Dear Polat

You wrote

> Polat Kaya: Mark Hubey is mixing apples and oranges. I was not
> talking about acronyms at all. I was explaining that when there is
> intentional human interference in language development (as in
> intentional anagrammatization of Turkish words and phrases to come
> up with new English words), there is no probability involved.

Polat, to construct a theory like this we need more details.
Firstly, who did the anagramatisation (i.e. which people, at what
period in history, located in which country). England is a long way
from the homeland of the Turks, can you show me the route that this
supposed anagramatisation took?

You continued

> 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.

To make such a claim Polat, you need more evidence. A superficial
claim at anagramatisation can be used between any two languages. As
I mentioned, in the Aboriginal Nyungar language of South Western
Western Australia, the word for father is "Maman" - now I could make
a claim that the word mama fior mother was made from this word as a
result of a gender shift. The word for "Dog" is Dwerg" - a clear
case of the fact that Dog is anagramaticised from the Nyungar
language. How is this any different than what you are proposing for
Turkish? Clearly the Nyungar --> English origin is impossible. I
feel that your Turkic --> English theory (in the absence of any other
evidence of the type I spoke about) is also equally impossible.
Until the Middle Ages there was no one in England who even knew the
Turks existed!

You write

> 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".

Not so Polat. English "father" in fact comes from the Old
English "faeder" related to the Old Saxon "fatar". German "Vater"
comes from Old High German "fater". Both the Old Saxon and Old High
German (together with Old Norse "fathir" and Gothic "fadar"), come
from the Germanic *fad3r and thence from the Proto-Indo-European
*p't3r (associated with Grimm's Law for the shift of *p --> *f). The
Turkic "apa" clearly has a different etymology altogether. To trace
the etymology of modern English and German you need to know the
intermediary forms through which these words have passed.

> Italian and Spanish took the Turkish word and came up
> with "PADRE".

Not so Polat, as Spanish and Italian took "padre" from the
Latin "pater", which again comes from the PIE *p't3r.

> Persian took the Turkish source and came up with "PEDER".

Again, Polat Modern Iranian "peder" comes from various intermediaries
in Old Persian and Avestan, from the same PIE source. To say that it
all comes from Turkish, a modern language, would require you to look
at the word "father" in the Orkhon runes, and also in the other
related Turkic languages. The fact that Turkic languages have many
of the characteristics of being dialects of a common source, and the
degree of mutual intelligibility is still so high is a measure of the
comparative recent nature of the differentiation between these
various tongues. Germanic (for example - Modern English and Modern
German) has come so far that the two languages are now no longer
intelligible, showing the differentiation of English and German
probably began before the differentiation of the various forms of
Turkic. Thus Turkic languages are considered to be generally yonger
than Proto-Germanic (the common ancestor of English and German, or
for that matter a lot younger than PIE).

Polat, you wrote

> In all cases, the resulting manufactured words are based on
> Turkish "APA" meaning "father" plus Turkish suffix "TIR" and
> its variations meaning "it is".

What evidence do you have of this other than a fairly superificial
FEM link?

> In the process, the original meaning was altered (i.e., the
> original Turkish phrase "APATIR" meant "IT IS FATHER" but the new
> words were assigned the meaning "FATHER").

Again, I ask, who altered it? When were they living? Where did they
live? Why was it altered?

> As you can see, probability plays no part in this process
> whatsoever.

Until you can answer the questions I have asked, probability plays a
huge part. Only when all these questions are answered can we remove
a "balance of probabilities" from the equation and say it is probably
certain that you are right.

> And yes indeed 5,000 years ago things were different and 2,500 years
> ago things started to change.

Things started changing long before 2,500 years ago Potar. Change,
in language and in pronunciation and grammar has been a constant ever
since the first human utterances were made!

Regarding the creation and evolution of words Polat wrote

> Polat Kaya: Evidently there was quite a pressing need for it in
> Babylon and other similar centers for such activities. It did not
> have to be done around campfires while consuming wine. The purpose
> would be much better served if it was done in complete secrecy and
> behind closed doors.

Polat, if this is so, how do you propose that the "plotters"
pursuaded everyone to start using the new words they had created -
especially when the words were something as fundamental to human
society as the word for "father"? By your definition what was the
word for "father" or "vater" used by the English or Germans *BEFORE*
they started using the Turkish anagram you suggest?

> Polat Kaya: Not only do you not know that, but you are also very
> wrong on that. Linguistically, we are living in an artificially
> altered world. We have all been taken for a great ride, of course,
> including the linguists. I gave many word evidences to demonstrate
> how the simple technique of "anagrammatizing" Turkish words and
> phrases played a very great role in shaping many of the present
> world languages, particularly Indo-European and Semitic languages.

