Re: [historical_linguistics] Response to Polat Kaya's...
--- In email@example.com, Polat Kaya
Mr. Tisinli and Mr. M. Hubey have both directed me with the
"I would like to see Mr. Polat Kaya show me why Turkish "acele eder"
-- for the sake of argument, I will assume that acele is not a loan
word -- is not from "accelerate"? (If "acele eder" can be
anagramatized from "accelerate" so as the latter can be from the
former). I am requiring this, because, if it turns out that Mr. Kaya
turns is right about the possibility of obtaining a language from
another by anagramatizing, some people will definitely come forward
and claim it is that Turkish that is anagramatized from Latin and not
the other way around."
First of all, if I may say so, this is a distraction from the main
topic. Anyone claiming that Turkish is an anagram of Latin has to do
his own defending of the idea as I have been defending my claim that
Latin and Greek and their derivatives were anagrammatized from
Turkish. Additionally, I never said that "acele eder" was
anagrammatized from "accelerate", I said it was the other way around.
I shared with everyone in this forum that "accelerate" is an anagram
of Turkish "ecele eder" (acele eder). Now the idea is being put
forward saying that Turkish "ecele eder" may be the anagram of English
"accelerate" and hence Turkish may be claimed to be anagrammatized
from Latin. I say this was not the case for Turkish. First of all,
one cannot apply mathematics to linguistics so readily. I realize
that in mathematics, if A = B and B = C, then we can say that A = C;
however this type of thinking cannot be applied to linguistics. The
words of a language cannot be likened to the terms of a mathematical
equation. Words are the product of deliberate assignment of names to
concepts. They are influenced by culture, beliefs, language-lifespan,
history, environment and many other factors.
Secondly, who anagrammatized from whom is a function of what language
was ahead of the others. If language A was ahead of B and C, it is
very likely that B and C took a lot from language A. This holds true
for loan words and anagrammatized words. However, if B and C were
designed to be totally different from A, which is very likely, then
they would have far less loan words from A but far more words and
phrases from A anagrammatized into them. Take the modern example of
computer languages. It cannot be denied that computer languages like
COBOL and C, which were developed after Fortran, took much from
FORTRAN (and even BASIC). In other words, FORTRAN served as the model
language for the development of other computer languages. This is
exactly what I am saying about the Turkish language in relation to
other languages. Turkish was the most ancient language. Why?
Because Turkish was present at least with the Sumerian and the
so-called ancient "Egyptian" languages some 7000 years ago. The name
"BILGAMESH" (so-called GILGAMESH) is one giant testament to that.
The Encyclopaedia Brtannica (EB) World Language Dictionary (1963) says
that theoretically Turanians antedated the Aryans in Asia and Europe.
This means that Turkish was being spoken in Asia and Europe earlier
than other languages. An earlier language has no need to
anagrammatize from a later language in order to enrich itself. The
newer languages are the ones that have benefited from the earlier
language, not the other way around. The earlier one language that the
world spoke had nothing to anagrammatize from. It created words for
itself over thousands of years of evolution. It had already named all
concepts known at that time. The people who wanted to confuse that one
language that the world spoke took the easy way out and anagrammatized
the existing one language. Anagrammatizing is much easier, cheaper and
less time consuming because all concepts used by humans at that time
were already named and defined. The later languages are inflected
languages because they are cut and paste languages that do not follow
rules. As everone knows, there are no rules in shuffling a deck of
cards. Manufacturing new words by way of anagrammatizing is like
shuffling a new deck of cards which comes in a predefined order.
Shuffling confuses that order. And today, to further bury that ancient
one language (Turkish) deeper into the ground, the so-called name
"NOSTRATIC" has been coined as the "proto-language" - as if it
represents a language different from Turkish.
The English term "accelerate" is a rather modern term expressing a
modern concept in physics. If Turks needed a term like "accelerate"
to express the same concept in Turkish and hence anagrammatized
"accelerate", then the question comes to mind: "how come they did not
use "acele eder" as a term in physics to express the concept? Instead
they have used a totally different term to express it (presently
"ivme"). If one is not going to use the anagrammatized term, then why
bother with the "anagrammatizing"? Yet the Turkish expression "acele
et" has been used in many expressions in Turkish before the invention
of the term "accelerate".
Turkish "acele" could not have been derived from Latin or English to
express the concept of "accelerate". It is a native Turkish word of
long standing. In Turkish, when one has an urgent message to deliver
to a destination, probably the first thing that comes to mind is to
say to the messenger: "acele et" meaning "hurry up", "be quick",
"run", "don't drag your feet", etc. Here, "acele" is not alone. It
is accompanied with Turkish "et" meaning "do" or "make". "Accelerate",
however, is a modern term claimed to be from Latin "accelero". Yet
Latin "accelero" is very much from Turkish phrase "acele er o" meaning
"he is a fast man". Point being that "acele", as in Turkish
expressions "acele eder", "acele er o", "acele et", "acele git",
"acele gel", "acele yap", etc., is used in a Turkish context, i.e., as
the Turks would use it.
Critical minds will know that Turks did not gallop out of Central Asia
on their horses to make contact with Latins/Greeks etc., in order to
enrich Turkish by way of anagrammatizing Latin words or Greek words.
