Re: [bcn2004] Re: Part-1: "Turkish-Sumerian kinship"

Dear John Halloran,

Hi. I visited the site you suggested. I appreciate the presented
transliterations and the English translations provided for the
Sumerian texts. But I found them well removed from the original
Sumerian cuneiform texts. Thus in this regard it is next to
impossible to relate what is being transliterated to the original
Sumerian signs. Additionally, the translations are for a whole
sentence(s) so that again makes it difficult to relate what English
word belongs to what part of the transliteration. Personally, I would
have preferred a set up that was someting like the one C. J. Gadd had
provided in his book. That way everything is out in the open and the
reader would be able to read the original signs, their
transliterations and translations. John L. Hayes also does this very
nicely. Additionally the reader would be able to come up with his/her
own vision of the Sumerian texts and even contribute to their
understanding. This is not easy at present. However this is not a
criticism of those who have done this work. In fact what they have
done online is a great accomplishment. Their efforts of putting all
that information on the internet are well appreciated and I personally
appreciate the great job they have done. And I also thank you for
forwarding the information that guided me to this web site. After
having said that, now I would like to return to your posting below.

Following your instructions I was able to find the Enlil and Ninlil
transliteration texts where line 30 reads as you had also indicated:
[1] [2]

> gal4-la-ju10 tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu
>
> My vagina is small, it does not know pregnancy.

In parallel to this Sumerian transliteration and its translation, I
write the following Turkish sentence for comparison purposes:

Turkish: "aga ola-can dar-tur am-um pek al-maz to-hu-mu-nu-zu"

In English: "Lord-man dear, my vagina is very small, it does not take
your seed".

As can be seen, the Sumerian and Turkish sentences have quite a lot in
common. This becomes even more evident when we put them side by side
as below.

Su. gal4-la-ju10 tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu

Tr. aga ola-can dar-tur am-um pek al-maz to-hu-mu-nu-zu"

(Tr. aga ola can dartur amum pek almaz tohumunuzu")

In these Sumerian and Turkish sentences, "tur" is a suffix meaning "it
is". If "tur" is taken as to mean "small", as you think that it is,
then it must be related to Turkish word "DAR" (or TAR with d/t change)
meaning "narrow, small". Thus "dar" and "tur" are again too close to
each other to dismiss. Of course, here the word TUR is not used as a
God name because the subject matter is totally different. However when
the subject deals with the Sky-God, then TUR and AMAR or MAR are
interchangeable and evidently have been interchanged in the
transliterations and translations of the Sumerian texts which promote
the AMAR or MAR aspect. This I have shown in my previous writings.

As can be seen, we have striking similarities between these two
phrases shown above which raise all kinds of questions. The first
question that comes to mind is: "if Sumerian was such an "isolate"
language having no known kin, how then can Turkish be so close to it -
as shown in these sentences?" Evidently it was not an "isolate"
language as we are led to believe. Additionally, there is so much
similarity between Turkish and Sumerian, it gives the impression that
Sumerian was Turkish initially. Evidently there was much knowledge
about it via the other manufactured languages such as Akkadian and
Assyrian, etc. that in order to give "vocalization" to Sumerian signs,
they allocated Turkish morphemes to Sumerian signs but in altered
forms. This would make Sumerian appear different from Turkish but
close enough to look similar.

You said:
> This is standard Sumerian. There is nothing complicated abo–ut this
> reading or translation. -am3 is the Sumerian 3.sg. enclitic– copula -
> 'to be'.

