Re: origin of Turkish? """Polat and all,""" (Dave.)

--- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...>
wrote:

Dave and all,

Greetings. This paper is in response to Dave's questions directed at
me. It became necessarily long in order to explain Turkish related
background which has been blurred by mountains of disinformation. Dave
since you asked me the questions and I took extra time to research and
answer them, I hope you will also take time to read it thoroughly.

1. Dave asked:

> Polat and all,
> Why is Turkish necessarily the origin of Greek forms and not the
> reverse? Is it because the Turkish word formation is more ordered?
>

Of course the Turkish word formation is more ordered than most other
languages. But that is not the reason why Greek is made from Turkish.
My answer to your question is lengthy but explanatory and needs to be
carefully read. In this paper I have given a variety of sources
indicating why Turkish was an earlier language and therefore the model
language. Please read on:


TURKISH IS A SYLLABIC AND AGGLUTINATIVE LANGUAGE.

The maning of this is that Turkish words and phrases are formed by
adding basic building blocks to each other in an orderly manner.
Language can be likened to a wall which is made from much smaller
blocks called bricks or stone blocks. A woven carpet is also made up
of countless numbers of "knots" which are the building blocks of a
rug. In the case of an agglutinative language such as Turkish and
Sumerian, syllables are the building blocks of the language.

Building blocks in Turkish are, using V for vowel and C for consonant,
in the form of V, C, VC, CV, CVC and VCV. Words and phrases in
Turkish are combinations of these basic building blocks. V and C make
up the alphabetical buïlding blocks of the language. VC, CV, CVC and
VCV are the vocalization of basic root words of Turkish. They are all
named as words, verbs, and suffixes for their different functions in
the language.

Let me demonstrate this with an example using a Turkish expression
such as:

SIZ DE INANMAYANLARDANMISINIZ?

meaning "are you also one of those who do not believe?" This can be
sectionalized as follows:

SIZ DE INAN-MA-YAN-LAR-DAN-MI-SIN-IZ?

SIZ : you
DE : too
INAN : the root of verb "inanmak" meaning "to believe"
MA : infix which negates the meaning. The MAYA language in South
America also uses "ma" as a "negation infix. Turkish MA is also the
postivity infix or suffix. Probably, not many other languages, if
any, have this "MA" feature of Turkish. I have talked earlier about
this "MA" feature of Turkish which represents the "duality" aspect of
the Sky-God. Additionally, MA means "magnificent" and is also the
name of the "moon" that is, MA (Mah).

YAN : "One who"; thus, INAN-MA-YAN means "one who does not
believe".
LAR : plurality suffix,
DAN : from, one of,
MI : the suffix that turns the phrase into question form,
SIN : the verbal suffix for second person singular,
: i.e., SEN, SIN meaning "you"
IZ : suffix that makes the 2nd person singular into plural.
Thus "-iz" (-is) is one of the ancient plurality suffixes in
Turkish. It is also used with 1st person plural case. I want to
note here that the English plurality suffix "-s and -es" are from
this plurality suffix of Turkish.

Thus, it is seen that all syllables in this Turkish expression, i.e.,
some of the basic building blocks of Turkish language, are named and
identified. In no way can they be regarded as Greek or from Greek.

These basic building blocks of Turkish do not change from phrase to
phrase, except to follow the Turkish "vowel harmony rule". For
example, observe the following expression in which the dominant vowel
is "E":

SIZ DE GEL-ME-YEN-LER-DEN-MI-SIN-IZ? Meaning "are you also one of
those who are not going to come?

As can be seen, Turkish is a syllabic language. Greek is not such a
language. The orderliness present in Turkish is totally lacking and
broken up in Greek and also in other "Indo-European" languages.

Because of the vowel harmony rule, there can be "vowel" economy in the
formation of longer Turkish words or expressions. That is to say,
words can be written with consonants alone providing you give certain
vowels at certain positions in the word. Thus, in ancient times, for
example, this last expression could have been written as:

SIZ DE GEL-M-YN-LR-DEN-M-SNIZ? >>>> SIZ DE GLMYNLRDENMSNIZ?

With the vowel harmony rule and phonetic reading, this garbled
expression could be read as SIZ DE GELMEYENLERDEN MISINIZ? In
present day Turkish vowel economy is not utilized although it was done
in ancient Turkish inscriptions. For example, Prof. Dr. Muharrem
Ergin, in his Turkish book entitled "ORHUN ABIDELERI" states that:

"In Orhun inscriptions letters are not joined. Writing is from right
to left. Words are separated from each other by a colon.

In Orhun inscriptions, it is found that frequently, vowels are not
included in the writing. The vowels that are not written are at the
beginning and within the body of the word, last vowels are generally
written. It is particularly noted that the vowels "a" and "e" at the
beginning and in the first syllable of the word are not written." [1]

This verifies what I said above. Etruscan and Pelasgian inscriptions
also used a colon to separate words from each other. Word separation
was the ancient Turanian way of writing clearly.

This kind of almost mathematical orderliness does not exist in Greek
or other Indo-European languages. The implication of this is realized
with writing economy for the ancient TUR/TURK peoples who wrote
inscriptions on stones and other hard and/or soft materials. For
example, for the ancient Tur/Turk MASARIANS, i.e., the so-called
ancient "Egyptians", when they had to chisel all those hieroglyphic
writings on stone it meant a lot of energy saved by not writing all
the vowels. When one chisels out only one or two vowels rather than a
whole bunch of them in a hieroglyphic expression, the amount of effort
saved is very significant. This was also done in Orhon inscriptions.

However when vowels are omitted totally and only consonants left in
the word, it opens the doorway for multiple readings depending on what
vowels are inserted by the reader.


A GREEK EXAMPLE: "AGAMEMNON"

Now let me give a supposedly Greek name. Take the name AGAMEMNON. It
is presented to the world through Homer as the name of the commander
of Greek forces in the Trojan wars in his epic ILIAD. Now this name
as it stands does not mean anything except being a name. What does
AGAMEMNON mean if it has any meaning at all in Greek? Please correct
me if I am wrong. I have the feeling that they don't know. How did
Homer or anyone else come up with this name?

