Reply to posting sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:21 PM
Subject: Fw: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya
PK: Somebody
makes a decision to manufacture a new English word. He takes a
Turkish word or expression for a particular concept that is related to
the new word he is trying to manufacture, shuffles it up, drops a
vowel here, changes a consonant there, rearranges as he pleases until
he comes up with what appears to be an English-like word that also
effectively conceals the Turkish source.
JRW: No. I didn't know any Turkish when I first conciously made a word up.
PK: For example, take the Turkish
word "APATIR" meaning "he is father". English anagrammatized this
Turkish word to come up with "FATHER". German took this Turkish word
and came up with "VATER". Italian and Spanish took the Turkish word
and came up with "PADRE". Persian took the Turkish source and came up
with "PEDER".
JRW: What did the Romans do? What did the Irish do?
PK: In all cases, the resulting manufactured words are
based on Turkish "APA" meaning "father" plus Turkish suffix "TIR" and
its variations meaning "it is".
JRW: Actually, you may be 40% right here. And the mother word? (Latin
ma:ter, Greek me:te:r, Sanskrit ma:ta:, Thai ma:nda:, mE:, Chinese ma:,
Welsh mam, Russian mat').
PK: Thus, Greek "HERMES" and Turkish "ERMESH" have a
lot in common. In fact from the word formation point of view, all one
has to do is take the letter "H" of Turkish "ERMESH" and bring it to
the front, to get the name "HERMES". This is not due to coincidence
and it is highly likely that this is what the Greeks did.
JRW: Fascinating! When did the spelling 'sh' for /S/ arise? I had always
thought it was an English invention (c. 1200 AD).
PK: Therefore, you cannot discard the possibility that Turkish "ERMISH" or
"HIZIR" was not anagrammatized into "HERMES". Probability has nothing to do
with Turkish "ERMISH" being taken over by Greeks.
PK: I am afraid you and most other linguists are very wrong in your
perception of words, particularly Greek, Latin and other Indo-European
words and even Semitic words. Let me give you another example. What is
the probability that the so-called Latin word "MILLENNIUM" is not an
anagram of Turkish expression "MIN ILLI ANUM" (bin yilli an'um)
meaning "I am a time period of one thousand years"? As you know, that
is what a "MILLENNIUM" is, i.e., a period of one thousand years. Note
that the same lettering exists in both cases.
JRW: 11 letters = 10 letters? Presumably you've deleted one of the I's
because "I am a time period of one thousand years" makes no sense. Whats
the excuse for replacing 'A' by 'E'?
PK: How come? What is the
probability of this correspondence taking place between two supposedly
independently developed languages?
JRW: 0.8? My Turkish is very poor. I think _evleri_ means 'their house',
.i.e. 'where they live', i.e. 'live 'ere'. Make an anagram, discarding one
letter - 'evleri'! How's that?