Re: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat Kaya (John...)
--- In email@example.com, Polat Kaya
My responses to your questions have been interlaced within the body of
> Subject: Fw: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of
> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:37:38 +0300
> From: "allingus" <allingus@u...>
> Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: "bcn" <email@example.com>,
> "HRL" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> "turkoloji" <email@example.com>
> ----- Özgün ?leti -----
> Kimden: John
> Kime: Nostratica@yahoogroups.com
> Gönderme tarihi: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 7:18 AM
> Konu: Fw: [bcn_2003] Fw: [Nostratica] Re: About claims of Mr.Polat
> Dear Polat
> You wrote
>> 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.
> Polat, to construct a theory like this we need more details.
> Firstly, who did the anagramatisation (i.e. which people, at what
> period in history, located in which country). England is a long
> from the homeland of the Turks, can you show me the route that this
> supposed anagramatisation took?
I am sorry it took so long to answer your letter. It is just that I
have to respond to many e-mails and admittedly I am slower than most
of you. I can only write one response at a time. Regarding your
questions, I will try to answer them in this letter.
I have explained my rationale many times in this forum. I explained
that Turkish was the universal language from which at least the
so-called Indo-Eropean and Semitic languages were made by way of
"anagrammatizing". I also gave the definition of "anagrammatizing"
using the Encyclopaedia Britannica as source. I believe most of you
know by now what I am saying when I say Turkish words and phrases were
"anagrammatized" in order to come up with words for new languages such
as the ancient Greek, Latin and all the other so-called indo-European
languages. Let me give you an example.
The Turkish expression "PATLAMA" means "an explosion", "a sudden
burst". Now I will rearrange it, i.e., anagrammatize it, as
"AMPLATA". By replacing some of the vowels, I will further change it
to: "IMPLOTE". I examine it and find it not to my liking yet so I
make one more embellishment. I change the original T to D, knowing
that in ordinary talk, T can readily change to D and D can readily
change to T. Now I have the word "IMPLODE". I say this looks good
and very different from the original "PATLAMA". This is my new word
for a new language. Since I have the original meaning from the
original Turkish source, I will assign the same meaning to the new
word I just made up. In other words, I assign the meaning of
"explosion" and "burst" to the newly created IMPLODE. I want to note
here that whether something explodes inwards or outwards, it is still
an explosion (PATLAMA). If I were a bit more sophisticated, I might
even call my new word "implosion".
Thus, as you can see, I have just created a new word from a Turkish
word that defines a very well defined concept. I am sure by this time
you have all recognized the English word "IMPLODE". I did not need to
use a dictionary, or simple probability or even complex probability,
nor a computer or anything else. All I needed was the knowledge of
Turkish and the will to make new words out of it.
The dictionary points the etymology of IMPLODE to Latin ["im" in +
"plodere" or "plaudere" meaning "to clap"] Of course when we clap we
also make an explosion-like (PATLAMA) sound. The Latin word "PLODERE"
seems suspiciously like the anagram of Turkish "PODLER"
(PADLAR/PATLAR) meaning "explodes". Similarly, the Latin word
"PLAUDERE" seems as the anagram of Turkish expression "PADLAR U"
(PATLAR O) meaning "it explodes". All those who know Turkish will
recognize that Turkish "patlar", "patlar o", and "patlama" are all
related to each other and are different derivatives from the Turkish
verb "PATLAMAK" meaning "to explode". Obviously, IMPLODE cannot be
likened to "clapping" even if clapping does produce a "PAT PAT" sound
(PAT is the root of Turkish PATLAMA). Now you, John, as a truth
searching "linguist" cannot in all candidness say that these are all
coincidences. If you do, you would really be kidding yourself or
would not be candid with yourself. Now let us come to the so-called
Latin prefix "IM" meaning "IN". This etymology I believe is bogus.
Actually, "IM" must be the anagram of Turkish "MA" in Turkish
'PATLAMA". So you can see for yourself how the word "IMLODE" was made
from Turkish"PATLAMA" by way of anagrammatizing it.
Dear John. Picture yourself as a ruler, say, in medieval times. You
have learned that I could make a language for you and for your people
which would make you the ruler of a different nation identified by
this language. If you give me a nice salary and a nice warm room in
your palace where I can work without being interrupted by others,
then, I can make for you a nice language even with a dictionary so
that you do not even have to worry what meant what. And after I am
through with my work, I present it to you. You are so pleased with it
that you call the new language, for example, by the name "JOHN" and
perhaps even reward me further with all kinds of goodies.
As you can see, I dramatized the process of creating a new language
from an already available model language of Turkish for you. The
process is so simple that there is really nothing to theorize about
it. However decoding it back to Turkish is much more difficult because
the anagrammatizers did an absolutely wonderful job of disguising and
camouflaging the original Trurkish source. In my presentations in
this forum, I have done that difficult task for you all. Some of you
may not be convinced, but that is always the way when new concepts are
introduced. So be it.