But when we consider it as a composite name made up of Turkish root
words, that is, its building blocks being in Turkish, it starts making
a lot of sense. I will tell you what it is as presented in Homer's
Iliad:

AGAMEMNON, when separated into its building blocks as "AGA-ME-MN-ON",
it becomes Turkish expression "AGA MA MeN AN" meaning "I am the
Magnificent Lord of Sky". The Turkish words are: AGA (Lord), MA
(magnificent), MEN (I am) and AN (sky). By this Turkish explanation,
Agamemnon becomes a personification of the Turanian Sky-Father-God,
the LORD of Sky, or the King of sky. Agamemnon is legendarily
described by Homer as the king of Mycenae. In this capacity, he could
have been the king of a place in ancient Greece Yunanistan).

But the name MYCENAE, when decrypted as "MACYNEE", is an anagram of
Turkish expression "MA KUN EiE" (Ma Gün öyü) meaning "Home of
Magnificent Sun" or "Home of Moon and Sun". Turkish words: MA (also
(mah) means Moon, and KUN (GÜN) means Sun. In both cases, the home of
these deities is "sky". This again makes AGAMEMNON the king of sky as
defined by the Turkish expression "AGA MA MeN AN" meaning "I am the
Magnificent Lord of Sky". Thus, in Homer's language, it seems that
most if not all character names are personifications of concepts.

On the other hand, if indeed there was such a real personality at all
as the king of Mycenae in ancient Greece, this name would be a typical
king title formulated in Turkish as it was done by all other kings of
ancient times. I personally doubt that such a named Greek king ever
existed. It was a personification of a Sky deity whose origin was
Turkic rather than Greek. It is interesting to note the following
writing by G. S. Kirk: [2]

"Homer came near the end of a long oral tradition. He made something
spectacularly new out of the poetry assimilated from his predecessors,
yet the fact remains that much of his material, including much of its
mythical content, goes back long before the eighth century B.C., some
of it to close to the time of the Trojan War itself, and odd details
to long before that. The war seems to have taken place in the middle
or later part of the thirteenth century, and was one of the last great
ventures of the Achaean Greeks - those that lived in the Late Bronze
Age palaces and fortresses of Mycenenae, Tiryns, Lacedaemon, Pylos,
Corinth, Thebes, Orchomenus, Athens, Calydon, Iolcus. Much of the
content of Iliad and Odyssey is a poetical and imaginative development
of those times. Whether Agamemnon and Menelaus, Achilles, Diomedes
and Odysseus, Paris, Andromache and hector were in origin actual
people is infinetely debatable. On the whole it seems probable that
the more important characters in political terms, Agamemnon of Mycenae
and Priam of Troy at least, were historically based, the less
important ones often not so. What matters for the study of myths (and
this is why I called Homer 'ambiguous') is that these figures are
historizing if not actually historical: characters of legend rather
than of myth in this wider sense."

In this writing, G. S. Kirk also puts doubt not only on the Greekness
of these names but also on their being real names of people.
Additionally, we have seen that a Greek name such as AGAMEMNON or
other similarly composite long words cannot be building blocks for
Turkish. Hence Greek cannot be the source for Turkish.

Regarding the Mycenaean culture and Mycenaeans, Prof. H. D. F. Kitto
writes the following: [3]

"Who were the people who made this Mycenaean culture? Artists and
craftsmen who abondoned a Crete in decay and settled in a new home,
among rude Hellenes, and made art for them? Or have we (as seems more
likely) a predominantly non-Greek population, already deeply
influenced by Crete, and possibly akin to the Cretan people, but
having over them a newly arrived, charioteering Greek aristocracy? Is
it possible, if latter supposition is true, that Herodotus is right,
and that the mass of the 'Mycenaeans' were Ionians, whether already
Hellenized or not? - These are questions that may be answered, some
day."

My answer to H. D. F. Kitto's above question is that they were the
Turanian Turkic peoples contrary to disinformation. Even the two
lions standing up on either side of a post on the top of the so-called
"Lion Gate at Mycenae" [4] represent the trinity Sky-God of ancient
Tur/Turk peoples. The Post standing upright between the lions is the
symbol of numeral "ONE" (Turkish "BIR") representing the
Sky-Father-God, and the two lions are the representations of the SUN
and the MOON, that is, the major Sky deities of ancient Tur/Turk
peoples.

This is verified by the fact that the single stone monuments of
ancient Masarians (Egyptians), so-called "OBELISKS" were also the
representation of the "Sun (ER/RE/RA) - the Sky-God". An "obelisk", a
tapering four sided monolyth, ending with a pyramid-shaped top, is a
stylized "ONE" symbol. The name in ancient Masarian is given as
"TEKHEN" [5] . This is a Turkish expression in the form of:

a) "TEK HAN" meaning "ONE Lord" (Only Lord). An obelisk is a symbol
of "ONE" and the Masarians did believe in one Sky-god embodying the
Father (ATA), the Sun (KUN) and the Moon (AY);

b) "TIK HAN" meaning "upright Lord". The Sky-God is regarded as the
only true "upright" entity.

c) "TIKHEN" (tiken, diken) meaning "needle". An obelisk looks like a
needle. That is probably why they call it "Cleopatra's Needle". TIKEN
(DIKEN) is also the needle-like thorn of a thorny plant.

In ancient Masar (MISIR) so-called "Egypt" when they coined this name
for "obelisks", evidently Turkish was there.

In the above citing, Prof. H. D. F. Kitto explains that most of the
"Mycenaeans" were Hellenized Ionians. This is an eye opener meaning
that Ionians (I-Ons / Ay-Hans) were not Greek but rather Tur/Turk
peoples contrary to historical disinformation. The name Ay-Han is the
name of one of the six sons of OGUZ KAGAN in Turkish OGUZ-KAGAN Epic.
Greeks would Hellenize only those who were not Greek or Roum. Ions
(Ay-Hans or Yunans) were not Greek. The name Yunanistan indicates that
they were Tur/Turk peoples. Thus, the so called Mycenaean
civilization, which is regarded wrongly by westerners as the Greek
civilization, was mostly a creation of Turkic peoples, i.e., Turanian
Tur/Turk people in origin before they were Hellenized. These huge
contributions of Turkish speaking Turaninan Tur/Turk peoples to the
so-called "Greek" civilization has been ungraciously denied to the
Turkish world by history writers. Perpetrated disinformation has
snipped this Ay-Han (Ion) connection to the Turks and reconnected it
to the Greeks. This is pure and simple usurpation and changing the
ancient history. Similar usurpation has been done in other parts of
the Middle East.

