Fw: [bcn_2003] Digest Number 231

----- Özgün İleti -----

Kime: b_c_n_2003@yahoogroups.com

Gönderme tarihi: Thursday, August 14, 2003 6:07 PM

Konu: Re: [bcn_2003] Digest Number 231

Dear Friends, Greetings to all. This is in response to Mark Newbrook's letter below. Mark Newbrook writes: > > I have had my say, and nothing has been said that calls my criticisms of > Polat Kaya into question; but it is good to see that others continue to expose the > ill-foundedness of his ideas. And it is notable that his critics include > people from a wide range of backgrounds and opinions: both those who accept > Nostratic (in some form) and those who do not, both Hubey and those who disagree > with him, even Nyland (who is himself regarded as a fringe figure). > POLAT KAYA: I have pointed out earlier and would like to point out again that those who do not know cannot make judgements. Mark Newbrook points out that, in addition to him, others also objected to what I am saying. Again, disagreeing with me is their right, but that really does not change the situation because my analysis of some of the Greek, Latin and other I-E words speak for themselves. Substituting the concept of NOSTRATIC in place of Turkish is a concoction to divert the attention from the real "proto" language Turkish to another imaginary language. Of course, the linguistic community is not used to dealing with Turkish in such a manner, that is, it being in the forefront. If an Indo-European language was proposed as the "proto" language, that would constitute no problem. No imaginary made up name (i.e., Nostratic) would be required. Turkish has been intentionally pushed out of the way for so long that it cannot be allowed back to visibility. During the last few days, we have all seen unwarranted censorship by the Nostratic grooup. Mark Newbrook writes: > > Polat Kaya is most unlikely ever to accept that he might be wrong; such > writers have committed themselves to their pet theories. But anyone can see that > his 'theory', while implausible and unsupported, is effectively immune from > formal disproof and hence empirically unsound. POLAT KAYA: Polat Kaya knows that he is right in what he is saying. Under the circumstances, no one would give up the idea. Why should Polat Kaya? To accentuate my point, I will explain the morphology of a term that Mark Newbrook uses often, i.e., "implausible". This English word "IMPLAUSIBLE", meaning "not believable, not possible", when rearranged as "PUILABILMES", is seen to be an anagram of Turkish expression "BU OLABILMEZ" meaning "this cannot be" or "this is not possible." This correspondence itself proves that the term "IMPLAUSIBLE" was anagrammatized from Turkish phrase "BU OLABILMEZ". It is impossible for Mark Newbrook and others like him, as linguists, to ignore this correspondence? Additionally, in front everyone, some NOSTRATICS in responding to my response to JOHN anagrammatized my name "POLAT KAYA" into "TOPAL AYAK" which shows how skilfull some of these people are in transforming or anagrammatizing Turkish names into another form. These people have unquestionably proven that not only do some of them know Turkish while pretending not to, but also that they are very capable of anagrammatizing Turkish into any language they wish. This verifies what I have been saying all along, that is, that the same game has been played in the past to come up with the so-called Indo- European and Semitic languages, and most likely is still going on. As everyone can see, a deception of unparalled magnitude in human history involving languages and other fields has been perpetrated during the last few millennia. The ancient Turanian religion along with the Turkish language and the ancient Tur/Turk civilization have been usurped by others. Mark Newbrook writes: > Note that Nyland > proposes a similar scenario but with a different source language! Why should > one prefer either? POLAT KAYA: Edo Nyland named an earlier form of Basque languages as the source for all Indo-European languages. In my response to Edo Nyland, I conclusively showed that the earlier form of Basque language was in fact an Oguz language, that is, Turkish, and hence was no different than Turkish itself. However, presently, Basque (EUSKARA) is in an anagrammatized form - like the Indo-European languages. Thus using the vague term "a different source language!" for the original Basque language does not change the fact that it was a dialect of Turkish. The 52 Basque words that I gave definitely proved that Basque people were Turkish speaking Turanian people. Although Edo Nyland did not know that Basque was a dialect of Turkish, by attacking me, he forced me to look at the Basque language closely which I had been delaying for some time. Under the pressing situation, I was able to show that Basque indeed had a kinship with Turkish. Thus any way one cuts it, the Indo- European languages were manufactured from different dialects of Turkish whether Mark Newbrook likes it or not. Mark Newbrook writes: > And > where Polat Kaya talks about non-Turkish languages he is often badly wrong. > Look again at what he says about Greek! POLAT KAYA: Mark Newbrook likes to make a lot of declarations saying this is wrong and that is wrong but he never seems to back them up. Yet I backed up my statements with all sorts of powerful evidence which are being ignored. Whether Mark Newbrook knows it or just disagrees with it, Greek is a manufactured language just like the others. It is most likely that Mark Newbrook and many other linguists were not aware of this situation. Evidence indicates that what I have said about Greek and also Latin is the truth despite denials. In this regard I shone a light on the path of those who are studying or will be studying Greek, Latin, or any other Indo-European and Semitic languages. It is their right to know what language is at the root of these languages. Using an imaginary language named "Nostratic" instead of Turkish is pure deception. It seems that the innocent students of these languages have been conned and led in a wrong direction while the actual root language (Turkish) has always been around. Obviously these manufactured languages have now become distinct languages