As for the second part of your question: "Firstly, who did the
anagramatisation (i.e. which people, at what period in history,
located in which country)", The concept must have been started by the
wandering people (so-called "Akkadians") and then passed on to the
other Semitic peoples, Greeks and Latins to come up with new
languages. The place called "BABYLON" must have been where such
secret projects were formulated. Since the religious priests of many
wandering peoples were involved with such activities, the locations
could have been many other places other than Babylon. There are many
words of the Greek, Latin, English and Arabic languages that are made
up from Turkish thus indicating that anagrammatizing was done in many
The last part of your question says: "England is a long way from the
homeland of the Turks, can you show me the route that this supposed
anagramatisation took?" First of all, you are assuming that Turkish
was not being spoken in what is presently called "England". The native
peoples of England were speaking Turkish dialects just like the
natives of Europe and elsewhere. Secondly, when a language is spoken
universally you will find that "far away homeland of Turks" does not
matter at all because Turks did not do this anagrammatization. The
anagrammatization was done by the religious linguists and missionaries
of the new religions. The route for such an activity would have
started in the Middle East, i.e., Babylon, Jerusalem and some places
of Hellenic and Roman Egypt. The activity was intensified after
Alexander the Great's conquests and even more so during the
Christianized Byzantium and Roman Empires and Christian Europe.
> You continued
>> 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.
> To make such a claim Polat, you need more evidence. A superficial
> claim at anagramatisation can be used between any two languages.
> I mentioned, in the Aboriginal Nyungar language of South Western
> Western Australia, the word for father is "Maman" - now I could
> a claim that the word mama fior mother was made from this word as a
> result of a gender shift. The word for "Dog" is Dwerg" - a clear
> case of the fact that Dog is anagramaticised from the Nyungar
> language. How is this any different than what you are proposing for
> Turkish? Clearly the Nyungar --> English origin is impossible. I
> feel that your Turkic --> English theory (in the absence of any
> evidence of the type I spoke about) is also equally impossible.
> Until the Middle Ages there was no one in England who even knew the
> Turks existed!
POLAT KAYA: Before the English went to Australia (which was recent in
time), they had already constructed a language called English from
Greek and Latin which themselves were already made up from Turkish.
The English linguists must have also been using Turkish as a source
for new English words. For example, English "mother" is a term made up
from the Turkish term "anatur" or "amatur" meaning "she is mother".
Additionally, the word "mama" for "mother" comes from the Turkish word
"MEME" meaning "breast". Thus there was no need to anagrammatize the
masculine name of "Maman" from the Aboriginal Nyungar language of
South Western Australia, into the English word "mama" meaning "mother"
because the English language already had MAMA from Turkish MEME. A
mother breastfeeds her child and that is what a "Mama" or "mother" is
The Turkish-to-English theory is not only possible but is also
feasible, because Turkish-to-Greek and Turkish-to-Latin conversions
had already been established since the first millennium B.C.. English
started to do the same later on in Mediaval times.
> You write
>> 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".
> Not so Polat. English "father" in fact comes from the Old
> English "faeder" related to the Old Saxon "fatar". German "Vater"
> comes from Old High German "fater". Both the Old Saxon and Old
> German (together with Old Norse "fathir" and Gothic "fadar"), come
> from the Germanic *fad3r and thence from the Proto-Indo-European
> *p't3r (associated with Grimm's Law for the shift of *p --> *f).
> Turkic "apa" clearly has a different etymology altogether. To
> the etymology of modern English and German you need to know the
> intermediary forms through which these words have passed.
POLAT KAYA: Not so John. All these words that you mention are made of
two parts: first part is related to Turkish "APA" meaning "father"
and the second part is the Turkish suffix "-ter, -tir, -tur, -der,
dir, -dur" meaning "it is". Thus in every case that you have given as
example, the word means "it is father" which reduces to "father".
Additionally, the old "SAXON" name is very much at the root of the
English language. As I have pointed out earlier the letter "X" is a
bogus letter used to facilitate anagrammatizing and camouflaging the
source - just like the letters W, V, Y, U, and some others. The
letter X stands for the consonants "K + S" with a possible varying
vowel in between. For example, the word "OX" is nothing but the
disguised form of Turkish "OKUS" (OKUZ). The word EX is nothing but
the Turkish "ESKI" meaning "old". Thus you can see that the letter X
is used to disguise the original Turkish source.
Similarly, the name SAXON is from "SAKASON" which is very much the
Turkish "SAKA-SUN" meaning "You are SAKA" (people). Saka people were
the Turkish speaking ancient Turanians. As I have indicated in
another writing, the name "SCANDIA" comes from the Turkish expression
"SAKA HAN ÖYDI" meaning "it is the home of Lord SAKA" and
alternatively from "SAKA-AN ÖYDI" meaning "It is the home of Sakas"
where infix AN represents the ancient Turkish plurality suffix.
