
sent modern linguists on a wild goose chase.
To show what I
mean I will introduce two new English words that I have not discussed
before. What I will show about them will not be found in "historical
linguistics". If Mark Newbrook is in linguistics for the sake of
science, then he should carefully read on.
The good book dictionary says
about the word "ENCRYPT" as follows:
ENCRYPT. Put a message into
code; to put (computer data) into a coded form; to distort (a television or
other signal) so that it cannot be understood without the appropriate
decryption equipment. --ENCRYPTED adjective, ENCRYPTION noun. [from
Greek "KRYPTEIN" hide.]
First of all I want to show that the English
"ENCRYPT" is actually an anagram of the so-called Greek word "KRYPTEIN" to
hide. This becomes obvious when "EN" of "ENCRYPT" is moved to the end
of the word. Then we have: "CRYPTEN" versus Greek "KRYPTEIN". As
a linguist, Mark Newbrook should be able to recognize this, that is, if he
would care to examine these words. When the dictionary says that the
word "encrypt" is from greek "kryptein" they do not indicate how it was
done. Now I will complete the missing information in the dictionary
etymology of English encrypt: ENCRYPT, from Greek KRYPTEIN by way of taking
the EIN suffix and simply moving it to the front and dropping I. Also
the Greek K is replaced with C yet it is pronounced as K. This way,
not only has the Greek word been changed in format but also the
visual connection has been disrupted because ENCRYPT does not look
similar to KRYPTEIN. In other words, English ENCRYPT is an anagram of
Greek KRYPTEIN. The "anagrammatizer" who manufactured "encrypt" from the
Greek word can then say with impunity that "it is from Greek "kryptein"
meaning "to hide". But they will not say that they anagrammatized the
Greek word - even though that is what they did.
I can see these changes
with an engineer's eye, but Mark Newbrook, as a linguist, either does not see
it or does not want to see it. Additionally, readers will see that these
changes have nothing to do with his "historical linguistics". The
writers of the "historical linguistics" probably did not even know what
actually happened in forming words let alone talk about it. Even if
they knew what had taken place, they probably would not talk about it because
that would reveal the true nature of the so-called Indo-European
languages.
Perhaps Mark Newbrook can see this. But what he may not
see or does not want to question is the Greek word "KRYPTEIN". The
"Greek" word itself is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KIRIP ETIN" (kirip
edin, kirin, seklini degistirin, taninmaz hale getirin) all meaning "make
it broken", " make it disfigured", "make it unrecognizable", etc.
When something is broken, its original state is "encrypted" in its
present state. Drop a vase on the ground and break it, then you will
know what I mean. The broken vase can still be put together in order
to see what it looked like. Encryption does not lose the original
source.
Thus it is crystal clear that the Greeks did anagrammatize this
word "KRYPTEIN" from Turkish "KIRIP ETIN". As all can see. I have
no "nationalistic" bias in my analysis. It is a simple analysis where
I can see and demonstrate how the word was made and others cannot.
No linguist, including Mark Newbrook, has any idea about how Greek
words were made or how "encrypt" was made. Additionally no
historical linguist will explain things in this clear manner. Instead they
have sent everybody on a wild goose chase - either innocently
or intentionally. Thus it can be seen that linguistics has a huge
problem on their hands. Nobody seems to know what has taken place -
except those that were involved in the anagrammatization. To sum up,
the original Turkish "kirip edin" was first anagrammatized into Greek
and then reanagrammatized into English thus making it that much harder to
decrypt.
The English word "ENCRYPTED" represents the past tense of
"encrypt" by the addition of the so-called past tense suffix "-ED". But
the "-ED" is itself an anagram of Turkish past tense suffix "-DI". As
simple as that. There is no nationalism on my part playing a role in
this either.
Additionally, there is the noun form of the word,
that is, "ENCRYPTION". Now I say, the "TION" at the end of the word is
a concoction. It is not really a suffix although it appears to be one.
The word "ENCRYPTION" is an anagram of Turkish phrase "KIRIP ETIN
ONU" meaning "let someone make it broken". In this case, the
Turkish phrase has been rearranged into "ENCRYPTION" and the final "U"
has been dropped. Mark Newbrook may have difficulty in seeing
this because a) he probably does not know Turkish and its culture and b)
even if he did, he would not recognize it because he is preconditioned by the
books that he has read, by the historical linguistics that he has learned and
by the writings of other people who may have been equally influenced and
conditioned by their own predecessors.
