RE: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya (Edo Nyland - I)
--- In email@example.com, "Edo
Nyland" <edonon@i...> wrote:
I think we have to go back one more step, to the language which
underlies all Indo-European, Semitic and Turkish languages. This
ancient language is now well accepted in Europe as being an earlier
form of Basque, the language spoken during the thousands of yeras the
Goddess religion held sway over North Africa, western Asia and all of
Europe. Colin Renfrew wrote in "The Human Inheritance" (1999): "the
Basque language may be regarded as the only early and indigenous
language of Europe" (p.27). Many linguists in Germany have now
endorsed this position. This also means that there is and never was,
a family of Indo-European languages because they were all invented by
religious linguists, even Sanskrit. My book "Linguistic Archaeology"
(2001) explains it all in detail, how the monks made up all languages
of Europe using the Basque dictionary, without any exception. My book
may be obtained by going to: www.trafford.com/robots/01-0069.html
Most I-E words have an encoded Basque sentence built in, written in
shorthand and describing the meaning of the word. My book gives many
hundreds of examples of how the decoding process works. The modern
Basque-English dictionary by Gorka Aulestia is perfectly adequate to
decode most I-E words. The encoding was done in such a mathematical
format that it may be possible to recover the hidden sentence by
using a computer. To start this process we have now digitized
Aulestia's Basque dictionary, which is the first big step in our
lexicon-statistical project. The Turkish language may have been made
up similarly and not all that long ago, but I don't know what system
was used or who did it. That may be my next project. Turkish
certainly was not used to make up many I-E words.
Sidney, B.C., Canada.
From: Polat Kaya [mailto:tntr@C...]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: Re: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of
alingus forwarded a response of Mr. Mark Hubey as identified below.
Here I respond to its certain portions.
Subject: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:19:18 +0300
From: "allingus" <allingus@u...>
To: "bcn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mark Hubey said:
"Ok, let's see. Somewhere I read that there are approximately one
million acronyms in English mostly technical stuff like LEM, DB,
radar, etc. But this is appropriate for this era since we have
invented so many things that we need to name. Surely nobody wants to
write "lunar excursion module" all the time so we simply put LEM. But
this era is this era and 5,000 years ago things were different."
Polat Kaya: Mark Hubey is mixing apples and oranges. I was not
talking about acronyms at all. I was explaining that when there is
intentional human interference in language development (as in
intentional anagrammatization of Turkish words and phrases to come up
with new English words), there is no probability involved. Somebody
makes a decision to manufacture a new English word. He takes a
Turkish word or expression for a particular concept that is related to
the new word he is trying to manufacture, shuffles it up, drops a
vowel here, changes a consonant there, rearranges as he pleases until
he comes up with what appears to be an English-like word that also
effectively conceals the Turkish source. For example, take the Turkish
word "APATIR" meaning "he is father". English anagrammatized this
Turkish word to come up with "FATHER". German took this Turkish word
and came up with "VATER". Italian and Spanish took the Turkish word
and came up with "PADRE". Persian took the Turkish source and came up
with "PEDER". In all cases, the resulting manufactured words are
based on Turkish "APA" meaning "father" plus Turkish suffix "TIR" and
its variations meaning "it is". In the process, the original meaning
was altered (i.e., the original Turkish phrase "APATIR" meant "IT IS
FATHER" but the new words were assigned the meaning "FATHER"). As you
can see, probability plays no part in this process whatsoever.
And yes indeed 5,000 years ago things were different and 2,500 years
ago things started to change. That is why we have what we have now.
It is not the same world anymore as was the case during the first
millennium B.C. and earlier.
Mark Hubey said:
"Words are normally derived analogically e.g. via analogical
extension. Nobody sat around campfires drinking wine and inventing new
words because there was no pressing need for it."
Polat Kaya: Evidently there was quite a pressing need for it in
Babylon and other similar centers for such activities. It did not
have to be done around campfires while consuming wine. The purpose
would be much better served if it was done in complete secrecy and
behind closed doors.
Mark Hubey said:
"So nobody anagrammatized anything either."
Polat Kaya: Not only do you not know that, but you are also very
wrong on that. Linguistically, we are living in an artificially
altered world. We have all been taken for a great ride, of course,
including the linguists. I gave many word evidences to demonstrate how
the simple technique of "anagrammatizing" Turkish words and phrases
played a very great role in shaping many of the present world
languages, particularly Indo-European and Semitic languages. All
things point to that alteration and takeover.
Mark Hubey said:
"But probability does play a great part in showing that these
exercises are useless."