Similarly the name "SCOT" is from the Turkish name "ISKIT" (S-K-UT)
which is another name for Turkish "SAKA" people which derives itself
from the name of ancient Sun-God. Thus the ancient western Europe is
no stranger to Turkish speaking Turkic peoples. The following
so-called "European" names are the remnants, along with many others,
of ancient Turkish language in Europe: e.g., Germanic name "HEUGEN"
or "HAGAN" is from Turkish "HAKAN"; Germanic "ARTUR" and English
"ARTHUR" are nothing but Turkish "ERTUR"; Germanic "LUKAS" is from
ancient Turkish "ULUKÖZ".
>> Italian and Spanish took the Turkish word and came up
>> with "PADRE".
> Not so Polat, as Spanish and Italian took "padre" from the
> Latin "pater", which again comes from the PIE *p't3r.
POLAT KAYA: Not so John. The Latins took "pater", meaning "father",
from Turkish "APA + TER" meaning "it is father". The TUR Etruscans
also had the word "APA" meaning "father". Latins took almost
everything from the TUR Etruscans, including their so-called "Roman
Numerals" which was the Etruscan way of showing numbers.
Your source "the PIE *p't3r" does not make sense. This form of
representation is further confusion and suspiciously looks to be a
codified and disguised form of Turkish "APATER". In order for the
linguists not to write APATIR or APATUR, they invented this bogus form
of representation to add to the confusion - but no matter how
sophisticatedly it is disguised, it is still Turkish APATIR/APATUR
meaning "It is father". Evidently somebody is conning most of us.
>> Persian took the Turkish source and came up with "PEDER".
> Again, Polat Modern Iranian "peder" comes from various
> in Old Persian and Avestan, from the same PIE source. To say that
> all comes from Turkish, a modern language, would require you to
> at the word "father" in the Orkhon runes, and also in the other
> related Turkic languages. The fact that Turkic languages have many
> of the characteristics of being dialects of a common source, and
> degree of mutual intelligibility is still so high is a measure of
> comparative recent nature of the differentiation between these
> various tongues. Germanic (for example - Modern English and Modern
> German) has come so far that the two languages are now no longer
> intelligible, showing the differentiation of English and German
> probably began before the differentiation of the various forms of
> Turkic. Thus Turkic languages are considered to be generally
> than Proto-Germanic (the common ancestor of English and German, or
> for that matter a lot younger than PIE).
POLAT KAYA: Firstly, there is no such thing as PIE. It is just an
invention to artifically support the false notion that there was an
Indo-European language family. As I have explained many times, the
so-called Indo-European languages are manufactured from Turkish which
was the Proto (Bir-Ata) language. The example IE words that I have
given in this forum along with their very obvious Turkish sources, are
The name "AVESTAN" has nothing to do with PIE. "AVESTAN" is the
anagrammatized form of Turkish expression "AUS aTa hAN" ("OGUS ATA
HAN") meaning "OGUS the Father Lord". OGUZ was the Turkish name of
the Sky-God of ancient Turanians. Even the Turkish name ATA for
"father" is embedded in AVESTAN.
AVESTAN is also the anagram of Turkish "AVISTAN" (Ev-istan) meaning
"Home of Sky God", and additionally with V = Y, it is the anagram of
Turkish "AYISTAN" meaning "MOON-GOD" ("AY-HAN" or "AY-TANRI"). The
"ISTAN" suffix, contrary to misinformation given by linguists as being
Persian is an ancient Turkish suffix meaning GOD, as in the name
"TURKISTAN", etc., "ISTAN" is a suffix used traditionally by TUR
peoples to denote lands where they have been. With all these very
fine details, now you can see where the name AVESTAN is coming from
contrary to all the misinformation and/or disinformation being pumped.
Incidently what you call "old Persian" was also an altered form of
old Turkish" as the name "AVESTAN" indicates. Hence, the word "PEDER"
for "father", unquestionably comes from Turkish "APADIR" meaning "It
Secondly, there was and is only one Turkish language with dialects.
Hence your using the term "Turkish languages" is a wrong expression.
Those differing Turkic dialects of one Turkish language have been
subjected to extreme political pressures aimed at altering them enough
so that they can be considered as different languages. The reason for
this is obvious.
Thirdly, in the hands of extremely skilful religious linguists, making
English and German sufficiently different from each other was not a
problem. In reality, two very keen religious linguists,
anagrammatizing Turkish while coordinating with each other, could come
up with two "different" languages having essentially the same
structure and that can be regarded as members of the so-called
"Indo-European" language family. That is what has taken place.
As for your comment: "Thus Turkic languages are considered to be
generally yonger than Proto-Germanic (the common ancestor of English
and German, or that matter a lot younger than PIE)": Not so fast John.
You are only repeating the misinformation that has been used against
Turkish, i.e., labelling it falsely as a young language. Those who
regard it as such must have a vested interest in it. I have
repetitively demonstrated how Turkish was alive during Sumerian and
Masarian times. This means that Turkish is the oldest language.