Now I will show you
another example, the English word "ATONE" having the synonyms of: "beg
pardon", "ask forgiveness", "offer an apology", "express regret", "make
apology for", etc.. Yet ATONE is an anagram of Turkish UTAN meaning "be
ashamed", "be regretful", "apologise". Another form of ATONE is ATONEMENT
which is an anagram of Turkish "UTANMA ETIN" meaning "be ashamed of
yourself", "express regret", "say that you are sorry", "make reconciliation",
etc.. Linguists are not in a position to deny this.
As every
linguist can see (or ought to see), there is no ambiguity in my analysis and
nothing is being hidden, and there is no nationality concern involved.
Claiming that my nationality concerns are playing a role in my analyses is
total nonsense. I can say with certainty that no linguist was aware of
this revelation including Mark Newbrook. Historical linguistics will not
know about these revelations either. Therefore they are not in a position to
say anything on the subject as I am saying. I will also add that no
matter how much probability, simple or complex, one applies to these words,
they will not arrive at any of the information I am giving. My
explanations cannot be explained by coincidences or probability.
After having said all this in front of everyone here, Mark
Newbrook has to think many times before he can make his allegations against
me. In a way I am glad that I did not read the books he has been
reading. Otherwise, I would not be able to discuss these revelations with
you. The wrong or misguidance of historical linguistics can indeed be
very misleading. I hope Mark Newbrook will change his totally
unclear and imaginary rules and give up his very self limiting views.
I do not want to go through his allegations, denials, and/or
baseless inferences one by one. Again I have made my point very clear
indeed.
I also hope that Mark Hubey is following all this very
carefully without being bogged down with his "probabilities".
As far
as comparing my work with those of others, this is not my problem as Mark
Newbrook indicates. I say let everyone defend his/her own work freely
without being pushed around by the so-called linguists".
Those who do
not know or understand what I am talking about should at least stay neutral
rather than making all kinds of allegations and noise.
2. Mark
Newbrook said:
"Supporting evidence for this can readily be found in the
work of other such writers, who by proceeding in similar ways (some
involving anagrammatisation and some not) arrive at completely
different analyses (often motivated by their own nationalistic and
other biases). These analyses are, in general, no more but no
less persuasive than Polat Kaya's. Some of them, at any rate, do
not involve anagrammatisation and are thus more readily assessed.
Polat Kaya's refusal to compare his work with theirs is a serious
mistake.
For these reasons, theories such as Polat Kaya's cannot be
accepted unless they are (a) plausible and (b) supported by strong,
hard historical or textual evidence. Neither of these applies in
this case. The enterprise involved is altogether infeasible on the
scale proposed and no remotely similar case is known. Even minor
reforms such as spelling changes are often resisted effectively. And
there is no historical or textual evidence of these events having occurred.
Even if Polat Kaya should be right (and that is very unlikely indeed), we
could not demonstrate this without such evidence (because the linguistic
evidence itself cannot support him, for the reasons given above)."
Polat
Kaya: As everyone can see, all this verbosity by Mark Newbrook is
nothing but a vehement denial. That is all it is. I can see
how difficult it would be for linguists to accept what I am saying but
if science is a search for the truth, no matter how bitter it may be, my
claims must at least be taken into serious consideration. It should not
be forgotten how everyone resisted the ideas of Galileo Galilei at first.
As a linguist Mark Newbrook has a problem in his hand which he
does not want to tackle. Mark Newbrook still owes me scholarly comments
on my 125 words - one by one. There is no escaping from it.
3. Mark Newbrook said:
"On sources: Wallis Budge is an
important historical figure in Egyptology but his material is now
dated. As noted earlier, some of Polat Kaya's sources are dubious (eg
Sitchin). And one certainly cannot assume that the stories in Genesis
are factually true or even based on facts."
Polat Kaya: I disagree
wholeheartedly. Sir E. A. Wallis Budge was an eminent Egyptologist and
what he has done in his books are still valid and shining contrary to what
others may say. His work goes a long way in showing the Turkicness of the
ancient Egyptian language. It seems that others want to cloud his work now by
referring to it as "dated". Yet they would gladly refer to or quote a much
older work when it suits them.
4. Mark Newbrook
said:
"There is still no reason at all to accept Polat Kaya's ideas,
and this will not change unless he can do some things (as outlined by
me) which he has shown no signs of being willing or able to do."
Polat
Kaya: Once again, I want to state that Mark Newbrook has outlined nothing for
me. It looks more like Mark Newbrook is desperately hoping that readers will
reject my ideas as he is trying to do. Mark Newbrook draws the wrong
conclusion and then tries to inject that wrong conclusion on the other
readers. Why doesn't he just let everyone judge and speak for
themselves? Wouldn't that be the scholarly thing to do?
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@...
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