Dear Polat

You wrote

> In the latest incoming e-mails, someone called "John" is being
> extremely aggressive. John probably has not read my previous
> writings. I cannot repeat them here again but they are all in the
> archives of this forum. It would be beneficial for him, and others
> who are interested, to read them. John most likely does not know
> what deceptions have taken place in the past regarding the
> languages.
> John accuses me with a concocted expression "FEM" implying
> "falsehood".

As I am the John involved Polat, I was not accusing you of
falsehood. I was implying that your were using a False Etymological
METHOD - a method that was leading you into error. For example for a
number of the words your derived in English from Turkish I showed
that in fact the English words had a very different origin - an
origin historically documented.

I wrote
> John says "Sakas" are Iranians implying that they are
> "Indo-European". He is wrong. If he had investigated the "SAKA"
> identity, he would find that they are Turks - contrary to his
> beliefs. The term "Iranian" does not indicate a particular
> ethnicity.

Of course not. Iranian is not an ethnicity, it is a speaker of a
particular family of languages.

> In that geography there have always been Tur/Turk peoples present
> before the so-called Indo-European "Persians" were there. So what
> is being portrayed today as "Iranian" or "Persian" is actually a
> mixture of Turkish and later non-Turanians. When they talk about
> Iran, they rarely mention the fact that almost half of the present
> population are Turks. People have been conned so badly that it is
> difficult for them to accept this fact now.
> John says HYKSOS is the Greek word that prevailed. Yes, ancient
> Greeks were one of the contributers to the confusion. At every
> opportunity, they anagrammatized and changed the ancient Turkic
> names and words. Greek words keep coming to the surface because
> eurocentrics would like to see it that way.

Polat, I in fact said that Hyksos was nased upon the Egyptian "Heku
Shasu", a mistranslation of the Word the Egyptians used "Hekt Khaset".
Polat the reason why so much of our language in fact comes from the
Greek is because for over 1,000 years, Greek was the major language
of learning in the western half of the civilised oecumene. It has
nothing to do with Eurocentricism or not. It is simple historical

You continue
> The Greek, Jewish and Latin religious peoples were in ancient so-
> called Egypt by the thousands. Not that they were there to help
> the religious needs of the ancient Masarians (so-
> called "Egyptians"), but rather to learn about the ancient Masarian
> civilization and religion so that later, it could be a) used
> to destroy them from within and b) then usurped to generate new
> "religions" and "cultures". That is why the most long-lasting
> Tur/Turk state of human history has now become an extinct
> civilization. Of course those religious cabalists also changed
> everything Turkic wherever they found them. It must be understood
> that those ancient so-called "Egyptians" did not refer to
> themselves as "Egyptians" (meaning Gypsies) nor was their land
> called "Egypt".

Polat, the name Egypt comes from the name of the city of Memphis,
Memphis, the city that served as the capital of the ancient Egypt for
most of its history and which was known, during that history, as "Het-
ka-Ptah". This in Greek is "Aigyptos" from whence we get the name
Egypt. The confusion of Egypt with Gypsies is one fostered by a myth
of the Middle Ages. When the Romani people, when they arrived in
Paris in the Middle Ages, spread a tale that they were Egyptians who
had refused to take Jesus in when he and his mother fled King Herod,
and had been cursed to wander as a result. They also said that those
who would refuse them hospitality would also be cursed. In actual
fact the Romani language is of Indo-Aryan origin and has many spoken
dialects, but the root language is ancient Punjabi, or Hindi. The
spoken Romani language is varied, but all dialects contain some
common words in use by all Roma. Based on language, Roma are divided
into three populations. They are the Domari of the Middle East and
Eastern Europe (the Dom), the Lomarvren of Central Europe (the Lom),
and the Romani of Western Europe (the Rom).

> These are the names given by the ancient Greeks to obliterate the
> original names.

Not at all. The name the Greeks gave was an attempt by the Greeks to
pronounce the name the Egyptians themselves used to describe their
capital city.

> John would like to deny that "Troy" is an anagram of Turkish "TUR
> ÖY" but even the Greek word "Troia" meaning "Troy" is an anagram of
> Turkish "TUR-ÖYÜ" meaning "The house of TURS". For John's
> information, the name TUR is the national name of TUR/TURK peoples
> although he may try to deny that too.

Not at all. But on what evidence do you base the story that "Troia"
comes from "Tur-Öyü" apart from a distant similarity of sound? We
know that the Greek name "Troia" originally came from the earlier
name "Troas", and that it appears in Hittite texts as Taruisa. King
Tudhalias (ca. 1440-1410 BCE) refers to the subjugation of Assuwa in
Western Anatolia (from whence we get the word Asia). Allied with
Assuwa are Taruisa and Wilusiya (Troy and Ilios). Muwatallis (ca.
1296-1272) made a treaty with the King of Wilusiya, Alaksandus
(Alexander = Paris?). The gods of Wilusiya include Appaliunas (an
early form of Apollo). According to Homer Apollo fought on the
Trojan side during the Trojan War. Polat, you appear to be ignorant
of these histories, fac6ts which make your anagram theory very weak
and impossible for anyone with this historical knowledge to believe.

> When critics say that Wallis Budge is outdated, they are trying to
> suppress the validity of his works because this scholar was much
> more truthful than many. Wallis Budge's works are not outdated.

Polat, have you consulted the works I have given you in my previous
post on this subject. Consult them and you will see why E.A. Wallis
Budge (1857 - 1934), who was curator Egyptian and Assyrian
Antiquities at the British Museum from 1894 to 1924, is so out of
date. You are working with texts that have been superceded by all
Egyptologists for over 70 years. Polat, don't take my word for it,
Consult anyone who is a current expert in Egyptian hieroglyphics and
they will tell you the same.

> In concluding, I want to reiterate that all that I have said still
> stands irrespective of abrasive responses. So far, the responses
> from those who oppose my views do not have any convincing power to
> make me change my views.

Polat, unless you are prepared to do the work and check out the
references that I and others have provided you with, you can never be
convinced otherwise. Clearly you have a theory that you believe in
very strongly. As others have said - you can lead a horse to water
but you cannot make him drink; you can lead a man to knowledge but
you cannot make him think.

My responses are not to attack you, my friend, but merely your
mistaken ideas.

Hope this helps