Because of the fact that Tur Ions (Ay-Hans or Yunans) were much
earlier inhabitants of what is presently called "Greece", therefore,
Turkish was an earlier language in time than Greek was in that
geography. In other words, Turkish antedated Greek. Therefore Turkish
cannot be regarded as a language having been generated from Greek.
Such an assumption would be a deceptive one trying to alter history
once again.

A picture of the same Lion Gate of Mycenae is also shown in another
book entitled "Mysteries of the Past" prepared by a group of scholars.
[6] On the Lion Gate is superimposed in white letters a writing
supposedly in Linear B script of Mycenaes. There is no explanation by
the authors of the book for this superimposition. What does it mean?
Why did the authors put that label on that picture?

My rendering of this inscription gives, as it is read from right to
left, the Turkic expression "I HAN KOZ". This Turkish expression is
again a description of the ancient Turanian Sky-God such that:

a) "I HAN KOZ" (BIR HAN KOZ) meaning "One Lord Oguz" where "I" is
"one" (bir), "HAN" is "lord", and "KOZ" has the meanings of "OGUZ",
"fire" and "eye".

b) "I HAN KOZ" (BIR HAN KOZ) meaning "One Lord Fire" referring to the
Sun;

c) "I HAN GOZ" (BIR HAN GOZ) meaning "One Lord Eye" referring to the
Sun as the eye of Sky-God. The Sun was regarded as the "Right Eye" of
Sky-Father-God in the understanding of ancient Tur peoples.

d) "I HAN GOZ" (AY HAN GÖZ) where "I" is also Turkish "AY" meaning
"Moon-Lord is Eye" referring to the Moon as being one "eye" of the
Sky-Father-God. The Moon was regarded as the left Eye of
Sky-Father-God in ancient Turanian religious understanding.

As I said above, walls do not make bricks, bricks make the walls.
Turkish words and expressions provide the building bricks for the
Greek language and other Indo-European and Semitic languages. When
compared to Turkish, Greek and all other Indo-European languages
become the confused languages as their manufacturers intended them to
be. As in the above example of AGAMEMNON, a meaningless name suddenly
becomes extremely meaningful by means of Turkish. In another words,
when the name AGAMEMNON was coined, Turkish was there.

As a side effect of this explanation of the name AGAMEMNON, its
meaning in Turkish shines a totally different character to the Trojan
wars. After my reading of Homer's Epic Iliad, I get the feeling that
the Trojan wars probably never happened. Homer's Epic story ILIAD was
just like other Turanian epic stories, for example, the KIRGIZ Turkish
MANAS Epic. In the magnificent story of ILIAD, like in MANAS, it
seems that sky deities were personified as if they were human beings
and were separated into two groups fighting amongst themselves.

Homer (OMER) divided up his characters into two camps, on one side the
TURS of Anatolia, Thracia, Pelasgians, Aegian islands, ancient
Yunanistan (Greece), Phrygians, etc., that is to say the TURS/TURKS
namely TUR-I-HANS, i.e., the TROJANS, and on the other side the GREEKS
as the opposing force. It was most likely an imaginary fight
portrayed as a real one that affected both sides for ten years or
more. Among the personified concepts were not only the ancient
Turanian sky god deities and Greek deities, but also many concepts
such as justice, peace, war, drought, flood, disease, lying, wisdom,
etc.. For example, the Turkish expression "O KIZ HANDIR" meaning "That
girl is lordly" and "O KAZANDIR" meaning "it is cauldron" were
personified and anagrammatized as "CASSANDIRA", that is, the name of
one of the daughters of Trojan King PRIAM who represented the ancient
Turanian Sky-Father-God on one hand, and the King of Troy on the
other. His name was from Turkish expression "BIR-MA" meaning "ONE
Magnificent". Prince and princess personalities are "lordly"
characters. On the other hand, the name "CASSANDIRA" represented a
"cauldron" in the temple of Troy. It was looted and it was so large
that the looter could not carry it but had to drag it on the ground.

Legendarily, the camps in ILIAD, as is the case in MANAS, are
portrayed as enemies of each other most likely due to religious
beliefs. But that is the essence of the mythological story.


"MINOS" OF THE MINOAN CIVILIZATION OF CRETE:

Let me give you another example; The name MINOS of the ancient Crete
civilization. MINOS is said to be legendary king of the so-called
"Minoans". When the name MINOS is separated to its components as
"MIN-OS", it becomes the Turkish "MIN OS" ("Men Os", "Men Uz", "Men
OGUZ", "Os Men" (Osman)) meaning "I am OGUZ", that is, "I am Tur/Turk"
which identifies their OGUZ ethnic origin. It is also the anagram of
Turkish "MIN AS" meaning "I am One", "I am alone" which also refers to
the ancient Turanian Sky-God. At the same time, MINOS is a title fit
to a KING of ancient Crete. The title MINOS is made from Turkish such
that it refers to ancient Turanian Sky-God OGUZ. This elevates the
king to the level of the Sky-God.

This also identifies the presence of Turkish language in the so-called
"MINOAN" civilization. In fact the ancient Minoan civilization still
lives on in Kazakistan, Azerbaijan, Dagistan and in Central Asian
Turkish ISTAN countries. For example, we find the so called "Minoan
Goddess" statue holding snakes dating from 1600 B.C. found at Knossos
still living in Kazakistan, with her exquisite dress, of course
without baring her breasts, and with a bird of prey at the top of her
headdress, presently called "BERKUT" meaning "falcon" (sahin). The two
snakes held by this goddess must be the representation of "AL-AN"
("the red one of sky", i.e., the sun) and 'ALA-AN" ("the spotted one
of sky", i.e., the moon), together forming the Turkish word "YILAN"
meaning "snake". Thus behind the Turkish name "YILAN" is hidden the
names of the sky deities Sun and Moon of the ancient Turanians.