Please also see my recent "LYCURGUS" vs Turkish "ULUKORGOZ' writing in
> Polat, you wrote
>> In all cases, the resulting manufactured words are based on
>> Turkish "APA" meaning "father" plus Turkish suffix "TIR" and
>> its variations meaning "it is".
> What evidence do you have of this other than a fairly superificial
> FEM link?
POLAT KAYA: The evidence you want are the words and their meanings
that they carry with them. Each word is like an inscription written
on stone. What you call as "FEM link" is actually the "true link".
Turkish language is a "TUR" language. TUR is the name of the ancient
sky-god and also a most used suffix of Turkish. In definition of any
word it ends with the suffix "TUR, TER, TIR, DUR, DER,DIR and other
forms of these.
In English - Greek dictionary, the Greek word for "father" is given in
a) "PHADER" which is an anagram of Turkish "APADER" meaning "it is
father". Since the Greek PH is also said as F in Greek, this word
must have been further anagrammatized into English as "father";
b) "PATIR" which is again an anagram of Turkish "aPATIR" meaning "it
is father". Thus the root of the word is Turkish "apa" where the
first vowel has been intentionally dropped.
> 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").
>> Again, I ask, who altered it? When were they living? Where did
>> live? Why was it altered?
POLAT KAYA: a) Those who did come up with the ancient Greek and Latin
languages were the ones who did the alterations. Initially they were
the wandering people who were going from place to place and were
learning the local dialects of the one language that the ancient
Turanian world spoke. After they came to what is presently called
Greece, which was "Ay-Han-istan" (Yunanistan) in ancient times, they
were still speaking the language of the native Turanians.
The Greek and the Latin languages were later taken as model languages
for the formation of other European languages during the reign of
Christianity in Europe and elsewhere.
b) The leaders of the non-Turanians were very envious of the ancient
and very advanced Turanian civilization (e.g., Sumerian civilization,
Masarian civilization) and their magnificent Sky-God religion. The
non-Turanians wanted to destroy the owners of that Turanian
civilization and then claim and control it as their own. In order for
their plan to succeed, they had to villify the old religion and
people, generate their own new religion to replace the old one and
generate new languages to suit their purposes. This is what they did.
They forged the tenets of the Turanian Sky-God religion to form a
foundation for their new religion. Similarly, they forged
(anagrammatized) the ancient Turanian language (Turkish) to
manufacture new languages for themselves. By doing all this, the
non-Turanians attained nationhood for themselves.
Referring to Thucydides's writings, Hendrik Willem van Loon writes the
following about the early Greeks, [Hendrik Willem van Loon, "The
Story Of Mankind", published by Pocket Books New York, 1973, p. 50-
"Of these early hellenes we know nothing. Thucydides, the historian of
the fall of Athens, describing his earliest ancestors, said that they
"did not amount to very much," and this was probably true. They were
very ill-mannered. They lived like pigs and threw the bodies of their
enemies to the wild dogs who guarded their sheep. They had very
little respect for other people's rights, and they killed the natives
of the Greek peninsula (who were called the Pelasgians) and stole
their farms and took their cattle and made their wives and daughters
slaves and wrote endless songs praising the courage of the clan of the
Achaeans, who had led the Hellenic advance-guard into the mountains of
Thessaly and the Peloponnesus.
But here and there, on the tops of high rock, they saw the castles of
the Aegeans and those they did not attack for they feared the metal
swords and the spears of the Aegean soldiers and knew that they could
not hope to defeat them with their clumsy stone axes.
For many centuries they continued to wander from valley to valley and
from mountain side to mountain side. Then the whole land had been
occupied and the migration had come to an end.
That moment was the beginning of the Greek civilization. The Greek
farmer, living within sight of the Aegean colonies, was finally driven
by curiosity to visit his haughty neighbors. He discovered that he
could learn many useful things from the men who dwelt behind the high
stone walls of Mycenae and Tiryns.
He was a clever pupil. Within a short time he mastered the art of
handling those strange iron weapons which the Aegeans had brought from
Babylon and from Thebes. He came to understand the mysteries of
navigation. He began to build little boats for his own use.
And when he learned everything the Aegeans could teach him he turned
upon his teachers and drove them back to their islands. Soon
afterwards he ventured forth upon the sea and conquered all the cities
of the Aegean. Finally in the fifteenth century before our era he
plundered and ravaged Cnossus and ten centuries after their first
appearance upon the scene the Hellenes were the undisputed rulers of
Greece, of the Aegean and of the coastal regiones of Asia Minor.
Troy, was destroyed in the eleventh century B. C. European history
was to begin in all seriousness."
The Aegeans referred to here are the Turanian Ay-Gün-Hans, that is,
Moon-Sun believing Turanians.
>> As you can see, probability plays no part in this process
> Until you can answer the questions I have asked, probability plays
> huge part. Only when all these questions are answered can we
> a "balance of probabilities" from the equation and say it is
> certain that you are right.
POLAT KAYA: You are wrong John. Probability plays no part in language
making. It is purely interference from very knowledgable linguists.