Here you are giving a definition of the Sumerian word -am3. By this
rather very riddled definition, what is meant is that Sumerian -am3 is
the word that is involved in the expression of sexual "joining" or
"copulation". In other words, it is the Sumerian name for "vagina"
although it is not as clearly expressed as I do here. It is very
curious to note that the term "vagina" is used in the translation of
this Sumerian phrase. But it is also a fact that the Turkish word "am"
also expresses the same thing, that is, "vagina". Is this a
coincidence? Of course not. Evidently, those who deciphered the
Sumerian texts somehow knew that Sumerian word -am3 and the Turkish
word "am" were one and the same. However, instead of admitting this,
they wrapped the definition of the word in layers of disguise. The
reason for this must be that they used Turkish in deciphering the
Sumerian texts. However they made sure that to eliminate any
similarity between the Sumerian word and the Turkish word. Once the
process of reading the Sumerian signs is finished, they then throw
away Turkish as the in-between language so that similarities or
kinship are lost. In doing that, invented definitions and
descriptions become very useful. That way there will not be any

apparent connection between Turkish and Sumerian, and nobody will be
the wiser.

Your above definition about Sumerian -am3 used the English terms
"enclitic" and "copula". For the benefit of the readers I want to
indicate that both of these words and also their Greek and latin
sources are words made up from Turkish expressions, i.e., "ENCLITIC"
meaning "an attachment" and "COPULA"
meaning "that which enables coupling" which is also in the word
"copulation".

The word ENCLITIC, when rearranged-letter-by-letter as "IKLENTIC" is
the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression
"EKLENTIK" (eklendik) meaning "we are attached", "we are joined
together". This is another Turkish word that can be used to describe
"copulation". Of course in the sexual union, "am" is the one that does
it. Another Turkish source for the word "ENCLITIC" would be Turkish
expression "EKLENTICI" meaning "that which enables coupling". Again in
the sense of sexual union, "am" is the one that does it.

Similarly, when the word COPULA, which is part of the English word
"copulation" meaning "joining sexually", is rearranged
letter-by-letter as "ACLOUP" where C is K, and U is "YU", then this
word is a restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression
"EKLEYUP" (ekleyip) meaning "attached". So even this English word is
sourced from Turkish and is related to "am".

For linguistical clarity and as an example, the term NOT in the word
CANNOT is an "enclitic" where "CAN" and "NOT" are "joined" or
"coupled". In Turkish terminology, "NOT" is an "eklenti" (attachment)
to "CAN". Hence they are in union with each other.

Sumerian "am" meaning "to be" [3] (in Turkish "olmak" or "dogmak") is
again related to "am" meaning "vagina" because in the mammalian animal
kingdom new births are via "am".

Hence the meanings of the words "enclitic" and "copula" as used in the
definition of the Sumerian word -am3 is a startling revelation to say
the least. Evidently the Sumerian word "-am3" was actually the
Turkish word "am" meaning "vagina". But in order to avoid this same
identity of the Sumerian and Turkish words, they described it in a
very labyrinthal (i.e., confused or nebulous) way by means of the
words "enclitic' and "copula", and labelled it to mean "to be". This
way the actual kinship of the Turkish word "am" and Sumerian word "am"
was broken permanently while still retaining the original meaning of
the word.

Here I may have to question the origin of the English word "am" as in
the expression "I AM". It is likely that this word "am" in English is
also taken from Sumerian "am" defined as meaning "to be". Yet the
so-called Sumerian "AM" could have been the Turkish word "OL" meaning
"BE" in actuality.

For example, C. J. Gadd gives us an interesting Sumerian example:

Su. "uru-ba-dim-me-na-ma" translated as "in my city wherein I was
born". [4]

Parallel to this expression I write the following in Turkish:

Tr. "UR-da-men-ol-dim" (Ur da men oldum, Ur da men dogdum) which can

be translated as "UR was where I was born" or "I was born in UR". UR

was one of the Sumerian cities. Or we could say:

Tr. "uru-da men-ol-dim" meaning "I was born in woven-buildings", that
is, "I was born in the city". In Turkish, the verb "örmek" is used to
describe the concept of building walls. Hence, "örü" (uru) means
"that which is woven", such as the wall of a building, a building, a
network of many buildings, a city, a carpet, etc. It will be
enlightening to note that one of the ancient city located north of
Sumerian city of UR is the Azeri Turkish city of URMIYE and similarly

the name URMIYE lake. Additionally, the city name "URUMÇI" or "URUMKI"
in East Turkistan is another Turkic city having a name based on UR.