which I do not deny. Many well-intentioned people speak them without knowing what has has gone on at the root. I showed the root language in a very clear cut and scientific way saying that it was Turkish. This has somehow displeased Mark Newbrook and some others. At this point, I would like to cite a statement from Prof. G. S. Kirk who writes the following. [G. S. Kirk, "The Nature of Greek Myths", Penguin Books, 1974, p. 267]: "The very term "Greek" is full of ambiguity. "Greek" like "Akkadian", denotes a language rather than a people. The Greek speaking people began to enter the Greek peninsula shortly before 2000 B.C., but they found there an indigeneous population that already had cultural and perhaps linguistic connections with Asia Minor". POLAT KAYA: The indigeneous population that Greeks found in ancient Greece (Yunanistan) were the Turkic speaking Turanians whose culture and language indeed had connections with those people in Asia Minor, because people in Asia Minor were also Turkic speaking Turanian peoples. In the Trojan wars, the Phyrigians, Thracians, Pelasgians and many other Asia Minor peoples were on the side of Trojans which is an indication that they were all from the same Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. Even the term "Asia Minor" implies that it was like the Asia Major, that is, the Continent of Asia, but only on a smaller scale. It is commonly said that if one knew Turkish, one could travel from one end of Asia to the other without having any difficulty. This indicates that Turkish was a dominant language in Asia. Of course it was also the same in Asia Minor where the native population was the Turkish speaking Turanians. In the above statement by Prof. G. S. Kirk, he states that the names 'Akkadian' and 'Greek' did not denote people, but rather each denotes a language. There is a peculiarity in this situation. A serious thinking will make it clear that there cannot be a language without people. It has been said by many writers that ancient Greeks and the Akkadians were wanderers. So initially there was no Greek or Akkadian languages. Since there were no Greek or Akkadian languages before, then how did they get a language of their own later? The answer must be that they took it from the already existing Turkish language spoken by the earlier native Turanians and changed it by way of anagrammatizing its words and expressions into new words for themselves. My recent LYCURGUS (ULU-KÖR-GÖZ) paper shows this clearly. Prof. G. S. Kirk shows that there are others who also have their doubts about the Greek and the Greek language. Perhaps Mark Newbrook would like to have a think about that. These facts either have not been recognized by scholars, or if they have, they have been very lull about it. Thus in this regard the world public has been put into a long and deep sleep since ancient times. Incidently, for the information of those who do not know, the word "LULL" is an anagram of the Turkish word "LAL" of the same meaning. Mark Newbrook wrote: > I suggest that groups like this, containing some very scholarly people, have > more fruitful things to discuss than theories like Polat Kaya's. > POLAT KAYA: So far I have yet to see any scholarly response from Mark Newbrook. He insists that what I say is "implausible" without explaining any of the 125 words that I offered him. He evaded them. But yet they were powerful evidence for what I am saying. Evidently Mark Newbrook cannot see clearly what I am talking about. Actually, the concept I presented was not outrageously difficult to grasp. His disagreeing with me is one thing, but his going out of his way and recommending censorship for my writings is another. First of all, Mark Newbrook, being in an institution where free discussion of ideas are permitted, knows the value and importance of free diuscussion. His recommending censorship of my ideas now cannot be regarded as a feather of distinction in his cap. Secondly, as an academician, he should know that once an idea is born it cannot be suppressed readily. Ideas are like seeds in the ground, they have ways of overcoming barriers. In concluding and in response to Mark Newbrook's very first statement, that is, "I have had my say, and nothing has been said that calls my criticisms of Polat Kaya into question", I say, on the contrary, it is the other way around. Mark Newbrook is just trying to turn the table around. While he was always evasive, I did not shy away from discussing anything. Best wishes to all, Polat Kaya August 14, 2003 ============= Mnewbroo@... wrote: > > Re: Polat Kaya > > I have had my say, and nothing has been said that calls my criticisms of > Polat Kaya into question; but it is good to see that others continue to expose the > ill-foundedness of his ideas. And it is notable that his critics include > people from a wide range of backgrounds and opinions: both those who accept > Nostratic (in some form) and those who do not, both Hubey and those who disagree > with him, even Nyland (who is himself regarded as a fringe figure). > > Polat Kaya is most unlikely ever to accept that he might be wrong; such > writers have committed themselves to their pet theories. But anyone can see that > his 'theory', while implausible and unsupported, is effectively immune from > formal disproof and hence empirically unsound. Once one allows for covert > manipulation and conspiracy on a massive scale, all bets are off. Note that Nyland > proposes a similar scenario but with a different source language! Why should > one prefer either? There are other such people too (Ior Bock, Oak, etc). And > where Polat Kaya talks about non-Turkish languages he is often badly wrong. > Look again at what he says about Greek! > > I suggest that groups like this, containing some very scholarly people, have > more fruitful things to discuss than theories like Polat Kaya's. > > Mark Newbrook
"Biz Cevirmenlere N'oluyor!" bilgi toplulugu, allingus Profesyonel Yabanci Dil Cozumleri Ltd. Sti.'nin bir girisimidir. allingus@... allingus2001@... Kurulus Bildirisini http://groups.yahoo.com/group/b_c_n_2003/ bolgesinde okuyabilirsiniz. Mayis 2001 Önemli Not: 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 TURKCE KORUNACAK!