Polat, how do you explain the fact that so many people "have been
taken for a ride" but you alone have discovered "the truth"? For
such a conspiracy about words and their meanings to work, many
hundreds of thousands if not millions of people must have been kept
in ignorance by those Babylonian linguists behind their closed
doors. To have a conspiracy of such a nature continuing for
millennia, and not to have leaked out, just beggars belief. It
reminds me of the story of the woman who, when seeing her son in a
military parade, said "Everyone is out of step with my Johnny!"

When you say

> All things point to that alteration and takeover.

I would ask again for evidence other than the anagramatisation you
point to. Again, can you explain the time, place and circumstances
that led to this amazing event?

> "One can take a word, take apart its letters/sounds and create new
> words from it. And because there are so many possibilities, the
> probability that this particular reorganization of the sounds is
> likely easy and thus meaningless."
>
> in response to my earlier:
>
> "In the so-called Greek mythology, the name POSEIDON is the god of
> seas, waters, etc. I say that this so-called Greek god was nothing
> but the anagrammatized name of Deniz-Han of the Turanians. How so? I
> will show you how. When one rearranges the name POSEIDON as
> DENIS-OPO, it is readily seen that it is the anagram of Turkish
> "DENIZ-APA" meaning "father of sea".

Again this is based upon a failure to understand the true nature of
Ancient Greek. Poseidon comes from the Mycenaean Greek "Poseidas"
or "Poteidas" a word derived from a term meaning "husband of Potnia"
the Mycenaean "Mother Goddess" (Potnia = Mistress). It has nothing
at all to do with Deniz-Han, or Denis-Opo, or "Father of the Sea".
In fact Poseidon did not probably start at all as a Sea God, but
became a Sea God only with the Olympian formation under Hesiod and
Homer of the world being divided between three Gods - Zeus (land),
Poseidon (Sea) and Hades (underword). This thripartite division
probably occurred in the Archaic period, based upon the Phoenician
tripartite division of the world between Baal (land), Yam (Sea) and
Mot (death = underword).

So when you write

> Now I claim that this is not a normal change of the name. As you
> can see, probablity played no part in this transformation."

Polat, as you can see from the Mycenaean and Archaic Greek analysis
(above) your construction is based upon a FEM (False Etymological
Method) and has no basis in reality.

> As another example, take the Turkish name "HIZIR". HIZIR is
> regarded as "ERMESH" immortal meaning "he who has reached
> godliness". In his Turkish cultural role he is just
> like "HERMES". HIZIR can be present at any place at any time.
> HIZIR is defined as "legendariy person who attained immortality by
> drinking from the water of life." The Turkish expression: "Hizir
> gibi yetish" means "to come as a god send; to come to the rescue at
> the right moment". HERMES, as defined in the so-called Greek
> mythology, is also god's messenger and can be at any place at any
> time.

This is not so. As messenger of the Gods Hermes had to be sent by
Zeus before he was present. In fact Hermes comes from the Greek
*Herms who were special idols established at cross-roads to ward off
evil spirits. Once again through your ignorance of Greek history and
linguistics you are proposing similarities which just do not hold
water.

> 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.

In actual fact they have nothing in common at all except for a
superficial similarity of name. Besides *-SH is generally pronounced
differently in Latin script than *S. Taking the H from the end of
Ermesh and placing it in the front of the word, only works if you are
using a Latin and not a Greek script. Are you proposing that the
Babylonian conspirators you are proposing wrote in Latin script
(introduced into Turkish only with Kemal Ataturk!) Surely not?

> 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.

Probability has everything to do with it. The Turks of before the
2oth century did not even write the word ERMESH - in fact it was
written in Arabic derived script with a totally different phonology
attached to it that does not fit Latin (or even Greek).

You wrote

> 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.

But the method of writing Turkish as MIN ILLI ANUM or bin yilli an'um
has only existed for a century.... it did not exist in a Latin
alphabet before that so the proposition that it came in this way is
rediculous. Millennium in fact comes from the Latin "mille" = a
thousand, and the word "annus/annum" meaning year. millennium thus
does not need your Turkish reconstruction when a perfectly adequate
and much closer Latin one is present.

Thus when you say

> Note that the same lettering exists in both cases. How come? What
> is the probability of this correspondence taking place between two
> supposedly independently developed languages?

Given that the same "letters" are not present (bin yilli an'um is in
fact very different - how and when did the *b- become an *m-?). By
taking things out of context and ignoring the languages from which
words actually did derive, you can construct such anagrams between
any two languages on the face of the planet.

So the

> The reason that I am getting so many correspondences between
> English, Greek and Latin words is due to the fact that I am
> examining each word with rational reasoning.

But you are doing so completely independently from the known origin
of these words. Origins preserved in written texts from a period
before Latin script was used at all. If you remove the Latin
orthography for the words you are using Polat - all correspondences
fly out of the window. What you find is then you do not get the
correspondences you show.
Regards

John