>> And yes indeed 5,000 years ago things were different and 2,500
>> ago things started to change.
> Things started changing long before 2,500 years ago Potar. Change,
> in language and in pronunciation and grammar has been a constant
> since the first human utterances were made!
POLAT KAYA: Really? Is that so? What evidence do you have for your
claim? By saying that languages change naturally, you are actually
preparing a pretext for further intentional manmade changes. The more
languages there are in the world, the more confusion will be. While
some benefit from such confusion, most people lose. The confusers
eventually become the controllers.
> Regarding the creation and evolution of words Polat wrote
>> 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.
> Polat, if this is so, how do you propose that the "plotters"
> pursuaded everyone to start using the new words they had created -
> especially when the words were something as fundamental to human
> society as the word for "father"? By your definition what was the
> word for "father" or "vater" used by the English or Germans
> they started using the Turkish anagram you suggest?
POLAT KAYA: Very easy. When you get the opportunity of having the
political and military power and the will in your hands, you start
with the children in the schooling age. Your own teachers, instructed
and ordered by their superiors, would teach the new language to the
young people. This method can work wonders in a very short time.
Please remember the NOVA program on the world languages, a transcript
of which I believe you sent around. (If I am wrong on that please
forgive me). Once you teach new things to the young generation, you
have already broken the tie with the old generation who will die in
time anyway. So in a relatively short time, you get the new
generation speaking a language that does not resemble the one spoken
by their forefathers. As you know, in a time period of one hundred
years, many much older languages of the Native Peoples of the Americas
were wiped out. Evidently, the same tactic or strategy was applied to
assimilate the native Turanians of Europe and Middle East.
GENESIS 11 says that they were all using one language, hence they all
could understand each other. The ancient Turkic words ATA, and APA
were the two basic words used for "father" which generated the words
ATTA, ADDA, ATAATA (fathers' father), TATA, DADA, DEDE all three
meaning "grandfather". Similarly APA, meaning "man" or "father", was
the source for ABA, APA-APA, APA-ABA (father's father), PAPA and BABA
(grandfather). For instance, the name "PAPA" for the "POPE" is a
living example of this.
So to answer your question, the word for father, before "FATHER" and
VATER" were being used in Europe, was Turkish "APA" and/or a form of
it. Is it that hard for linguists to accept this fact?
>> 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.
> Polat, how do you explain the fact that so many people "have been
> taken for a ride" but you alone have discovered "the truth"? For
> such a conspiracy about words and their meanings to work, many
> hundreds of thousands if not millions of people must have been kept
> in ignorance by those Babylonian linguists behind their closed
> doors. To have a conspiracy of such a nature continuing for
> millennia, and not to have leaked out, just beggars belief. It
> reminds me of the story of the woman who, when seeing her son in a
> military parade, said "Everyone is out of step with my Johnny!"
POLAT KAYA: Not so John. First of all your "Johnny" story is out of
place and irrelevant. Nation building and religion building are far
more serious and different concepts than "Johnny" being out of step
with others in a parade. Therefore your analogy is irrelevant.
At the root of any act of "taking others for a ride" is "self
interest" camouflaged with the art of "propaganda" and coupled with
villification and publication. Those who do this kind of activity aim
to take control of important means which influence large populations
in order to make sure that what they say does not get disputed.
Schools and religious centres are better places of persuasion. What
is learned in schools stay with people for a long time. For example,
the reason why you are resisting strongly and arguing with me must be
due to the influence of your earlier schooling and further learning.
Dicovery of any new idea does not happen by many people
simultaneously. There is always a first one, that is, timewise, one
person is always ahead of others. If others have not seen this truth
before I, that is not a negative reflection on me nor the others.
Certain things become obvious only after certain conditions are met.
As they say, being at the right place at the right time makes a lot of
difference. My discovering the "truth" regarding this question in hand
was accidental and for quite some time after, I insisted on checking
the validity of my perception. In every case I proved myself correct.
That should be understandable by you. Additionally, this kind of
question is not asked to every scientist that discovers something - so
why are you asking me?
> When you say
>> All things point to that alteration and takeover.
> I would ask again for evidence other than the anagramatisation you
> point to. Again, can you explain the time, place and circumstances
> that led to this amazing event?
POLAT KAYA: I believe I have given the answers you want above. The
ancient peoples were not as "savage" or "barbaric" as we have been
misled to believe. They were just as smart and skillful as modern man
and also as stupid as modern man. No more or no less. They had their
supreme thinkers as well as below average members of the population.
They could conceive and execute ideas with determination just as well.
For example, the ancient Tur Sumerians invented many things that are
still being used today.
Evidently the ancient Turanians speaking one language and having one
universal religion were supreme achievers and could control many
peoples with fairness and tolerance. Such upright traditions (Turkish
töre, tora, law) enabled them to establish and run long lasting
government establishments which provided peace and relative prosperity
for people. It seems that the non-Turanians wanted themselves to be in
the controlling position rather than the Turanians. That gave them the
incentive to destroy the ancient order and replace it with their own
order. This was sufficient incentive for many changes to happen.