Falcon was another animal symbol of the Ancient Sky-god Sun in MISIR
(MASAR). All Oguz people had a "bird of prey" as their emblem. The
ancient Masarians called the Sun-God by the name "HOR" (Greek Horus)
mos likely from Turkish word "KOR" meaning "FIRE" which is the sun.
Alternatively, Masarian "HOR" (HORUS) could be from Turkish "HUR"
meaning "FREE". Birds of preys are free in the sky, so is the Sun.

The bird-headed, lion-bodied pair of griffins found in the throne room
of the palace of Knossos, are nothing but the Turanian griffins
representing the ancient Turanian sky-gods Sun and Moon. The throne
itself is for the Sky-Father-God, i.e., the King.

We find the Minoan double-edged "axe" in the coat of arms of the
Ottoman Empire indicating that Ottomans knew that the native peoples
of the island of Crete was Turkic in origin. The name KNOSSOS is
surely fashioned after the name of the Sun in Turkish, that is, GUNES.
Name KNOSSOS can be seen in a number of ways, but one of them is
definitely the Turkish expression "KUNES OS" meaning "Sun is OGUZ"
which I have been explaining in my writings. Additionally, KNOSSOS
when read phonetically as "KuNOSSOS", with SS = Sh, it becomes the
Turkish expression "KUNEShUZ" meaning "we are sun people", i.e., "sun
worshippers".

Even the city name MALLIA to the east of Knossos in ancient Crete is
from Turkish name "BALLI ÖY" meaning "home with honey". Ancient Crete
was famed for its honey production. [7] Famed "Bee" pendant found at
Mallia, Crete is a verification of this fact. [8] This again shows
the presence of Turkish language in ancient Creete before Greeks ever
existed there. Even the Greek word "MELI" for 'honey" is an anagram
of Turkish "BAL" for "honey".

I mentioned in one of my earlier papers, saying that the LINEAR-A
writing carries the insignia of ancient Turkish writing system, that
is, it has the colon symbol (:) being used as word separator. [9]
This colon symbol is a pure Turkish and Turanian identity. That
symbol is lacking in Linear-B writing. The words in picture writing
on the so-called "Phaistos Disk" from Phaistos, Crete, are separated
from each other by lines. Thus the words are clearly visible which is
present in all ancient Turkic inscriptions. The picture writing
carries one of the earliest symbols of Turanian Sky-God SUN symbol,
that is, the DINGIR (TENGIR, TENGRI) symbol at its center, i.e., the
star symbol which represents the sun. It also carries the Turkish
double-bent "BOW" symbol at its periphery. The double bent "bow" is a
Turanian invention and insignia belonging to the ancient Tur/Turk
peoples.

Thus it can be said with great confidence that the ancient Minoan
civilization was Tur/Turk civilization with a writing system. This
civilization antedated the Greek civilization. When all the above
mentioned names were coined Turkish was there.


Lionel Casson writes in his book entitled "The Greek Conquerors",
p.13: [10]

"Neither gold or silver nor anything at all precious was to be found
in the baggage of the Greeks when they made their first appearance in
history. They arrived in the peninsula that was forever after to be
their home some time about 2200 or 2000 B. C., as immigrants from
southern Russia or even further east. Their villages were collections
of dwellings, mud brick huts with barest of furnishings. They buried
their dead in mere shallow pits with either no gifts to help them in
the next world or but a few objects of clay."


All of these make sense because they were the wanderering Roums (i.e.,
Garachies) of their time. They were most likely not from Russia or
even further east but rather from the Indian sub-continent as most
other wanderers were also from ancient India.. Their culture was that
of a wanderer until they settled down in the lands of the Turanian
Pelasgians from whom they learned everything that is credited to the
Greeks. In the process, the Greeks also manufactured their language
from Turkish inorder to become an identity.


Lionel Casson also wrote on the same page:

"In Crete, however, just an easy sail across the water to the south, a
people now known as Minoanans (because of MINOS, their legendary king)
were enjoying a remarkably rich and sophisticated way of life. They
had grown wealthy supplying overseas customers with Minoan jewels,
Minoanan fabrics, Minoan ceramics, and other products. The network of
trade reached as far as Italy and Sicily to the west, and the Levant
to the east. At Knossos, Phaistos, and other sites, Minoan nobles
lived in vast palaces with dozens of rooms filled with handsome
pottery and magnificently decorated with wall paintings. These
paintings record a life of luxury and elegance. Minoan women in
revealing clothes loll about or, along with the menfolk, watch what
appears to be an early version of bullfighting. "Bull-dancers," barely
clad young men and women, vault over the horns with apparently
fearless ease."

"For centuries all this splendor to the south meant little to the
primitive Greeks. They continued in their plain and bare existence.
Then, certain of these erstwhile frugal farmers took a giant step into
an age of gold."


Evidently ancient Minoans were fond of "bull" in many ways one of
which was sporting with the "bull". "OKUZ" (Ox, bull) in Turkish was
the symbol of the Sky-God OGUZ. Another ancient Turkish name for
"bull" was "UT". Sumerian Sun-God's name was "UTU". This is also the
Turkish "UT U" meaning "it is fire". At the same time, UTU is also
Turkish "UT U" meaning "he is bull". Thus in the Turkish of ancient
times, the Sky God had the names of OGUZ and UTU both of which are
also the name of "BULL" in Turkish. While the TUR/TURK name comes from
the trinity Sun-God's name "UTU", name OGUZ comes from the trinity
Sun-God's name OGUZ. Having so much affinity through their religion,
to the sacred animal "bull", ancient Turs/Turks evidently also
developed sports that were related to "bull". The present day "bull
fight" is a degradation of the sacredness of "bull".

The ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples in ancient Central Asia also had
an economy that was based on horse, cattle and sheep farming. On the
back of horse that they had tamed they could go further than anyone on
foot in any direction. At the same time they could take along their
cattle, horse and sheep herds with them. Of course in their animal
based economy, "bull" had a special place as well. Thus the ancient
Turanians had many relationship with the name OGUZ (OKUZ) and UTU (UT
U) in Turkish for "bull'. Of course the mythological Minoan bull is
related to this Turanian concept.