Polat Kaya: Nothing of the kind. The fact that you have never tried to
understand the formation of words as I have means that you are not in
a position to dismiss what I am saying. Contrary to denials, what you
call "useless exercises" are in fact huge revelations that are
unexpectedly revealing the Turkishness of the ancient world.
Mark Hubey said:
"One can take a word, take apart its letters/sounds and create new
words from it. And because there are so many possibilities, the
probability that this particular reorganization of the sounds is
likely easy and thus meaningless."
in response to my earlier:
"In the so-called Greek mythology, the name POSEIDON is the god of
seas, waters, etc. I say that this so-called Greek god was nothing
but the anagrammatized name of Deniz-Han of the Turanians. How so? I
will show you how. When one rearranges the name POSEIDON as
DENIS-OPO, it is readily seen that it is the anagram of Turkish
"DENIZ-APA" meaning "father of sea". Now I claim that this is not a
normal change of the name. As you can see, probablity played no part
in this transformation."
Polat Kaya: You are wrong again and way out. Probability has nothing
to do with a person taking a Turkish phrase such as "DENIS-APA" and
willfully changing it into "POSEIDON". If what you say was possible,
why dont you, for example, try to take the name "POSEIDON", rearrange
it and get the name "HERMES" out of it. I bet you cannot do it no
matter how much probablity you use. Or similarly take the name
"HERMES" and get "DENIS-HAN" out of it using your probablity theorem.
Let us see if you can do it. But I can tell you that you can get
Turkish "ERMESH" (ERMISH) from "HERMES" without the use of probability
- and with no problem.
As another example, take the Turkish name "HIZIR". HIZIR is regarded
as "ERMESH" immortal meaning "he who has reached godliness". In his
Turkish cultural role he is just like "HERMES". HIZIR can be present
at any place at any time. HIZIR is defined as "legendariy person who
attained immortality by drinking from the water of life." The Turkish
expression: "Hizir gibi yetish" means "to come as a god send; to come
to the rescue at the right moment". HERMES, as defined in the
so-called Greek mythology, is also god's messenger and can be at any
place at any time. Thus, Greek "HERMES" and Turkish "ERMESH" have a
lot in common. In fact from the word formation point of view, all one
has to do is take the letter "H" of Turkish "ERMESH" and bring it to
the front, to get the name "HERMES". This is not due to coincidence
and it is highly likely that this is what the Greeks did. Therefore,
you cannot discard the possibility that Turkish "ERMISH" or "HIZIR"
was not anagrammatized into "HERMES". Probability has nothing to do
with Turkish "ERMISH" being taken over by Greeks.
I am afraid you and most other linguists are very wrong in your
perception of words, particularly Greek, Latin and other Indo-European
words and even Semitic words. Let me give you another example. What is
the probability that the so-called Latin word "MILLENNIUM" is not an
anagram of Turkish expression "MIN ILLI ANUM" (bin yilli an'um)
meaning "I am a time period of one thousand years"? As you know, that
is what a "MILLENNIUM" is, i.e., a period of one thousand years. Note
that the same lettering exists in both cases. How come? What is the
probability of this correspondence taking place between two supposedly
independently developed languages?
Mark Hubey said:
"So, again you have to stick to the rules of rational reasoning e.g.
probability theory or a good substitute for it e.g. RSC in historical
Polat Kaya: There is no rule saying that I must use "probability
theory or a good substitute for it e.g. RSC in historical linguistics"
in analysing the formation of words. The reason that I am getting so
many correspondences between English, Greek and Latin words is due to
the fact that I am examining each word with rational reasoning.
Otherwise I would not get those correspondences. Thus you need to
change your approach to the formation of words.
Mark Hubey said:
"The rules are not artificial. They derive from sound rational
principles and have been codified as the axioms of probability theory
circa 1930s by the great Russian mathematician Kolmogorov. Surely as
an engineer you should have more respect for mathematics than those
that have never even had calculus in college."
Polat Kaya: I do have a lot of respect for mathematics and I enjoyed
it tremendously. Do not think for a moment that I do not know the
utility of probability in mathematics. However, that does not mean
that I must use probability for naming words or for naming my children
etc.. Let me again accentuate that Turkish and GREEK are supposed to
be two distinct and independently developed languages. You cannot
expect that both independently developed the concept of a "GOD FOR
SEA" and then each gave a name for that concept such that, by chance,
they both had similar lettering and meanings. The likelihood of that
must be extremely low unless someone manually interfered with the
intent of usurpation.
Best wishes to all,
July 28, 2003