----- Özgün İleti -----
Kimden: Mnewbroo@...
Kime: historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com
Gönderme tarihi: Monday, July 28, 2003 9:55 PM
Konu: Re: [historical_linguistics] Digest Number 24

More on Polat Kaya:

Polat Kaya continues to give no evidence for his claims; he only makes
assertions.  He has NOT shown that Turkish is of vast antiquity, and he has NOT
demonstrated his specific etymologies.  Even the case of BILGAMESH, which some
seem inclined to accept, remains only a claim.  No reason has been given for
accepting these analyses (quite the opposite of his claim that no one can dispute
them).  I cannot imagine how he conceives of what counts as good evidence, but
I assure him and everyone that no one trained in this discipline would share
his conception.  As long as he thinks in this way, he is doomed to remain on
the fringe.

In addition, he continues to treat Genesis as if it were a reliable
historical document.  This is unjustifiable.

Contrary to what Polat Kaya says, I HAVE provided criteria which his analysis
needs to meet (including comparison with the ideas of other such writers). 
If he is unwilling to apply these criteria but cannot rebut them (and so far he
has not rebutted them), his position is hopeless.  If he is unable to
understand how they would apply, I am willing to work through a few specific cases
with him.  But I have already tried to discuss one case with him, that of
ACCELERATE, and in this case he immediately shifted from one untenable analysis to
another, while still not addressing the criteria.  In fact, what I have said
would already be clear to anyone who knew enough to make worthwhile novel
proposals in this area.  And, after all, it is Polat Kaya who is making the novel
proposals and it is his responsibility to uphold them against well-supported
established positions.  He has altogether failed to engage with this enterprise. 
(As a matter of fact, as I have pointed out, analyses such as his, involving
all those loose parallels and all that 'anagrammatisation' could not possibly
be justified without concrete historical evidence; but, if - as it appears -
he does not understand this point, he might at least try!  See also Mark
Hubey's comments.)

ENCRYPT is NOT an 'anagram' of Greek KRYPTEIN; it is derived from it by
well-understood non-anagrammatic processes, and in this case the process is largely
on record.  The initial EN- has nothing to do with the Greek infinitive
ending -EIN.  Polat Kaya is again revealing that he knows too little about Greek,
at least, to say anything worthwhile about it.  He is merely embarrassing
himself here. 

Further, as usual, no evidence is given for the alleged Turkish etymology, or
for any deliberate 'anagrammatising'.  (Even where we do not know an
etymology, this does not mean that such proposals are reasonable.)

Only someone determined to see Turkish roots here would make such proposals -
just as some other writers see THEIR native language everywhere.  It is
disingenuous of Polat Kaya to deny bias.  But, even if he were not biased, his
analyses would still not hold up.

I stand by everything I have said, and I am confident that other linguists
will agree with me.  Those who do not know the subject should (provisionally)
accept this judgment and should ignore Polat Kaya.

I have given Polat Kaya's material a lot more attention than it deserves, and
unless he says something of genuine interest I will stop here.

Please circulate this to relevant groups.  Thanks.

Mark Newbrook

PS: The case of Bulgarian (with Macedonian) is interesting but needs to be
treated with care; it is clearly something of a 'mixed' language but equally
clearly it is agreed that its core is mainly Slavic.