It must be noted that the names OGUZMAN and OTOMAN which are names of
Turkish peoples, are coined in relation with the Turkish names of
Sky-God and bull. Please note that, when I use the term "Turkish" I
do not mean just the Turkish language and civilization in Anatolia and
Middle East, but rather in all over the Turkic world.

The citing above once again shows that while the Tur/Turk natives of
the island of Crete were living a fantastic civilization, the Greeks
comparatively had very little to offer.

So again this shows that Tur/Turk language is much earlier than the
Greek language. Only the Earlier language can be a model for a later
language. Not the other way around.


TURKISH ANCIENT "EGYPTIANS" CONNECTION

The following text is from the introduction of Chapter I of a book by
Sir E. A. Wallis Budge entitled, "Egyptian Language" written in 1910
in British Museum. He writes: [11]

"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 Meroë, a
tract of country over 2,000 miles long."

Sir E. A. Wallis Budge is a pioneer who studied the ancient Egyptian
hieroglyphic writings and wrote books about so-called ancient
"Egyptian" language and a famed dictionary of the ancient Egyptian
hieroglyphic writings. The above cited statement by Sir E. A. Wallis
Budge is an eye opener. Budge names these ancient Egyptian people as
coming from a place "north-east or Central Asia". Surely this refers
to the ALTAI MOUNTAINS AND BAYKAL LAKE area and the rest of Central
Asia which are known as the homeland of Turkish peoples. He calls them
"certain invaders" indicating that their identity was known but he
chose not to name them. Surely it is time to name them as "THE
TURKISH SPEAKING TUR/TURK" PEOPLES.

Ancient MASARIANS (MISIR), erroneously and intentionally called
"EGYPTIANS" were actually Turkic peoples from Central Asia. Turkish
OGUZ-KAGAN Epic names them as "MASAR". [12] They settled in North
Africa earlier than 3000 B.C. around the River Nile This was far
earlier in time than the Greeks were ever in the picture of history.
They brought their writing system with them, invented in Central Asia
as Sir Wallis Budge very clearly notes. When a people invent writing,
it means that they are not only very advanced in civilization but also
their language is so well developed that it can be put into writing.
Evidently, the Tur/Turk peoples did this historical event of inventing
"writing" while they were in Central Asia. An agglutinative, syllabic
and phonetic Turkish language is the reason for inventing writing
contrary to all kinds of disinformation.

Like the name MINOS of Tur/Turk Minoans, the ancient Masarians also
had a king by the name MENES (MANAS) of ancient MASARIANS. Lionel
Casson writes the following about MENES: [13]

"Then suddenly, within a few centuries between 3200 and 3000 B. C.,
the scattered tribes that lived along the Nile were united under one
head, ruled by a formal government. The man who was tribal leader of
Upper Egypt (tradition calls him MENES (also MENI), perhaps another
name for a king --NARMER) founded the first of Egypt's 30 dynasties,
extended his control northward and united the country."

"MENES founded the city of MEMPHIS, 20 miles south of the apex of the
Delta, near where the regions of Lower and Upper Egypt meet, and
established it as his capital. The city was destined to become the
greatest in the land. MENES and his immediate successors- some 18
kings of two successive dynasties that spanned about 400 years - ruled
from here, built tombs for their afterlife and knit together the two
disparate parts of the kingdom, Lower and Upper Egypt."


The Masarian name MENES is the same as the Minoan MINOS and also
KIRGIZ Turkish MANAS. Even the the Greek word MONOS meaning "single,
alone" or "one" as in "MONO" is an usurped version of these Turkic
words and titles. When these Turkic titles were used by ancient
Turanian Tur/Turk peoples for their kings in MASAR / MISIR, Greeks and
the Greek language were not around yet. Hence, it is seen that
Turkish language could not be from Greek. Rather it is the Greek that
has been artificially made up from Turkish.

"MENES" is also given as "MENI" from Turkish "MEN I" [14] (MEN BIR)
meaning "I am One", "I am alone". This meaning is the same as the
so-called "Greek" word "MONOS".

The name "EGYPT" is a concoction giving the name of the ancient
wandering Greeks to this ancient Tur/Turk State. The native Masarians
were not Gypsies. In this regard also, history writers have not been
truthful. History has been manipulated for the benefit of certain
wandering groups, and the history of the ancient Turanians has been
looted and obliterated.

The name of one of the kings of ancient Egypt (MASAR) is so-called
"AKHENATEN" who supposedly declared the SUN as the sky-God. First of
all this "assumption" on the part of the historians is wrong and
misleading and intentionally perpetrated. The Sun has always been the
Sky-God of ancient Turanians including the ancient Masaraians
(Egyptians). It was not started by AKHENATEN as these historians would
like us to believe. Secondly, the title "AKHENATEN" is a
stuck-together Turkish expression in the form of:

a) "AK HEN ATa AN" (Ak Han Ata An) meaning "White-Lord-Sky-Father"
referring to the Sky-Father-God;

b) "AK-HEN OT AN" (AK HAN OT AN) meaning "White-Lord-Sky-Fire"
referring to the SUN.

The so-called King "AKHENATEN" being the representative of sky-God on
earth, declares himself as the Sky-Father-god and also the Sun-God.
That is what his title represents. But contrary to all the misleading
information pumped to the people at large, all the titlings of ancient
kings were done in Turkish - meaning that Turkish was their language.

Even the name of the Tur/Turk Masarian king so-called "TUTANKHAMUN"
has been misrrepresented. It should have at least been presented as
"AMENTUTANKH" from Turkish "O MEN TUTAN-HAK" meaning "I am that who
holds power and gives justice" again referring to the Sky-God whom he
is representing on Earth.

Similarly, when the great King Ramses II says "OZYMANDIAS" [15] he
speaks in Turkish saying "ÖZÜM ANDI AS" (Özüm Handi As) meaning "I am
one peerless Lord" and that he was.