Thus the name UR is quite normal in ancient Turkish world as it was so

in Sumer land.


Now let us put these expressions closer together for visual comparison
purposes.

Su. "uru-ba-dim-me-na-ma"
Tr. "UR-da-men-ol-dim" ("URda men oldum)
Tr. "uru-da-men-ol-dim" ("uruda men oldum)

As can be seen they are quite similar. Now changing Turkish suffix
"-da" meaning "in or where" to "ba", and "ol" meaning "to be" to "am"
meaning "to be" and even the displacement of the particle "dim" (dum)
in the structure of the sentence could have been easily done and no
one would know the difference. After all the cabal priests already had
the experience of manufacturing so many different "Indo-European" and
"Semitic" languages, why would this be any different or any more difficult?

Compare:

Su. "URU" (city) with Tr. "URU" (ÖRÜ) (city);
Su. "ba" vs Tr. "da" meaning "where, in".
Su. "me-en" (I am) vs. Tr. "men" (I am),
Su. "am" (to be), Tr. "ol" (to be) , and
Su. "-dim" with Tr. "dim" past tense verbal particle for 1st person
singular.



But, with additional importance, these two non-English-origin words
are being used to define a situation of "copulation", although in a
very vague manner. This suggests that the early readers of the
Sumerian texts were well versed in disguising Turkish and Sumerian
words. In actuality they knew that Turkish and Sumerian were one and
the same but that connection had to be broken by way of mutilating the
Sumerian words, after all Sumerian was supposed to be a "dead"
language, and so nobody would know how a dead language would sound.
There may be thousands of signs from a "dead" language, but since
signs do not tell us how they should be pronounced or transliterated,
the only way that they can be brought back to life is by means of
previously preserved knowledge about their identity which must have
been kept in complete secrecy. Those who had previous knowledge on
such matters would always be "mum" as true cabals are.

Let me illustrate some more by dwelling on the names Enlil and Ninlil
in the Sumerian story.

The name "Dingir ENLIL in the Sumerian texts is nothing but the
disguised Turkish title "Tengir HAN YEL" meaning "God Lord Wind".
Similarly, "Dingir NINLIL" is Turkish "Tengir NINE YEL" meaning
"Goddess Grandmother Wind". Turkish "NINE" means "grandmother". In the
story both of them are personified as young people. Here in these
names again there has been restructuring with disguise and therefore
distancing from Turkish.

>From the same Sumerian text about Enlil and Ninlil (Han-Yel and
Nine-Yel) let us see the following lines:

Su. Line 10: "dingir en-lil2 juruc tur-bi na-nam"

Translated as: "Enlil was one of its young men"

My Turkish version: "Tengir Han-Yel yürük bi-tur anin-nami"

("Tanri Han-Yel (Yel Han), yürük beytur anin nami") meaning "God Lord
Wind, his name is the 'wandering lord'" which is exactly what wind is,
that is, "a wondering lord".


Su. Line 11; "dingir nin-lil ki-sikil tur-bi na-nam

Translated as: "Ninlil was one of its young women".

This is a very general translation which does not seem to jibe with
the original. Here is my Turkish version:

Tr.: "Tengir-Eçe NINE YEL (Yel Nine), "yil-kizi-tur anin nami" (yel
kizidur onun adi) meaning "Goddess NINE-YEL, her name is the
'wind-girl'" which is exactly what a young girl personifying "wind" is
all about.

In both of these lines the word "tur" is the Turkish suffix "tur" that
is used all the time. Additionally, here we need to dwell on the
Sumerian word "ki-sikil".

>From Enlil and Ninlil text we have:

Su. Line 13: ud-ba ki-sikil ama ugu-na ca na-mu-un-ri-ri

Translated as: "at that time the maiden was advised by her own mother"

The expression "ki-sikil" identified as "maiden" in the translation,
is actually the anagram of Turkish expression "KIZLIK" meaning
"maidenship", "being unmarried"; (bakirelik, bakire topraklar, el
degmemis yerler) meaning "virgin land/country".

