Hi Polat

You wrote of my post

> When Latin is being made up from a model language, then evidently
> there was need for Turkish expressions. Latin word "adunamentum" is
> clearly an anagram of Turkish "UDANMA MENTUM" (Utanma men itum)
> meaning "I am the [concept of] being ashamed". The suffix "mentum"
> is referring to the concept that the word represents.

Polat when did the *A- of Adunamentum in Latin replace the *U of
Udanma-men-itum. And when did the *-u- of Adunamentum repalce the *-
a- of Udanma-men-itum. And finally when did ht *-ma- of Utanma get
deleted altogether. Linguists tend to show the existence of
Linguistic "Laws" which show how these things occur. Thus the *p- of
Indo-European tended to get replaced by an *f- in Germanic languages
(thus Latin "pisces" and "pater" became "fish" and "father"). What
regular linguistic laws can you show us how your anagramatisation
took place.

> Thus, similarly, Latin "adunamentum" is nothing but an anagram of
> Turkish "UDANMA MENTUM" (Utanma men itum). In the anagrammatization
> process of the Turkish text, the Turkish infix "m" of the infix
> "me/ma" has been dropped and in its place the "me" in the word
> "mentum" has been used. What is left over is the UDANA MENTUM" in
> which first U and A change places.

Polat, when did these changes occur? Who was it who made these
changes and why? What evidence do you have (either onomastic or
epigrammatic) that demonstrates these kinds of changes?

> The rest of the two Turkish words have been joined together to make
> the latin word "ADUNAMENTUM".

Polat, scientific theory works because one can demonstrate the
contexts in which a theory can be disproved, and when we find that
the test that could disprove the theory come up with a "nul" result,
the we say the theory can be proved. I have given you a number of
questions which you continue to ignore that could establish for me
the truth or falsity of your theory, but you never answer these
questions. Why do you avoid them?

> Normally there should be no such correspondence in two remotely
> developed languages.

Oh yes there are. There are many correspondences between any two
languages that exist purely by chance. For example your case of "I
am the [concept of] being ashamed", has only very little to do
with "expiation, reconciliation with God and man" which my dictonary
tells me is the meaning of "atonement".

Polat try answering the questions I have proposed in this and other
emails, and I may find your theory of Turkish anagramatisation a
lttle more convincing. Until you do, I prefer to stay with the
theories which have withstood the tests of time.

Warm regards

John