The so-called ancient "Egyptians" (Masarians) were neither Semitic,
nor Hellenic, nor Indo-European but Turanian Tur/Turk peoples. Their
language was Turkish. The names of their founding kings were Turkish
and the Masar state was the longest lived Tur/Turk state in human
history. As I have pointed out earlier even the name of Tutankhamun
was transliterated wrong in order to alienate the name from Turkish.
In pre-Hellenic times, this ancient and magnificent Tur civilization
was intact. After the Hellenic invasion, everything was dismantled and
restructured so that all links to Tur/Turk peoples were obliterated.
On top of it, this artificial "Egypt" (Gypsy) label was attached as
name to this ancient land. Now everybody knows this ancient
civilization by the incorrect name of "Egypt" and nobody makes any
connection to the Turs/Turks including historians, scholars,
Egyptologists, linguists, etc..

With all of this background information, it is evident that Turkish
was a far older language than "Greek", just like the Turkish
civilization was. When Greeks arrived in so-called Greece, they had
nothing accountable to their name. They were wandering ("ariyan",
"aramaci" in Turkish) peoples of no place of their own just like the
other wandering peoples of Arabistan peninsula. By cunning verbosity,
they were all able to usurp anything and everything Turkic, including
people, that is, by way of "Hellenization".


TURKISH SUMERIAN CONNECTION

Turkish is as old as Sumerian. The fact that the original name of the
Epic story of "GILGAMESH" was "BILGAMESH" which is a pure Turkish
expression indicates that when this name was coined by the ancient
Turanian peoples of Sumerians, Turkish was there and in full developed
form. Turkish was their language. John L. Hayes, in his book entitled
"A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", indicates that the original
form of GILGAMESH was BILGAMESH. [16]

Even though the name "GILGAMESH" is an altered version of "BILGAMESH"
by changing the first letter B to G, it is still a Turkish expression
with only the front vowel "A" missing.

When we install missing vowel "A" in front, the name becomes Turkish
word "AGILGAMESH" (akilgamish) which is exactly the same as BILGAMESH
in meaning but uses the word "agil" (akil) meaning "mind, wisdom,
knowledge".

The name "BILGAMESH" means "one who has become a learned person". The
name is made up of three Turkish components: root word "BIL" from
Turkish verb "BILMEK" meaning "to know". Additionally "BIL" means
"knowledge". With the Turkish suffixes -GE/GA and MESH/MISH, the name
becomes "BILGAMESH".

Similarly, the Turkish word "AGILGAMESH" means "one who has become a
learned person". It is made up of Turkish word "AGIL" (AKIL) and the
Turkish suffixes -GE/GA and -MESH/MISH.

Thus both the names BILGAMESH and AGILGAMESH are Turkish in origin and
have nothing to do with Semitics. This Turkic connection to the
Sumerians in the name of Epic story BILGAMESH (AGILGAMESH) takes
Turkish to the ancient time that this epic story was composed.
Evidently, the Turkic name BILGMESH after being stolen was coated with
a non-Turkic looking appearnce. The usurpers did the same by changing
the Turkish name "HAN O" (HANO) and Sumerian "ANU" meaning the
"Sky-Lord' to the name "NOAH".

Samuel Noah Kramer, in his book entitled, "THE SUMERIANS" states: [17]

"The correct naming of the non-Semitic people who invented the
cuneiform script we owe to the genius of Jules Oppert, whose
contributions to all facets of Assyriology, and especially to the
study of the syllabaries, were outstanding. On January 17, 1869,
Oppert delivered a lecture before the ethnographic and historical;
section of the French Society of Numismatics and Archeology in which
he declared that these people and their language should be called
Sumerian. . . . . . Oppert even went on to say in his lecture that
an analysis of the structure of the Sumerian language had led him to
conclude that it had close affinities with Turkish, Finnish, and
Hungarian."

"In the course of the centuries the Sumerian sages evolved a faith and
creed which in a sense "gave unto the gods what was the gods". [18]

"Sumerian resembles no little such agglutinative languages as
Turkish, Hungarian, and some of the Caucasian languages. In
vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, however, Sumerian still stands alone
and seems to be unrelated to any other language, living or dead." [19]

C. J. Gadd, in his book, "A Sumerian Reading - Book", writes the
following: [20]

"It is not possible to fix with much accuracy the date at which
Sumerian ceased to be a living, spoken, tongue, but it is clear that
for certain purposes, especially religious, its importance continued
undiminished long after its use as a vernacular had disappeared.
Sumerian was recited, studied, glossed, and even to some extent
written, by priests and professional scribes, until the latest days
of Babylonian importance under the successors of Alexander the Great.
The comparison with the mediaeval and modern use of Latin is
obvious".


This is very interesting, indicating that Sumerian was still in use
until after the days of Alexander the Great. Soon after when the
Greeks took over the Middle East, things started to change even more
drastically. The name of Babylon again comes into the picture which,
according to most sources, is associated with the confusion of
languages. A place filled with a lot of busy-bodies churning out
concoctions to con the world. Evidently there were plenty of
so-called Chaldian priests involved in reading, writing and
manipulating the Sumerian language. Peculiarly, the word Chaldian
reminds us of the old Turkic word "CHALDIAN" (chaldilar) meaning "the
stealers". The "-an" suffix at the end of Chaldian is the ancient
plurality suffix of Turkish corresponding to the present "-ler/lar"
suffix.

Additionally, it is curious that C. J. GADD also notes Sumerian
comparison with the Latin language. Yet I have been saying all along
that both Greek and Latin are made up languages from Turkish. Since
Sumerian and Turkish are very similar languages (if not the same), and
since GADD compares Latin to Sumerian, it is perfectly logical to
compare Latin with Turkish. This puts additional light on my finding
Turkish origins for many Latin words. They cannot be due to
coincidences.

Furthermore I have also been saying that Sumerian language is not
dead, but still alive and well in Azerbaijan and Eastern Anatolian
dialects of Turkish. That again makes Turkish the oldest living
language in the Middle East including ancient Mesopotamia. It is also
my view that the language of the ancient Masar (so-called "ancient
Egyptian") was like Azerbaijan Turkish. The name "AZER" in
AZERBAIJAN, is very related to the name of the God "OSIR" of MASAR.
Many ancient MASAR king names and even the name MASAR had the Turkish
name "ASER" meaning "PEERLESS MAN" or "ONE MAN" referring not only to
the Sky-God, but also to the Pharoah as well. The name Pharoahs is
from the Turkish phrase "PER-O/BIR-O" referring to the Sky-God.