Sumerian "sikil" is defined as "bright, clean, pure" [5]

John L. Hayes identifies this Sumerian word in a line of Text 6, (Line
7) as "barag ki-sikil-la" and translates it as "A dais, -in a pure
place". [6] I must note that the Sumerian sign for "womanhood" is
used in this expression. Thus being "pure" , "virgin" is very much in
context here. The expression "BARAG KI-SIKIL-LA" could very easily be
a restructured form of the Turkish "BAGAR KIZLIKLI" (bekar kizlikli,
bekar kizlik) meaning "with unmarried womanhood" or "unmarried
womanhood". In the context of the Sumerian story of Enlil and Ninlil,
that is, Turkish "Han-Yel and Nine-Yel, Line 13 above, this Turkish
phrase is very much in line. Thus Sumerian word "ki-sikil" is rather a
composite word that can have more than one meaning.

In the Enlil and Ninlil story, lines 38 to 40 are given as:

Su. Line 38: "lu2 ki-sikil ne-en sag9-ga-ra ne-en mul-la-ra"

Su. Line 39: "d. nin-lil ne-en sag9-ga-ra ne-en mul-la-ra"

Su. Line 40: "lu2 jic3 na-an-dug4 lu2 ne- na-an-ni-su-ub"

All of these are translated as: "Has anyone had intercourse with, has
anyone kissed a maiden so beautiful, so radiant. Ninlil so beautiful
so radiant?"


This is a broad translation encompassing the three lines given above.
What words or phrases in English correspond to those in Sumerian are
not identified. Hence it is a neboulous translation. However, in a
broad sense, one can match some of these as follows":

a) English phrase "Has anyone" is likely to correspond to Su. "lu2 ki"
which would be Tr. "ola ki" (olabilirmi ki) meaning "can it be?".
Turkish "ola ki, ola mi ki, olabilir mi ki" expressions are used all
the time in Turkish conversations.

b) English phrase "intercourse with" is likely to correspond to
Sumerian "sikil" which would be Turkish "sikili" (a form of the
Turkish verb "sikmek" meaning "to have intercourse".

c) English phrase "kissed" is likely to correspond to Sumerian "su-ub"
which would be from Turkish "buse" meaning "kiss" or "öpüs" (where
S=Sh) meaning "kissing". Sumerian word "su-ub" means (kiss, hence, to
worship, adore). [7]

d) English phrase "so beautiful" is likely to correspond to Sumerian
"ne-en sag9" which would be from Turkish "ne en sag" (ne en tam, en
en bütün, ne en güzel) meaning "how most complete", "how most
beautiful" where Turkish word "NE" means "how, what" and "EN" (meaning
'most") is the suffix used with comparison cases in the "superlative
sense", and "sag" means "unbroken", "that which is as it was
originally". Regarding the Turkish word "EN" used in comparisons, for
example, in Turkish, "IYI" means "good", "DAHA IYI" means "better",
and "EN IYI" means "best". In view of this, the Sumerian "ne-en"
would be the same as in Turkish.

e) English phrase "so radiant" is likely to correspond to Sumerian
"ne-en mul-la-ra" which is like Turkish "ne en isullar" (ne en parlar)
meaning "how most it shines" (how it shines so).


We have the following Sumerian expression from the Enlil (Han-Yel) and
Ninlil (Nine-Yel) story:

Su. Line 45. jic3-bi na-mu-un-dug4 ne-bi na-mu-un-su-ub"


The translation of this Sumerian expression is given as: "he was
actually to have intercourse with her, he was actually to kiss her".
In this expression there is the term JIC-BI which seems to be the
bases for "intercourse" aspect of the expression. I was not able to
find the true meaning for Sumerian "JIC-BI", however, I can venture a
guess from its translation. It is possible that the so-called
Sumerian "JIC" is Turkish "CÜK" or "SIK" both meaning "penis". Then,
Sumerian "JIC-BI" would be an altered form of Turkish CÜKIP
(cikib/cikip or sikib/sikip) all meaning "had intercourse with" which
would jibe with the translated meaning.