>> "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?
>> 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".
> Again this is based upon a failure to understand the true nature of
> Ancient Greek. Poseidon comes from the Mycenaean Greek "Poseidas"
> or "Poteidas" a word derived from a term meaning "husband of
> the Mycenaean "Mother Goddess" (Potnia = Mistress). It has nothing
> at all to do with Deniz-Han, or Denis-Opo, or "Father of the Sea".
POLAT KAYA: On the contrary John. By mythological definitions
Poseidon was the god of the sea (water). Like Zeus, Poseidon was also
associated with some concepts personified as women. Poseidon is
essentially from ancient Turanian culture and in one meaning, it
stands for the Turkish DENIZ-HAN in the form of DENIS APA meaning
"Father of Seas". However, the name POSEIDON has been formulated by
ancient Greeks such that other meanings are also associated with it
but only in Turkish.
Most mythological names are riddles anagrammatized from ancient
Turkish expressions. When such names and the associated mythology are
examined in the context of what has been said and with the use of
Turkish, then one will get an insight to their true personifications.
For example embedded in the name POSEIDON is also the Turkish phrase
"POSA EDEN" meaning "Maker of Sediments" which not only defines the
waters that create the sediments but also the human digestive system
that make the sediments of the body. This you surely have never
For example, another god's name like POSEIDON is the god "HEPHAESTUS"
who was the master craftsman of all mechanical things. He was the son
of HERA and the husband of APHRODITE who herself was of non-Hellenic
origin. When the name "HEPHAESTUS" is rearranged as "HEP-HES-USTA", it
is seen that the name is an anagram of the Turkish expression "HEP HAS
USTA" (her seyin en iyi ustasi, essiz usta) meaning "peerless master
craftsman of all things". According to mythological definitions,
"HEPHAESTUS" was the god of fire and the creative flame that is at the
foundation of all metalworks. Fire was the energy source used by the
metal workers for melting, forging, shaping and constructing things.
Mythologically, HEPHAESTUS was a master smith. Ancient Turks are
known to be master ironsmiths. Thus the name "HEPHAESTUS" versus
Turkish phrase "HEP-HAS-USTA" are suspiciously the same. HEPHAESTUS
was from the Island of Lemnos which was purely a Turkish speaking
Pelasgian island. The main city of the island Lemnos was named after
HEPHAESTUS. These things you never knew John.
What you have learned about the so-called Greek mythology regarding
POSEIDON, HEPHAESTUS and others are just what is on the surface. In
reality, they are personifications of concepts in riddle form that are
named from Turkish expressions. Why? Because as I have said before,
the ancient native peoples of what is presently called Greece were the
Turkish speaking Turanians - before Greeks were there.
Additionally, Poseidon was described as one of six children of CRONUS
the name of which is an anagram of Turkish "KARA-HAN-US" meaning "Wise
Black Lord". ZEUS was the last child. Mythologically, it is said
that Cronus had swallowed all of his children from Rhea except Zeus.
While Cronus (KARA-HAN-US) represents the "night", i.e., darkness,
ZEUS was god of the sky, the master of celestial fire (sun) and hence
represents the "light". When night (darkness) arrives, it swallows
all things and makes them invisible. Yet when Sun (light) is born,
all those things swallowed by night become visible again.
> became a Sea God only with the Olympian formation under Hesiod and
> Homer of the world being divided between three Gods - Zeus (land),
> Poseidon (Sea) and Hades (underword). This thripartite division
> probably occurred in the Archaic period, based upon the Phoenician
> tripartite division of the world between Baal (land), Yam (Sea) and
> Mot (death = underword).
POLAT KAYA: In Homer's stories many of the concepts were earlier
Turanian stories. Even Homer himself was a Trojan (Turkish speaking
Tur people). Their "TUR" name gives away their Turanian Turkic
identity. These concepts had much earlier Asiatic origin and the
Greeks adopted them after they arrived. These things that I am saying,
are contrary to the established views and that is why there is
resistance to accept them.
The Phoenician "BAAL" was not "land". BAAL had two aspects to it: a)
BAAL from Turkish "aBA-AL" meaning the "Red father" referring to the
Sun-God, and, b) again from Turkish "aBA-EL" (APA-YEL) meaning the
"Father Wind" (the Wind-Father), i.e., the Wind-God. For the
Phoeniciens who were great sailors, the wind-God was obviously very
important. Phoenicians (a Greek name) were Canaanites and CANAAN is
from a) Turkish "KUN-HAN" meaning "SUN-LORD"; b) Turkish "KAN HAN"
meaning "BLOOD-COLOURED LORD" again referring to the Sun but also
referring to their famous purplish-red royal colour that they produced
from MUREX; and c) Turkish "KANUN" meaning "LAW" hence CANAANITES
would be from Turkish "KANUN-IDI" meaning "LAW-GIVERS and OBEYERS".