After all these explanations and references, if still there are some
who may be saying that: "We dont know that Turkish was ever present
with the Sumerians, Minoans, Masarians and with the other ancient
peoples. History tells us nothing about Turks and their language at
the times of Homer or earlier. According to known information, Turks
are just recent comers to Middle East and Anatolia."

My answer to this kind of objections is: history is full of lies woven
into it by those who wanted to obliterate the ancient Turanian world.
We have been presented a world which has been described in a very
loaded manner. Books are full of references to only a few certain
names, e.g., Greek, Jew, Persian, Latin, and few others. The ancient
Turkic world is colored into ambiguity by way of cunning verbosity.
Disinformation pumped to the public as ancient history is very
lopsided when it comes to the ancient Turanian world. The name
Tur/Turk never mentioned as if it never existed. While the
non-Turanians took most everything from the ancient Sun-Moon
worshipping civilization of the Turanian world, they also wanted to
erase them from history. For example, they obliterated the whole
history of ancient Turanian world by artificially creating a new
reference point to history (Year 0) starting some 2000 years ago. The
founders of the Judeo-Christianity religion advocated a new date for
humanity ordering them to not remember anything that happened before.
In this regard, ISAIAH; 65.17 says:

"For here I am creating new heavens and a new earth, and the former
things will not be called to mind, neither will they come up into the
heart."

This religious command strongly advocates forgetting the ancient world
ever existed. The intention of this religious conditioning demand was
to obliterate the ancient Turanian civilization from which
Judeo-Christianity took all of its tenets, just like they took the
Turkish language as a linguistic data base for manufacturing their
languages.


2. Dave you asked me:

>
> Polat, do you think as I do that language mixing and linguistic
> diffusion was widespread? If so then how do we know that Turkish
> did not acquire Greek forms?
>

First of all with all of the above citings, I have shown that Turkish
was a much earlier world language then Greek. Therefore it could not
have been influenced by the later language of Greek which was a
manufactured language from Turkish.

Secondly, we need to define the terms "language mixing" and
"linguistic diffusion" so that we may be talking about the same thing.
In my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, "language mixing" is an
activity in which there are, say, languages A, B, C, etc., from anyone
of which people take words and mix them into their own language. This
happens without changing the structures of the borrowed words. For
example, there are presently English words imported into Turkish and
are used without changing their structure. One can sense their being
alien to Turkish. In my understanding that is mixing languages.

In the case of "linguistic diffusion", languages A, B, C, etc, spread
beyond their normal territory but does not get mixed with others. A,
B, C still stay the same but now new islands of a language, say, A
appear in the domain of B and C languages. To me this would be the
linguistic diffusion. This can happen when people migrate from one
geography into another and retain their language.

However, we must note that in these definitions, Languages A, B, C
retain their identity.

Contrary to this picture of independent languages of A, B, C, etc,. I
believe that the ancient world was not like this. There was a widely
spoken Turanian Turkic language with some dialectal variations, say,
X, Y, Z, etc. They were mutually understandable to each other.
Dialects X, Y, Z, etc. did borrow words from each other but there was
no need for anagrammatizing or manipulating words into different
shapes. Those dialectal variations would diffuse among each other
readily.

Anagrammatizing started by non-Turanians who started to have new
religions of their own, and new languages to support their new
religions. Then came in the intense anagrammatizing activity that
took place in the 1st millennium B. C. until probably to the present
times.

As I have discussed over and over again, anagrammatizing from another
language is a totally different concept. The anagrammatizer takes from
an established and widely used language and changes it in a
sophisticated way to make a language for himself that is distinct
from the original language. This is neither mixing nor diffusion of
languages. It is misappropriating. As you can see Dave, my view of
things is different than yours.


3. You said:
>
> As I read Brittanica, it notes that as Turkish developed it absorbed
> Arabic words and Persian words, but there is no mention of absorbing
> Greek words. But then are the other Turkic languages related to
> Greek? Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic languages loose
> their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and subsequent
> linguistic diffusion?
>

Turkish absorbed so-called Arabic and Persian words because Turkish
has also been the source language for them. The Arabs in a way
inherited the ancient Tur/Turk Masarian civilization. The identity of
the word "Arab" has to be well understood. The Persians took over the
ancient Turanian civilization in Iran contrary to disinformation.

This sort of mixing has taken place in Turkish with the so-called
"Arabic" and "Persian" words because Turkish have been present in Iran
and Arabistan since very ancient times. Presently, there are more
than thirty-million Azeri Turks in Iran. They are not just due to
Seljuks, or Ottomans. Their ancesstors go way back into history to
the time of Sumerians, Masarians, Hurrians, Turukkus, Medes and beyond
although historians conveniently would like to wet-sponge over them.
The Turkish name "ARABISTAN" has not been coined for nothing. The
so-called "Semitic Canaan" is not "Semitic" and comes from the Turkish
"KAN-HAN/KUN-HAN" name. When they say the word "Canaanite", the suffix
"ite" is the Turkish word "ITI" (IDI) meaning "were".

Even in modern day understanding, wherever there are Turks, so-called
historians would love to lable them with an artificial religious name
such as "moslem'. This dishonesty immediately obliterates Turks into
an unknown entity. This clever trick is still being used. No
religious adjective should be used to change the ethnic identity of a
person. Using religion as a means of identifying people is
intentional. This makes brothers who may believe in two different
concepts not only alien to each other but also against each other.
This trick has been used with evil intentions to play peoples against
one another and then control them.