Thus it is clear that there are many correspondences in Turkish just
in these few Sumerian lines. Of course all of these bring to mind the
question: "what was the role of Turkish in reading ancient Sumerian
texts - if any? The evidences indicate that "The role of Turkish in
reading Sumerian tablets must have been very prominent though it is
never admitted."

These referenced Sumerian lines have many words that can be identified
as Turkish.

Regarding the Sumerian-Turkish word "TUR", C. J. Gadd also gives the
following entry in his glossary: [8]

"IBILA (TUR.US) , son, hence sonship, inheritance".

The word "IBILA" meaning "son" is very much Turkish "BALA" meaning
"son, child". So Sumerian "IBILA", Turkish "BALA" and "TUR" or
"TUR.US" had the same meanings. This must be the reason why "tur" was
also read as "dumu" meaning "son".

When such points are not brought out into daylight, their lack brake
the Turkish-Sumerian kinship to the level of unrecognizability.


In the Sumerian Enlil (Han Yel) and Ninlil (Nine Yel) story, Line 35
is
given as:

Su. Line 35: "d.En-lil-le sukkal-a-ni d.nuska-ra gu3 mu-na de2-e" and
it is translated as: "Enlil spoke to his minister Nuska".

The Sumerian word "Sukkal" is defined as "messenger, servant" by C.
J. Gadd [9] and as "minister" in this translation.

The word "Sukkal" is very much a restructured and disguised form of
the Turkish word "AKSAKAL" meaning "minister, adviser, servant to a
king, knowledgable and aged person". It seems that as it was
traditional for the ancient Turanian Tur/Turk peoples, in the Sumerian
story, Dingir EN-LIL (Tengir Han-Yel) also had a "AKSAKAL", i.e.,
"SUKKAL" as adviser/minister for himself. Again it is clear that this
Turkish word has been anagrammatized and used as Sumerian in order to
disguise and camouflage the Sumerian-Turkish kinship.

The Sumerian expression "mu-na-de2-e" in Line 35 is very much the
Turkish expression "MENE DE" (mana de, bana de) meaning "tell me". It

must be noted that Turkish word "DE" meaning "to speak, to tell" and
the Sumerian word "DE" meaning "to speak" [10] are one and the same.
Therefore the translation should have been: "Enlil asked to his
minister Nuska: "tell me" Nuska, Has there been anyone . . . . etc.
". Because "En-Lil (Han-Yel) was asking personal questions to Nuska
about Ninlil (Nine-Yel). So again we have another correspondence with

Turkish in this Sumerian text.

John L. Hayes writes the following: "Most discussion of non-verbal
forms in Sumerian has applied Indo-European or Semitic grammatical
categories and terms to the Sumerian forms". [11]

What this means is that most Sumerian transliterations have been
"wrapped" into Indo-European and/or Semitic veils. In other words,
Sumerian texts have been further misrepresented by portraying them
with an Indo-Europeanizing or Semitizing lens. Of course, this
distances the Sumerian from Turkish.

We must not forget that in this Sumerian story somebody called "dingir
ENLIL" (Han-Yel or Yel-Han) is trying to seduce a young girl called
"dingir NINLIL" (Nine-Yel or Yel-Nine). Therefore the "tur" component
of the Sumerian expression "gal4-la-ju10 tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu"
is part of a description. Hence the addressed concept is totally
different from that in another Sumerian text where "dingir-Tur-An
dingir Han-Zu" is read as "dingir.AMAR-dingir.ZUEN" where the writer
is invoking the name of a Supreme Sky-God TUR.

It seems that Turkish words have been anagrammatized (i.e.,
restructured and disguised) and then used as the transliterations of
Sumerian signs, thus ensuring that the Turkishness of the word is
lost. In other words, those early Sumerologists who decoded the
Sumerian signs, by supposedly using Akkadian and Assyrian linguistic
sources and understanding, most likely used Turkish in the decoding
and vocalizing of Sumerian signs but then used the altered versions of
the Turkish words as the presented transliterations of the Sumerian signs.