Contrary to the established false belief that Phoenicians were
"Semitic", they were actually TUR people and had nothing ethnically in
common with Semites. Phoenicians and Canaanites, as Turkic speaking
Tur peoples, also believed in the trinity sky-god of ancient
> So when you write
>> 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, as you can see from the Mycenaean and Archaic Greek analysis
> (above) your construction is based upon a FEM (False Etymological
> Method) and has no basis in reality.
POLAT KAYA: Not so John. You are wrong. What I am saying is not a
false etymology. You have been conditioned so strongly that what I
say now becomes unacceptable to you. That is understandable. The
ancient Greek card has been played so often that it has become an
untouchable item, particularly from the European point of view.
Europe believes that most everything in its culture is from Greek.
Hence, from the European point of view anything said contrary to that
view is a no-no. Explaining European culture as "Greek" and Latin
based is a "curtain" that is used to cover the fact that they took all
of their culture from the ancient native Turanians of Europe, Middle
East, Egypt, Mesopotamia, etc.. Of course, this includes the Greeks as
well. I have said it earlier and I say it again, the ancient world
picture portrayed for us is full of misinformation and deception.
>> 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
> This is not so. As messenger of the Gods Hermes had to be sent by
> Zeus before he was present. In fact Hermes comes from the Greek
> *Herms who were special idols established at cross-roads to ward
> evil spirits. Once again through your ignorance of Greek history
> linguistics you are proposing similarities which just do not hold
POLAT KAYA: John up to this point I enjoyed your questions because
you acted as a well behaved scholar so I was answering you willingly
and with pleasure. However, at this point you calling me "ignorant"
indicates that you seem to be under pressure and are villifying me.
You must note that up to now, I am the one who is teaching you new
things that you never new before. Thus, John, I am not "ignorant of
Greek history", but I am questioning "Greek" everything while you are
repeating them as you have been told. That is the difference between
you and me.
What I have said about HERMES stays as I said. Additionally, for your
information, HERMES also had another personification that you may not
know. HERMES was also the personification of "BREAD". That is why he
was the son of Zeus (fire, light) and MAYA. MAYA is a Turkish word
which is the name of the fermenting yeast that is mixed with the
dough in making bread. He is also represented with an iron stick
called "CADUCEUS" which is an anagram of Turkish "CADIGÖZ" meaning
"witch's eye", that is, an "iron stick" used by the bakers to pull out
the cooked hot bread from a hot oven. These things are all from
Turkish culture that you will never know John. Evidently your Greek
vision has limited your view of the ancient world very narrowly.
>> 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.
> In actual fact they have nothing in common at all except for a
> superficial similarity of name. Besides *-SH is generally
> differently in Latin script than *S. Taking the H from the end of
> Ermesh and placing it in the front of the word, only works if you
> using a Latin and not a Greek script. Are you proposing that the
> Babylonian conspirators you are proposing wrote in Latin script
> (introduced into Turkish only with Kemal Ataturk!) Surely not?
POLAT KAYA: Not at all John. In fact you answered your own question.
I am not proposing that "Babylonian conspirators" wrote in Latin. You
seem to be forgetting that an established language like Turkish does
not change by a change of alphabet. The Turkish word ERMISH will sound
the same whether you write it in Arabic or in Latin, that is, the
sound content will stay the same. But the anagrammatizing Greeks, in
writing ERMISH in the so-called Latin characters, broke up the Turkish
Sh character into S and H components and then shifted the letter H to
the beginning thus making it HERMES. This is easy anagrammatization
>> Therefore, you cannot discard the possibility that
>> or "HIZIR" was not anagrammatized into "HERMES". Probability has
>> nothing to do with Turkish "ERMISH" being taken over by Greeks.
> Probability has everything to do with it. The Turks of before the
> 2oth century did not even write the word ERMESH - in fact it was
> written in Arabic derived script with a totally different phonology
> attached to it that does not fit Latin (or even Greek).
POLAT KAYA: I believe I have already answered your question in my
previous comments. I told you that Turkish pronounciation does not
change by changing alphabets. Turkish ERMISH is always pronounced
ERMISH irrespective of what alphabet it is written in.
> You wrote
>> 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.
> But the method of writing Turkish as MIN ILLI ANUM or bin yilli
> has only existed for a century.... it did not exist in a Latin
> alphabet before that so the proposition that it came in this way
> thousand, and the word "annus/annum" meaning year. millennium thus
> does not need your Turkish reconstruction when a perfectly adequate
> and much closer Latin one is present.
POLAT KAYA: You are so wrong. You seem to have such a narrow view of
Turkish. Turks may have started to write in so-called "Latin
characters" during the last century, but that does not mean that
Turkish did not exist before that. Similarly it does not mean that
the Turkish expression "MIN ILLI ANUM" did not exist before that.
