Konu: RE: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat
Kaya
I think we have to go back one more step, to the language
which underlies all Indo-European, Semitic and Turkish languages. This
ancient language is now well accepted in Europe as being an earlier form of
Basque, the language spoken during the thousands of yeras the Goddess
religion held sway over North Africa, western Asia and all of Europe. Colin
Renfrew wrote in "The Human Inheritance" (1999): "the Basque language
may be regarded as the only early and indigenous language of Europe" (p.27).
Many linguists in Germany have now endorsed this position. This also means
that there is and never was, a family of Indo-European languages because they
were all invented by religious linguists, even Sanskrit. My book "Linguistic
Archaeology" (2001) explains it all in detail, how the monks made up all
languages of Europe using the Basque dictionary, without any exception. My
book may be obtained by going
to: www.trafford.com/robots/01-0069.html Most I-E words have an encoded
Basque sentence built in, written in shorthand and describing the meaning of
the word. My book gives many hundreds of examples of how the decoding process
works. The modern Basque-English dictionary by Gorka Aulestia is perfectly
adequate to decode most I-E words. The encoding was done in such a
mathematical format that it may be possible to recover the hidden sentence by
using a computer. To start this process we have now digitized Aulestia's
Basque dictionary, which is the first big step in our lexicon-statistical
project. The Turkish language may have been made up similarly and not all
that long ago, but I don't know what system was used or who did it. That may
be my next project. Turkish certainly was not used to make up many I-E
words.
-----Original
Message----- From: Polat Kaya
[mailto:tntr@...] Sent: Monday, July
28, 2003 7:40 AM To:
b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
[bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya
Dear
friends,
allingus forwarded a response of Mr. Mark Hubey as identified
below. Here I respond to its certain portions.
Subject: [bcn_2003] Fw:
[Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003
12:19:18 +0300 From: "allingus" <allingus@...> Reply-To:
b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com
To: "bcn" <b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com>
Mark Hubey said:
"Ok,
let's see. Somewhere I read that there are approximately one million acronyms
in English mostly technical stuff like LEM, DB, radar, etc. But this is
appropriate for this era since we have invented so many things that we need
to name. Surely nobody wants to write "lunar excursion module" all the time
so we simply put LEM. But this era is this era and 5,000 years ago things
were different."
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.
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. 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". In all cases,
the resulting manufactured words are based on Turkish "APA" meaning "father"
plus Turkish suffix "TIR" and its variations meaning "it is". 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"). As you can see, probability plays no part in this process
whatsoever.
And yes indeed 5,000 years ago things were different and
2,500 years ago things started to change. That is why we have what we
have now. It is not the same world anymore as was the case during the
first millennium B.C. and earlier.
Mark Hubey said:
"Words
are normally derived analogically e.g. via analogical extension. Nobody sat
around campfires drinking wine and inventing new words because there was no
pressing need for it."
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.
Mark Hubey
said:
"So nobody anagrammatized anything either."
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. All things point to that
alteration and takeover.
Mark Hubey said:
"But probability
does play a great part in showing that these exercises are
useless."
Polat Kaya: Nothing of the kind. The fact that you have never
tried to understand the formation of words as I have means that you are not
in a position to dismiss what I am saying. Contrary to denials, what
you call "useless exercises" are in fact huge revelations that
are unexpectedly revealing the Turkishness of the ancient
world.
Mark Hubey said:
"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". 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 Kaya: You are wrong again
and way out. Probability has nothing to do with a person taking a
Turkish phrase such as "DENIS-APA" and willfully changing it into
"POSEIDON". If what you say was possible, why dont you, for example,
try to take the name "POSEIDON", rearrange it and get the name "HERMES" out
of it. I bet you cannot do it no matter how much probablity you
use. Or similarly take the name "HERMES" and get "DENIS-HAN" out of it
using your probablity theorem. Let us see if you can do it. But I can
tell you that you can get Turkish "ERMESH" (ERMISH) from "HERMES" without the
use of probability - and with no problem.
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. 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. 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.
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. How come? What is the probability of this correspondence
taking place between two supposedly independently developed
languages?
Mark Hubey said:
"So, again you have to stick to
the rules of rational reasoning e.g. probability theory or a good substitute
for it e.g. RSC in historical linguistics."
Polat Kaya: There is
no rule saying that I must use "probability theory or a good substitute for
it e.g. RSC in historical linguistics" in analysing the formation of
words. 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. Otherwise I would not get those
correspondences. Thus you need to change your approach to the formation of
words.
Mark Hubey said:
"The rules are not artificial. They
derive from sound rational principles and have been codified as the axioms of
probability theory circa 1930s by the great Russian mathematician
Kolmogorov. Surely as an engineer you should have more respect for
mathematics than those that have never even had calculus in
college."
Polat Kaya: I do have a lot of respect for mathematics and I
enjoyed it tremendously. Do not think for a moment that I do not know
the utility of probability in mathematics. However, that does not
mean that I must use probability for naming words or for naming my
children etc.. Let me again accentuate that Turkish and GREEK are
supposed to be two distinct and independently developed languages. You
cannot expect that both independently developed the concept of a "GOD
FOR SEA" and then each gave a name for that concept such that, by
chance, they both had similar lettering and meanings. The
likelihood of that must be extremely low unless someone manually interfered
with the intent of usurpation.
Best wishes to all,
Polat
Kaya
July 28, 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