Please do not misunderstand me when I show the Turkish source material
for the Greek names and words that I have been discussing. By those
analysis, I do not say that Turkish is related to Greek or Turkish has
absorbed Greek into its structure. Nothing can be further from the
truth. Similarly other dialects of the Turkish language have nothing
to do with Greek. Turkish has no linguistic relation to Greek. When
Turkish was in full bloom, as a world language, Greek was not even
around as I have pointed out throughout this writing and in numereous
occasions. Greek is a language artificially manufactured from Turkish
source material. That is the only way that it is related to Turkish.
But this relation has been so well disguised that it is not even
visible, i.e., by way of encrypting the source material. That is why
it has not been detected for so long.

Most likely there are some so-called Greek words that were
manufactured from Turkish which are presently imported back to
Turkish, but generally they stay the same as in Greek. For example,
the so-called Greek name APHRODITE is an anagram of Turkish
"AVRAT-IDI" meaning "She is wife" or "She is woman" but presently,
some Turks will refer to this name as AFRODIT without actually
realizing what it is and where it came from.

Your question saying: "Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic
languages loose their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and
subsequent linguistic diffusion?" is misleading and is based on wrong
assumption. It gives the wrong impression that Greek was a much older
language and sonehow contacted Turkish languages of Central Asia and
formed the bases for Turkic languages, but later on Turkish languages
lost their Greekness. This is not so. In my writings I never gave the
impression that Greek could be a base for Turkish languages. I have
said and I will say it again that Greek is an artificially
manufactured language from Turkish. Its structure and manufacture is
extremely well done making sure that it does not resemble the Turkish
source material. When Greeks came into the historical picture, they
did not even have a language of their own. They were non-Turanian but
Turkic speaking wandering peoples. Evidently, their "sophisticated"
salesmanship was far superior to that of Turks. Please read the
following by Arthur Cotterel who has written many books about the
ancient Indo-Europeans: [21]

"Instead of imagining Greek-speaking people entering the mainland
between 2200 B.C. and 1900 B.C., as some scholars propose, we prefer
to believe that the Greek language did not exist before 2000 B.C., but
was formed in Greece by the mixture of the indigeneous population with
invaders who-spoke another Indo-European language."

I wish to add to this that, there was no Greek language and neither
was there any other Indo-European language by the time that Greeks
entered into ancient Ay-Hanistan (Yunanistan) so-called "Greece".
Greeks were wandering peoples who were called Garachi in Turkish and
they spoke Turkish wherever they went. While they were not Tur/Turk
peoples, they were Turkish speaking peoples. Together with other
wanderers, they wanted to overthow the dominance of the ancient
Turanians who had developed fantastic civilizations all over world
with their ancient Sky-God Oguz religion and Oguz language.

I hope this will help to clear some of the misunderstanding regarding
the Turkish language and its ancient past.


REFERENCES:

[1] Prof. Dr. Muharrem Ergin, "Orhon Abideleri", Bogaziçi
Yayinlari, Istanbul, 1988, p. 147-148.

[2] G. S. Kirk, "The Nature of Greek Myths", Penguin Books, 1974,
p. 96.

[3] H. D. F. Kitto, The Greeks", Penguin Books, 1957, p. 22.

[[4] Esmond Wright (General Editor), The Ancient World", Chartwell
Books, Secaucus, New jersey, p. 104.

[5] E. A. Wallis Budge, "An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary",
Dover Publications, Inc, New York, p. 843.

[6] Joseph J. Thorndike (Editor), "Mysteries of the past",
American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc, New York, 1977, p. 64-65.

[7] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, p. 36.

[8] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, 6th picture after p. 96.

[9] Peter Green, "A Concise History of Ancient Greece", Thames And
Hudson, 1981, p. 10, Figure 2.

[10] Lionel Casson writes in his book entitled "The Greek
Conquerors", p. 13.

[11] Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "Egyptian Language", London and
Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, New York: Dover Publications Inc,
Fourteenth Impression, 1977.

[12] Resit Rahmeti Arat, "Makaleler Cilt I", Türk Kültürünü
Arastirma Enstitüsü yayinlari, : 65, Seri IV - Sayi : A. 20,
Hazirlayan Osman Fikri Sertkaya, Ankara, 1987; Oguz-Kagan Destani,
s. 631, Line 301.

[13] Lionel Casson and the Editors of TIME-LIFE Books", TIME
Incorporated, New York, 1965, p. 51.

[14] Encyclopaedia Brittaniaca World Language Dictionary, 1963,
Vol. 1, p. 795.

[15] Lionel Casson and The Editors of TIME-LIFE Books, "Ancient
Egypt", Time Incorporated, New York, 1968, p. 27.

[16] John L. Hayes, "A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts",
Undena Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 132.

[17] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1972, p.
20-21.

[18] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 1972, p. 4.

[19] Samuel Noah Kramer, The Sumerians, Their history, Culture, and
Character", University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London,
1972, p. 306.

[20] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading - Book", Oxford at the
Clarendon Press, 1924, p. 14.

[21] Arthur Cotterell, Origins of European Civilization", Michael
Joseph / Rainbird, 1985, p. 77.


Best wishes to all.

Polat Kaya

November 20, 2003

===================

Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> --- In historical_linguistics@yahoogroups.com, "David L"
> <djleonar@s...> wrote:
> Polat and all,
> Why is Turkish necessarily the origin of Greek forms and not the
> reverse? Is it because the Turkish word formation is more ordered?
>
> You have been showing us word formation in Turkish, and Greek has
> another word formation (morphology). I know Latin and Greek are
> fusional languages (which means they have fused suffixes or afixes,
> which are suffixes that give two grammatical senses to words). As
> far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) there are no fussed afixes
> in Sanskrit. There are usually none in regular agglutinative
> languages. This is a minor point, appart from the general question.
>
> I would argue that though Sanskrit word formation is more ordered
> than Latin and Greek, that it is only because of a reformation that
> occured in the development of Sanskrit from Latin and Greek.
>
> Polat, do you think as I do that language mixing and linguistic
> diffusion was widespread? If so then how do we know that Turkish
> did not acquire Greek forms?
>
> As I read Brittanica, it notes that as Turkish developed it absorbed
> Arabic words and Persian words, but there is no mention of absorbing
> Greek words. But then are the other Turkic languages related to
> Greek? Or did the other Turkic languages or Altaic languages loose
> their Greek forms from language contact in Asia and subsequent
> linguistic diffusion?
>
> Dave