Turkish is so old that the Latins anagrammatized this Turkish
expression into what you and everyone else falsely know as the Latin
You refered to the Latin word "ANNUS" meanining "year". It may
interest you to know that even the Latin word "ANNUS" is an anagram of
Turkish "SENNE" (SENE) meaning "YEAR". Is this a coincidence? Why is
it that in almost all occasions, I can come up with the Turkish word
that is a source for your Latin and Greek words? There must be
something suspiciously wrong John. As a scientist, you cannot
overlook these correspondences between Turkish and the Greek, and the
Latin and other so-called Indo-European languages.
Additionally, Turkish "ANNUM" means "I am time" and it is not
referring to the concept of "year". It is the Turkish "SENE" and
IL/YIL that refer to the concept of "year". Turkish "IL/YIL" refers to
"year" in the Turkish expression "MIN ILLI ANUM" and "MIN" means "one
In fact how can we be sure that the Latin anagrammatizers did not
invent the latin words MILLE meaning "thousand" and ANNUM meaning
"year" after they anagarmmatized Turkish "MIN ILLI ANUM" into Latin
"MILLENNIUM"? On many occasions, the anagrammatizers have first
formulated a longer word from which they have derived the so-called
"root" words by chopping parts of the longer word.
In fact that very same Turkish expression could have been formulated
by the very skilfull linguists who did the anagrammatizing. Because
most of the time the anagrammatizers used Turkish expressions that
were not used frequently in daily Turkish. Anyone knowing Turkish
well can describe a given concept in a number of ways and each way
would constitute a source for a new alien word to be used in an alien
language. That was also part of the disguising technique.
Every day Turkish speakers generate so many original expressions for
describing any concept which are never recorded. But if they were
recorded, Turkish would be in countless number of books.
For your information, I will tell you something else John. The
so-called Roman numerals were actually the Etruscan numerals. The
letter "L" for number "50" comes from Turkish "ELLI" meaning "50", the
letter "C" for "100" comes from ancient Turkic "CÜZ" (YÜZ) meaning
"100", and letter "M" for "1000" comes from Turkish "MIN" meaning
"1000". Now you go ahead and figure that out with your *xyz system.
> Thus when you say
>> 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?
> Given that the same "letters" are not present (bin yilli an'um is
> fact very different - how and when did the *b- become an *m-?). By
> taking things out of context and ignoring the languages from which
> words actually did derive, you can construct such anagrams between
> any two languages on the face of the planet.
POLAT KAYA; No John you keep distorting things out of context. I gave
the (bin yilli anum) version of the Turkish expression "MIN ILLI ANUM"
because it would be said as such in present day Turkish in Anatolia.
Yet "MIN ILLI ANUM" is the Azerbaycan dialect of Turkish which is also
the dialect of Eastern Turkey. You are taking it out of context.
Additionally, the letter M and B can readily change into each other in
daily talk. So there is no problem there at all. Please let us not
take things out of context.
I keep being asked questions like yours, that is when did this thing
change to that thing? It really does not matter when they did change.
It is a useless question. Even if I ask you such a question you
cannot give a convincing answer. But the important thing is that B to
M and M to B can take place because both of them are "labial" sounds.
Incidently, even the Latin word LABIUM meaning "a lip" is an anagram
of Turkish word "LEBIM U" meaning "it is my lip". Similarly the
English word "LIP" is an anagram of Turkish "LEB" meaning "lip". How
do you explain these things John?
>> So the
>> 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.
> But you are doing so completely independently from the known origin
> of these words. Origins preserved in written texts from a period
> before Latin script was used at all. If you remove the Latin
> orthography for the words you are using Polat - all correspondences
> fly out of the window. What you find is then you do not get the
> correspondences you show.
POLAT KAYA: John, if there really was no commonality between Turkish
sources and Greek, Latin, English and other Indo-European words, I
would not be finding my correspondences. The reason I am finding all
these correspondences is due to the fact that the original Turkish
source text that was anagrammatized into I-E words is still present in
the I-E words. In other words, Turkish was encrypted to form the I-E
words and languages. Therefore when we speak I-E languages, we are
actually speaking an encrypted Turkish. The original information is
changed but not lost. And therefore, I am able to spot them.
John, when Turks changed from Arabic writing to Latin character based
writing, they did not change the way they spoke. In other words,
ERMISH was still pronounced ERMISH and POLAT was still pronounced
POLAT. When I look at I-E words, I go by the meaning assigned to
them. I use rational analysis of the words and their backgrounds to
try and relate it to Turkish. To my surprise, I keep finding
If you remove the Latin orthography, you would be removing some of the
pieces of the puzzle therefore making the correspondence harder to
detect. But as I said before, when conditions are right, things
happen. The anagrammatizers thought that they had done such a
fantastic disguise that it would never be found out. But there comes
a time when conditions are right and detection is made. You know very
well that in modern communication, very complex encryption techniques
are used in order to avoid decoding of messages but in spite of this,
decoding is still achieved. As a scientist, you cannot just brush off
what I say simply because it works different than what you are used
to. I still insist that we have all been taken for a huge ride.
Best wishes to you and to all,
August 11, 2003.