--- In Nostratica@yahoogroups.com, "allingus" <allingus@...> wrote:

>
> ----- Özgün Ileti -----
> Kimden: Polat Kaya
> Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com
> Gönderme tarihi: Saturday, August 02, 2003 4:01 PM
> Konu: [bcn_2003] LYCURGUS was Turkish "ULU KÖR GÖZ"
>
>
> "LYCURGUS", EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT TURKISH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
>
>
> The Latin word "cognamen", meaning "surname" or "family name", is
> from the Turkish expression "KÖG-NAMIN" meaning "your sky name" or
> "your root name" (KÖK-NAMIN).

The Latin word is 'cogno:men'!

> Roman emperors were assuming the
> cognamen of AUGUSTUS - which is known to represent God himself.
> The name AUGUSTUS is from "AUGUST", meaning "majestic", "grand",
> "imposing", "eminent" and "of high birth or rank", etc., which is

actually

> an anagram of Turkish name "OGUZ-ATA" referring to the Sky Father

God

> and the Sun and the Moon. There can be nothing more majestic or
> grander than that. Since the early Romans

'Early Roman' normally means before the empire, let alone before
emperors.

> were also "pagans", that is,
> believing in the ancient Turanian Sky-God religion ("OGUZ-ATA"),

they

> were elevating themselves by assuming a title derived from Turkish
> OGUZ-ATA.
>
> Now we come to the main topic of this essay, which is, the name of
> LYCURGUS as found in Homer's Iliad epic stories. The Greek

version

> of the name Lycurgus is given as LUKOURGOZ [1] in one word.

I presume you mean 'work', not 'word'. You should find it spelt
LUKOURGOS. I don't believe <Z> was ever a final letter in Greek
(except when a final vowel was elided before another one).

> Note that
> the Greek version does not use Y but rather U - indicating that Y

is

> actually a U in many cases as I have been saying.

The borrowing from Greek to Latin goes:

au > au
eu > eu
ou > u
u > y

The Classical Greek pronunciation of <u> on its own (roughly as in
Modern French) was sufficiently different to the Latin <u> that the
Classical Romans reborrowed <u> from Greek as <y>, distinct from the
<u> they acquired when they borrowed the whole alphabet from the
Greeks via the Etruscans.

> by definition he was
> necessarily a Turkish deity of the ancient Thracians (Turks). This

also

> shows conclusively that the ancient Thracians were Turkish speaking
> peoples as the name "Thracia", anagrammatized from Turkish "TURK

ÖYÜ"

> meaning "house of Turks", also indicates.

I don't see how 'Thra:ike:' is an anagram of "TURK ÖYÜ". Is the
process free to change the vowels?

> In Arabic "ETRAK" also means
> "Turks". THRACIA and ETRAK are linguistically related words.

I think you're saying:

1) Arabic for 'turks' is ETRAK.
2) The Greeks anagrammatised the Arabic name to get THRAKE.

<Snip>

> The above passage, in one hand, refers to a real person i.e.,

supposedly

> a Spartan lawgiver, but in the other hand could also refer to a
> mythological personification of a deity. Peter Green, in his book
> entitled "Ancient Greece" [4] provides a picture of the bust of

this

> Spartan lawgiver named LYCURGUS which I have attached to this
> writing. From this picture,

Which will be deleted on 7 August along with all other attachments.
Don't you read the other messages posted on this list?

> The Greek alphabet is one of the most ingeniously designed

deceptive

> alphabets particularly suitable for anagrammatizing Turkish into
> Greek. Many letters of this alphabet have multiple identities that
> can replace the letters of the original Turkish text without being
> noticed. For example, the final letter Z (letter "zita") in the

Greek

> spelling of the name LUKOURGOZ is actually a multi-identity letter
> which can replace Turkish letters such as S, Sh, Ç and Z in the
> original Turkish source text that is being anagrammatized. In this
> case, the Z in LUKOURGOZ actually represents the Z in Turkish GÖZ.

But, of course, the final letter in Greek is 's', not 'z'!

> Finally, to sum up, this evidence shows us that when the name
> LYCURGOS (LUKOURGOZ) was being coined in ancient Greece
> (Yunanistan) and Thracia,, i.e., the Balkans, at least during the
> 2nd millenium B.C., Turkish was there and was in full bloom.

Which I suppose is support, of a sort, for Jens's claim that the
Indo-European nominative singular used to end in -z (more than 5000
years ago)!

Richard.