Turks are not in the habit of confusing, or anagrammatizing other
languages. Even in the most recent Turkish Ottoman empire, all ethnic
groups were allowed to keep and maintain their languages. The Ottoman
Turks did not confuse or obliterate their languages. The most they did
was to take some loan words and retain them in their original format,
i.e., not anagrammatized. Therefore stating that Turkish could be
claimed as being anagrammatized from Latin or any other language is
I had given the example of Arabic "TENZILAT" (anagrammatized from
Turkish "AZALTTIN"). If it was the other way around, that is, the
Turks had anagrammatized "AZALTTIN" from "TENZILAT", then why did they
keep using "TENZILAT"? If the Turks had actually anagrammatized
"AZALTTIN" from Arabic "TENZILAT", and thrown away "TENZILAT", and
then used "AZALTTIN" for price reduction, we would never know that
such an act had ever happened. But Turks do use the Arabic loan word
"TENZILAT" for price reduction - without any changes to it - implying
that Turks did not anagrammatize. "AZALTTIN" is a derivative of
Turkish word "AZALTMAK". Hence Turkish can not be claimed as being
from Arabic either.
The question may come to mind: "Why are there many so-called Arabic
and Persian loan words in Turkish?" The answer must be that the
Selcuks and Ottomans knew that their TUR ancestors were in what is
presently called Iran, the Middle East, so-called Egypt, Anatolia
etc., far earlier than themselves and that they were talking an
earlier form of Turkish (despite the fact that modern Turks do not
seem to know this). The Selcuks and Ottomans readily accepted loan
words from these Middle Eastern peoples because they probably regarded
them as the mixed-up remnants of their ancient TUR ancestors in that
I have indicated in this forum many times the statement of Sir E. A.
Wallis Budge saying that ancient Egyptians (MISIR/MASAR) were certain
invaders from north-east or Central Asia.
Sir E. A. Wallis Budge was one of the pioneers who wrote books about
the ancient Egyptian language. He is well famed for his "An EGYPTIAN
HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY". Regarding the ancient Egyptian
hieroglyphic writing system, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge wrote:
"THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS EXPRESSED THEIR IDEAS IN WRITING BY MEANS OF A
LARGE NUMBER OF PICTURE SIGNS, KNOWN AS HIEROGLYPHICS. THEY BEGAN TO
USE THEM FOR THIS PURPOSE MORE THAN SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO, AND THEY
WERE EMPLOYED UNINTERRUPTEDLY UNTIL ABOUT 100 BC, THAT IS TO SAY,
UNTIL NEARLY THE END OF THE RULE OF THE PTOLEMIES OVER EGYPT. IT IS
UNLIKELY THAT THE HIEROGLYPHIC SYSTEM OF WRITING WAS INVENTED IN
EGYPT, AND EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT IT WAS BROUGHT THERE BY CERTAIN
INVADERS WHO CAME FROM NORTH-EAST OR CENTRAL ASIA; THEY SETTLED DOWN
IN THE VALLEY OF THE NILE, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN MEMPHIS ON THE NORTH AND
THEBES ON THE SOUTH, AND GRADUALLY ESTABLISHED THEIR CIVILIZATION AND
RELIGION IN THEIR NEW HOME. LITTLE BY LITTLE THE WRITING SPREAD TO
THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH, UNTIL AT LENGTH HIEROGLYPHICS WERE
EMPLOYED, FOR STATE PURPOSES AT LEAST, FROM THE COAST OF THE
MEDITERRANEAN TO THE MOST SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE ISLAND OF MEROI, A
TRACT OF COUNTRY OVER 2,000 MILES LONG."
This statement is extremely important. First of all, Sir Wallis Budge
uses the phrase "CERTAIN INVADERS WHO CAME FROM NORTH-EAST OR CENTRAL
ASIA more than seven thousand years ago." The meaning of this phrase
is: "he knows the identity of those invaders who came from north-east
or Central Asia, but he will not reveal them for some reason".
HENCE, THESE CENTRAL ASIATIC FIRST SETTLERS OF ANCIENT EGYPT HAVE
REMAINED NAMELES TO THIS DAY. Although, Sir Wallis Budge does not
indicate the ethnic identity of those "certain invaders who came from
north-east or Central Asia", it is rather obvious that they were the
ancient Turanian Tur/Turk people of Central Asia. This is evidenced
and verified by the king names of ancient Egypt indicated by himself
and is also supported by many Turkic words that appear in the
"EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPHIC DICTIONARY" that Sir Wallis Budge prepared.
Additionally, this indicates that these ancient Central Asians, before
coming to ancient so-called Egypt, had a language developed to such a
degree that they could invent a writing system for it. This is how
advanced they were some seven thousand years ago. And at that time
there was no IE, Latin, Greek, or Semitic languages. Those Central
Asians from some seven thousand years ago were speaking the TUR
(Turkish) language which was the dominant universal language of that
time - like English seems to be today.
Additionally, Genesis 11 admits that the world was speaking "ONE
LANGUAGE". It is understood that that one language was neither
Semitic, nor Greek nor Latin. If it was any one of them, they would
have named it and we would all know about it; and we would probably be
speaking it today. Furthermore, if it was their own language, they
would not want to confuse their language or themselves. It must be
understood that the confusers were secretly confusing somebody elses
language. The term "confusion" is associated with the name Babylon
indicating that the concept of confusing languages was born there and
spread to other places. EB states that the concept of "anagram" is
ancient and was known to the Jews, the Greeks and the Romans. So the
Turs/Turks were not doing the confusion. They would not want to do
such a thing to their own language and to themselves.
To conclude, I say that Turkish words are not anagrams of words or
phrases from other languages because Turkish was the proto language
itself where even the term "PROTO" is an anagram of Turkish "BIR-
Best wishes to all,
Jul 23, 2003