You wrote in your posting dated: 5 Feb 2005 11:37:04 -0800:


> I responded to your first Dear John Halloran message.
>
> Will you do some new investigation in response to that? Let us know
> the result.
>

Now that I have responded to your posting, I expect you to take the
time to respond to the questions that I outlined in my
Turkish-Sumerian Kinship, Part-3 and also in my two responses to your
previous postings.

REFERENCES:

[1] http"//etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section 1/c121.htm
[2] http"//etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section 1/tr121.htm
[3] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", an Assistant in the
Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antquities, the
British Museum, Oxford at Clarendon Press, 1924, p. 178.
[4] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 37.
[5] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 191.
[6] John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", UNdena
Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 82.

[7] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 191.
[8] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 184.
[9[ C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 191.
[10] C. J. Gadd, "A Sumerian Reading-Book", p. 180.
[11] John L. Hayes, "A Manual Of Sumerian Grammar and Texts", UNdena
Publications, Malibu, 1990, p. 187.



Best wishes to you and to all,

Polat Kaya

10/05/2005


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

Subject: Re: [bcn2004] Re: Part-1: "Turkish-Sumerian kinship"
(JOHN HALLORAN)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Kamil Kartal <allingus2001@...>
Reply-To: bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com
To: BCN <bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com>


JohnHalloran
Feb 5, 11:37 am hide options

Newsgroups: sci.lang
From: "JohnHalloran" <johnp...@...> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 5 Feb 2005 11:37:04 -0800
Local: Sat, Feb 5 2005 11:37 am
Subject: Re: Dear John Halloran, (2)


Polat Kaya,

I responded to your first Dear John Halloran message.

Will you do some new investigation in response to that? Let us know
the result.

John Halloran
http://www.sumerian.org/

Reply

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


Kamil KARTAL wrote:
>
> JohnHalloran Feb 3, 12:36 pm hide options
>
> Newsgroups: sci.lang
> From: "JohnHalloran" <johnp...@...> - Find messages by this
> author
> Date: 3 Feb 2005 12:36:32 -0800
> Local: Thurs, Feb 3 2005 12:36 pm
> Subject: Re: Dear John Halloran,
>
> You can acquaint yourself with a large body of reliable text–s in
> Sumerian, complete with English translations, on the Interne–t.
>
> To get started, looking at texts in which the word 'tur' occ–urs, try
> pasting the following search into Google:
>
> tur-ra site:etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk
>
> If you click on Cache, you helpfully see the searched-for wo–rd
> highlighted in the text.
>
> For example, from the literary text Enlil and Ninlil, line 3–0 reads:
>
> gal4-la-ju10 tur-ra-am3 pec11 nu-mu-un-zu
>
> My vagina is small, it does not know pregnancy.
>
> This is standard Sumerian. There is nothing complicated abo–ut this
> reading or translation. -am3 is the Sumerian 3.sg. enclitic– copula -
> 'to be'.
>
> If you wanted to search for instances where the TUR sign is –read as
> dumu, 'son', paste the following into Google:
>
> dumu site:etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk -ETCSLsearch
>
> For example, from line 41 of A Hymn to the E-Kur,
>
> <e2> dumu nun-na-ka bi2-in-dug4-ga-ra
>
> for him who declares that he is of the house of the princely– son
>
> With the dative -ra meaning 'for' and the genitival -ak mean–ing 'of',
> this is more complicated, but it just takes practice reading– it.
>
> There is a larger world of texts available for you to look a–t than
> what you have looked at so far.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Halloran
> 
http://www.sumerian.org/
>
> --- In bcn_2004@yahoogroups.com, Polat Kaya <tntr@C...> wrote:
> > Dear John Halloran,
> >
> >
> Greetings. This is in response to your second posting in which you
> said: