In response to a message sent:
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:09 PM
Subject: Fw: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Response to Polat Kaya's...II


PK: This is in response to Richard Wordingham's response dated July 24,
2003. My comments are interlaced with his and are in capitals.

JRW: Please do not reply in capitals. They come across as ill-mannered
shouting, which I trust is not the impression you wished to give.

Mark Hubey(?): "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."

PK: 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.

PK: 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.

JRW: "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.

JRW: You were arguing that A ~ B and B ~ C do not imply A ~ C. I am saying
that the claim you were responding to was that A ~ B implied B ~ A. I
presume that are not actually saying that logical thinking cannot be applied
to linguistics. Or are you?

PK: 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.

JRW: "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.

JRW: "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!

JRW: Am I supposed to deduce anything from the fact that, by your matching
rules, 'Polat Kaya' could be anagrammaticised as "goat a' play"?

> 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..

> 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.

JRW: It was merely the number of borrowings that I was referring to.

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.

JRW: In the sense of the class 'Mammalia', I trust you don't think Linnaeus
coined it from anything but Latin _mamma_. For consistency, you should be
arguing that the Latin word came from the Azerbaijani word, which I expect
is the same as the Turkish word.

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.

JRW: Nor is it surprising that to see that the language has changed during
the course of recorded history. The 'soft' g (written as 'g' with a caron
or breve over it) has evanesced in recent, recorded history.

> 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.

JRW: Turkish tolerance is well known.

>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".

JRW: Plenty of Indians think that Sanskrit is the ancestor of all languages.
But they do not speak it nowadays. Why should the rest of us behave any
differently?

> 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:

JRW: "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:

JRW: "Anagram? I see no re-arrangement!"

Polat Kaya: LOOK REAL CLOSELY AND YOU WILL SEE IT!

JRW: Letter by letter, the formal correspondence is BIRATA > BRATA > PRATA >
PRATO > PROTO. No re-arrangement! There is a semantic problem is
connecting the meaning 'beFORE' with the meaning 'one'. I can only see
*one*-way routes from the meaning 'one' to the meaning 'first' and from the
meaning 'before' to 'first'.

JRW: "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?

JRW: Your ludicrous (= ridiculous) idea that all languages are descended
from a modern language which has not significantly changed over 7000 years.

Richard.